Question for Calvinists

[ForeverGrace]

Sign me up!!

Mmmm… that’s not orthodox, nor is it the view of Calvinists. Calvinist believe in ‘perseverance of the saints’. While it is a view tied closely to eternal security, it is based more in the issues of free will, and God’s electing GRACE. I think Romans 8 and 9 explains it quite well. If God chooses me for election, he will keep me as well. Those who are sincerely devoted to their faith in God don’t sin with abandon. Our focus is on God in every part of our lives. That’s not to say we don’t sin, but that we are immediately convicted and seek forgiveness. It’s not about being saved and then doing whatever we please.

For the record, Calvinists come in other denominations other than Baptists. You’ll find them among Presbyterians as well. The majority of Baptists are not Calvinists. They are Arminians. If you see the word “Reformed” in front of the Baptist label, you’ll know you are dealing with Calvinists.

Blessings.

 

[benidict]

Mmmm… that’s not orthodox, nor is it the view of Calvinists. Calvinist believe in ‘perseverance of the saints’. While it is a view tied closely to eternal security, it is based more in the issues of free will, and God’s electing GRACE. I think Romans 8 and 9 explains it quite well. If God chooses me for election, he will keep me as well. Those who are sincerely devoted to their faith in God don’t sin with abandon. Our focus is on God in every part of our lives. That’s not to say we don’t sin, but that we are immediately convicted and seek forgiveness. It’s not about being saved and then doing whatever we please.

For the record, Calvinists come in other denominations other than Baptists. You’ll find them among Presbyterians as well. The majority of Baptists are not Calvinists. They are Arminians. If you see the word “Reformed” in front of the Baptist label, you’ll know you are dealing with Calvinists.

Blessings.

I will vouch for you on this. I do not in the least agree with Calvinism, but as a former Calvinist, this is an accurate assessment.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I have been told by other Calvinists that they are one of the “elect” and therefore no sin can separate them from the love of God

Here is my question.
Could you, as one of the elect, commit the sin of adultery or fornication or murder or rape, or homosexual relations, and without confessing and repenting of that sin still be absolutely assured that you will enter eternal life with God?

If your answer is yes, please provide a scripture that proves your belief.

I used to be Presbyterian, which is a Calvinistic Church. However my first and most influential pastor was Methodist, which meant he was schooled in Arminian theology.

Even the fact I was Presbyterian was almost incidental, as my father was Catholic, but lost his faith. He had me baptised Presbyterian after marrying an Anglican, and my sister wasn’t baptised at all, so we had a microcosm of modern Western society in one small family.

Now to some extent I sit on the fence. One of the problems with hardline Calvinism or the Reformed Church can be spiritual arrogance. The policy of Aparthied in South Africa largely owed its origins to the Dutch Reformed Church for example. I know of one particular Presbyterian pastor who lies and conspires, even to the point of wrecking the careers of other pastors by the evil use of power when he was moderator, yet no doubt considers himself one of the Elect. He’s convinced he can’t be lost, no matter how many lies he tells. Even my own old pastor said of him, “He tells a lot of lies”, and “He serves the devil. He thinks he serves God, but he serves the devil. It’s a terrible position to be in.” For personal reasons, I’m less sympathetic.

That’s the main problem with it.

However to counteract that, my own father turned up in my room the night he died. I’ve related this ad infinitum on other posts. But during the proceedings he blurted out, “I always was doomed! I didn’t really have any choice!” I argued back (and I was an atheist at the time), “That can’t be right!” He replied, “Oh, it’s right, all right, You can see that from here!”

But later in the same conversation, he also said, “I was WILLING!” (to do the cruel, stupid, vindictive things that condemned him). So if that was correct, both principles operated - he was both predestined, but also very willing to do what he did.

Was Adolf Hitler predestined to do what he did? I think he was (and so, I believe was Winston Churchill. Yet as soon as Churchill had carried out his singularly important role in World War II, he was voted out on his ear in the very next election. He’d fulfilled his preordained function. He was willing as well.)

And Adolf Hitler was also willing. Very willing.

So I think both properties operate. And I think the OSAS are dead wrong. The reality though is that those Calvinists who take their faith seriously are as aware of avoiding sin as anybody else, and repenting when they fail. The main danger, as I see it, is a tendency to spiritual arrogance, as shown by Apartheid and the specific pastor I mentioned above.

 

[mark_a]

Mmmm… that’s not orthodox, nor is it the view of Calvinists.

Sometimes I forget the smileys . I was joking.

Those who are sincerely devoted to their faith in God don’t sin with abandon.

“Works” for me!!

Our focus is on God in every part of our lives. That’s not to say we don’t sin, but that we are immediately convicted and seek forgiveness. It’s not about being saved and then doing whatever we please.

Good.

If you see the word “Reformed” in front of the Baptist label, you’ll know you are dealing with Calvinists.

You know, I don’t think I’ve ever seen it on a Church sign or anywhere else. But I’m pretty sure I know a reformed Baptist, although he refers to himself as a King James only Babdist.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[dje101]

I have been told by other Calvinists that they are one of the “elect” and therefore no sin can separate them from the love of God

Here is my question.
Could you, as one of the elect, commit the sin of adultery or fornication or murder or rape, or homosexual relations, and without confessing and repenting of that sin still be absolutely assured that you will enter eternal life with God?

If your answer is yes, please provide a scripture that proves your belief.

My brother went to school with a Calvinist. Here is what she said about their beliefs (and no, I am not making this up, and yes, I am quoting almost word for word).

“There is no such thing as free will. God makes me do everything.”

When asked about those who rape and murder, her response was the same every. single. time…

“God makes that person do those things to bring about his own glory.”

Therefore, they can commit any sin and it would not separate them from God because GOD is the one sinning for his own glory.

According to Calvinists.

 

[jwright82]

My brother went to school with a Calvinist. Here is what she said about their beliefs (and no, I am not making this up, and yes, I am quoting almost word for word).

“There is no such thing as free will. God makes me do everything.”

When asked about those who rape and murder, her response was the same every. single. time…

“God makes that person do those things to bring about his own glory.”

Therefore, they can commit any sin and it would not separate them from God because GOD is the one sinning for his own glory.

According to Calvinists.

Do you think maybe that this “Calvinist” was confused about Calvinism? Does one bad apple really make the whole bunch bad? What this person is really talking about is hyper-Calvinsim, which is corectly viewed as heresy by orthodox Calvinist. What they said was horrible and overly simplistic, as if God’s eternal will and relation to human will could possibly be summed up so simplicisticly. That person may have had a good reason to sin but geniune Calvinists do not.

 

[dje101]

Do you think maybe that this “Calvinist” was confused about Calvinism? Does one bad apple really make the whole bunch bad? What this person is really talking about is hyper-Calvinsim, which is corectly viewed as heresy by orthodox Calvinist. What they said was horrible and overly simplistic, as if God’s eternal will and relation to human will could possibly be summed up so simplicisticly. That person may have had a good reason to sin but geniune Calvinists do not.

It is very possible that she was confused about Calvinism. I was just going off of my brother’s encounter with Calvinists and placing it in the thread for discussion. I happy to know that, according to you, Calvinists don’t believe in that doctrine. I won’t hold it against the rest of Calvinists, though.

 

[ForeverGrace]

Do you think maybe that this “Calvinist” was confused about Calvinism? Does one bad apple really make the whole bunch bad? What this person is really talking about is hyper-Calvinsim, which is corectly viewed as heresy by orthodox Calvinist. What they said was horrible and overly simplistic, as if God’s eternal will and relation to human will could possibly be summed up so simplicisticly. That person may have had a good reason to sin but geniune Calvinists do not.

Excellent post. I shudder when people try to make Calvinism into the faith of nutcases.

Scripture is clear: 28And we know that God** causes **all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

29For those whom He** foreknew**, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also** glorified**.

 

[dje101]

Excellent post. I shudder when people try to make Calvinism into the faith of nutcases.

Scripture is clear: 28And we know that God** causes **all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

Yes, he does cause all things to work together because he knows who will accept him and have faith and who will not.

29For those whom He** foreknew**, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

But he FOREKNEW them to follow and accept him, resulting in him predestining them because of their faith. Even in the verse, foreknowledge of the person comes before predestined.

30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also** glorified**.

So basically the whole process starts with foreknowledge of who would and would not search out the truth with all their heart, mind, and strength, and were therefore predestined because of their free willed choice to follow Him.

Anybody please correct me if I am wrong in this understanding.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Do you agree or disagree with Pastor Charles Stanley who writes in his book Eternal Security:"

Just so you know…Charles Stanley is not a “Calvinist”. May not matter but just thought I would make that much clear.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

But he FOREKNEW them to follow and accept him, resulting in him predestining them because of their faith. Even in the verse, foreknowledge of the person comes before predestined. So basically the whole process starts with foreknowledge of who would and would not search out the truth with all their heart, mind, and strength, and were therefore predestined because of their free willed choice to follow Him. Anybody please correct me if I am wrong in this understanding.

I believe your understanding is wrong. The word “foreknowledge” in English makes it sounds as if the knowledge in question is simply knowledge of information or facts. But the Greek work implies knowledge of people, or intimate knowledge. Other languages make a similar distinction (like saber vs. conocer, in Spanish). English, however, does not. If that is the case, then it seems that Paul is saying that God “knew” us personally rather than simply knew what we were going to do. While God may base his decisions in accordance with what he foresees, I think it is a mistake that he bases his decisions on what he foresees. One reason for this is that time itself is God’s creation, as so in this sense, all is pre-ordained. If this isn’t the case, then we would have to posit that God creates the universe, then uses his foreknowledge to “peek ahead” to see what will happen, and thus he takes in new information that is created by our future actions. But God is omniscient and immutable. He cannot take in new information because, in a real sense, if that information happens within time or the created order, then God is ultimately the cause of that information.

Yes, that’s heady stuff. But God isn’t a cosmic Santa Clause peeking ahead to see who is naughty and nice and then choosing accordingly; rather He creates with a purpose those whom he intends to save and those whom He does not intend to save. We might question why he would create someone he doesn’t intend to save–as Jesus said of Judas, “it would be better if he had not been born.” But Judas was born, and “he went to his own place.” God apparently created Judas for the same reason he creates everyone–for His Glory. Some will cause God to be glorified by entering into a saving relationship with Him, and others, like Judas and Pharaoh, will glorify him by displaying the results of his infinite justice Every knee shall bend and every tongue confess to the Glory of God the Father that Jesus is Lord. But not all of those who do will be bending their knee willingly.

 

[dje101]

I believe your understanding is wrong. The word “foreknowledge” in English makes it sounds as if the knowledge in question is simply knowledge of information or facts. But the Greek work implies knowledge of people, or intimate knowledge. Other languages make a similar distinction (like saber vs. conocer, in Spanish). English, however, does not. If that is the case, then it seems that Paul is saying that God “knew” us personally rather than simply knew what we were going to do. While God may base his decisions in accordance with what he foresees, I think it is a mistake that he bases his decisions on what he foresees.

I fail to see the difference here. Please explain.

One reason for this is that time itself is God’s creation, as so in this sense, all is pre-ordained. If this isn’t the case, then we would have to posit that God creates the universe, then uses his foreknowledge to “peek ahead” to see what will happen, and thus he takes in new information that is created by our future actions. But God is omniscient and immutable. He cannot take in new information because, in a real sense, if that information happens within time or the created order, then God is ultimately the cause of that information.

Yes, God is the cause of all things in this world. Yes God can see everything as if it were the present moment to him. But we have free will and are able to seek out God. Scripture explicitly says that God wants all men to be saved, and that God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that who so ever should believe in Him would not die but have everlasting life. How can you combine the doctrine of predestined salvation and damnation and the idea of God creating people for the purpose of going to hell just to glorify him, with the scripture of God wanting all men to be saved and sacrificing his son for the WORLD?

Yes, that’s heady stuff. But God isn’t a cosmic Santa Clause peeking ahead to see who is naughty and nice and then choosing accordingly; rather He creates with a purpose those whom he intends to save and those whom He does not intend to save.

I think your understanding is wrong. Based on the verses where it says that God wants all to be saved and that he created salvation for the world, I think it is much more logical to say that “He creates with a purpose the plan of salvation for all the world, whom he *wants * to save but wont because of their willful sinful nature.”

We might question why he would create someone he doesn’t intend to save–as Jesus said of Judas, “it would be better if he had not been born.” But Judas was born, and “he went to his own place.” God apparently created Judas for the same reason he creates everyone–for His Glory.

Jesus made it clear that the only sin that would not be forgiven was the sin of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. So even the sin of turning Jesus over would have been forgiven. But instead of listening to Christ’s teachings that sins would be forgiven, he took his own life. So now, not only did he commit the sin of self-murder, but he also was the result of the Son of God being killed. So yes, he is in his own place but not because God created and intended him to go there; it is because of his own actions.

Some will cause God to be glorified by entering into a saving relationship with Him,

So, people can choose to enter into a saving relationship with God? This kind of sounds like free will, meaning that even Pharaoh and Judas could have done the same thing had they known God and Jesus’ teaching. It sounds to me that people could choose to follow God given the opportunity.

 

[jwright82]

It is very possible that she was confused about Calvinism. I was just going off of my brother’s encounter with Calvinists and placing it in the thread for discussion. I happy to know that, according to you, Calvinists don’t believe in that doctrine. I won’t hold it against the rest of Calvinists, though.

Well yes you have only word at this point but it agrees with the Wesminster Confession of Faith, one of the most important “Calvinist” confessions out there. Really if you ever have any questions about what “Calvinists” beleive than that is a good place to start.

 

[jwright82]

Excellent post. I shudder when people try to make Calvinism into the faith of nutcases.

Scripture is clear: 28And we know that God** causes **all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

29For those whom He** foreknew**, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also** glorified**.

Good choice in verses! The shame is that there are some whako Calvinists out there but the Calvinistic tradition does not hold to their beleifs.

 

[jwright82]

I believe your understanding is wrong. The word “foreknowledge” in English makes it sounds as if the knowledge in question is simply knowledge of information or facts. But the Greek work implies knowledge of people, or intimate knowledge. Other languages make a similar distinction (like saber vs. conocer, in Spanish). English, however, does not. If that is the case, then it seems that Paul is saying that God “knew” us personally rather than simply knew what we were going to do. While God may base his decisions in accordance with what he foresees, I think it is a mistake that he bases his decisions on what he foresees. One reason for this is that time itself is God’s creation, as so in this sense, all is pre-ordained. If this isn’t the case, then we would have to posit that God creates the universe, then uses his foreknowledge to “peek ahead” to see what will happen, and thus he takes in new information that is created by our future actions. But God is omniscient and immutable. He cannot take in new information because, in a real sense, if that information happens within time or the created order, then God is ultimately the cause of that information.

Yes, that’s heady stuff. But God isn’t a cosmic Santa Clause peeking ahead to see who is naughty and nice and then choosing accordingly; rather He creates with a purpose those whom he intends to save and those whom He does not intend to save. We might question why he would create someone he doesn’t intend to save–as Jesus said of Judas, “it would be better if he had not been born.” But Judas was born, and “he went to his own place.” God apparently created Judas for the same reason he creates everyone–for His Glory. Some will cause God to be glorified by entering into a saving relationship with Him, and others, like Judas and Pharaoh, will glorify him by displaying the results of his infinite justice Every knee shall bend and every tongue confess to the Glory of God the Father that Jesus is Lord. But not all of those who do will be bending their knee willingly.

It is nice to see a fellow Reformed member!

 

[ForeverGrace]

It’s wonderful to find THREE Reformed people here. We could have a convention.

 

[guanophore]

Instead I would have to question whether or not I was ever a believer in the first place.

Such a mindset is not consistent with Apostolic Teaching.

Salvation can’t be lost.

I agree. Catholics are also believe in “once saved, always saved”, but we also recieve the Apostolic Teaching that salvation is not attained in this life. However, at the end of this life, we are either in heaven, or hell, and that state is forever. Once a person is united to Christ in heaven, one can never be “lost”.

But we also can’t know who the saved are with infallible certitude. When you act like the unsaved, how can you be sure you’re not one of them?

Yes, this is true. We are told that we are to “examine” ourselves, to see if we are “in Christ”. A person who is “in Christ” does not sin, and will produce the fruits that befit repentance.

 

[guanophore]

The kingdom of God is not coterminous with the church, but certainly includes it. Nor is the church coterminous with Roman Catholicism.

Well, I think it prudent not to pursue the nature of the church on this thread. However, I do want to affirm that Catholicism is not “Roman”. Most Protestants have only had exposure to the Latin Rite, from which the Reformers departed. Most (and that includes Catholics) are not aware that there are 22 other Catholic non-Latin Rites that are all in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

 I agree that much of the theology of the early church does lend support to many of Rome's distinctive doctrines today.

This is very interesting of you to say. I am curious to know more about how you see this.

But there are also a lot dissenting voices in the early church and a lot of silences that call into question how "Catholic" they indeed were.

Yes, this is quite true. But, back then, dissenting voices that did not reflect Catholicsm were considered heretics. The doctrine of the faith was not defined by individual dissenting voices or silence, but by the One Faith that was preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

  The trouble with so many in the Roman apologetics movement is that they see only radical continuity with the early church when in fact there is a lot of discontinuity as well.

I guess I am not sure what this means. The continuity is in the doctrine of the faith. Of course there was discontinuity. The Church battled and defeated many heresies before the Bible was canonized.

The church in deed was "catholic," but it isn't safe to say it was "Roman Catholic" on a number of issues.

Yes, this is true. Eastern Catholics have a different way of thinking about the faith than Latins. The doctrines of the faith, however, are consistent all over the world.

 

[guanophore]

My concern was for accuracy. “Sola fide” is the material principle of the Reformation and it had to do with the basis for our justification. It is shorthand for “Justification by faith alone.” Therefore we ought not substitute other words for justification. Further, since salvation is a broad term that can cover both the beginning and the end of salvation, the past present and future, whereas justification more often has to do with the beginning point of salvation in time, it makes far more sense, both historically and theologically to simply stay with the original term.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Have you read the Joint Declaration on Justification? It may clear up some of the misinformation you have been given about the Catholic faith.

Of course not. But the choice isn’t between “free will” or “coercion,” as if human volition were a matter of one or the other. We choose. But we don’t choose in a vacuum, unencumbered by external and internal influences. Certainly unregenerate man who is still a “slave to sin,” isn’t “free.” Nor, however, is he “coerced.” He is complicit in his own enslavement because his preference is to do evil.

This is Catholic of you to say. I suspect, though, the place where we may depart is that the Apostles taught that the unregenerate man can seek and find the Truth. This is the result of drawing grace, or what the Latins call prevenient.

That’s not the teaching of the apostles.   The Catholic Church teaches a provisional salvation that isn’t complete until this life is over and can be lost at anytime between initial justification and final sanctification.

It seems that you have been misinformed about the Catholic faith, Miguel. There is nothing “provisional” about salvation. I have heard this heresy from a number of my Reformed brethren, though. I am not sure where it comes from, but you will not find it in any Catholic Teachings.

And in deference to your own astute observation above, it is important to distinquish the elements of salvation. I am sure you will agree that sanctification “isnt’ complete until this life is over”. This is certainly Apostolic Teaching, which is why it is in Scripture.

The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that…

Actually, the bible does not “teach”. Teaching is an activity that can only be conducted by persons, that is why Jesus left people in charge of this duty. Scripture is profitable in the accomplisment of it, but books do not “teach”.

What happens when people believe the book is teaching is that they are drawing their own conclusions about the text, and believe that their assumptions are coming from the book, rather than their own minds.

God is both the author and finisher of our salvation, that

It is very Catholic of you to say this.

He will infallibly complete the work he has begun in us and that nothing can stop the process He has started.

One must ignore or twist a great deal of scripture in order to espouse this view.

Certainly He is ready, able, and willing to complete what has been started, but He requires the cooperation of the person. In His great love for us, He has ordained that we have the freedom to reject Him.

While we can agree that salvation has both an ongoing and future aspect to it, that God still is saving us from the power of sin (sanctification) and will finally save us from its presence (glorification), the golden chain funning from election in eternity past to glorification in the future will never be broken.

That “golden chain” is another modern innovation that cannot be found in the Apostolic Teaching, or anywhere in the history of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

 Sure it does.  They’re called wolves in sheep’s clothing, false teachers and sometimes they’re even named.

But they are never referred to as “believers”. They are distinquished from the believers. Scripture never refers to them as “false” or “pseudo” believers.

 No, no.  It derives from scripture.  Perhaps it is American Roman Catholicism that is unwilling to entertain the possibility that its churches are full of such people.   I call them baptized unbelievers.

There is no doubt that there are many baptized unbelievers. I don’t think that the Catholic pew is the only place they are found, either.

And for the record, Catholicism is not “Roman”.

Not in the case of the seed that was snatched away before it could sprout. There’s no need to suppose these were ever believers in the first place.

You may not have such a"need", Miguel, but Catholics do. You see, the One Faith was handed down to us from the Apostles. We were taught that three fourths of the seeds sprouted (the Word of God came to life in them). We are not at liberty to change the meaning of the Scriptures as you have done. We are commanded to cling to the One Faith that was committed once and for all to the Church. If we depart from it (or say we have no “need” of it) then we will be embracing “a different gospel” and will be anathema.

 As for the other seed—well, assuming we can push the illustration that far—and I’m not so certain we—there is no need to suppose that these people are now “lost.” They may be unfruitful due to their anxiety about the world and/backslidden.  But we are simply not told the final state of these souls.  That’s not the purpose of the parable.  But what the parable does do admirably is to remind us to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith or not (2 Cor. 13:5) and to produce fruit.

Perhaps this is an example of the abrogation or twisting of Scripture that is necessary in order to reject the Apostolic Faith in favor of newer innovations?

Mark 4:13-20

13 And he said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand all the parables? 14 The sower sows the word. 15 These are the ones on the path where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. 16 And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: when they hear the word, they immediately receive it with joy. 17 But they have no root, and endure only for a while; then, when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away. 18 And others are those sown among the thorns: these are the ones who hear the word, 19 but the cares of the world, and the lure of wealth, and the desire for other things come in and choke the word, and it yields nothing. 20 And these are the ones sown on the good soil: they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty and sixty and a hundredfold.”

What was it that those “fall away” from? A person cannot fall from something they are not embracing, or have climbed up upon.

Jesus says the word is 'choked and yields nothing". How does this not include salvation? .

James 1:21
welcome with meekness the implanted word that has the power to save your souls.

If the implanted Word is not welcomed and nourished, then it cannot save our souls.

As a warning, which this parable surely is, it functions to make sure the elect do not fall away or become unfruitful even as it reminds us that the pseudo-Christian surely will.

The concept of a “pseudo” Christian is not found in scripture.

It is a modern evangelical innovation designed to dispatch the many scritpural references that a person can fail to be united with their heavenly inheritance.