I recently became embroiled in some online discussions that plummeted, as if predestined, toward the great Calvinism / Armenian debate abyss. While I don’t consider myself a 
representative of either camp, I found myself re-thinking the reasons I’m not a Calvinist. Here’s some of those reasons:
* * *
- No one human system perfectly codifies and articulates all Truth.
Possibly my biggest concern about Calvinism is the fervency of its proponents. (I know of several churches that have split over this issue.) There is, in my experience, a type of rigid devotion to “the system”, as if it were almost equal to Scripture. We must remember that John Calvin was a man ( a young man, at that), who developed and refined his theology over time. While it may align itself on many fronts with God’s Word, to suggest Calvinism or Reformed Theology — or any other denomination or creed — is THE summation of Scripture, is stupid.
- Calvinism presents a cold, clinical, potentially unbiblical caricature of God.
While Scripture teaches we are all in sin and under God’s wrath, it also describes His love and mercy as vast, lavish and exceedingly inclusive. Calvinism tends to emphasize the LEGAL aspect of our relationship with God, rather than the PERSONAL. Instead of broken, pitiful beings whom God is forever wooing, forever seeking to reclaim, Calvinism portrays a God Who sits in perpetual enmity with His creation and, save for those He “chooses” to regenerate, allows to pass into eternal, fiery torment.
- The abundance of Scriptural evidence for, and appeal to, human free will.
The Bible is absolutely clear about God’s foreknowledge and eternal decrees. He must exist outside of time / human history and be able to override and “steer” the actions / will of man toward His purposes, or He cannot be God. Nevertheless, Scripture also clearly teaches that our decisions matter. Whoever believes. Whoever receives. Whoever will. These are phrases often found in God’s Word. Furthermore, people are sometimes portrayed as resisting God’s work. Paul found it was “hard to kick against the goads” (Acts 26:14), i.e., resist God’s call, and Jesus wept over those who “were not willing” (Lk. 13:34 NIV) to be gathered to His side. Somehow, it appears God’s choice does not preempt free will, but neither does our will override God’s sovereignty.
- The implication that God “chooses” people to exist in perpetual torment contradicts God’s desire to see all men come to repentance.
Some would argue that God doesn’t choose people to hell, but simply passes over 
them. Granted, the belief in “double predestination” is on the “hyper” end of the Calvinistic spectrum. Nevertheless, it appears to be a logical inference. If God’s choice is the determinant of who gets saved, then it’s also the determinant in who doesn’t. So if God desires that all men be saved (I Tim. 2:4, II Pet. 3:9), and some don’t, then either God doesn’t really desire that or there are factors other than God’s will — factors that He allows — in the equation (human freedom).
- Election is viewed as unconditional and reprobation is conditional.
Calvinism asserts that God elects people unconditionally — in spite of who they are and what they’ve done. Yet, accordingly, men are damned conditionally — precisely because of who they are and what they’ve done. In other words, according to Calvinism, salvation is unconditional, damnation is not. What’s wrong with that picture?
- How can people be responsible for their choices if God determines everything they do?
Much has been made of the fatalism that can be extrapolated from Reformed presuppositions. But if God is solely responsible for our salvation then, in the end, our responses / actions don’t matter. They are scripted. (I understand that, according to this system, our actions AFTER regeneration do count, and believe there’s truth to this.) Furthermore, if you’re not “chosen” by God, repentance is futile. In fact, if you don’t desire Him, it is proof you are not chosen. In the end, if God determines everything, our choice doesn’t matter.
- Calvinism undermines evangelistic outreach.
This point, again, has been the subject of great debate. If God chooses who will be saved, then evangelism is moot. Yes, Christians will be judged by whether or not they obeyed God and preached the Gospel. But, in the end, those Whom God desires to be saved, will be saved. If, however, the souls of men hang in some type of eternal balance, evangelism takes on a whole new perspective.
* * *
Okay, it’s a first draft. There’s reams of more fluent, academic discussions of this subject. For more, from both sides, look HERE and HERE. If I’ve ruffled feathers, forgive me. These opinions have arisen through much agonizing discussion, prayer and study. I am not anti-Calvinism and, in fact, side with my Reformed brethren in many ways. At this stage of my spiritual pilgrimage, however, I lean toward the motto of the old black Baptist minister: I believes like a Calvinist, but I lives like an Armenian.
I find it intruiging/perplexing … that humanity has become devisive over human interpretation of the Word. These two humans existed in a space in time. The Word has existed since before time and will exist after time.
There are those who, obviously, have this need to line themselves up with a human. I am not one of them. I believe the scriptures can stand on their own taken in whole and not in part. I believe the Holy Spirit is able to reveal God to man … and God’s Word to man.
That does not mean we should not study. It does not mean that having two “camps” is necessarily bad … it certainly gives fuel to those who have an unquenchable thirst to argue and debate. It does not mean that those who are unscholared in the scriptures should not, with wisdom and discernment, sifted through the Holy Spirit, respect the writings of those who devote their whole lives to discerning the scriptures.
But what I do mean is this … take all the knowledge and place it at the feet of Jesus for Him to sift and hand back to you.
Whether that falls into a “camp” or not, is of no concern to me. Whether it lines up with the whole of scripture, is.
Well said, Ame.
The simple things to confound the wise . . .
John 3:16-18 sums up availability of salvation and choice.
And since God is able to see the hearts of mankind, he draws those who are tender to Him, allowing them to see what they truly desire and allowing for those who choose to deny what He has made apparent (Romans 1) no exuse.
When you read the scriptures, Jesus uses the word “if” frequently in reference to remaining faithful to Him. There is an alternative to being faithful, a cut-off point if you will for being unfaithful and forfeiting salvation. His Spirit will not always contend with man.
Too many variables to provide doctrine for “eternal security” and eternal predestination without free will.
John 14:6 and other scriptures make the way to God through Jesus non-negotiable with the one exception referred to in Romans 1 regarding the age of accountability which covers infants and many children and those who are mentally handicapped. Sometimes we ignore that God really does see the hearts of men, and knows the end as well as the beginning. He knows who will come but He allows for everyone to choose.
I think the core of the divide might be the following:
Some believe that since God is Omniscient and knew each of us before we were born, he also knew all the choices we will make and therefore knew before we were born whether or not we will choose to be born again.
To say that He didn’t is to say that God is not all-knowing.
Therefore, we are ‘passively predetermined’ to heaven or hell by the very fact that God knew our decisions and created us anyway.
This is very logical but also flawed.
This line of thought eliminates free-will.
My pov is that God knows more than that. He knows all of our possible futures. He transcends the linear timeline. We are free to pick a different life path at any moment which would be his ever-present.
And if that’s not good enough for you. Being all-powerful, God can deny himself foreknowledge to accomodate the gift of free-will.
**I have been considering writing a book about the subject. Does anyone think there’s a market for it?
I know this is an old thread but it just hit me that your are suggesting a kind of “sting theory” theology. Works great for Fringe, which I loved; not so much for a God who not only knows all things but is the ultimate first cause of all things.
I have to confess, I am not a deep thinker, so when it comes to arguments like this, I tend to give up eventually.
The church I attend is of a Calvinistic bent, and there is much in Scripture to support the idea of predestination. “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
And, of course, there is much Scripture supporting the idea of free will, as folks have shown above.
I think there are many arguments such as this that man will never be fully able to answer. So I’m content to say that there are probably elements of both sides at play here. I’m confident that God will tell us the secrets when we meet Him. I like to focus instead on God’s grace and mercy in providing Jesus. Whether He steered me into accepting Jesus or I chose Him on my own means less to me than the fact that I’m trusting in Him and Him alone for my salvation.
In the end, that’s the only question you need to answer correctly.
Gee, I’d like to be a Calvinist, but I’m afraid I was pre-destined not to be.
Seriously, Mike, everything you said makes perfect sense to me.
Thanks Ame and Nicole for the comments! I’ve heard the Bible described as being like an ocean: It has a shoreline that even infants can splash in, but it also has uncharted, unfathomable depths. We should, no doubt, wade in the simplicity (shoreline) of God’s Word, but we should also push to go deeper. While these discussions can be divisive, they can also serve to drive us deeper into Scripture.
And Ame, I agree that having two camps — or several, for that matter — is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem is when we start defending these camps and giving them equal authority as Scripture, which I think often happens in this debate. As you mention, having a Christlike demeanor is, in the end, probably more important than having all our theological ducks in a row.
Dayle, thanks for the comment. I think what you’re talking about (as well as the possible variations you describe) could be rightly called “foreknowledge.” This is often used by non-Calvinists (like me) as a way to “get around” God’s “active” election of souls. What it does is kind of soften predestination in order to incorporate free will into the equation. But, in the end, it actually strips God of sovereignty in the matter. Not only must we must be cautious about confusing foreknowledge with election, we must be careful to not diminish God’s power and will in the process.
As for your book idea: The concept of parallel worlds and multiple futures is extremely fascinating to me. In fact, my current project involves “shadow selves” birthed into a parallel world by their earthly counterpart. The story of one man working out his salvation with fear and trembling, as told from the angle of God, who knows all possible futures, would be intriguing.
Mark, I appreciate your honesty in grappling with this issue. And I believe you’re probably more right than not about “elements of both sides” being at play here. Charles Spurgeon was a Calvinist but also recognized the need to appreciate both sides. He said something like: “God gave you two eyes, man. Must you pluck out one to see with the other?” A loose paraphrase, but the point being that learning to look through opposing lenses often gives us 20/20 vision.
Just today I read Philippians 2:12-13: “…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to His good purpose.” This is where the theological concept of “synergism” comes from — that God and man work together toward an end; more specifically, that man cooperates with God’s inner-working. The interesting thing though, is that both Calvinism and Armenianism could be extrapolated from these verses. Grace to you, Mark!
Hmmm. Labels are tricky. There are extremists and factions in every camp. Ame may have the right idea.
This debate has been going on for centuries and will keep going on, because the finite mind of man will never completely grasp all God has said in His Word, much less fully comprehend His thoughts.
I confess I mostly disagree with your statements, Mike, except for the first one, which is a given. Beyond that, I don’t think you’ve accurately summarized the teaching of Reformed Theology, and your accusations make me sad, because I’ve seen so many people confused and hurt by this debate.
I won’t arm-wrestle you for bragging rights over who has grappled longer or harder with this issue. I’ll just say that I honestly think most of the confusion stems from man’s insistence that the gospel center on him. The gospel (along with everything else in the universe) is God centered. All created things exist to glorify Him. He says He creates vessels for honor and vessels for common use, He hardens some and shows mercy on others. He says we are created by Him and for Him. Not the other way around.
Creation is God’s story world, and He has every right to people it with heroes and villains, merely to serve His purposes. Who are you, O man, who answers back to God?
I believe God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He knows everything. How else could He tell Abraham what would happen to his descendants for the next 400 years? Lots of people made lots of choices during those 400 years. God knew exactly what the choices would be and how the consequences would play out, who would rise to power, and what they would do. That doesn’t sound like infinite possible futures to me. Do the choices of a mere man pose a challenge to the God who created him, knows his heart, knows his personality, spoke every cell of his body into existence, and numbered his days before he was conceived? Um, no. (Psalm 139)
Scripture is full of story after story, showing God strong to bring His will to pass through people who loved Him and people who hated Him. When the nations rage, He sits in the heavens and laughs. Such puny nations. What are they thinking?
When Samuel told Saul to return to his father, he laid out for him every event that would transpire once they parted ways–even people he would meet along the way and what they would say and do. Were those people puppets? No. God is omniscient. He knows the end from the beginning.
Jesus knew Judas would betray Him before He chose him to be a disciple (John 6). He knew the thoughts of the Pharisees and responded to them out loud. (That would be unnerving, no?) He knew the Jews were going to crucify Him, and He laid it all out with a time line for His dense disciples, who (so very much like us) missed it entirely, because they filtered it through what they wanted to hear and what they wanted Him to be. He stood before Pilate like a lamb, because He knew Pilate would condemn Him to death. It had to be. After all, He’d written this book. He’d already penned the last page, and this was the chapter where the author entered His own story and played the most crucial role.
God plotted out the whole story before He spoke the first word on the first page. And part of that story included the violent death of His Son (the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world). Before Adam sinned, the sacrifice for sin had been prepared. How many of us would have written it that way? Would we have written so much suffering into the history of our world? We really are a lot like those disciples. Our prayers, our expectations, our goals all revolve around me, me, me. “Oh, Jesus! Can I sit by You when You set up Your kingdom? Huh? Huh? Shut, up, John. I am so greater than you!”
Yes. God gave man free will, but the will of man never trumps the will of God. Never. And, as God, He turns men’s hearts all the time. He knows what we will choose, and yet He holds us accountable for the choices. We do, after all, make them. Mystery is part of the package. Anyone who has even fallen in love understands that choices sometimes seem to make themselves.
Scripture also says the names of the redeemed were written in the Lamb’s Book of Life before the foundation of the world. Not only did God know who would be His, He must have known every couple that would marry and bear children throughout time, otherwise how could He know us and our names?
Faith is a gift. Corinthians says He determines its measure. If you believe, it’s because He gives you belief. Jesus said no man could come to Him unless the Father draws him. The Father said He doesn’t draw all men.
However, we evangelize all men, because God commands us to. We don’t know whose hearts God is preparing. Only he knows that. Some seed falls on hard ground or thorny ground or rocky soil. Not all believe. God chooses those who do. Ours is to obey and preach.
To me the whole debate comes down to this: Who initiates salvation? God or man? I fall squarely into the “God initiates salvation” camp. If that’s Calvinism, then I’m a Calvinist, though I prefer to think of it as biblical Christianity. Yes, man responds. He responds with the faith that God gives Him. It’s all a gift–the calling and the surrender–by faith and not by works, that no man should boast.
If a man longs for God, God gave him the hunger. If a man believes, God gave him faith. Any other view requires tossing Romans, Ephesians, John, and many other scriptures out the window.
To those who would say, “Not fair,” I can only ask, “Do you want what you deserve? Do you really want justice?” There is none righteous. The wages of sin is death. Personally, I don’t want what I deserve. If God, in His holiness and sovereign wisdom says He justifies those He elects, we should marvel–not that some are condemned–but that He doesn’t condemn all. God chose to write a love story. We should fall at His feet in adoration and worship.
Of course I could keep typing all night and never exhaust all my thoughts on this topic. And plenty of people much smarter than me have tackled these ideas anyway.
I’ll just wind it up with this. I think your black Baptist minister misses the point, too. Here’s my motto: “I believe I am His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works that I should walk in them, to the glory of His Name and the advancement of His kingdom. And I will live like I believe it.”
I realize that “comment” (treatise? book?) rambles all over the place. Sorry. Too many thoughts jostling for expression. At any rate, even if you and I disagree, I want you to know I appreciate your honest inquiry. And I still like you, Mike. 🙂
Hey, Jeanne, I still like you too! And I wouldn’t want to arm wrestle you either — after writing a treatise, er, comment that long, with that much fire, I can’t imagine what you’d do to my spindly arms.
After reading your thoughts, I must admit, I’m not sure we’re that far apart. I’m thinking you get the impression I don’t believe in God’s omniscience and/or omnipotence. For clarity’s sake: I believe God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, that He knows the beginning from the end and that the will of man CANNOT trump the will of God. You said: “To me the whole debate comes down to this: Who initiates salvation? God or man? I fall squarely into the ‘God initiates salvation’ camp.” Uh, me too, Jeanne. Not only is that clear in Scripture, it logically follows from man’s fallen state that God must initiate salvation.
Where you and I disagree, I think, is the belief that God chooses some for damnation. This may be our fork in the road. God has every right to people His story with villains, but literary bad guys are much easier to dispose of than are human souls, created in God’s image, wildly loved, who will exist eternally in a state of bliss or agony. As I said in my post, “The implication that God ‘chooses’ people to exist in perpetual torment contradicts God’s desire to see all men come to repentance.”
Furthermore, what’s often strangely absent when we get into discussions about God’s election, is GOD’S LOVE. “For God SO LOVED THE WORLD. . .” Everybody is the object of His love. To me, the suggestion that this vast, awesome, self-less, all-powerful Love consigns these precious souls to a state of perpetual torment — without their choice in the matter — contradicts the spirit of Scripture, the Gospel of Grace, and the character and mission of Jesus.
Thanks so much for your eloquent, passionate words, Jeanne. I really, REALLY appreciate you.
That’s my point, Mike. The two are confused so much that they are used as evidence for each other. Kinda like Natural selection is used a evidence for evolution when the two are actually independant of each other.
Nothing about my theory strips God of soveriegnty. God’s foreknowledge of our every possible future based on current or future decisions (ala Ted Dekker’s Blink) and His transcendance of the linear timeline actually fully grant Him the full power of His omnipotence and omniscience.
If you haven’t read Dekker’s Blink, I highly recommend it – it deals with this concept and it’s a great novel.
Forgive any miss-spellings, I’m multi-tasking.
Mike,
Jeanne’s post squares with what I’ve been taught as I’ve grown up in the church. I can’t argue with anything she said.
When you say you can’t believe God would “choose” some for damnation, I think that’s where your argument may fall a little short. Refer to the passage (in Romans, I believe) about the potter and the clay that Jeanne mentions in her post. Does the clay jar say to the potter, “Why did you make me thus?” Do we really have the right to question God that way? I think the point she was making is not that God chooses some for salvation and some for damnation, but rather that we all deserve damnation. Period. God, in His infinite love and mercy, chooses many, many people to save through His son. And yet all are given the chance to hear the Gospel message.
The argument basically comes down to our attempts to square God’s justice with His mercy. And like I said, I don’t know if we’ll ever be able to do that fully. So, in my fragile, weak human mind, I just say, “Well, no sense wasting time trying to solve an unsolvable mystery. I’ll just ask Him when I get there.” Is that a cop-out? Maybe, since Peter tells us to “continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” If anything, this discussion tells me that I should be studying the Scriptures more, and trying to learn more about God and His character.
I have a whole host of questions I want to ask God. Tops on the list is, “Were mosquitoes really necessary?”
Mark, thanks for the discussion and your refreshingly humble point of view. If, like you said, “. . .all are given the chance to hear the Gospel message,” then God’s justice does not come into question and people are genuinely culpable for responding to the Light they have. This would be my position and is the main thrust of Romans 1-3.
Yes, Romans 9, alone and out of context, would suggest God can damn those He chooses. But there are oodles of other Scriptures we can use as proof texts for opposing points of view — namely that God desires that all men be saved (I Tim. 2:4, II Pet. 3:9). This is one of my problems with various defenses of Calvinism: Scriptures are quoted in isolation. All I’m trying to do is square the entire body of Scripture with the Romans 9’s.
Anyway, I really appreciate your opinion, Mark. Grace to you on your journey! And, though I can’t answer as to why God made mosquitoes, I’m blessed that He invented Raid.
Mike,
I truly appreciate your points as well. The last thing I want to do is take Scripture out of context, of course. Romans 9, I Tim. 2:4, and II Peter 3:9 are all in there for a reason. My faith tells me it all works together for God’s glory, even when I don’t understand it all.
Thanks for the great discussion, Mike!
We seem to be in the same place about this issue. Ah, nice to have good, amusing, and handsome) company. 🙂
Mir
I just don’t have a problem with God wanting all men to be saved and at the same time not saving all men. God hates sin and yet he allows me to sin. God take no pleasure in the death of the wicked and yet he allows the wicked to die. There all kinds of things that God wants (all men to be holy, all men to be saved) that he doesn’t get.
I’ve heard men reconcile this by separating the decretive will and the permissive will of God. Or something like that. (some say secret will and revealed will.)
I don’t care how you reconcile it. It’s just fact. God hates sin and yet he allows it. God hates men to go to hell and yet he allows it. And yes, even ordains it. Just as he ordained that his beloved Son would die. A sinful act which he hated above all sinful acts.
For more on the wills of God see http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1580_Are_There_Two_Wills_in_God/
Hey Sally, the gulf here is not between God hating sin yet allowing it, but between God allowing damnation and “ordaining” it. That’s a pretty big difference. In one scenario, He is allowing a person through their own rebellion and disregard and callousness, to get what they deserve. In another scenario, their rebellion and disregard and callousness is His decree. I have a hard time seeing that God is just when someone is fashioned, explicitly, for Hell.
Who fashions them, Mike?
If God does not fashion them for Hell, what does he fashion them for? Heaven? Whether he made them for Hell, or made them with the foreknowledge that they would reject him and go to Hell doesn’t matter. Either way you have God making people with every intention of throwing them into hell. If you think he’s an ogre for that then you have to go with the Open Theists. And that’s a long way to go to justify God in your mind. It’s anti-biblical.
It’s best to stick with the Bible. God made men, God cursed men. God is allowed to do that and it’s still, somehow loving. His justice doesn’t negate his mercy. His sovereign right to make out of one lump of clay, two different pots does not negate his love. How can I explain it? I can’t. I just believe it because the Bible says it.
If you don’t believe, then what do you think Romans is saying. And all the others. I don’t mind if you have a different interpretation but I don’t think you can just throw all the election passages out of the Bible.
Also …what’s wrong with unconditional election and conditional damnation? Are you saying our election is conditioned upon something we do?
Wow. i hit a nerve. Really, these are the types of debates that make me cringe, and color my approach to this subject.
Okay. First, the idea of God “fashioning” anything is conditioned upon the belief that Mankind has no say in the “fashioning” process. However, if free will is a real possibility, as I think it might be and there’s Scriptures that imply it, then the “fashioning” has more (or at least a lot) to do with Man’s response to God’s movements, than God’s pre-conditioning us for damnation. That God is making everyone for something (Heaven or Hell) conveniently negates the concept of Human freedom completely.
Second, neither believing that God is “making people with every intention of throwing them into hell” or becoming an “Open Theist” are valid options for me. Are those my only two choices?
Third, I’m not trying to “throw all the election passages out of the Bible.” My approach would be to harmonize the “choose this day” and “whosoever will” passages. As Spurgeon said, Truth has two eyes, and you needn’t pluck one out to see better with the other. I believe God is sovereign. Still, human beings are not presented as puppets. Why eye must I surrender?
Four: “What’s wrong with unconditional election and conditional damnation? Are you saying our election is conditioned upon something we do?” No. That’s the point. Election IS NOT based on anything we do or are. It is unconditional. Whereas damnation IS based entirely on what we do or are. It is conditional. Thus, election is unconditional and damnation is conditional. I go to Hell because I deserve it. I go to Heaven because I don’t. Not sure that makes much sense, or that it matters…
Anyway, thanks Sally! Grace to you!
First, an apology. I’m so swamped this week–every week, truthfully. So I’m writing really fast, I shouldn’t do that because I when I do, I fail to put in the niceties that I should put in. So please know that you have no hit a nerve, if by that you mean you think I’m hurt, or offended, or angry.
I’m just writing fast, is all,
The truth is that I love the system of belief known as the Reformed faith, I love the five points of Calvinism and I believe that all five stand or fall together. The Reformed faith is to my mind Biblical theology, it best answers the questions I have about God and gives me great comfort. I think it’s true and beautiful. I love, love, love the Reformed faith not because it’s man’s made up doctrine but because I love the Bible and I really believe that the Bible teaches that we are elected from before the foundations of the world to salvation. And because we are saved by God and not by our own works, we cannot lose our salvation. I believe that Jesus is the author and finisher of my faith and I’m save by his work and not my own. That as the author he started to save me and as the finisher he will bring to completion the work he started. I believe that faith is a gift from God, not of works, that no man can boast. I believe I was dead in my sin and God called me to life as Jesus called Lazarus from the tomb. I was passive in that just as Lazarus was passive.
But I very rarely argue these points. With anyone. The reason being that I think it damages the Body when the debate grows ugly. And it does often grow ugly,.
The reason I entered into this discussion with you is that I know you are fair and logical and I didn’t think there was danger of our discussion getting ugly.
That said, I’ve said just about all I have time or inclination to say, and I thank you for tolerating my intrusion on your blog,
But before I go, I’m confused about this conditional, unconditional deal. in this post you say:
*****
Election is viewed as unconditional and reprobation is conditional.
Calvinism asserts that God elects people unconditionally — in spite of who they are and what they’ve done. Yet, accordingly, men are damned conditionally — precisely because of who they are and what they’ve done. In other words, according to Calvinism, salvation is unconditional, damnation is not. What’s wrong with that picture?
*****
What is wrong with that picture?
Now you say nothing is wrong with this picture.
Well, this is the one thing I own up to from this post. I think you are missing, by at least a little bit, what Calvinists believe in all of your points (i.e. Calvinism does not present a cold caricature of God, it does not contradict his desire to see all men saved, etc.) but this one point, I think you have right on. I believe that election is unconditional but damnation is conditional. As far as I know this is classic Calvinist doctrine.
If you believe this, too, then we are not that far apart.
I’d love to take each one of your points and discuss them. I just don’t have time right now. Maybe I’ll do blog posts on them on my blog–taking one point at a time. If so, you could answer me over here, maybe. And instead of taking time to post long comments no one will read we could argue (lovingly because we are such lovely people) and do blog posts at the same time.
Maybe you have no interest in that. I don’t know. It doesn’t matter to me. I really don’t like arguing this much. It wears me out. =0)
Thanks, Mike. And sorry if I sounded ticked or hurt. Believe me I’ve been hurt before by ugly comments people make about Calvinism. I’ve been hurt when people have laughed and painted me as an idiot and as an evil person because they think my view of God makes him an ogre. But I was not hurt by anything you said. You are not coming across as disrespectful and mean at all. So carry on in peace. You have my blessing. =0)
Hey Sally, thanks so much for clarifying and the kind words. I won’t belabor this, as I’ve been through my share of theological wars on this one too. You said, “I believe that election is unconditional but damnation is conditional. As far as I know this is classic Calvinist doctrine. If you believe this, too, then we are not that far apart.” Naw, we’re pretty far apart. To me, this is equivalent to a father punishing one son for stealing and, not only forgiving the other, but taking him to the toy store and buying the kid anything he wants. This seems, um, unjust. “Fairness” seems to be essential to Who God is. He renders to every man according to his deeds (Rom. 2:6), the Judge of all the earth does right (Gen. 18:25), and The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16) where the Master keeps His word and pays everyone what they agree to, even though it seems there’s inequity.
My problem with the Reformed faith is an extension of my problem with “systems” in general. No doubt there are conjoined truths. But believing that spiritual truths can be “systematized” carries inherent problems, especially when there’s so many apparent paradoxes and complexities in Scripture. the person who adheres to a system must, to be logically consistent, jettison two contradictory truths in order to remain true. Me? I believe maintaining that tension is better than being forced to pledge allegiance to one point or the other.
Anyway, thanks so much for taking the time to comment, Sally. Blessings right back at you!
I’ve studied Calvinism extensively for the past several years. Certainly, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I can at least comment on the things I’ve discovered.
1. Calvinism is built primarily upon pre-King James philosophy. There’s very little theology actually involved, as concepts such as Catholic original sin and sacramentalism are included. Because most people did not have immediate access to a Bible when Calvin’s institutes were written, and because of Calvin’s superior skill at crafting such a work, people have hailed him as a great theologian and his Institutes as great theology. Error.
2. Free Will vs. God’s Sovereignty is not argumentative in Jewish thought, and cannot be construed as confused or misunderstood within the proper context. There truly is no argument, and therefore, no draw. God is sovereign, and knows the ways of men transcendent of time, however, God’s model is to allow men to make up their minds. The Bible does not need to be interpreted outside its own context. The Bible establishes its own context. Therefore, exegetical arguments that stretch into argumentation over the existence of man’s free will are parochial at best. I’m not trying to say that people shouldn’t argue about anything. I simply believe that those who argue against man’s free will, in favor of a Calvinistic viewpoint must be trusting in Calvin’s institutes, and not in the Bible, itself.
3. Calinism tends to drive men into worse doctrine. As if Calvinism, itself, were not a heretical enough monstrosity, there are actually worse doctrines that have been spawned as a result. Prayerism is a good example. Prayerism is the doctrine that says a person must simply pray a prayer in order to be born again. This comes directly from Calvin’s Institutes: in particular, Book 3. The fifth point of Calvinism, The Perseverence of Saints (Once Saved Always Saved), has led a generation of people, beginning with mid-20th Century revivalists, into believing that a one-time expression of faith in Jesus Christ, in the form of a “simple prayer” is all a person needs in order to be saved. That’s not biblical. Jesus never mentioned the Kingdom of God without mentioning repentance. Another bad doctrine is “Once Saved Always Saved,” itself. This doctrine is a belief that once a person has been born again, they can never again be lost. The New Testament declares that we must “watch,” “hold,” “persevere,” “keep the faith,” “continue,” “persist,” etc. “Once Saved Always Saved” has led so many people directly into sin and death than any other false doctrine smeared upon the waiting brow of a “yes-man” church.
4. Calvin’s own life disqualifies him from being considered any kind of theologian. While serving as leader of Geneva, Calvin had several people killed, mutilated, tortured, and censured. If a man’s salvation is to be proven in fruit, Calvin is not qualified for heaven–much less for the ranks of renowned theologians. In my opinion, Jean Calvin was a charlatan and a murderer. His so-called institutes, regardless of their acclaim in Reformed circles, are not worth the waste weeds used for their pages. To believe and trust these works of Calvin without very carefully weighing them against the Bible is dangerous, to say the least.
Certainly, there is more. However, most of it has already been mentioned by the beneficient moderator. I surely wouldn’t want anyone here to think I am this serious about everything. But, we were told in the New Testament to refute bad doctrine. And Calvinism–from 5-point Reformed, to 1-point Baptist, is the worst.
Be blessed!
Al Christian
Lawton, Oklahoma
Whoa! I'm tired already, so much thought provoking debate! I'll just rest my hope in the King.
love you brother,
ronn