What is Calvinism? Also.. does God elect those who are to be saved?

Do you want a Calvinist to answer your questions or a non-Calvinist?

 

Tali --

Here are two web sites to check out. The first one is a good definition of Calvinism. The second is a sermon by Spurgeon, the late great English Baptist preacher.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/5points.htm

http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm

God's best,

FOS

 

Tali,

Do a search in the Theology forum and read up on the matter.

But nowhere does Scripture intimate that the person who ends up in hell had no chance to choose Jesus.

 

Amen. :thumbs:

 

What is Calvinism? Also.. does God elect those who are to be saved?

Here is a quote from this "good definition of Calvinism":

This original sin shows itself in all natural men in a fixed and utter opposition of heart to some forms of duty, and especially and always to spiritual duties, owing to God, and in a fixed and absolutely decisive purpose of heart to continue in some sins (even while practicing some social duties), and especially to continue in their sins of unbelief, impenitence, self-will, and practical godlessness.

You can run, but you can't hide from the fact that this will lead to God needing to "impose" faith on some so not all will be lost. Obviously not all are saved, and since man cannot, nay does not want to be saved, God must unconditionally choose some for salvation.

Here is where both sides of the mouth get going:

Now, the soul's duties toward God are the highest, dearest, and most urgent of all duties; so that wilful disobedience herein is the most express, most guilty, and most hardening of all the sins that the soul commits.

It has already been stated that natural man has been tainted by the original sin of Adam with a "a fixed and utter opposition of heart" towards God, but now is being called a "willful disobedience".

After a vain attempt of trying to defend the free will of man they illogically conclude:
"It is impossible for us to think a rational free agent not disposed any way at all."

 

And another:

Now, then, the blind man cannot take part in the very operation which is to open his eyes. The hard stone cannot be a source of softness. The helpless paralytic cannot begin his own restoration. Enmity against God cannot choose love for him. The dead corpse of Lazarus could have no agency in recalling the vital spirit into itself. After Christ's almighty power restored it, the living man could respond to the Savior's command and rise and come forth.

In case you didn't know, we are not saved by loving God. It is through faith. This article will get us to see that we cannot have faith unless God gives it to us. And, when he gives it to us it is "effectual" and we are saved. Obviously not everybody is given this fatih so God chooses ONLY SOME.

The conclusion will be that faith is not a condition of our election because the "election" was held before the world was created and man had the chance to have faith. Sounds like an election in Chicago to me :BangHead: .

 

The better example is the one used by Cassian: The lost person is sick, can know it, and CAN call for a doctor.

"Election" was, indeed, held before creation and you, indeed, were "appointed" to "office." BUT it was based on God's foreknowledge that you were a "candidate." :laugh: Only believers are qualified "candidates" for "election."

skypair

 

HP: Show us where the Scriptures state or imply that all that end up in hell had the chance to choose Jesus. That is what you are assuming by your statement is it not? If not, what other possible position could you be assuming?

 

HP: Calvinism in a nutshell is described best by TULIP. Total Depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints. This system of thought, although known to us as Calvinism, was in fact nothing more than the results of Calvin enlarging upon and expanding the logical ends of dogmas introduced into the Church years earlier by Augustine.

There are some underlying ideas that are indeed present in any and every idea that is either Calvinistic or leaning hard that way. The first is the notion that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will. This is commonly known as Original sin or total depravity. Secondly is the notion concerning the atonement that it is a literal payment for sins as opposed to a governmental substitution building a bridge to allow for a pardon from sins to be granted under certain conditions. From these two foundational ideas, all other ideas of Calvinism as expressed in Tulip are necessitated. Unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints, also known as OSAS, are nothing more than the necessitated and logical ends of those two underlying beliefs of original sin and the atonement as a literal payment.

I fully understand that there are some that would like to believe in the two fundamental ideas that I mentioned, and deny that they do not hold to the other three or four points of Calvinism, but such is nothing more than a ‘blessed inconsistency’ on their part. In order to accept total depravity, a literal atonement, unconditional election, and yet attempt to deny irresistible grace, and the limited atonement known to Calvinism , is illogical at best, for they are nothing more than the necessitated ends of the other ideas of Calvinism mentioned.

HP: Again if one is logical and consistent, coming from the foundational beliefs of Calvinism, i.e., original sin and the literal payment theory, they cannot escape the notions of unconditional election and irresistable grace. Just the same, there are some that in their inconsistency have denied those two points. I would simply say as others have said long before me, “Oh those blessed inconsistencies!”

 

1. Try 2 Thess 1:8.

2. Isn't it instructive that during the Trib some people will even cursed God and refuse to repent and glorify God (Rev 16:9)?

 

2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

HP: How does this verse support the notion that all that end up in hell had a chance to choose Christ? If we will be careful to notice, there are two, not one groups of individuals mentioned in this text. Because one does not know God, is that reason to simply assume that they have had the chance to ‘choose Jesus?” I certainly do not think so.

How does the text in Rev. you mention prove or add support to the notion that ‘all’ in all ages have had the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel by choosing or rejecting Christ? I simply cannot follow the connection you are trying to make with these verses.

 

1. HP, I noticed that you didn't comment on the second part of v. 8, "Those... who do not oby the gospel..." Why is there a failure in obeying the Gospel?

2. Jesus asked a group of Jews, "If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? (John 8:46).

3. On another occasion he told another group that He was the Messiah, yet they did not believe (John 10:24, 25).

4. I'm sorry you didn't see the importance of Rev 16.

 

HP: I am sorry. I thought it was self evident. Because some are mentioned here that have not obeyed the gospel, can we logically assume that all have heard the gospel? That is what is at stake here, NOT the fact that indeed some have heard and rejected it.

HP: Here you use an example of ones that clearly are having the privilege of hearing the gospel. That is NOT what is at stake in our discussion. You need to show how some hearing and rejecting amounts to the assumption you seem to be making that ALL have heard and have rejected the gospel.

HP: The same argument I gave above applies here as well. This verse in no wise states or implies that all have heard and have rejected the gospel as you seem to indicate is the case.

 

HP, What else can I say?

 

HP: Let’s see. You might say I will consider that perspective, or I have not thought about it that way before, or something nice like that.

Seriously, I enjoy our discussions in spite of our disagreements. You seem to reply in a civil way without all the personal attacks. I can appreciate that my friend!:thumbs:

 

Well, I must admit that you get under my skin sometimes, but I've learned to process it all. :laugh:

 

HP: Then you have learned an admirable trait in the furtherance of civil and useful discussion and debate within the body of Christ. It does and will continue to serve you well!

Oh Lord, help me to learn to react in like manner!

 

Directing my attention to the OP, I would say that indeed God does elect those that will be saved, by determining the conditions He mandates and being cognizant of the decisions that will be voluntarily made by men and women in light of them. That is clearly not the election Calvinism portrays, but it is indeed election.