Calvinism/Election/etc.

[Thomas]

I'm starting this thread because this topic has been bothering me a lot lately. So I want to clear some things up. Please, I don't want to argue, or say that my opinion is better... or anything like that. I just want truth.

1st: "Should we preach, being that God has already elected His people?"

I'd like you to give your answers on this. Let me tell you how I feel about it. This "election" thing is kind of new to me, since I have never seen so much emphasis on the topic.. until I started reading this boards. It seems to be biblical, and if it's biblical, it's true. Now, my opinion on the whole preaching/election thing:
God only knows who are the elected. You can't see a person on the street and say :"this person isn't one of the chosen ones, so why bother preaching to him?" My conclusion, for now, is that since we can't know who has been chosen, we should go and preach and spread the good news all around the world, like Jesus told us.

When you preach, and thru your preaching one person after hearing what you said, is convicted by the Holy Spirit to be born again, it means that the person is one of the elected, right? But, see, for that to happen God used you, to preach. Which leads me to think that if God has elected some, yet he tells us to go and preach, it means that He wants to use us to reach the elected.

2nd: "How fair is it?"

Not that anyone understands God's sense of justice, but why would God choose some people and not choose others? I mean, of course I feel happy if I'm one of the chosen ones, but I feel really sorry for the ones who haven't been chosen. I'd like to believe that if someone goes to Hell, it's because the person deserves it. Not simply because God has predestined it. I'm not saying "good actions/bad actions", I mean, if someone goes to hell, I'd like to believe that it's because the person has chosen not to be with God. I don't get it when people say we don't have free will. I could very well, right now, decide to never care about God anymore, and supposedly "live my life to the max", live in sin, here on earth. I don't do it, because it's just foolish, and I know that only a relationship with God brings true happiness. But I feel tempted to live in sin. So, I think it is a matter of choice. Whatever, this is starting to go nowhere.

Just correct me if I'm wrong or tell me if I'm right .
I'd appreciate it.

God Bless

[jhamrick]

HI Thomas,
I think your first is right on. We definitely should preach the gospel to everyone, because that is how God has decided to implement his will.

Your second qusetion, I struggle with also, so I would like to see what others have to say before speaking on it myself.

Welcome to the board!

[countrymouse]

Hello, Thomas!

You are quite right that we cannot tell who is elect until they demonstrate belief in the gospel. Therefore we must share the gospel with all, for no one is saved apart from its power.

I know it often seems to each one of us that we could choose to turn away from Christ. It is hard to understand, but I think we have to rely on what the Scripture says, whether it makes complete sense to us or not. Jesus promised that none of his sheep would ever perish or be snatched away from him; it's in John chapter 10. In John 6 he said that he would lose none of those whom God has given him. I trust him about that; I wouldn't really want to think he would let me turn away from him. I know that I have weak moments and stubborn moments, and without his help I would be a most unreliable follower. I thank him for making my salvation sure.

I, too, feel sorry for those who are not elect. I don't fully understand why everyone can't be elect, but God is infinitely wiser than I, and everything he does is righteous. My allegiance must be toward him.

Thanks for the opportunity to share!

Blessings,
countrymouse

[Christ_†_Alone]

"Should we preach, being that God has already elected His people?"

Yes we should, since the Bible tells us to. God could have chosen to ensure His word would be spread via trees growing Bible pages, leopards scratching it in the dirt, or birds spelling it out in the air... and yes I know that sounds silly, but it's TRUE, He could have, and yet He didn't. His choice for the gospel to be heard, was via His people, preaching it.

"When you preach, and thru your preaching one person after hearing what you said, is convicted by the Holy Spirit to be born again, it means that the person is one of the elected, right?"

Correct!

"2nd: "How fair is it?"

By men's standards, it doesn't appear fair, at first look. It's only when we look hard at what the Bible says, that we even barely begin to grasp, why/who/how/when issues, about God's ways.

"I'd like to believe that if someone goes to Hell, it's because the person deserves it. Not simply because God has predestined it."

This is a common misunderstanding that people have about predestination. The fact is, we were ALL condemned at birth. All born fallen, all born into sin, all born seperated from God. It was only due to His hand of grace on some, that ALL are not justly condemned.

Because He is perfect, and just, it's that justice that DEMANDS He punish sin wherever it is found. Sin is found in the unbelieving, unrepentant heart - therefore - as Romans 9:20 says - "Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?"

Granted, this is NOT an easy Bible teaching to understand, for alot of people. The best we can do is study it, pray about the parts that don't make sense to us, and study it some more. Always with a humble heart prepared to receive whatever He shows us.

[Thomas]

Thanks for the replies! All of them.

It seems like I got the first one right. I'm glad. I still have a lot to learn, you see. I only started to take my christian life seriously recently. So, thanks for helping me understand things better.

I still don't really understand election, but I'm starting to accept it.
I know that God is infinitely wiser. And that I can't understand all that He does, but that everything He does is right. And, Christ Alone, you're right, I think I forgot the fact that actually all of us deserve to be punished when I was typing that. Still, maybe I'll die without knowing why can't everyone be elect. Or elected(hm, yeah, not my 1st language). But for now, I'm glad that I'm one of them.

And about "losing salvation", I think I've read somewhere on this boards something like "if a person becomes defiled, the person was never actually saved".. or something like that. I think that makes sense. Thank you all, God bless you all

[Flip Special]

So, when Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, and tells the goats, "Away from me, I never knew you," will the goats in turn say, "Well, I wasn't elected, IT WASN'T MY FAULT!"?

What will Jesus say then? "Aw, ummm, er, well.... it's just the way the cookie crumbled!"?

Unlikely. Election and Pre-destination, as seen by the finite minds of human beings, is atrocious (sp)!

[Christ_†_Alone]

Originally posted by Flip Special
So, when Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, and tells the goats, "Away from me, I never knew you," will the goats in turn say, "Well, I wasn't elected, IT WASN'T MY FAULT!"?

That question is answered right here:

Romans 9:
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

There will not be 1 human being, surprised to find him/herself condemned, at the moment it happens. All who deny Christ, will be judged by the law - and we all know - no man can perfectly KEEP the law.

Telling God it's His fault for not including them among the elect, is downright nonsense. (no offense intended, but let's be realistic here).

Every human being is born fallen, and God has every right to exact justice and condemn each and every one of us. Yet He doesn't do that with every human being. When was the last time any true believer said "hey, wait a minute, this isn't fair!" and accused God of being unrighteous for including them in the sheepfold??? NEVER, that's when.

How dare we accuse our heavenly Father of being unfair, by not making all human beings of the elect, and then turn around and CLAM UP when He spares some of us from eternal condemnation? Are we hypocrites? Do we blame God for the fall of man? Do we REALLY want Him to be "fair" across the boards?

If yes, we then must confess we want Him to unsave us, if that were possible, and allow us to pay for our own sin, by our own blood. This would be fair. Is this the kind of fairness that we want?

Or do we want His grace? Sparing us from that eternal condemnation to come, for many?
Do we even realize we are NOTHING without Him?
Do we even take the time to understand that it had NOTHING to do with us, that He redeemed us?
Do we take the time DAILY to spend time in fellowship with Him, thanking Him for that grace in the first place?
Do we spend regular, daily time in His word, searching the Scriptures to grow and understand?

Personally, I am appalled at the arrogance of man, and the man-centered doctrine of free will. Who does man think he is, that the Creator of life itself, would bow to his will, and allow man to choose to serve Him, or serve his own sinful self?? Is man truly THAT arrogant? Yes, I believe that is the case.

May God have mercy on those of His children, that continue to nurture such putrid imaginations of such self-granduer, self-importantance, and self-exaltation! God forbid us to continue to walk down that road of "sovereign man". Such perversion of the Word.

If my words offend anyone, it was not meant as a personal stab, it is solely meant as serious concern for the members of the body, that read and post here who continue to swallow the lie of man's free will.

I pray He opens your eyes to this false teaching, and shows you from His very word, the truth that will bring you to your knees in full humility, unlike anything you have ever understood.

When He does, maybe then you (you who hold to free will doctrine) will understand the "calvinistic" believer's passion for preaching the GRACE of God. I pray it happens for you too.

[Thomas]

Actually, I think I'm going to think about it a little more before saying "I believe in the Calvinistic interpretation of the Bible".

I've read in a history book that John Calvin was supported by the rich, because he preached that a christian had to be rich and that being poor is a consequence of being in sin, or something like that.. I'll read it again to say what it really states, but that doesn't sound good. Not that the book is 100% accurate, since it's a secular history book, and the world is full of lies, but I feel like I need to clear this up. So I think I'm going to do some research. Maybe you calvinists know something about it.

And I also think you just put too much emphasis on it. Jesus said that the most important of the commandments is to love God with all your forces and above all things etc., and to spread the good news, and to love one another. If knowing this "election" thing were so important, wouldn't He have said: "And don't forget this commandment: you must believe that God has predestined you to be saved, or else you're an heretic."??? I think it's more of a theological issue... not really what we should be concerned about.

[countrymouse]

Hi, Thomas!

Some would rather not talk about predestination or Calvinism, and that's ok! But others do want to discuss it; that's ok, too. We don't all see things the same way.

In what history book did you see a reference to Calvin teaching that Christians should be rich, or that he was supported by the rich? I'm curious.

Blessings,
countrymouse

[Thomas]

I too think it's ok to discuss these subjects.. that's what I'm doing here! I just don't like it very much when people emphasise(sp?)
it too much, to the point of calling people who don't see things their way herectics. But that's just me.

Translated transcript of part of the text(it's in portuguese):

"Defending predestination, Calvin saw in economic success the divine indication of the chosen ones for eternal salvation. For him, misery was the source of all "evil"("males", I think that stands for "all kind of bad things", such as illness..) and sins. Recognizing and exalting profit and work, he started to be considered the spiritual preacher of the bourgeoisie ideal. The calvinistic doctrine, adjusted to the capitalist expectations, obtained fast assimilation by the bourgeoisie in all Europe."

Now, that's just my sister's history school-book for 8th grade. So it's not your #1 historical reference. But I wonder where they got that from. Still, Calvin was just a man, a sinner like all of us, so perhaps his interpretation of the bible is correct even if he wasn't such a good man... or something.. or the book is lying to me... I still need to find out.

[Brandan Kraft]

I actually believe Calvin was apostate. I know probably most of the Calvinists around here would strongly disagree with me, but it is my opinion that even though Mr. Calvin had the correct soteriology, he was an evil person who was brought into the light in the killing of Servetus.

The burning of Servetus at the stake was a deed which I believe Calvin must be held largely responsible. It was not done in spite of Calvin. He planned it beforehand and maneuvered it from start to finish. It occurred because of him and not in spite of him. After it had taken place, Calvin defended it, with every possible and impossible argument.

In Calvin's defense, I believe he really didn't have much choice in the matter. He was a victim of the evil sacramental system which existed at the time.

But anyway, Servetus's execution took place in a sacralist setting and was a result of Calvin's sacralist thinking. Here was a man who posed no threat to civil peace in Geneva. Servetus started no parades, made no speeches, nor hold to any political ambitions. He did hold to some heretical teachings concerning the matter of the Trinity, and he was against infant baptism. He was the guy who anticipated the idea of the circulatory course of the blood. But he was not a revolutionary in the political sense. He definitely held to some false teachings, but he did not deserve to be arrested or executed.

When the news was out that Servetus had died in the fire, a cry of outrage resounded over most of Europe. Many of the leaders of the Reformed Church applauded the burning. But nevertheless, the masses were upset.

About six or seven months after the execution of Servetus, Calvin prepared a document entitled "Defensio orthodoxae fidei de sacra trinitate contra prodigiosos errores Michaelis Serveti Hispani, ubi ostenditur haereticos jure gladii coercendos esse" used to defend the reasoning behind the atrocity which took place in Geneva.

J.C. Ryle wrote the following:

Any religion, like that of Mahomet, who made converts with the sword, is not from above but from beneath. Any form of Christianity which burns men at the stake, in order to promote its own success, carries about it the stamp of an apostasy. That is the truest and best religion which does most to spread real, true peace (Expository Thoughts on the Gospels [Vol.4], pp.387-388).

[Brandan Kraft]

With the history of Calvin and Servetus explained in the last post, I still believe Calvinism is biblical. Calvinism is really just a nickname.

Calvin's theology of sovereign grace was biblically sound, but I solidly reject his theory of infant baptism, covenant theology, a state church, and the use of the sword as erroneous.

Brandan

[countrymouse]

Hi, guys!

Kermie, while I agree that the burning of Servetus was a greivous sin, I think calling him apostate may be too severe. The Protestant Reformation had only its beginnings during the days of Luther and Calvin; I doubt it would be fair to expect them to have battled all the issues at once. There is much about both of them we should not admire or imitate, for sure. But if we had lived when they lived, where they lived, no doubt we would have all the disadvantages of their perspectives.

As I have observed various church leaders in our time, from pastors in small churches to college and seminary professors to famous evangelists and mega-church pastors, one of the things I have noted is that they have temptations I am most grateful not to have. Before I judge too severely, I must remember that I am not facing the same things they are.

I suspect we ought to all be grateful that we won't appear in any history books a hundred or several hundred years from now!

Blessings,
countrymouse

[Brandan Kraft]

Originally posted by countrymouse
Hi, guys!

Kermie, while I agree that the burning of Servetus was a greivous sin, I think calling him apostate may be too severe. The Protestant Reformation had only its beginnings during the days of Luther and Calvin; I doubt it would be fair to expect them to have battled all the issues at once.

Hi Dianne,

I disagree that it would be unfair to expect them to have battled these serious issues. For one, when Luther and Zwingli broke with the Catholics, they had an opportunity to REALLY change the way things were done. For example, Luther wrote the following:

[They] should sign their names and meet alone in a house somewhere to pray, to read, to baptize, to receive the sacrament, and to do other Christian works. According to this order, those who do not lead Christian lives could be known, reproved, corrected, cast out, or excommunicated, according to the rule of Christ (Matthew 18). Here one could also solicit benevolent gifts to be willingly given and distributed to the poor, according to St. Paul’s example (2 Corinthians 9). Here would be no need of much and elaborate singing. Here one could set out a brief and neat order for baptism and the sacrament and center everything on the Word, prayer, and love (cf. Ulrich S. Leupold, Liturgy and Hymns, Vol.53 of Luther’s Works, ed. Helmut T. Lehman [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965] pp.53ff).

What's amazing about this statement by Luther is just a few years later, he desperately needed the support of the state and recanted these things. Zwingli also stated this about infant baptism...

"there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants and no passage so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized" (cited in Searching Together [Winter Quarter, 1984 – Vol.13:4], p.17).

"Nothing grieves me more than that at the present I have to baptize children, for I know it ought not to be done . . . If however I were to terminate the practice then I fear that I would lose my prebend [stipend] . . . If we were to baptize as Christ instituted it then we would not baptize any person until he has reached the years of discretion; for I find it nowhere written that infant baptism is to be practiced" (Ibid. p.19).

Isn't that amazing! These guys KNEW what the Scripture said about these things, but they were more concerned they might lose their stipend!

One of Zwingli's earlier disciples, Conrad Grebel, the founder of the Swiss Brethren movement broke off from Zwingli when he gave into religious and political pressure to continue baptizing babies. This infuriated Zwingli and the council so much that he banished Grebel and his followers, and later approved of their executions!

Zwingli, Luther, Calvin and many other reformers were fully aware of what the Scriptures taught concerning baptism, separation of church and state, and other crucial new testament doctrines. Yet, unlike Grebel, who would have died for his faith (he died of the plague 3 years later in prison, while most of his friends were executed), were unwilling to give up their prestige and salaries. Personally, I find their complicity disgusting. I believe Zwingli died on the battlelines fighting the Catholics while wielding a sword!

There is much about both of them we should not admire or imitate, for sure. But if we had lived when they lived, where they lived, no doubt we would have all the disadvantages of their perspectives.

You're right about that. But it seems others were up to the challenge in those same times (the early anabaptists who were even Zwinglian in soteriology - calvinism hadn't been fully formulated yet, they were more like 4pt calvinists).

As I have observed various church leaders in our time, from pastors in small churches to college and seminary professors to famous evangelists and mega-church pastors, one of the things I have noted is that they have temptations I am most grateful not to have. Before I judge too severely, I must remember that I am not facing the same things they are.

Yet, I know of many men and women enlightened with truth who have faced pressures and instead have chosen to sacrifice their lives for their beliefs rather than give in to temptation.

Your friend (((( Dianne )))),
Brandan

[Thomas]

Kermie. Even though you made it clear that you're Dianne's friend..... thanks for replying. I'm more convinced of the fact that "calvinist" is just a nickname now, since you seem to be such a die-hard calvinist (), yet you don't agree with most of Calvin's teachings. Which means that as I seek truth I'll believe in the Holy Spirit and in the Word, as I examine it, instead of basing it solely on Calvin's or anyone else's life. After all, Jesus should be our example.

Thomas

[Brandan Kraft]

Originally posted by Thomas
. . . as I seek truth I'll believe in the Holy Spirit and in the Word, as I examine it, instead of basing it solely on Calvin's or anyone else's life. After all, Jesus should be our example.

Amen! Beautifully stated!

[HIS]

The theology of John Calvin took the Reformation further than the positions of Martin Luther, but not as far as the Anabaptists sought to go. On several important issues, such as the sacraments and church government, Calvin stood between the Lutherans and the Anabaptists. He embraced the school of thought established by Ulrich Zwingli but differed from him on a number of points. In these areas Calvin’s views generally prevailed in the Reformed movement and nudged it a little closer to Lutheranism.

In contrast to Luther, Calvin placed greater emphasis on the kind of life a Christian should lead. As a result, there were significant differences between the Lutherans and the Reformed in lifestyle, with the early Calvinists insisting to greater degree on certain principles of holiness.

There was also a contrast regarding church government. Luther felt that church government is irrelevant or of minor consideration as long as the gospel is preached. The church is free to follow tradition or to use whatever structure is best under the circumstances. Calvin said it is Important to restore biblical church organization as much as we can ascertain it from the Scriptures.

In some ways, Calvin did not go as far as later Calvinists. Calvinism today is commonly associated with two doctrines that Calvin taught but did not emphasize or develop as much as his followers did. Those doctrines are predestination, which he held in common with Luther and Zwingli, and the Presbyterian form of government.

In his treatment of these subjects, Calvin stood between Luther and the later Calvinists.

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of John Calvin for the Protestant Reformation. He is just a step behind Martin Luther in historical significance. He, more than anyone else, defined and systematized Reformed theology, which is a major branch of Protestantism to this day, and he influenced the entire Protestant Reformation. The Reformed churches (originating in continental Europe), the Presbyterians (originating in Scotland), the Puritans and their successors in the Church of England, and many Evangelicals today trace their theological roots to John Calvin. Calvin’s influence on Western civilization is likewise great. Historians credit much of the political, economic, and technological success of Western Europe and North America to Protestant virtues, especially those championed by Calvin such as the work ethic, self-discipline, moderation, thrift, and honesty. Despite the many admirable qualities of Calvin’s doctrine and lifestyle, from an Apostolic Pentecostal perspective one cannot help but view his grand theological system with some sense of loss. The strict logic and rigid structure seem to close off avenues of the Spirit and alternative understandings of Scripture.

Calvin appears to have been less open than Luther or Zwingli to the simple yet nontraditional message of Scripture (i.e., his failure to see that the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus), and he rejected important insights from the Radical Reformation. He did much to solidify and perpetuate the doctrine of predestination, which undermines true biblical faith. Most significant from the Apostolic point of view, Calvin slammed the door shut to further restoration of scriptural truths such as the oneness of God, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the gifts of the Spirit.

[Brandan Kraft]

Hey HIS, where did you get that information?

[Brandan Kraft]

I would say that Zwingli and Luther were probably small-c calvinists. In fact, Zwingli's soteriological system was essentially the same as what Calvin would teach, more or less. The one point of question is Limited Atonement, which was the last of the 5 points of Calvinism to be hashed out by Calvinists, and was not even fully held to by Calvin himself, being only formalized by the next generation of Calvinists.

The 5 points of Calvinism were drafted by the Synod of Dort ( http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=19 ) in DIRECT RESPONSE to the 5 points of Arminian Remonstrants.

[HIS]

Predestination...

The logical corollary of total depravity is predestination (unconditional election). If total depravity as defined by Calvin is correct, then salvation could never depend in any way on human choice. If God ever gave humans a choice in regard to salvation, they would always choose wrong and so would never be saved. The only way God can save us in view of our sinfulness is by unconditional election. Predestination is often regarded as the center of Calvin’s theology, but he did not present it as such although he did teach it and emphasize it. Controversies between Calvinists and others often focused on the doctrine of predestination, and followers of Calvin elaborated upon it, expanded it, and drew out its logical consequences.

Thus later Calvinists actually made more of this doctrine and discussed it in greater detail than Calvin himself did. Calvin defined predestination as God’s eternal decree by which He determined with Himself what He willed to become of each person. A person is not saved because he makes a choice; God has determined his eternal destiny before he is ever born.

Calvin clearly taught the concept of double predestination. That is, God has foreordained all human beings to one of two alternatives. Some are predestined to election: God has chosen them to be saved. All others are predestined to reprobation: God has not elected them to salvation, so they are consigned to damnation. Human choice plays no role in either case.

A common way to explain the scriptural statements about predestination is to say that election to salvation is based on God’s foreknowledge of human choice. (See Romans 8:29.) Calvin emphatically rejected this idea. God does not merely know the future and act accordingly; He actually predetermines the eternal destiny of each individual apart from that person’s will.

Opponents of Calvin accused this doctrine of making God unjust. He responded that we cannot judge God as unjust, for He determines what justice is. By definition, whatever God does is right, because He is God. We cannot criticize the doctrine of predestination by our concept of what is fair. If it seems to contradict our notions of justice, then our ideas are faulty. Calvin’s detractors could hardly disagree that God is the determiner of right and wrong. He is just and holy, and we cannot stand in judgment of Him.

Our concepts are faulty in comparison to His. (See Romans 9:14, 20-21.) They had a counterargument, however: God is the one who has given us our concept of justice through creation, conscience, and the revelation of His Word. If the doctrine of predestination seems to contradict our most fundamental ideas of justice and fairness, we should reexamine our theology. Perhaps the doctrine of unconditional election violates our God-given sense of fairness because it is based on a misinterpretation of Scripture.

Calvin struggled with this problem and concluded that predestination is a mystery. He even went so far as to call the decree of reprobation “an awful decree” (decretum horribile).

He could not explain predestination to his own satisfaction, or reconcile it with our perception of human freedom, but said we must affirm it because the Bible teaches it. That was his final answer to the various objections raised to his doctrine.