Addressing the Top Five Misconceptions of Calvinism

The Confident Christian ^ | 2/3/2013 | Robin Schumacher

[D-fendr]

Thanks very much for your well put, thoughtful explanation. Loved this part:

it's no problem at all if you've ever been the property of the USMC.

[kosciusko51]

Prior to enlisting, you're your own man, making your own decisions, including whether or not to enlist.

But no one who is not moved by the Holy Spirit will seek to enlist in God's army. The carnal man believe all of the Bible is folly, and his nature will prevent his free will from enlisting. It requires the Spirit to act in us to believe. We are adopted and grafted (essentially drafted) in to God's army. Our movement in that direction appear to be of our own doing, because our nature is changed by the Spirit.

[kosciusko51]

God is omnipotent; He created man with free will

I don't find "free will" in my Bible, but I do find predestination.

However, as I am writing this to you, I am doing it of my own free will, and yet, at the same time, it was predestined by God. That is the apparent paradox.

Grace and Peace.

[D-fendr]

And peace to you, FRiend.

[Rashputin]

Luke 12:8  And I say to you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God.

That's not a draft notice. In addition, if being grafted in has nothing to do with our having free will, then Scripture here

Romans 11:21 For if God hath not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps he also spare not thee.
Romans 11:22 See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God,if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

is saying that Christ takes some people for a test drive, decides not to keep them, then cuts us off.

[kosciusko51]

Luke 12:8 And I say to you, Whosoever shall confess me before men,...

This does not refute Calvinism. Only those whom the Holy Spirit regenerate will honestly confess him before men. Remember, at that time, to confess Christ had a more serious consequence than it does in the US today (think modern-day Iran or Indonesia).

Let's take a look at Romans 11 passage:

Romans 11:17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,

Romans 11:18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.

Romans 11:19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."

Romans 11:20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;

Romans 11:21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

Romans 11:22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

Romans 11:23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Romans 11:24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

Romans 11:25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;

Romans 11:26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."

Romans 11:27 "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."

Romans 11:28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

Romans 11:29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Now, who does the breaking and the grafting? It is God.

Why does he break off the branches? Because of their unbelief, which is their natural state.

Can the branches that are broken off graft themselves back into the root? No, God does, if they do not continue in their unbelief.

Why do they not continue in their unbelief? The passage does not say. Some will say "free will", others say "predestination".

[Rashputin]

Christ said “whosoever”, I like Christ, you like Calvin, so be it.

[kosciusko51]

I like Christ as well. He also said:

John 6:65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

John 15:16 “You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.”

[Chaguito]

In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. Acts 17:30

command = require obedience
repent = change the mind about the direction of one’s life

The calvinist position is so hidebound by the overweening doctrine of Total Depravity that it redefines simple words and sentences to conform to that doctrine.

However, it is all quite theoretical. I say a man can walk away from a covenant made in good faith between himself and God, and the calvinist says he was never saved to begin with. Of course, maybe he is *still* saved, who knows?

As with all systematic theology, ultimately the system becomes God, a God whom arrogant men feel they understand with their puny logic and intellect, and in a sense control (control, as in winning debates).

[krghou]

I am actually Baptist more or less forever, and I really don’t care too much if it is a Catholic concept or a Protestant concept. I got the idea from mediating on God’s word. That’s not to say I totally disregard or am opposed to learning from smart people who have thought about it far more than me. It’s just on this one subject people tend to get so polarized - it’s like they read half the Bible and ignore whatever is inconvenient to their doctrinal position. So in this case I finally gave up and started thinking about it myself. So there are no doubt holes in my thinking, which is partially why I decided to post on the thread even though I realized almost everyone on the thread was talking past each other. But I also know one of the easiest way to find some holes in your thinking is to put it on the table and let others have a go at it.

So I think God makes choices, and choice is a necessity for real love to exist. I do not think God had to send Jesus to die on the cross, but that he did so because he loved us. He would have been just to send us all to hell, but he didn’t. It was a choice and it demonstrates his love.

My wife and I are committed to one another deeply, and I am well aware of her good points as well as her imperfections, and vice versa she for me. She could no doubt find another man, with more money or looks or wisdom or 100 other things, if she wanted. But she doesn’t. She chooses me, and I choose her - daily (well, except when I’m selfish :-)). Because of this relationship, we also can enjoy intimacy in the deepest meaning of marriage - fully known, but still chosen. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would argue a relationship with a blow up doll, with “perfect” features, and pre-programmed voice saying the same words would be equivalent. There is no way a blow up doll can love you, as it can make no choice to accept you in spite of flaws that are fully known. If you have had the pleasure of this sort of a relationship, I hope you will agree the measure of love is how much the spouses choose to meet each others needs verses their own. Without choice, love ceases to exist.

Assuming you still don’t agree, can you give me an example, in human relationships, of a demonstration of love without someone making a choice?

If you come to accept my position about love requiring a choice, 1 John 4:9 is easy to understand. When we see God filled with mercy and compassion even though we rejected him, we can know he loves us. If we are moved by this, and choose to accept his gift, we return the love because of the choice we exercized. If we are robots, with no choice except what he gives us by his election, we can’t love him, so as I read the verse, I see confirmation we have a free will.

[ctdonath2]

“__________________ism doesn’t seem to agree that all Scripture is useful for teaching, so most tend to ignore the passages they can’t just explain away.”

Fixed it for ya.

[BlueDragon]

As with all systematic theology, ultimately the system becomes God, a God whom arrogant men feel they understand with their puny logic and intellect, and in a sense control (control, as in winning debates).

Is Roman Catholicism systematic theology? I suppose some defenders of it will cite Tradition to get off the hook, even as they seek to explain the systematic logic of Tradition? for otherwise it can boil down to "because we say so" which can frequently be shown it's not always all it's cracked up to be, sort of like things that appear not to fit in regards to Calvinism, such as Acts 17:30 as you bring.

I don't know what they'd say but that those who failed to repent upon sufficiently hearing the Word were not awoken, not quickened thus still dead. They were dead already. in the sense the Calvinists most use regarding alive/dead.

Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Back to Acts 17 "...but now he [God] commands all people everywhere to repent."
Command? Sounds like God laying down the law (or rather commanding His law to be obeyed).

Dead men (still dead in their sins) don't follow orders of God, do they? They can't obey. they're still dead.

The Calvinists incorporate Paul's letters allowing those to help inform & interpret other principles as they also look to the wider Word to understand what Paul was writing about.

The Roman Catholic incorporate Tradition on par with scripture utilizing a systematized body of written work to explain it, asystematizedhierarchy, and a written system of church law in aim of rationally enforcing the same.

What was that you were saying about systematic theology again?

[BlueDragon]

There does seem to be plenty of that type of thing. Yes, one can honestly and safely fill in the blank.

[Sloth]

Piper’s reply to her was direct and rare in our current sugar-coated, seeker-friendly church environment: “God will damn you to Hell if you continue in your sin.”

While I would agree with this statement, I can see no reason why a Calvinist would say it. If the woman's eventual spiritual outcome is predetermined by God's election, then no amount of encouragement or rebuke will make any difference in whether she repents. He might as well have forcefully said "The sky is blue!" for all the good it would do.

[P-Marlowe]

God hath dealt to every man THE measure of faith.” (Romans 12:3)

The definite article "THE" is not in the Greek.

God

g2316

θεός theos

hath dealt

g3307

μερίζω merizō

to every man

g1538

ἕκαστος hekastos

the measure

g3358

μέτρον metron

of faith.

g4102

πίστις pistis

I'm not sure what your point was, but if it is dependent upon the definite article "THE" preceeding the word "measure", it ain't in the original and hence, your point is not supported by scripture.

Are you relying on scripture or the interpretations of the KJV translating committee?

[Rashputin]

First, my response reads a good bit differently than I intended it to because I was jumping between things and submitted before I finished I guess. Sorry about that.

I read the entire passage I quoted from as well as many others in books about predestination and the many portions of Scripture people claim proves their view. People take a verse here and there or a passage here and there and use it to paint a picture that they feel fits the context when the context of the author and the author's relationship to the audience is sometimes not appropriate to the context someone applies it to.

What an apparently simple a simple sentence means to those on active duty (the folks who really know what it means to be a slave to Christ not free to do some things) and what the same sentence means to folks who look at a recruiting poster, look through brochures at the recruiting office, or who are civilians interested in military matters, is frequently as great as the difference between night and day.

Christ said it is the will of His Father that none should parish. Christ said, "This is my body". In neither case do I see any reason to categorize either statement as anything other than a clear, direct, simple, statement of fact. When Christ says, "you are my sheep", it's a figure of speech those who know they're sheep for the slaughter see differently than those who read "This is my body." and see that as a figure of speech as well. Like I said in my first comment, it's all straight forward to me which is why I don't bother with conversations or debates on the subject much.

I'm a sheep to the slaughter if that's where Christ decides I need to be. Spend several years in the hospital doing rehab after you've been all but slaughtered and there's no mystery involved with regard to predestination anymore. You can read all the enlistment brochures, study histories of the military services, read all about military life, you can even enlist only to become a deserter or traitor, but you can't understand some things until after you've irrevocably committed and Christ has committed you to the battle as His instrument. Hence we find Scripture that says, "My sheep hear my voice" used all sorts of ways when the sheep who still see themselves as brave, self-sufficient, buck mountain goats rather than as sheep have no idea what it really means.

It's similar to talking about day to day life in the late fifties with people born in or after the sixties.

Only those who are old enough to have experienced that difference have the common frame of reference. With no common frame of reference, younger people can't understand simple things like "I filled up the car", "I applied for the job", or "going on a date", in that context without a great deal of additional detail. Detail I may or may not include in a given conversation depending on whether or not I care that younger folks get more than a superficial understanding of what I mean.

[good1]

Christ said “whosoever”

You are referring to John 3:16, right?

If so, you are incorrect. Jesus did not say this. What He did say was, "Everyone believing . . . "

And people do not believe because they do not belong to Christ; they are not given to Him by the Father, therefore, they do not know Him nor hear His voice, nor believe in Him (John 10:26; 17:2, 6, 9). Notice especially 17:2, "that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life."

And do not say that the Father has given all people to Christ unless you also believe in universal salvation. Remember Christ also said that everyone that the Father gives to the Son will come to the Son, and of all that come to Him, He will lose none of them, but will raise all of them up on the last day (John 6:37, 39) He repeated this promise again in verse 40.

I hope this helps you to see that salvation is all of God, all of grace. It is even God's work that you believe, He is the cause of your belief (John 6:29)

[HarleyD]

It’s just on this one subject people tend to get so polarized - it’s like they read half the Bible and ignore whatever is inconvenient to their doctrinal position.

Oh, you are certainly right on that. Personally I like just to discuss logically and quietly the scriptures. There is so much in them that I tend to forget. Discussing them keeps them fresh in my mind.

I won't go into my full conversion story but I remember vividly two weeks after I became a Christian, my pastor's wife was teaching Sunday School. During that class she remarked about how the Virgin Birth could not have really happened. I remember (call it the Spirit of God, call it bad pizza the night before) how I was taken aback and told her it was in the scriptures. Hoooooo...boy. That was the beginning of a not so beautiful friendship as she kept saying it was medically impossible and I kept saying it was in the scriptures. I left that church mainly because I was going into the military the next week, but that was when I became a sola scriptura guy. I decided 1) all scripture is inspired by God, 2) everything in the scripture is meant for our understanding in knowing things about God (not everything), 3) it all fits together, and 4) don't trust what other people tell you (including pastors' wives). :O)

Now you asked me to give you an example in "an example, in human relationships, of a demonstration of love without someone making a choice" The reason that I believe this request is tainted is simply because the world around us is tainted, much like my pastor wife's views. What we see is a distortion. So even if I could think of an example, we would still spend time discussing and possibly arguing over nuances of the tainted example that I would provide.

That gets us back to sola scriptura. The Bible is the only physical thing in this world that isn't tainted. It is the pure mouthpiece of God. And no matter how much we even try to distort that with various translations, it still remains pure and is profitable for teaching, reproof and correction. This is not true for any example that I could come up with.

As a Baptist you probably agree with all of this and wonder where I'm rambling off to. Well, this is simply to say that the only examples that I could provide to you that would be meaningful, would be scriptural examples. They are the only thing that is in this world not tainted. And, yes some people will argue with the examples. But I find arguments without a clear, rational and logical explanation to be a poor way to handle the Holy scriptures of God-not unlike my pastor's wife. For people to simply ignore God's word, shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, I guess that's a mystery." should give someone pause. For that is what my pastor's wife said to me.

If I gave you my worldly view it would be just my opinion. If I showed you it in God's word, then it's God's opinion. And, yes, there are others who might show you "counter" verses and say, "Don't believe HD." That's OK. Half the time my wife doesn't believe me either. But it is your (and my) responsibility to believe and understand the scriptures. No gimmicks about saying "Well it says this over here". No philosophical debates about the time line continuum. No obfuscating with, "Well, I guess it's a mystery".

And you know what, it's been a long journey since that pastor's wife. But I find the scriptures to really not be as complex as everyone makes it out to be.

[Rashputin]

"You are referring to John 3:16, right?"

Nope, and not 3:15 either. Even sticking only to those verses, though, they allude to Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness and in that context "whosoever" clearly applies to whoever is bitten and looks toward the snake Moses was told to erect. Given that we're all bitten and poisoned, how does "whosoever" not apply to whosoever does what Christ says to do?

As for the verses you mention, in Chapter Ten He clearly singled out those He is speaking to in verses 22-25 and is speaking to that clearly identified group, not "whosoever". Likewise, in Chapter Seventeen He is praying about His disciples in particular, not all of mankind, so that doesn't apply to "whosoever" either. Something that's clear if you read Scripture rather than being hung up on "prooftexting" that carefully selects portions of Scripture or single verses as if they are individual telegrams rather than portions of a larger work.

I actually had,

Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.

and other verses where the word "whosoever" is used in mind, though, not John 3:15 & 16. Like the verses regarding someone who looks at a woman to lust after her. There isn't a select subset of mankind who can do that and not be guilty so the subset in question when "whosoever" is used is the subset who do the thing being discussed. There's nothing complicated about it unless someone wants to blow some smoke around in order to suit their Gnostic inclinations.

What sort of game is tossing "universal salvation" in? When did "whosoever" become the same as "universal"? I guess if someone applies the, Sola Yourselfa Nolo Contexta Method" to Scripture interpretation they can claim the two words mean the same thing just like some folks claim "not by faith alone" is the same thing as "faith alone".

Why does the word "whosoever" need to be redefined?

[kosciusko51]

Thank you for your response. Some comments:

Christ said it is the will of His Father that none should parish.

Indeed, in 2 Peter 3:9, Peter says (emphasis added): "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."

The "you" in this verse limits "any" and "all", similar to the sentence - "My church had a meeting last week and everyone was there." So who is the you? Let's look at 2 Peter 3:1 - "This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, ..."

So the "you" is also the recipient of 1 Peter, which starts (1:1 - 1:5, emphasis added): "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

So what Peter is saying is that God is delaying his promises so that all of the elect will come to salvation in God's time, not man's.

If we use the inclusive "all" here, that means God, while wishing for all to come to repentance, is impotent to save all, as not all will be saved. So either Peter is referring to an exclusive group, or saying God cannot do what he wishes.

Christ said, "This is my body". In neither case do I see any reason to categorize either statement as anything other than a clear, direct, simple, statement of fact. When Christ says, "you are my sheep", it's a figure of speech ...

This is a bit off-topic. Agreed, the "sheep" is a figure of speech. The "This is my body" when referring to the bread denote that the bread is a symbol of Christ's body broken for us. It does not look or taste like human flesh, but symbolically reminds us of the suffering of Jesus.

Grace and Peace.