Why I am a Calvinist

There are a variety of theological persuasions in the world. One might say there are too many of them. We may go through denomination after denomination and find a great variety of beliefs and doctrines concerning things about God, things about Christ, things about man and so on. Yet these ideologies are but ripples from the great stone of the Gospel which was plunged into the lake of humanity.

All theological persuasions are not perfect. It is impossible that any theological system of doctrine be perfect for if it was perfect it would be the Scriptures themselves; for only the Word of God is inerrant, or without error. Man has undertaken the task, as commanded by God (2 Tim. 2:15), to understand God’s Word in spite of his lack of ability to understand it perfectly. He strives to apprehend what he can because a good theologian knows he cannot comprehend (or understand totally) everything about the Scriptures. But that gives us no excuse not to try.

In the endeavor to ascertain right doctrine, various systems have come up throughout church history. There have been the Arians, the Socinians, the Gnostics, the Roman Catholics, the Epicureans, the Docetics, the Pelagians, the Mormons, the Arminians, the Manicheans and so on. These though, should not be considered to be a true systems of right doctrine since each of them denies a major tenant of the Christian religion. One denies the deity of Christ, where another denies the humanity. One says heaven is attained by knowledge alone, another denies that people are sinners. One says God is not sovereign, and another says man is the measure of all things. One says man is God, and another says God is not all powerful. These systems of doctrines are clearly false. They remove or exalt a particular essential attribute, or many essential attributes of Christianity, not to mention adding many things which the Scriptures never teach. So it would rightly be said that they are systems, but it would also be equally fair to say that they are wrong systems.

So what is the right system of doctrine? From study, contemplation, and meditation and upon the Word of God, from assessing church history and the movements contained therein, from hearing hundred of speakers on varying subjects, and listening to a plethora of viewpoints on every aspect of the Bible, I rest upon the system of doctrine called "Calvinism." It is unfortunate for Calvinism that it is called Calvinism. Charles Spurgeon rightly stated that "Calvinism is nothing more than a nickname for Biblical Christianity." He was right. The name is often a warrant for despisement though. People say because we follow a man named Calvin, we are not following God. Does not Paul say in 1 Cor. 1:12, "Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or I am of Christ." is Christ divided?" Paul is right. We are not to follow after men. We are to follow after God for sectarianism is a sin rebuked by the 1st chapter of 1 Corinthians. But do Calvinists really follow Calvin? No. It is actually wrong to call Calvinists "Calvinist" because they are doing nothing other than using the same body of doctrine that Calvin used, who in turn copied Augustine, who in turn copied the church fathers and they, who in turn, followed Christ and the Apostles. The early church fathers, who lived between 95 AD and 200 AD are just as much Calvinists, for understanding grace, as Augustine was a Calvinist, and as John Calvin was a Calvinist. Calvinism is nothing more than a label to show what view one holds upon the Scriptures, not upon a certain man. Someone may say, "That is not true. If you are a Calvinist, then you follow the teachings of Calvin and his interpretation of the Bible." Let us see if this is a worthy set of propositions. Because at the outset, they prove of necessity, nothing of the kind.

When I was 21, I had finished 2 years of Bible college. I went to an Arminian School, learned Arminian doctrine, and read Arminian books. I had no previous learning in religion until I attended that school, so I was indoctrinated in that theology without ever knowing whether it was true or false. In my naïveté I believed what I was taught (Surely not to question doctrine was my own mistake, but being indoctrinated in that way helped me to understand more about what I believe now. So it was the providence of God which kept me in my sin of false doctrine for a time.) Not too long after my second year, a friend of mine, who believed the doctrines of grace Calvinist began to challenge me on many of my "biblical" doctrines. I had a well rounded handle on the doctrine I possessed and propagated it thoroughly among my friends at school. But when this young man challenged me as he did, I was not able to refute him. The reason I was not able to refute his arguments had nothing to do with not understanding my own doctrine, for I did. But he came at me with something I did not expect; the Bible. He proposed a whole new system of doctrine which ran completely contrary to my own beliefs. My understanding of sin was so unbiblical that when he told me to read Romans 3:10-18, I was taken back by Paul’s poignant words. I was challenged by the very book I thought I understood. My views of man, Christ, God, salvation, sin, sovereignty, the will, and others were so warped and twisted that my young friend didn’t even need to rebuke me, for the Scriptures were doing it quite well. I had understood doctrine, it was just not the doctrine of the Bible.

So over the next summer, because of that day and that particular challenge of my friend, I devoted my time to reading through the entire Bible and endeavor to take it as it stood rather than what I wanted to read into it. My prayer was that the Lord would teach me His word by the power of the Holy Spirit so that I would know what it said rather than what I wanted it to say. After three months my views on man, Christ, God, sin, salvation and the like were radically transformed. (you would be amazed at what the Spirit of God will do with such a prayer and a simple reading of the Bible.) The point is this, my theology came out Calvinist without ever knowing what Calvinism was. I had not known what Calvin taught or that he was even a person. But my theology reflected nonetheless. The study of the Word of God transformed me. The Scriptures taught me, instead of me trying to teach it. So we see that being a Calvinist is not following after one man, but submitting under the authority of the Bible.

Why would someone want to be a Calvinist? Calvinism is not adherence to a person, but to a set of beliefs which are rightly in accord with the Bible. People who want to be right in their understanding of the doctrines of the Bible, adhere to Calvinism. Calvinism is not perfect. It is a system of doctrine worked over and over by countless men since the time of Christ. It will never be perfect because it is not inspired by God. So why should we believe Calvinism over and above other systems of doctrines? Because if we were to determine what system of doctrine hits closest to the bulls-eye of the Scriptures, Calvinism would be the first outer ring. Any system of doctrine which does serious damage to the doctrines of man, Christ, God, sin and salvation, cannot be considered worthy of our attention as Christians. And there is no system of doctrine which covers all these so Biblically as Calvinism.

What does Calvinism teach? Calvinism can be divided up into hundreds of points. There are a variety of propositions and ideas which are woven into the fabric of Calvinism. But if we were to concisely describe the simplistic form of Calvinism, we would look at the acronym T.U.L.I.P.: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints.

The first doctrine of grace is Total Depravity. Total depravity keeps us humble. It states that man is totally and completely a sinner; heart, soul, mind and body, who can do no righteous deed. The image of God is so marred and twisted by the fall of Adam that every person who is conceived is at that point at enmity with God. They are enemies of God, they hate God, and they would even kill God if he showed up in their living room. As a matter of fact, when the Lord Jesus Christ came down to earth, they killed him.

Total Depravity is proven by both the Old and New Testaments: Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-18. After one understands that he is a sinner who cannot by his own power come to faith, and that he has lost everything which would enable him to come to Christ because of the Fall and of his sin, then he comes to see Unconditional Election (Second doctrine). Man, being sinful cannot choose to follow God because he hates God. So God must remove the heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh. God chooses man. He unconditionally, not based upon anything a man can do which is good or evil, elects people to everlasting life. Its God’s job to save, and our job to praise Him for saving us. The Scriptures shows this doctrine emphatically: Malachi 1:2; Romans 8:29; Romans 9:1ff; Ephesians 1:3ff.

How does God save us? Yes, He elects us, but what is the basis for our election? It is not our work, but Christ’s work. God sends His Son to die for everyone whom He elects. The Son pays the price, and the debt is removed. When Jesus dies on the cross He secures salvation for everyone He dies for. And the work of Christ’s death and resurrection is transferred at that time to the account of all those who will be saved through Him. Jesus comes to die for God’s chosen people, His treasured possession. In this way the atonement is limited in scope but not in power (Third Doctrine). The Scriptures teach us this doctrine as well; Isaiah 53:1ff; Matthew 1:21; John 10:1ff; Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:25.

The fourth doctrine of grace, or Calvinistic doctrine, is Irresistible Grace. If Jesus dies for the elect, and God unconditionally elects all those depraved people whom He calls His own, the regenerating power of the Spirit of God will not fail. Regeneration is where the Spirit changes the old heart of stone to a beating heart of flesh. And He does this prior to our faith. We believe on Christ after our sinful depraved souls are given the new capability to believe through the renewing power of God’s Spirit. His grace is then called irresistible, not because we believe against our will kicking and screaming, but our hearts are inclined to believe, so we love to believe and we go to Christ willingly. The Scriptures show us this in Psalms 51:10; 110:3; Jer. 31:33ff; John 3:2ff; Romans 2:29; Ephesians 2:8-10; Philippians 1:29; and 2:13.

The last main point of God’s grace seen so vividly in the doctrines of Calvinism is Perseverance of the Saints. All who are redeemed from their depraved states, all whom Christ came to ransom from death and pay the price to redeem from God’s wrath, all whom the Spirit irresistible touches with His grace, and all those who are unconditionally elected to eternal life will persevere to the end. They will sin, yes. But they will never fall away from grace. This does not give us a license to sin, for those who are truly changed are changed and have a new desire and new nature which releases them from the that the old depraved nature had on them. These saints persevere because God continually upholds them through the grace of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. They are God’s temples, His residing place. God dwells in the spirit of a man’s renewed heart. This, in and of itself, is an amazing thing!! And does the Scripture show us this doctrine? More than we could imagine: Phil. 1:6; Romans 8:30; John 10:28-29; John 17:2, 6, 9, 24; 1 Thess. 5:23.

What doctrines am I rejecting as a Calvinist? I am rejecting everything that "changes the truth of God for a lie, and denies Jesus Christ as our only Sovereign and Lord (Jude 4)." I am rejecting anything which would rise up and call itself a Gospel which is no gospel at all. I reject anything which exalts man to a place and position where he ought not to be, and decreases the grace of Christ. I reject anything which makes God a cosmic bell-hop tending to the commands and demands of sinful men as another gospel.

I reject anything which removes God’s sovereignty to place man as the Sovereign as another gospel. I reject anything which denies the sovereign decrees of God and His electing grace to put salvation into the hands of sinful men as another gospel. I reject anything which denies man’s total depravity and exalts his fictitious free will as another gospel. I reject anything which places the perseverance of man to glory in the incapable hands of a sinful man as another gospel.

I reject anything which endeavors to treat God as the great Grandfather in the sky beckoning and pleading with man to be saved as changing the true God into a pitiable wimp. This is another Gospel. I reject anything which denies the atonement of Christ for what it is; a substitutionary atonement on behalf of the elect. If we deny this, we deny the Gospel. I reject anything which makes the cross less than definite salvation for the elect, as another Gospel. I reject anything which is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it is preached by Christ in His Word. It is to these Calvinistic doctrines and teachings which all Biblical Christians hold. It is these Calvinistic doctrines of grace which wild horses could in no way drag from me. Especially the wonderful doctrine of Christ’s atonement for His people. And what does Paul say about those who preach, teach, and believe another Gospel? Galatians 1:8 is emphatic, "If we, or an angel from heaven, preach to you any other Gospel than what we have preached, let him be anathema, (or accursed.)" They are not slapped on the wrist and sent to their heavenly rooms. They are cast into the deepest, darkest, hottest section of hell for perverting the truth of God’s Word. We see that the Gospel is something to contend about, and is something we need to be right about.

When I was 21, I had a form of godliness but I denied its power. I had a system of doctrine which denied Jesus as the only Sovereign and Lord. Yet, God in His mercy forgave that heinous sin of wrong belief. He allowed the scales to fall from my eyes. He allowed me, if you will, to be "born again, again." My mind has been renewed and my life transformed by these doctrines of grace. It is absolutely true what Spurgeon said, that Calvinism is nothing other than a nickname for Biblical Christianity. And until a person understands these doctrines, his walk with God will be a superficial walk. The doctrines of God’s grace, which are the doctrines of Calvinism, plunge us deep within the fountain of God’s mercy and power. Without understanding God’s election of depraved people, how can anyone understand what grace is really about?—they can’t.

Why am I a Calvinist? Because God will not allow me to be anything else. He has opened my eyes to depth beyond my wildest aspirations. He continues to humble me, the rebellious sinner, before His awesome majesty and power. May it be that all of God’s people would be humbled by His grace.

I am descended from the Jews.

What - you're not a Kerry man?!!:)

What would have happened to your ancestors in Egypt if instead of sacrificing and eating the Paschal lamb, as God had told them to, they simply ate lamb-shaped waifers as a symbol or "mere memorial" of a lamb? Would they not have woken up the next day to find all the First Born slaughtered? The priests of Israel would have been wiped out like the priests of Egypt.

As this lamb was only a type and foreshadowing of the True Lamb of God, His only-begotten First Born, then how much more in the New Covenant should you be renewing your covenant with God by attending the sacrifice and eating the Lamb?

The rabbi's who wrote the targums new that in the age to come only the toda sacrifice would remain - you need this - its all in your family history - if you've already accepted the baptismal fulfilment of crossing the Red Sea, you also need to accept the Eucharistic fulfilment of the Passover lamb.

If you look to your own roots you will find that no covenant is sealed or renewed without oath (sacramentum/shebah) or sacrifice. The Jewish prophets were anticipating the time when it would be here:

Mal 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts."

The Old Covenant sacrifices are not just worthless they are taken up and fulfilled in the New Covenant sacrifice of Christ that is the heart of the Mass:

Heb 10:25 "Not forsaking our assembly (ecclesia), as some are accustomed; but comforting one another, and so much the more as you see the day approaching.
26 For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no SACRIFICE for sins,"

The Catholic Church was founded by and on Jews who understood both the difference and the continuity of the seven covenants and the role of sacrifice in our relationship with God:

Heb 13:9 "Be not led away with various and strange doctrines. For it is best that the heart be established with grace, not with meats; which have not profited those that walk in them.
10 We have an ALTAR, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle."

It was for the Jews that Christ came first - your rightful place as God's first born is at the top of the table at the Wedding Banquet of the Lamb - you won't find it even understood never mind going on in any protestant church.

In reply to #159, you wrote: "IT'S NOT THAT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE! But I guess it might be a greater challenge for catholics since they were forbidden to read the Bible until 1952, when the church of Rome decided the unwashed hordes could actually follow the text on their own."

We will need to further clarify *whose bible* they are permitted to read. Is it the one inspired by the Holy Father in heaven or the *other* holy father whose seat is in Italy? Here is clarification:

"It is an oft-repeated charge against the Roman Catholic Church that she added to the Bible the seven deuterocanonical books of the apocrypha at the Council of Trent in the 16th century. To Protestants, this has always been held forth as a clear violation of Revelation 22:18, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book."

A Roman apologetics ministry, Catholic Answers, founded by Karl Keating, has answered this criticism in the form of a tract which begins by asking the question: "Is it true that at Trent the Church added the seven deuterocanonical books (Judith, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, and Ecclesiasticus) to the Bible?"

The tract responds in the negative, which is not surprising, but the explanation is: "The Council of Trent (1545-1564) infallibly reiterated what the Church had long taught regarding the canons of the Old and New Testaments.

Pope Damasus promulgated the Catholic canons at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382, and later, at the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), the Church again defined the same list of books as inspired.

The canons of the Old and New Testaments, as defined by Pope Damasus and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, were later ratified (though the books were not enumerated individually) by the later Ecumenical councils of II Nicaea (787) and Florence (1438-1445)."

To this explanation, Catholic Answers adds the further charge that it was the Protestant Reformers, and not the Roman Church, who committed the gross violation of Revelation 22, and that not of verse 18, but of 19, which commands that we not remove anything from the Scriptures.

From the Catholic Answers tract: "Although the Council of Trent, in response to the Protestant violation of the Bible by deleting the seven Deuterocanonical books plus portions of Daniel and Esther, was the first infallible conciliar listing of each individual book, it certainly did not add those books to the canon."

According to Catholic Answers and its staff, the Council of Trent was indeed the first Ecumenical Council to list infallibly the whole canon of the Bible. This means that the first time Rome ever compiled an infallible listing of the Scriptures which included the Apocrypha was a full 1500 years after the crucifixion.

Their argument for canonicity of the Apocrypha makes little of the fact that the many ante-Tridentine councils which looked favorably on the Deuterocanon were merely regional (not ecumenical) councils and did not in fact represent the mind of the whole Church.

On this issue Keating writes, "the Reformers dropped from the Bible books that had been in common use for centuries."(Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, pg. 46, emphasis added.)

While "common use" is not the equivalent of "infallible conciliar decree of canonicity," Keating acts as if it were; he even goes so far as to say that "the Church"--albeit without an infallible decree--"had long taught" that the deuterocanon was Scripture.

Let us grant to Keating his liberal use of terms and see if it accomplishes for him what he hopes it will. Passing off "common use" as "canonicity," and asserting that the conclusions of the early regional councils were "what the Church had long taught" is an easy way to sidestep the charge of adding to the Scriptures, but as we shall see, it gets Keating in trouble when applied generally as it is here in the particular.

Karl Keating's book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on 'Romanism' by 'Bible Christians' begins immediately with an attempt to dismantle the scholarship of Dr. Loraine Boettner, author of the exposé of Roman doctrine and practice, Roman Catholicism.

Boettner's book is called by Keating, "the Anti-Catholic Sourcebook," and "the Bible of Anti-Catholics." One of Keating's charges against Boettner, remarkably, is that he attributes to the whole Catholic Church what was promulgated by a merely regional council. In Roman Catholicism, Boettner charged that in 1229, the "Bible [was] forbidden to laymen, [and] placed on the Index of Forbidden Books." (see "Catholic Corner," this issue)

And though Boettner erred in the name of the council which took place in that year, he was absolutely correct as to the date and the object of prohibition.

Keating, though critical of Boettner here, instead of disproving Boettner's allegations, actually concedes that in fact the Council of Toulouse (and not Valencia, as Boettner asserted) in 1229 forbade laymen to have access to the Bible, and then begins to defend that prohibition. Says Keating, "But the Albigensians were twisting the Bible to support an immoral moral system. So the bishops at Toulouse restricted the use of the Bible until the heresy was ended. ...Their action was a local one, and when the Albigensian problem disappeared, so did the force of their order, which never affected more than southern France. This is hardly the across-the-board prohibition of the Bible that Boettner ...would like to see but that never existed."(Keating, pp. 45-6, emphasis added).

We note how quickly Keating retreats for cover by pointing out the limited authority held by the Council at Toulouse. Though a Catholic council prohibited the Bible to laymen, Keating asserts, it was a regional council, and not an ecumenical one, so the action of the council cannot be attributed to the whole Church.

Before we discuss Keating's selective application of decrees from regional councils, let us consider the degree to which the Bible actually was prohibited in Europe by Catholic councils which were not ecumenical:

A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church, by Landon, informs us on the Synod of Toulouse: "Canon 14: Forbids the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and New Testament (except the Psalter, and such portions of them as are contained in the Breviary, or the Hours of the Blessed Virgin), most strictly forbids these works in the vulgar tongue." (A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church, (Rev. Edward Landon. M.A., 1909, Edinburgh, v2, pp. 171-2))

The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this and adds two more synods: "During the Middle Ages prohibitions of books were far more numerous than in ancient times. ...In this period, also, the first decrees about the reading of the translations of the Bible were called forth by the abuses of the Waldenses and Albigenses. What these decrees (e.g. of the synods of Toulouse in 1229, Tarragona in 1234, Oxford in 1408) aimed at was the restriction of Bible reading in the vernacular. A general prohibition was never in existence."(The Catholic Encyclopedia, (v3, pg. 520))

A History of the Inquistion of the Middle Ages states, "Allusion has already been made to the burning of Romance versions of the Scriptures by Jayme I of Aragon and to the commands of the Council of Narbonne, in 1229, against the possession of any portion of Holy Writ by laymen." (Henry Lea, (v1, pg. 554))

Since Boettner only addressed the decree of one council in Roman Catholicism, Keating only deals with that one, but we can easily guess his position on these other councils. Had Boettner dealt with these other conciliar prohibitions, no doubt Keating's response would be similar to that described above.

Following Keating's logic regarding Toulouse, we extrapolate his position thusly: "But the people of (Spain/England/France) were twisting the Bible to support an error. So the bishops at (Tarragona/Oxford/Narbonne) restricted the use of the Bible until the heresy was ended. ...Their action was a local one, and when the heresy disappeared, so did the force of their order, which never affected more than (Spain/England/France). This is hardly the across-the-board prohibition of the Bible that Boettner ...would like to see but that never existed."

We agree with the Catholic Encyclopedia when it states that "a general prohibition [against the Scriptures] was never in existence." However, we also note that a general proclamation of the canonicity of the Apocrypha was never in existence either, at least until the mid-16th century.

This brings us back to Catholic Answers' surprising defense of the Apocrypha. We note with interest that Catholic Answers marshalls the meager support of regional councils (Rome, Hippo & Carthage) in order to prove the Catholic Church's historical support of the Apocrypha, but when Boettner cites regional councils to demonstrate that Rome officially withheld Scriptures from the people, Keating lambasts him for such naïvté and poor scholarship! We say that Rome cannot have it both ways.

We also say with David that the only cure to spiritual ignorance is the Word itself: "The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD [are] right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD [is] pure, enlightening the eyes." (Psalms 19:7-8) What a shame that Keating openly defends the prohibition of Scripture and the restricted "use of the Bible until the heresy was ended," when the Scriptures clearly teach that the food for the simple is the Word of God that by reading it, they may become wise.

We say, as Keating ought to concede as well, "The Councils of (Rome/Hippo/Carthage) supported the canonicity of the Apocrypha, but their action was a local one which never affected more than (Italy/Northern Africa). This is hardly the across-the-board recognition of Apocryphal canonicity that Keating would like to see but that never existed."

Source: Conciliar Conundrum by Timothy F. Kauffman
http://www.cwrc-rz.org/newsletters/3q96kaufti.htm

Another FACT:

In A.D. 367 the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius contained an exact list of the twenty-seven New Testament books we have today.

This was the list of books accepted by the churches in the eastern part of the Mediterranean world. Thirty years later, in A.D. 397, the Council of Carthage, representing the churches in the western part of the Mediterranean world, agreed with the eastern churches on the same list. These are the earliest final lists of our canon of Scripture.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.