The Theology of John Calvin

http://www.markers.com/ink/bbwcalvin2.htm ^ | Benjamin B. Warfield (1851-1921)

[so_real]

Thanks :-)

[jude24]

Well, now, are going to do a dispensational defense of Calvinism?

Just because I don't uncritically follow Scofield doesn't mean that I think that there are no dispensations. The amils do too. I've seen Hendriksen use the term "dispensation" to refer to the paradigm shift between the old and new testaments.

An Old Testament saint was already saved, Corinilus got saved by going to Peter and hearing and believing the Gospel. What the passage states is that one could be 'devout' and 'pray' and be unsaved!

I'll concede here.

Does it describe the 'rich young ruler' who Jesus loved?

Yes, he worshipped his wealth rather than the Creator.

Even Calvinists admit that there are unbelievers who are moral men.

Total depravity does not mean that man does not behave morally at times. It means that all men are as bad off as they can be, but not necessarily as bad as they can be. That men will reject God everytime, left to their own devices.

Considering the history of mankind -- one of rape, murder, and torture -- total depravity seems a cinch to prove to me; the opposite position is untenable in light of those simple facts.

So God puts man into Total Depravity,(Willing that Adam would fall and the consquences of the Fall) so that man cannot respond to the God's calling, but it is man who is responsible for not responding!

That's pretty close, but its not at all funny.

Considering that total depravity is completely scriptural, I cannot comprehend how you can reject it. My only guess is that you enter into the equation assuming that mankind is not inherently evil. I know otherwise, including by experience.

[so_real]

I'm not sure I follow you. It's sounds like you are saying that God is able and willing to blot the name of an Old Covenant saint out of the Book, but that He is not able or is unwilling to blot the name of a New Covenant saint out of the Book. Have I misunderstood?

The Old Testament saint could have his name blotted out of the book of life, since he was not in union with Christ.

The first thing that popped into my mind was the Passover in Exodus chapter 12. The children of Israel are commanded to mark their door posts with the blood of a perfect lamb, male and first born, and to consume its flesh in order that they be spared from the wrath of God visited upon Egypt.

While true, that the Christ had not yet visited the Earth in flesh, I would still say He was very much in union with these children of Israel. The lamb slaughtered was akin to the Christ and His flesh and blood saved them, just as it does a New Covenant saint today.

[Gamecock]

Did I type all that? Sorry everyone

No, don't be! I disagree with it, but it is very well done.

First, I agree with this statement: but using the selection process of the Twelve Apostles to validate an entire theology of the "elect" is bewildering.

Now, why do I disagree? In the Reformed Faith, we don't take one piece of scripture and build doctrine around said passage. Rather, we use scripture to interpret scripture. What does that mean? Well, I look at this passage and ask what does the rest of the Bible teach?

So, let's see: God choose Abraham, and Israel. God choose Jonah and Paul. And if you look at the following scriptures, God choose his elect:

Romans 9:15 "For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." (God will do whatever he wants)

1 Thessalonians 5:9 "For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Who is "us?" In the context of the passage, the elect.)

Romans 9:17 "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." (Sounds like Pharoah didn't have a choice. Other passages in Exodus clearly state God hardened Pharoah's heart. Now, why would he harden a heart if free will exists. This flies in the face of free will)

Isaiah 55:11 "so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it" (What God decrees will happen. None of this God wants you to do something and I might do it.)

There are several more, but I think if you read through it all, it is clear, God has choosen some to himself.

But most reply, "God is a loving God! I don't believe He would do that!" Paul anticipated that very question:

Romans 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory-- 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? (God made us (the pottery) and can do with us what he wants. A lot of folks say God knew the decision we would make, and we were made elect because of that. This passage clearly states the opposite. We cannot resist His will! We have no objection. And don't forget, the unsaved don't care! They are getting exactly what they want.)

And who are we to question Gods purpose? Does not the great prophet say "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:9 (We will not understand why he does what he does. Scripture is clear, he chooses some!)

[Seven_0]

(We will not understand why he does what he does. Scripture is clear, ...)"

? Are you sure?

[fortheDeclaration]

sure I follow you. It's sounds like you are saying that God is able and willing to blot the name of an Old Covenant saint out of the Book, but that He is not able or is unwilling to blot the name of a New Covenant saint out of the Book. Have I misunderstood?

No, that is correct.

The Old testament saint was not part of the Church, which is the Body of Christ.

The believer in the New Conveant is put into Christ and thus, cannot be lost.

That is why in Rom.8:38-39 we see that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ.

And in Eph.4:30 we are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of Redemption.

Old Testament saints did not have this type of security.

The Old Testament saint could have his name blotted out of the book of life, since he was not in union with Christ. The first thing that popped into my mind was the Passover in Exodus chapter 12. The children of Israel are commanded to mark their door posts with the blood of a perfect lamb, male and first born, and to consume its flesh in order that they be spared from the wrath of God visited upon Egypt.

True, and those same people did not enter Cannan because of their lack of faith and whom God was going to blot out of the Book of life.

While true, that the Christ had not yet visited the Earth in flesh, I would still say He was very much in union with these children of Israel. The lamb slaughtered was akin to the Christ and His flesh and blood saved them, just as it does a New Covenant saint today.

No, the blood represented redemption from sin, not Union with Christ.

Only a New Testament saint is said to be a temple of the Holy Spirit (1Cor.6:19), a new creature in Christ (2Cor.5:17), Christs body (Eph.1:22-23) and His Bride (Eph.5:30).

[fortheDeclaration]

Well, now, are going to do a dispensational defense of Calvinism? Just because I don't uncritically follow Scofield doesn't mean that I think that there are no dispensations. The amils do too. I've seen Hendriksen use the term "dispensation" to refer to the paradigm shift between the old and new testaments.

The issue in Dispensations (and there are Calvinist Dispensationalists such as Chafer, and Ryrie but they are generally rejected by hard-line Calvinists such as Gerstner) is that there is a difference between Israel and the Church.

That the Church age believer is different then a Old Testament believer.

Yet, that view will not hold up in the case of Cornilus since it says he came to Peter to get saved, not receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which would have put him in Union with Christ (as a saved gentile)

An Old Testament saint was already saved, Corinilus got saved by going to Peter and hearing and believing the Gospel. What the passage states is that one could be 'devout' and 'pray' and be unsaved! I'll concede here. Does it describe the 'rich young ruler' who Jesus loved? Yes, he worshipped his wealth rather than the Creator.

That was his sin, but not of 'rushing to shed blood', not 'a mouth full of cursing'

Now, I will grant that when one breaks one commandment, one breaks them all, but Paul is not pointing out the issue of sin pe se, his point is that Jews and Gentiles are both under condemnation even though the Jews think their race is going to save them (like having the Temple in Jerusalem was going to save it)

Even Calvinists admit that there are unbelievers who are moral men. Total depravity does not mean that man does not behave morally at times. It means that all men are as bad off as they can be, but not necessarily as bad as they can be.

And those verses in Romans are depicting man as bad as he can be, hence the hyperbolic nature of them.

That men will reject God everytime, left to their own devices.

Ah, if left to their own devices

Exactly!

God never leaves man to 'his own devices' but has made Himself clear to man through nature so that man may respond to God's drawing (Psa.19, Rom.1)

Considering the history of mankind -- one of rape, murder, and torture -- total depravity seems a cinch to prove to me; the opposite position is untenable in light of those simple facts.

Not at all.

What it states is that man has to reject God's drawing of them via nature and finally the Cross, but not all men do, some respond (such as Cornilus) and thus are saved.

Now, the Calvinist will admit that man rejects God, but ofcourse, that same man could never respond to God since he was not part of the 'chosen' of Unconditional election.

So, because he is born in sin and in Total depravity he hates God, rejects God, and is condemned by God, yet, never had a chance to accept God since God did not give him the irresistable grace that those who are saved get.

That same condemned individual is held responsible for his rejection (doing what he wanted) even though it was God who willed Lucifer's fall, Adams fall and that man's eternal damnation by not choosing him!

It is about this time someone quotes (out of context) Rom.9:20!

So God puts man into Total Depravity,(Willing that Adam would fall and the consquences of the Fall) so that man cannot respond to the God's calling, but it is man who is responsible for not responding! That's pretty close, but its not at all funny. Considering that total depravity is completely scriptural, I cannot comprehend how you can reject it.

Nowhere does it say that man is unable to respond to the Gospel.

Total Depravity is a result of philosophical speculation of unconditional election.

My only guess is that you enter into the equation assuming that mankind is not inherently evil. I know otherwise, including by experience.

No, I know that man is evil, but I am willing to ask how man got that way (according to Calvinism)

According to calvinism, God put Adam into sin for God's own glory (see Calvin Bk.3), thus, tracing back the source of this evil, you find God responsible for it!

Moreover, granted that all men deserve hell, why are some saved and some not?

Thus, you are left with a abitrary God, who acts contrary to what Scripture reveals Him to be, one who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.(Ezek.33:11)

Finally, we have in Rom.5:18 the damnation of the race through the first Adam, but the salvation of that same race through the Second Adam.

Thus, 'original sin' is trumped by grace and all any man has to do is accept the free gift of salvation offered to all men (Jn.3:16, Jn.12:32)

The issue, as has been stated before, is not how 'bad' man is, but how good God is!

The sad thing is all of this confusion was pushed by Calvin so one could have confidence in eternal security ('I was chosen by God, thus cannot be lost), when the issue in eternal security for the Christian is the love of Christ,(Rom.8:38-39)which is in the Bible, not unconditional election, which is not

[Gamecock]

Yes

[jude24]

That was his sin, but not of 'rushing to shed blood', not 'a mouth full of cursing'

You don't "rush to shed blood"? I doubt that.... Remember -- mere anger (without cause) is considered in the same breath as murder (Mat. 5:21)-- because anger is the mens rae of murder. If we could get away with it, there are times when we would all kill. The fact that the fear of the law restrains us does not speak in our favor.

God never leaves man to 'his own devices' but has made Himself clear to man through nature so that man may respond to God's drawing (Psa.19, Rom.1)

That is certainly not true:

11 And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables,
12 so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN."
-- Mk. 4:11-12 [NASB]

Hiding the gospel so that people may not turn and be forgiven? Revealing it only to a select few (in this case the 12)? Leaving the rest to their own devices? Sure sounds like what's happening here.

(Incidentally, this verse always confused me as a little kid, when I encountered it. Why wouldn't God want everyone to turn and be forgiven? But few little kids encounter Romans 9-11.)

What [the opposite] states is that man has to reject God's drawing of them via nature and finally the Cross, but not all men do, some respond (such as Cornilus) and thus are saved.

So why are some being saved and some rejecting it? Are those saved more devout or more spiritually attuned, so that they are more receptive? Or perhaps they're smarter? Or less evil? No, those that are saved are such without any merit of their own. Or, in the words of Scripture,

For who maketh thee to differ one from another? And what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?
1 Cor. 4:6 [AV]

Contextually, this refers to the Corinthians, who were proud of their wealth and power, but the premise still holds.

Thus, you are left with a abitrary God, who acts contrary to what Scripture reveals Him to be, one who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.(Ezek.33:11)

Ezekiel refers to physical death as judgment. REgarding eternal states, Romans already makes clear that God chooses based upon His counsel alone. I doubt it's arbitrary, but it's certainly not because of any merit on the part of the elect:

So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. - Rom 9:18

So, because he is born in sin and in Total depravity he hates God, rejects God, and is condemned by God, yet, never had a chance to accept God since God did not give him the irresistable grace that those who are saved get.

19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"
20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory. - Rom 9:19-23 [NASB]

It's there in black and white; you just refuse to see it.

[so_real]

Our word Christ came from the Greek word Christos which was the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Messiah meaning "Anointed". The Old Covenant Jews used the word Messiah as a title for their expected Deliverer - the one that prophesy told them would come to redeem them.

The word "Covenant", or "Testament" if you prefer, means "binding contract". The binding contract, that is the Old Covenant, was the promise given by God that a redeemer would come for them. Every Old Covenant Jew lived in the promise that the Christ would redeem them.

Jesus became Jesus the Christ or Jesus Christ as it became known He was the annointed One of whom the Old Covenant spoke.

Perhaps our definitions of "union with Christ" differ, but I believe you would have risked a stoning to tell the Old Covenant Jews they were not in union with Christ -- that is the promise they lived for.

Do the Bible passages you mark speak of "the Christ", "Jesus the Christ", "Jesus Christ" -- or do they only refer to "Jesus"? The Christ was the known redeemer of the Jew before He was the known redeemer of the Gentile as well.

[RnMomof7]

Again, I totally agree that the selection of the twelve disciples was predestined. Jesus knew who they would be long before He began weeding (or cast'ing out) those who would not be numbered among the twelve. But I totally disagree that this historical account of the "elect" disciples' selection is solid footing for the foundation of an entire predestination theology.

So the whole thing was a crap shoot?

[so_real]

So the whole thing was a crap shoot?

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

In John chapter 6 that we just looked at in such detail, Jesus drew many disciples unto Him. At the end of the day only twelve remained. But while weeding down to the predestined twelve, He paved the way for the rest to return to Him after the resurrection. Like the Prodigal Son, many of those would choose to do so, and the Father rejoices in it.

On God's side of the table, nothing is a crap shoot. He gave His only Son to die that none should perish. He gave His Holy Spirit to whisper to the hearts of all men. He has predestined teachers for us to light the way. Everything that could be done to pave the way for our return to Him, He has done.

On our side of the table, do we accept the will of the Father and live, or do we deny Him and remain dead in our sin? It's not a crap shoot there either, only two options and nothing left to pure "chance".

From what I've read on this thread, I believe all of us have accepted the gift of Christ's salvation and will live. Some feel they have done so because they did not have a choice, it was decided for them. The Bible tells me this is true in certain circumstances where God has a specific purpose in mind. But just like supernatural miracles are not an every day occurrence, neither is predestination. For the rest of us, the Bible says we are given the opportunity to accept God and live, or deny Him and die.

There's an old saying: "If you love something, set it free. If it comes back, it was and always will be yours. If not, it was never meant to be." I don't think this has Biblical origin, but sure could have. God loves us very much.

[RnMomof7]

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

In John chapter 6 that we just looked at in such detail, Jesus drew many disciples unto Him. At the end of the day only twelve remained. But while weeding down to the predestined twelve, He paved the way for the rest to return to Him after the resurrection. Like the Prodigal Son, many of those would choose to do so, and the Father rejoices in it.

Actually the purpose of that discourse was to drive disciples away not to him. That was the intent and that was the effect. He drove those away that were not predestined . He said He KNEW who would leave

  Jhn 6:44   No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.   
  Jhn 6:45   It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

No man comes to Jesus unless the Father draws him..and EVERYONE that hears from the father comes..it says nothing about "choosing" does it?

On God's side of the table, nothing is a crap shoot. He gave His only Son to die that none should perish.

So then all men without exception are saved? Or did God make a mistake in his plans? Or did Jesus not complete the work?

He gave His Holy Spirit to whisper to the hearts of all men. He has predestined teachers for us to light the way.

He predestined teachers but not apostles??

Everything that could be done to pave the way for our return to Him, He has done.

Do you have a scripture where God says I have done my part and throws up his helpless hands and says the rest is up to you? As far as Jesus was concerned it was a crap shoot right??

On our side of the table, do we accept the will of the Father and live, or do we deny Him and remain dead in our sin? It's not a crap shoot there either, only two options and nothing left to pure "chance".

The response of man is left to chance right? Do men sit in a equal position to God at this table?

From what I've read on this thread, I believe all of us have accepted the gift of Christ's salvation and will live. Some feel they have done so because they did not have a choice, it was decided for them.

Where did anyone say that they did not have to repent and believe? Would it injure your ego to find out that you did not choose God He chose you? Does it make you less a man to hear that you loved God because He loved you first?

The Bible tells me this is true in certain circumstances where God has a specific purpose in mind.

Will you show me where it says that? Is God a respecter of persons? Are some men more important to God than others? Is the man that lead Billy Graham to Christ foreordained? What about his mother and father? What about the man that led him to Christ?

But just like supernatural miracles are not an every day occurrence, neither is predestination.

Would you cite me some scriptures on that ?

For the rest of us, the Bible says we are given the opportunity to accept God and live, or deny Him and die.

Did the man born in the bush in 1400 , what about the Muslims in Saudi?

NO MAN COMES TO ME UNLESS THE FATHER DRAW HIM

And all that are drawn by the father come and are saved!

There's an old saying: "If you love something, set it free. If it comes back, it was and always will be yours. If not, it was never meant to be." I don't think this has Biblical origin, but sure could have. God loves us very much.

You are right it is not biblical. The Bible says that Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith

[jude24]

And all that are drawn by the father come and are saved!

What about, "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." (Jn 12:32)

(Trying to integrate them together.)

[P-Marlowe]

Calvinists have changed "world" to mean "elect" in no fewer than twenty scriptures. They have changed "whosoever" and "all" into "elect" at least sixteen times each. They have changed "every man" into "elect" six times and "everyone" into "elect" three times. In John 12:32 Christ says He would draw "all men" to himself, But Calvinists claim that the word "all" in that context refers only to the elect. As if Christ could have said "some men" if he had meant "some men" or that Christ could not have said "the elect" if he meant "the elect." Christ said "all men." Instead of dodging it, the Calvinist should just deal with it. If it contradicts their theology, they need to adjust their theology, not the scriptures.

[RnMomof7]

    Jhn 6:44   No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.   

  Jhn 6:45   It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

I assume then you believe seeing that all men without exception are called by the father and the word says that all men that have heard come that all men without exception are saved ?

Do not blame the Calvinists for the greek words

ALL

pas {pas}

TDNT - 5:886,795 including all the forms of declension

Part of Speech adj Outline of Biblical Usage

1) individually

a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

2) collectively

a) some of all types

++++ ... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts -- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ... C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on Particular Redemption

Marlowe all does not always mean all.

If you said to your wife " all the men were at the meeting" She would understand that all was not all without exception, it was all the men that were expected to be there.

In the case of scripture the term all was understood by the Jews that heard it. it meant that all types of men ,not only the Jews that thought they had an exclusive relationship with God..but the gentile nations would be included in salvation.

The alls and whosoevers were a strong message to the Jews

I do not understand the need for men to have control over God..

[P-Marlowe]

Does none always mean none? Does No Man always mean no Man? Or can none mean some and no man mean some men?

If all can mean some, then none can mean some. If all men can mean some men or perhaps a lot of men, then no men can mean some men or perhaps only a few.

Lets be consistent. Or are you afraid that consistency just does not fit into your little Calvinist construct?

[so_real]

In your reply, you asked me 20 questions! I'm just not able to think or study in that many directions all at once and my hands still ache from John chapter 6 post :-) The answers for many of the questions you've asked are in previous posts if you don't mind re-reading them. For the rest, let's go point by point, please.

I do not, however, want to leave you with the impression that I believe all people are saved without exception. You should include the meaning of the word "should" where it appears in Bible verse. That does not mean you can't dismiss it, only that you should not dismiss it. It is certainly my desire that you gain meaning from Bible verse by including it. But you have the freedom to ignore it if you choose. Case in point:

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

It is not God's desire that any should perish. But we know many indeed will perish because man with his freedom to choose often chooses sin and death.

If God had wanted to say that no one would perish, the verse would have read something like: "... but is longsuffering to us-ward, so that no one will perish, for all will come to repentence."

You can not dismiss the word "should" without altering the meaning dramatically.

And as far as the bushmen go ...

Luke 12:47-48 "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

[so_real]

Really! Thanks for the heads up. Now at least I can understand why it is difficult to follow some of the thought progression. It is hard to have a meaningful discussion when the definitions of words cannot be agreed upon. I can't help but to think back with a smile to the fiasco surrounding Clinton's definition of the word "is". Word play is tedious.

[so_real]

I'll be out of town for a couple days but will check this thread again upon my return.