The term "Calvinism" is used by some people who do not hold Calvin's teaching on predestination and do not understand exactly what Calvin taught.
The author sets the tone for the whole piece by planting the idea that Calvinists don't know what they are talking about. That is a huge assumption that he throws out with no substantiation other than what he quotes following, which contains an error in the very first part.
T - Total Inability;
It's Total Depravity, not total inability. As can be seen rather quickly, Dr. Boettner has no problem with total depravity, as it is clear that scripture teaches that. But, if he's going to tear down Calvinism, he can't very well agree with its first point, now can he? So he slips in a little change that the non-Calvinist would not notice. It raises the question as to what else he has mis-defined...
Concerning Unconditional Election:
This teaching insists that we need not try to win men to the Lord because men cannot be saved unless God has planned for them to be saved. And if God has planned for them to be eternally lost, they will not come to Christ.
This is an opinion of the author, not what the teaching itself says. But he presents it as though that is what Calvinisits believe. Subtle deception (possibly unintentional) once again.
Concerning Irresistible Grace:
By irresistible grace, John Calvin meant that God simply forces people to be saved.
Once again, the author inserts his own opinion and passes it off as Calvin's teaching. That is his own interpretation of Calvin's teaching. The author doesn't even try to quote Calvin, or to deal with what Calvin actually said, he just takes it upon himself to tell the reader his own interpretation, from his own obviously biased viewpoint. He's saying, in effect, "trust me, I know what Calvin said, and I don't agree with it, so I'll give you some scripture that seems to speak against what I say Calvin says." He may have the best of intentions, but he is being dishonest in doing so.
Closing remarks:
I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist. I believe in salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ. I believe in the eternal security of the believer. I believe that Jesus Christ died for all men, and I believe what the Bible says, "That whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Here he attempts to protray himself as being "above the fray", and adopts the philosophical "high ground", to lend weight to what he has written. It sounds good, and it certainly would persuade the average listener that he must know what he's talking about, because he's doing so from a neutral position. Then he says:
But I disagree with all five points of Calvinism as John Calvin taught it.
A dishonest statement. What he really means is, "But I disagree with all five points of Calvinism as I have defined them."
Since he has not been entirely truthful with his definitions, his whole teaching here must be called into question. He may sincerely believe he is right, but he hasn't been completely honest with his definitions. His bias against Calvinism has colored his perceptions, so he cannot lay claim to the high moral ground that he attempts to do at the end of his teaching here.
Frumanchu had a word for it...sludge. I think it's an apt description.
Not at all.
Calvinists theologians want to represent their system as teaching 'total depravity' which is a bible doctrine held by both Arminius and Wesley.
What in fact, they are teaching is total inability which means that man must be regenerated before he can believe.
Thus, according to Calvinism, a man is not saved by faith, but believes because he is saved!
They do this since they reject the idea that an Omnipotent God can reach a spiritually dead man and give that man enough light to make a choice.
Thus, while we say that man is spiritually dead and needs God grace to understand salvation and respond to the Gospel, the Calvinists say that the spiritually dead man is incapable of doing so (and God is not able to make him capable of doing so as the Arminians and Wesleyians hold) thus, God must first regenerate the man and then give the man faith.
Thus, 'total depravity' is redefined to mean 'total inability'
Most Calvinists do not really know that is what is being taught, when the term is being used.
Concerning Unconditional Election: This teaching insists that we need not try to win men to the Lord because men cannot be saved unless God has planned for them to be saved. And if God has planned for them to be eternally lost, they will not come to Christ. This is an opinion of the author, not what the teaching itself says. But he presents it as though that is what Calvinisits believe. Subtle deception (possibly unintentional) once again.
In extreme calvinism it is a reality.
In other words, if the elect are the elect by an Omnipotent decree, they will be saved no what anyone does or doesn't do.
I do not say all Calvinists hold to this, but it has been a problem for Calvinists, as even they admit among themselves.
Concerning Irresistible Grace: By irresistible grace, John Calvin meant that God simply forces people to be saved. Once again, the author inserts his own opinion and passes it off as Calvin's teaching. That is his own interpretation of Calvin's teaching. The author doesn't even try to quote Calvin, or to deal with what Calvin actually said, he just takes it upon himself to tell the reader his own interpretation, from his own obviously biased viewpoint. He's saying, in effect, "trust me, I know what Calvin said, and I don't agree with it, so I'll give you some scripture that seems to speak against what I say Calvin says." He may have the best of intentions, but he is being dishonest in doing so.
Good point. He should have quoted Calvin.
Or at least the Synod of Dort which does state that very issue.
However, do you have a quote to show that he is wrong?
I mean here is a perfect chance to show what Calvin really taught.
Irresistable grace is an integral part of the Calvinistic TULIP system.
The very difference between Calvinism and non-Calvinism is just that, that grace can be resisted and rejected.
Closing remarks: I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist. I believe in salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ.
Amen!
I believe in the eternal security of the believer.
Amen!
I believe that Jesus Christ died for all men,
Amen!
and I believe what the Bible says, "That whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Amen!
You sound like a Baptist to me!
Here he attempts to protray himself as being "above the fray", and adopts the philosophical "high ground", to lend weight to what he has written. It sounds good, and it certainly would persuade the average listener that he must know what he's talking about, because he's doing so from a neutral position. Then he says: But I disagree with all five points of Calvinism as John Calvin taught it. A dishonest statement. What he really means is, "But I disagree with all five points of Calvinism as I have defined them."
Well, it would be very simple to find out how they are being 'redefined' but they aren't.
Since he has not been entirely truthful with his definitions, his whole teaching here must be called into question. He may sincerely believe he is right, but he hasn't been completely honest with his definitions. His bias against Calvinism has colored his perceptions, so he cannot lay claim to the high moral ground that he attempts to do at the end of his teaching here. Frumanchu had a word for it...sludge. I think it's an apt description.
I think you are being a bit harsh in that judgment.
This was an essay not a treatise.
For some works on Calvinism that supports what he wrote, see David Hunt 'What Kind of Love is This' a popular work, easy to read.
For a more 'scholarly' work, see Laurence Vance 'The Other Side of Calvinism'.
Now, if what is being said by the author of this article is inncorrect, all the Calvinists have to do is show that Calvin did not teach irresistable grace.
Show that Total Depravity isn't really inability, hence the need for regeneration preceding faith (a non-Biblical view-logical or otherwise)
thank you for the post.