Posted on 02/28/2010 8:30:39 AM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
John Calvin's 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism's buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism's latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination's logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time's dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.
Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation's other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don't have to second-guess. Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by "glorifying" him. In the 1700s, Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards invested Calvinism with a rapturous near mysticism. Yet it was soon overtaken in the U.S. by movements like Methodism that were more impressed with human will. Calvinist-descended liberal bodies like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) discovered other emphases, while Evangelicalism's loss of appetite for rigid doctrine — and the triumph of that friendly, fuzzy Jesus — seemed to relegate hard-core Reformed preaching (Reformed operates as a loose synonym for Calvinist) to a few crotchety Southern churches.
No more. Neo-Calvinist ministers and authors don't operate quite on a Rick Warren scale. But, notes Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today, "everyone knows where the energy and the passion are in the Evangelical world" — with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle's pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom's hottest links.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Ransomed is I believe how the Bible puts it. We don't wiggle our way out of the chains by believing we could. Jesus didn't pay a ransom to give us an opportunity to run away on our own accord. He paid the price, unshackled the chains, and delivered us to freedom.
"In response to his sisters' faith? Oh, my. Read the verses again. Christ waited four days because He said it was better that Lazarus die so that they would have a true faith in God's regenerative work alone.
And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him." -- John 11:14-15"Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
Christ rose Lazarus from the dead to illustrate that God alone regenerates the dead heart back to life in Him.
And the parable of the Prodigal son is not a lesson about salvation; it is a lesson on the nature and extent of the Father's love for His sons and daughters. We may give up on God, but if we are His children, He will never give up on us.
AMEN!
Jesus waited for lazarus to die before He headed back ... This was a turing moment ordained by God..for it was this miracle that made the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin and plan to kill Christ and Lazarus as they were afraid they would lose their plush government jobs if Christ continued gathering followers .
This miracle was done so that the apostles might believe, AND it was a part of the plan of salvation
OK, I could have written that sentence better.
"And speaking of Rome, if it weren't for these Reformers who all believed in sovereign grace you we would all still be kissing the Pope's ring and bowing to statues of Mary."
A fair re-write. I owe them a great debt, even while I disagree with some of their theology.
I disagree with various reformers on their views of Mary, infant baptism, and others - but their courage and commitment to scripture is to be admired. At least, I do.
I still read Calvin’s commentaries, even while disagreeing at times.
I have no problem appreciating those fathers who first systematized Scripture even if I disagree with them at points.
We are all creatures of our time and influenced by the philosophy of our times. The early theologians were influenced by the philosophy of their time. Those areas in which they were unduly influenced by the philosophy of their time needs to be purged as authentic interpretation.
The medieval theologians tended to speculate even further from Scripture into speculative philosophy. This is what the Reformers sought to correct.
The historical/grammatical method was the corrective for the speculative philosophy placed over and above Scripture. For the modern man I think too often the historical aspect is neglected. Unless we understand Scripture as it was meant to be understood by the listening audience we are too prone to interject our own situadedness upon Scripture. Our contemporary situation is different than those audiences and we need to keep that in mind when reading Scripture.
And yes, we should always be looking for correctives of our own favorite theologians. The Reformers knew this and that is why one of the most famous cries of the Reformation was, Semper Reformada! The Church always reforming to the word of God. But as we are always reforming we should also bear in mind the contributions and structures that our early fathers contributed.
I have always felt that Calvinists get caught in a mind knot on this particular point. Predetermination is circular reasoning, just like the circular reasoning in some Catholic pronouncements. The concept of free will gives us life and joy and a true involvement with our God.
It's only because we have absorbed the easier parts of his theory and now think we have always understood them that we can look at the less accessible parts and decide he was a fruitcake.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear sister in Christ, and thank you for those beautiful Scriptures!
That is what the Bible says.
You give three evidences of that statement. Let us look at them in order.
Job is tortured by satan with God's permission. Or was he? Let us turn to:
Job 1: 8 And the LORD said to Satan, "Have you noticed my servant Job, and that there is no one on earth like him, blameless and upright, fearing God and avoiding evil?" 9 But Satan answered the LORD and said, "Is it for nothing that Job is God-fearing? 10 Have you not surrounded him and his family and all that he has with your protection? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his livestock are spread over the land. 11 But now put forth your hand and touch anything that he has, and surely he will blaspheme you to your face." 12 And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand upon his person." So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
God does not specifically instruct satan. He only removes Job's special protection that obviously satan has tested previously - otherwise how would satan know? God is teaching satan a lesson here, not vice versa. The same as God may teach us lessons. Remember that satan was Lucifer - the brightest angel and the most beautiful of God's creations who rebelled. Rebelled, not predestined to rebel.
Job 42: 2 And it came to pass after the LORD had spoken these words to Job, that the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "I am angry with you and with your two friends; for you have not spoken rightly concerning me, as has my servant Job. 8 3 Now, therefore, take seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up a holocaust for yourselves; and let my servant Job pray for you; for his prayer I will accept, not to punish you severely. For you have not spoken rightly concerning me, as has my servant Job." 9 Then Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, went and did as the LORD had commanded them. And the LORD accepted the intercession of Job.
If anything, the story of Job teaches that it is up to the individual. This is more evidence for free will in this story than there is for predestination in all of the Institutes.
Matthew 4: 1 1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2 He fasted for forty days and forty nights, 2 and afterwards he was hungry. 3 The tempter approached and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become loaves of bread." 4 3 He said in reply, "It is written: 'One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.'" 5 4 Then the devil took him to the holy city, and made him stand on the parapet of the temple, 6 and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written: 'He will command his angels concerning you and 'with their hands they will support you, lest you dash your foot against a stone.'" 7 Jesus answered him, "Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.'" 8 Then the devil took him up to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence, 9 and he said to him, "All these I shall give to you, if you will prostrate yourself and worship me." 5 10 At this, Jesus said to him, "Get away, Satan! It is written: 'The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve.'" 11 Then the devil left him and, behold, angels came and ministered to him.
There is no predestination here, either explicit or implicit. After 40 days of fasting, you might be tempted as well.
1 Peter 5: 5 4 Likewise, you younger members, 5 be subject to the presbyters. And all of you, clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another, for: "God opposes the proud but bestows favor on the humble." 6 So humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time. 7 Cast all your worries upon him because he cares for you. 8 Be sober and vigilant. Your opponent the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion looking for (someone) to devour. 9 Resist him, steadfast in faith, knowing that your fellow believers throughout the world undergo the same sufferings. 10 The God of all grace who called you to his eternal glory through Christ (Jesus) will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you after you have suffered a little. 11 To him be dominion forever. Amen.
Amen. This passage is not about permissions of satan. It is about the lion of satan trying to find Christian prey that is weak and easily turned away from the faith. Is God God of all His creation or only God over some of His creation? Are we dualists believing that Satan is an equal warrior to God ?
Christians believe that God is God of all Creation. Christians also do not believe that satan is equal to God. We believe that satan rebelled and took 1/3 of all the angels with him.
How then can you be sure that in the end Satan will not win?
Because Jesus tells us of our salvation.
Sorry, but that comment is just over the top dumb.
I don't mean to be rude, but that is not Scripture. That is the very best caring from Hallmark.
Remember the door that Jesus stands at has no doorknob or handle on the outside. All he can do is knock.
Oh, my. Could you provide some Scripture for the fact about the "no doorknob or handle" part? It's not in my KJV.
And if "all he (Jesus) can do is knock," then Paul would have continued to hunt down Christians on the road to Damascus instead of getting knocked on his keister and blinded by the Lord. Paul is emblematic of all of us. All men are fallen and none of us wants God, until God drags us to Him. As Paul learned, "Even when we were dead in sins, (God) hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) - Eph. 2:5
There was a time awhile ago when I would have found your post sufficient. Not so much any more.
The concept of free will gives us life and joy and a true involvement with our God.
If the Triune God of Scripture who created all existence is real, then free will is an illusion. There really is a better understanding.
"Furthermore, I have the comfortable certainty that I please God, not by reason of the merit of my works, but by reason of His merciful favour promised to me; so that, if I work too little, or badly, He does not impute it to me, but with fatherly compassion pardons me and makes me better. This is the glorying of all the saints in their God." -- Martin Luther, "Bondage of the Will" -- (xviii) Of the comfort of knowing that salvation does not depend on free-will' (783) "I frankly confess that, for myself, even if it could be, I should not want 'free-will' to be given me, nor anything to be left in my own hands to enable me to endeavour after salvation; not merely because in face of so many dangers, and adversities, and assaults of devils, I could not stand my ground and hold fast my 'free-will' (for one devil is stronger than all men, and on these terms no man could be saved) ; but because, even were there no dangers, adversities, or devils, I should still be forced to labour with no guarantee of success, and to beat my fists at the air. If I lived and worked to all eternity, my conscience would never reach comfortable certainty as to how much it must do to satisfy God, Whatever work I had done, there would still be a nagging doubt' as to whether it pleased God, or whether He required something more. The experience of all who seek righteousness by works proves that; and I learned it well enough myself over a period of many years, to my own great hurt. But now that God has taken my salvation out of the control of my own will, and put it under the control of His, and promised to save me, not according to my working or running, but according to His own grace and mercy, I have the comfort¬able certainty that He is faithful and will not lie to me, and that He is also great and powerful, so that no devils or opposition can break Him or pluck me from Him. `No one,´ He says, `shall pluck them out of my hand, because my Father which gave them me is greater than all´ (John 10.28-29). Thus it is that, if not all, yet some, indeed many, are saved; whereas, by the power of ´free-will´ none at all could be saved, but every one of us would perish.
If you have the time and inclination, read Arthur W. Pink's tremendous work, "The Sovereignty of God." It is humbling and joyous. And free online. (Isn't the internet great?)
This is the faith of Jesus, of Paul, of John, of Calvin, of Luther, of Spurgeon, of Van Til, of Warfield, of Piper...
And it is offered to show just how far the modern church has strayed.
The problem is this FRIEND
A vast portion of the Body of Christ has never UNDERSTOOD
Freewill. The heart and soul of scripture.
And neither did Calvin.
And don’t evem mention Freud....he was a nutcase himself.
That’s why I coupled those two reprobates together.
Masters in Counseling Psychology here.
To understand HOW sentient beings can have free will and ALSO be directed by a totally sovereign God we must look more deeply into their writings to understand how they explain this seeming disconnect.
"...we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, because through man's innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined. John Calvin from Bondage and Liberation of the Will, pg. 69-70
I do believe that the traditional "free will" side has exactly the same problem with evil. Since they admit that God is all-knowing, then God created knowing that evil would be part of what transpired. At that pre-creation state, there was no evil. God created and one result was evil. In sum, God did not have to create, but He did anyway, even though it included evil. Therefore, even the Arminian must admit that God's purposes are holy and that it is the result of independent choices that evil came about. That puts God one step away from evil for both Arminian and Calvinist, because both believe in independent choice, although the Calvinist believes that in fallen creation the choices of an evil heart will always be evil.
But, does getting God one step away from being the Author of Evil really get God "out of the dock"? This is a crucial question for both Arminian and Calvinist.
In short, God brought His own Son to Calvary and demonstrated to all the greatest Love ever known. Had there been no evil men and evil cross and evil sin, then that Love could not have been demonstrated.
God created this world to demonstrate His own great Love and, therefore, His own great glory.
Jesus is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
"Those He foreknew He predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son..."
In short, a purpose in creating, despite all the evil that was necessarily a part of it, removes God from being the perpetrator of evil.
A husband impregnates his wife knowing full well the "difficulty and even death" (evil) she might face as a result. She is certainly an object of admiration for her sacrifice. He, the father, is exultant at her faithfulness. Both are excited about the purpose: a child of their very selves.
Can the husband deny being the "perpetrator of evil" even though he brought about the conditions for it? Yes, he can.
There is a difference between creating the conditions for evil, or the emotions of evil, and being the "perpetrator of acts of evil" among those who can choose.
Excellent summery ..Thanks for the clarification
Those who believe in traditional “free will” have just the same problem as they claim that Calvinism has.
If we believe that God created blindly with absolutely no sense of what was happening, but just sort of tossing it into the air, then even that does not remove Him from the charge of being the “Author of Evil.”
Even open theists would have to deal with the same accusation.
It isn’t just at Calvinists that it can be aimed.
The preaching message an old minister once gave there said that at the beginning of time and the ages, the Father, Son, and Spirit sat down and decided who was to be saved through predestination and that we had made it. They gave no invitation at the conclusion of services.
I dislike Calvinism and its attitude. It disposes of free will and denigrates into long winded arguments that are based on a few Scriptures in Romans and Ephesians.
If you believe it, I bless you, but I cannot.
What do you believe?
In short, God brought His own Son to Calvary and demonstrated to all the greatest Love ever known. Had there been no evil men and evil cross and evil sin, then that Love could not have been demonstrated.
God created this world to demonstrate His own great Love and, therefore, His own great glory.
He created this world to demonstrate His own great Love, and also His own great judgment.
" He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." -- Mark 16:16
I find that life is more coherent believing in God's predestination of all things which, as you've rightly illustrated, does not make God the author of evil. It simply recognizes that God exists, God is sovereign, God is who He says He is in Scripture, God sustains all life according to His purpose by His will, and that all men are fallen and in desperate need of a Savior.
Here's a really nice explanation of Calvin's take on election. All Scripturally-based, IMO...
God's eternal decree, by which He compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others(Inst. III, 21, 5). This definition requires some qualification because many of Calvin's opponents, including Arminius, would not have a problem with this definition. Arminius did not deny predestination, in fact, he believed in it, "I do not present as a matter of doubt the fact that God has elected some to salvation, and not elected or passed by others"(Bangs 201). The difference is he did not base it on a "divine arbitrary decree", but upon God's foreknowledge of man's merit(Bettenson 268). Calvin seemed to foresee that there would be people that would argue that God "distinguishes among men according as he foresees what the merits of each will be"(Inst. III, 22, 1). Calvin, accordingly, writes against this notion, "by thus covering election with a veil of foreknowledge, they not only obscure it but feign that it has its origin elsewhere"(Inst. III, 22, 1). Calvin contests that this view of foreknowledge makes man God's co-worker in salvation, and implies that election is ratified only by man's consent. This is to make the gravest of errors because it suggests that man's will is superior to God's plan, or at the very least, implies God's plan is partially dependent on man(Inst. III, 24, 3). In refutation of this view, Calvin asserts that "this plan was founded upon his freely given mercy, without regard to human worth"(Inst. III, 21, 7 emphasis added). Calvin wisely proceeds to draw exhaustively from Scripture to buttress his argument citing that God chose us "before the foundations of the world were laid"(Eph.1:4a), "according to the good pleasure of his will"(Eph.1:5), in order "that we should be holy and spotless and irreproachable in his sight"(Eph.1:4b). Calvin observes that Paul sets "God's good pleasure" over against any merit of ours, declaring all virtue in man to be the result of his election(Inst. III, 22, 2). Calvin continues by arguing that if God chose us to be holy, it naturally follows that he would not have chosen us because he foresaw that we would be so(Inst. III, 22, 3). The fact that God chose the elect to be holy also refutes the accusation and misrepresentation that predestination overthrows all exhortations to godly living(Inst. III, 23, 13). Calvin reminds his opponents that election has as its goal, holiness of life, "therefore, it ought to arouse us to eagerly set our mind upon it than to serve as a pretext for doing nothing"(Inst. III, 23, 12). Calvin remarks that Paul afterward confirms what he had earlier said about the origin of our election when he states: "According to the purpose of his will"(Eph.1:5), "which he had purposed in himself"(Eph.1:9). This is to say that God considered nothing outside himself with which to be concerned in making his decree(Inst. III, 22, 2). To more meticulously deal with the objection by some that God would be contrary to himself if he should universally invite all men to him but choose only a few as elect(Inst. III, 22, 10), Calvin draws heavily from the ninth chapter in Paul's letter to the Romans. Paul writes that before Jacob and Esau were born, or had done anything good or bad "in order that God's purpose of election might continue . . . the elder will serve the younger"(Rom.9:11,12). Calvin therefore argues that, "rejection does not occur on the basis of works"(Inst. III, 23, 11). He argues that Paul specifically emphasizes that point by showing that before Jacob and Esau had done anything good or evil, one was chosen, the other rejected(Rom.9:13). This is in order to prove that the foundation of divine predestination is not in works(Inst. III, 23, 11). Calvin also reminds us that the apostle Paul writes that God "has mercy upon whomever He wills, and He hardens the heart of whomever He wills"(Rom.9:18). "Has not the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for dishonour?"(Rom.9:21). God is free to determine a purpose for election, but that purpose has nothing to do with man's desire or effort. Nothing is more clear in Romans nine, "it does not therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy"(Rom.9:16). To comprehend that God chooses us not because of what he finds in us, but according to his own good pleasure, gives rise to the charge that God is arbitrary(Sproul 156). Arminius, when citing the difference between his predestination and that of Calvin, declares that he did not base predestination on a "divine arbitrary decree"(Bettenson 268). This is an erroneous evaluation of Calvin's doctrine because it suggests that God makes his selection in a whimsical or capricious manner. Calvin's argument is only that there is no reason found in us, but that is not to say that God has no reason in Himself. This is precisely what Calvin is trying to communicate when he reasons that we are saved by "God's eternal decree, by which He compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man"(Inst. III, 21, 5). It should now be apparent that while most bible-believing Christians do in fact acquiesce to some form of predestination they depart on the issue of the basis of this election. Arminians will contend that we are chosen according to foreknowledge of merit(Bettenson 268), while a Calvinist theology maintains that we are chosen "because He has willed it"(Inst. III, 23, 2). Calvin believes that if you proceed further to ask why he so willed, "you are seeking something greater and higher than God's will, which cannot be found"(Inst. III, 23, 2)... This essay earlier asserted that the doctrine of predestination is the most hated doctrine, but that is only how it is commonly understood. It is in fact, the most blessed doctrine in all of Scripture. That God would choose from all eternity a people that are consistently antagonistic towards Him, and in order to effect this foreordination of salvation, becomes incarnate in Christ and dies for the sins of men to restore fellowship. Wilhem Niesel believes that "Calvin's doctrine of election is intended to be nothing more than an expression of glad tidings: in Christ, God has elected us before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless"(Niesel 169). This doctrine is also the most God glorifying doctrine. It gives God all the glory. God elects us, sends Christ to pay for our sin, sends the necessary faith and grace to save us, and sustains us until the end. Man does absolutely nothing. Calvin's doctrine of election magnifies the glory of God and reduces us to true humility, "neither will anything else suffice to make us humble as we ought to be nor shall we otherwise sincerely feel how much we are obliged to God"(Inst. III, 21, 1). Calvin developed the doctrine of election because he felt constrained to do so obediently to the Word of Scripture. This essay concurs with John Calvin, that his doctrine of predestination, has been completely faithful to the Holy Scriptures, and in doing so, he has given the Church a coherent and invaluable doctrine to motivate us to glorify God's name. Since we cannot deny the necessity of confabulating with the doctrine of election, the fundamental task remaining is the coherent and veracious articulation of this doctrine. Calvin defines predestination as:
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.