What Calvinism is Not
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT:
1. Calvinism does not teach that God will refuse to save a man because he is not one of the elect even though that man believes in Christ and repents of his sin.
2. Calvinism does not teach that Christians do not need to evangelize or do missions because God will sovereignly save the elect.
3. Calvinism does not teach that God is the author of sin who made people sin so that He could judge them.
4. Calvinism is not a certain form of church government.
5. Calvinism does not teach infant baptism.
6. Calvinism is not a sect of Christianity that was formulated by John Calvin.
7. Calvinism is not the same as Stoicism or Pantheism.
SO WHAT IS CALVINISM?
Calvinism is a type of orthodox Christianity, which believes in the fundamental doctrines of true Christianity. There are other varieties of true orthodox Christianity, some that are offshoots of Calvinism and some that are not. There are Christians who are not Calvinist. Calvinists do not believe that one must be a Calvinist in order to be a Christian. In fact, that would fly in the face of the Calvinist belief that salvation is the sovereign act of God, not based on any merit of man, including man getting all of his theology correct.
Of course, there are certain types of Christians that are not true Christians at all, denying one or more of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. Calvinists do believe that a true Christian cannot be regenerated and at the same time not believe in the fundamentals of the faith. There are even offshoots of Calvinism, such as Neo-Orthodoxy, that deny certain fundamental Biblical doctrines.
Posts
33 Spoke Up:
Good beginning and defining Calvinism. It has been my experience that those who oppose Calvinsim normally try to make it sound as though the Calvinist is looking to John Calvin as the source of their salvation and not to Christ. This works for their position, even though it show a terrible lack of knowledge and understanding about the historical evidence which disproves their arguements.
It was not Calvin who developed Calvinism as a 5 point system, but to those who dislike the doctrinal positions of 5 pointers- ignore this for the fact that it is easier to "disprove" or not agree with one man (Calvin) than it is to "disprove" or disagree with an entire Synod of Dort 1618-1619(which infact is the orignator of the "5 points" in response to the 5 arguements of the Remonstrants).
Jason, I am delighted that Fide-o will be discussing the issue of Calvinism. I have a few questions that you may be able to help me with. I'll start with two questions for now. How dogmatic should a person be about Calvinism and how does one help others to see the truths of these doctrines. Recently in our Sunday School class we were studying Romans chapter nine. One of the gentlemen in the class was making a lot of statements about foreknowledge wherein he basically reduced foreknowledge down to mere foresight. This gentlemen is fairly new in our church, and he is very charismatic, personality wise not theologically. I struggled with whether or not I should make any comments in the discussion because I did not want to cause controversy. However, I finally could take no more and I spoke up. I would really appreciate some guidance on how to handle issues like this when they come up. Should I take a dogmatic stance on these issues whether they cause controversy or not? And how do I help my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ see the truths of these doctrines? Most of our church leadership at this point would hold to the doctrines of grace but the rest of the congregation probably would not. Any insight you could give would be greatly appreciated.
Mike Prince
Mike, we feel your pain. And we will answer both of your questions as we continue to post about Calvinism.
Would you admit that the vast majoirty of Calvinist theologians in history would find your statement about infant baptism to be wrong? Would you admit that your "reformed Baptist" view is a small minority within reformed Christianity?
Michael, good questions. But the answer is no and no. First, Calvinism does not teach infant baptism. Now many Calvinists teach infant baptism, but that is altogether different. Secondly, concerning whether "reformed Baptist" is a small minority, you will need to provide your data... minority maybe, small minority no. But do you think it surprises me that many people differ about infant baptism? Even Augustine changed his views about the sacraments (moving away from infant baptism) the more he studied the Scripture.
Interesting post. I was glad to see that you distance yourself from those Calvinists who ignore missions and evangelism. There are still several points of Calvinism that I am considering.
Gordon said: "those Calvinists who ignore missions and evangelism."
I hear this kind of statement often, but I hardly ever hear any reliable data to back it up. Besides a few well-publicized exceptions, I believe most Calvinists are just as if not more passionate about missions and evangelism than their Arminian counterparts. Who exactly are you referring to?
Nathan, where have you been. Don't you know that if you don't hand a tract to every person who you happened to see today, you aren't evangelistic. If you don't have an invitation to "walk that aisle" to accept Christ into your heart, you aren't evangelistic. If you don't do Monday night soul-winning, you aren't evangelistic. If you cop out of high pressure techniques to secure quick responses to the gospel by saying you trust the Holy Spirit's work to convict and convert, you're not evangelistic. If you don't believe that "blood is on your hands" for every unbeliever you failed to share the gospel with today, you're not evangelistic. There are a ton more. Based on this, I know of a few Calvinists who are not evangelistic.
You obviouisly have not read Bobby Welch's data that proves beyond a shaddow of a doubt that all Calvinits are not evangelistic.
This might have been a little bit sarcastic. Sorry.
Hi everyone,
I am new to this blog, and find this an interesting topic. I'm from a restoration movement background, and am actively seeking common ground with others in the hope of advancing the unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17.
I know I am not purely Calvinistic, but I am not sure how far apart we are. I definitely reject the notion that one cannot lose his salvation. That doesn't pass the reasonability test to me, given all the passages that suggest otherwise (let 2 Pet 2:20-22 suffice for now; there are literally hundreds of others. Anyone who has thought long about this topic must know some of these passages, regardless of which side you ended up on).
Beyond that, I wonder whether the differences between an Armenian and a Calvinist are merely semantic. Or at least, the differences between myself and a Calvinist.
Total depravity: I think I agree with the spirit of not the letter of this point. There is certainly nothing in me that merits salvation. I am saved because of the grace of God, not because of anything I have done. However, I think we can do things that God approves, and rewards. And vice-versa. We will reap what we sow. Again, there are a multitude of passages in support of this. Gal 6:7-8 for example.
Unconditional election: See above. I don't believe my salvation is based on anything I have done or will do. But I do believe God will reward me according to what I do. I will reap what I sow. Gal 6:7-8
Limited atonement: I believe salvation is offered to all, but accepted by few. 2 Tim 2:4, Matt 22:14 Only a few find the narrow road leading to life.
Irresistable grace: I think the argument about a resistable "external" call and an irresistable call to the elect is contrived. Certainly some people resist the call. If you define the elect to be those who do not resist the call, then you are making a circular argument. By definition they do not resist. If they do resist, because of the definition, they are not the elect. That is purely semantics.
I certainly believe that God is capable of forcing us to respond as he wishes. But I believe he chooses not to do that.
I'm not an expert on Calvinism nor on John Calvin. However from what I read I wonder whether Calvin was a Calvinist.
Aside from all of the above, I don't think our salvation depends upon figuring all of that out. I am firmly convinced that people of both persuasions will be in heaven. And therefore they are brothers and sisters in this world. That means we need to accept one another without passing judgment on disputable matters.
Alan
Alan, welcome to Fide-O. Now duck.
:)
>>How dogmatic should a person be about Calvinism and how does one help others to see the truths of these doctrines.<<
I never use the word Calvinism, and don't think the term is an important one. I feel it only causes certain people to tense up unnecessarily. I think we should be dogmatic about predestination, though. It's a crazy notion to think that it was not God's choosing, but mine.
BUT I also don't feel we shouldn’t slam it down throats. I view the really big, hard to swallow doctrines, somewhat in the way I view evangelism. Don't be overly worrisome, know God is in control, look for openings, and share the truth when it seem right without isolating a (possibly) weaker brother by being pushy.
Dave
Oh yeah, Brett’s sarcasm about evangelism was hilarious.
Alan, do not go anywhere. Stay around and comment as much as you like. Just to let you know we will disagree, but you are welcome to make your case.
Bret, thank you for making my point. :)
SDG
Jason: Can you provide a source in reference to Augustine moving away from credobaptism?
Kurt, check out Benjamin Warfield's Calvin and Augustine. I first heard this from Dr. Curt Daniels when he mentioned that the Reformation was a battle between Augustine's early views of the Church versus his later views of Grace.
Jason: The following quote from the Warfield book may be what Daniels is refering to, and if so, then I would question whether the term "later" in your above post is correct.
". . . Augustine was both the founder of Roman Catholicism and the author of that doctrine of grace which it has been the constantly pursued effort of Roman Catholicism to neutralize, and which in very fact either must be neutralized by, or will neutralize, Roman Catholicism. Two children were struggling in the womb of his mind. There can be no doubt which was the child of his heart. His doctrine of the Church he had received whole from his predecessors, and he gave it merely the precision and vitality which insured its persistence. His doctrine of grace was all his own:it represented the very core of his being . . . it was inevitable, had time been allowed, that his inherited doctrine of the Church, too, with all its implications, would have gone down before it, and Augustine would have bequeathed to the Church, not "problems," but a thoroughly worked out system of evangelical religion. . . . The problem which Augustine bequeathed to the Church for solution, the Church required a thousand years to solve. But even so, it is Augustine who gave us the Reformation. For the Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the Church. (Warfield, Calvin and Augustine, 321-22)
Michael, I do not wish to get off the subject of the post, but why do you think that the given quote in Warfield's book does not lend one to understand that according to B.B. the "early" Augustine gave the Catholic doctrines of his predecessors "precision and vitality" but Augustine was progressively growing further away from the Roman Catholicism.
Of course it is clear in most of Augustine's writings he believed that baptism was necessary for salvation, even among infants. But as Augustine developed his understandings of the doctrines of grace, those doctrines were in opposition to sacramentalism. Yes, Augustine did believe in infusion rather than imputation, and believed that Salvation was through the Church. Roman Catholics claim Augustine as a true Roman Catholic because of his "early" writings, but Reformers point to his doctrines of grace that were at the core of the Reformation.
Augustine's own doctrinal writings late in his life did not stress that Baptism was essential for salvation. Warfield even opined that "if time allowed" Augustine would have "taken down" the Catholic doctrines of sacraments which included regenerational baptism as opposed to salvation by grace alone. Now, B.B. is a greater scholar than I am, so he is a trustworthy source for understanding the life and theology of Augustine. By the way, a primary source that shows Augustine's move away from Catholic Sacramentalism is in his letter called Replies to Questions of Januaris. When he wrote The City of God four years prior to his death he pointed out that baptism was not needed for salvation. Thus a clear change!
Jason,
I'm new to posting here, so I hope I'm following proper etiquette.
Could you please explain your assertion that calvinism does not teach paedobaptism?
If you mean that calvinist soteriology does not require paedobaptism, I agree. Soteriology is not sacramentology or ecclesiology.
However, it seems clear that Calvin taught paedobaptism. It also seems clear that those responding to the Remonstrance believed in paedobaptism. Even the Scottish and French reformed folks you mention adhere to paedobaptism.
With all that in mind, it seems like calvinism (as opposed to calvinist soteriology) does teach covenant paedobaptism.
What am I missing?
Keith
Keith, yes, my point is that Reformed Theology (Calvinism) does not teach paedobaptism as a requirement for salvation or part of the "Golden Chain" of redemption or one of the eternal decrees of God. In other words, you can be a Calvinist and disagree with other Calvinists on the baptism issue.
Jason,
Another newbie here, I am currently researching, studying and praying in regards to reformed theology. As one who is apart of the (sign-out-front) Church of Christ, I find Calvinistic doctrine quite biblical! Anyhow, in regard to #1, you state: 1. "Calvinism does not teach that God will not save men if he is not one of the elect even though he believes in Christ and repents of his sin."
Can you define that a little more? I am not sure I fully grasp what you are saying here.
Thanks
jp,
Some claim that Calvinism teaches that God turns away repentant sinners because they are not elect. It gives us the picture of a man who want to be saved but cannot because he is not of the elect. But that is just a gross mischaracterization of Reformed Theology.
Calvinists joyfully proclaim Jesus’ promise in John 6:37 that He never rejects any repentant sinner. According to Calvinism, the Gospel should be proclaimed to all; Christ commands all to come to him; and He welcomes all who do. But Calvinists note that in the context of John 6:37 is verses 44 and 65, which teaches that no man wants to come to Christ unless the Father gives them the “want to.”
It is not Christ who rejects men, but men who reject Christ. Also, note even the importance of the Father’s actions in John 6:37 = that is election.
Appreciate it. So the only people who would come to Christ anyhow would be the elect? Unless by Gods grace, the individual would not seek Him?
jp, yes, the only people who will come to Christ are those whom the Spirit of God regenerates and imparts faith. Christ has never or will ever reject a truly repentant sinner.
Last question, I promise Does Christ know the entire will of the Father in regards to who the elect are?
jp, see John 10:14
I find Reformed Theo to be compelling. I did struggle for a while with election; it made sense in light of God's attibutes , however I could not make it sqare with freedom. Then I discovered the thought that grace was irresistable in its draw and its repulsion (I think I read it in Don Bloesch). It is grace that compels our heart to accept or reject. This sqared nicely with my professor's comment that the invitation was universal (Packer).
Hi Jason. Cool blog. I like the Fide-o thing. I don't think I can add to anything about Calvinism that hasn't been said already. I just wanted your readers to know that one of the best Calvinistic websites is www.monergism.com. Check it out.
Also, Charles Spurgeon said, "Calvinism is the gospel". I am an unashamed Calvinist but I have to admit that last statement seems a little strong.
As far as evangelism is concerned, we have to remember that the prince of preachers, Charles Spurgeon, George Whitefield and most missionaries before the 20th century were Calvinists. This does not prove Calvinism is true. I am just trying to make the point that it is not some new weird doctrine.
I just started a new blog on evangelism. I go by the name theharvestworker. I would appreciate any help or advice you have before I write 10,000 pages that no one reads. LOL. Mike
Michael and others, That is the problem with Calvinists - like Charles Spurgeon - "Calvinism is the gospel" IS a little strong. Like my Grandpa's wiskey is a little strong.
Then we go on to create a sub-category of Calvinists called "Hyper-Calvinists", and they are the REAL die hards - as if the reasonable Calvinist wouldn't tear your head off for disagreeing with them. As Mike said in the post from 1/30 Mike said... "How dogmatic should a person be about Calvinism"
I would say not that dogmatic at all - but not because they don't contain truth but because it is shear folly to ostercize a BELIEVER (or a fellow chosen one) because they disagree on such a nebulus point of doctrine.
Mike goes on "how does one help others to see the truths of these doctrines?" The same way we help anyone to see truth direct them to the WORD, and let the Holy Spirit lead the repentant heart. I believe that we may INTELLECTUALLY understand the universal truth of scripture with an unrepentant heart and once turned to God we will come to fear - revear in awe, Him which is the begining of all wisdom (the grasping of spiritual truth).
In the end it is this analogy that sticks with me (and it sounds like an overused bar joke) "Upon entering the gates of heaven we see posted above the door 'Whom ever will may come' after entering we glance backward over our shoulders to read above the door 'Predestined from the begining of time'" This is the essence of the debate - I believe the ardent Calvinist is viewing life to strictly from God's point of view - which I find strains my eyes because eternity is nearly impossilbe to hold in focus...
Like wise I would make this point -Amrinianism is actually a reaction to Calvins dogmatic chatecisms and his followers 5-point adherence. After all of this I would say that I am a moderate 5-point Calvinsit meaning I can see the truth in his teaching... But I would point out to the Reformed-only types that Hyper-Calvinism is an extreme of Calvinism in the same way that Open Theology takes Amrinianism to the extreme, and in the happy medium we do have a healthy, albeit many times overused, debate between Calvinist and Not-so-Calvinists.
Thanks all...
Jeff, thanks for your comments. Your attitude of love and fellowship is shared by us all here at Fide-O. On the other hand, what if Augustine had not been dogmatic? Or any other hero of the faith? To the lost we should stick to the "A,B,C's" of the gospel. But among theolgians debate is healthy for the church. And over the years I have not become so concerned about every preacher, every theologian, or every church getting along with each other. I have been more concerned with us all collectively accomplishing the Great Commission. So concerning the debates and dogmatism I say don't fret it, it has keep the church effective for centuries. In fact, the only time the church was not effective was during the Dark Ages when there was very little debate and disagreement, everybody just got along and the church nearly died.
Thanks for the note Jason and the post. You are very correct that "as iron sharpens iron" we in the church should debate these issues. I appreciate your generally openness to this debate -while like Augustine, holding fast to the truth whatever the cost. Which is as it should be. I just find that in many cases those who are more dogmatic and readily engage in conflict seem to win, wheater or not there arguments hold up completely...
In Christ Always, Jeff
Hello Jason, i was listening to an audio by yourself preaching against religious charlatans and you said that John MacArthur was 'the greatest theologian of our time' - now i find that a disturbing comment considering the fact he is a CLASSICAL dispensationalist, but most disturbing is that you would say this about a man who teaches that the work of Jesus alone doesn't save anyone - saying that Jesus Christ paid for the sins of those who go to hell (this belief is better known as 4 point calvinism)
could you please explain to me and everyone else how this would not be a damning heresy, seeing as MacArthur would not believe that the work of Jesus ALONE saves.
i find it nothing more than refined arminianism.
the reason i publically name him is because he is considered one of the pop star preachers of our day.
thanks for your time - i will look forward to your response
Jesus is Lord!
Can you find a quote were Pastor John actually says that? I respect John greatly. Let me know. It looks like this is a died thread, but i will come back and see if you've responded. Thanks
Jesus' boy,
Having researched your website(s), I find that you are quite zealous about your theology. I commend that. But I would caution you in this respect: you should be careful not to misrepresent the theology of men of God like John MacArthur. Once you do so, all of your 26 blogs ring with untrustworthiness. Furthermore, I know that John MacArthur is not Amyraldian in his Calvinism, but the fact that you think Amyraldianism is Arminianism destroys your theological credibility. So with that said, I suggest you do your homework, study more, and speak up less.
Post a Comment