No, I did not say “Doubting Calvinism.” Although I am a master of typos, this blog is about something different. First, every reader needs to know that I am a Calvinist. And while the “doctrines of grace” are not the most important issues in theology, I believe in them very deeply and find that they constitute a significant portion of my hope and comfort.
Why all this snuggling up to Calvinism? Because I don’t want to look like one of those disgruntled emerging types, continually complaining about his own family. Having said that, I am going to discuss a “problem” I often (certainly not always) see among my Calvinist brothers and sisters. I am going to state the issue and then attempt to provide a timid yet substantial interpretation of the problem.
Okay, enough of the prologue. Let me get to it.
I grew up a Baptist. As such, I was quite aware of the “Baptist way” of evangelism. First, you get the person saved. Next, you make sure they know that they can never lose their salvation. Assurance of salvation was not some tertiary or auxiliary doctrine. It was something the new believer in Christ must have, now. To be fair, this is not simply a Baptist thing. It is something that can be found in the DNA of pop Evangelicalism as well. And it makes some sense. If a new believer knows that he is secure in Christ, his works and service to the Lord will come because he is saved, not so that he can be saved. This secures his belief and understanding in justification by faith alone.
Assurance of salvation. I suppose this is the subject of this post. The question is Can one be absolutely sure that they are a believer and how important is this assurance in their walk with the Lord? Many Christians don’t believe an individual can be assured of their ultimate salvation. Many believe one can lose their salvation. Catholics believe that “mortal sins” (really nasty sins such as adultery, rejection of the perpetual virginity of Mary, or missing Mass without a valid excuse) can cause a Cathlic to lose their salvation. Arminians and Wesleyans believe one can cease to believe, thereby forfeiting their seat in heaven. Therefore, from the perspective of those who don’t believe salvation can be lost, these belief systems cannot offer any assurance. The criticism would be that no one could ever be sure, until death, whether or not they are saved. After all, what if I decided to sleep in on Sunday and then immediately died of a heart attack without repenting? How do I know for sure if my faith is going to last until the end? For Catholics, the fact that one cannot be assured of their salvation is dogmatized.
If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canon XV of the Decree on Justification
If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end, unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canon XVI of the Decree on Justification
Ironically, for the Catholic, to believe that one can be assured of their salvation would be the means by which they lose their salvation!
You: I thought this was about Calvinists!
Me: Patience, my son. Patience
Calvinists believe in a doctrine called “perseverance of the saints.” Normally, we don’t like the phrase “Once saved, always saved” (even though, technically, we believe this). A little better is the designation “eternal security.” But our favorite is “perseverance of the saints.” We believe that the elect will persevere in their faith until the end. Therefore, if one is among the elect, she cannot lose her seat in heaven.
One would think this would bring a great deal of assurance among Calvinists concerning their security. Their faith is a gift of God and he will never take it back. The elect are secure.
Now, as many of you know, I have quite a significant ministry dealing with Christians who are doubting their faith for one reason or another. Jude 22 says “have mercy on those who doubt.” I don’t think we do this enough. We avoid doubters like the plague, not knowing how to minister to them. Unfortunately, many of my fellow Calvinists deal with doubters according to one of two theological clichés. If they leave the faith, they were never saved to begin with. If they are elect, they will not leave faith. End of story.
There are three primary reasons Christians doubt. The first has to do with objective intellectual issues. These doubt the Bible’s truthfulness, Christ’s resurrection, and even God’s existence (among other things). Another group doubts God’s love and presence in their lives. The last group doubts their salvation and the reality of their faith. These are always wondering if they have true saving faith or a false faith. This last group lacks assurance.
It may surprise you to know that just about every contact I have had with people who are doubting their salvation are Calvinistic in their theology. In other words, they believe in unconditional election. These are the ones who believe in perseverance of the saints. These are the ones that believe that we cannot lose our salvation! Yet these are the ones who are doubting their faith the most.
Their issue has to do with their election. Are they truly among the elect? If they are, they believe their faith will persevere until the end. But if they are not, there is no hope. But how are they to know for sure whether they are elect? Maybe their faith is a stated faith? Maybe it is false. The gentleman I talked to today was so riddled with doubt, he was having thoughts of suicide. “How do I know my faith is an elect faith?” He wanted assurance so badly, but felt that his Calvinistic theology prevented him from ever having such assurance.
Isn’t this ironic? I have never had a call from an Arminian (or any other believer in conditional election) about this. In my experience, it is only Calvinists who doubt their faith in this way, with such traumatic devastation. Why?
I have my theories. Let me share them, but I am interested in your thoughts.
Here we go (close your ears Baptists): I think we make too much of the doctrine of assurance. I don’t know if it is paramount for a believer to always be absolutely assured that he is a believer. John Hannah, one of my favorite profs at Dallas Seminary, said one time in class, “I am ninety percent sure I am saved . . . but I am only ten percent sure of that.” He would say things like this, knowing it would disturb most of his Evangelical students’ foundations, causing them to think more deeply. I thought if John Hannah is not one hundred percent sure he is saved, how can anyone be? I did not know whether to rethink my Baptist upbringing or take John Hannah out into the hall and share the Gospel with him. Eventually, it caused me to rethink my understanding of assurance. I don’t think there is any reason why we have to be absolutely certain we are saved at every moment. When we present the Gospel to someone and they say they have trusted in Christ, we do them a disservice to force assurance upon them. After all, how do we know that their faith is real? We don’t. Instead of assurance, maybe we should give them some of the Hebrews warning passages. Maybe we should speak to them as Christ spoke to the seven churches in Revelation: “to him who overcomes . . .” Maybe we should encourage them to “test their faith” (2 Cor. 13:5). Maybe we should warn them that there is a possible disqualification. (1 Cor. 9:27). This may not fit into your thinking, but we all know there is a faith that does not save (James 2:19). Why not bring this up?
You see, people in our tradition often believe it is anathema to test your faith. To even bring up the possibility of our faith not being real scares us. Why? Because if it is not real, in our sometimes distorted thinking, it is God’s fault and there is nothing we can do about it. We are either elect or not and all that can happen if we examine our faith is bring about the terrifying possibility of reprobation.
I think, for so many of us, the issues are as black and white as they can be. We are caught up in this modernistic ideal of absolutes. Either you know with one hundred percent infallible certainty that we are saved – or we have no certainty at all. But I think our certainty is relative to our situation. The question is never Are you elect? That is a question only for God. The question is Do you believe right now? If you do, you can know you have eternal life. Could you be wrong? Could your faith be false? Could your trust in the Lord be like that of the second and third soils of Christ’s parable? Those that sprung up quickly but faded away? Sure. But the solution is not to divine the mind of God to see if you are elect. It is to persevere in your faith. Arminians know this. They live with this every day. Therefore, they don’t call me falling apart about their assurance. They know how to test their faith and they do all they can to keep it. Calvinists often just get paralyzed in fear thinking they are not among the elect and have their hands tied. When, truth be told, we should respond very much like Arminians with regard to the stability of our faith. We do everything to persevere (which I would love to expand on, but I don’t have the space). Our theology demands that when we do persevere, we know that it was God who would not ever let us go, not us who would never let him go. Therefore, we understand our faith was not of ourselves. But this fact does not help much in situations when our faith needs to be tested. We simply do not have a magic decoder ring to determine if we are truly elect.
You ask me: Michael, do you know you are saved? My answer: yes. You ask me: Michael, do you have assurance? My answer: yes. You ask me: Michael, why do you believe you are saved? My answer: because today I am still believing. But I have to test this all the time, as I am not infallible. I could have a false faith, but I don’t believe I do. This ninety percent assurance will have to do. The witness of the Spirit I have today is enough for today. Tomorrow I will examine myself again. But my assurance does not have to be absolute and comprehensive. While the Catholics went way overboard on their “anathemas” (I mean, come on, guys . . .), I do think they are right to warn against any necessity of infallible assurance. Once we learn to test ourselves, the times of doubt will lead to productive action, not paralyzing fear.
867 replies to "Doubting Calvinists"
Fr. Robert: “Judas was NEVER regenerate! (spiritually reborn)”
Isn’t this common knowledge?
Do arminians claim that Judas was regenerate? Arminian, arminianperspectives, cherylu, irene, don, do all of you believe Judas was regenerate at one time?
On a side note, was Judas baptized?
Again, “A”, quickly jumping on the Calvinist mind of Michaels, as to his Book on the Gospel of John (NICNT), is certainly quite unfair! Have you read the whole Commentary? Somehow I bet not! Michaels stands on his own as an scripture scholar and exegete! Btw, his older Word Commentary on 1 Peter is still quite good! And he does not express mere “Calvinism”, ever!
“For the Son of Man is to go just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” (Mk. 14: 21) Just an amazing statement, again “as it is written of Him”! See too Matt. 26: 24.
Indeed Jesus could never say such for a man that was once “His”, by regeneration and new birth! Note Matt. 7: 23, “I never knew you..”
@”Truth”: A great question! It appears there is no explicit answer! But he perhaps was baptized in John’s Baptism, though we don’t know for sure? (See however, Acts 1: 22) And yet he was “one of the twelve”! (Yet note too, verses 1: 17-18-19-20-25)…yet, “from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” (Verse 25) Indeed Holy Scripture affirms his predetermined “place” (see verses -Acts 1: 16-17-18-19-20-25).
Was Judas regenerate? The Bible simply does not say, but there is plenty of evidence that he was saved, and nothing that says he never was. None of the passages that have been cited here indicate that there was never a time, prior to his defection and betrayal, that he was saved. Indeed, one of the passages you quote says that he “turned aside.” From what? Likewise, Luke 6:16 says that he “became a traitor.”
However, Judas was not only an apostle but was called a “disciple” of Jesus (Matthew 10:1). Jesus hand picked Judas and the other 11 disciples (designating them apostles, Luke 6:13-16) due to their commitment to Him. So the Bible calls Judas a disciple. That is not a formal title in Scripture, but a description of behavior and commitment. See how the Bible (and Jesus) defines what it means to be a disciple in passages like Luke 14:26, 27; 14:33; Matt. 12:49, 50. According to those definitions of what it means to be a disciple and the Bible’s plain description of Judas as a disciple, it would be very hard to conclude that Judas was not saved at some point.
Furthermore, in Matt. 10 Judas is included in all Christ says there to his disciples and is given the same authority and power as the others and sent out by Christ to preach His gospel as Christ’s representative. Not only that, but in Matt. 26:50, quoting Psalms 41, Jesus refers to Judas as one who had been His “close friend.”
So yeah, one can easily make the case that Judas was saved at one point, since he was called a disciple of Christ and no passage says that he was never, at any time, saved. All of that supports the way we have understood vs. 12.
However, while we have dwelt on this point for awhile now, it was really an aside to the verse I most wanted to highlight in my initial comment about John 17, which is verse 21. Fr. Robert hasn’t even touched that verse yet, even though I said that it explodes his whole theory on the implications of John 17 in support of Calvinism
@AP: Wow, your piece is simply hard to believe! And I am not being mean, but theological and biblical. And “mathetes” Gk. for “disciple” was simply a learner, pupil and follower. See btw, John 6: 60-61 ; 64-65 and 66! Indeed these texts of John 6 just destroy Arminian doctrine!There is really nothing here to indicate that Judas was not in some sense a follower of Christ (as the other so-called disciples in John 6, that turned back and followed no more), but Judas “regenerate” (spiritually reborn)? NEVER! Not with texts like John 6: 70 and John 17: 11 & 12!
I am not sure of your point of John 17: 21 somehow being anti-Calvinist? WE too believe in the Mystical Body of Christ NOW, and the Oneness of that Body in the Glory!
I am back on “moderation” here it seems, strange? But I have written you AP!
Striving for clarity whilst engaging in a disagreement, and achieving some semblance of it is a worthwhile endeavor.
Hence, I’m both thankful and pleased that one point of stark point of demarcation between Reform Christians and Arminians is Judas.
Reform Christian: “Judas was never regenerate!”
Arminian Perspective: “There is plenty of evidence that he was saved, and nothing that says he never was. … So yeah, one can easily make the case that Judas was saved at one point, since he was called a disciple of Christ and no passage says that he was never, at any time, saved.”
Fr. Robert (comment 333),
It is amazing that when you are given detailed textual/grammatical arguments you simply brush them aside by baselessly asserting that I am trying to find a way out or around obvious reality. You did this earlier until you found the Westcott quote, which gave you something of substance to respond with. But then I analyzed Westcott’s argument and you reply with the same type of non-answer. The fact that Westcott had to address my interpretation shows it is not outlandish as you were trying to paint it. And then look at what Westcott actually says. He says that the text does not *necessarily* need to be taken as I take it. But you treat that as if his interpretation is so obvious when Westcott is trying to explain why he thinks the more natural reading of the grammar (mine) is not necessary. I gave a response to Westcott’s argument and believe it shows his argument to be unsuccessful. As John Wesley commented on the text: “Those whom thou hast given me I have guarded, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition – So one even of them whom God had given him is lost. So far was even that decree from being unchangeable! ”
You mention John 6: 70 again (“Did I myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil.”), but I already addressed that verse in comment 261 above. Let me add to what I said there: does Jesus calling Peter Satan mean that Peter had not been saved prior to that point (Mark 8:33)?
TUAD (comment 342),
It is not The Arminian position that Judas was saved and fell away. It happens to be my position (though I hold it loosely and am quiter opne to him not having ever been saved) and apparently those of some others in this thread.
Now notice I keep speaking of whether he was saved, not regenerate. That’s because regeneration is a New Covenant / post-cross phenomenon. No Old Testament believer was regenerate. They had the Spirit with them but not in them as John’s Gospel reveals. It is a controversial question, and it seems like it would take us even more off topic to get into it. But I figured I should mention it since the idea of Judas as regenerate or not keeps appearing in Calvinist posts in this thread.
Fr. Robert (comment 336),
You’re just throwing out Scriptures that do not prove your point. Prophecy does not mean what is prophesied is proactively decreed by God, as if he irresistibly caused Judas to be wicked and commit such heinous acts of betrayal. And mentioning Matthew 7:23 does not support your point about Judas. The fact that some who claim to follow Christ never knew him does not mean that everyone that falls away never knew him. Indeed, the people in Matthew 7:23 never particularly fall away. they appear to go to their grave professing Christ. That’s far different from Judas. And their false profession can be known by their evil deeds.
Arminians can easily admit various scenarios when it comes to reality of faith and apostasy, which is much more realistic. Calvinists are locked into only one type of view of those who forsake their faith in Jesus, that they were never truly saved (which, as I have pointed out, logically undercuts assurance). Arminians realize that some who leave God’s people never were truly a part, others were, but forsake true faith, while others go on professing Christ but never having known him or been known by him, etc. Mt 7:23 refers to people who never were true believers, something…
Greg (comments 345 and 346),
The Spirit working in prophets and even kings in the Old Covenant is different than the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant.
Jesus to the apostles: “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever–the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.” (John 14:16-17)
“By this he meant the Spirit,a whom those who believed in him were later to receive.b Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.” (John 7:39)
As for that sentence that you clarified, it is quite telling. I would say instead that we should let the Bible determine our doctrine of God and our doctrine of man. Let the Bible rule our doctrine not the other way around. We should submit ourselves entirely to the word of God.
Greg,
The trouble is, the definitions of love and justice have to be rewritten in order for them to have any meaning in the Calvinist understanding of things.
You maybe do okay with love by stating that God does not love the reprobate. But there is no human understanding or definition of justice at all that would say it is all right to create billions of people for the purpose of sending them to hell. (And remember, you are the one that keeps insisting that all of our knowledge is based in God. So surely then our concepts of love and justice must have some at least some correspondence with reality!)
The Calvinists like Michael Patton that believes God loves everyone, even the reprobate, have a problem too. I have heard it said by at least some of them that God loves people in different ways. He loves the reprobate in providing for him on this earth. The trouble with that idea is that in the way that it really counts–eternal destiny–God still doesn’t love the reprobate. Strange sense of love that is IMO.
@Arminian: Sorry mate, you have yet to give any “detailed textual/grammatical arguments”! Your just playing games here, but “games” are about all most so-called Arminian’s have when they actually try to give epistemological answers! And I don’t have the time to bite down here! And the great John Wesley was too simply wrong here, as his own Anglican Article XVII ‘Of Predestination and Election’ testifies! (against him) And I love John Wesley btw (as too Charles!)…they were Evangelical Anglicans, even with their Arminian errors!
Indeed as “Truth” shows, the issue of Judas Iscariot is a fault-line between Calvinism and Arminianism theologically! To put it simply, Judas so-called faith of Jesus as the Messiah always wavered, it was simply never there, or real in saving faith & belief! And btw Judas was the only “Judaean” disciple! (And too btw, that’s why Reformed theology uses the biblical term of “regeneration” – Titus 3: 5 / Matt. 19: 28. There is both individual and creational renewal biblically – as we note in these two Texts)! And in my opinion, Judas always held Zealot tendencies, this appears to be the only natural way to explain his unbelief! Besides too being he was a thief, as the treasurer of the group, (John 12: 6 ; 13: 29).
Btw, was GOD still “love” when He told King David to go down and kill the Philistines…man, woman and child? See too Ezek. 8 and 9, especially chapter 9: 1-11, there God’s seven angels carries out the execution of the unfaithful idolaters in Jerusalem at God’s command! Thankfully one angel is given the job of protecting the faithful! Indeed God always has His chosen people!
Btw, lets read our Bibles, rather than use just our human logic! 🙂
Fr. Robert writes,
@AP: Wow, your piece is simply hard to believe! And I am not being mean, but theological and biblical.
I wouldn’t think you are being mean, just using over the top rhetoric to distract form the lack of substance in your responses, which has seemed to become a pattern with you, unfortunately.
And “mathetes” Gk. for “disciple” was simply a learner, pupil and follower. See btw, John 6: 60-61 ; 64-65 and 66! Indeed these texts of John 6 just destroy Arminian doctrine!
Speaking of John 6, how about John 6:33, and 6:51? I guess I should just say that those passages “destroy Calvinist Doctrine!”
The Scriptures you mention in John 6 do nothing to discount the possibility of Judas being saved or his being described as a disciple (and a special one at that, appointed to the apostolate by Christ Himself). The only way that they can be used in such a way is to assume that anyone who falls away or does not continue to follow was never a true believer or true follower. That is something you must do, since your doctrinal system demands it, and that is why you must read these passages this way. But I don’t need to do that since I take seriously the possibility of apostasy from true saving faith in accordance with the numerous warning passages and examples of true believers falling away.
This is not a hill I need to die on, as Arminian also mentioned. Arminians can just as easily hold that Judas was never saved. But we don’t need to, so we don’t need to filter the evidence that he was saved through a Calvinist matrix. It is only when one reads Calvinism into all these passages that you quote, that one can see these passages as somehow definitive. But since we don’t need to do that, we can simply point out that these passages in no way demand that Judas or any other disciple who eventually fell away, never had any genuine prior commitment to Christ.
Fr. Robert writes,
There is really nothing here to indicate that Judas was not in some sense a follower of Christ (as the other so-called disciples in John 6, that turned back and followed no more), but Judas “regenerate” (spiritually reborn)? NEVER! Not with texts like John 6: 70 and John 17: 11 & 12!
Again, this is question begging, especially in your reference of verse 12, which is the main verse in dispute about Judas.
I am not sure of your point of John 17: 21 somehow being anti-Calvinist? WE too believe in the Mystical Body of Christ NOW, and the Oneness of that Body in the Glory!
Not sure why you are struggling so much with verse 21. Let me highlight the problem for you:
“…that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.”
Hope that helps.
To put it simply, Judas so-called faith of Jesus as the Messiah always wavered, it was simply never there, or real in saving faith & belief!
And this highlights again the problem with assurance in Calvinism. One can never be sure that his present faith is not just a “so-called faith” in contrast with a “real…saving faith and belief.”
God Bless,
Ben
Greg,
Do you realize that you sound very much like a hyper -Calvinist? You have said that Calvinism is the same thing as the gospel, which would imply that unless one believes in Calvinism, one does not believe the gospel. The obvious implication is that non-Calvinists cannot be saved.
Further, you call the Arminian God a “myth” and refer to our conception of God with a little “g”. I am honestly quite surprise that Mr. Patton’s moderators have allowed these types of comment here from you.
It saddens me that so very often, when Calvinists are challenged by Arminians or non-Calvinists about their interpretation of Scripture, those Calvinist can’t seem to stick to the disagreement over interpretation. Instead it degenerates into this sort of stuff that we are seeing from you (especially) and Fr. Robert (to a lesser degree). Such things make for a very frustrating discussion.
Now I assume that you do not believe that Arminians are unsaved based on your story about your friend, but your rhetoric and choice of words about Arminians do not seem comport with that at all.
Greg writes,
The definitions of love and justice HAVE been rewritten. By the serpent in the garden when he convinced our parents that they should exercise their freewill and make up their own minds about what tree was good for what.
Comments like this are completely incompatible with the underlying Calvinist assumptions regarding exhaustive determinism and the basis of foreknowledge (being God’s decree). Even in trying to refute Arminianism, Calvinists can’t help but to talk like Arminians.
Fr Rob (comment 350)
You continue to brush aside my arguments without actually engaging them. You realize that just denying them without any stated support doesn’t commend your viewpoint, right? Neither does accusing those who hold a different viewpoint of playing games help discussion. And it certainly does not validly substitute for an actual argument or actually engaging with what I said.
I though that you were reforming your insulting style of discussion after CMP called for some better discussion practice. So I thought we would be discussing without the insulting rhetoric. That sort of rhetoric is what led me to suggest that we stop discussion earlier, but then, as I said, I thought you were trying to be more charitable. So let’s stop our discussion, since the disparaging remarks keep coming from you.
BTW, it is odd that you say that “the issue of Judas Iscariot is a fault-line between Calvinism and Arminianism theologically”. I already stated that my position is not necessarily representative of the Arminian position. I don’t believe there to be a specific Arminian position on Judas having been saved at one point. Any number of Arminians might think he never was saved. As I said, I am quite open to that in Judas’ case. I just think the balance of the evidence favors him having been saved (the most natural reading of John 17:12 demands this, though the case is left open because the reading you suggest is possible). The notice of his being a thief is one of the stronger points against him ever having been a believer in my mind. But the text does not tell us when he began stealing (perhaps he had been a believer and his stealing came with his turning from his faith) or the full details of how that all went with him.
I just want to emphasize that the case of Judas is not a big deal at all, since so much discussion has focused on it. It was kind of a rabbit trail. The issue does not change the fact that Scripture teaches apostasy is possible.
Btw, lets read our Bibles, rather than use just our human logic!
A very good example of that over the top rhetoric I was speaking of above.
YOU have started with YOU and YOUR definitions before a bible was ever known to you and then proceeded to create God in YOUR own image.
Another good example of way over the top rhetoric and yet another implication that non-Calvinists (like cherylu) are not saved.
Fr Robert,
No one at all here is “just using our human logic!”
And to both Greg and Fr Robert:
Surely God did give us our mind/logic for a reason? Surely when something seems as totally contradictory as Calvinism often does, we ought to be able to ask questions such as, “Why?” and “‘Are you really sure you are understanding all of that correctly?”
And Greg, very frankly, all of those instances that you gave from the OT are in another category completely then deliberately creating billions of people for the purpose of sending them to hell. Or even loving them enough to provide for them on this earth but not loving them enough to provide them with any eternal hope.
One must truly wonder why God tells us what a horrible place hell is, tells us He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked who are surely going there if they are not saved/regenerated first, tells us to do everything possible to keep from going there including cutting off our hands and plucking out our eyes, etc, if He has created them for just such a purpose or if He has just decided to “pass over them” in the scheme of salvation. His statements become utter nonsense for the reprobate.
Surely logic should not be just ignored here when we try to understand what the Scripture says. There is so much contradiction in the Calvinist’s understanding of issues that it simply boggles the mind.
ArminianPerspectives: “A very good example of that over the top rhetoric I was speaking of above.”
Head shaking, eyes rolling. So ridiculous. There’s over the top rhetoric employed by the Calvinist bashers on this thread.
Calvinists believe in “love covers a multitude of offenses” which is why Calvinists frequently don’t complain about the insulting rhetoric employed by Calvinist bashers.
FYI, your complaint + the repetitive refrain of a gooey, media-influenced, modern understanding of man-centered “love” conveys the distinctly unpleasant aroma of unthinking emotionalism as being the foundation of arminianism.
I firmly reject the doctrine of arminianism. But I welcome sovereignly elect Arminans as brothers and sisters in Christ.
Now I’m really curious (honestly)–according to Calvinism, in what way are we made in the image of God? If we don’t exercise free wills, and our reason cannot be made to learn truth….it kind of sounds like we are made to be God’s little pets, instead of his children.
If not reason, and not free will, then what? I’ve also been taught that we are made in the image of God because we have an innate desire for beauty, truth, and love, but that too would seem to be excluded from Calvinism because us desiring anything good like that would contradict the doctrine of total depravity. Thoughts?
FYI, your complaint + the repetitive refrain of a gooey, media-influenced, modern understanding of man-centered “love” conveys the distinctly unpleasant aroma of unthinking emotionalism as being the foundation of arminianism.
Good stuff TUAD. You couldn’t have made my point any better.
I firmly reject the doctrine of arminianism. But I welcome sovereignly elect Arminans as brothers and sisters in Christ.
Well, it’s not like you have any choice in the matter, right?
@cherylu: YOU missed my “just” before logic! And I noted you said nothing to the scripture texts, nor my question about King David?
Indeed btw, Reformed Divinity is very profound! And much more so than any Arminian theology, which btw I reject, as “Truth” has said so well & importantly!
Greg writes,
To NOT use it is sin. To use it autonomously on our own without surrendering it to it’s source and master first is also sin.
Again, wholly incompatible with the fundamental underlying Calvinist assumption of exhaustive
determinism.
Sir, at the risk of furthering your view that I am an insufferably arrogant and deluded dogmatist, I must tell you that you underestimate my humble ability to defend the above at your own peril.
That reminds me of when I won a contest for the most humble person in my church. I got a nice big pin that stated I was the winner. Unfortunately, they took it away when I started wearing it.
This is all the fun I have time for right now as I need to go to work. Hopefully, I can join in again later tonight.
God Bless,
Ben
@”A”: Yes, we were talking about “Judas”, and not fully or strictly “apostasy”! So now you want to change the said subject? I guess we can agree then on the “apostate” Judas? though he was never really a Christian, I will constantly maintain this!
So not really much else to say!
Fr. Robert writes,
So not really much else to say!
How about John 17:21???
Tally Ho! (or whatever).
Fr Robert,
Me, No one at all here is “just using our human logic!”
You, YOU missed my “just” before logic!
Me, Huh? Did you read what I said??
And again:
You, And I noted you said nothing to the scripture texts, nor my question about King David?
Me to Greg and it should of also been to you: And Greg, very frankly, all of those instances that you gave from the OT are in another category completely then deliberately creating billions of people for the purpose of sending them to hell. Or even loving them enough to provide for them on this earth but not loving them enough to provide them with any eternal hope.
And Greg, how on earth are you going to refuse to die? 🙂
@AO: I guess YOU missed what I said there yesterday, as to this text of John 17: 21, for us Reformed?
@Irene: Sorry I wish I had time to engage the question of our human and sinful anthropology, but let me suggest you read Michael Horton’s book: The Christian Faith, A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way! A big book, but well worth the read, if you really want to know what the Reformed Faith & Divinity’s believes, and this will cover Christian anthropology. 🙂
Greg @ 367,
I believe you totally missed AP’s point. It had to do with divine determinism. How exactly can a Calvinist that believes that all things are decreed by God turn around and say that anyone can do anything autonomously?
Thanks for the book rec. Fr Robert.
Well, obviously no one’s going to change his mind, (if that’s even possible(; ), and I don’t think Mr Doubting Calvinist feels any better.
Speaking for myself, though, this thread has helped me zero in in some key differences between Calvinism and Arminianism and/or Catholicism.
–man in the image of God
–what God’s love is, and what it can accomplish. [Is God’s love separate from his sovereignty, so that the objects of his love remain untouched by his love? Doesn’t Calvinism make God’s love impotent? Catholics believe love is always life-giving. Oriented outward toward the good of others rather than the glory of self. This is seen in the Trinity: the Father and the Son, from eternity, share a love so powerful that from them proceeds the Holy Spirit, who IS the love between the two. The Spirit then gives life to Christians. Free willed Christians who desire to participate in this love of the Trinity. Because coerced love is no love.
This love of the Trinity is reflected by humanity in the love of the family. Husband and wife voluntarily come together in love. Rape is not love, and coerced love is not love. Their love is so powerful, that another person is created! Catholics, btw, take this “love is life giving” very seriously, you see. Love never renders itself impotent!
But what exactly is God’s love in Calvinism, if you say he does love the reprobate, and does it have any power or effect? Is it life giving? Or, is God being Love compatible with God not loving whom he has made?
I’m not expecting anyone to answer here as this thread seems to be winding up, but I’ll be keeping my eyes open for assertions related to this.
Greg,
The thing is, you didn’t say he he attempted to use it autonomously, you said he did. To use it autonomously on our own….. And then in the next breath you say that is not possible.
Well, maybe you didn’t really say what you meant in your original comment. Or maybe you said it in such a way that the rest of us didn’t know what you meant :). Whatever the case may be, it certainly came across as a contradiction.
Greg,
So let me see if I understand what you are saying correctly here.
It goes like this. If God in eternity past, before the creation of anything didn’t decree that I right at this moment would be sitting here and typing this comment to you, if He didn’t decree the typo I just made and corrected, if He didn’t decree the exact wording of this comment, how long it would take me to type it, if I would get interrupted in the process, etc, etc, etc and if this decree wasn’t made in such a way that it was totally impossible for me to do anything else at the moment……if all of those things are not true, then there is not absolute truth in the world?
Can God make an Arminian do something,he does not want to do. Can God keep an Arminain from doing something he wants to do?Do people who have never heard of Jesus get a free ride to heaven. You can’t be guilty of unbelief for something you have no knowledge of. If Jesus died for all of one’s sins,then did he die for the sin of unbelief?.Since God does not determine the future then is there a future?If there is,are the events in the future fixed and certain?If God knows Irene is going to on July 21,2016,become a Calvinist canIrene keep that from happening? Must she become a Calvinist? Does God,man,or nothing control the future?Can men keep the Great Tribulation from coming? Do the Scripture teach that before He is born the Anti-Christ must go to hell.Can He choose otherwise? If not ,is this Predestination to hell. If not,what would be.
Jay: “Can God make an Arminian do something, he does not want to do?”
Wouldn’t that be a blatant violation of the Prime Directive?
Prime Directive: “God must not intervene or override the Free Will, the Libertarian Free Will, of those whom He created in His image; otherwise the attribute of Divine Love from which Libertarian Free Will is part and parcel of, is irreparably tarnished.
Prime Directive: “God must not intervene or override the Free Will, the Libertarian Free Will, of those whom He created in His image; otherwise the attribute of Divine Love from which Libertarian Free Will is part and parcel of, is irreparably tarnished.
Funny, I know nothing of that “prime directive” and I am an Arminian. Nor do I agree with it. Nor do I know any Arminians that would agree with it (though maybe some non-Calvinists would).
Regardless, it is easily reversible in that the “prime directive” of Calvinism is exhaustive determinism, and nothing, not even God’s sovereign right to create free moral agents and hold them accountable for their actions, can violate that “prime directive.”
Fr. Robert writes,
@AO: I guess YOU missed what I said there yesterday, as to this text of John 17: 21, for us Reformed?
I looked over some of the earlier comments (e.g. #199, #236) and realize that I misunderstood your initial point about John 17. The first comment I saw was Don explaining to you the scope of Christ’s prayer, first for the apostles, then for all believers, etc. The point I was making was that the scope is widened even larger to the “world” in verses 21 and 23. I mentioned Judas as an aside, not even realizing that Judas was the main point of your reference to John 17.
In reading Don’s response to you, I thought he was responding to the typical Calvinist use of John 17 (following John Owen) to support limited atonement in saying that Christ prays only for those “given” Him and not for the world. That is why I directed you to verse 21, which explodes that theory. But I now realize that was not the reason you referenced John 17. My misunderstanding was apparently based on Don’s misunderstanding.
So if that was not your intention in referring to John 17, then there is no need to go any further on the matter. But for any who would use John 17 that way, verses 21 and 23 render that interp. impossible.
Greg writes,
Attempted autonomy IS sin.
This is just as incompatible with exhaustive determinism as your other statements. Try as you may, you just can’t seem to talk like a consistent Calvinist.
Don’t you see? Libertarian human autonomy is impossible without positing a contingent God and then we have a God who is literally as uncertain as His own finite AND sinful creation. The basis for absolutely everything is gone. If not even God is certain then let’s eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. NOTHING is any more or less true than anything else. This is called ATHEISTIC SKEPTICISM. The logical conclusion of Arminianism.
So you prefer wild leaps in logic (see above) to logic?
@Irene: The “imago dei” is surely something that Calvin and right Calvinism quite believes! Btw, here is a quote from Horton’s book:
“Stanley Grenz goes so far as to represent Calvin’s insights as “the birth of the relational imago.” He cites Paul Ramsey in this in this regard: “The image of God, according to this view, consists of man’s “position” before God, or, rather, the, the image of God is reflected in man because of his position before him.” We should not overstate Calvin’s innovation. Like his contemporaries – and forbears, ancient and medieval – he could still use standard Platonic phrases (such as the body as “the prisonhouse”), but these habits of speech run counter to his principal arguments. Grenz correctly suggests that Calvin, even more than Luther, stands out as the Reformer who gave “greater attention to the “imago dei” than any great theologian since Augustine,” and Douglas Hall, in turn, cites Calvin as more than Luther for the emergence of the relational understanding of the “imago dei.” Grenz also points to Calvin’s more eschatological (future-anticipatory) approach. Inevitably, this shift from locating the image of God in a part or faculty (i.e. spirit or intellect) to the covenant and commission given to humanity by God marked a significant transition in anthropology from what humans are in their inner essence to their identity before God as responsible creatures in history.
The Reformed scholastics appealed also to the classical (Aristotelian) identification of humanity as a sort of “microkosmos”, displaying in a signal manner God’s external works. With rabbinical Judaism, these theologians pointed out the close connection between the temple and human beings as a microcosm of God’s holy dwelling. God’s likeness in humanity, according to Peter van Mastricht, is “that conformity of man whereby in his own way (i.e., as a creature) he reproduces the highest perfection of God.” It is therefore ethical rather…
For Calvin, the fall has not eradicated our “sense” of God or any of our natural faculties, but it has twisted our whole personality into a parody of its created goodness. Man is not free, but still yet responsible before God, but ‘In Christ’, we here alone can see Christ Himself, “the primary and true image of God.” (Calvin) But only by regenerate (sovereign spiritual rebirth) in grace! “Many are called, but few are chosen”! (Matt. 22: 14) We are left to God’s call and choice! But in ourselves we know it not, nor care! Sin, still is before even modern to postmodern man!
It is God’s will that I have a free will. Are you going to tell him He can’t do that or the universe will fall apart?
Greg
It is interesting to know that Free Will only is in the Bible,talking about Free Will offerings. Never do you see God saying men have a Free Will to make spiritual choices.He states they do not.Arminians think that because they do what they want,they can also do what they should.No unregenerate can do that.Actually,even doing what we want is qualified. Paul wanted and tried to go into Bithynia but was prevented to do so by God.The main problem with Libertarian freedom is that whatever choice is made is not action or choice specific.The Free Willers say that everything being the same,the choice could be different. It never occurs that the reasons for the choice must also be the same. So if one buys a newspaper,whatevey reason He had would be the same reason for not shoosing the paper. Arninianism is inherently irrational.
A couple of typo errors.Choosing,not shoosing.
Greg says,
“Hear the Westminster Assembly yet again…”
Just fallible men. I’ll stick to the plain words of Scripture. (Right??)
Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.
Heb 3:15
It was he who created man in the beginning, and he left him in the power of his own inclination.
Sir 15:14
so-called Prime Directive: “God must not intervene or override the Free Will, the Libertarian Free Will, of those whom He created in His image; otherwise the attribute of Divine Love from which Libertarian Free Will is part and parcel of, is irreparably tarnished.”
Saying God “must not” is a misunderstanding. God CHOSE, that when he created man, he would GIVE man free will. So free will is not the power or right to OVERRIDE God, it is a gift that God FREELY gave.
Hear the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, from # 306. (Borrowing my style from Greg, there)
God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures’ cooperation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God’s greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and this of cooperating in the accomplishment of his plan.
Btw, fwiw, the catechism was prepared over six years, the intense work of cardinals, bishops, theologians, exegetes, and catechists from all over the world.