Calvinism: Is it biblical?

[Djents]

I just wanted to see what everyone here thinks about Calvinism, those who don't know, they are the teachings of John Calvin who wrote the book Institutes of the Christian Religion. John Calvin taught things about God's sovereignty, and the matter of His sovereignty in the salvation of every person, why one believes, and one doesn't. His teachings heavily relied on Augustine of Hippo, who before converting to Catholicism, was a Neo-Platonist. He originally taught free will, and how the will of man in the matter of believing and not believing were what determined whether or not God saved them. But there came a time where Augustine was speaking against someone, whom he was trying to refute, he discovered fatalism in the bible, (the Calvinists, including John Calvin denies that it's fatalism, albeit the same definition of Theistic Fatalism). Some Calvinists go as far as to say that every single event down to it's minutest detail, regardless of the size of the event, was ordained by God for His glory, and His purpose. Like the Holocaust, or the 9/11 event. Even someone getting killed at gunpoint. All this happened because God ordained it. He also ordained that I write this post. But there are severe misrepresentations of God's character (Holy, Just, Righteous, Loving, Merciful, Gracious, and abhors evil), to a point that it is just plain out blasphemous. Some try to come up with ideas like Compatibalism, which means "Compatibilism, sometimes called soft determinism, is a theological term that deals with the topics of free will and predestination. It seeks to show that God's exhaustive sovereignty is compatible with human freedom, or in other words, it claims that determinism and free will are compatible. Rather than limit the exercise of God's sovereignty in order to preserve man's freedom, compatibilists say that there must be a different way to define what freedom really means.

Basic beliefs
Compatibilism, in contrast to Libertarian free will, teaches that people are free, but defines freedom differently. Compatibilism claims that every person chooses according to his or her greatest desire. In other words, people will always choose what they want-- and what they want is determined by (and consistent with) their moral nature. Man freely makes choices, but those choices are determined by the condition of his heart and mind (i.e. his moral nature). Libertarian free will maintains that for any choice made, one could always equally have chosen otherwise, or not chosen at all.

God's involvement
God is said to influence our desires, and thus is able to have exhaustive control of all that goes on.

This is a section stub. Please edit it to add information.

Moral responsibility
In general, people agree that the one with uncaused action is held responsible for an action. Not the ball that was caused to roll, but the person who was not caused to push is held responsible for the rolling of the ball. However, according to this worldview, the same does not apply to humans. Although a man is considered unable to choose against his desires, which are caused by his sin nature or God's intervention, the moral responsibility of sin lies with him. He chose to do it, therefore he is held responsible. Not what caused him to choose, but he that chooses is held responsible.

This understanding of moral responsibility absolves God of authorship of sin; man, as caused by fall, is naturally "inclined to all evil" (Heidelberg Catechism, Q.7). Whether God decrees the fall of man or not, God is not thought to force this evil inclination upon man; but rather, He "gave [man] over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper" (Rom. 1:28; NASB). God "gave over" men who "suppress the truth in unrighteousness . . . For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God" (Rom. 1:18, 21). The evil nature of man was not created or caused by God, but is a corruption of God's good creation (cf. Gen. 1:31). The Biblical doctrine of reprobation teaches that the sinful man is condemned apart from God's saving grace. Scripture uses the phrase "gave over" to describe God's allowance of reprobation (rf. Rom. 1:24, 26; NASB). God allows, but is not the primary cause of, sin. The Westminster Confession of Faith teaches that God's will is necessarily efficacious, but is effected by means of "secondary causes" subject to His sovereign control.^[1]^" (Taken from Theopedia). But regardless of this "soft determinism" it still makes God the author of Evil. That since the fall is what brought sin upon man, that means since God's sovereignty is so deterministic, he caused Adam to sin. But this is unlike God, He would be unrighteous to cause someone to sin, and then punish him, and everyone after him. Some say that God chose who would be saved, and who would be damned, before time began. Others say that God chose who would be saved, but didn't chose who will be damned. But the end result is the same, which is termed Double Predestination. If you take a plain reading of the OT, you would see how Israel rebelled against God, but if you think about it in the terms of Calvinism, it's because God had ordained them to, and what God says in the OT is not what He means, or He means it, and Israel is making their hearts as adamant stone. Now, it would suffice to say that it makes no sense to even think that God caused Israels apostasy, under the guise of Him saying things like "Return to me and I will return to you" and "As surely as I live, says the Lord, do I desire the death of the wicked? rather that he would turn from his ways and live?" and "I rose early in the morning, calling to you, but you did not give heed to my voice" among numerous other statements that God had stated.

[ccgr]

While I believe and am honored to be chosen by God, I don't look at it like God purposefully damning people but knowing ahead of time who will ultimately accept or reject him. We do have free will, but it's a two way process we have to be open and willing to accept Him. You can't place an atheist in a church and hope for the best, the relationship has to be mutual.

[ArcticFox]

My simplest answer is no, Calvinism is highly unBiblical to the point of blasphemy because it essentially shifts all evil intent to God. I'm not the kind of Biblical scholar who is comfortable using big, scholarly sounding words, but my heart, my discernment and my common sense all tell me that.

If a person is born pre-selected to either live forever in Heaven or be cast into Outer Darkness, then any action they take in their lives are meaningless. The entire concept of a righteous life (or a depraved one, for that matter) are completely meaningless because either God ordained the person to live that way, or the way they live has no bearing on their eternal soul.

In either case, Scripture becomes meaningless and the entire reason for any church to exist falls apart.

Christianity absolutely depends upon the notion of freewill bearing the fruit of our choices. We can't save ourselves... only Jesus Christ can do that... but it still falls upon us to accept Him as our Savior and in so doing we exercise our freewill in a manner that determines our eternal destiny. We don't earn salvation, but we still have to choose it. Nobody is dragged into Heaven against their will.

Conversely, rejecting the Savior or blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a conscious decision to turn away from God and to exile ourselves. Just as nobody is forced into Heaven, nobody is forced into Hell either.

As I understand the philosophy behind Calvinism, it is to absolutely disassociate any action or choice on our part from our ability to receive salvation. In other words, because we are saved by Grace and not by deeds, and the act of accepting Christ can be seen as a "deed," then accepting Salvation cannot be a requirement. Thus... pre-destination. (Either that or it's God playing "eenie-meenie-miney-moe.")

To me, that's taking the concept to such an extreme that its meaning is broken. We do not earn salvation. That doesn't mean we have no active part to play in receiving it.

[Djents]

While I believe and am honored to be chosen by God, I don't look at it like God purposefully damning people but knowing ahead of time who will ultimately accept or reject him. We do have free will, but it's a two way process we have to be open and willing to accept Him. You can't place an atheist in a church and hope for the best, the relationship has to be mutual.

Yes, we are chosen by God, based on our response to the Gospel. "And it shall come to pass, that whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, will be saved" there are several "proof texts" that they like to use. In Acts as an example, you see "And as many were ordained to eternal life, believed" But just a few verses earlier, Barnabas, I believe, is talking to the Jews, in which he says to them "Since you judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, and thrust it aside, we turn to the Gentiles!"

[Djents]

My simplest answer is no, Calvinism is highly unBiblical to the point of blasphemy because it essentially shifts all evil intent to God. I'm not the kind of Biblical scholar who is comfortable using big, scholarly sounding words, but my heart, my discernment and my common sense all tell me that.

If a person is born pre-selected to either live forever in Heaven or be cast into Outer Darkness, then any action they take in their lives are meaningless. The entire concept of a righteous life (or a depraved one, for that matter) are completely meaningless because either God ordained the person to live that way, or the way they live has no bearing on their eternal soul.

In either case, Scripture becomes meaningless and the entire reason for any church to exist falls apart.

Christianity absolutely depends upon the notion of freewill bearing the fruit of our choices. We can't save ourselves... only Jesus Christ can do that... but it still falls upon us to accept Him as our Savior and in so doing we exercise our freewill in a manner that determines our eternal destiny. We don't earn salvation, but we still have to choose it. Nobody is dragged into Heaven against their will.

Conversely, rejecting the Savior or blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a conscious decision to turn away from God and to exile ourselves. Just as nobody is forced into Heaven, nobody is forced into Hell either.

As I understand the philosophy behind Calvinism, it is to absolutely disassociate any action or choice on our part from our ability to receive salvation. In other words, because we are saved by Grace and not by deeds, and the act of accepting Christ can be seen as a "deed," then accepting Salvation cannot be a requirement. Thus... pre-destination. (Either that or it's God playing "eenie-meenie-miney-moe.")

To me, that's taking the concept to such an extreme that its meaning is broken. We do not earn salvation. That doesn't mean we have no active part to play in receiving it.

Well said. That's what I believe. "You are saved by grace through faith" but it would seem that they say "you are saved by faith through grace" which if faith is something that God enforces upon someone without choice, the statement is unnecessary. Even Jesus marveled at the centurions faith. Jesus says to the Jews, "no one can come to me unless the Father draws them" but then Jesus later goes on to say "But if I, being lifted up, draw all men unto my self" and when Jesus is praying in John 17, he says "I pray that the world will believe that you have sent me" they pretty much ignore that part and focus on the beginning of the prayer where Jesus says "I don't pray for the world, but for those you have given me" But then He goes on to pray for the world, after praying for his disciples and then for those who would believe, and then that the world would believe that the Father had sent him. While in Adam, we are by nature objects of wrath, we aren't guilty of Adam's particular sin, per se. We are guilty because we are in corrupted flesh brought on by the fall. As Paul says in Romans "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21thath the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently." And another thing about Faith, as read about in Hebrews, it says this about it "Those who wish to come to God, must believe that He is, and that he is a rewarder of those who earnestly seek Him." While it's debatable that one can seek God without His first drawing them, it's ultimately up to the individual to yield to the conviction of sin, and to accept the truth for truth, or to resist, and God gives them over to a depraved mine, as you can read in Romans 1.

[ChickenSoup]

I'm pretty highly opposed to Calvinism, but reasons why have been well-summarized by others already.


Just, uh, putting my opinion out there

[Djents]

I'm pretty highly opposed to Calvinism, but reasons why have been well-summarized by others already.


Just, uh, putting my opinion out there

Haha, yeah. This Calvinism thing is pretty widespread. And a lot of cognitive dissonance. I'm not sure why they fell for it in the first place. I only know about it because my grandpa was telling me about double predestination, which caused me a lot of fear. So I decided to look it up, lo and behold, it's a man made doctrine based on a mis-construed reading of the bible.

[ArchAngel]

It's probably not wise for me to stick my head into a debate which I have little stake in, but poor Mr. Calvin needs an advocate, so here:

Calvinism, especially points on predestination and lack of free will, are simply the logical conclusions of an omnipotent and omniscient god.

[Djents]

It's probably not wise for me to stick my head into a debate which I have little stake in, but poor Mr. Calvin needs an advocate, so here:

Calvinism, especially points on predestination and lack of free will, are simply the logical conclusions of an omnipotent and omniscient god.

It's the same "logical conclusion" that atheists use to put forth their "problem of evil" idea, in my honest opinion. And based off of the events in the bible, it would seem that God has, for lack of a better phrase, limited his power in a sense that since he knows all things, including what one does, including sin, and evil, he is in no way shape or form the author of them.

[ArchAngel]

Now who is making man-made doctrine? Fine by me, really, but it sounded like you had a problem with it.

Not sure if I'm pleased or not to see someone admit that God doesn't have control in our lives.

[Djents]

Now who is making man-made doctrine? Fine by me, really, but it sounded like you had a problem with it.

Not sure if I'm pleased or not to see someone admit that God doesn't have control in our lives.

I'm not sure how you think that I said that God doesn't have control in our lives. I believe He is contingent in some areas of peoples lives. Like In Daniel, when the King said something really prideful, as soon as the words left his mouth, despite the warning he had from Daniel, God made the king into a madman, to walk around on four legs, and to eat the grass with the wildstock and to drink the dew on the ground. But he doesn't force someone to do evil nor to do good. It has a lot to do with foreknowledge, his knowing of all times and events, where he makes plans in advance to do something. Would you say that God ordained that Adam eat of the fruit? Or that Cain kill Abel? Or that the people in Genesis whose "thoughts and imaginations were only evil all the time, even in their youth"? Or that Saul disobeyed God when God specifically told him to kill EVERYTHING in that city, not to leave anyone or anything alive?

[ArchAngel]

But if he knows everything, including what will be, and sets events to see that he gets the outcome he wants, he overrides free will and essentially chooses who will go to Heaven and Hell.
You can't have control and freedom both; the more you get in one, the more you lose in the other.

And if God is omnipotent and omniscient, he knew exactly what was going to happen when he set things in together. Or was it a surprise to him?

[Djents]

Here is a quote by one of the earliest of the church fathers, Justin Martyr who lived from 100-165 AD.

"But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions.

Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things.
Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards.

For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made."

[Djents]

But if he knows everything, including what will be, and sets events to see that he gets the outcome he wants, he overrides free will and essentially chooses who will go to Heaven and Hell.
You can't have control and freedom both; the more you get in one, the more you lose in the other.

And if God is omnipotent and omniscient, he knew exactly what was going to happen when he set things in together. Or was it a surprise to him?

In no way am I saying that it was a surprise to Him. You seem to think that just because he knows something, it means He causes it to happen. No. He Foreknows and then Predetermines. As we can see in Acts 2 "“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken[c] by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it." It is by the determined purpose AND foreknowledge. Do you think that God is double minded to say "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth, for I am God, and there is no other." and then say "haha you can't turn to me and be saved because I haven't chosen you"?

[ArchAngel]

Justin still doesn't address the discrepancy between an omnipotent god and free will.

You commented earlier on the cognitive dissonance of Calvinists, but it seems here to want to believe in both an omnipotent God and Free Will, that'd itself is an act of cognitive dissonance.

I'm not trying to convince you one way or another on this. Like I said before, I have no real stake on this, but having had some Calvinist sympathies in my past, I'd like to make the case that's it's really not that illogical of a position considering church doctrine. A little humility towards the Calvinist might be warranted.
There is even something a little admirable about people who stare into the bleak conclusions of their beliefs and embrace it.

And yes, if you know how things are going to happen and you create the whole universe, you bet you are responsible for how it turns out.