John Calvin and Calvinism.

[Lifelong_sinner]

I dunno dude but The whole morality of this existence just goes out the window with this doctrine.
I’m just a sinner who is seeking God.
I don’t think of myself as the chosen because that makes me a spoiled child , completely Irresponsible of my actions.

you are chosen, but make no mistake, it is God who will get the glory. When God saves a wicked person, He shows His grace and love by saying look, i took this evil person and gave Him my grace through my son Jesus so that gary could live with Me. No one deserves His grace. But He will get the glory for saving you. So stop making this about you. Its not, its about God.

 

[GaryAnderson]

you are chosen, but make no mistake, it is God who will get the glory. When God saves a wicked person, He shows His grace and love by saying look, i took this evil person and gave Him my grace through my son Jesus so that gary could live with Me. No one deserves His grace. But He will get the glory for saving you. So stop making this about you. Its not, its about God.

But what about all the commandments from the Old Testament and the commandments of Jesus that he left with the Apostles?
What do I do with those?
Put them in the shredder?

 

[PinSeeker]

Here is one example of Calvin contradicting himself, and contradicting Scripture at the same time.

Calvin’s commentary on John 3:16 (Bible Hub): SCRIPTURAL
16. For God so loved the world. Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish...

That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTRADICTED IN CALVIN'S INSTITUTES: UNSCRIPTURAL
“We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction. We maintain that this counsel, as regards the elect, is founded on his free mercy, without any respect to human worth, while those whom he dooms to destruction are excluded from access to life by a just and blameless, but at the same time incomprehensible judgment.” Institutes III. 21.7.

So either John Calvin was a very dishonest theologian, or he assumed nobody would catch him in his contradictions. And this is just one example. And Calvinists try to dodge all around this to claim that Calvin did not believe in Unlimited Atonement.

This is well worth taking a look at:

All are invited:
This is the general call to repentance and belief. The atonement of Christ on the cross is unlimited in this respect, that it was (and is) sufficient for all. It was completely sufficient to achieve the salvation of all men.

But only a few come:
The Christ's work on the cross was sufficient for all, it was not meant for all, but only for those whom the God calls ~ purposes to save and gives his Spirit. These are God's elect. The atonement of Christ on the cross is limited in this respect, that God calls only some and thus not all, and those who are called are, without fail, predestined to and ultimately given eternal life. As Christ Jesus Himself said:

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” [John 6:37-40]​

The 'whosoever' of John 3:16 is a direct reference by the apostle John to Joel 2:32, and there, the prophet Joel, relates what God Himself says:

"And it shall come to pass that everyone (whosoever) who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls."​

In this passage, everyone/whosoever is not all, but only the ones who call on the name of the LORD, and even then, it is dependent on whether the LORD has called them or not. And this is what Paul says (and refers to) in Romans 9:

"...that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls... it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."​

There can be no dispute with what some poster said earlier, that John Calvin was but a man and therefore his word was not and is not infallible and inerrant, as God's is. And too, nothing John Calvin wrote was in any way part of the Bible, which alone is God's infallible, inerrant word. Even so, though, there is absolutely no contradiction is what John Calvin wrote in your post above.

Two things indirectly about John Calvin specifically:

1. Really, to say John Calvin's beliefs consisted of five points ("TULIP") is wrong. John Calvin's understandings of Scripture (which are far more extensive and complete than being reduced to a meager five points) were only used to refute the five erroneous points propagated by Jacobus Arminius in the 16th century.

2. If we are to "debate" John Calvin's merits or lack thereof, we have to include in the conversation Augustine of Hippo, who, many centuries earlier, expressed virtually the same understandings of Scripture as Calvin. And Augustine's erroneous contemporary was Pelagius, who's mistaken opinions were very much paralleled by (as you might guess) the above-mentioned Jacobus Arminius.​

Grace and peace to all.

 

[PinSeeker]

Calvinism is just a word we use to define Biblical salvation.

Well, no, that would be 'soteriology,' which is the doctrine of salvation. 'Calvinism' is to be used in reference to John Calvin's understandings, expressed in his writings, of Scripture as a whole. He writes a lot about soteriology, but quite more than that.

Calvin didn't create any new doctrine.

Agreed. The doctrine (teaching, instruction) was created by God, as it's His Word. John Calvin (and others, some correctly and some incorrectly) just related it.

He merely took what the 27 books of the NT said and condensed it to 5 points.

Well, see above. Jacobus Arminius propagated five points, and John Calvin's understandings and writings ~ which consist of far more than five points, really ~ were used to refute Arminius's five erroneous points in the Synod of Dort (the Netherlands, Holland), which took place in 1618 and 1619.

Grace and peace to you!

 

[Enoch111]

Even so, though, there is absolutely no contradiction is what John Calvin wrote in your post above.

You have got to be kidding. You have either not bothered to analyze the difference or you are simply trying to cover up for Calvin. The contradiction is as plain as day. On one hand he writes that God wants all humanity to be saved, and on the other hand he writes the exact opposite! What he wrote in the Institutes and what he wrote in his commentaries clash with each other.

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

But what about all the commandments from the Old Testament and the commandments of Jesus that he left with the Apostles?
What do I do with those?
Put them in the shredder?

ahhh gary. Good works dont save you gary. So how this works is, once you are justified (saved) you then have the Holy Spirit within you, guiding you. This is called sanctification. This process will take place for the rest of your life. The Holy Spirit will show you what to do, what to say, and convict you when you dont do right. We dont do good works to earn our salvation, we do good works to show we are already justified. We cant follow God’s commandments on our own. And remember, that our best deeds are like filthy rags to God.

you bring up morality, as if its required to get to Heaven. The Holy Spirit will teach you morality, and it is a progressive sanctification. That too is a gift, for if the Holy Spirit revealed how sinful you truly are all at once, no doubt it would kill us.

 

[PinSeeker]

You have got to be kidding.

Not at all.

You have either not bothered to analyze the difference or you are simply trying to cover up for Calvin.

Yes, I have; see above. What you bring up as a contradiction should be regarded as two related but separate things that are both true. I could have expounded quite more, but what I said above is sufficient.

The contradiction is as plain as day.

The non-contradiction is plain as day.

On one hand he writes that God wants all humanity to be saved, and on the other hand he writes the exact opposite!

Well, God does indeed desire that all would come to knowledge of the truth, as Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:4 ("...God our Savior, Who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"). I think we should differentiate between one's desire and one's will. Just regarding you and me, we may desire a lot of things, but we know it would be wrong to actually act according to our desire, and therefore willingly overrule our desire, for possibly several good reasons. And so God does in the case of saving some and not all of His creation, which He is perfectly justified in doing, as no one is deserving of His salvation. But ~ as Moses says and Paul quotes ~ He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, compassion on whom He will have compassion.

What he wrote in the Institutes and what he wrote in his commentaries clash with each other.

Only in the eyes of some beholders, I guess. But no. See above.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Here is one example of Calvin contradicting himself, and contradicting Scripture at the same time.

Calvin’s commentary on John 3:16 (Bible Hub): SCRIPTURAL
16. For God so loved the world. Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish...

That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTRADICTED IN CALVIN'S INSTITUTES: UNSCRIPTURAL
“We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction. We maintain that this counsel, as regards the elect, is founded on his free mercy, without any respect to human worth, while those whom he dooms to destruction are excluded from access to life by a just and blameless, but at the same time incomprehensible judgment.” Institutes III. 21.7.

So either John Calvin was a very dishonest theologian, or he assumed nobody would catch him in his contradictions. And this is just one example. And Calvinists try to dodge all around this to claim that Calvin did not believe in Unlimited Atonement.

Maybe Jesus was a dishonest theologian as well! In JOhn 3, He says this:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Yet two verses later He says this:

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
And 18 verses later He says this:

36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

These verbs are in the present tense which means that God so loved the world, YET, HIs wrath is already abiding on people.

Illogical to m en- Perfect wisdom for God.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Thank you so much for the summary @Ronald Nolette .
I can see that each of those points can ignite an endless debate including on what exactly they mean by words like “Total” or “Unconditional” or “ irresistible” or “limited”.
Sigh.
I’ll sit back and watch now and thank you again for the summary.

Yeah, it has divided the church since the first century!

 

[Rudometkin]

I’m sorry but I don’t think you’re reading what I’m saying or appreciating the gravity of your doctrine and its lack of moral consequences.
If God has chosen me … that’s great, but this means that I’m still going to do what I want. If he has condemned me … I’m still going to do what I want.
This essentially makes me God and gives me an unlimited lack of accountability for my actions. This is so wrong with the whole message of Jesus and repentance and being humble … that I don’t even know where to begin.

There is no need to be sorry with me, Gary. We stand here on equal ground. In fact, since you don't have a complete picture, it's me who should be clarifying my position. I don't know if my position is in line with Calvinism or not. Some people here have called me a "Hyper Calvinist", since I accept all of the logical conclusions to God's Sovereignty.

My position is that God controls absolutely everything about everything. So whether God chooses you or not, you're going to do what He decided for you to do. That doesn't make you God. It means you're held accountable for your sins, unless you have Jesus as an advocate.

Since He is the sole metaphysical power in existence, everything depends on Him for existence. He is the Author of everything, including evil and man's sin. When God causes a man to sin, the man sins. God doesn't sin, because sin is transgression of law, and God has no law against Himself. He is perfect. He works everything according to His plan. Consider the answer called Supralapsarianism.

Supralapsarianism:
First, in eternity, God determined that He would be glorified. In order to accomplish this, He determined that elected men would be saved by Christ. In order to accomplish this, He determined that sinful men would be divided into elect and reprobates. In order to accomplish this, He determined that men would fall. In order to accomplish this, He determined that mankind would be created.

Then, within creation, the order is reversed. This is what we see played out. God created mankind, so that He would make them fall, so that the elect would be divided from the reprobates, so that Christ would save the elect men, so that God would be glorified.

God is perfectly accomplishing His purpose. Have it another way, and you have God frustrated.

 

[FHII]

That puzzles me, because after extensively reading his commentaries I must have missed the contradictions. I haven't seen anywhere he has contradicted the Bible.

I have a question for you; as one who has read his commentaries extensively.

Have you come across any mention of the acronym, TULIP, or him listing the 5 points of TULIP? If so, where? I have read some of his works, but not all (he actually has an extensive catalogue), and haven't. I have seen various comments on each point, not any part where he laid down a list.

My reason for asking is that I simply believe that John Calvin wasn't a Calvinist!

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

I have a question for you; as one who has read his commentaries extensively.

Have you come across any mention of the acronym, TULIP, or him listing the 5 points of TULIP? If so, where? I have read some of his works, but not all (he actually has an extensive catalogue), and haven't. I have seen various comments on each point, not any part where he laid down a list.

My reason for asking is that I simply believe that John Calvin wasn't a Calvinist!

Calvin wasnt the one who made the acronym TULIP. It was during the canons of dordt i believe that came up with tulip, but what i found interesting is, it seems 1905 is the earliest recorded use of TULIP.
The Origin of TULIP? (Updated!)

Also,
The earliest use of TULIP in this regard appears to be in 1905 by Rev. Cleland Boyd McAfee, in a lecture before the Presbyterian Union, Newark, NJ, as recorded by William H. Vail, writing in The New Outlook (1913).^[2]^

The popular use of TULIP as a teaching device was stimulated by Loraine Boettner in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination first published in 1932.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

He repeated what the Bible said and then CONTRADICTED the Bible. Why are you being dishonest about what Calvin did, even after I showed you the contradiction.

Well you showed on eplace where he allegedly contradicted himself, but can you show one comment from Calvin where he directly contradicts scripture?

 

[Enoch111]

Well you showed on eplace where he allegedly contradicted himself, but can you show one comment from Calvin where he directly contradicts scripture?

"Allegedly"? Did you not read his exact words? And one critical contradiction regarding the true Gospel is more than enough to show the falsity of Calvinism. I could post a lot more, but if people hate to look at actual evidence, and call it "alleged" then it would be a waste of time.

The Bible says that God will have ALL MEN to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
And what do we have?
CALVIN'S COMMENTARY: THAT IS TRUE
CALVIN'S INSTITUTES: THAT IS FALSE

 

[Paul Christensen]

I have a question for you; as one who has read his commentaries extensively.

Have you come across any mention of the acronym, TULIP, or him listing the 5 points of TULIP? If so, where? I have read some of his works, but not all (he actually has an extensive catalogue), and haven't. I have seen various comments on each point, not any part where he laid down a list.

My reason for asking is that I simply believe that John Calvin wasn't a Calvinist!

I think that Calvin has been misrepresented by many who call themselves Calvinists. I carefully read his commentary on Romans, 1 Corinthians, John's Gospel, 1 John, and 1 & 2 Thessalonians, and am currently reading through Isaiah. What I observe is that everything he says is totally consistent with the passages of Scripture he comments on. When he talks about election, he puts believing the Gospel first, then worrying about election next. He is quite clear that man cannot have "saving faith" without the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. He basis his view on what Romans actually says. Concerning predestination, he is clear that believers are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, but leaves the rest up to God's secret decrees which he does not recommend that people be over curious about. He says that some zealous fanatics have made a big deal about predestination and election which he doesn't go along with. Overall, his view is that the invitation to believe the Gospel is open to all and that the priority is to believe the Gospel and to seek God for "saving faith" to bring about genuine conversion to Christ.

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

"Allegedly"? Did you not read his exact words? And one critical contradiction regarding the true Gospel is more than enough to show the falsity of Calvinism. I could post a lot more, but if people hate to look at actual evidence, and call it "alleged" then it would be a waste of time.

The Bible says that God will have ALL MEN to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
And what do we have?
CALVIN'S COMMENTARY: THAT IS TRUE
CALVIN'S INSTITUTES: THAT IS FALSE

i think you’re misunderstanding that verse. I agree with ronald when he said that while God would love for everyone to be saved, He knows they wont. I would love to win the lottery, but i’m sure i wont.
I dont know what your thoughts are on salvation, but for me, i dont believe like most that God is waiting to sit around a campfire singing kum bah yah with everyone. To me, God is just, fair, and impartial. The scariest thing about God and us, is God is perfect and we are not. He will judge us without any bias. And as a result, majority of mankind wont make it to Heaven.

 

[marks]

since the admins seem to have taken a hands off approach to running this place,

So you've noticed!



I think of it a The Wild Wild West.

Much love!

 

[farouk]

Great question, Nancy.

What if you're evangelizing to Esau?

Romans 9:13
...Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

@Rudometkin In the sense that the Lord Jesus said: "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 15.15), the loving message goes forth to all. We ourselves don't know what individual Divine purposes and individual responses will be.

 

[Enoch111]

I agree with ronald when he said that while God would love for everyone to be saved, He knows they wont. I would love to win the lottery, but i’m sure i wont.

That is not really the point. The point is that Calvin said one thing at one time and then CONTRADICTED himself and Scripture. And this is not just once but frequently. So one has to wonder about his agenda.

 

[Enoch111]

And this is not just once but frequently. So one has to wonder about his agenda.

Here is another example from John Calvin, where in the same Book III of the Institutes, he contradicts himself. Please note his words carefully, since he chose his words carefully:

BIBLE TRUTH: SALVATION OF THE HUMAN RACE
We must now see in what way we become possessed of the blessings which God has bestowed on his only-begotten Son, not for private use, but to enrich the poor and needy. And the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us. Institutes III. 1.1.

CALVINISTIC ERROR: SALVATION OF THE FOREORDAINED
...and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for though none are enlightened into faith, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are fore-ordained to salvation, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Institutes III. 2. 11.

Was Calvin blind to his own contradictions?