Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

How Does Calvinism Work, Exactly?


Recommended Posts

Posted

For context, I’m coming at this as an agnostic who’s very interested in religion. Growing up, I went to a conservative evangelical church that taught the sort of modified Arminianism that’s common in America (free will with, paradoxically, eternal security). I’m intrigued that the Reformed view has been making a real comeback in recent years. I have two interconnected questions for any Calvinists reading this - 

1. I want to make sure that I fully grasp the Reformed position. I’ve heard it articulated in two rather different ways:

A. Man is every bit as “free” as is in Arminianism with one major exception: he has no way whatsoever of accepting God’s gift of salvation. Man is so fallen that he is only capable of freely choosing damnation and corruption. Just as a dog’s nature inevitably compels him to choose a poisoned steak over a plate of vegetables, man will choose hell over heaven every time. If a person is saved, therefore, it is because God unilaterally steps in and compels belief. 

Thus, humanity is like a group of wheelchair-bound paraplegics tasked with climbing a mile-high mountain. No one deterministically directs their movements around the mountain; they are free as far as it goes. But they are physically incapable of climbing the mountain. 

According to Calvinism, God snatches up certain paraplegics with a giant crane and drops them atop the mountain, whether or not they want to go. These people are the elect. The unelect are out of luck since the crane is the only way to the top, and God has chosen not grab them. 

Arminianism, in contrast, teaches that God lowers a massive elevator and invites everyone to the top. It’s up to the individual paraplegics whether or not they want to go. 

So in short, when referring to the absolute Sovereignty of God, Calvinists mean that God alone determines who will and will not accept His plan of salvation. 

B. Every last detail of the universe is predetermined down to and beyond the subatomic level. Every word that I am presently typing originates from God, and He has willed for me to type these particular words at this particular Starbucks in Atlanta, GA at this particular point in history, 9:06 PM on Friday January 11, 2013 A.D [i wrote this the other day]. In film geek parlance, God is the ultimate auteur: the screenwriter/director/cinematographer/producer/editor/marketer etc. etc. etc. of the uber-budgeted epic of the universe. 

Obviously, then, God alone decides who will accept His plan of salvation just like He alone controls absolutely everything else that goes on. 

So in short, when referring to the absolute Sovereignty of God, Calvinists mean that God controls absolutely everything that happens in the universe down to the smallest detail, including whether or not individuals accept his plan of salvation.

These strike me as fairly different views, but I’ve heard Calvinism described both ways. It would seem possible to characterize a “A” as single predestination (since God foreordains who will be saved but does not foreordain sin) and “B” as double predestination (since God, indeed, foreordains everything). But I’ve actually heard “A” described as double predestination, which seemed odd. I could also envision various intermediate positions between the two extremes. 

Also, I recognize that “B” is not technically pantheism, but it strikes me as vaguely pantheistic, as if everything down to the tiniest molecule is an extension of God’s consciousness. I understand that in “B” Calvinism God is a separate being set over and above creation, and that creation reflects God’s will down to the tiniest detail but is nevertheless set apart God, whereas in pantheism creator and creation are interconnected and are in fact the same. But thinking that God is author of our thoughts, in particular, evokes a kind of eastern/pantheistic interconnectedness.  If God is not the author of our every thought, how would this square with His absolute sovereignty in all things?  

2. I suppose this is sort of a compound question - What theological propositions must a person accept, at absolute minimum, to be considered a saved Christian. How do you justify these requirements Biblically? Must one have perfect theological beliefs to be saved? If not, why would God elect someone but then imbue them with imperfect beliefs? Are Arminians saved? Are Roman Catholics? If Arminians are saved but not Roman Catholics, how do you justify this position since both parties believe that “works” are necessary for salvation (even if the Arminians don’t realize that they believe this). 

 

 

 

 



Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



Posted

You label yourself as agnostic, so I am wondering about your understanding of that word, in light of the questions you asked. The dictionary defines agnostic as:

 

 One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

 One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism

 

Your questions, however, exhibit an interest in apologetics which the dictionary defines as reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

 

I acknowledge that religion and a belief in God are similar in that they are both dealing with the supernatural, but from different perspectives. It is estimated there are 34,000 versions of the Christian “religion” but only one God. Well, actually two and maybe three depending on the definition, understanding, and interpretation of the apologetics associated with the term trinity.

 

Are you certain you’re in the right place? This site is designed to support former believers primarily those who were once Christians but have renounced their prior faith and beliefs.

 

Calvinism, Arminianism, Reformed, and Restored are topics for apologetics. Maybe you clicked on the wrong site by accident. Your questions indicate your interest is more along the lines of evangelical apologetics.

 

You might want to consider a new google search for a more appropriate site that is designed to deal with the specific questions that you seem to be pondering.

 

I am a former Christian and I am willing to answer your questions from my agnostic POV. All of the terms you’ve referenced are irreleveant because all religions are man made. The bible is not true in any literal or historic sense so terms such as Calvinism and Arminiansim have no meaning because there is no such thing as sin and therefore no need of redemption. Additionally, the historic biblical character Jesus of Nazareth was a mythical character as were his alleged disciples. The god of the bible is also a myth. Christianity likely evolved from paganism as an unintended consequence of an unsuccessful attempt to reform Second Temple Judaism.  

Posted

I'm "[o]ne who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism" with a dash of "impossible to know."  I am no longer a Christian and doubt I will be returning there, but being an agnostic I try to keep an open mind.

 

The Lion's Den is a place on the site for debate with Christians, no?  I think the rise of Calvinism is an interesting development in evangelicism for multiple reasons, and I also think that it's often articulated in ways that seem haphazard and inconsistent.  It seemed posting this question here would be a nice jumping off point for a larger discussion; like most non-Calvinists, I think the position as all kinds of problems, but in the modern world Calvinism's deeply self-referential circular logic might be the last place for evangelicals to go.    

 

 

I obviously haven't posted much, but I've done lots of lurking, and this topic didn't strike me as too out of bounds.  Plus there's a whole topic for General Christian Theological Issues, so I don't see the problem.

 

 

 
 
Posted

The intent of my post was to obtain a clarification of your position and thinking. If I understand your post you are not religious but you remain interested in religion. I do too but only from a historical perspective. I have no interest in discussing apologetics or hermeneutics because I personally find those subjects irrelevant because organized religions beliefs and traditions are man made. IMO, that would be like arguing and debating Santa Claus definition of naughty and nice and where he draws the line. Santa ain’t real so it doesn’t matter where Santa would hypothetically draw the line.

 

 

The elements that make up the subject matter you want to discuss aren’t real either. It doesn’t matter what Calvin thought about sin, forgiveness, heaven, or hell because those concepts and places aren’t real. Therefore, it doesn't matter how Calvin is interpreted. Maybe someone else is interested in pursuing your suggested topic though. Nice talking withya.

Posted

Hello sgs83, I used to be a Calvinist.  All the people I knew were Calvinists of your type 2.  They believed that God determines/causes every event.  The leading edge of their religion is the sovereignty of God - in contrast, for example, to Catholics, the leading edge of whose religion (in its developed form, at least) I would say is the incarnation.

 

I find it hard to think that anyone who is attracted to logic, as many Calvinists seem to be, would stay as type 1.  In fact, I don't think any serious calvinist would limit God's sovereignty only to the salvation of individuals.  They'd say that when God created the world, he set in motion a chain of causes that causes me to type this, etc. etc.

 

Don't forget the acronym TULIP as used for key Calvinistic beliefs:  Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement (Jesus died only for the sins of the elect, not for the sins of all), irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints.

  • Like 2
Posted

I'd love to see this thread expand, myself. I was raised (partly) in a Calvinist church, and of course a lot of it rubbed off on me. Later I became a "once-saved-always-saved" Baptist, which to me had a lot in common with some points of Calvinism. I also had a Pentecostal stage that lasted quite a while.

 

I can't answer your questions directly sgs83, as I don't have the knowledge to do so with any real intelligence. I've never let that stop me anywhere else on this site, but I think I will here. :-)

  • Like 1
Posted

You have not been predestined to know the answer sorry.  

  • Like 1
Posted

Hi sgs83, As I understood it, Calvinism does run the gamut from -God knew who would accept Jesus (meaning there is actually goodness in man) so that type is more arminian -- to -for God's own reason & not that the people did any good or bad, but he elected some people to be "his elect" & by default damning the others.  This latter form usually is common w/ Calvinists who are staunchly the 5-point calvinists, Total Depravity & Particular redemption types, meaning that Jesus did NOT die for all of humanity, but only died for the elect.

 

I was in this last type of Calvinist church. It was a 5-point calvinist, but the pastor would probably deny that & say he's just teaching the bile.

 

As I understood it with the Calvinism I was indoctrinated in, there is a "temporal salvation" meaning I can choose whether to sin or not & reap the consequences of my actions, good or bad, in THIS life.  So a child of God can sin it up...but his/her DESTINATION has been determined. So I guess in some regards it's about the same as "once saved always saved"

This is where we were supposed to live up to the standards, which ending up being WAY too much for me, things that a NORMAL person would not consider a "sin" were considered sins, so it was a constant barrage of

trying to "be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect". UGH! boy did I long for the easy days of being a Catholic when I was in the cult. biggrin.png

 

Anyhoo,  TULIP is the acronym for most Calvinism

T-Total Depravity

U-Unconditional Election

L-Limited Atonement

I-Irresistable Grace (THANKS FICINO) posted this late last night...

P-Perseverance of the Saints- for the more arminian, however in the cult I was in the "P" was for PRESERVATION of the saints,

the implications of "preservation" is that...well, don't worry, you don't even really have to try because your "election" getting into heaven is preserved for you.

Consequently laziness, "sinfulness" (which I don't believe in sin, but meaning bad behavior) & not really caring for society outside of their little group is pretty much what it ended up being all about.

I saw more cruelty in that place then I ever did in "the world".

Warming a seat on Sunday is the end all be-all of most Calvinist churches. (OK maybe that's not true, but the cult I left ended up being about THE DOCTRINE & the teachings. They don't give a rats ass about

HUMANITY, they waste time arguing over jots & tittles & religious minutiae

while pain & suffering goes on outside of their little group & they could care less. After all Jesus said "the poor ye shall have with you alway..." & the attitude was

the wicked & the world is deserving what it gets. There is very little charity, compassion or love shown outside of the "church", unless there is some ulterior motive to make a good show or to try to convert

or persuade someone...

 

They spend time building walls instead of building bridges. For myself what I thought was "saved totally & completely by GRACE" because that is what is taught, ended up the biggest lie & deception.

I never had so many burdens placed on myself, husband & family. It's a delusion that they get you to believe.

 

Ah well...In the Calvinist group I was in the pastard would often knock other christian denominations, everyone was doing it all wrong, except for him & his little cult churches. Now he would say "oh I believe god's elect are IN the catholic church, but if they stay a Catholic, that is not a sign that they are truly saved"...so in his eyes, what determines salvation is getting in HIS church, which he equates with "the true church" & believing the right doctrine.  THAT is their gauge for being an elect of god. You could be the worst vile son-of-a-bitch, but if you are in one of his little cult churches, you are one of god's cherished children.

Oh god, it became so oppressive over time, your mind & thoughts become stifled. Verses such as "the heart is desperately wicked" & "my ways are above your ways" to get you to stop thinking, so the pastor could

then fill your mind with all of his demented dogma bile. *sigh* It's quite the mind fuck.

 

Anyhoo a whole lot of double speak with the appearance of mercy towards those on the outside, but if you were in, you KNEW what it was about, namely the sermon, the pastor, the pastor's family, the mini-sermon on Wed. known as "Bile Study" & building the pastor's ego etc.....To me all I saw was a small man with a big ego using religion build his own little fiefdom.

 

OK well, it's late I could say more but I'm tired. I would love to chat more about this later if you want to.

Good night

PS also HATRED of others was accepted becasue in the old test. there is a bile verse, "god hatest all workers of iniquity" & the pastor did whole sermons on "god didn't say he hated the "sin" but the actual sinner, the "workers" being the humans themselves. So many calvinist are cruel if you ask me....but of course I am biased because of my horrible experience with that type of abusive religion,

  • Like 1
Posted

I’ll give you my take as a former Reformed since you may be waiting awhile for a current one to come around.

 

First off, you should know that you are using “Reformed” and “Calvinist” in more of a colloquial sense. Calvin taught much more than just the doctrines that make up TULIP and likewise Reformed theology consists of a helluva lot more baggage than just soteriology. Also, in a sense, Arminius himself was “Reformed” and few people that call themselves Arminians today would accept much of what Arminius believed. I just want to give you a heads up in case you run across any Truly Reformed folks who will take issue with the notion that someone in say the SBC could rightly call themselves “Calvinist” or “Reformed”.

 

I think a problem in your first version of Calvinist is that even these folks would still make a distinction between contra-causal or libertarian free will and compatibilist free will. I know that people like RC Sproul do not like to push the distinction too far in their polemical works and often stop short of double predestination as you pointed out, but I still think they have to at least admit that even if LFW did exist, it doesn’t now. Most of the Calvinists I know will point to confessional standards like the WCF or LBC, both of which state something along the lines of, “God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass” [emphasis mine].

 

I don’t think your type "B" would like the word “controls” so much as “decrees.” Semantic precision is everything to these folks as these distinctions hold the fragile theological architecture in place. Just read some of Jonathan Edward’s stuff like The Freedom of the Will and you’ll see what I mean. Using secondary causes without doing violence to the will of the creature is the distinction here.

 

The people who hold to “A” are inconsistent thinkers who are trying to play the “more Biblical than thou” card and say they’re only taking their theology as far as scripture will take them. They’re not making the “necessary inference” that you can’t plan the ends if you don’t plan the means. I’ve never met a thoughtful Calvinist that remained in that position for very long, although I could see why they would be popular.

 

It’s not really pantheism as you said because even though everything in the universe is essentially just one of God’s actualized thoughts, he remains separate from the universe. This view of God is really much simpler than the one most Arminians and Molonists posit because it doesn’t muck everything up with all that magic box contra-causal bullshit. A question I used to ask non-Calvinists (who weren’t Open Theists) all the time was, “Where does God get his foreknowledge from?”

 

Looking back, the whole debate just really seems to center around which kind of god you like the best. Do you want god to be a lovey-dovey god who doesn’t want puppets and wobots and just wants someone to choose to wub him for who he is [imagine me doing a pouty lip when I say that] or do want a god who’s in control and fuck you if you’re not one of the elect, maggot [imagine R Lee Ermey saying that part]? I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Reformed Evangelical denominations are the only ones in the US where men outnumber women. Their theology is not for the faint of heart.

 

As for the second part of your question, the answers will often vary. I suspect that most would say believing propositions like, “I am a sinner and stand condemned before God. Jesus Christ (as God) took the punishment for the sins of his people on the cross and rose from the dead. I look to him alone for salvation” would be necessary. Mind you, this does not mean people have to be able to articulate these propositions, just that they believe them. As far as biblical justification goes, they would look at the passages in Galatians where Paul pronounces anathema on other gospels. Forgive me for not going into great detail, but I’m not going to do your homework for you on that one. If you really want the low-down head over to monergism.com and read some of the introductory articles there.

 

As far as how Calvinists would view Arminian Evangelicals and Romans Catholics with respect to damnable heresy and just plain heresy, they would say that Arminian Evangelicals who still hold to justification by faith alone stop short of attributing works as the grounds of justification whereas Roman Catholics hold the view works are indeed part of the grounds of justification. The issue is not whether or not works are necessary for the salvation of the elect (thoughtful Calvinists will admit they are), the issue is the grounds of justification. They would say that since Roman Catholic doctrine teaches works plus faith are the grounds of justification believing that would be damnable, but since Arminian Evangelicals teach that faith is merely the instrument by which one receives Christ and when backed into a corner will often say that it was all the work of Christ alone without the infusion of anything else they are OK. In this way Arminian Evangelicals are felicitously inconsistent in their soteriology to their benefit while Roman Catholics are consistent to their damnation. Most Calvinists will recognize that there are quite a few Roman Catholics who are inconsistent in their theology as well and they could also possibly be saved. How generous.

  • Like 2
Posted

Badly.

 

next question.

  • Like 2
Posted

.........As for the second part of your question, the answers will often vary. I suspect that most would say believing propositions like, “I am a sinner and stand condemned before God. Jesus Christ (as God) took the punishment for the sins of his people on the cross and rose from the dead. I look to him alone for salvation” would be necessary. Mind you, this does not mean people have to be able to articulate these propositions, just that they believe them. As far as biblical justification goes, they would look at the passages in Galatians where Paul pronounces anathema on other gospels. Forgive me for not going into great detail, but I’m not going to do your homework for you on that one. If you really want the low-down head over to monergism.com and read some of the introductory articles there.

 

As far as how Calvinists would view Arminian Evangelicals and Romans Catholics with respect to damnable heresy and just plain heresy, they would say that Arminian Evangelicals who still hold to justification by faith alone stop short of attributing works as the grounds of justification whereas Roman Catholics hold the view works are indeed part of the grounds of justification. The issue is not whether or not works are necessary for the salvation of the elect (thoughtful Calvinists will admit they are), the issue is the grounds of justification. They would say that since Roman Catholic doctrine teaches works plus faith are the grounds of justification believing that would be damnable, but since Arminian Evangelicals teach that faith is merely the instrument by which one receives Christ and when backed into a corner will often say that it was all the work of Christ alone without the infusion of anything else they are OK. In this way Arminian Evangelicals are felicitously inconsistent in their soteriology to their benefit while Roman Catholics are consistent to their damnation. Most Calvinists will recognize that there are quite a few Roman Catholics who are inconsistent in their theology as well and they could also possibly be saved. How generous.

 

Thanks for the reference. Monergism.com is an interesting site. I’ve studied the reformation movement and the restoration movement (I have a Church of Christ background) but only from a historical perspective. I’ve never delved that deeply into the theology of those movements. Monergism.com has a lot of interesting reformation information that explains a lot about the theology I was exposed to as a Christian and it also showed me why I’ve never been a fan of Calvinism.

Posted

Calvinism is really the only view compatible with a detailed reading of Scripture.  Arminianism contradicts the Bible at so many points that it is a much harder (in my view, impossible) view to be sustained.  Arminians are really just people who don't like the idea that salvation is out of their hands.  

  • Like 1
Posted

Calvinism is really the only view compatible with a detailed reading of Scripture.  Arminianism contradicts the Bible at so many points that it is a much harder (in my view, impossible) view to be sustained.  Arminians are really just people who don't like the idea that salvation is out of their hands.  

 

 

"If" the tenets of Christianity were true I would tend to agree with your observation, but there is no objective evidence, at least that I am aware of, that validates any of the dogma customarily associated with Christianity. The concepts of sin and salvation appear to be clearly human in origin and implementation. In that is so, and I believe it is, then both Calvinism and Arminianism are irrelevant human concepts.

  • Like 1
  • 5 months later...
Posted

I still don't understand Calvinism. God has chosen his people that will go to heaven and those people just have to (or are determinate to) believe to go to heaven? Why do they worry about sin then? You have to believe that you are chosen, guess right and can live your life without rules (sin without begging for forgiveness/without regretting) and still go to heaven,right? Or is it more like that god had chosen "good" people and that they try to avoid sin because they believe that that is how god created them (convince themselves/others that they are the chosen ones)? What about missionary? Is there a need to convert people if it is already determinant who will be saved? Or do they see their actions as a part of the determinant plan of god?

 

Edit: What about blasphemy against the holy spirit? Can chosen people commit it and still be saved, are they not able to commit it or is it a loop hole in determinism?

Posted

God has chosen his people that will go to heaven…

Yes.

 

and those people just have to (or are determinate to) believe to go to heaven?

Not exactly. Those people are granted saving faith. The saving faith that is granted to the elect enables them to believe the word of God and yield in obedience to it. It is not a faith that is alone.

 

Why do they worry about sin then?

Not worrying about sin would be a strong indication that one did not possess saving faith. God surely knows those who are his, but the elect only have varying degrees of their assurance. Indeed, they are instructed, “make your calling and election sure” (2 Peter 1:10).

 

You have to believe that you are chosen, guess right and can live your life without rules (sin without begging for forgiveness/without regretting) and still go to heaven, right?

No. Repentance, faith and obedience are outward signs that one has been truly regenerated. Simply believing that you are chosen will not do.

 

Or is it more like that god had chosen "good" people and that they try to avoid sin because they believe that that is how god created them (convince themselves/others that they are the chosen ones)?

While they wouldn’t say that, this assessment is a bit closer to reality. They don’t believe that god has created them good but rather has, since the moment of regeneration, been continually making them better (sanctification). If they don’t see signs that this process is ongoing then they have no reason to believe it ever happened to begin with. However, they can never look to their own works for assurance and instead must keep “looking to Christ” and his sacrifice. It makes for this somewhat paradoxical situation in which they have to do good works to assure themselves that they are among the elect, but they can never acknowledge that they’re looking to their own good works because that would be legalism. Trusting in your own works instead of the merits of Christ would be an indication that one is not among the elect. It’s a classic double bind, really.

 

What about missionary? Is there a need to convert people if it is already determinant who will be saved? Or do they see their actions as a part of the determinant plan of god?

They see themselves as the means that god has chosen to enact his predetermined plan. Missionaries are absolutely essential to their doctrine.

 

What about blasphemy against the holy spirit? Can chosen people commit it and still be saved, are they not able to commit it or is it a loop hole in determinism?

No loophole. You’ll get about 4 different standard interpretations of those verses pertaining to the unpardonable sin and blasphemy against the holy spirit. The bottom line is that, whatever it is, the elect either can’t or won’t commit it.

Posted

I was a Calvinist in terms of theology for all of my Christian "life"...until the last year when I became a Universalist... until I finally came to the conclusion the Bible was bronze era and later hokum and threw it all away...

 

Calvinism is summed up by the acronym TULIP

 

Total Depravity - man cannot and will never choose salvation or faith

Unconditional Election - God chooses to save those whom it wants to for no apparent reason

Limited Atnement - Jesus atones only for the elect

Iressistible Grace - those elected cannot and will not resist the call to death, they eventually come to faith

Perserverance of the Saints - Those who are elect will be saved ultimately, no getting away from it

 

Additionally there are hyper calvinists who believe in Supra Lapsarianism which teaches that God created everything for the purpose of establishing a context or platform to carry out the notions of grace and justice...to display these qualities in himself he had to create something (he chose people) so he could either save or damn then...and these people were saved or damned in concept before they were created or even cnceived of as beings..so the concept came first then the context...

 

horrific and horrendously cruel  to be sure...AW PINK was a proponent of Supra...most Calvinists however are INFRA Lapsarians which means God conceived of man and creationf FIRST then decided on salvation and damnation...in either case no one has a say in it...and the damned are damned before they were created by the will of God alone...RC Sproul and JI Packer teach this among many others...

 

Hope this helps....

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted

Calvinism is a bizarre doctrine that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Even in my indoctrinated brain dead state, when I was a Christian, I never embraced this particular form of religious lunacy.

Posted

I was a Calvinist in terms of theology for all of my Christian "life"...until the last year when I became a Universalist... until I finally came to the conclusion the Bible was bronze era and later hokum and threw it all away...

 

Calvinism is summed up by the acronym TULIP

 

Total Depravity - man cannot and will never choose salvation or faith

Unconditional Election - God chooses to save those whom it wants to for no apparent reason

Limited Atnement - Jesus atones only for the elect

Iressistible Grace - those elected cannot and will not resist the call to death, they eventually come to faith

Perserverance of the Saints - Those who are elect will be saved ultimately, no getting away from it

 

Additionally there are hyper calvinists who believe in Supra Lapsarianism which teaches that God created everything for the purpose of establishing a context or platform to carry out the notions of grace and justice...to display these qualities in himself he had to create something (he chose people) so he could either save or damn then...and these people were saved or damned in concept before they were created or even cnceived of as beings..so the concept came first then the context...

 

horrific and horrendously cruel  to be sure...AW PINK was a proponent of Supra...most Calvinists however are INFRA Lapsarians which means God conceived of man and creationf FIRST then decided on salvation and damnation...in either case no one has a say in it...and the damned are damned before they were created by the will of God alone...RC Sproul and JI Packer teach this among many others...

 

Hope this helps....

 

Just a couple of points of clarification.

 

Hyper-Calvinists are typically supralapsarians, but supralapsarianism doesn’t necessitate Hyper-Calvinism. IOW the terms are not synonymous. The standard Reformed confessions favor infralapsarianism, but are vague enough to allow for supralapsarianism. The term “Hyper-Calvinism” is problematic anyway because it’s typically used as a pejorative. In many corners it’s become the theological equivalent of calling someone a fascist. In some cases it fits the original meaning; in most it doesn’t.

 

The other point of clarification is that none of this conceptualizing that is going on in God’s mind occurs temporally. It’s all about logical priority. Additionally, one could easily argue that infralapsarian is just as horrendously cruel as supralapsarianim if not more so. To decree the fall after the decree to create human beings arguably makes God appear even more arbitrary and dickish. At least with supralapsarianism there is an attempt to show how there might be a reason for evil, albeit a shitty one. Supralapsarians also have a god that comes up with the ends and then plans the means from start to finish. My analysis is that the supralapsarian god appears more logical while the infralapsarian god appears more biblical. Both, of course, are total figments of people’s imaginations.

Posted

At one time in the 90s I became interested in Calvanism and I even read this friggin huge book Calvin wrote.  I was at that time desparate to hold onto some vestige of my Christian faith and so was leaving no stone unturned.   Well, I turned this stone over and it was the worst doctrine i ever heard. I actually went to some lectures by R.C. Sproul.

 

It was all very logical and compatable with scripture, and also horrible. The very idea that God creates people and predestines them for eternal punishment is ghastly. I really don't see how people can believe it.

Posted
It was all very logical and compatable with scripture, and also horrible. The very idea that God creates people and predestines them for eternal punishment is ghastly. I really don't see how people can believe it.

 

It solves all those questions about genocide in the OT. See, they were unsaved and destined for hell anyway, so what's the problem? Besides, god is holy and perfect, and sin is so awful that he can't stand to be near it, so in order for god to be "good" there has to be some horrid punishment for evil. It makes the "good" people feel better about themselves and oh so justified. As a bonus, they can claim to be more-humble-than-thou because it was all god's work that saved them, nothing they personally did. It's all about drawing sharp black and white lines around everything - as long as you're on the "right" side of that line, such ideas can be very comforting because you never have to examine yourself or think about the grey areas.

 

On a more positive note, I was taught that the nice thing about Calvinism is "perseverance of the saints". Unlike those crazy Arminians (not to be confused with persons from Armenea), Calvinists don't believe that you can ever become unsaved. Supposedly, Arminians go about their day freaking out that if they do something bad and don't repent before getting run over by a truck, they'll go to hell. So Calvinism can be comforting in the idea that since it's god's power that saved you in the first place, there's nothing in your human power that can undo that, and god will always love you and protect you and be there for you. It also means that though god tells you go to go evangelize, nothing in your human power can save anyone so you don't have to feel personally responsible for them going to hell. It's supposed to help you let go and trust god to run things instead of being a perpetual guilty spaz.

Posted

Wow have I learned a lot in the past few posts ;)

 

I think there is still one fundamental problem with Calvinism or any Christian denomination and that is the bible.

 

Lets take your mountain elevator/crane example

 

This demonstrates that god plays favoritism and is sadistic. why make us like spiritually handicapped in the first place. Any dog owner who puts a poisoned steak in front of their dog as well as a healthy serving of vegetables is sadistic. Basically god created us as meat eaters and punishes us for it because we don't crave vegetables.

 

In my opinion this makes God pure evil no matter which way you slice it via crane or elevator.

 

The idea of an "elect" also has always bugged me. As this suggests multiple things

 

1. God has no real control of his creation. Since he had to create billions of humans just so he could get a few souls that fit his needs. Discarding the rest in the trash bin.

 

2.God has complete control and we are just toys for his personal entertainment and watching us burn.

 

3.This cant be true because it contradicts the nature of god.

 

4.Its true the nature of god is false

 

and of course all this is dependent on the bible which we all know is a self contradictory machine

Posted
1. God has no real control of his creation. Since he had to create billions of humans just so he could get a few souls that fit his needs. Discarding the rest in the trash bin.

 

This is more like the god of Arminianism, or more specifically, Molinism. That god wants free creatures to freely choose him and regards the ones who don't as collateral damage. The god of Calvinism has a purpose for the damned and that is to show his wrath to the "praise of his glorious justice" (Westminster Confession of Faith III. 7.).

 

I'm not sure how your point 3 follows from point 2. Most will just argue that the Bible defines their god's nature. If the Bible says that their god is good and that he also tortures people for eternity for his own glory, then whatever "good" is when applied to their god must include torturing people forever.

 

All this amounts to is an effort to admit that their god is evil without calling him evil. They do it by robbing the word "good" of any real meaning. We’re back to John Stuart Mill’s famous quote: “I will call no being good, who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow-creatures; and if such a being can sentence me to hell for not so calling him, to hell I will go”

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.