I realize that there is already a thread about this, but it is rather long and I don't really want to sift through it for the answers that I'm looking for.

I was just wondering what the central beliefs are for Calvinism and how this relates/differs from traditional, non-denominational Christianity. I know we have some Calvinist people on here, so I'm hoping someone can help me out.

The short answer for now would be that "Calvinism" is not a denomination itself so it's kind of a false dichotomy to say where it's different than modern Protestant (denominational or non-denominational) churches. "Calvinism" if basically a label for a group of protestant beliefs concerning God's work in salvation and is commonly identified as part of "Reformed" theology. You'll find folks with 'Calvinistic' beliefs in Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutheran, and non-denominational circles (even some Methodists, most likely).

EDIT:
The place where the waters start to get choppy around self-professed Calvinists really revolves around two particular things: one from the Calvinist's point of view, and one from other peoples' point of view.

Many modern Calvinists (part of what's commonly referred to as people who are "Young, Restless, and Reformed") see the state of Protestantism in America as one that has very little idea of its own history and the things that make it "Protestant". They see astonishing Biblical illiteracy in our country, a general apathy toward Scripture, doctrine, and assembling together within a local church body, and a cult of personality in Western culture that doesn't care so much about what a person says or teaches so long as they promote the right political causes and don't get caught in bed with a hooker. If you were to mention "Sola Scriptura" or "Sola Fide" to most American protestants, you'd get a lot of blank looks. Most Calvinists (myself included) desire to lift up the importance of faithfulness to Scripture (properly read, in-context) and sound Biblical doctrine (teaching) in Protestant churches because we believe that people need to know *what* they believe in, and *why* they believe it. Even 'Arminians' (in the historical sense) are on-board with that, but there's a general attitude that runs through the evangelical church nowadays that likes to treat "doctrine" as a dirty or forbidden word, and wants to not go *too* deep into Scripture for fear of running people off (like Jesus in John 6:66)

From the other side of the coin, Calvinists are often reviled specifically because of their belief that salvation is the work of God from beginning to end. The Calvinist says that man is spiritually dead to the things of God, that he is a slave to sin, and he will not repent of his sins until the Holy Spirit regenerates him (at which point he WILL repent). Most who object to this, however, hear it in terms like: "God only chooses *some* to be saved" and plug their ears to any further discussion. Honestly, I can't blame them though, especially when the reaction from the Calvinist end of the bench is to then plug their ears and start making faces much of the time.

So that's basically where the differences lie (at their core). These particular beliefs do have other ramifications though, since they often dictate how we view things like evangelism, the goal of missions, the purpose of the sacraments, etc.

If you have other questions or wanna talk about something specific, you've got my number on FB, man, and I'd welcome a call from you any time

Soli Deo Gloria! (For the Glory of God Alone)

Shamax wrote:

[ Reserved for later today ... hopefully ]

The short answer for now would be that "Calvinism" is not a denomination itself so it's kind of a false dichotomy to say where it's different than modern Protestant (denominational or non-denominational) churches. "Calvinism" if basically a label for a group of protestant beliefs concerning God's work in salvation and is commonly identified as part of "Reformed" theology. You'll find folks with 'Calvinistic' beliefs in Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutheran, and non-denominational circles (even some Methodists, most likely).

Interesting. I'm looking forward to hearing more about this.

Updated

Could you perhaps go into a little more detail about the whole "God choosing who will be saved" thing? I'm not really sure about what you mean by the "belief that salvation is the work of God from beginning to end".

Every other Christian denomination: Choose God and be saved
Calvinism: Be chosen by God and be saved

That's it, basically.

LastFirstborn wrote:

Every other Christian denomination: Choose God and be saved
Calvinism: Be chosen by God and be saved

That's it, basically.

If you want to boil it down to a +/- that's not entirely accurate, sure. Again, Calvinism (and Armianism as well) are not "denominations". Also, Calvinists don't say that man doesn't choose. Man chooses, but only after God has effected regeneration in his heart upon hearing the Good News of Christ preached.

Earlier you said that after God has effected regeneration in one's heart, "he WILL repent", indicating no choice in the matter. Same difference?

Gorlim (OMW) wrote:

Could you perhaps go into a little more detail about the whole "God choosing who will be saved" thing? I'm not really sure about what you mean by the "belief that salvation is the work of God from beginning to end".

Sure. The best place I can direct you for the short version is Romans 8:28-30 (often referred to as the "Golden Chain of Redemption"). The actions there are successive (one after another). In each, man is the object (the one receiving) and God is the subject (the one performing the action). Romans 8:28 is a pretty often-quoted verse, but seldom is it ever delved into beyond that (at least in most circles I ran in). Fist, God "foreknows" people. This isn't a passive verb, it's an active one. And the object is the people, not their actions. God foreknows certain people, then predestines those same people to be conformed to the image of His Son. Verse 30 spells out the rest:

"Those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified"

And that's the grounds for verse 31:

"What then shall we say about these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?"

It basically comes down to a few possibilities. For the Calvinist, God has already marked-out His people in eternity past and also marked out the means by which they will be saved: by the "foolishness" of preaching the Gospel. No one whom he has purposed to save will be plucked out of His hand. They will all come to saving faith. The common modern (often unspoken) belief is that "God's done His part, now do yours" almost like "God really wants to save you, but he can't, because you're against Him and yourself." Which I can understand. Again, the Calvinist is *not* saying that man doesn't have a choice. Man does have a choice, but will only choose what is in accord with his nature. Outside of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, we choose sin 100%. Only by a work of God in our hearts do we then choose repentance and faith.

So long story short, common belief: "God's done his part, but now you need to save yourself by choosing correctly". Calvinist: "Christ's work is complete. Repent and believe in the gospel!"

LastFirstborn wrote:

Earlier you said that after God has effected regeneration in one's heart, "he WILL repent", indicating no choice in the matter. Same difference?

Absolutely not. Man still has choice, which is why sin is an ever-present reality. But once God effects regeneration in a person's heart, they are alive and will without fail ultimately forsake their flesh, because they are then no longer enslaved to it.

EDIT: I think I see what you're getting at, though, and No, God doesn't drag anyone kicking and screaming against their will into Heaven. He changes their heart, so that their desire is then for life and His Kingdom (all for His own glory), and not perpetual death in sin.

Is it possible to reject God post-regeneration? If not, my point stands.

LastFirstborn wrote:

Is it possible to reject God post-regeneration? If not, my point stands.

No it doesn't, actually. If I give 100 people a choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream, and they all choose chocolate, does that mean they "had no choice in the matter". No. QED.

Shamax wrote:

LastFirstborn wrote:

Is it possible to reject God post-regeneration? If not, my point stands.

No it doesn't, actually. If I give 100 people a choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream, and they all choose chocolate, does that mean they "had no choice in the matter". No. QED.

Then it is possible to reject God post-regeneration?

Hmm. From what I've read in Scriptures, the Holy Spirit comes in AFTER the choice has been made, so there is some disagreement right there.

"Those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified"

That verse is NOT saying God chooses who becomes saved and who doesn't. This is saying that those who come to Him will be predestined for everything that has been said. Apologize if my wording isn't exactly the best.

God doesn't choose the salvation alone, otherwise ALL would have been saved. It says in Scriptures that God WILLS ALL to come to repentance and be saved. So, there is contradictions between God choosing vs. that Scripture I just quoted.

It straight up says that we play a part in our salvation, but it's Sola Fide, not by works.

Btw, I think a lot of this has been answered in that other Calvinist thread from way back when.

Death over Life wrote:

"Those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified"

That verse is NOT saying God chooses who becomes saved and who doesn't. This is saying that those who come to Him will be predestined for everything that has been said. Apologize if my wording isn't exactly the best.

Actually, it's saying the opposite.

"And we know that all things work together for the good of those who love God, who are called according to His purpose."

The ones "who love God" are further described there as ones "who are called according to His purpose". It doesn't say that the ones who love God "are then" called. They love God because they *are* called.

Death over Life wrote:

God doesn't choose the salvation alone, otherwise ALL would have been saved. It says in Scriptures that God WILLS ALL to come to repentance and be saved. So, there is contradictions between God choosing vs. that Scripture I just quoted.

Ahh, 2 Pet 3:9. I'll address it in brief, but many better men than I have addressed it more fully and better than I ever could (I'll like to one or two in a sec). Peter says to his audience: "[the Lord] is being patient toward you, because he does not wish for any [literally: any "one"] to perish but for all to come to repentance."

Greek is a very specific language, especially in its use of the words "any" and "all" which indicate members of whatever group is being spoken of. Peter is specifically addressing believers in talking not about salvation, but the Second Coming. the words "of you" is basically implied after "any" and "all" in that verse. Think about this grammar in some other situation.

Analogies can only go so far, but imagine you're a parent and you drop your 4 kids off at the mall, and tell them you'll be back that evening. You come back around 4pm and only 1 kid is there. You are patient toward your other kids because you do not wish for any (of them) to walk home, but for all (of them) to come home with you, safely. You're not patient toward your kids because you don't want the owner of the Chinese restaurant down the block to walk home alone. You're patient toward your kids because your concern is for your kids.

For a much better addressing of 2 Pet 3:9 I suggest: http://www.reformationtheology.com/2005/10/understanding_2_peter_39_by_pa.php

Lastly, I really wasn't looking to get bogged down in yet another tit-for-tat point/counterpoint thread. I wanted to answer Gorlim's honest questions to the best of my ability. I pray this is all edifying to someone though

Death over Life wrote:

but it's Sola Fide, not by works.

...and all God's people said: Amen.

Shamax wrote:

Lastly, I really wasn't looking to get bogged down in yet another tit-for-tat point/counterpoint thread. I wanted to answer Gorlim's honest questions to the best of my ability. I pray this is all edifying to someone though

Perhaps it was a wrong time for debating (forum to me has been dead again), but there were some things that I did wanted to point out. If you do indeed wish for me to better explain myself on another thread, or even this thread, I shall as long as Gorlim isn't against it.

calvinism:

Good luck winning the celestial lottery ticket.

To the rest: Enjoy hell.

olias wrote:

calvinism:

Good luck winning the celestial lottery ticket.

To the rest: Enjoy hell.

A poor misrepresentation, but a common one.

I'm not even going to delve into the irreverence, but rather with a lottery ticket, people usually desire to play the lottery because they desire to win the prize. The problem is that outside of Christ, NO ONE desires God. Sure, people desire God's love, his forgiveness, and his compassion. It's fun to talk about those because *we* benefit from them. God's holiness and his righteousness however, sinful humanity doesn't desire because like Isaiah in Isaiah 6, it means we are undone if we are confronted with Him.

If you believe that everybody is neutral or essentially good and would really like to "try God" if he could just be marketed to them in the right way, then I can see where the lottery analogy might hold water. As it stands though, with an eye towards a biblical view of man's nature in light of God's attributes I feel pretty comfortable stamping this as a misrepresentation.

And I'll just reiterate again: If people have genuine heart-felt questions, I'm all ears. I'd really even prefer you just PM me or look me up on Facebook or something. If you're going to be obtuse or combative, however, please don't bother.

Shamax wrote:

A poor misrepresentation, but a common one.

I'm not even going to delve into the irreverence, but rather with a lottery ticket, people usually desire to play the lottery because they desire to win the prize. The problem is that outside of Christ, NO ONE desires God. Sure, people desire God's love, his forgiveness, and his compassion. It's fun to talk about those because *we* benefit from them. God's holiness and his righteousness however, sinful humanity doesn't desire because like Isaiah in Isaiah 6, it means we are undone if we are confronted with Him.

From what I have read, more Scriptures taken out of context to justify this position. I forgot the exact location that no one desires God came from, but I have read it, and it was dealing specifically with the Jews that turned their back on God. Literally every one of them did not desire God at all. This Scripture did not mean nobody ever has or ever will desire God at all. If that were the case, then this means that there would be NOBODY saved, because NOBODY would desire God, which isn't True. It was my desire to learn more about God and be closer to God that helped cause my salvation via faith. But where as God does choose us (it does say in Scriptures we are a chosen people), we have to choose God to become chosen.

In terms of that, when it spoke of God choosing people (and please correct me if I’m wrong), but the people God chose, weren’t specifically named, but rather, spoke of characteristics of the chosen ones. God showed those who kept His’ commandments, those who would suffer and die for His’ name sake, those who would go forth into all the world to spread the Gospel, these were the one’s God chose. God didn’t specifically choose to save Abraham, nor Paul for example. They still had to choose this, as had they rejected, God still would have another path to do what was needed for Christ to arrive.

In addition to this, the one proof that actually would prove Olias post true (I disagree with the 1st part myself, but for different reasons) would be Judas Iscariot, if the popular view of Him is True.

Shamax wrote:

And I'll just reiterate again: If people have genuine heart-felt questions, I'm all ears. I'd really even prefer you just PM me or look me up on Facebook or something. If you're going to be obtuse or combative, however, please don't bother.

With that being said, know that although I may sound obtuse or combative, I’m really not. I’m just very passionate when concerning theology. It was things like Calvinism and the inconsistencies with Judas Iscariot that eventually caused my apostasy about a year ago. I am genuinely questioned by the thing, and sometimes, you have to take criticism to genuinely answer some of the questions to be asked.

If you could, at least answer this. If the Calvinistic view of the Scriptures is indeed Truth, then why did it take until John Calvin and the Protestant Reformation for the correct interpretation of Scriptures to come? Why wasn’t pre-determination/destination spoken of in the early Church? If it has, then please enlighten me and show me the early church fathers that showed this.

I ask again, do you Calvinist folk believe it's possible for someone to reject God after regeneration? If not, I was still technically right with my first post; there's really little to no difference between being forced to choose God and being divinely reprogrammed. (I'm not trying to be combative.)

Death over Life wrote:

Shamax wrote:

A poor misrepresentation, but a common one.

I'm not even going to delve into the irreverence, but rather with a lottery ticket, people usually desire to play the lottery because they desire to win the prize. The problem is that outside of Christ, NO ONE desires God. Sure, people desire God's love, his forgiveness, and his compassion. It's fun to talk about those because *we* benefit from them. God's holiness and his righteousness however, sinful humanity doesn't desire because like Isaiah in Isaiah 6, it means we are undone if we are confronted with Him.

From what I have read, more Scriptures taken out of context to justify this position. I forgot the exact location that no one desires God came from, but I have read it, and it was dealing specifically with the Jews that turned their back on God. Literally every one of them did not desire God at all. This Scripture did not mean nobody ever has or ever will desire God at all. If that were the case, then this means that there would be NOBODY saved, because NOBODY would desire God, which isn't True. It was my desire to learn more about God and be closer to God that helped cause my salvation via faith. But where as God does choose us (it does say in Scriptures we are a chosen people), we have to choose God to become chosen.

In terms of that, when it spoke of God choosing people (and please correct me if I’m wrong), but the people God chose, weren’t specifically named, but rather, spoke of characteristics of the chosen ones. God showed those who kept His’ commandments, those who would suffer and die for His’ name sake, those who would go forth into all the world to spread the Gospel, these were the one’s God chose. God didn’t specifically choose to save Abraham, nor Paul for example. They still had to choose this, as had they rejected, God still would have another path to do what was needed for Christ to arrive.

In addition to this, the one proof that actually would prove Olias post true (I disagree with the 1st part myself, but for different reasons) would be Judas Iscariot, if the popular view of Him is True.

Shamax wrote:

And I'll just reiterate again: If people have genuine heart-felt questions, I'm all ears. I'd really even prefer you just PM me or look me up on Facebook or something. If you're going to be obtuse or combative, however, please don't bother.

With that being said, know that although I may sound obtuse or combative, I’m really not. I’m just very passionate when concerning theology. It was things like Calvinism and the inconsistencies with Judas Iscariot that eventually caused my apostasy about a year ago. I am genuinely questioned by the thing, and sometimes, you have to take criticism to genuinely answer some of the questions to be asked.

If you could, at least answer this. If the Calvinistic view of the Scriptures is indeed Truth, then why did it take until John Calvin and the Protestant Reformation for the correct interpretation of Scriptures to come? Why wasn’t pre-determination/destination spoken of in the early Church? If it has, then please enlighten me and show me the early church fathers that showed this.

Hey, I sent you a PM. Read it if you get a chance. Thanks!

Death over Life wrote:

Shamax wrote:

A poor misrepresentation, but a common one.

I'm not even going to delve into the irreverence, but rather with a lottery ticket, people usually desire to play the lottery because they desire to win the prize. The problem is that outside of Christ, NO ONE desires God. Sure, people desire God's love, his forgiveness, and his compassion. It's fun to talk about those because *we* benefit from them. God's holiness and his righteousness however, sinful humanity doesn't desire because like Isaiah in Isaiah 6, it means we are undone if we are confronted with Him.

From what I have read, more Scriptures taken out of context to justify this position. I forgot the exact location that no one desires God came from, but I have read it, and it was dealing specifically with the Jews that turned their back on God. Literally every one of them did not desire God at all. This Scripture did not mean nobody ever has or ever will desire God at all. If that were the case, then this means that there would be NOBODY saved, because NOBODY would desire God, which isn't True. It was my desire to learn more about God and be closer to God that helped cause my salvation via faith. But where as God does choose us (it does say in Scriptures we are a chosen people), we have to choose God to become chosen.

So you're saying that Scripture only has one and only one interpretation?

Depends on what you mean when you say that. There are places that do have multiple and correct interpretations, but from what I have seen, something like the predestination belief goes from semantics into the Gospel and the very Heart of Christianity and the True Gospel only has 1 True interpretation.

Part of the Gospel is that we come to repentance. If I am seeing what is being said on Calvinism true, repentance comes to us whether we like it or not. Don't get me wrong, that came through Christ, but it is getting rid of the free will to accept or reject belief that is heavily taught in Scriptures, which does affect the Gospel message.

Death over Life wrote:

With that being said, know that although I may sound obtuse or combative, I’m really not.

Given your more protracted and thought-out posts, that comment was in no way in reference to you

I just now noticed that there were more posts here, so I'm going to try to read through and see if there's room/need to reply to any stuff. I can't make any promises though since I'm frantically trying to get ready for a trip this weekend and next week (in amongst work).

EDIT:

Death over Life wrote:

Why wasn’t pre-determination/destination spoken of in the early Church? If it has, then please enlighten me and show me the early church fathers that showed this.

I actually have a copy of the apostolic fathers in modern English (used it as a study aid for my Greek class since a lot of the workbook exercises were drawn from those early writings). I'll have to dust it off again and gather some citations. I'll state this up front though: any citations I provide are probably going to be along the same lines as the Scripture references that have been pointed to. By that, I mean that you're not going to find a detailed systematic theology in the early fathers for the most part because their writings (like much of the NT references cited) are epistles, letters written to other believers for a host of reasons, addressing a multitude of different topics occurring at the time, and while deep theological truths are touched upon, it's often not in the form of a seminary professor addressing his students. Just saying

At least I know what book to take with me on the plane now!