Calvinism and Christianity - incompatible?

God does not give the grace of salvation to everyone, as we've already observed. The Indians, say, in 12th century America were not given the grace to repent and believe in Christ, no matter however one wants to cut it. And it's logically inescapable that in the synergistic systems, salvation is ultimately dependant on man and his ability, not God.

The elect are not simply given the grace of God in order to make a choice for or against Him, that's not what the Scriptures say. God's work of grace is irresistible, as we saw in Lydia's and Paul's example. "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances." (Ezekiel 36:26-27) The elect are actually saved by God, they were chosen before the foundation of the world to be His people, the work that He begins in them in regeneration, He will finish it with sanctification and glorification, and no-one can snatch them out of the Father's hand. Why is that? If synergim were true, certainly the believers could fall away from the Father's hand through their own sins, shortcomings, doubts, through the cunning devices of the devil, etc. Christ in the upper room did not pray for the world but only for those who the Father had given Him, the elect. In synergism, there's an actual paradox: Christ died for everyone but since the grace of salvation can be resisted, there's the chance that no-one would actually choose Him!

Be it as it may, not even Romanist theologians teach that God gives effectual grace, the grace of salvation, to every man. The Thomists, that is. The Molinists have lapsed into semi-Pelagianism.

Any theological system is an attempt to give a coherent explanation of the whole of revelation. They can be improved or rejected when found wanting, that is a given.

I haven't found any reason to discard monergistic theology but I have found many reasons to discard synergistic theology. It was only in the Reformed camp that I have found a comprehensive view to the whole of scriptures (with Covenant theology) and adequate answers to soteriological questions.

 

Dear Old Christendom, you keep ignoring this question. It's the second or third time that you cut it out of my post rather than respond to it. If the monergistic system is unable to provide an answer to this question, then how can you call it more comprehensive and productive of answers than other systems?

This was another key part of my post that you cut out. Would you be willing to address it?

And yet that's what our formularies teach us. The homilies: On Falling Away From God. the Articles, article 16 On Sin After Baptism.

It's actually not a paradox at all, it's the only system that is able to incorporate universal death and particular atonement in their natural, grammatical senses. Would you be willing to hear me out on how that works?

I'm sorry if I disheartened you or phrased my words badly. Maybe I should have used another word: "redefine", or "misinterpret". If "all" and "world" can have a plausible meaning of "some" and "few", then words have no meaning at all. "black" can mean "white", and "thin" can mean "wide". It stretches and reinterprets Scripture to fit with man-made theories and theologizings.

No, "all" means "all", and "world" means "world".

Nor do I, so I'm glad we're on the same page here.

Notice you are not quoting any words from Scripture; you are citing logical juxtapositions. You offer no reason why a person should accept them. We are taught that man can fall away from Christ while in Christ. He is engrafted fully and perfectly into Christ at Baptism, but can just as fully and perfectly fall away from the Church and reject God. We are not compelled to obey logical juxtapositions.

 

The more I think of it, the more I become a universalist in my thinking. It is by grace we are saved, through faith. But faith is not something we ourselves can offer, it is a gift given by God. No one comes to Christ unless drawn by the Father. God wills that no man be lost but that ALL come to repentance. Through Adam, all die, through Christ ALL are made alive. We are told more than once in the scriptures that God shows no partiality, thus if he gives the gift of faith to one then h gives it to all. Salvation is a path of repentance and faith, according to the scriptures, but as I contemplate a god who was willing to stop at nothing, not even the death of his only begotten son, then he will not rest till every last one of his children comes home, what else can the story of the lost sheep, the lost coin, the prodigal son, the vineyard workers mean? If its Gods will that none should be lost, as the bible promises me it is, then who can thwart his will? Thus, I have come recognize the truth of universalism, which I believe is wholly consistent with Andrewes' boundaries of the faith. In this I am Calvinist in every Tulipian element save one: limited atonement. Christ is the savior of the whole world. The bible is very clear about that. And to whomever his Salvation is given, he is truly and certainly saved indeed!

 

I'll have to answer this one in separate posts.

We must not presuppose that what we ought to do is the same thing as what we are able to do. God's commands do not presuppose our moral ability to obey them. A simple example for this is the existence of the Ten Commandments, which are God's unchanging moral law. The Lord did not give fallen humanity these commandments presupposing that any of us had the moral capacity to perfectly live them out. In fact, His perfect holy standard only reveals our sin. If we truly loved Him with all our hearts and if we could really obey His commandments, then we could save ourselves and would have no need of a Saviour. But our need for a Saviour is due to the fact that none of us is able to obey God's commandments. That is because we are morally impotent to do so. In this case what we ought to do does not imply what we can do. The intended effect of God's commandments is actually the opposite: they are given in order to reveal to us that we cannot do them, that we are morally destitute and utterly dependent on God for our salvation. The purpose of the Law is to expose and lay bare our spiritual bankruptcy. Divine imperatives, according to Paul in Romans 3, are put there to undo us (See Rom 3:19, 20), not to give us hope in ourselves that we can obey them. It is the Law which brings knowledge of sin.

I would like to share a quote from Calvin on this topic:

"When the will is enchained as the slave of sin, it cannot make a movement toward goodness, far less steadily pursue it. Every such movement is the first step in that conversion to God, which in Scripture is entirely ascribed to divine grace. Thus Jeremiah prays, "Turn thou me, and I shall be turned" (Jer 31:18). Hence, too, in the same chapter, describing the spiritual redemption of believers, the prophet says, "The Lord has redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he" (Jer 31:11); intimating how close the fetters are with which the sinner is bound, so long as he is abandoned by the Lord, and acts under the yoke of the devil. Nevertheless, there remains a will which both inclines and hastens on with the strongest affection toward sin; man, when placed under this bondage, being deprived not of will, but of soundness of will. Bernard says not improperly, that all of us have a will; but to will well is proficiency, to will ill is defect. Thus simply to will is the part of man, to will ill the part of corrupt nature, to will well the part of grace.

Moreover, when I say that the will, deprived of liberty, is led or dragged by necessity to evil, it is strange that any should deem the expression harsh, seeing there is no absurdity in it, and it is not at variance with pious use. It does, however, offend those who know not how to distinguish between necessity and compulsion. Were any one to ask them, Is not God necessarily good, is not the devil necessarily wicked, what answer would they give? The goodness of God is so connected with his Godhead, that it is not more necessary to be God than to be good; whereas the devil, by his fall, was so estranged from goodness, that he can do nothing but evil. Should any one give utterance to the profane jeer, that little praise is due to God for a goodness to which he is forced, is it not obvious to every man to reply, It is owing not to violent impulse, but to his boundless goodness, that he cannot do evil? Therefore, if the free will of God in doing good is not impeded, because he necessarily must do good; if the devil, who can do nothing but evil, nevertheless sins voluntarily; can it be said that man sins less voluntarily because he is under a necessity of sinning?

This necessity is uniformly proclaimed by Augustine, who, even when pressed by the invidious cavil of Celestius, hesitated not to assert it in the following terms: 'Man through liberty became a sinner, but corruption, ensuing as the penalty, has converted liberty into necessity'. Whenever mention is made of the subject, he hesitates not to speak in this way of the necessary bondage of sin. Let this, then, be regarded as the sum of the distinction. Man, since he was corrupted by the fall, sins not forced or unwilling, but voluntarily, by a most forward bias of the mind; not by violent compulsion, or external force, but by the movement of his own passion; and yet such is the depravity of his nature, that he cannot move and act except in the direction of evil. If this is true, the thing not obscurely expressed is, that he is under a necessity of sinning." (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book Second, Chapter 3).

 

Scripture does not teach that Christ died for every single man and woman.

Hendryx says it better:

“Here is a concise exegetical defense of particular redemption in the book of John. Please follow the train of thought to the end. Jesus said, ‘All that the Father gives me will come to me’ (John 6:37) - From this text we understand that all that the Father gives to the Son will believe in him. It does not read some of those given by the Father will believe but reads all of those the Father has given the Son will believe. Note that it also teaches that the giving to the Son precedes their believing in Him. Let’s make some other connections here: Please notice how this text relates directly to a passage by the same author in John 17, the High Priestly prayer. Jesus uses the same language of ‘those the Father has given me’ when he says ‘I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours’ (John 17:9) So he makes a clear distinction of those He prays for and those He does not before going to the cross for them (…) and of these same people in verse 19 Jesus prays ‘And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.’ That is incredible (...) He sanctifies Himself so those the Father has given him will also be sanctified (...) and in verse 34 he establishes that he further is speaking not only of the immediate disciples but of others who the father has given him who hear their word. This exegetically demonstrates the truth of particular redemption, especially since Jesus is praying for all those the Father has given him just prior to going to the cross to sanctify them.”

And Spurgeon clinches it:

“The Arminians say, 'Christ died for all men.' Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, 'No, certainly not.' We ask them the next question: Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer 'No.' They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, 'No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if..?' and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ's death; we say, 'No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.' We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.”

Stalwart, I know how synergism “works,” I’ve been a Roman Catholic since birth.

The question is: does “all” always mean all in the Bible or is it qualified by the context? Does “all” always mean every single person without exception, or is what it covers defined by the Bible's context and references? The truth is that the word "all" is usually qualified in the scriptures. For example:

Mark 1:5: "And there went out to him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem and were all baptized in the river Jordan"

Certainly not every single man, woman, and child in the Land of Judea went to get baptized that day, correct?

John 8:2: "And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down and taught them."

Again, the word "all" is qualified. Even though it says "all" it doesn't mean that every single person on earth came to listen to Jesus.

Matthew 10:22: "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake."
John 3:26: "And they came unto John and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men came to him."

In these verses we see clearly that the word "all" does not in these instances mean every person without exception, but, rather, it means "all types of men". To say that in Scripture "all” always means all or should be understood to mean every individual is a misnomer. The context should always to be checked out for a qualifier.

Also, the word "world" does not necessarily mean every individual on the planet:

John 12:19: “The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, "You see that you are accomplishing nothing. Look, the world has gone after Him!”

If "world" meant every individual, then that would include the Pharisees who are complaining in this verse.

The following verses also illustrate that the meaning of "world" can mean certain individuals from the entirety of the world:

John 17:9: "I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.”
Revelation 5:9: “And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation.”
Acts 10:34-35: “Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.”

I’ve quoted Scripture in quite a few of my last posts in this thread. Perhaps you’re not paying attention. In fact that logical juxtaposition is taken from 1 Corinthinans 15:21-22. As Charles Hodge put it: “The sin of Adam did not make the condemnation of all men merely possible; it was the ground of their actual condemnation. So the righteousness of Christ did not make the salvation of men merely possible, it secured the actual salvation of those for whom He wrought.”

 

In John 10, Christ says that He lays down his life for the sheep. The metaphor of a shepherd leading sheep is used several times throughout the Gospels. Notice that Christ says "I lay down My life for the sheep" (John 10:15), not "I lay down my life for the sheep and the goats".

In Philippians 1:6 Paul is talking to believers.

Nothing in the Bible tends to suggest that sheep can become goats. "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us."(1 John 2:19) Christ says in Matthew 7:22-23 "Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’"

Notice that Christ says "I never knew you" not "I do not know you". The reprobate were never His to begin with.

Another verse that hints at limited atonement is Matthew 20:28 "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Not "for all", but just "for many".

 

What do Roman theologizings have to do with apostolic faith? I know you couldn't mean that all theology outside Calvinism basically equates to Roman Catholicism, so what else could you possibly mean?

I could explain my position on synergism, as taught in the Church Fathers and the Anglican Divines, without ever once resorting to papist theology, but it doesn't seem like you are interested?

First of all that translation is not accurate. Here is the Greek:

"και εξεπορευετο προς αυτον πασα η ιουδαια χωρα και οι ιεροσολυμιται και εβαπτιζοντο παντες εν τω ιορδανη ποταμω υπ αυτου εξομολογουμενοι τας αμαρτιας αυτων"

What this says is that there went out to him "the whole Judaean countryside", and "The Jerusalemians"; "all" (who came in this fashion) were baptized in the river Jordan, etc. It emphatically does not say that "all of Judea" or "the whole city of Jerusalem" went out to him, much less on the same day or in one instant.

It is an imprecise descriptor of a Judean "countryside", with an indefinite boundary, that went to him. Next, the "Jerusalemians" refers to those who came from Jerusalem, and nowhere does it say every man woman and child in Jerusalem. Lastly, the final "all" refers to those who came to him in this way. All who came to him out of the City and from the Indefinite Countryside, were baptized.

This one is actually very simple. Strictly speaking "all" here isn't qualified but contextual, referring to the people he dealt with in John 7:

John 7:40-41: "When they heard these words, some of the people said, “This really is the Prophet.” Others said, “This is the Christ.”
John 8:2: "And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down and taught them."

This is indeed a qualified "all", but the qualifier is provided right in the sentence: "you (ye)". When he says "all" he means all others than you. This is only made clear because Scripture qualifies the meaning of the word right in the passage. If that qualifier wasn't present we'd be forced to conclude that it was the literal all.

This is another qualified "all" as you correctly say. But just as previously, the qualifier is right in the passage, because we are given to know where Jesus is specifically, what area "all" are coming to him from. Here is the whole thing in context:

John 3:22: After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he remained there with them and was baptizing.
John 3:26: And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, he who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you bore witness—look, he is baptizing, and all are going to him.”

So in other words, this was qualified as you correctly state, but the qualifier is provided right in the passage. Absent of the qualifier within the grammatical structure of the passage, we'd be forced to accept an unqualified all (by definition). The passages for universal atonement don't have a qualifier of any kind.

Here they are again:

1 Timothy 2:1-4: First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.


1 John 2:1-2: My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.


1 Timothy 4:6-10: If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed. Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance. For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

I have quoted the entirety of the passages so we could both see that no qualifiers of any kind were hiding anywhere in the passage. It's just a plain and simple "all".

There is nothing stopping me from modifying Hodge's logical juxtaposition to say:

"So the righteousness of Christ did not make the salvation of men merely possible, it secured the actual salvation of those who believed in Him."

The synergistic position is much more nuanced than I think is being given credit.
Unfortunately I have to go right now, but I'll reply with more when I have more time.

 

Great post thanks Stalwart...

After my comments to OC the other day I decided I would go away read and reflect on the 5 points of Calvinism (TULIP), I am sorry but I don't agree with them at all. To me it is coming from a place of dualistic thinking - we are right we are the ones who will be saved and that lot of over there are reprobates as OC says they are bound for hell...

That is not the God I know in my heart....

 

"God does not give the grace of salvation to everyone, as we've already observed. The Indians, say, in 12th century America were not given the grace to repent and believe in Christ, no matter however one wants to cut it."

OC, I believe David and St. Paul would disagree with your opinion.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Psalm 19:1-3

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20

Jeff

 

I disagree that Calvinist think that they are all right while the others are all wrong. It's we are all wrong and only alone God is right...

 

That synergism is the road to semi-Pelagianism.

I'm sorry to have come off as dismissive, Stalwart. You can certainly share your position on synergism and I'll consider your arguments. Perhaps you can create another thread for that?

I'm glad that we agree that the correct meaning of the word "all" depends on context. The first time around you seemed to be suggesting otherwise. As for the scriptural passages reputedly in favour of universal atonement, I'll create a separate thread for us to look at them, okay?

Exactly, the salvation of believers was secured in the cross, not merely made possible. But what you seem to be overlooking is that no-one can believe in Christ in the first place if the Lord our God hadn't regenerated them and brought them to spiritual life. We've already looked at this. The same way all men found their condemnation in Adam, so all believers find their salvation in Christ. That's the force of that logical juxtaposition.

 

Those passages teach that God is known by all men, no matter the culture or time period, through His creation. And this is obviously true, despite the recent efforts of atheists to separate creation from its maker.

However, those passages do not teach that every man since Adam was granted the gift of faith in Christ which alone justifies.

 

I think the verses, especially Paul's comment, shows that there is enough evidence and testimony from God in nature, that the most remote, isolated person is without excuse on judgement day before the Lord.

Jeff

 

That is indeed the Apostle's point. The repobrate are without excuse.

His point, however, is not prove that God bestows the gift of faith to every human being. That is clearly false.

 

Perhaps, but the previous verse says that "because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them", so there appears to be no discrimination in the distribution, just the free will of choice.

Jeff

 

God has shown through His creation to every man that exists that He indeed is Lord and God. So no man whatsoever has any excuse in the divine tribunal.

The Lord, however, has not given the saving gift of faith to every man that exists. That's the difference.

 

I really have only one question, not being very interested in all the terms & phrases in this debate:

Can an Arminian who clings fully to our Father in Heaven, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, by faith and love and all that is required in order to follow the Holy Gospel ... can this person be saved, rejecting Reformed Theology?

 

absolutely!

 

God has a predestined path for everyone, so although we have free will and can make our own choices (thats not an illusion) God still knows what is going to happen to us just because he is connected to us, he is within us weather we aknowledge him or not.

 

There seems to be an assumption here that Calvinists see themselves as the elect and all others as reprobate, or that they presume to know who is saved and who is damned. That is not the case. In asserting that some are predestined to salvation while others are not, Calvinists are not presuming to know to which group any given individual belongs.