Postmillennialism and Calvinism

[CT292]

efta777:
Yeah, Dee Dee has said that she is not a Calvanist a number of times. I'll stop and let her speak for herself though.

She will eventually become a Calvinist.

I like this comment by "Calvinist". For if Postmillennialism is true and Calvinism is true, then eventually all postmills like Dee Dee will become Calvinists just as all Calvinists will eventually become postmillennial in the future.

Postmillennialism (whether its Preterist or Historicist, or Idealist) is merely the doctrine of the sovereignty of God in the area of eschatology.

Dee Dee wrote:

I am seeing the tension disappear somewhat. At first blush it seems to be in tension since it appears that God's meticulous control would be necessary to order history in such a way that the Gospel is ensured victory in the way that postmill envisions.. ie a great majority of the world being truly converted. That is certainly easier to envisage in a Calvinistic model since it is monogerstic.

Nearly all postmillennialists have been Calvinists (cf. The Puritan Hope by Iain Murray) The few exceptions that I can think of have been Charles Finney (a pelagian heretic), and Daniel Whitby (a Unitarian heretic). So its indeed possible to be an non-Calvinist postmillennialist, its just not a very consistent position. (BTW I'm not implying that all non-Calvinists are heretics, I am just using some historical examples off the top of my head).

I've read that many (non-Calvinist) Charismatic Christians have adopted postmillennialism largely due to David Chilton's books on postmillennialism. Thus, there are some Christians who do adopt a particular eschatology before studying other topics like Calvinism.

But obtaining a correct view of soteriology is far more important than a correct view of eschatology. Thus, George Whitefield had lovingly encouraged his close friend and Christian brother, John Wesley to embrace the doctrines of sovereign grace in his famous letter to him (http://www.gty.org/~phil/wesley.htm).

Colin

[Hitch]

I've read that many (non-Calvinist) Charismatic Christians have adopted postmillennialism largely due to David Chilton's books on postmillennialism. Thus, there are some Christians who do adopt a particular eschatology before studying other topics like Calvinism.

Well during 18 years in the AOG I never heard the name of Calvin mentioned in church.

Looking back I reckon it wants so much an AOG problem with Calvin as much as their absolute dedication to their peculiar eschatology. The value given your accumulated studies was not measured by what you knew of the Reformation or even your contempt for the RCC( a major end time consideration of the AOG). It was based on how often you could work a particular phrase into a conversation or a 'testimony'. That phrase being; 'should the Lord tarry'.





So I can affirm that as we adopted the PM view taught through ICE (which includes Chilton,Gentry and others) it was a natural change from being the constant outsider ,as a pentecostal, to being a constant outsider as an accused Calvinist and on to Theonomist.

Hey ,sometimes the best things just fall from heaven.

Take care

Hitch

[Darth Xena]

Dear CT:

Who knows. If God has predestined me to be a Calvinist I will be. I can assure you that I am solidly and steadfastly nonCalvinist right now.

I've read that many (non-Calvinist) Charismatic Christians have adopted postmillennialism largely due to David Chilton's books on postmillennialism. Thus, there are some Christians who do adopt a particular eschatology before studying other topics like Calvinism.


Though... I was never what would be considered a "charismatic" Christian and I studied soteriology before I studied eschatology and have continued to do so, and remain confirmed in my views. However, it is not an issue I care to debate at this point. When I debate certain doctrines I throw myself into them wholeheartedly and I have not exhausted my eschatology fixation yet. I do not yet know what my next favorite subject will be.

[PuritanD]

It may be true that most post-mill's are Calvinist but not all Calvinists are post-mill.

Just as it is true that all Reformed are Calvinist but not all Calvinists are reformed. I do not think that any soteriological view is incompatable with Calvinism which also includes dispensational premill.

Likewise, I think one can hold to a post-mill view without being Calvinists. My pastor when I was a member of the Nazarene church was post-mill and so were many of his collegues.

PuritanD

[efta777]

I understand where the connection between postmillenialism and calvanism arises, and I see where some people might have a problem with separating the two, but in my mind it makes perfect sense. Postmillenialism does not necessitate Calvanism.

[Lizard]

Today @ 02:22 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43521#post43521)
efta777:

I understand where the connection between postmillenialism and calvanism arises, and I see where some people might have a problem with separating the two, but in my mind it makes perfect sense. Postmillenialism does not necessitate Calvanism.


As a non-Calvanist postmillenialist, I have to agree.

:thumb:

[Solly]

As a Calvinist non post miller I would also agree.

I think it is bad reasoning to say, because Calvinism is true, therefore Post mill is true because of the Sovereignty of God.

I think the connection between post mill and Calvinism is more along the lines of the connection between fundies and dispensationalism. it has more to do with ecclesiology than eschatology. Post mill fits in very well where you have "state" churches. Once the American denominations become more like sects (as they have in the UK) post mill will fizzle out.

[Darth Xena]

Actually Solly, I am not sure that would be accurate. Postmill is thriving here in the very small, very independant of the mainline, type churches and in the house church movement.

[Solly]

Today @ 02:51 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43632#post43632)
Dee Dee Warren:

Actually Solly, I am not sure that would be accurate. Postmill is thriving here in the very small, very independant of the mainline, type churches and in the house church movement.

Hmmm. Classical post mill was tied to the Reformed Churches who operated over territories, and included a measure of social influence: protestant constitutions, etc. Hence the ecclesiastical link. The dispie theology is so linked because of their view of the church as interim, and therefore needing to be moved out of the way once the clock starts again. That is the reason for my comments.

Our independant/house church movement is charismatic and dispensational, but with the added twist of "Kingdom Now" theology, in which people go out onto the streets prayer walking to "claim the turf" for Jesus. So I think there is a post mill influence entering there. Where they are independant of the Reformed type, Amill predominates, with some of the Puritan Post mill (not neo post mill) doing for others.

I suppose the situation is different over the pond, given the more optimist culture of the US. hence the rise of theonomy and Neo Post Mill over their. One might cautiously say that it is politically driven; Manifest Destiny and all that, in the same way Post Mill was for the Brits when we had an empire, and were "helping the world to progress".

[CT292]

Solly wrote:
I think it is bad reasoning to say, because Calvinism is true, therefore Post mill is true because of the Sovereignty of God.

Nobody has yet made that line of argument. Rather the argument that I inititally made was: Calvinism is true, Postmillennialism is true, therefore all Calvinists will become postmillennial and postmillennialists will all become calvinists.

Yet, the doctrine of the "Sovereignty of God" is the very fundamental basis of postmillennialism. Postmillennialism can never be true as long as the sinful "freewill" of man or some mythical Antichrist can thwart God's plan at any point in history.

That some postmills have not yet embraced 5 point calvinism is simply a case of theological inconsistency. Obviously, they came to Postmillennialism from another route than Calvinism. They see the sovereignty of God in eschatological history, but fail to yet see the sovereignty of God in soteriology.

The only way to see the connection between the soteriology of Calvinism and the eschatology of postmillennialism, is to see the sovereignty of God in both of them. (as well as to properly distinguish between the error of hyper-Calvinism and the true Calvinism of the puritans).

I think the connection between post mill and Calvinism is more along the lines of the connection between fundies and dispensationalism. it has more to do with ecclesiology than eschatology. Post mill fits in very well where you have "state" churches. Once the American denominations become more like sects (as they have in the UK) post mill will fizzle out.

Postmillennialism has never been dependent on the view of an ecclesiocracy such as "State churches". That is an entirely separate subject all together. And there are differing views of "State churches" anyway, none of which effect postmillennialism.

However, I personally hold to a modified "establishment principle", that it is the duty of the State to protect and promote the Christian religion, but this does not mean promoting and protecting one single Church denomination to the exclusion of others. In other words, I hold to a Christian Establishment Principle as opposed to a "Church Establishment Principle". But even Amills could theoretically hold to this view depending on how optimistic they were.

Colin

Appended Post:

efta777 wrote:

I understand where the connection between postmillenialism and calvanism arises, and I see where some people might have a problem with separating the two, but in my mind it makes perfect sense. Postmillenialism does not necessitate Calvanism.

Any proper understanding of Postmillennialism does indeed necessitate (and presuppose) Calvinism, but a proper understanding of Calvinism does not necessitate postmillennialism. Soteriology is primary, while eschatology is secondary.

I remember way back when I was an Amillennial Calvinist in 1988. I had read Loraine Boettner's book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (http://www.ccel.org/b/boettner/predest/01.htm). I had completely enjoyed his thorough discussion and defense of Calvinism, but I had also encountered his postmillennialism in it too, which at the time I saw as the only main caveat of his book.

The following year I read his book on The Millennium and other reformed postmill writers like Kik, DeMar, Murray and Rushdoony, and then Boettner's postmillennialism began to make biblical sense. Of course, I had already converted to 5 point Calvinism 4 years earlier in 1985, so it wasn't like I had to change my soteriology because of my new found Postmillennialism. It was already perfectly compatable with it.

So I agree with those who say that being a Calvinist does not automatically commit one to holding to any particular millennial view (e.g. Calvinist Spurgeon was premillennialist, John MacArthur is a CAlvinist dispie). But being a Postmillennialist presupposes a Calvinististic view of eschatology and a Calvinistic view of the work of the Holy Spirit (calvinistic pneumatology).

This latter point appears to be why some Charismatics have adopted postmillennialism. They hold to an individual calvinistic pneumatology which they then extend to society at large. This is done inspite of the fact that Calvinism rightly holds to a cessationalist view of the Apostolic spiritual gift of prophecy, healing and tongues. (See the article: From Charismatic to Reformed (http://www.u-turn.net/8-1/chartoref.shtml).

But as I said before, the study of soteriolgy is more important than the study of eschatology. Therefore, its better to be a Calvinist and a "dispie", than to be a non-Calvinist and a "postie".
But God enlightens the minds and hearts of his children in differing degrees as He sees fit. God never brought the Godly John Wesley to Calvinism during his own lifetime, but He did make Wesley a Calvinist only after his death.

Colin

[Darth Xena]

Postmillennialism can never be true as long as the sinful "freewill" of man or some mythical Antichrist can thwart God's plan at any point in history.


Not at all. God could order things such as those who will accept Christ in great numbers will live at that time.

[CT292]

Dee Dee wrote:

“ Postmillennialism can never be true as long as the sinful "freewill" of man or some mythical Antichrist can thwart God's plan at any point in history."

Not at all. God could order things such as those who will accept Christ in great numbers will live at that time.


And that is exactly what Calvinism teaches, that God is in control of all things, "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will Eph 1:11. This is why man's free will can never thwart the eternal purposes of God either in soteriology (personal salvation) nor in eschatology (history).

Also, it is not a mere coincidence that nearly every single postmillennial writer is also a 5 point Calvinist too. Calvinism is the only soteriological view which is compatable with Biblical Postmillennialism.

Colin

[Hitch]

I believe it was Walvoord who pronounced PM dead. Less than a generation later 1988 slipped past the counter at DTS...

[Hitch]

And that is exactly what Calvinism teaches, that God is in control of all things, "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will Eph 1:11. This is why man's free will can never thwart the eternal purposes of God either in soteriology (personal salvation) nor in eschatology (history).

Also, it is not a mere coincidence that nearly every single postmillennial writer is also a 5 point Calvinist too. Calvinism is the only soteriological view which is compatable with Biblical Postmillennialism.

Colin


Odd something so obvious raises such a rukus.

Fine work

Take care

H

[Hitch]

Postmillennialism can never be true as long as the sinful "freewill" of man or some mythical Antichrist can thwart God's plan at any point in history.
”



Not at all. God could order things such as those who will accept Christ in great numbers will live at that time.

Try reading a little slower, Colin is trickey.

[Darth Xena]

Yesterday @ 11:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44327#post44327)
CT292:

Dee Dee wrote:



Not at all. God could order things such as those who will accept Christ in great numbers will live at that time.


And that is exactly what Calvinism teaches, that God is in control of all things, "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will Eph 1:11. This is why man's free will can never thwart the eternal purposes of God either in soteriology (personal salvation) nor in eschatology (history).

Also, it is not a mere coincidence that nearly every single postmillennial writer is also a 5 point Calvinist too. Calvinism is the only soteriological view which is compatable with Biblical Postmillennialism.

Colin [/QUOTE]

I think you have missed though what I had meant. If God knows who would accept Christ (and not through irresistable grace which I outright reject) He could order things so that such persons live at a certain point in history or any number of factors that cuold make postmill true without violating LFW.

[CT292]

I think you have missed though what I had meant. If God knows who would accept Christ (and not through irresistable grace which I outright reject) He could order things so that such persons live at a certain point in history or any number of factors that cuold make postmill true without violating LFW.

The doctrine of Irresistable grace (http://www.the-highway.com/Irresistible_Murray.html) (sometimes known as "Efficacious grace) is essential for anyone to be able to "accept" Christ truly. Because man is such a God hating sinner, nothing but the irresistable grace of a sovereign God could overcome man's stubborn Will which is only free to sin and not to "choose" Christ.

Likewise, the doctrine of irresistable grace is essential for the conversion of entire nations which are otherwise opposed to God and His righteousness.

Colin

[Darth Xena]

Well that is where we utterly disagree. In all candor, I reject the doctrine of irresistable grace as completely as I reject futurism, which if you know me, is pretty darned utterly.

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 09:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44438#post44438)
Dee Dee Warren:
I think you have missed though what I had meant. If God knows who would accept Christ (and not through irresistable grace which I outright reject) He could order things so that such persons live at a certain point in history or any number of factors that cuold make postmill true without violating LFW.


Oh DD, how could you. This is just Calvinism by the back door, and not very good Calvinism at that.

Let's see, God has all these billions of people ready to hand; then, he's sees with his powerful perception which ones will accept Christianity, regardless of their circumstances it must be said, because he has not yet willed where they will be in time; then, he deploys them thru history, bunching them in places, like Pentecost, 18th Cent, the Postmillers "golden age", and let's them go like so many wind up toys. I don't see as that is consistent with any view I am aware of.

Where is the LFW in that? That seems to me like, God puts you in front of a speeding truck and says, you now have the LFW to be run down by it.

The Calvinist views sees God as sending his irresistable grace to people as they are where they are. You should also take note that the doctrine of irresistable grace is not about overriding the will, since it is seen as merely the faculty of volition, but of giving the new desires to guide that volition, a desire that turns to God. Have you read Jonathan Edwards on The Freedom of the Will? what has been missed by some in such debates as OVT, is the difference in the understanding of what the will is. for the Calvinist, the will is the end of the line, after all the decisions have been made. The will is the ignition spark after the key has been turned, so that the car can go. The will is NOT the driver, those decisions have already been made by the desires and intents of the heart.

[Darth Xena]

Hey guys, while this all sounds fascinating, I truly do not have the time to dedicate to it.

[Solly]

You were predetermi...oh forget it. :doh:

[Ishmael]

She is not far from the Kingdom... she never has been, really.

[Solly]

Trouble is Cal, most of us converts are dragged kicking and screaming into it, using every ounce of our mental ability to avoid it. I tried Baxterianism before I came to the orthodox Reformed position.

Self must be abased. William Romaine

[joelkaki]

DeeDee, the biggest problem with the view you are saying is plausible with respect to postmil-soteriology is that Scripture just doesn't indicate that.

But alas, you say you are not willing to debate it right now. Hopefully someday you will.

Joel

[Darth Xena]

I have been predestined not to believe in Calvinism.

[CT292]

Dee Dee wrote:

I have been predestined not to believe in Calvinism.

You were also predestinated to be born a hell deserving sinner like all the rest of us, but God still holds you accountable to believe in the truth of His infallible Word (Acts 5:29) which is what is expressed in the set of doctrines commonly known as Calvinism.

BTW if someone told you that they were "predestinated" not to believe in Orthodox Preterism, would that be a sufficient excuse to reject it?

Colin

[Darth Xena]

Since I do not hold to predestination of that sort, no. Plus it was a joke. Sheesh.

But that would be a better reason then I get most of the time.

[TedO]

I align with the LFW crowd. Just can't get past 2 Pet 3:9 and 1 Tim 2:4, as well as Acts 17:26-27.

I've not seen a compelling argument that God's sovereignty and some form of free will can't coexist.

As for eschatology, I have no firm convictions yet, except to reject a pretrib "left behind" position. (And I am a charisimatic to boot!)
:hi:

[Hitch]

I've read that many (non-Calvinist) Charismatic Christians have adopted postmillennialism largely due to David Chilton's books on postmillennialism. Thus, there are some Christians who do adopt a particular eschatology before studying other topics like Calvinism.

But obtaining a correct view of soteriology is far more important than a correct view of eschatology. Thus, George Whitefield had lovingly encouraged his close friend and Christian brother, John Wesley to embrace the doctrines of sovereign grace in his famous letter to him.

Colin


Well thats true in the idea Colin but practically its a different matter. You struck on it equating soveriegnty and eschatology. Post Millennialism and Calvinism blend naturally and easily, one evidence for this is the strained eschatology of DTS as they struggled with the nonsensical while embracing (4 point) Calvinism. It took a great deal of effort (of the missing the forrest for the trees kind) to sustain that position for as long as it lasted.

On the positive side; Every Pentecostal knows 'Tis So Sweet To TRust In Jesus' and ,as you mentioned ,thanx to Chilton quite a number learned to apply that sweet though to end times studies and naturally adopted a PM view. I speak from experience. (I may have the very first copy of He Shall Have Dominion received as a gift from a Pentecostal pastor)

As you know North said ,of DF thinking, the head always dies first, the body can survive for an astonshingly long time, directly related to the vileness of the bug involved in the decapitation heh heh

Take care

Hitch

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

03-23-2003 @ 05:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42790#post42790)
Dee Dee Warren:
Who knows. If God has predestined me to be a Calvinist I will be. I can assure you that I am solidly and steadfastly nonCalvinist right now.


Oh no, you are a Calvinist. you just don't realise it yet!:rofl:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

03-27-2003 @ 02:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45301#post45301)
Solly:
The Calvinist views sees God as sending his irresistable grace to people as they are where they are. You should also take note that the doctrine of irresistable grace is not about overriding the will, since it is seen as merely the faculty of volition, but of giving the new desires to guide that volition, a desire that turns to God. Have you read Jonathan Edwards on The Freedom of the Will? what has been missed by some in such debates as OVT, is the difference in the understanding of what the will is. for the Calvinist, the will is the end of the line, after all the decisions have been made. The will is the ignition spark after the key has been turned, so that the car can go. The will is NOT the driver, those decisions have already been made by the desires and intents of the heart.

Amen. That is almost ALWAYS not understood or admitted by OVT folk, who paint Calvinism as fatalism.

[TedO]

Yesterday @ 03:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132002#post132002)
Theonomy:



Amen. That is almost ALWAYS not understood or admitted by OVT folk, who paint Calvinism as fatalism.

Calvinism does certainly tend to fatalism in practice. If you don't think your choices are independent of outside determining factors (whether circumstantial or infused internal volition) it can easily lead to fatalism.

I have a friend who is a Calvinist and he has had a rough life. Although many of his circumstances are his own fault, he finds it easier to blame God for his problems. Some things happened which just really stink through no fault of his own - and of course he blames God. It has been hard to get him to view his own choices as part of the cause.

I still have not seen a compelling argument that says a person when confronted with the truth of the gospel, even though sinful in nature and unable to DO good, can't at least WANT to do good. In fact, scripture says the opposite.

Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good {is} not. [NASB]

It is the willingness to turn that starts the process of repentance and salvation.

Act 17:26-27 and He made from one {man} every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined {their} appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; [NASB]

[CT292]

Hitch wrote:
Post Millennialism and Calvinism blend naturally and easily, one evidence for this is the strained eschatology of DTS as they struggled with the nonsensical while embracing (4 point) Calvinism. It took a great deal of effort (of the missing the forrest for the trees kind) to sustain that position for as long as it lasted.

This is a very curious statement that causes me to question Hitch's grasp of eschatology.

First of all, DTS is not postmillennial, but dispensational premillennial (actually Progressive Dispensationalist). DTS has never been postmill. Infact, most of its graduates are bitter foes of postmillennialism (e.g. Hal Lindsey, Thomas Ice, John Walvoord, etc).

Secondly, while its true that DTS is 4 point Calvinist beginning with the founder, L. S. Chafer, there's no connection between that and the premillennial eschatology of Dallas Seminary.

But I do agree that 5 point "calvinism blends easily with postmillennialism" since both emphasize the Sovereignty of God. However, so called "4 Point Calvinism" is not calvinism, but Amyraldanism.

On the positive side; Every Pentecostal knows 'Tis So Sweet To TRust In Jesus' and ,as you mentioned ,thanx to Chilton quite a number learned to apply that sweet though to end times studies and naturally adopted a PM view. I speak from experience. (I may have the very first copy of He Shall Have Dominion received as a gift from a Pentecostal pastor)


The casual connection between charismatics and postmillennialism is that both have a high view of the work of the Holy Spirit to change lives and change institutions (as per 2 Chron 7:14).

Modern reformed theology OTOH has been infected with pessimistic Amillennialism and neo-platonism, and has forsaken the Biblical optimism of the Puritans (as documented by Iain Murray in his book, Th Puitan Hope] and by Marcellus Kik in his book, An Eschatology of Victory.

Colin

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Today @ 06:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136485#post136485)
CT292 wrote:

This is a very curious statement that causes me to question Hitch's grasp of eschatology.

First of all, DTS is not postmillennial, but dispensational premillennial (actually Progressive Dispensationalist). DTS has never been postmill. Infact, most of its graduates are bitter foes of postmillennialism (e.g. Hal Lindsey, Thomas Ice, John Walvoord, etc).

Secondly, while its true that DTS is 4 point Calvinist beginning with the founder, L. S. Chafer, there's no connection between that and the premillennial eschatology of Dallas Seminary.

Colin, allow me to butt in. you've misread what hitch said. his point is that DTS' position was strained BECAUSE it holds to premillennialism and a form of Calvinism, and these two do not sit well together.

[CT292]

I see your point. Hitch was contrasting the "nonsensical" eschatology of DTS with that of postmillennialism and Calvinism.

I had erroneously assumed he meant the "postmillennial" eschatology of DTS since he didn't even explicitly mention premillennialism at all in his post.

But I wouldn't refer to DTS's eschatology as "nonsensical". It's new "Progressive Dispensationalism" is a big improvement over classical dispensationalism since it is much closer to reformed Covenant Theology.

Anyway, thanks for point this out about Hitch's view of DTS.

Colin

[Thomas2003]

Would you mind explaining progressive dispensationalism?

I haven't kept up with dispensationalism, I suppose this new view will allow them to maintain the book sales and prophecy conferences?

What would dispensationalism be without the coming Anti-Christ?

It is progressive in the sense that it is a dispensational dispensationalism? Are we going to have a prophecy chart within the chart - a parantheses of the covenant within the parentheses?

Thanks,

Thomas

[trueseeker]

The denomination I was raised in taught Pre Trib. I accepted it and read Hal Lensey's books, etc.. But when I found out there was more than one point of view on the issue, I did my own studying and changed to Post Trib.. After some time I was studying Revelations closely and I moved to Post Mil. But it absolutely has nothing to do with Calvinist belief's.

Personally I don't even think Calvin was a true Christian. Not only did he write the Calvinistic doctrines that are a bane on Christianity and are unscriptural. He personally tortured and put to death other Christians who didn't agree with him. Actually, most of the people here at Tweb, if they had been under Calvin's power would have been banished, tortured or killed. And his belief system has prevented many from coming to the Lord. Just ask the Atheists and Agnostics here at Tweb, what they think about a God, Who predestined everyone, and that those predestined to be Christians can't not become Christians and can't fall away, no matter what they do, and that those predestined to go to hell can't do anything about it.

Unfortunately, those who have been strongly indoctrinated in the Calvinistic belief system, have blinders on and can't see how destructive Calvin's doctrinal herseies are. The only hope I see for Calvinists to get back on track with true doctrine, is to come to the place where they are willing to come to God and ask Him to show them the truth. Set aside their Calvinist belief system and reread the NT with a open mind and a open heart for the Holy Spirit to show them the truth.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Today @ 11:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=142507#post142507)
trueseeker:
Personally I don't even think Calvin was a true Christian. Not only did he write the Calvinistic doctrines that are a bane on Christianity and are unscriptural. He personally tortured and put to death other Christians who didn't agree with him.

That's a lie. No historian would ever endorse such ridiculous fantasies. Calvin personally tortured and killed his theological opponents? It's the stuff fairy tales are made of. What is your historical source?

... reread the NT with a open mind and a open heart for the Holy Spirit to show them the truth.
That's how I became a Calvinist. I had been, like most modern Christians, blinded. It was only by setting aside my humanist assumptions and really pressing in to God and His truth that the scales finally fell from my eyes. Honestly, it felt like being born again, I knew God for the first time! Try your own advice - it might scare you, but it is worth it.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

The only person I know of whom Calvin had a part in executing was Michael Servetus, and though Calvin found it necessary that he should die, Calvin tried unsuccessfully to mitigate the severity of his sentence---death by burning. Calvin hadn't enough control over the Genevan government to change the sentence. In any event, Calvin wasn't the only one after Servetus....

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Today @ 02:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=142666#post142666)
pereynol:

The only person I know of whom Calvin had a part in executing was Michael Servetus, and though Calvin found it necessary that he should die, Calvin tried unsuccessfully to mitigate the severity of his sentence---death by burning. Calvin hadn't enough control over the Genevan government to change the sentence. In any event, Calvin wasn't the only one after Servetus....

That's right, it was the Genevan authorities that executed Servetus. I've heaed a huge number of fantastic allegations about John Calvin, that he killed his opponents, that he set up a police state, that he wanted people who disagreed with him to be punished, but it's really just a case of people who disagree with Calvin using malicious tactics against HIM, and bearing false witness. If folk disagree with Calvin, fine. But they shouldn't resort to telling lies.

Bless you pereynol, it's nice to see a few honest folk out there!

[Solly]

06-26-2003 @ 02:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133062#post133062)
TedO:
Calvinism does certainly tend to fatalism in practice. If you don't think your choices are independent of outside determining factors (whether circumstantial or infused internal volition) it can easily lead to fatalism.

Is that a generalisation? Calvinism does not tend to fatalism as a matter of course, and I speak as a Calvinist, a member of a Clavinist church, and a reader of Calvinist literature. The understanding of scripture that is made known through Calvinism states quite clearly that we are moral beings called upon to act. It is a caricature of such a view to say, "Oh well, I can't change anything, so why bother"; that is no more true of Calvinism, than of any other variety of Determinism, be it philosophical or psychological. We are creatures that act, and we are creatures that perceive ourselves as acting, and as making choices. What the ultimate arena of our actions are does not figure in our daily, nay momently acting. If anything, Christians, in the reformed understanding, have been given the ability to act in ways not available to the unregenerate, since they are in bondage to sin, and can only act as it directs - it is no more I, but sin that worketh in me. So much for Free Will. Reformed Christianity states, following paul, that we can now be slaves of righteousness, whereas we were slaves of sin before. We pray, Psa 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

I have a friend who is a Calvinist and he has had a rough life. Although many of his circumstances are his own fault, he finds it easier to blame God for his problems. Some things happened which just really stink through no fault of his own - and of course he blames God. It has been hard to get him to view his own choices as part of the cause.

Then frankly he needs a broken spirit, and some humility; what an offense to blame God for anything. Rom 3:3, 4 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. What a ridiculous notion to blame Calvinism because some do not follow what is taught.

I still have not seen a compelling argument that says a person when confronted with the truth of the gospel, even though sinful in nature and unable to DO good, can't at least WANT to do good. In fact, scripture says the opposite.

Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good {is} not. [NASB]

It is the willingness to turn that starts the process of repentance and salvation.

Act 17:26-27 and He made from one {man} every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined {their} appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; [NASB]

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Rom 3:13 Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips:
Rom 3:14 Whose mouth [is] full of cursing and bitterness:
Rom 3:15 Their feet [are] swift to shed blood:
Rom 3:16 Destruction and misery [are] in their ways:
Rom 3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:
Rom 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Where is this willingness lurking?
You have also undermined any case for Free Will as offered by the nonReformed community. Free Will, we are to believe, is nonCausal - nothing precedes it, or determines it, it is the action, the self caused action of a Self that exists independant of causal connections with mental or neural events, sitting in perfect equilibrium, acting with perfect chance and randomness along with its half brother, a quantum event.
But now you say that a "willingness" to repent precedes. Where is the much vaunted Self Caused Free Will decision now?
The whole point about the quote from Acts is that no-one did grope for him, despite his bveing near, that's why the Gospel had to be preached. If men could find God as easily as that, then what is all the furor about?

Lastly. Have you ever fallen in love? was there a "willingness" to fall in love first, and then the rest followed, or did you just get hit between the eyes, WHAM, and you were in love. Was that Free Will? Was it determined by the genetic markers in you that predisposed you towards certain body and character types? where you carried away with the whole thing, or did you sit down and rationally plan it all. Was it stopped by a random Self Caused Volition - just because you are free to do it - or did you carry on because "you wanted to", ie, your decisions were causally determined by your desires. The poets used to speak of love as a power that overpowered, and even dreamed up elemntal beings that "caused" it. I wonder why? Perhaps because of all things, it most reveals that we do not have Libertarian Free Will. The other one being Conversion to Christ.

[TedO]

Hello Ted

Gosh, you mean I can't be set free unless I have a Reformed understanding? Actually, I do agree with your point, that we are in bondage to sin before regeneration. It's just that first step in the regeneration process that I have a different view.

Nah, course it doesn't. You're all confused Calvinsits at heart. :teeth:

What a ridiculous notion to blame Calvinism because some do not follow what is taught.

I did not blame Calvinism, but I think it has contributed to his wrong thinking.

Well, more accurately, a wrong understanding of its implications...

In Rom 7:18.

But that is written to Christians, and some at least say it is about Christians, so not really conclusive as evidence either way.

BTW, do you think the Bible ever uses hyperbole?

In ref to Rom 3.10-18? You'd have to ask Paul, since he was making a categorical cast iron accusation against the whole world.

At least your understanding of it. My position is that the preaching of the truth is the catalyst to stir up the willingness to repent.

Rom 10:17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Granted. But as a Calvinist i hold to the fact that none seek God, not even when the Gospel is stuck under their nose, unless God acts first. What is a response if it is not repentnace, turning and forsaking. Surely a desire to do so is the deed in itself? It is one or the other: either we do or we don't and Paul says we don't. Why should hearing a message about Christ make any difference?

*snip* for the moment, busy.

[Solly]

Ted, i'm sorry I edited your post instead of quoteding, and deleted some of it. My goof.

Bad moderator.

[TedO]

:read: Regarding Romans 7, it seems that the context of chapter 7 is that of one under the law:

Rom 7:1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?

Then it is contrasted in Romans 8 to one under grace:

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.

In Rom 3:10-18 Paul is likely quoting Psalm 14 and other Psalms. Psalms are full of hyperbole. This doesn't mean they aren't true, but just like Jesus wasn't telling us to hate our parents, we have to recognize the extreme language being employed is to make an emphatic, but not a wooden literal, point.

I did a study of TULIP last summer. One thing that I did was to go through the new testament and look at all the accounts of conversions, or non-conversions. There is a clear pattern of

truth -> acceptance -> conversion OR
truth -> rejection -> blindness.

Even the Jews who rejected Jesus followed this pattern, for it says of their response to John the baptist:

Lu 7:30 - But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

Thus they were blinded by their own pride when Jesus came because they would not humble themselves to accept John's call to repent. Their blindness came due to their response, not by a deluding spirit sent by God (that came after their rejection).
:juggle:
Nice chatting with you, I won't be back today but maybe have time tomorrow.

Ted O

[Solly]

2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

I suppose the question is whether they were blinded for not believing, or not believing because blinded.

[trueseeker]

Theonomy and the other Calvinists on this tread,

My sincere apologies regarding the statements about Calvin if they are not true. I admit that I have not done an exhaustive study on Calvin's life. I have over the years read numerous articles about Calvin, but I did not realize that the historical facts were indispute. Since I don't have all the information I have read about him easily at my disposal, I just looked him up in the Collier's Encyclopedia. Although, the encyclopedia doesn't have as harsh of an evaluation as I have heard regarding Calvin from other sources, here are some things it did say about him.

...by visiting all violations of pure teaching and neglect and transgression of church commandments with severe punishment. Calvin was involved in constant conflict in Geneva until his followers gained the majority in the council...Best known are the actions against Sebastian Castellio, Ami Perrin, Berthelier, Bolsec, and Michael Servetus. It is not right to charge all these to Calvin alone or to blame him on this account as a intolerant and intolerable dictator, a "proud, ambitious tyrannic character," as he has been called, "full of cruelty and hatred against his enemies."...Only by placing every single Christian in the community of the church and by excerising strict doctrinal and ecclesiastical discipline could Calvin succeed...Only by energetic and strict measures, which could also be elastic as occasion demaded, and by uniform orders and preaching could Calvin make Geneva a widely influential center...

If Collier's is correct in it's assessment, perhaps some of the information that I have read in the past that has painted Calvin as "full of cruelty and hatred against his enemies" is not a fair representation of Calvin. Still his dictitoral style and giving of severe punishments to those who disagreed with him, I would not label as Christian attributes.

[trueseeker]

Theonomy,

You state that the way you became a Calvinist was by reading the NT with a open mind. I believe you when you say that you did start with a open mind and you did read the NT, but the only way that you could have come to accept Calvinism by doing so was by reading Calvinist foot notes and commentary as you went through it. My challege is to set aside all commentary and opinions of man, and ask God through Holy Spirit to bring the scriptures to life and show you their true meaning.

[TedO]

Today @ 04:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=143245#post143245)
Solly:

2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

I suppose the question is whether they were blinded for not believing, or not believing because blinded.

Of course the God of this world is the devil...

In Acts 26:18, Paul states his mission from Jesus:

"to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me."

How did Paul do this?

2 Cor 5:11a Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men;

2 Cor 10:4-5 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,

It is scary to recognize that the persuasiveness of our testimony may in fact matter to someone else's salvation...

[Thomas2003]

If Collier's is correct in it's assessment, perhaps some of the information that I have read in the past that has painted Calvin as "full of cruelty and hatred against his enemies" is not a fair representation of Calvin. Still his dictitoral style and giving of severe punishments to those who disagreed with him, I would not label as Christian attributes.

Dear Sir,

It wasn't a matter of disagreeing with him, it was a matter of violating the law. Calvin warned him he would be subject to arrest if he publicly engaged in his behavior, he advised him not to do it. Servetus wasn't innocent, the deliberate and public blasphemy he committed in Geneva that resulted in the death penalty would have resulted in the same activity in England 200 years later.

If you take his behavior and apply it against the god of modern America, you'll find government thugs dressed in black with MP-5 machine guns knocking down your door in the middle of the night. You'd be labeled a "terrorist" and then no trial or due process is needed, you'd be on the evening news and no one would think twice about you again. You are on the evening news, they used the word gun and terrorist in the same sentence, you would be guilty until proven innocent - as the law requires.

Biblical law doesn't result in totalitarianism - humansitic law does; and to the point that Christainity has engaged in atrocities in the past it is based upon a sycretism with humanism. It is the Pelagian state that engages in totalitarianism.

It amazes me how the death of one man who committed Treason in Europe malignes the theology of a Reformer for centuries - but the 100 million civilian murders in the Soviet Union, another 50 million in China, 30 million in Cambodia, millions more in India and America under Communism and you'd be labeled a hatemongering intolerant homophobe if you spoke uncharitably about the Communists!

America's Constitutional Liberties are the direct product of Calvinist Theology - without which you cannot enjoy; and that which destroys it cannot maintain the Liberties it claims to cherish. To the extent that the doctrine of Sovereign Grace wanes, Pelagianism and totalitarianism rises.

Cordially,

Thomas