Calvinism

**shanbaum** · 01-30-2002, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Pete Hanlin
Still, I'm "planning" to have a heart condition- or attack- by age 60, because the genetics simply aren't stacked in my favor!

Not exactly positive thinking, is it?

**Pete Hanlin** · 01-31-2002, 05:33 PM

Not exactly positive thinking, is it?

I may have neglected to mention that I'm a Calvinist (in non-theological terms, I'm a fatalist... the two sorta go hand in hand). So, I'll work at staying healthy, but if I feel a twinge in my chest somewhere around age 55 or so, I will be neither surprised nor disappointed!

Whatever will be will be! (Besides, its easier to plan for retirement this way!) :p

We're all dying of something, we just haven't figured out what it is yet...

**shanbaum** · 02-02-2002, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Pete Hanlin

I may have neglected to mention that I'm a Calvinist (in non-theological terms, I'm a fatalist...

If memory serves... wasn't it Calvin's position that one is "justified" (the equivalent of "saved", isn't it?) by grace as opposed to by faith?

And if that's correct, why don't you rape and pillage (ok, having met you, I can understand that you'd probably just be disinclined)?

I recall that being the classic criticism of Calvin - I don't remember the classic response - other than, there aren't too many Calvinists left to respond, are there?

Can you refresh my memory? It was so long ago I studied this stuff, I can feel my sideburns growing.

**Pete Hanlin** · 02-04-2002, 11:53 AM

If memory serves... wasn't it Calvin's position that one is "justified" (the equivalent
of "saved", isn't it?) by grace as opposed to by faith?

Actually, the defining tenet (or at least the most controversial) of Calvinism is "predestination." Armenians, on the other hand, tend to uphold the tenet of "Free Will."

One who is "lock, stock, and barrel" Calvinist is said to be a "TULIP" Calvinist- namely,

Total Depravity- Man is completely unable to initiate a relationship with God. Apart from God choosing to make Himself known to us, we would be incapable of truly "knowing" Him.
Unconditinal Election- God chooses who He wishes to save and does so with no regard for the individual merit(s) of those saved(this is the one that gives Armenians and most non-Calvinists fits)
Limited Atonement- The blood of Christ was sufficient to save all, but only actually saves those elected by God.
Irresistible Grace- When God does call, there is no resisting His call.
Preservation of the Saints- Once God has chosen, you are His son or daughter and nothing will change that election (also known as "Once Saved Always Saved").

Anyway, you can see how such a theological view would lend to one calling themselves a fatalist. Although I am uncomfortable with some of the ramifications of Calvinism, it is what I happen to believe. As I like to say, "God is not fair (as we define fairness)." The Bible is chock full of examples, and on the whole God seems quite unfair- if we try to "constrain" Him to our own sense of fairness.

The big "blegh" in the system is the inevitable realization that Calvinism really leads to "Double Predestination" (God not only chooses those bound for Heaven, He chooses to send some to Hell- without any regard for the good or bad in each person's life). The argument to be made is much as you put it (why not rape, pillage, and do whatever you want if you are Heaven bound no matter what you do?).

The answer is (and I forget how John Calvin put it, but it is quite profound as he wrote it), when the individual realizes just what God has done for them, there is such a sense of gratitude that one cannot help but try to please that God in any way possible.

Naturally, no one will ever be perfect on this earth (and I am a living testament to that on a daily, nay hourly, basis). However, its much like the relationship between a loving father and child. By and large, the child usually desires the approval and joy of the father (not is some cases, but as a rule). The child may do all sorts of things that are contrary to the father's will, but the overall "desire" of the child is usually the parent's happiness.

Sorry for the long-winded (and somewhat amateurish) explanation, but there it is...

P.S.- BTW, this is why I think it is absolute poppycock to have any "pride" in one's own "righteousness." First, no one is truly righteous, and second, God's grace is just that- unearned mercy. Being judgmental in any way is also ludicrous- God makes His own judgments, and who the heck do I think I am to second guess or attempt to judge myself!

I think the person in the Bible who best represents Calvinism is David. King Dave did some truly awful things, but God stuck with him simply because God chose to... Saul, on the other hand, who tried as hard as he could, was rejected for some really trivial errors. David was usually overwhelmed by the mercy of God (which might explain him dancing naked at times) and is quoted in Romans as saying "Blessed is the man whose sins God refuses to count against him."

**shanbaum** · 02-04-2002, 12:00 PM

Never heard the part about tulips; gardening will never be the same.

I suppose if you believe in predestination, you must believe that you can't help believing in it...

**Pete Hanlin** · 02-04-2002, 12:06 PM

I'm not saying Calvinism doesn't have its problems... Like I said, I'm a fatalist.

So yes, I was bound to believe what I believe (and yet, I also believe that I came to believe it out of my own free will... if you can figure that out, let me know- cause it will solve a lot of problems for my paradigm of God and the cosmos)!
;)

**Darris Chambless** · 02-04-2002, 01:34 PM

Pete,

You are to be commended because you have CORRECTLY used the word "Paradigm" in a scentence :) Why? Because "paradigms" don't "shift" or "change", paradigms ARE. ;)

Anyway that's some good stuff there dude. I've never studied any Calvin. I've heard of it but have not the indepth knowledge that you possess. It is an intresting concept of belief I must say.

I, personally, am a Frizbeterian. We believe that when you die your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it down :)

Darris C.

**shanbaum** · 02-04-2002, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Darris Chambless
Pete,

You are to be commended because you have CORRECTLY used the word "Paradigm" in a scentence :) Why? Because "paradigms" don't "shift" or "change", paradigms ARE. ;)

This can be found at www.m-w.com (it's also useful for checking spelling):

par·a·digm
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"dIm also -"dim
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin paradigma, from Greek paradeigma, from paradeiknynai to show side by side, from para- + deiknynai to show -- more at DICTION
Date: 15th century
1 : EXAMPLE, PATTERN; especially : an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype
2 : an example of a conjugation or declension showing a word in all its inflectional forms
3 : a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated

**Darryl Meister** · 02-04-2002, 04:55 PM

So Pete... I wasn't entirely clear from your dissertation on Calvinism as to how one discovers that he/she has already been chosen by God to be saved? Seems to me then that we might just be wasting our time with all of these constant moral dilemmas and decisions regarding right and wrong, if we are one of the lucky ones who already have a free ticket into those pearly gates! ;) So, am I too look for some sort of birthmark or something, indentifying God's seal of approval and my pre-qualification into Heaven? ;)

Best regards,
Darryl

**Pete Hanlin** · 02-05-2002, 10:52 AM

I wasn't entirely clear from your dissertation on Calvinism as to how one discovers that he/she has already been chosen by God to be saved?

Well, I wouldn't call that a dissertation by any means, but... When you consider all the tenets of Calvinism together, here's the "process of salvation" you get (aka, soteriology).

Because the human is in a totally deprived state spiritually, there is no means by which we can "self-initiate" a relationship with God (we are sufficiently blinded by our fallen nature that we do not "naturally" turn to God in our thinking or will... cf. Rom ch.1). Given that we cannot initiate a relationship with God, it stands to reason that any relationship that comes to exist results from God's own initiation (aka, election, cf. Gal. 4:9).

Since God is omnipotent, and is able to "determine our steps" (cf. Prov. 20:24), He is able to determine who will be saved (or be His elect) before they are even born (cf. Rom. 9:10ff, which is quoted below, because it probably sums up predesitination better than any other passage of Scripture).

Which leads to your question... If we are incapable of coming to a realization of God and His mercy without His initiation and guidance, and if God chooses whom He will, then it stands that those who come to a realization of God and His mercy are the elect.

How do you determine if you are your father's child? Your father informs you, or your surroundings sort of intimate it to you (or, you have a genetic test performed, but don't mess me up here). Biologically, you are your father's child regardless of anything you've done or haven't done. Beyond this original condition of "sonship" (aka, justification, which is instantaneous), becoming a "son" in the relational sense involves fostering a relationship with the father (aka, sanctification, which is progressive). So, to answer in a pathetically unscientific way... "you simply know it because you are."

Seems to me then that we might just be wasting our time with all of these constant moral dilemmas and decisions regarding right and wrong, if we are one of the lucky ones who already have a free ticket into those pearly gates!

Part and parcel of being the elect is a sense of becoming a "new creature" (i.e., having the influx of the Holy Spirit into the individual's will and soul). I'm not talking about "speaking in tongues" or "prophesying" or anything (although there are Pentecostal Christians who earnestly believe that the influx of the Holy Spirit into an individual is marked by such signs), but without a doubt, the presence of God within the individual changes that person's perspectives and thoughts (cf. Gal 6:15; Rom 7:6; 2Cor 5:17).

So, am I to look for some sort of birthmark or something, indentifying God's seal of approval and my pre-qualification into Heaven?

(Um, do you mean you don't have a harp shaped mark under your right arm??? Oh, that's bad...)
;)
Actually, there is a "mark" of sorts- described in 2 John...

If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives. My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

Wow! I sincerely apologize for the length of this post! I know the Ophthalmic Optics page is not the place for theological ramblings... In my defense, however, you did ask! Anyway, I'd also like to point out that I've paraphrased and adapted some of John Calvin's teachings based on my own understanding of Scripture (i.e., some of the stuff I say might make Calvin turn in his grave). ;)
In short (too late for that), I think the term "lucky" isn't far from the truth when it comes to a relationship with God. After all, aren't we all rather "lucky" to be here, have our varying degrees of health, live in a free country, etc? Did those of us living here in the states somehow choose our place of birth? Our families? Of course not. Is it so odd then to think that it is just possible that salvation isn't a chosen thing, either? I'm not saying it is the most "comfy, warm fuzzy" theological choice out there, but it is one that is pretty solid from a pragmatic sense. I suppose you could call me an anti-existentialist...

Anyway, here's the "foundational" Scripture of Calvinism (IMHO)...

Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory-- even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

PS- Figured I would take a shot at some theological discourse with you while I'm not half-drunk or in a ethically questionable position... (btw, if you've gotten this far, I'm amazed... I never read the entire contents of posts that are this long...)
:D

**Darris Chambless** · 02-05-2002, 01:23 PM

Pete's the theologeon...

But I have to ask Darryl a question.

"Seems to me then that we might just be wasting our time with all of these constant moral dilemmas and decisions regarding right and wrong, if we are one of the lucky ones who already have a free ticket into those pearly gates!"

What if? Since one doesn't know what awaits nor will we until that day, why would one want to take that risk? It seems awfully risky, in my opinion, to take that chance with no possibility of going back to right those wrongs. I'll take my chances doing the best I can as it seems to be more beneficial to me anyway. Expect the worst, but hope for the best.

Take care,

Darris C.

**shanbaum** · 02-05-2002, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Darris Chambless
What if? Since one doesn't know what awaits nor will we until that day, why would one want to take that risk?

That was Descartes' belief as well - asked why he believed in God, he said, il faut parier - literally, "it is necessary to bet"; figuratively, "it's the safer bet".

But Descartes wasn't a Calvinist. The problem that Darryl raises is bona fide; if one is predestined to go to heaven (due to "grace"), regardless of how one behaves (because "works" and "faith" are irrelevant) - there's no risk; if you're one of the elect, you're in, even if you behave like Saddam Hussein (heck, even if you are Saddam Hussein). The notion that if you're saved, you'll be so appreciative that you'll want to please God, doesn't help. If I don't feel the need to please God, I may well conclude that I'm damned, so, what the hey, might as well rape and pillage - I can't win anyway. If I'm wrong, and I am saved, all the raping and pillaging won't matter anyway - so I can't lose. Point is, one has no compelling reason to behave decently, other than to try to look like one of the elect, so your friends won't be talking about you behind your back. But then you miss out on all that raping and pillaging...

**Pete Hanlin** · 02-05-2002, 03:13 PM

The notion that if you're saved, you'll be so appreciative that you'll want to please God, doesn't help. If I don't feel the need to please God, I may well conclude that I'm damned, so, what the hey, might as well rape and pillage - I can't win anyway. If I'm wrong, and I am saved, all the raping and pillaging won't matter anyway - so I can't lose. Point is, one has no compelling reason to behave decently, other than to try to look like one of the elect, so your friends won't be talking about you behind your back. But then you miss out on all that raping and pillaging...

Oh my... I would beg to differ with you on most of these points. First, although the eternal outcome of your actions may be nil from the standpoint of your eternal destination, there are still temporal consequences (and perhaps even more eternal consequences at the final judgment, even if one does "make it"). Going back to the human father analogy, you may completely disregard and disgrace your father- doesn't mean you are no longer his child, but it does mean you lose out on any possible relationship. Actually, even the things we do wrong can help build a relationship (and appreciation for) the Father (cf., the Prodigal Son). This is, of course, assuming that a relationship with the Creator of the Universe is considered a good and desirable thing (which, I imagine, the elect would consider it to be).

As for "missing out" on the raping and pillaging... Even though they may seem restrictive, the general moral codes laid out by both divine revelation (the Bible) and general revelation (instinct) do tend to yield the "best" possible life (elect or not). Sure, sin (raping, pillaging, stealing, gossiping, adultery, etc.) seems to be profitable, enjoyable, and liberating for a season- but in the long run are they really what they seem to be? I'm not trying to answer that question, btw, "each must work out his own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12). Truth is, I enjoy getting totally blasted from time to time (which is contrary to Scriptural teaching). You know, although I would posit that I've enjoyed those occasions, the truth of the matter is that they do tend to carry negative effects (e.g., hangovers, accidents if you are dumb enough to subsequently drive, eventual liver damage if the behaviour is consistent, spur of the moment marriages in Vegas, etc.).

Also, remember that faith is one of the chief hallmarks of the elect. It is arguable that someone with faith in the power and goodness of God would be compelled to attempt to live "decently" (this in no way implies that non-elect people fail to live decently, btw). You also are failing to consider the effect of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit on the believer (which I recognize sounds "way out there" even to many who would consider themselves Christians... the theology of the third person of the Trinity is mostly lacking outside of Pentacostal circles, which is a shame).

Far from being the "spiritual boogeyman" that the secular and even Christian worlds make of Him, the Holy Spirit is actually the part of the Godhead that is most active in our world today (God being most active in Creation, Christ during the 33 years He was on the earth, and the Spirit thereafter dwelling in believers).

So, my argument is- if one is of the elect, it will affect thinking and actions (even if the effect is at times barely perceptible). If one is not of the elect, there will be an effect as well, as spelled out in Romans chapter one. Fact is, there are some people who are not of the elect that are perfectly nice individuals living pretty decent lives. There are also some among the elect who are less than ideal. That's the point, though, isn't it? Some children probably don't deserve the parents they get (good or bad), good people get sick and die young, bad people get rich and live long healthy lives... in the end, we are all eaten by worms! (cf. Job 21)

"Can anyone teach knowledge to God, since he judges even the highest? One man dies in full vigor, completely secure and at ease, his body well nourished, his bones rich with marrow. Another man dies in bitterness of soul, never having enjoyed anything good. Side by side they lie in the dust, and worms cover them both.

Note that I am making no attempt to rationalize why God does what He does and acts how He acts... It comes down to a circular argument- if you are of the elect you are of the elect and will probably live life in appreciation of that fact (an appreciation which you only have because you are, indeed, elect). My (rather longwinded, I fear) point is that it is incorrect to assume that there is no motivation to attempt to "live decently" (aka, righteously) if you are of the elect- because this is negating the effects the Holy Spirit has on the soul and spirit of the elect person.

**shanbaum** · 02-05-2002, 03:57 PM

...and so was writing from that perspective. I didn't mean to say that "there is no motivation to attempt to "live decently" (aka, righteously) if you are of the elect." My point was, if I'm not one of the elect, (although, I would include myself even if I am, and find myself feeling devoid of the inclination to please God and be a nice fellow generally), if I'm going to heaven, I'm going to heaven. If I am one of the elect, and have a basically nasty demeanor and don't care about my relationships (including that with God) - well, tough. I still get the prize. Maybe not all the prizes, but the big prize, anyhow. To borrow your analogy, I may have a lousy relationship with my father, but if I still inherit the loot... I may not care. Ouch.

It seems to me that a theology that includes predestination in this way deprives itself of one of the more attractive features of most religions, viz., "behave in this manner, and receive this reward." I think a lot of people look for their religion to fill precisely that need (among others).

I don't, by the way, mean to diminish Calvinism in general or predestination in particular; I simply think it has some interesting "side-effects", if you will. (Ooh - can I say "if you will"?) Obviously, different folks seek different strokes (Sly:4:4).

**Pete Hanlin** · 02-05-2002, 06:12 PM

It seems to me that a theology that includes predestination in this way deprives itself of one of the more attractive features of most religions, viz., "behave in this manner, and receive this reward." I think a lot of people look for their religion to fill precisely that need (among others).

I consider the tendency of "organized religion" to demand certain types of behavior to be quite unattractive, actually. To issue decrees and rules in the name of maintaining a relationship with God the Creator seems to me (and Martin Luther, in 1517) quite inauthentic!

In other words, as a theologian (or at least one who has an interest in the science of theology), I find anything that does not accurately reflect the relationship of God to man to be abhorrent. Outside of theology, however, I think it splendid that churches and the Church sometimes provide services, assistance, and materials to people.

I think the "advantages" to having a church that encourages good behaviour by establishing a set of "godly" rules are outweighed by the negatives of what happens when that church inevitably begins to extract freedoms and possessions from its adherents (e.g., the Catholic Church throughout history...). Remember, being excommunicated means you can no longer take communion in a Catholic church (and therefore, according to the "rules" set up by that religion, you cannot be saved).

Christ was exceptionally silent on the particulars of how to live life (e.g., how to wear your hair, what to do on certain days, how to dress, etc.). He was extremely specific on the attitudes of a perfect life (love, preferring others to self, etc.). I think it would serve the Church well to get back to who God is and how we relate to Him and stay the heck away from the "Social Gospel" propogated particularly in America during the past century!

Okay, I'll get off my soap box. As for one's attitude toward God if s/he isn't of the "elect." Well, God anticipates the attitude and sometimes even encourages a "hardened" heart (cf. Pharoh in the OT and the Pharisees of the NT).

Yes, Calvinism has some really "blechy" and interesting "side effects." I've spent quite a few years wrapping my brain around a few of them and coming to grips with others (for example, what of the idealistic notion that all children who die go to Heaven, because they are not of the "age of accountability?" In a Calvinist construct, if the child is of the elect, Heaven- if not, Damnation). Doesn't seem fair, does it? Then again, maybe God isn't fair as I see fairness.

I think if you are going to be logically consistent, however, you have to take the comfortable and the uncomfortable with your theological perspective and work your way through each issue as you find it...

**Pete Hanlin** · 02-06-2002, 02:51 PM

Hi all,
Somehow, we managed to get off track in an Ophthalmic Optics Forum thread on Congenital Astigmatism. Our "sideroad" eventually led to a discussion on Calvinism. Since theology has nothing to do with Optics (although it could be argued that both help us to "see"), I've split the thread here.

Welcome to Shanbaum, Darris, Darryl, and my conversation. Feel free to jump in...