Do you defend Calvin or refuse to take the bait?

[Richard King]

Recently I was sitting in a group of guys "shooting the bull" and the topic of Calvinism came up and a friend who is dispensational and well read began to explain what a Calvinist is and why he disagrees. EVERY point he made was describing HYPER Calvinists. I pointed that out. He said "well Richard if you really believe Calvin's take on scripture then that is where you will end up. IF you really believe.

I just decided not to mess with his pontificating except to say I completely disagree but I don't intend to try to change your mind.

My question is: Do you guys feel compelled to debate with know it alls or just let them wallow in their wrong
conclusions. I wouldn't care except he was misinforming others who didn't even know who Calvin was.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

When discussing the doctrines of grace with those of other theological views, it is best not to use the words "Calvinism" or "Calvin"; this is because "Calvinism" is the Biblical gospel.

 

[BobVigneault]

I usually say something like, "Yes, a lot of folks seem to come to that misunderstanding of what Calvinism is. If you were to actually read the Institutes you would find them surprisingly pastoral and encompassing the most pure expression of the Gospel."

I would take the tone of someone trying to help a serious inquirer to come to a better understanding of Calvin. I would definitely ask them what the term "Calvinism" means to them. We already know the answer to that. They will say, "Calvinism teaches to God won't save a man even if he wants to be saved", and "Calvinism says we are robots or puppets and that everything is predetermined."

I would ask questions to get the person to follow the logical extensions of their 'non-Calvinistic' beliefs. The logical conclusion is always 'open theism'. I once asked a lady, "Do you believe that God loves people who are in hell?". She anwered, "Yes, and he feels really bad that they are there." I must admit, I didn't know where to go from there.

It is certainly true that "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" but for the sake of the spectators you should engage these people in a friendly and gentle manner. If they turn to name calling then you have won the moment but the longer you keep them engaged, the more correcting of false assumptions you can accomplish.

 

[Pergamum]

I usually condemn these false beliefs even more vigorously than my opponent does.

If my opponent says that he wants nothing to do with a calvinism that makes people into robots, I practically shout AMEN, and then tell them how important human responsibility is and how Calvin himself stressed this.

If my opponent says that God would never elect anyone against their will I shout ABSOLUTELY RIGHT YOU ARE! And then I go back to total depravity and show how man wills evil unless God quickens the will.

It seems to take the wind out of their sails and puts me and them on the same side. Then they appear more eager to listen instead of just debate.

 

[BobVigneault]

That's a good technique too!

 

[Pilgrim]

Then you have the people who say Calvinism today doesn't represent what Calvin taught, that Beza hijacked Calvinism, that Calvin would have disagreed with Owen on the atonement, etc.

 

[Richard King]

Thanks to all for the responses. After leaving that circle of talkers I felt I should have engaged more.

I am very hesitant to even use the name Calvin.

I don't want anyone thinking I have chosen some mortal to follow rather than know that God chose me for no possible understandable reason.

I just can't believe how wrong this friend has things. Oddly he feels "those Calvinists don't get grace."

Actually the topic of Calvin came up after someone mentioned

a preacher and he was dismissed by my friend because..."he is a Calvinist, so I don't listen to him."

The term robot came up but I understand.

It used to be my own misunderstanding.

 

[puritan lad]

I usually focus on the finished work of Christ. After all, this is what the debate is ultimately about. What did Jesus go to the cross to accomplish? Did He succeed? Did His work actually save anyone in particular, or did it just make everyone "savable" and leave us to obtain faith in Him through our own virtuous resources? Did He pay for sins? If so, whose sins did He pay for?

Can we sin in Heaven? If not, will we be "robots"?

Ultimately, they will either have to adopt open theism or universalism.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Then you have the people who say Calvinism today doesn't represent what Calvin taught, that Beza hijacked Calvinism, that Calvin would have disagreed with Owen on the atonement, etc.

Not to go but that is exactly what J.I. Packer said in the RTS class on the Puritans on iTunes. He said that Calvin didn't go into Limited Atonement, Beza did. He said that Calvin would not have been a supralapsarian, but an infralapsarian, and Beza moved his theology into supra...

 

[Blueridge Believer]

I would ask him if he has read any of Calvin's works and to then name them. When he tells you he hasn't then I would ask him if he's ever heard of the commandment "thou shalt not bare false witness". I had this same little conversation with a fellow not long ago. I simply told him it would be worthwhile to read something the man wrote before misrepresenting him and breaking God's law by lying.

 

[Richard King]

I would ask him if he has read any of Calvin's works and to then name them. When he tells you he hasn't then I would ask him if he's ever heard of the commandment "thou shalt not bare false witness". I had this same little conversation with a fellow not long ago. I simply told him it would be worthwhile to read something the man wrote before misrepresenting him and breaking God's law by lying.

Oh SNAP! as the young folks say. That is a great idea.

 

[Thomas2007]

My question is: Do you guys feel compelled to debate with know it alls or just let them wallow in their wrong conclusions. I wouldn't care except he was misinforming others who didn't even know who Calvin was.

Richard,

When I was young in the faith, and you need to understand that I became a Calvinist while preaching a whole series against the "heresy" and it overthrew me, I subsequently adopted the language of "doctrine of Grace," and tried various gimmicks to overcome the reaction from other folks. I was intimidated by the word Calvinism for a while.

Today, I fully embrace the term Calvinism and am not intimidated by opposition, as I was once a vehement opponent. I started out very sincere with genuine pastoral concern to put an end to this heresy once and for all and actually started reading the Reformers, Ooops, becoming a Calvinist put an end to my ministry instead.

In my experience one of the biggest problems, on both sides, is that people are taught canned systems to promote and oppose each other that are now hundreds of years old, and don't really understand the presuppositions and meaning of the theology on either side. The same is true for the doctrine of Baptism and many other things. Those systems are fine if you are actually dealing with someone that holds to those beliefs, but you'll find that most people exposed to American Christianity learn of it as a hybrid syncretic Gospel. Hence, many Calvinists are born and raised in Reformed Churches and are taught the TULIP and zealously promote it but they are very seldom actually dealing with an Arminian that even knows he is an Arminian.

I welcome opportunities like you outline above because it is not often that we get an opportunity to be a witness to people where they are open, receptive and willing to discuss more complex subjects. Your dispensational friend really provided a good opportunity to expose people to the width, breadth and depth of the Gospel that you may otherwise not have an opportunity to do. Consider taking advantage of those opportunities, they are Godsends as opposition to Calvinism is many times merely ignorance and error, but those twin pillars are the foundation upon which Satan builds his kingdom. My suggestions to follow the Scriptures that teach we should be apt to teach, reproving those that oppose themselves, in season and out of season, and with much longsuffering being patient to give an answer of the truth of the Gospel.

How I approach it today is to completely disarm the opposition by going to presuppositions and the foundation of the theology, which they are not taught to oppose. It is outside of their canned system of opposition and they claim to stand upon the same foundation. That is the doctrine of the Trinity and Chalcedonian Orthodoxy as "Calvinism" is simply a label of Trinitarian soteriology. Be no more afraid of the word Calvinism than you are of the term Trinity, they are just different theological expressions of the same doctrine.

I personally don't like the TULIP, or to get into the debate from that angle, because it was developed as an adjudication and presumes your opponents consciously hold to the presuppositions of Arminianism. As I stated before, I just find that very few people consciously understand these things. For example, I felt condemned in more ways that one when Calvinists tried to explain their doctrine to me, when I had no understanding of what they were even talking about. What I learned, though, is that while nominally Trinitarian I actually held to a form of modalism and wasn't Trinitarian at all, although I didn't know or understand that. When I repented of this and became a Trinitarian I became a Calvinist simultaneously. I don't like to condemn a man of heresy when he most probably has no conscious understanding and is merely, sincerely, in ignorance and error.

I simply start with the doctrine of the Trinity and the incarnation of Jesus Christ and explain the Gospel from there, answering their objections by demonstrating how they have presuppositionally departed from Trinitarianism. I've found it to be extremely successful which forces a man to really examine the Scripture's teaching afresh and start considering the presuppositional thought behind the Calvinistic soteriology which then explains why we interpret the Scripture the way we do.

Cordially,

Thomas

 

[Calvibaptist]

I simply start with the doctrine of the Trinity and the incarnation of Jesus Christ and explain the Gospel from there, answering their objections by demonstrating how they have presuppositionally departed from Trinitarianism. I've found it to be extremely successful which forces a man to really examine the Scripture's teaching afresh and start considering the presuppositional thought behind the Calvinistic soteriology which then explains why we interpret the Scripture the way we do.

Cordially,

Thomas

Thomas, I find this very interesting. Could you elaborate on how you think modern evangelicalisms view of the Gospel (functional Arminianism, as I like to call it), has at its base a departure from Trinitarianism? I have never heard that before.

 

[Poimen]

I would ask him if he has read any of Calvin's works and to then name them. When he tells you he hasn't then I would ask him if he's ever heard of the commandment "thou shalt not bare false witness". I had this same little conversation with a fellow not long ago. I simply told him it would be worthwhile to read something the man wrote before misrepresenting him and breaking God's law by lying.

Curious: what was his response?

 

[Blueridge Believer]

I would ask him if he has read any of Calvin's works and to then name them. When he tells you he hasn't then I would ask him if he's ever heard of the commandment "thou shalt not bare false witness". I had this same little conversation with a fellow not long ago. I simply told him it would be worthwhile to read something the man wrote before misrepresenting him and breaking God's law by lying.

Curious: what was his response?

He was a P.H.D. student in a Charismatic denomination. He actually said he may be wrong and he would investigate more. My pastor sees this fellow on a regualr basis and talks with a lot as well. My pastor says he seems to be 'coming' around on some things.

The sad thing is I've had a similar conversation with the pastor of my old church which was an indy fundy baptist church, after he ranted from the pulpit in a meeting we were at that calivinism was from the "pit". When I approached him about his misrepresentation about what a calvinist actually believes I am simply dismissed as a "hyper-Calvinist heretic". Most people just spout off things they've been told or taught and old habits are hard to break. Coming around to a more reformed understanding of the scripture over the years has mellowed out my own rhetoric a great deal.

 

[Thomas2007]

Hello CalviBaptist,

You asked:

Thomas, I find this very interesting. Could you elaborate on how you think modern evangelicalisms view of the Gospel (functional Arminianism, as I like to call it), has at its base a departure from Trinitarianism? I have never heard that before.

Calvinism begins on Scripture's revelation about the ontological Trinity, hence, decretal election is merely an expression of complete unity in the Godhead. Calvinism presupposes that this interpretation of Scripture's revelation about God's character and being is true and correct, and builds its soteriological system upon that foundation. Scripture's, then, that reveal God's plan of salvation are interpreted consistent with the whole meaning of the incarnation of Jesus Christ as the eternal Son of God, as defined in the Chalcedon creed.

Indeed, I found that John Calvin cannot be understood without grasping his fidelity to Chalcedon. That is what overthrew me and my understanding of a basically "4 point Calvinism," or the generally hybrid syncretic modern Evangelical view that seems to be in the majority opinion today. I was suddenly faced with the horror that my position was denying the incarnation of Jesus Christ into flesh and was thereby "antichrist," as the Apostle John plainly explains: "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world" 1 John 4:3 That revelation shook me to my core and took me to my knees in repentance in fear and trembling. Hence, in my view, Calvinism must be presented as a call to repentance and not merely an explanation or argument about details, as it is often presented today.

Ultimately, what this means, if Calvinism is to be proven false, the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ must be proven false as interpreted and expressed in the exegesis of the ancient catholic creeds. If we've interpreted Scripture's revelation about the Triune God and the incarnation of Jesus Christ as the eternal Son of God, properly, then Calvinism is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If we have not, then it is not.

Arminianism, on the other hand, begins upon a presupposition of natural law, hence Grotius worked out the Governmental View of the Atonement upon this basis and redefined Scripture's revelation concerning election, substitutionary atonement, &c consistent with its humanistic understanding of Justice. It necessarily posits disunity and disagreement in the Godhead, for God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Ghost disagree on who is elect and who is not elect. Its Christology is subordinationist and its soteriological system presupposes that election has passed from eternity into time presenting an impotent Saviour.

Soteriologically it is a confusion of the offices of Christ as King and High Priest and its system posits that Christ as King in the substitutionary atonement pardons the sinner by negating the judicial judgment upon sin, not penal satisfaction. Hence, true Arminianism and the Dutch Arminians were not and is not evangelical. Ignorance of the law is salvation and knowledge of good and evil is what man must be "saved" from, not God's Judgment upon sin.

What we have to deal with today is a hybrid syncretism of Arminianism and Calvinism in America and there a hundred ways in which the American evangelical will try to defend its system, but it's always presupposed upon a natural law foundation (e.g., "free will") and a humanistic conception of God's Holiness and Justice that is a perversion of the Trinity and the doctrine of Christ's incarnation in one way or another.

Cordially,

Thomas

 

[Thomas2007]

Another point that probably should be added for edification. This syncretic soteriology is also why Dispensationalism has ascended to such priority in America and has such a strong hold on the conscience of modern evangelicalism.

The eschatalogical meaning of dispensationalism is a consistent continuation of its soteriology whereby election passes from eternity into time, as the Risen Christ being one Person in two natures, God and Man, has Ascended into the Heavens but is "divided against Himself." In Calvinism we don't allow that Christ as King and High Priest is divided against Himself which is the fundamental legal principle of Arminianism's system. You must understand that what we often say is the Arminians positing of a "self salvation", is in their legal premise, effectuating the incarnation and making Christ real. That is to say faith is the means by which they bring the offices of Christ as King and High Priest into alignment and effectuate salvation thereby.

If you examine it through Grotius's Governmental View of the Atonement, Arminianism teaches that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the individual filing a heavenly "habeas corpus" proceeding. Regeneration flows from their filing of this heavenly petition before God's Court and mandating that Christ be brought before the bar on their behalf.

Once you put Christ back together as one Person in two natures in the incarnation, for the Arminian, and don't let him weasel out of that in his segregation of His offices, then Dispensationalism will fall with his repentance, as well.

Cordially,

Thomas

 

[Amazing Grace]

I simply start with the doctrine of the Trinity and the incarnation of Jesus Christ and explain the Gospel from there, answering their objections by demonstrating how they have presuppositionally departed from Trinitarianism. I've found it to be extremely successful which forces a man to really examine the Scripture's teaching afresh and start considering the presuppositional thought behind the Calvinistic soteriology which then explains why we interpret the Scripture the way we do.

Cordially,

Thomas

Thomas, I find this very interesting. Could you elaborate on how you think modern evangelicalisms view of the Gospel (functional Arminianism, as I like to call it), has at its base a departure from Trinitarianism? I have never heard that before.

This is a great point and direction I take as well. People hear Calvin and immediately 'b-line' to some freshman understanding of predestination. Calvin's doctrine of the Godhead is first and foremost. His writings on the Holy Spirit are not spoken enough even in 'calvinistic' churches. In fact predestination is not even close to being the first topic in the Institutes.

I defend the Scriptures, and believe Calvinism, for lack of a better term, is the best understanding of them.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I would ask him if he has read any of Calvin's works and to then name them. When he tells you he hasn't then I would ask him if he's ever heard of the commandment "thou shalt not bare false witness". I had this same little conversation with a fellow not long ago. I simply told him it would be worthwhile to read something the man wrote before misrepresenting him and breaking God's law by lying.

Well said brother . In order to understand people, especially orthodox Christians with whom we disagree, we need to give them a fair hearing by reading their works Calvin is a good Calvinist to read as he is pretty easy in comparison to some later Calvinists.