Although, becoming the person who does the right thing for its own sake I don’t think we can do unless we are saved and have an already changed heart. A person cannot do that without Christ in his heart beforehand – that sounds more like what I think of as becoming sanctified.
2 Likes
I’m probably rusty on the nuances and distinctions between what is referred to as “sanctification” as opposed to “salvation”, etc. And nor is this a request for education on those finer points here (unless you just enjoy rehearsing all that for whatever clarity you feel necessary). I tend to see it all as the whole of what comes (and continues in us) when we are in relationship with Christ and learning obedience to him. Christ makes it possible, and calls us to, in our own turn participate with him in the works he has prepared beforehand for us to do. We learn haltingly to be Kingdom citizens … here and now.
2 Likes
I won’t quibble. 
I wish I had the time to give this topic the attention it warrants. For many lockdown has meant more free time; alas, for me the opposite.
A couple brief observations will have to suffice. Please, read the in a friendly and charitable tone, because that was how try to write them 
First of all, Calvinism ≠ Reformed. Calvinism is a particular theological stance on salvation. But to be Reformed is to subscribe to a historical Christian confession(s) (Westminster, Heidelberg, Belgic, etc). That may require one to adopt a Calvinistic outlook but the two are not synonymous. Baptists, Anglicans, even Methodist, can and have been Calvinists without necessarily being Reformed.
Second, Defining terms in these discussions is so important. For example, exactly does one mean by ‘free will’ and is that the same as how a Calvinist and/or Reformed person uses the term? Even among the Reformed definitions and opinions vary. My personal position is that the will is not ‘free’ in that our willed choices are driven by our desires. IE. We choose what we want (desire) to do. A key question for me then is, if a persons greatest desire is to sin will they ever choose of their own volition to submit to God’s authority? That said, I am still a moral agent who makes choices. In that sense Calvinism ≠ determinism. That’s just one of a number of terms that need careful definition (from both sides) for fruitful conversation to take place.
Third, In my experience most people reject an caricature of Calvinism or Reformed theology of salvation. When discussing this issue, people sometimes say ‘I could never be a Calvinist because I could never believe in a God who [XYZ]’ to which I often reply: 'Interesting, I don’t believe in that God either’ 
. Further, many are surprised to discover that the so called ‘Calvin’s TULIP’ was invented about 300 years after his death. Calvinist theology, after all, doesn’t begin with Total Depravity but initial goodness and the image of God… Then comes the fall.
Finally, anyone wanting to get their head around a Reformed understanding of sovereignty would do well to start with The Heidelberg Catechism (preferably a version which includes the ‘scriptural proofs’). They may be surprised at just how much the theological articulations of sovereignty are pastoral in nature. And again, that far from trying to look behind the curtain, the writers are simply trying to make sense (for better or worse) of God’s biblical self-revelation.
FWIW, I don’t mind where people ultimately land on this issue so long as they A. Make sure that what they are rejecting an accurate portrayal of the Doctrine(s) in question, B. they’ve considered the impactions and limitations of alternative positions, C. The position they adopt is still within the bounds of orthodoxy.
I hope that is a helpful addition to the conversation @Mervin_Bitikofer. 
Sorry I can’t engage more fully 
.
6 Likes
Thanks for that clarification… I often tend to think of those terms interchangeably. Though I guess I’m more likely to see “Reformed” used in a denominational or ideological sense, while Calvinism seems to be more personal.
2 Likes
I have no problem with that and use the same “santification” language myself. What I do have a problem with is when this is turned around to say that it doesn’t count unless you become a Christian first or that non-Christians cannot do what is right for its own sake. Indeed Paul says just the opposite in Romans 2. Turning things around like this is symptomatic of a component of legalism having become a part of your understanding of Christianity. I solve the problem by denying that Christians have any monopoly or control over God to say who can have Christ in his heart – that would be God’s purview not ours.
1 Like
@Reggie_O_Donoghue, I’m very interested in this point: would you be able to explain a little further…?
My favorite naive arguments against one part of Calvinism, predestination, is when you hear “It turns us into robots” and, sometimes in the same criticism, “If this is true, then we might as well do whatever we want.” What I like is that these are the two most inconsistent criticisms possible, as they are exact opposites.
Also, I never get the “it’s not fair complaint.” In Arminianism, if you have (for example) two twins with identical backgrounds and educations, and one accepts the gospel and other doesn’t, it must be because the former had an experience–perhaps meeting a proselytizing friend, that the other did not. There had to be some reason that prevenient grace was sufficient to put the former over the threshold but not the latter. Whatever was different, it was unfair. Calvinism does not have a monopoly on the unfair. The only soteriology that is fair is universalism.
1 Like
An interesting point. Thanks for sharing, @heddle. Is that the beard of the ‘Man Himself’ I spy in your avatar?
I’ve also heard it said that only universalists believe in a truly unlimited atonement since they argue that Christ died for all and all will be saved. Whereas, traditional orthodoxy requires an atonement limited by either its scope or its effectiveness.
That is to say, the Calvinist believes in an atonement that is limited in scope (Jesus died only for the elect) but unlimited in its effectiveness (all the elect will be saved). Whereas the non-Calvinist believes in an atonement that is unlimited in scope (Jesus died for everyone everywhere) but ultimately limited in its effectiveness (only some will trust Jesus for themselves).
Obviously an oversimplification, but I’ve found it to be a helpful illustration over the years. Mainly, because it helps make the point that we are not debating unlimited vs limited atonement. But rather, which limited atonement best makes sense of the biblical data.
1 Like
Greeting, @heddle. I agree that fairness doesn’t really exist, even with universalism. some of us struggle more than others to come to a knowledge of truth (even scientific truth) because of circumstances. I can’t recall if you’ve talked about the George Macdonald type of universalism? It’s more of an inclusivism that God won’t be satisfied with anything but full repentance, and takes as long as any parent to get there–even eternity. So, Hell would be considered purgatory when you eventually repent.
His “Unspoken Sermon” of “Justice” is the clearest example of that that I know, I think, but his novel “David Elginbrod” was on that track, too.
Thanks for your discussion.
2 Likes
This non-Calvinist believes we do not have to, or ought to, choose. I live with what I consider to be the Biblical tension unresolved.
3 Likes
So do I, the (wonderful) unresolved tension between how a timeless (actually, I believe ‘timeful’) God, in his immediacy dynamically interacts with us who are time-bound in our now, and yet providentially plans. Time-bound, tensed vocabulary does not apply to him. He is absolutely sovereign, but we are free to rebel snd reject him.
4 Likes
It is (the man in the beard.)
3 Likes
Dale, Amazing reflection on a juggling/balancing act by God to get so many people and events lined up and in place at the right time. Until now I had not thought of the omnitemporal aspect implied by it.
Be blessed. He is Risen!
Maggie
2 Likes
Yes.
He is risen indeed!
2 Likes
And so will we 
:
“By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.” ~ 1 Corinthians 6:14 NIV2011
Happy Easter, y’all! 
3 Likes
The THE ORTHODOX CRITIQUE OF TULIP is enough if a summary to pique my interest as I agree with those points! Looking forward to reading this after getting caught up with this Blog!
It’s been so long that I typed what I did. Are you reading the Ancient Faith Ministries articles about Calvinism?
How is your church doing with the pandemic?
Lots I could say, but I think the biggest misconception I run into is that Calvinists believe in “predestination” and deny free will, while Arminians believe in “free will” and deny predestination. This is terribly misleading.
Calvinists believe in both free will - our choices are not compelled, or forced, but entirely free, and hence we are entirely responsible for the free choices we ourselves make, and that God has foreordained “whatsoever comes to pass”.
The prooftext for the Reformed position, in my mind, is Joseph’s words to his brothers… “You intended evil against me, but God intended it for good.” His brothers freely chose evil against Joseph, and God had planned this occurrence to happen for good.
We Calvinists don’t differ with Arminians because they believe in “free will”, rather, they think that by embracing free will, they would be logically forced to deny predestination.
Essentially, Arminians believe that predestination and free will are mutually exclusive, it must be either-or, and they opt for free will. We Calvinists essentially believe it is a “both-and,” They are not mutually exclusive, that it can indeed be both, and thus we embrace free will and predestination, even if it is hard for our minds to understand exactly how they work out together.
There are lots of additional nuances and qualifications I could offer, but that is usually the biggest misconception I try to correct, if helpful.
2 Likes
To be clear, compatibilism is incompatible with libertarian free will (pun intended).
The traditional solution to this conundrum of the co-existence of libertarian free will with God’s omniscience is to place God outside of time, and thus remove tenses from God’s knowledge. See Anselm, Augustine and (IIRC) Aquinas for this solution.
A newer solution championed by WLC is Monism (actually, Molinism), which states God has middle knowledge of counterfactuals. IMHO, this doesn’t actually solve the problem, but YMMV.