Why I Am a Calvinist (Part 1)
March 20th, 2007
. . . and why every Christian is a Calvinist of sorts. 
(by Phil Johnson)
This post is adapted from a transcript of a seminar from the 2007 Shepherds’ Conference, titled “Closet Calvinists.”
Part I: Is Arminianism damnable heresy?
I love the doctrines of grace and don’t shy away from the label “Calvinist.” I believe in the sovereignty of God. I’m convinced Scripture teaches that God is completely sovereign not only in salvation (effectually calling and granting faith to those whom He chooses); but also in every detail of the outworking of Providence. “Whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified” (Romans 8:30). And He makes “all things work together for good to those who love God, [i.e.,] to those who are the called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28). Quite simply, He “works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11).
That’s what people commonly mean when they speak of “Calvinism.” When I accept that label, I am not pledging allegiance to the man John Calvin. I am not affirming everything he taught, and I’m not condoning everything he did. I’m convinced Calvin was a godly man and one of the finest biblical expositors and theological minds ever, but he wasn’t always right. As a matter of fact, my own convictions are baptistic, so I am by no means one of Calvin’s devoted followers. In other words, when I accept the label “Calvinist,” it’s only for convenience’s sake. I’m not saying “I am of Calvin” in the Corinthian sense.
Furthermore, I’m not one of those who wears Calvinism like a big chip on his shoulder, daring people to fight with me about it. It’s true that I can get feisty about certain points of doctrine—especially when someone attacks a principle that goes to the heart of the gospel, like substitutionary atonement, or original sin, or justification by faith and the principle of imputed righteousness. When one of those principles is challenged, I’m ready to fight. (And I also don’t mind beating up on whatever happens to be the latest evangelical fad.)
But Calvinism isn’t one of those issues I get worked up and angry about. I’ll discuss it with you, but if you are spoiling for a fight about it, you are likely to find me hard to provoke. I spent too many years as an Arminian myself to pretend that the truth on these issues is easy and obvious.
Now, don’t get the wrong idea. I do think the truth of God’s sovereignty is clear and ultimately inescapable in Scripture. But it is a difficult truth to come to grips with, so I am sympathetic with those who struggle with it. I’m Calvinistic enough to believe that God has ordained (at least for the time being) that some of my brethren should hold Arminian opinions.
Over the years I have probably written at least twice as much material trying to tone down angry hyper Calvinists as I have arguing with Arminians. That’s not because I think hyper Calvinism is a more serious error than Arminianism. As a matter of fact, I would say the two errors are strikingly similar. But I don’t hear very many voices of caution being raised against the dangers of hyper Calvinism, and there are armies of Calvinists out there already challenging the Arminians, so I’ve tried to speak out as much as possible against the tendencies of the hypers.
That’s why I’m probably a whole lot less militant than you might expect when it comes to attacking the errors of Arminianism. Besides, I have gotten much further answering Arminian objections with patient teaching and dispassionate, reasonable, biblical instruction—instead of angry arguments and instant anathemas.
Why not take a more passive, lenient, brotherly, approach to all theological disagreements? Because I firmly believe there are some theological errors that do deserve a firm and decisive anathema. That’s Paul’s point in Galatians 1:8-9; and it’s the same point the apostle John makes in 2 John, verses 7-11. When someone is teaching an error that fatally corrupts the truth of the gospel, “let him be anathema.”
But let me be plain here: Simple Arminianism doesn’t fall in that category. It’s not fair to pin the label of rank heresy on Arminianism, the way some of my more zealous Calvinist brethren seem prone to do. I’m talking about historic, evangelical Arminianism, of the classic and Wesleyan varieties — Arminianism, not Pelagianism, or open theism, or whatever heresy Clark Pinnock has invented this week — but true evangelical Arminianism. Arminianism is certainly wrong; and I would argue that it’s inconsistent with itself. But in my judgment, standard, garden variety Arminianism is not so fatally wrong that we need to consign our Arminian brethren to the eternal flames or even automatically refuse them fellowship in our pastors’ fraternals.
If you think I’m beginning to sound like an apologist for Arminianism, I’m definitely not that. I do think Arminianism is a profound error. Its tendencies can be truly sinister, and when it is allowed to go to seed, it does lead people into rank heresy. But what I’m saying here is that mere Arminianism itself isn’t damnable heresy. It’s just grossly inconsistent with the core gospel doctrines that Arminians themselves believe and affirm.
But as long as I’m sounding like a defender of Arminianism, let also me say this: There are plenty of ignorant and inconsistent Calvinists out there, too. With the rise of the Internet it’s easier than ever for self taught lay people to engage in theological dialogue and debate through internet forums. I think that’s mostly good, and I encourage it. But the Internet makes it easy for like minded but ignorant people to clump together and endlessly reinforce one another’s ignorance. And I fear that happens a lot.
Hyper Calvinists seem especially susceptible to that tendency, and there are nests of them here and there—especially on the Internet. And more and more frequently these days I encounter people, who have been influenced by extremism on the Internet, touting hyper Calvinist ideas and insisting that if someone is an Arminian, that person is not really a Christian at all. They equate Arminianism with sheer works salvation. They suggest that Arminianism implicitly denies the atonement. Or they insist that the God worshiped by Arminians is a totally different God from the God of Scripture.
That’s really over-the-top rhetoric—totally unnecessary—and rooted in historical ignorance. A couple of years ago, when I started my weblog, I mentioned that tendency in the first entry I posted, which was titled “Quick and Dirty Calvinism.” At the end of that post, I said this: My advice to young Calvinists is to learn theology from the historic mainstream Calvinist authors, not from blogs and discussion forums on the Internet. Some of the forums may be helpful because they direct you to more important resources. But if you think of the Internet as a surrogate for seminary, you run a very high risk of becoming unbalanced.
Read mainstream Calvinist authors, however, and you’ll have trouble finding even one who regarded Arminianism per se as damnable heresy. There’s a reason for that: It’s because while Arminianism is bafflingly inconsistent, it is not necessarily damnably erroneous. Most Arminians themselves—and I’m still speaking here of the classic and Wesleyan varieties, not Pelagianism masquerading as Arminianism—most Arminians themselves emphatically affirm gospel truth that is actually rooted in Calvinistic presuppositions.
I have a friend who states that he is an Armenian but his speech is that of mostly Calvinism. I think his beef is with the hyper-Calvinist who say that if God wants them saved then He will save them and then do nothing to obey the Great Commission. He’s is fierce in spreading the Gospel, which is one attribute about him that I love.
Sarah. I too have a friend who is Armenian, and Calvinistic, we met at seminary. Although he is back home in Armenia we keep in touch.
Sorry, I had to make the crack. I think you mean your friend agrees with John Wesley’s teaching. ‘Armenian’ refers to a person from Armenia.
Many modern-day freewillers (not Arminians, Arminianism is a definite system) seek to poison their hearers and readers against Calvinism by a variety of methods, including representing all five-point Calvinists as Hypers. This sort of shoddy strawman representation is nasty. For myself, if I want to know what the Armian view of a passage or doctrine is, I go to the Arminian authors, particularly John Wesley and Adam Clark.
Blogs in Review 3/20/07…
Here are the blog posts for today! (Updated as I am able to)
Scot McKnight (http://www.jesuscreed.org) has some good words to say on fasting.
Phil Johnson over at the Pulpit Magazine (http://www.sfpulpit.com) starts an apparent series on why he is a C…
Most of my close family members are “Arminian”. I use that word in it’s modern sense, because there aren’t very many true “Arminians” today. Pure Arminianism is a heresy, and most people who call themselves Arminian would be shocked at what classic Arminianism actually taught. For example, if you ask most modern Arminians if Christ paid for sin at Calvary, they will say, “Of course”. They are shocked to find that Arminius himself did not believe this.
“The immediate effect of the death of Christ is not the remission of sins, or the actual redemption of any,” - James Arminius
Also, consider this quote from another Arminian father:
“To this question, Whether the only way of salvation be the life, passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ? I answer, No,”
More goodies like this can be found in John Owen’s work “A Display of Arminianism”. His comparison table can be found at Arminianism Exposed From Owen
I am looking for some answers this morning, and I thought maybe I could try here. I am sorry for breaking the the topic. Our Baptist Church is having its first ever Tenebrae Service. Is this a service we should be incorporating into our worship or is this a reintroduction of Catholic Ritual and liturgy? Thank you.
K. Hays (Kerry?)I’ve enjoyed a Tenebrae Service each of those years when I was member of Tulsa Bible Church, enjoying the solemn worship of the reading of Christ’s Passion passages. Yes, candles were used and it was a little different, with a somewhat abrupt ending, all lights out, leave quietly custom - but it had a way of engaging my worship deeply. My own humble opinion is to beware of the regular following of Roman Catholic Ritual but certainly a worship time designed to engage our emotions about the sufferings of our Lord, should be welcomed. Phil, thanks for the balanced approach in correction of over zealous Calvinism which detours our teaching - both for us Calvinists and for our brothers in the historic Arminian camp.
Very well-balanced, insightful, and convicting. I was unable to attend the SC this year, so it’s good to see some of the quality teaching being published here as well.
Looking forward to the rest of this series.
Phil, you make a number of references to the necessity of learning “theology from the historic mainstream Calvinist authors.” I’m hopeful that in one of the future posts in this series, you’ll provide a recommended reading list of authors and titles. (Including a good “start here” section for the basics.)
You’ve probably already done that on your other blog, or on your list of links, but I’m lazy. And while you’re at it, can you explain in one paragraph or less…
[...] Phil Johnson starts a series from the 2007 Shepherd’s Conference about why he’s a Calvinist, why he’s moderate, and how we can be, too. How we can be moderate, that is. [...]
Let me start by saying I am new to the post and I really enjoy the theological discussions that are posted. Very friendly and professional even when opinions differ.
As I mature in faith I have come to accept the biblical truth of election. This truth was made clear when I asked myself, “Does the freedom of my will determine the outcome of God’s?” I realized this would equate to “putting the cart before the horse” theology. I realize that my decisions do not change the outcome of God’s Will, but His Will changes the outcome of my decisions.
My wife and I have recently had a daughter and one thing that reminds me of God’s sovereignty and election is Proverbs 22:6. “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” This, to me, is yet another case for election being sound biblical doctrine. If I was arminian I would read it to say, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old maybe he will not depart from it if he choses not to.”
Suppose it IS a very fine line as to whether the debate extends into believing that one can or cannot lose salvation granted a person. If one genuinely believes they can lose it, doesn’t that make one responsible for their salvation? Doesn’t one then have a faith of works ~non-saving faith~ rather than that of God’s genuine saving grace? If one is a genuine believer, God won’t let the person alone until they see the error of their way(either they are His workmanship under His Lordship or they are their own workmanship pursuing being free in their own strength). Like I said, it is a fine line but does make one take pause to think on it.
Noticed this on the topic this morning. Reviews on varied sites selling the DVD caught my attention.
http://www.monergismbooks.com/amazing2112.html
Phil, thank you for a fair treatment of Arminianism here. I find your attitude and approach to be gracious even while it is strong for your point of view. There are plenty of ingorant and ill informed attacks by the less than knowledgabe out there in the blogosphere. Even though I feel about Calvinism the way you do about Arminianism, I think your post here is hitting the right note. Those who cannot live with themselves unless they declare one or the other a “heresy” need to get, as they say, a life. Thanks again.
Phil has brought up an important issue. I think we can all make a commitment to being more gracious when we discuss this issue with brethren of a different viewpoint.
I believe in the doctrines of grace (5 points of Calvinism). I’m always put off by Arminian brethren who label me a hyper-calvinist because I believe the Bible teaches particular atonement. They either misunderstand classic Calvinism, or they’re deliberately building a straw man they can more easily target.
That said, Arminius taught some very disturbing and unbiblical things which many modern Arminians would disagree with. I feel the least I can do when discussing this issue with them is try to understand their particular brand of Arminianism and address that. I expect the same from them.
Phil, you make a number of references to the necessity of learning “theology from the historic mainstream Calvinist authors.” I’m hopeful that in one of the future posts in this series, you’ll provide a recommended reading list of authors and titles. (Including a good “start here” section for the basics.)
I second the motion, especially since my introduction to & learning about Calvinism has been almost exclusively online (though some resources are from mainstream teachers like John Piper over at Desiring God).
re: “That’s not because I think hyper Calvinism is a more serious error than Arminianism. As a matter of fact, I would say the two errors are strikingly similar.”
While I’m in substantial agreement with Phil Johnson and I understand that Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism make similar errors in that they both believe the Gospel call to be only rightly presented to those for whom Christ died, etc. I actually think that the hyper position is more serious than Arminianism in that many from (especially) Wesleyan Arminian backgrounds have yet faithfully preached to masses of the lost concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Christ calling for the biblical response of faith and repentance, whereas the hyper position is fundamentally opposed to world missions, in direct opposition to the Gospel.
I, too, spent many years in the Arminian camp, but I finally had to bow under the sheer weight of the Scriptures regarding the doctrines of grace. In fact, I was an SBC Arminian, which has elements of Calvinism.
For those asking for book suggestions, I know that you weren’t asking me, but I would nevertheless like to suggest a few.
For me, one of the most understandable and irrefutable arguments in favor of the doctrines of grace was actually written, not by Calvin, but by Martin Luther, namely, “The Bondage of the Will” [available to read online HERE].
For a brief overview of the five points of Calvinism “The Doctrines of Grace” by the late Dr. James Montgomery Boice is excellent.
Also, I strongly suggest learning from the outset how these doctrines impact Gospel proclamation (this will go a long way in preventing the hyper-Calvinism or arrogance to which Mr. Johnson referred), so I would recommend “Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God” by J.I. Packer and “Today’s Evangelism” by Ernest Reisinger.
I hope these recommendations are beneficial to someone.
This will be my last comment [I think] here for today, but I would also like to affirm the idea that “every Christian is a Calvinist of sorts.”
All Christians have a God-given concern for their lost family, friends, and acquaintances and are prompted by the Holy Spirit (at least on occasion) to pray for their salvation.
And how does a consistent proponent of Arminian philosophy pray for God to bring salvation to others?
For if God is drawing all men to Himself equally, as most people raised in Arminianism may initially claim, then what is the use of praying for their salvation- God is already doing ALL HE CAN to save them, and it is up to their ‘free-will’ to seal the deal. If not- if there are some men that God chooses not to draw to Himself- then Arminians have a doctrine of reprobation that they must deal with as well. Except instead of God choosing to save some and leave others in their sin, the Arminian doctrine (if God does not draw all men equally) would have God granting some men the chance for salvation- which chance they must cooperate with by a free act of their will- and leaving some men without a chance, or at least with a greatly reduced chance. If this is the way things are, then Paul was wrong in asserting that all men are equally dead in trespasses and sins, and by nature children under wrath (see Eph. 2:1-3), instead he should have said that some men are dead in trespasses and sins, some are only mostly dead, or comatose, and some are only in a light slumber in their peccadilloes.
And what if God is drawing some men to Himself with more fervor than others? Can those on which He is exerting less energy still be saved? If this is the case, then it seems as if those who persevere to come to God with less “drawing” would be given greater esteem for advancing toward God with less help.
Can those whom He is not drawing still freely choose Him? If this is the case, then Pelagius (the heretic that said that God’s grace is a help to salvation, but not necessary for salvation) is vindicated indeed.
But all Christians know that God alone is given all glory for our salvation. We know this because of the Holy Spirit-given conviction of our sinfulness that we have felt in reaching the humiliation by which we initially cried out to God for salvation, we know this because of the way in which we pray for the salvation of others, and we know this, above all, due to the clear teaching of our Lord.
-SDG
In addition to the books Andrew listed, John Owen’s “A Display of Arminianism” and “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” are must-reads. I would also include A.W. Pink’s “The Soveriegnty of God”.
Nevergall,
If you really want to give an Arminian some shock value in terms of God’s Sovereignty, point them to 2 Samuel 12:11-12 and ask them, “Did God really do that?”
Make sure this person is spiritually mature or they may go off on you.
[...] Phil Johnson: Why I am a Calvinist Published March 21st, 2007 Calvinism Source: Pulpit Magazine [...]
Phil,
Fair and balanced, as I have come to expect. I can relate to your reference to a former life as an Arminian. It took me several years of personal study, thought, prayer and struggle and submission to come to an understanding of the doctrines of grace. I also agree with your definition of being a Calvinist - not agreeing with all Calvin said and did. I’ve run into disagreements with at least one brother on this. I’ve also seen some of the arrogance that can be exhibited by “enlightened” Calvinists as they flaunt their “superior” understanding. For example, the few “Caution: Calvinistic Content, Arminians Beware” t-shirts I saw at last years Shepherds Conference. Tacky and unnecessarily provoking.
Interestingly, I have one particular brother who is vehemently and at times angrily opposed to the doctrines of grace, and even when I have taught them - but he has recently approached me about being a member of the board of directors for his ministry because he respects my conservative and solid Biblical understanding. Go figure…
Herschel Hobbs, 1971, The Baptist Faith and Message, “Only of man is it said that he was made in God’s image…He possesses a will with the freedom of choice. In his original creation, man was in a state of innocence with the possibility that he might choose righteousness or sinfulness…Created in a state of innocence, man was neither righteous nor sinful. Before becoming either he must exercise the right of choice.” But, Hobbs says of Eve, “It is when man through selfish ambition seeks to be God in his own life and will that he sins. Sin is dethroning God and enthroning self. It was this very thing which snared Eve, which shows that she also had a tendency toward sin. And this tendency overcame her tendency toward righteousness.” Hobbs further states of God, “He can do anything in keeping with his nature and purpose. The only limits to his power are self-imposed…In the abstract, God’s sovereignty means that he can act as he will without any outside counsel or permission. But in the concrete, as taught in the Bible, God has placed certain limitations upon himself. In that sense his sovereignty must be viewed as his power to act as he will in keeping whith his own laws and according to his nature as righteousness and love.”
Anyone familiar with the arguements concerning the virtue of God (ref. Johnathan Edwards) from the Arminian perspective will recognize that Hobbs is a thorough-going heretical Arminian. The formula he lays out is simple. Man created in the image of God able to choose to do good or evil. The only limitations on God is his nature controlled by self imposed laws which, since he is beyond temptation due to his other attributes, is able to keep them. Therefore is nature is rendered righteous causally, not essentially. But, man as is clear from his discription of Eve, being created in the image of God, with both good and evil tendencies, but not possessing the other attributes of God, omnicience and omnipotence, cannot resist temptation.
Repeatedly, I have heard this discription of God by the mouths of many of my SBC brothers and sisters. And every Arminian I know. Pastors and laymen, alike. Why? Because it has been the warp and woof of the SBC for nearly a century and is found ubiquitously in evangelicalism. God, who is both good and evil, is righteous because he chooses to keep the law!
Virtue according to the Arminian is not according to nature, but choice, and that must include the possibility of choosing to be good or evil, or it cannot be either virtue or vice. Hobbs makes this essential nature of the ability to choose either to be good or evil, the image of God.
This is the primary problem with any Arminian scheme of “free-will.” And their five pillars, no matter how compromised, always will lead back to this conclusion: that God must possess “free-will,” and does therefore necessarily only exist as righteous by choice. The idea that Hobbs would place evil and good choices outside of God diminishes Him to a god below the Absolute Law of Good and Evil. And, for Arminian free-will to exist there must be the potential for choice residing in the agent of choice and that must include both the tendencies of good and evil.
It is not simply a matter of calling it rank heresy, it is rank heresy.
The war that was all but lost to the Arminian is swinging back to a historic orthodoxy. But, as Luther would say, the “hinge” upon which the whole argument rests on this matter of the “bondage of the will.” We would not have protestantism today if the reformers would have returned to the Romanist doctrines of free-will and synergistic faith and their diminished view of deity. And we should not ever countenance tolerance for Romanist doctrine within the body of Christ, today.
The Arminianism of the Arminian stands in opposition to Christ who makes is clear that he does not pray for the world at large, John 17.9, “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are Yours.” Along with Isaiah 6, John 3.3, and 1 Corinithians 2, it is impossible to erect any Arminian scheme for “decisional regeneration.” One must be born again and given new eyes and ears to be able to understand the Gospel before they can give ascent to it. And, without understanding there can be no believing. It must be the kind of faith that Christ had, who is the archegos and teleiotes of our faith and its creator. It must be Christ who is our faith and always returns to His father. It must be the faith that says, “Father, I know you always hear my voice. Not my will but yours. Into your hands I commit my spirit.” It must be a faith that knows that He will not abandon his holy ones to see corruption. It must be faith that is the substance (hupostasis), the very thing. That is the essence of our hope for whom we wait. It must be the very thing its self, the “seed” that remains in us that bears the fruit of repentance and the thrusting our trust into Christ. It must be the evidence of “even though we have not seen, we believe.” And, that is based upon only Christ who has given only to his disciples eyes and ears to understand the mysteries of the kingdom. They alone has he presented as His Bride before the Father. And only to them, has He revealed the Father. “You have sent Me and have loved them as You have loved Me..for you loved Me before the foundation of the world…They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world…We are from above…We speak of what we know.”
[...] Phil Johnson says every Christian is a Calvinist of sorts. [...]
What do you folks do with the Bible verse: “The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentence.”?
You might want to be careful about presenting the Lord Jesus Christ as one who creates people whom he pre-determines will go to hell.
Additionaly, the “Election” theory causes me to wonder just how much its believers actually reach out to non-Christians to share the Gospel with them. After all, if God is “sovereign” then He doesn’t really need our help to “save” a person. I wonder why, then, He commanded us to “Go” and fufil the Great Commission.
Hi Kathy,
You state: “You might want to be careful about presenting the Lord Jesus Christ as one who creates people whom he pre-determines will go to hell.”
This is a classic misunderstanding of classical reformed theology, and is an argument against the sort of hyper-Calvinism of which Phil is so eloquently fighting against. It is important to understand that scripture teaches us that God is active with respect to the application of His grace, but is passive with respect to the reprobate. In other words, we are all destined for Hell because we sin and seek not to do the will of God. We are all dead in our trespasses, and this too by our own willful doing. But God, by grace through the effectual calling of His Spirit, intercedes on behalf of the elect to save us by the substitutionary atonement of the Cross. The active/passive distinction is a subtle but very important distinction.
With respect to the Great Commission, again yours is not an argument against classical orthodox Calvinism, but against the very dangerous hyper-Calvinism. Reformed theology recognizes that God ordains the means as well as the ends. We do not cease to pray or proselytize because, “God already has worked it out”. Rather, we understand, that God, in His divine providence, uses our prayers and our faithful proclamations of the good news of the gospel to effectuate His will – our responsibility to live fruitful lives as Christians does not cease because of the doctrines of grace. We all have our part in the Body of Christ; we all have our part in the garden as it were.
“The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”? — unless you are a universalist, this proves too much.
Blessing to you!
Phil
dear kathy-
please read the verse in context: 2pet3:9″The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”
what promise is peter discussing? the promise of Christ’s return.
in that context, we have 2 options:
1) peter is telling believers that the Lord is waiting to return until all the elect come to faith in Him. (i.e. that the Lord is patient towards [His elect], not wishing that any [of the elect] should perish, but all reach repentance.) Once every single person who God foreknew and foreloved accepts Christ, the door can be closed.
2) peter is telling believers that the Lord will never return because there will always be children/adults/elderly who might choose of their own free will at any given moment to repent…so how can God ever close the door on them?
option 1 seems to make more sense, as peter is confident of the Lord’s eventual return and the book is clearly written to the elect who are encouraged to examine themselves as they “make their election sure.” (1:10)
in any event, calvinists try to be very careful not to misrepresent God as He reveals Himself in the scriptures. please feel free to review how we handle those scriptures if you disagree.
“election,” as such, is found repeatedly in scriptures and many who accept the reformed (or “calvinist”) definition are very active in participating in missions. you may also be interested to know that the writer of one of the great scriptural passages about missions (romans 10:9-17) was saved by the miraculous intervention of our risen Lord, entirely apart from human help (and despite that, i hope you don’t consider him a hypocrite.
)
gal 1:11″For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”
anyway, please stick around and keep asking questions…
[...] Read the whole thing. Tags: Calvinism , Phil Johnson , Arminianism [...]
Indoctus:
I’m sorry. I just don’t get it. Let me quote from your last post:
“You state: ‘You might want to be careful about presenting the Lord Jesus Christ as one who creates people whom he pre-determines will go to hell.’
This is a classic misunderstanding of classical reformed theology, and is an argument against the sort of hyper-Calvinism of which Phil is so eloquently fighting against. It is important to understand that scripture teaches us that God is active with respect to the application of His grace, but is passive with respect to the reprobate. In other words, we are all destined for Hell because we sin and seek not to do the will of God. We are all dead in our trespasses, and this too by our own willful doing. But God, by grace through the effectual calling of His Spirit, intercedes on behalf of the elect to save us by the substitutionary atonement of the Cross. The active/passive distinction is a subtle but very important distinction.”
Are you saying that God actively seeks out the “elect,” but still passively allows the “reprobate” to be saved? If that is the case, then I guess you’ve answered the objection. God has not created anyone who has no chance to be saved.
However, if I have misunderstood your explanation, then I still don’t understand: why aren’t you left with a God who creates the “elect” who will be saved, and the “reprobate” who have no chance [born to burn]?
BS
If you think I’m beginning to sound like an apologist for Arminianism, I’m definitely not that. I do think Arminianism is a profound error. Its tendencies can be truly sinister, and when it is allowed to go to seed, it does lead people into rank heresy.
Agreed! Thre is much in Arminianism that is disturbing.
In the same vein: Calvinism is profound error.
Calvinism can lead to “rank heresy,” such as:
*Hyper-Calvinism (as Phil referred to)
*Regeneration before faith, including in-the-womb/infant regeneration, which some Calvinists, who I converse with, staunchly believe can and does occur.
*Front loading faith with upfront commitments of man to the gospel of grace, i.e. Lordship Salvation.
LM
Thank God for Phil Johnson! A believer in what the Bible teaches…. Keep up the Godly good work Phil: men such as you, John MacArthur and Mark Dever are rare and that God for the work that the three of you are doing….
“Are you saying that God actively seeks out the “elect,” but still passively allows the “reprobate” to be saved? If that is the case, then I guess you’ve answered the objection. God has not created anyone who has no chance to be saved.
However, if I have misunderstood your explanation, then I still don’t understand: why aren’t you left with a God who creates the “elect” who will be saved, and the “reprobate” who have no chance [born to burn]?”
dear brad-
if God leaves any human to himself, he remains as gen8:21 described natural man: “every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood.” natural men are “allowed” to be saved, but none of them choose to be…not one. (rom.3:11-12)
God is all-knowing. isa46:10 says that “I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.” unless you deny this very basic point, you have to say at the very least that God creates some even while knowing that they will never accept Him. arminian teaching won’t help you there…you’ll have to throw out the bible and become an open theist.
[...] You can find the first post here. Posted in John Calvin, Reformed, Theology. [...]
[...] 29th, 2007 · No Comments For those of you that are interested in basic understanding of Calvinism, Phil Johnson posted a 7part series on “Why I Am a Calvinist” at Pulpit Magazine. [...]
[...] Bearing this in mind and having been encouraged by Tim Challies writing on What It Means To Be Reformed as well as recent theology blogging by Dan Hames, I thought I might humbly have a go a writing down some thoughts on Reformed Theology, often nicknamed Calvinism, after John Calvin. (I’m using the phrases pretty much interchangeably) . Before I start, Phil Johnson reminded us of some advice in a recent series “Why I Am a Calvinist (Part I):” …my advice to young Calvinists is to learn your theology from the historic mainstream Calvinist authors, not from blogs and discussion forums on the Internet. [...]