Why I Am a Calvinist (Summary & Conclusion)
March 29th, 2007
. . . and why every Christian is a Calvinist of sorts.
(By Phil Johnson)
Part VIII: To sum up. . .
We’ve been taking note of five important truths implied in the eight words of 1 John 4:19 (“We love Him because He first loved us”). I alliterated the five implications of that text I highlighted for you, but if you simply give them slightly different names, they spell TULIP:
* The perverseness of our fallen state—that’s the doctrine of Total Depravity.
* The priority of God’s electing choice—that is the doctrine of Unconditional Election
* The particularity of His saving work—that, as we saw, entails the doctrine that is often called Limited Atonement.
* The power of His loving deliverance—that, once more, is the doctrine of Irresistible Grace.
* The perfection of His redemptive plan—that is nothing other than the doctrine of Perseverance.
You might be one of those people who doesn’t want to be referred to as a Calvinist or an Arminian. But the fact is, if you are a Christian at all, you do already affirm the fundamental principle in every one of those truths. You already know in your heart of hearts that you weren’t born again because you were morally superior to your unbelieving neighbors. You were worthy of God’s wrath just like them (Eph. 2:1 3). According to Ephesians 2:4-6, it was God who quickened you and showed you a special mercy—and that is why you are a believer. You already know that in your heart. You don’t really believe you summoned faith and came to Christ in your own power and by your own unaided free will. You don’t actually believe you are morally superior to people who don’t believe. You therefore must see, somewhere in your soul, that God has given you special grace that He has not necessarily shown everyone.
You also believe God is absolutely sovereign over all things. I know you do, because you lean on the promise of Romans 8:28. And that promise would mean nothing if God were not in control of every detail of everything that happens. If He is not in control of all things, how could He work all things together for good?
Furthermore, you pray for the lost, which means in your heart, you believe God is sovereign over their salvation. If you didn’t really believe He was sovereign in saving sinners, you’d quit praying for the lost and start doing everything you could to buttonhole people into the kingdom by hook or by crook, instead. But you know that would be folly. And you pray about other things, too, don’t you? You pray that God will change this person’s heart, or alter the circumstances of that problem. That’s pure Calvinism. When we go to God in prayer, we’re expressing faith in His sovereignty over the circumstances of our lives.
You even believe God operates sovereignly in the administration of all His providence. You say things like, “If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that” (James 4:15)—because in your heart you believe that God works all things after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11), and nothing happens apart from His will.
Nothing is more biblical than these doctrines that are commonly labeled Calvinism. In a way, it is a shame they have been given an extrabiblical name, because these truths are the very essence of what Scripture teaches. The very gist of Calvinism is nowhere more clearly stated than in the simple words of our verse: “We love Him, because He first loved us.”
This has been a wonderful series. Thank you very much for taking the time to explain these true Biblical principles. I have truly been blessed by this work.
In Christ,
Ricky
[…] Phil Johnson (http://www.sfpulpit.com) summarizes and concludes his series on why he is a calvinist and why all Christians are one of sorts with part eight […]
If all this truth is summed up in that one little verse (and I believe you accurately exposited it), why is there such a disagreement between Arminians and Calvinists today?
First of all, there are many who misunderstand Calvinism. Many people in Free-will Churches have been taught that Calvinism is something it is not, that ‘the elect will be saved, do what they may, and the reprobate will be damned, try what they will’ (John Wesley). They believe Calvinism encourages antinomianism (the elect do not need to live good lives). Others have been taught that Calvinistic ‘Perseverence’ is opposed to a rather antinomian (!) view of ‘once saved, always saved). There are an awful lot of writers and speakers out there who make it their task to perpetuate these myths.
Another factor is a natural human desire to have a part of the credit for salvation. Usually this operates at an unconscious level. The same is true of a disbelief in the radical nature of original sin. There are very few evangelicals who actually deny original sin, but many who unconciously do and who therefore oppose Calvinism because they feel (rather than think) that it leaves out so many good people.
Still other people (such as Clark Pinnock) build their theology on a philosophical rather than a Scriptural basis. These have a disagreement with the Bible itself, a disagreement they try to deny with strange exegesis.
John Wesley certainly had an almost invincible opposition to Calvinism that led him to the very brink of legalism in his attempts to deny it. Yet Wesley was guilty of confusing Calvinism with Antinomianism.
Basically, much of the disagreement is based on misunderstanding and myths about Calvinism. It’s our traditions!!!
A well done series, Phil, and a good argument. There is much for Calvinists and Arminians to unite around, yet still a divide must always exist. You see, I think in their “heart of hearts” Calvinists know that the “horrible doctrine” (Calvin’s words) of unconditional reprobation is not consistent with the character of God and so work really, really hard to justify the petals of TULIP.
That’s why Calvinists have always majored in strong theologians. Also because semi-Pelagian flapdoodle (as Phil encountered in that Sunday School class) lets down people who actually give theology some thought. Calvinism is attractive for the intellectually minded for that very reason.
For a long time I tried to become a Calvinist (how’s that for a mind bender?) But ultimately I could not justify it biblically. The last stand was a year long group study of Grudem’s Systematic Theology with an open Bible next to it.
Still, I find myself drawn to teachers like MacArthur and Piper simply because they are so committed to the Word and honoring God and holding up the glory of God in all things! I wish more non-Calvinist preachers would drink from that well.
I also agree that there is much misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Calvinism out there, just as there is of Arminianism (e.g., always conflating it with semi-Pelagianism or Open Theism). That’s why I’d encourage Calvinists to do what Phil did and at least study Roger Olson’s book (as a start). And Arminians need to study Calvinism and deal with it fairly.
Excellent final post. Very edifying series. The doctrine of election is something which always encourages the soul of the elect, as, I believe, God wants it to.
Thanks.
“You see, I think in their “heart of hearts” Calvinists know that the “horrible doctrine” (Calvin’s words) of unconditional reprobation is not consistent with the character of God and so work really, really hard to justify the petals of TULIP.” -jsb
That’s a good thought.
However, in my “heart of hearts”, I don’t see this as inconsistent, but I do see it as a mystery for our finite minds.
The secret things are God’s.
The revealed things are ours.
Such as: God doesn’t desire that the wicked should perish, though He made all things, even the wicked for the Day of doom.
God says, I will have mercy on whom I will. And I will harden whom I will. He’s the Potter. He makes the vessels.
It’s a paradox. But it’s the perfect truth as well.
Phil,
There’s a reason the staff that matches topics with speakers always gives you these topics…you handle them very well and with a pastoral touch.
Thanks for the link to Dr. Daniel’s History and Theology of Calvinism. Bubba, that’s a tome…
Grace and Peace…
I don’t like labels. I agree with every argument Phil has made. So I am a Calvinist and that doesn’t bother me.
But do I agree on the whole of every point with what I call ‘popular Calvinists’ or ‘pop Calvinism’? No, because they often go much further than Phil has gone here.
I sense an intellectual forcing of truth to fit into what I think is a hyper-Calvinist view. To make the finer points, they must ‘hammer in’ the final pieces that don’t quite fit. Yet these are apparently mainstream Calvinists.
I think the Calvinist label has evolved or been corrupted, much like the Fundamentalist label. When people ask me about my theological position, I always say I am a Biblicist. If I told them I was a Calvinist or a Fundmentalist, and I am both, people would get the wrong idea about what I believe about the scriptures. I believe in the plain, grammatical, historical, contextual hermenuetic, which inevitably leads to the sovereignty of God and some form of dispensationalism.
Nice series.
Thank you for the series . It has been interesting. I still do not find myself landing in either direction. There is much of Calvinism that has too much contradiction and no , what I believe does not include Calvinism.
Thank you Phil and everybody for your posts. This series has helped me to understand calvinism and arminianism better. I still have a lot of reading and praying to do. But I’m sure the Holy Spirit will help me along my way.
God bless,
Jeff
What do you believe John 3:16 means when it says “For God so loved the world…”? Thank you.
Phil,
A colleague/friend of yours referred me to this site. I find that while it seems you know a lot, you don’t actually -say- very much.
The first two posts basically just say how wrong Arminianism is without actually speaking to the substance of it. General terms like “sovereignty” and “election” are used, but no real examination of the theological issues behind these terms is present. The third post is simply preaching to the choir (even more than the first two posts), and fairly insulting to anyone not of your viewpoint at that. In my opinion, you would do well to exercise some humility and grace in your presentation of these issues. The fourth gives a small look at what you thought before becoming a Calvinist and after, yet again does not really speak to the important issues of either position.
The last three posts, where the meat of your series should lie, are quite inadequate from an exegetical standpoint. Rather than decipher the meaning of the verse and see whether it is consistent with the Calvinist system, you apply the points of Calvinism to it and see whether you can make it work. This is a very poor way of both studying Scripture and understanding theological systems like Calvinism or Arminianism.
While I’m sure you are capable of explaining why you are a Calvinist, you have not done so in any meaningful way. When not “preaching to the choir” or condemning Arminianism, you are affirming generalized truths (”God’s sovereignty”, “election”, “grace”, and the like) without giving any meaning to these terms. More importantly, you do this without any solid Scriptural exegesis to back up your points.
For these reasons, your articles have been quite unconvincing, and I must say they unfortunately do a disservice to your ministry and the point you are trying to get across.
While I’m sure you are predisposed to disagree with the points he makes, I believe Robert Picirilli’s “Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism” is worth a look. It is worth reading for two reasons in particular: first, the fair (though naturally not completely neutral) presentation of both viewpoints; and second, the Scriptural exegesis he gives at the end of each section — something any Christian attempting to understand anything about God ought to do.
– ALB
A.L.B.
Wow, I cannot believe you can see into the heart of Phil Johnson!
I noticed while you attacked Phil, you offered not one shred of Scripture or exegesis to back up your points. You have demonstrated your statement “I find that while it seems you know alot, you don’t actually-say- very much” can be applied to you as well. (This is just an observation and not meant to be an attack. The limit of blogs is that you cannot hear the tone of voice a person has when talking, if oyu could hear mine it would be gentle and calm)
- Hayden
M J,
What do you believe John 3:16 means when it says “For God so loved the world…”? Thank you.
You are reading your bias into this verse…
I believe it means: houtos (so, thus, after this manner) gar (for) egapesen (loved) ho Theos (the God)ton kosmon (the world) hoste (so that, insomuch that, that)…
Or literally, “After this manner for loved the God the world so that…”
Now, the interesting part is how He loved the world…
ton huion (His Son) ton monogene (single of its kind, only, unique) edoken (gave, granted) hina (in order that, so that) pas ho (all, everyone, each, any) pisteuon (believes, puts one’s trust in) eis (in)auton (Him) me (not) apoletai (perish, be lost, be destroyed) all’ (but) eche (have) zoen (life) aionion (eternal, without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be).
Or literally, “After this manner God loved the the world so that He gave His unique Son in order that everyone who puts their trust in Him will not be lost, but have life without beginning and end.”
Now, I’m no Greek expert. This was done with an interlinear and a lexicon. So you professionals, please feel free to correct what I’ve attempted to do.
However, what a great verse with great promise for everyone who puts their trust in Him! But, how can we put our trust in Him if by nature every intention of the thoughts of our heart is only evil continually; (Gen. 6:5); by nature we have a mind that is hostile to God, and it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot; (Rom 8:7-8); by nature we do not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to us, and we are not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned (1 Co 2:14)?
Where does that leave the whosoevers?
It leaves us in need of grace that conquers the sinful, hardened, and stony heart. Because, as Jesus said, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:44)” Is there a difference between the one the Father draws and the one who is raised up on the last day? Does this verse permit any others to be raised on the last day in addition to those who are drawn by the Father?
Scripture describes salvation in three ways: a new birth, a new creation, and a resurrection. This work of the Holy Spirit is a gift of God for the sake of Christ. Our faith is not something worked up or inherent in our fallen natures, but a promised work of God as part of the New Covenant.
So, John 3:16 really does not address the issue you wish it to address, especially in light of the rest of God’s revelation.
Hope this helps with what I think John 3:16 tells us about the goodness and sovereign mercy of God.
MJ,
If you will look to the next verse in John 3, you will see that “…God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through Him.” (NAS).
If you assume that “world” in John 3:16 means “everybody without exception”, then it would be only right to carry that logic through to the next verse, and believe that “everybody without exception” will be saved through Jesus.
Certainly you don’t think that, do you? And yet that is what your (presumed) understanding of 3:16 entails.
A. L. B.:
Thanks for the feedback. I’m sorry you felt the series was so deficient. In case anyone else misunderstood, this series was not an attempt to make an exhaustive case or an exegetical argument either for Calvinism or against Arminianism, so if your point is that I didn’t say everything I might have said, I’ll gladly concede that point.
(In fact, I think I did concede that point in my intro to the seminar.)
But I’m not sure what to make of your complaint that I didn’t really say much at all. I wish you had at least responded to something that I did say. Specifically, I was disappointed that you totally ignored my main argument:
If 1 John 4:19 means anything, it proves that if you truly love God, that’s because God has given you special grace that He has not necessarily shown everyone.
That’s the very truth Arminianism attempts to disguise but ultimately cannot escape. It’s a simple point, really, and it’s sometimes even acknowledged implicitly in a lot of Arminian hymns and prayers and presuppositions.
As a natural-born Arminian, I didn’t want to concede that point, either—so I think I understand your position. But once I saw the point clearly, I had to either move in a Pelagian direction, or acknowledge that on the main issue where Calvinists and Arminians differ most fundamentally, Calvinism is correct.
That’s why I’m a Calvinist.
Rereading the seminar transcript, I do think that point is made clearly enough. But hopefully this condensed version will make it more clear for you as well.
Phil,
Is Curt Daniel’s manuscript still a valid link in Part III?
I thought this was a great series, BTW, and have indexed each post here.
MJ , Your question is a good one and there is the indidviual responsibility to respond in belief to the preaching of the gospel. Peter told the crowd on Pentecost to repent and to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins ( Acts 2 : 28 ). Later he said : “Save yourslevs from this corrupt generation”( Acts 2 : 40 ). The apostle paul taught by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the indivual responsiblity for salvation. Philippians 2 : 12 and 13.In other words each person must make a decision to believe and obey or not.
Kevin Rhyne: “Is Curt Daniel’s manuscript still a valid link in Part III?”
Unfortunately, no. Curt gave us permission to post that for a limited time only. He’s working on a major revision of the entire syllabus and planning to have it published. So, understandably, he didn’t want the original edition floating around indefinitely. So we ran it for the normal lifetime of the original post, and then removed it in accord with Curt’s preference.
That’s understandable…so, 2-5 years on the book??
Ray B.,
I have yet to see a real Calvinist say that we don’t have the responsibility to repent and believe. We are commanded to do so, it’s not a mere invitation. Look at Acts 17.
The problem is, without God’s conquering grace, our wills remain in bondage to sin and we can’t do what we must to be saved. Just saying that we must repent and believe doesn’t solve the problem raised in Jer. 17:9 or Jer. 13:23 (note the sarcasm of God) and elsewhere in Scripture. We need God to grant what He commands and then command what He wills.
Salvation is a gift but each person must decide to accept it or not. It is an indiviual decision. 2 COR. 5 : 20 . Those who have sinned can change. They can repent and be cleansed by the pecious blood of Jesus Christ. I Cor. 6 : 9 - 11 .
Ray B.,
How can they change Ray? How can they have the ability to change? Jews seek a sign, Greeks after wisdom. The cross is a stumbling block to the Jew and foolishness to everyone else. What makes the difference between all who reject the cross and the few who believe?
What makes you different from your neighbor who does not believe? Your intelligence? Your spirital savvy? The persuasiveness of the evangelist who got you to walk the aisle? To whom do you credit for your faith to trust Christ?
The power is in the gospel and when anyone responds in true repentance.
No one is denying that. You’re evading the question. Why does anyone respond to the Gospel in true repentance?
I am not avoiding the question. All I can tell you is that when the gospel is preached and a heart is receptive then the results will be the fruit of repentance. The help comes from the gospel and the power of what the message can do to those who choose to respond. The death , burial and resurrection of Jesus and as it is preached can bring about the change.
That is the answer to your question.
Maybe I’ve missed it, but it seems that you haven’t answered the question: what is the difference between those who choose to respond and those who don’t choose to respond? You appear to just keep pointing to the end result - the receptive heart…But, what makes it receptive as opposed to another’s that is not?
Is it something innate? Is it the persuasiveness of the evangelist? Or is it the Holy Spirit that changes the heart so that it responds in belief because it now wants to where it didn’t before?
Let me ask it another way…When you believed in Christ, where did your faith come from?
I agree with you: the gospel must be preached, it must be received, and trust must be placed in Christ alone for salvation. What I’m asking about is one step back.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
Romans 10 : 17 . You can read or be taught or both. That is where my faith comes from , the word of God.
Faith is essential to please God. Hebrews 11 : 6 .
So, faith is a gift (Eph 2:8,9) and not something of ourselves?
There is the gift of the word and then yes , there is the individual response of faith that comes from hearing the word.
Can you say “circles”…I think ya can…
What is the basis for one person’s individual response and another’s non-response? You’ve got two people hearing the same Scripture. One believes, one doesn’t. What’s the difference?
I do not know what you mean by circles. I am also not sure what you other questions mean or what you want me to say. Some who heard Jesus believed , others did not. Some believed the preaching in Acts , some did not. It has always been true. Some will believe for a short time but then fall away. Parable of the soils . Three out of four do not become the noble and good heart. Some will obey the gospel some will reject the message. Darkness does not like the light. I do not know what else to say except that the gospel must be preached and those who hear it will make a decision. Some believe , some do not believe.
I’m really asking why some believe and other do not. Jesus says that all who are drawn by the Father come to Him.
My point in these questions, and maybe I’m not being clear, is that the reason any believer believes is because God gives the faith. We must believe to be saved. We are commanded to believe to be saved. But, we naturally cannot because of the fallen state of our hearts. Unless God grants the gifts of repentance and faith, we won’t believe.
So, when I ask, who do you give credit for your belief over your neighbor’s non-belief, I’m asking where did that faith come from? Scripture says from God.
Your answers keep pointing to the result and the requirements: some believe; some do not; we must make a choice. My questions are aimed at what’s underneath or the causal connection between hearing the Gospel and the trusting that it is true. The Bible teaches that that causal connection is the Holy Spirit’s work ultimately, not the evangelist’s persuasiveness and certainly not any Godward inclinations in the lost sinner.
I really do not know how to add to what I have stated. I am not trying to be repetitive but all I know the scipture teaches is that any person who will can come to faith by hearing the word and responding to it. I believe in free choice. It is the “whosover will”.
I think that is the crux of the whole debate. If Scripture teaches that we are dead in sin (and it does), that we cannot understand spiritual things in our natural state (and it does), then how do you account for why some believe and some do not?
You believe in “free choice.” I take by that statement that you believe that man has the ability within himself, apart from any work of the Spirit, to move in a Godward direction with his will. Please, correct me if I’m wrong. So, under the model of “free choice”, the difference between a believer and a non-believer is that the believer was smarter, more spiritual, or had a better evangelist, etc.
Instead, the Bible teaches that one may plant the seed, one may water, but it is God (and God alone) Who gives the increase. Salvation is of the Lord, not the sinner or the evangelist. God uses His means (sermon, tract, personal evangelism, etc.) to proclaim the Gospel, but it is the inward testimony and working of the Holy Spirit that enables or frees a sinner to choose Christ.
I’m curious, in what way do you believe the sinner’s will to be free? Is the sinner’s will morally neutral? Incidentally, I’ll use the term “sinner” for those who are lost. Obviously, Christians are still sinners saved by grace.
About 3 years ago I dropped into a black hole – four months of absolute terror. I wanted to end my life, but somehow [Holy Spirit], I reached out to a friend who took me to hospital. I had three visits [hospital] in four months – I actually thought I was in hell. I imagine I was going through some sort of metamorphosis [mental, physical & spiritual]. I had been seeing a therapist [1994] on a regular basis, up until this point in time. I actually thought I would be locked away – but the hospital staff was very supportive [I had no control over my process]. I was released from hospital 16th September 1994, but my fear, pain & shame had only subsided a little. I remember this particular morning waking up [home] & my process would start up again [fear, pain, & shame]. No one could help me, not even my therapist [I was terrified]. I asked Jesus Christ to have mercy on me & forgive me my sins. Slowly, all my fear has dissipated & I believe Jesus delivered me from my “psychological prison.” I am a practicing Catholic & the Holy Spirit is my friend & strength; every day since then has been a joy & blessing. I deserve to go to hell for the life I have led, but Jesus through His sacrifice on the cross, delivered me from my inequities. John 3: 8, John 15: 26, are verses I can relate to, organically. He’s a real person who is with me all the time. I have so much joy & peace in my life, today, after a childhood spent in orphanages [England & Australia]. God LOVES me so much. Fear, pain, & shame, are no longer my constant companions. I just wanted to share my experience with you [Luke 8: 16 – 17].
Peace Be With You
Micky
I have nothing else to add to this discussion. I have to the best of my understanding of scripture answered what I beleive the scriptures teach.
Well, pity. I would like to explore your thoughts on how our wills are “free.” Nevertheless, I have enjoyed the discussion.
The point of the whole matter is the glory of God. What Christ suffered on the cross was not for a mere possibility of salvation for those who could muster up the will to believe. Christ came to seek and (actually, effectively) save the lost.
No Calvinist would deny that men have a duty to believe in Christ to be saved. But, that’s where the problem lies. God does what we cannot do for ourselves - creates a new heart that by nature has a will to believe.
Dear Phil:
I am new to this forum, and I am so blessed by what is being discussed here.
Someone always comes up with a new angle or phrase that simply makes Calvinism even more laudable. “If God is not in control of all things, how could He work all things together for Good?” Simply convincing to me.
Thank you for this very inspirational quote.
God Bless,
Sissy M.
First, great series Phil! You have drawn us into a long standing debate that will not be resolved even with your thoughtful series.
Second, most people are Arminians by default and they naturally fight against the sovereign grace of God in all things, esp. their salvation.
Third, most who oppose Calvinism are presented with caricatures and thereby are engaged in straw man arguments. Calvinism is biblical. One cannot read powerpacked words like “Called”, “Calling,” “The Chosen,” “Chosen,” without seeing the biblical nature of Calvinism. A careful exegesis of 1Cor 1:18-31 and Eph 1:1-14 strikes a deadly blow to Arminians and work-salvation systems.
One flaw I have noticed in my discussion with Arminians is their appeal to the “whosoever” passages of Scripture, with their “free will concept” hovering over. They simply do not understand the what the sovereign grace of God means. They see a synergism and not a monergism.
TC,
One flaw I have noticed in my discussion with Arminians is their appeal to the “whosoever” passages of Scripture, with their “free will concept” hovering over. They simply do not understand the what the sovereign grace of God means.
You can see that principle played out in my discussion with Ray B. above. Arminian, or Free Will, presuppositions will not allow them to even address the simple question, where did the faith come from?
Kevin ,
I was going back to see if there was any more discussion. I did tell you where the faith comes from ….Romans 10 : 17.
I Cor. 1 :18 - 31 and Eph. 1 : 1 - 14 have nothing to do with Calvinism and Arminism. It is just biblical.
The passage in ICor. speaks about the power of the cross and when it is peached and the conversions that can come from preaching on one of the main core facts of the gospel. And as a result , those who are in Christ have all spiriual blessings as taught in Eph. 1 : 1 -14. A passage that I cherish and constantly preach and make refence to constantly but not as a Calvinist or Arminian.
Kevin,
Yes, I notice the principle in your discussion.
Ray B,
Still you have ignored the fact that it is God who choses (1Cor 1:26ff). I am convinced that Arminians do not understand what is “free will” even though they preach it so much.
I spoke to a seminary recently and I asked the dean if they were Calvinists, he said no, they believe in “free will.” Immediately, I knew that he did not understand “free will.”
In classic Calvinism free will is never denied, as Kevin asked above, “How do you understand free will?” But even the Arminian who argues for “free will” still must maintain that such a will is still limited.
Ray B is more committed to a system than he is to Scripture. I cannot see how someone who is true to Scripture can just dismiss Paul’s soteriology in Eph 1:1-14 by such a sweeping generalization and dismission.
And I wonder how does someone get into Christ without the sovereign grace of God, who chose “those who are in Christ before the foundations of the world?”
tc r ,
Will only touch on this for right now . More next week.
All of my responses have been from the scripture. I could also say Calvinism is a system. I state again that I am neither Arminian or Calvinistic. My loyalty is to Jesus and the word of God. God chooses those who obey Him and I haver dismissed the section in Eph 1. You may not agree with what I beleive but I reject all human systems and go with the word.
Sorry , meant to say, I have never dismissed the section in Eph. 1 . Describes some of the rich blessings we have in Christ.
Ray B.
Permit my dialogue:
TC: Ray B, do you believe in the providence of God?
Ray B: of course I do. It is all over Scripture.
TC: What is the providence of God?
Ray B:It is what we see in the life of Joseph and in the life of Esther.
TC:So I see you understand the providence of God. Is the term use in Scripture?
Ray B: No, it is not; but the concept is there.
TC:So if I understand you right, though the word is not a biblical word, you are ok with using it?
Ray B: Yes.
TC:Though the term Calvinism is not in Scripture, the concept is there: Salvation is of the Sovereign Lord.
Ray B: But I still think it is a human system.
TC:Why do you think that?
Ray B: Because I do not see it there.
TC:Now, I understand; because you do not see it there, you have dismissed it.
Ray B: Yes.
TC:Now, the problem is with the way you see then.
Ray B: No, I just let the Scriptures speak for them.
TC:But how can you let them speak for themselves and not see the Sovereign Grace of God in the salvation of man?
Ray B:I don’t think God is like that, he chooses some and reject others.
TC: So your problem is what you think God is like?
Ray B: Yes. Scripture says, “Whosoever will make come.”
TC: I think I know what you underlying problem is: it is what Luther told Erasmus: “Your thoughts of God are too human.”
tc r ,
Interesting and ficticious dialog but not what I believe. Calvinism is an inconsistent human system.
Only in the scriptures do you find the truth about salvation and sanctification. What I know about the nature of God is found in the scriptures.
Ray,
Do you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity?
Kevin,
The scripture teaches the truth about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I am not sure what you want in your question.
Do you believe that God is One in essence, Three in persons?
What are you attempting to say or question in the context of our discussion ?
Ray,
Well, assuming that you affirm the biblical and historical understanding of the Trinity, where in the Bible is the word “Trinity” used?
What about “penal substitution”, “immaculate conception”, and a host of other theological terms that we use fairly regularly as shorthand to describe bodies of teachings found in Scripture on certain topics.
You say that what you know about God is only found in the Scriptures and you don’t follow man-made systems. Well, me too. Where does that leave us? Disagreeing about what Scripture teaches on God’s sovereignty and the nature of the atonement.
When I use the term “Calvinism” I am not speaking of a man-made system, or some extra-biblical authority. I don’t even have in mind all of the teachings of John Calvin. I don’t agree with all of them.
But, to the extent that Calvinism reflects what is taught in Scripture, I hold to it. And, it reflects very faithfully what is in Scripture regarding soteriology (there’s another one of those words not found in Scripture).
Like the word “Trinity” reflects the Biblical testimony of the nature of the Godhead, the “Doctrines of Grace”, or “Calvinism”, are just the gospel as taught in Scripture. God saves sinners. He does for us what we by nature cannot do for ourselves.
The popular concept of “Free Will” is a man-made system. Where is that taught in Scripture? It is nothing but a bias that you seem to bring to the “whosoever” texts. So, I ask again, What is your understanding of “free will”?
Are we morally neutral to choose good or evil, to obey Christ or not?
Kevin Rhyne,
Great response! Those who label the salvific approach of what we call Calvinism as a human system, I am convinced, do not understand the system, neither what we are saying.
As you rightfully pointed out, Calvinism is just a label on what is a biblical derived soteriology. In fact, the term Calvinism is an unfortunate term, but it has become a necessary evil to identify that which is truly biblical. As you know, Spurgeon had a problem with the term, but like us, he had learned to tolerate it.
I will like to see Ray B’s response to your last question on free will.
Kevin ,
I will state it again as I have already stated it. And you have mentioned it. It is in the whosoever will passages and other such passages. Every person must make a decision to believe and obey for salvation.
” When the people heard this , they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles , Brothers , what shall we do ? ” They heard the gospel and then wanted to know how to respond to the message. The reply , ” Repent and be baptized ,every one of you , in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit . ” Repentance, then baptism and then forgiveness of sins. Each person would have to decide to obey the commands of repentance and baptism.
Then in verse 40 : “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation. ” A plea for each soul to respond.
My concern with Calvinism is the many false teachings from John Calvin. And yes I understand about soteriology, Trinity, eschatology ,etc.
Hope this will help. Look forward to your next response.
Ray,
You keep going back to the duty of every man to believe on Christ for salvation. If that’s your point with the verses above, I don’t disagree with you there…You have not answered the questions about our nature apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. I’ll ask them again this way:
Are we born in bondage to sin? Are we born dead in our sins? By nature are we born as children of wrath, naturally hostile toward God, unable to discern the things of the Spirit?
Kevin ,
Our basic disagreement is that your soteriology embraces the tenets of Calvinism. I do not. No , I do not accept Calvin’s teaching about total depravity , unconditional election, limited atonement , irresistible grace and the particular perseverance of the elect as Calvin defines the elect. Who do you believe are the elect ? This is where we disagree.
Kevin ,
Our disagreement is in the fact that your soteriology embraces the tenets of Calvinism and I do not. Do you accept the Calvinistic concepts of total depravity , unconditional election , limited atonement , irresistible grace , and the perserverance of the particular elect ? Who are the elect ? Is there unconditional election ? And are you saying that all of us are so completely unable to respond to God without divine assistance , specifically granted by arbitrary particular decree ? I think these are the issues that we would need to discuss because these are the main points of disagreement.
kevin,
I have tried twice to answer you but my answer keeps being bumped. Will try again. Where our disagreement lies in the doctrine of election Who do you say are the elect ? Maybe this very abbreviated answer will go through.
Ray,
Got all your answers…;)
Set the five points of Calvinism aside for now. Take a stab at the questions I asked in the previous comment. There are biblical references embedded in those questions. Check them out and I’ll look forward to your response to those questions.
Kevin,
Election and what you believe is the beginning of the difference. If you believe that all of us are totally without any ablity to repond to the gospel except by irrisistible grace , then that would rule out any voluntary volition. Then only the certain elect are the only souls who can believe for salvation. Everyone else cannot and will be eternally condemned.
Kevin ,
Give me the bbilical references if you beleive what I have asked of you.
biblical references. go too fast sometimes.
Ray B,
No biblical references will be of any help to the person who does not love the truth.
Ray,
I did. They’re in my comment where I asked the questions. I linked them. Look at the 6:25 a.m. comment. Check out those references.
You’re wrong, you know. What I believe is irrelevant. What does Scripture teach? That’s the starting point.
Read those references and answer those questions. Otherwise, we’ll keep talking in circles, and that doesn’t help either one of us.
I did when I said that I do not agree with the five points of Calvinism. And I love the truth , just not Calvinism. However , no I do not believe a baby is born a sinner. Do not accept the total depravity of Calvinism. Each person can hear and respond. John6 : 44 - 47. I must leave for today but will write more on Thursday. Have a class to teach. Thanks for the discussion.
Kevin ,It all comes back to hearing the word and faith being developed from the word and the word is the sword of the Spirit. We are called by the gospel. Romans 10 : 17 . Eph. 6 : 17. 2 Thess. 2 : 14. Each person is given the freedom to make their own choice if they will believe and obey. John 7 : 17. ” If a man chooses to do God’s will … “. that would be my answer to what is being called free will and the Holy Spirit’s involvement in each individual response to the gospel. Some will accept and obey , others will reject.
Ray B,
You need to reread your bible without any biases. It is plain and simple. You are engaging in circular argument. Period.
tc robinson ,
Where is the bias ? What circular arguments ? I gave scriptures to some questions asked of me. Please let me know what you mean.
What does David mean when he writes, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me”? (Ps 51:5)
Is there a limit on comments here? We’ve been going back and forth for over two weeks…Not that I mind, you understand.
Kevin,
David laments his own sin. He did not say ” we ” were brought forth in iniquity. It was personal not universal sin. You are right , we have been in a rather long discussion.
Ray B,
Here is something else to consider from the Word: “But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.
“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:36-37). As long as you understand that this is the Word of God and not what Calvin says, I think you will get it.
There were some who didn’t believe in Jesus or come to Him, and Jesus accurately diagnosed the problem: those who did not believe are those whom the Father did not give to Him. On the other hand, those whom the Father has given Him will inevitably come to Him.
Furthermore, In reply to those Jews who grumbling at His words (41-43), Jesus adds this: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (v.44, this is parallel to v.37).
Because man is born is sin and is dead (Eph 2:1-3) as a result, on his own, he cannot come to Jesus. He must be “drawn by the Father.”
Next, consider the unmistakable soteriology of vv.64, 65: “But there are some of you who do not believe.” Now look at Jesus’ response: “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father” (see v.44, 45 again). The Greek behind “granted” is the perfect tense of didomi, “I give.” That is why the Scriptures say that “Salvation is of the Lord.”
Fallen man by nature is hostile toward God (Rom 8:7,8). Man does not seek God (Rom 3:11). There is no good in man (Rom 3:11).
That is why Augustine said that man has freedom but not liberty. What he means is that man is free to do whatever he wants, being controlled by his sinful nature. But he is not at liberty to choose God. Luther wrote about the bondage of the will, and the Jonathan Edwards on the freedom of the wil, essentially arguing the same point.
2 Chronicles 18:13, But Micaiah said, “As the Lord lives, what my God says, that I will speak.” Neither Kevin or I are bound to Calvin or Luther,rather, we are bound to the truths of Scripture.
Ray,
He’s lamenting his own sin that he committed when he was conceived? Is that your understanding of what he’s saying??
tc Robinson ,
The word is all I am bound to as well. All I have said has come from the word .
About John 6 : verse 45 teaches how individuals come to Jesus. “They will all be taught of God. Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. ” vs. 51 - If a man eats of this bread , he will live forever. “If” ; a free choice is given. Responding to the truth is how any of us will be enabled of the Father , vs. 65 .
John 7 : 17 ” If a man chooses to do God’s will he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own . ” Those who will to do God’s will may know His saving truth.
Yes , at one time dead in sins but saved by grace through faifh and faith comes from hearing the word . Romans 10 : 17.
Paul while speaking to the Athenians said that God in creating the world did ” …so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out to him…” Acts 17 : 27.
The difference is in defining from scripture the elect.
Ray B,
You have not understand the question of how the spiritually dead can respond to the gospel invitation.
The “If” and “then” clauses are in Scripture to show human responsibility to the will of God. But until God open the heart as in the case of Lydia, sinful man is incapable of responding to God. The “if” constructions would mean nothing to him. So you must interpret John 6:45;7:17 in the light of that.
I know what Romans 10:17 says, but I ask you again, How can the spiritually dead respond positive to the gospel call without having the scales removed from his eyes by the sovereign grace of God.
I have notice a flaw in your handling of Scripture. You need to consider sola sriptura, the fact that Scripture is analagous to itself; it never contradicts itself. An exegete must move from text to theology and then application.
Ask yourself the question, What does the bible really teach about salvation? Is it all of God? Or is it part God part man? Scripture makes it clear that salvation is wholly the work of a Sovereign God. And even where man is invited to respond in a repentant faith, he still cannot boast because it is still the work of God (Acts 18:27; Phil 1:6;2:12,13).
With that in mind, Acts 17:27 must be interpreted in the light of Scriptures teaching on soteriology, salvation. Does man seek God on his own? Rom 3:10,11, says NO!
So how can Paul say that man can seek God. Surely Paul is not contradicting himself. What then does he mean? There are two possibilities: 1. From a mere knowledge of God standpoint, man can know that God exists from the observable creation. He is without excuse. The Athenian philosophers should be en route to the true God from a mere observance of creation (Ps 19:1-4; Rom 1:20ff). 2. But if Paul is coming from a salvific standpoint, man can only seek God when God first seeks him (Ezekiel 34:16). “We love, because Hie first loved us” (1 John 4:19).
I sought the Lord, and afterward I knew
He moved my soul to seek Him, seeking me;
It was not I that found, O Savior true;
No, I was found of Thee.
You are right, we have been in a rather long discussion.
Ray,
I’m like Ringo Starr of the Beattles…just happy to be here…
I’ll keep talking with you until they kick us off or one of us decides to call it quits…Yes, I said, “decides…”
Still curious about your interpretation of Ps 51:5…I asked earlier:
What does David mean when he writes, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me”? (Ps 51:5)
You said:
David laments his own sin. He did not say ”we” were brought forth in iniquity. It was personal not universal sin.
I said:
He’s lamenting his own sin that he committed when he was conceived? Is that your understanding of what he’s saying??
Kevin ,
David was so upset by his sin that he was willing to say that he was a sinner from the time of conception.
“Surely I have been a sinner from birth ,sinful from the time my mother conceived me. ” He did not say we have all been sinners from the womb. An individual lament not an universal condition. I will also stay as long as we are allowed. It helps us all to better understand scripture.
tc ,
I have from scripture answered how the spiritually dead can respond in my previous entry : the passages from John 6 and 7 and Romans 10 : 17. Faith comes from hearing the word. Only then can anyone understand and believe.
It all comes back as to who are the elect and is election individual or corporate.
Ray,
So…is the writer of Ps. 58:3 just really upset about his sin, or do you think he’s being universal.
The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.
Kevin,
The whole psalm - 58- deals with evil rulers who were evil from birth but contrasted with the righteous in vereses 10 and 11. How did some become righteous ? No, I do not think David is speaking from a universal sense and is speaking in metaphor , like Paul saying he was the worst of sinners. Do you think we inherit Adam’s sin ? It is a common teaching.
Romans 5:15, But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
Is Paul speaking in metaphor here?
Yes, I believe that we are born sinners by nature inherited from Adam, the God-appointed representative of humanity. I also believe that actually commit sins because it is in our nature to do so.
Do you believe that we are born innocent? Without a sin nature? Is it possible for someone to live a sinless life by making good choices, but we just have bad examples?
Romans 5:15, But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
Is Paul speaking in metaphor here?
Yes, I believe that we are born sinners by nature inherited from Adam, the God-appointed representative of humanity. I also believe that we actually commit sins because it is in our nature to do so.
Do you believe that we are born innocent? Without a sin nature? Is it possible for someone to live a sinless life by making good choices, but we just have bad examples?
Oops…see, I’m so imperfect I even double post a comment…wretched man that I am…
Kevin
I do not find is scripture that we inherit sin through Adam but sin did come into the world through Adam. Romans 5 : 12 , but I do not find the concept of inherit.
Paul is speaking about death coming as a result of sin. The section of verses 15 - 21 is a thrilling section of scripture to tell us that grace is greater than our sin !
Yes , I believe a baby is born innocent. No one will live a sinless life.Only Jesus. Anyone who obeys the gospel will be forgiven. Then there is to be a life of holiness.
Do you believe that infants must be bpatized ? Some believe they must be immersed. How can the baby understand the gospel , believe , repent ( of what sins ) and then voluntaritly be immersed for the forgiveness of sins.
It keeps going back to a defintion of the elect.
If a baby is born with an innocent nature…what causes him to sin later in life? Why don’t we have any examples of some beating the odds, so to speak?
Also, Eph. 2:1-3 says that we were “by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.”
That that we just did bad things, but we did bad things because it was our nature to do them…
Should be” NOT that we just did bad things…”
FYI, I believe in believer’s baptism. I agree, infants and even younger children should not be baptized until they can understand the gospel. Of course, that age depends on the child.
Kevin ,
The nature in Eph. 2 does not state it is inherited. It is the nature of a life of continual sin. It has to do with habibtual conduct like what is said of the Gentiles and what they do by nature. Romans 2 :14 They are not born doing the things of the law.
Who is born doing the things of the law?
No one . But Paul’s point is that by habit they were doing the things of the law but not perfectly. Only one did , Jesus.
Kevin and Ray,
I believe we have reached an impasse, but I must refute Ray’s position on Eph 2:3.
When Paul used the Greek physis here was he referring to what a person does “habitually” or was he referring to what comes through birth?
Physis can refer to “an order of things” as in the case of Rom 2:14,15. But let us not succumb to the fallacy that a word has to carry the same meaning from one verse to another. We can illustrate the fallacy of that all day.
But in Romans 11:17ff physis, “nature,” has a different nuance, meaning that which is by birth.
The Greek construction of Eph 2:3 is seen in Gal 2:15, where the Jews are Jews by “nature” and not by “habit.” It is physis in the dative.
Paul no doubt is referring to that which is from birth in Eph 2:3.
Ray,
Where do you get “habitual” nature out of that verse? If someone does something by nature, they do it naturally.
Based on what you are saying, it is possible for someone from birth to not be a child of wrath. What need would that person have of the cross if from that point on they never sinned?
Where are these people who have retained their innocence? Are they running for office? Are they in the pulpit? Where are they?
What does it mean about the Gentiles in Romans 2 ? We will continue to differ and no you have not refuted what I said about Eph. 2 except in your own interpretation. We probably are at an impasse. And I have never said anyone maintained their innocence. Except Jesus. Covered that already.
Ray,
“Nature” in Romans 2:14 (see v.15) refers to that innate morality of all men, which the Gentiles were exercising (see 1:20ff).
But when you look at Romans 2:27, where the same Greek word is used, you have a slightly different nuance on the word “nature,” referring to those who are “naturally” or “physically” uncircumcised. Note the ASV (1901) on this verse: “and shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law?”
Ray you have made no attempt to dispute the fact that “nature” does not carry the meaning you want it to always carry.
Ray are desperately holding on too your Semi-Pelagian postion. It might even be Pelagian.
Correction, Ray you are desperately holding on to a Semi-Pelagian postion. It might even be Pelagian.
tc ,
I have explained what nature means in the texts but you do not agree. You are holding on to Calvinism. We will not agree. But it has been a good discussion.
Ray,
You are have infused Ephesians 2 with a “habitual” nature. Where is that in the text?
Kevin ,
I already told you what I beleive it means. You hold strongly to total dapravity and believe it is a way of saying we inherit Adam’s sin. That is what you have infused into the text.I do not. All along I have said it depends on how election is defined. There is the difference. However long we continue, it has been a good discussion. Thanks for the dialog.
tc ,
You have fully embraced Calvinism.
Ray,
What “nature” means in the text has nothing to do with Calvinism. If what I believe about Eph 2 is Calvinism then I fully embrace it as biblical.
According to Kevin, you are the one who has brought “habitual” to the text to avoid the obvious. What system do you call that? It is not biblical.
tc ,
Everything I have written about is from a biblical basis. No human system at all.
Ray,
I’m still looking for “habitual” in Eph 2…
I don’t mean this as a slam, but I have found that those who deny they have a system, bias or tradition are those who are most trapped by one.
My goal is to force my head through the sieve of Scripture with as consistent hermeneutics as I humanly can so that my biases, traditions, and systems are challenged, tested, rebuked and conformed to the Word of God.
I’m sure you know this, but the basic tenet of Scripture interpretation is that Scripture interprets Scripture. When I look at the totality of Scripture, I see a grim picture of man’s desparate state. We are by nature “children of wrath”, etc., I gleaned that picture of my own heart long before I even knew what Calvinism was as I was opened to my own need for a Savior. To suppose that we have it in and of ourselves to what God requires of us for salvation is to make the cross of Christ ineffectual…to paraphrase John Owen. What did He purchase? Our faith, our repentance. For whom did He purchase this gift? For the elect, chosen before the foundation of the world, unconditionally and individually. Each one called into the Body of Christ.
I do appreciate the discussion, but what bothers me is your failure to engage the text. What does it say? Not, what do I want it to mean?
Psalm 51 is a model of true repentance. I do not see David engaging in hyperbole there just because he is sorrowful. He is recognizing his true state before God: sinful, wretched and desparate. He needs God to create in him a clean heart, just like you and I do.
A creation cannot will itself to be created. A baby cannot will himself to be born. A dead man cannot will himself to be resurrected. Name for me any other analogy in Scripture concerning regeneration that gives any credit to man for it.
We need a new heart because the old one is corrupt…from birth. Only God alone can give it. Any understanding of salvation less than this truth opens the door to boasting by man and steals from God’s glory in salvation.
If that means I have embraced Calvinism, then so be it. I have embraced the Gospel. My desire is not to win an argument with you. My desire is to see the praise of His glorious grace magnified because it is His work and His work alone.
I would love to continue to discuss these things with you, but I gather that you believe we have come to an impasse. Perhaps we have. Feel free to stop in at This Bread Always and comment any time if you’d like. Just be ready to engage the Text.
I pray the Lord will open your heart to His blessings to us in Christ of every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before Him, like He did Lydia’s.
Great thoughts, Kevin.
Kevin,
Thank you so much for the time spent in this discussion.
I have answered you about habitual .
I also see a grim picture of anyone who is without Christ. He died for us. Shed His blood. For the whole world. When the glorious gospel is preached and a person’s heart is open, receptive and the word is received with meekness , then that person will respond in obedient faith. I have explained all of this with scriptures.
David was truly repentant . He commented on his own sin but not the sin of the world. He made a personal statement not a statement of universal condition.
I have answered within the text. And all I have ever wanted to do is to tell as many as possible the saving truth of the gospel and to God goes all the glory , He who blesses us in Jesus Christ with all spiriual blessings. Thanks again for the discussion.
Ray,
And all I have ever wanted to do is to tell as many as possible the saving truth of the gospel and to God goes all the glory, He who blesses us in Jesus Christ with all spiriual blessings.
In that we definitely agree. I look forward to our next discussion.
“You might be one of those people who doesn’t want to be referred to as a Calvinist or an Arminian. But the fact is, if you are a Christian at all, you do already affirm the fundamental principle in every one of those truths. You already know in your heart of hearts that you weren’t born again because you were morally superior to your unbelieving neighbors. You were worthy of God’s wrath just like them (Eph. 2:1 3). According to Ephesians 2:4-6, it was God who quickened you and showed you a special mercy—and that is why you are a believer. You already know that in your heart. You don’t really believe you summoned faith and came to Christ in your own power and by your own unaided free will. You don’t actually believe you are morally superior to people who don’t believe. You therefore must see, somewhere in your soul, that God has given you special grace that He has not necessarily shown everyone.”
No Biblicist or Arminian that I know believes that our faith made us in any way “morally superior” to anyone. Our faith is a condition that no human is unable to meet… and to those who are, they are excused (the mentally ill, young children, babies) by the idea that God’s character is too loving and just to damn those who had no real culpability in their actions. We do believe that we were unable to come until the father drew us. But God draws all the world to himself so all are enabled to come to him. This special grace is salvation which is not given on a basis of election as the Calvinist assumes, instead, it’s based on our faith which is our free choice. As for Ephesians 2:1-6, Paul speaks the truth. We were dead until our faith made us alive again, and it is by God’s grace, which sent the Son to die despite our sin, that we are saved.
I believe that God is sovereign in all things… including whether we are free agents or not, and It is my belief that he uses us free agents to accomplish his purposes without nullifying our free agency. He works to our ultimate good everything according to his purposes because he is sovereign, he’s also just, and loving.
I disagree that prayer for anything is Calvinistic because Calvinism argues that God has already fixed his will in a sovereign manner that will not be changed by any prayer. Really it’s anti-Calvinism to pray to God that he will change something. Our prayers are not right if we pray that God would change a person’s heart or that that person would do something. Our prayers are right when we pray that God would do as he promises, to work things together to our good, to draw a person into faith in Christ, not control them and “effectually draw” them. Our prayers are not Calvinistic when we ask God to bring people to salvation, because all that entails is arranging the circumstances of that person’s life and to draw that person to a desire for Christ. Not coerce them into becoming saved by election and effectual calling. We nowhere find either doctrine described in scripture in the way taught by Calvinism.
Ultimately I finish by saying this: I am convinced that Calvinism is a erroneous perversion of the Gospel of salvation. It ultimately makes God culpable for the reprobate. And at best is a character assassination of God.