Calvinism, the Elect and the Unsaved

[Soldier of the One]

Hi FJ-gang,

 

I have only a rudimentary knowledge of Calvinism and was wondering if someone can educate this Jew. So, a few questions

 

- How does the concept of 'the Elect' function in Calvinism?

- Is my understanding correct that Calvinists reach out less to the 'unsaved' than non-Calvinist (Orthodox) Christians?

- What is the relationship between 'grace' and 'works'?

- Why is there such a focus on issues of sexual purity and far less of a focus of issues of social justice? (Which was a primary message of Jesus)

 

Thanks!

[slh12280]

My summary of calvinism: Jesus only died for the elect, who were chosen before the world was even created. Everyone else that wasn't chosen can't do anything about it so they go to hell. I don't subscribe to this theology so take it for what it's worth.

The works thing: Since you are only saved by the grace of God you can't do any work to "earn" salvation. The works are a sign that you are on of the elect.

*Anyone feel free to correct me on any of these points.

[emmiedahl]

Calvinism in a nutshell: God is a giant douche who made the majority of mankind so that they would suffer for eternity, with no way of redeeming themselves.

Calvinists say it is actually really nice, because God made us all deserving of endless torture. So he is actually totally cool to pre-select a few people to save.

Another interesting thing: you can tell the elect because they are super lucky and rich. So you should never question whether Bank of America deserves its fortune. Duh! They are the elect!

[slh12280]

Found a thread about this: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3445&hilit=calvinism

[Lainey]

Ha! Emmie, that's how I see it, too. :lol:

Back when I was somewhat religious and considered myself culturally Christian, I assumed the "nobody gets to the father except through me" (or whatever) thing meant that the way to get to Heaven was to be nice like Jesus.

[punkiepie]

I would read these forums for a little bit of history

http://www.freejinger.org/viewtopic.php?t=2020

http://www.freejinger.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3445

Most of us on here are not Calvinists, but I was raised in a Calvinist IFB church so I have a weird relationship with it. I am not a Calvinist, I don't like anything about it, and it took along time to undo the damage it caused in my spiritual life. Basically, everyone derserves to go to Hell, but he loves man (the elect) and shows His grace, but choosing them to go to Heaven. Depending on how many points of Calvinism you hold to- some of them say that He did not choose anyone to go to Hell, he only chose who was going to Heaven. Others say that's semantics, He chose people to go to Hell so that he could show the elect His grace.

Now these elect, they did nothing to deserve being elected and God chose them with no foreknowledge of what they would do in their life. They were elected without merit and because of nothing they did or didn't do. Arminians argue that if any choice was made by God about their afterlife, it was with the knowledge of whether or not they would accept the gift of salvation. So anyone who would/could possibly accept it, is chosen- but they still have the choice to accept or not. So they have free will.

[liltwinstar]

Basically what everyone else said. Calvinists do less missionary work (usually) because the thought is if someone is elect, he/she will find Jesus anyway. If a person is not elect, trying to convert said person is a waste of time.

WRT the social justice issues - basically, Calvinists skip those parts of the Bible that say to give away your wealth and your coat and feed the poor and whatnot. If they do pay attention to that at all, it's to spin those teachings into "give your money to other people in your church who are needy" which is not *quite* what Jesus said.

I am not a fan of Calvinism. In my opinion, it just creates a lot of doubt and confusion and depression on the part of believers who constantly worry if they're elect or not, and it does squat in terms of carrying out the message of Jesus.

[Cordial]

I've always wondered whether it's just a lucky coincidence that the elect bear children who are also elect, or if God created entire elect lineages. Because these folks, who call themselves saints, are usually pretty darn certain their kids and grandkids are saints too.

[Austin]

When I was a child and young adult, I used to wonder if I couldn't "get saved", despite my sincere desire to do so, because I just didn't make the cut (the elect). People would assure me that I was saved, and I tried to believe them, but there was always a part of me that just didn't. And I worried endlessly about going to hell, which is kind of sad for kids to be worried about such a thing constantly.

Now I realize how damaging this "theology" is.

[Alcyone]

I've always wondered whether it's just a lucky coincidence that the elect bear children who are also elect, or if God created entire elect lineages. Because these folks, who call themselves saints, are usually pretty darn certain their kids and grandkids are saints too.

Some branches of Calvinists also subscribe to covenant theology, in which the children are covered under the covenant. I think the idea is something like the whole Israelite/chosen people era was kind of a trial run for God and now the elect Calvinists and their children are the true Israelites, who are going to inherit the promises of God. (Maybe I should have put a warning before this post because the first time I heard this from my Presbyterian seminary-educated friend, my eyes nearly popped out of my head.)

[2xx1xy1JD]

Pardon the stupid question from another Jew - but does Presbyterian = Calvinist? What Protestant movements did Calvinism spawn?

Was this supposed to be the origin of the so-called Protestant Work Ethic - that working and being successful would show the world that you were too special to go to hell?

Can people really say Total Depravity with a straight face? It sounds like a good name for a punk or metal band.

Don't terms like sin and depravity lose all real meaning when you make blanket statements that we are all horrible sinners? I mean, how can you put a newborn in the same category as Hitler? In a way, doesn't it make real sinner seem like they aren't so bad? It reminds me of clients of mine (often addicts) who are really fond of saying "nobody's perfect" or "all families have problems" or thinking that everyone has addictions and that there is no difference between having a glass of wine with dinner vs. doing crack. At some point, you just want to call out the BS and say, "no, you didn't 'slip', you had a major drinking/drug binge while you were supposed to be caring for your kids, and CPS found them neglected and dirty and hungry in a crack house."

What's the motivation to ever do anything good in Calvinism, if you know that you have a guaranteed acceptance to heaven? It sort of reminds me of how I stopped attending math class after getting my guaranteed university acceptance.

[Brainsample]

First, I think that most Calvinists like the VF types are not even real Calvinists. I hate the whole authoritarian nature of how Geneva operated, and I don't see it as very Christian. Calvin was a lawyer, so I think that his approach to some of this stuff was a little to Left Brained for me anyway. I think that if you are a certain personality, and a particular approach (Calvinist or not) helps you understand God better and connect with the love of God in Jesus, then I don't really care. But having been on both sides of the fence and uncomfortable with the animosity over this whole issue which I think is often needless and a sign of intolerance of other Christians (not a position of love), I think too many Calvinists miss it.

Consider also that Calvinism is based upon the Five Doctrines of Grace, and these were not even written by Calvin but were a statement of response to the Articles of Remonstrance and were just named for him. I also dislike how many people think that these five principles are more important than any other doctrinal consideration.

The best book of the Bible to read about election is Ephesians, and you can go to BibleGateway.com, plug it in and read it in multiple translations. I would look at the Message translation, the King James, the Amplified, the NIV, and the New American Standard. It will let you compare all of them together.

For the Calvinist, you also have to consider the Five Doctrines of Grace together to get the big picture, because they are contingent upon one another. The mnemonic of TULIP can help you remember all five points. Keep in mind that I am describing what is generally understood about the doctrine and am not necessarily saying anything else, like “You're all going to hell.â€

T is Total Depravity

U is Unconditional Election

L is Limited Atonement

I is Irresistible Grace

P is Perseverance of the Saints

Total Depravity describes man's moral and spiritual state following the fall of man. We are not utterly depraved, but there is no good in man that even gives him the ability to recognize God. (This is why many today are so entirely pessimistic if not misanthropic about those who are not Christians.) There is nothing good in man that warrants God's consideration or kindness, let alone His love. Because of sin, we really all deserve death. In our state before God redeems us, we are spiritually dead.

Election is unconditional, describing aspects of the role man plays in spiritual rebirth and faith in Christ. Man does not choose or decline faith in God by choice, but salvation of each elect person (those who have faith in Jesus resulting in spiritual life) is initiated by God. Calvinism teaches that “regeneration precedes faith.†God decides who it is that he will bring to life spiritually so that a man can recognize God. It is opposed to the idea that God comes to each man who has ever lived to offer him faith and the opportunity to choose to believe in Jesus. Calvinists believe that if this was the case, it would mean that man has more power than God and can resist God's will. So to make the math work and to make sure that God maintains sovereignty in their understanding, they say that it is God who does the electing, and man has nothing to do with it.

Atonement is said to be limited to only the elect, otherwise it is seen by Calvinists as making the Blood of Jesus ineffective for some people, those who resisted faith in Jesus. The Blood is not ineffective, so by declaring that atonement is limited to only those whom God awakens and regenerates, it avoids the idea that Jesus died for people who resisted and refused him, again, suggesting that man's will can trump God's will.

I is irresistible grace, and it means that if God offers you grace, there is no man who can resist it and reject God. If you get awakened, it is because God chose to offer you grace (which He withholds from the non-elect), and once you are spiritually alive and awake, you cannot reject that grace. If a man could resist grace, that would also make God less powerful than man.

P is perseverance, and it means that man cannot turn his back on God's salvation (election) once he has realized it. The elect will persevere to the end.

Now, I think that if Calvinists keep ever mindful of Total Depravity personally, it keeps them from falling into the benchmarking and the “I'm elect and therefore better than you because I impressed God†pitfall. An iconic way of thinking about this is The Shadow. “Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?†I know. The Apostle Paul (impeccably trained in Judaism, a pharisee's pharisee) called himself the chief of sinners and understood this. So, really, I think that true Christians never really loose sight or that sense that they are not any better than anyone else but have been offered something that they can never merit and can never deserve. They are as bad as the worst sinner that ever lived, essentially. I also think of Jesus saying that “He who is forgiven much loves much.†They forget that they are elect, not because they are better or even more holy, and there is almost no logic in how they got to be elect. That should engender gratitude as opposed to elitism, but one rarely sees this in people today.

The problem is that Calvinists often turn this into a survival of the spiritually fittest and use it to moralize and “one up†themselves and degrade others. A person operating in love and in love that is free of ego looks at the worst of sinners and realizes that they are not really much different than that sinner. And if they follow the golden rule/one of the two greatest commandments, you were shown mercy and grace, so you should be well disposed to offer to others what God offered to you. God offers the sinner love and forgiveness, and I don't understand that if you understood that you were a recipient, why would you not take joy in offering that to people who are in the same kind of mess you once found yourself?

But, some people see joy and grace and mercy as limited resources, and if someone has some, it seems to them that they will have less – that there wont be enough to go around. So they get greedy with goodness and think more highly of themselves than they should.

[punkiepie]

Not all Presbyterians, but a lot of them. The United Presbyterian Church denounces Calvinism. Any Presby church that labels itself as "Reformed" is 100% Calvinist. The PCUSA has somewhat taken a step back from it on the whole as an organization and within it, there is a large number of churches that are not Calvinists. The PCUSA is the more liberal group, but there are still churches a part of it that teach Calvinism-Lite. The PCA is all Calvin and very pro Westminster. So it really depends. The modern Presby who isn't PCA is much less likely to be a Calvinist than he was 50 years ago, because back then they were all Calvinists.

[Alcyone]

Pardon the stupid question from another Jew - but does Presbyterian = Calvinist? What Protestant movements did Calvinism spawn?

I grew up Presbyterian and blessedly never heard a word of this Calvinism stuff. That was a liberal, mainline church, though. The Calvinists are rampant In the Presbyterian Church in America (almost always shortened to PCA). That branch is Calvinist through and through. The same friend I mentioned above said that although she wanted to keep the Sabbath by not cooking dinner, the heathen had no such need to refrain from work and thus going out to dinner on Sundays and having the non-elect serve her worked out quite nicely.

As far as I can tell, the motivation to be a good person comes from your gratitude to God at being saved from the fiery pit even though you are no different from all those who are, unfortunately, going to burn. If you didn't show how thankful you were for this favor, you would look like a real scumbag (to God as well as to your fellow Calvinists....well, mostly to your fellow Calvinists).

[Brainsample]

And be aware that "Reformed," a reference to the Protestant Reformation and is a more hip and intellectual way of referring to Calvinism. So when these folks say that they are "Reformed," it is not that they have done some moral inventory and revamped their religious ideas, it means that they are Calvinist which they identify with the Protestant Reformation.

Luther and traditional Lutheranism was not all that different from what Calvin taught concerning election, BTW, but the groups part ways on things like communion which imparts spiritual benefit to those who partake of it. But Lutherans did not make a doctrine out of it that they used to posture themselves against other groups and did not see it as a criteria for holiness or Christian status. Now, whether Lutherans consider this view of election accurate or whether they are taught this pragmatically is another story. Luther's Small Catechism affirms the same basic concepts of election as does Calvinism, but I would suspect if you asked most Lutherans about TULIP, they would not state that they were taught this. It's not a focus. Faith and liberty are the more express focus of Luther.

[Alcyone]

And be aware that "Reformed," a reference to the Protestant Reformation and is a more hip and intellectual way of referring to Calvinism.

Good point! Another euphemism they use is "doctrines of grace". As in, we believe in the "doctrines of grace". They mean Calvinism but it sounds so much prettier. Unfortunately, it has ruined the word "grace" for me. Too bad, it used to be such a lovely word with a lovely meaning, to boot.

[Deleted12]

Pardon the stupid question from another Jew - but does Presbyterian = Calvinist? What Protestant movements did Calvinism spawn?

Was this supposed to be the origin of the so-called Protestant Work Ethic - that working and being successful would show the world that you were too special to go to hell?

Can people really say Total Depravity with a straight face? It sounds like a good name for a punk or metal band.

Don't terms like sin and depravity lose all real meaning when you make blanket statements that we are all horrible sinners? I mean, how can you put a newborn in the same category as Hitler? In a way, doesn't it make real sinner seem like they aren't so bad? It reminds me of clients of mine (often addicts) who are really fond of saying "nobody's perfect" or "all families have problems" or thinking that everyone has addictions and that there is no difference between having a glass of wine with dinner vs. doing crack. At some point, you just want to call out the BS and say, "no, you didn't 'slip', you had a major drinking/drug binge while you were supposed to be caring for your kids, and CPS found them neglected and dirty and hungry in a crack house."

What's the motivation to ever do anything good in Calvinism, if you know that you have a guaranteed acceptance to heaven? It sort of reminds me of how I stopped attending math class after getting my guaranteed university acceptance.

This is the best post I have ever read anywhere.

I nominate you for ruler of teh internets.

[FuManchu]

Has anyone ever met a non-elect Calvinist, I wonder? Someone who fervently believes that only the pre-chosen elect will go to heaven but equally accepts - with joyful resignation to God's will - that they are almost certain to not be among them?

[Patsy]

:D

Starting to look forward to what's coming when I see your avatar, FuManchu.

[Soldevi]

but I would suspect if you asked most Lutherans about TULIP, they would not state that they were taught this. It's not a focus. Faith and liberty are the more express focus of Luther.

Yep. Though what I learned was Evangelical Lutheran point of view. In Finland TULIP in not taught. Local Lutheran church consideres itself between Calvinism and Arminianism theologically. Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide and sola fide, sola gratia, propter Christum are things I heard a lot. And of course that "faith comes by hearing".

Note: I am not a Lutheran (nor Christian anymore). I resigned from local Evangelical Lutheran Church as soon as it was legally possible but because I was Lutheran in paper I was taught Lutheranism at school till I was 18 years old (religion classes are mandatory here meaning that Lutherans, (Eastern) Orthodox, Muslims etc. can have religion classes provided by school. Non-religious pupils and students attend to Ethics classes) and I have gone through Confirmation studies, those required before Confirmation.

Of course predestination is deeply rooted in Lutheranism but here it is not highlighted. It is more like part of dogma of grace than dogma of its own. Double predestination is rejected. (And I can't find English version of Liber Concordiae :( )

Summa summarum what I learned about predestination when I was a Lutheran: God's Plan of Salvation is something that human mind can't understand, it is secret. God wants to save everyone. Those who are saved are not saved through their deeds but only by grace. Those who are not saved have deserved it but knowing who is saved and who is not is something humans can't know. People should focus to study and to explore God's salvation in Christ and stop guessing who is saved and why. Thinking predestination will only lead to unnecessary despair or self-reliance but promises about grace in Christ will free you to have faith.

Or something like that in baaaaaad English.

[CynicMom]

Calvinism also solves a few other problems. Namely if God is all-knowing he must know who is going to heaven and who isn't. And if God is all-powerful he must have made this be the case. Ipso facto, God chooses who is going to heaven and who isn't ahead of time and men have nothing to do with it.

For even more fun check out the Seventh-Day Adventists. They focus their bible study almost exclusively on the Book of Revelations (!) and believe that only 144,000 will go to heaven. The catch? There have been more than 144,000 Seventh-Day Adventists.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I've heard of the 144,000 thing with Jehovah's Witnesses, but had no idea about Seventh Day Adventists preaching it. I couldn't find any reference to it on their website.

While I don't personally believe in their theology (for the same reasons that I don't believe in Christian doctrines in general), I'll admit to a bit of a soft spot for Seventh Day Adventists since I used one of their cookbooks when I went through my vegetarian phrase. We can disagree about the End Days, but I appreciate the fact that they promote healthy living and are active in good works in this world.

[Brainsample]

Yep. Though what I learned was Evangelical Lutheran point of view. In Finland TULIP in not taught. Local Lutheran church consideres itself between Calvinism and Arminianism theologically. Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide and sola fide, sola gratia, propter Christum are things I heard a lot. And of course that "faith comes by hearing".

Note: I am not a Lutheran (nor Christian anymore). I resigned from local Evangelical Lutheran Church as soon as it was legally possible but because I was Lutheran in paper I was taught Lutheranism at school till I was 18 years old (religion classes are mandatory here meaning that Lutherans, (Eastern) Orthodox, Muslims etc. can have religion classes provided by school. Non-religious pupils and students attend to Ethics classes) and I have gone through Confirmation studies, those required before Confirmation.

Of course predestination is deeply rooted in Lutheranism but here it is not highlighted. It is more like part of dogma of grace than dogma of its own. Double predestination is rejected. (And I can't find English version of Liber Concordiae :( )

Summa summarum what I learned about predestination when I was a Lutheran: God's Plan of Salvation is something that human mind can't understand, it is secret. God wants to save everyone. Those who are saved are not saved through their deeds but only by grace. Those who are not saved have deserved it but knowing who is saved and who is not is something humans can't know. People should focus to study and to explore God's salvation in Christ and stop guessing who is saved and why. Thinking predestination will only lead to unnecessary despair or self-reliance but promises about grace in Christ will free you to have faith.

Or something like that in baaaaaad English.

I think that men want to understand ever iota of what is hidden, and there is much that I think that we can't understand. Paul said that "We know in part." There are lots of people, probably most, who are very uncomfortable with knowing only a part of the landscape and trusting God for the rest of it. I think that Calvinism was originally a statement to defend God's sovereignty against some more liberal Christian views of that day, and you have to consider that much of that involved human power that had become a part of the structure of the Roman Catholic Church that dominated governments and religious life in many places. In a way, it was a standing up to abusive and exploitative religious leaders who had bent Christianity to serve their purposes. In the US and in many other countries that enjoy religious freedom, those extremes are not necessary. I think that it is also something that is of great value as an academic discussion.

The math works when it comes to sovereignty and you figure into it all of these factors of the day when it was devised as a system of belief. What I like about Lutheranism is that it is a more "organic" approach to the same types of things.

The other problem is that men tend to want to know more than they are capable of knowing. If man is a limited creature created by an all powerful and limitless being, it's a bit naive to think that we can see from God's perspective. Take the Trinity... Is there a more complicated doctrine that is more beyond us to understand in full, yet we are told certain things that are sure about it, and we can't say more than that. It is a mystery.

Consider what Jeremiah said about the human heart being deceitful and desperately wicked to the point that we ourselves cannot fathom how potentially wicked we really are. So if we cannot know our own hearts, how is it that we can presume to peer into the hearts of others. This is exactly what people use Calvinism to do. They presume to "usurp the seat of Moses" and to take that of God to judge the hearts of all people and all groups of people without respect and with arrogance. They presume to know who is elect and who is not. Even Jesus said that many would come to Him in the afterlife to say "Lord!" to Him, and He would send them away, saying that he did not know them. Isn't that enough impetus for people to be concerned about their own fate and to keep their business out of that of others? How do I know that I will not eventually be one of those who will go to Jesus to be turned away? Maybe all I'll know of Jesus is what someone told me about Him and have not real clue about who He is? To me, that says that I have no right to judge someone's heart or to be "spiritually proud." (What I can do is evaluate what they say and do.)

But I think that people take Calvinism, retreat into cold logic, and then act like they have a corner on truth and are closer to God as a consequence. We see love redefined as duty and deadness and responsibility only or limited to mostly those qualities. I see so much insecurity and intimidation in those who call themselves Calvinists, and they are so obsessed with maintaining the Points of Calvinism over all else, what results is nothing more than legalism and a country club gathering that is called a church. There are many Calvinists that are so afraid of "experientialism" and the emotional part of the experience of religion that they also retreat into a "logic only" version of Christianity that ends up magnifying their negative emotions. Both these groups seemed consumed with control and an external locus of control -- peace through circumstances.

Anyway, I see Lutheranism as a much kinder and optimistic version of Christianity that still maintains God's sovereignty against ideas against the abuse of man's power (politically, socially or theoretically) without being consumed by one set of priorities or another. It is not nearly as authoritarian as Calvinism and Presbyterianism, and I think it is more balanced in terms of Christian perspective.

That's why I think that to understand election, the best thing to read is what Paul wrote in Ephesians. It is more balanced and is not worried about human concerns that some of Jesus' Blood might actually fall on the ground instead of on a human soul, as if that soul somehow thwarted God's purpose and plan. A more organic and balanced view of Christianity leaves those concerns up to God, all without demanding or forcing a formula that they can understand, satisfying them and their needs to know things that are beyond them.

[Brainsample]

Calvinism also solves a few other problems. Namely if God is all-knowing he must know who is going to heaven and who isn't. And if God is all-powerful he must have made this be the case. Ipso facto, God chooses who is going to heaven and who isn't ahead of time and men have nothing to do with it.

For even more fun check out the Seventh-Day Adventists. They focus their bible study almost exclusively on the Book of Revelations (!) and believe that only 144,000 will go to heaven. The catch? There have been more than 144,000 Seventh-Day Adventists.

I'm getting at the same exact thing by seeing Calvinism as a formula that makes the math work.

Mature and learned Calvinists believe that men have nothing to do with it and should therefore share their faith and love and kindness with all people, regardless of who they are because we are not permitted to know. It is more of an academic exercise, suitable for some religion class in an ivory tower, for those with the maturity of character to get what it means and to put it into perspective. But it is taught to people as the primary concern of their faith, or at least among the most serious and motivating. It's not taught within the right perspective.

I learned Greek from a man who grew up as an Orthodox Jew, and he had no struggle with the idea that God has this knowledge and holds it, though it is not really of a huge quandary to us. God does what He wants, essentially. Around the time that I took that class, I approached an Orthodox Jewish friend of mine and he related very much the same kind of understanding and an ease with the idea that God is free to do what He wants without it creating an uncomfortable dilemma, somewhat of a Jewish parallel to a predestination view held by many Christians. I don't know if that is largely a trend of belief and understanding among Orthodox Jews, but I find it interesting. They seem to understand that they will end up where God wants them to end up, and that's not a point of discomfort for them like it is for Protestants who are very concerned with free will.

[JesusFightClub]

Ex Christian here. Brainsample put it better than I ever could.

Calvinism is the most logical doctrine. Either God knows everything, or he doesn't, in which case he is not God. If we accept he does know everything then he knows in advance who is ending up where. There is no logical scenario where an omniscient God could be waiting around for you to decide what you want to believe.