Calvinism, the Elect and the Unsaved

[Soldier of the One]

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.

Thanks everyone for replying so abundantly!

... I just don't 'get' this theology. If salvation is not dependent on 'works', then what motivates one to do good in the world? Does God roll dice and choose who gets saved? Is the Creator of the Universe a cosmic random generator? If so, how does that tie in with God's love for humanity? (Isn't that a central tenet of Christianity?)

[Edited for riffles]

[Soldier of the One]

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.

No kidding :roll:

Why would a loving God (which the doctrine apparently espouses) want to condemn humanity to hell?

The premise of Original Sin seems to set humanity up for failure. We are deserving of endless torture? Doesn't Scripture say that the 'sins of the fathers shall not be visited upon the sons?'.

I am being facetious here, I realize that. I just think that this theology sacrifices moral relevance and divine compassion in the name of flawless (and ice-cold) circular reasoning.

[Soldier of the One]

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.

Punkiepie, thanks for explaining. That's helpful :)

How did your upbringing impact your spiritual and emotional well-being?

I just can't imagine a theology that would condemn most of humanity - save from a small elite - to hell for no other 'sin' than being 'unsaved'. Regardless of the love, justice and kindness billions of people in this world engage in. And irrespective of whether you were actually offered the chance to be 'saved'. It seems like such self-defeating spirituality.

I don't mean to disrespect Christians and I know many Christians would not identify with such beliefs.

[clisby]

What do you mean by Orthodox Christians? The term means something specific to me - as in Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc. It doesn't mean non-Calvinist. For example, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, Methodists are non-Calvinists. They also are non-Orthodox.

[Brainsample]

No kidding :roll:

Why would a loving God (which the doctrine apparently espouses) want to condemn humanity to hell?

The premise of Original Sin seems to set humanity up for failure. We are deserving of endless torture? Doesn't Scripture say that the 'sins of the fathers shall not be visited upon the sons?'.

VF actually teaches that as part of their doctrines of multigenerational faithfulness, their pretty sounding package into which they wrap some of miserable, miserable doctrine.

http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2008 ... ional.html

[Brainsample]

What do you mean by Orthodox Christians? The term means something specific to me - as in Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc. It doesn't mean non-Calvinist. For example, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, Methodists are non-Calvinists. They also are non-Orthodox.

I don't know if it was me who used the term or not. It is not used as a label for a denomination but is a real life application of the meaning of the word itself which became common when discussing the doctrines of the Church sometime following the rule of Constantine. I believe that Augustine used the term specifically, though I could be mistaken. I'm more interested in the concepts in general terms as opposed to the specifics.

Most Protestants use the term "orthodox" (translated "right opinion") to define that which is solidly and clearly found in the Bible and has thus been a part of traditional Biblical Protestant Christianity, at least since the Protestant Reformation. It means to have a right opinion about holy writ, essentially. This also suggests a Christian belief that all of the canonized texts of the Bible are God breathed and divine (a belief in "Biblical authority"), and through the proper application of good hermeneutics, we can usually arrive at a reliable interpretation of those texts. In those terms, any Christian who is orthodox embraces Biblical Authority (through either a literal or a historical grammatical hermeneutic). Many Christian religions today do not, believing the Bible to be an important document but not reliable in terms of authorship or material.

The creeds were also a statement of attempting to organize doctrine that was "orthodox" so that all could have the right opinion about the Bible.

Part of that orthodoxy also involves the manifestation of orthodox principle, something that would be reflected in how traditional Christianity does things. Again, I think that the most popular jumping off point that most Protestants look back to in history is that of the Reformation. That's why Calvinism is so popular, because it drew a line of distinction in history when men gathered to determine sound doctrine.

A fundie would say that the emergent church is not an example of orthodox Christianity, though they embrace Christ and many Christian doctrines.

[Soldier of the One]

What do you mean by Orthodox Christians? The term means something specific to me - as in Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc. It doesn't mean non-Calvinist. For example, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, Methodists are non-Calvinists. They also are non-Orthodox.

Clisby,

Sorry about that, I should have clarified. I meant orthodox with a lower case 'O', as in 'fundamentalist', not as in pertaining to the Orthodox Church, whether Greek, Russian, Egyptian or anything else :)

Hope that clears it up.

[emmiedahl]

Why would a loving God (which the doctrine apparently espouses) want to condemn humanity to hell?

The premise of Original Sin seems to set humanity up for failure. We are deserving of endless torture?

Obviously you are thinking like a Jew and not like a Calvinist. :lol:

[SheWoreLemon]

I was raised Lutheran--Lutherans have a twist on predestination. Calvinism believes in double predestination. Lutheranism teaches single predestination.

Double Predestination--

1. You were born were Original Sin. (No matter how much you try to do the right thing, you will never ever be anything but vile to God.

2. Since you're vile, the only way for you to be saved (have your sins paid by Jesus), is for God to elect you.

Single Predestination--

1. You are born with Original Sin.

2. Jesus died for your sins even though you are so vile that you couldn't possibly do anything to deserve it. Jesus' completely undeserved gift is called "Grace." Now get this---You can *choose* to accept this gift of grace, *but **only** if God gives you the gift of Faith.*

This is how I almost died. I was extremely depressed and panic stricken for several years (it turns out I had a seizure disorder that didn't get diagnosed for a long time). I had been Christian growing up, but as a result of the seizures, I could no longer "feel" that Jesus' spirit was with me. So I was convinced that Jesus had deserted me, at the same time that my brain was telling me to kill myself. I didn't want to die because I was sure I would go to hell if I didn't believe in Jesus but I couldn't make myself believe.

There are verses in the New Testament saying "Knock and ye shall enter," and "I can do all things through Christ that strengthens me" and stuff like that. And I kept on asking my dad, why did God withdraw Jesus from me? I felt so confused because from everything I was raised with--I didn't even have to ask to believe in Jesus, God had already given me the faith to believe in Jesus, right?

This went on for years because I couldn't let this go. I had even thought about being a pastor when I was younger, so the guilt was tremendous. I realize now that I probably have scrupulosity, which is OCD that fixates on religion.

Finally several years later, I just said I have to give up on this Jesus thing. A lot earlier than that I had known about all the inconsistencies of the all loving, all knowing, all powerful God who would still let horrible things happen but I felt like I was letting my whole family down.

As many other people have said here, you have to be in hell to stop being afraid of being sent to hell.

[Alcyone]

SheWoreLemon, I am glad you got out of a religion that was so harmful. I can actually sympathize with Calvinism being a life-threatening philosophy. I hope you have found some measure of healing.

I have seen some Calvinists say that they do not believe in double predestination; that one need not believe that to be a Calvinist. It never makes sense to me , though, because if God elects some but leaves out others, He KNOWS what that means for the fate of the non-elect. His non-action IS action, considering that He is the only one who could do anything about it; He just chooses not, too.

See, to me, these two statements sound exactly alike:

Double Predestination--

1. You were born were Original Sin. (No matter how much you try to do the right thing, you will never ever be anything but vile to God.

2. Since you're vile, the only way for you to be saved (have your sins paid by Jesus), is for God to elect you.

Single Predestination--

1. You are born with Original Sin.

2. Jesus died for your sins even though you are so vile that you couldn't possibly do anything to deserve it. Jesus' completely undeserved gift is called "Grace." Now get this---You can *choose* to accept this gift of grace, *but **only** if God gives you the gift of Faith.*

I can't read the distinction. If there is one, it appears to be a distinction without a difference.

[Brainsample]

SheWoreLemon, I am glad you got out of a religion that was so harmful. I can actually sympathize with Calvinism being a life-threatening philosophy. I hope you have found some measure of healing.

I have seen some Calvinists say that they do not believe in double predestination; that one need not believe that to be a Calvinist. It never makes sense to me , though, because if God elects some but leaves out others, He KNOWS what that means for the fate of the non-elect. His non-action IS action, considering that He is the only one who could do anything about it; He just chooses not, too.

See, to me, these two statements sound exactly alike:

I can't read the distinction. If there is one, it appears to be a distinction without a difference.

I don't understand Lutheran ideas about sovereignty in this way. I wouldn't describe the differences this way.

What SheWoreLemon is saying does draw a distinction, but what she defines as single predestination less of an antithesis and more of a softer position on the continuum between free will and determinism, with the greatest possible extreme on each end. In SP, she's saying that man plays some role in the salvation process and there is absolutely no participation of man in DP. It is still a "regeneration precedes faith" argument, but is not as close to the extreme of the continuum. There is more room for "human agency" as the geeks say - that man gets to choose.

ETA: Ooops! Cat on keybord and this submitted!

Lemon, did I get it right?

[Soldier of the One]

I just can't wrap my brain around the idea that God would think of His own creation as 'vile'. That is extremely disturbing to me :shock:

[Brainsample]

I just can't wrap my brain around the idea that God would think of His own creation as 'vile'. That is extremely disturbing to me :shock:

The Bible says that His creation was good and that He was pleased with it. It became corrupted, and ultimately, the plan to fix it involved sending the Messiah to play out the drama over time, to do the most good and to bring God the most glory, presumably. The creation was never vile, and God chose not to totally wipe out evil, or He could have chosen to limit it or see to it that it never happened to start with, all things within His power, if you believe that sort of thing. But because of corruption, Lucifer's rebellion, the fall of man, the law of entropy, Murphy's Law, or global warming, the drama is still in progress and process (according to the Bible).

Some people are just pessimistic and prefer to see things in negative terms, I think. I have a book that I have not yet started reading about the Puritans and how they were basically overrun with OCD and control issues. I became interested in it after reading about all of the aggressive discipline used among religious groups in the US in Greven's "Spare the Rod." I ordered his other book "The Protestant Temerament" after I read that Jonathan Edwards wife documents hitting their infant children in her journals and it is mentioned in his daughters writings, too.

http://www.amazon.com/Protestant-Temper ... 962&sr=8-2

I think that more of what some of the extremes of Calvinism might reflect might have more to do with people using religion as a coping mechanism as opposed to a way of transcending the problems of life.

[JustWondering]

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.

As an Adventist, I'm happy to answer any questions you want to ask about this.

A more accurate statement would be that we base our understanding of end-time events mostly on Daniel and Revelation, with help from the other prophetic books. We're pre-millennialists; that is, we believe Jesus comes first, and then comes the millennium in heaven.

As for the 144,000, that's a fun one! There are many different ideas within Adventist circles. I'm not sure where the one you wrote comes from, though I know there are those who believe it. Most Adventists I know (myself included) believe the 144,000 is a symbolic number referring to the saved who will live through the time of trouble (tribulation). The same passage that talks about the 144,000 (Revelation 7:9) talks about a great multitude that no man can number. We believe that is the sum of everyone saved from all ages.

If you wanna know anything else, feel free to ask. I can't promise I know the answers, but I've studied quite a bit in my twenty-something years of life, so I may know something about it! :)

[jesslynn10]

I did not grow up Calvinist. Most of the preachers that I knew got around the doctrine of Calvinism by saying that Man chooses God but since God is all knowing He knows who will ultimately choose Him. A mix of Free Will and All Knowingness.

[FuManchu]

I need a cup of tea - I've started to read the title as "Calvinism, the Elect and the Undead"...

[Soldier of the One]

I need a cup of tea - I've started to read the title as "Calvinism, the Elect and the Undead"...

:lol:

Well, if you didn't already have ideas for Halloween, you sure do have them now! :mrgreen:

[Brainsample]

As I started to realize what was happening in my cultic church and tried to talk to people about it (the toleration of wife beating pushed me over the edge), I thought that everyone around me who was brainwashed was like a zombie, so the undead thing could be considered fitting!

[GenerationCedarchip]

I did not grow up Calvinist. Most of the preachers that I knew got around the doctrine of Calvinism by saying that Man chooses God but since God is all knowing He knows who will ultimately choose Him. A mix of Free Will and All Knowingness.

This is exactly how Calvinism was taught to me growing up. The really hardcore "God made some people knowing they'd be damned idea" is not one I come across very often even in fundie circles. Since it's not even that difficult to use Scriptural references to argue against it, I can see why.

[Brainsample]

This is exactly how Calvinism was taught to me growing up. The really hardcore "God made some people knowing they'd be damned idea" is not one I come across very often even in fundie circles. Since it's not even that difficult to use Scriptural references to argue against it, I can see why.

From my experience, this is a war that is taking place in the church, and one of the ways the discussion is introduced into churches is through complementarianism that churches are blackmailed to accept. The primary defense for complementarianism comes out of the Calvinists doctrines concerning headship and depravity. First, churches are compelled to accept the gender role bit, then when they have to justify it. That pushes them to realize that these doctrines largely identified with and defended with Calvinist arguments crafted by John Piper, among others. And then they have have to figure out what to do with the rest of Calvinism.

I think that it has become popular, also, because people got fed up with the fideism/faith only stuff and the mindlessness of much of evangelicalism which did not celebrate reason. So hungry for some brain cell activity, the whole Calvinism thing offered many something to chew on. People also tend to be angrier as a generation, and Calvinism offers an authoritarian structure along with that cold logic, so it gives angry people an outlet for their angst. I know this is why my husband retreated into it for a time. It basically gave him a structure upon which he could spiritualize his anger. Sick, sick stuff.

[apple1]

From my experience, this is a war that is taking place in the church, and one of the ways the discussion is introduced into churches is through complementarianism that churches are blackmailed to accept. The primary defense for complementarianism comes out of the Calvinists doctrines concerning headship and depravity. First, churches are compelled to accept the gender role bit, then when they have to justify it. That pushes them to realize that these doctrines largely identified with and defended with Calvinist arguments crafted by John Piper, among others. And then they have have to figure out what to do with the rest of Calvinism.

I think that it has become popular, also, because people got fed up with the fideism/faith only stuff and the mindlessness of much of evangelicalism which did not celebrate reason. So hungry for some brain cell activity, the whole Calvinism thing offered many something to chew on. People also tend to be angrier as a generation, and Calvinism offers an authoritarian structure along with that cold logic, so it gives angry people an outlet for their angst. I know this is why my husband retreated into it for a time. It basically gave him a structure upon which he could spiritualize his anger. Sick, sick stuff.

Another good post, Brainsample.

As I have posted before on FJ, I was raised in Baptist churches, and this was pretty much a non-issue in the Baptist churches of my growing-up years. As I also previously stated, I foresee this issue splitting the SBC within the next few years. Reference the ascendency of John Piper and Al Mohler in Baptist circles.

[ems]

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.

I wonder this as well WRT Calvinism. It seems like so much of the QF ideal is based around the idea that the children WILL be part of the "elect" army for God.

[Cordial]

I think that it has become popular, also, because people got fed up with the fideism/faith only stuff and the mindlessness of much of evangelicalism which did not celebrate reason. So hungry for some brain cell activity, the whole Calvinism thing offered many something to chew on.

Wow, very interesting point. I've always kind of shaken my head at my friendly neighborhood hyper-Calvinists-- "They seem so intelligent! Why are they swallowing this absolutist crap?" But this makes a lot of sense to me. They are intelligent. They are people who all started out churched, but mostly not Calvinist or at least not so extremely Calvinist. And they have been drawn to the version of fundieism that contained the biggest words and most brainy take on theological principles. Interesting.

[maybeizfundie]

Yeah, I can't get with TULIP. It's more like TUP for me, and even that with an arminian (heretic!!!) understanding rather than Calvinist. :p

I grew up in anabaptist groups, and then evangelicalism while my parents went Catholic. I think the first time I heard hyper-Calvinistic doctrine was from dear old Harold Camping, when I was a teen, and I was very distressed. Yikes.