These searches occur repeatedly, so we will compile them with the responses here.
PEOPLE:
Is Paul Washer a Calvinist?
Yes.
Is John MacArthur a Calvinist?
Yes.
Is R.C. Sproul a Calvinist?
Yes.
Is Ravi Zacharias a Calvinist?
Not if he fully agrees with the doctrinal statement of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, which is where Ravi is ordained. Thanks to commenter Jeremy (possibly a Georgetown fan), we have this statement by Ravi on the issue – it appears clear he would not affirm the Calvinist viewpoint on and .
Is Dr. James Dobson a Calvinist?
Not likely. He belongs to the Church of the Nazarene.
Is Rick Warren a Calvinist?
Who knows? He does not appear to be a very consistent Calvinist, if he is one, and he is not a very consistent Arminian, either.
Is Joel Osteen a Calvinist?
Please.
No. Is he an Arminian? I don’t know, but I would tend to say based on what he says he is more Pelagian than anything else. Please see his church’s belief statement – it is so generic no one can really tell. They do not post the text of his “sermons” so we can’t glean anything from that source (it’s essentially the same message every Sunday anyway). As of this update in July 2010, you can purchase DVDs of sermons for $12. You can. I won’t. If that’s your intent, you would perhaps be better off purchasing this DVD.
Is Voddie Baucham a Calvinist?
Yes.
Is Bob DeWaay a Calvinist?
Yes and yes. He also needs prayer (as of late 2010).
Is Charles Stanley a Calvinist?
No. Scroll down to “Salvation.”
Is Justin Peters a Calvinist?
Is Ray Comfort a Calvinist?
Is Jerry Bridges a Calvinist?
Yes. He is a member of The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.
Is T.D. Jakes a Calvinist?
Whoa. Dude. Come on. Good thing I’m sitting down. No, he isn’t. He must be rather flexible though, with callouses on his shoulders from patting himself on the back on this page.
Is Joni Eareckson-Tada a Calvinist?
Yes, she is. Here’s the story of how she came to be one – AFTER her injury.
Is Kevin DeYoung a Calvinist?
Yes.
Is Norman Geisler a Calvinist?
No, no matter how often Dr. Geisler proclaims himself so (a “moderate” Calvinist, in his own words). Dr. Geisler has co-founded a seminary and their statement of faith is decidedly Arminian.
Is D.A. Carson a Calvinist?
Yes.
Is John Piper a Calvinist?
Commenter “chrizchian” asked this question: “How about these performers? Are they Calvinists?”
Don Moen – can’t make a definitive call, but most likely not, given his background at Oral Roberts University and his collaboration with those such as Max Lucado.
Ron Kenoly – not if he affirms the beliefs of his home church, but boy, oh boy, “I See The Lord” is a great, a great song.
Michael W. Smith – can’t make a definitive judgment but the first impression is that he is not, based upon the generic “Statement of Faith” from New River Fellowship, which grew out of a home fellowship at the Smith’s. Their Statement of Faith says they affirm the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed and The Lausanne Covenant. One of their elder/pastors, though, came from a church with this statement of faith, which affirms faith preceding regeneration which is decidedly not Calvinistic.
Bob Fitts – TBA
Kent Henry – TBA
Darlene Szsech – she is definitely not, being pastorette of a church in Australia that is a member of the Australian Christian Churches. See their “What We Believe” page.
Steve Green – it certainly appears he is from all the people he references in his journal and from his Links page.
Carman – TBA
Amy Grant – TBA
Paul Baloche – TBA
Keith and Kristyn Getty (Ireland) – TBA
Katherine Scott – TBA
Israel Houghton – TBA
Kirk Cameron – TBA
Is Jim McClarty a Calvinist?
Yes.
Is Wayne Grudem a Calvinist?
Yes.
Is Donald Gray Barnhouse a Calvinist?
Well, considering Mr. Barnhouse has passed on to glory, where everybody is a Calvinist, yes. While he was alive, though, he was most certainly a Calvinist.
Commenter Tall Tim asked about these three and whether or not they are Calvinists:
Francis Chan: Interestingly enough, given Chan’s having graduated from Master’s College and Master’s Seminary, it appears one cannot tell. The statement of faith at the church he recently left appears to be one that is not Calvinistic, while the statement of faith at the bible college founded by Mr. Chan appears to be Calvinistic. Mr. Chan’s personal web site gives no help with regard to the answer.
David Wilkerson: I don’t think so, given his Pentecostal leanings and background, but one cannot say based upon this statement of faith (the question was raised the week after Mr. Wilkerson’s death).
Mark Kielar: Definitely a Calvinist.
Is Shai Linne a Calvinist?
Yes.
Was Matthew Henry a Calvinist?
Yes.
Is Charles Swindoll a Calvinist?
Is Nathan Pitchford a Calvinist?
Yes.
Where can I find Josh Gelatt?
Sorry to say, but…Ohio. Yes, OHIO!!!!!!. He is now the pastor of Grace Chapel in West Liberty, Ohio. Anytime a Michigander crosses the border into Buckeye territory, it is to be considered a missionary venture, to be sure. After all, Ohio is a foreign land where people wear crimson and gray and drive very slowly on their interstate highways through mostly flaaaaaaaaaaat terrain.
Is Jon Cardwell a Calvinist?
Jon who? In any event, yes, he is. And a fine one, at that. He also likes bacon and ribs, which moves him way up in the hierarchy of swell people.
ISSUES:
Why do Calvinists evangelize if they believe in predestination?
Because they believe the Bible and therefore believe in predestination. Calvinists believe God ordains the end (predestination), but that He also ordains the means to that end, which is through evangelization.
Why don’t Calvinists evangelize?
Who says they don’t?
If Calvinists don’t evangelize it’s because they are a) lazy or b) disobedient to Scripture. A certain group of people who would fall into a category called “hyper-Calvinism” do indeed not believe in evangelization – they believe that God will save His elect without the assistance of anyone, including any who may evangelize. That is just plain in opposition to Scripture.
Verses that disprove Calvinism:
We have compiled such a list in book form, with assistance from two swell brothers. We have laid out the doctrines of God’s sovereign grace, one by one, known as the five points of Calvinism, then immediately following each point, have made the logical argument refuting each point along with Scriptural support for the refutation. Depending upon where you live, the book is available for U.S. purchasers here and for international buyers here. Or, we have the related question…..
How do you prove Calvinism is wrong?
It’s actually very easy. First, come to the Bible with your mind having already been made up as to what God is like and what He can and cannot do. Second, impose human standards of “fairness” upon God and His Word. Finally, ignore the clear teaching of Scripture. It’s so easy, anyone can do it, and many in fact do.
Or, you could just cite a list of verses that Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike would affirm and declare that they disprove Calvinism. Think I’m kidding? Check this out.
What book would you recommend for the clearest explanation and justification of Calvinist doctrine?
There are many fine books on the subject. In the interest of full disclosure and Christian honesty, however, even fine books like this one, this one and this one may have a theological nit or two to pick. The little book mentioned in the above question explains the Calvinist view on the doctrine of salvation quite succinctly. In the end, though, there is one book that is absolutely irrefutable and clear with regard as to its explanation of the doctrines of grace. It’s this one.
St. Francis of Assisi and preaching the Gospel without words – did he say it?
Most likely not. Even if he had, he would have been wrong. The Gospel is an account of real, historic events and a real historical Person – the Person and work of Christ – and we are commanded to “repent and believe the Gospel.” You and I can’t preach the Gospel without words, either. Pagans can perform wonderful philanthropic and humanitarian works, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, providing shelter for the homeless, etc. and they can be indistinguishable from Christians in doing so. If so, then how can our performing these works “preach the Gospel?” The Gospel, in the New Testament, was preached by proclamation. No other manner will suffice.
Why pray if the outcome has already been determined, as you Calvinists say it has?
Because we believe that God has ordained means in His eternal decree to accomplish His predetermined plan (see the above on predestination). One of those means is prayer.
But if the outcome of the prayer is predetermined, then the prayers are meaningless, aren’t they?
“But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” was how Paul addressed such an issue (a) and if it was good enough for Paul – under the divine inspiration of the Spirit of God, then it should be good enough for us. After all, “The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working” doesn’t it (James 5:16b)?
What did Martin Luther say/believe/write regarding “free will?”
Let’s just say that Luther’s view on “free will” wouldn’t jibe with most contemporary Christians. His definitive treatment of the subject can read online, but for some juicy tidbits of Luther’s, we direct you to Reformation Theology. Luther did indeed see the issue of free will being at the heart of the Reformation debate and at the core of the Gospel itself. This is mere conjecture, but I don’t think Luther would be attending this church or singing this song if he had his druthers.
1 John 2:2 says “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world,” so how can you believe in the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement?
Well, then, how does it feel, Christian brother/sister, to be under the control of the evil one? The Apostle John used the same phrase, “whole world,” later in the Epistle (1 John 5:19). I am assuming you would affirm that John would thus be using the phrase in the same manner in both instances – the other citation would be , where John says, “We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” So, by your own interpretation – “whole world” in meaning “every single person without exception,” then must mean the same thing – “every single person without exception” is in the power of the evil one. You reply, “John didn’t mean that in 5:19! He only intended to mean the world system – not every single person!”
Hmmm.
If he didn’t mean “every single person” in 5:19 , what requires him to mean “every single person” in 2:2? A study of “kosmos,” the word we translate as “world,” is a very meaningful study. You’d be surprised how many ways it is used. I think those in Hell would also be most surprised to find that the wrath of God was appeased on their behalf per your exegesis.
What percentage of Christians are Calvinists?
It depends. When they pray a petition, 100%. You don’t see too many non-Calvinists praying like this, do you? It’s interesting how Calvinistic people become when they desperately pray for the salvation of a loved one.
Are Southern Baptists Calvinists?
Yes and no. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 can be read such that both Calvinists and non-Calvinists are able to affirm it. In a related question………..
Are Baptists (in general) Arminians or Calvinists?
Typically, yes, but not all cases. There are Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians out there. Baptists that hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession, for instance, are Calvinists, while those who would affirm beliefs such as this friend would be Arminian.
How can Calvinists believe in “once saved, always saved?”
Let’s define our terms first. If you mean “once saved, always saved” in the sense that all a person has to do is make a one-time profession of “faith” and they are thus “saved,” regardless of whether they continue in faith or commit outright apostasy, then no, Calvinists do not believe in that. Does anyone REALLY believe that? Yes – for example, Arminian Baptist pastor Charles Stanley does (scroll down to the bottom portion – the pages in question in Dr. Stanley’s book may or may not be available for viewing on Amazon. At one point they were, but were later removed).
However, if you mean that once the Spirit raises a person from spiritual death to spiritual life and gives that person faith and repentance, then yes, we do believe that. See the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith for a complete explanation (near the bottom) – that such an act of the Spirit does not give the believer license to sin but necessarily results in a changed life which includes the holiness without which no man shall see the Lord (Heb. 12:14).
Are Arminians saved?
Maybe. Before you go ballistic, hear me out.
Belief in a theological system saves no one. Just because one affirms the doctrines of grace – Calvinism – as the correct soteriological doctrine does not mean one is saved. Just because one affirms an incorrect doctrine, such as Arminianism, does not then mean one is NOT saved, either.
A person is saved through their faith in the Person and work of Christ. This is not a Calvinist/Arminian issue. The Calvinist/Arminian issue has to do with how one gets to the point of salvation. Arminians think man’s decision to believe was the fundamental one, cooperating with the grace of God, resulting in salvation. Calvinists, being correct, believe that the decision of God to save is the fundamental one.
As R.C. Sproul says when asked if Arminians are saved: “The real question is whether they are safe… Saved? Most are, barely… really the debate between Calvinists and Arminians is an intramural debate among Christians.”
What would cause anyone to change their mind from Arminian thought to Calvinistic thinking?
They finally read their Bibles without presuppositions or the traditions of men as the lens through which they approach the Scripture. They subsequently submit to what the Scripture says, difficult as it may be (in some cases). Sounds trite, but ask around. It’ll be more common than you may think.
What is the most frequent search term that results in visits here?
We have a new answer to this question. Our former fave, the search term ‘lightning bolt,’ has been replaced. The most frequent search that ends up in our swell little corner of the world of bits and bytes is some form of the apocryphal ‘preaching the gospel without words,’ allegedly uttered by Francis of Assisi.
A close second, surprisingly, is people wondering whether or not Ravi Zacharias is a Calvinist. For that answer, see above.
Two side notes: 1) I know a missionary who spent many years in Italy evangelizing the people there. He lived seven miles from Assisi. He said it was the most pagan town and environment he had ever encountered. 2) If you are wondering where the search for “The Lighthearted Calvinist” ranks in the hierarchy of those who arrive here, well, let’s just say it’s not near the top. Or the middle. It is firmly planted at about, oh…..1,266,211, give or take a hundred.
Hi Jeff.
I suppose if you added, “Is Jon Cardwell a Calvinist?” you would get comments on this page that ask, “Jon who?”
This is my favorite FAQ page on the blogsphere.
Blessings to you, my friend.
Well, given my little corner of the world I inhabit, I’m not sure if I should say: a) “Thank you, Jon, for the compliment,” or b) “Dude, you need to get out more.” In my quest to be more gracious, I’ll go with a).
Thanks. Truly. God Bless.
Just ran across your blog. As another reformed baptist I have to say I’m more lighthearted already after my visit here! Thanks for the fun.
Wow. I’m immortalized by The Lighthearted Calvinist!
Jeff, I guess since you’ve included me on your swell site, on your swell FAQ page, along with all the swell articles links and resources you provide here, all I have to say is, “That’s swell.”
Blessings to you, my friend. Thanks for keeping us all lighthearted!
Just so you know, my wife HATES my use of the word “swell.” Says it makes me sound so out-of-date. Next thing you know, she’ll be wanting me to get rid of the rotary dial telephones and 8-track tapes.
Sheesh.
[...] as a Calvinist right alongside such names as Paul Walker, John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul on the FAQ page of Jeff Peterson’s The Lighthearted Calvinist. Jeff’s FAQ page is my favorite FAQ page on the [...]
I will pray for all the Calvinist. They were predestined to believe false doctrine. Haha just trying to be lighthearted!
We will use our free will to do just that. Thanks for stopping by.
I think you missed out the name Bill Hybels if he’s a Calvinist. :)
There’s an R.C. Sproul video series where, sitting in the front row, is….Bill Hybels (!). Sproul even introduces him. I’ll have to try and figure out which video it is. Looks like it was made back in the early 1990′s.
If Bill Hybels was a student of RC Sproul…i wonder whatever happened why the seeker-sensitive group came about?
Jeff,
I enjoyed this article. But I’m not so sure your assessment of the CMA Statement of Faith is correct. I don’t see it as excluding Calvinism. Maybe I’m missing something?
Maybe it’s the part that appears to support universal atonement? Well, there are statements just as strong in many mainstream Calvinists, Calvin himself included (not to mention some very universal sounding Scripture verses). Not to start the whole extent of the atonement debate here, but wouldn’t it be accurate to say affirming universal aspects in the atonement is not necessarily the same thing as denying particular redemption.
Maybe I missed something else in the CMA statement, but if I read it correctly there is nothing there which is technically non-Calvinistic. So . . . maybe Ravi Z is a Calvinist? Dunno, but I like him either way.
Blessings,
Derek Ashton
Derek:
Thanks for stopping by.
It is not the statement on the atonement which is the issue (many of the Dallas Theological Seminary people would be four-point Calvinists, for instance). It is this one:
“Salvation has been provided through Jesus Christ for all men; and those who repent and believe in Him are born again of the Holy Spirit, receive the gift of eternal life, and become the children of God.” This seems to state that faith precedes the new birth, unless I am reading it incorrectly.
This statement is also typically one made by the non-Reformed concerning entire sanctification and the second blessing of the Holy Spirit/a “crisis experience”: “It is the will of God that each believer should be filled with the Holy Spirit and be sanctified wholly,(22) being separated from sin and the world and fully dedicated to the will of God, thereby receiving power for holy living and effective service.(23) This is both a crisis and a progressive experience wrought in the life of the believer subsequent to conversion.(24)”
Perhaps I’m wrong, though…..
Jeff,
Thanks for the clarification. I don’t know how I missed the sanctification issue. I wonder if there are any old-school Keswick Calvinists? Seems oxymoronic.
The CMA statement on the new birth seems like it could go either way. They say those who repent and believe “ARE born again,” which might be the perfect ambiguity of Ordo Salutis. Do they mean we ARE born again, so that we repent and believe, or because we repent and believe? The present tense keeps it unclear, so I think a Calvinist in the CMA could argue that the CMA faith statement is open to a Reformed interpretation (at least in soteriology). But I agree that it isn’t the most natural reading, and the whole Keswick thing is a red flag.
Thanks, and again I enjoyed the post very much!
Blessings,
Derek
Jeff,
I found this short document ‘Zacharias-God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Free Will.doc’ at the website below, on Ravi Zacharias’ viewpoint of Calvinism/Armenian thought. A very different and interesting read, in my humble opinion. I dare say that you will find his viewpoints closer aligned to Armenian ideology than calvinistic thinking.
The document is is near the bottom of the webpage below:
http://www.rzim.org/usa/usfv/tabid/436/articleid/174/cbmoduleid/1561/default.aspx
Your thoughts?
Good legwork, especially for someone who appears to be a Georgetown fan…..:))
A giveaway on whether one leans more toward the Arminian (better make sure you spell it correctly, Jeremy, or they’ll get upset) side of the fence is the “we can’t really understand” train of thought with regard to the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. Also, Ravi’s thoughts on 2 Peter 3 are a giveaway as well.
Vincent Cheung has written that the absolute sovereignty of God over the will of man does not deny him his freedom and responsibility, but in fact establishes it.
Thanks for stopping by.
Jeff,
I disagree about the “can’t really understand” train of thought being a giveaway that a person leans toward Arminianism. One finds these kinds of “mystery” comments in Calvin, Packer, Piper, Carson, and many other historic Calvinists. Up to the last paragraph, Ravi’s comments are almost identical to those of Dr. MacArthur at this year’s Ligonier Conference. See the excerpts here:
http://theoparadox.blogspot.com/2010/06/paradox-files-vol-14-john-macarthur.html
Then, in a stunning reversal, Dr. Zacharias makes this astounding remark:
“If God were absolutely sovereign, then it would be a contradiction to say that man is absolutely free. God is not absolutely sovereign to the point that He can call something that is not as if it actually were. For example, God cannot make squares into circles. That would be a contradiction. So absolute sovereignty is really not what is being talked about here. God, therefore, has chosen to give us the option and, within that framework, He cannot call us free while absolutely violating that freedom.”
Wow. That’s really sad and troubling. Why can’t God make squares into circles just like He made dirt into people? Doesn’t Scripture say God calls the things that are not as if they are? Not to mention a square circle is just a cylinder, and they do exist (but not in 2 dimensions). Zacharias says God is not very sovereign and not very omnipotent (because that would violate man’s free will), rather than affirming both sides in compatibilism as his previous comments would dictate. So he does give away his bias, very clearly. He seems to be trying to strike a balance as a compatibilistic Arminian, rather than a compatibilistic Calvinist.
Vincent Cheung, on the other hand, is most certainly (oh, I’m afraid to say it, but I have to) a hyper Calvinist. But I do agree that God’s sovereignty establishes human freedom and responsibility.
Blessings,
Derek
The assumption that man is “absolutely free” is a decidedly unbiblical one. I understand that assumption is read into the Scriptures in order to preserve God’s justice and righteousness (“How can He hold us responsible and command us to repent and believe if we can’t?”), but it is an unnecessary assumption. God’s own Word protects Him just fine and He doesn’t need protecting, anyway.
Thanks.
I agree. It’s amazing that he refers to human freedom with the unnecessary qualifier of “absolute,” while denying the “absolute” nature of divine sovereignty. Danger Will Robinson!!!!
I think one should take the ministry as a whole for Ravi in greater context than focusing the whole of his ministry on a statement made 23 yrs prior.
Jeremy:
Just trying to address the issue of whether Ravi is of one persuasion or the other – you’d be surprised how many people arrive here asking the question. Not trying in any way to minimize Ravi’s contributions to the Kingdom.
Thanks.
How about these performers? Are they Calvinists?
Don Moen
Ron Kenoly
Michael W. Smith
Bob Fitts
Kent Henry
Darlene Zsech – this one’s obvious though
Steve Green
Carman
Amy Grant
Paul Baloche
Keith and Kristyn Getty (Ireland)
Katherine Scott
Israel Houghton – alright, this one’s obvious too
Kirk Cameron
We will attempt to find out. Thanks for stopping by.
Thank you!!! God bless bro.
A few years ago I saw Steve Green in concert at Roy Hargraves’ church (Roy is a well known Southern Baptist Calvinist). Based on that experience alone, I have no doubt that Steve Green is a Calvinist. It was a very edifying concert, as well.
I have really enjoyied reading your well written article. It looks like you spend a lot of effort and time on your blog. I have bookmarked it and I am looking forward to reading new articles. Keep up the good work!
Thanks. No posts lately with a fresh, clean grandchild being born. They will resume shortly.
Francis Chan?
David Wilkerson?
Mark Kielar?
Jeff, Steve Green is also a member of a PCA church in Franklin, TN. Further evidence that he is indeed a Calvinist.
Jeff, if you actually read the Bible without the Calvinist doctrines fed to you, you would come to the conviction that God WANTS us to repent, place our faith in Him, and be baptized; he does not not FORCE some people who he chose before time to do so.
Just look at a few Bible verses objectively:
“ENTER through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few FIND IT.” (Matt. 7:13-14)
These are all commands. We human beings are the ones who ENTER and FIND the narrow gate. God doesn’t do it for us; he WANTS us to do it.
“If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.” (John 7:17)
Just pretend you never read this verse before. What else can “ANYONE” and “CHOOSES” mean besides the fact that everyone has a choice – including having a choice to believe and repent.
At the very beginning of time, look at what God says to Adam:
“The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. and the Lord God commanded the man, “You are FREE to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” (Genesis 2:15-17)
What else can FREE mean besides Adam being free to do whatever he wants? It was Adam’s responsibility to choose what he should do; God gave him that responsibility. Therefore it was Adam’s fault for sinning; there is no way he could blame God. Calvinists are stuck with the idea that they can’t be saved even if they want to and are willing to do anything for God; but they can’t blame God either for not giving them the choice. That’s just a terrible doctrine and fortunately isn’t true at all.
You need to look at the Bible objectively and realize what the truth is in God’s Word, not John Calvin’s words that came about in the 16th century, long after thousands of Christians lived and died and knew how to obtain salvation without Calvin’s doctrines. You need to humble yourself; you need to realize that Christ died for ALL so that anyone who chooses to believe that He is God and walks according to that faith can have eternal life. You’re not “chosen” before eternity to go to heaven; stop thinking that you’re more special than any other human being that God made and loves deeply.
The Calvinist doctrines simply don’t line up with the Bible. Calvinists use Romans 9 to support their view, but they terribly misinterpret it. Hear me out. So at first you read verse 16:
“It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”
Then you think (because of John Calvin’s doctrines), “Oh, okay. So God chooses who is saved and condemned far before they even had a choice.” But look at the conclusion of Chapter 9:
“What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it NOT BY FAITH BUT AS IF IT WERE BY WORKS.” (Rom. 9:30-32)
Paul is saying that it is not through works that we are saved, but through faith; since Jesus died on the cross, we now can be saved through faith in him, not hopelessly trying to do good works like people in the Old Testament.This is the point Paul is making in Chapter 9. Calvinists twist this chapter of the Bible and say that we are not saved through our own belief in Jesus, but from God placing belief in our hearts, a choice he made before eternity. This is adding an illusory, false step to Paul’s teaching. You need to look at the context as a whole; chapter by chapter, then look at the whole teaching of the Bible.
If you were to grow up on an island alone, just you and a Bible, there is no way you would come to the conviction that: a) Jesus died only so that those who God chose beforehand to be saved could be saved, b) our faith in Jesus can only come from God, forcing us to believe in Him, or any other Calvinist doctrine. Listen, God is our JUDGE, not our PUPPET MASTER. God gave us free will; that’s how we can have a personal relationship with Jesus. How can we have a personal relationship with Him if he forces faith on us? If you were able to somehow force a woman to love you, would it be genuine? “We love because He first loved us.” (1 John 4:19) We don’t love because He forces us to love Him. We do it out of our free will; a free will that He mercifully gives us, risking the chance that we might not love Him. But it’s a risk God’s willing to take to get a few people that genuinely love Him – Christians as a whole church. People who are grateful for God’s sacrifice for us, who in return love Him and others, do it themselves; they’re not forced by God to feel gratitude towards Him. Open your eyes and realize that you love God and have faith in Him not because God forced you to, but because you felt His love with your free will.
Connor:
Thanks for stopping by.
In response, I can only say, “Wow.”
I do not know where you came to your understanding of the doctrines of grace, known as “Calvinism,” in theological shorthand, but they appear to be a gross misrepresentation of what we believe.
Firs, you assume I have swallowed something that was fed to me by someone else, which is not true. I came to an understanding of Calvinism not because anyone force-fed me, but through serious bible study while I was a Semi-Pelagian attending a confessionally Arminian church. Only after coming to understand the doctrines and what the Scripture said about them did I know they were referred to as “Calvinism.”
You also appear to have embraced the fallacious thought that Calvinists believe a) God forces people to believe against their will and b) Calvinists believe there are people willing to be saved but God will not save them because they are not among the chosen. Neither is true and a superficial study of Calvinist doctrines would show what Calvinists truly believe.
Also, statements that Calvinists don’t believe that faith is necessary or that people have to respond to the command to choose are puzzling as well. Where you received the idea that we do not affirm those items is a mystery to me. Where you get the idea we believe that God “forces faith” upon people is puzzling as well.
If you would be interested in knowing what Calvinists actually believe, please let me know. The caricatures and misunderstandings you appear to have are things Calvinists themselves would also deny as unbiblical. I would hope you would also see that Calvin did not “invent” what we know as Calvinism. Men such as Calvin’s contemporary, Martin Luther, and predecessors in the family of faith such as William Tyndale, John Wycliffe, Gottschalk and Augustine affirmed them as well – in Augustine’s case, more than 1,000 years before Calvin was born.
Thanks again for stopping by. God Bless.
Which makes it even more interesting that the Catholic church has made Augustine a Saint when he is the leader in Predestination and wrote volumes on it.
Thanks for the site…loved read this…recently got into a debate with a Berean about Calvinism and the person finally said that we are mystics and are going to hell…..which is funny to since Berean’s don’t believe in the Trinity…..putting this site as a bookmark.
Where do you find that bereans do not believe in the trinity?