Calvinists Say the Darndest Things
“Calvin didn’t write that….I have read Calvin.”
Paul,
It seems you have finally stated our position accurately. I would go to the stake to defend the doctrine of “perpetual” justification. Perpetual means ” Neverceasing; continuing forever or for an unlimited time; unfailing; everlasting; continuous.” Once God has declared believers to be righteous in his sight, we cannot and need not do anything to perpetuate that standing. “Through whom [Christ] we have an access into this grace in which we stand and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” This bears no resemblance to “progressive justification.”
Paul: It’s perpetual only as long as one lives by faith alone in sanctification.
C: Your statement makes no sense whatsoever.
Paul: Why is that? What’s so hard about the concept of keeping yourself saved by not obeying the law in “your own efforts” in sanctification because a perfect obedience is needed to maintain justification. What is so hard for you to understand about that concept?
C: There is nothing difficult about it except that no one believes it. You are clearly confusing concepts and statements and putting them together in a statement that is sheer nonsense.
Paul: Calvin clearly taught that any Christian who believed that they can please God by keeping the law in sanctification are condemning themselves (CI 3.14.10). Calvin Also taught that sin in the Christian life “separates” us from the “grace” of God.” Got that? Sin in the Christian life SEPARATES us from God’s GRACE. And moreover, that forgiveness for the grace-separating sin has to be continually sought in the church “daily” in order to “keep us in the family of God” (Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. 45: Catholic Epistles). Give it up dawg, the gigs up. Calvin was a stark raving heretic.
C: Calvin didn’t write that. He did not teach that sin in the believer’s life separates us from the grace of God. Give me the quote. Even if he had taught that, it doesn’t mean Calvinists have followed him in that belief. Calvin believed many things that Calvinists don’t believe. If you want to discuss real quotations, I would be happy to do that. Don’t just try to tell me what Calvin wrote. I have read Calvin.
Paul:
John Calvin: Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles. The Calvin Translation Society 1855. Editor: John Owen, p. 165 ¶4
“Secondly, this passage shows that the gratuitous pardon of sins is given us not only once, but that it is a benefit perpetually residing in the Church, and daily offered to the faithful. For the Apostle here addresses the faithful; as doubtless no man has ever been, nor ever will be, who can otherwise please God, since all are guilty before him; for however strong a desire there may be in us of acting rightly, we always go haltingly to God. Yet what is half done obtains no approval with God. In the meantime, by new sins we continually separate ourselves, as far as we can, from the grace of God. Thus it is, that all the saints have need of the daily forgiveness of sins; for this alone keeps us in the family of God”
C: …. you need to remember that Calvinism did not come from Calvin. His body had long been decayed in the cold ground when the system we know as “Calvinism” was born. The Scriptures, not the Institutes, are our authority. I would not spend a second of my time defending Calvin or his writings. However, he was used of God to revive important truths that had lain buried for centuries. He was not inspired, but he was hardly a heretic.
Calvinism didn’t come from Calvin? Really? And sorry, this, “Calvin didn’t write that….I have read Calvin.” is more than one second.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
[…] Calvinists Say the Darndest Things. […]
LikeLike
Lol……awww…this is classic. I have heard the same exact same statement before “Calvinism did not come from Calvin”. Amazing how consistent they are with these kinds of statements, but contradicting when it comes to their doctrines!
LikeLike
Paul,
Did he (or she) really say “Calvinism didn’t come from Calvin”? Why is it called “Calvinism” then? Duh.
I have had this discussion with many people from various religious flavors in the past, and when you tell them what their religion actually teaches, they always either question your integrity or tell you that they don’t really believe THAT, or use some other denial tactic. Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Roman Catholicism all believe the same thing at the core. If the root is bad, the fruit is bad.
Thanks for this post, it is very instructive. Maybe you should start a list of “Calvinist Excuses”…
1. “Calvinism didn’t come from Calvin” (Yeah, and my dog just had kittens…)
2. “Calvin didn’t write that”
3. “Calvin believed many things that Calvinists don’t believe”
4. “No one believes that…” (or variations thereof…)
5. “Don’t just try to tell me what Calvin wrote. I have read Calvin.”
6. “Sir, I served with John Calvin. I knew John Calvin. John Calvin was a friend of mine. Sir, you’re no Jack Calvin.” 🙂
7. “Regarding Calvin’s execution of Michael Servetus; acceptance of doctrinal differences were simply not sixteenth-century concepts.” (Easy to say if you are the one holding the torch…)
8. ???
9. ???
10. ???
Blessings,
BD
LikeLike
LOL, talking about a crisis of faith. I am a Calvinist who would not spend a second of my time defending Calvin or his writings. That is like saying your a Buddhist who does not believe in the teachings of Buddha. Calvin did not write that….I would not defend Calvin’s writings. So which is it? A more accurate statement would be I will defend Calvin’s teachings as long as they are not present and then if they start being sited I am jumping ship. Typical Calvinist double talk. Makes since I guess, after all it is this same group that thinks that telling you they are humble is the same thing as actually being humble.
LikeLike
“Calvinism did not come from Calvin.”
Oh man. I am going to use this over and over again. How in the hell did you get this guy to walk into that, Paul? Sheer genius.
This is going to be a goldmine for my blog.
This typifies the kind of doublespeak that turns reality on its head for these despot mystics. This is why you can never win a debate with these people. They reserve the right to redefine reality and meaning at will.
This is why Calvinists are tyrants and abusers and cannot be trusted in ANY position of ANY authority. They are dangerous, dangerous wolves.
LikeLike
Argo,
Ya, its just toooo rich, a Master Card commercial on steroids.
LikeLike
On this point, Calvin agrees with the Apostle Paul: You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. – Gal. 5:4
LikeLike
If you don’t believe what Calvin taught, stop calling yourself a Calvinist. 🙂
LikeLike
drew,
If could make an observation–I don’t usually call myself a Calvinist because the term has been so caricatured that it doesn’t accurately represent what I believe. I usually tell people simply that I believe the doctrines of grace. The problem is that some here, and no doubt elsewhere, would accuse me of trying to hide my views by using such terms. There is no Calvinist I know who beleives everything Calvin believed and taught. I suspect most would rejec many of his views outright. Generally speaking, a Calvinist is one who is in general agreement with the Canons of Dort, not one who subscribes to Calvin’s teachings.
LikeLike
Anon,
This just confuses the issue. The question is mutable justification or immutable justification? Sanctification by faith alone, or sanctification mixed with OUR works? One-way double imputation or two-way double imputation? Never separate justification and sanctification, or separate? Totally depraved saints, or born again? Change IN US or a changed realm? There are those who call them selves Calvinists who don’t know what he really believed and should therefore repent. Dort is beside the point; Calvin’s beliefs are well documented.
LikeLike
Well in the spirit of the argument, let us go directly to the Canons of Dort:
“And this is that regeneration so highly extolled in Scripture, that renewal, new creation, resurrection from the dead, making alive, which God works in us without our aid. But this is in no wise effected merely by the external preaching of the gospel, by moral suasion, or such a mode of operation that, after God has performed His part, it still remains in the power of man to be regenerated or not, to be converted or to continue unconverted; but it is evidently a supernatural work, most powerful, and at the same time most delightful, astonishing, mysterious, and ineffable; not inferior in efficacy to creation or the resurrection from the dead, as the Scripture inspired by the Author of this work declares; so that all in whose heart God works in this marvelous manner are certainly, infallibly, and effectually regenerated, and do actually believe. Whereupon the will thus renewed is not only actuated and influenced by God, but in consequence of this influence becomes itself active. Wherefore also man himself is rightly said to believe and repent by virtue of that grace received. “– Canons of Dordt, Heads 3-4: Article 12.
“Man himself is rightly said to believe and repent by virtue of that grace recieved.” “So that all in whose heart God works in this marvelous manner are certainly, infallibly and effectually regenerated and do actually believe”
The crux of the matter is the Canon’s of Dort assertion that regenerations PRECEDES faith.
First of all you are using a testimony/Confession/whatever you want to call it of MAN. How anyone can adhere to a Confession like Westminster or Dort or indeed any other (including some dispensational “confessions”) is completely beyond me. Every “assertion” or “confession” that man makes needs SOLID scriptural support. Not vague if/then statements, but SOLID scriptural support. You cannot base a doctrine or belief on theology derived from a canon or a confession. Theology derived from a common sense, plain interpretation of the infallibe Word is the only way to make an argument in my opinion.
I can be persuaded (grudgingly) that faith is a gift from God. I cannot be persuaded that regeneration precedes faith by any plain sense interpretation of Scripture or any Scriptural text that PLAINLY states that regeneration precedes faith. Every assertion we make REQUIRES Scriptural support. There are NO verses in the Bible that TEACH regeneration before faith, plain and simple. I challenge you to find one that states such PLAINLY. Where in either Testament does it state plainly that it takes regeneration to make a sinner alive ON ORDER for him to come to Christ? See, you take Total Depravity and assume something from it, that a total depraved sinner cannot come to Christ without regeneration making them able to have faith. The doctrine of Total Depravity as defined by the Canons of Dort DEMANDS this. So you are in a quandry. You have a doctrine of MAN, and you have to make Scripture support it. And, to be fair, this is a problem not only with Calvinists but most Christians who hold to a Confession/Canon/Assertion/Whatever that originated from men. You are bound by what you stick yourself to instead of searching Scripture without any presuppositions.
Men left in ther dead state are unable in themselves to come to repentance and believe the Gospel. I will agree with this. How does this prove regeneration before faith though? What is it in Total Depravity that PROVES regeneration before faith?
There are, however, many verses/examples that plainly teach faith before regeneration and God drawing a sinner to Himself before regeneration. If you want I will supply more, but here are a few:
The story of Cornelius: Acts 10, where Cornelius and his household were very obviously NOT regenerated until the end of the chapter. If anyone claims otherwise I would like to hear how they come to such a ridiculous conclusion. Again, a PLAIN SENSE reading of Scripture leaves no other conclusion.
Galatians 3:2 “This only would I learn of you, did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?”
The obvious biblical answer to Paul’s query is indeed: “we received the Spirit by faith”. I do not see how anyone can argue otherwise from a plain sense reading of this verse.
So if Galatians 3:2 is true (and it must be if we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture) then it is a pretty good blow to the doctrine of regeneration before faith. How can the Spirit regenerate us to have faith if we receive the Spirit through faith in the first place?
I know you will curl your lip and sneer at this, but from the above I conclude that a dead sinner is actually enabled by God to have faith to be regenerated. How this happens is a mystery and a work of the Holy Spirit, yes, even in the heart of a dead sinner.
“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Rom. 1:19-20).
The above is referring to a TOTALLY DEPRAVED SINNER. Who is without excuse because even the very invisible attributes of God are clearly perceived by unregenerate man in the natural order of things. If unregenerate man is without excuse, this implies a work in his heart outside of regeneration that draws him to God/Christ.
What a precious gift that God would enable us through the conviction of the Holy Spirit and power of the Holy Spirit even before we are regenerated. This makes salvation a WILLFUL, VOLITIONAL ACCEPTANCE of Christ and a ONE TIME event. This is where your Total Depravity (the way Calvinists describe it) falls flat. God will hold everyone accountable for the decision they made for Christ.
We can get into every point of TULIP if you want. But since you brought up the Canons of Dort I thought I would respond to this one.
LikeLike
Go ye into all the nations and preach the gospel so that God can regenerate the Totally Depraved Elect unto faith in Jesus Christ
er…
Go ye into all the nations and preach the gospel because every man must make a choice regardless of whether he is elect or not because God will righteously judge according to the decision man has made.
I like the bottom better. And it’s supported by Scripture.
LikeLike