Why Do People Hate Calvinst?

That's not true. There are a number of places, notably in 1 John, where it refers to a system of values or a worldview. In John 17:5 and 17:24, it refers to creation ('the foundation of the world" does not mean "the foundation of sinful humanity").

Again, I think this demonstrates that you make an argument without benefit of considering the actual usage of words in the text. Because the text itself easily refutes you, as any one with a concordance can see.

So are you arguing that "God loves the world" means that God loves "sinful mankind," but not both believers and unbelievers? ... here you have a case of trying to make an argument and yet failing to see the drastic consequences you just introduced. If you disagree that "world" can mean both believers and unbelievers, then you are asserting that God loves either believers or unbelievers, not both.

 

You stated a very good reason why labels are poor. There are several who are young in the faith I have met who would claim to be a calvinist because John Piper is. Certainly not because they have studied the Bible, because they hardly know anything about the Bible except what they have read written by Piper. When I look in my Bible I do not find that we are to focus on Piper, Calvin, Arminius, Pastor Larry, gb93433, Paul, Peter, Father Bob, or John. Not one of them are we to focus on. We are to focus on Jesus. No more and no less.

 

That has nothing to do with labels being poor. The fact that someone doesn't know what a label means does not mean that the label is the problem. We have labels because they serve good purposes of helping to summarize what people believe.

 

You know I'm referring to humanity when I say that. World cannot mean believers in one context and unbelievers in the next.

All humans start of the same way...sinful mankind. Believers are still sinful, but forgiven. God's love for men has been there from the beginning, before one human being was justified. My use of the term is quite consistent and takes no gymnastics to get around.

 

Many times the person claiming the label doesn't even know what it means.

 

How did I get that from your post? Well, here is what you said: "John's use of "world" or "whole world" throughout his letters always refers to sinful mankind. The burden of proof is on you to show how world can mean both believers and non believers. As Allan once so accurately stated yes cannot mean both yes and no."

I almost fell out of my chair when I read this. You said the burden of proof is on me to show how world can mean both believers and non believers. Well, I've never said that world in John 3:16 meant non belivers. Maybe you wrote that post poorly, but I just took what you said.

 

Really, your use of the term is consistent? So, has all sinful mankind without exception gone after Jesus Christ? That's what your definition of world would lead one to believe upon reading John 12:19.

 

I find that label means different things to different people and the label changes depending on what calvinist you talk to. Some are 3, 4, 5 ,and 6 point calvinists. I find rather difficult to discuss their sect of calvinism but I can discuss interpretations of scripture.

When I go to get gas at the gas station I am not expecting a range of ethanol by ten to 85 percent depending on the gas station but by what the pump actually posts.

Not all calvinists really know what calvinism is. In the part of the country where I live, calvinism is Piper.

If not all calvinists are 5 pointers, then can you explain how the label of being a calvinist serves any purpose in summarizing what all "calvinists" believe?

 

Can you do me a favor and not discuss the same thing on two separate threads? It makes it easier to follow instead of bouncing back and forth posting the same response on two threads. I already addressed this on the other one.

 

You haven't addressed anything. You attempted to slide out by not applying world in the same sense.

 

I don't know that at all. I responded to what you said. You telling me I am wrong proves my point ... that "world" and "all" mean whatever John intended them to mean, not what you declare it to mean. Furthermore, you were factually wrong. John does not use "world" always to refer to "sinful humanity" (unless all doesn't mean all).

It most certainly can. Words mean whatever the author intends them to mean. Part of interpretation is deciding what a "context" is, and deciding whether or not the word has a different connotation.

True, but you contrasted believers and unbelievers with respect to God's love in your statement. Listen, Webdog, you blew it on your writing. Two people saw exactly the same thing and responded to it the same way independently. I knew it wasn't what you believe because I have seen enough of what you say to know that you simply didn't speak clearly. I don't think you thought about what you were saying. You said something that was absurd. It's not big deal. You simply mispoke.

 

Which is irrelevant. The label still means something even if it is misused. In fact, the only way it can be misused is if it means something to begin with.

 

But they are all Calvinists. Which means that the label means something. You are trying to say that the label means everything, and it doesn't.

In discussing interpretations of Scripture you are discussing "their sect of Calvinism."

But when you go to a gas station, you realize that the label "gas" includes more than 87 octane. In fact, the label "gas" can mean many different levels of octane from 85, 87, 89, 93, 100, ethanol etc. Labels are about categories. Once you get in a category there are further divisions, just like there are with the label Baptist: General, particular, free will, American, Southern, independent, moderate, Reformed etc. But they all share some things in common that warrant the label.

Perhaps, but most nonCalvinists don't know what it is either.

I doubt that.

Sure, I have explained that many times. The dividing line between "Calvinist" and "non-Calvinist" is unconditional election. Calvinists all share that in common and non-Calvinists all reject in common. Calvinists affirm other things and non-Calvinists affirm other things. But that is the dividing line.

 

If you will Pastor Larry, let us back up for a moment please.

Web was speaking in a general sense as to the relevance of the term 'world' in it's consistent phrasing relating to man and not geography or geographic locations.

It (the term 'world') was never historically understood in a context of believers, believers world view or system. However it is consistently related to the unsaved and wicked and their world view or system.
It is also the same reason you will not find any quality lexicon denoting 'world' as representing any group of believers or system of believers views.

The main point to the above is this: regardless of it is specifically relating to a people or system - both deal with spiritual make up of those it is referring to. - wicked, unsaved, and godless. (thus the 'world' system is defined from that standpoint just as it does the condition of people group John used the term 'world' to describe ).

What Web took from an old post of mine delineates between the uses of the term 'world' or phrase 'whole world' via context and specifically denotes the fact of the condition being referred to as it's core application to it's meaning


The OT defined what and how the term 'world' is used.. never was it for God's people.
You Will find scripture telling us -
1. to be IN the 'world' but not OF the 'world'
2. If we were of the world the world would love us but we are not of the world
3. You are not of the world even as I (Jesus) am not of the world
and on and on and on..

 

So the whosoever from John 3:16 isn't related with the world found in the early part of that text? Wow.

 

What are you talking about?

Of course it is!
Those from out of the world who now believe (and as the passage states, receive eternal life by that faith/believing) - these are the whosoever's

The term itself, 'whosoever' simply means 'anyone who' - believes.

 

Shortandy was online last night at 9:30 and failed to address the apparent contradiction. Maybe today?

Hoping Shortandy will be back to address this...



The OP pastor posted this two years ago, after he had been called to the church.
I would like to hear Shortandy's response to this...quite incriminating on the surface.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shortandy
What Love Is This by Dave Hunt. It is over 500 pages of anti-calvinism. A lady at my church gave it to me...not sure why because I have no idea exactly what I believe in the topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shortandy
Yes I wear a Reformed jersey and play for team Calvin. I recently admitted this to a few church members who asked where I stood on the debate. It only took them 3 years to ask.

 

You forgot to qualify the post about Hunt's book was 2 years ago.

 

And how about this:

OP Shortandy, on the BaptistLife.com forum, June 2007:

Please clarify.