John Calvin’s errant views

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Both you and I were sinners, and we knew we were sinners, and we wanted to live for Christ.

Can you tell me specifically what did not match up with scripture that reflects the non-Calvinism view. I just posted 4 scriptures that demonstrate the TULI are false doctrines.

You say God is sovereign but you seem to define that to mean exhaustive determinism. You seem to be saying God could not allow his creation to make autonomous decisions that alter the outcome of their life. But Deuteronomy 30:19-20 says just that.

And then you say if people do not accept your view then they have control issues, attributing character flaws to those who hold other views.

Your life in Christ is not about you enjoying peace in isolation, it is about sharing the suffering of Christ as you beg others to be reconciled as an ambassador of Christ.

you asked me why I believe & I told you. I dont owe you any explainations other than my sharing with you my beliefs. I have lived it & so I believe it.... that simple. That you are not changing.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Wonderful! Thanks for sharing those words Steve. "Handing it all over." Indeed,it all comes down to that.

Yea Rippon but they dont get it .... the sinner contributes nothing to his or her own salvation --it is Gods work from beginning to end.

 

[Rippon]

All Scripture Citations Are From the 1984 NIV

Thanks for so clearly showing John Calvin's view, that the reason was not given in Scripture and that we should accept it without understanding.

AMEN!

The fundamental flaw was believing that the election in Him before the foundation of the world referred to our individual election. But when viewed as a corporate election, those the Redeemer would redeem, then everything falls into place.

Say what? Anyone who comes to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ was elect (chosen)before the foundation of the world.

We are saved by grace through faith rather than saved by election and given faith.

Faith is a fruit;not the cause of elction.

The T is wrong, men of the flesh can understand the gospel, 1 Corinthians 3:1-3.

You are mixing things up. That passage is addressed to believers. Our spiritual state before coming to Christ is described in 1 Cor.2:14 :"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God,for they are foolishness to him,and he cannot understand them,because they are spiritually discerned."

The U is wrong, we are chosen during our lifetime (2 Thessalonians 2:13) based on faith in the truth as determined by God, Romans 4:4-5.

The passage of 2 Thess.2:13 says:"But we ought always to thank God for you,brothers loved by the Lord,because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief of the truth."

It says here that we were chosen from the beginning;that is before the world was made.

We were elect before the world was formed --but saved in time.

The L is wrong, Christ died as a ransom for all, and Christ is the propitation or means of salvation for the whole world, 1 John 2:2.

Citing that verse does not negate the biblical fact that Christ died only for the sheep. In 1 John 2:2 john is saying that the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ is not only for those among the Jews,but the Gentiles scattered around the world.

Look at John 11:51b,52:"Jesus would die for the Jewish nation,and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God,to bring them together and make them one."

And the I is wrong, men who were entering heaven we blocked by false teaching, Matthew 23:13.

That's funny Van. The "I",stands for effectual calling.In Romans 8:30 it states:'And those he predestined,he also called;those he called,he also justified;those he justified,he also glorified."

Praise God for His distinguishing grace.The Lord seeks those He has predestined.I love that golden chain as it has been named.

 

[Jarthur001]

From a commentary on Calvin's catechism (for those capable of grasping the concept the Calvin would address seeming injustice in his scheme):

I can always count on Jerome.

Below is the full text of the section. Please note what Jerome left out....

This is the doctrine of double predestination, which is falsely attributed to Calvin as if he were its originator! Augustine, Gottschalk (a ninth‐century theologian), Luther, Bucer (the Strasbourg reformer), and others had taught this doctrine before Calvin.

It is also false to assert that the doctrine of predestination or that the sovereigntyof God is the central doctrine in Calvin’s theology. There are four confessions attributed to Calvin, and of these, three allude only incidentally to predestination. The same is true of his later Catechism of 1541, the Geneva Catechism (see Qs. 100 and 157), where again there is no mention of reprobation (i.e., election to damnation). It was unquestionably an important doctrine for Calvin, for he devotes four chapters to this subject in the Institutes (4.21‐24). But this was due largely to various attacks on the doctrine. In the first edition of the Institutes (1536) it is mentioned briefly only in two places.

Not surprisingly, this doctrine is a stumbling block to human reason, particularly double predestination. It appears unjust and arbitrary and would seem to make people unresponsible for their decisions. Calvin recognizes these difficulties and himself raises the question, “Why should the Lord deem the former [the predestined] worthy of his mercy, but exercise his severe judgment on the latter?” He answers simply, “Let us leave the cause in his hand, for he has for the best of reasons willed to hide it from us” (sec. 13). He also warns his readers against trying to fathom the hidden decree of God. We should instead recognize the paucity of our wisdom remind us of the words of the apostle Paul; “Who are you, a human being, to argue

with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’” (Rom. 9:20; cf. Inst. 3.23.1, 4, 5, where Calvin quotes this and similar texts). In any case, we should not accuse God of being unjust. Rather, “let us acknowledge among ourselves that this dispensation of the Lord, although hidden to us, is nonetheless just and holy” (sec. 13).

Please not that the words..."It appears unjust and arbitrary and would seem to make people unresponsible for their decisions."...is not Calvins words, but the writers take on what Calvin said.

I have already address Calvin's words 1st hand. No need to go over it again.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Both you and I were sinners, and we knew we were sinners, and we wanted to live for Christ.

Wrong....I had tons more money, Enjoyed my life of sin & just viewed sin as reality. It was the suckers who believed in probity. Again Im not a preacher but my buddy, George Whitefield can perhaps explain:

My dear friends, what is there in our performances to recommend us unto God? Our persons are in an unjustified state by nature, we deserve to be damned ten thousand times over; and what must our performances be? We can do no good thing by nature: `They that are in the flesh cannot please God.' You may do many things materially good, but you cannot do a thing formally and rightly good; because nature cannot act above itself. It is impossible that a man who is unconverted can act for the glory of God; he cannot do anything in faith, and `whatsoever is not of faith is sin.' After we are renewed, yet we are renewed but in part, indwelling sin continues in us, there is a mixture of corruption in every one of our duties; so that after we are converted, were Jesus Christ only to accept us according to our works, our works would damn us, for we cannot pt up a prayer but it is far from that perfection which the moral law requireth. I do not know what you may think, but I can say that I cannot pray but I sin _ I cannot preach to you or any others but I sin _ I can do nothing without sin; and, as one expresseth it, my repentance wants to be repented of, and my tears to be washed in the precious blood of my dear Redeemer. Our best duties are as so many splendid sins.


Your life in Christ is not about you enjoying peace in isolation, it is about sharing the suffering of Christ as you beg others to be reconciled as an ambassador of Christ.

" Mans chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever" ....as per Westminster catechism. Do you disagree with this?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I can always count on Jerome.

Below is the full text of the section. Please note what Jerome left out....



Please not that the words..."It appears unjust and arbitrary and would seem to make people unresponsible for their decisions."...is not Calvins words, but the writers take on what Calvin said.

I have already address Calvin's words 1st hand. No need to go over it again.

I am surprised! Jerome left out text...... NO!?!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

BTW...Where is your ancestoral pride James. Pink is so last century. Try one of the Boyo's from the Valley. Might I suggest either David Martyn Lloyd-Jones or John Owen! :love2:

 

[Robert Snow]

I believe a person who accepted Calvinism can learn what the Bible actually says and change their mind, just like folks who post here say they did. I started out trying to defend Calvinism, but soon realized it was a no go. How come not you?

Good question! I remember after a few years of being a Christian when I heard about Calvinism. I could not understand why someone would spend so much time studying something so absurd. Why not just believe the scripture? In fact, that Calvinism has survived so long among Christians is still a mystery to me.

Perhaps it's a pride issue. After all, if I am elected by God and others are not, it must mean that God sees a value in me that others don't possess. This goes along with the fact that so many Calvinists come across as arrogant and full of themselves at their ability to understand this supposed mystery they claim to have found in the bible. Why not just believe the Gospel that whosoever will humble themselves and come to Christ will be accepted by God because of His sacrifice on the cross.

 

[Jerome]

Please note what Jerome left out

Please not that the words..."It appears unjust and arbitrary and would seem to make people unresponsible for their decisions."...is not Calvins words, but the writers take on what Calvin said.

Perfectly biblical. Thanks for sharing that Jerome!

Yes, Yes thats it.....Isnt it wonderful! Praise God.

Y'all need to get your story straight. :laugh:


EWF, I left nothing out. The quote started with "It". I put the antecedent "double predestination" (the words at the the end of the sentence immediately preceding) in brackets for clarity. JArthur skipped over that, going further back in the book to concoct his false charge.

I remember once I quoted ten lines of Spurgeon. JArthur got upset, claiming I needed to quote a hundred lines. Bizarre.

 

[Rippon]

Jerome,what specifically do disagree with in the Calvin blurb you provided?

 

[Havensdad]

It is not saying "He chose you for salvation BECAUSE of sanctification and faith", but "through" or, "By using" sanctification and faith. Paul never uses "en" to denote cause.

Yes, you are correct, Paul is not saying God chose you because of sanctification and faith. And nobody suggested he did.

Actually, that is EXACTLY what you say about faith, below. And it just does not work syntactically. You try to pry the "sanctification" part away, because then it reveals your true belief; salvation based on merit.

Now if you actually want to address what was said, try again.

I did address what was actually said.

"en = dative (sanctification) describes the means of God making the choice and answers the question "how." Thus it is adverbial and applies to the verb chose.

Agreed. It is showing instrumentality.

"en + dative (faith) describes the basis of God making the choice and answers the question "why." Thus it is adverbial and applies to the verb chose.

WRONG. Note the "AND." Faith and sanctification did the SAME thing.. So just apply what you said in statement #1, to faith as well. Like this...

"Faith describes the means of God making the choice and answers the question "how."

In other words, God chose US. Then, God USED the faith that He gave us, and the sanctification that He bestows upon us, to carry this choosing out. "Instrumentality," not cause.

What you are trying to say does not work. It would be like me asking, "Why did you nail that nail in a board?" And me replying "A hammer." I am answering the wrong question, and so are you. Faith is not the reason, faith is the hammer that drove the nail...

Next you make a claim that Paul never used the construction "en + dative" to show the basis of an action. Try Ephesians 6:1 why Paul indicates the basis for obeying parents is that we are to obey our parents as we would obey the Lord, with the phrase "in the Lord."

LOL. Try again. This is not a "because" statement. It is not saying "Obey your parents because of the Lord." It is saying "Obey your parents IN the Lord..." as in obey your parents "as far as the parents commands are according to the will and word of God..." (Clarke).

 

[Rippon]

Good question! I remember after a few years of being a Christian when I heard about Calvinism. I could not understand why someone would spend so much time studying something so absurd.

You were a new Christain and had not read much of anything by Calvinists and yet made the obervation that Calvinism was absurd. Now that you have reached the full maturity of your years ...you STILL haven't read much of anything by any Calvinists -- let alone by the the hand of John Calvin. And it is that servant of God whom you delight in disparaging. You are not running on all cylinders Robert.

Why not just believe the scripture?

Why not make an attempt at saying something edifying once in a blue moon? Why not acknowledge that Calvinists do in fact work from the Scripture and arrive at things that are far removed from your positions?

Why do you continue to say that Calvinism does not base its beliefs on the Bible? Could you eat some humble pie?

In fact, that Calvinism has survived so long among Christians is still a mystery to me.

Because it is true to the Word of God.Calvinism is not so easily dismissed Robert. You keep refusing to read any Calvinistic works and yet maintain such a hateful posture regardless of the facts.

Perhaps it's a pride issue. After all, if I am elected by God and others are not, it must mean that God sees a value in me that others don't possess. This goes along with the fact that so many Calvinists come across as arrogant and full of themselves at their ability to understand this supposed mystery they claim to have found in the Bible.

Why not point to any Calvinist (not hyper-Calvinist) and show where anyone thought heaven was populated by only Calvinists before entry was allowed?

If it was a matter of Calvinists believing that they,and they alone are going to glory -- then I could understand your anger and confusion -- but it is not the case that Calvinists believe such junk. However, that still leaves you in your anger and confusion despite the facts of the matter.

No one,regenerate Arminians or Calvinists,have any merits to claim. No one deserves to be saved. No one is special for their talents or strengths,intelligence or anything. There is no pride when we realize that we were all cut from the same quarry. We are all lumps of clay. By the Lord's mercy alone is anyone a recepient of distinguishing grace.

 

[Van]

Reply to Robert Snow

Good question! I remember after a few years of being a Christian when I heard about Calvinism. I could not understand why someone would spend so much time studying something so absurd. Why not just believe the scripture? In fact, that Calvinism has survived so long among Christians is still a mystery to me.

Perhaps it's a pride issue. After all, if I am elected by God and others are not, it must mean that God sees a value in me that others don't possess. This goes along with the fact that so many Calvinists come across as arrogant and full of themselves at their ability to understand this supposed mystery they claim to have found in the bible. Why not just believe the Gospel that whosoever will humble themselves and come to Christ will be accepted by God because of His sacrifice on the cross.

I hold many views that say Arminianism is wrong, but when an Arminian leaning believer contradicts what I say, they do so based on their understanding of scripture and I do not get the personal disparagement.

:thumbs:

 

[Jarthur001]

Y'all need to get your story straight.


EWF, I left nothing out. The quote started with "It". I put the antecedent "double predestination" (the words at the the end of the sentence immediately preceding) in brackets for clarity. JArthur skipped over that, going further back in the book to concoct his false charge.

I remember once I quoted ten lines of Spurgeon. JArthur got upset, claiming I needed to quote a hundred lines. Bizarre.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Don't get me wrong, I too like the post.

POINT CALVIN DID NOT SAY IT.

That is what I said then..and what I say now.

What you left out...was what the guy from china said about double predestination

 

[Van]

I have explained by God choosing a believer based on crediting their faith as righteousness demonstrates the choice is all of God's grace. But we are saved by grace through faith, our worthless filthy rag faith merits nothing, it is God who credits it as righteousness.

The "en" applies to both sanctification and faith, and so both are en + dative constructions, and there is no requirement that both be "by means of" or both be "on the basis of" but they can be one of each.

 

[Van]

Try again. This is not a "because" statement. It is not saying "Obey your parents because of the Lord." It is saying "Obey your parents IN the Lord..." as in obey your parents "as far as the parents commands are according to the will and word of God..." (Clarke).

Yet another strawman argument, no one is saying "because" but I am saying on the basis of. But look at what you wrote, you just give another basis for obeying but you concur with the construction. ROFLOL

 

[Skandelon]

POINT CALVIN DID NOT SAY IT.

The real POINT is that you have yet to show any significant difference in what Van's paraphrase said and what Calvin teaches. Instead, you personally attack him as being a liar driven by hate. That is what is revealing and SAD...

 

[Skandelon]

Good question! I remember after a few years of being a Christian when I heard about Calvinism. I could not understand why someone would spend so much time studying something so absurd. Why not just believe the scripture? In fact, that Calvinism has survived so long among Christians is still a mystery to me.

Perhaps it's a pride issue. After all, if I am elected by God and others are not, it must mean that God sees a value in me that others don't possess. This goes along with the fact that so many Calvinists come across as arrogant and full of themselves at their ability to understand this supposed mystery they claim to have found in the bible. Why not just believe the Gospel that whosoever will humble themselves and come to Christ will be accepted by God because of His sacrifice on the cross.

To be fair, as a former Calvinist myself, I really don't believe my adherence to the doctrines were based in pride. In fact, I was quite humbled by the idea that God might have chosen a wretch like me. I don't believe Calvinists are lying about that.

As a Calvinist, I really believed I was supporting the gospel and the truth of scripture. Calvinism was the ONLY real answer I had for difficult passages such as Eph 1, John 6, and Romans 9. I wasn't aware of the more scholarly non-Calvinistic interpretations of these passages, so I accepted the Calvinistic perspective as truth without much question. Non-Calvinists in my life didn't offer any real answers to these difficult passages. The best they typically had was quoting John 3:16 over and over, so I had to believe what seemed to be the only viable interpretation to me at that time.

The pride came in when I would speak to people who appeared to be ignorant of my new found understanding of scripture. I think Piper explains that tendency pretty well here:

"I love the doctrines of grace with all my heart, and I think they are pride-shattering, humbling, and love-producing doctrines. But I think there is an attractiveness about them to some people, in large matter, because of their intellectual rigor. They are powerfully coherent doctrines, and certain kinds of minds are drawn to that. And those kinds of minds tend to be argumentative.

So the intellectual appeal of the system of Calvinism draws a certain kind of intellectual person, and that type of person doesn't tend to be the most warm, fuzzy, and tender. Therefore this type of person has a greater danger of being hostile, gruff, abrupt, insensitive or intellectualistic.

I'll just confess that. It's a sad and terrible thing that that's the case. Some of this type aren't even Christians, I think. You can embrace a system of theology and not even be born again."

- John Piper

 

[Jerome]

What you left out...was what the guy from china said about double predestination

The guy from China?

What guy from China?

What IN THE WORLD are you talking about?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Election is a puzzling subject because it is hard to understand why some people are predestined to destruction and others mercy.

I recently made that very statement, (as one example of whey I have issues with Calvinism) using slightly different words, and was told that Calvinism doesnt really say that...but here it is, straight from Calvin himself.

Calvinism clearly teaches that God is a "respecter of persons"..(I pick Bob, but not Stan, Betty but not Annie, etc).

And yet the scriptures clearly teach that every person ever born will recieve revelation they can respond to and be saved,(even if they have not heard the gosple in the ordinary way) and that God is NOT a resprecter of persons.