The conflicted Calvinist

[Skandelon]

Many here engage with what I like to call "a conflicted Calvinist." They are a conflicted group of people because their angst is really inconsistent with what they claim to believe. They are actively engaged in rebuking you for doing or believing something that you could not have willingly done or believed otherwise. In other words, they are actively rebuking God's ordained and preset will for your life, all the while believing that their own rebuke is likewise God's ordained and preset will. So, according to their circular deterministic worldview (where God is the only actual agent/actor/chooser in existence) they are carrying out God's predetermined will for them by rebuking you for holding to God's predetermined will for you...and you are carrying out God's predetermined will for you by rebuking them for holding to God's predetermined will for them. Confounding, I know. They ultimately have God rebuking God over and over again...

Sure they add in 2nd cause explanations (puppets/robots) to subtly invoke some since creaturely culpability, but it all amounts to the same merry-go-round of God causing every effect and every effect causing God's rebuke or reward thus blurring if not completely erasing the line between that which is good and evil.

 

[Herald]

I was simply overwhelmed by Skan's exhaustive list of examples. I applaud him for not using biased opinion as his main argument.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

The perplexed Arminian

Many here engage with what I like to call "a conflicted Calvinist." They are a conflicted group of people because their angst is really inconsistent with what they claim to believe. They are actively engaged in rebuking you for doing or believing something that you could not have willingly done or believed otherwise. In other words, they are actively rebuking God's ordained and preset will for your life, all the while believing that their own rebuke is likewise God's ordained and preset will. So, according to their circular deterministic worldview (where God is the only actual agent/actor/chooser in existence) they are carrying out God's predetermined will for them by rebuking you for holding to God's predetermined will for you...and you are carrying out God's predetermined will for you by rebuking them for holding to God's predetermined will for them. Confounding, I know. They ultimately have God rebuking God over and over again...

Sure they add in 2nd cause explanations (puppets/robots) to subtly invoke some since creaturely culpability, but it all amounts to the same merry-go-round of God causing every effect and every effect causing God's rebuke or reward thus blurring if not completely erasing the line between that which is good and evil.

Don't you think that's the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Iconoclast]

The conflicted calvinist....seems to be so called non cals...or those who claim I used to be a cal. They are still studying the issue saying-
There are many things I do agree with

I agree with 3 of the 5, or 4 of the 5 points

or they believe contradictory things as Luke posted a few weeks ago, but say both are true

or again, they say they disagree but say the exact same thing the cal teaching says...in their own words...

Skan.....God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass....even those who resist truth.

A right thinking Calvinist might react emotionally in the short term, but eventually when he has his or mind right will realize that God has ordained that both grow together until the harvest.That is why judgement begins at the house of God.

the fact that truth and error co-exist is not that they are in any way equal.

 

[Van]

Exhaustive determinism is not biblical, the Bible says things happen by chance. Thus God does not predestine what so ever comes to pass, instead He either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass.

Calvinism has no answer so those presenting truth are portrayed as pointed headed, i.e. dummies, and unworthy for discussion.

If the Calvinists actually believed their doctrine, they would not post because nothing posted will alter the future for anyone. Conflicted is not the word to describe the cognitive dissonance required by Calvinism.

 

[Iconoclast]

Don't you think that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Welcome to BB JB ,

First post and on the money:wavey::thumbs::applause::applause:

 

[Iconoclast]

Exhaustive determinism is not biblical, the Bible says things happen by chance. Thus God does not predestine what so ever comes to pass, instead He either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass.

Calvinism has no answer so those presenting truth are portrayed as pointed headed, i.e. dummies, and unworthy for discussion.

If the Calvinists actually believed their doctrine, they would not post because nothing posted will alter the future for anyone. Conflicted is not the word to describe the cognitive dissonance required by Calvinism.

To misunderstand and mis-apply the english phrase does not over throw bible truth which you consistently mis-charaterize.Your lack of biblical understanding does not equate to the Historic church being in error.:thumbs:

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Welcome to BB JB ,

First post and on the money:wavey::thumbs::applause::applause:

Thanks bro.

 

[quantumfaith]

{deleted inappropriate quote}

That was just ....well.....not nice.

 

[saturneptune]

That was just ....well.....not nice.

You are probably correct, but I took the premise of the thread as comical, come on the "Conflicted Calvinist" running in circles.

 

[convicted1]

I disagree to a certain extent with the OP. I believe that Calvinism is very consistent, within it's structure, I just don't agree with it. That being said, the only thing I think they're inconsistent with is the totality of their belief in God's sovereignity. If God is truly sovereign over every microorganism, movement, etc, then He's sovereign over our choices as well. Thus, whatever we did/will do, He actively caused us to sin. Or that's how I understand it.


But Calvinists are not conflicted, or confused. I don't agree with their belief system, but within in structure, it's very consistent.

 

[Herald]

I disagree to a certain extent with the OP. I believe that Calvinism is very consistent, within it's structure, I just don't agree with it. That being said, the only thing I think they're inconsistent with is the totality of their belief in God's sovereignity. If God is truly sovereign over every microorganism, movement, etc, then He's sovereign over our choices as well. Thus, whatever we did/will do, He actively caused us to sin. Or that's how I understand it.


But Calvinists are not conflicted, or confused. I don't agree with their belief system, but within in structure, it's very consistent.

This is not what Calvinists believe or teach. God allows sin, but does not cause it.

 

[Winman]

This is not what Calvinists believe or teach. God allows sin, but does not cause it.

Could something have happened another way? Could this fellow have chosen not to shoot up Newtown Elementary School?

If you say God allows sin, then the answer must be yes, because he would have allowed this sin not to occur as well.

But do you believe that? Or do you believe this incident must have taken place?

 

[Winman]

I disagree to a certain extent with the OP. I believe that Calvinism is very consistent, within it's structure, I just don't agree with it. That being said, the only thing I think they're inconsistent with is the totality of their belief in God's sovereignity. If God is truly sovereign over every microorganism, movement, etc, then He's sovereign over our choices as well. Thus, whatever we did/will do, He actively caused us to sin. Or that's how I understand it.

But Calvinists are not conflicted, or confused. I don't agree with their belief system, but within in structure, it's very consistent.

Calvinism is very consistent with itself, this is why many believe it true. But it is not consistent with scripture. I could show many scriptures that contradict Calvinism (and have), these are usually argued away.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Don't you think that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Well now...an actual Reformed Baptist! Welcome to the forum! . Your 'perplexed' label if I. May suggest is not accurate. Rather 'Fearful' hits the bullseye!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Calvinism is very consistent with itself, this is why many believe it true. But it is not consistent with scripture. I could show many scriptures that contradict Calvinism (and have), these are usually argued away.

Sure...if we were to all embrace semi pelagism

 

[Winman]

Sure...if we were to all embrace semi pelagism

Is Semi-Pelagianism inconsistent with scripture, or are you simply intimidated by the name?

 

[Herald]

Could something have happened another way? Could this fellow have chosen not to shoot up Newtown Elementary School?

If you say God allows sin, then the answer must be yes, because he would have allowed this sin not to occur as well.

But do you believe that? Or do you believe this incident must have taken place?

Look back at Pharaoh during the time of Moses. It can be argued that Pharaoh's crimes against the people of Israel were just as, if not more, heinous than the Newtown tragedy. But what of God's hand in all of that? God did not cause Pharaoh to persecute Israel, nor from killing all the firstborn of Israel. What God did was to remove His restraining hand and allow Pharaoh sway. But why? Well, we have the benefit of the record of history as contained in Exodus and Romans. Romans 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So, the Bible tell us the reason why God allowed Pharaoh to come to power and persecute Israel, "that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth."

So, what about the Newtown tragedy? We probably cannot offer an opinion on that right now, except to say that God allows all things to happen for His glory. What if the result of Newtown is that the certain people come to believe the Gospel? Imagine all the human interaction that has occurred and will occur because of that horrible shooting. People that would have never met have now met or will meet in the future. In glory we may learn of marvelous tales of how a person came to faith in Christ through a tragic event. Truly, Joseph spoke well when he said in Genesis 50:20, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."

 

[Winman]

Look back at Pharaoh during the time of Moses. It can be argued that Pharaoh's crimes against the people of Israel were just as, if not more, heinous than the Newtown tragedy. But what of God's hand in all of that? God did not cause Pharaoh to persecute Israel, nor from killing all the firstborn of Israel. What God did was to remove His restraining hand and allow Pharaoh sway. But why? Well, we have the benefit of the record of history as contained in Exodus and Romans. Romans 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So, the Bible tell us the reason why God allowed Pharaoh to come to power and persecute Israel, "that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth."

So, what about the Newtown tragedy? We probably cannot offer an opinion on that right now, except to say that God allows all things to happen for His glory. What if the result of Newtown is that the certain people come to believe the Gospel? Imagine all the human interaction that has occurred and will occur because of that horrible shooting. People that would have never met have now met or will meet in the future. In glory we may learn of marvelous tales of how a person came to faith in Christ through a tragic event. Truly, Joseph spoke well when he said in Genesis 50:20, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."

All that and you did not answer my question.

Could it have happened another way? Could this fellow who shot up Newtown Elementary School have changed his mind and decided not to shoot his mother and all these other persons?

It's a simple yes or no question.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Is Semi-Pelagianism inconsistent with scripture, or are you simply intimidated by the name?

The moment you walk away from Historical & Doctrinal faith is the day you loose me. Seriously, have you managed to find a church that teaches Semi- Pelagian doctrine? Im also no more intimidated by it as I would be say Roman Catholicism.