Some flaws to Calvinism.. Reformed we need to get it together!

[evangelist6589]

The biggest is being called Calvinism when it should be called Reformed Theology. You know why? Because those that disagree say we are basing a system of theology on a dead person whom lived in the 16th century when in reality we are relying on the Bible. A book I am reading is explaining the history and defending the five points with scripture. Arminian have a great issue with us because of this and they are correct. I do not like being called Calvinist, I like being called Reformed.

Another flaw is the combative non graceful manner that some speak and treat those that disagree. I had a chat with a strong Calvinist a few months back and he was very condemning towards my wife and even hinted that she was a false convert. She is not Reformed but she loves the Lord. This man did not even know my wife nor her testimony.

Also once I went to see a popular preacher in Atlanta, GA and some hard calvinists were out open air preaching and passing out flyers condemning a whole bunch of non Reformed leaders some of which were.

David Jeremiah
Charles Stanley
Erwin Lutzer
Greg Laurie
Charles Swindoll
Chip Ingram
Charles Colson
Woodrow Crow
Randy Alcorn

Yes they had billboards and passed out flyers condemning these men!!! Well they did not mention Luzter, but when I asked them about him they had some bad things to say about him as well, because he does not teach Lordship salvation and uses the sinners prayer.

Fellow Reformed we need to get it together! Arminian do have a point.

 

[JonC]

You are right that “Calvinism” is not historical Calvinism. But I don’t think that the “biggest” problem with Calvinism (or Reformed Theology) is being called “Calvinism.” For the most part, people understand that Calvinists have rejected much of Reformed thought. The biggest problem of Calvinism, IMHO, is a lack of understanding. Calvinists tend to be unable to understand how much their theology is based on human reasoning…this leads to a straight out hostility to non-Reformed theology based on the claim that non-Calvinistic thought is unbiblical (which is utter nonsense). Calvinists cannot (and I am “broad brushing) understand that there is much to Reformed theology that relies on human understanding and interpretation. Their theology is correct only if their understand and interpretation is correct (systematically). But there are also non-Calvinists who purpose alternate views which are just as Scripturally correct.

 

[BobRyan]

The biggest is being called Calvinism when it should be called Reformed Theology. You know why? Because those that disagree say we are basing a system of theology on a dead person whom lived in the 16th century when in reality we are relying on the Bible. A book I am reading is explaining the history and defending the five points with scripture. Arminian have a great issue with us because of this and they are correct.

Well if it helps any - I am not the sort of Arminian who complains about Calvinists "following a dead person" because I almost never get an answer from Calvinists that is of the form "Well I believe such-and-such because Calvin said...".

So "in their actions" they have not been resorting to Calvin to make their case with me. (though they may be doing this with one another when they debate "who holds to the better more orthodox Calvinism" - granted.)


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Rippon]

For the most part, people understand that Calvinists have rejected much of Reformed thought.

Howso?

there are also non-Calvinists who purpose alternate views which are just as Scripturally correct.

You don't make any sense here Jon. If two "systems" are at odds with one another then they both can't be "just as scripturally correct" now can they?

 

[Winman]

You are right that “Calvinism” is not historical Calvinism. But I don’t think that the “biggest” problem with Calvinism (or Reformed Theology) is being called “Calvinism.” For the most part, people understand that Calvinists have rejected much of Reformed thought. The biggest problem of Calvinism, IMHO, is a lack of understanding. Calvinists tend to be unable to understand how much their theology is based on human reasoning…this leads to a straight out hostility to non-Reformed theology based on the claim that non-Calvinistic thought is unbiblical (which is utter nonsense). Calvinists cannot (and I am “broad brushing) understand that there is much to Reformed theology that relies on human understanding and interpretation. Their theology is correct only if their understand and interpretation is correct (systematically). But there are also non-Calvinists who purpose alternate views which are just as Scripturally correct.

Calvinism is attractive because it is intellectually complex and very consistent within itself. If the T is correct, therefore the U, L, I, and P must be correct.

Calvinism appeals to those who like to believe themselves intellectuals. They think they alone are privy to those great discoveries beyond the grasp of common men. It is also very satisfying to believe they are the "elect", those precious persons God has chosen. They will never outwardly say this, but it is nearly impossible not to feel a little pride when you believe you are one of the few elect.

The problem with Calvinism is that is is not consistent with scripture. Calvinism is inconsistent with Jesus crying over Jerusalem, lamenting how often he would have gathered them under his wings as a hen gathers her chicks, but they would not. Calvinism cannot deal with this as it utterly refutes their whole system, so they tend to simply ignore it.

Folks should quit trying to put the word of God in a box, in a system. It does't work like that. Read the scriptures for what they say, and believe what they say.

 

[JonC]

Howso?

Most people, in my limited experience anyway, understand that Calvinism rejects much of the theology of John Calvin and the Reformers. Perhaps this isn’t true outside of Baptist circles, but I really don’t know. When we speak of Calvinism we are not typically talking about a state-Church, infant-baptism, etc, but we are typically speaking of those doctrines that were defined when James Arminius sought to reform Calvinism (TULIP being the response).

You don't make any sense here Jon. If two "systems" are at odds with one another then they both can't be "just as scripturally correct" now can they?

That is my point. Calvinism is not without Calvinistic reasoning. While I hold to a Calvinistic soteriology, there are some who reject Calvinism. They do not, however, reject the scriptures that affirm Calvinism, but they do reject the conclusions made by Calvinists. If it were merely a matter of Scripture, apart from interpretation and human understanding, then this would not be a debate today. Non-Calvinists do not merely dismiss Scripture, even though many Calvinists would characterize them that way. I agree that both cannot be correct, but it is no merely a rejection of Scripture that forms the non-Calvinistic view. Non-Calvinists affirm the same Scripture but come to different conclusions. It is a disgrace that some Calvinists cannot acknowledge this fact.

 

[Winman]

Non-Calvinists affirm the same Scripture but come to different conclusions.

Exactly. Non Cals interpret the same scripture differently from Calvinists.

The trouble is, we cannot both be correct. Either we are both wrong and another interpretation is the truth, or one of us is correct and the other in error. But we cannot hold contrasting views and both be correct, that is logically impossible.

 

[Rippon]

Exactly. Non Cals interpret the same scripture differently from Calvinists.

The trouble is, we cannot both be correct. Either we are both wrong and another interpretation is the truth, or one of us is correct and the other in error. But we cannot hold contrasting views and both be correct, that is logically impossible.

This is exceedingly rare! I agree with you here Winman.

 

[JonC]

Calvinism is attractive because it is intellectually complex and very consistent within itself. If the T is correct, therefore the U, L, I, and P must be correct.

Calvinism appeals to those who like to believe themselves intellectuals. They think they alone are privy to those great discoveries beyond the grasp of common men. It is also very satisfying to believe they are the "elect", those precious persons God has chosen. They will never outwardly say this, but it is nearly impossible not to feel a little pride when you believe you are one of the few elect.

The problem with Calvinism is that is is not consistent with scripture. Calvinism is inconsistent with Jesus crying over Jerusalem, lamenting how often he would have gathered them under his wings as a hen gathers her chicks, but they would not. Calvinism cannot deal with this as it utterly refutes their whole system, so they tend to simply ignore it.

Folks should quit trying to put the word of God in a box, in a system. It does't work like that. Read the scriptures for what they say, and believe what they say.

I disagree that Calvinism is not consistent with Scripture, but I do agree that some Calvinists have made it so. I do agree with you that some Calvinists have chosen to completely ignore, or at least down grade, Scripture to make it conform to their rationale. I do not think that I actually disagree with John Calvin on his soteriological doctrines, but I often find myself at odds with “Calvinists” who place the DoG over Scripture.

 

[padredurand]

infant-baptism

Shhh! You're not supposed to let that particular cat out of the sack. :flower:

 

[preacher4truth]

You are right that “Calvinism” is not historical Calvinism.

'So', 'and...'?

But I don’t think that the “biggest” problem with Calvinism (or Reformed Theology) is being called “Calvinism.” For the most part, people understand that Calvinists have rejected much of Reformed thought.

Citations please or I'd gather you're blowing smoke. Again.

The biggest problem of Calvinism, IMHO, is a lack of understanding.

Citations please. Elaborate. Anyone can make the statements you've made. It's utterly ridiculous and totally subjective and filled with ignorance.

[Calvinists tend to be unable to understand how much their theology is based on human reasoning…this leads to a straight out hostility to non-Reformed theology based on the claim that non-Calvinistic thought is unbiblical (which is utter nonsense).

I'd say the utter nonsense resides in your false unfounded accusations of which you use to make your baseless conclusions. :wavey:

Calvinists cannot (and I am “broad brushing)

Yes, you broad brush often then make pretense to be Calvinist yourself. :love2:

understand that there is much to Reformed theology that relies on human understanding and interpretation.

Citations please. It isn't difficult to see that you aren't Calvinist, yet claim to be, and, that you slam Calvinism as being purely subjective. You've been found out long ago. :wavey:

Their theology is correct only if their understand and interpretation is correct (systematically). But there are also non-Calvinists who purpose alternate views which are just as Scripturally correct.

Citations please. You make dogmatic assertions based on you and nothing else. Prove your accusations, they are merely and purely subjective to you and unfounded and carry no weight. It's not hard to see that you're no Calvinist.

 

[JonC]

Exactly. Non Cals interpret the same scripture differently from Calvinists.

The trouble is, we cannot both be correct. Either we are both wrong and another interpretation is the truth, or one of us is correct and the other in error. But we cannot hold contrasting views and both be correct, that is logically impossible.

Probability leans towards both being wrong to some extent.

 

[Rippon]

Most people, in my limited experience anyway, understand that Calvinism rejects much of the theology of John Calvin and the Reformers.

Most people are uninformed.

When we speak of Calvinism we are not typically talking about a state-Church, infant-baptism, etc, but we are typically speaking of those doctrines that were defined when James Arminius sought to reform Calvinism (TULIP being the response).

Not TULIP --the Canons of Dort.

When we speak of Calvinism we refer to soteriology that was biblically-based and largely came to prominence in the 16th century with John Calvin and other Reformers.

 

[JonC]

'So', 'and...'?

So and NOTHING. The op said that Calvinism should be called Reformed because those that “disagree say we are basing a system of theology on a dead person whom lived in the 16th century.” We also disagree with this dead person in terms of an entire theological system….so and…well, the OP is right. Calvinism is not historical Calvinism and I agree that Calvinists may want to distance themselves from the historical Calvinistic system. I guess a just answer to you could be “are you stupid or something?”, but I realize you probably read the OP and are just in one of your moods.

Citations please or I'd gather you're blowing smoke. Again.
Citations please. Elaborate. Anyone can make the statements you've made. It's utterly ridiculous and totally subjective and filled with ignorance.
Citations please.
Citations please.

I am sorry if you were deprived the education that would have revealed to you that an opinion is by definition subjective. But no, I will not offer citations (if these were statements of others I would have provided citations...but as stated they are my opinion). I will also not elaborate at this point because I do not see any reason for expounding on what I have written at this time. Become literate and deal with it. I own my conclusion so you are free to dispute it with me. No citations. The difference between you and I is that I do not whine when you express your opinion (as in your opinionated post to which I am replying) where you whine if I express mine. Grow up, be a man, and stand your own ground - you don't have to lean on some one else to state an opinion and you certainly should have the courage to face the opinions of others.

Bottom line is that I have not claimed to be a Calvinist. The term is utterly meaningless here (beyond accepting the depravity of man, unconditional election, limited redemption , irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints - which you clearly imply does not constitute "Calvinism" and by doing so you highlight my point of the meaningless of the term). Just because I accept TULIP does not mean that I choose that acronym as an identity for my faith. You are offensively wrong here, brother. I identify myself as Christian.

 

[Winman]

I disagree that Calvinism is not consistent with Scripture, but I do agree that some Calvinists have made it so. I do agree with you that some Calvinists have chosen to completely ignore, or at least down grade, Scripture to make it conform to their rationale. I do not think that I actually disagree with John Calvin on his soteriological doctrines, but I often find myself at odds with “Calvinists” who place the DoG over Scripture.

Well, I believe Calvinism is very inconsistent with scripture. Almost daily I show where Calvinism teaches the EXACT OPPOSITE of scripture.

For instance, right now on another thread I showed how Ephesians 2:1 actually refutes Calvinism if a person happens to have an elementary knowledge of scripture outside Calvinistic proof texts.

 

[JonC]

Most people are uninformed.

Not TULIP --the Canons of Dort.

When we speak of Calvinism we refer to soteriology that was biblically-based and largely came to prominence in the 16th century with John Calvin and other Reformers.

Yet the Cannons of Dort were merely a response, not a concrete theological system. Perhaps I am also misinformed, but I have been told that here on the BB "Calvinism" does not mean historical Calvinism as an entire system (i.e., the religion of the Reformers). So I have been taking it to mean soteriology alone - and if I am wrong please correct me.

 

[Rippon]

Yet the Cannons of Dort were merely a response, not a concrete theological system.

True.

I have been told that here on the BB "Calvinism" does not mean historical Calvinism as an entire system (i.e., the religion of the Reformers). So I have been taking it to mean soteriology alone - and if I am wrong please correct me.

You just quoted me but didn't notice that I said the same thing! Please read more carefully.

 

[JonC]

Well, I believe Calvinism is very inconsistent with scripture. Almost daily I show where Calvinism teaches the EXACT OPPOSITE of scripture.

For instance, right now on another thread I showed how Ephesians 2:1 actually refutes Calvinism if a person happens to have an elementary knowledge of scripture outside Calvinistic proof texts.

We will always have these disagreements. I see Ephesians 2:1 as affirming those doctrines, but I understand (maybe not here, but I will read the thread if it is on the BB) that there are other interpretations. My point is that you do not dismiss Scripture to arrive at your position any more than I dismiss Scripture to arrive at mine. We cannot simply combat each others view by saying “Scripture says” because we both know what Scripture says. We understand and interpret Scripture differently. I think that you are wrong, you think me wrong - certainly at least one of us is wrong …but it is a minor issue because of what we have right.

 

[JonC]

You just quoted me but didn't notice that I said the same thing! Please read more carefully.

It's my first sign of old age. Sorry. :tear:

 

[InTheLight]

Another flaw is the combative non graceful manner that some speak and treat those that disagree. I had a chat with a strong Calvinist a few months back and he was very condemning towards my wife and even hinted that she was a false convert. She is not Reformed but she loves the Lord. This man did not even know my wife nor her testimony.

This is especially despicable, IMO. Calvinists go around claiming most Christians, evangelicals, self-described "born again" people are false converts. The irony is that most Calvinists cannot or will not say for certain if they are of the elect, yet they are certain that others are not.

Also once I went to see a popular preacher in Atlanta, GA and some hard calvinists were out open air preaching and passing out flyers condemning a whole bunch of non Reformed leaders some of which were.

David Jeremiah
Charles Stanley
Erwin Lutzer
Greg Laurie
Charles Swindoll
Chip Ingram
Charles Colson
Woodrow Crow
Randy Alcorn

Yes they had billboards and passed out flyers condemning these men!!!

Another irony. Calvinists claim God is sovereign and all powerful yet reject that He could use these preachers to bring the gospel to the lost.