Featured A question for my fellow Calvinists

I'll tell you what the the results of being associated with John Calvin are...
His teaching of a God that is not all-loving, and actually hates sinners outside the ones He has chosen to be His children.
It's the doctrinal teachings to those outside of it that are so offensive to many.

Then the argument gets made that "it must be false... look at what Calvin did to Servetus."
Then there's the argument, " it must be false...look at what Wesley did to Toplady", or " look at what the Roman Catholic Church did to those who disagreed with them over the centuries."
Guilt by association gets used on all sides, I've seen.

I've even used that sort of argument tactic, to my shame.

With that said, I don't think there's going to be anything I can do about the label...I'll have to live with it.
I'll stand for what I see in Scripture and deal with the flak, like Rolfe Barnard and others have, even if I get little to no fellowship with other professing Christians.
It's worth it to me not to trade unity in favor of truth.

Speaking of which:

I suppose what I remember as being the most shocking, in the beginning, was seeing election for myself in Scripture back in '03, and then realizing that I was surrounded by people who didn't see it, including my 75 year old pastor.
When I sat down with him in his office in '07 and we read through Romans 9, I realized I wasn't getting anywhere when he told me, "keep reading Dave...keep reading"...
As if I would somehow go back to looking at it the way he understood it.

To answer the OP further:

1) I've already shared most of my objections to the term here, and undoubtedly in other threads.

2) I suppose that I have an issue with Baptists who hold to the traditional view of it, while not necessarily understanding the Scriptures that the "Doctrines of Grace" are derived from.
In other words, I see that many Baptists who hold to the TULIP are getting indoctrinated into them from their pastors, handing things down by tradition.
But they never really understand Scripture much beyond that.
To me, anyone who blindly follows teachings without checking everything out thoroughly from Scripture, is an "-ist" of one sort or another ( except perhaps a biblicist ).

There are Calvinists and then there are "Calvinists".

One buys into it because that's all they were ever taught or known, while the other gets pinned with the label because they agree with the TULIP and have come from far to the other "side" of it, and are convinced strictly through their reading alone.
it's kind of like the difference between a well-informed voter, and someone who sees the glitzy adds, and things, " I'll vote for that!"

3) Same as in the other thread(s) and in my prior posts:
It won't stick, no matter how much we may want to change things.

 

I fully agree we never compromise truth for the sake of unity.
Where I agree and disagree is on the ignorance claim. It would probably be accurate to say that most non Cals are to varying degrees mostly ignorant about Calvinism. Some are not, but we simply do not agree with you. Another problem is that the low and general Calvinists have as of late been the drivers of defining to the masses what Calvinism is. Their view of the doctrines of grace contains as many inconsistencies in doctrine as the positions they rail against.

 

Then you take MacArthur for example. He is quite critical of low and general Calvinists.

 

I don't have an objection to the term per se, but I don't prefer to identify as a Calvinist explicitly. I don't thing we should find our identity in a man, especially since he did not initiate the doctrines. We identify as Bible Believing Christians. So rather than Calvinist, I am Biblical.

No.

Biblical

 

You might need to come to the realization that the term Calvinist is way too broad to define your precise position.
I am an American. I am a citizen of the USA. I am a Georgian.

 

I think what @Reynolds is trying to convey is not all TULIPS look alike....

 

In my case it was ignorance, for over 25 years.
In many I see "out there", it's not ignorance of the doctrines or even the Scriptures that they are derived from, but a genuine belief that those Scriptures do not mean what the "Calvinist" claims that they mean.

In other words, some "see it", while others don't.
I believe that it depends on what vantage point one is approaching it from.

From the Baptist perspective, I would have to agree, but ( and this may seem strange ) there are two differing "Baptist" perspectives, as I see it, that have emerged over the past 200 years or so.

From the perspective of adopted "Reformed Theology", handed down from the "Reformers" like Calvin and Knox, Bucer and Beza and that now makes up the doctrinal teachings of the Presbyterian churches and Dutch Reformed churches ( think "Reformed Churches in America" and most Presbyterians ), I would have to disagree.
To me, there is a vast difference between someone who looks at Scripture for themselves and sees election, predestination, "calling" and so forth... and someone who studies it in seminary and uses terms like "supralapsarianism", "compatibilism", "desirative versus decretive" and such.

The latter is the result of centuries of theologians who have come up with terms that are used to convey a concept that they feel best describes something that they see in God's word.
The former simply skips the "mind-numbing scientific terms" and brings it back down to the level of the believer...who studies their Bible, but doesn't want to get sucked in to what is going on in the institutions of men ( can you tell I don't have any use for "bible colleges" because of the nature of what I see in 1 John 2:20-27, among other places? ).

Complicated versus Uncomplicated.

I do, and I've seen it many times.

They hold to it because that is all they've ever known...they grew up in it or were converted in it, but never dealt with the Scriptures outside of it.
For example, they've been taught what 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 says, but when 1 Timothy 2:4 comes along, they simply avoid it.
They've been taught what Matthew 1:21 and John 10:11 state, but simply avoid what John 1:29 and 1 John 2:2 say.

I've seen and experienced the reverse in "Traditionalist" Baptist churches...where they talk about "whosoever will", but when Acts of the Apostles 13:48 and Romans 3:10-18 ( or "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" ) comes up, they simply avoid it or try to explain it away as meaning something other than what it says.

The "pew sitter" is left confused, because while their pastors are claiming to preach the entire counsel of God's word, in practice, they aren't.
That's one reason I left the visible churches....simply "shunting the Scriptures aside" and refusing to deal with what they state, at face value, doesn't cut it, from my perspective.


So...
Some people hold to "Calvinism" out of tradition, while others hold to it because they genuinely see it...all of it, for themselves.

 

For sure. The hardest thing for me is to try to remain silent when some non-Calvinist mis-explains what Calvinists believe.

On THIS site, I prefer Particular Baptist simply because that is the historic Baptist term for a "monergistic/Reformed" baptist. On more general Christian sites, I use "Calvinist" because few would be familiar with a "Particular Baptist". The flaw in adopting the term "Reformed" is that it carries a lot more baggage than just soteriology.

 

Such as Infant Baptism and the whole of Covenant Theology?