Calvinism presentation

I heard this Q&A between Phil Johnson and John MacArthur before. While John MacArthur's responses were both irenic and biblical, they are similar to other Q&A's I have heard at venues such as the Ligonier Conferences. I think much of the heat that is generated on this topic is due to the forum where it is most usually debated: Internet discussion boards. Forums like the Baptist Board have inherent pitfalls when it comes to constructive Q&A. We cannot hear the other person. We cannot look them in the eye and read their body language. We are too easily offended. Pride and ignorance are equally displayed. But even if we get past all of that, we are still left with the merits of the argument. Regardless of how the argument is presented, we must be convinced that scripture teaches or does not teach the Calvinistic view of soteriology.

 

That is always the temptation and the risk, is it not? We can go too far in trying to defend our own position. Sometimes scripture infers instead of stating plainly. Sometimes it does not even infer and we can inject human reasoning because we think it makes sense. We should always use caution in such cases. In regards to Calvinism, there are some things that are plain and self-evident based on the normative understanding of the text. There are other things that scripture does not state plainly and we have to infer based on the totality of scripture. I do not know if this really changes the substance of the debate. For instance, think of some of the more convinced non-Calvinists on this board. I am sure a few names come to mind. Do you think they will be swayed by a more self-deprecating and less dogmatic presentation of Calvinism without the core Calvinist conclusions being altered?

 

What I find, while I disagree on interpretations (3 points) I find typically Calvinism more Biblical of views I differ on. If I were called a Cavinist, at best I would be a 2 point Calvinist (Romans 3:11; John 10:28-29). On election, still a U, unmerited (as a condition) versus unconditional (which is understood to be unmerted).

 

I doubt it.

That's part of why I doubt it.

I agree with him on this subject.

To me, one either derives "TULIP" out of Scripture, or one is taught "TULIP" from Scripture.
In other words, it's either arrived at by personal study, or handed down traditionally.

Approaching it systematically ( similar to secular colleges ) does not fully address all of the questions and answers.
The only way for those questions to be answered, is from a complete understanding of God's word... which can only happen over time.

No.
From my perspective, there are two types of "Calvinists":

1) Those who are indoctrinated into it, or have grown up in it.
2) Those who understand TULIP from the Bible, completely apart from the teachings of men.

Put simply, I believe that the presentation of the doctrines could be better coming from many of today's teachers...but in the end, the only ones who will accept those doctrines are the ones who see them in Scripture for themselves, regardless of the tone of the presentation.

"Soft-soaping" it isn't going to work, because I believe that in the process, there begins to be a spirit of compromise...
But "battering one into believing it" doesn't work, either, because in the process, there can be personal offenses that happen ( I'm finding that out the more I interact with people on this board )., and that should be minimized

My approach, if the Lord should ever cause me to do such a thing, would be to simply teach the Scriptures and let that do the work.
That's how I learned it.

I wasn't taught "TULIP", I was taught Scripture both by preachers and through personal study, and began to see "TULIP" as a summary.

 

I am going to push back on this characterization somehow being the domain of Calvinists. I know a few soteriological Arminians on this board who have turned arrogance into an art form. Some Calvinists have done it too but the it seems like there is this idea that such behavior is only coming from one side. Thankfully, I no longer am able to read the diatribes of the worse offenders. However, I will grant you this: it is always best to seek peace and civility first.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

Brother, I would hope you would have been a Calvinist based on the biblical evidence, not the presentation.

I go back to my first post in this thread. Internet message boards make the type of presentation you long for a difficult proposition. Outside of message boards, I have seen presentations on Calvinistic soteriology in the type of format you would find pleasing. Your OP featured John MacArthur. There are other men who have made similar presentations. Men like John Piper, Tom Ascol, R.C. Sproul Sr., Steven Lawson, Voddie Baucham et. al. The kinder and gentler Calvinist does exist. I try hard to be more civil than I used to be earlier in my BB tenure. My success has a mixed record.