Featured Ex-Calvinism (Why I am no longer a Calvinist)

You have not supported your claim - you just made one.

I claim that you do not understand Calvinism because you reject election based solely on the sovereign will of God. This is enough to separate you from Calvinism (just ax it was enough to separate Arminianism from Calvinism).

You make an unfounded claim. I have submitted the reason over doctrine supporting my claim. Do you understand the difference?

 

Then you have my apology. I misunderstood you to object to my statement that Calvinism holds election to be based solely on the sovereign will of God.

This is why it is best to discuss things rather than being hostile to one another. I must have misread your post.

But yes, I agree with you that Calvinism views election as based on the will of God.

 

Again - the reason I left Calvinism is because I rejected the judicial philosophy Calvinism presupposes. This does not mean I misunderstand Calvinism. It means that I do not agree with the philosophy concerning justice upon which Calvinism is indebted.

 

When I was in the process of studying this concern I asked other Calvinists to justify the presupposed philosophical view of justice. Several became defensive, a few became insulting, but no one was able to offer a reason except it is "common understanding".

That is one reason I bring it up every now and then - just to see of anyone has a biblical defense for Calvinism's presuppositions. The way I see it, it does not matter how many "biblical" ideas the theology contains if the philosophy governing the process is wrong.

I think it reasonable to test the foundation before building as construction on a poor foundation yields a weak building regardless of the integrity of the building itself.

My experience with @Iconoclast is he will just make blind accusations against anyone who opposes his views, defending his position as divine understanding. I would not take that kind of "argument" personally, nor would I expect a biblical explanation for his presuppositions. He cannot prove it via Scripture so all you can look for is copy and paste commentaries and verses that do not apply accompanied with a bunch of accusations and insults. I believe he has an agenda to demean anyone who disagrees with him at any cost.

 

I mean Calvinism (which is a product of Systematic theology). What I reject of Calvinism is the part that involves reasoning out Scripture. I disagree with a philosophical principle applied to Scripture (how God's justice works).

 

Making sure we stay on topic:

The reason I left Calvinism was I rejected the judicial philosophy upon which it is built. This is probably why so much of what I believe seems closely aligned with Calvinism. What I reject of Calvinism is not something that is in the Bible but that is presupposed.

I understand
@George Antonios to have departed from Calvinism as he views Scripture to be basing election on Christ rather than solely on the will of the Father. If I understand correctly, the Son is God's Elect (God's chosen Righteous One) and those in Christ are the elect. This contrasts to Calvinism's view that the Father elects and gives to the Son the sheep He chooses. In the end, both view the elect as those who are in Christ, but the process is different.

@George Antonios , please correct me if I have misunderstood or misstated your view. I am trying to get this train back on track.

 

To explore the reason I left Calvinism it was because I came to reject the idea that Divine Justice was akin to the humanistic legal system practiced in the 15th to 16th century. Calvinism holds the judicial philosophy called “retributive justice”, not that this is retribution but that sins must be punished either as forgiveness or before forgiveness can be rendered.

In opposition to this idea we have the Hebrew idea of grace (cities of refuge, for example, demonstrate this principle). The Law demanded punishment. If the person took shelter in the city they escaped punishment. This was not unjust because it was prescribed by God (they remained justly unpunished not because of their lack of guilt but because of the nature of the city).

More importantly, however, was that I found in Calvinism no argument that would convince me otherwise. I am, of course, still open to exploring this topic but it is useless to discuss other topics built on this one because the source of my disagreement is such a basic presupposition.

It is not that I reject penal substitution as it has been pointed out that my view falls within the doctrine. But I do reject the idea that sins must be punished as reconciliation/ forgiveness or before reconciliation/ forgiveness can take place.

I hope that clarifies and helps out not only why I am no longer a Calvinist but what it would take for me to change my mind about the theology.

 

I believe it is wrong.

 

I didn't for the most of my life.

We know God will punish the wicked. But I started wondering why God had to punish sin in order to justly forgive the sinner. What if God could instead re-create the sinner (make him a new creation) and this in Christ (like another Adam)?

Also, it does not really make sense that God would punish Christ for our sins and this be considered just. Why assume divine justice has such demands?

 

I did as well before I was a Calvinist, so that makes sense to me. It is an assumption shared by most evangelistic denominations (I am SBC and most hold the ideas as well).

I can say if I did not hold that view then I probably would never have been a Calvinist.