10 myths surrounding Calvinism

[thatbrian]

God deals with His creation via covenants, correct? What covenant does He have with the wicked?

Off the top of my head, he made one with Able. He also made one with Hagar.

 

[thatbrian]

To add an addendum to this post....

John 12:19 (YLT)
--"the Pharisees, therefore, said among themselves, `Ye see that ye do not gain anything, lo, the world did go after him."


Did the 'world', the kosmos, follow after Him, or was it those who were there surrounding Him.


"World" doesn't mean 'each and every person who ever lived', but the earth, the orb, the globe, as a whole entity....

I understand that world means many things. I'm on the Reformed side, so I've had to correct that for years.

 

[robustheologian]

To add an addendum to this post....

John 12:19 (YLT)
--"the Pharisees, therefore, said among themselves, `Ye see that ye do not gain anything, lo, the world did go after him."


Did the 'world', the kosmos, follow after Him, or was it those who were there surrounding Him.


"World" doesn't mean 'each and every person who ever lived', but the earth, the orb, the globe, as a whole entity....

:applause: This is one of my favorite verses when someone tells me the 'world' means every individual.

 

[Sapper Woody]

The OP was very well put together, and explained your opinion of Calvinism. I applaud your efforts. However, there is a problem with posting what you posted. Some/A few/Many Calvinists DO believe what you said they don't. SBM is obviously a bad example, but he believes a lot of that.

Once I read your OP, I thought about posting something similar for non-Cal myths. The problem is, some people actually believe them.

The problem with this entire argument is that everyone is somewhere in the middle, but both sides want to argue against the extremes. "Calvinists believe that you're not saved if you're not a Calvinists" or "Non-Cals hold to a works based Salvation".

IMO, Calvinism is incorrect. But, as long as it doesn't negatively impact your zeal for the Lord or your attempts at reaching the lost, it is not a big deal in my book. How God saves or why God saves is of secondary importance to getting people the Gospel.

What does anger me, though, is hearing both sides demonized so drastically. Being a non-Cal, I am sure I notice it more when a Calvinist does it, but I'm sure it's getting thrown right back from non-Cals. Don't tell me what I believe because of your misconceptions of non-Cals, and I won't attack your beliefs based on what SBM says. I actually stay out of the Cal/Arm debate for the most part, unless I am asking a question; I understand that my knowledge of Calvinism mostly comes from either a non-Cal source, or an extreme source.

Another issue coming from both sides is the sentence, "I used to believe like you did, until ...". This is degrading, demeaning, and is basically saying, "I'm smarter than you" or
"I have a greater Biblical understanding than you".

 

[kyredneck]

....Now, the 'world' in John 3:16 isn't everyone who has ever been born, but rather, the kosmos, the encompassing of the earth. God's loves is encompassing the world...the kosmos but not every human being that will have ever existed, imo....but with further study, I may change, but this is where I am at at this time...

In context, John 3:16 is talking about people, because of the "whosoever believes. . . have eternal life.

The end result of his love is eternal life to those who believe, not to the cosmos.

Having said that, I do understand that Christ's work accomplished more than just personal salvation.

What I mean by using the word 'kosmos' is that it means the globe, the earth, not necessarily 'each and every individual that ever lived'. God's loves goes worldwide, but only lodges upon His sheep...

Does this 'unmuddy' the H2O??

There is context to John's usage of "world." Considering Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus (who is a teacher of Israel) and the Jews of Jesus' day were VERY nationalistic (think, perhaps, racist) against all persons Gentile, it is very likely that Jesus is telling Nicodemus that the Son--the long-awaited Messiah--isn't just for Jews. Instead, the Messiah, Jewish though He may be, is for the entire world (ie. Jews AND Gentiles).

The Archangel

To add an addendum to this post....

John 12:19 (YLT)
--"the Pharisees, therefore, said among themselves, `Ye see that ye do not gain anything, lo, the world did go after him."


Did the 'world', the kosmos, follow after Him, or was it those who were there surrounding Him.


"World" doesn't mean 'each and every person who ever lived', but the earth, the orb, the globe, as a whole entity....

I understand that world means many things. I'm on the Reformed side, so I've had to correct that for years.

Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing. Jn 18:20

I will no more speak much with you, for the prince of the world cometh: and he hath nothing in me; Jn 14:30
Judas then, having received the band of soldiers, and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. Jn 18:3

I suggest to you that John always uses kosmos in reference to 'the arrangement', i.e., the religious establishment/system.

 

[robustheologian]

The OP was very well put together, and explained your opinion of Calvinism. I applaud your efforts. However, there is a problem with posting what you posted. Some/A few/Many Calvinists DO believe what you said they don't. SBM is obviously a bad example, but he believes a lot of that.

Once I read your OP, I thought about posting something similar for non-Cal myths. The problem is, some people actually believe them.

The problem with this entire argument is that everyone is somewhere in the middle, but both sides want to argue against the extremes. "Calvinists believe that you're not saved if you're not a Calvinists" or "Non-Cals hold to a works based Salvation".

IMO, Calvinism is incorrect. But, as long as it doesn't negatively impact your zeal for the Lord or your attempts at reaching the lost, it is not a big deal in my book. How God saves or why God saves is of secondary importance to getting people the Gospel.

What does anger me, though, is hearing both sides demonized so drastically. Being a non-Cal, I am sure I notice it more when a Calvinist does it, but I'm sure it's getting thrown right back from non-Cals. Don't tell me what I believe because of your misconceptions of non-Cals, and I won't attack your beliefs based on what SBM says. I actually stay out of the Cal/Arm debate for the most part, unless I am asking a question; I understand that my knowledge of Calvinism mostly comes from either a non-Cal source, or an extreme source.

Another issue coming from both sides is the sentence, "I used to believe like you did, until ...". This is degrading, demeaning, and is basically saying, "I'm smarter than you" or
"I have a greater Biblical understanding than you".

I definitely respect your opinion. I've found what you said about a lot of people being in the middle to be true. I was just offering what is classical Reformed/Calvinist doctrine on soteriology. It's hard to dialogue on the differences between between Arminianism and Calvinism when the Calvinist camp is so divided. There's 5-pointers, 4-pointers, those hyper-Calvinists, and I've even come across a lot of 3-point Calvinists.

I would be interested in common myths about Arminians.

 

[kyredneck]

...oh those ol' nasty hyper-Cals; don'tcha just hate em?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I definitely respect your opinion. I've found what you said about a lot of people being in the middle to be true. I was just offering what is classical Reformed/Calvinist doctrine on soteriology. It's hard to dialogue on the differences between between Arminianism and Calvinism when the Calvinist camp is so divided. There's 5-pointers, 4-pointers, those hyper-Calvinists, and I've even come across a lot of 3-point Calvinists.

I would be interested in common myths about Arminians.

First off....there is no 3 & 4 part Calvinists....either you believe the entire 5 points or you don't.

Next....what do you mean by Hyper Calvinists? Do you mean ....naa, better yet, why don't you define it in your understanding.

Thanks

 

[steaver]

I definitely respect your opinion. I've found what you said about a lot of people being in the middle to be true. I was just offering what is classical Reformed/Calvinist doctrine on soteriology. It's hard to dialogue on the differences between between Arminianism and Calvinism when the Calvinist camp is so divided. There's 5-pointers, 4-pointers, those hyper-Calvinists, and I've even come across a lot of 3-point Calvinists.

I would be interested in common myths about Arminians.

You have pinpointed the problem to your own OP. It is not the non Cals who divide the Calvinist, your camp is all over the place on these issues. Most of the objections non- Cals have to Calvinism is the camp's own infighting. I have been told many times that Calvinist agree on 98% of the issues. Hey! News flash! You guys do not agree on the VERY INPORTANT issues stemming from Calvinism. I listed these in other threads...

(1) God hates the non elect

(2) TULIP is The Gospel

(3) No belief in TULIP = No Sheep

(4) One becomes a Calvinist the same way one becomes a Christian - Divine Enablement

You know what you guys need to do? You need to start disciplining your own camp. What I see is atta boys and high fives to people who post such rhetoric.

 

[steaver]

First off....there is no 3 & 4 part Calvinists....either you believe the entire 5 points or you don't.

Next....what do you mean by Hyper Calvinists? Do you mean ....naa, better yet, why don't you define it in your understanding.

Thanks

I agree! :thumbsup: I have been called a 1 pointer - good grief! Icon declares ALL Christians are Calvinist!

Yeah, I would like to know what hyper means as well, because I see Calvinist call other Calvinist Hyper when they are posting much of the same as the one they are labeling a Hyper.

 

[JamesL]

First off....there is no 3 & 4 part Calvinists....either you believe the entire 5 points or you don't.

Exactly right.

Countless theologians have noted that all 5 points stand or fall together. Remove 1 point and the whole thing falls apart

Next....what do you mean by Hyper Calvinists?....

Thanks

I'm a HYPO-Calvinist

But seriously, in jest, a HyperCalvinist is someone who holds all 5 points without any consideration for the opposing position or the scriptures which seem to support it. However, this issue of Hyper revolves almost exclusively around Predestination

Example - God predestined to wrath or salvation. Period. Not only does man have no ability, but also has no responsibility. Don't care what scriptures might indicate responsibility,ability, etc. For that matter, God chose and predestined every thought and action of every man

And if you're Hyper on that issue, you'll be Hyper on the remaining 4 points.

 

[PreachTony]

First off....there is no 3 & 4 part Calvinists....either you believe the entire 5 points or you don't.

Next....what do you mean by Hyper Calvinists? Do you mean ....naa, better yet, why don't you define it in your understanding.

Are you sure? Then why do so many Cals refer to themselves as "5-Point Calvinists?" If you must believe all five or none at all, then there is no rationale behind tagging your belief system with a qualifying number.

I could point to a couple people on this forum who are, for lack of a better term, "Hyper-Calvinists." One in particular goes to great lengths to stress eternal justification, stating that people are born saved or born lost and they never can escape those classifications. :BangHead: He also believes God originated sin in order to glorify Himself. That's pretty "hyper-" to me.

 

[kyredneck]

Quote Tom Butler (I think):

"Everyone to the right of me is hyper".

 

[JamesL]

Are you sure? Then why do so many Cals refer to themselves as "5-Point Calvinists?" If you must believe all five or none at all, then there is no rationale behind tagging your belief system with a qualifying number.

The reason is that most people are completely ignorant of church history, the development of doctrine, and doctrinal variances through all of church history.

Such ignorant people think there are only 4 doctrinal camps - Roman Catholic, Calvinist, Arminian, and Heretic.

The self-labeling of Calvinist or Arminian usually hangs on 1 of 2 points in the raging debate - either Predestination or Eternal Security.

Those who label themselves as 4-point do so on the grounds of Predestination. Their only disagreement is on the issue of Limited Atonement

A supposed 3-pointer labels himself as such on the grounds of Eternal Security. He finds comfort in the doctrine that he cannot lose his salvation.his disagreements are concerning Predestination and Limited Atonement

 

[steaver]

Are you sure? Then why do so many Cals refer to themselves as "5-Point Calvinists?" If you must believe all five or none at all, then there is no rationale behind tagging your belief system with a qualifying number.

I could point to a couple people on this forum who are, for lack of a better term, "Hyper-Calvinists." One in particular goes to great lengths to stress eternal justification, stating that people are born saved or born lost and they never can escape those classifications. :BangHead: He also believes God originated sin in order to glorify Himself. That's pretty "hyper-" to me.

I think it is sad, AND AGAINST THE ADMONITION OF SCRIPTURE, to label oneself or another with anything other than Christian.

1Co1:10-13..."Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"

Was John Calvin crucified for you? Was Jacob Arminius crucified for you?

If these two men are in heaven I would suggest they are APALLED at their names being used as labels which divide the flock.

1Co1:29-31..."That no flesh should glory in his presence.

But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. "

I keep on hearing from Calvinist on here that Calvinism was not created by John Calvin. OK, Then DROP the label!!!!!!!!! Let John Calvin rest in peace!!!

 

[Revmitchell]

I think it is sad, AND AGAISNT THE ADMONITION OF SCRIPTURE, to label oneself or another with anything other than Christian.



Was John Calvin crucified for you? Was Jacob Arminius crucified for you?

If these two men are in heaven I would suggest they are APALLED at their names being used as labels which divide the flock.



I keep on hearing from Calvinist on here that Calvinism was not created by John Calvin. OK, Then DROP the label!!!!!!!!! Let John Calvin rest in peace!!!

I agree :thumbs:

 

[robustheologian]

1. I think Calvinists should drop the label since John Calvinists himself wouldn't be classified as a Calvinist. But I understand that the label is recognizable and so will probably stick.

2. A hyper-Calvinist is one who is a supralapsarian and believes on active reprobation.

3. The whole doctrine does stand and fall on all five points. However...

4. The whole point system is insufficient. A theology should be more systematic than 5 counter points that only address soteriology. Which is why we have Calvinists with views such as "a God that hates all except the elect" because there is not a full system of doctrine that addresses issues such as God's character.

5. I think it is foolish to confine the gospel to 5 points.

 

[robustheologian]

I could point to a couple people on this forum who are, for lack of a better term, "Hyper-Calvinists." One in particular goes to great lengths to stress eternal justification, stating that people are born saved or born lost and they never can escape those classifications.

2 Tim. 2:10, Acts 13:48, and Rom. 16:7 defeats that argument about being born saved.

 

[thatbrian]

I think it is sad, AND AGAINST THE ADMONITION OF SCRIPTURE, to label oneself or another with anything other than Christian.



Was John Calvin crucified for you? Was Jacob Arminius crucified for you?

If these two men are in heaven I would suggest they are APALLED at their names being used as labels which divide the flock.



I keep on hearing from Calvinist on here that Calvinism was not created by John Calvin. OK, Then DROP the label!!!!!!!!! Let John Calvin rest in peace!!!

Steve, No reasonable Calvinist follows Calvin. It's just shorthand for what we believe. we don't follow him. We follow Christ.

Also, when you speak of dividing the sheep, do you want to end the division by joining me??? I didn't think so. You want an end to division by me capitulating to your view, not the other way around.

I hate division as much as anyone, but doctrine divides, and it should at some level; however, that bar should be set very low.

Lets continue rational, calm dialog on these matters, and at least we will understand each other better.

 

[Reformed]

I'm on your side, and this is a nice gesture, but it won't help around here. I've seen these things explained and then promptly ignored in 5 minutes tim.

I have seen the number of total replies in this thread but I am working my way through them one by one. I agree with Brian 100%. I can almost guess which rabid anti-Calvinists will chime in. Let me see if I am right.