10 myths surrounding Calvinism

[Reformed]

I wish that it weren't so, because proper debate among Christians can be helpful in coming to a better understanding of God and self.

Agreed. But what passes for debate in this forum would be scoffed at by those who know what debate really is. The only way debate works is when there are agreed on rules and a moderator to make sure those rules are followed. You see this when James White debates Calvinism vs. Arminianism; credobaptism vs. paedobaptism; and Christianity vs. Islam.

 

[Reformed]

Yes you do.

My hunch was not disappointed.

 

[Reformed]

Yeah the universal love thing has definitely been a split among Calvinists. I think it depends on what meaning someone attaches to the word "world" in John 3:16.

I would like the OP to expand about on the Reformed view of God's love. God's love for His elect is effectual, whereas God's love for the non-elect seems to be more a common grace sort of thing (i.e. causing the rain to fall on the just and the unjust).

God's love is not static. God does not case His love out into the ether and leave it to individuals to act on (or not). When God loves His elect it culminates with their salvation, so I would like to hear more from robust on the love of God.

 

[Reformed]

My solution has been to block the worst offenders in the user CP.

Regrettably, I have had to do that also. But the knife cuts both ways. Others have blocked me too. While it is sad that adult Christians have to resort to such measures, it does allow for a more enjoyable experience. It does get kind of awkward though when one person does not know they have been blocked.

 

[Reformed]

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 am one of those who believe there is only one type of Calvinist. Amyraldians are not Calvinists.

 

[thatbrian]

Agreed. But what passes for debate in this forum would be scoffed at by those who know what debate really is. The only way debate works is when there are agreed on rules and a moderator to make sure those rules are followed. You see this when James White debates Calvinism vs. Arminianism; credobaptism vs. paedobaptism; and Christianity vs. Islam.

This is informal debate, and we all get that, but there should be more activity from the mods. (other than scoffing at Calvinists, I mean)

 

[steaver]

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.

As I said, the problem lies within your own camp of "Calvinist". The more a Calvinist attempts to defend TULIP the more they slip into the ultimate conclusions TULIP must lead them into, and then the arguing and fighting begins.

Where do you think these arguments come from? Do you think the non Calvinist just make stuff up? These protest come from direct quotes, responses from confessing Calvinist, to questions or comments given from non Calvinist.

I began a thread once on the question of "Divine Enablement" which I created with responses given directly from a Calvinist here who it appears many other Calvinist believe is a "good" defender of Calvinism. He gets a lot of support with atta boys and :thumbs:

I asked the board of Calvinist if they all agreed with his position on Divine Enablement. Only one responded that they disagreed with him, but at the same time acted like it was no big deal. I believe the issue of Divine Enablement is a big deal. Especially when the proof text given was Matt 13, which again would be declaring No belief in Calvinism = No sheep. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2173232&postcount=115

Nobody calls him "hyper", in fact he calls another hyper. We have another Calvinist poster here who declares God hates the non-elect and many other Calvinist on here agree with him.

We have a Calvinist on here who declares no belief in TULIP = No Sheep. When I made a comment as to is the Holy Spirit failing to teach Christians TULIP, his answer was No and gave John 10 as the reason. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2171467&postcount=28

So I don't know what the answer is brother, it seems Calvinist are all over the place on issues and there is a lot of infighting. It seems to me Calvinism has added no value to the Christian walk. It's like it is a rabbit trail to get Christians divided and off the business Jesus Christ left us to do.

 

[Reformed]

This is informal debate, and we all get that, but there should be more activity from the mods. (other than scoffing at Calvinists, I mean)

And I guess my point is that informal debate will never be civil and fair.

 

[convicted1]

As I said, the problem lies within your own camp of "Calvinist". The more a Calvinist attempts to defend TULIP the more they slip into the ultimate conclusions TULIP must lead them into, and then the arguing and fighting begins.

Where do you think these arguments come from? Do you think the non Calvinist just make stuff up? These protest come from direct quotes, responses from confessing Calvinist, to questions or comments given from non Calvinist.

I began a thread once on the question of "Divine Enablement" which I created with responses given directly from a Calvinist here who it appears many other Calvinist believe is a "good" defender of Calvinism. He gets a lot of support with atta boys and :thumbs:

I asked the board of Calvinist if they all agreed with his position on Divine Enablement. Only one responded that they disagreed with him, but at the same time acted like it was no big deal. I believe the issue of Divine Enablement is a big deal. Especially when the proof text given was Matt 13, which again would be declaring No belief in Calvinism = No sheep. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2173232&postcount=115

Nobody calls him "hyper", in fact he calls another hyper. We have another Calvinist poster here who declares God hates the non-elect and many other Calvinist on here agree with him.

We have a Calvinist on here who declares no belief in TULIP = No Sheep. When I made a comment as to is the Holy Spirit failing to teach Christians TULIP, his answer was No and gave John 10 as the reason. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2171467&postcount=28

So I don't know what the answer is brother, it seems Calvinist are all over the place on issues and there is a lot of infighting. It seems to me Calvinism has added no value to the Christian walk. It's like it is a rabbit trail to get Christians divided and off the business Jesus Christ left us to do.

There's problems o'plenty in your camp, too. Don't stick your head in the sand and ignore them...

There's those who believe...

--Babies are born sinless
--Some can get to heaven w/o repentance
--Original sin isn't true

Just to name a few...

 

[robustheologian]

And I guess my point is that informal debate will never be civil and fair.

Is there some way we can get that going? I would like to see that.

 

[robustheologian]

My hunch was not disappointed.

Flesh and blood did not reveal that to you. Lol

 

[JamesL]

As I said, the problem lies within your own camp of "Calvinist".

That's a little disingenuous, don't you think? Each side of your "debate" has multiple problems, and you share equally in those problems.

Most of the problem lies in your philosophical agreements, the starting errors in both camps. From these agreements, whereby both camps start off with an erred paradigm, you then start bickering over how the nuts and bolts of the first agreed upon premises work out

And neither camp is willing to go back to the initial premises, to revisit the primary errors upon which both camps are built

So whatcha gonna do? Carry on with your childish bickering, I suppose

 

[thatbrian]

And I guess my point is that informal debate will never be civil and fair.

I guess so. That's proved over and over again here.

 

[thatbrian]

As I said, the problem lies within your own camp of "Calvinist". The more a Calvinist attempts to defend TULIP the more they slip into the ultimate conclusions TULIP must lead them into, and then the arguing and fighting begins.

Where do you think these arguments come from? Do you think the non Calvinist just make stuff up? These protest come from direct quotes, responses from confessing Calvinist, to questions or comments given from non Calvinist.

I began a thread once on the question of "Divine Enablement" which I created with responses given directly from a Calvinist here who it appears many other Calvinist believe is a "good" defender of Calvinism. He gets a lot of support with atta boys and :thumbs:

I asked the board of Calvinist if they all agreed with his position on Divine Enablement. Only one responded that they disagreed with him, but at the same time acted like it was no big deal. I believe the issue of Divine Enablement is a big deal. Especially when the proof text given was Matt 13, which again would be declaring No belief in Calvinism = No sheep. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2173232&postcount=115

Nobody calls him "hyper", in fact he calls another hyper. We have another Calvinist poster here who declares God hates the non-elect and many other Calvinist on here agree with him.

We have a Calvinist on here who declares no belief in TULIP = No Sheep. When I made a comment as to is the Holy Spirit failing to teach Christians TULIP, his answer was No and gave John 10 as the reason. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2171467&postcount=28

So I don't know what the answer is brother, it seems Calvinist are all over the place on issues and there is a lot of infighting. It seems to me Calvinism has added no value to the Christian walk. It's like it is a rabbit trail to get Christians divided and off the business Jesus Christ left us to do.

Doctrine does divide, Steve.

My stance is that the church needs continual reform because false teachers are within her walls. The drift toward the Pelagic heresy is constant, and it must be constantly corrected. The pull towards works righteousness is never-ending, so the battle for the gospel is never-ending.

The truth upsets people. Jesus upset many - enough to get himself nailed to a cross. The gospel is offensive, and we can see that very clearly here at BB.

 

[steaver]

There's problems o'plenty in your camp, too. Don't stick your head in the sand and ignore them...

There's those who believe...

--Babies are born sinless
--Some can get to heaven w/o repentance
--Original sin isn't true

Just to name a few...

My only camp is the Christian camp where folks are allowed to be in the sanctification process and at different levels of understanding, even wrong. Not this either you believe the way I do on theology or your not one of God's Sheep camp.

 

[steaver]

The truth upsets people. Jesus upset many - enough to get himself nailed to a cross. The gospel is offensive, and we can see that very clearly here at BB.

WHAT?? Who here thinks the Gospel is offensive??? Surely you are not calling TULIP/Calvinism the Gospel, or is that exactly what you are doing?

 

[Sapper Woody]

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.

I posted 6 common myths about non-Cals in this forum.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2189318#post2189318

 

[robustheologian]

The unelaborated gospel is offensive enough; the message that Jesus is the only way to God is plenty offensive to those outside of Christianity (and sadly some within).

 

[Reformed]

Is there some way we can get that going? I would like to see that.

You will never see it in a venue like this. There is no way to vette the participants and there is not an equal representation among the moderators. The best that can be done is to achieve some level of civility among individuals.

 

[thatbrian]

WHAT?? Who here thinks the Gospel is offensive??? Surely you are not calling TULIP/Calvinism the Gospel, or is that exactly what you are doing?

I've answered this before. Calvinism is NOT the gospel.

Judging by the answers of some, yes, I think that they are offended by the gospel. It's a guess, but I've been on this earth a bit, and I've been a Christian for a long stretch too. My guess is that the reason Calvinism offends SOME people here is the very same reason that the gospel offends people everywhere, and it's the T in TULIP.

Totally depravity means there is nothing you bring to the table, and the flesh doesn't like that very much. Again, judging by the replies some give, I think that they are relying on their own "righteousness" more than/instead of Christ's. I'm sure that they don't even consciously know it, and again, it's a guess. To me it's clear, but I don't have soul x-ray. I'm simply judging by words and reading between the lines as well. No one has explicitly stated they are offended by the gospel.