A Question Calvinists must Answer

[Havensdad]

Why do you accept the "truth" of Calvinism while so many other believers throughout history didn't? Here I'll give you multiple choice:

1. Those "believers" who rejected Calvinism weren't really saved (elect).

2. Those believers who rejected Calvinism weren't as good (smart/humble etc) or were too sinful (prideful etc) to accept it. I on the other hand was better (smarter/humble) and didn't allow pride and sin to keep me from accepting this "truth." (Warning: you have just affirmed libertarian free will if you pick this option...and you have room to boast and take "glory" from God thus removing many Calvinistic definitions of "Sovereignty" )

3. Those believers who rejected Calvinism weren't chosen by God to understand Calvinism. They were given enough Grace to be saved, but not enough to understand correct soteriology. (Warning: If you choose this option you have to ponder the reason WHY God would deliberately hide the truth from some of his children while revealing it to others and why you would waste time attempting to convince non-Calvinists to convert to Calvinism considering that you don't have the command to convert people to Calvinistic soteriology but only the command to evangelize. After all the reason Calvinist say they are to evangelize is because "God told us to.")

So, which is it: 1, 2, or 3; Or add the correct answer if you don't believe I've provided all the options. Let's stay civil please. Thanks

Strawman. There are Calvinistic teachings going all the way back to the Apostle Paul. Writings of several Church Fathers teach pieces of Calvinism, even though not complete (Ireneaeus, Augustine).

Besides, the entire POINT of Calvinistic soteriology, is that we should simply trust what God has said, instead of making up reasons for this or that, or trying to explain them away. Answering your silly question would be undermining the system: God did it the way He did it, because He is God, and can do it anyway He darn well pleases. Who are you, little man, to answer back to God?

Aren't you a dispensationalist, Skandelon? Quite ironic...

 

[webdog]

Besides, the entire POINT of Calvinistic soteriology, is that we should simply trust what God has said, instead of making up reasons for this or that, or trying to explain them away.

The irony in a phrase like this coming from a calvinist.

HD, if not one of the numbers presented, what would you say another option is?

 

[Skandelon]

Tough isn't it? You are the master at creating threads to bait people into an uncivil discussion. Now go back to your corner and face the wall.

Civility is not equal to agreement or weak argumentation. Civility has to do with addressing the subject rather than the person, something I strive to do (and do, most of the time). With all respect, what you have written thus far has not addressed the subject and has only served to anger and divide personalities. I'm not interested in that.

 

[Shortandy]

Skandelon within the reformed traditions was there not disagreement? Did Luther and Calvin agree on everything? I know a lot of Calvinist that don't agree on every little detail of Calvinism. It just seems you might be making a mountain out of mole hill. Maybe its because you have such difficulty with Calvinism or maybe you have just been wronged by some of them.

I am reminded of the relationship that George Whitfield and John Wesley had. Two men on different sides of the theological fence with love and respect for one another as brothers in Christ. Shouldn't you and I be able to do this as a Calvinist and Armenian?

 

[Skandelon]

Strawman.

A straw-man fallacy is one in which the opponent misrepresents another's position, but I've only asked for Calvinists to represent themselves by responding to this question and considering these facts. I even leave open to option of providing your own option to the choices presented. Hardly a straw man fallacy by anyone's definition.

There are Calvinistic teachings going all the way back to the Apostle Paul. Writings of several Church Fathers teach pieces of Calvinism, even though not complete (Ireneaeus, Augustine).

And what does that have to do with the question presented in the OP?

Besides, the entire POINT of Calvinistic soteriology, is that we should simply trust what God has said, instead of making up reasons for this or that, or trying to explain them away. Answering your silly question would be undermining the system: God did it the way He did it, because He is God, and can do it anyway He darn well pleases. Who are you, little man, to answer back to God?

So, can I deduce from this response that #3 best represents your view, in that God made non-Calvinists this way because He "did it the way He did it, because He is God, and can do it anyway He darn well pleases?" If not, please expound. Or don't. Your free choice, or is it?

Aren't you a dispensationalist, Skandelon? Quite ironic...

Uh...no. I have no idea where this came from...

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon within the reformed traditions was there not disagreement? Did Luther and Calvin agree on everything? I know a lot of Calvinist that don't agree on every little detail of Calvinism.

Of course there is disagreement between those of the reformed faith, I'm not attempting to argue there is not. I'm simply asking WHY in light of what some of you have argued with regard to free will. I've been allowing you all to answer HOWEVER you want to answer, which so far has been side step dodge and avoid. Clearly there must be some reason that person A chooses to accept Calvinism while person B refuses it, isn't there? Aren't you guys always the one who insists that all things have a cause? Is this such a hard question?

It just seems you might be making a mountain out of mole hill. Maybe its because you have such difficulty with Calvinism or maybe you have just been wronged by some of them.

Not at all. My brother is Calvinistic as is my best friend. We get along fine. I even listen to/read Piper and several other Calvinistic authors and pastors and agree with them most of the time. They are good men of God. You may just be reading more angst into my post than is there. It is a relatively simple question that I've heard many scholarly Calvinists engage throughout the years. I just wanted to see how some here would respond.

I am reminded of the relationship that George Whitfield and John Wesley had. Two men on different sides of the theological fence with love and respect for one another as brothers in Christ. Shouldn't you and I be able to do this as a Calvinist and Armenian?

Absolutely, let's go grab a beer. You bring the cigars! (I'll teach you to spell Arminian in our first discussion)

 

[saturneptune]

Civility is not equal to agreement or weak argumentation. Civility has to do with addressing the subject rather than the person, something I strive to do (and do, most of the time). With all respect, what you have written thus far has not addressed the subject and has only served to anger and divide personalities. I'm not interested in that.

Your interest seems to delight in phrasing orginating questions to your created threads that imply that those who believe in God's sovereignty are either ignorant of Scripture or believe principles that border on unbelief, never quite crossing that line. It is a technique that guarantees barbs and not an exchange of ideas. Comparing civility to weak agrumentation as you put it is not the question. The term weak argumentation is relative, which IMO characterizes most of your posts.

 

[Shortandy]

Of course there is disagreement between those of the reformed faith, I'm not attempting to argue there is not. I'm simply asking WHY in light of what some of you have argued with regard to free will. I've been allowing you all to answer HOWEVER you want to answer, which so far has been side step dodge and avoid. Clearly there must be some reason that person A chooses to accept Calvinism while person B refuses it, isn't there? Aren't you guys always the one who insists that all things have a cause? Is this such a hard question?


Not at all. My brother is Calvinistic as is my best friend. We get along fine. I even listen to/read Piper and several other Calvinistic authors and pastors and agree with them most of the time. They are good men of God. You may just be reading more angst into my post than is there. It is a relatively simple question that I've heard many scholarly Calvinists engage throughout the years. I just wanted to see how some here would respond.



Absolutely, let's go grab a beer. You bring the cigars! (I'll teach you to spell Arminian in our first discussion)

Im a horrible speller. Especially when I am typing quickly so I can get back to this bible study Im preparing for..lol. I think you just may have to come to grips with the reality that there may not be an good enough answer for you. Im mean can you tell me why one person agrees with your view and why one does not and answer it in a much deeper way then they simply made a choice? I would doubt it. By the way you have to be careful about drinking beer on here. You might get in trouble:laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

7For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

If Calvinism is wrong then it has painted itself there, I'm only pointing out the truth of its error, so to suggest I'm doing it is just question begging. But thank you for your input.

If Skandelon is wrong then he has painted himself there, we are only pointing out his errors,in most all of the posts.

 

[Skandelon]

Im mean can you tell me why one person agrees with your view and why one does not and answer it in a much deeper way then they simply made a choice? I would doubt it.

But that is to assume a deterministic response is required which would presuppose the very thing libertarians reject. That is called "question begging."

We believe that free agents determine their own determinations. Why did God chose to save you? Because he did. He is God, nothing determines Him except Him. Same is true of creatures created with libertarian free will. They determine their choices, period. So, we don't have to answer the question "why" because we reject the presupposition of determinists that man's desires/intents/natures are "decreed/caused by God."

By the way you have to be careful about drinking beer on here. You might get in trouble:laugh:

Well we wouldn't be doing it on the board, that would just be weird...is that even possible? If so, please teach me

 

[Iconoclast]

Originally Posted by webdog
"Arminians CAN BE saved" says it all.

Sure they can Webdog.Are you saying they cannot be saved?Only God sees the heart.
Like Roman Catholics they can be saved if they stop trying to save themselves by what they do, and trust in Jesus by a God given faith.

Many Arminians stop being Arminian when they pray.
They ask God if it be possible to save a family member, instead of saying God has already done all that he can, and now the person must do something to save himself.
So in prayer many Arminians do believe in the grace of God, even though in theological discussion they are riddled through with many unbiblical philosophies.
I believe Skandelons obsession with calvinists and calvinism is a cry for help,and if he remains with his theology as is...it will not be because answers where not given to him.:wavey:

 

[Skandelon]

If Skandelon is wrong then he has painted himself there, we are only pointing out his errors,in most all of the posts.

If I'm wrong, you are correct sir. Glad to hear someone follows good logic. :thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

Your interest seems to delight in phrasing orginating questions to your created threads that imply that those who believe in God's sovereignty are either ignorant of Scripture or believe principles that border on unbelief, never quite crossing that line. It is a technique that guarantees barbs and not an exchange of ideas. Comparing civility to weak agrumentation as you put it is not the question. The term weak argumentation is relative, which IMO characterizes most of your posts.

So, once again you'd rather talk about me rather than the point? Speculate all you want about my intentions, but I think anyone reading these posts can see I've stayed on topic while being respectful while you resort to ad hominem attacks and demeaning characterization of even those who claim to be Calvinistic. I have no interest in carrying on a conversation with you if this is all you are about. God bless and have a great day.

 

[Iconoclast]

If I'm wrong, you are correct sir. Glad to hear someone follows good logic. :thumbs:

:laugh: I thought you might like that. Do you work at a computer, that was a fast response?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Why do you accept the "truth" of Calvinism while so many other believers throughout history didn't?

I am not a five-point Calvinist for several reasons, so I know this is not really aimed at me, but I hate to see this sort of thing posited as a legitimate response to five-point Calvinism.

Here I'll give you multiple choice:

This rarely turns out well. There will be many more options that what you are likely to mention.

1. Those "believers" who rejected Calvinism weren't really saved (elect).

You seem to be insinuating that Calvinists believe one has to hold to their doctrinal viewpoint in order for one to receive the grace of God. I’ve know quite a few Calvinists in my day and I’ve never met a single one who believed that acceptable of the “Doctrines of Grace” were a necessity for receiving the grace of God. In fact, it would be contradictory to their system.

2. Those believers who rejected Calvinism weren't as good (smart/humble etc) or were too sinful (prideful etc) to accept it. [Caustic comments removed]

Calvinism does take a bit of careful thinking to comprehend, as well as a certain level of biblical knowledge, so there’s definitely an element to that. However, rejection of a doctrine may be based on many things (not just whether or not it is actually true), including not being ready to hear and comprehend a doctrine because one does not have the theological background or a certain set of life experiences, or not ever having the foundational questions regarding the administration of God’s grace (which Calvinism tries to answer) raised.

3. Those believers who rejected Calvinism weren't chosen by God to understand Calvinism. They were given enough Grace to be saved, but not enough to understand correct soteriology.

This could be true. Remember that the purpose of our life in Christ is not to develop doctrinal systems, it is to live for/with God and extend the reach and influence of the Kingdom of God until the Day when He will make all things new. We are created to enjoy God forever.

Now doctrinal systems are very useful and naturally develop as we struggle to live our lives in Christ, but they only need to be as complex as we happen to need for us to be obedient to Christ. I have known a large number of fine Christians (many who have left their earthly bodies behind) who couldn’t explain Calvinist or Arminian theology, or give a detailed explanation of atonement theory, but they lived their lives in God anyway.

(Warning: If you choose this option you have to ponder the reason WHY God would deliberately hide the truth from some of his children while revealing it to others…

I really don’t think God is all that interested in human theological systems, unless those systems put people into bondage.

As a teacher at my church, I don't load people up with knowledge that they don't need. I attempt to answer the most pressing needs of their lives with depth and clarity and create an atmosphere where they learn to teach themselves as well as feel comfortable asking questions regarding things they don't understand.

I focus on teaching through books of scripture very carefully, not skipping anything, letting the writer of the text present truth in their inspired way. I will make systematic connections to other passages and books of scripture, but I try to avoid the trap of teaching "systematic" Bible study where the students don't actually read any passage of scripture in the context of the entire book. It's too easy to proof text someone into bad theology.

In the same way, God may well only give people what they really need.

…and why you would waste time attempting to convince non-Calvinists to convert to Calvinism considering that you don't have the command to convert people to Calvinistic soteriology but only the command to evangelize.

Probably because Calvinists believe that their belief system leads Christians to a clearer understanding of God and provides a framework for Christian discipleship (please note, we are not call to simply “evangelize”, we are called to make disciples).

…After all the reason Calvinist say they are to evangelize is because "God told us to.")

And what’s wrong with that? They are exactly right!

Let's stay civil please. Thanks

You would do well to post less hostile and fairer “questions”.

 

[Robert Snow]

No... I believe that some (or perhaps even many) Arminians can be saved. They are elect and just don't realize it, thinking instead that they in some part played a deciding role in their own salvation. It would be silly to the extreme to suggest that only one group of people holding one particular theology are the only ones saved by God, who is the author and finisher of our salvation.

Now you modify your blanket condemnation of those who are not Calvinists. Seems about right for you and your modus operandi!

 

[glfredrick]

So then the logical conclusion is that muslims, hindus, and atheists can all be saved.

Of course they can be saved, and praise God, many are! I was an atheist, and I am saved. I know multiple Muslims, and they are saved. I know several Hindus who are saved. But, they are not saved by their (false) theology. They are saved by Christ!

 

[glfredrick]

Red Herring. According to you, Arminians can be saved one day...meaning they are not now. You have joined Rippon, Dr. Bob, Aaron and a host of others in questioning the salvation of others on here with no repercussion.

Are you the devil? You selectively parse my words to mean what you wish them to mean, then work to defeat the straw man you've made of me...

Good luck with that, by the way. Most on this board see through your tactics.

In any case, let's toss the "some day" and just say that Arminians can be saved, even if their THEOLOGY Is wrong. Because -- and I'll type this one letter at a time, v.e.r.y. s.l.o.w.l.y., so that you can get it -- JESUS CHRIST SAVES, NOT THEOLOGY.

Do you disagree with me?

 

[MB]

Sure they can Webdog.Are you saying they cannot be saved?Only God sees the heart.
Like Roman Catholics they can be saved if they stop trying to save themselves by what they do, and trust in Jesus by a God given faith.

Many Arminians stop being Arminian when they pray.
They ask God if it be possible to save a family member, instead of saying God has already done all that he can, and now the person must do something to save himself.
So in prayer many Arminians do believe in the grace of God, even though in theological discussion they are riddled through with many unbiblical philosophies.
I believe Skandelons obsession with calvinists and calvinism is a cry for help,and if he remains with his theology as is...it will not be because answers where not given to him.:wavey:

No one has a perfect theology but Calvinist gave up on that and created there own using logic. Why if it's logical it must be right. Funny thing scientist used the same process to come up with evolution. Imagine that!
MB

 

[Robert Snow]

Of course they can be saved, and praise God, many are! I was an atheist, and I am saved. I know multiple Muslims, and they are saved. I know several Hindus who are saved. But, they are not saved by their (false) theology. They are saved by Christ!

Can a Muslim be saved and never know it? Can they continue to worship Muhammad? What an ignorant statement!