A Question Calvinists must Answer

[Skandelon]

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

 

[glfredrick]

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

Some of us are saved by God's grace and some of us are merely religious, doing what can be done under the power of human effort. You decide which camp is which.

 

[webdog]

Some of us are saved by God's grace and some of us are merely religious, doing what can be done under the power of human effort. You decide which camp is which.

By your reply you would choose #1, but won't come right out and say it as you know the consequences. At least you are honest about it. Wrong...but honest.

 

[glfredrick]

By your reply you would choose #1, but won't come right out and say it as you know the consequences. At least you are honest about it. Wrong...but honest.

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.

Stop placing words in my mouth, thank you very much...

 

[Skandelon]

By your reply you would choose #1, but won't come right out and say it as you know the consequences. At least you are honest about it. Wrong...but honest.

I really think #1 is the only logical conclusion for consistent Calvinists and would ask moderators to be lenient in this thread because I am asking for them to answer the question without being purposefully contentious.

What is interesting is that #1 does't remove the need for them to explain "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 Calvinists say they are to evangelize is because 'God told us to.'"

Number 1 is also a difficult admission for Calvinists because many of them have mothers (or other loved ones) who reject Calvinism. Statistics show the neo-reformed movement is made up in large majority of young white males, leaving out many mothers, wives, sisters and more "sensitive" and less "intellectual" types. Maybe God prefers them?

 

[Skandelon]

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.

Stop placing words in my mouth, thank you very much...

So, if not #1, which one? Feel free to supply your own and explain how it differs from what I have offered. Thanks

 

[webdog]

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.

Stop placing words in my mouth, thank you very much...

"Arminians CAN BE saved" says it all. I didn't have to put the words in your mouth, you did a good enough job of fitting that along with your foot right in there.

 

[Skandelon]

"Arminians CAN BE saved" says it all. I didn't have to put the words in your mouth, you did a good enough job of fitting that along with your foot right in there.

I missed that. Good catch. So, he means "arminians can be saved, and come to correct soteriology one day." That is why I worded to question to refer to those who have already died so they couldn't revert to that answer. Was CS Lewis, for example, non-elect, or was God's grace withheld from him so he couldn't accept Calvinism, or did he freely chose to reject it making him not as "good" as Calvinists? Which one?

 

[glfredrick]

So, if not #1, which one? Feel free to supply your own and explain how it differs from what I have offered. Thanks

I have obviously offered a reasoned opinion that was not in your "begging the question" list.

I have spoken my mind on this and it is a reasonable position.

God is sovereign, and the doctrines of His sovereignty match the Scriptures, and yet, God is also gracious and as THE author and finisher of our faith/salvation He can and will work to save the elect, even if they happen to have their personal theology all out of sorts -- or fail to even HAVE a personal theology.

In other words, it is NOT Calvinism that saves (your point #1) it is Christ who saves. What and how we believe that happens is another thing altogether. We may be right and saved. We may be wrong and saved. We may be right and lost. We may be wrong and lost. Salvation is God's work, not a work of a theological position.

Oh, and I'm arguing point #1 because point #2 is so far off the track as to be ludicrous and point # 3 is not what Calvinism states in any form or fashion. It is a nothing more than some sort of red herring argument designed to offer a choice that is not really even a choice.

 

[glfredrick]

"Arminians CAN BE saved" says it all. I didn't have to put the words in your mouth, you did a good enough job of fitting that along with your foot right in there.

You have discovered nothing...

Who saves? Arminains, Calvinists? Or CHRIST?

 

[Skandelon]

God is sovereign, and the doctrines of His sovereignty match the Scriptures, and yet, God is also gracious and as THE author and finisher of our faith/salvation He can and will work to save the elect, even if they happen to have their personal theology all out of sorts -- or fail to even HAVE a personal theology.

I agree, but my question to you was "why" are some of the elect's personal theology out of sorts while other are correct? You have your options or you can provide you own, but so far no answer.

In other words, it is NOT Calvinism that saves (your point #1)

Incorrect. That is NOT point #1. I never argued that anyone was claiming they were saved BECAUSE of correct soteriology. I was answering the question posed above, "WHY do some believers never accept Calvinism and others accept it?" One possible answer is that truly elect people WILL come to accept Calvinism and thus people like CS Lewis, for example, weren't elect which tells us why they refused to accept Calvinism's truth, not that they were saved or not saved because of that refusal as you mistakenly suggest.

We may be right and saved. We may be wrong and saved. We may be right and lost. We may be wrong and lost. Salvation is God's work, not a work of a theological position

We all agree with this and it doesn't address the question posed.

Oh, and I'm arguing point #1 because point #2 is so far off the track as to be ludicrous and point # 3 is not what Calvinism states in any form or fashion. It is a nothing more than some sort of red herring argument designed to offer a choice that is not really even a choice.

As the OP states, you are more than welcome to provide your own answer and show how that differ from the options presented. You have yet to do that from what I can tell.

 

[matt wade]

In other words, it is NOT Calvinism that saves (your point #1) it is Christ who saves. What and how we believe that happens is another thing altogether. We may be right and saved. We may be wrong and saved. We may be right and lost. We may be wrong and lost. Salvation is God's work, not a work of a theological position.

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

 

[Skandelon]

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

I think its obvious that he meant that we (believers in Christ) might all be wrong about some of our soteriological views...

 

[saturneptune]

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.

Stop placing words in my mouth, thank you very much...

Oh brother, here is a guy who posted in a thread the other day that slaughtered Reformed history and the life of Calvin arguing for Calvinism. Please, say nothing else. God's sovereignty is too important to be dragged through the mud by amateurs. Please, unelect yourself and join the other side.

 

[Skandelon]

Oh brother, here is a guy who posted in a thread the other day that slaughtered Reformed history and the life of Calvin arguing for Calvinism. Please, say nothing else. God's sovereignty is too important to be dragged through the mud by amateurs. Please, unelect yourself and join the other side.

Instead of insulting people maybe you could just stick to attempting to answering the question posed by the OP, unless its just beneath you to stoop to such amateurish inquiries as these?

 

[webdog]

Oh brother, here is a guy who posted in a thread the other day that slaughtered Reformed history and the life of Calvin arguing for Calvinism. Please, say nothing else. God's sovereignty is too important to be dragged through the mud by amateurs. Please, unelect yourself and join the other side.

Who is this too?

 

[webdog]

You have discovered nothing...

Who saves? Arminains, Calvinists? Or CHRIST?

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.

 

[Shortandy]

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

Is there no room for disagreement between saved people? Are the people who don't agree with your views on the rapture lost or not as spiritual as you? Your questions are loaded. You seem to only want to paint Calvinist in a bad light instead of engaging in real conversation on your issues with the system.

 

[saturneptune]

Instead of insulting people maybe you could just stick to attempting to answering the question posed by the OP, unless its just beneath you to stoop to such amateurish inquiries as these?

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.

 

[Skandelon]

Is there no room for disagreement between saved people?

In my view, yes there is but then again I believe in libertarian free will and most Calvinists here don't. Surely you understand the implications of that don't you?

Are the people who don't agree with your views on the rapture lost or not as spiritual as you?

Nope, I don't, but another good question to ask those who believe God causally determines even the wrong intents and desires of man. Let's asks the Calvinists. What do you guys think?

Your questions are loaded. You seem to only want to paint Calvinist in a bad light instead of engaging in real conversation on your issues with the system.

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.