A Seeker Asks, "Does this BB fairly represent Calvinism?"

[humblethinker]

The first of this year my worldview was challenged when I realized a new friend whom I highly respected was 'Reformed'. I came to this BB hoping to be informed as to what exactly Calvinism was and in the spirit of Aristotle's quote, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." I have attempted to make my inquiry. Not simply to entertain myself, for such a challenge to one's worldview is in no way entertaining, but to consider what should be believed and then submit myself to this belief and live accordingly (as I had done with the KJVO issue just six months prior).

Since March I have been researching and following the pertinent threads and in April I joined the BB to further participate. In large part I feel that my objective has been accomplished but I can't help but think that what I have been reading from the pro-calvinist side has not been accurately presented... or at least it is not fairly representing mainstream calvinism. It seems to me that not even most of the active calvinists on this BB are contributing to the debate. Also possible is that some may not be expressing their disagreement with other more insistent and persistent calvinists on this board. However, their lack of expression seems to be a silent admission that what is being represented is an accurate view of calvinism.


There are people I highly respect from both sides, scholars and friends. There are arguments from both perspectives that are challenging to me no matter what I may believe. Nevertheless, the responsibility as to what to believe is mine and so I should hope to come to a settled opinion on the matter. Before I do, however, I'd like to ask my fellow BBers, especially those who happen to be calvinists, whether they think that Calvinism is accurately or fairly presented and defended by your fellow calvinists on this BB?

 

[humblethinker]

(Please note: I mean no offense and don't intend to label anyone with a label they do not accept. For lack of a better word and in order to simplify my case I'm referring to 'calvinism' and 'calvinists' as the idea/those that accept calvinism, reformed thinking or otherwise reject contra-causal free will, libertarian freewill or that deny the possibility of any radical freedom in humans ("radical freedom" meaning the ability to choose unactualized potentials, or to act independently of or literally creatively within the totality of prior sufficient causes. - thank you Barry Creamer)

 

[JesusFan]

The first of this year my worldview was challenged when I realized a new friend whom I highly respected was 'Reformed'. I came to this BB hoping to be informed as to what exactly Calvinism was and in the spirit of Aristotle's quote, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." I have attempted to make my inquiry. Not simply to entertain myself, for such a challenge to one's worldview is in no way entertaining, but to consider what should be believed and then submit myself to this belief and live accordingly (as I had done with the KJVO issue just six months prior).

Since March I have been researching and following the pertinent threads and in April I joined the BB to further participate. In large part I feel that my objective has been accomplished but I can't help but think that what I have been reading from the pro-calvinist side has not been accurately presented... or at least it is not fairly representing mainstream calvinism. It seems to me that not even most of the active calvinists on this BB are contributing to the debate. Also possible is that some may not be expressing their disagreement with other more insistent and persistent calvinists on this board. However, their lack of expression seems to be a silent admission that what is being represented is an accurate view of calvinism.


There are people I highly respect from both sides, scholars and friends. There are arguments from both perspectives that are challenging to me no matter what I may believe. Nevertheless, the responsibility as to what to believe is mine and so I should hope to come to a settled opinion on the matter. Before I do, however, I'd like to ask my fellow BBers, especially those who happen to be calvinists, whether they think that Calvinism is accurately or fairly presented and defended by your fellow calvinists on this BB?

Think 2 bggest problems on this are:
Non Cals saying things that most cals are not believing with/in
"Straw man"

failure to see there are indeed different help positions within cal, not a uniformity!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The first of this year my worldview was challenged when I realized a new friend whom I highly respected was 'Reformed'. I came to this BB hoping to be informed as to what exactly Calvinism was and in the spirit of Aristotle's quote, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." I have attempted to make my inquiry. Not simply to entertain myself, for such a challenge to one's worldview is in no way entertaining, but to consider what should be believed and then submit myself to this belief and live accordingly (as I had done with the KJVO issue just six months prior).

Since March I have been researching and following the pertinent threads and in April I joined the BB to further participate. In large part I feel that my objective has been accomplished but I can't help but think that what I have been reading from the pro-calvinist side has not been accurately presented... or at least it is not fairly representing mainstream calvinism. It seems to me that not even most of the active calvinists on this BB are contributing to the debate. Also possible is that some may not be expressing their disagreement with other more insistent and persistent calvinists on this board. However, their lack of expression seems to be a silent admission that what is being represented is an accurate view of calvinism.


There are people I highly respect from both sides, scholars and friends. There are arguments from both perspectives that are challenging to me no matter what I may believe. Nevertheless, the responsibility as to what to believe is mine and so I should hope to come to a settled opinion on the matter. Before I do, however, I'd like to ask my fellow BBers, especially those who happen to be calvinists, whether they think that Calvinism is accurately or fairly presented and defended by your fellow calvinists on this BB?

Brother, if you want it I'd prefer to give you my opinion privately...your call

Steve D

 

[Jim1999]

A simple response is no, sometimes. I shouldn't rely on information given in here for being a baptist let alone a baptistic-calvinist. As to responding; why trouble?

Cor blimey! I had to read your post three times to get to here!!!!!!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Skandelon]

I do think some here are very consistent in representing what I would consider a more mainstream form of Calvinism. I was a Calvinist for about a decade and became a Calvinist under the teachings of men like MacArthur, Piper, Sproul, JI Packer, Nettles and the like, so maybe I'm biased as to who I see as in the "mainstream," but I don't think so.

Some of the guys who SEEM to correctly represent a more "mainstream" view of Calvinism (from my LIMITED interaction with them) are guys like TomVols, Andy T., and ArchAngel. I'm not saying that is all, but those are the ones I've had discussions with in the past and who I remember do appear to represent Calvinism from a more "classical" perspective. They also all happen to be gentlemen who (for the most part) don't allow emotion and disagreement to drag our discussions into the mud, which I really appreciate.

If I think of others I'll let you know....

 

[TCGreek]

The first of this year my worldview was challenged when I realized a new friend whom I highly respected was 'Reformed'. I came to this BB hoping to be informed as to what exactly Calvinism was and in the spirit of Aristotle's quote, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." I have attempted to make my inquiry. Not simply to entertain myself, for such a challenge to one's worldview is in no way entertaining, but to consider what should be believed and then submit myself to this belief and live accordingly (as I had done with the KJVO issue just six months prior).

Since March I have been researching and following the pertinent threads and in April I joined the BB to further participate. In large part I feel that my objective has been accomplished but I can't help but think that what I have been reading from the pro-calvinist side has not been accurately presented... or at least it is not fairly representing mainstream calvinism. It seems to me that not even most of the active calvinists on this BB are contributing to the debate. Also possible is that some may not be expressing their disagreement with other more insistent and persistent calvinists on this board. However, their lack of expression seems to be a silent admission that what is being represented is an accurate view of calvinism.


There are people I highly respect from both sides, scholars and friends. There are arguments from both perspectives that are challenging to me no matter what I may believe. Nevertheless, the responsibility as to what to believe is mine and so I should hope to come to a settled opinion on the matter. Before I do, however, I'd like to ask my fellow BBers, especially those who happen to be calvinists, whether they think that Calvinism is accurately or fairly presented and defended by your fellow calvinists on this BB?

If I were in your position, I would be spending my time with what Scripture actually teach, not what this or that Calvinists has to say.

 

[humblethinker]

If I were in your position, I would be spending my time with what Scripture actually teach, not what this or that Calvinists has to say.

I can appreciate what you are saying, and I agree. Did you not start with Calvinism as your base understanding when you were saved (or as you grew in the Lord)? My default perspective on scripture was from a libertarian free will. As I recall, you said that you were once Calvinist. Did you only consider scripture only as you struggled with the issue? I'm 20+ years into the study of scripture with some seminary, and I know there's so much more to learn than what I know now. I try not to be too dogmatic about things (been there, done that, and now I've thrown the tshirt away).

 

[Iconoclast]

http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html

This is what to look at. You asked for calvinist imput,and yet anti =cals speak up:laugh: what a surprise.

The scriptural teaching is what you want.....when you embrace the main core of biblical teaching,you will be called a calvinist.

When calvinists offer a biblical response if you watch....the others will seek to undermine the teaching here on BB.

Watch who uses scripture....watch who seeks to move the discussion away from scripture into philosophy...

Watch when a good article or quote is offered....how others react against it.

Who mis-uses verses all the time, even when a proper explanation is given, they still repeat the error , over and over.

Most "calvimists" have not read much calvin...yet they will be accused of following men, or the reformers, or the puritans...as if God did not give any wisdom to these men.

watch carefully how the objectors very rarely interact with or read the post, or listen and comment to a sermon offered.....instead usually offer some one sentence deflection, because they cannot respond biblically.

Watch how those who oppose truth, more often than not offer shallow non responsive answers////most times without using scriptures at all...as if they have no need for that.

If you watch carefully.....you will see it clearly for yourself:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

Watch who uses scripture....watch who seeks to move the discussion away from scripture into philosophy...

There is not a single scripture presented by a Calvinist on this BB that hasn't been fully rebutted from the non-Calvinist perspective. I've discussed most of the typical proof texts myself. This is a completely unfounded claim.

Most "calvimists" have not read much calvin...yet they will be accused of following men, or the reformers, or the puritans...as if God did not give any wisdom to these men.

Yet, they'd probably be wise to read some of the scholars so they wouldn't err so quickly into the extremes.

Watch how those who oppose truth, more often than not offer shallow non responsive answers////most times without using scriptures at all...as if they have no need for that.

You want to talk about shallow non responsive answers without the use of scriptures? Your post is a perfect example of such.

 

[webdog]

This same poster just recently said...

"read your last 20-30 posts and see if you are giving positive imput to a thread...or just assuming things and looking to be divisive.

If you feel you cannot interact biblically...pass by the thread."

:laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

There is not a single scripture presented by a Calvinist on this BB that hasn't been fully rebutted from the non-Calvinist perspective. I've discussed most of the typical proof texts myself. This is a completely unfounded claim.

Yet, they'd probably be wise to read some of the scholars so they wouldn't err so quickly into the extremes.

You want to talk about shallow non responsive answers without the use of scriptures? Your post is a perfect example of such.[/QUOTE]

Skan,

If you took the time to click the link offered...you will find dozens of scriptures
Just click the link and you will see them...but no...you just want to resist.
save the list I offered here..print it out ..put it next to your computer screen..then watch what happens in general..
you do attempt to interact scripturally more than some...
Allan..does the most, and if you notice those threads are more profitable..

Check out what i am saying for yourself....

..but as I posted...you are not taking the time to look, or your sidekick...just trying to attack.
If I posted all the posts without scripture or scriptural responses..or little one liner remarks....I could have 19,000 posts also:laugh::laugh::laugh:

if you are having trouble opening the link..here are the verses I offered to Humble thinker;

2 Timothy 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29, 31; Ephesians 2:20; Romans 1:19-21; Romans 2:14,15; Psalms 19:1-3; Hebrews 1:1; Proverbs 22:19-21; Romans 15:4; 2 Peter 1:19,20

Luke 24:27, 44; Romans 3:2 )

2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 John 5:9
John 16:13,14; 1 Corinthians 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20, 27
2 Timothy 3:15-17; Galatians 1:8,9; John 6:45; 1 Corinthians 2:9-12; 1 Corinthians 11:13, 14; 1 Corinthians 14:26,40
2 Peter 3:16; Psalms 19:7; Psalms 119:130
Romans 3:2; Isaiah 8:20; Acts 15:15; John 5:39; 1 Corinthians 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 28; Colossians 3:16
Matthew 22:29, 31, 32; Ephesians 2:20; Acts 28:23


These are just from chapter 1.....if you go through the whole confession it will be helpful

 

[humblethinker]

You asked for calvinist imput,and ... may be informative as a couple of them have.

 

[humblethinker]

Brother, if you want it I'd prefer to give you my opinion privately...your call

Steve D

Thanks EWF for you pm.

 

[Skandelon]

Icon, your post was offensive and misrepresentative on so many levels, your lack of visible scriptural references was really the very least of my worries about that response. I know you quote (and misinterpret IMO) many passages, but to pretend you are the only ones who present or deal with textual arguments on a regular basis is just unfounded.

 

[Benjamin]

...but I can't help but think that what I have been reading from the pro-calvinist side has not been accurately presented... or at least it is not fairly representing mainstream calvinism.

IMO, there are at least a half dozen on this board who call themselves "Calvinist" that are out & out H...

 

[Skandelon]

Humblethinker, if you want an easy to read summary of the Reformed view may I recommend "Chosen by God" by RC Sproul. I read it in one sitting when I was in college. I obviously disagree with his views now, but I do think its a fairly clear explanation and argument for what many Calvinist believe.

But before you read it may I quote Thomas Jefferson: "Question with boldness..."

 

[Iconoclast]

Icon, your post was offensive and misrepresentative on so many levels, your lack of visible scriptural references was really the very least of my worries about that response. I know you quote (and misinterpret IMO) many passages, but to pretend you are the only ones who present or deal with textual arguments on a regular basis is just unfounded.

You have your opinion,and I have mine.....you say here that it is your opinion that I mis-represent many passages.

You are free in this country to believe and say what you want.

You say my post was offensive...but go on to say that you believe I mis-represent scripture..as if that is not meant to be offensive towards me??/

skan.....I do not have thin skin....you and webdog can make personal attacks if that helps you feel better.....I will stand by my posts.

i did not mention any names in my post to humble...just gave him some general things to look for....

if you call me a thief...i would not take any offence because I know I have not stolen anything.....if I did not mention names...why do you take any offence to my post ..which was given to humble?? I can give my opinion,and he thanked me for the post.

if you feel you do not fit the person in my list of things to look for....why would there be offence?

if my list proves not to be so...then humblethinker will notice that also!

i think my list is right on,and as a matter of fact I could add much to it unfortunately......but Humble has gotten the idea....

When people gang up on Luke 2427, or P4t.....I do not see as much a concern about that.....some do speak directly to them and offer correction, which I can respect...that is what is proper.:thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

You have your opinion,and I have mine.....you say here that it is your opinion that I mis-represent many passages.

You are free in this country to believe and say what you want.

You say my post was offensive...but go on to say that you believe I mis-represent scripture..as if that is not meant to be offensive towards me??/

I said you "misinterpret" it which should be a "given" considering that we disagree with each other about the interpretation. That is different from implying that you only present philosophical arguments and avoid the biblical arguments all together...as if you haven't even considered the scriptures having to do with this discussion before or something. That is just insulting.

skan.....I do not have thin skin....you and webdog can make personal attacks if that helps you feel better.....I will stand by my posts.

There was no personal attack. I just think we disagree about how some texts should be interpreted....while you apparently think I (or non-cals in general?) don't care much about the bible but would rather just deal with philosophical arguments.

i did not mention any names in my post to humble...just gave him some general things to look for....

I know. You didn't break any rules, but I just thought it was completely misrepresentative of what really happens on this board on a daily basis.

 

[humblethinker]

As to responding; why trouble?

Jim, I enjoy reading your replies. I'm not sure if I understand you here. I'll assume that you mean why respond to fellow calvinists? My answer would be that you bring something to the table worth listening to and considering. While I understand that as I spend more time on the BB I will start to get a feeling about how people believe, but this really can take a lot of time. Me creating this thread is in large part because I wondered if there were cals that didn't believe in some of the more, how should I say, extreme or hyper opinions that seemed to be predominant as of late. Your input might have tempered that impression, no? Otherwise I am left to wonder.