Calvinism critique continued

[Alive in Christ]

Dr Bob said we could continue Scarlettes thread...

First, let me say this is something that is burdening me for personal reasons as there are about 4 young couples in my church who are embracing Calvinism. They are TERRIFIC young couples deeply entrenched in faith and evangelism and I love them very much. Two of the couples have children and the others eventually will. There is something that I would like to talk to them about, but I am afraid of offending them, so I must take the coward's way out and bring the question here.

I'd like to interject the question, not to stir up anything, but because I really would like to understand.

First, here is my understanding of the doctrines of grace and Calvinism. I've copied and pasted this from a Calvinistic site. The parts in red are the parts I cannot adhere to according to the totality of the scripture.



If all of mankind is being punished for the sins of Adam and Eve and are born "punished", then why would God punish them further by never loving them and never offering them the gift of His grace?

The reprobates are punished twice, it would seem according to Calvinism.

The are punished merely BY being born. They are born destined for hell because of Adam and Eve and predestined for hell because they are the non-elect or the reprobates.

And they are punished FOR being born this way because when they die they will spend an eternity in hell for something that was pre-ordained for them to do. In other words, they were predestined to be born a punished reprobate and to be punished for all eternity for being born punished.

That makes no sense to me. It doesn't even fit with something as elementary as John 3:16 nor the Great Commission.

If it's true that God will refuse to save the reprobates or the majority of the world and will only save the "elect" or the minority, then why would one bring a child into the world? To me, it would be like play Russian roulette, with your child's soul. The odds are, Calvinistically speaking, that the child born will be a reprobate and doomed for hell no matter WHAT the "elect" parent does to raise the child in the Christian faith.

Wouldn't someone who considers himself to be a member of the elect do a much GREATER good in adopting children that are already born and not taking the chance on bringing another reprobate into the world?

This is something that I cannot reconcile with the Bible. I would truly like a sincere answer from anyone who calls himself or herself a Calvinist as to how they reconciled their beliefs about the predestined elect and the unfortunate pre-destined hell-bound-from-birth reprobates with their decision on having their own biological children.

I am not looking to debate anyone and am not looking for a fight. I will NOT fight. I just am burdened and need an answer.
​

Scarlett...

This was an excellant and well thought out post. I at one time considered Calvinism. Read some good books defending it. I gave it every oppotunity to convince me, but it...and its "defenders" never could really "seal the deal", so to speak.

And of course there is the problem regarding the scripture that informs us that "God is no respecter of persons", and all the other scriptures that support it.

In Calvinism, God IS a respecter of persons. He is the ultimate respecter of persons. "I choose you, but not you over there. These 3 here I choose, but you 5 over there, I dont choose.

I gave it a good hearing, but came away finding it wanting.


AiC

 

[David Lamb]

Calvinists, too, would say that God is no respecter of persons/shows no partiality. Of course so; it's stated in Acts 10.34:

Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality."

​

But look at the context of those words. God has given Peter a vision three times (the sheet containing ceremonially clean and unclean animals). Then Peter receives the call to take the gospel to a gentile, Cornelius. He says to Cornelius in Acts 10.28:

"You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean."
​

​

It is in that context that Peter says to Cornelius, "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality." In other words, He doesn't accept people into His heaven because of their nationality, or any other outward characteristic. Praise God, the fact that I am not a Jew is no barrier to my acceptance with Him.

 

[pinoybaptist]

.......... I at one time considered Calvinism. Read some good books defending it. I gave it every oppotunity to convince me, but it...and its "defenders" never could really "seal the deal", so to speak.

What books, for example ?

And of course there is the problem regarding the scripture that informs us that "God is no respecter of persons", and all the other scriptures that support it. In Calvinism, God IS a respecter of persons. He is the ultimate respecter of persons. "I choose you, but not you over there. These 3 here I choose, but you 5 over there, I dont choose.

I gave it a good hearing, but came away finding it wanting.

I tell you what. Find us in the Bible where God chose one over the other because one is a Jew, or the other is a Gentile, or because one is smart, and the other dumb, or one is religious, and the other crass, and then I will agree with you that God is being a respecter of persons.
I don't think you even grasp the concept of what being a "respecter" of persons is.
I'll give you an example.
Somebody is opening up a company, and he determines in his mind that he will NOT hire anybody with any form of Christian belief, and there is no law that says he can't do that. Is he being a respecter of persons or not.
Or a hiring manager reviews the papers of applicants, and in that part of the application where the hiring company swears to high heavens that whether you answer or not your application will not be adversely affected it asks for your race and the hiring manager favors for a second or third interview the one with the same skin color as his or hers, is that being a respecter of persons or not.

In God's case He creates someone for the purpose of fellowship with Him, and provides him with EVERYTHING he needs save one, and the idiot transfers his allegiance to a fellow creature by believing the fellow creature more than the God whose power and fellowship he has personally experienced, thus reaping the consequences of his transfer of allegiance, and in effect, corrupting his perfection in which he was created and in the process transferring the same corruption to his descendants, therefore making NONE of his descendants worthy of the presence and fellowship of their Creator.

Yet this Creator mercifully chooses to save many from a thus condemned race, regardless of whether the one he chooses to exercise undeserved mercy on is Jew or Gentile, black or white, rich or poor, slave or free, yellow, green, brown, olive, and every color in-between, dumb or smart, and you call this God a respecter of persons ?

I don't think you understand what the phrase 'respecter of persons' mean, or you are applying it subjectively.

 

[The Archangel]

Calvinists, too, would say that God is no respecter of persons/shows no partiality. Of course so; it's stated in Acts 10.34:

Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality."

​

But look at the context of those words. God has given Peter a vision three times (the sheet containing ceremonially clean and unclean animals). Then Peter receives the call to take the gospel to a gentile, Cornelius. He says to Cornelius in Acts 10.28:

"You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean."
​

It is in that context that Peter says to Cornelius, "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality." In other words, He doesn't accept people into His heaven because of their nationality, or any other outward characteristic. Praise God, the fact that I am not a Jew is no barrier to my acceptance with Him.

EXCELLENT!

Good words, corrective words. Context rules.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[quantumfaith]

Dr Bob said we could continue Scarlettes thread...




Scarlett...

This was an excellant and well thought out post. I at one time considered Calvinism. Read some good books defending it. I gave it every oppotunity to convince me, but it...and its "defenders" never could really "seal the deal", so to speak.

And of course there is the problem regarding the scripture that informs us that "God is no respecter of persons", and all the other scriptures that support it.

In Calvinism, God IS a respecter of persons. He is the ultimate respecter of persons. "I choose you, but not you over there. These 3 here I choose, but you 5 over there, I dont choose.

I gave it a good hearing, but came away finding it wanting.


AiC

AiC

I am a bit confused (no difficult task mind you) perhaps I am reading you wrong, but you seem to be arguing "against" a DoG stance, yet I perceive that you "associated" with Alpha and Omega (James White?). Perhaps you are simply pursuing an intellectual exercise? Help me out here, thanks.

 

[quantumfaith]

Deuteronomy 2:10-12, 20-23 are short parenthetical sections describing YHWH's prior involvement with other nations before Israel came on the scene. Though they are almost incidental to the main narrative, they imply the same theological affirmation: YHWH, though the covenant God of Israel as his elect and redeemed people, is the universal God who has already been active in the history and movements of other nations. So it is not surprising that even in a prime text in which God's particular election of Israel is highlighted, it is balanced (as if to avoid precisely any suspicion of favoritism) with the strong defining affirmation of YHWH's universality and therefore of his impartiality.

"The Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality." Deut 10:17

From, "The Mission of God" by Christopher J H Wright

 

[Iconoclast]

God is Lord of all. Those who believe in His grace,aqnd those who rebel and find fault with His revealed will. He Has a place in the future for both types of person.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Pinoybaptist...

What books, for example

The only one I can remember is A.W. Pink.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Quantumfaith...

I am a bit confused (no difficult task mind you) perhaps I am reading you wrong, but you seem to be arguing "against" a DoG stance,

Ha ha. My goodness no. I am so "grace" oriented that I have been called an antinomian by legalists.

yet I perceive that you "associated" with Alpha and Omega (James White?). Perhaps you are simply pursuing an intellectual exercise? Help me out here, thanks.

I am not "associated" with his ministry in any way. I respect his ministry regarding his stance on the Roman Catholic false church. If he is a calvinist, then I disagree with him on that point.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Iconoclast...

God is Lord of all. Those who believe in His grace, and those who rebel and find fault with His revealed will. He Has a place in the future for both types of person.

I certainly am in the grace camp, thats for sure.

But I just cant sign on with Calvinism.

 

[quantumfaith]

Quantumfaith...



Ha ha. My goodness no. I am so "grace" oriented that I have been called an antinomian by legalists.



I am not "associated" with his ministry in any way. I respect his ministry regarding his stance on the Roman Catholic false church. If he is a calvinist, then I disagree with him on that point.

Thank you for clearing that up for me. Mercy, peace and love in abundance.

 

[kyredneck]

Pinoybaptist...The only one I can remember is A.W. Pink.

A.W. Pink is an author whom I am a great fan of. Take a gander at the books he wrote:

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/pinks_archive.htm

Which book did you read?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Mercy, peace and love in abundance.

Well, thank you very much, and may Gods grace overflow in your life.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Kyredneck...

Which book did you read?

I've still got the book.


"Practical Christianity"

 

[canadyjd]

Originally Posted by Scarlett O. First, let me say this is something that is burdening me for personal reasons as there are about 4 young couples in my church who are embracing Calvinism. They are TERRIFIC young couples deeply entrenched in faith and evangelism and I love them very much. Two of the couples have children and the others eventually will. There is something that I would like to talk to them about, but I am afraid of offending them, so I must take the coward's way out and bring the question here......

Scarlett O. I hope you don't mind me being candid with you.

You were right not to approach these young folks with this question. Whether they would be offended or not, I cannot say. I know that I was offended just reading your post. I started to respond, then changed and re-wrote..then started all over.. and then just gave up.

I have attempted to imagine what I would say to someone who came to me and asked me why I would want to have my children, given my reformed views; then have that person suggest I'm playing Russian Roulette with the souls of my children.... well... let's just say it is beyond offensive.

You are not questioning a point of doctrine concerning theology. You are not asking for biblical support for a point of view.

You are asking... "How can you Calvinists justify even wanting to have children, given your beliefs."

Therefore, I can only say that if you really believe what you have stated, and you really value the fellowship you have with these young folks, keep your opinions about reformed doctrine to yourself.

I suspect if you ask them the questions you asked here, you could permanently damage any fellowship you might have with them.

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

Scarlett O. I hope you don't mind me being candid with you.

You were right not to approach these young folks with this question. Whether they would be offended or not, I cannot say. I know that I was offended just reading your post. I started to respond, then changed and re-wrote..then started all over.. and then just gave up.

I have attempted to imagine what I would say to someone who came to me and asked me why I would want to have my children, given my reformed views; then have that person suggest I'm playing Russian Roulette with the souls of my children.... well... let's just say it is beyond offensive.

You are not questioning a point of doctrine concerning theology. You are not asking for biblical support for a point of view.

You are asking... "How can you Calvinists justify even wanting to have children, given your beliefs."

Therefore, I can only say that if you really believe what you have stated, and you really value the fellowship you have with these young folks, keep your opinions about reformed doctrine to yourself.

I suspect if you ask them the questions you asked here, you could permanently damage any fellowship you might have with them.

peace to youraying:

:thumbsup: I agree. Good words.

 

[mets65]

Scarlett O. I hope you don't mind me being candid with you.

You were right not to approach these young folks with this question. Whether they would be offended or not, I cannot say. I know that I was offended just reading your post. I started to respond, then changed and re-wrote..then started all over.. and then just gave up.

I have attempted to imagine what I would say to someone who came to me and asked me why I would want to have my children, given my reformed views; then have that person suggest I'm playing Russian Roulette with the souls of my children.... well... let's just say it is beyond offensive.

You are not questioning a point of doctrine concerning theology. You are not asking for biblical support for a point of view.

You are asking... "How can you Calvinists justify even wanting to have children, given your beliefs."

Therefore, I can only say that if you really believe what you have stated, and you really value the fellowship you have with these young folks, keep your opinions about reformed doctrine to yourself.

I suspect if you ask them the questions you asked here, you could permanently damage any fellowship you might have with them.

peace to youraying:

As much as I completely disagree with Calvinism, I completely agree with your post. First off since I don't think Calvinism is biblical I would never ask a Calvinist about gambling with the souls of their children. Teach them, encourage them to come to Christ, Calvinist or non-calvinist both are going to do that if they are true believers. If they want to evangelize the Gospel but they hold to a calvinists doctrine you should leave them alone, if you try to convert them its only for your personal sastifaction, not the sastifaction of our Lord.

 

[pinoybaptist]

......................
I have attempted to imagine what I would say to someone who came to me and asked me why I would want to have my children, given my reformed views; then have that person suggest I'm playing Russian Roulette with the souls of my children.... well... let's just say it is beyond offensive.

You are not questioning a point of doctrine concerning theology. You are not asking for biblical support for a point of view.

You are asking... "How can you Calvinists justify even wanting to have children, given your beliefs."

...................................
peace to youraying:

Which is why I responded just once: in sarcasm.

 

[pinoybaptist]

As much as I completely disagree with Calvinism, I completely agree with your post. First off since I don't think Calvinism is biblical I would never ask a Calvinist about gambling with the souls of their children. Teach them, encourage them to come to Christ, Calvinist or non-calvinist both are going to do that if they are true believers. If they want to evangelize the Gospel but they hold to a calvinists doctrine you should leave them alone, if you try to convert them its only for your personal sastifaction, not the sastifaction of our Lord.

I suppose yours is biblical ?
What your question about Calvinists' children, and subsequently yours, implies, is that the cross HAS NOT happened, there is STILL A CHANCE Christ might go up that cross one more time, shed His blood one more time, resurrect one more time for the sake of your children ?
God in the Heavens condescended to live among His fallen people.
His people rejected Him, some accepted Him, many doubted He was the Messiah.
He lived a good life, doing good deeds, preaching about the kingdom of God, confronting religion, throwing the religious "experts" of His day into consternation.
The Jews wanted Him dead, the Romans wanted Him free, in the end they both agreed to crucify Him.
The cross is OVER.
The tomb is EMPTY.
Christ is RISEN.
And all these are what constitutes the gospel.
If you're a pagan, as many elects were in Biblical times, and you heard Paul or Peter or Thomas or John or any of the apostles and their appointed preachers preach the gospel you need to turn away from your paganism and idolatry and be saved from those and be blessed because your eternity is secure.
If you're a Jew and a religionist, do the same thing, because your eternity is secure.
In 2001, turn away from thinking you can still perhaps do something about your children's eternity because you know what ?
It's not in your hands.
Watch the "Jesus Camp".
Do you think those kids were being taught correct doctrine ?
Unarguably MANY of those kids are God's children, but not all.
Will Christ refuse them because of their doctrine ?
No.
He died for them as much as he did for any of His people who will be born after them, and who were born before them, and who lived in His time, and before His time.
So, TRUST God that He is good and merciful.
Rear up your children in the way of the Lord and trust Him to work out His will in your children if they belong to Him.

Oh, goodness.
Did I really say those ?
Me ?
A HYPER-Calvinist ?

 

[Jerome]

Insight on why Calvinists are so touchy about this issue:

Their oracle has spoken:

Calvin's Institutes 4:16
Children of Christians "are immediately on their birth received by God as heirs of the covenant".

Yet Don Kistler, former R. C. Sproul associate, is frank about the rift in Calvinism on this issue:

One of the main points of difference between the English Puritans and the New England Puritans was how they saw their children. The English tended to side with Dutch Reformed theology, that viewed their children as regenerate from baptism unless they had demonstrative proof to the contrary.
The American Puritans viewed their children as unsaved unless they had demonstrative proof to the contrary.

Kistler's own gems of wisdom:

“the prayer of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord,” and it is a sin to call God their Father when He is not their Father. It is a lie.

The prayer of the wicked is still an abomination to the Lord. And if a person regards iniquity in their heart, the Lord will not hear them, regardless of their age.