• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Calvinism Critiqued by a Former Calvinist

preacher4truth

Active Member
The statement we are dragged kicking and screaming into the truths of our theology is nonsense and is a misrepresentation of the brethren.

Factually, when presented with these truths, some, including myself, fought against it in ignorance. I want to retiterate that I for one wasn't taught this system by any one person, nor did I take to it after reading reformed theologies, nor Calvin. These truths were instead brought to my attention by a brother, whom I rejected immediately (as far as teaching), then reading through Scriptures these truths were expressly brought to light via the Holy Spirit, after conviction for rejecting the truths that were presented.

I subsequently repented of my attitude against such and embraced these truths after much study and some toil with my former theological position.

These truths are the testimony of all of Scripture, and are not the conclusions derived from a set of proof-texts as non-cals are typically notorious in doing. This is one reason, and a huge glaring reason as to why they are in error theologically.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Well, as I stated there are exceptions, but in my experience with MANY students who have become "Calvinistic" they had (or have) little knowledge of the scholarly views of the "Arminian" perspective. They say things like, "What else can you do with Romans 9 or John 6 or Eph. 1?" and have absolutely no idea how Arminians interpret that text.

Think that might be due to the truth that as contrasted to the cals posting in the doctrine of Sotierology over the years, nit that much comparively speaking from the Arms!

Also, in this new viewpoint being espoused by the NON Cals here on the BB...

tend to downplay the fall of man, our sinful natures, and almost have man getting elevated to being "not that bad"




In fact, I'd be interested to know how you think "we" deal with those texts. It is very rare to find someone from the Calvinistic perspective fairly represent our views.


Think big reason for that is that even Arms/non cals disagree on idea of grace/free will etc!


[
QUOTE]We agree on this point. But that goes to prove my point. The "non-Calvinists" are just that..."non"...meaning they don't approach the subject, in fact they often avoid it. This has left a vacuum that Calvinism has filled. When "Arminian" scholars begin to teach and explain their perspectives this void will not be so easy for Calvinists to fill.



Don't thin tkat non calls have ben as 'consistent" though in the model of sotierology working under, as there are differing viewpoints in the camp!
Also, to be blunt, would say the cals do have a more consistent 'biblical" viw on salvation, as we try to fit the model based upon the totality of the scriptures...


Even Calvinists admit they are "dragged kicking a screaming to the DoGs" because of their difficulty. I had the same experience. I didn't want to believe them, but I submitted to them because I couldn't see any other perspective. It is only when you study and understand the historical doctrine of Israel's Judicial hardening (where God actively blinds Israel in their rebellion) that many of these problem texts become quite clear.[/QUOTE
]


Strange...

Think majority of us came to DoG not kicking and screaming, but as in my case, but reading the Bible, reading MANY theologies from ALL different perspectives, and kept coming back to the biblical facts that we ALL were killed off by the fall, that it is God that aleways took intive to redeem man, and the Cross of Christ secured "real" salvation for His people, not a"hope/might/possible" salvation, based upon how we respond to it!
 

preacher4truth

Active Member
BINGO!

That is exactly WHY most non calls have such a big problem with biblical doctrines such as election/God in control/salvation/free will etc
as their sotierology mdel tends to NOT see just how devastating the fall of Adam was to man, that jesus did die as a REAL and NOT possible atonement for mankind, and that God is always the One who comes to man for salvation purposes, NOT waiting upon us to show Him obedience and our faith first!

Thanks and amen.
 

preacher4truth

Active Member
Don't thin tkat non calls have ben as 'consistent" though in the model of sotierology working under, as there are differing viewpoints in the camp!
Also, to be blunt, would say the cals do have a more consistent 'biblical" viw on salvation, as we try to fit the model based upon the totality of the scriptures...





Strange...

Think majority of us came to DoG not kicking and screaming, but as in my case, but reading the Bible, reading MANY theologies from ALL different perspectives, and kept coming back to the biblical facts that we ALL were killed off by the fall, that it is God that aleways took intive to redeem man, and the Cross of Christ secured "real" salvation for His people, not a"hope/might/possible" salvation, based upon how we respond to it!

Yes and amen again! :thumbsup:
 

mandym

New Member
Don't thin tkat non calls have ben as 'consistent" though in the model of sotierology working under, as there are differing viewpoints in the camp!
Also, to be blunt, would say the cals do have a more consistent 'biblical" viw on salvation, as we try to fit the model based upon the totality of the scriptures...


]


Strange...

Think majority of us came to DoG not kicking and screaming, but as in my case, but reading the Bible, reading MANY theologies from ALL different perspectives, and kept coming back to the biblical facts that we ALL were killed off by the fall, that it is God that aleways took intive to redeem man, and the Cross of Christ secured "real" salvation for His people, not a"hope/might/possible" salvation, based upon how we respond to it!

We don't have nay of these "problems" but we do get mischaracterized by cals like you most frequently do.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The statement we are dragged kicking and screaming into the truths of our theology is nonsense and is a misrepresentation of the brethren.

Factually, when presented with these truths, some, including myself, fought against it in ignorance. I want to retiterate that I for one wasn't taught this system by any one person, nor did I take to it after reading reformed theologies, nor Calvin. These truths were instead brought to my attention by a brother, whom I rejected immediately (as far as teaching), then reading through Scriptures these truths were expressly brought to light via the Holy Spirit, after conviction for rejecting the truths that were presented.

I subsequently repented of my attitude against such and embraced these truths after much study and some toil with my former theological position.

These truths are the testimony of all of Scripture, and are not the conclusions derived from a set of proof-texts as non-cals are typically notorious in doing. This is one reason, and a huge glaring reason as to why they are in error theologically.

This is more often than not the testimony of many who had a natural understanding having not even been exposed to the whole counsel of God...but given a quick ,shallow 3 or 4 step understanding of what we are meant to study out in detail.
I am glad that there are those who are zealous to win souls...and do what they can with what they know ....as best as they are able.
Often times God will bless the obedience and zeal to fulfill the Great Commission as someone plants good seed in good soil.
Then God sends someone else to water the seed so it grows healthy and strong.
The healthy tree...does not despise those God sent to water it....{apostles ,prohets, pastors, and teachers} but rather enjoy the fruits of their labors in the word....unlike OT Israel whom we read this about;

15And the LORD God of their fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes, and sending; because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling place:

16But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till there was no remedy.

Some proudly boast of only needing the bible.Well the bible is always primary,among the people of God..nevertheless God uses iron to sharpen iron...can you imagine this conversion????

27And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

28Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

29Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

Can you imagine this response???/

Then the Eunuch flew off the handle and snapped at him.....I only need Isaiah all by myself....Twaddle, Fiddlesticks, I do not need your man made dogma....you are trying to help me Philip? That is arrogant, rude, haughty, and condescending...you eliteist....
Who elected you to pontificate about me???? are you judging me???
I have "free-will" ...I am my own god...I determine for myself what is right and what is wrong.
Philip....your god is wicked and causes man to sin....I could not worship a god like that...no way.....my god is nice...he never sends anyone to hell, they send themselves.....Philip you speak of a God who is total control of all things that come to pass....but my god limits himself,so that he really is not sure what will happen in the future....he wishes that someone somewhere will like him...after all ...we are not robots Philip.....

P4T.....could you imagine that conversation! That would just be horrible..I am glad we read what we read in Acts 8 however!
:BangHead::BangHead::BangHead:

31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

33In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

34And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

35Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

39And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
The statement we are dragged kicking and screaming into the truths of our theology is nonsense and is a misrepresentation of the brethren.
I said it is the testimony of some. RC Sproul is one of them. I've also heard others here on this board testify to the same thing as they explain the difficulty of accepting these teachings. That is a factual statement, not a misrepresentation.


Factually, when presented with these truths, some, including myself, fought against it
And that is all I was referring to, so now you can take back you prior statement about my misrepresenting something.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I seriously doubt that anyone who claims to have been a calvinist in the past became non-cal through serious "scholarly" study.

Most non-cals on here are proof-texters and have not lended a scholarly rebuttal yet against any of the Dogmas of Reformed Theology.

Typically the OP's started to rebutt and ensnare the DoG brothers are begun on a faulty premise laden with out of context proof-texts. This is the major reason I seriously have my doubts some were ever at one time Calvinists, and switched.

Furthermore, there is no solid, scholarly study of the Biblical text which tends toward such a conclusion.

The main basis at fault within non-cal theology is the rejection of the true Biblical nature and indictment of lost mankind, thus it starts on a faulty platform to begin with (and what a serious fault it is!) and then goes off into some of these areas: an exaltation of mankind, down the paths of easy-believisms, unbiblical self-esteem preaching, flawed views of the doctrine of repentance, faith, and deficient views of the "omni's" and Sovereignty of God.

When Calvinists claim to having been a non-cal in the past, and has studied and become Calvinist, he or she is maligned as being elitest or arrogant for such statements. The shoe fits both ways if that is what one foolishly wants to believe. Yet again, I seriously doubt those who say they were cals in the past became non-cals through study. Reading said ones theological conclusions here erases in my mind that they concluded such via true scholarly study.

- Peace

:thumbsup::thumbsup::applause::applause:
 

quantumfaith

Active Member
This is more often than not the testimony of many who had a natural understanding having not even been exposed to the whole counsel of God...but given a quick ,shallow 3 or 4 step understanding of what we are meant to study out in detail.
I am glad that there are those who are zealous to win souls...and do what they can with what they know ....as best as they are able.
Often times God will bless the obedience and zeal to fulfill the Great Commission as someone plants good seed in good soil.
Then God sends someone else to water the seed so it grows healthy and strong.
The healthy tree...does not despise those God sent to water it....{apostles ,prohets, pastors, and teachers} but rather enjoy the fruits of their labors in the word....unlike OT Israel whom we read this about;



Some proudly boast of only needing the bible.Well the bible is always primary,among the people of God..nevertheless God uses iron to sharpen iron...can you imagine this conversion????



Can you imagine this response???/

Then the Eunuch flew off the handle and snapped at him.....I only need Isaiah all by myself....Twaddle, Fiddlesticks, I do not need your man made dogma....you are trying to help me Philip? That is arrogant, rude, haughty, and condescending...you eliteist....
Who elected you to pontificate about me???? are you judging me???
I have "free-will" ...I am my own god...I determine for myself what is right and what is wrong.
Philip....your god is wicked and causes man to sin....I could not worship a god like that...no way.....my god is nice...he never sends anyone to hell, they send themselves.....Philip you speak of a God who is total control of all things that come to pass....but my god limits himself,so that he really is not sure what will happen in the future....he wishes that someone somewhere will like him...after all ...we are not robots Philip.....

P4T.....could you imagine that conversation! That would just be horrible..I am glad we read what we read in Acts 8 however!
:BangHead::BangHead::BangHead:


How is that you often describe what others say, think etc........Oh Yeah

FIDDLESTICKS
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Among believers there should be a tolerance of both sides in the "I arrived at this by scholarly study" statement, instead of calling one group arrogant, and not both. Better yet? Neither. :)

A questioning of someones beliefs can lead to growth...if there are defects, they can be corrected.:type:
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This is a true statement. :)

QF :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Seriously.....this should be what takes place here..instead of .....let me poke you in the eye with a stick,then when you react...i will call you arrogant and rude....kind of dynamic...

Doctrines of Grace aside....there are many good teachings and writings about scripture that can be developed or discussed that would be much more beneficial...we could grow eponentially[math reference for you]:laugh:
 

quantumfaith

Active Member
QF :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Seriously.....this should be what takes place here..instead of .....let me poke you in the eye with a stick,then when you react...i will call you arrogant and rude....kind of dynamic...

Doctrines of Grace aside....there are many good teachings and writings about scripture that can be developed or discussed that would be much more beneficial...we could grow eponentially[math reference for you]:laugh:

I like it (exponential), do you know the name of its inverse?
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
QF :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Seriously.....this should be what takes place here..instead of .....let me poke you in the eye with a stick,then when you react...i will call you arrogant and rude....kind of dynamic...

Doctrines of Grace aside....there are many good teachings and writings about scripture that can be developed or discussed that would be much more beneficial...we could grow eponentially[math reference for you]:laugh:

Great points Iconoclast, I have found grasciousness, and true agape love - the fruit of the Spirit - in all sorts of churches from hyper-cal to rampant Arminius.

HankD
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
BINGO!

That is exactly WHY most non calls have such a big problem with biblical doctrines such as election/God in control/salvation/free will etc
as their sotierology mdel tends to NOT see just how devastating the fall of Adam was to man, that jesus did die as a REAL and NOT possible atonement for mankind, and that God is always the One who comes to man for salvation purposes, NOT waiting upon us to show Him obedience and our faith first!
Complete hogwash. I see nothing of deep substance from either you or P4T, in fact when he first arrived here I tried engaging him in a serious discussion on deeper things and he was utterly lost.

I notice just about every one of you posts start with "think". In all honesty you do not go deep in your own postings here, so I wouldn't be too quick to call out the knowledge and study of non cal's.
 

Alive in Christ

New Member
That is exactly WHY most non calls have such a big problem with biblical doctrines such as election/God in control/salvation/free will etc
as their sotierology mdel tends to NOT see just how devastating the fall of Adam was to man, that jesus did die as a REAL and NOT possible atonement for mankind, and that God is always the One who comes to man for salvation purposes, NOT waiting upon us to show Him obedience and our faith first!

The only problem with that is that is just isnt true.

We must embrace Christ. Trust Him. Recieve Him

God does not do that for us. WE have a choice to make...

15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, 16 in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the LORD your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess.

17 But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, 18 I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to go in and possess.

19 I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; 20 that you may love the LORD your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days; and that you may dwell in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”

And that principle, that WE are called to choose, is repeated over and over and over again all through the scriptures. From the old testament all the way through Paul, the other apostles, and Christ Himself.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Complete hogwash. I see nothing of deep substance from either you or P4T, in fact when he first arrived here I tried engaging him in a serious discussion on deeper things and he was utterly lost.

I notice just about every one of you posts start with "think". In all honesty you do not go deep in your own postings here, so I wouldn't be too quick to call out the knowledge and study of non cal's.

Just curious as to what theologies from reformed/calvinistic/DoG you have read and studied?

Because onone hand, cals are accused of being 'too much" into serious scholarly learning, yet other hand, asked to be more in depth?
 

mandym

New Member
Just curious as to what theologies from reformed/calvinistic/DoG you have read and studied?

Because onone hand, cals are accused of being 'too much" into serious scholarly learning, yet other hand, asked to be more in depth?

You keep saying what cals are accused of yet I have sen none of it here on the BB. And so many of your posts are nothing more than what icon suggested. A poke in the eye to non cals.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
[
QUOTE=Alive in Christ;1733318]The only problem with that is that is just isnt true.

We must embrace Christ. Trust Him. Recieve Him

God does not do that for us. WE have a choice to make...

Again, the non cals here fail to see that due to the fall of adam, and the spiritual condition/stae that forced upon ALL of us In Adam...

God does honor our choice "free will", its just that in and by ourselves we will always chose "no" to the Gospel as it offends us and makes us angry, as it strikes at our own "self rightousness"

And that principle, that WE are called to choose, is repeated over and over and over again all through the scriptures. From the old testament all the way through Paul, the other apostles, and Christ Himself.[/QUOTE]
 
Top