Calvinists can't stand when smart people don't agree with them.

[preacher4truth]

Actually the OP's title here is not representative of Pipers sentiments whatsoever. It's a total misrepresentation of what the article says (which is quite short) and nothing in the article reflects what the title of this thread feebly attempts to advocate and lay upon my brothers who are calvinists.

I also find it interesting a grown man 'giggled' inside while coming to wrong conclusions about what the article meant. :flower::thumbsup::laugh:

I'm chuckling at that thought.

Now, did he actually even read it, and if so, how does he incessantly arrive at things never stated from his reading endeavors?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The main premise of the OP is decidedly true....I quote two of those men in my signature...Calvinists absolutely LOATHE it (usually) when genuinely intelligent and knowledgeable Christians disagree with them. That is largely because fully 25% of the convincing strength of Calvinist argument basically rests upon an assumption (that they would like to encourage) that Calvinists are the most intellectual and biblically knowledgeable amongst Evangelical thought. If people ceased believing that...then they would be less drawn towards Calvinism. Piper is trying to simply disparage Chesterton...what Piper is trying posit...is BEYOND bold in his article. He is trying to claim that Calvinists actually hold the most poetically beautiful ground so to speak...It is bold to say the least, and it is laughable. He would feel no need to try to assert this if it weren't painfully obvious to all readers that A non-Calvinist understanding invokes a much more deeply felt and much more deeply and personally experienced God. He is actually trying to co-opt that particular distinction.

AGEDMAN: One is never too old to giggle: When you free yourself of notions like this, you may be able to laugh and glorify God along with statements of men like Chesterton when he writes things like this:

The materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle ... is not allowed to retain even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel.
Gilbert Keith Chesterton

I am truly sad for those who are incapable of understanding, reading and enjoying and yes, learning from, men like Lewis, Chesterton, Tozer and Tolkein...and the unique ability they had to make the faith we hold the lovingly personal one that Almighty Sovereign God meant it to be.
Calvinists (as a rule) are not permitted to benefit from their ingenious musings because (and only because) they were BRILLIANT!!! and they were not Calvinists...

Jeremiah encourages us to boast in this:

Jer 9:24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I [am] the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these [things] I delight, saith the LORD.

The first is a Hebrew word which suggests an intellectual and factual knowledge...the second is a different Hebrew word which implies a different and more personal and more "felt" as-it-were knowledge of God, as a Person. Cals love to point out that distinction when they are explaining their view of "foreKNOWLEDGE" In the Greek, but they have often little to say about that distinction also made in the Hebrew.

And men like Lewis, Chesterton, Tozer and Tolkein...got it...therefore (due to their intelligence) theirs are forbidden works, and all who read them are to be summarily burned.

 

[OldRegular]

Funny you say that because the determinist would suggest that God is just as in control of Satan's doings as His own. Another great example of Calvinist's attempt to subvert any actual level of creaturely freedom, smart or otherwise. Thanks for the reminder!:thumbsup:

Surely you are not saying that God does not limit Satan?:BangHead:

You need to be specific. If you think I've said something that misrepresents Calvinism then quote my actual words and make an argument as to why you feel it is a misrepresentation.

I refer you to your above quote. Nuff Said!:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

single out a specific group and apply some fault to them that actually describes all people:

a. Non-calvinists can't stand it when obviously smart and well-respected believers are known to be calvinists.

I think if you do a search on this forum you will see that I defend John Calvin as a very smart and influential scholar. I also express my respect for many various Calvinistic scholars. I have just noticed a common trend when Calvinists react toward notable intellectual non-Calvinistic believers.

Just google the term "Tozer" and "Calvinist" to see my point. The top result is a blog of a Calvinistic believer who argues:

Tozer was not a confessional Calvinist... But saying that he is not a Calvinist, at least in the general sense of what this term has meant, is another matter altogether. After I read the comment about Tozer not being a Calvinist I thought to myself, “Yes, that is true in one sense. But in a more important sense it is not quite true.” Why? Well, because Calvinism does not consist in affirming the five points of the Synod of Dordt. This is how many think of it but this is not the heart of the theology at all. Generally the term has been used, more broadly, to describe anyone with a fairly robust view of the sovereignty of God and a deep and growing desire to maximize God's glory in the way they live and teach the faith. (This is why Calvin's own symbol is an outstretched hand offering one's heart to God!) In this sense Tozer was a “Calvinist.”​

He wants soooo badly to make Tozer apart of his camp...to include his intellect and skill into his ranks. You can just feel it in his words. On the one hand he knows Tozer isn't Calvinistic, but on the other hand he so desperately wants him to be. That's what I'm referring to...

Arminians don't react that way typically when confronted by scholarly Calvinists. At least that is not been my experience, but maybe I'm not being objective? I'm willing to reconsider.

I think Heir's last post was masterful and further supports the point of the OP. Hopefully that clarifies the intent....

 

[Skandelon]

Surely you are not saying that God does not limit Satan?:BangHead:

No, I'm suggesting that SOME Calvinists believe that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, including the very works of Satan in our midst, and they don't merely mean "allowing/permitting" either. Thus, if Satan is considered by some to be the 'most intelligent' of creatures, then that would only go to support the idea being presented in the OP, but I was obviously saying that tongue in cheek...

What I believe about Satan's freedom as an independent creature wasn't being discussed, but I'd be glad to do so if you would like.

 

[saturneptune]

What I believe about Satan's freedom as an independent creature wasn't being discussed, but I'd be glad to do so if you would like.

Why would a thread like that be necessary? The subject is well defined in the book of Job. What does Satan have to do with Calvinism?

 

[Baptist4life]

What does Satan have to do with Calvinism?

Well, Scripture states that he is the father of lies! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[saturneptune]

Well, Scripture states that he is the father of lies! :smilewinkgrin:

Score one for the Baptist!!!!! LOL Now that is funny regardless of the side you are on.

 

[OldRegular]

With the way Calvinists are being slimed in this Forum, and this thread in particular, I am glad I am not a Calvinist.

Calvin believed in infant baptism, I don't! He rejected immersion as the proper mode of Baptism, I don't. He had a view of the Lord's Supper different than mine. If I were a Calvinist I would unite with a church of the PCA.

However, Calvin did believe the Doctrine of Grace, so did the Apostle Paul, so did Augustine, so did Keach, Bunyon, Gill, Spurgeon, Fuller. LeLand, Judson, Wayland, Dagg, Mell, Carroll, Boyce, Broadus, Manly Sr., Manly Jr., all the old Baptist Saints; then there are Strong, Conner, Mullins, Reisinger, Mohler, a few on this Forum I could name, and then there is me. Why do I believe the Doctrine of Grace? Because "the Bible Tells Me So"!:godisgood::love2::jesus::love2:

 

[preacher4truth]

I am amazed (not really) that Calvinists can be accused (their doctrine too) of having satan as a father and father of their teachings.

How lightly we take him, even in jest and in using this heinous being to identify other believers and their doctrine.

And then laugh about it. And call it 'a score'.

How pleased he is today to see these things amongst the brethren. He's having a hey day.

God help us.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I also find it interesting a grown man 'giggled' inside while coming to wrong conclusions about what the article meant.

And....if you were permitted to "giggle" along with men like Chesterton....you would never say this. You would happily come towards Christ in the way that men like Chesterton can, and Skan can...not taking yourself so very seriously, but having the faith of a child. Please read some of Chesterton's works. He, very brilliantly, and like an adult....can do this in a way that many Cals have not yet learned to.

There are brilliant Calvinist scholars who quote men like Chesterton favorably. Try searching Ravi Zacharias in Youtube when he refers to Chesterton's "Ethics of Elfland" It will warm your heart. :1_grouphug: Also begin to see how much he will CONSTANTLY favourably quote other non-Cal geniuses like Lewis and Tolkein. Mostly Lewis. It is simply sad that (most) Cals (at least presently) are simply hostile towards the contributions of such men. They are robbing their followers of the musings of people rarely seen, and who will (I contend) never be replicated before our Lord returns.

Skan forgot to include George MacDonald in his list of greats: (son of a very Calvinist Presbyterian minister) The man whom Lewis called his "master". This was a group of utterly brilliant men, occupying a unique place in the History of Christian thought that will never be seen again. Skan's contention, is that Calvinists (by and large) will be robbed of their works for two reasons:

1.) They were not Calvinists
2.) They were absolutely brilliant

And that is not permitted...ask ICON, he has told me as much and in so many words, without reservation, that he WILL NOT read C.S. Lewis. That is sad :tear:

 

[OldRegular]

Skan forgot to include George MacDonald in his list of greats: (son of a very Calvinist Presbyterian minister) The man whom Lewis called his "master". This was a group of utterly brilliant men, occupying a unique place in the History of Christian thought that will never be seen again.

Aren't you being a little melodramatic? MacDonald was primarily a poet!

http://www.macdonaldphillips.com/legacy.html

Correctly or not the above site states the following:

In May, 1853, came the deciding crisis of George MacDonald's life. He was forced to resign his pulpit under pressure from his congregation, the elders of which resented his unorthodoxy. Presumably, they were shocked at his preaching that the heathen would be saved.

Converted heathen yes; otherwise NO!

 

[asterisktom]

Presumably, they were shocked at his [Chesterton's] preaching that the heathen would be saved.[/i]

Converted heathen yes; otherwise NO!

And Chesterton is out in the same left-field as CS Lewis in this regard. Lewis, also, posited that many heathen throughout the world are saved outside of Christ. This can be found in Mere Christianity and, as I recall, one or two places elsewhere.

So - not speaking for others here - this is why I rarely read Lewis anymore. First, I would have to take my shoes off to count all the books or articles I had read from this man I once greatly admired. Secondly, once his theological bent (and it truly was bent) became obvious I stayed away from him. There are too many good authors to read to be wasting time on someone who was unclear on what should be basic Christianity - the uniqueness of salvation in Christ.

 

[Baptist4life]

Sorry, but IMHO, Calvinism IS a lie! A VERY serious FALSE doctrine. Believing God predestined some people for Hell IS from Satan. That's all I'm going to say on this thread.

 

[preacher4truth]

And....if you were permitted to "giggle" along with men like Chesterton....you would never say this. You would happily come towards Christ in the way that men like Chesterton can, and Skan can...not taking yourself so very seriously, but having the faith of a child.

Then again I am amazed that yet another hasn't understood the article, and skipping past all of this has gone on the attack of another person which is of utmost importance to him.

On top of that your accusation that I need to come to Christ as Chesterton and skan, which is unecessary, and in fact you'll be in my prayers asd it is neecdful seeing how you refer to others...but your implication remains, that is; an accusation that I'm lost.

You should hang your head in shame.

The facts remain: The OP is way off track and doesn't represent the article it cites. I bring this fact to the forefront, and so have others, and your rebuttal is to call my salvation into question.

Oh, and by the way, I've read much of Tozer and Chestertons works. Yet another assumption by you, which are at the least two; 1) I need to come to Christ (I'm lost according to you) which is the exact intent of your words, then; 2) I need to read someones works as you assume I haven't when not a word from my mouth condemned either man, nor mocked their ministries or works. In other words your accusations and assumptions are completely baseless, which means they are merely showing what kind of person you are inwardly when you do these things.

 

[asterisktom]

Sorry, but IMHO, Calvinism IS a lie! A VERY serious FALSE doctrine. Believing God predestined some people for Hell IS from Satan. That's all I'm going to say on this thread.

Good.

Not referring to what you said, but that this is all that you are going to say.

Like several here, I can't quite bring myself to say I am a Calvinist, seeing that several of his beliefs are not mine. But the above comment shows a very superficial understanding of that belief system.

 

[preacher4truth]

Sorry, but IMHO, Calvinism IS a lie! A VERY serious FALSE doctrine. Believing God predestined some people for Hell IS from Satan. That's all I'm going to say on this thread.

You're sorry, but then bow down yet again and accuse brothers of being of satan.

No, you're not sorry, but such accusations are allowable here when against those of the Doctrines of Grace.

You've said it enough, and moreso by saying it twice.

 

[preacher4truth]

Good.

Not referring to what you said, but that this is all that you are going to say.

Agreed. :thumbsup:

 

[quantumfaith]

So what is your point? Many very intelligent people are atheists even though they may be fools in the eyes of God. Anyhow aren't you a little old to "giggle"?

Excellent point, but please tell me you are not attempting to imply that "non-calvinists" are also "fools". FWIW, I do not believe my calvinist brothers are such.

 

[Jerome]

Seems this type of thing goes back to the source:

Calvin turns against Sebastian Castellio

his education, zeal and theological knowledge were so outstanding that he was considered to be one of the most learned men of his time, equal, if not superior, to John Calvin. Regarding Castellio, Voltaire wrote: "We can measure the virulence of this tyranny by the persecution to which Castellio was exposed at Calvin's instance—although Castellio was a far greater scholar than Calvin, whose jealousy drove him out of Geneva."

In 1543, after the plague struck Geneva, Sebastian Castellio was the only divine in Geneva to visit the sick and console the dying; the Geneva Consistory and Calvin himself refused to visit the sick

the Geneva City Council recommended Castellio's permanent appointment as preacher in Vandoeuvres; however in 1544 a campaign against him was initiated by Calvin. At the time, Castellio decided to translate the Bible into his native French. . .but Calvin's endorsement was already given to his cousin Pierre Olivetan's French translation of the Bible, so Castellio was rebuked

during a public meeting Castellio rose to his feet and claimed that clergy should stop persecuting those who disagree with them on matters of Biblical interpretation, and should be held to the same standards that all other believers were held to. Soon after, Calvin charged Castellio with the offense of "undermining the prestige of the clergy." Castellio was forced to resign from his position of Rector and asked to be dismissed from being a preacher in Vandoeuvres. Anticipating future attacks from Calvin, Castellio asked for a signed letter that outlined in detail the reasons for his departure. . . . .Years of poverty. . . . .many perhaps were afraid to help Castellio for fear of reprisals from Geneva.