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

[Jerome]

And Pft, is this the sort of thing you're talking about?:

From the preface of Calvin and Beza's Bible de Genève:

Satan has found as many translators as there are frivolous and impudent minds; and he will probably find even more, unless God give them pause before it is too late. If the reader asks me for an example, let me refer to Sebastian Castellio's translation of the Bible. . . . We therefore regard it as a conscientious duty to break the silence we have hitherto kept, and to warn all Christians against this man, the chosen of Satan.

 

[Herald]

...this is a soteriological debate forum which is created for the very purpose of such topics...

And your OP was an attempt at a soteriological debate?

 

[asterisktom]

And your OP was an attempt at a soteriological debate?

One of the key foundational aspects of any kind of debate is to be able to state both sides dispassionately and fairly.

"It seems" is a poor beginning for any worthwhile debate. Another "D" word comes to mind - diatribe.

 

[Skandelon]

And your OP was an attempt at a soteriological debate?

More of an observation of those who have debated these points throughout history and the ways in which we respond to them today. There have been many such threads here, but I'm sure you rebuked all the Calvinistic leaning thread starters for doing the same, right? Oops, maybe not. :tongue3:

 

[12strings]

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....

So this blogger you cite does exactly what you claim in the OP...but Piper, in his article does not. he does exactly the opposite.

This also does not change the fact that both cals and non-cals don't like being disagreed with by smart people.

 

[12strings]

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.

This statement is NO MORE TRUE than the corrolary that non-calvinists hate when knowledgable christians disagree with them. That's the main point I'm trying to get accross here.

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.

25%? where does that number come from?

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...

AGREED (With the bolded part).

Disagree somewhat with the second part, simply because I have heard many calvinists quote these men favorably (piper included).

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.

[/QUOTE]

Other than Icon, who else has taken this stance. (and despite not wanting to read Lewis, I'm not sure Icon would even take this stance...Lewis has some other theological problems besides simply rejecting predestination. )

 

[Herald]

More of an observation of those who have debated these points throughout history and the ways in which we respond to them today. There have been many such threads here, but I'm sure you rebuked all the Calvinistic leaning thread starters for doing the same, right? Oops, maybe not. :tongue3:

Ask Iconoclast. He knows me in my role as a moderator on another board. I have little patience for Calvinists and neo-Calvinists who use strawman arguments or who posit ridiculous ideas. Serious scholarship includes policing one's own.

 

[12strings]

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.

[/QUOTE]

Link 1: Piper Likes CS Lewis...

http://theresurgence.com/2010/02/04/why-has-c-s-lewis-influenced-john-piper-so-much

Link 2: Piper learns from authors he disagrees with:

Are there any authors or individual books that you would disagree with that you enjoy reading or that challenge you in spite of your disagreements with them?

Well yes, all of them!—except the Bible. I've never read anybody that I agree with on everything.

C. S. Lewis has been a huge influence in me, and Lewis had a very compromised view of the Scriptures. If you read his book on the Psalms, it's not good the way he understood the inerrancy of the Bible.

Lewis is wishy-washy on the sovereignty of God in conversion. You read in one place and he looks like a Calvinist, and in another place he doesn't. But Lewis has so much to give.

I have profited from the Roman Catholic G. K. Chesterton and his insightful book Orthodoxy.

Jonathan Edwards I have profited from unspeakably, and he was a postmillennial, infant-baptizing Congregationalist.

And I read recently a novel called Gilead by Marilynne Robinson. I doubt that Marilynne Robinson is an evangelical believer—she's a believer I believe, though I'm not sure where she comes down. But I could tell, coming through certain things that the main character was saying, that I probably wouldn't agree with what she thinks about lots of things.

But her insight into the man's struggles as he came to the end of his life and was writing a letter for his little boy to read when he became an adult was very moving to me. I have sons. I can imagine what it would be like to know that I won't be there when they're grown up and want to write a 160-page letter to them so that they would know me, because they won't remember me.

So, the answer is an easy yes on this one. I've never read an author outside of the Bible that I agree with on everything.

And there are authors that are more or less helpful, depending on the kinds of errors, how pushy they are with them, and how contaminating their errors become in all that they write.

 

[Skandelon]

12strings and Herald, I will say I have seen no evidence from either of you which would suggest your unwillingness to learn from a non-Calvinistic believer. No more so than my unwillingness to learn from Calvinistic ones. (One look at my library or my podcast list is evidence of this)

The OP was poorly worded, I admit, but the intent behind it was a commentary on a common reaction I've noticed when Calvinists learn that a smart notable believer was a non-Calvinist. You can see it on the blog I referenced earlier and we've seen some evidence of it here.

It just seems to baffle, or surprise Calvinists to stumble across an intelligent believer who knows what they believe about election, predestination and soteriology but doesn't align with the Calvinistic conclusions, especially if that believer places a high value on God's sovereignty and the praise of His glorious grace.

That being said, they are probably baffled because they haven't been exposed to such very often in our modern culture. Arminianism is often equated with the seeker sensitive namby pamby 'joel osteen' type of christianity that simply ignores the complex issues such as predestination. I suspect there would be a lot smaller resurgence of young people becoming Calvinistic if they were more exposed to such scholarship.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

In his "HUMBLE OPINION" ....yea right! Humble my arse & as for opinion, you do know what opinions are like dont you?

I agree with P4T, if you can both slander & call your Brethren what you suggest, from your opinion, is merely reprehensible.

 

[Tom Butler]

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.

So what is the conclusion here? That Calvinists chuckle but non-Cals can only giggle?

 

[OldRegular]

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.

Actually Baptist4life, because of the rebellion all mankind was destined for hell. But God by His Limitless Grace provided redemption for His chosen ones!

 

[OldRegular]

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.

That is two of us!:thumbsup::wavey::laugh:

 

[Skandelon]

Actually Baptist4life, because of the rebellion all mankind was destined for hell. But God by His Limitless Grace provided redemption for His chosen ones!

Well, I'm not sure you could rightly call that grace "limitless," for even your statement concluded it is limited to his 'chosen ones.' :tear:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Actually Baptist4life, because of the rebellion all mankind was destined for hell. But God by His Limitless Grace provided redemption for His chosen ones!

As well as all who come to Him in faith.:thumbsup:

 

[OldRegular]

Well, I'm not sure you could rightly call that grace "limitless," for even your statement concluded it is limited to his 'chosen ones.' :tear:

I can even if you can't! I know myself, not as completely as God does! But seeing how many "Stiff Necked" Baptists there are His Grace would have to be without limit.

 

[OldRegular]

As well as all who come to Him in faith.:thumbsup:

And the elect are justified by Faith!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

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.

Breathe...........
Easy there trigger, no one was implying you were lost or questioning your salvation. You mistook my meaning. I think you wanted to mistake my meaning...but you mis-read my intent anyway.

I do know this:

and in fact you'll be in my prayers

The above is not likely true, it's a dialectic device that I don't take seriously when spoken in the manner in which you spoke it. Don't kid yourself like that.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

This statement is NO MORE TRUE than the corrolary that non-calvinists hate when knowledgable christians disagree with them. That's the main point I'm trying to get accross here.

It is a statement of opinion only...it is merely a general observation that Skan has made...I have also made a similar observation. Many non-Cals feel this way. It may not be objectively true, we would all admit as much. But (generally speaking) many non-Cals honestly perceive many Cals as being this way.

25%? where does that number come from?

I pulled that out of thin air....it is merely a statement of personal observation.

Disagree somewhat with the second part, simply because I have heard many calvinists quote these men favorably (piper included).

Fair enough: Again, it was a personal observation and opinion and no more, that the OP is about.

Lewis has some other theological problems besides simply rejecting predestination.

If you mean to suggest that Lewis was in fact a Universalist, he wasn't. Although many of his writings do betray his difficulty in dealing with the damnation of the heathen. A cursory or shallow reading of some of his work might leave the impression that he was, especially "The Great Divorce". It was not easy for him to wrap his head around. He was not, and he decicedly regularly reminds you in his works that he was not a Theologian. But he was not ultimately a Universalist.

 

[Iconoclast]

So by debating this point you are fighting his providence? How does your efforts here fit in with this view?

I was answering your question....not debating anything.Why would anyone want to fight against God's providence?

So, you admit Calvinism's truth is not necessary for some? Ok.

No....I did not say that at all.....You are already twisting things...because although you asked a question....you do not want an answer. Calvinism is the truth of God. Some aspects of it are not as clear to some.A housewife with 4-5 children to raise might not have time to dig into things as much as James White does.

These would contradict your premise that it is totally of God because these points put it back onto man by suggesting they must "look" for, desire, and pray for truth so as to get it. So, which is it?

You never seem to grasp that God ordains the ways and the means....a healthy believers does desire to look into and pray for truth and growth.
It is not an either or???

So, sin prevents truth from being revealed to some? Again, wouldn't this negate your premise that is all of God and nothing of man?

No...not at all....it isall under God's control as he blesses or witholds blessing,as He is completely sovereign


.

Again, all of these reasons go back to man, and negate the premise of your statement that such truths are all of God

No...not at all.....not when properly understood:type: