Continuation of Why Y'all Aint Calvinists thread

[thatbrian]

I think the problem with some was identified fairly by Spurgeon in his sermon on God's will and man's will. He said that some people learn a truth (divine sovereignty) and magnify that truth at the expense of other doctrines. And this is understandable. When we see an error in our beliefs it is logical that this becomes our area of focus.

I do think some people make it to Calvinism because of the error it corrects in their former system and they stop there (they start accepting the system for the truth it contains and never examine other issues that may be problematic).

I agree that this is a problem with some/many, and it is understandable as well. How can someone not be zealous for something that has so changed his life?

However, we ALL need to do the very difficult work of pushing back against, not our theological opponent's arguments, but our own. The reason for this is that our greatest strengths are often our greatest weaknesses, if left unchecked or without counterbalance.

 

[thatbrian]

I don't know of any Calvinist who follows John Calvin. And I agree with you that many erroneous accusations are presented against Calvinism (in fact, I can't recall very many legitimate ones offered).

The reason that I do not use the term Monergist is that it can be misleading. For example, I believe that no one comes to God unless God Himself draws them. Men do not cooperate to get saved, but rather salvation is entirely a work of God. But I am not a Calvinist. I don't believe the flaw in Calvinism resides in its Monergism, although I do believe it flawed at its root. So you and I could come together and agree in the five points, but this is only a surface agreement. We are both Monergists. But at a deeper level we understand God's work in salvation very differently. This is the reason I choose "Calvinism", although I understand why you would not choose that term.

Again, you are a rare breed. Most non-Cal Evangelicals are synergists. I agree that you are not.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

But it would be foolish to say he is biblically illiterate. Consider others - although they were influenced very much by their own presuppositions and circumstances, we can't say Karl Barth and Søren Kierkegaard were biblically illiterate. Neither can we say that of C.S. Lewis, or Billy Graham, or John Wesley.

When I say "biblically illiterate" I am referring to people who cannot even separate their own theories from Scripture. N.T. Wright is an excellent example here. Even with his "New Perspective on Paul" he acknowledges the probability that his view is deficient and therefore wrong. He can separate his view from the biblical text and justify (even if he remains wrong) his conclusions. Too many today cannot do this.

I personally cannot understand the need to read any works by people like Barth, Kierkegaard, Wright, or Bultmann, who have the core Doctrines of the Bible wrong. There are so many people of "sound mind" that we can refer to and use, being Biblically based, than to have the time or need for those who are basically unorthodox. Like a couple of "pastors" that I knew, who for some strange reason not only read the evil books by Dan Brown, but also recommended them. The majority of Christians these days hardly read their Bible, so why ever would a pastor suggest to read such thrash that mocks and blasphemes the God of the Bible, and indeed His Word. The same goes for The Shack, another work from the devil, and "christian" book stores even sell this stuff!

 

[JonC]

I agree that this is a problem with some/many, and it is understandable as well. How can someone not be zealous for something that has so changed his life?

However, we ALL need to do the very difficult work of pushing back against, not our theological opponent's arguments, but our own. The reason for this is that our greatest strengths are often our greatest weaknesses, if left unchecked or without counterbalance.

I praise God that there are godly pastors in all camps. I was saved in a church that did not teach strong doctrine on this topic. But I was led by very godly men. People do think differently, and I believe that "free-will theology" is more easily accepted by many. So it is good to know that God has placed men to pastor these churches.

 

[JonC]

I personally cannot understand the need to read any works by people like Barth, Kierkegaard, Wright, or Bultmann, who have the core Doctrines of the Bible wrong. There are so many people of "sound mind" that we can refer to and use, being Biblically based, than to have the time or need for those who are basically unorthodox. Like a couple of "pastors" that I knew, who for some strange reason not only read the evil books by Dan Brown, but also recommended them. The majority of Christians these days hardly read their Bible, so why ever would a pastor suggest to read such thrash that mocks and blasphemes the God of the Bible, and indeed His Word. The same goes for The Shack, another work from the devil, and "christian" book stores even sell this stuff!

I like reading N.T. Wright for the irony. For decades he was considered the expert on Pauline theology. He was very influential until his study of Paul led him to a conclusion that differed with the traditional Reformed understanding of Justification. It's akin to saying the foremost expert in the field is right until he no longer agrees with the majority. That said, while Wright's conclusions differ from the view accepted since the Reformation, the difference is not Scripture itself. I may not agree with Wright, but what he departs from is not Scripture but our theology.

I like studying theology (and different theologies). Some concentrated on pastoral degrees, or languages, but in seminary I concentrated on historical theology and church history. I wanted to know not only what churches believed but why they believed it. So part of the reason I read some of these works is just to satisfy a passion. I have found some value in their works, but not as an authority for my faith.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I have seen this happen from both sides. At one time we had a fairly nasty group of Calvinists, but we have also had pretty nasty non-Calvinists (I remember one claiming that Calvinism was satanic).

When it comes to languages, I've learned to try and take what I can from what other people (who know these languages) offer. I have some experience (I studied Greek for a year at the graduate level) but not near enough to form a conclusion on my own. So I lean to others. On this forum @TCassidy and @John of Japan have proved themselves good resources, but study certainly does not stop there. That said, I don't think that we can consider one lexicon as an authority over another. We have to weigh both what is offered and the expertise of the one doing the offering (and still, it's not necessarily the "gospel truth").

I agree with you that there are some who cannot evaluate their own theology through Scripture (on both sides).

you say, "I don't think that we can consider one lexicon as an authority over another", but surely this cannot be right? The Greek lexicon by Dr Joseph Thayer can be very useful and is much used around the world. However, Thayer was a Unitarian who rejected the Holy Trinity, Deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, so when it comes to dealing with words that refer to ether of these, Thayer makes sure that his "theology" gets in. Likewise the Greek grammar of Dr George Winer, which again is very useful, by like Thayer, Winer was also a Unitarian, and this shows in his inaccurate comments on verses like Titus 2:13. All things are never equal!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I like reading N.T. Wright for the irony. For decades he was considered the expert on Pauline theology. He was very influential until his study of Paul led him to a conclusion that differed with the traditional Reformed understanding of Justification. It's akin to saying the foremost expert in the field is right until he no longer agrees with the majority. That said, while Wright's conclusions differ from the view accepted since the Reformation, the difference is not Scripture itself. I may not agree with Wright, but what he departs from is not Scripture but our theology.

I like studying theology (and different theologies). Some concentrated on pastoral degrees, or languages, but in seminary I concentrated on historical theology and church history. I wanted to know not only what churches believed but why they believed it. So part of the reason I read some of these works is just to satisfy a passion. I have found some value in their works, but not as an authority for my faith.

But his "theology" which he claims to be from Scripture, is on a vital Doctrine, and very wrong and misleading.

 

[JonC]

Again, you are a rare breed. Most non-Cal Evangelicals are synergists. I agree that you are not.

Yea, people always said I was "special".

 

[The Archangel]

Because most Calvinists misuse the Scriptures for their purposes, rather than accept what it actually says, even if their are wrong in their beliefs for many years. They like to mock you, or attack your knowledge of Scripture or languages, laugh at mistakes of grammar, some even go around marking serious discussions as "funny", etc, etc. When they are challenged on their theology by their very own, like John Calvin, John Gill, and Matthew Henry, they either dismiss what they say, or just ignore it. They attack the authorities like lexicons and grammars when they disagree with them. And when they don't like what you say, they get you banned for the truth!

Basically, most Calvinists and Reformed are very sad and bitter people, who cannot accept the Bible fact, that "God takes not pleasure in the death of the wicked...and wiling that none of them are lost".

Ah... Now we see your true colors.

The logical fallacy of the ad hominem.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

But his "theology" which he claims to be from Scripture, is on a vital Doctrine, and very wrong and misleading.

It is on a vital doctrine. I think Wright focused too much on the historical circumstances of first century Judaism. But that does not mean his observations about our traditional approach is in itself wrong. We also base much of our doctrines on tradition and Reformed interpretation as we take for granted an approach to the Jewish religion that may not actually be correct (we highlight what we see as legalism over the Jewish concept of a covenant people). Wright's objections (not his conclusions, but his objections) were dismissed far too quickly.

 

[BobRyan]

I think the "why I am not Calvinist" argument included something like this --

Why not be Calvinist? easy - "Calvinism does not survive the test of scripture."
================================================


John 1:11 “He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him NOT”


"God so loved the WORLD that HE gave" John 3:16.

"God is not WILLING that ANY should perish" 2Peter 3.

God knew Judas would fail - and yet he washed his feet.

God knew His own would reject Him - and yet He came to them and yet he weeps over them in places like Matt 23. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem.. how I wanted to save your children...but YOU would not"


Matt 23
37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
38“Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!

Hosea 11
:7 So My people are bent on turning from Me.
Though they call them to the One on high,
None at all exalts Him.
8 How can I give you up, O Ephraim?
How can I surrender you, O Israel?
How can I make you like Admah?
How can I treat you like Zeboiim?
My heart is turned over within Me,
All My compassions are kindled.

Ezek 18
30“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct,” declares the Lord GOD. “Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you.
31“Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel?
32“For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord GOD. “Therefore, repent and LIVE!"

"He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him not" John 1:11

2Cor 5
18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,
19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

IS God the cause of His own lament? Calvinism appears to answer "yes"


Isaiah 5
3 “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,
Judge between Me and My vineyard.
4 “What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it?
Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones?
5 “So now let Me tell you what I am going to do to My vineyard:
I will remove its hedge and it will be consumed;

John 1:11 “He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him NOT”

God says "what more could I do that I have not done?"

Calvinisms says "oh I know... I know...zaaaapped me to choose of my own free will as He dictated"



Indeed the Calvinist answer to God's question in Isaiah 5 is to make God the author and cause of His own lament.

It is to inform God that He must have "forgotten" to zaaaap.

Without those scriptures - I might not have known that Calvinism fails the sola-scriptura test of the Bible

Many (myself included) often look to Gorden Fee (Pentecostal, Assembly of God).
.

interesting

 

[BobRyan]

I don't know of any Calvinist who follows John Calvin. .

That's the first clue that they have a problem - when they conclude that the doctrine taught by Calvin is wrong and yet want to be identified as "Calvinist"...

 

[JonC]

you say, "I don't think that we can consider one lexicon as an authority over another", but surely this cannot be right? The Greek lexicon by Dr Joseph Thayer can be very useful and is much used around the world. However, Thayer was a Unitarian who rejected the Holy Trinity, Deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, so when it comes to dealing with words that refer to ether of these, Thayer makes sure that his "theology" gets in. Likewise the Greek grammar of Dr George Winer, which again is very useful, by like Thayer, Winer was also a Unitarian, and this shows in his inaccurate comments on verses like Titus 2:13. All things are never equal!

Many (myself included) often look to Gordon Fee (Pentecostal, Assembly of God) as a resource.

I think also what we see too often are pastors and teachers exceeding their ability. We don't have experts in one field any more, and I think scholarship has suffered. For example, 50 years ago I don't think one would even consider calling John MacArthur a "theologian". But now he is somehow an expert in theology, Greek, and textual criticism (to read his commentaries). In reality he is a gifted pastor.

 

[BobRyan]

I like reading N.T. Wright for the irony. For decades he was considered the expert on Pauline theology. He was very influential until his study of Paul led him to a conclusion that differed with the traditional Reformed understanding of Justification. It's akin to saying the foremost expert in the field is right until he no longer agrees with the majority. That said, while Wright's conclusions differ from the view accepted since the Reformation, the difference is not Scripture itself. I may not agree with Wright, but what he departs from is not Scripture but our theology.
.

I rather like N.T. Wright's conclusions on the final judgment and hell.

Heaven and Hell in the Scriptures

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

It is on a vital doctrine. I think Wright focused too much on the historical circumstances of first century Judaism. But that does not mean his observations about our traditional approach is in itself wrong. We also base much of our doctrines on tradition and Reformed interpretation as we take for granted an approach to the Jewish religion that may not actually be correct (we highlight what we see as legalism over the Jewish concept of a covenant people). Wright's objections (not his conclusions, but his objections) were dismissed far too quickly.

so you think that Wright is right on Justification?

 

[JonC]

I rather like N.T. Wright's conclusions on the final judgment and hell.

Heaven and Hell in the Scriptures

I haven't considered his view, but just on a light reading he us correct to challenge some ideas prevalent in our churches. Peter tells us that Christians will be judged by their deeds and therefore should fear God. And yes, at this time Hell (the second death) is empty. And in the end we have Heaven coming down, not people going up.

 

[JonC]

so you think that Wright is right on Justification?

No. I don't. I think he focused too much on the historical circumstances surrounding first century Judaism. I think he was correct in suggesting we need to reevaluate our traditions insofar as the 16th century definitions and suppositions are often assumed. (He was correct that our view of the 1st century Judiasm sometimes looks an awful lot like the 16th century RCC)..

 

[HankD]

There has to be a balance between doctrine (talk) and one's life (walk).

It's the fruit of the Spirit (being led of the Spirit) and that fruit is Love.

Ya, fruit inspector, I know.

1 Corinthians 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

Admittedly, sometimes love's correction hurts.

Revelation 3:19 Those whom I love, I reprove and chasten; so be zealous and repent.

Proverbs 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

 

[Revmitchell]

I believe it is a mistake to say that Calvies do not understand scripture. Nor are they illiterate. That is a broad claim and really implies that there is no part of scripture in which they get correct. That is not a fair assessment. I believe they apply some passages of scripture, namely in the gospels and the book of Romans incorrectly, but I also believe they understand scripture.

To make the claim that one does not understand scripture is to apply the whole from Genesis to Revelation. It implies that one does not understand its purpose or underlying message. This would be true of lost people but not of Christians. We should likely be more careful and succinct when making these accusations.

 

[HankD]

Millennia before today's date the metaphor (or whatever it is) based upon historical fact clearly shows the dilemma of believing Christendom:

Judges 12
5 And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, Let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay;
6 Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand.

And it doesn't matter in what camp one resides - just substitute "Gileadites" and "Ephraimites" with the appropriate labels and we have the 21st century dilemma of the fragmentation of Christianity which I believe Jesus predicted in Matthew 13.

And yes there have been religious wars in which Christians "slew" each other over similar matters.

Thank goodness its only verbal assault here at the BB