Ex-Calvinism (Why I am no longer a Calvinist)

[canadyjd]

Divine Justice. Do you mean... God cannot let sin go unpunished, it would violate His nature of perfect righteousness?

 

[1689Dave]

My reason for abandoning the theology is simple.

Years ago I preached a sermon on how God poured out His wrath on Christ instead of us. At the time, I thought it one of my better sermons. But I awoke with the conviction that I had preached my theology and not God’s Word. This conviction led me to an evaluation of my view on that issue.

The problem is that that issue was closely tied to the judicial philosophy presupposed by Calvinism. This is something I had never questioned before. I studied but could not find a suitable answer for the presupposition. I even brought it to this board, and while many were more than willing to defend Calvinism no one was actually able or willing to address the presupposition.

This one unexplained presupposition was foundational to Calvinism (without it Calvinism crumbled).

@rsr touched on this issue when he referenced Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 16, Section 8. Calvin insisted that what Christ experienced was divine “vengeance”. The judicial philosophy applied to divine justice in Calvinism is retributive justice, but I am not sure that this is appropriate (and even if it is, I am still not convinced it yields the conclusion Calvinism holds).

For me this is a major issue/ barrier to Calvinism because I believe that the more important a doctrine is the more biblical evidence needs to be present in terms of evidence stated in the actual text rather than derived from it.

I think the thrust is behind Christ's shed blood. As much as his heart could provide until death. And his suffering was instrumental in that.

 

[JonC]

Divine Justice. Do you mean... God cannot let sin go unpunished, it would violate His nature of perfect righteousness?

I mean that reconciliation has to be accomplished by the exercise of punishment for sin.

When we look at judicial philosophy there are competing positions. Some believe that a crime has to be punished to satisfy justice. Others believe punishment can be dismissed if the criminal has changed.

For example, one way of looking at is that Saul was guilty of committing crimes against the Church. Paul was a new creature in Christ, in whom there is no condemnation. The "charge" applies to the "old man", not the "new man". Paul must die to the "old man".

That is only one example to hopefully at least show that there are other philosophies of justice. I think that we have to be able to defend any we choose to use.

 

[George Antonios]

What made me change is reading a commentary by a Bible believer who defined the terms with cross-references. It was the Bible's own commentary, not an externally molded theological cast into which verses were forced. He showed me how Calvinists interpret simple Bible statements and passages on salvation in the light of hard passages rather than operating the other way around.

Then, it was understanding that the base reason I became a Calvinist is that I was made to think that acknowledging free-will would lead to pride. The oft heard argument is that then "I had something to do with my salvation". So of course I wanted to be humble, so I said yeah ok. Then the concomitant argument is free-will faith amounts to work, which when I studied the Bible, was simply not true, as far the word of God goes (who cares what men who think they're more humble than even God's own standard of humility think).

And then what cemented things, is the many Calvinists on this forum, who literally believed and stated that they are elected (I didn't say "saved" but "elected") outside of Jesus Christ. That is still shocking to me but many here think nought of it.

Here's another ex-Calvinist:

 

[rsr]

I usually don't click on videos (who has an hour and a half for this stuff), but sampled the one above. Apparently Calvinists have been taken captive by the Devil and his will. Helpfully, though, the teacher is willing to explain the difference between Christianity and Calvinism.

It's almost enough to make me forgive cage-stage Calvinists.

But not quite. They're as obnoxious as he is.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. And I can point out these things to those people instead of saying I have this feeling.

Have you ever considered that after all these years you have not been able to provide even one thing about Calvinism I misunderstood, much less left Calvinism over? In our conversations you actually have reaffirmed I understood while I disagreed with Calvinism.

My basic reason for leaving Calvinism is that Calvinism claims divine justice needed to be satisfied by punishing sin.

If you think this a misunderstanding on my part then perhaps it is you who do not understand Calvinism (you hold a view without understanding what you hold).

God;s must punish the transgressors of His Law, for they have a sin debt obligation to God....

 

[Yeshua1]

I mean that reconciliation has to be accomplished by the exercise of punishment for sin.

When we look at judicial philosophy there are competing positions. Some believe that a crime has to be punished to satisfy justice. Others believe punishment can be dismissed if the criminal has changed.

For example, one way of looking at is that Saul was guilty of committing crimes against the Church. Paul was a new creature in Christ, in whom there is no condemnation. The "charge" applies to the "old man", not the "new man". Paul must die to the "old man".

That is only one example to hopefully at least show that there are other philosophies of justice. I think that we have to be able to defend any we choose to use.

Before God can affect the change in any sinner, their own sin debt must be atoned and paid for!

 

[George Antonios]

Helpfully, though, the teacher is willing to explain the difference between Christianity and Calvinism.

taken captive at the devil's will (2Ti.2:26) doesn't automatically mean that the person is lost. A preacher can be caught in the snare of the devil yet still be a Christian, according to Paul (1Ti.3:7). The man in the video did not mean to imply that Calvinists are lost; if that's what you understood (not sure).

 

[rsr]

Well, that's SO much better. Besides, I did not assume, assert or intimate that "taken captive" meant anything of the sort. I guess you would have no problem if I asserted that preachers who reject Augustinian soteriology are caught in the snare of the devil or I maintained that premillennial dispensationalists are caught in the snare of the devil.

 

[George Antonios]

Well, that's SO much better. Besides, I did not assume, assert or intimate that "taken captive" meant anything of the sort. I guess you would have no problem if I asserted that preachers who reject Augustinian soteriology are caught in the snare of the devil.

I wasn't sure what you meant, so was just trying to clarify.
And yes, that is SO much better. There's a huge difference between considering a man a heretic yet a brother, and considering a man to be lost and on his way to hell.

 

[rsr]

Not really. Someone else's opinion of my eternal destiny is, in fact, of no concern to me. The only opinion that counts is God's, and I do not presume to speak for Him, either in my case nor in the case of anyone else.

Same for heresy. My bar for heresy is pretty high and don't consider the Arminian-Calvinist disagreement to hurdle that bar.

 

[JonC]

Not really. Someone else's opinion of my eternal destiny is, in fact, of no concern to me. The only opinion that counts is God's, and I do not presume to speak for Him, either in my case nor in the case of anyone else.

Same for heresy. My bar for heresy is pretty high and don't consider the Arminian-Calvinist disagreement to hurdle that bar.

I consider everyone except me to be heretics. The good news is I am selling heresy offsets. Interested?

 

[rsr]

Interesting. Tetzel's first name was John. Any relation?

 

[Yeshua1]

Not really. Someone else's opinion of my eternal destiny is, in fact, of no concern to me. The only opinion that counts is God's, and I do not presume to speak for Him, either in my case nor in the case of anyone else.

Same for heresy. My bar for heresy is pretty high and don't consider the Arminian-Calvinist disagreement to hurdle that bar.

How about WoF, so called Charismatic chaos?

 

[JonC]

Interesting. Tetzel's first name was John. Any relation?

Probably. We have a long line (John the Baptist, John the apostle, Jonathan Edward's, John Knox, John Calvin, John Wesley.... Jon Snow,....).

 

[Iconoclast]

What made me change is reading a commentary by a Bible believer who defined the terms with cross-references. It was the Bible's own commentary, not an externally molded theological cast into which verses were forced. He showed me how Calvinists interpret simple Bible statements and passages on salvation in the light of hard passages rather than operating the other way around.

Then, it was understanding that the base reason I became a Calvinist is that I was made to think that acknowledging free-will would lead to pride. The oft heard argument is that then "I had something to do with my salvation". So of course I wanted to be humble, so I said yeah ok. Then the concomitant argument is free-will faith amounts to work, which when I studied the Bible, was simply not true, as far the word of God goes (who cares what men who think they're more humble than even God's own standard of humility think).

And then what cemented things, is the many Calvinists on this forum, who literally believed and stated that they are elected (I didn't say "saved" but "elected") outside of Jesus Christ. That is still shocking to me but many here think nought of it.

Here's another ex-Calvinist:

Kevin Thompson is a complete waste of time. He can't exegete anyting his caricatures all lame and he's got nothing to say

 

[George Antonios]

Kevin Thompson is a complete waste of time. He can't exegete anyting his caricatures all lame and he's got nothing to say

A fresh pontifical statement! Well I guess that settles it!

 

[JonC]

I usually don't click on videos (who has an hour and a half for this stuff), but sampled the one above. Apparently Calvinists have been taken captive by the Devil and his will. Helpfully, though, the teacher is willing to explain the difference between Christianity and Calvinism.

It's almost enough to make me forgive cage-stage Calvinists.

But not quite. They're as obnoxious as he is.

This is the problem with the "anti" folk. They wage war against Christians, sometimes never understanding the opposing view.

We saw this in Dr. Flowers Soteriology 101 video as he argued against Calvinism by addressing ideas that are not a part of Calvinism.

At the same time you have "stage caged" Calvinists who cannot grasp someone could understand yet still reject their position.

There is no shortage of fools on either side.


BTW, did you know John means "God is gracious" or "God's gracious gift"? @rsr, I am God's blessing to you!

 

[JonC]

A fresh pontifical statement! Well I guess that settles it!

LOL.... I am afraid you are going to have to get used to those types of replies or start ignoring a group. This and the politics section is the worst.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I usually don't click on videos (who has an hour and a half for this stuff), but sampled the one above. Apparently Calvinists have been taken captive by the Devil and his will. Helpfully, though, the teacher is willing to explain the difference between Christianity and Calvinism.

Regardless of his post-Calvinist position, his observations regarding "epistemic vulnerabilities" and what he calls "presuppositionally white-listing virus definitions" are useful and not all limited to a particular school of thought, as he himself points out.

http://beyondthefundamentals.com/Document_Files/Why_You_Became A_Calvinist_rfs.pdf