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

[Yeshua1]

Yep. Saying I am not a Calvinist.

Calvinists are Christians. They believe Christ is the only way. I am not going to prove it to you. You do not have to believe Calvinists to be Christian.

True, buj at least in regards to proper salvation, we have it right!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Then to answer your question, the proof is Calvinists believe those who are elected are elected to Christ (the Father gives them to Christ). As I said, they don't teach another way but Christ.

Yes and that is not the stance “That is scriptural,” that I dispute.

if you wish to discuss the psyche of the Calvinist and their beliefs, then change the topic of the thread and invite them to reveal their thoughts & beliefs... perhaps you could even change their minds.

 

[JonC]

Yes and that is not the stance That is scriptural that I dispute.

Me neither.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

[QUOTE="JonC, post: 2564704,

 

[Protestant]

Jon C. wrote: “But I do reject the idea that sins must be punished as reconciliation/ forgiveness or before reconciliation/ forgiveness can take place.”

I can’t for the life of me understand Jon’s dilemma. The punishment of sin before reconciliation/forgiveness can take place is Christianity 101.

As I understand it, the entire thrust of the Old & New Testaments is to teach the following truths:

(1) God willed to create a family.

(2) God willed His family love Him as a child his father.

(3) God warned there would be punishment for disobedience. That punishment was punitive.

(4) The punishment for disobedience was spiritual and physical death, among other distasteful accompanying evils.

(5) But before God created the world and mankind He foreknew the sin of Adam was inevitable once Satan entered the Garden, resulting in the fall of the human race.

(6) But rather than wash His hands of the whole affair, He entered into covenant with His Son, who willingly agreed to take on flesh, and live on Earth in humble, loving obedience to the Father’s every will. His active sinless obedience would then qualify Him as a viable substitute who would take the loathsome, unimaginable infinite punishment due sinners. He would experience a torturous, excruciating death on their behalf. This is nothing less than the infinite wrath of God poured out upon His Son.

(7) The infinite wisdom, righteousness, holiness and grace of God determined that He could forgive guilty sinners in no other way, but that Christ must suffer the punishment in their stead; then those who believed on the person and work of Christ crucified would be forgiven of all sin.

(8) Not only would they be forgiven, they would be justified, having the righteousness of Christ imputed to their account.

(9) In no other way can man be justified.

(10) Had there been another way, Christ’s prayer in the Garden would have been answered and the cross avoided.

(11) Christ not only paid the sin debt of those given Him by the Father, He also purchased all gifts necessary for depraved sinners to believe in Him with a saving, enduring faith.

The pains of eternal punishment await all who reject Christ. The punishment is punitive.

Some reject out of total unbelief, while others reject because they believe in a false Christ, a figment of their imagination.

The phrase ‘I am saved’ declares being saved from the eternal wrath and deserved eternal punishment of a holy and just God.

We Christians understand the true meaning of grace and the just punishment Christ took upon Himself -- punishment we rightly deserved. Amen?

 

[JonC]

Jon C. wrote: “But I do reject the idea that sins must be punished as reconciliation/ forgiveness or before reconciliation/ forgiveness can take place.”

I can’t for the life of me understand Jon’s dilemma. The punishment of sin before reconciliation/forgiveness can take place is Christianity 101.

As I understand it, the entire thrust of the Old & New Testaments is to teach the following truths:

(1) God willed to create a family.

(2) God willed His family love Him as a child his father.

(3) God warned there would be punishment for disobedience. That punishment was punitive.

(4) The punishment for disobedience was spiritual and physical death, among other distasteful accompanying evils.

(5) But before God created the world and mankind He foreknew the sin of Adam was inevitable once Satan entered the Garden, resulting in the fall of the human race.

(6) But rather than wash His hands of the whole affair, He entered into covenant with His Son, who willingly agreed to take on flesh, and live on Earth in humble, loving obedience to the Father’s every will. His active sinless obedience would then qualify Him as a viable substitute who would take the loathsome, unimaginable infinite punishment due sinners. He would experience a torturous, excruciating death on their behalf. This is nothing less than the infinite wrath of God poured out upon His Son.

(7) The infinite wisdom, righteousness, holiness and grace of God determined that He could forgive guilty sinners in no other way, but that Christ must suffer the punishment in their stead; then those who believed on the person and work of Christ crucified would be forgiven of all sin.

(8) Not only would they be forgiven, they would be justified, having the righteousness of Christ imputed to their account.

(9) In no other way can man be justified.

(10) Had there been another way, Christ’s prayer in the Garden would have been answered and the cross avoided.

(11) Christ not only paid the sin debt of those given Him by the Father, He also purchased all gifts necessary for depraved sinners to believe in Him with a saving, enduring faith.

The pains of eternal punishment await all who reject Christ. The punishment is punitive.

Some reject out of total unbelief, while others reject because they believe in a false Christ, a figment of their imagination.

The phrase ‘I am saved’ declares being saved from the eternal wrath and deserved eternal punishment of a holy and just God.

We Christians understand the true meaning of grace and the just punishment Christ took upon Himself -- punishment we rightly deserved. Amen?

I do not have a delima. I cannot understand why you think Scripture needs your help but that is not really a concern for me. You be faithful to your convictions.

I was just saying I was a Calvinist for years until God led me away from that understanding by bringing to my attention the judicial philosophy Calvinism supposed was unbiblical.

 

[Particular]

Hmmm...after reading this thread I note that scripture is never the reason why a person leaves the soteriological observations of Calvin. Instead it is some philosophical idea or a human argument from a preacher.
I left Arminian soteriology because I read the Bible and the Bible didn't support such synergism.
As for Jesus death and atonement, it is apparent that it secured the new covenant for His chosen people of the promise.

 

[JonC]

Hmmm...after reading this thread I note that scripture is never the reason why a person leaves the soteriological observations of Calvin. Instead it is some philosophical idea or a human argument from a preacher.
I left Arminian soteriology because I read the Bible and the Bible didn't support such synergism.
As for Jesus death and atonement, it is apparent that it secured the new covenant for His chosen people of the promise.

You are wrong in my case. I left because of Scripture. I did not find a biblical reason for holding the Calvinistic philosophy of how divine justice supposedly works. It simply was not in the Bible.

I told this before:

I had preached a sermon on the Cross, stressing God punishing Christ instead of punishing us. It was a good sermon. I woke up the next morning convicted that I had preached my understand and not God's Word. This was a "God thing", it was the Spirit convicting me of leaning on Calvinism instead of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

What I did was purchase two dry erase boards and write down everything concerning the Calvinistic view of the Atonement. Then I wrote down all of the verses that directly related to the Atonement. This took several weeks of writing. Then I erased any part of Calvinistic Atonement that was not directly stated in Scripture (not supported or interpreted from, but written or stated in the biblical text itself). Nothing was left of Calvinistic Atonement. The next task was to see if the biblical text made sense without the addition of Calvinism. I was surprised, but it did. So why add Calvinistic philosophy to the mix? I had no reason.

Over the next months I went through Scripture reading (often a struggle) it apart from the Calvinistic tradition I had held for so long. What I found is that my conclusions on the Atonement matched what others have written, what people like Justin Martyr wrote, about the Atonement. It aligned for the most part with non-Calvinistic theologians (it would be dangerous to come up with a "new view"). I found I held a very old view of the Atonement. And it was Scripture.

So no, sometimes people leave Calvinism because they come to disagree with the philosophy that is presupposed by Calvinism. That does not automatically make my belief right or yours wrong. But it does mean you are wrong that people never leave Calvinism for its soteriological observations.

 

[Particular]

You are wrong in my case. I left because of Scripture. I did not find a biblical reason for holding the Calvinistic philosophy of how divine justice supposedly works. It simply was not in the Bible.

I told this before:

I had preached a sermon on the Cross, stressing God punishing Christ instead of punishing us. It was a good sermon. I woke up the next morning convicted that I had preached my understand and not God's Word. This was a "God thing", it was the Spirit convicting me of leaning on Calvinism instead of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

What I did was purchase two dry erase boards and write down everything concerning the Calvinistic view of the Atonement. Then I wrote down all of the verses that directly related to the Atonement. This took several weeks of writing. Then I erased any part of Calvinistic Atonement that was not directly stated in Scripture (not supported or interpreted from, but written or stated in the biblical text itself). Nothing was left of Calvinistic Atonement. The next task was to see if the biblical text made sense without the addition of Calvinism. I was surprised, but it did. So why add Calvinistic philosophy to the mix? I had no reason.

Over the next months I went through Scripture reading (often a struggle) it apart from the Calvinistic tradition I had held for so long. What I found is that my conclusions on the Atonement matched what others have written, what people like Justin Martyr wrote, about the Atonement. It aligned for the most part with non-Calvinistic theologians (it would be dangerous to come up with a "new view"). I found I held a very old view of the Atonement. And it was Scripture.

So no, sometimes people leave Calvinism because they come to disagree with the philosophy that is presupposed by Calvinism. That does not automatically make my belief right or yours wrong. But it does mean you are wrong that people never leave Calvinism for its soteriological observations.

I understand what you said. I see you creating a theology about atonement and then rejecting that theology. What I don't see is specific scripture that presents any theology to question.
There has been no scripture presented to present the view you are now holding and no scripture shown for the view you formerly held.
Ultimately no scripture is addressed in this entire thread to support opinions. This thread is empty of any spiritual value.

 

[utilyan]

Hmmm...after reading this thread I note that scripture is never the reason why a person leaves the soteriological observations of Calvin. Instead it is some philosophical idea or a human argument from a preacher.
I left Arminian soteriology because I read the Bible and the Bible didn't support such synergism.
As for Jesus death and atonement, it is apparent that it secured the new covenant for His chosen people of the promise.

Not because God hit a regenerate button? Sounds different from your born again testimony. version 3 now or what?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Not because God hit a regenerate button? Sounds different from your born again testimony. version 3 now or what?

Or your “ bless me Father for I have sinned” act of contrition.

 

[JonC]

I understand what you said. I see you creating a theology about atonement and then rejecting that theology. What I don't see is specific scripture that presents any theology to question.
There has been no scripture presented to present the view you are now holding and no scripture shown for the view you formerly held.
Ultimately no scripture is addressed in this entire thread to support opinions. This thread is empty of any spiritual value.

I agree and that is my point. I have not presented my position here except to say that I left Calvinism precisely because I could find no biblical support for its presuppositions regarding divine justice. IMHO you are absolutely correct - ultimately there is no biblical support (it is secular philosophy).

That is the reason I left Calvinism. Not for the Scripture it affirms but for what I see as an addition to Scripture.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Jon, I am curious about your series of threads here.
While I believe I understand (and share) your critique of what is generally the Calvinistic explanation of the Atonement, I don't quite see how that necessitates your departure from the 5 points.

I.O.W. while I think I'm following your critiques (and am sympathetic) the particular flavor of penal substitution usually espoused by Calvinists isn't strictly necessary to adhere to the five points right?
If I understand you correctly, you are partial to something of a Christus Victor model. Does that disqualify the five points? I am not sure I see them as mutually exclusive.

Obviously, Penal Substitution fits rather nicely in the Calvinist schema....The older Calvinist Theologians especially often took it to estremes I think, speaking almost as though there were a ratio of exchange between so much volume of blood in exchange for x amount of sin-debt owed and a limited supply et. al. Just think about that absurd John Owen question in the preface of Death of Death in Death of Christ someone posted and the weird assumptions it makes as though there's x-amount of blood available to be spent, but only for the elect, and why would God throw good money after bad wasting it on the y-sins of someone who isn't elect etc....

That being said...none of your critiques, as I've seen, are strictly incompatible with Calvinism. Which exact point of our honorable TULIP can you not accept and why?

 

[Particular]

I agree and that is my point. I have not presented my position here except to say that I left Calvinism precisely because I could find no biblical support for its presuppositions regarding divine justice. IMHO you are absolutely correct - ultimately there is no biblical support (it is secular philosophy).

That is the reason I left Calvinism. Not for the Scripture it affirms but for what I see as an addition to Scripture.

Why be so vague, Jon? Why shy from sharing what you actually believe?
You make vague reference about Reformed theology, yet you provide no evidence for what you actually believe. Why?

 

[JonC]

Jon, I am curious about your series of threads here.
While I believe I understand (and share) your critique of what is generally the Calvinistic explanation of the Atonement, I don't quite see how that necessitates your departure from the 5 points.

I.O.W. while I think I'm following your critiques (and am sympathetic) the particular flavor of penal substitution usually espoused by Calvinists isn't strictly necessary to adhere to the five points right?
If I understand you correctly, you are partial to something of a Christus Victor model. Does that disqualify the five points? I am not sure I see them as mutually exclusive.

Obviously, Penal Substitution fits rather nicely in the Calvinist schema....The older Calvinist Theologians especially often took it to absurdities I think, speaking almost as though there were a ratio of exchange between so much volume of blood in exchange for x amount of sin-debt owed and a limited supply et. al. Just think about that John Owen question someone posted and the weird assumptions it makes as though there's x-amount of blood available to be spent, but only for the elect, and why would God throw good money after bad wasting it on the y-sins of someone who isn't elect etc....

That being said...none of your critiques, as I've seen, are strictly incompatible with Calvinism. Which exact point of our honorable TULIP can you not accept and why?

It is mostly my opinion, and others have argued otherwise. Awhile back I said that I considered my view not to be Calvinism because of how my conclusions were supported. @Reformed and @rsr argued it was nonetheless Calvinism.

Do it depends on how things are defined, and what one sees as the emphasis of Calvinism, I suppose.

Lables can be difficult because people do not always agree on meanings.

I agree with TULIP, but view the actions behind the doctrines differently.

 

[JonC]

Why be so vague, Jon? Why shy from sharing what you actually believe?

I have, several times. I am not here because that would be off topic. I may start another thread when I get back home this afternoon and we can discuss my views, if you would like.

It is not a vague reference to Reformed's theology. It is specific (I once shared his theology). Specifically I believe his view of divine justice is wrong, but allow this is absent a defense or to explanation for his presupposition.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

It is mostly my opinion, and others have argued otherwise. Awhile back I said that I considered my view not to be Calvinism because of how my conclusions were supported. @Reformed and @rsr argued it was nonetheless Calvinism.

Do it depends on how things are defined, and what one sees as the emphasis of Calvinism, I suppose.

Lables can be difficult because people do not always agree on meanings.

I agree with TULIP, but view the actions behind the doctrines differently.

m-kay....I suppose I agree with RSR and Reformed that if you still embrace TULIP you can properly consider yourself Calvinist.
While you might be a rare breed of Christus Victor loving Calvinist, I suppose you can still be one.
If Spurgeon can not embrace the Ordo-Salutis held by Calvinists and yet still maintain his bona-fides.....you can embrace a view of atonement not generally taught by Calvinists and still be squarely in the camp I think.

I do enjoy reading your discussions on the topic of Atonement b.t.w.

 

[JonC]

m-kay....I suppose I agree with RSR and Reformed that if you still embrace TULIP you can properly consider yourself Calvinist.
While you might be a rare breed of Christus Victor loving Calvinist, I suppose you can still be one.
If Spurgeon can not embrace the Ordo-Salutis held by Calvinists and yet still maintain his bona-fides.....you can embrace a view of atonement not generally taught by Calvinists and still be squarely in the camp I think.

I do enjoy reading your discussions on the topic of Atonement b.t.w.

Thank you. I do not try to change people's views. I like looking at arguments and think we can learn from one another and our explanations of what we believe. The interesting part is in the doctrines, not what we call them.

 

[Particular]

I have, several times. I am not here because that would be off topic. I may start another thread when I get back home this afternoon and we can discuss my views, if you would like.

It is not a vague reference to Reformed's theology. It is specific (I once shared his theology). Specifically I believe his view of divine justice is wrong, but allow this is absent a defense or to explanation for his presupposition.

It's not biblically specific, Jon. You state a type of atonement you don't agree with because something persuaded you it was wrong. What scripture persuaded you about God's atonement and why His Son was a sacrifice?

 

[JonC]

It's not biblically specific, Jon. You state a type of atonement you don't agree with because something persuaded you it was wrong. What scripture persuaded you about God's atonement and why His Son was a sacrifice?

What persuaded me to leave my position was the absence of Scripture to support it. That is what persuaded me it was wrong (it was such an important doctrine I expected it to be in the Bible).

For example: I could say that Jesus had a pet. In fact Jesus had a pet dog named Spot. Jesus loved Spot and this is the reason Jesus turned the water into wine. Spot kept barking and brought Mary's attention to the situation. Jesus' love for Spot demonstrates why mankind was originally intended not to eat meat. Provide a passage stating otherwise.

We all have presuppositions. This is necessary. It is one thing to believe Jesus had a pet. It is another to build on that extra-biblical belief. It is one thing to believe that 15th century judicial philosophy embodies the Hebrew notion of justice. It is another to build on the belief.

The problem is not the belief but constructing fundamental doctrines on the belief. The presuppositions must be addressed and defended, especially on fundamental doctrines. But what is done is people offer verses that do not support their presuppositions, read into those verses their presuppositions, and do so in groups so that can pat themselves on the back and feel that they have supported their position.