• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Some "food for thought" for the Calvinists

Alive in Christ

New Member
I encourage all of the Calvinists on here to give this information I am sharing some consideration.

It is written by a brother who once was a calvinist, but now sees things differently. He is not at all mean spirited. And its not terribly long, either.

I hope you will consider it with an open mind.

The whole thing wont fit, so I will post the introducton and the summary. His thoughts on each of the 5 points will be linked to.

Intro...


Introduction
For many years, Calvinism was at the heart of my belief system. It was unquestionable that man could not believe the gospel. He had a latent and inborn aversion to all things spiritual, even the gracious gospel that the common people heard gladly in Jesus' day (Mark 12:37). Man, I held, was totally unable even to cry out for mercy.

The Fall had rendered him incapable of receiving its remedy. Even his best acts were filthy rags, detestable before God. What was needed was a work of Efficacious Grace - a miracle, in fact - that would remove the heart of stone and bestow saving faith.

This I deemed "sound doctrine." I elevated above the rabble of non-Calvinists all writers and theologians who championed it. They were somehow more worthy of respect. They had an inherently greater demand on my attention and belief. Clark Pinnock describes a similar attitude he developed in the course of his faith-journey:

"Certainly most of the authors I was introduced to in those early days as theologically 'sound' were staunchly Calvinistic....Theirs were the books that were sold in the Inter-Varsity bookroom I frequented. They were the ones I was told to listen to; sound theology was what they would teach me." 1
Any Christian who dissented from my soteriology was "an Arminian," regardless of whether that person subscribed to the issues of the Remonstrance (or even heard of them). As with many Calvinists, my spiritual autobiography had two distinct peaks: my conversion to Christ and my subsequent enlightenment into "sovereign grace."

This faith was highly attractive because of the men who had held it over the centuries. My spiritual pedigree contained some of the brightest lights the faith has ever known: Bunyan, Spurgeon, Edwards, Whitefield, Brainerd and the Puritans. I was in good company. Years later, however, I seriously re-examined my beloved "five points."

The main point at which I first questioned Calvinism was the nature of man in his sinful state. To question this point of the system is to question all of it. The last four points of Calvinism rest squarely upon the first, Total Inability. Once that dogma is removed, the entire superstructure crashes under its own weight.
For those unfamiliar with the five points, I will here briefly define them:

Here is his conclusion...

Conclusion
Calvinism is one more illustration of the futility of systematic theology. God's truths, particularly relating to soteriology, are too lofty to be put into concise formulae. The Five Points of Calvinism oversimplify the profound truths of God. They derive their force from proof-texts rather than the general tenor of Scripture.

More than that, the doctrines frequently create a spirit of division, elitism and theological snobbery. The system erects walls between believers. It creates a class of Christians within the church general who are supposedly part of a worthy "inner circle."

Many Calvinists read nothing but Reformed titles, hence these brethren seldom learn new perspectives. On the contrary, they are continually reaffirming their own "theological correctness." Such authors such as A. W. Pink, the Puritans, John Murray and such publishing companies as Banner of Truth become the sole staple for many. I say without intending offense that such exclusiveness differs little from that of Jehovah's Witnesses or other authoritarian groups.

Of course, I do not intend to paint all Calvinists with this brush. Many are thinkers who read outside literature, even Arminian literature. But the overarching trend in this tradition - a tradition of which I was once a part - is often one of narrow-mindedness and doctrinal superiority. As we have seen, the Scriptures give no warrant for such bigotry. The average Calvinist may be amazed at just how weak his system is when scrutinized in the light of revealed truth.

May our brethren see fit to adopt a Berean spirit (Acts 17:11) and honestly rethink their Calvinism. We would urge them to, for a time, lay aside the commentaries of Calvin and Gill, the theology of Warfield and Hodge. With an open Bible and mind, may they take a second look at the so-called "doctrines of grace" to see if they truly are the doctrines of Christ.

Here is the link to the body of his paper...

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/calvinism.html#Introduction
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I encourage all of the Calvinists on here to give this information I am sharing some consideration.

It is written by a brother who once was a calvinist, but now sees things differently. He is not at all mean spirited. And its not terribly long, either.

I hope you will consider it with an open mind.

The whole thing wont fit, so I will post the introducton and the summary. His thoughts on each of the 5 points will be linked to.

Intro...




Here is his conclusion...



Here is the link to the body of his paper...

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/calvinism.html#Introduction

Now why would you feel that a Calvinist would be interested in reading this..... Makes no sense unless your really not one. :laugh:
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Because it pertains to Calvinism.



Some Calivinsts might be interested in what an ex-Calivinist brings to the table of discussion.

AIC
I am going to read this paper you posted, He quotes from the drifting Clark Pinnock.....here is an article from the Banner of Truth that he now speaks poorly of:
http://www.banneroftruth.co.uk/pages/articles/article_detail.php?42


you might want to save this site to your favorites...it has many good articles

I can agree that a wrong view of the fall leads to error.Many on bb do not understand Romans 5...and it leads to Adam only being slightly wounded rather than spiritually dead.

Though Pinnock was probably most widely known as a proponent of open theism, he contributed to many other areas of theology as well... not a good sign


Lets see if this is where the author goes wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Poor guy didn't understand the doctrine he claimed to embrace and now seems not to understand the new doctrine he now embraces.
 

mandym

New Member
Any Christian who dissented from my soteriology was "an Arminian," regardless of whether that person subscribed to the issues of the Remonstrance (or even heard of them).

More than that, the doctrines frequently create a spirit of division, elitism and theological snobbery.

I agree with that much.
 
I encourage all of the Calvinists on here to give this information I am sharing some consideration.

Fat chance!

I don't care to hear any positons other than the correct calvinist one. Why waste my time on false doctrine and apostate ramblings when I could be spending it glorifying God and evangelizing the lost in the truth.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I don't read from Calvinistic authors exclusively,but primarily. By the way,A.W.pink counseled Calvinists not to spend all their reading on Calvinists. He thought that Alexander Maclaren,though Arminian, was was worth consulting.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Here's real Calvinism.
http://www.corkfpc.com/calvinismindex.html

He never made a case, but only went on record rejecting the depravity of man. Even classical Arminianism believes in total depravity. His view sounds more like Pelagianism.

Pelagianism denied the doctrine of Original Sin, Steve doesn't deny this. He denies the aspect of Total Depravity which teaches that men cannot respond to God's appeal to be reconciled.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Poor guy didn't understand the doctrine he claimed to embrace and now seems not to understand the new doctrine he now embraces.

With all due respect, this is a generalized unsupported accusation. If you are going to make such claims you should be able to back it up. What specifically did Steve write that misrepresents Calvinism (keeping in mind there are many forms of what people label "Calvinism")?

Secondly, what did he write that gives you the impression he doesn't understand what he currently embraces?

If you can't back it up, don't bring it.
 

Alive in Christ

New Member
Fat chance!

I don't care to hear any positons other than the correct calvinist one. Why waste my time on false doctrine and apostate ramblings when I could be spending it glorifying God and evangelizing the lost in the truth.

Oh, dont worry Osage. :laugh:

Trust me, if there is ANYONE on this website that has the..classic.."Archie Bunker style" [Edited - No personal attacks are permitted]
Believe me, I dont expect ANY scriptural, sanctified open mindedness, or any "deep thinking" [Edited - No personal attacks are permitted]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oh, dont worry Osage. :laugh:

Trust me, if there is ANYONE on this website that has the..classic.."Archie Bunker style" [Edited - No personal attacks are permitted]

Believe me, I dont expect ANY scriptural, sanctified open mindedness, or any "deep thinking" [Edited - No personal attacks are permitted]

And for you to say those demeaning things above proves you are the reverse? You left yourself wide open there fella.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Well then, I suggest you stop posting here completely. Why continue to waste your time?

Robert, you took what he was saying completely out of context. Are you learning the art of the sound bite as well?

for what its worth, this forum is accessible to him as it is to you. Thats called Soul Liberty. I would encourage him to vent his opinions as I encourage you Brother. :smilewinkgrin:
 
Oh, dont worry Osage. :laugh:

Trust me, if there is ANYONE on this website that has the..classic.."Archie Bunker style" [Edited - No personal attacks are permitted]

Believe me, I dont expect ANY scriptural, sanctified open mindedness, or any "deep thinking" [Edited - No personal attacks are permitted]

:smilewinkgrin:

Just saying that I've explored the other options and I'm convicted that calvinism is correct, so I'm not open to change in that area.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
I don't read from Calvinistic authors exclusively,but primarily. By the way,A.W.pink counseled Calvinists not to spend all their reading on Calvinists. He thought that Alexander Maclaren,though Arminian, was was worth consulting.

that would be good advice, as we can read with profit MANY Christians regardless if CAL/ARM in their theological system, as there are many from both sides of the issue here who ARE agreeing in "essentials" of the faith, and are conservative in their theology...
 

Alive in Christ

New Member
Osage...

Just saying that I've explored the other options and I'm convicted that calvinism is correct, so I'm not open to change in that area.

Oh, I have no do dought at all about that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Trust me, if there is ANYONE on this website that has the..classic.."Archie Bunker style"

Drat! & I though I had exclusivity on the AB style.....oh well!:tongue3: See there is the Bronx Cheer! "Edith, "Get me a beer"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top