The hidden dangers of Calvinism

[Jim1999]

Jesus followed Zaccheus until he climbed a tree. Then Jesus told him to come down.

Cheers,

Jim

Humour is a terrible thing to waste. Shame on you Rippon! Shame!

 

[webdog]

I don't find much in the way of humor in Rippon's posts. I would have been kicked off the board for saying Christ was an arminian. Some things are not "kidding" material, and are taking the name of the Lord in vain by doing so. Shame the discernment is so bad on this board at times...

 

[gb93433]

2 Tim. 2:10 "For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory."

Looks like man's work is part of God's work too. That is His choice. I cannot think of one time when God ever reached man with the salvation message without man delivering the message.

Mt. 22:14, "For many are called, but few are chosen."

Out of the called, few are chosen.

 

[webdog]

2 Tim. 2:10 "For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory."

Looks like man's work is part of God's work too. That is His choice. I cannot think of one time when God ever reached man with the salvation message without man delivering the message.

Mt. 22:14, "For many are called, but few are chosen."

Out of the called, few are chosen.

Saul's conversion is one I can think of.

 

[gb93433]

Saul's conversion is one I can think of.

He had quite a background of being taught the OT though. Many a Jew has become a Christian having much the same background.

 

[webdog]

I'm not sure his background had anything to do with it, afterall, he killed and persecuted christians. If anything, his teachings would have hindered him ever coming to Christ.

Rev. 14:6 is another time (in the future) where the Gospel is presented apart from man.

 

[gb93433]

Christ is a Calvinist.

God following a man? What a combination.

There are several things Calvin did not understand but I cannot even imagine Calvin teaching such a heresy.

Just another example of what happens when one studies a man and not scripture.

 

[Jarthur001]

Blasphemy! Christ is a follower of no man! Heresy!

that would be the point.

Calvinist don't follow a man. Calvinism is the gospel.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Jarthur001

You asked “me” a question, in post #144

And then I answered your question in post #155
--------------------------------------------------
Although others have responded, I am still waiting for “your” response.

 

[Jarthur001]

Hi Jarthur001

You asked........


Obviously, I don’t know every Calvinist; But the Calvinists that I have encountered, are forced to “slide over”, 1Timothy 2:4

Did you just ........."slide over".......this verse?

This verse says, that God desires that all men be saved.

Now if you’re a Calvinist, you can’t accept that, because all men don’t get saved.
So therefore, God’s “desire”, is limited by man’s “free will”.

I accept the verse for what it is, and do not read into it things not there.

John Piper says this...

... My aim in this appendix is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God's will for "all men to be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion. A corresponding aim is to show that unconditional election therefore does not contradict biblical expressions of God's compassion for all people and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world.

John Piper is a Calvinist. Therefore you are wrong on both accounts. 1..that a Calvinist can’t accept what you said, and that this is a danger.
However, I disagree with Piper on this. I go with the right "pas".

Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air

In Acts 10 we see "pas" used and it is translated.."all manner". I feel that this is how it should read in your passage.

Therefore there is no danger. You may disagree and that is fine, but the danger is not there.

If you say all is always all....I will take you to other passages to show you it is not.

Calvinist try not to focus only on one verse, but rather make all the verse fit. Thats not danger..that is good theology.

--------------------------------------------------

When I say “slide over”, what I mean, is if anybody comes to the Bible, with their mind set, in a particular theological view(like Calvinism), and encounter a verse of Scripture that contradicts that view, then they are forced, either to “admit they are wrong, and stop being a Calvinist”(I have never seen this), or they are forced to “slide over it”, and make excuses for not accepting it.

slide over?

Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

what does hate mean in the verse above? Do you accept it as it reads, or are you forced to change the meaning?

 

[Pastor Larry]

I am unable to find the name of any theologian in the text itself. I only find that we are to focus on the same Jesus that Paul did. He pointed to Christ so why waste one minute discussing what Calvin or any other man believes but rather what scripture teaches. Scripture is inspired by God not Calvin or his followers or his theology.

I agree. I am perfectly willing to quit using the name "Calvinism" if you will agree to talk about the gospel that Jesus preached and that the apostles preached. Unfortunately we use the name "Calvinism" for that gospel because some have distorted it.

So often the "Calvinists" today do not agree with Calvin and yet will name themselves as a follower of him or agreeing with his theology. Some do cherry pick to fit their political camp.

Or some simply recognize that "Calvinism" is a name for a set of beliefs about soteriology. They don't try to attach other things to it.

Why do you call yourself a Baptist and name yourself a follower of the theology of a pedobaptist?

I don't. I am a Baptist who holds to biblical doctrine which happens to have been given a nickname. As I said, I prefer simply to say "gospel."

My identity is with Christ, not Christ and Calvin or Christ and Calvin's theology. It is Christ, not Christ plus another theologian or theology. It Christ alone not Christ plus something or someone else.

I welcome you then. I have been there for a long time.

Could it be that their faith is tied to a man and not the God of the Bible.

Could be, but that is a different thread. If you start it perhaps some will comment there. For now, this thread is about the gospel. Keep it on that.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Jarthur001

Nice to hear from you again.

Your first response to my answer was......

“John Piper says this...
Quote:
... My aim in this appendix is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God's will for "all men to be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion. A corresponding aim is to show that unconditional election therefore does not contradict biblical expressions of God's compassion for all people and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world.”

Here we have a Calvinist, that seems to be open to the possibility that he is wrong.

In light of this verse, he admits.....

“God's compassion for all people and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world.”

I was sorry to read, that you disagreed with his statement.
--------------------------------------------------
Then you went on to explain why you disagreed......

“However, I disagree with Piper on this. I go with the right "pas".
Quote:
Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air
In Acts 10 we see "pas" used and it is translated.."all manner". I feel that this is how it should read in your passage.”

You forget, that 1Timothy 2:4, doesn’t only say “all”(pas), but also “men”(anthropos), which Lit. means “human beings”.
i.e. "All human beings"

So your statement that........

“I feel that this is how it should read in your passage.”

This is just wishful thinking. (A kind of sliding over.)

1Timothy 2:4, says what it means and means what it says.
--------------------------------------------------
You also said.......

“Calvinist try not to focus only on one verse, but rather make all the verse fit. Thats not danger..that is good theology.”

I agree. And I have done my homework, and have compared this verse with the rest of the Bible(as best as I can), and find that it is a chink in the armor of Calvinism.

If I am wrong(about 1Timothy 2:4), PLEASE somebody show me how I am wrong.
--------------------------------------------------
Next, you said.........

“Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

what does hate mean in the verse above? Do you accept it as it reads, or are you forced to change the meaning?”

The way you asked this question, sounded like you expected me “slide over it” myself.
(But I won’t.)

God was able to say that he Loved Jacob and hated Esau, because in His foreknowledge, he saw that Esau was going to reject Him, and Jacob was going to accept Him.

The same kind of foreknowledge talked about in........

Romans 8:29
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”

and

1 Peter 1:2
“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.”

 

[gb93433]

I agree. I am perfectly willing to quit using the name "Calvinism" if you will agree to talk about the gospel that Jesus preached and that the apostles preached. Unfortunately we use the name "Calvinism" for that gospel because some have distorted it.

I became a Christian later in life and was not brought up knowing the God of the Bible. I knew lots about Catolicism but not my Bible. When I became a Christian I spent a lot of time reading the Bible rather than reading other books, partly because I did not have any money at the time. The first book I bought was a Bible and read it for one hour each day for 7 years. Then I bought a concordance. For several years I had not heard of calvinism and was leading people to Christ and making disciples. It was a long time before I read anything by Calvin, and when I did, I quickly realized that much of what was attributed to Calvin was not what he actually wrote.

I am a Baptist who holds to biblical doctrine which happens to have been given a nickname. As I said, I prefer simply to say "gospel."

Then it is the gospel according to Jesus Christ not the gospel of anyone else.

It is easy to get sidetracked on other things outside of what scripture teaches. When I talk with non-Christians and Christians they are troubled by what they have heard or read about the Bible by false teachers. The majority of times they know nothing about Calvin or even about their Bible. A lady once told me that if people knew their Bible well they would never be led into Mormonism. She spends time answering over 2000 emails each year and meeting with many of the people who wrote them.

If the average person spent one hour per day reading and studying his Bible he would be much better equipped for service.

 

[gb93433]

that would be the point.

Calvinist don't follow a man. Calvinism is the gospel.

Calvinism is a gospel but not the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible never declares the gospel of Calvin to be the gospel of Christ. The Bible is without error and inspired by God. Calvin had many errors in his theology.

 

[Jarthur001]

Hi Jarthur001

Nice to hear from you again.

Your first response to my answer was......

Here we have a Calvinist, that seems to be open to the possibility that he is wrong.

????? where does he say Calvinism is wrong?

In light of this verse, he admits.....

He gives his views in light of how he sees Calvinism. Please don't slide over his statements.

I was sorry to read, that you disagreed with his statement

.
How did I know that?

Then you went on to explain why you disagreed......

You forget, that 1Timothy 2:4, doesn’t only say “all”(pas), but also “men”(anthropos), which Lit. means “human beings”.
i.e. "All human beings"

You fail to understand. We would say all manner of men.....which fits the context and is supported throughout the Bible. In other words...all kinds...all types of mean. Not just the Jews.

And if you were to look in the context you would see this is what Pal is talking about..

Please notice verse 7.

7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.ty

For this I was a appointed. For what was he appointed a preacher?? This is talking about the point made in your verse. For this...God our Savior, who desires all manner of people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.....

For this reason....(back to verse 7)....I am a teacher of the Gentiles.

Things become clear when you read them in context.

This is just wishful thinking. (A kind of sliding over.)

just the Bible. Please don't come to the text with a set mind and maybe you will see.

1Timothy 2:4, says what it means and means what it says

.
In light of the full statement where it ends with this...
For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle I am telling the truth, I am not lying, a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth

--------------------------------------------------
You also said.......

I agree

.
GOOD. Now we are getting somewhere.

And I have done my homework,

good. there will be a test at the end.

and have compared this verse with the rest of the Bible(as best as I can), and find that it is a chink in the armor of Calvinism.

It's clear you need to study more.

If I am wrong(about 1Timothy 2:4),

What do you mean if?

PLEASE somebody show me how I am wrong.

Context is king. No one reads a newspaper with only one line. Why read the Bible that way?

The way you asked this question, sounded like you expected me “slide over it” myself.
(But I won’t.)

Good

God was able to say that he Loved Jacob and hated Esau, because in His foreknowledge, he saw that Esau was going to reject Him, and Jacob was going to accept Him

.
Oh shoot. You said you would not. Now go back again and read the passage I gave you (Romans 9) and tell me why Esau was hated?

And you never did tell me what "hate means...which is what I asked.

The same kind of foreknowledge talked about in........

Does God foreknow everything? I'm sure you will answer yes. When did God know what He knows? Was it before he looked and saw esau, or after?

 

[Pastor Larry]

... I spent a lot of time reading the Bible rather than reading other books

This is how I became a Calvinist. I was brought up not to be a Calvinist, but when I started reading and studying the Bible on my own, I concluded I had no other option. I still have not read much by Calvin because I don't really care what Calvin believed.

Then it is the gospel according to Jesus Christ not the gospel of anyone else.

Of course. The soteriology generally called "Calvinism" is the gospel according to Jesus Christ. I would prefer that simplicity.

It is easy to get sidetracked on other things outside of what scripture teaches.

I agree.

If the average person spent one hour per day reading and studying his Bible he would be much better equipped for service.

And would likely be a pretty strong Calvinist.

 

[Jarthur001]

Calvinism is a gospel but not the gospel of Jesus Christ.

If that is your feeling, then you don't understand Calvinism.

The Bible never declares the gospel of Calvin to be the gospel of Christ.

No...Calvinism declares the gospel of God..(romans1)

The Bible is without error and inspired by God.

Then you agree with Calvinism. Good...now we are getting somewhere.

Calvin had many errors in his theology.

bogus claims by those who do not understand what it is. still waiting on those errors and that hidden danger. maybe you can help give one. I mean...come on...if its that bad...and there are so many....maybe you can at least give one error and why it is an error.

waiting....

 

[gb93433]

This is how I became a Calvinist. I was brought up not to be a Calvinist, but when I started reading and studying the Bible on my own, I concluded I had no other option. I still have not read much by Calvin because I don't really care what Calvin believed.

Of course. The soteriology generally called "Calvinism" is the gospel according to Jesus Christ. I would prefer that simplicity.

Think about his beliefs about the kingdom. I cannot imagine one person today believing anything like that.

The calvinism you suggest is like a greased pig. You have chosen to cherry pick what you agree with Calvin on and throw away the rest. Why do you not do the same thing with Arminius?

What would you call those who are declared conservatives and claim to believe the Bible but live like practical atheists?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Think about his beliefs about the kingdom. I cannot imagine one person today believing anything like that.

There are many who believe what he believed, but I won't defend that. Notice that this conversation is about soteriology. It's not about infant baptism, his view of the kingdom, communion, or anything else. It's about soteriology.

The calvinism you suggest is like a greased pig. You have chosen to cherry pick what you agree with Calvin on and throw away the rest.

No, I have chosen to believe what the Bible says about salvation. Other people labeled what I believe "Calvinism." Calling it a "greased pig" is kind of a slippery way to try to win an argument. Calvinism is pretty well agreed in terms of soteriology. It's not all that slippery at all.

Why do you not do the same thing with Arminius?

I did.

What would you call those who are declared conservatives and claim to believe the Bible but live like practical atheists?

Please keep this thread on topic. If you want to discuss this, start a thread on it.

 

[Jarthur001]

The calvinism you suggest is like a greased pig.

Name calling with no proof always falls on those that have no proof to give.

You have chosen to cherry pick what you agree with Calvin on and throw away the rest.

Are you saying this is a bad idea? Do you think we should keep what we disagree with, and throw away what we agree with?

Why do you not do the same thing with Arminius?

Arminius was declared a heretic by the church, but still he said somethings I agree with. He believed in Original Sin as did other reformers. Some on this board reject this long held doctrine of the church.