Top 10 misconceptions about Calvinism

Amen... twice.

 

Here's another page with a list of misconceptions that Pastor Larry posted here once and I bookmarked:

Some Things Non Calvinists Should Know About Calvinism

 

Why do you guys call yourselves "Calvinists", then?

Whetstone, all you are doing here is playing silly games with empty, meaningless examples. Again trying to show that we don't know what Calvinism really teaches.

Take, for example your sixth point, "Calvinists say the words 'world' and 'all' REALLY mean 'elect'". This is exactly your position on John 3:16, and 1 Timothy 2:4, where the words "world" and "all" do in Calvinism mean "the elect". If it does not, the there is no other option, then to accept that Jesus Christ did indeed die for the sins of the "whole world" You simply can't have it both ways.

So, lets have it straight. Do Calvinists accept that "World" in John 1:29,3:16; 1 John 4.14; and "all" in 1 Timothy 2:4, and 4:10, does mean "everyone without exception"? If not, why bother starting such time wasting topics?

You could have added a further point

12 - Calvinism distorts the Truth as taugh in the Bible, especially on the Atonement

 

If I have any misconceptions about Calvinism, it would only be these two:

In my experience, Calvinists may claim they don't believe these things, but are unable to explain how these aren't the logical conclusion of their position.

 

"Calvinists deny free will exists"

Eh, that's a game of semantics.

They do not deny free will as THEY define it, not as Arminians define it.

 

Man is free to do whatever he wants and is able to do. For example, man is not free to flap his arms and fly or to walk on the ceiling, even if he wants to, because these things are impossible.

In what way does this differ from an Arminian definition of free will?

 

In my experience, Calvinists may claim they don't believe these things, but are unable to explain how these aren't the logical conclusion of their position. </font>[/QUOTE]In my experience, people are too willing to trust their own logical conclusions at the expense of what the Bible teaches. But we've been down that road, haven't we?

 

Man is free to do whatever he wants and is able to do. For example, man is not free to flap his arms and fly or to walk on the ceiling, even if he wants to, because these things are impossible.

In what way does this differ from an Arminian definition of free will? </font>[/QUOTE]Arminians believe the ability is more extensive.

Calvinists do not believe this freedom extends to the choice toward God, while Arminians do.

 

In my experience, Calvinists may claim they don't believe these things, but are unable to explain how these aren't the logical conclusion of their position. </font>[/QUOTE]In my experience, people are too willing to trust their own logical conclusions at the expense of what the Bible teaches. But we've been down that road, haven't we? </font>[/QUOTE]Sure we have been down this road before. And what I've seen posted by the likes of you, Cassidy and Larry, all but confirms my view that Calvinism is based on theological errors, rather than the sure Word of God. I notice that you did not respond to my earlier post.

 

Originally posted by StefanM:

Calvinists do not believe this freedom extends to the choice toward God, while Arminians do.

So what did Jesus means by His Words in John 5:39-40?

 

They mean exactly what the literal meaning is--they chose not to come.

I'm not a Calvinist, by the way.

 

They mean exactly what the literal meaning is--they chose not to come.

I'm not a Calvinist, by the way. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, of their own free will they choose not to come to Christ to obtain Salvation. Not that God did not want them to be saved. See also Acts 13:46, "you consider yourselves unworthy of eternal life". Not God Who says that they are not the "elect"

 

I guess I didn't see your earlier post. What did it say?

All I've seen so far is that you deny what we believe because it doesn't fit within your logic. The sure Word of God is far better than your logic.

 

So that means it is not really a question of free will, but of ability, right? Which confirms what the OP said.

 

I guess I didn't see your earlier post. What did it say?

All I've seen so far is that you deny what we believe because it doesn't fit within your logic. The sure Word of God is far better than your logic. </font>[/QUOTE]keep dreaming!

 

So that means it is not really a question of free will, but of ability, right? Which confirms what the OP said. </font>[/QUOTE]It's still a game of semantics.

Arminian definitions of free will include or imply the ability to choose God or to reject him.

Calvinist definitions do not mean this.

When an Arminian says, "I believe in free will," he generally means, "I believe in the ability of humanity to choose or to reject God."

When a Calvinist says, "I believe in free will," she generally means, "I believe in the ability of humanity to choose what it is able to choose, which, if not of the elect, does not include choosing God, only rejecting him."

The Calvinist definition is more nuanced,--not necessarily outside logical boundaries of what can be legitimately called "free will"-- but any Calvinist should admit that, on this matter, he or she is operating under a fundamentally different paradigm.

For the Arminian, "free" in "free will" implies without insurmountable restraint in the matter of salvation.

To the Arminian, the Calvinist definition of free will, being perfectly compatible with the idea that an individual lacks the ability to do anything other than reject God, seems to be outside the boundaries of her definition of "free."

 

To the Calvinist, their will is only "free" to accept God, as they can do nothing else, since they are the "elect". This is NOT was Scripture teaches, and makes them like a bunch of robots. Somethinh they will keep on denying, even though it is true. I feel real sorry for these guys. Its no wonder the Lord has chosen to do His work by using other Churches.