Top 10 misconceptions about Calvinism

whatever, I don't want to drudge up that discussion with you again. To stay on the original purpose of this thread, I will simply point out that one of the "misconceptions" was that Calvinists are fatalists, and yet you seem to be arguing for fatalism.

 

Larry, you say:

"Thank you for asking. "Irrestible Grace" does not mean that God drags people into His Kingdom, kicking a screeming, against their will. It simply means He makes them willing. His grace is irresistible just like that last piece of pecan pie in the refrigerator was "irresistible." It look so good I didn't want to resist it. God makes His mercy so wonderful to us that we no longer want to resist but rather come willingly unto Him."

"It simply means He makes them willing" "makes" sounds like to me to cause someone to do something, rather than suggest that they do it. This means that they did not exercise their will in the matter. Keep on playing with words, but it just goes to show that the Calvinists on this board are not of the honest type. I am yet to meet a Calvinist who has admitted that something that he holds to could be wrong. Let me say this, even if the Lord Jesus Himself came and told you guys that what you believe is wrong, you would still deny it. This is simply because Calvinism is a spiritual blindness that no amount or arguments can convince. May the Holy Spirit open your eyes to the Truth

 

Its not Larry, but Cassidy I address my last post to. Two sides of the same coin (Larry/Cassidy)

 

Cute! And quite rude as well. And what is it when people keep posting misrepresentations of what Calvinists believe, even though they've been told over and over and over again by people who are Calvinist that they don't believe it?

Huh? I believe that regeneration logically precedes faith, but I could be wrong. There is scripture that I think pretty clearly suggests that this is the way it is, and I've yet to have anyone show me scripture that suggests otherwise, but I still could be wrong because I misunderstood the scripture. I don't think I am, but I always could be.

Cute again! Especially since almost no one becomes a Calvinist because they wanted to be one right off the bat. They become one because they believe scripture itself comes and tells them that what they had previously believed was wrong, and they accepted what they understood scripture to be saying as they studied it.

Really? And how do you know you aren't the one who is spiritually blind? After all, if you were blind, then you would be unaware of it, wouldn't you? It takes a lot of hubris to make statements like this.

Did you consider how arrogant this whole post was before you wrote it?

 

Thanks whetstone. I guess I'm just trying to understand why #5 is on the list.

 

You're making up definitions. My dictionary says:

fa'tal·ism n. the belief that all events are
predetermined and inevitable.

There is nothing about how loving God is, or even if he exists, in the definition - nor the theistic/atheistic views of the one holding such a belief

I believe prophecy can be fulfilled mutiple ways. For example, if Judas hadn't chosen to betray Christ, someone else would have.

 

Calvinists have their own special dictionaries, so that they can have their own support for their doctrines, which are otherwise not found in Scripture, nor their meanings in the common meanings of the languages.

 

apparently you weren't paying attention icthus. the vagueness of my statement was brought to my attention and i said:

perhaps #5 may be altered to 'Calvinists are blind fatalists.'

I'd rather be wrong about dictionary definitions than the manner of God's grace in salvation. </font>[/QUOTE]Want to re-write the English language, then?

 

Regarding Point 5. I post this somewhat hesitatingly, and hope this will not be a distraction but think it is an important point. Whetstone is far more capable at showing these things than I am, but there is a point I think needs mentioned. Regarding the future unalterably set, there is some things to consider regarding this. We live man-ward. Consider the appointed time for a man to die. The language of Scripture speaks of a man causing their death before the time, and also there is example of life time being extended. As men, we do not find an easy chair and wait for the end, but are active living our life. The choices made certainly have impact, both on ourselves and on others. This does not limit the decree of God. A search and study regarding Absoluter and Baptists would help the interested reader.

 

If "the future is unalterably set" (no matter what particular words you use for #5), how do you possibly reconcile 1 Cor 10:13???

 

Dear Whetstone, let me encourage you after reading these responses. Misconceptions abound and will always abound because many times things get emotionally heated and it's hart to discuss things in that environment. I know how it's hard to explain things and you may feel like you're hitting your head against the wall, but hopefully some good may come out of it all.

As to 1 Cor 10:13....I don't see how that verse affects #5 in any way.

 

By the way I don't know why there has not been a positive definition of compatibilistic freedom here so I will paraphrase one.

A person is compatibilistically free if and only if she makes a choice based on her own desires without any constraint (obviously, constraint does not include God's decretive will...sorry if some want to argue that this begs the question but it does not).

A person is libertarianly free if and only if she makes a decision and could have chosen otherwise (there can be a more nuanced one of course, but this will suffice to get the gist of libertarian freedom).

Hard determinism (fatalism) is not the same as soft determinism...no Calvinist I know of says that the past determines a unique future given the laws of nature and the laws of logic. You can label Calvinism fatalism but that says nothing as to what it internally holds. If one wants to see why Calvinism does not logically entail fatalism consult John Feinberg's "No One Like Him," for a cogent explanation.

God bless,
BJ

 

That was pretty funny whetstone - thanks!

In answer to your almost serious remark -- I will simply point out the "obvious".

Your statement on what "Calvinism isn't" was nothing more than the claim that "it isn't considered by Calvinists to be the erroneous thing that Arminians observe it to really be".

And although that thought is entertaining - it is well... "expected", don't you think?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hey Whetstone! I provided some "information" on what "Calvinism is not".

I am hoping Calvinists will not mind having "information".

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

F. Calvinism is not monolithic, the tradition from Calvin holds to a "dualist" view of the atonement and Calvin clearly taught this in his institutes, sermons, and commentaries. John Owen, in response to the 17th scholastics really solidified the limited atonement view. It is perfectly fine for a Calvinist to say "sufficient for all, efficient to those who believe." However, surely you need to refine (f) because only universalists would say that the atonement has unlimited application...Calvin, Arminius, and most who use their respective "labels" would reject that Christ's death had unlimited application---unless if you are just limiting this application to common grace I guess.

(H)...Okay, give me the Arminian explanation. By the way why does the Bible say that Christ was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world? Most Arminians do not believe that God had plan A in Gen 1-2 and had to switch to plan B in Gen 3-Rev.

(I)..Okay, what is the Arminian explanation. Unless you want to say that God is not necessarily morally perfect, then you believe that He chose to be morally perfect. If God chose to be morally perfect, then we are wrong to say that He is essentially holy. Does God have libertarian free will. Did He choose to be morally perfect. Could He have chose otherwise?

(K)...History shows that this is plainly false. Besides what are the special Arminian methods...preaching the gospel and living righteous lives? Now which side is "redifining terms?"