Top 10 misconceptions about Calvinism

F. Calvinism does not have the need to "redefine scripture" in places where EVEN CALVIN admits that it has unlimitted scope and application for the death of Christ.

So you modify the initial point "F" by saying in Real Calvinism -- "SOME Calvinist need to redefine texts that Calvin would leave as is"??

So "Owen-ist" vs "Cavlinist"?? or -- "Owenian Calvinism"??

You got me.

Christ's death is the unlimited "Atoning Sacrifice" of 1 John 2:2.

But "ATONEMENT" involves BOTH the sacrifice AND the High Priestly work of Christ (Heb 8-10) according to God's Word that defines the term in Lev 16 on the "Day of Atonement" Gospel subject worked out in visual format.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Myths of Calvinism

G. Calvinism has ever proven that the one who RECEIVES a gift -- has EARNED that gift as a wage -- by simply choosing to RECEIVE it.

No response.

Myths of Calvinism


H. Calvinism has "some explanation" for why God allowed Lucifer to sin, for why He allowed Adam to sin (freely choosing - AGAINST their sinless nature) and why God allowed sin to CONTINUE for 6000 years.

God had to "CHOOSE" free will for the universe EACH time He allows Luciver to sin or the angels to fall or Adam to fall -- and has to CHOOSE free will at "great cost" to Himself and His kingdom. God's OWN choice for a free will universe is the only REASON to "let" Lucifer or Adam fall into sin with the following "great consequences".

God knew the end from the beginning but never said "My plan for you Lucifer is to go to hell".

Nor does He say to Adam "My plan for you is utter failure so that I then have to save you from hell by dying for you".

Yet God "knew" the end from the beginning all along.


Myths of Calvinism

I. Calvinism has answered the question -- "Does God have free will?" when it keeps arguing that mankind doesnt' have any other choice just because God has foreknowledge.

#1. You are wandering from the point of "I". The point in "I" is that God has free will EVEN THOUGH He knows HIS OWN future actions. The result is that foreknowledge DOES NOT stop free will not EVEN for God. (And His is the "worst case scenario"). Therefore HIS foreknowledge is not stopping anyone's free will. If they are stopped it is not by the argument of foreknowledge - because that argument would STOP GOD HIMSELF were it true!

Again you are getting mired down in obscurity when the problem is much simpler.

If God knows He will have the second coming on Tuesday -- can He later choose Wednesday??

Your attempt to limit this to "good vs evil" barely scratches the surface of the problem that the "forknowledge argument" introduces and is not needed since a much simpler choice is available to test that bogus proposition that foreknowledge stops free will.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Calvinist myths continued


K. Calvinists have a good explanation for why they always use ARMINIAN methods to evangelize - other than the frank confession that "Calvinism doesn't work" for evangelism - so "we wait to spring it on them later".

Arminian as in

Etc etc etc.

Calvinist "evangelism".

"Obviously" Calvinist evangelists are using Arminian methods.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You know what - I left out a key Calvinist myth

Calvinist Myth:

Arminians do not know what Calvinism is they only know they are Arminian and that in some innexplicable way - Arminianism is not Calvinism"

Thanks for reminding me.

So Christians don't know what Atheism is "because they are not atheists"???

Trinitarians do not know what Arianism is "Because they are not ARians".

Calvinists can not possibly know what Arminianism is "because they are not Arminian"??

(I do see some Calvinists pretending not to know what the Arminian position is - but I seldom believe it).

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Calvinists can address (or even allow themselves to "think about") the logical innevitable implications of their own doctrine --> the "Future Calvinist scenario" in detail and will respond logically, paying close attention to "disconfirming details" without rejecting Calvinist principles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the contrary -- I have posted that SAME scenario many times on this board only to watch Calvinists flee the "details" in droves.

Here it is again. "The Calvinist future scenario"

(Because Whetstone is doubting its existence)

The inner quotes contain “The scenario”. Everything else is my commentary. (Of course the entire thing is my own test scenario for Calvinism)

<You see the problem when the Calvinist model is not “allowed the luxury" of disregarding the fate of the lost - as in the case above?>

God who arbitrarily selects out the FEW of Matt 7 and loves THEM alone - and then represents that to Calvinists as "So Loving the World". Oh the pure joy that thought must cause the Calvinist mind.
</font>[/QUOTE]Here is a quote showing the fact of arbitrary selection accepted by Calvinists today.
Establishing the fact that “yes” you can have a parent saved and their child “lost”.

Establishing the all deserve hell but is it not great that some are saved (saved for some unknown reason not related to any attribute in the individual)
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1406/5.html#000069

Calvinist overjoyed at this “inexplicable choice of one and not the other” idea..

In Christ,

Bob

 

God had to "CHOOSE" free will for the universe EACH time He allows Luciver to sin or the angels to fall or Adam to fall -- and has to CHOOSE free will at "great cost" to Himself and His kingdom. God's OWN choice for a free will universe is the only REASON to "let" Lucifer or Adam fall into sin with the following "great consequences".

Hmmm...this opens the door to the problem of evil from the Arminian side. He "has" to choose free will at "great cost." Some people who suffer would say, thanks but no thanks. This does not give a reason that's any more appealing than the Calvinistic answer. Why did God choose a world with free will? He has to at a great cost. Yes, but I asked why He chose to create a world with free will? It has great value.

I'm not dissing the free will defense from those who have held it from Augustine to Plantinga, but it's not a perfect defense by any means and to discuss it would be yet a different thread.

God knew the end from the beginning but never said "My plan for you Lucifer is to go to hell".

Nor does He say to Adam "My plan for you is utter failure so that I then have to save you from hell by dying for you".

Yet God "knew" the end from the beginning all along.

Some would respond...if He knew the end from the beginning, then why did He create this world in the first place with all of its problems? It would have been better had He not created anything at all. Yes, but God is wise in all He does....that sounds like what a Calvinist would say.

Myths of Calvinism

I. Calvinism has answered the question -- "Does God have free will?" when it keeps arguing that mankind doesnt' have any other choice just because God has foreknowledge.

#1. You are wandering from the point of "I". The point in "I" is that God has free will EVEN THOUGH He knows HIS OWN future actions. The result is that foreknowledge DOES NOT stop free will not EVEN for God. (And His is the "worst case scenario"). Therefore HIS foreknowledge is not stopping anyone's free will. If they are stopped it is not by the argument of foreknowledge - because that argument would STOP GOD HIMSELF were it true!

Sorry, I guess I didn't know your point of (I). I thought the value of libertarian free will was it it the only way one can be morally responsible...(this was an assumption and an illustration about how easy it is to be misunderstood ). If this is your point, well we can discuss freedom/foreknowledge and its necessary piggy-back issue of God's relationship to time, but that would be yet another thread. I will say that your comments here equivocate free will. Are you explaining the Calvinist's understanding of God's free will or libertarian free will?

Again you are getting mired down in obscurity when the problem is much simpler.

This is not obscure....does libertarian hold true in heaven as it does on earth? Is God morally praiseworthy in the same sense as we are or if He does not choose to be morally perfect, are we just giving Him aesthetic praise like one would a painting. (These are Arminians arguments by the way and I don't see how they are obscure in discussing God's freedom).

If God knows He will have the second coming on Tuesday -- can He later choose Wednesday??

If God is omniscient, then He holds only true beliefs and rejects false beliefs, so no He could not later choose Wednesday, if He "knows" or believes that He will come back on Tuesday. But this involves God's relationship to time and the freedom/foreknowledge issue...another thread for another day.

Your attempt to limit this to "good vs evil" barely scratches the surface of the problem that the "forknowledge argument" introduces and is not needed since a much simpler choice is available to test that bogus proposition that foreknowledge stops free will.

What is the "foreknowledge argument" because I'm thinking of Nelson Pike and the issue of libertarian freedom and omniscience and the standard responses of simple foreknowledge, molinism, ockhamism, and presentism---what are you talking about with this phrase? I know no one who says that foreknowledge stops free will, but I define free will in a different way...are we discussing Calvinism or Arminianism here?...hence, the misconceptions over free will.

I'm willing to discuss these tangential matters but start a new thread for each one.

Blessings,
BJ


In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Sorry for the confusing post...you'll have to read above in BR's post to see what the new material is...please forgive me as a newbie to this style of boards. I'm sorry.

BJ

 

quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Calinist Myth
C. Calvinisms "unconditional election" is not really "arbitrary selection" in a thinly veiled disguise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calvinist claim that there is NO difference between the elect and the lost and to find one is to be in error.

Case re-opened.

quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Calvinst Myth
D. Calvinism has some explanation for why God is ONLY selecting the "FEW" of Matt 7.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is odd since in Matt 7 Jesus SAYS top those that "did not find it" (Depart from Me you workers of iniquity I never knew you).

And since He claims they are not the one who "enter the kingdom of heaven".

But if you "know better" please say on!

Christ Himself is the one that numbers them all and says that compared to each other - the LOST group is the MANY and the elect are the FEW.

No attempt to rewrite Matt 7 can be done by using Rev 7 as a "few is not as few as Christ thinks" kind of logic.

It remains FEW and Calvism claims that there is NO DIFFERENCE at all between the FEW and the MANY even though Christ tries to get us to think that there is something "about THEM" that is determining something in Matt 7.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Brandon -- use the QUOTE button to include a quote and then delete out of the text anything you want.

To leave a section of the post in quotes indented

Just be sure to insert the [ quote ] at the start and the [ / quote ] at the end.

(without the spaces between the characters).

 

Sure - just look at the first quoted section of my post to you- it has the "Calvinist scenario' in it.

The other quoted sections are just "proof" from other Calvinists posting and "Showing" the scenario.

I will post the scenario again - by itself.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The inner quotes contain “The scenario”. Everything else is my commentary. (Of course the entire thing is my own test scenario for Calvinism)

&lt;You see the problem when the Calvinist model is not “allowed the luxury" of disregarding the fate of the lost - as in the case above?&gt;

God who arbitrarily selects out the FEW of Matt 7 and loves THEM alone - and then represents that to Calvinists as "So Loving the World". Oh the pure joy that thought must cause the Calvinist mind.
</font>[/QUOTE]

 

Ok?

"I think Calvinism is wrong".

(And then there is -- "I don't think Calvinists have an answer for that scenario")

You can choose either sentence.

Bob

 

I hesitate to extend this thread anymore...but this scenario is nonsensical. Let me pose a brief corollary for the Arminian.

An Arminian dies and goes to heaven while his children are still alive. He had prayed for his children that they would get saved, but they never did while he was still alive. While in heaven God delivers him some terrible news...during a family gathering some terrorists came and killed everyone. His entire family is dead. Every person there was over the age of accountability and no one had yet accepted the gospel. The Arminian man rejoices because the terrorists exercised their free will and God created a world where something like a mass murder can happen. He rejoiced because his children's free will was never compromised and they died and went to hell because they never accepted the gospel. He thanked God fore creating a world with free will and never interfering with what men do with it whether for good or evil.

That scenario is just as ridiculous and as pointless as its Calvinistic counterpart.

 

First of all I congratulate you on taking an obvious step and actually proposing an Arminian scenario.

However you get "low marks" for simply "presuming" that the Calvinist scenario makes no sense without actually "dealing with the details". By doing that you simply PROVE my assertion that Calvinists have no substantive "response to details" in that Calvinist future scenario.

I suppose I should applaud you for confirming my point against Calvinism - but frankly I keep hoing that Calvinists "can do better" on that one specific point.

(As some Calvinists might see it "I keep hoping that God will choose that Calvinists should start doing better and actually make a substantive response to the details".)

The Arminian scenrio by Brandon -- later.

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. The opening scenario is not rediculous because it really shows "in details" real life events (people do refuse salvation and people really do suffer as victims of Crimes and Arminians really do have to include those "details" in whatever view of free will they hold to -- and how it reflects on their view of God).

So though it may shock you - making a logical argument is not "rediculous".

#2. In the scenario you should probably include the same "Armininan goes running to God and cries out "oh My Lord and Savior COULDN't you have done SOMETHING to stop this?".

This sets up the same "equivalent" moment for "The scenario" for both Calvinism and Arminianism to "Show" the kind of God they serve.

(Instructive - that you left it out -- but "anyway" on with our story).

Some key points for the Arminian model --

#1. People DO care about ALL and God really does SO LOVE ALL! ALL the World and yes ALL their relatives -- still.. So in showing the Arminian with "concern" for their loved ones is true to Arminianism - (at least for this Arminian).

#2. As the saints were torn by animals in the Roman theaters of sport so both good and bad people suffer as victims in every age. The "bad event happens to someone who is Arminian" is legit.

#3. Arminians never argue that they are happy that bad things happen to them or to their relatives.

#4. Your argument that "God allows bad things to happen" in a free will system - is generally accepted as true. It is THE point of Arminianism that the WAY that God is NOT directly responsible for evil - is "free will". God creates free will and a sinless, painless environment. Lucifer and Adam CHOOSE evil (against their natures) and the consequence is sin and suffering.

Your scenario is getting back to "Why did God LET THEM choose".

#5. Now lets try your SAME scenario - using Calvinism as "the explanation".

In Christ,

Bob