Top 10 misconceptions about Calvinism

Well, these scenarios are all fine and good, but I thought Scripture shows that God does bring good and calamity. I think of Solomon's advice in Ecclesiastes 7: Who can straigthen what God has made crooked? When things go well be happy, in times of adversity consider this: God has made one as well as the other so no man can know his future.

Your statement in the "Calvinist" scenario..."Yes, I could havve done that if I had cared to" follows for most Arminians as well. Are we not told to pray? Do we not ask for God to intervene? Does an Arminian really believe, like you claim, that God can do nothing to "stop this from happening and to bring them to heaven?" God, I guess, would respond, "I knew this would happen, but I can't do anything about it." Well, that sounds like the useless providential God that open theists have brought to light discussing God's simple foreknowledge. He is like a divine Elektra who can see the future but cannot change it. Why pray then?

Blessings,
BJ

 

One thing at a time.

First of all the details for the two Calvinist scenarios. Are they agree to?

Secondly - if agreed to - then we can find out just how much support each of the detail points has from scripture.

One group actually "claims" to hold to the teaching of "unconditional election" defined "by them" as God electing some but not others purely by His OWN sovereign choice and not having ANYTHING to do with actual differences between those selected and those not selected. In that view "The God is Sovereign" argument is taken to extreme such that God does whatever He cares to do and "Who are you o man to question God".

Your claim that Arminians make the same argument for the difference between those who are saved vs those lost is -- not supported by the list of "Arminian arguments".

So as I said - step ONE is to validate the precursors and salient points of each of the scenarios.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Having posted two Calvinist scenarios -- I will now post an Arminian future scenario using the SAME conditions as for the Calvinist one.


Some (Calvinists) have argued that plugging our doctrine into the future scenario to see what we are really saying about God - is not valid since our doctrines may not always fare well in that exposed light of day. So we now plug that same set of conditions and variables that determined the Calvinist future scenario – into an Arminian Future Scenario. Using the same conditions simplifies the “contrast and compare” exercise between Calvinist principles and Arminian ones.

Oh what wonderful Grace! What unbiased impartial Love! What sacrifice lavished upon both the saved AND the Lost!

Of course the Calvinist may say of the Arminian God that we see pictured here "OH how TERRIBLE! How AWFUL" that God would "ALLOW selfless concern for our lost children EVEN for a moment once we are in heaven" (as some have said)... or that "God would LOVE our lost children" (As others have said) -- But I know that "not many" will do so - even among Calvinists because the comparison is obvious - blatant and clear.
</font>[/QUOTE]Here you have a perfect contrast between the Calvinist future scenario - vs the Arminian one - with the SAME set of conditions.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Yes we do. And that is the perfect model of an Arminian system where the ASKING of one (the prayer requests of a sinful human) MAKE A DIFFERENCE and God "responds" to something that man chooses to DO or that man chooses to request.


IN the pure Calvinist model - it is ALL about God and NOT about "your prayers" or the "wishes of a saved parent for his child" or even the "wishes of a lost person". In the Calvinist mode God ALONE directs, and moves and determines events. Mankind is doomed to always be motivated by depravity and EVEN the good that mankind does by Grace is not a means of "Changing God" or "changing" what God will or will not do.

It is very obvious that IF Calvinism can not tolerate your child "choosing Christ" of their own free will such that the CHOOSING of your child makes "some kind of difference" how much less can it tolerate your WORK of CHOOSING to pray for your child and with much agonizing and tears and fasting etc MOVING the hand of God in any way to SAVE -- or causing ANY difference in the "salvation event" by all that massive working on your part (let alone the tiny ACCEPTING of a gift on the part of your child).

In Christ,

Bob

 

Question to both sides of this debates -

Why do either of you bother witnessing to the lost? It sounds like one of you thinks that it doesn't matter since God has already determined whether you will be allowed to be saved or not, and it sounds like the other of you thinks it doesn't matter because God has already agreed everyone should be saved .

So - why have preachers or ministers or missionaries?

 

In my case (the Arminian one) God has decided to "Desire that ALL mankind should be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth" like the Bible says.

If you follow my "future Aminian scenario" in detail you "see" how that works for the saved AND for those who do not go to heaven.

If you ignore that pesky "detail" in my scenario about "wave after wave of mercy" then perhaps you might wonder why God sends out Evangelists given my POV.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Poor old Arminian God created a world where everyone would love Him and be happy forever, but they really caught Him by surprise when they disobeyed. He never intended for any people to go to Hell. He tried really, really hard to prevent that, but most people just wouldn't listen to Him. He really didn't want them in Hell, and He did all He could, darn it, and they just didn't care!

Suppose God does determine the fate of every individual who ever lived. Don't you trust Him to do what is right? It sounds like you have more faith in your children to do what is right than you have in God to do what is right.

 

God has ordained the end (who will be saved) and He has ordained the means to that end (preaching the gospel to everyone). So we preach to obey God.

 

Dear BR, it's fine if you want to take one thing at a time. I have no problem with that. Let's start a new thread though. I would suggest to dump your hypothetical scenarios and let's discuss a real one--the Book of Job. As I read it, God would be lying to Job at the end if he even tried to tell him that He tried all He could but He just can't control evil. He would be lying if He told Him that He really couldn't have done anything about His troubles had he cared. It seems to me that you would need to revise Job chapters 1-2 and 38-42 since they seem to contradict your points with these scenarios.

Is your one-sentence interpretation of Job something like this: "God could have done something about it had He cared to" therefore the Book of Job is false.

This will be my last post on this thread...I'll check for new ones in the future if you would like to continue.

Blessings,
BJ

 

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 </font>[/QUOTE]Clearly - Whetstone - has chosen to accept the second statement uncontested - and to in fact "demonstrate that fact".

I applaud that!

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
In my case (the Arminian one) God has decided to "Desire that ALL mankind should be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth" like the Bible says.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed. I am sure this is viewed as a "bad thing" by "Some" calvinists who prefer to think that God "wonderfully created a world designed for failure suffering and sin".

But Arminians usually never go for that - and a Lot of other Calvinists would not accept your alternative to the God that CREATED everything for SUCCESS not failure.

Having found not "detail" to be incorrect in the Calvinist future scenario - you limit yourself to pretending not to understand the free will alternative and highlighting your own displeasure with the idea that God would not limit Himself to "robots".

As I said - simply showing your own displeasure with "Free Will" given to Adam and Lucifer - changes nothing.

(FREE WILL that allowed them to choose AGAINST their sinLESS nature)

AS we have already stated - God has always known the end from the beginning.

The Arminian scenario SHOWS that "He did it right".

The Calvinist scenario "merely shows" that He did it "arbitrarily and without concern for the non-elect".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I thought the response options were obvious. Sorry.

You may do one of the following

A. Point to the Calvnist future scenario and defend it "as exactly what one expects in the future for Calvinists".

In this case you might propose a counter "scenario" for Arminianism - equally valid but "Distasteful to Calvinists" as surely the Calvinist Future scenario is distasteful to Arminians.

You could also talk about the verious primary Calvinist principles being exaulted in that scenario and discuss why they are absolutely true.

B. Point out the flaws in the Calvinist future scenario and propose a corrected version. (In this case the "details" would be important - a fact that comes as a big "surprise" to some Calvinists here).

C. Ignore the Calvinist future scenario because you can find no actual Calvinist doctrine violated by it -- and so you find it to expose the glaring flaws of Calvinism to the pure light of day and you would hope to avoid it at all costs.

(One option here would be to pretend you don't understand the scenario and simply stop replying to anything that had to do with it).

This option also provide you with the opportunity to expose the weakness in the Arminian side just as the weaknesses of Calvinism have been exposed (a in a response-in-kind form of exchange).

 

It is difficult to fathom your position of refusing the "obvious" points of Calvinism simply because they are "obvious" but not yet "history".

But "hey" I am not opposed to humoring you on this.

Lets start with a Calvinist stating the obvious points of Calvinism.


Here is a quote showing the fact that from the human POV there is no difference between the lost and the elect. (i.e. arbitrary selection) accepted by Calvinists today.

Notice that it also affirms the “expected future condition” of parents in heaven although their child is “lost”. (Parent selected, Child not selected)

And here we see confirmed the "all deserve hell but is it not great that some are selected to be elect point of Calvinism – as it turns from the sorrowful case of the lost and just sees how they “deserve what they get”.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1406/5.html#000069

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

Calvinist scenario “confirmed”.

 

And "now" lets plug these obvious Calvinist points into the Calvinist future scenario.

Then offer up options A, B and C "again" to see what response can be formulated by our Calvinist brethren.

(If you need the scenario posted again - to formulate a reponse "to the details" just let me know).

IN Christ,

Bob