What's Wrong with Calvinism?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

It would appear that some on the list do not like to hear someone say that their doctrinal beliefs are Calvinistic. What is wrong with the five points of Calvinism that would make a Baptist desire to distance themselves from such a system of theology?

 

[J. Jump]

Well the most simple answer is they are not Biblical :thumbsup: And that's good enough for me.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JJ: Well the most simple answer is they are not Biblical And that's good enough for me.

HP: That might be a little vague.

Let me explain myself briefly. When I see something as Calvinistic, I do not think directly to the five points of Calvinism. I think in general terms such as OSAS or eternal security, original sin, the elimination of man’s will being involved in salvation, the notion that grace equates to the granting of abilities, etc. To me, if one denies, say, irresistible grace, yet believes that we are predestined from eternity past without regard to man’s free will being involved, I see that as being an inconsistent Calvinist, for what good is his denial if in fact the thing one denies is logically necessitated by that which he says he does believe?


For another illustration, a man says that Calvinism denies that man’s will is involved, and for that reason believes he is not Calvinistic, yet denies true freedom of the will by stating that it is really ‘all of God,’ what real difference is there between him and a Calvinist? Again, I would view such a one as an inconsistent Calvinist, for practically speaking, neither believes in a truly free will at all. The Calvinist just openly admits it while the other tries to eliminate what he sees as error by gymnastic semantics, but in reality has not left the farm due to the logical ends of his argument landing him logically right back beside the Calvinist.


Do you understand where I am coming from? I do not desire to be unfair here, I am only trying to get us to see that some times our attempts to alleviate a problem in our theology is really meaningless semantic juggling rather than clear separation from that which we believe is in error.

 

[Not_hard_to_find]

..I would view such a one as an inconsistent Calvinist.

Well, then, you would certainly view me as one, for I cannot find biblical support for what Calvinism espouses. Been there, looked at that, prayerfully read scriptures. Determined the doctrine didn't fit biblically.

Good luck on your ongoing quest to ... well, I'm not certain just exactly what you are trying to do. But at least you appear consistely active at it!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Not_Hard_to_Find: Well, then, you would certainly view me as one, for I cannot find biblical support for what Calvinism espouses. Been there, looked at that, prayerfully read scriptures. Determined the doctrine didn't fit biblically.

HP: How about telling us, (in our cone of silence on this thread, ) what you believe is in error and how it is that you now differ from it?

 

[Rippon]

Dear NHTF , your "been there done that" is a woefully insufficient criteria to have determined that Calvinism is not biblical . And a general dismissive " It's not biblical " just does not cut the proverbial mustard .

I just used that mustard cliche in my last paragraph. Nevertheless , I am tired of hearing such worn-out expressions as "been there done that " . because most folks discussing practically anything will use that as a legitimate form of argumentation . But it just does not hold any water .:laugh:

I wish people would state specifics when it comes to their attempts to debunk what they think Calvinism is .

 

[J. Jump]

That might be a little vague.

That was purposeful I have learned that there aren't very many folks around that when this subject pops up that are really looking for answers. There may be a watcher that is struggling with the issue, but those participating are ones that have their minds made up and are not going to be persuaded one way or the other, which means it's basically meaningless to talkk about

However I will offer this as some reading material:

http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Erjvelema/rve_e/predelcn.pdf

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JJ: That was purposeful I have learned that there aren't very many folks around that when this subject pops up that are really looking for answers. There may be a watcher that is struggling with the issue, but those participating are ones that have their minds made up and are not going to be persuaded one way or the other, which means it's basically meaningless to talkk about

HP: I consider your answer in like kind to one that complains about the elections but didn’t even vote. Here was your opportunity to vindicate your beliefs, but you chose not to. Don’t be too dismayed if you feel that others misrepresent you in your self imposed 'cone of intimate silence.'

 

[EdSutton]

One of my closest friends once said:

"There are only two things wrong with Calvinism. It blasphemes God and it de-humanizes man. Outside of that, it's a great system!"

BTW, he and I both arrived at about the same time (and completely independantly of the other) to the POV that in the final analysis, there is no difference between the system often known as "Arminianism" and the system often known as 'Calvinism". Both are finally determined by 'works' and both deny the Biblical ideas of 'grace'.

In short, neither has any real place (They only 'tolerate' him, when they can barely even stomach him!) for the only man in Scripture identified three times as righteous or just, and the only one specifically identified as "Godly" - my Biblical 'hero' , Lot!

Ed

 

[Helen]

succintly put, Ed.

I have some very specific arguments with Calvinism, only a few of which are here (and yes I wrote every word of all three of them)

http://www.setterfield.org/calvinism.htm
http://www.setterfield.org/elect.htm
http://www.setterfield.org/Esau.html

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ed: One of my closest friends once said:"There are only two things wrong with Calvinism. It blasphemes God and it de-humanizes man. Outside of that, it's a great system!"

HP: What I am looking for is specific notions of Calvinism that are in error, and what one believes to the contrary that they feel ‘fixes’ the error. This is not an egg throwing contest.

 

[Helen]

HP: What I am looking for is specific notions of Calvinism that are in error, and what one believes to the contrary that they feel ‘fixes’ the error. This is not an egg throwing contest.

Please read my articles which I linked and see if that is some of what is specific enough.

 

[EdSutton]

HP: What I am looking for is specific notions of Calvinism that are in error, and what one believes to the contrary that they feel ‘fixes’ the error. This is not an egg throwing contest.

Read what immediately followed what you quoted. And I had no intention of 'fixing' any error, but did point out a couple of 'errors', including how both the so-called 'systems' are really systems of works, and how they view Lot.
As to hurling those ovaloids, neuropathy and arthritis are not conducive to such, so I seldom attempt it in the first place.

Ed

 

[Not_hard_to_find]

I apologize for posting -- this is not debatable in my viewpoint and I should have stayed away from the subject. For me, John 3:16 is valid. "...whosoever believeth..." and requires no legalistic parsing. As Christ answered those who used legalism as a weapon, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." I have been saved through God's grace and I do not doubt His ability to do so.

If I must defend my position, I would use Saul. Why, if he were predestined, elected, chosen, whatever word a Calvinist would use -- why was his conversion experience necessary? And, that question is rhetorical -- no need to respond.

Thank you for your patience.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

ED: Read what immediately followed what you quoted. And I had no intention of 'fixing' any error, but did point out a couple of 'errors', including how both the so-called 'systems' are really systems of works, and how they view Lot.
As to hurling those ovaloids, neuropathy and arthritis are not conducive to such, so I seldom attempt it in the first place.

HP: Sorry Ed to hear about your pain issues. Life sure has some 'not so funny painful twists' sometimes.

How does Calvinism present Lot?

As for salvation by works, I personally believe the charge is more often than not hollow and unfounded due to a failure to distinguish or understand the sense in which conditions of salvation are used. Would you mind telling us why you see both as upholding salvation by works?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Helen: Please read my articles which I linked and see if that is some of what is specific enough.

HP: I am so pressed for time this week I may not be able to. I will if I find he time. I would appreciate if you could just post a point or so concerning the issue at hand for us consider. Thanks.

 

[BobRyan]

It would appear that some on the list do not like to hear someone say that their doctrinal beliefs are Calvinistic. What is wrong with the five points of Calvinism that would make a Baptist desire to distance themselves from such a system of theology?

1. Limited atonement as limited grace where "God so loves the FEW" of Matt 7 and arbitrarily selects THEM to be saved.

2. double predestination in irresistable grace - which gets back to point 1 above.

But they do have a point on total depravity and perseverance of the saints.

In the pure Arminian view (the one that rejects the Calvinist teaching on OSAS) you can "KNOW" that you are saved today but can not now that you will continue to choose eternal life 10 years from today.

In honest 3&5 point Calvinism - you can not even know that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I apologize for posting -- this is not debatable in my viewpoint and I should have stayed away from the subject. For me, John 3:16 is valid. "...whosoever believeth..." and requires no legalistic parsing. As Christ answered those who used legalism as a weapon, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." I have been saved through God's grace and I do not doubt His ability to do so.

If I must defend my position, I would use Saul. Why, if he were predestined, elected, chosen, whatever word a Calvinist would use -- why was his conversion experience necessary? And, that question is rhetorical -- no need to respond.

Thank you for your patience.

Good points.

The problem with Calvinism - is that it goes against the Bible.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

1. The truth is in Rom 3 - ALL are born in sin, depraved with sinful natures that -- "by nature" are children of wrath.

But God DRAWS ALL mankind and convicts "the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment". God was "IN CHRIST" reconciling "THE WORLD" to Himself".

2. Grace is unconditional - in that God unconditionally draws, and reconciles and convicts as Romans 2 says "It is the GOODNESS of God that LEADS you to repentance". But Grace does not FORCE the will as some types of Calvinism suppose.

3. Limited atonement when taken to be Calvinism's limited grace, limited Love - (limited God) is wrong. It supposed extreme partiality and arbitrary selection as the "methods of God". The truth is "God so LOVED the WORLD" and as Peter said "God is not WILLING that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance". There is NO arbitrary selection process with God for as Paul says "God is NOT Partial" Romans 2.

YET - limited Atonement IS correct IF the CORRECT VIEW of Atonement had been used instead of the false pagan notion of "appeasement of the angry god" - the Bible view is "God so LOVED THE WORLD that HE GAVE".

4. Grace is resistable - in that men harden their hearts against it as is clearly seen in scripture. IN Heb 3 and 4 we see the command TO US "do NOT harden your heart".

5. Perseverance of the saints is correct - but should not be taken to the point of removing free will. Adam FREELY chose sin.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[J. Jump]

I consider your answer in like kind to one that complains about the elections but didn’t even vote. Here was your opportunity to vindicate your beliefs, but you chose not to. Don’t be too dismayed if you feel that others misrepresent you in your self imposed 'cone of intimate silence.

Why do I need to have my beliefs vindicated?

And I'm not dismayed at all about other misrepresenting what I believe, and giving my views is not going to cure that problem anyway. You proved that in the other thread. I laid out my beliefs which are not in line with Calvins teachings and yet you still put me in that camp

So it doesn't really matter. Most people are going to hear what they want, read what they want and see what they want. That's just the way it is.