What's Wrong with Calvinism?

[BD17]

HP: You must be one of those that do not mind the Calvinistic label. The problem is that many do not like it for they find ‘L’ to be contrary to the clear teachings of the Word of God. It is not that they just don’t like the way it sounds, it is that Scripture clearly refutes it.

While we are on the subject, how do you avoid making God a respecter of persons, limiting His salvation to only atone for a selected few? How is God Just, which by the way is not ‘my opinion’ or ‘the way I like it,’ but rather in direct accordance to the Word of God, if in fact some are condemned to damnation having never had even the least shred of hope for a cure of the state they were born into through no fault of their own and as such impossible for them to change?

He is not a respector of persons, because to RESPECT some one they have to do something to earn it. God chose whom He chose before they had ever done anything to be respected for!!

God is just because we ALL DESERVE damnation, He shows us grace by choosing some, so that we may be thankful for the grace we received when it should have been wrath. Your definition of just is exactly that YOURS. What is just in God's eyes may not be in yours, that is why we are commanded to have faith, and trust.

God does not OWE us anything but wrath and damnation. Your view makes it out like we deserve His love.

 

[jne1611]

HP, I think many Baptist avoid the doctrine because they have been told that it is heresy so much from the pulpit that they lose the right that God gave them (in their minds) to study for themselves to find the truth. The pulpit now days has been turned into the only place where you can find the truth.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BD17: God is just because we ALL DESERVE damnation, He shows us grace by choosing some, so that we may be thankful for the grace we received when it should have been wrath.

HP: If there were say five men that committed the exact same crime under the very same set of circumstances, and the governor decided to pardon just one of them, the one pardoned being his brother while leaving the others to die in prison, in your opinion would that governor be just in his actions or would you see him a respecter of persons?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jne1811: HP, I think many Baptist avoid the doctrine because they have been told that it is heresy so much from the pulpit that they lose the right that God gave them (in their minds) to study for themselves to find the truth. The pulpit now days has been turned into the only place where you can find the truth.

HP: I have never heard a Baptist state that limited atonement is heresy, but obviously you have.

Why would limited atonement be heresy if in fact one believed in original sin and irresistible grace? If all men are sinners from birth and God atoned for the sins of the elect (which I hear over and over), and once chosen you could not resist that appointment, why is that not a limited atonement?

I am not asking because I believe you necessarily believe as much, but rather just to see what you are thinking.

 

[jne1611]

HP: I have never heard a Baptist state that limited atonement is heresy, but obviously you have.

Why would limited atonement be heresy if in fact one believed in original sin and irresistible grace? If all men are sinners from birth and God atoned for the sins of the elect (which I hear over and over), and once chosen you could not resist that appointment, why is that not a limited atonement?

I am not asking because I believe you necessarily believe as much, but rather just to see what you are thinking.

Well, the average Baptist as I have, has heard messages about how unjust it would be for God not to send Jesus to die for everyone. Many words are used for what they think of that kind of teaching. Myself, I came from the Independent Baptist's. I never saw the truth of election until I was called to pastor a Baptist church & began to preach verse by verse. Now I believe in all 5 points of what most refer to as "Calvinism", but I avoid the term because Noah Webster defined the term as "A follower of Calvin" and there is much I would disagree with John Calvin on, but I do agree with a lot of his teachings. But I believe that the doctrine is found & defined & defended without any ambiguity in the Bible.

 

[jne1611]

Why would limited atonement be heresy if in fact one believed in original sin and irresistible grace? If all men are sinners from birth and God atoned for the sins of the elect (which I hear over and over), and once chosen you could not resist that appointment, why is that not a limited atonement?

The Baptist churches I came from did not believe in unconditional election & described irresistible grace as God storming down the door instead of just knocking on it. They said Jesus is a gentleman & will not force himself on anyone. All of the illustrations I heard used were always misrepresentations built on emotion rather than a contextual interpretation & exposition of the Scriptures.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

It is the unfortunate reality that there are many 'Calvinists' today who do not understand nor know either 'Calvinism' or 'Election', and at heart are free-willers or Arminians - that's the unhappy truth. Cause? Simply nobody any longer takes the Word seriously; they just follow the trend of popular - even secular - opinion driven by mighty media.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

What's wrong with Calvinism? Disinterest in God's word and being preoccupied by worldly interests. All that matters is how comfortable I live, how peaceful and self-gratifyingly. Men have forgotten God; they NEVER read and less listen to the Bible. They don't mind God, judgement or faith. Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die, is all the world cares about. WHO WANTS TO BE BOTHERED BY DOCTRINE?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

What's wrong with Calvinism? I am a Calvinist if ever there was one; Calvin is one of my great spiritual heroes. It says not I agree on everything Calvin wrote or preached, although the differences are far between and insignificant. I accept Calvin as a great and trustworthy -HONEST- leader - an epochmaking personality, as Karl Barth described his preferment of him rather than Luther as leader in Christian thinking.

But I would say the big problem with Calvinism -- not with Calvin! -- is that it would not reform. Reform in what respect? Not in the basic doctrine of Election, but in its consequentials (so to speak), of, e.g., Sunday observance and baptism (relics from the anti-christ). As a 'Sabbatharian' and 'abaptist' these are the two specific points in doctrine I find unacceptable in 'Calvinism'-as-we-know-it.

 

[BD17]

HP: If there were say five men that committed the exact same crime under the very same set of circumstances, and the governor decided to pardon just one of them, the one pardoned being his brother while leaving the others to die in prison, in your opinion would that governor be just in his actions or would you see him a respecter of persons?

The problem with your analgy HP is that it does not even come close to representing the truth. Let's see what it looks like when it is written to be a little clser to the truth...

If there were say five men that committed the exact same crime under the very same circumstances, and the governor decided to pardon just one of them and he made his decision before any of them set foot in front of them before he even looked at their files, and the others he left to die in prison including his brother, in your opinion would he be a respecter of persons?

This is closer to the truth, By adding that the person was the governor's brother in your version HP implies partiality which God is not.

So yes in my version God would be just.

 

[BobRyan]

He is not a respector of persons, because to RESPECT some one they have to do something to earn it. God chose whom He chose before they had ever done anything to be respected for!!

God is just because we ALL DESERVE damnation, He shows us grace by choosing some, so that we may be thankful for the grace we received when it should have been wrath. Your definition of just is exactly that YOURS. What is just in God's eyes may not be in yours, that is why we are commanded to have faith, and trust.

God does not OWE us anything but wrath and damnation. Your view makes it out like we deserve His love.

The problem with this view is that it merely points out that INSTEAD of saing "God so LOVED THE WORLD that HE GAVE" God had every right to say "God so loved the arbitrarily selected FEW that HE GAVE".

And I think that all would agree that He COULD have gone that Calvinist direction and we would not have room to complain for ALL have sinned and all deserve the 2nd death.

But INSTEAD OF THAT - God decided to "SO LOVE THE WORLD" that HE GAVE... not just an arbitrarily select FEW. (the FEW of Matt 7 that God says will ultimately go to heaven vs the MANY of Matt 7 -- the WIDE ROAD travelers that do not go to heaven).

So basically "Calvinism fits another Bible" theoretically had such a Bible been written.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

HP: If there were say five men that committed the exact same crime under the very same set of circumstances, and the governor decided to pardon just one of them, the one pardoned being his brother while leaving the others to die in prison, in your opinion would that governor be just in his actions or would you see him a respecter of persons?

In Romans 2:11-13 God says he is NOT partially selecting out those whom He arbitrarily decides to "So LOVE" while ignoring the rest.

But in your example God already has a family relationship with one person that He does not have with the others. So even your case is not as arbitrary as Calvinism would have it.

IN Christ,

bob

 

[BobRyan]

HP: I have never heard a Baptist state that limited atonement is heresy, but obviously you have.

Why would limited atonement be heresy if in fact one believed in original sin and irresistible grace? If all men are sinners from birth and God atoned for the sins of the elect (which I hear over and over), and once chosen you could not resist that appointment, why is that not a limited atonement?

I am not asking because I believe you necessarily believe as much, but rather just to see what you are thinking.

Agreed that IS limited atonement - limited Grace -- limited god.

By contrast to the God of the Bible saying "God so LOVED THE WORLD" that He Gave.

"God is NOT willing that ANY Should perish BUT THAT ALL should come to repentance" 2Peter 3.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The problem with your analgy HP is that it does not even come close to representing the truth. Let's see what it looks like when it is written to be a little clser to the truth...

If there were say five men that committed the exact same crime under the very same circumstances, and the governor decided to pardon just one of them and he made his decision before any of them set foot in front of them before he even looked at their files, and the others he left to die in prison including his brother, in your opinion would he be a respecter of persons?

This is closer to the truth, .

it is EXACTL arbitrary selection - that is obvious.

And it IS exactly Calvinism's limited grace, limited love, limited god, limited Atonment where God arbitrarily selects out the FEW of Matt 7 to "SO LOVE" INSTEAD of sovereignly chosing to "SO LOVE THE WORLD".

But even worse - (in that Calvinist model of arbitrary selection) - God THEN goes on to call that "SO LOVING THE WORLD" !!

And so now having looked at the sample "scenario" above - it is time for the CLASSIC scenario -- "The Calvinist future scenario" -- coming up!!

How tragic!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Now come on guys - you know they are just begging for the classic scenario - first with Calvinism as the doctrinal model AND THEN THE SAME SCENARIO using the Arminian doctrinal model.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: In Romans 2:11-13 God says he is NOT partially selecting out those whom He arbitrarily decides to "So LOVE" while ignoring the rest.

But in your example God already has a family relationship with one person that He does not have with the others. So even your case is not as arbitrary as Calvinism would have it.

HP: I like your response and believe I understand you here, but in actuality, does not the Calvinist believe for fact that indeed God has, and has always had a relationship with a select few as opposed to any and all others? Do they not absolutely believe in predestination, or a predetermining who in fact will be the lucky ones and who in fact will not have a dying chance but to be the damned they were created to be?

Again, I believe you are on the right track here, I am just trying to add some clarification as to why I painted the on ein the illustration I gave as being related and the only one chosen for the pardon.

If you really get down to the real facts related to salvation with a Calvinist, the point of salvation IS NOT when they actually get saved. When they ‘get saved’ it is just the time in which they are made cognizant of what has always been their fate, and the point of salvation was simply them coming to recognize that they had been chosen from eternity but it had not became cognizant knowledge to them until this point called ‘getting saved.’ It might be likened to the turning on of a light bulb.

Created damned and that from eternity by a God of love and compassion, is the picture Calvinism paints of the lost. Created saved and that from eternity apart from any intent of man whatsoever is the picture of the saved. Where is the virtue or wickedness in such a necessitated scheme? The wicked had no choice to be lost, and the saved had no choice but to be saved. Virtue and sin are both the necessitated products of Almighty God again according to this scheme....and to think that some try and speak of a free will. Nonsense. It is all necessitated by the Cause.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree - that is the way a specific group of Calvinists (4 and 5 pointers) view it.

Thankfully there are 3 point Calvinists that do accept truth much closer to "God so loved THE WORLD - yes REALLY" -

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Thankfully there are 3 point Calvinists that do accept truth much closer to "God so loved THE WORLD - yes REALLY" –

HP: Oh those blessed inconsistencies!

 

[BD17]

HP: Oh those blessed inconsistencies!

The so is not an all inclusive statement you guys always read into it incorrectly and forget to take the rest of that chapter in John and consequently the rest of the entire book. The "so" is how he loved the world not who.

 

[BD17]

Created damned and that from eternity by a God of love and compassion, is the picture Calvinism paints of the lost. Created saved and that from eternity apart from any intent of man whatsoever is the picture of the saved. Where is the virtue or wickedness in such a necessitated scheme? The wicked had no choice to be lost, and the saved had no choice but to be saved. Virtue and sin are both the necessitated products of Almighty God again according to this scheme....and to think that some try and speak of a free will. Nonsense. It is all necessitated by the Cause. [/FONT]

You see that is the problem you are so focused on God being love and compassion you are blind to His hatred and wrath. The God of the OT is not Love and Compassion. He is anger and wrath, He is do it my way or die. Do you even read the OT or does that not fit into your model of what God should be in your eyed instead of who He actually is?