Why Are Calvinists So Mean? - JARED C. WILSON

[canadyjd]

….
This attitude is not restricted to Calvinists. Sometimes even the most well meaning Christian leans on his or her understanding and expects others to submit, not to God's Word but to what they believe Scripture teaches.

Probably “most times” instead of “sometimes.

No matter what position you hold, everyone thinks their view is “God’s Word” and those that disagree hold “what they believe scripture teaches”.

Most have nothing but disrespect and snarky comments that fall just short of declaring others to be heretics.

peace to you

 

[Revmitchell]

No, does that matter in some way?

peace to you

Of course. Not sure how you do not see that. Based on what you said that being mean was a caricature to shut people up and yet the people in the op are reformed people themselves. So how is it that a reference to reformed people being mean is intended by them, who are reformed themselves, to shut them up?

The rest of your post was pure arrogance and has nothing to do with the op since the source is reformed themselves. Not sure why that needs explaining.

 

[JonC]

Probably “most times” instead of “sometimes.

No matter what position you hold, everyone thinks their view is “God’s Word” and those that disagree hold “what they believe scripture teaches”.

Most have nothing but disrespect and snarky comments that fall just short of declaring others to be heretics.

peace to you

Believe me, I know. While I hold a fairly common view within Christianity it is a minority on this board. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure I have been called a heretic a few times.

 

[George Antonios]

The whole point of the "U" like it or not, is that there is NOTHING special about anyone who is elect. That's what it means.

What is on paper is irrelevant to the reality I described. The Calvinistic doctrine of election is a doctrine of immense pride that generates pride in its adherents, a twofold pride: A) a secret unspoken pride that one is special in an inscrutable way and B) a pride in one's great humility for seeing himself as a mere automaton.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The Calvinistic doctrine of election is a doctrine of immense pride that generates pride in its adherents, a twofold pride: A) a secret unspoken pride that one is special in an inscrutable way and B) a pride in one's great humility for seeing himself as a mere automaton.

Regarding A, the biblical doctrine of Election certainly is not a prideful doctrine since it emanates from God Himself. Calvinists would agree that any true Christian, even one espousing Arminian doctrines, is an elect individual. Calvinists are not the only residents of Heaven. So your premise is flawed, to say the least.

Concerning B, Calvinists certainly do not believe they are mere automatons. That's an absurdity. Get serious George.

 

[Silverhair]

Calvinist give the truth revealed in God’s Word. Some call that being “mean”. It is mostly a caricature designed to shut people up.

Those that disagree with Calvinism rarely argue the facts of scripture, since the doctrines of grace are firmly founded on scripture, so they use personal attacks, like calling Calvinists mean, arrogant, unloving, philosophers etc.

peace to you

Those that disagree with calvinists argue the facts of scripture, calvinists just do not like what the facts of scripture point out to them. The errors of their DoG have been shown to them but as usual they just ignore the truth. When all else fails the calvinist can and often does fall back on, it's a mystery.

My question for you is why do you think that people would call a calvinist mean, arrogant, unloving, philosophers etc. if that were not how they come across?

 

[Silverhair]

Regarding A, the biblical doctrine of Election certainly is not a prideful doctrine since it emanates from God Himself. Calvinists would agree that any true Christian, even one espousing Arminian doctrines, is an elect individual. Calvinists are not the only residents of Heaven. So your premise is flawed, to say the least.

Concerning B, Calvinists certainly do not believe they are mere automatons. That's an absurdity. Get serious George.

Concerning A] those that are saved are the elect. Calvinists think are the elect are a special preselected group. See the difference.

Concerning B] See A, since you calvinists have to be given faith after you are saved then you really are no better than an automaton. You take pride in the fact you were picked and had nothing to do with that.

 

[DaveXR650]

What is on paper is irrelevant to the reality I described.

No lack of self esteem there. I bet when you were a Calvinist you were a good one.

 

[George Antonios]

No lack of self esteem there. I bet when you were a Calvinist you were a good one.

Says a man who believes he was elected while outside of Christ.

 

[DaveXR650]

Says a man who believes he was elected while outside of Christ.

I've got to be honest with you, I'm not sure that that means the way you are saying it. I do know, in all seriousness, that on this site some folks like you will not engage at the level of reading what the other person says and then responding - you know, like in a debate forum. You will complain as you have done in the past about a response I make that is too long, then turn around and expect everyone to watch a 20 minute video by you of course. You are not seriously interested in really discussing these issues, are you? But keep going, you are proving my point that this is common, we all need to work on it, and it is not unique to Calvinists.

 

[canadyjd]

Those that disagree with calvinists argue the facts of scripture, calvinists just do not like what the facts of scripture point out to them. The errors of their DoG have been shown to them but as usual they just ignore the truth. When all else fails the calvinist can and often does fall back on, it's a mystery.

My question for you is why do you think that people would call a calvinist mean, arrogant, unloving, philosophers etc. if that were not how they come across?

I have yet to see you offer any explanation of scripture either in agreement or disagreement with me.

It’s all name calling with you

peace to you

 

[George Antonios]

I've got to be honest with you, I'm not sure that that means the way you are saying it. I do know, in all seriousness, that on this site some folks like you will not engage at the level of reading what the other person says and then responding - you know, like in a debate forum. You will complain as you have done in the past about a response I make that is too long, then turn around and expect everyone to watch a 20 minute video by you of course. You are not seriously interested in really discussing these issues, are you? But keep going, you are proving my point that this is common, we all need to work on it, and it is not unique to Calvinists.

If you are who I think you are (it's hard to keep up with the name changes), you seem to forget we had an entire (videoless) thread about this point of being elected while still outside of Christ, which you conceded.

 

[DaveXR650]

If you are who I think you are (it's hard to keep up with the name changes), you seem to forget we had an entire (videoless) thread about this point of being elected while still outside of Christ, which you conceded.

Are you suggesting that I was on here with a different identity? Sorry to disappoint you but it wasn't me. I get on a lot of threads and as long as it was since the end of last October it's possible I have forgotten but it would be this one sign in because that's all I've ever had. The only time I've ever gone back and forth with you you complained about my post being too long and then wanted everyone to watch a video. Most recently, re the threads about the meaning of the atonement, I think we were on the same side. On this thread, if you go back to post #30, it was very helpful, and then you end by a zinger about a doctrine of "I am special". That false cheap shot at Calvinism, and your trying to identify me as someone else continues to illustrate the idea that the meanness goes all around.

 

[Reynolds]

Of course. Not sure how you do not see that. Based on what you said that being mean was a caricature to shut people up and yet the people in the op are reformed people themselves. So how is it that a reference to reformed people being mean is intended by them, who are reformed themselves, to shut them up?

The rest of your post was pure arrogance and has nothing to do with the op since the source is reformed themselves. Not sure why that needs explaining.

 

[George Antonios]

Are you suggesting that I was on here with a different identity? Sorry to disappoint you but it wasn't me. I get on a lot of threads and as long as it was since the end of last October it's possible I have forgotten but it would be this one sign in because that's all I've ever had. The only time I've ever gone back and forth with you you complained about my post being too long and then wanted everyone to watch a video. Most recently, re the threads about the meaning of the atonement, I think we were on the same side. On this thread, if you go back to post #30, it was very helpful, and then you end by a zinger about a doctrine of "I am special". That false cheap shot at Calvinism, and your trying to identify me as someone else continues to illustrate the idea that the meanness goes all around.

Some people here sometimes change their names, I wasn't sure if I knew under a different name.

"I am special", when you cut through all the hand-wrenching cries of self-abasement, and deal with the actual doctrine, is an apt zinger to summarize Calvinism.

 

[DaveXR650]

Some people here sometimes change their names, I wasn't sure if I knew under a different name.

"I am special", when you cut through all the hand-wrenching cries of self-abasement, and deal with the actual doctrine, is an apt zinger to summarize Calvinism.

Well, you didn't, and as for your zinger, you are welcome to it but most people are going to think that that's all you bring to the table.

 

[JonC]

Love ',em.

 

[canadyjd]

View attachment 6140

Love ',em.

Blood sugar went up just looking at that.

Back to celery sticks!!

peace to you

 

[Silverhair]

I have yet to see you offer any explanation of scripture either in agreement or disagreement with me.

It’s all name calling with you

peace to you

I have responded to many of your posts, but the normal reply is that I do not understand the text or some such comment.

 

[canadyjd]

I have responded to many of your posts, but the normal reply is that I do not understand the text or some such comment.

Well, I do love to understand scripture in context, so I wouldn’t be surprised that I was attempting to show you the context of a passage.

We really should be able to discuss scripture and it’s context without name calling and false accusations, shouldn’t we?

peace to you