As you well know, I got my Calvinism directly from Scripture. You know that it didn't come "directly from man." I don't know why you would say something that isn't true, particularly when you know it isn't true.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why Calvinists and Arminianists are both wrong
- Thread starter Gup20
- Start date
Calvinism is systematic theology...man's systematic theology. Truth.
Calvinism is the Gospel Truth.
No, Calvinism is a set of beliefs about what the Bible teaches about salvation. It comes from the Bible, not from man. The fact that man explains how certain verses fit together does not make it a manmade theology.
Everyone has a systematic theology. No one is without one.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
No, Calvinism is a set of beliefs about what a certain man (mis)interpreted the Bible as teaching about salvation. As a set of beliefs TULIP originated very late in the history of the Church.
This statement is correct as far as it goes: "The fact that man explains how certain verses fit together does not make it a manmade theology". The fact is, however, that Calvin and his successors explained it wrong with their systematically deformed (TULIP) theology
You are demonstrably wrong. The beliefs behind TULIP are clearly rooted in the NT.
Again, incorrect. You are welcome to challenge it, and if you do, you will be one of many. If you show it is wrong, you will be the first ever. I doubt that will happen.
Gup20
Active Member
Calvinism is "another gospel" actually. If someone were not elected, there would be literally no reason whatsoever for them to care about, follow, or practice any form of morality or law. It would mean that, not matter how much hope they had in Jesus Christ, it would be useless to them.
The consistent Calvinist would also have to realize that Calvinism makes God the source of all the Evil in the universe. If God is completely sovereign, and his will is always done, then it was God's will for man to sin, it was God's will that evil and death come into the universe, and it was God's will that people would reject him and die.
This would mean that Sin is part of God's design. This would mean that those who are sinners and unrepentant are smack dab in the middle of God's will for their lives. In fact, God causes them to sin, so their sin is God's fault.
You see -- Calvinism boils down to PURE huminism. But so does Arminianism. Which is why both of them are wrong.
Pastor Larry said:
The best lies are always based on the truth and have a measure of the truth in them. Calvinism and Arminianism are both such lies.
Where's that?
Really? Another compared to what? Calvinism teaches that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. According to the Scripture, that is "the gospel."
That's simply false. People care about law and morality because of the image of God and the evident good it does for the soceity they live in.
No it doesn't. People have have hope in Jesus Christ find it very useful because it is the only way of salvation.
Either that or you could get some understanding.
Nope, not at all.
Then show it. Don't just say it. So far you haven't actually dealt with Scripture here that I have seen. Webdog has certainly tried, as have some others, and every time have come up embarrassingly short and thoroughly refuted. PErhaps you can succeed where they have not.
Give it a shot. I will be waiting.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Larry, I had said this...
Quote:
No, Calvinism is a set of beliefs about what a certain man (mis)interpreted the Bible as teaching about salvation. As a set of beliefs TULIP originated very late in the history of the Church.
To which you replied....
(*except perhaps a couple of isolated folks--Lucidus and Gottschalk--after the early 5th century whose views were condemned as heretical by the church in regional synods)
(**Lutherans, IIRC, deny Limited Atonement and believe it is possible for a true believer to fall from salvation)
I also said this...
Quote:
The fact is, however, that Calvin and his successors explained it wrong with their systematically deformed (TULIP) theology
To which you replied...
Quote:
No, Calvinism is a set of beliefs about what a certain man (mis)interpreted the Bible as teaching about salvation. As a set of beliefs TULIP originated very late in the history of the Church.
To which you replied....
Clearly not, or else this would have been the teaching of the Church from the beginning. Somehow, everyone* missed it until Calvin and his successors came along, and even then not every body would agree that TULIP is "clearly rooted in the NT". In fact most believe Scriptures teach otherwise, including classical Anglicans, Weslyan-Arminians, and even Lutherans** (not to mention RCs and EOs).PastorLarry said:
(*except perhaps a couple of isolated folks--Lucidus and Gottschalk--after the early 5th century whose views were condemned as heretical by the church in regional synods)
(**Lutherans, IIRC, deny Limited Atonement and believe it is possible for a true believer to fall from salvation)
I also said this...
Quote:
The fact is, however, that Calvin and his successors explained it wrong with their systematically deformed (TULIP) theology
To which you replied...
Been there...done that...I used to challenge it several years ago (back when there was an entire Calvinists-Arminian debate subforum on the Baptist Board), until many of my posts finally went unanswered by Calvinists and it became evident that most were more interested in talking past me (and the other non-Calvinists) and were content merely to repeat the same worn out cliches and canards.PastorLarry said:
It's been shown wrong over and over. Some just don't have eyes to see, and would rather take refuge in their neat little man-made 'theological' boxes.PastorLarry said:
No, you are confusing several things here. First, it was believed in teh early church. You are confusing the systematization of it with the belief of it. People have alwasy believed it. It was correlated along the way, just as doctrines like hte deity of Christ or the church were.
If by "most" you include unbelievers, then I agree ... Most think otherwise. But "most believers" probably do not disagree with Calvinism. Most probably agree with it.
I was the moderator of that forum and read virtually everything in there. It is safe to say that your posts were resoundingly answered. The reason the same things were repeated was because the answers were the same. The truth doesn't change. So when we responded, we kept saying the same thing.
Where? I haven't seen it. I will be glad to read it if you can point it out to me. I remember the CvA forum well, and know beyond doubt that it wasn't shown to be wrong there. Perhaps you hav somewhere else in mind.
I agree. I think this is a huge problem, but not for Calvinists. The "boxes" that we hold to are scriptural boxes. They are not manmade.
So, DT, if you have something to offer besides claims that you refuted it, I will be glad to take a look. If you are just going to repeat what was already attempted as an argument, it didn't work then, and it won't work now.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Hardly. You'll search in vain to find in the ante-Nicene fathers anyone who espouses anything that resembles TULIP. On the contrary, you'll find plenty who warn that a believer really can forfeit his salvation, and that God's grace can indeed be resisted, and that people must (gasp!) make use of their free will in responding to God's grace. Likewise is this the case in the Eastern Church both before and after Nicea. Even Augustine, with some of his more monergistic sounding views in his latter years (which were subsequently moderated by the consensus of the Western Church), always held that it was possible for one regenerated to fall from grace and so be finally unsaved.
Evidence please.
Nope--the only ones to "correlate" it that particular way were a specific subset of the Reformers, and they correlated it in such a way which was at odds with the consensus of the Church across time and space from the beginning. Even the Lutherans didn't correlate it in this particular way. The Arminians certainly didn't correlate it in this way. The reformed church of England didn't correlate it in this way either.
Only if you a priori define "believers" as those who agree with your particular interpretations, which of course would be a form of circular reasoning.
It's safe to say that you are incorrect in the case of some of my posts.
Knowledge of historical theology aside, Paul, Peter, John, and Jesus clearly taught it, and that was by my math 1500 years prior to Calvin and the Reformers. It is often called Augustinianism because he taught it as well, and that was more than 1000 years prior to the Reformers.
The issue is not who taught it or believed it, but is it Scriptural. By that judgment, it is .
Do your homework. Start with exegesis.
Not at all. There are a good number of believers who are arminian.
Then feel free to show which ones. But honestly, I think you have way too high of an opinion of your posts. Of course they are convincing to you, but they are not convincing to those who know the issues and the Scriptures. And so I have no fear when I say what I say. It is what the Scripture teaches.
Gup20
Active Member
Calvinism teaches that grace is irresistable, and not conditional on faith.
All completely useless. If the elect get in and no one else, then what good is knowing God or knowing God's laws, or knowing God's image to the unelected. It is entirely useless. And indeed, what good is it to the elect? They don't have a choice in the matter either, so what use is morality to anyone really. The elect get in - the unelect do not... no one has any choice or ability to effect the pre-selection by their actions here, they have no choice.
Unless you haven't been elected... then you can put your hope in Christ, but it won't do you any good. You have no hope.
Or, you could become consistent and intellectually honest and realize if you apply God's sovereignty on the front side, it must be applied to the back side also. If God is sovereign in salvation, he is soverign in damnation. If God is soverign in righteousness, he is sovereign in causing sin. You have to be consistent.
Calvinism is easily refuted with scripture. For example, point 1 in Calvinism - T is for Total Depravity. Total Depravity says all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved.
Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
This choice is unique in all of The Law. I encourage you to do a word study on the word "choose". The Hebrew word bachar is predominantly used in The Law to tell us what God chooses. But in the matter of life or death, blessing or cursing, the Bible tells us to choose.
It is illogical for God to tell us to choose, when the choice is not ours to make, or if we are unable to make this choice.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Furthermore, Total Depravity asserts that all are sinners because we inherit the sin of Adam. This goes against scripture:
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Clearly the Bible says death passed upon all men, not sin. Calvinists have it backwards. The Curse, for example, is the curse of death. God didn't curse the earth with sin, He cursed the earth with death because of sin.
If we inherit the sin of Adam, then Jesus would have been a sinner, regardless of the fact that he had not sinned. We know that Jesus was not a sinner because the Bible says he had no sin. He would have come to the altar as a blemished sacrifice.
2Cr 5:21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Jesus knew no sin. If he had inherited sin, he would have known sin before the cross. However, he did know death. He experienced pain, suffering, and death even though he knew no sin.
The one and only verse Calvinists look to in order to claim that we are born with a sin nature is Psalms 51:5
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
But as I have pointed out on this board before, this verse is woefully mis-translated.
The word "shapen" (chuwl) has 33 meanings. The most predominant meaning (nearly half of the 33 possible meanings) is 'brought forth' or 'born'. The word "iniquity" is avon which is translated "punishment for iniquity". The word 'sin' is the normal word for sin which is chet. Additionally, the last word of the verse "me" is added, and does not appear in the Hebrew. So properly rendered, the verse should read "I was brought forth under the punishment for sin, and in sin my mother concieved." Obviously, the punishment for sin is death. The word "sin" in the 2nd half of the verse refers to his mother's sin, not his own. If "in sin" refers to David, then so must "concieved". It is rediculous to say David conceived himself, so the subject is David's mother.
The remaining 4 points can be just as easily disproven. And it should be noted that all 5 points of Arminianism can be just as easily disproven. Both are the same humanist doctrines, it's just that Calvinism is one extreme of the humanist doctrine, and Arminianism is the other extreme of the same humanist doctrine.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Of course, Wesylan-Arminians, Lutherans, Anglicans, and non-Calvinist Baptist, among others, would beg to disagree. So it would seem then that Jesus and His apostles did not "clearly" teach this (TULIP) at all, or else: (1) one would be able to find an example of teachers in the Church somewhere who expoused TULIP before Calvin (*similar views to Calvin--unconditional election and reprobation; limited atonement--were in fact espoused by Lucidus, but not until the mid-5th century and they were condemned as heretical) and (2) one would find a consensus today that TULIP is the NT doctrine--doesn't look like that consensus is forthcoming.
It is often misnamed Augustinianism since Augustine didn't even subscribe to TULIP, as he believed that a regenerated believer could in fact fall from grace and finally be unsaved (so much for the L, I, and P of TULIP).
However, Calvinists believe that Calvinism is "scriptural", the rest of us don't.
I composed quite a long response and even posted it, but have decided to retract it for a few reasons. There is a such a woeful ignorance of historical theology and biblical theology manifested here that it is hardly worth the time to repeat what has already been said in thousands of posts, and thousands of printed works.
Anyone who denies the biblical basis of Calvinism (or Arminianism ... BTW, when you call someone an "arminianist" you are giving yourself away as being uninformed) is simply either dishonest or uninformed. I will assume the latter here. The truth is that both Calvinism and Arminianism have a biblical basis, and both have long historical bases.
But it is not worth it to me to spend time repeating what has already been said. It has not been interacted with in any sufficient way, and it has certainly never been refuted. I doubt this time will be any different on either count.
Anyone who denies the biblical basis of Calvinism (or Arminianism ... BTW, when you call someone an "arminianist" you are giving yourself away as being uninformed) is simply either dishonest or uninformed. I will assume the latter here. The truth is that both Calvinism and Arminianism have a biblical basis, and both have long historical bases.
But it is not worth it to me to spend time repeating what has already been said. It has not been interacted with in any sufficient way, and it has certainly never been refuted. I doubt this time will be any different on either count.
Last edited by a moderator:
Which is fine.
The consensus is pretty strong and the evidence is overwhelming from Scripture.
You seriously need to study. Your knowledge of historical theology is woefully lacking, as I mentioned above.
Belief is irrelevant. The question is, "What does the Bible say?" To this question, the answer is that the Bible teaches what is known as Calvinism. Your disbelief doesn't change that.
We saw the atrociuos attempt at an argument made above. That's the type of stuff that convinces me that there are not answers from your side.Trust me, I have seen pretty much all of it at one place or another, and the amount of Scripture you have to avoid is overwhelming.
It just won't work. So disagree if you wish. I am okay with that. But realize that it doesn't change the truth.
Last edited by a moderator:
Most people who reject the doctrines of Grace it and try to prove that they are wrong assume that Scripture is written to all when it is not. For example they use this verse among others:
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
to try and prove some type of silliness that Christ died for all, but the context is written to believers not unbelievers.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
to try and prove some type of silliness that Christ died for all, but the context is written to believers not unbelievers.