Why Do People Hate Calvinst?

[pinoybaptist]

Shortandy, I think you're being too hard on the family that left. I doubt that they hate you, they just don't think you are preaching the truth. It happens all the time in many churches for a lot of reasons.

However, this is an area that can and should be resolved before answering a call. We called a new pastor recently and the church had given the search committee a list of deal breakers. At the top of the list was adherence to Calvinism. They were instructed to ask the candidate about his views on Calvinism and if he was a five pointer or otherwise espoused reformed theology, to move on to someone else. A church has a right to hire a pastor who agrees with its theology.

I'm curious where it says in the Bible it is the church who must agree with the theology of the pastor, and not vice-versa.
I ask this really out of curiosity and nothing else.

 

[TCassidy]

Of course, universalism is heretical. I believe that the atonement is limited in its effect but not in its possibility. Christ died for the sins of the world, but his death is only effective for those who believe.

Amen! Sufficient for all, efficient only for those who believe!

btw, congratulations on making 25 years in the same church!

Thank you. They have been very patient.

 

[TCassidy]

I'm curious where it says in the Bible it is the church who must agree with the theology of the pastor, and not vice-versa.
I ask this really out of curiosity and nothing else.

If both church and pastor would agree with God there would be no problem.

 

[sag38]

No, sag, I asked you a question. I did not call you anything. I stated that a person who believes in unlimited atonement, IE that all people everywhere without exception will be saved, is a universalist. I asked you if you believed that or, like me, believe the atonement is limited to believers only.

You are derailing this thread. The topic of this thread isn't about universalism and the derivatives thereof. Plus, but I'm not going to play your little game of twister. You will have to find another playmate.

 

[TCassidy]

No, sag, I asked you a question. I did not call you anything. I stated that a person who believes in unlimited atonement, IE that all people everywhere without exception will be saved, is a universalist. I asked you if you believed that or, like me, believe the atonement is limited to believers only.

You are derailing this thread. The topic of this thread isn't about universalism and the derivatives thereof. Plus, but I'm not going to play your little game of twister. You will have to find another playmate.

Sag, you seem to have missed the point. Perhaps I was too subtil. People hate "Calvinism" because they have a flawed understanding of what it is. In reality every Christian who believes in salvation by grace through faith is a "Calvinist" if the term is properly understood. That is what my questions were intended to illustrate.

The problem is that all too many people have been told that "Calvinism" is evil, and hateful, and heretical, but for some reason or another they have not bothered to check the Canons of the Synod of Dordt to see what "Calvinism" is really all about. Instead they have taken the word of some preacher, teacher, friend, or internet commando rather than do any personal research.

By the way, I am not a "Calvinist." I am an Historic, Particular Baptist. I believe in Particular Redemption. I believe Christ actually saved me on the cross and did not just make it possible for me to save myself.

 

[Zenas]

I'm curious where it says in the Bible it is the church who must agree with the theology of the pastor, and not vice-versa.
I ask this really out of curiosity and nothing else.

It is vice-versa. You must have misread my post. The pastor had better agree with the theology of the church or he won't be there long. I'm not saying the pastor should follow the church into error or anything like that. If the church goes into error, the pastor should be prepared to leave. It is, after all, the church that is his employer.

 

[dwmoeller1]

I believe Christ actually saved me on the cross and did not just make it possible for me to save myself.

Its statements like these that bother me about Calvinists (as Particular Baptists are on the subject of soteriology)...and most would consider me a Calvinist Just as so many non-Cists have a tendency to misconstrue the Cist position, Cists have just as much a tendency to misconstrue the non-Cists' positions. Its not unique to Cism or those against Cism - its just human nature.

FWIW, historical Aism believed the same thing as you state above so its not like its a Cist definer as you seem to imply it is. From Article III of the Remonstrance:
"That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."

 

[TCassidy]

Its statements like these that bother me about Calvinists <snip>
FWIW, historical Aism believed the same thing as you state above so its not like its a Cist definer as you seem to imply it is.

Yes, in fact James Arminius was a "4 point Calvinist." His only disagreement was his belief in Conditional Election - in that Election was based on God's foreknowledge of a person's eventual faith.

That, to me, is a form of works salvation, depending on something in ME and not all of Him, for my salvation.

It was the followers of Arminius who, after his death, drew up the Remonstrance and outlined several disagreements with the "Calvinists" which Arminius had not articulated.

However, when I make the statement that Christ actually saved me on the cross and did not merely enable me to save myself, what I mean is that it was all of Him and none of me. Not my faith as "non-Calvinists" (I will avoid using the "A" word ) like to assert, as even that was a gift from Him. This, to me, is the great mystery, how God goes about "distinguishing between people equally lost." But one thing I know is that it had nothing to do with any superiority in me, but only and exclusively according to His good pleasure.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Not my faith as "non-Calvinists" (I will avoid using the "A" word ) like to assert, as even that was a gift from Him.

I am just trying to point out that many "non-Calvinist" would not assert such. We Cists have a tendency to "label" too many people with a semi-Pelagian view when their actual position is actually a different - just as non-Cists have a tendency to see Cists in terms of hyper-Cism. Both sides tend to exhibit the exact same problem IMO. Lots of reasons for that - some not unreasonable (although still to be avoided, some quite unreasonable.

I guess the thread topic just seems overly "whiny" to me when the opposite question is just as valid. Too self-focused and doctrinally introverted IMO. But thats just me.

 

[kyredneck]

..........way to go Andy; this is just what we needed, another C/A debate.....

 

[webdog]

Are you suggesting that works salvation (gospel of men) and universalism (false gospel) are correct?

I'm saying those who don't hold to your soteriology do not fall into either or both categories by default. Last I checked Calvinism is nothing more than an explanation of the mechanics of the Gospel by "men".

 

[TCassidy]

I'm saying those who don't hold to your soteriology do not fall into either or both categories by default. Last I checked Calvinism is nothing more than an explanation of the mechanics of the Gospel by "men".

You don't seem to be following the discussion. It might be best if you stepped off.

 

[webdog]

By the way, I am not a "Calvinist." I am an Historic, Particular Baptist. I believe in Particular Redemption. I believe Christ actually saved me on the cross and did not just make it possible for me to save myself.

...and you say most people don't understand calvinism while giving your own caricature of the "non" side :laugh:

I will also say you must be the first person in history saved without faith if you were saved solely by Christ's death on the cross. I guess if you lived during the Passover, you would have also been saved without applying the blood to the door post as well. Those haughty "works of men" that God required to save their firstborns...

 

[webdog]

You don't seem to be following the discussion. It might be best if you stepped off.

I'm following it just fine, thank you.

 

[Winman]

I don't hate Calvinists, but I believe Calvinism is complete error.

Total Depravity as Calvinists believe is false. Calvinism teaches that a person must be regenerated to have the ability to have faith in Christ. This is easily shown false.

If regeneration must precede faith as all Calvinists teach you have a serious problem, because you are teaching a person can be born again, spiritually alive and yet be dead in trespasses and sins at the same time. Take the example of the Philipian jailer.

Acts 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

In verse 30 we see the Philipian jailer desired to be saved. He was not saved at this moment, he was still in all his sins, yet he had a desire to be saved. Several Calvinists here have said this is evidence the Philipian jailer was regenerated.

But do you see the problem with that? He was still dead in all his sins, because you are not justified until you believe. And we know for certain he had not yet believed, because Paul told him he must believe in verse 31. And Paul told him once he believes he "shalt be saved". So being saved (regenerated) follows faith, not precedes it.

So those who teach he was regenerated are teaching that he was born again, spiritually alive, and yet spiritually dead in his sins at the same moment. Some Calvinists teach that a person can be regenerated for many years before they believe on Jesus. This person would be spiritually alive and yet dead in all their sins for many years. This is absolutely impossible.

The Philipian jailer was not regenerated in verse 30 when he sprang in and asked how to be saved. He was still dead in trespasses and sins. Only after hearing the gospel and believeing on Jesus was he justified and his sins forgiven. This is when he was regenerated, after expressing faith, not before.

And Ephesians 1:13 shows this order. It shows a person first hears the gospel, then believes the gospel, and afterwards receives the Spirit and is regenerated. It is receiving the Holy Spirit that regenerates a person.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

So, the teaching of Calvinism that a person must be regenerated to have the ability to believe on Jesus is false and unscriptural.

 

[Crabtownboy]

My sincere question and source for frustration today is this: Why has Calvinism been so demonized? Why can't people who disagree with it get along? And to be fair...why can't some Calvinist get along with those on the other team? The perceptions that our debates and words create can be harmful.

Good question, why can't people who disagree get alone?

Well, I do not hate Calvinism. I have found a fair number of Calvinist believers irritating. Why? Well, two reasons ...

1. I have never met a Calvinist who did not staunchly believe they were of the elect. They believed there was no possibility they were not.

2. When I did not agree with them on a point of theology they held often them immediately say, "You are not of the elect. You are going to hell."

That is irritating.

 

[TCassidy]

I am just trying to point out that many "non-Calvinist" would not assert such. We Cists have a tendency to "label" too many people with a semi-Pelagian view when their actual position is actually a different - just as non-Cists have a tendency to see Cists in terms of hyper-Cism. Both sides tend to exhibit the exact same problem IMO. Lots of reasons for that - some not unreasonable (although still to be avoided, some quite unreasonable.

Yes, I know. That was my point. The anti-"Calvinists" on the thread don't understand what the Doctrines of Grace are, and, for some reason won't bother to study them to find out what they really are, so they just accept made up nonsense and argue against their made up nonsense. My questions/statement have a two-fold purpose.

1. To ask questions of the antis to force them to actually think about the facts and not about the made up fiction they have uncritically accepted, and

2. Use the same tactic regarding their arguments to try to get them to see the problem of incorrectly attributing such positions to them.

Maybe I am being too subtle for the BB.

I guess the thread topic just seems overly "whiny" to me when the opposite question is just as valid. Too self-focused and doctrinally introverted IMO. But thats just me.

That is pretty harsh!

I understand the heart ache the OP feels over the loss of people who leave a church, not because of what the pastor believes or teaches/preaches, but over what they wrongly think he teaches or preaches.

I see this all the time in this sort of discussion. When the antis can't intelligently discuss the issue they resort to the type of non sequitur argumentation we see from WebDog, and others of his ilk, which is nothing more than the avoidance of discourse on the subject, rather like the KJVOs engage in when you ask them questions regarding support for what they believe and what they think you believe. Same types of argumentation from both "camps."

There was an excellent example in the other thread that was closed when one of the antis made the silly statement that he does not accept any of the 5 points, including the "P" - stating he did not believe in Perseverance of the Saints, but rather in the Preservation of the Saints. Nobody who has read the Canons could make such an ignorant statement! The 5th Main Head of Doctrine uses the word "preserve" at least three times in the body of the statement!

Oh well, I should know better than to try to make people think before they press "submit reply." For some odd reason thinking does not seem to be in the average Christian's repertoire.

 

[TCassidy]

...and you say most people don't understand calvinism while giving your own caricature of the "non" side :laugh:

I will also say you must be the first person in history saved without faith if you were saved solely by Christ's death on the cross. I guess if you lived during the Passover, you would have also been saved without applying the blood to the door post as well. Those haughty "works of men" that God required to save their firstborns...

As I said, you are OBVIOUSLY not following the discussion.

 

[webdog]

As I said, you are OBVIOUSLY not following the discussion.

...and yet more obfuscation from you without addressing a single thing by "intelligently addressing the issue" as you say in your own words. Pot or kettle? Stick to the personal attacks and insults, you are quite good at those.

 

[webdog]

Re: Lack of forthrightness by Calvinist ministerial candidates



The OP pastor posted this two years ago, after he had been called to the church.

I would like to hear Shortandy's response to this...quite incriminating on the surface.

What Love Is This by Dave Hunt. It is over 500 pages of anti-calvinism. A lady at my church gave it to me...not sure why because I have no idea exactly what I believe in the topic.

Yes I wear a Reformed jersey and play for team Calvin. I recently admitted this to a few church members who asked where I stood on the debate. It only took them 3 years to ask.