Why Do People Hate Calvinst?

[TCassidy]

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.

"The Elect" are simply believers. Of course every believer is one of "the Elect." Have you ever known any born again believer who didn't believe he was a believer?

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."

I have never known anyone who held to the doctrines of grace that believed non-DOG people were lost. Maybe you have been hanging around with the wrong people.

That is irritating.

Yes, I would find that irritating too. I would find that almost as irritating as those who don't understand the Doctrines of Grace, don't want to, but spout nonsense and attribute it to those of us who hold to the Doctrines of Grace (presently company excepted, of course).

 

[Tom Bryant]

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.

TCassidy:
I can't speak for any other non-Calvinists than myself. I have studied your view and I find I don't believe it is taught by the Scriptures.

Calvinism is an explanation for the doctrine of Soteriology, but it is not the only Biblical one. I don't even think it is the right Biblical model. I don't think you are being anti-Biblical. I certainly don't think your opsition is heretical at all.

I know you think that you are being cute but you are actually quite patronizing. You have fallen into the mode of a few Calvinists. It is a kind of smugness that acts as if all really spiritual people will eventually come to accept your views. And if you haven't it is because you are either not spiritual enough or not studious enough.

 

[webdog]

TCassidy:
I can't speak for any other non-Calvinists than myself. I have studied your view and I find I don't believe it is taught by the Scriptures.

Calvinism is an explanation for the doctrine of Soteriology, but it is not the only Biblical one. I don't even think it is the right Biblical model. I don't think you are being anti-Biblical. I certainly don't think your opsition is heretical at all.

I know you think that you are being cute but you are actually quite patronizing. You have fallen into the mode of a few Calvinists. It is a kind of smugness that acts as if all really spiritual people will eventually come to accept your views. And if you haven't it is because you are either not spiritual enough or not studious enough.

DIng, Ding, Ding...we have a winner! Get that man a cigar!

 

[Winman]

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.

This is the lamest excuse ever. Whenever a person disagrees with Calvinism, Calvinists always say we don't understand your doctrine. Baloney.

Calvinists teach that regeneration must precede faith. I could quote you many Calvinists who teach this (and have many times).

You cannot be regenerated and in your sins at the same time. You cannot be spiritually alive and spiritually dead at the same moment. But if regeneration precedes faith then this must be the case. Even if it only takes you one minute to hear the gospel, believe it and be justified, for that one minute you are spiritually alive and spiritually dead at the same moment.

But Calvinists go far beyond that. I have posted quotes by Calvinists that say an infant can be regenerated for years before they are old enough to understand the gospel and place faith in Jesus. So these persons would be spiritually alive and spiritually dead at the same time for many years. Impossible.

"Infants can be born again, although the faith that they exercise cannot be as visible as that of adults." I wrote to R.C. Sproul (General Editor) to ask for clarification of this statement. I received a written response from Sproul’s assistant, V.A. Voorhis (dated 1/6/2000) in which he made the following statement which is even more shocking:

When the RSB speaks in the notes of John 3 of "infants being born again," it is speaking of the work of quickening God does in them which inclines their will to Him. In Protestantism, regeneration always precedes faith and if God quickens them, the person will surely come . . .Often, regeneration and our subsequent faith happen apparently simultaneously but logically, regeneration must precede faith. An infant’s faith may not come until years after God has worked by His Holy Spirit to regenerate him or her [emphasis ours]. Two Biblical examples of infants who were born again are seen in Psalm 22:9-10 and Luke 1:15.

Why don't you try explaining this?

 

[TCassidy]

I can't speak for any other non-Calvinists than myself. I have studied your view and I find I don't believe it is taught by the Scriptures.

Tom, if, as you say, you have studied my view and found it to be contra-scriptural then you should have no problem answering the questions I posted clear back on page 1 of this thread and, so far, nobody has been willing to answer. The purpose of the questions was to try to find a place of agreement. Here they are again:

1. Total Depravity? Do you think there is a part of natural man that is not fallen and thus is good enough, on its own merits, to go to heaven?

2. Unconditional Election. Do you think there is something good enough in the natural man to meet God's standard of perfection and thus merit heaven?

3. Limited Atonement. Do you believe all men everywhere without exception will be saved?

4. Irresistible Grace. Did you, or any Christian you know, resist grace to the point of damnation?

5. Perseverance of the Saints. Do you believe the born again can lose their salvation and that they are not preserved by God unto the day of full salvation?

Calvinism is an explanation for the doctrine of Soteriology, but it is not the only Biblical one.

All theology must, of necessity, be systematic. The Doctrine of Grace is the systematic theology of salvation from a biblical perspective.

I don't even think it is the right Biblical model. I don't think you are being anti-Biblical. I certainly don't think your opsition is heretical at all.

But are you willing to take a stab at answering my questions above?

I know you think that you are being cute but you are actually quite patronizing.

My goal is neither to be cute nor patronizing. My goal is to try to get people to think about what they believe.

You have fallen into the mode of a few Calvinists. It is a kind of smugness that acts as if all really spiritual people will eventually come to accept your views.

You attribute motives to me that I do not hold. I am trying to get people to think about what they believe. Have they been misinformed as to what the Doctrines of Grace really are? Can they support their assertions that run counter to the Doctrines of Grace? If not might it behoove them (and all of us) to honestly reexamine what we believe and why we believe it?

And if you haven't it is because you are either not spiritual enough or not studious enough.

I will agree with the second part. I have found that most Christians, like most people in general, tend to be intellectually lazy. Most don't like to study. Most don't even like to read. For the most part Christians listen to their pastor/teacher and regurgitate whatever he said without bothering to verify his source was valid. If such was not the case with most Christians God's word would not have had to include an admonition to "study to show ourselves approved unto God."

 

[Winman]

Tom, if, as you say, you have studied my view and found it to be contra-scriptural then you should have no problem answering the questions I posted clear back on page 1 of this thread and, so far, nobody has been willing to answer. The purpose of the questions was to try to find a place of agreement. Here they are again:

And I notice that you have failed to respond to my posts as well. I will answer your questions.

1. Total Depravity? Do you think there is a part of natural man that is not fallen and thus is good enough, on its own merits, to go to heaven?

Non-Calvinists do not believe natural man can merit salvation, that is not the question. Calvinism teaches that the natural man cannot have faith. Some Calvinists teach that natural man cannot do any good thing whatsoever. This is shown false many times in the scriptures. God said Cain could do well and would be accepted with God in Genesis chapter 4.

That natural man can have faith and belief is proved by John 20:31.

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

The scriptures teach you have to believe to have life (regeneration), but Calvinism teaches you have to have life (regeneration) to believe.

Man is depraved, man is wicked. But men can do some good.

Luke 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

Here Jesus said that unsaved people (sinners) do good.

 

[Tom Bryant]

First of all, I don't debate the issue at all. I said this on my first post.

But I think your questions are what pollsters call push questions. Push questions are asked so that there is only one answer and it is the answer that a pollster is trying to achieve.

For an example you ask concerning total depravity:

Do you think there is a part of natural man that is not fallen and thus is good enough, on its own merits, to go to heaven?

No one here who does not hold to your understanding of soteriology believes that man is good enough on his own to go to heaven. The push questions answer is obviously, no. None of us are good enough to go to heaven. It is in the words of the hymn writer, "Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to thy cross I cling." So your question is based on a false premise.

For another example you ask about irresistible grace:

Did you, or any Christian you know, resist grace to the point of damnation?

The obvious answer is no. If a person is a Christian (not a generic, but a Biblical Christian) then, of course, they haven't resisted. But the real question is have their been people who are not saved who have resisted the call of God to salvation.

I am not going to argue these things with you. Just as I don't argue eschatology on here. God's people down thru the ages have disagreed about these issues and the minds on this board are not going to settle it.

 

[Winman]

First of all, I don't debate the issue at all. I said this on my first post.

But I think your questions are what pollsters call push questions. Push questions are asked so that there is only one answer and it is the answer that a pollster is trying to achieve.

For an example you ask concerning total depravity:


No one here who does not hold to your understanding of soteriology believes that man is good enough on his own to go to heaven. The push questions answer is obviously, no. None of us are good enough to go to heaven. It is in the words of the hymn writer, "Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to thy cross I cling." So your question is based on a false premise.

For another example you ask about irresistible grace:


The obvious answer is no. If a person is a Christian (not a generic, but a Biblical Christian) then, of course, they haven't resisted. But the real question is have their been people who are not saved who have resisted the call of God to salvation.

I am not going to argue these things with you. Just as I don't argue eschatology on here. God's people down thru the ages have disagreed about these issues and the minds on this board are not going to settle it.

Excellent post Tom. These questions lead to only one obvious answer, they are a fallacy. But these are the types of arguments Calvinists are taught. Unlike you, they cannot see how these questions are designed to give only one answer.

 

[webdog]

Tom, if, as you say, you have studied my view and found it to be contra-scriptural then you should have no problem answering the questions I posted clear back on page 1 of this thread and, so far, nobody has been willing to answer. The purpose of the questions was to try to find a place of agreement. Here they are again:

What you say the petals mean, and what they actually mean are not one in the same.

1. Total Depravity? Do you think there is a part of natural man that is not fallen and thus is good enough, on its own merits, to go to heaven?

Of course man left to himself would never seek God, and there is nothing inherently within that warrants salvation. That is not the whole of the "T", however. Total Depravity teaches that "dead is dead", and men are spiritual corpses unable to respond to Christ without being regenerated prior to faith. That is false.

2. Unconditional Election. Do you think there is something good enough in the natural man to meet God's standard of perfection and thus merit heaven?

See first comment in regards to man. Again, God has placed the condition of faith on those that are His. That goes against the very definition of unconditional.

3. Limited Atonement. Do you believe all men everywhere without exception will be saved?

Non Sequitur. Christ's blood was shed once for all even though all will not apply it via faith.

4. Irresistible Grace. Did you, or any Christian you know, resist grace to the point of damnation?

Yet another TC definition apart from what it actually means. The "I" stands and falls on the other petals, meaning if God has unconditionally elected a spiritual corpse regenerating him, he cannot resist God's grace. The entire premise is false.

5. Perseverance of the Saints. Do you believe the born again can lose their salvation and that they are not preserved by God unto the day of full salvation?

Surely you know the definition of perseverance as opposed to preservation?

 

[Winman]

2. Unconditional Election. Do you think there is something good enough in the natural man to meet God's standard of perfection and thus merit heaven?

I am not sure election always speaks of salvation. Judas was chosen, he was elect in the sense that he was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve disciples. But Jesus chose Judas because he knew he would not believe and that he would betray him.

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Election is according to God's foreknowledge. Jesus chose eleven disciples because he knew they would believe, but he chose Judas because he knew he would not believe and would fulfill the scriptures.

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

John 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

Jesus chose Judas, Judas was elect in this sense. But he chose Judas because he knew from the beginning that Judas would betray him.

 

[Winman]

3. Limited Atonement. Do you believe all men everywhere without exception will be saved?

I believe the vast majority of men will be lost. But that is not the question, the question is, did Jesus die for only those who receive him as savior, or did he die for 100% of men?

2 Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

These persons are lost. How can you be teaching "damnable heresies" and not be lost? But Jesus bought them, he shed his blood to pay for their sins just like he did for everyone else.

 

[Winman]

4. Irresistible Grace. Did you, or any Christian you know, resist grace to the point of damnation?

The scriptures give an example of someone turning from God's grace, the young rich ruler.

Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

This young man desired to be saved. He ran to Jesus and knelt down to him and addressed him with respect. Calvinism teaches that an unsaved person can do none of these things. He understood and obeyed much of scripture, also something Calvinism teaches it is impossible for the natural man to do. The scriptures say Jesus loved this unsaved man who turned away, Calvinism teaches that God hates unbelievers.

Jesus fully invited him to sell all his possessions and come follow him, but this fellow turned away in unbelief.

 

[Winman]

5. Perseverance of the Saints. Do you believe the born again can lose their salvation and that they are not preserved by God unto the day of full salvation?

As Webdog pointed out, perserverance and preservation are very different things.

Why do you need to perservere? If you cannot get saved by doing good works, then why would you need to maintain good works to stay saved?

No, the scriptures teach we are kept by Jesus himself. We are not saved because we are faithful to him (we often aren't), we are saved because he is faithful to us.

John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Are you a man? Then if you have received Jesus he has given you eternal life and you cannot pluck yourself out of his hand.

 

[TCassidy]

For an example you ask concerning total depravity:

No one here who does not hold to your understanding of soteriology believes that man is good enough on his own to go to heaven. The push questions answer is obviously, no. None of us are good enough to go to heaven. It is in the words of the hymn writer, "Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to thy cross I cling."

Exactly! So, your answer is, "No, I don't believe that." And, of course, neither do I! We both agree with "Total Depravity." The question illustrates that "Total Depravity" does not mean that every person is as bad as he could be, but that every part of man is affected by the fall and no part of man is sufficiently good to merit salvation.

We have found our first point of agreement. We both believe in Total Depravity.

So your question is based on a false premise.

No, there was no premise, just a question. And you answered it by saying you don't believe that, just as I don't believe it. We found agreement, not on a false premise, but on the sinful nature of man.

For another example you ask about irresistible grace:

The obvious answer is no. If a person is a Christian (not a generic, but a Biblical Christian) then, of course, they haven't resisted.

Again, exactly! We both agree that no believer has ever resisted grace to the point of damnation. That is what Irresistible Grace means.

We have our second point of agreement. We both believe in Irresistible Grace.

But the real question is have their been people who are not saved who have resisted the call of God to salvation.

Well, the real question was the one I asked, but your question is certainly valid and the obvious answer is "yes." Many people resist the calling of God. But His Salvific grace is that which none of us resisted unto damnation.

I am not going to argue these things with you.

I am not asking you to argue with me. I am asking simple questions that point out our agreements.

God's people down thru the ages have disagreed about these issues and the minds on this board are not going to settle it.

I am not that much of a fatalist, as you seem to be. I believe open and honest discourse can bring us to a place of agreement. "Come now, let us reason together . . . "

 

[Tom Bryant]

The President of the Seminary I attended taught us many important things. One was:

"If a person cannot argue the issue he will usually try to argue the semantics. If he is too ignorant to argue the semantics he will usually try to argue personality."

"If you can't answer a man's argument all is not lost you can still call him vile names" Elbert Hubbard.

You have learned the lesson of using semantics well.

If you think that what Calvinists believe about irresistible grace and what I believe, you are the one who misunderstands Calvinism.

This isn't my first rodeo and you may well be able to get this kind of "reasoning" across to your seminary students, but it doesn't work with someone, like me, who was taught about Calvinism by Dr. James Montgomery Boice of 10th Presbyterian Church and spent time with Founder's Ministry and Southern seminary people attempting to learn what Calvinism teaches.

 

[Winman]

Exactly! So, your answer is, "No, I don't believe that." And, of course, neither do I! We both agree with "Total Depravity." The question illustrates that "Total Depravity" does not mean that every person is as bad as he could be, but that every part of man is affected by the fall and no part of man is sufficiently good to merit salvation.

You should be an attorney. And now you backtrack like all Calvinists and say man is not as bad as he could possibly be. Make up your mind, is man totally depraved or not? Last time I looked up the word total it meant complete or 100%. And some Calvinists are consistent and teach this, Pink taught that everything the unsaved man does is sin.

It is amazing how Arminian you Calvinists get when you are forced to explain reality. Jesus said that sinners could do good.

No, there was no premise, just a question. And you answered it by saying you don't believe that, just as I don't believe it. We found agreement, not on a false premise, but on the sinful nature of man.

You asked a question that can only have one answer. This is a false argument.

You still not have answered my objection to Calvinism. How can a person be regenerated and spiritually dead at the same time? How can an infant be regenerated for years as that associate of Sproul's wrote before believeing in Christ and having their sins forgiven?

Could an infant be regenerated, commit sins for years and not trust Christ until he is 20 years old? Could he be spiritually alive and spiritually dead at the same moment for 20 years?

Why won't you answer this question?

 

[TCassidy]

You have learned the lesson of using semantics well.

If you think that what Calvinists believe about irresistible grace and what I believe, you are the one who misunderstands Calvinism.

This isn't my first rodeo and you may well be able to get this kind of "reasoning" across to your seminary students, but it doesn't work with someone, like me, who was taught about Calvinism by Dr. James Montgomery Boice of 10th Presbyterian Church and spent time with Founder's Ministry and Southern seminary people attempting to learn what Calvinism teaches.

I see. So what you were taught HAS to be the only truth associated with Calvinism? Nobody else is allowed to have a different view? You have no desire to "reason together" and come to a place we can have Christian fellowship?

So be it. Your choice. And, I might add, your loss.

 

[Winman]

Still waiting for an answer from you.

How can a person be regenerated, born again, spiritually alive before they are justified by faith? How can they be spiritually alive and dead in their sins at the same moment?

 

[Tom Bryant]

I see. So what you were taught HAS to be the only truth associated with Calvinism? Nobody else is allowed to have a different view? You have no desire to "reason together" and come to a place we can have Christian fellowship?

So be it. Your choice. And, I might add, your loss.

I'm through with this debate. I will and do fellowship with alot of Calvinists, who understand it a might better than you do, even in my own church. And if you believe we can only have fellowship if we come to an understanding of Calvinism, you don't understand fellowship very well, either.

You are certainly allowed to have any view you want. Personally I think you just enjoy the debate, not the fellowship, but that's just my opinion.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[preachinjesus]

Sorry folks, it's been a busy couple of days. Though I'm surprised by what I've found in this thread.

Sorta proves my point about some Calvinists being just plain disagreeable. Im happy to engage about the OP and will be happy to again iterate my objections to the five points in another, more germane, thread.

I stand by my point that the OP shouldn't be mad or sad at these people leaving. I would likely leave if I were attending a church where the pastor decided he was a five point Calvinist. Also, I don't think they hate you...they are just discerning.