Why Do People Hate Calvinst?

[Jerome]

Should a pastor be suprised that saints are abandoning "his" church, when he talks of not being on the same "team" as them?

 

[TCassidy]

I'm through with this debate.

I didn't know we were having a debate. I thought we were trying to find common ground.

I will and do fellowship with alot of Calvinists, who understand it a might better than you do, even in my own church.

Yes, of course. You disagree with me so, obviously, the misunderstanding is on my part.

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.

I am the one seeking fellowship based on common ground, not on Calvinism. It is you who stated we could not do so and broke off the discussion.

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.

I am, at heart, a teacher. When someone displays a lack of understanding of an issue I understand it is my natural inclination to try to increase their knowledge level. Some listen and learn and some assume they already know it all and refuse to listen or learn. Such is the perversity of human nature.

 

[TCassidy]

Should a pastor be suprised that saints are abandoning "his" church, when he talks of not being on the same "team" as them?

I think you may have read more into his metaphor than he intended.

 

[Rippon]

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.

How can you quote someone and turn their words completely around as you do?

 

[Rippon]

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.

This is like saying I never met a Christian who didn't think they were Christian.

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."

It is perplexing that so many non-Cals claim to have met individuals who have said such things. I,as a Calvinist have never encountered a Calvinist (not hyper-Calvinist)who has has ever uttered such things.Of course someone who is non-elect will go to eternal perdition --but as I have said on this board dozens of times many non-Cals are,and will be residents of Heaven.

 

[webdog]

Hoping Shortandy will be back to address this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shortandy
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shortandy
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.
__________________

 

[dwmoeller1]

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.

Note that the passage does not say that he was still in his sins (what does that term even mean to being with?). This is an assumption on your part. You are reading into the passage assumptions you bring to it. Ignore that assumption and the supposed conflict no longer exists.

Of course, the passage doesn't say that he was regenerate either. If the Cist is honest, he will admit that he reads such into the passage based on the assumptions he himself brings to the passage.

Thus, it is essential to keep very distinct what the passage *says* and what one thinks they conclude from the passage.

Note, the above is not at all meant to show you are wrong about Cism or that they are right about the verse, merely that you are analysis is fallacious. Maybe your belief about Cism being unscriptural is correct, but here you rely on a fallacy to demonstrate such.

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.

Maybe it is false and unscriptural...but the above passage doesn't demonstrate this. It again relies on reading into the passage certain assumptions and/or arguing from silence. The only way the above passage could demonstrate what you claim is by what it *doesn't* say. What is actually does say isn't contradictory to Cism.

 

[dwmoeller1]

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.

You need to meet some different Cists

 

[dwmoeller1]

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.

True. I have seen it nearly as often in the opposite direction though Its a human thing, not a non-Cist thing.

[/FONT][/COLOR]That is pretty harsh!

Please understand that I say this as a Cist myself.

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.

Agreed. And I think its worthy of discussion. But to present it as a reaction to specifically to Cism instead of an issue of say, anti-intellectualism in general, is to skew the discussion. Skew it in ways that (regardless of the actual motive and intent), *appears*, IMO, to be as I describe. But like I said, maybe thats just me.

 

[dwmoeller1]

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

I don't see that. If he, as I believe is the case, meant his statement in an ironic way to make a point, then it seems he is following the discussion quite well...and is making a valid point.

 

[dwmoeller1]

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

FWIW, it is a fairly accurate statement. The number of non-Cists who really do understand Cism (or at least refrain from straw men or other fallacies when addressing Cism) is much fewer than those who do. But then, I have met many Cists who don't really understand Cism either

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.

This is a good example of using fallacies to address Cism. Your first statement is correct. However, your second paragraph then attempts to negate Cism by applying your own assumptions and paradigms to it. Certainly, IF your terms and understanding of Scripture are correct THEN you may right conclude that Cism is false. However, that is a fallacy of begging the question.

So, when you use the concept of "in your sins" you are filtering Cism through your own paradigm and negating Cism using a concept that is essentially foreign to Cist thought. So sure, in your paradigm, Cism is obviously false. But then its equally true that from a Cist paradigm your own position is obviously false To assume your paradigm is correct and then argue from it is begging the question.

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.

Again you are applying your paradigm to Cism and thus begging the question. The trick is to show Cism contradictory by its own standards and views, not yours.

 

[dwmoeller1]

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



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.

Cist do NOT deny that man can do any good at all. Instead they create a distinction between that which seems good on the outward and that which is truly good. So they readily grant that man can do the former sort of good (Luke 6:33 being one example of this) but deny that he can do what is truly good (Rom 3:12). So, your reasoning here is either a straw man or a fallacy of amphiboly.

 

[dwmoeller1]

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.

Rather than preservation and perseverance being very different things, they are seen by Cists as being two sides of the same coin - different, but only because you are looking at the same thing from two different sides.

And let me point out that Perseverance of the saints does NOT mean that one is saved because they are faithful to Jesus. Rather it means that those who are saved *will* persevere. Cism does *not* hold that one needs to persevere to be saved, but instead that if one is truly saved then they will. Its an extension of the Cist view of regeneration.

 

[sag38]

FWIW, it is a fairly accurate statement. The number of non-Cists who really do understand Cism (or at least refrain from straw men or other fallacies when addressing Cism) is much fewer than those who do. But then, I have met many Cists who don't really understand Cism either

I know you are not trying to sound arrogant but none the less this statement reeks of arrogance. In reality you are confirming Winman's allegation. Who made you the Calvinism policeman? What qualifies you to make such a statement? I would have a lot more respect for your declaration if you stated it as an opinion and not as a fact. And, some wonder why there's a bad taste in some folks mouth when they encounter the Doctrines of Grace.

 

[AresMan]

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.

I have never seen anyone else ("Calvinist") who would act like you described other than Marc Carpenter and his ilk. These fringe lunatics nit pick and dissect writings of people in their "heterodoxy hall of shame" and find anything that would conflict with the "five points." If something expresses the slightest interpretation of not strictly demonstrating complete adherence to the five points, they cast doubt on that person's salvation. They even go so far as to believe that John Calvin was quite possibly unregenerate because he may have said something that sounded like "general atonement."

Spurgeon, Whitefield, MacArthur, all known "Reformed" theologians come under their gun as unregenerate "God haters" because they have all stated something that "speaks peace" to "Arminians," making them not truly five-pointer, making them unbelievers.

 

[dwmoeller1]

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.

There are two ways something can be "totally". If you took a glass of water and mixed some soluble poison into the water, it would be perfectly accurate to say that the water is "totally" poisoned. That is, there is no part of the water that isn't poisoned. However, is the water as "totally" poisoned as it could be? Well, in that sense of "totally" the answer is no - one could add more poison to make the water even more poisonous.

Both meanings are distinct and both are valid. By "totally" depraved Cist mean the former sort of "totally", but not the latter. Thus, there is no contradiction, and to try and create one is to rely on a straw man or an amphiboly.

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

FWIW, historical Aist hold the same as Cists on this particular point.

 

[dwmoeller1]

FWIW, it is a fairly accurate statement. The number of non-Cists who really do understand Cism (or at least refrain from straw men or other fallacies when addressing Cism) is much fewer than those who do. But then, I have met many Cists who don't really understand Cism either

I know you are not trying to sound arrogant but none the less this statement reeks of arrogance. In reality you are confirming Winman's allegation. Who made you the Calvinism policeman? What qualifies you to make such a statement? I would have a lot more respect for your declaration if you stated it as an opinion and not as a fact. And, some wonder why there's a bad taste in some folks mouth when they encounter the Doctrines of Grace.

My apologies. Consider it as qualified with IMO at every point. And please don't read into this statement the assumption that I consider myself to understand Cism either

Actually, just ignore the statement altogether. It *does* sound arrogant and I appreciate you pointing it out.

 

[dh1948]

Some men I know are starting a reformed theology church in my city. Recently I met with them, at their request, so they could solicit my support for this endeavor. During the course of our conversation they never referred to themselves as Calvinists or as reformed theology-types. It was only when I brought up the subject that they said they were reformed in theology.

I told them that I would not support their efforts nor invite them to my church (though I am not currently pastoring) to present their new church start to my people.

I have looked over their printed material, and nowhere do they even hint that the church will be Calvinistic. I think that is deceptive. They should be upfront about their theological position.

Our meeting was cordial.

 

[TCassidy]

Some men I know are starting a reformed theology church in my city. Recently I met with them, at their request, so they could solicit my support for this endeavor. During the course of our conversation they never referred to themselves as Calvinists or as reformed theology-types. It was only when I brought up the subject that they said they were reformed in theology.

I told them that I would not support their efforts nor invite them to my church (though I am not currently pastoring) to present their new church start to my people.

I have looked over their printed material, and nowhere do they even hint that the church will be Calvinistic. I think that is deceptive. They should be upfront about their theological position.

Our meeting was cordial.

Did they list what times they would hold services? Whether or not they use wine at communion? Whether they are dichotomists or trichotomists? Whether Christ was born in 4 or 5 BC?

They preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified. What more do you want?

And why would you lead them to believe your church might support them when you don’t pastor a church?

 

[Amy.G]

Rather than preservation and perseverance being very different things, they are seen by Cists as being two sides of the same coin - different, but only because you are looking at the same thing from two different sides.

And let me point out that Perseverance of the saints does NOT mean that one is saved because they are faithful to Jesus. Rather it means that those who are saved *will* persevere. Cism does *not* hold that one needs to persevere to be saved, but instead that if one is truly saved then they will. Its an extension of the Cist view of regeneration.

Where do Cal's get this notion of perseverance? I could only find a few verses using this word (persevere, perseverance) and the only one that even might be what you're referring to would be Rev. 3:10

'Because you have kept the word of My *perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of *testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole *world, to *test those who dwell on the earth. (NASB)

Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth. (NIV)

"Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. (NKJV)

Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. (KJV)

This appears to be a command of Christ to wait patiently for His deliverance from the time of tribulation. I don't see where it refers to salvation.