Why I am not a Calvinist

Michael:
I'm going to asume that you are being serious when you state that the "normative" meaning of all is all -- without exception. Right?

Let's look at just one verse, which should be sufficient to any objective reader that "all" is used in scripture in many different ways. Rarely does "all" mean "all" without exception.

"And there went out unto him ALL the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were ALL baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." Mark 1:5.

Now, is anyone going to be so blinded by their preconceived theology that they will insist that EVERY SINGLE PERSON from EVERY SINGLE SQUARE FOOT of Judea were baptized by John in the river Jordan? Of course not. How can anyone maintain that EVERY SINGLE MAN, WOMAN, and CHILD, without exception confessed their sins and were baptized?

The only reason one would refuse to follow the context is because it flys in the face of their theology. Let's face it. If God desires ALL to be saved without exception, then ALL without exception would be saved. But we know that is not the case. Some, most, are headed for hell. Are you advocating a defeated savior? A disappointed one? An ineffective one?

The Triune God doesn's sit around a hope, and beg, and plead for some depraved sinner to "make a choice" to accept Him. What a God-dishonoring, blasphemous doctrine.
James2

 

God desires everyone to be saved, but he doesn't force anyone to be. And the element of force which calvinism espouses is what makes it a blasphemous system. God governs by liberty; compulsion is a tool of the devil.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
God desires everyone to be saved, but he doesn't force anyone to be. And the element of force which calvinism espouses is what makes it a blasphemous system. God governs by liberty; compulsion is a tool of the devil.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Michael:

Your charge is a strawman. It is neither logical nor biblcal, but fleshly. You may not be a Calvinist, but it is comical for you to call Calvinism blasphemy (it is in fact biblical soteriology). Arminianism is the system defined as heresy at Dort, and is anthrocentric as opposed to Calvinism's theocentricity.

Future like-minded posts, which are simply ad hominem attacks, will be deleted.

 

Calvinism is basically an interpretational doctrine. You say that it is based on scripture. I say it is based on interpretation of scripture. As someone in these forums stated, "Immaculate Perception". The scripture says several places "ALL". You qualify this. Fine. But your qualification is based on interpretation, which we all do.

There are some who don't believe that God created people just to cast them into hell. You might disagree. Fine.

The sticking point for me is that I have never seen a Calvinist that says the Holy Spirit gave the Calvinist doctrine. The Calvinist doctrine has a lot of logic to it, and many pages devoted to it, and many adherents. But when does one of the Calvinists, an originator (apostle) of the Calvinist doctrine step up and say, "The Holy Spirit has revealed these truths to me (the Calvinist doctrine)."

Many people have figured out many doctrines without the help of God the Holy Spirit. I guess they would say that they were given good minds by God, and they don't need His help to determine what scripture means. I mean, it must be really easy after spending years studying Greek and Hebrew, and when you know what the words mean, and how the cultures were, there is no need for God to communicate. Or is there?

Is the Holy Spirit still needed by the church today to help us understand the written Word of God? Did Calvin or the early adherents to Calvinism ever speak of how the Holy Spirit inspired them with this doctrine? If so, I would like to know. If not, is it wrong to question those who figure out a doctrine but give God no credit for being the Source?

[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by qwerty:
Calvinism is basically an interpretational doctrine. You say that it is based on scripture. I say it is based on interpretation of scripture. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tell me ... is there any doctrine which is not based upon an interpretation of Scripture? Reformed theology is derived from the exegesis of what God says in his Holy Word.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
As someone in these forums stated, "Immaculate Perception". The scripture says several places "ALL". You qualify this. Fine. But your qualification is based on interpretation, which we all do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Matthew 2:3 (ESV)
When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him;

Was every man, woman and child in Jerusalem troubled along with Herod? If not, why not?

Matthew 3:5-6 (ESV)
Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him, [6] and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

Was every man, woman and child in Jerusalem and Judea all the region about the Jordan baptized? If not, why not?

Matthew 4:24 (ESV)
So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them.


Was every single sick and afflicted person brought to Christ for healing? If not, why not?

Matthew 10:22 (ESV)
and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

Did every man, woman and child in the world hate the apostles? If not, why not?

Romans 5:18 (ESV)
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

Since all men are condemned, are all men now saved? If not, why not?

There are 879 verses in the ESV NT with at least one occurrence of the word all. I hope it is plain that all does not always mean universal all.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There are some who don't believe that God created people just to cast them into hell. You might disagree. Fine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And so does Scripture.

Romans 9:11-18 (ESV)
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call— [12] she was told, "The older will serve the younger." [13] As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
[14] What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! [15] For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." [16] So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. [17] For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." [18] So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

John 17:12 (ESV)
While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Romans 9:21-24 (ESV)
Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? [22] What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, [23] in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— [24] even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The sticking point for me is that I have never seen a Calvinist that says the Holy Spirit gave the Calvinist doctrine. The Calvinist doctrine has a lot of logic to it, and many pages devoted to it, and many adherents. But when does one of the Calvinists, an originator (apostle) of the Calvinist doctrine step up and say, "The Holy Spirit has revealed these truths to me (the Calvinist doctrine)." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, are you saying that either a theologian must be inspired as were the biblical authors, or that the biblcal authors did not affirm Divine Sovereignty? Did the Holy Spirit anywhere say ""The Holy Spirit has revealed these truths to me (the Arminian doctrine)." John and Paul overflow with Calvinism (i.e., biblical soteriology), and great men of the Spirit (Calvin, Whitefield, Edwards, Lloyd-Jones, Barnhouse, J.M. Boice, et. al.) have written of the doctrine of the Holy SPirit. Your argument holds no water.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Many people have figured out many doctrines without the help of God the Holy Spirit. I guess they would say that they were given good minds by God, and they don't need His help to determine what scripture means. I mean, it must be really easy after spending years studying Greek and Hebrew, and when you know what the words mean, and how the cultures were, there is no need for God to communicate. Or is there?

Is the Holy Spirit still needed by the church today to help us understand the written Word of God? Did Calvin or the early adherents to Calvinism ever speak of how the Holy Spirit inspired them with this doctrine? If so, I would like to know. If not, is it wrong to question those who figure out a doctrine but give God no credit for being the Source? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is ad hominem and non sequiter as it is answered above. Read Calvin, Edwards and Lloyd-Jones, and them tell me these men had no regard for the Spirit.

[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

P.S. And, BTW, does that threat apply equally to those who attack Arminianism as blasphemous? Just wondered if fairness exists here.

 

Michael
Ive been scouting the archives, and could not help but notice you have fought the good fight for a long time.
I think you probably know by now you can't discuss theology with a Calvinist. They have all the answers for everything. The only mystery in their lives is whether or not to do the Twist or Macarena when you put em in a corner.
D

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Deitrich B:
I think you probably know by now you can't discuss theology with a Calvinist. They have all the answers for everything<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This seems pretty narrow minded of you. Why is that you think you can't discuss theology with a Calvinist?

 

Deitrich,

Actually, I have learned that I can discuss theology with SOME Calvinists and SOME Roman Catholics, too. Jeff Weaver, a Primitive Baptist who posts here sometimes, and I have become good friends.

I have been attacked by Roman Catholics on another message board, but I must say that on this board the vehemence directed at me has come from Baptists rather than Catholics. I've actually been having a very good discussion with some Catholics about Celtic Christianity on the "Other Religions" forum, and while we passionately disagree about some things, we haven't gotten nasty with each other yet. BTW, "Irish Pete" and I have been arguing over whether St. Patrick was a Roman Catholic or a Baptist.

 

Larry refer to your first 1199 posts . Couldnt resist
D

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Deitrich B:
Larry refer to your first 1199 posts . Couldnt resist
D<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have been willing to discuss any passage someone wants to throw out. The problem has not been the Calvinists discussing theology; it has been the other side refusing to address pertinent issues while instead changing the subject.

It gets a little frustrating to be sure.

 

Pastor Larry:
I agree with you. It gets REALLY frustrating when we quote scripture, repeat the arguments, point out the shortcomings of the opposite viewpoint, then get an answer back that totally ignores everything that was said.

I've come to the conclusion that if someome is unwillingly ignorant I don't mind going over everything and repeatedly trying to explain things. On the other hand, if someone refuses to listen and wants to remain ignorant (maybe I should say blinded) then why cast pearls before swine?

This whole Arminian debate seems hopeless. God has either enlightened a person's mind so they can see it, or he hasn't and they won't get it until HE does.

The question of salvation by God's grace alone, or salvation by grace plus man's feeble attempt to add works is so crucial to basic Christianity that if a person doesn't understand that I question whether they are even saved. Jesus says MY SHEEP HEAR MY WORDS AND COME TO ME. Those that constantly argue the Arminian position need to pray for the Holy Spirit to open their minds to the truth!!! It is so frustrating!!!!!!!!
James2

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pioneer:
II Peter 3:9 tells me that God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. Salvation is for all people not just a select few.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

2 Pe 3:9 in no way contradicts Calvinism. It'll be amusing watching folks try aimlessly to prove that it does.

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Here we go again!!!! II Peter 3:9 -- Proves my point. That scripture has been explained to death and they want to believe it disproves Calvin. Why bother trying anymore?
James2

 

Eric B

I’m sorry but I can’t understand what you are trying to say. I am trying to understand the differences in the Armenian and the Calvinist way of interpreting this chapter and I could use your help.

Quote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This chapter is still talking about Israel as a national entity, with Pharaoh and Esau as examples of God's purpose.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If he is talking about Israel as a national entity, why does he give individuals as an example?

Quote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is not talking about the eternal damnation of individuals, but rather temporal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Temporal damnation of individuals? – could you please explain. It sounds like you are saying Pharaoh and Esau are examples of temporary damnation. I have to be misunderstanding what you wrote – right?

You have totally lost me (of course, that’s not hard to do) on the clay vessels thing. Are you saying this analogy teaches we are not born with a sin nature but born neutral?

Please don’t think I am trying to argue or cause trouble – I’m just trying to understand these opposing doctrines and let the Holy Spirit guide me to the truth.

In His Grace
KayDee

 

I'm still waiting for comments about my comments on the dreaded passage of II Peter 3:9. "Eph 1:4" chose not to answer so anyone here can. I appealed to the context of the passage, something the Calvinists seem to avoid since it invariably disproves their points. The context will show that "all" in this verse does not and can not just refer to the elect.

Now "James2"--why be frustrated? I'd hope no one denies salvation by grace through faith. If they do, their not saved. The faith is a gift of God. God's grace is undeserved. It is He alone who draws everyone and even makes possible salvation for us. The issue of whether Jesus died for the elect or died for everyone is not the same issue as whether salvation itself is earned by works or given by God's grace (I'm repeating myself here)

I believe that when someone places their full faith and trust in Christ's atoning sacrifice for their sins, they are sealed with the Holy Spirit and are kept by the power of God. I believe the Scriptural doctrine of eternal security. I'm I less of an Arminian than I could have been if I thought you could lose your salvation? (Just curious)
I also believe that once saved in time, that God unconditionally keeps us saved because without this, we'd lose our salvation the first time we sinned! Maybe I'm an Arminian concerning before we get saved, and a Calvinist for after we get saved in my thinking maybe?

I guess I find it appalling to see the implications given that simply because I look at the plain context of scripture and conclude that Jesus paid the penalty for all people (remember the Christmas message?: "this shall be to all people") that me and other poor unfortunates are dread to not be saved. Hence my condensed testimony of sorts.

I'm just glad God knows and judges the heart, and I'm not answerable to man for my salvation. Hallelujah!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trueliberty:
I'm still waiting for comments about my comments on the dreaded passage of II Peter 3:9. "Eph 1:4" chose not to answer so anyone here can. I appealed to the context of the passage, something the Calvinists seem to avoid since it invariably disproves their points. The context will show that "all" in this verse does not and can not just refer to the elect.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trueliberty wishes to derive a definitive soteriology from one text - what some have called "spoof-texting". In the same manner, CoC adherents have established baptismal regeneration from 1 Peter 3:21.

Limited atonement is shown throughout Scripture, so the Calvinist need not fear 2 Peter 3:9 even if it seemed to imply that the atonement was general. But does it?

Frankly, there are tougher texts than 2 Peter 3:9. This passage is quite clear. Trueliberty appeals to context, but what does it say?

2 Peter 3:9 (ESV)
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Who is he patient toward, not wishing any to perish? Who is Peter writing to?

2 Peter 1:1 (ESV)
Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

We see that Peter is writing to fellow believers. As the ESV intro says:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Peter probably wrote this letter from a Roman prison about A.D. 67–68, shortly before his death. Twisted versions of Christian truth were being taught, which Peter describes in vivid terms (ch. 2). Recalling his firsthand experience of Christ’s glory at the Transfiguration (1:17-18), Peter explains the “more sure” truth of the gospel as an antidote to heresy. The gospel is like “a lamp shining in a dark place” (1:19). In chapter 3 Peter focuses on those who scoff at the idea of Christ’s triumphant return and the final judgment. Just as God once destroyed the earth with water, he will one day destroy it with fire. In light of this, we should live in “holiness and godliness” as we await his return and the salvation he has promised to all believers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Peter is writing to believers for the benefit of believers. Therefore the patience of the Lord is directed toward the elect. This is even clearer in the KJV:

2 Peter 3:9 (KJV)
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

His longsuffering is directed toward the elect, waiting for the last elect believer to come into the kingdom.

This longsuffering is explained in Rom 11, as God waits and partially hardens Israel while the gospel goes to the Gentiles:

Romans 11:25 (ESV)
Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

His longsuffering is also explained in Rom 9:

Romans 9:22-24 (ESV)
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, [23] in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— [24] even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

In NT context, 2 Peter 3:9 clearly teaches that God does not wish any elect to perish.

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

Chris, I don't deny that Peter is writing to believers and is writing for the benefit of believers. But it's obvious that Peter does not always refer to believers.

Your ESV intro disagrees with you
..."In Chapter 3 Peter focuses on those who scoff at the idea of Christ's triumphant return and the final judgment..."

If you read my Dec 23 post (posted at 2:35 AM ), my context was not simply within II Peter 3:9 but includes the whole chapter. My discussion of II Peter 3:9 is in response to other comments about it, not because my world revolves around the verse. The accusation of "spoof-texting" is unfounded. Have you not read my numerous posts in the "God's basis of predestination" section? Or is it only Pastor Larry that reads it? You then might be quite surprised. Have I not given many different scriptures? The vast majority of the time I've given a new scripture in a post.

II Peter 3:3 "..scoffers..."
3:5 "..they willingly are ignorant..."
3:7 "...perdition and judgment of ungodly men."
The passage you yourself quoted in Romans 9:22-24 goes against the thought of II Peter 3:9's quote of "longsuffering to us-ward" meaning only the elect. The previous verses of II Peter 3 I refer to above also goes against this thought. In your interpretation of verse 9, you have Peter changing the subject for one verse. Look at the real NT context and don't avoid it The subject is the elect and the nonelect. Yet he is writing to the elect. No contradiction.

 

I know I might provoke some, but I feel I want to say a few things. A Calvinist is not necessarily the same as a disciple of Jesus Christ, a Christian. Many who call themselves Calvinists make mock of Arminians so called, but they themselves are as deceived as the same Arminians they mock. Calvinism is just as good as the man whose name it bears, and the man Calvin was useful as a teacher only as far as he was in agreement with the word of God. Personally, and I know many are similarly opinioned, I do not want to call myself a Calvinist, after some mere mortal man. If someone should call me a Calvinist I would strenuously object. Calvin was not the man who invented the so called doctrines of grace, nor did his followers or pupils invent them, nor did they "rediscover" them. The word of God gives me no right to call myself after a man named Calvin, nor after one called Arminius, or Luther or some other mere mortal. If someone else's conscience gives them that right I do not know. Yet another thing which makes me object to using the name Calvinist for orthodoxy. If I am correctly informed the man Calvin was one who favoured infant rantism, and is it not also true he was a persecutor of such who immersed. If I am wrong please correct me. Many do equate Calvinism with doctrinal orthodoxy, but is it really? Many so called Calvinists seem to have as their only object to convert Arminians to Calvinism or to the Reformed faith so called. But I fear their efforts are most of the time all in vain. One who is called of God to preach the Gospel of the glory of God is not called to convert people to Calvinism or to the Reformed faith so called. He will preach a crucified Christ the power of God. By these I by no means mean to say that Arminianism is acceptable before God the Lord. No, it is heresy and humanism in religious garbs. Calvinism as a theological system far more glorifies God than Arminianism, but adherence to Calvinism (TULIP more specifically) does not automatically mean one has been biblically converted by God's grace. Calvinist? No, not me. Calvinism? No thanks. Christ and Him crucified? Amen and amen.

Harald

 

Harald:

I can sympathize with your position, and much, if not all, you say is true. We are all in a sense, victims of labels. I adhere unswervingly to the biblcal witness, and follow no man.

Yet I prefer to hold to the label Calvinism, as its recognized soteriology - TULIP - is what I believe the Scriptures teach. It can just as easily be called Aungustinianism, Paulinism, or Christianity , for it is what the Bishop of Hippo, the Great Apostle and Our Lord also taught.

Adherence to Calvinism does not necessitate an adherhence to all things Calvin, or else one would be a Presbyterian. I concur with many things Luther taught, yet I would not call myself a Lutheran. And I call myself Baptist, even though there is a wide and vast array of baptistic belief.

But labels do serve a purpose, and I prefer to be called Calvinistic in order to be separated from those Arminian or semi-Pelagian. Christ never gave his religion a name - but opponents of his faith negatively called its adherents Christian, and they accepted it and wore it as a badge of honor and identification.

You would probably enjoy this editorial, A Farewell to Calvinism