Why I am not a Calvinist

Do you understand everything you hear? If you and I did, there wouldn't be any questions would there?

We do not limit God, but God is limited by his nature, which is pure and sinless, thus limited, God must act in accordance to his nature. This is true, whether we would agree with it or not.

We do not put God in a box; We say God redeems man; all the action is on the part of God. If man reacts according to his will, which is in bondage to sin, then you have a religious sinner.

Bro. Dallas

 

Excuse me, but respectfully, you are wrong.

Arminianism limits God. First it states that God cannot save a man, except that man with no intervention from God lets God save him. Second, God has no control of who he redeems, so that heaven is a Phi Beta Kappa of good decision makers. Third, God does not keep man secure, man must continue to act in faith to keep his security. Fourth, in an arminian view, Christ did not save men on the cross, he only made it possible for men to be saved. In a calvinist view, Christ not only saves men but bought the means for faith as to secure the salvation of man.

Do not say that calvinism limits God. This would only show your ignorance in the subject. I say that with complete reverence, and am not trying to be offensive, it just truly shows that you are bias to your opinion and not learned to the other side. I spent many years as an arminian. In fact, no one was born as a calvinist, Look at it objectively. I was an arminian till I actually began reading the bible as a whole. It offends me that you would dare say that of me when you seem to be the uninformed one.

In Him,
sturgman

 

Whosoever means "any person who". If it says whosoever believes it means "anyone who believes". If it says whosoever will it means "any person who will". Please explain how that is redefining the word whosoever.

I have yet to hear a Calvinist say that Christ died for just a few Calvinists. (I have heard there are a few out there who might say something like this, but they must be pretty far and few between, because I have never met one.) Anyway, this is a misrepresentation of what Calvinists in general believe.

So, something is only the truth if it is easy to understand. Then why did Peter say that some of the things Paul writes are hard to understand. Does that mean Peter thinks Paul is wrong??? Of course not. The ease with which something can be understood is not a measure of its truth.

If claiming that God is always true to His character is putting God in a box, then scripture puts God in a box when it says "it is impossible for God to lie." God can certainly do anything He wants, but what He wants is always defined by His character.

 

Proof? Arminians have NEVER said that man can find God without intervention from the Holy Spirit. You are doing what you accuse romanbear of doing - completely misrepresenting the opposite side.

Sure, he has control. It may be a different kind of control that you are used to, but God has allowed it to where all men could say yes to Him. And it is not about being good decision makers. Some of the best decision makers in the history of humanity were atheists or agnostics. Again, you are misrepresenting Arminianism.

Not all Arminians believe that - even Arminius did not believe that. In fact, I would guess that over half of them do not. Thus, you are constructing a straw man.

In the Arminian view, Christ provided the means for faith to secure the salvation of man - all men, not just a certain percentage.

And somehow you are not biased? Somehow you are learned? If this is your best effort at explaining Arminianism, might I suggest that you pick up a book of Arminius' writings? Because you've definitely got a lot to learn about the theology of Arminianism.

Sure doesn't seem like it.

No one is born a Christian, either. I was raised a Calvinist. It wasn't until my salvation at the age of 19 that I began to understand what Christ was all about. That is why I am no longer a Calvinist.

I was a Calvinist until I got saved. I've read the Bible as a whole many times, and am still an Arminian, because I do take the Bible as a whole. There are way too many OT references about the nature of election and the character of God for me to be a Calvinist.

Let he who is without sin... (or he who is not misinformed...)

Seriously, dude. Read some of Arminius (or maybe Wesley) before you say things like you did...

 

I have yet to hear a Calvinist say that Christ died for just a few Calvinists. (I have heard there are a few out there who might say something like this, but they must be pretty far and few between, because I have never met one.) Anyway, this is a misrepresentation of what Calvinists in general believe.</font>[/QUOTE]Interestingly enough, Calvin himself did not believe that Christ died for only the elect. However, when answering the Remonstrants, those who crafted what is now known as Tulip implied that Christ died only for the elect. I think that hyper-Calvinists would agree with the idea, but many Calvinists do not.

I equate this with the two groups of Arminians - one who believes a person can somehow return his salvation, and those who believe in eternal security.

I agree with you, and I'm not even a Calvinist. Good post.

 

Arminians aren't redefining it and, IMO, they are not even ignoring the words "believe" and "will". They are doing what is, IMO, worse than that. They are inserting words that aren't there.

Their rendering of these passages is more like "whosoever decides to believe of their own free will" and "whosoever applies their free will toward such-and-such a decision".

But these added qualifications do not exist in the text. The text consists of plain, simple, unambiguous statments that whosoever does X produces result Y.

It is the same as saying "whosoever drives instead of walks will get to the store quickly". There are people who are too young to drive, people who are blind and cannot drive, people who have no legs and cannot walk, but may be able to drive, and so on. Just because the word "whosoever" happens to be there doesn't imply anything one way or another about ability.

 

In agreement that all men are sinners and remains plagued by the sin nature even after salvation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not the problem.

The problem is to proclaim that man can take from his will which is in bondage and choose to believe or reject is the problem.

This is also taught by the raising of Lazarus. He was called to come forth and he came forth under the power of the Holy Spirit. This is evidenced as he came forth still bound by his grave clothes; and these were not removed until Christ said: "Loose him and let him go." A picture of the resurrection of the body, when this corruptible flesh will put on incorruptible;

Again I agree, see how simple it is. Lazarus was dead in the grave 4 days, to the point the mourners declared to Christ 'he stanketh', yet the power of God called him forth, and he came forth and still bound by the grave clothes--this corruptible flesh.

Bro. Dallas

 

Romanbear, how many times do we have to go through this?? It brings an analogy straight to mind. You hear, but you do not understand. YOu will not open your mind to consider the things you are being told. In the same way, the world is full of people who hear the gospel but will not open their minds to receive. However, they are kept from salvation only by their own unwillingness to come.

Joh 8:43 answers your question. The Pharisees there were clearly told the truth but they were "Unable" to hear. Not because of their hearing but because of the spiritual perception.

My savior died for the sins of the world too. But when he died, he propitiated them ... he removed the wrath of God so that God can never pour out his wrath on those whose sins have been propitiated. This is why the atonement is particular. The justice of God or the value of the atonement must be compromised otherwise.

You have just denied the truth of Titus 1:2 which says that God is limited. Yes it does ... look it up. The problem is not in the limits of God. The problem is in your unwillingness to accept the truth.

This type of rhetoric is disappointing from your Romanbear. You have been here long enough to know better than to present these false arguments. If you are going to disagree, at least do it on legitimate points.

 

Calvinists do not believe this, they believe that anyone who is saved is of the elect. If you feel excluded, it is your own imagination which excludes you, not Calvinists.

Bro. Dallas

 

Scott Emerson, I was refering to his lack of knowledge of calvinistic belief, and no he does not have calvinism pegged.

You on the other hand, think you do. Let me tell you that you do not either. Being raised a calvinist does not make you learned about calvinism. I do not hold to the teaching of John Calvin. Seemingly you hold to that of Arminius. I have read many of his works, and I still don't agree with him, as well as John Wesley. I do not hold to his teachings either. (He actually believed in a 2nd work of the Spirit) Calvinism is stated (for me and many other calvinist) to believe in the five basic tenets of Calvinism.

You say you have all the proof that it is wrong, but yet no one here has offered any. Funny how that is that they have all these secret truths and are not willing to share with us foolish calvinist (note the sarcasm)

I have a very good knowledge of what an Arminian believes. I was raised one, I was one, I preached it for years, and I know many and talk to them frequently, often on this board. An arminian believes that God saves them because they invite Christ in to their hearts. This done by there own free will. Sounds cute, but it isn't in scripture. Scripture says in Romans 3 that man does not seek after God. How can man turn to God if man does not seek God. Where is the biblical foundation of free will. No one has provided any proof scripturally, yet you hold to it so strongly.

So now, I ask you to prove me wrong and find arminians that do not hold to that. If they are consistant, you won't find any.

Thanks for your rudeness though.

In Love,
sturgman

 

THE CANONS OF DORT OF THE REFORMED CHURCHES OF EUROPE 1618

It is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in good pleasure sends the gospel.

 

John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have eternal life.

John Calvin's Commentary

And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.


And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

John Calvin's Commentary

He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.

 

Ahem. Let's add a little context to that, shall we? You wouldn't be deliberately avoiding said context in order to misrepresent Calvin's views, would you?

Once again, let's have a peek at the paragraph immediately following yours...