Why I am not a Calvinist

The 401K was great until the economy collapsed.

 

By the way, if you're looking for the theology with the biggest benefits, I recommend some of the new age religions. You get to be god in some of those, and there's no accountability at all in any of the ones I've read about. I'd stay away from Islam, however. You have to work too hard and there's no guarantee any of it will do any good, even if you blow yourself up. So I say if it's benefits you want, go for the easy stuff.

 

Hi npetreley,

I don't disagree with any of Calvin's Statement. I focus soley on Calvin's emphasis on the General call of all to trust Christ yet at the same time he held to Unconditional Election and Particular Atonement. How do we reconcile it? We don't! As Spurgeon said, "Why do we need to reconcile friends" We preach the Gospel to all.

 

Hello to you romanbear,

You said,

Actually the verse is addressed to believers "Usward"(Not Unbelievers) WILL NOT PERISH" Peter was writing to, giving them the assurance that all God calls will come to salvation and not perish.

 

Sorry I misjudged your intent! I'm just getting so annoyed at the numerous misrepresentations posted here (esp. of scripture) that I jumped to the wrong conclusion.

 

2 Peter 3:9 - "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward US, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Who is the "us"? Peter writes this "To those who have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (1:1).

How did these folks come to "obtain" faith? Didn't they already have it (if the Arminian position is correct)?

Why does Peter say to make "your calling and election" sure? (1:10)?

 

romanbear, God Bless you my friend

npetreley, No problem buddy, I sympathize with you

Rev G, Excellent reply

 

Scott E.

Ahhh.....and now I'm going to have to explain that you misunderstood part of my post and you're probably going to want to take that back.....

Actually, I believe in particular redemption (and I believe there is some evidence Calvin did as well). I believe Christ died for the salvation of His people. It's just that I think that His people are all those who have faith, not all those who adhere to a certain set of doctrines. Having all your doctrinal ducks in a row does not make you one of His people, nor does having the odd duck or two out of place make you not one of His people. So I objected when Romanbear said Calvinists believe Christ died only for Calvinists. I don't know of any Calvinists who believe this, although I have heard there are a preacher or two who preach that it is necessary to adhere to all of the doctrines of grace in order to be saved, but I tend to think that that is not Calvinism at all, but a gross perversion of it. (I won't call it hypercalvinism, because that's not what hypercalvinism traditionally is.)

Now, feel free to edit the "good post" out if you'd like.

[ February 15, 2003, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

I never said that he had Calvinism pegged. What I was questioning was your knowledge of Arminianism, which is sorely lacking.

Unlike most people here on the board, I've actually read Calvin's works. That would qualify me to at least discuss what he says. I try to refrain from some of the rhetoric used on the board - the kind of rhetoric used in your last post.

But reading Calvin's Institutes, taking several classes on Christian theology where we went in depth with his theology, and reading several Calvinist authors, does make me, in a way, learned of Calvinism.

Who does the "his" refer to? How do you know that you do not hold to the teachings of Calvin? Have you ever read what he wrote? What exactly have you read from Arminius?

Yeah, yeah, TULIP. But isn't it strange how you will associate yourself with a man whose teachings you don't even follow? Why not be called a TULIPist? What do you think about the historical context when thinking about Calvinism?

I have offered proofs for the last year (or however long I have been here). Such evidence is not accepted because both groups understand the Scripture in a different way. I, for example, see OT election (as God elected the nation Israel, and offered life - as such - to all Israelites, but not all the Israelites were children of God due to their choice) the same as NT election (as God elected the Church, and offered life to all people - Jews and Gentiles - but not all people are children of God due to their choice). Calvinists do not see it this way, and either avoid discussing it (as they have done in the pass) or dismiss it altogether. I suppose each side has different ideas of truth and different ideas of evidence.

The sad thing is that part of you believes that is true. I don't know any Arminian who is unwilling to share his beliefs. There may be those who are not very good at expressing them, but I don't know those who have some sort of secret truths.

Then why did you absolutely mutilate, crucify, and torture Arminianism in your other post? That is evidence that you do not know as much as you say (or think) you do.

And that is wrong. You were never a true Arminian, huh?

But the HOly Spirit comes to draw men - all men. Man can turn to God only when the HOly Spirit draws him first.

No, we presented it - others dismiss it for one reason or another. There have been entire books written on Scriptural and philosophical proofs for free will - those are also dismissed.

One cannot prove a negative. I would hope that you understand such basic rules of debate. The burden is up to you to show that Arminians - and specifically, Jacob Arminius - do hold on to it. Since you have read so much of Arminius, this should not be a hard task, right?

Any rudeness that you experience is only my telling the honest truth. You do not know as much as you say you do.

 

Ahh, but you are reading something into my post in the same way you read something into the word whosoever. Whosoever simply means "anyone who". It says nothing about ability to do anything, as has been pointed out already here. If I say "Anyone who shoots 10 out of 10 freethrows gets a dilly bar" it says nothing about any particular person's freethrow capability. In the same way, when John 3:16 says "Anyone who believes should not perish...but have eternal life", it says nothing about any particular person's ability to believe.

Yes...

How so?? The elect are not Calvinists only, but all those whom God has chosen to bring to salvation through faith. If you have faith, then you are one of the elect, and you will be in heaven, whether you are a Calvinist or not.

No, see above.

The gospel is simple. All that you need to know to be saved is simple. There are other things in scripture that are not so simple, and scripture says as much. And I don't know why we would expect everything to be simple. We are talking about how God (an infinite being) works in His creation, what His purposes are, what He is like. Why would we expect our finite minds to find this simple?

Then what is happening here is not that you disagree with what Calvinists are saying about this, but that you are using a different definition of "nature". My dictionary says that someone's nature is their inherent character. God's inherent character (or nature) is truthful, so He is bound by His character to keep His promises. He is not limited by anything outside of Himself, and He has complete freedom to do whatever He wants, but what He wants is limited by what He is.

I don't expect you to embrace Calvinism (at least not yet ), but if you're going to disagree, I hope this helps you to understand better what it is exactly that you are disagreeing with.

 

ROFL!!! That beats the lederhosen off my analogies. I'll have to remember that one.

 

It is still a good post. I don't mind Calvinist who know what they believe - and who are aware of the different "brands" of Calvinism that are out there.

Still, a good post!

 

Romanbear,

I see you overturn every stone and you stand for truth. A Calvinist would say, "John's character was flawed, but his theology came straight from God." I say, "John Calvin imposed his "Unconditional Election" on sinners and saints an then became the enforcer. His views of God were textbook theology from the mind of Jerome, Augustine and a long line of holy sees.

 

You lost me here. In Bondage of the WIll, Luther frequently dismisses Jerome's opinions and even his translations as error. I was under the impression that Calvin echoed Luther and Augustine. If that's true, I don't see how you can attribute Calvin's theology to Jerome.