Why I left Calvinism after 10 years...

[pinoybaptist]

Uhhuh you can twist it anyway you want but it changes nothing. Heaven, grace, the cross and salvation was extended to everyone. To say otherwise is complete heresy and pure evil.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

2Pe 3:9 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.

God expects a response to his offer:

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:


Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

I have not twisted anything, and I resent your insinuations.

On the other hand, please do research on context and such before quoting the standard Arminian quotes, thank you.

 

[zrs6v4]

Calvin quote probably. It makes sense at first glance. But exegesis says otherwise.

Im not sure what you mean here, but I like it. Part of searching is looking beyond the first glance that most want to cherish and not question. This doesnt mean all first glances are wrong, but I have found that many times I totally missed the point and the original language, styles of speaking, context, etc... I think this is a cause of trouble, when we are so sure that we dont need to look any deeper.... Its like saying, "Im saved" and when doubts come you go shrivle into a corner until the burden leaves instead of search your heart in Scripture. sorry, this may be off topic, but good stuff IMO

 

[webdog]

Its justice to send a man hell for exactly every sin he committed. It isnt (my opinion of the bibles view) justice to send a man to hell because he rejected the way to avoid his penalty. There is a sense in which man is condemned by rejecting a Savior if he gets the chance, but the real reason one is in hell is because of sin.

Scripture states man is in hell for failure to have faith in God's Son (John 3:18). Man cannot pay the penalty for the sin Christ already has.

 

[Revmitchell]

I have not twisted anything, and I resent your insinuations.

On the other hand, please do research on context and such before quoting the standard Arminian quotes, thank you.

the issue with context is yours and I have never met an arminian

 

[zrs6v4]

Rev, how do you justify spending all this time on this site (and who knows how many other sites) with all these saved folks when you should/could be out amongst the unsaved where there's work to be done. All those of you who believe it is the 'Great Commission of the Church' to populate heaven, how do you justify even one moment of slack or idle time if folks are going to hell while you lolly gag on the web?

Its easier to watch TV for 8 hours than actually read the bible for 5 minutes:BangHead:

you probably will get some good responses to this, hehe

 

[zrs6v4]

Scripture states man is in hell for failure to have faith in God's Son (John 3:18). Man cannot pay the penalty for the sin Christ already has.

This could be a long drawn out subject because...

You say that Christ paid for all sin that ever was in the world on the cross. That the real reason people go to hell isnt because they are going to bear their own sin, but because they have rejected Christ. (I do agree that rejecting of Christ is a sense in which everyone goes to hell, but its not the real reason)

anyway I say that...

I say Christ paid for only those who he elects from eternity past and that His mission was to buy them by paying their sin in full on the cross. People go to hell because they are under the condemnation of their sin and will remain in that condemnation for a righteous judgment unless they are rescued by Christ. This could have a more in depth explanation.

but..

we both agree that unless people turn to Christ and repent because they are in sin, however that may be.

Maybe we can leave it here for now, although I do find this a deep and good subject.

 

[David Michael Harris]

Exactly, how much do we care for those that know not Christ.

Populating heaven Is that not positive.

 

[Winman]

But how does that line up with Scripture? Where are we told that unsaved, unGodly men desire God - without the drawing of the Spirit?

Ann, I am in agreement with you here. I really am. Man of himself, will never seek God. It is only by God's word that a man can know of God. And God's word is a work of the Holy Spirit. But unsaved men can hear and believe the word of God. He has that ability. He also has free will and can resist the Holy Spirit. He can go either way. I showed that with the story of Cain. God spoke to him, so as always, you always first see the word of God. But God himself said Cain could give an acceptable sacrifice, or he could choose to do otherwise. Cain had a choice and was responsible for the choice he made.

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

And notice the last part of verse 7. God said sin would desire Cain, but Cain would rule over sin. Calvinism teaches the exact opposite, that sin rules over man. But God said man is in control, and does not have to yield to sin.

There are several examples of unsaved men seeking God in the scriptures. The rich young ruler was unsaved yet sought eternal life. And we know he was not regenerated to have this desire, because he went away unsaved.

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.

Notice in verse 17 that this young man ran to Jesus. Now, think about that. This fellow was not only rich, he was a ruler. Important people do not often run after others, especially a poor preacher like Jesus. But this young man ran to Jesus showing his great desire. He kneeled down showing his great respect and called Jesus "Good Master". He knew the scriptures and even tried to obey them.

But he was unsaved, and went away unsaved. So this passage totally disproves the Calvinistic concept of Total Depravity in every way. He showed desire, he showed respect, he knew and understood scripture, but he was unsaved.

 

[pinoybaptist]

the issue with context is yours

Yeah, right. Everybody else is wrong, but you...

and I have never met an arminian

Really ? lol. You're with him everyday, you sleep with him, you shower with him, you're on the web with him, you look for issues in politics with him.

Take a look at the mirror.

 

[Winman]

Rev, how do you justify spending all this time on this site (and who knows how many other sites) with all these saved folks when you should/could be out amongst the unsaved where there's work to be done. All those of you who believe it is the 'Great Commission of the Church' to populate heaven, how do you justify even one moment of slack or idle time if folks are going to hell while you lolly gag on the web?

How does he know everybody here is saved? I am not a betting man, but if I were, I would bet there are quite a few unsaved folks here on this forum.

 

[pinoybaptist]

How does he know everybody here is saved? I am not a betting man, but if I were, I would bet there are quite a few unsaved folks here on this forum.

He doesn't, and that's the point. Given as Rev feels that the believer's job is to help populate heaven, then he's loafing, not doing his job which he says everybody should be doing.

And therein is the basic difference.

Jesus did what He intended to do, what His Father sent Him to do, redeem His elect, and save His people from their sins, with His blood, with His finished work on the cross, covering all His people from the beginning of time to the end of time, in all points of the globe, in this plane called time.

Eternal redemption is finished, the work of eternal salvation is finished, complete, nothing lacking, if there was anything lacking Jesus won't enter Heaven by His blood, and He has no business sitting, relaxing, at the right hand of power.

But the fact is He is.

The job of those in the ministry is to evangelize those for whom the gospel is intended, God's people. Instruct. Educate. Teach. Lead. and save in the gospel sense those that are caught in the grip of false doctrine.

 

[Skandelon]

Greetings,

I think the Calvinist view of man's inability springs from a couple of scripture passages.

One is Romans 8:7-8


Thus one could reasonably conclude that the fleshly mind is not only unwilling to submit to God's laws, but cannot.

The other is I Corinthians 2:14


Here, Paul clearly says the natural man cannot know spiritual things. Looks like inability to me.

Skandelon, what is your take on these passages?

I agree with Webdog. These are both clearly addressed to believers who deal with both the carnal man and the new man. In fact, the 1 Cor passage in just a few verses later goes on to say, "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not carnal?"

Notice that Paul calls the brethren "Carnal." Babes in Christ. Clearly you misapply this passage to use it as a proof text to support Calvinism's view of Total Depravity.

 

[Skandelon]

Calvinism and Arminianism are theological models, they're not religions. You don't "leave" them any more than you leave, say, premillenialism. Calvinism is not only permissible in Baptist belief, it's permissible in Christian belief.

Arguing calvinism or Arminianism to the point that is often done here does nothing but demonstrate how insecure the arguer is in their own faith.

Really? Are you really going to nitpick me to the point of questioning my choice of verbs with regard to recanting my Calvinistic beliefs? I left it, I ran from it, I jumped off their band wagon, I derailed that train, I abandoned the ship...critique those verbs and choice of phrases for a while and then we can address your insecurities.

 

[Winman]

Jesus did what He intended to do, what His Father sent Him to do, redeem His elect, and save His people from their sins, with His blood, with His finished work on the cross, covering all His people from the beginning of time to the end of time, in all points of the globe, in this plane called time.

The problem with this is, you are saying Jesus only redeemed the elect. But the scriptures say Jesus bought every man.

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.

This very verse is speaking of unsaved men. They are heretics. They are damned, and they are preaching damnable heresies. They are bringing swift destruction upon themselves. They are not the elect.

But Jesus bought them, he paid for them with his blood just as he bought and paid for the elect with his blood.

And this is where we disagree. We believe Jesus died for all men, you believe Jesus only died for the elect. Huge difference.

 

[Johnv]

Are you really going to nitpick me to the point of questioning my choice of verbs with regard to recanting my Calvinistic beliefs?

Given your vehement content, it's clear the insecurity is yours. I have no particular problem with a Christian's calvinistic or arminian position differing from mine. That person is just as faithful of an adherent to scripture as me. You don't share that position with those who disagree with you on the topic. There's nothing for anyone to recant from.

 

[annsni]

Ann, I am in agreement with you here. I really am. Man of himself, will never seek God. It is only by God's word that a man can know of God. And God's word is a work of the Holy Spirit. But unsaved men can hear and believe the word of God. He has that ability. He also has free will and can resist the Holy Spirit. He can go either way. I showed that with the story of Cain. God spoke to him, so as always, you always first see the word of God. But God himself said Cain could give an acceptable sacrifice, or he could choose to do otherwise. Cain had a choice and was responsible for the choice he made.

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

And notice the last part of verse 7. God said sin would desire Cain, but Cain would rule over sin. Calvinism teaches the exact opposite, that sin rules over man. But God said man is in control, and does not have to yield to sin.

Did Cain rule over sin?? No he did not. I do not think the "sin" is what he will rule over. I'm looking at a number of commentaries (since I don't know the nuances of the Hebrew) and it seems I'm heading in the right direction. Instead it is speaking of Cain ruling over Abel - as was his birthright. Yes, Cain had a choice as did anyone in the Old Testament - but did any sacrifice bring them salvation? I don't think it did. So sure, we can choose to follow God's law - do all that God tells us to do yet we still have not received the gift of salvation because there is no heart change. It is with the heart that one believes and comes to Christ - but no one comes to Christ unless the Father draws them.

There are several examples of unsaved men seeking God in the scriptures. The rich young ruler was unsaved yet sought eternal life. And we know he was not regenerated to have this desire, because he went away unsaved.

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.

Notice in verse 17 that this young man ran to Jesus. Now, think about that. This fellow was not only rich, he was a ruler. Important people do not often run after others, especially a poor preacher like Jesus. But this young man ran to Jesus showing his great desire. He kneeled down showing his great respect and called Jesus "Good Master". He knew the scriptures and even tried to obey them.

But he was unsaved, and went away unsaved. So this passage totally disproves the Calvinistic concept of Total Depravity in every way. He showed desire, he showed respect, he knew and understood scripture, but he was unsaved.

[/quote]

MANY in this world seek eternal life. Look at those who want to freeze their body so that they can be resurrected in the future. Or those in false religions who seek to do right in this age so maybe they can go to their version of heaven to live forever. Man, in his very core, seeks eternal life but that doesn't mean he's seeking God.

A few verses to think on:

Titus 1:15 "To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled."

Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?"

Romans 8:7-8 "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

 

[annsni]

The problem with this is, you are saying Jesus only redeemed the elect. But the scriptures say Jesus bought every man.

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.

This very verse is speaking of unsaved men. They are heretics. They are damned, and they are preaching damnable heresies. They are bringing swift destruction upon themselves. They are not the elect.

But Jesus bought them, he paid for them with his blood just as he bought and paid for the elect with his blood.

And this is where we disagree. We believe Jesus died for all men, you believe Jesus only died for the elect. Huge difference.

Jesus died for all men - does that mean that every man has salvation? That all men are saved and then they at some point lose it? Because we know that not all are heading to heaven.

 

[Winman]

Originally Posted by Johnv
Calvinism and Arminianism are theological models, they're not religions. You don't "leave" them any more than you leave, say, premillenialism. Calvinism is not only permissible in Baptist belief, it's permissible in Christian belief.

Arguing calvinism or Arminianism to the point that is often done here does nothing but demonstrate how insecure the arguer is in their own faith.

I would disagree, I would call them religions. They are belief systems. This is why I do not enjoy it when Calvinists call me an Arminian. I do share some of the beliefs of Arminism, but not all. I do not believe you can lose your salvation as some Arminians believe. But I also do not agree with Calvinists either. They believe in the Perserverence of Saints, I believe in the Preservation of the Saints.

Skandelon, I hope you will continue to share how you came out of Calvinism with us. What I am particularly interested in is how this took place. Was it certain passages of scripture that caused you to first question this, was it the writings of certain men, experiences? How long did it take? What went through your mind?

I know this is a lot to ask, but I find it extremely interesting. To change one's mindset is a fantastic thing. This is what I personally am interested in if you have the time.

 

[Skandelon]

I was the one who originally requested Skandelon go into depth as to why he left Calvinism. My motive was not to gain an ally against Calvinism, I can present my own arguments and have for months.

No, I wanted to understand what process his understanding went through. It is clear that Calvinists understand scripture much differently from me and some others here. I have trouble understanding how Calvinists think at times, I don't understand how they can read the same scripture as I do, but come up with concepts that completely conflict with the understanding I get from scripture.

I wanted to know how his concepts changed. What scriptures, arguments, or observations caused his concepts and personal understanding of scripture to change over time.

So far, this is what he said:



If I understand correctly, Skandelon's concept of Total Depravity or Inability changed. He no longer believes that unsaved man is utterly unable to respond to the gospel.

I personally agree with this, I believe unsaved man has the ability to hear and believe the gospel without the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. That said, I in no way believe unsaved man can come to Christ without first being taught by God. This teaching is a work of the Holy Spirit through the apostles, prophets and holy scriptures God gave to man. Man did not invent the gospel, the gospel is 100% from God, and if God did not present the gospel then unsaved man would be hopelessly lost and not able to find God.

But enough of what I believe, I hope Skandelon will describe this process of change, how it came about, how long it took, what influences brought about this change in concept.

Actually, to be technically accurate with your wording, which as witnessed, the Calvinists will call you on, you must say that mankind is born "Unable to be willing to believe." Yes, you and I understand that this phraseology affords the exact same objections, but it makes Calvinists feel better to give men some sense of responsibility. As Ann states:

My understanding is that the capacity is still there but it is not in our nature to respond. It's like this: Can a lion climb a tree and eat an apple? Do they have the ability to do so? Absolutely. Will they ever choose to do so? Nope. It's not in their nature to do so - they have no desire to go up a tree and eat fruit. Instead, their nature tells them to go attack that water buffalo and eat it instead. In the same way, man absolutely has the capacity to respond to the call of the gospel but because of his nature, he never will.

See my point? Why does it make any difference in the debate to argue that man has the "capacity" to believe when its not possible for them to believe? It doesn't avoid the obvious objections, it only gives Calvinists something to say to make this obviously objectionable view of God seem not so objectionable. That is why you have to say, "they don't have the capacity to be willing to believe," and then move on to the real substance of the debate.

 

[Skandelon]

Given your vehement content, it's clear the insecurity is yours. I have no particular problem with a Christian's calvinistic or arminian position differing from mine. That person is just as faithful of an adherent to scripture as me. You don't share that position with those who disagree with you on the topic. There's nothing for anyone to recant from.

You are right. I am insecure. I recant.

Oh wait, there is nothing for me to recant from.

I leave my former position of "vehement content."

Oh wait, I can't "leave" that because its not a religion.

Oh what do I do? John, please tell me what to think and how to respond? You have backed me into an corner of my own insecurities. What ever will I do?