Why I left Calvinism after 10 years...

[pinoybaptist]

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.

winman:

if you bought something, it is yours. no one can take it away from you, and even if it runs away from you it is still yours. it goes where you go, not where it wants to go.
please note that the person bought by the blood of the Lamb is a slave to his Master now. He was once hocked to sin, a slave to it, owned by Satan.

Jesus redeemed him from that slavery, and now he is Jesus' bondservant is the word Paul used to describe himself, and I suppose you will agree that the word applies to you, as well as to others.

It is basically inconsistent that Jesus bought mankind with His blood, and then loses them back to the devil.

As for the above, yes, they are, in my conviction, blood-bought, redeemed souls (the Scripture itself says so) who turned away from the truth of Christ, and that can happen to almost anybody, but, they can run away all they want, the fact remains that they are still blood-bought redeemed souls that belong to Christ, and in eternity, they will have to acknowledge that, just as those in hell, will acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord. The destruction spoken of is timely, not eternal. However, I am open to more teaching on this, and will not hold fast to this as doctrine just yet.

 

[Johnv]

I would disagree, I would call them religions.

There's a difference between a religion and a theological model. Calvinism, Arminianism, Premillenialism, Dispensationalism, Preterism, etc, etc etc, are philosophical models. They are not religions. Now, it's true that some hold to them to the pount of being zealots, but that's probably a different topic entirely.

Most people do not hold to one or another, but hold to a misture of two or more.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

In the original post I listed the MAIN teaching that caused me to first start questioning Calvinism. Judicial Hardening. You notice that Calvinists here don't really address it? It's because it doesn't fit their system. Think about it.

Judicial Hardening is the act of God blinding men from truth so as to keep them in the dark so they won't repent. Why would this be necessary if the Calvinistic teaching of Total Depravity is true? Why would God need to temporarily blind a man who was born totally blind? Why would God need to hide the gospel in parables so as to keep them from believing it, if indeed they are born unable to willingly believe it? This is the first line of questions that lead me to reevaluate my views.

Truth be told, however, if I hadn't been taught in debate class to take on another side of an argument and view it objectively I doubt I would have ever seen my error. That is a lot more difficult to do than most people think. If you don't believe me, try arguing the other side of the abortion debate with someone just once. Try to formulate a well grounded and convincing case against something you have always supported. It is a skill that takes practice and it will teach you be truly objective.

 

[Winman]

In the original post I listed the MAIN teaching that caused me to first start questioning Calvinism. Judicial Hardening. You notice that Calvinists here don't really address it? It's because it doesn't fit their system. Think about it.

Judicial Hardening is the act of God blinding men from truth so as to keep them in the dark so they won't repent. Why would this be necessary if the Calvinistic teaching of Total Depravity is true? Why would God need to temporarily blind a man who was born totally blind? Why would God need to hide the gospel in parables so as to keep them from believing it, if indeed they are born unable to willingly believe it? This is the first line of questions that lead me to reevaluate my views.

Truth be told, however, if I hadn't been taught in debate class to take on another side of an argument and view it objectively I doubt I would have ever seen my error. That is a lot more difficult to do than most people think. If you don't believe me, try arguing the other side of the abortion debate with someone just once. Try to formulate a well grounded and convincing case against something you have always supported. It is a skill that takes practice and it will teach you be truly objective.

That is an excellent point you made, why would God need to harden or blind those who were already blind?

And I agree, if I had to take on a debate and argue pro-abortion, that would be very difficult for me personally. I don't know if I could bring myself to do that. However, that doesn't mean I don't understand a pro-abortionist argument. I have heard many and even entered into debates with them. I know what they are saying, and can see their point of view, but cannot bring myself to agree with them. But it is not that I did not consider their points of view, I did.

 

[OldRegular]

Matt 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Psa 145:19 He will fulfil the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them.

This verse clearly shows men first desired God before they were saved, so they could not have been regenerated to have this desire.

How do these verses show that these could not have been regenerated.

 

[Robert Snow]

The unelect are already subject to the judgment of God, and will be subject to the judgment of God, and will not escape the judgment of God, for the simple reason they had no Savior who took their sin upon Himself, and the Holy Spirit has left them to their blindness according to the good pleasure of His will.

OR likes to ask why one person will turn to Christ and another one won't. Let me ask, why did God choose some and reject others?

 

[pinoybaptist]

In the original post I listed the MAIN teaching that caused me to first start questioning Calvinism. Judicial Hardening. You notice that Calvinists here don't really address it? It's because it doesn't fit their system. Think about it.

Judicial Hardening is the act of God blinding men from truth so as to keep them in the dark so they won't repent. Why would this be necessary if the Calvinistic teaching of Total Depravity is true? Why would God need to temporarily blind a man who was born totally blind? Why would God need to hide the gospel in parables so as to keep them from believing it, if indeed they are born unable to willingly believe it? This is the first line of questions that lead me to reevaluate my views.

Truth be told, however, if I hadn't been taught in debate class to take on another side of an argument and view it objectively I doubt I would have ever seen my error. That is a lot more difficult to do than most people think. If you don't believe me, try arguing the other side of the abortion debate with someone just once. Try to formulate a well grounded and convincing case against something you have always supported. It is a skill that takes practice and it will teach you be truly objective.

Now that is something new.
I didn't know that there was such a view as Judicial Hardening in Calvinism.
Or could it have been simply a poor choice of words among the Calvinists in describing what Scripture says ?

What I understand from Scripture is God leaves the spiritually blind as is, and the spiritually deaf as is, not opening their spiritual eyes and not unstopping their spiritual ears, as given in the parable of the sower, to quote:

And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear , let him hear .
And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
That seeing they may see , and not perceive ; and hearing they may hear , and not understand ; lest at any time they should be converted , and their sins should be forgiven them.

Notice that the Savior carefully divides the people as "you" and "them", "you" being the favored, and "them" being the out of favor, and that He also implies who gives what to whom.

Is this the verse where you base your assertion that the Calvinist brethren teach and hold to "Judicial Hardening" ?

 

[Skandelon]

How do these verses show that these could not have been regenerated.

I think we all agree that mankind would NEVER desire righteousness if left ON THEIR OWN. However, the point is that we are NOT left on our own. Calvinists always quote Rom 3:10 where it says, "No one seeks God" and "No one is righteous" as if that proves their point, but it doesn't even address the point being debated. We all agree that no one is righteous according the the law. We all agree that no one seeks God on their own. But, doesn't God seek to save that which is lost? The question is whether or not we can respond to his effort to seek us; the gospel?

So, no one desires righteousness or reconciliation with God, just like you would never want ice cream if you were never introduced to it. In the first century Paul never said, "Man, I'd give up my donkey for a pint of Blue Bell." Why? Because he lacked knowledge. If someone were to introduce him to Blue Bell and give him a taste then he would have a decision to make. My donkey or a pint of Blue Bell?

The same is true of God's means for reconcilation. Men won't seek reconcilation until they first know their is the need and means to be reconciled. Thus the need of the law and the gospel. The law shows the need and the gospel reveals the means. Without these, brought to us by God, men would be helpless. But to just assume that men cannot respond to a message of reconcilation because they are born without the knowledge of the need or the means for reconcilation is non-sense and completely unbiblical.

 

[Johnv]

Now that is something new.
I didn't know that there was such a view as Judicial Hardening in Calvinism... Is this the verse where you base your assertion that the Calvinist brethren teach and hold to "Judicial Hardening" ?

Good point. As far as I know, "judicial hardening" is not an exclusive calvinist concept.

 

[OldRegular]

John 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.

To understand this Scripture one must understand who it is that constitutes the whosoever.

2 Peter 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.

It appears there are two possibilities in the interpretation of this Scripture.

1. God will save all people, that is, universal salvation.

2. The us-ward of this Scripture is speaking of those already saved.

Since there are Scripture that shows that not all are saved then #2 must be the correct answer. That is unless some clever person can come up with a better answer.

 

[Winman]

How do these verses show that these could not have been regenerated.

I will try to explain.

Matt 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

When a person is born again or regenerated, do they become righteous? In my view, yes. So they have no need any longer to be filled, they are already filled. I am not righteous because when I accepted Christ I suddenly stopped sinning. No way. I have sinned plenty since I was 11 years old. No, righteousness was imputed to me the moment I believed. I didn't become partially righteous, I became 100% righteous, Jesus's righteousness was imputed to me or put on my account. I no longer hunger or thirst for righteousness, I have already obtained it.

Rom 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Just like Abraham, the moment we place or faith or trust in Christ righteousness is imputed to us. I no longer hunger or thirst for righteousness, I have already obtained it through the grace of God. I didn't earn it, it was a free gift.

Psa 145:19 He will fulfil the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them.

This verse is very similar. It shows men who desire God, they fear him, they cry out to him. And God says he will save them. Why would he need to save them if they were already regenerated and born again?

 

[pinoybaptist]

OR likes to ask why one person will turn to Christ and another one won't. Let me ask, why did God choose some and reject others?

Because it was His Sovereign will to do so, to exercise mercy on whom He will, and if you have a problem with God being sovereign, then you will have to take it up with Him yourself.

Romans 9:17-20 -" For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up , that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth .
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault ? For who hath resisted his will?
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God ? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

 

[Skandelon]

Now that is something new.
I didn't know that there was such a view as Judicial Hardening in Calvinism.
Or could it have been simply a poor choice of words among the Calvinists in describing what Scripture says ?

What I understand from Scripture is God leaves the spiritually blind as is, and the spiritually deaf as is, not opening their spiritual eyes and not unstopping their spiritual ears, as given in the parable of the sower, to quote:

And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear , let him hear .
And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
That seeing they may see , and not perceive ; and hearing they may hear , and not understand ; lest at any time they should be converted , and their sins should be forgiven them.

Notice that the Savior carefully divides the people as "you" and "them", "you" being the favored, and "them" being the out of favor, and that He also implies who gives what to whom.

Is this the verse where you base your assertion that the Calvinist brethren teach and hold to "Judicial Hardening" ?

You misunderstood. I wasn't arguing that Calvinists believe in or teach Judicial Hardening. I believe what the bible teaches about Judicial Hardening (as explained in the original post). I believe the biblical teaching of Judicial Hardening contradicts Calvinism's premise that all men are born essentially deaf, blind and thus unable to believe. The bible clearly teaches that men GROW hard, the BECOME deaf, they are "given over" after a period of time. They are not BORN like that, as Calvinism teaches. Maybe if you read back over my previous posts with that understanding my points will make more sense. Thanks

 

[pinoybaptist]

You misunderstood. I wasn't arguing that Calvinists believe in or teach Judicial Hardening. I believe what the bible teaches about Judicial Hardening (as explained in the original post). I believe the biblical teaching of Judicial Hardening contradicts Calvinism's premise that all men are born essentially deaf, blind and thus unable to believe. The bible clearly teaches that men GROW hard, the BECOME deaf, they are "given over" after a period of time. They are not BORN like that, as Calvinism teaches. Maybe if you read back over my previous posts with that understanding my points will make more sense. Thanks

oh, okay, yes, you are right, I misunderstood, and I apologize.
okay, I will let Calvinists answer this, and do my study on the subject and try to be a little more in tune with what you are saying.

 

[webdog]

The us-ward of this Scripture is speaking of those already saved.

...not in context, or for it to make sense at least. It is not possible for God's elect to perish and to not come to repentance. The us-ward are the Jews, which flows with the whole of Scripture.

 

[Winman]

To understand this Scripture one must understand who it is that constitutes the whosoever.



It appears there are two possibilities in the interpretation of this Scripture.

1. God will save all people, that is, universal salvation.

2. The us-ward of this Scripture is speaking of those already saved.

Since there are Scripture that shows that not all are saved then #2 must be the correct answer. That is unless some clever person can come up with a better answer.

You are wrong on #1. Men can and do resist the will of God.

Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

There are many people that believe in God, and even believe Jesus is the Son of God. But that does not guarantee they will be saved. They have to do the will of the Father. And what is the will of the Father?

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

There are people who believe Jesus is the Son of God, but they do not believe "on" him. There is a difference. To trust on Jesus means to depend upon him 100% to get you to heaven. Many folks believe Jesus is the Son of God, but trust in their own good works to get them to heaven. And that is exactly what these people here argued in verse 22. They said, "didn't we cast out devils, and prophesy in thy name, and do many wonderful works?"

You see, they are depending on their own good works and not Jesus. And Jesus said he never knew them. They did not believe on him.

But going back, Jesus says those that do the Father's will are those who hear God's word and do them (verse 24). And he describes those who do not do the will of God. These are those who hear God's word but do not do them (verse 26).

God is sovereign. But he gave man free will. A man can hear God's word and obey it, or he can hear it and disobey.

 

[OldRegular]

OR likes to ask why one person will turn to Christ and another one won't. Let me ask, why did God choose some and reject others?

Snow

We can't know the mind of God. It is doubtful that we even understand our own mind. In response to your question one answer I have found is in the following Scripture.

Ephesians 1:3-7, KJV
3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4. According as he {God} hath chosen us in him{Jesus Christ} before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6. To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
7. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

It appears to me that one answer is that it is according to the good pleasure of his will.

No one has yet answered my question as to why they respond to Jesus Christ while others will not. If they have I haven't seen it. Winman posts a lot of Scripture but I am interested in what is in the nature of one man that causes him to respond while many others will not.

 

[Rippon]

God is sovereign. But he gave man free will.

If people are dead in their trespasses and sins -- what kind of free-will can that be?!

 

[DHK]

If people are dead in their trespasses and sins -- what kind of free-will can that be?!

Define dead? Are you SDA and define it as "annihilated"?

 

[Skandelon]

No one has yet answered my question as to why they respond to Jesus Christ while others will not. If they have I haven't seen it. Winman posts a lot of Scripture but I am interested in what is in the nature of one man that causes him to respond while many others will not.

You are begging the question. You are assuming a deterministic premise by asking us to tell you what determined their free choice. We believe that a act is caused by the actor...a choice is made by the chooser. We believe in self-deteminiation...a free agent is the cause of his own choices and actions. Understand?