Why so many unfounded attacks on Calvinism?

[Rippon]

I disagree Paul never wrote anything that even remotely resembled Calvinism. You should show us the proof of your claim.
MB

Well,try the entire books of Romans and Ephesians for starters.Then when that sinks in we will give you more.I am a Paulinist.

 

[Rippon]

Salvation is offered by grace to all, not just to the elect. That is grace.

Grace is actually given to the elect alone.The truths of grace are presented to all the hearers of a preacher/teacher/layperson indiscriminately.

 

[Jarthur001]

Not so Jarthur. Can you document this?

Yes

Please read this book. BTW it was written before your date.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xxi.ii.html?highlight=doctrines of grace#highlight

Make sure you read the whole book, not that one page

It is Calvin's invention.

Calvin was dead when TULIP came along.

You will have to document it with some historical references.

:laugh:

You still will not believe it, even after you read the link. Face it...you HATE the idea of Calvinism.

 

[Jarthur001]

I believe in the doctine of grace...and I don't adhere to TULIP.

One and the same.

 

[Rippon]

Again it is a man's system of doctrine presented solely to combat another man's system of doctrine which he considered heretical.

Again,you are aware,are you not,that Arminius was a boy of four when Calvin died?Arminianism as such did not exist in Calvin's time.

And for the record I am not Arminian, and I am not Calvinist. I fall into neither one's camp, and don't believe that a man must be boxed into any man's system of doctrine.

Your beliefs have much more in common with the Remonstrants than the Calvinists --whether you like it or not.

 

[Jarthur001]

Give us the biblical understanding.

Start a new thread and I will join you.

Or read this link that I wrote over a year ago for starters..

http://www.lincolnstandard.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=705&SectionID=26&SubSectionID=301&S=21

much more to say....

start a thread

 

[Jarthur001]

I am amazed when I ask some of those who post as calvinists about what books they have read. The answer is close to the same in almost every case. Most of them have never read Calvin's Institutes and very few if any of his writings. It kind of speaks for itself. Most have read someone else who wrote about calvinism but have never read the author himself.

haha...

How many times have you been told this is not Calvinism????

yet you blindly post on as if it is.

Unreal

Why??? HATE?? maybe

 

[Rippon]

This I can agree with: TULIP, I don't.

You "hold and maintain the truths generally known as the" 'doctrines of grace'?

Do you believe in "the electing love of God the Father"?

If you do not -- you don't really believe in the doctrines of grace as found in TULIP (which of course is derived from the Bible).

 

[Jarthur001]

You don't have to be an expert to tell Calvinism isn't true all you have to do is read the Bible and let it be the judge

.

It would allow you to know that it is the "gospel"...(Another word people hate to hear)

None of your doctrines of Grace can be explained with scripture alone.

Statements like this prove the point of the thread. Your not a expert and yet you claim to know this as fact. haha

 

[Jarthur001]

I don't know. Why did the early Calvinists hate and persecute the Baptists to the point of drowning them?

Oh brothers. I have not heard this line in some time. Here is a idea.

Read a history book and not a "how to hate Calvinist book".

 

[Jarthur001]

Sir, I believe your question is too broad and general to be answered specifically and intelligently. Furthermore, your question is prejudical of itself. You need to give specific attacks or instances of fear-mongering. Can you specify what the critics of Calvinism don't understand about Calvinism? What have they gotten wrong? Otherwise, such generalizations are inane complaints rather than matters of substance.

SIR...

I have given a few links...if you SIR would care to read the thread and read the links we will talk about them.

If you want more..I will give them.

 

[Rippon]

I deny that man has to be regenerated before he can hear and understand the gospel. This is a complete fabrication on the part of the doctrines of grace.

So someone at enmity with God,without the Holy Spirit,someone who loves the world and the things therein can understand the Gospel?Is 1 Cor.2:14 still in your Bible?

God draws man Convinces man convicts man as long as man doesn't choose to rebel.

The Father draws and gives some to Jesus.Everyone out side of Christ chooses to rebel.That's why only with the supernatural intervention of the Lord is anyone able to be saved.

 

[Jarthur001]

I deny that man has to be regenerated before he can hear and understand the gospel. This is a complete fabrication on the part of the doctrines of grace.

In him was life, and the life ------ >>>> was the light of men.

1st---->>>>> 26A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

AND 2nd------>>>27And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Man has a will though he doesn't choose Christ with it. It isn't that he can't choose Christ but, he will never choose Christ unless he is drawn and and then only if he doesn't resist.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

It is false to assume that man cannot understand the gospel when he hears it.

Job 33
14For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not.

15In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed;

16Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction,

Man is not saved against his will to rebel. God draws man Convinces man convicts man as long as man doesn't choose to rebel.

John 3..
18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Colossians 1:21
21And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

Can man resist God?

You will say then to me, Why does he yet find fault? For who has resisted his will?

 

[gb93433]

The same can be said of "Sola Fide", "Sola Scriptura", "Sola Gratia" etc. A LOT of truths of scripture had a relatively late development and at least in a fuller understanding of the terms. This was due to the "Babylonian Captivity" of the Church...

The Catholics and Mormons would like your point.

Of course, Paul, who penned much of the New Testament, was an obvious 5 pointer.

Isn't that kind of poor theology to compare Paul through the filter of calvinism? Comapring scripture throutgh the filter f calvinism dos not quite compare to comparing calvinism ot scripture. Calvinism does come near the inspiration of scripture. All of scripture has not changed and yet calvinists vary on a number of things. I seriously doubt that we understand scripture like they did then especially considering the fact that we are further removed from that culture and time period.

 

[gb93433]

Whats your point? In regards to reformed soteriology, at least, all you need to do is take a summary of it's teachings, and compare it to the Bible. People all have different takes on the "Doctrines of Grace"; so it is fruitless to read "Institutes" and then declare that THAT is Calvinism: it is just one persons take on Calvinism...

The is a difference between a primary source and secondary source. There is a difference between a summary and the primary source who penned the original document.

Mormons call themselves Christians. Does that mean just because some Mormons decided to write down that they were Christians and proclaim it, that they are Christians. If I believed the summary I would also believe they are Christians. If however I compare their original doctrinal statements and following to scripture is quite obvious that their beliefs do not line up with scripture. I would hate for someone to think that they are Christians by following the teachings of the what Mormons says about being Christians rather than the Bible.

 

[Rippon]

Gb,the Bible is the Primary Source.

 

[Havensdad]

The Catholics and Mormons would like your point.

So you are DENYING "sola fide"? "Sola Gratia"?

How about believers baptism, seeing as how we are in the "Baptist only" section of the forum: "believers baptism" (precluding infants) was UNHEARD OF before the the centuries around the reformation.

Because if you are not denying them, you are then acknowledging the fact that the historicity of a belief, does not equal truthfulness.

BTW aren't you dispensational??:laugh:

Isn't that kind of poor theology to compare Paul through the filter of calvinism? Comapring scripture throutgh the filter f calvinism dos not quite compare to comparing calvinism ot scripture. Calvinism does come near the inspiration of scripture. All of scripture has not changed and yet calvinists vary on a number of things. I seriously doubt that we understand scripture like they did then especially considering the fact that we are further removed from that culture and time period.

You do not "compare Paul through the filter" of Calvinism. You simply ask the scriptures what they teach about, say "election". If you honestly do that, and put aside human reasoning ("God gave us free will! I just know it!"), Calvinism IS biblical truth.

In regards to "calvinists varying", this is only partly true. TULIP is BIBLICAL TRUTH. Elaborations upon TULIP, are true to greater or lesser degrees..

 

[Jim1999]

quote: How about believers baptism, seeing as how we are in the "Baptist only" section of the forum: "believers baptism" (precluding infants) was UNHEARD OF before the the centuries around the reformation.
---------------------------------

I don't understand this quote. There were groups outside the Catholic Church who did practice believer's baptism; baptism by immersion. This was true all down through church history. Some of the groups were cultic, but still they immersed believers.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Tom Butler]

To JArthur:

James here is I Cor 2:14 which you cited earlier:
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Here is a companion verse: John 3:3 Except a man be born again (regenerated) he cannot SEE the kingdom of God.

"See" means "understand," As in "oh, I see now." It doesn't mean "get into" the kingdom.

Just thought I'd throw it in there.

 

[webdog]

One and the same.

Because you say so, doesn't make it so.