Why the hatred for Calvinism?? In one word: Autonomy ... Man wants it and the only way to get is to pretend as if God doesn't have it.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why the hatred for Calvanism........
- Thread starter Grasshopper
- Start date
F
ForumChaplain
Guest
I am sorry to see that you wish to oppose Biblical truth, Helen.
F
ForumChaplain
Guest
Pastor Larry:
Words like sovereitnty, & autonomy have nothing to do with what God chooses to do. If he chose election, he is sovereign and autonomous, if he chose freewill, he is still sovereign and autonomous.. I Continue to fail to understand how this reality continues to evade your powers of reason.
Pastor, consider the deffinition of the words, they must be applied in harmony with their deffinition. Otherwise you seriously hinder ones ability to understand your conversation...
It does not evade my powers of reason. I think you are the one who misunderstands here. Sovereignty is control and authority. Autonomy is self rule and authority over self. Man wants autonomy; he does not want to be governed by the authority of God.
God has authority. If he chooses, he can give autonomy to man. However, when he "gives" it (as you have suggested he has done), he no longer has it. At any time, he can regain it by taking it back. That is within his prerogative and power. But when he gives it to man, he no longer has it. The dichotomy here is stark and unsettling to some. But with the Psalmist, "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases." He does not do "Whatever man pleases" Or "Whatever pleases man."
The issue to me is not whether or not you believe that man has autonomy. My question is why do you disagree with me when I say that you believe this. Use another name for it. I don't think you disagree with the substance of my comments, at least from what I have seen you write here.
I think the only difficulty here is for some who perhaps have not considered what sovereignty and autonomy are.
F
ForumChaplain
Guest
If he can give it, and take it back whenever he chooses; then the sovereignty remains with him. Plus, the issue at hand is freewill, which God gave, and he gave us two possible ways that we could respond; Yea, or nae. Who is in charge. God can be in charge without being a puppeteer. If you want to be a puppet, that’s OK, but do not accuse God of being a puppeteer. He is not. The fact that Sin exist is all that one needs to know to realize that. Now that is unless you believe that god is behind sin also.
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain
Date: 14th century
1 : obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state
Supreme “power” over. Power over does not indicate absolute controol. Freedom from external controol. Freewill does not negate the power of God, freewill is an ability given by God. Autonomy, controlling “influence”. To say that freewill as given by God makes man omnopotent is shortsighted at best. No matter how you need to slice it, freewill is granted by God, and in no way can be perceived to wrests sovereignty from him.
[ October 23, 2002, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]
Do you think Dr. Sproul is really saved; I take it by your post that you feel he has a special seat in Hell. Am I right about this?
I believe he is saved. I'm not the one you compared him to Mormons and Islam.
I have seen Calvinism produce bitter divisions among born again Christians with the insistence that anyone who did not agree with their point of view obviously did not know the Bible and clearly was not thinking clearly.
I see the very same thing. But not from the Calvanist.
Or, to put it another way, I have not seen any good fruits from Calvinism. I have seen it, instead, produce hopelessness, anger, bitterness, pain, frustration, and tears. I have seen it result in arrogance, insulting speech, and callousness of heart.
I doubt you have been to many "Calvanistic" Churches then. Maybe you should talk to some of these members before you label them. http://www.emmanuel-baptist.org/index2.htm
I believe he is saved. I'm not the one you compared him to Mormons and Islam.
I have seen Calvinism produce bitter divisions among born again Christians with the insistence that anyone who did not agree with their point of view obviously did not know the Bible and clearly was not thinking clearly.
I see the very same thing. But not from the Calvanist.
Or, to put it another way, I have not seen any good fruits from Calvinism. I have seen it, instead, produce hopelessness, anger, bitterness, pain, frustration, and tears. I have seen it result in arrogance, insulting speech, and callousness of heart.
I doubt you have been to many "Calvanistic" Churches then. Maybe you should talk to some of these members before you label them. http://www.emmanuel-baptist.org/index2.htm
It is unfortunate, but I have met individuals who hold to the doctrines of grace in an intellectual manner. The problem is that it has not penetrated their hearts. If it had, they would be humbled by the doctrines of grace, knowing themselves to be undeserving of God's mercy and deserving of God's wrath.
It is unfortunate, but I have also met many individuals who are non-Calvinistic Christians who are arrogant and callous. I have met numerous individuals like this in the Charismatic camp, but the Baptist camp is not without its' fair share.
I have known, like Helen, people who have caused division within the Church. The ones I have met, however, have come from the "Arminian" side of the fence.
I'm not stating these things to try to "prove" from my own personal experience that one side is innocent while the other is guilty, or anything like that. My point is this - regardless of whether you are a "Calvinist" or an "Arminian," you should KNOW that you DO NOT deserve God's grace. God has saved us, not because of anything that is within us, but because of His sheer mercy, love and grace. I deserve condemnation in Hell, just like those who are already there and those who are going there. The only reason that I will not spend eternity in Hell is because of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is because of His life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension and continual intercession that I have escaped from judgment.
Let me leave you all with words of challenge from the Apostle Paul:
"Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful." - Colossians 3:12-15
Rev. G
Grasshopper, I've worked with Ligonier Ministries and I have had the privilege of translating Dr. John MacArthur's book "The Gospel According to Jesus" into sign-compatible English. In the process I attended his church a number of times and was also able to meet with him personally regarding our work a couple of times for meetings lasting over an hour. In addition I spent three years interpreting at a Calvinistic church. I'm not ignorant of them, please.
Helen,
If, as you stated previously, you have found "no fruit" among Calvinists, why have you spent time working with men such as R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur? Why would you spend so much time working on The Gospel According to Jesus?It is filled with "Calvinism"!
[ October 23, 2002, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: Rev. G ]
If, as you stated previously, you have found "no fruit" among Calvinists, why have you spent time working with men such as R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur? Why would you spend so much time working on The Gospel According to Jesus?It is filled with "Calvinism"!
[ October 23, 2002, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: Rev. G ]
Grasshopper, I've worked with Ligonier Ministries and I have had the privilege of translating Dr. John MacArthur's book "The Gospel According to Jesus" into sign-compatible English. In the process I attended his church a number of times and was also able to meet with him personally regarding our work a couple of times for meetings lasting over an hour. In addition I spent three years interpreting at a Calvinistic church. I'm not ignorant of them, please.
No offense Helen, I enjoy your posts. So you see no fruit from either of these men or their ministries?
No offense Helen, I enjoy your posts. So you see no fruit from either of these men or their ministries?
[But let's play your little game here.
Main Entry: 1give
Pronunciation: 'giv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): gave /'gAv/; giv·en /'gi-v&n/; giv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Swedish giva to give; akin to Old English giefan, gifan to give, and perhaps to Latin habEre to have, hold
a : to grant or bestow by formal action <the law gives citizens the right to vote> b : to accord or yield to another <gave him her confidence
I was going to quote it all but it is simply too much. This should suffice to say that "giving" means you no longer have it. Once he gives it away, he no longer has it and therefore can no longer be sovereign.
From your own definition you say sovereign is "freedom from external control." Yet you place the control of salvation in the hands of man and thereby God is not free from external control.
If you say the issue is free will, you still have a problem, as demonstrated before, that your idea of free will does not work in theology. Man does not have the power of contrary choice. He cannot choose to be God. Does that mean he is not free? He cannot choose to be a bear. Does that mean he is not free? Of course not. Free choice is defined by the nature, not by the range of options available to choose from.
I never said that your idea of free will given to man makes man omnipotent. I said it makes man in charge and puts God at the mercy of man.
F
ForumChaplain
Guest
He did not give it all away. Have you ever loved anyone? Did you give all your love away. Did you loose your capacity to love? When you gave your love, did you then become unloving....
Only God is sovereign, he is free from external "Control". OUR FREEWILL AS GRANTED BY GOD DOES NOT GAIN US CONTROL OVER HIM. He has the power to influence or rescend our freewill any time it is pleasing to him. He has not to this point been pleased to do so.
You say that Adam had freewill, but after Adam sinned; God took it back. We are now puppets. Because Adam sinned: Does God have to stettle for second best now.
Your analogy is not based on sound biblical principles. We need to bring the discussion back from outter space. The subject is and always has been, freewill as granted by God. I have never claimed freewill to be God. Let's keep it real...
My problem is, why on earth would you say something like that. Moderation Pastor, moderation...
I would put it this way, regarding Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve had free will and were innocent. Once they sinned, the human race was cursed with the inclination to sin. So while we still have a freedom of choice that some might call "free will," we will choose only sin because that is our inclination. Until the Holy Spirit opens our eyes, we won't even see the predicament we're in. But that's getting into another stage of the topic...
[ October 24, 2002, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]
Adam and Eve had free will and were innocent. Once they sinned, the human race was cursed with the inclination to sin. So while we still have a freedom of choice that some might call "free will," we will choose only sin because that is our inclination. Until the Holy Spirit opens our eyes, we won't even see the predicament we're in. But that's getting into another stage of the topic...
[ October 24, 2002, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]
To answer the questions put to me on page 2 here: I did not know what Reformed theology was when I started coordinating the deaf interpreters for the west coast Sproul conferences. His first two that I worked with had to do with the holiness and majesty of God and they were outstanding. I do not recall any concept of predestination being presented at either one. Both were focused on God. I think all of us came out of both those years worshiping God more.
It was the third year I almost dropped my eyeballs when I came face to face with what Reformed theology meant. I was stunned and enormously upset. That year was when I went home and started immediately on a course of Bible study that would last two years, reading primarily the Bible but also reading on both sides of the question. At the time I was still typing Tabletalk down into simple sign-compatible English for the deaf and more and more often I was finding material in it that just didn't jive with what the Bible said, so that was when I quit completely working with them or their materials.
Inasmuch as RC stuck to concentrating on God, I think his ministry bore tremendous fruit. Inasmuch as he presents Calvinism and also his waffling on Genesis, I think he has done some deep damage.
As far as Dr. MacArthur is concerned, the book "The Gospel According to Jesus" does not have a lot of "Calvinism" in it. I recall, I think, about two paragraphs in that enormous book which bothered me. I was also at his church one Sunday morning when he was preaching on John 6, and I had to laugh to myself. He was presenting free choice quite clearly where believing Jesus was concerned. From what contact I have had with him and his ministry, he is a very 'mild' Calvinist.
In both cases, I worked with the ministries in response to requests from deaf friends, and I worked with Sproul until I couldn't due to theological differences and with MacArthur until the work on the book was done.
Now, in response to this:
So while we still have a freedom of choice that some might call "free will," we will choose only sin because that is our inclination. Until the Holy Spirit opens our eyes, we won't even see the predicament we're in.
To be inclined toward something does not make it inevitable; it only means you must work to stop it. There are pagans who have risked their own lives to save others. This is not sin. I believe it was Rev.G who started another thread about what non-Calvinists believe and in that thread I think it was Pastor Larry who corrected me belief that Calvinists say exactly what this quote just stated -- that there is no choice except to sin. But, Pastor Larry, I see this statement that I have just quoted over and over again in various forms and it just does not square with the fact that unregenerate mothers truly love their babies, that unregenerate fathers can commit to their children, that unregenerate people build hospitals and become caring and compassionate health care workers, or teachers, or policemen or firemen, etc. Not everything they do is a sin!
And, if we don't see the predicament we are in until the Holy Spirit opens our eyes, why all the religions of the world? The core of each one of them is centered on the fact that man knows he is not what he should be and something desperately needs fixing.
It was the third year I almost dropped my eyeballs when I came face to face with what Reformed theology meant. I was stunned and enormously upset. That year was when I went home and started immediately on a course of Bible study that would last two years, reading primarily the Bible but also reading on both sides of the question. At the time I was still typing Tabletalk down into simple sign-compatible English for the deaf and more and more often I was finding material in it that just didn't jive with what the Bible said, so that was when I quit completely working with them or their materials.
Inasmuch as RC stuck to concentrating on God, I think his ministry bore tremendous fruit. Inasmuch as he presents Calvinism and also his waffling on Genesis, I think he has done some deep damage.
As far as Dr. MacArthur is concerned, the book "The Gospel According to Jesus" does not have a lot of "Calvinism" in it. I recall, I think, about two paragraphs in that enormous book which bothered me. I was also at his church one Sunday morning when he was preaching on John 6, and I had to laugh to myself. He was presenting free choice quite clearly where believing Jesus was concerned. From what contact I have had with him and his ministry, he is a very 'mild' Calvinist.
In both cases, I worked with the ministries in response to requests from deaf friends, and I worked with Sproul until I couldn't due to theological differences and with MacArthur until the work on the book was done.
Now, in response to this:
So while we still have a freedom of choice that some might call "free will," we will choose only sin because that is our inclination. Until the Holy Spirit opens our eyes, we won't even see the predicament we're in.
To be inclined toward something does not make it inevitable; it only means you must work to stop it. There are pagans who have risked their own lives to save others. This is not sin. I believe it was Rev.G who started another thread about what non-Calvinists believe and in that thread I think it was Pastor Larry who corrected me belief that Calvinists say exactly what this quote just stated -- that there is no choice except to sin. But, Pastor Larry, I see this statement that I have just quoted over and over again in various forms and it just does not square with the fact that unregenerate mothers truly love their babies, that unregenerate fathers can commit to their children, that unregenerate people build hospitals and become caring and compassionate health care workers, or teachers, or policemen or firemen, etc. Not everything they do is a sin!
And, if we don't see the predicament we are in until the Holy Spirit opens our eyes, why all the religions of the world? The core of each one of them is centered on the fact that man knows he is not what he should be and something desperately needs fixing.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Everything we do, even after we are saved, is still contaminated by our sin nature. What we do may be relatively good compared to other actions we could do, but we must always trust solely Christ's perfection for initial salvation and as our only righteousness from then on.
Ken
A Spurgeonite
Ken
A Spurgeonite
I agree. But with respect to this particular problem, I'm defining sin as the rejection of God, not "a sin" as in lying, etc. Even when we are motivated to do what seems "good" as sinners, it is purely out of self-interest. Your motives are the issue, not any individual action. And your motives must be tied to faith.
For example:
If you look at it that way, then you can understand what the Psalmist is saying here:
This is precisely what I meant when I said we are inclined to sin. Notice that it says there is no one who does good, not even one. That obviously means everyone, including someone who saved another's life, doesn't it?
So if it all comes down to faith, then one has to ask, what or Who is the author and perfecter of our faith? Is it our free will choice to believe? No, it's Jesus.
Ray Berrian
New Member
Ken Hamilton,
I agreed 110% with you posted dated Oct. 24 at 6:01. We really need every saving benefit that He gives to us.
I agreed 110% with you posted dated Oct. 24 at 6:01. We really need every saving benefit that He gives to us.
Ray Berrian
New Member
Yes, Jesus is the perfecter of our faith, as we yield to His direction, but if a Christian backslides then his free will also is involved in rebelling against the Lord. God cannot perfect our faith if we are disobedient to Him. Here is where the 'free will' comes into play. It's not difficult to understand.
Ray Berrian
New Member
God must have greatly valued the free will and our ability to offer back to God our 'good works' otherwise, the Book of James would not have been included in the canon of Scripture.
Calvinists are quick to speak of grace but very seldom about 'good works.' They are afraid of being too close to semi-Pelagianism and are cautious not to offend the God of all grace.
The Lord in giving us James 2:20-26 allows us to understand that we are saved by His grace but without the exercise of our 'free will' in doing 'good works' our alleged faith is vain.
Our faith in Jesus brings about our personal salvation through His marvelous grace, but the Christian life is made up of our 'good works' which authenticate our saving faith.
Don't be afraid of 'good works' after having been saved. God desires that we bring forth 'fruit unto righteousness as we enjoy everlasting life with Him starting the moment we believed.
Calvinists are quick to speak of grace but very seldom about 'good works.' They are afraid of being too close to semi-Pelagianism and are cautious not to offend the God of all grace.
The Lord in giving us James 2:20-26 allows us to understand that we are saved by His grace but without the exercise of our 'free will' in doing 'good works' our alleged faith is vain.
Our faith in Jesus brings about our personal salvation through His marvelous grace, but the Christian life is made up of our 'good works' which authenticate our saving faith.
Don't be afraid of 'good works' after having been saved. God desires that we bring forth 'fruit unto righteousness as we enjoy everlasting life with Him starting the moment we believed.