Why would anybody want to be a Calvinist?

[seekingthetruth]

I am a generally happy person that is easy to get along with. I dont have any issues in my life with anyone.

And before I cam to the BB, I had no issues with Calvinist. I dont believe in Dog, but I never looked down upon or ridiculed those that did.

As soon as i got on the BB, the Dogs started feeling me out to see where I stand on the issue. When I stated my objections, (nicely I might add), I was told by one of the VERY outspoken Dog brothers that I was ignorant. I argued that just because I dont agree with Calvinism doesnt mean I am ignorant of it. Of course, this is the classical Calvinist view, that if one would only try to understand Calvinism, there is no way they can reject it. Well, I do understand it and I still reject it.

The goal of Calvinists (at least on the BB) is not to convert sinners to Christ, but to convert regular Christians to Calvinism. They cant stand it when another Christian doesnt agree with Dog. One recent thread even implied that Non-Cals may not be saved because freewill makes salvation a reward, not a gift. I guess the poster thinks we should all become Calvinists and "really" get saved.

So it boils down to this. Before coming to the BB I had no ill feelings about Calvinist. But after experiencing the onslaught of ridicule, condecension, and hate, there is no way I would ever, ever want to be one of them.

John

 

[preacher4truth]

Lighten up Francis! :laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OnpkDWbeJs

 

[seekingthetruth]

I have never believed in Calvinism, but I always respected the right of others to believe it.

The Calvinists have no respect for non-Cals and consider them ignorant and uneducated.

After all, they believe if a non-Cal would just study Calvinism there is no way they could reject it. So if they reject it then it has to be that they are ignorant and uneducated.

I think that everyone should respect the right of others to believe what they believe to be the truth.

I just dont think that Dogs can do this. At least i havent seen them do it yet.

John

 

[Greektim]

I have never believed in Calvinism, but I always respected the right of others to believe it.

The Calvinists have no respect for non-Cals and consider them ignorant and uneducated.

After all, they believe if a non-Cal would just study Calvinism there is no way they could reject it. So if they reject it then it has to be that they are ignorant and uneducated.

I think that everyone should respect the right of others to believe what they believe to be the truth.

I just dont think that Dogs can do this. At least i havent seen them do it yet.

John

Isn't this hypocrisy?

Not only are you over-generalizing ("calvinists have no respect for non-cals..." and everything else you said) but...

Then you talk about the right to believe whatever, although you have called the calvinist doctrine hellish or the likes (I believe it was you, though I could be wrong).

Doesn't this seem like dual standards?

 

[revmwc]

I have never believed in Calvinism, but I always respected the right of others to believe it.

The Calvinists have no respect for non-Cals and consider them ignorant and uneducated.

After all, they believe if a non-Cal would just study Calvinism there is no way they could reject it. So if they reject it then it has to be that they are ignorant and uneducated.

I think that everyone should respect the right of others to believe what they believe to be the truth.

I just dont think that Dogs can do this. At least i havent seen them do it yet.

John

Welcome to the world of BB. I am not Cal and not Arminean, but those two groups believe if your not one you are the other. Problem is there is a third position and many believers are in that group. My Pastor called is Pauline, following the doctrines of salvation, election and predestination as taught by Paul. We are elect by God's foreknowledge and are eternally secure. But Grace is not irresitable and you can't lose your salvation. Saved by Grace through Faith and that not of ourselves it is the Gift of God, not of works. Can't go wrong following the Apostle Paul, but following men and their thoughts and teaching you definitely can go wrong.
The Spirit will be my Guide as I study.

 

[Greektim]

To answer the opening question...

I'm a calvinist b/c I believe it best represents the whole teaching of Scripture.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Isn't this hypocrisy?

Not only are you over-generalizing ("calvinists have no respect for non-cals..." and everything else you said) but...

Then you talk about the right to believe whatever, although you have called the calvinist doctrine hellish or the likes (I believe it was you, though I could be wrong).

Doesn't this seem like dual standards?

Now you are calling me a hypocrite? (see what I mean? you cant reply without calling me a name)

It is not hypocrisy at all.

Yes, I believe that Calvinism comes from Satan, but I would have respected your right to believe it and refrained from commenting on it if the Dogs hadnt of attacked.

I believe that JW, RCC and others also come from Satan, but i respect the right of their members to believe what they do.

Dogs dont respect anyone else because if a person is not Dog, then they must be ignorant.

John

 

[revmwc]

Isn't this hypocrisy?

Not only are you over-generalizing ("calvinists have no respect for non-cals..." and everything else you said) but...

Then you talk about the right to believe whatever, although you have called the calvinist doctrine hellish or the likes (I believe it was you, though I could be wrong).

Doesn't this seem like dual standards?

No it isn't he is making a statement in regards to what happens to those who are neither CAl nor Armenian on here. We are accused of blasphemy, of ignorance and of being one or the other when we follow the scripture and see both doctrines as wanting. I try to avoid name calling and reading his post he did not call names he just said that the Cal's he has dealt with on here have soured his outlook on all Cal's. It's a shame how that works that all get grouped with those who do this but that is human nature. We should not place them all in that group. But he is just venting not being hypocritical.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Welcome to the world of BB. I am not Cal and not Arminean, but those two groups believe if your not one you are the other. Problem is there is a third position and many believers are in that group. My Pastor called is Pauline, following the doctrines of salvation, election and predestination as taught by Paul. We are elect by God's foreknowledge and are eternally secure. But Grace is not irresitable and you can't lose your salvation. Saved by Grace through Faith and that not of ourselves it is the Gift of God, not of works. Can't go wrong following the Apostle Paul, but following men and their thoughts and teaching you definitely can go wrong.
The Spirit will be my Guide as I study.

Sounds like the teachings of my pastor:thumbsup:

Why do people have a hard time accepting the fact that God does know what choice we will make, but He still lets us make that choice?

John

 

[jonathan.borland]

I think so you can sip coffee and talk about the bliss of Calvinism with other Calvinists. Sometimes I want to be one just do I could do that with them. . . . . Psyche!

 

[revmwc]

To answer the opening question...

I'm a calvinist b/c I believe it best represents the whole teaching of Scripture.

So how do you limit atonement and yet still believe what John said in 1 John 2: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world
Propitiation the payment the atoning sacrifcie for the sins of the whole world.

2 Peter 3: 9The 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's will is for all to come to repentence, repentence meaning a turning from perishing in sin to being saved and living with Him forever. If God choose who will and won't be saved this Peter was a liar here. For He says God is not willing that anyone should perish but that all have eternal life. That would mean God goes against the teaching that God chose certain to be saved and certain to be lost. That Jesus didn't become the Propituiatory Sacrifice the Atoning Sacrfice for the Whole world as John states in 1 John 2. Yet you say Calvanism "best represents the whole teaching of Scripture" these two will fall short.

 

[Greektim]

Now you are calling me a hypocrite? (see what I mean? you cant reply without calling me a name)

It is not hypocrisy at all.

Yes, I believe that Calvinism comes from Satan, but I would have respected your right to believe it and refrained from commenting on it if the Dogs hadnt of attacked.

I believe that JW, RCC and others also come from Satan, but i respect the right of their members to believe what they do.

Dogs dont respect anyone else because if a person is not Dog, then they must be ignorant.

John

This is hypocrisy imo. And since I have a right to my opinion, you can't do anything about it. Right???

Second, I've never called you ignorant. So you over-generalization of calvinists is a bit offensive.

Lastly, I think it is cute that calvinists here are calling the system "Doctrines of Grace" or DoG for short. And then you call us Dogs as if that is not a snide quip at us. And you aren't being hypocritical here? They call you ignorant so you call them dogs. Don't get me wrong, it is extremely witty (maybe not extremely but I smile when you do it), but if you are honest with yourself, you know your double entendre is a bit offensive (especially considering the biblical connotations of dogs).

 

[Amy.G]

John, the Cal/Arm debate has been going on for centuries. If it bothers you so much, you should avoid the threads on the subject or just stop coming to the board all together.
This debate is not going to go away just because you say Calvinism is from the pits of hell. That kind of talk only provokes anger and fuels the fire.

You should probably find a new hobby that doesn't raise your blood pressure.

 

[revmwc]

John, the Cal/Arm debate has been going on for centuries. If it bothers you so much, you should avoid the threads on the subject or just stop coming to the board all together.
This debate is not going to go away just because you say Calvinism is from the pits of hell. That kind of talk only provokes anger and fuels the fire.

You should probably find a new hobby that doesn't raise your blood pressure.

But Amy it's fun to provoke angerr and fuel fires and see their blood pressure rise. :laugh: Of course that might not be the Christian thing to do but it is fun!

 

[Greektim]

So how do you limit atonement and yet still believe what John said in 1 John 2: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world
Propitiation the payment the atoning sacrifcie for the sins of the whole world.

2 Peter 3: 9The 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's will is for all to come to repentence, repentence meaning a turning from perishing in sin to being saved and living with Him forever. If God choose who will and won't be saved this Peter was a liar here. For He says God is not willing that anyone should perish but that all have eternal life. That would mean God goes against the teaching that God chose certain to be saved and certain to be lost. That Jesus didn't become the Propituiatory Sacrifice the Atoning Sacrfice for the Whole world as John states in 1 John 2. Yet you say Calvanism "best represents the whole teaching of Scripture" these two will fall short.

For the record, I used to be opposed to calvinists myself, so I understand the mindset and prooftext you are using b/c I used them too. With that said, it might be easier to explain how I NOW read those passages.

1) 1 Jn 2:2 - John's use of "world" is a bit complex since it has a number of meanings. It is also helpful to understand that John, a jewish man, thought in the realm of community not individual. World for him could easily refer to the "nations" as is often mentioned in the OT. I would say that his use of "world" is his OT theology carrying over. God's mission to bless the nations (Gen. 12:3 & Gal. 3:8) is "world" in John's language. That is until he eventually defines "world" in Rev. as "tribes, tongues, nations, languages, etc"

So Jesus as the propitiation for our sins can mean a couple of things. Christians sin, I'll admit as a possibility. The sins of Jews, maybe. The sins of he and his audience, likely. And not just for he and his audience but also for all the nations in keeping with the mission of God in the OT and explained later in Rev.

2) 2 Pet. 3:9 mentions nothing about the atonement, so this is a stretch. To say that God desires something that he doesn't get no more proves an unlimited atonement than a limited atonement. The issue is whether the atonement was potential or actual/effectual. I believe it to be the latter, but even if the former, 2 Pet 3:9 doesn't prove anything. The statement is one of God's character not of his eternal decree or plan of atonement. It is God's good nature that he doesn't want people to suffer. That is why you have statements in the OT that says he does not rejoice when someone dies (and yet he does at the same time). So this is a revelation of God's character. He doesn't want people to go to hell, but a just God will send them there anyways.

You still have the same problem as I have w/ your explanation. If God doesn't want anyone to go to hell, then why doesn't he just save them all? "Because he gives man the option, the choose, the ability to choose him." But that doesn't fit either b/c that is not really a God willing everyone to repent. That is a God hoping in man's choice. But is that the God pictured in the BIble? Hopeful but unsure? Expectant but nervous? It sounds like the only way to make this consistent is for God to make everyone repent. Since that doesn't happen, we are only left with the truth that he makes some repent. Thus you have vessels made for destruction and others for honor.

In the end, this is a statement of what God desires, not what he decrees. That distinction is important. This verse falls short of saying what you want it to say.

BTW... I don't plan on my answer appeasing you. I'm sure you will disagree. But I said that I think TULIP is most consistent w/ the Bible and gave you some examples when posed. Just so you know, I answered your questions as you asked them. I showed you my view of Scriptural consistency.

 

[jonathan.borland]

This debate is not going to go away just because you say Calvinism is from the pits of hell. That kind of talk only provokes anger and fuels the fire.

You should probably find a new hobby that doesn't raise your blood pressure.

This is funny but I agree with you. I mean, there are probably only a few hundred regular posters/readers, though I could be wrong. It's not like what's discussed here is straightening out all of Christendom, no matter how much it appears that way from the way some around here are posting. I interact as much for entertainment as for learning and edifying. It may be unhealthy for some, though.

 

[seekingthetruth]

John, the Cal/Arm debate has been going on for centuries. If it bothers you so much, you should avoid the threads on the subject or just stop coming to the board all together.
This debate is not going to go away just because you say Calvinism is from the pits of hell. That kind of talk only provokes anger and fuels the fire.

You should probably find a new hobby that doesn't raise your blood pressure.

The debate doesnt get me riled, it is the nastiness of the debaters that is the problem. I love to have nice discussions about the issue, but if they call me ignorant and uneducated because I am not Cal then i will post the truth of the origin of Dog.

I was poked pretty hard before i poked back.

And i dont want to be like them, so yes, to a degree you are right. Your motive for me to refrain from the debate is flawed, but the outcome is the same. That is that nasty people are not open to debate.....just nastiness.

John

 

[jonathan.borland]

But Amy it's fun to provoke angerr and fuel fires and see their blood pressure rise. :laugh: Of course that might not be the Christian thing to do but it is fun!

LOL! Too funny, brother!

 

[Amy.G]

The debate doesnt get me riled, it is the nastiness of the debaters that is the problem. I love to have nice discussions about the issue, but if they call me ignorant and uneducated because I am not Cal then i will post the truth of the origin of Dog.

I was poked pretty hard before i poked back.

And i dont want to be like them, so yes, to a degree you are right. Your motive for me to refrain from the debate is flawed, but the outcome is the same. That is that nasty people are not open to debate.....just nastiness.

John

Some people are just nasty. That's life. Ignore them and go on. I've been called ignorant, stupid, heretic, false teacher, you name it. I was even told by one poster that I needed to get back in the kitchen and bake cookies :laugh:. I am one of few women here that get involved in debating. It can be intimidating too with all these MEN! LOL. On top of being in the minority, I also don't have any formal training and honestly don't know as much as many here. But God has put things in my heart and I just have to get them OUT! I love to study God's word and talk about what I've learned, so I put up with the negative parts of a discussion board in order to do that, and it's so far been worth it. Although there have been times that I nearly left for good because of certain personal insults.

But because I stayed, I have learned. And even things I thought were incorrect doctrine, I now see as the truth. You have to have some tough skin to be involved in debates because you're going get called names and be insulted. That's the nature of these boards. Maybe you should stick to just reading. There are a lot of members here that never get involved in the debates and that's ok. If it brings out anger, it's best to leave it alone.

Ok. Sermon over. You're dismissed. :laugh:

 

[preacher4truth]

The debate doesnt get me riled, it is the nastiness of the debaters that is the problem. I love to have nice discussions about the issue, but if they call me ignorant and uneducated because I am not Cal then i will post the truth of the origin of Dog.

I was poked pretty hard before i poked back.

And i dont want to be like them, so yes, to a degree you are right. Your motive for me to refrain from the debate is flawed, but the outcome is the same. That is that nasty people are not open to debate.....just nastiness.

John

John,

How many Calvinists people have called you ignorant and uneducated? You've been holding this grudge for a while now brother, you should let it go.

Look bro, there is a small tribe of non-cals here that do their typical drive-by postings, offering snide comments, ridicule &c, and the thing is this is their behavior day in and day out and on and on and on. It's their fruit to be quite frank.

Some people simply want to do this because in their small world they want to get at someone and attempt to irritate them, something being amiss in their life and walk. It's simply persons walking in the flesh who practice no self-control, which is a key fruit of the Spirit that they avoid.

Put them on ignore or just don't respond to them and life is good. They're not worth your time and obviously bro, I say this in love, you're having a hard time not allowing them to get to you.

Now, if I have called you ignorant or uneducated, I apologize.

- Peace