The Bible or Calvinism

[Thursday]

Is the gospel presented in the Bible the same as the message of Calvinism? The claim has been made numerous times by Calvinists that the five points of Calvinism (TULIP) or the so-called "Doctrines of Grace" is the biblical gospel. Is this true?

Does a man reap what he sows? The bible says so, but Calvinism denies this simple biblical truth.

 

[amariselle]

Is the gospel presented in the Bible the same as the message of Calvinism? The claim has been made numerous times by Calvinists that the five points of Calvinism (TULIP) or the so-called "Doctrines of Grace" is the biblical gospel. Is this true?

What truly and deeply troubles me about Calvinism (Biblically) is that apparently God actually desires that most people go to eternal damnation, and more specifically, He created most people for no other purpose but to suffer eternal torment.

Yet, the Bible is clear that God desires that NONE should perish, but ALL come to repentance. That God so loved THE WORLD that He gave His only begotten Son.

This alone may do who knows how much damage to the Gospel.

Also, the belief that there is no such thing as free will. In that case, God is responsible for ALL choices made by mankind, including Adam and Eve's decision to disobey Him in the Garden. So then, how can there be any such thing as evil? Or how can there be any such thing as love? Love is a choice after all. Without free will, God becomes a puppet master and everything is reduced to nothing more than illusion.

 

[ladodgers6]

Is the gospel presented in the Bible the same as the message of Calvinism? The claim has been made numerous times by Calvinists that the five points of Calvinism (TULIP) or the so-called "Doctrines of Grace" is the biblical gospel. Is this true?

Wrong again! The 5 points is not Calvinism. The 5 points were a response to the 5 points of the Remonstrance or (Arminianism).

This is why Classical Calvinism gets caricatured. Because do not research what Calvinism teaches.

 

[Thursday]

Wrong again! The 5 points is not Calvinism. The 5 points were a response to the 5 points of the Remonstrance or (Arminianism).

This is why Classical Calvinism gets caricatured. Because do not research what Calvinism teaches.

Which of the five points do you claim is not part of Calvinism?

 

[RC1970]

This thread has become a classic example of the point in my earlier post.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Wrong again! The 5 points is not Calvinism. The 5 points were a response to the 5 points of the Remonstrance or (Arminianism).

This is why Classical Calvinism gets caricatured. Because do not research what Calvinism teaches.

Ok, but if the Five Points still accurately and faithfully describe what Calvinism teaches, i.e. they are an accurate and truthful reflection / summary of aspects of what Calvin taught and preached, then how can the Five Points not be cited as Calvinism?

 

[rockytopva]

I think I should modify my earlier list. Not only are non-Calvinists Biblically illiterate, they are also historically illiterate.

The apostle says that knowledge puffeth up. I would accuse Calvin as arrogant, without an ounce of the anointing. I would rather listen to an illiterate with humility, than the literate in their ego. I would liken the ego to the anointing of fallen angels, which is arrogance. The apostle says that just a little ego makes the whole lump bad.

 

[CodyFaith]

Nope.

Calvinism teaches: All are sinners, all have equal character and moral traits before God cleanses them, and that God elects and chooses one group to go into eternal life and the other into eternal torment, cleanses one of the groups from their sins and leaves the others in theirs. They say the reasons God did so, that is chose one group over there other, were to "show His Glory" and to "demonstrate His grace and love" amongst other similar things, and that the reason he elected some and not the other had absolutely nothing to do with any moral or character traits of the two groups.
Since there is nothing inside of us that chooses between good or evil, there is no responsibility for sin. Adam had no choice in the matter, that is, and simply did as he was created to do. Determinism. Unless of course they try to argue that Adam and Eve and only Adam and Eve had the ability to choose between good or evil, in either case, those after them were born into something they are not responsible for because they don't have the ability to choose between good or evil, and they will be punished for something they had no responsibility over.

I believe in one's responsibility to choose between good and evil. I believe God elects those whom have a heart that will accept Christ, whose heart longs for God and truth and seeks humbly for forgiveness for their sins (sins for which they are responsible). Those whom he has chosen from before the earth will receive eternal life, they are saved once they believe and will never lose their salvation.

God is just. He will punish the wicked eternally, those who seek to remain in their wickedness, and will give the lowly man eternal life.

 

[GingerBeer]

Albion rightly pointed out that the battle between Calvin's followers and those who oppose his theology on the "doctrines of grace" fight a never ending battle. That being so maybe it is not worth joining the battle? Experience teaches that people make apparently free choices while scripture affirms that people make choices it also affirms that God has a purpose that will be accomplished. The two need not be opposed one to the other. Maybe the best approach is to accept both and move on.

 

[rockytopva]

I am a supporter of the bbnradio.org and pray with them daily. In December 1989, the BBN radio terminated MacArthur's Grace to You program. In explaining that step, BBN president Lowell Davey referred to MacArthur's teachings on the blood of Christ, and "Lordship Salvation." Davey called these teachings "confusing." In a letter dated January 15, 1990, Davey cited a, "....drift by Dr. MacArthur to a theological position that we could not adhere to," and said that MacArthur's sermon series on the theology of election "....convinced us that the direction of 'Grace to You' was toward Hyper-Calvinism...."

And then Davey canned MacArthur... Three cheers for Lowell Davey!

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

I pointed out one here. You may have heard of him. His name is John Calvin:

...how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission... It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them... (John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God, 10:11)
​

If you want a more modern example, try John Piper:

God ... brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes—as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem—God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child... (link)
​

Here's your problem: you're looking at a Baptist confession rather than a Reformed confession. Close but no cigar.

You have not refuted the verses or the teaching of the confession. When I get on my laptop I have some links to send your way,.in the meantime...
Most Calvinists have not read Calvin.
The teaching is mostly the scriptures Jesus and the Apostles gave us, not Calvin.
Nothing is outside of God's control, I believe isa45:7...I believe Job1....I believe Acts 2:23...they wicked men who crucified Jesus by their own wickedness, we're used by God to save much people alive....the ot.type was Joseph Gen 50:20 you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.
Nothing is outside of God's control....nothing.
Read the confession again...show me where it is not biblical if you can.
I actually disagree with two or three points on this confession, but overall it is a nice tool. Read the confession and c ome up with your best objections..
We will try and help.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Doesn't it seem kind of weird for a person to promote and defend Calvinism as a five-point doctrine, but then to not read or even reject parts of what John Calvin actually wrote? The theology you're promoting is literally named after its promoter.

Imho that would kind of be like a Catholic promoting the Real Presence while on the other hand rejecting Marian veneration and Apostolic succession. What?

Most people take Calvin out of context when they quote him, turning it into a misquote.
The theology came as but after Calvin himself...I can present the same theology all from the gospel of John.
Would I have to call it Jesusism?
The cals on this board will gladly answer sincere questions.
Not so much caricatures and strawmen.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

To the OP, no Calvinism is not the gospel

 

[RisenInJesus]

13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. - 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15

I asked what the Bible says about election. This says passage nothing about election.

The clear message of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation is that all mankind have been “chosen to salvation” by God who would “have all men to be saved...” (1 Tm 2:4), who is “the Savior of all men, especially of those that believe” (4:10), and whose Son “gave himself a ransom for all” (2:6). The fact that one has been “chosen” to salvation does not mean that one has been elected or predestined for heaven, but that one is a sinner, and according to the scriptures, all sinners have the opportunity to believe the gospel and be saved, which most refuse to do.

The same biblical truth is demonstrated also in Israel: “The Lord your God has chosen you to be a special people unto himself...” (Deut 7:6). That “choosing” did not automatically mean that every physical descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was elected to salvation.

 

[zippy2006]

You have not refuted the verses or the teaching of the confession. When I get on my laptop I have some links to send your way,.in the meantime...
Most Calvinists have not read Calvin.
The teaching is mostly the scriptures Jesus and the Apostles gave us, not Calvin.
Nothing is outside of God's control, I believe isa45:7...I believe Job1....I believe Acts 2:23...they wicked men who crucified Jesus by their own wickedness, we're used by God to save much people alive....the ot.type was Joseph Gen 50:20 you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.
Nothing is outside of God's control....nothing.
Read the confession again...show me where it is not biblical if you can.
I actually disagree with two or three points on this confession, but overall it is a nice tool. Read the confession and c ome up with your best objections..
We will try and help.

Did you read what I wrote? The confession you are using to defend Calvinism is a Baptist confession, not a Calvinist confession. What relevance does a Baptist confession have in this thread, which is about Calvinism?

Doubtless the 1689 confession is closer to Calvinism than modern Baptist confessions, but it still deviates in key areas.

 

[RisenInJesus]

I strongly suspect that when we get to Heaven, and the seeming paradox is explained, Calvinist and Arminians, we will all do a collective facepalm and say, "How did we not see this?"

Or everyone will see that both Calvinists and Arminians were both wrong and how did we not see it when the Bible is so clear and simple enough for a child to understand the gospel message.

 

[RisenInJesus]

Wrong again! The 5 points is not Calvinism. The 5 points were a response to the 5 points of the Remonstrance or (Arminianism).

This is why Classical Calvinism gets caricatured. Because do not research what Calvinism teaches.

Most people who oppose Calvinism have done a tremendous amount of research and realize exactly when and why the five points came to be. It is these five points, along with other aspects of Calvinism, which are the doctrines proliferated by today's prominent Calvinistic and Reformed teachers and churches.

 

[RC1970]

Did you read what I wrote? The confession you are using to defend Calvinism is a Baptist confession, not a Calvinist confession. What relevance does a Baptist confession have in this thread, which is about Calvinism?

Doubtless the 1689 confession is closer to Calvinism than modern Baptist confessions, but it still deviates in key areas.

I believe the 1689 confession is very close to Calvinistic thinking. The purpose of the 1689 revision was to make the Baptist confession more closely aligned with the WCF.

 

[RisenInJesus]

Most people take Calvin out of context when they quote him, turning it into a misquote.
The theology came as but after Calvin himself...I can present the same theology all from the gospel of John.
Would I have to call it Jesusism?
The cals on this board will gladly answer sincere questions.
Not so much caricatures and strawmen.

Here is a sincere question...would you please define election?

 

[amariselle]

Or everyone will see that both Calvinists and Arminians were both wrong and how did we not see it when the Bible is so clear and simple enough for a child to understand the gospel message.

Absolutely! After all, as the Bible says, "God is not the author of confusion."

And why is it that as soon as someone says they aren't Calvinist, they are immediately labeled Arminian?

Personally, I am neither as well. I do also think we should stop calling ourselves by the names of other people. After all, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, if we've believed and been born again. No one should be elevated above others in such a way. As Paul wrote:

"For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" - 1 Corinthians 1:11-13

Just some thoughts anyway.