Why do Calvinists argue with people?

JDIBe said:

Something I've always wondered, and struck me again as I was reading a thread below......

Why do Calvinists argue with people? If Calvinism is correct, those that are saved will believe anyway without their help (and accept Calvinism as true, I suppose) only by God's effort. It's almost as if they feel their audience might have free will to change their mind, which is rather Armenian in nature.

What exactly is the Calvinist mindset on this subject?

Click to expand...

Brilliant question.

JDIBe said:

Something I've always wondered, and struck me again as I was reading a thread below......

Why do Calvinists argue with people? If Calvinism is correct, those that are saved will believe anyway without their help (and accept Calvinism as true, I suppose) only by God's effort. It's almost as if they feel their audience might have free will to change their mind, which is rather Armenian in nature.

What exactly is the Calvinist mindset on this subject?

Click to expand...

Did you notice that the first two replies were from anti-Calvinists? If you didn't, please be aware of that fact.

Now, imagine that it's you they re referring to as unsaved, liars, deceivers, etc. OK, then I think you have the answer to your question. What you call "arguing", is many times just self defense. The anti-Calvinists constantly decry what they themselves perpetuate.

Now, as to the rest of your question, Calvinists are not "afraid" that our audience might change their mind. Calvinists understand that we do not know who will be saved, and who won't, so we preach the gospel to all men, and engage with those who express interest, or engage with those who try to shout us down, through lies, false accusations, misrepresentation, etc. What prompted you to ask your question, is something that goes far beyond disagreement.

[post=48197256]JDIBe:[/post]
> Why do Calvinists argue with people?

Because you deliberately provoke them and pick fights, which is a sin.
That's really easy to see. See below:


[post=48197256]JDIBe:[/post]
> If Calvinism is correct, those that are saved will believe anyway
> without their help (and accept Calvinism as true, I suppose) only by
> God's effort.

Historically, Reformation theology has never taught that people are
saved willy-nilly. See Romans 10:14. The reason you perceive it as
arguing is because they must reply over and over again to charges such
as the one you have just given (and multiple people on this website, as
well as those offline). I've seen the same arguments rehashed over and
over again by the same people, even when they are told that Calvinists
do not believe what they are charged with believing--as stated from the
Calvinists' own mouths.

It would literally be as though a person came here and began an argument
by stating, "Catholics believe in buying salvation!" And then no matter
how much they deny it with solid proof, nevertheless, still he continues
to insist it's true and persist non-stop in doing so. This is the same
sort of actions I see taken against Calvinists all the time here. In
short, they are bad arguments used. Such as, Calvinists believe in a
Christianity "without conversion". That's ridiculous. But here you are:
it's presented as a legitimate argument against Calvinism. No thinking
person, or honest person, would agree that that's a "good" argument
against Calvinism.

nobdysfool said:

Did you notice that the first two replies were from anti-Calvinists?

Click to expand...

There is a massive difference between 'anti-Calvinists' and 'anti-Calvinism'.
.

er.....


I VERY rarely see calvinists actually START arguments........... (cept a few idiots who don't even understand it)

most calvinists i know are fine with moving along with life and others not agreeing with them. it's always the arminiasts (sp is way off, i know) who get all freaked out about it and demand asking a bazillion questions about calvinism trying to 'disprove' it in some way. although this usually goes back to the same arguments 'that's not fair', or 'you're saying we never have a choice'.

itisdeliciouscake said:

er.....


I VERY rarely see calvinists actually START arguments.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I get the impression that this sub-forum is all but a platform for Calvinism, with a single Catholic chipping in with the same old point, with variations. It's really rather tedious.

Christianity is a 2,000-year-old "argument."

In my experience there is a divide between those of the Reformed pursuation and Calvinists. Most who claim Calvinism as their banner thirst for conflict. It's those who simply consider themselves Reformed I've managed to have mutual pleasant conversations with. Granted, I have observed atrocious behavior by Christians of all sorts but this topic is rather specific.

Name calling and excuse-making is a clear indication that the author is either unable to deal with criticism, ignore attacks or provide anything relevant to the conversation.

-A

calluna said:

There is a massive difference between 'anti-Calvinists' and 'anti-Calvinism'.
.

Click to expand...

And there is a significant difference between being "pro-truth" and 'anti-Calvinism/Calvinist/Arminianism/Arminian.'

JDIBe said:

Something I've always wondered, and struck me again as I was reading a thread below......

Why do Calvinists argue with people? If Calvinism is correct, those that are saved will believe anyway without their help (and accept Calvinism as true, I suppose) only by God's effort. It's almost as if they feel their audience might have free will to change their mind, which is rather Armenian in nature.

What exactly is the Calvinist mindset on this subject?

Click to expand...

1. I suspect because they think that truth matters. Do you?


2. I don't think that Calvinists believe that people cannot change their thinking/understanding about things.




.

JDIBe said:

Something I've always wondered, and struck me again as I was reading a thread below......

Why do Calvinists argue with people? If Calvinism is correct, those that are saved will believe anyway without their help (and accept Calvinism as true, I suppose) only by God's effort. It's almost as if they feel their audience might have free will to change their mind, which is rather Armenian in nature.

What exactly is the Calvinist mindset on this subject?

Click to expand...

We defend what we understand to be the truth taught in the Scriptures, even as we are commanded to do.

2 Tim 2:24-26
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. KJV

Unfortunately, generally due to transgressions on "both sides of the isle," the debate often degrades into that which is condemned in verse 24, we "strive."

NT:3164, machomai (makh'-om-ahee); middle voice of an apparently primary verb; to war, i.e. (figuratively) to quarrel, dispute: KJV - fight, strive.

It would seem that we should excuse ourselves from the discussions at the point where we (individually) are unable to remain cordial.

Relative to debating being inconsistent with Calvinistic theology -

The Scriptures are full of God using faithful men as instruments of His will (recognizing that even their faithfulness is a product of God's provision - Phil 2:13) in the furtherance of His kingdom.

They also show that there are cases where God directs some men to proclaim His truth to those who certainly will not listen/believe. Not a highly coveted ministry!

Jer 7:27-28
27 Therefore thou shalt speak all these words unto them; but they will not hearken to thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but they will not answer thee.
28 But thou shalt say unto them, This is a nation that obeyeth not the voice of the LORD their God, nor receiveth correction: truth is perished, and is cut off from their mouth. KJV

But the goal is to be faithful to obey that to which we are called and give God the glory for any fruit.- even as our Arminian brothers drag us to the dungeon/cistern, and fasten the ropes about us.

msortwell said:

And there is a significant difference between being "pro-truth" and 'anti-Calvinism/Calvinist/Arminianism/Arminian.'

Click to expand...

True. Labels are often falsehoods.

calluna said:

True. Labels are often falsehoods.

Click to expand...

Just so that I am not misunderstood. I have no qualms about embracing te label of Calvinist for myself. The label speaks volumes regarding what I believe the Bible teaches regarding how and why men are saved.

The point I was attempting to make is that a person's agenda is significantly different if they are focusing upon disproving a position or theological system rather than trying to forward the truth of Scripture (as they understand it). They are in great jeopardy of sliding off into (or remaining entrenched in) gross heresy if they neglect the truth in the Reformed creedo that we be "always reforming."

As an aside - the debate is actually healthy, if we can retain the proper decorum. It is through healthy (biblical) debate that we learn either how to better understand and defend our theological positions, or God uses the debate to correct our thinking.

calluna said:

True. Labels are often falsehoods.

Click to expand...

Again, I have to to point out that i have no qualms regarding embracing the label of Calvinist for myself. For those who understand the theological system, it answers a significant number of questions regarding what I believe.

However, I have to concede that labels can be misleading. It's like going to the store and seeing a label on two cans that proclaim their contents to be "Tomato Soup." At one level we might interpret them to be indicating that their contents are the same. But when we read the contents section we find out that the two companies put very different ingredients into what they label "Tomato Soup."

Still the the label of "Tomato Soup" is not without its value. It narrows the number of cans that we need to read carefully to make sure that we get what we understand to be tomato soup.

The same can be said of those who proclaim for themselves the label of Calvinist/Reformed. They are clearly not all alike. We have to "read the back label."

But one thing is certain, only a fool would buy a can labeled "Tomato Soup," no matter how detailed or attractive the list of ingredients might be, when the label affixed to it was applied by someone that had nothing to do with, and no knowledge of, the preparation of the soup itself.

Just in case I was not clear - If you want to know what it means to be a Calvinist, read the writings of knowledgeable Calvinist thelogians/teachers. Don't limit your exposure to a bunch of self-proclaimed Calvinists on some internet forum, and you certainly can't trust your understanding to those who write from an "anti-Calvinism" perspective (i.e., David Hunt's work).

Blessings,

msortwell said:

Just so that I am not misunderstood. I have no qualms about embracing te label of Calvinist for myself. The label speaks volumes regarding what I believe the Bible teaches regarding how and why men are saved.

Click to expand...

How were you saved? In your own words.