Calvinism, explained.

[EmSw]

I don't know of anywhere in the history of evangelism where the evangelist used predestination to explain salvation to a person to whom the gospel was being preached.

Can you provide one such sermon except for us where that was done? I'd love to know about it.

Thanks!

It's perfectly understandable why you leave predestination out during evangelism. When any reasonable person hears it, you would be laughed out the door. Converts to Reformed Calvinism would dry up.

I never understood why not tell a person the truth about predestination - God has either ordained you to heaven or hell. You have no choice, as this would 'interfere' with God's pre-determination of your life.

Thanks!

 

[Hoghead1]

I honestly could care less what Calvin says. I believe TULIP because I think it is Biblical, not because it is Calvinical. I don't know any Calvinist who holds John Calvin as an authority, nor do I know any Arminian who holds Jacob Arminius as an authority.

That' the problem. You haven't read Calvin and so really don't know anything at all about him. Therefore, you have no real insight into the connection between Calvin and TULIP, which is right our of Calvin. Therefore, you really don't know who are or are not Calvinists. If they are not at all following Calvin, them no, they are not Calvinists. Your label is inappropriate and irrational.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It's perfectly understandable why you leave predestination out during evangelism. When any reasonable person hears it, you would be laughed out the door. Converts to Reformed Calvinism would dry up.

I never understood why not tell a person the truth about predestination - God has either ordained you to heaven or hell. You have no choice, as this would 'interfere' with God's pre-determination of your life.

Thanks!

I am with you 100% here.

Can you imagine sharing the gospel with someone telling them they may not be elect, chosen, called, ect. Nothing would surprise me though at this point. It depends on the bias of the person.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Well everyone, I'm bidding you all farwell.

Be blessed and spread the gospel.

 

[Albion]

Then how is it that EVERYTHING was predestined, even to the smallest detail?

You're not addressing his point. I, for one, would be interested to have you do so.

 

[EmSw]

Well everyone, I'm bidding you all farwell.

Be blessed and spread the gospel.

Goodbye ToBeLoved. God bless.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

That' the problem. You haven't read Calvin and so really don't know anything at all about him. Therefore, you have no real insight into the connection between Calvin and TULIP, which is right our of Calvin. Therefore, you really don't know who are or are not Calvinists. If they are not at all following Calvin, them no, they are not Calvinists. Your label is inappropriate and irrational.

Yes, I suppose it is quite irrational to call myself a Calvinist because I believe the Five Points of Calvinism. I honestly never knew you needed to read Calvin and believe his every word to be called a Calvinist. If you'd have read my previous post then you would know that I'm going to stop calling myself a Calvinist. Subsequently, I also suppose one cannot call themselves an Arminian if they do not actually read and follow Jacob Arminius.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

I guess since I'm not a Calvinist anymore I don't have anything to offer this thread. I'll let the real Calvinists who read Calvin explain it.

 

[nobdysfool]

And that sir, is based totally upon predestination.

Just because you claim it, doesn't make it so. Your obsession with predestination will be your undoing....

 

[nobdysfool]

1. STOP telling me what I deny or DO NOT deny. Bearing false witness is a HUGE crime as far as Jesus is concerned. PACK IT IN.

THEN YOU STOP TELLING US WHETHER WE CAN CALL OURSELVES CALVINISTS OR NOT! YOU ARE THE LEAST QUALIFIED TO BE DOING SO, SO PACK IT IN YOURSELF!!!!

2. Predestination as in the Arminian version. Good.

3. Here is the trolls post


And now you say in your previous post "Maybe it's because Calvinism doesn't need Calvin."

I am wondering if you are one and the same poster!

Why don't you quit looking for conspiracies behind every rock, tree and bush. OK?

 

[EmSw]

Just because you claim it, doesn't make it so. You obsession with predestination will be your undoing....

I didn't claim it; salvation by predestination is a Calvinist concept and belief.

 

[nobdysfool]

I didn't claim it; salvation by predestination is a Calvinist concept and belief.

You DID claim it, everyone can see that you did. Why are you so insistent that Calvinists acts the way YOU think they ought to act? You clearly do not understand where predestination fits into Calvinism, and as an obvious anti-Calvinist, you are the least qualified to be making any demands (and you HAVE been making demands) on Calvinists.

Who is more credible in this discussion? A Calvinist who knows his theology, or someone like you who demonstrably does NOT know said theology?

You have no authority or unction to be telling Calvinists what they believe, or how they must act. You find it incredulous that I don't constantly think about predestination, which clearly shows that you do not understand either the concept, or how it fits into Calvinist Theology. Why does that bother you so much? Just let it go! And stop denying what you clearly have done. You may fool others, but I'm not fooled.

 

[EmSw]

You DID claim it, everyone can see that you did. Why are you so insistent that Calvinists acts the way YOU think they ought to act? You clearly do not understand where predestination fits into Calvinism, and as an obvious anti-Calvinist, you are the least qualified to be making any demands (and you HAVE been making demands) on Calvinists.

I DO NOT CLAIM ANYTHING CONCERNING PREDESTINATION! Make no mistake, I totally reject it. To me, it is a false teaching which makes a mockery of God's love and compassion.

As stated on this board, Calvinists do not want predestination mentioned when evangelizing. It would turn people away from a God who predestines some to heaven, and some to hell without recourse.

Who is more credible in this discussion? A Calvinist who knows his theology, or someone like you who demonstrably does NOT know said theology?

From what I've read on here, I don't think any Calvinist knows his theology. You all can't agree on doctrine; shoot, you all can't agree on a name for your theology. Some believe this, some believe that. Some want to promote predestination, while others don't care to even think about it. And to think, you all believe this confusion is planned by God.

You have no authority or unction to be telling Calvinists what they believe, or how they must act. You find it incredulous that I don't constantly think about predestination, which clearly shows that you do not understand either the concept, or how it fits into Calvinist Theology. Why does that bother you so much? Just let it go! And stop denying what you clearly have done. You may fool others, but I'm not fooled.

You are correct, you freely believe as you wish. If you don't want to think about predestination, please freely follow your heart's desire.

If you don't like others criticizing your belief of predestination, there may be more than meets the eye, more than you are telling us.

If you do firmly believe in predestination, then accept what all people do. To criticize what others do, is to criticize God's predestination. Don't blame it on other's not understanding the concept, blame it on God who put this before you.

Quit complaining about God's predestination for your life. Accept it, and quit lashing out at others. God loves you and has all this planned out for you.

 

[GillDouglas]

That calls for a good laugh, since no one can put limits on God (other than deluded theologians).

You say that, but yet you do. You say God didn't plan anything. God doesn't any have plans for the individual. God cannot chose who is made for specific tasks, roles, and even salvation. According to you, God is limited by men's action and freedom. It is you and those like you who give more authority to men, and very little to God in regards to realms more suited to God (i.e. Salvation).

 

[GillDouglas]

Please. This is patent rhetoric. You cast those who disagree with you in the position of somehow seeking to denigrate God as somehow less than a "true" God. Well, that is entirely unfair precisely because it by no means obvious that a God who controls every detail is "more of a God" in the right sense. It seems self-evident to me - and I suggest to most - that a God who willingly chooses the "risk" of creating humans with a measure of free will is engaged in a grander, if riskier, creation project.

A God who insists on creating "puppets" with no self-determining freedom rightly strikes us as somewhat juvenile.

We can perhaps discuss this. But clearly what you post is not remotely fair.

It may seem unfair because it is true. You cannot say God is Sovereign and then place limits on Him based on a man's desire for some idea of freedom. We cannot act outside of our nature, as fallen men we are not free. Freedom in Christ means He has us right where He had planned us to be, doing His work. We didn't do anything to bring us to this point. Only by His gracious all-knowing will, through Providence and works by His 'hands' (you, me, the saved sinners, and the unbelievers) by way of the Holy Spirit, do we continue to do things for His glory. God is in full control, and it is a very good thing He is.

 

[expos4ever]

It may seem unfair because it is true. You cannot say God is Sovereign and then place limits on Him based on a man's desire for some idea of freedom.

Strawman, of course. I never claimed God is sovereign in the sense that you mean that He is. And you are clearly being unfair debate when you speculate about what my, or anyone else's, "desire" is.

We cannot act outside of our nature, as fallen men we are not free.

This is an easy claim to make but I suspect that if you try to actually make a Biblical argument that our fallenness - which I acknowledge - robs us of all self-determining freedom, you will not succeed.

 

[Patmos]

.
But at least I'll know that ToBeLoved and you aren't just making things up to portray the Calvinist message in a poor light.

Thanks.

Hmmm

How about YouTube and James White. Or go back in history.

Calvin's institutes, any Calvinist confession - may have been posted here already. Dort. John Gill, A W Pink. Loraine Boettner is quite explicit. Or more modern day writers, Wayne Grudem and my least favourite - R C Sproul.

They ALL say the same thing. Anyone interested can check it out for themselves.

This is casting them in a 'poor light'.

They all say what they say and can be and is seen by anyone who wants to.

 

[Patmos]

I'm sure you are. I've already had a falling out with you, and I don't feel like doing it again.

Yes, you claimed you were a double predestinarian and Supralapsarian Calvinist. But your following posts indicated the opposite. And when called out on it you let people up quite a few rabbit trails before getting a good thread in 'Baptists' closed down. A calvinist 'twin1954' and an Arminian 'me' had reached common ground. Was this a first in the history of CF ? Anyone.

It is very clear that if someone doesn't fit your narrow view of Calvinism then they are considered liars. I've had enough of people on this forum using Calvin and other Calvinists against me as if they had any bearing on what I believe.

Wrong again - BTW calling someone a liar is a violation of CF rules. Please edit your offence and remove it.

What I hope is clear is I do not appreciate anyone - Calvinist, Arminian or other, putting words in others mouths and making false claims. Most of my post are in response to these - as you already know,

Let's stop and take a breather... I'll stop calling myself a Calvinist, and since I've stopped I really have no label.

You want to know what I believe? Here is what I believe:
1. The five Solas of the Reformation: Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christos, Sola Scriptura, and Soli Deo Gloria
2. The five points of Calvinism: Total Depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistable grace, and Perseverance of the saints

Good for you. Many don't go along with 'L'. There are many kinds of 'TD'- Nobdysfool explained thous well a few posts back. Point - which version of TULIP.

In case you are wondering, belief in the Bible (Sola Scriptura) and the gospel (Solus Christos, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia) are found in the five Solas.

I was not wondering or in the least bit interested.

The problem comes when you insinuate something is Calvinist and all those silly non-calvinist are too dumb to realise, per your previous post.

There is a HUGE amount of common ground between both sides, actually.

There are differences between Calvinist ( so what) and there are differences between Arminians ( so what again). Unfortunately this forum seems to polarise people such that they start making false accusations of what others believe or do not believe. Infuriating.

I don't read Calvin or any other man's work: just the Bible. So let's not get worked up about whether I'm a Calvinist or not. I don't care what I am called anymore, as it just get's me into arguments.

May I kindly suggest you do read Calvin and mainstream Calvinist and Arminian authors.

Then you may see why so many here on CF call out Calvinists. The Calvinist responds he/she does not believe the mainstream (authors) stuff - which is entirely ok, nothing wrong with that at all. The problem is IMO, mainstream book writers such as Sproul DO write extreme stuff - thus giving moderate Calvinism one huge headache.

 

[Patmos]

While my BP is risen I'll finish with this. Many posters on CF state "You do not understand Calvinism...". It of turns out the the receiver of this accusation does understand and has studied it diligently and HAS read MANY Calvinist text books - Institutes, Dort WCF etc etc, whereas the poster has not!

Some posters ( maybe the same one in different ID's have said things like "Calvinism has nothing to do with Calvin" and "Predestination is not important for Calvinism".

And this guy goes on to say "You do not understand what Calvinism teaches... "

Yeah right.

 

[Patmos]

Predestination is NOT the foundation of Calvinism. The T in the TULIP is the hinge on which the whole gate swings. Total Inability. Not UTTER Inability. Not UTTER Depravity. Total, meaning that the totality of man, his whole being, is affected by sin. Man is born in sin, a sinner at birth by nature, a nature which manifests itself at the earliest opportunity. Adam and Eve reproduced after their own kind, as with every other living thing. Their offspring were as they were, sinners.

Everything else in Calvinism builds off that that core teaching, the Total Depravity of man, which prevents him from being able to please God in anything he does on his own.

Repeated for CIG. Hi-lights mine.

TD definition "Total, meaning that the totality of man, his whole being, is affected by sin".


"a nature which manifests itself at the earliest opportunity"
Surely the evidence of human history bares this out to be 100% correct!