-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Calvinism: Why is it so unpopular on CF?
- Thread starter I <3 Abraham
- Start date
rnmomof7
Legend
- Feb 9, 2002
- 14,503
- 735
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Neal said:
There is no scripture to support "tolerance" of sin or false doctrine or error..
Jesus was always the teacher and always corrected error or address sin , sometimes lovingly and sometimes with words that caused him to be stoned.
But he never "tolerated" them .
As my Pastor says if people are not offended when you present the gospel then you are not presenting the gospel.
I think the same is true with Calvinism. Calvinism stands against everything the natural man holds dear and so offense is a natural result.
But all that being said there is no excuse to be intentionally personally offensive, this is to be a learning forum
Upvote
0
Thanks, rnmomof7 (your name escapes me, I'm sorry).
I had not remembered that--that Jesus either lovingly and gently corrected or did so abraisively and harshly. I had made the mistake of lumping "intolerance" with "being offensive and harsh," yet not realizing that yes, sometimes intolerance means being just that--but is that so bad all of the time? It can certainly offend people to have their sins brought before their own eyes. But intolerance can still mean love and kindness.
I suppose what I said to Catherineanne was to ease her mind that I do not--at least, not for now--view those who are ignorant of Scripture and of how God has chosen to save His people as false teachers and heretics who ought to be stoned. No, I took a more pitiful view, instead offering correction (with some, again and again and again), knowing that though they understand that Jesus died to save them from their sins, they neither recognize how powerful He is in what He accomplished nor that it is indeed fully accomplished in Christ alone! But I don't fault them with intentional distortion of what they know to be right--I suppose you could say I gave them the benefit of the doubt and instead dismissed the false preaching as mere ignorance. Then again, those who do understand the doctrines of grace and fully reject them--I'm not sure what I'd say to them. To the others (a few young'uns my age that I know of, for example), I talk with them, but I see disinterest in one, who doesn't seem to see how important I find this theology, and slight deception from another, who seems only to have heard of a distorted doctrines of grace. But then, I am convinced, as best as I can surmise, of their salvation... convinced that it was by the doctrines of grace that God accomplished their salvation... and convinced that they will see God more beautifully once they know this as well.
I suppose we see that "tolerating" would have meant me just letting them go with the salvational flow. But intolerance did not mean being a feisty dog... just a loving word of correction... actually many words. These discussions can sometimes become quite lengthy.
I had not remembered that--that Jesus either lovingly and gently corrected or did so abraisively and harshly. I had made the mistake of lumping "intolerance" with "being offensive and harsh," yet not realizing that yes, sometimes intolerance means being just that--but is that so bad all of the time? It can certainly offend people to have their sins brought before their own eyes. But intolerance can still mean love and kindness.
I suppose what I said to Catherineanne was to ease her mind that I do not--at least, not for now--view those who are ignorant of Scripture and of how God has chosen to save His people as false teachers and heretics who ought to be stoned. No, I took a more pitiful view, instead offering correction (with some, again and again and again), knowing that though they understand that Jesus died to save them from their sins, they neither recognize how powerful He is in what He accomplished nor that it is indeed fully accomplished in Christ alone! But I don't fault them with intentional distortion of what they know to be right--I suppose you could say I gave them the benefit of the doubt and instead dismissed the false preaching as mere ignorance. Then again, those who do understand the doctrines of grace and fully reject them--I'm not sure what I'd say to them. To the others (a few young'uns my age that I know of, for example), I talk with them, but I see disinterest in one, who doesn't seem to see how important I find this theology, and slight deception from another, who seems only to have heard of a distorted doctrines of grace. But then, I am convinced, as best as I can surmise, of their salvation... convinced that it was by the doctrines of grace that God accomplished their salvation... and convinced that they will see God more beautifully once they know this as well.
I suppose we see that "tolerating" would have meant me just letting them go with the salvational flow. But intolerance did not mean being a feisty dog... just a loving word of correction... actually many words. These discussions can sometimes become quite lengthy.
Upvote
0
rnmomof7
Legend
- Feb 9, 2002
- 14,503
- 735
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Neal said:
What did Jesus say to the Pharisees?
Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Mat 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Not an ounce of tolerance there. They crucified him for this kind of proclamation .
Even today standing for truth has a cost. Note I am no longer on staff. A small price for calling people to accountability !
Upvote
0
rnmomof7, I can say that I do appreciate that you did not end up quoting the entire post just to make a few comments about sections of it. I know it looks quite confusing in the CF archives. Very smart way of posting--one I think more people should adopt. Then again, I think people should adopt my way, since the textual quoting (i.e., using characters such as --- or > ) appears in the CF archives, whereas any sort of graphics (including quoting graphics) do not. *Ahem* Anyway... minor rant there.
In my own experience, I wouldn't say that the people I've come in contact with were "Pharisees." Well, maybe some were, if I thought hard enough about it, but I mean the ones I mentioned in my previous post--the ones with whom I've discussed the doctrines of grace. Now, like I said, I do believe they're secured and sealed in their salvation, since it is entirely upon Christ's work alone. I think they don't understand fully, yet, however. The Pharisees set up for themselves righteousness on their own merit--is that correct? They followed self-made laws and considered themselves holy thereby? I thought that that self-righteousness (and condemning of others) was the Pharisaical spirit. When I see what these peers of mine believe, as far as Christianity goes, I can't help but see pity and give them the benefit of the doubt that the prevailing Evangelical theology of Christianity today has merely blinded them (as it has blinded itself) from what Scripture really teaches about man's inability, God's sovereign choice in election, and basically, every tenet of the doctrines of grace. It's like some Christians with atheists: "Oh, I know you're just a closet Christian." Some get ticked off with such labels. And with Christians amongst themselves? "Oh, I know you're just a closet Calvinist." And of course, Calvinists (I speak for myself, at least) don't believe there ought to be any other "kind" of Christian, based on what God has revealed through His Word. I realize there are, however. And why are there? I can only observe what I see today: ignorant "doctrine" spread, which is palatable to man's natural fallen tastes. Is it outright deception? It could be. For each person (non-leader) I encounter, I give them the benefit of the doubt, assuming that their distorted theology has been handed to them through a baby's pacifier. Is it the gospel? Do these churches preach salvation through believing in Jesus' name for redemption and cleansing of their sins? It's not the full gospel. No, not when the mind behind it says, in any little bit, "It's because you did such and such that you are now saved." It addresses the T and the U in TULIP, and the rest (the full gospel, I believe), in any conversation, will follow.
Sooo... no. I wouldn't outright label any as "Pharisees" without first giving them the benefit of the doubt, labeling them as "confused, having been handed twisted theology by the vast majority of the current Christian church, which is ignorant of the sharp and piercing Truth of God's Word, which searches the depths of humankind to sap all fancy of strength from individual wills to be saved and reveals the utter dependence we have upon a holy God for all aspects of our salvation--including even the faith to believe."
That's a long label.
In my own experience, I wouldn't say that the people I've come in contact with were "Pharisees." Well, maybe some were, if I thought hard enough about it, but I mean the ones I mentioned in my previous post--the ones with whom I've discussed the doctrines of grace. Now, like I said, I do believe they're secured and sealed in their salvation, since it is entirely upon Christ's work alone. I think they don't understand fully, yet, however. The Pharisees set up for themselves righteousness on their own merit--is that correct? They followed self-made laws and considered themselves holy thereby? I thought that that self-righteousness (and condemning of others) was the Pharisaical spirit. When I see what these peers of mine believe, as far as Christianity goes, I can't help but see pity and give them the benefit of the doubt that the prevailing Evangelical theology of Christianity today has merely blinded them (as it has blinded itself) from what Scripture really teaches about man's inability, God's sovereign choice in election, and basically, every tenet of the doctrines of grace. It's like some Christians with atheists: "Oh, I know you're just a closet Christian." Some get ticked off with such labels. And with Christians amongst themselves? "Oh, I know you're just a closet Calvinist." And of course, Calvinists (I speak for myself, at least) don't believe there ought to be any other "kind" of Christian, based on what God has revealed through His Word. I realize there are, however. And why are there? I can only observe what I see today: ignorant "doctrine" spread, which is palatable to man's natural fallen tastes. Is it outright deception? It could be. For each person (non-leader) I encounter, I give them the benefit of the doubt, assuming that their distorted theology has been handed to them through a baby's pacifier. Is it the gospel? Do these churches preach salvation through believing in Jesus' name for redemption and cleansing of their sins? It's not the full gospel. No, not when the mind behind it says, in any little bit, "It's because you did such and such that you are now saved." It addresses the T and the U in TULIP, and the rest (the full gospel, I believe), in any conversation, will follow.
Sooo... no. I wouldn't outright label any as "Pharisees" without first giving them the benefit of the doubt, labeling them as "confused, having been handed twisted theology by the vast majority of the current Christian church, which is ignorant of the sharp and piercing Truth of God's Word, which searches the depths of humankind to sap all fancy of strength from individual wills to be saved and reveals the utter dependence we have upon a holy God for all aspects of our salvation--including even the faith to believe."
That's a long label.
Upvote
0
heymikey80
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Thank you. Ah, so refreshing to read your words! By the end of your post I'm agreeing with you far more than my nitpicky way of saying things would otherwise nitpick!rnmomof7 said:
You're absolutely right, nobody's to tolerate sin or profound error with no response.
I do think we "suffer" sin with a sight and an ambition to redeem it, to correct it. I think that's what's meant by ... one verse I think is the hardest to take of Paul's: "Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not prefer to be wronged? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated?" 1 Cor 6:7.
I totally agree with what you've said, again. This teaching is not calibrated to making doormats or cows out of Christians, but to allowing them freedom to shower unmerited favor on one another, with the intent of redeeming the more, and saving the more.
It isn't tolerance, which is simply dissipation of what's good and right and true.
Upvote
0
I
Irwin_Meeker
Guest
I don't think anybody "likes" Calvinism.
It's not really in our nature to like a doctrine which tells us that God does everything and we don't get to help.
Speaking for myself, I know that before I embraced the doctrines of Grace they were the furthest things from my mind.
Oh, I had a fairly gentle transition, afterall, I was Baptist
. But still, I got some cuts and bruises and lost some skin on the way.
It's not really in our nature to like a doctrine which tells us that God does everything and we don't get to help.
Speaking for myself, I know that before I embraced the doctrines of Grace they were the furthest things from my mind.
Oh, I had a fairly gentle transition, afterall, I was Baptist
. But still, I got some cuts and bruises and lost some skin on the way.
Upvote
0
Wow!
Such patience on the part of the saints is moving. I however recall the Lord telling the disciples to shake the dust from their feet as a testimony against those who rejected the gospel. Was that intolerance and arrogance? I dunno. But it's how our King instructed us in handling those who will not hear. And they weren't approaching pagans or zoroastrians, but those who imagined themselves within the covenant family of God.
All here who have recieved the grace of understanding, to the limited extent we are able, the sovereignty of God must also comprehend that arminianism, semi-pelagianism, and feel-good tolerance theology are all flat out heresies, and more dangerous because of their claim to being Christian. The scriptures say that after the first or second admonition, we are to reject a heretic, and HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM, NOT EVEN TO EAT WITH THEM. Are we trying to out-mercy God by contending with these obvious heretics by going beyond 2 admonitions? This catherinanne person is obviously not willing to accept the truth of scripture, even when she appears to have read a little here and there. The theology she espouses is not Christianity. Whether she'll be in heaven or not is not the issue. What she posits as truth is not. She is either a liar or is sorely mistaken for now. That she considers my statements as arrogant and unloving is absolutely immaterial. So would a hindu. They are both as far afield from the truth as the other.
It may be that those whom God has ordained to reveal the truth of His sovereignty have no tolerance for these heresies because He tells us not to, and because we have seen the harm that comes to themselves and their brethren by them.
Soli Deo Gloria
Such patience on the part of the saints is moving. I however recall the Lord telling the disciples to shake the dust from their feet as a testimony against those who rejected the gospel. Was that intolerance and arrogance? I dunno. But it's how our King instructed us in handling those who will not hear. And they weren't approaching pagans or zoroastrians, but those who imagined themselves within the covenant family of God.
All here who have recieved the grace of understanding, to the limited extent we are able, the sovereignty of God must also comprehend that arminianism, semi-pelagianism, and feel-good tolerance theology are all flat out heresies, and more dangerous because of their claim to being Christian. The scriptures say that after the first or second admonition, we are to reject a heretic, and HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM, NOT EVEN TO EAT WITH THEM. Are we trying to out-mercy God by contending with these obvious heretics by going beyond 2 admonitions? This catherinanne person is obviously not willing to accept the truth of scripture, even when she appears to have read a little here and there. The theology she espouses is not Christianity. Whether she'll be in heaven or not is not the issue. What she posits as truth is not. She is either a liar or is sorely mistaken for now. That she considers my statements as arrogant and unloving is absolutely immaterial. So would a hindu. They are both as far afield from the truth as the other.
It may be that those whom God has ordained to reveal the truth of His sovereignty have no tolerance for these heresies because He tells us not to, and because we have seen the harm that comes to themselves and their brethren by them.
Soli Deo Gloria
Upvote
0
Here's the OP
And after 13 pages of discussion, this is the fruit.
I think I have my answer.
I <3 Abraham said:
And after 13 pages of discussion, this is the fruit.
bradfordl said:
I think I have my answer.
Upvote
0
Gee, ain't it funny that this reply from a UCC denizen would pick and choose parts of my post to present it in a certain light. Left out the references to instruction of scripture, skips over a statement, etc., because it doesn't fit his paradigm. Why am I not surprised?
Glad you have your answer, and thanks, I have mine as well.
Not trying to offend, just feebly, fallenly, and fumblingly trying to obey God's Word.
Again,
Soli Deo Gloria
Glad you have your answer, and thanks, I have mine as well.
Not trying to offend, just feebly, fallenly, and fumblingly trying to obey God's Word.
Again,
Soli Deo Gloria
Upvote
0
bradfordl said:
Ha haaaaaa ha ha! That's a good one. Didn't think you were gonna gift wrap it quite so nicely for me.
Upvote
0
Just an observation.... it seems to me that when people discuss things as important as their own faith system, we take objections to our beliefs in a personal way. It is quite difficult to be objective with something so incredibly important. Just think about all the debating that went on among the religious men in Jesus time. Even those that agreed disagreed and quite loudly.
Why do people object to Calvinism? Quite simply because they want their own belief system to be the correct one...and they will defend it ... even if it is not quite right... as loudly as they can for fear that they may hear the truth and be forced to change their thinking. My prayer is that God's truth will be shed abroad in their hearts as they diligently seek HIM.
Why do people object to Calvinism? Quite simply because they want their own belief system to be the correct one...and they will defend it ... even if it is not quite right... as loudly as they can for fear that they may hear the truth and be forced to change their thinking. My prayer is that God's truth will be shed abroad in their hearts as they diligently seek HIM.
Upvote
0
Rick Otto
The Dude Abides
- Nov 19, 2002
- 34,112
- 7,406
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
being unable to accept the truth whereEVER it appears speaks volumes. I wonder how you might've reacted if God had chosen a Baalam's donkey experience for you.
It IS important to "consider the source" and the example of Paul silencing the woman with a spirit of divination serves well, but she was annoyingly repetitive and seeking to appropriate some reputation for herself by association.
Perhaps a motivation for quoting a truth from an unbeliever should (be to)humble us rather than provoke us.
Another truism Oscar said was that brevity is the soul of wit. Deal with the message before you shoot messenger.
It IS important to "consider the source" and the example of Paul silencing the woman with a spirit of divination serves well, but she was annoyingly repetitive and seeking to appropriate some reputation for herself by association.
Perhaps a motivation for quoting a truth from an unbeliever should (be to)humble us rather than provoke us.
Another truism Oscar said was that brevity is the soul of wit. Deal with the message before you shoot messenger.
Upvote
0
strengthinweakness
Engaged to be married to Starcradle!
Irwin_Meeker said:I don't think anybody "likes" Calvinism.
It's not really in our nature to like a doctrine which tells us that God does everything and we don't get to help.
Speaking for myself, I know that before I embraced the doctrines of Grace they were the furthest things from my mind.
Oh, I had a fairly gentle transition, afterall, I was Baptist
Brother, you never had any need to make a "transition" from the historic Baptist (Biblical) faith to the doctrines of grace at all!
Check out this link for solid proof: http://www.founders.org/
Upvote
0
inchristalone221
Californian Theology Student
- Dec 8, 2005
- 458
- 27
- 37
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Christianity is not so arrogant as to rule out things said by non-Christians simply upon that basis. The truth is the truth, and there are things that even a fool can recognize.
As regards the original questions (I haven't had time to read this 14 page thread), I'll suggest an answer:
People reject the doctrines of grace because the natural man would have God to be his friend, or his helper, and perhaps even his savior, but he will not suffer Him to be his God.
Upvote
0
Rick Otto
The Dude Abides
- Nov 19, 2002
- 34,112
- 7,406
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Abe & brad, you guys slay me!
brad, I wouldn't elect Oscar either, but I've become so jaded as to have not been shocked or surprised when another local pastor was busted pants down trolling for queers in a notorious wooded park.
My wife & I were especially disappointed, because we had visited his church only a couple o' times & he had driven the 20+ miles out of town to visit us at our home & socialize. He even brought a berry plant as a gift.
"It's always something!" - Rosanne Rosanna Danna.
brad, I wouldn't elect Oscar either, but I've become so jaded as to have not been shocked or surprised when another local pastor was busted pants down trolling for queers in a notorious wooded park.
My wife & I were especially disappointed, because we had visited his church only a couple o' times & he had driven the 20+ miles out of town to visit us at our home & socialize. He even brought a berry plant as a gift.
"It's always something!" - Rosanne Rosanna Danna.
Upvote
0
geelee
Jesus is coming: resistance is futile.
Well, Abe, I am speechless.
That is not something that happens quite often, I can tell you.
I recognize 4 names on that very impresive list of yours and I only read ONE of them.
I feel so stupid and uneducated.
Where do you suggest I start on that list?
That is not something that happens quite often, I can tell you.
I recognize 4 names on that very impresive list of yours and I only read ONE of them.
I feel so stupid and uneducated.
Where do you suggest I start on that list?
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2003
- 47,577
- 27,116
- 76
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Irwin_Meeker said:I don't think anybody "likes" Calvinism.
It's not really in our nature to like a doctrine which tells us that God does everything and we don't get to help.
Speaking for myself, I know that before I embraced the doctrines of Grace they were the furthest things from my mind.
Oh, I had a fairly gentle transition, afterall, I was Baptist
Excellent post.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
