Disprove Calvinist Soteriology

[jsarber]

I need everything you've got to disprove Calvinist beliefs on eternal salvation. I'm looking for Bible verses more than arguments.

 

[Hammster]

There aren't any. Sorry.

 

[depthdeception]

I need everything you've got to disprove Calvinist beliefs on eternal salvation. I'm looking for Bible verses more than arguments.

You're not going to find any Scriptures to disprove Calvinist ideas regarding eternal salvation, for Reformed theology--like all theologies--has very specific philosophical assumptions which form the foundation for its methodology in interpreting the Scriptures.

That is, you can quote proof-texts all day to the Reformed, but they will not see what appears to be so clear to others who do not assume their philosophical ideas about the nature of God, salvation, reality, etc. Rather, in every passage of Scripture that they read, they will inevitably find a resonance with their philosophical prejudices that will, in their minds at least, provide a convenient hermeneutical self-justification for what they already assume.

Now with that being said, let's be clear: this is the situation that everyone is in. The act of interpretation is inevitably an exercise in philosophy; therefore, whatever presuppositions and prejudices that one brings to the text will naturally present themselves as obvious within its pages.

So then, if a Calvinist, or anyone else claims that they have uncovered the "truth" of the Scriptures, they are self-deceived. All that they have discovered is what they have set out to find.

 

[Hammster]

Post-modernism rears its ugly head.

 

[depthdeception]

Post-modernism rears its ugly head.

And my point is proven.

 

[jsarber]

Not very helpful for my purposes, but I do understand your point.

 

[depthdeception]

Not very helpful for my purposes, but I do understand your point.

Yes, I am sorry I can't be of more help--there's little I desire more than to see Reformed theology eradicated from Christian thinking.

However, I've been on these boards a long time. I've seen Scripture after Scripture given to Calvinists, and I myself have provided more than reasonable alternative interpretations in response to their MANY of their challenges (of course, they won't agree, but that just establishes the point...).

Nonetheless, their philosophical prejudices ultimately determine the outcome. There is no argument, no proof-text, no appeal that will change the self-justified presuppositions through which they approach the Scriptures, theology, etc. They believe what they've been philosophically persuaded to believe (whether through indoctrination or the compelling gravitas of some individual in their life), and very few that I've interacted with are the least bit interested in questioning the underlying assumptions upon which their theological methodology is based. After all, like most, most of them do not realize that they are beholden to the same.

 

[WaltonM]

I need everything you've got to disprove Calvinist beliefs on eternal salvation. I'm looking for Bible verses more than arguments.

Why?

 

[WaltonM]

Nonetheless, their philosophical prejudices ultimately determine the outcome. There is no argument, no proof-text, no appeal that will change the self-justified presuppositions through which they approach the Scriptures, theology, etc. They believe what they've been philosophically persuaded to believe (whether through indoctrination or the compelling gravitas of some individual in their life), and very few that I've interacted with are the least bit interested in questioning the underlying assumptions upon which their theological methodology is based. After all, like most, most of them do not realize that they are beholden to the same.

Aren't most people in the same boat?

I think you accurately describe many Calvinists who are really not interested in understanding any competing views. They are interested in only refuting them and have a shallow understanding. That also applies to many other people, too. I see people who are only interested in a shallow understanding of Calvinism or Catholicism or whatever. People think they understand, but they don't really understand.

Rare is the person who rises above and strives to learn, I mean really learn the opposing views.

 

[depthdeception]

Aren't most people in the same boat?

Probably all are.

 

[DeaconDean]

Oh brother!

If the right people see this, this is gonna get real ugly, real fast.

There are no definitive veses which disprove Calvinism.

The same can be said about Arminianism.

God I hope certain people don't see this.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Hammster]

And my point is proven.

Of course it is.

 

[Hammster]

Aren't most people in the same boat?

I think you accurately describe many Calvinists who are really not interested in understanding any competing views. They are interested in only refuting them and have a shallow understanding. That also applies to many other people, too. I see people who are only interested in a shallow understanding of Calvinism or Catholicism or whatever. People think they understand, but they don't really understand.

Rare is the person who rises above and strives to learn, I mean really learn the opposing views.

You probably don't realize that most Calvinist had at one time held the competing views. We are all well versed in them and understand them completely. (With the exception of those who only hold to philosophical view and have a low understanding of scripture). So, yes, we are interested in refuting those views in which we once held because we have come to understand that they are wrong.

 

[nobdysfool]

Now that's a different approach. Calvinists are wrong because they're shallow. Arminians are shallow too. In fact, most Christians are shallow, except, of course, for whoever points this out....and the reason they're shallow? Because they are not ardently seeking knowledge....

I seem to recall a scripture which states that "knowledge puffs up, but love edifies"....

I am not opposed to seeking knowledge per se, and neither is God. If one is going to argue against a different view of scripture, it stands to reason that they should know what it is they're arguing against. Knowing doesn't mean getting talking points from websites that seek to smear and discredit the different view. Such websites are biased by their very definition. You cannot get accurate information from biased sources. Yet, there is much of that here, mostly against Calvinism.

As has been pointed out, most Calvinists once believed differently, so their knowledge of their opposition is higher by definition than the opposition's knowledge of Calvinism. There are very few ex-Calvinists. Another myth is that all Calvinists march in lock-step, which is NOT true, despite insistence by some rabid anti-Calvinists that it MUST be true. Their insistence reveals that their arguments against Calvinism depend on that idea of "marching in lock-step", and therefore collapses when shown that the lock-step is a myth. Calvinists know that Arminians do not march in lock-step, so we deal with them individually, rather than as a group, except in the most general terms. But we see the anti-Calvinists time and again try to smear all Calvinists over every small issue, (so "certain" that if one Calvinist believes a certain point, then all Calvinists MUST believe that same point, in the same way) so hungry are they to score the "decisive blow" against Calvinism. It fails every time.

 

[Hupomone10]

You probably don't realize that most Calvinist had at one time held the competing views. We are all well versed in them and understand them completely. (With the exception of those who only hold to philosophical view and have a low understanding of scripture). So, yes, we are interested in refuting those views in which we once held because we have come to understand that they are wrong.

I disagree with that (but have no intention of getting into this future feeding frenzy, as Dean points out).

We both know very well that most Christians, no matter the camp, haven't started in one camp and ended in another. Most continue in what they were taught and the camp they entered when they were most impressionable: whether that be from childhood, at initial conversion, or at a time of life crisis.

There are some who have changed over. For those it can be asked "didn't you say before that your views were in accord with scripture? And aren't you once again adamantly saying now that your views are in accord with scripture?"

If so, then the only sure thing to say definitively is that you have made another step in your journey.

Till we all get tired of this,

H., who watched a Calvinist become a dispensationalist, another dispensationalist become a Calvinist, and a nondenom Charismatic become a Catholic.

The one thing they all have in common is that they think they now have the scriptural truth, and were deceived before.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I disagree with that (but have no intention of getting into this future feeding frenzy, as Dean points out).

We both know very well that most Christians, no matter the camp, haven't started in one camp and ended in another. Most continue in what they were taught and the camp they entered when they were most impressionable: whether that be from childhood, at initial conversion, or at a time of life crisis.

I would agree that most Christians continue in that which they were raised. However, Calvinists are different. I am proof of that. I was raised in a Calvinist home, meaning, my parents both held to Calvinism, but I never really heard about it until one day at a youth group someone brought up "predestination". Just like everyone else, I had a knee-jerk reaction against the idea of God having total sovereignty over my eternal dwelling place. I brought it up to my parents, and they sided with Calvin and told me a bit about election and those types of subjects. This was when I was 16. I went on for a few years thinking that the idea of "predestination" was entirely unfair and that God couldn't possibly have "predestined" all of history apart from our "free will". Long story short, I start reading my Bible every day, and saw that the Scriptures taught Calvinism, and so I adopted it as my own view.

I say all of this to point out that all men start out against the sovereignty of God, from the time they are born, and even from the time they are born again, to some degree. There is a desire to be independent from God, and a false pretense as to what God can and can't do. A judgment, if you will. And to me, this sounds exactly like what took place at the fall. A judgment, as to what man can and should be allowed to do. It is a judgment apart from God's judgment, which is why it is false. And it is not seen by most for that very reason.

H., who watched a Calvinist become a dispensationalist, another dispensationalist become a Calvinist, and a nondenom Charismatic become a Catholic.

The one thing they all have in common is that they think they now have the scriptural truth, and were deceived before.

How does one change from a Calvinist to a Dispensationalist? I am both, why do I have to change from one to the other? Dispensationalism has little to do with Soteriology. Some, but little.

 

[anthony55]

I need everything you've got to disprove Calvinist beliefs on eternal salvation. I'm looking for Bible verses more than arguments.

The Truth cannot be disproven [from the bible] but only rejected and ignored.

 

[Ryan Collins]

The Truth cannot be disproven [from the bible] but only rejected and ignored.

Soren Kierkegaard's words: "The thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die."

Unfortunately, this is true for Christians when they approach Scripture.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I need everything you've got to disprove Calvinist beliefs on eternal salvation.

Eternal salvation, what bad thing. What terrible people those Calvinists are!!!

Use this one:

1Jo 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

 

[Ryan Collins]

Haha! Nice touch.