Five Misconceptions About Calvinism

[jimmyjimmy]

You do not appear to know what Calvinists believe. Or if you do then you've been articulating it very poorly. So how do you come to the conclusion that the five things you mentioned are "Misconceptions About Calvinism"? To know if any one of them is a misconception it is necessary to know what Calvinism is, right?

Calvinism, like most other schools of thought is a spectrum. Why not address the OP? That would be helpful.

I would consider those who are rigid on double, to be hyper, but some who hold to the idea of double would object to being labeled as such. That is the reason for my clarification.

 

[GingerBeer]

Calvinism, like most other schools of thought is a spectrum. Why not address the OP? That would be helpful.

I do not think that they are misconceptions as much as they are inventions. A fantasy concocted to make this thread look busy.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I do not think that they are misconceptions as much as they are inventions. A fantasy concocted to make this thread look busy.

Either address the OP as it's laid out or visit another thread. Making off topic comments is both inconsiderate and against forum rules.

 

[GingerBeer]

Either address the OP as it's laid out or visit another thread. Making off topic comments is both inconsiderate and against forum rules.

My comment was on topic.

 

[Foxfyre]

You need to think a bit harder on that. You must answer the very same question. Your "side" has the same, "problem". In fact, it's a far more difficult one. It leads only to the conclusion that God is unjust, if followed to its logical conclusion.

I haven't stated a side. I do think my question is a valid question given the content of the OP I mean. If there is no answer for it, that's okay, but it does explain why so many are not Calvinists maybe?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I haven't stated a side. I do think my question is a valid question given the content of the OP I mean. If there is no answer for it, that's okay, but it does explain why so many are not Calvinists maybe?

There are general two sides. Do you hold some unusual position regarding God's sovereignty in election?

 

[Foxfyre]

There are general two sides. Do you hold some unusual position regarding God's sovereignty in election?

My 'side' or rather point of view isn't unusual to me. Why won't you answer the question?

 

[-V-]

There are general two sides. Do you hold some unusual position regarding God's sovereignty in election?

That's part of your problem if you think the only choices are either Calvinism or Arminianism and nothing else. Calvinism and Arminianism are BOTH partly right and partly wrong.
Why Ravi Zacharias rejects Calvinism

 

[jimmyjimmy]

My 'side' or rather point of view isn't unusual to me. Why won't you answer the question?

Firstly, this dilemma is not peculiar to Calvinists. If Christ died only for the *possibility* of salvation, which, at the end of the day depends on men's choice of God rather than His choice of them, then God created millions without the choice to truest Christ for salvation, as He intentionally made them born in lands which never heard the gospel, for starters.

In the other side's view, He knew, prior to creating millions of people, that they would reject forgiveness in Christ, yet He made them anyway. Knowing that they would end up eternal condemned, He created them. Do you see that?

If you can begin to see that, I'll be happy to answer further what "my side" does with this "problem".

 

[TheSeabass]

What if God ordained both the ends and the means?

What use or purpose in playing a game of chess if all the moves and the winner and loser already predetermined before hand? What purpose is there if God created the world, put man in the world with everything that happens predetermined? Giving commands would pointless and useless for man could only do what he was predetermined to do. Judgment is useless and unjust for again man can only do what he was predetermined to do.

Yet God created man with free will and allows man to use that free will. And it is God's desire that His creation use his free will to love, serve and obey Him. Therefore giving commands guides man to use free will the right way. Judgement makes sense when man abuses that free will in choosing wrong. Evangelism allows man to use his God given free will in choosing to obey, love God or disobey.

 

[TheSeabass]

Yes. For His glory.

“I will harden Pharaoh’s heart so that he will pursue them. Then I will receive glory by means of Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am Yahweh.” So the Israelites did this.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭14:4‬ ‭

So God is a moral monster according to Calvinism, even though the OP denied it.

 

[TheSeabass]

If I saw an argument against Calvinism in your post, I could reply to it.

I did post a few arguments against it.

 

[TheSeabass]

You can't ignore other passages that state Pharaoh hardened his own heart, though.
Exodus 8:15, Exodus 8:32, Exodus 9:34.

See this article:
Who Hardened Pharaoh's Heart?
(Spoiler: in the Hebrew language, "God hardened Pharaoh's heart," means God allowed it to be hardened; it doesn't mean God forced it on Pharaoh.)

The fact that Calvinism has God forcing one to disobey just so God can then punish him for his disobedience God forced him to do has God being the moral monster the OP denied Calvinism makes Him.

If parents forced their children to disobey them just so the parents could punish the children, would not these parents be looked at as "monsters"? Unjust, sadistic monsters? Sure.

 

[Foxfyre]

Firstly, this dilemma is not peculiar to Calvinists. If Christ died only for the *possibility* of salvation, which, at the end of the day depends on men's choice of God rather than His choice of them, then God created millions without the choice to truest Christ for salvation, as He intentionally made them born in lands which never heard the gospel, for starters.

In the other side's view, He knew, prior to creating millions of people, that they would reject forgiveness in Christ, yet He made them anyway. Knowing that they would end up eternal condemned, He created them. Do you see that?

If you can begin to see that, I'll be happy to answer further what "my side" does with this "problem".

I see and understand the argument you are making, yes. And it of course then veers into a separate debate of whether those who have not heard the gospel and given a chance to know and accept the Christ and the salvation he offers can still go to heaven. The Apostle Paul does point to that possibility: "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

But even if that is too vague, it could be argued that those born into non-Christian cultures and environments at least have a chance to hear and accept the word and be saved. And even if we Christians fail to reach them, they are not automatically condemned from conception.

Strict Calvinism insists that they are.

So what is the purpose of evangelism if who will be saved is preordained even before the human is on the way?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

what is the purpose of evangelism if who will be saved is preordained even before the human is on the way?

Firstly, God has commanded it. Secondly, the proclamation of the gospel is the *means* which God has chosen to gather in His sheep.

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? (Romans 10:14)​

 

[jimmyjimmy]

But even if that is too vague, it could be argued that those born into non-Christian cultures and environments at least have a chance to hear and accept the word and be saved. And even if we Christians fail to reach them, they are not automatically condemned from conception.

How are men saved?

 

[Hammster]

So God is a moral monster according to Calvinism, even though the OP denied it.

I personally don't believe that this verse makes Him a moral monster.

 

[Hammster]

What use or purpose in playing a game of chess if all the moves and the winner and loser already predetermined before hand? What purpose is there if God created the world, put man in the world with everything that happens predetermined? Giving commands would pointless and useless for man could only do what he was predetermined to do. Judgment is useless and unjust for again man can only do what he was predetermined to do.

Yet God created man with free will and allows man to use that free will. And it is God's desire that His creation use his free will to love, serve and obey Him. Therefore giving commands guides man to use free will the right way. Judgement makes sense when man abuses that free will in choosing wrong. Evangelism allows man to use his God given free will in choosing to obey, love God or disobey.

Was the question at the start of your post one where you expect an answer?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Was the question at the start of your post one where you expect an answer?

What I honestly can't believe is that after so many corrections - countless corrections, the straw men are still unchanged.

We are still left wanting an argument against Calvinism in this thread. As usual, all we have are scarecrows.

 

[Foxfyre]

Firstly, God has commanded it. Secondly, the proclamation of the gospel is the *means* which God has chosen to gather in His sheep.

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? (Romans 10:14)​

And if only the predestined sheep are called, why are there other sheep at all?