Five Misconceptions About Calvinism

[rockytopva]

This is very true as well. Too much smugness all the way around.

I must say here that we all have our issues. I consider myself Wesleyan, but we could not keep the Spirit of revival going. And, most disappointing, our once lively Saturday night prayer meeting and Sunday night services have become a sea of grey, with the average age of about 65. Most of the churches I visit are non-denominational, and I have a feeling these people go to church on Sunday and live like the world the rest of the week.

I say that as my own movement has serious forces working against it. The Calvinist may be 'smug,' but there are issues that are facing the whole church. It may be said, I believe, in this day and time, that the Calvinist do not believe in backsliding, but the Armenian practice it! Which I hate I had to say.

 

[-V-]

I think if you read some of the recent threads on Calvinism, you'll find the opposite to be the case.

That's weird, cuz when I read the recent threads with Calvinist issues, I see some Calvinists behaving quite close to Senkaku's description.

 

[Hammster]

That's weird, cuz when I read the recent threads with Calvinist issues, I see some Calvinists behaving quite close to Senkaku's description.

I'm sure you do.

 

[jax5434]

He didn't "make" the doctrine. He taught it as biblical truth, whether you agree with it or not.

He didn't "make" the doctrine. He taught it as biblical truth, whether you agree with it or not.

This doesn’t really address the issue.
Arminianism is taught as biblical truth, whether you agree with it or not.
Methodism is taught as biblical truth,whether you agree with it or not.
Charles Taze Russels’ beliefs are taught as biblical truth whether you agree with it or not.

I could name a few more but the point is that because something is taught by someone as biblical truth does not mean that it is biblical truth. The soundness of any doctrine depends only on its biblical underpinnings. Whether or not Calvinism meets that criteria will always be a matter of personal opinion.

God Bless
Jax

 

[Hammster]

He didn't "make" the doctrine. He taught it as biblical truth, whether you agree with it or not.

This doesn’t really address the issue.
Arminianism is taught as biblical truth, whether you agree with it or not.
Methodism is taught as biblical truth,whether you agree with it or not.
Charles Taze Russels’ beliefs are taught as biblical truth whether you agree with it or not.

I could name a few more but the point is that because something is taught by someone as biblical truth does not mean that it is biblical truth. The soundness of any doctrine depends only on its biblical underpinnings. Whether or not Calvinism meets that criteria will always be a matter of personal opinion.

God Bless
Jax

I think you missed the context of his post.

 

[jax5434]

He didn't "make" the doctrine. He taught it as biblical truth, whether you agree with it or not.

He didn't "make" the doctrine. He taught it as biblical truth, whether you agree with it or not.

This doesn’t really address the issue.
Arminianism is taught as biblical truth, whether you agree with it or not.
Methodism is taught as biblical truth,whether you agree with it or not.
Charles Taze Russels’ beliefs are taught as biblical truth whether you agree with it or not.

I could name a few more but the point is that because something is taught by someone as biblical truth does not mean that it is biblical truth. The soundness of any doctrine depends only on its biblical underpinnings. Whether or not Calvinism meets that criteria will always be a matter of personal opinion.

God Bless
Jax

 

[-V-]

I think you missed the context of his post.

An easy claim to make. By all means, though, please explain the correct context that was missed.

 

[jax5434]

I think you missed the context of his post.

Post #1 Statement 2

“2. It is a man-made doctrine”

Post # 11

“It is literally named after the man that came up with it.”

Post # 14

“He didn't "make" the doctrine. He taught it as biblical truth, whether you agree with it or not”

How am I out of context here?

God Bless

Jax

 

[Hammster]

Post #1 Statement 2

“2. It is a man-made doctrine”

Post # 11

“It is literally named after the man that came up with it.”

Post # 14

“He didn't "make" the doctrine. He taught it as biblical truth, whether you agree with it or not”

How am I out of context here?

God Bless

Jax

Because your response didn't reflect what was said in context. There was no really issue he was addressing except explaining why it's referred to as Calvinism.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Calvinists all understand that man has a free will. It's a will which is free to sin.

Lol

 

[ToBeLoved]

That's weird, cuz when I read the recent threads with Calvinist issues, I see some Calvinists behaving quite close to Senkaku's description.

Difference between saying and doing.

 

[jax5434]

Because your response didn't reflect what was said in context. There was no really issue he was addressing except explaining why it's referred to as Calvinism.

I don't see how anyone following this thread could possibly come to that conclusion. But to each his own.
God Bless
Jax

 

[-V-]

Because your response didn't reflect what was said in context. There was no really issue he was addressing except explaining why it's referred to as Calvinism.

Nonsense. It reflects the context quite well.

Jimmy claims "It's a man-made doctrine" is a misconception. However, one has to first presume that Calvinism is true in order to make that claim. If Calvinism is not true, then it IS man-made. Whether Calvin felt he was right doesn't change that. Calvin believing he was merely presenting Biblical truth also does not change that.

In that context, the fact that it is called "Calvinism" can certainly be viewed as an indication of being man-made.

 

[Hammster]

Nonsense. It reflects the context quite well.

Jimmy claims "It's a man-made doctrine" is a misconception. However, one has to first presume that Calvinism is true in order to make that claim. If Calvinism is not true, then it IS man-made. Whether Calvin felt he was right doesn't change that. Calvin believing he was merely presenting Biblical truth also does not change that.

In that context, the fact that it is called "Calvinism" can certainly be viewed as an indication of being man-made.

Okay.

 

[Friend-of-Jesus]

Below are 5 common misconceptions about Calvinism. Please post either in either pro or anti arguments on any of these 5 misconceptions. (yes, they are all misconceptions)

1. It kills evangelism

2. It is a man-made doctrine

3. It eliminates free will and human responsibility

4. It promotes “easy believism”

5. It makes God a moral monster

I agree with all five

 

[ToBeLoved]

Nonsense. It reflects the context quite well.

Jimmy claims "It's a man-made doctrine" is a misconception. However, one has to first presume that Calvinism is true in order to make that claim. If Calvinism is not true, then it IS man-made. Whether Calvin felt he was right doesn't change that. Calvin believing he was merely presenting Biblical truth also does not change that.

In that context, the fact that it is called "Calvinism" can certainly be viewed as an indication of being man-made.

I'm sure the poor man didn't even think he would start a religion. Paul sure never wanted a focus on himself. Paul rightly pointed to Christ

 

[zippy2006]

See my thread: Quoting Calvin.

3. It eliminates free will and human responsibility

We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)

Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3)

God causes everything and of necessity, that is, in accordance with his providence. (John Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, 1996, pg. 253)

Everything that happens, happens of necessity, as God has ordained. (John Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, 1996, pg. 258)​

5. It makes God a moral monster

...how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission... It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them... (John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God, 10:11)

The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)

thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5)

…it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God’s secret plan… God’s secret plan is the cause of hardening. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)

…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)​

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

He didn't "make" the doctrine. He taught it as biblical truth, whether you agree with it or not.

This doesn’t really address the issue.

He didn't make the doctrine, because plenty of people have come to accept that doctrine simply by reading the Bible, without ever having read his writings or those of his followers. That includes me. That this interpretation happens to be named after a man named Calvin is irrelevant. I've never followed Calvin. I don't care if he personally mangled Servetus. I'll accept that Christians of all stripes believe that their understanding is superior. In fact, I insist upon it. The question of the matter is where the idea originated. I first got the idea from Paul. Did Paul "make" the doctrine? Does that make it invalid? I can't know anything for certain. I can only do the best with what I've got, and this is my conclusion

Jimmy claims "It's a man-made doctrine" is a misconception. However, one has to first presume that Calvinism is true in order to make that claim. If Calvinism is not true, then it IS man-made.

Every doctrine held by man is man-made. All are subject to human error. It's just a question of whether that human attempted to base the doctrine on something divine, and how successful that human was. The misconception implies that Calvin made it up out of whole cloth with no effort at an honest understanding of the Bible. All I can say is that I came to the belief simply by reading the Bible, with no other Calvinistic influence in my life. I was raised in a strictly Arminian household and had only known Arminian Christians, so the argument that it was the product of someone's wild imagination strikes me as profoundly foolish. If the idea is wrong, then it's a false notion naturally derived from reading the Bible.

 

[jax5434]

The point of my post is that because something is taught by someone as biblical truth does not mean it necessarily is biblical truth. Every Christian heresy ever invented started by someone teaching it as biblical truth.
You seem to be under the impression I was attacking Calvin. I was not. I was pointing out that Jimmys statement in #14 did not really address the issue of whether or not Calvinism is a man made doctrine or a scripturally based doctrine. That issue can only be determined by comparing what Calvinism teaches to what scriptures say. That, and only, that determines what is biblical truth. Please note that, once again, I am not making any claim, for or against, Calvinism.

God Bless
Jax

 

[RisenInJesus]

I'm sure the poor man didn't even think he would start a religion. Paul sure never wanted a focus on himself. Paul rightly pointed to Christ

Calvin's dictatorship and harsh control over Geneva remind me more of Saul before he became Paul.