Hating Calvinists?

[Crazy Liz]

Furthermore, I still don't know why those who hate us Calvinists and the Biblical truths we represent would want Servetus as their poster boy. He was a state insurrectionist hell bent upon the overthrow of the lawful state. It would be like being a defender of Sadaam or Bin Laden against the US for our attempts to actually kill without even a trail these men. And those defenders would actually be traitors under the Constitution of the Unites States of America.

So, please continue to trot out good ol' smokey. It tells us a lot about you.

Now, back to the open hostility and hatred for Biblical Calvinism....

I haven't been following this thread, but peronally, I have often felt like it was the staunch 5-point Calvinists who seemed hateful. I wonder whether this comes from putting their energy into defending their conception of a hateful God.

I'm not saying all Calvinists are hateful. Dr. Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological seminary, is an illustrious example. However, I'm afraid many Christians have had enough experience with hateful Calvinists to be on the lookout for this kind of attitude whenever they meet one.

In other areas of life, I have often seen people project their own emotions, motivations and inner feelings onto other people - both positive ones and negative ones. I have also seen many people respond in kind to the emotions or attitudes of others. It is enough to make me wonder sometimes when a group is or claims to be hated for no apparent reason, where does the hate come from?

I think the challenge for Calvinists is to find a way to defend a hateful God without becoming hateful yourself. Mouw's response is to say that because God loves some of God's enemies, but does not reveal to us who these are, we are to obey God's command by loving all our enemies.

 

[rnmomof7]

Jesus Christ is the One through Whom all things were made and have thier existence. He is the sustainer of all people. Not one person can be alive without the upholding of His Glorious hands. Even the atheist who blasphemes God does so with the very breath God giveth to him.

A very good Calvinist view ..that nothing exists out side the will of God.

But that is not the question at hand.

The question is are the reprobates IN CHRIST. Being in Christ is a result of our salvation..not something that is every mans right. That is not the same as being reconciled to God .

Adams fall removed the stamp of Gods Spirit from men .
We remain a likeness of Gods, but we are no longer spiritually like Him and we are discussing spiritual matters here.

Umm, actually it has been. Just because you have not been exposed to it does not mean it is not true, or at least possible. It was a very widely held doctrine in the first few hundred years of Christianity. You need to do more thorough research before making such statements.

The apostasies were dealt with in the early church .

I love this Scripture. All that died in Adam will be made alive in Christ. Praise God!

You need to read the following verse with that .
1Cr 15:23**
But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming



The entire NT teaches that one must repent and believe to be saved.

A reconciliation brings only proves a willingness of God to save.
Sin breaks our relationship with God.
The blaspheming of the Holy Spirit (the refusal of His work in salvation ) breaks that reconciliation.

Matthew Henry comments on this passage

v. 21. And so, as in Adam all die, in Christ shall all be made alive; as through the sin of the first Adam all men became mortal, because all derived from him the same sinful nature, so through the merit and resurrection of Christ shall all who are made to partake of the Spirit, and the spiritual nature, revive, and become immortal. All who die die through the sin of Adam; all who are raised, in the sense of the apostle, rise through the merit and power of Christ. But the meaning is not that, as all men died in Adam, so all men, without exception, shall be made alive in Christ; for the scope of the apostle’s argument restrains the general meaning. Christ rose as the first-fruits; therefore those that are Christ’s (v. 23) shall rise too. Hence it will not follow that all men without exception shall rise too; but it will fitly follow that all who thus rise, rise in virtue of Christ’s resurrection, and so that their revival is owing to the man Christ Jesus, as the mortality of all mankind was owing to the first man; and so, as by man came death, by man came deliverance. Thus it seemed fit to the divine wisdom that, as the first Adam ruined his posterity by sin, the second Adam should raise his seed to a glorious immortality.


**
Jhn 5:21**
For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth [them]; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

There is not a universal salvation, it is quite particular .

If men are always in Christ they do not need a saviour. I believe you misuse the idea of being "in Christ'

Only by your interpretation.

I am not suggesting universalism, and you are right - Paul did not either. But Paul did preach the universal reconcilliation of all to God. This is not the same thing as universalism. If you don't know the difference feel free to ask me or research it elsewhere.

This reconciliation involves the appeasement of the wrath of God .(Jesus was the propitiation) .

He is the Mediator of reconciliation, He procures peace and pardon for sinners. He made it possible to approach the throne of God.

None of this says that ALL men without exception are in Christ..that is a different principle.

The scripture goes on to say that He will bring all creatures, angels as well as men, into blessed society ( things in earth, or things in heaven.)

**
*
Eph 1:10**
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:


The word is anakephalaioµsasthai—he will bring them all under one head. The Gentiles, who were alienated, and enemies in their minds by were now reconciled

This reconciliation is judicial not actual

The Greek word Katallasson implies "changing" or altering the judicial status from one of condemnation to one of justification. The atonement or reconciliation, is the removal of the bar to peace and acceptance with a holy God, which His righteousness interposed against our sin, God took the first move toward man , now man had to complete it by moving to God .

This is the typical response of a Calvinist. I did do a word study. The word kosmos can mean anything you want it to.

Except the scholars (that have a fluency in greek) have determined the meaning

any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

I would suspect IF the HS meant to say universe or entire world (or universe ) he would have chosen a more narrow word like
aijwvn

for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
the worlds, universe
period of time, age

Or

ghay* *
arable land
the ground, the earth as a standing place
the main land as opposed to the sea or water
the earth as a whole
the earth as opposed to the heavens
the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals
a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region

He would not have used the word Kosmos

Which has a wide breath of meaning that includes

the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ

any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

How do we know if Jesus (according to Jn 3:16) came to save the universe, or only just humanity, or only just a part of humanity? Nobody's theology is supported here.

He chose the word that is affirmed in Revelations

Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy bloodout of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation

Your long list of Scriptural quotes don't actually speak against what I am saying.

Blessings, Pete

I believe it does..

 

[rnmomof7]

Do not be worried about me for i am worried not about you. Why? Because we are saved by Jesus Christ and not by our theology.

As for calling me a very poor Bible scholar, well that's what I see people calling other people when they just don't agree. Because we disagree, I must be a poor scholar. Well, the fact is that I have researched my position thouroughly and I stand on firm ground.

Some very brilliant Bible scholars have decided that Calvinism is accurate, yet some equally brilliant scholars decided that Arminianism is accurate. Every Christian, regardless of what side of this fence the stand, is absolutely sure they are right and the others are wrong. And they have the Scriptures to prove it. Both sides say this! Doesn't this tell you something? Maybe they are both wrong, or at least, not completely right.

Well of course I have a prejudiced toward Calvinism..But this discussion was in my mind not about Calvinism , it was about universalism as opposed to Salvation by "repenting and believing " to salvation .

On the scholarship of soteriology , I believe it is heavily weighted on the reform side.

All of the Bible from creation shows that God elects individuals and nations .

The "free will" scholarship in the OT is fully dependent on 5 or 6 verses ..

I do not believe that anyones salvation is in anyway dependent on Arminiasm or Calvinism.

Most Calvinists (myself included) were saved many years before coming to the Doctrine of Grace. Most of us have saved Arminian family.

To us as a group it is significant because the Arminian Theology robs Gods glory and gives it to men . It is not about salvation.

I have looked at both, and I say that Calvinism has some wonderful beauty in it, but it also has some flaws. I think the same about Arminianism.

It is really very poor of you to call me a poor scholar.

Yea it was late and I was pooped it was a bit below the belt and i removed it

I do believe however that serious bible students will come to Calvinism eventually. Because it is presented in scripture.

A Calvinist friend said after I had come to believe Calvinism that he never doubted that I would, because I love the word of God and am a student of the word.
I too believe that is true.

People that do not search the scriptures will never see the doctrine.
It is a shame but in America we have very few Christians that have a devotion to the word.

No man can be saved without Christ! I have not said otherwise. My theology is so Christ-centred that I have been accused of making too much of Him! I love to ask, "Is that possible? Can I make the Son of God out to be too big or too beautiful?"

No ,but your position that the reprobates are covered by Christ or IN him is error, a misreading . Only the saved are IN Christ

If you think that Christ is redundant under my theology, then my point is not clear or you have not understood it.

My point is if heathens are IN Christ already they do not need do anything. They are covered by Christ

 

[frumanchu]

I haven't been following this thread, but peronally, I have often felt like it was the staunch 5-point Calvinists who seemed hateful. I wonder whether this comes from putting their energy into defending their conception of a hateful God.

Now, I haven't been following your around this forum, but personally, I have often felt like laughing when I see someone like you make comments about Calvinists being "hateful" and in the next sentence mislabel and misrepresent their position and then feign disbelief when someone might take offense to such comments.

In other areas of life, I have often seen people project their own emotions, motivations and inner feelings onto other people - both positive ones and negative ones. I have also seen many people respond in kind to the emotions or attitudes of others. It is enough to make me wonder sometimes when a group is or claims to be hated for no apparent reason, where does the hate come from?

And what, pray tell, are you implying with this?

I think the challenge for Calvinists is to find a way to defend a hateful God without becoming hateful yourself. Mouw's response is to say that because God loves some of God's enemies, but does not reveal to us who these are, we are to obey God's command by loving all our enemies.

I have no need to defend a hateful God because I don't believe in one. I think the challenge for YOU is to learn a little more about a doctrinal system before you not only dismiss it but misrepresent it.

No doubt you will see this as further vindication of your opinion. I can assure you that if you approach Calvinists in the manner you are with any measure of regularity, you are likely to continue to believe the animosity proceeds from their side

There is a fine line between "hateful" and "uncompromising."

 

[rnmomof7]

I haven't been following this thread, but peronally, I have often felt like it was the staunch 5-point Calvinists who seemed hateful. I wonder whether this comes from putting their energy into defending their conception of a hateful God.

Was God "hateful "when He destroyed all men , women and children in the flood? Or was He being Righteous?

Was God "hateful " when He rained down fire and brimstone one the men,. women and children in Sodom?
Or was He displaying His justice?

For God to be sovereign in all things is not "hateful" it is allowing God to be God and the center of all worship.

I'm not saying all Calvinists are hateful. Dr. Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological seminary, is an illustrious example.

Most Calvinists do not see Dr. Mouw as a Calvinist. Many see fuller..once a reform seminary as having become worldly and out of the will of God.

However, I'm afraid many Christians have had enough experience with hateful Calvinists to be on the lookout for this kind of attitude whenever they meet one.

Define Hateful for me would you?

In other areas of life, I have often seen people project their own emotions, motivations and inner feelings onto other people - both positive ones and negative ones. I have also seen many people respond in kind to the emotions or attitudes of others. It is enough to make me wonder sometimes when a group is or claims to be hated for no apparent reason, where does the hate come from?

Satin is the chief cheerleader in the hate "calvinism " choir

I think the challenge for Calvinists is to find a way to defend a hateful God without becoming hateful yourself. Mouw's response is to say that because God loves some of God's enemies, but does not reveal to us who these are, we are to obey God's command by loving all our enemies.

Indeed we are to love our enemies and those that spitefully abuse us.
I believe that God does reveal to us many of His enemies..they are the men the hate the gospel. And for those we pray that if it be His will that God bring them to repentance .


You have called Calvinists "hateful" and the God of the bible "hateful"

Now who do you think just might have the problem here??:>)

 

[Received]

Was God "hateful "when He destroyed all men , women and children in the flood? Or was He being Righteous?

Was God "hateful " when He rained down fire and brimstone one the men,. women and children in Sodom?
Or was He displaying His justice?

For God to be sovereign in all things is not "hateful" it is allowing God to be God and the center of all worship.

Ok, I'm going to be downright here. If God -- or anyone -- destroys someone in innocence, He contradicts Himself, and is quite hateful. I, however, am content to hold that the innocent cannot be sent to Hell, for they are not conscious of the moral implications of their decisions (Isaiah 7:16). There is really no point in saying that the women were 'innocent' as well. In this sense, justice is emitted, as it is at all times (Psalm 62:12), and at the end of time (Romans 2:6).

Moreover, substituting 'hateful' with 'sovereign' is truly a fallacy of extreme degree.

 

[rnmomof7]

I have no need to defend a hateful God because I don't believe in one. I think the challenge for YOU is to learn a little more about a doctrinal system before you not only dismiss it but misrepresent it.

No doubt you will see this as further vindication of your opinion. I can assure you that if you approach Calvinists in the manner you are with any measure of regularity, you are likely to continue to believe the animosity proceeds from their side

There is a fine line between "hateful" and "uncompromising."

This is the issue Fru , The church of Jesus Christ is willing today to compromise their doctrine to "make friends and influence people."

Some of the seeker friendly churches never mention sin, because it makes the unsaved "uncomfortable" . Even the churches that do speak of it call sin a 'mistake' not what it is ..willful rebellion against God.

They do not want to hurt the "feelings" of the unsaved..they may not answer an altar call. And it will be OUR fault.

Calvinists do not and will not compromise the gospel so others will feel "comfortable and loved"

It is the work of the gospel to convert not if we smile or not.

Uncompromising is the correct word.
The world sees that as hate..God sees it as love

 

[CCWoody]

I haven't been following this thread, but peronally, I have often felt like it was the staunch 5-point Calvinists who seemed hateful. I wonder whether this comes from putting their energy into defending their conception of a hateful God.

I'm not saying all Calvinists are hateful. Dr. Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological seminary, is an illustrious example. However, I'm afraid many Christians have had enough experience with hateful Calvinists to be on the lookout for this kind of attitude whenever they meet one.

In other areas of life, I have often seen people project their own emotions, motivations and inner feelings onto other people - both positive ones and negative ones. I have also seen many people respond in kind to the emotions or attitudes of others. It is enough to make me wonder sometimes when a group is or claims to be hated for no apparent reason, where does the hate come from?

I think the challenge for Calvinists is to find a way to defend a hateful God without becoming hateful yourself. Mouw's response is to say that because God loves some of God's enemies, but does not reveal to us who these are, we are to obey God's command by loving all our enemies.

If you want to stow the sheets and drop the tired snotty bigoted remarks and veiled personal attacks, you are invited to try and answer "Question #1 for non-Calvinists."

 

[rnmomof7]

Ok, I'm going to be downright here. If God -- or anyone -- destroys someone in innocence, He contradicts Himself, and is quite hateful.

There is no one that is innocent.

All men deserve Hell




Remember Abraham pleaded with God to spare Sodom if only ten righteous were found there ?

There were not ten righteous..not women or children no one

God only had mercy on Lot and his family for the sake of Abraham.

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Not one "innocent "person was destroyed in the flood or Sodom.

God contradicts His Holiness and His justice if he does not judge the wicked

I, however, am content to hold that the innocent cannot be sent to Hell, for they are not conscious of the moral implications of their decisions (Isaiah 7:16). There is really no point in saying that the women were 'innocent' as well. In this sense, justice is emitted, as it is at all times (Psalm 62:12), and at the end of time (Romans 2:6).

There is none righteous NO NOT ONE.

Men are born in sin and deserving of judgment , only the Mercy of God spares any man from hell.

Moreover, substituting 'hateful' with 'sovereign' is truly a fallacy of extreme degree.

Substituting mans will for Gods holiness and justice is a the pride of life is the fallacy.. and potentially a damning one

Ye shall be as gods

 

[john14_20]

Yea it was late and I was pooped it was a bit below the belt and i removed it

Thanks

 

[Jonih]

I think much of the problems regarding the subject come from confusing balanced calvinism and hypercalvinism.

 

[CCWoody]

I think much of the problems regarding the subject come from confusing balanced calvinism and hypercalvinism.

Thought there is a great deal of confusion about Calvinism, and I do think that the vast majority of American churchianity never bother to try and learn what they are condemning, I tend to think that even if they knew about what they spoke, they would still hate it. And they would still hate us for refusing to be swayed from it into their errors.

There is still that stubborn Adamic rebellion deep in their souls where Paul said "they exchanged the Truth of God for the lie." I have a very good friend who has even called Arminianism "The Lie of Eden." After carefully pondering it for more than a year, I have concluded that he is right. And until the Lord himself roots it out, they will continue to hate the Truth of Calvinism and us.

 

[rnmomof7]

I think much of the problems regarding the subject come from confusing balanced calvinism and hypercalvinism.

That could be. I have seen one too many posts that state we believe that it is not necessary for the elect to be given the gospel.

Calvinist have always been some of the finest missionaries .
Spurgeon once commented that if the elect had yellow stripes down their backs we would run around lifting shirts.

 

[Received]

There is no one that is innocent.

All men deserve Hell

This is a non-sequitur; it is one thing to say what the New Testament does -- that men are condemned before the law --, and quite another to claim that all men are born worthy of Hell -- this seems a slap in the face of either God's creation, or God's universal existence. God is too weak; I merely assert that sin is a power that is inhereted by man involuntarily following the mistake of Adam.

Remember Abraham pleaded with God to spare Sodom if only ten righteous were found there ?

And remember that he was speaking of Sodom?

There were not ten righteous..not women or children no one

Were there children in Sodom?

God only had mercy on Lot and his family for the sake of Abraham.

Ehhhh.

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Correct.

Not one "innocent "person was destroyed in the flood or Sodom.

Again, correct. However, the sin in reference here is not the natural state of man, but man in revolt.

God contradicts His Holiness and His justice if he does not judge the wicked

Once again, absolutely right. Non-calvinists merely assert that His justice is of His love (Psalm 62:12), rather than something unnecessary and disturbing.

There is none righteous NO NOT ONE.

Men are born in sin and deserving of judgment , only the Mercy of God spares any man from hell.

No; all men are born in sin and are condemned. Only the Mercy of God allows any man to escape what he is into what he desires (upon revelation of the gospel).

Substituting mans will for Gods holiness and justice is a the pride of life is the fallacy.. and potentially a damning one

Misconstruing the original intention of the poster into your own biased fancy is hardly an emission of righteousness.

Ye shall be as gods

Correct; the words of Jesus, taken from Psalm 82:

"I said, "You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High." -- v.6

"The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were 'gods' and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him -- for we can prevent Him, if we choose -- He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. Ths proces will be long and in parts very painful, but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He ment what He said." -- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

 

[Sunbeam]

"I said, "You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High." -- v.6

"The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were 'gods' and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him -- for we can prevent Him, if we choose -- He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. Ths proces will be long and in parts very painful, but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He ment what He said." -- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Recieved, I believe we can be perfect in this life in the sense we are self-controlled and aware enough to correct our mistakes as they are happening and after with short accounts, but I don't believe I can be a goddess. I think you mean well, perhaps not newage at all. I know there is that verse Jesus said but I think it can be taken too far. It actually scares me some when it is emphasized. I don't really know exactly what that means, as gods/goddesses, and I never think about it. I think I have heard so many women as newagers talk about how they are goddesses and it really bothers me. It kind of makes me sick. The Word of faith people also can really take that out of context in my opinion. Maybe some Greek could help me out here with that verse, even though I'm not that curious with this.

 

[Sunbeam]

Recieved, who is that new avatar picture by the way? Looks familiar.

 

[Received]

Sunbeam,

Good and well. I can understand how this verse can cause friction; my only emphasis was that through faith we are perfected in the righteousness of God, for righteousness comes through faith, and faith without works (i.e. the love of Christ) is dead. To sin is to do that which your conscience begs you not to (Romans 14:23), and it is quite easy not to sin.

The avatar is Soren Kierkegaard -- my motivation for being obscure and well-thought-though-zealously-presented -- i.e. without consideration for clarity

Blessings.

 

[CCWoody]

Spurgeon once commented that if the elect had yellow stripes down their backs we would run around lifting shirts.

Do you suppose that, in the spirit of their "self election," which is itself an oxymoron, that the Arminians would go around painting stripes on people's backs?

 

[Received]

N-n-n-not necessarily:

"An illustration is in order. Suppose a young man (whom we will call Jim) is contemplating marriage, and knows two young ladies (whom we will call Joan and Betty), either of whom would make a good wife for him. As a Christian, he has three basic choices: (1) to propose to neither of them; (2) to propose to Joan; or (3) to propose to Betty. Bear in mind that the young man is under no compulsion. There is nothing outside his own will that places demands on him to choose any one o fth three options (or any other one).... Suppose further that the young man happens to know that if he proposes to Joan she will say yet and if he proposes to Betty she will say no. Suppose then, in accordance with this foreknowledge of how she will freely respond, that Jim chooses to proppose to Joan. Suppose even that he knew she would be reluctant at first but with persistent and loving persuasion she would eventually -- freely -- accept his offer. The decision on his part was entirely free, uncoerced, and not based on anything outside himself. But is was also a decision that was with full knowledge of the response and which respected the free choice of the person to whom he decided to propose. This is analogous to what the moderate Calvinist [my position; he calls it such because modern Calvinists believe more than Calvin] believe about God's unconditional election." (Geisler)

This sums it up perfectly; however, he goes on to state what the Calvinist would hold:

"In contrast, let's hold the same illustration up against extreme Calvinists' belief. They would say that if Jim foreknew that both women would refuse his proposal for marriage unless coerced against their will to do so,* he would not have to show his love to either of them. Instead he could, for instance, decide to force Betty to marry him against her will. Would we not say that "forced love" is a contradiction in terms? And since Jim represents God in the illustration, would not this make God into someone who forces Himself on otheres in violation of their integrity? It seems to me that this is precisely what the extreme Calvinists are affirming."

*In an educational footnote, Geisler states thus: "Extreme Calvinists insist they hold to the truth that man is free and uncoerced. They claim "Man is free -- one hundred percent free -- to do exactly what he wants. God does not coerce a single one against his will." Yet Palmer adds shortly thereafter, "Incidentally, the Christian has no free will either.... Christ will not let him reject Him". Language is emptied of meaning when we speak of such things as being coerced to act freely."

 

[armothe]

Instead he could, for instance, decide to force Betty to marry him against her will. Would we not say that "forced love" is a contradiction in terms? And since Jim represents God in the illustration, would not this make God into someone who forces Himself on otheres in violation of their integrity? It seems to me that this is precisely what the extreme Calvinists are affirming."

Unsymbolizing your illustration.....

What if Jim and Betty's future child was one of the elect? Then certainly God would have forced Jim to force Betty to marry him. Right?

-A