Question for former Calvinists

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

So, we had dinner with a Calvinist friend tonight. He's a really nice guy, a good friend of my husband, but neither of us can stand his Calvinist beliefs.

Well, we ended up discussing theology for a bit. I am so profoundly disturbed by this brand of theology that I can't even articulate it. I didn't learn anything I didn't already know tonight, but he did bring up some verses that are somewhere in the Bible, but I'm not sure where (he wasn't prepared with "proof texts"). The verses he mentioned said that we are "objects of wrath", and "fit for damnation", or something to that effect. Does anyone know where these scriptures are? He was using these along with the predestination crud to explain why some people are created for hell (I guess they're short of kindling down there ). Thanks.

 

[Knowledge3]

Orthodox theology describes God as a lover of mankind, not the opposite. My guess is that there are subtle differences in soteriology and eschatology. Calvinism is Protestant, as with Lutherans,Baptists,Presbyterians and other groups . . . but they are still Christians.

 

[Padraig]

So, we had dinner with a Calvinist friend tonight. He's a really nice guy, a good friend of my husband, but neither of us can stand his Calvinist beliefs.

Well, we ended up discussing theology for a bit. I am so profoundly disturbed by this brand of theology that I can't even articulate it. I didn't learn anything I didn't already know tonight, but he did bring up some verses that are somewhere in the Bible, but I'm not sure where (he wasn't prepared with "proof texts"). The verses he mentioned said that we are "objects of wrath", and "fit for damnation", or something to that effect. Does anyone know where these scriptures are? He was using these along with the predestination crud to explain why some people are created for hell (I guess they're short of kindling down there ). Thanks.

I think he's trying to quote Romans Chapter 9, particularly vs 22, 23:

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—

I suppose you already know that these are taken way out of context in his usage. But it would be worthwhile to look up Patristic commentary on these verses.

May you bear the fruit of the Passion,
Dn Kevin

 

[Padraig]

Chrysostom writes in his Homilies on Romans #16:

Why are some people vessels of wrath and others vessels of mercy? It is by their own free choice. God, being very good, shows the same kindness to both.

Dn Kevin

 

[Shubunkin]

I was thinking what happened to Sodom and Gemorrah was what he was telling about... not sure. I've studied some Calvinism, but never embraced it in my life. It's no wonder... It's hard to swallow, even for someone that reads the Bible.

 

[Jacob4707]

I think he's trying to quote Romans Chapter 9, particularly vs 22, 23:

I've always found Paul's argument there to be unfinished or difficult to decipher. He seems to break off in mid-thought, if I recall, just when you expect him to give the explanation of this apparent double-predestination.

 

[RobNJ]

G.D.E. Let me see what I can dig up. My books from my Calvinist days are in the basement, & me & my cane are NOT hobbling down THOSE steps!. I have been moving bookmarks from computer to computer for a few years, maybe some of those sites are still on here.

 

[Guineverelyndy]

I used to be a Calvinist.

I'm trying to remember what verses he is referring to. I think it's this one:

Ephesians 2:1-3 1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.

One of the Calvinist favorites is the verse about how God loved Jacob, but hated Esau (and yeah, that's the word used in the actual verse - I'm not exaggerating!). This is supposed to prove that God does not love everybody, although I haven't the foggiest idea what that's really supposed to accomplish. I suppose I did at one time but have since blocked the memory.

The basic premise for most is this: God's primary purpose is to show His glory. God is sovereign over everything, therefore if He purposes something it WILL come to pass, no matter what anybody else wants. He will harden hearts (like Pharaoh's) and soften hearts (the Israelites) in order to accomplish His plan of saving those that He has elected. They use Romans 8:29(?) and following to show that God only calls some, and since you can't thwart God, all those who are called end up being glorified.

If I think of more, I'll add it later.

 

[Guineverelyndy]

I must add that they don't think the verse that talks about "many are called, but few are chosen" means what it says it means.

 

[NyssaTheHobbit]

Yeah, I first encountered that "for his glory" theology several years ago in an Evangelical Free Church. We thought it was an Arminian church, but apparently it was moving towards Calvinism. I've since discovered where the glory theology came from, and that it's common in many Evangelical/Fundamentalist churches--though I had never heard of it in all my time as an Evangelical/Fundamentalist. People in less Calvinist churches who embrace that theology don't seem to realize that, taken to its obvious conclusion, it ends up with double predestination.

 

[Monica child of God 1]

I am a former Calvinist. I accepted the theology because it was taught to me as part of the true gospel in the church where I became a Christian. The portions of Romans already quoted in the thread are biggies in their view. More important than all the places which talk about God's mercy and love for all mankind.

Besides predestination Calvinists belive in limited atonement and the total depravity of man. Limited atonement is the idea that Christ's death on the cross was not for all mankind but only for the elect. I have such huge problems with this. The idea that God the Father could have had His anger atoned for (we're dealing with Western models here) through Christ and saved all people, but didn't because he needed to condemn some as a display of his wrath is so, so, so offensive to me now. But you have to believe in limited atonement if you believe that mankind is totally depraved and therefore cannot in anyway participate in their salvation.

Calvinists also believe that God's call is irresistable. In their view, if God has chosen you for salvation, there is no way to resist even if you appear to for large portions of your life. Therefore, salvation involves no real choice on the part of the person who is saved. So it really doesn't matter how you live except as a bit of assurance that you might be saved because people who are saved produce fruit. The flip side of that is that you could produce what appears to be good fruit for decades, fall into sin, die while in sin and thereby show that you were not saved after all, but a vessel of God's wrath. Sorry, thanks for playing.

Many modern Calvinists will quote an old catechism which states "Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever." At first blush it sounds very nice and not unOrthodox. But the problem is that it is all external. Union with God is not emphasized at all and being conformed to His likeness is a mere residual effect.

M.

 

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

I am a former Calvinist. I accepted the theology because it was taught to me as part of the true gospel in the church where I became a Christian. The portions of Romans already quoted in the thread are biggies in their view. More important than all the places which talk about God's mercy and love for all mankind.

Besides predestination Calvinists belive in limited atonement and the total depravity of man. Limited atonement is the idea that Christ's death on the cross was not for all mankind but only for the elect. I have such huge problems with this. The idea that God the Father could have had His anger atoned for (we're dealing with Western models here) through Christ and saved all people, but didn't because he needed to condemn some as a display of his wrath is so, so, so offensive to me now. But you have to believe in limited atonement if you believe that mankind is totally depraved and therefore cannot in anyway participate in their salvation.

Calvinists also believe that God's call is irresistable. In their view, if God has chosen you for salvation, there is no way to resist even if you appear to for large portions of your life. Therefore, salvation involves no real choice on the part of the person who is saved. So it really doesn't matter how you live except as a bit of assurance that you might be saved because people who are saved produce fruit. The flip side of that is that you could produce what appears to be good fruit for decades, fall into sin, die while in sin and thereby show that you were not saved after all, but a vessel of God's wrath. Sorry, thanks for playing.

Many modern Calvinists will quote an old catechism which states "Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever." At first blush it sounds very nice and not unOrthodox. But the problem is that it is all external. Union with God is not emphasized at all and being conformed to His likeness is a mere residual effect.

M.

Thanks for this (and thanks to Fr. Deacon Kevin as well). The total depravity of man and the lack of free will are 2 things that really stuck out when we were talking. He even said that some people were not chosen for salvation (and therefore chosen to be destroyed in hell) "for the glory of God". This, IMO, makes God to be the worst enemy of mankind that I could ever imagine. It seems like the most insulting thing you could say about the Lover of Mankind.

 

[tulipbee]

I went to lots of different churches and found Calvinism to be more accurate when talking about the Bible. Although theres lots of off the wall within Calvinism like hyper calvinism and can throw off other Christians. I remembered when I was 5, I was told that there is healing and I started to seek healing as soon as I was able to understand what I wanted. 45 years later and thousands of books read on spiritual subjects, good and bad, Calvinism makes more sense. Of course we can't be at two places at once but if the Bible say so, then we must accept. Calvinism accepts the Words of the Bible and tries to explain it but you guys say we live in the now and can't be in two places at the same time lacks the duality idea about time and space. Once Calvinism is understood, you become wiser knowing that it was God that said those things and outside our language barrier and turns out to be the most positive idea knowing that God's promises are kept and more understood in Calvinism. In other words, if God promises on His own Words, then it is His Will and The elect can't reject or once saved, always saved. Others have backwards ideas and deceive other into owning free will and acting on it. There, that make God's promises useless when one discovers free will and not understand what 100% spiritual dead means. If a corpse desire ice cream while in the grave and hears the ice cream truck rings it's bell, Will the dead crawl out of the grave to wave down the truck for ice cream to satisfy his/her own desires? 100% spiritually dead is just what the BIble states and must face the truth as God's states it in His own Words. Once that is understood, then the rest will follow. Calvinism is about believing in God's Words alone and accepting it regardless how much we hate to her that.

Presbyter

 

[icxn]

I went to lots of different churches and found Calvinism to be more accurate when talking about the Bible. Although theres lots of off the wall within Calvinism like hyper calvinism and can throw off other Christians. I remembered when I was 5, I was told that there is healing and I started to seek healing as soon as I was able to understand what I wanted. 45 years later and thousands of books read on spiritual subjects, good and bad, Calvinism makes more sense. Of course we can't be at two places at once but if the Bible say so, then we must accept. Calvinism accepts the Words of the Bible and tries to explain it but you guys say we live in the now and can't be in two places at the same time lacks the duality idea about time and space. Once Calvinism is understood, you become wiser knowing that it was God that said those things and outside our language barrier and turns out to be the most positive idea knowing that God's promises are kept and more understood in Calvinism. In other words, if God promises on His own Words, then it is His Will and The elect can't reject or once saved, always saved. Others have backwards ideas and deceive other into owning free will and acting on it. There, that make God's promises useless when one discovers free will and not understand what 100% spiritual dead means. If a corpse desire ice cream while in the grave and hears the ice cream truck rings it's bell, Will the dead crawl out of the grave to wave down the truck for ice cream to satisfy his/her own desires? 100% spiritually dead is just what the BIble states and must face the truth as God's states it in His own Words. Once that is understood, then the rest will follow. Calvinism is about believing in God's Words alone and accepting it regardless how much we hate to her that.

Presbyter

And according to your words it is God's fault that we reject what you have just said so we are innocent of every reproof.

 

[Jacob4707]

I went to lots of different churches and found Calvinism to be more accurate when talking about the Bible. Although theres lots of off the wall within Calvinism like hyper calvinism and can throw off other Christians. I remembered when I was 5, I was told that there is healing and I started to seek healing as soon as I was able to understand what I wanted. 45 years later and thousands of books read on spiritual subjects, good and bad, Calvinism makes more sense. Of course we can't be at two places at once but if the Bible say so, then we must accept. Calvinism accepts the Words of the Bible and tries to explain it but you guys say we live in the now and can't be in two places at the same time lacks the duality idea about time and space. Once Calvinism is understood, you become wiser knowing that it was God that said those things and outside our language barrier and turns out to be the most positive idea knowing that God's promises are kept and more understood in Calvinism. In other words, if God promises on His own Words, then it is His Will and The elect can't reject or once saved, always saved. Others have backwards ideas and deceive other into owning free will and acting on it. There, that make God's promises useless when one discovers free will and not understand what 100% spiritual dead means. If a corpse desire ice cream while in the grave and hears the ice cream truck rings it's bell, Will the dead crawl out of the grave to wave down the truck for ice cream to satisfy his/her own desires? 100% spiritually dead is just what the BIble states and must face the truth as God's states it in His own Words. Once that is understood, then the rest will follow. Calvinism is about believing in God's Words alone and accepting it regardless how much we hate to her that.

Presbyter

 

[Dust and Ashes]

I was listening to these podcasts from AFR by Matthew Gallatin and found them to be helpful in understanding the differences between the Eastern and Western views. They don't deal specifically with Calvinism but might be of some help.

http://ancientfaithradio.com/podcasts/pilgrims

 

[tulipbee]

And according to your words it is God's fault that we reject what you have just said so we are innocent of every reproof.

I guess it was my words when I quote reformed theologies. In the reformed days, going back to the Bible, and away from centries old organized churches who added more than 1000 new traditions and ongoing, I could say that those that reject were never saved in the first place. Just positive thinking. If you reject when God predestined you to hell because He thought of it ahead of time, then it was the unbeliever that rejects. The goats rejects. The elected can't reject. the believers can't reject. If you believe, how do you unbelieve ? When you have the gift of faith, how in the world do you toss out the gift if you want to reject. If God promises you Salvation, how could you tell Him, "No thanks, you made a mistake and chose the wrong person." Whats more positive when God already claims you as His child of God. You can play games with positive thoughts on your own and say I'm saved because I told God to save me, or one would tell God, " I'm not ready or don't bother me since I'm not ready for Salvation. " Those that think they are 98% spiritually dead think they can tell God what to do and make up their own minds about the spiritual things of God. The Bible states natural man ~DOESN'T~ know the spiritual things of God. God promises you Salvation and then change His mind, I don't think so. There are cases in the Bible that God does that (change His mind), literally read. But like the earlier post above, one said God hated the other unborn twin and was stated that it was symbolic or was meant something else. Literally, He hated the other twin. With that, you and I believe in different things. Personally, Calvinism makes more sense to me but do agree we all have bugs in our theologies. Lets face it, The Bible said, God chooses you, not You chose God. The word, 'If' back then is different than we use it today.

Prebyterian

 

[tulipbee]

Huh?

 

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

I guess it was my words when I quote reformed theologies. In the reformed days, going back to the Bible, and away from centries old organized churches who added more than 1000 new traditions and ongoing, I could say that those that reject were never saved in the first place. Just positive thinking. If you reject when God predestined you to hell because He thought of it ahead of time, then it was the unbeliever that rejects. The goats rejects. The elected can't reject. the believers can't reject. If you believe, how do you unbelieve ? When you have the gift of faith, how in the world do you toss out the gift if you want to reject. If God promises you Salvation, how could you tell Him, "No thanks, you made a mistake and chose the wrong person." Whats more positive when God already claims you as His child of God. You can play games with positive thoughts on your own and say I'm saved because I told God to save me, or one would tell God, " I'm not ready or don't bother me since I'm not ready for Salvation. " Those that think they are 98% spiritually dead think they can tell God what to do and make up their own minds about the spiritual things of God. The Bible states natural man ~DOESN'T~ know the spiritual things of God. God promises you Salvation and then change His mind, I don't think so. There are cases in the Bible that God does that (change His mind), literally read. But like the earlier post above, one said God hated the other unborn twin and was stated that it was symbolic or was meant something else. Literally, He hated the other twin. With that, you and I believe in different things. Personally, Calvinism makes more sense to me but do agree we all have bugs in our theologies. Lets face it, The Bible said, God chooses you, not You chose God. The word, 'If' back then is different than we use it today.

Prebyterian

This thread is for "former Clavinists", not currently practicing ones. This is not intended for debate of Calvinist theology v/s Orthodox. And let me say, we do not agree on anything, least of all that we Orthodox have "bugs" in our theology. We have the Faith of the Apostles, the One Church which began at Pentecost. Not a modern theology or denomination, both of which are totally disconnected from the Traditions of early Christianity.

Sorry if you misunderstood the intent of the thread.

 

[BabyLutheran]

I didn't realize Yoda was writing treatises on Calvinism!

Disjointed English he uses think I.