The Hypocrisy of Calvinists

[YeshuaFan]

How does that relate to the OP?

Just wanted to let you know how Calvinists really view this issue!

 

[bcbsr]

There is a huge difference between fatalism and Calvinism. This OP simply demonstrates that you don't understand Calvinism.

Once again, proposition with no substance, no content. If the difference is so huge then surely you can put words to it. So what is the "huge" difference as you see it?

 

[bcbsr]

The sinner being saved still must receive Jesus as their Lord for salvation itself to occur, as none are just born saved!

Are you claiming that Calvinism teaches that people are not born elect to eternal life or eternal damnation? Is that what you're saying?

 

[bcbsr]

Do you think that those who still remain lost in their sins actually wanted to get saved by Jesus? Hell is the final destination for those whose desire was to reject God here, and whose desire is that God just stay out of their lives!

Apparently you're not a Calvinist as you view peoples fate conditioned upon their own desires rather than God's election.

 

[bcbsr]

Again, the basic problem is that the person does not really understand what we teach and hold with in our theology!

Yet you have failed to show in what what the premise I stated contradicts Calvinism. I'll make it simple. Doesn't Calvinism teach that people are elect and fated to eternal life or eternal damnation prior to birth and nothing they do can change that elect status? Yes or No?

 

[bcbsr]

I claimed that your first statement in the OP was false, so everything after it is false. If you want the OP to be about a different topic, then say so.

The first statement was proven as being what logically follows given the premise of Calvinism, as the rest of the post proved.

If A (what Calvinism teaches) = B (Calvinistic view of election)
and if logically B = C (Salvation by election)
Then A = C

 

[bcbsr]

No, I am not disputing that premise, but that is not the premise that you began with. You began with the premise that Calvinists do not believe in salvation by faith in Christ. That is the premise I was disputing. That premise is wrong.

You began with the premise that Calvinists don't believe in salvation by faith in Christ. You started there, you did not end there.

You misunderstand the sense in which I was writing. The first statement was the thesis, not the premise. You should have seen that from the rest of the OP where I proved the thesis which was logically inferred from the premise of the Calvinist view of election.

 

[Hammster]

The first statement was proven as being what logically follows given the premise of Calvinism, as the rest of the post proved.

If A (what Calvinism teaches) = B (Calvinistic view of election)
and if logically B = C (Salvation by election)
Then A = C

This why your argument is a straw man. The first statement was NOT proven. You just asserted it then gave flimsy reasoning. Quote something from Reformed Theology to support your claim, and then we will see how it goes from there.

 

[bcbsr]

This why your argument is a straw man. The first statement was NOT proven. You just asserted it then gave flimsy reasoning. Quote something from Reformed Theology to support your claim, and then we will see how it goes from there.

Predestination in Calvinism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Predestination is a doctrine in Calvinism dealing with the question of the control that God exercises over the world. In the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, God "freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass."[2] The second use of the word "predestination" applies this to the salvation, and refers to the belief that God appointed the eternal destiny of some to salvation by grace, while leaving the remainder to receive eternal damnation for all their sins, even their original sin. The former is called "unconditional election", and the latter "reprobation". In Calvinism, people are predestined and effectually called in due time (regenerated/born again) to faith by God.

Or take Predestination and calvinism

Predestination is the doctrine that God alone chooses (elects) who is saved. He makes His choice independent of any quality or condition in sinful man. He does not look into a person and recognize something good nor does He look into the future to see who would choose Him. He elects people to salvation purely on the basis of His good pleasure. Those not elected are not saved. He does this because He is sovereign; that is, He has the absolute authority, right, and ability to do with His creation as He pleases. He has the right to elect some to salvation and let all the rest go their natural way: to hell. This is predestination.

There you go. What do you disagree with? And by the way, notice the tense above

God alone chooses (elects) who is saved.
Those not elected are not saved.

The Calvinist doesn't say "who will be saved", but rather "who is saved".

So my premise is in accordance with the postulation of Calvinism.

Now your turn. Provide me with a reference that denies the premise that Calvinism advocates that people are elect to eternal life or eternal damnation from birth, not based on foreknowledge, and nothing will change their fate.

 

[Hammster]

Predestination in Calvinism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Predestination is a doctrine in Calvinism dealing with the question of the control that God exercises over the world. In the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, God "freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass."[2] The second use of the word "predestination" applies this to the salvation, and refers to the belief that God appointed the eternal destiny of some to salvation by grace, while leaving the remainder to receive eternal damnation for all their sins, even their original sin. The former is called "unconditional election", and the latter "reprobation". In Calvinism, people are predestined and effectually called in due time (regenerated/born again) to faith by God.

Or take Predestination and calvinism

Predestination is the doctrine that God alone chooses (elects) who is saved. He makes His choice independent of any quality or condition in sinful man. He does not look into a person and recognize something good nor does He look into the future to see who would choose Him. He elects people to salvation purely on the basis of His good pleasure. Those not elected are not saved. He does this because He is sovereign; that is, He has the absolute authority, right, and ability to do with His creation as He pleases. He has the right to elect some to salvation and let all the rest go their natural way: to hell. This is predestination.

There you go. What do you disagree with? And by the way, notice the tense above

God alone chooses (elects) who is saved.
Those not elected are not saved.

The Calvinist doesn't say "who will be saved", but rather "who is saved".

So my premise is in accordance with the postulation of Calvinism.

Now your turn. Provide me with a reference that denies the premise that Calvinism advocates that people are elect to eternal life or eternal damnation from birth, not based on foreknowledge, and nothing will change their fate.

I don’t know why I have to repeat myself. Again. But here is your premise from your OP.

“Under Calvinism salvation is not by faith in Christ”

This is not true. And there’s no Reformed teaching you can point to that supports this.

 

[Tree of Life]

Once again, proposition with no substance, no content. If the difference is so huge then surely you can put words to it. So what is the "huge" difference as you see it?

Fatalism teaches that certain things will happen no matter what. In relation to God's providence, fatalism ignores that God also ordains means when He ordains ends.

For example, according to fatalism if God ordains that I will have pizza for dinner, this means that I will have pizza for dinner no matter what. It doesn't matter whether I order the pizza, whether someone makes the pizza, or whether I want the pizza. I could do anything and still pizza for dinner would be the result. Likewise, according to a fatalist, God ordains people to salvation no matter what. They don't need to repent and believe the gospel. No one needs to preach to them. Etc. Whether or not they ever hear the gospel or repent and believe, the end result will be their salvation.

This is not what Calvinistic Predestination teaches at all.

Calvin taught that while God ordains the ends, he also ordains all the means to that end. So if he ordains that I will have pizza for dinner, he also ordains that I will want pizza, that I will order pizza, that someone will make me pizza, and that I will eat pizza. When God ordains that someone will be saved, he also ordains that they hear the gospel at some point, that they desire to repent and believe, that they do repent and believe, and that they embrace God willingly and choose to follow him throughout their lives.

 

[bcbsr]

I don’t know why I have to repeat myself. Again. But here is your premise from your OP.

“Under Calvinism salvation is not by faith in Christ”

This is not true. And there’s no Reformed teaching you can point to that supports this.

I already explained this to you previously. But if you're not actually reading my responses, what's the point in me responding?

What you call the premise not the premise. Again:

The first statement was proven as being what logically follows given the premise of Calvinism, as the rest of the post proved.

If A (what Calvinism teaches) = B (Calvinistic view of election)
and if logically B = C (Salvation by election)
Then A = C

Now if you keep calling my thesis as my premise then you're just bearing false witness against me.

 

[SleepingAtLast]

You misunderstand the sense in which I was writing. The first statement was the thesis, not the premise. You should have seen that from the rest of the OP where I proved the thesis which was logically inferred from the premise of the Calvinist view of election.

Ahh okay, now we are getting somewhere.

 

[SleepingAtLast]

Apparently you're not a Calvinist as you view peoples fate conditioned upon their own desires rather than God's election.

But Calvinists believe both here. People do go to heaven or hell based on their own desires, it’s just that the desires of some change via regeneration.

 

[bcbsr]

Fatalism teaches that certain things will happen no matter what. In relation to God's providence, fatalism ignores that God also ordains means when He ordains ends.

For example, according to fatalism if God ordains that I will have pizza for dinner, this means that I will have pizza for dinner no matter what. It doesn't matter whether I order the pizza, whether someone makes the pizza, or whether I want the pizza. I could do anything and still pizza for dinner would be the result. Likewise, according to a fatalist, God ordains people to salvation no matter what. They don't need to repent and believe the gospel. No one needs to preach to them. Etc. Whether or not they ever hear the gospel or repent and believe, the end result will be their salvation.

This is not what Calvinistic Predestination teaches at all.

Calvin taught that while God ordains the ends, he also ordains all the means to that end. So if he ordains that I will have pizza for dinner, he also ordains that I will want pizza, that I will order pizza, that someone will make me pizza, and that I will eat pizza. When God ordains that someone will be saved, he also ordains that they hear the gospel at some point, that they desire to repent and believe, that they do repent and believe, and that they embrace God willingly and choose to follow him throughout their lives.

I'm making an inference based upon what the propositions of Calvinism. If one's fate is determined prior to birth, faith doesn't change that fate. Are the elect, even prior to coming to faith, even in danger of going to hell. No, not according to Calvinism.

Consider the converse. When a person comes to faith in Christ, in what way is he actually "saved". He hasn't gone to heaven yet. Hasn't faced the judgement day. And he's still not fit for heaven, still not being perfect, though destined to be conformed to the image of Christ. And he certainly hasn't died yet. So even after coming to faith his salvation is incomplete, but it can be said in the perfect tense that he "has been saved" as that is his fate.

But under Calvinism that fate hadn't actually changed. It was when he became elect, prior to his birth, that his fate was determined. And yes, I agree there's a whole process involved, but fact is, coming to faith didn't change that fate.

 

[bcbsr]

But Calvinists believe both here. People do go to heaven or hell based on their own desires, it’s just that the desires of some change via regeneration.

Under Calvinism one's desires don't affect one's elect status, that being determined prior to birth and not dependent upon God's foreknowledge of one's future desires or anything else.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Are you claiming that Calvinism teaches that people are not born elect to eternal life or eternal damnation? Is that what you're saying?

Here's a question for you: Which do you think is the priority and most important, taking hold of the promises of God in the gospel, or believing that you are part of the elect?

if you believe that being elected is a foregone conclusion regardless of what anyone can do, how do you know that you are elect, in spite of your profession of Christianity? What evidence do you actually have that you are one of the elect? If you were not one of the elect, chosen from the foundation of the world, then your profession of Christianity must be in vain, is it not?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I'm making an inference based upon what the propositions of Calvinism. If one's fate is determined prior to birth, faith doesn't change that fate. Are the elect, even prior to coming to faith, even in danger of going to hell. No, not according to Calvinism.

Consider the converse. When a person comes to faith in Christ, in what way is he actually "saved". He hasn't gone to heaven yet. Hasn't faced the judgement day. And he's still not fit for heaven, still not being perfect, though destined to be conformed to the image of Christ. And he certainly hasn't died yet. So even after coming to faith his salvation is incomplete, but it can be said in the perfect tense that he "has been saved" as that is his fate.

But under Calvinism that fate hadn't actually changed. It was when he became elect, prior to his birth, that his fate was determined. And yes, I agree there's a whole process involved, but fact is, coming to faith didn't change that fate.

"Fate" is a Middle-Eastern Muslim principle. I don't think that there is any comparison between Calvinist and Muslim doctrine.

 

[bcbsr]

"Fate" is a Middle-Eastern Muslim principle. I don't think that there is any comparison between Calvinist and Muslim doctrine.

I think I know what you mean, but I'm not using "fated" as some misuse the word "luck". I'm clearly using "fated" to refer to God's monergistic choice. So better to interpret words in context rather than pulling out of the air whatever arbitrary meaning a word can have. If indeed your objective is understanding someone else's viewpoint rather than to bear false witness by misreading what they wrote. That latter is a typical technique many use on these forums.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The Hypocrisy of Calvinists

Under Calvinism salvation is not by faith in Christ, but rather by a pre-birth election whereby God arbitrarily decides ones eternal fate, and that not based upon God's foreknowledge of some future faith. Thus people are born ether saved and eternally secure or unsaved and eternally damned, there being nothing they can do to change that fate in either instance.

Yet when asked the question, as the Philippian jailer asked, "What must I do to be saved?", the typical Calvinist will answer as the apostle, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved?" ("Believe" being in the imperative in the text and not subjunctive as if saying "if you were to believe", and thus, being imperative, indicating to the man that there is something he could do to be saved, and furthermore that he was not saved until doing so).

But if Calvinists actually believed in Calvinism they would respond something like, "There is nothing you can do to be saved, for your fate was determined prior to you being born and there is nothing you can do to change that fate." That's an example of the hypocrisy of Calvinists.

I understand your frustration. It has been a point of contention for centuries. You would think with all
the confusion within the Body of Christ that this belief causes, it would have faded away. But in fact it is growing and I have a good suspicion why. No accountability, a sinners crutch.
Blessings