The Hypocrisy of Calvinists

[bcbsr]

The first part of Wikipedia is correct, that it is unconditional on our part in God's election.

The second part is assuming that foreknowledge is some sort of foreseeing certain events into the distant future. I addressed our view on "foreknowledge," and you refused it. You're not worth talking to, you have your fingers stuffed in your ears.

Well then stop talking to me.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Yet another example of Calvinist manner of proving ones point. You provide no evidence of what I said being "nonsense". You simply state it as a fact as if that settles the matter.

The problem is that you think that we Calvinists hold to a view of God as Muslims do Allah, fatalism!

 

[HosannaHM]

Okay then, try this one: I believe all of the scriptures(the 66 books of the Bible). Do you?

If so, how do you reconcile Romans 8:28-30 with justification by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8)? Cannot one be elected and justified by faith in Christ at the same time?

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Apparently you didn't really think that through. Do you agree that under Calvinism when a person is born they are already elect to eternal life or eternal damnation and that nothing can change their elect status? Yes, I understand that Calvinists propose that God, having already elected someone to eternal life will gift them with faith at some point. But that doesn't change their salvation status. For is a person is elect to eternal life, and nothing can change their elect status, then they are already saved prior to coming to faith in Christ.

Maybe you encountered people who espouse HyperCalvinism? They represent fewer than 1% of Calvinists. Some do hold to eternal justification. To them faith is just a realization that God has already saved them in eternity past.

However election does not equal justification. Ask a Calvinist: did they bear God's wrath before they were saved, justified, believed? If yes, then election does not equal salvation.

That means salvation is not rooted in eternity past, but at a specific point in time.


LDG

 

[SleepingAtLast]

That doesn't follow. I've taken the Calvinist premise and shown where it logically leads. They have provided no evidence that I have misrepresented the premise. Because I know Calvinism. While they are disturbed as to where I show where that premise logically leads, they have provided no evidence that the logic, the reasoning, itself is wrong.

All they've done so far is make vain propositions that I have presented a straw man argument, or simply propose that I am wrong, but have provided no evidence, neither of misrepresenting the premise nor any evidence that my conclusion doesn't logically follow.

And that fact, so far, speaks for itself, as to how Calvinists defend Calvinism.

No, you have taken what you believe to be a Calvinist premise and followed that to its logical conclusion. You have taken a strawman understanding of what Calvinism teaches and then have knocked that down. If all of the Calvinists in this conversation are saying, "No, you've got our position wrong," that should be evidence enough that what you have said Calvinists believe is not, in fact, what they believe. Stating a position that no one actually holds and then knocking it down, at the end of the day, has not accomplished anything at all.

It's okay to take issue with Calvinism, but so far what you have taken issue with is not an accurate reflection of Calvinism. It would be no different than if someone said that they take issue with Christianity because Christianity is polytheistic in that it worships three deities. We wouldn't affirm that, and someone telling us that we do does not make it so.

I believe more than once it has already been said that your statement that Calvinists believe that "salvation is not by faith in Christ" is not an accurate reflection of Calvinism. Calvinists absolutely affirm that salvation is by faith in Christ. You might take that to be an inconsistency with other things that Calvinists believe, and that's fine, but let's not confuse your interpretation of Calvinist theology with what Calvinism actually teaches. Give me a statement that accurately reflects Calvinism and ask me to defend that, but I'm not going to try to defend a statement that doesn't reflect what I believe at the outset.

 

[HosannaHM]

Why? What does that question have to do with the OP? Do you agree with the OP? If not provide evidence to disprove it.

I’m seeking to understand you in the same way you’re trying to understand Calvinism. I thought that was the point. I can’t understand you if i don’t know what you believe, and you can’t understand me( a Calvinist) until you actually understand what I believe.

 

[YeshuaFan]

You still have failed to show how I have misrepresented the premise of Calvinism nor show where my logic as how it leads to my conclusion is wrong.

You do not understand what really happened to all of us due to the fall!

 

[YeshuaFan]

No, you have taken what you believe to be a Calvinist premise and followed that to its logical conclusion. You have taken a strawman understanding of what Calvinism teaches and then have knocked that down. If all of the Calvinists in this conversation are saying, "No, you've got our position wrong," that should be evidence enough that what you have said Calvinists believe is not, in fact, what they believe. Stating a position that no one actually holds and then knocking it down, at the end of the day, has not accomplished anything at all.

It's okay to take issue with Calvinism, but so far what you have taken issue with is not an accurate reflection of Calvinism. It would be no different than if someone said that they take issue with Christianity because Christianity is polytheistic in that it worships three deities. We wouldn't affirm that, and someone telling us that we do does not make it so.

I believe more than once it has already been said that your statement that Calvinists believe that "salvation is not by faith in Christ" is not an accurate reflection of Calvinism. Calvinists absolutely affirm that salvation is by faith in Christ. You might take that to be an inconsistency with other things that Calvinists believe, and that's fine, but let's not confuse your interpretation of Calvinist theology with what Calvinism actually teaches. Give me a statement that accurately reflects Calvinism and ask me to defend that, but I'm not going to try to defend a statement that doesn't reflect what I believe at the outset.

He seems to be getting his information on what believe not from our theology books or sources, but from what someone else stated was what we were holding with!
Also misunderstands the Fall, and what happened to all of us due to the sin of Adam!

 

[Hammster]

You still have failed to show how I have misrepresented the premise of Calvinism nor show where my logic as how it leads to my conclusion is wrong.

I did.

The Hypocrisy of Calvinists

 

[Cement]

8“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways My ways,”
declares the LORD.

9“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so My ways are higher than your ways
and My thoughts than your thoughts.
Isaiah 55

i no longer dare think what Gods thoughts and intentions are. It is not in my limited understanding to know why or how God does things only to believe and obey his written word.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Well let's do a simply wikipedia on "Calvinism"

This choice by God to save some is held to be unconditional and not based on any characteristic or action on the part of the person chosen. This view is opposed to the Arminian view that God's choice of whom to save is conditional or based on his foreknowledge of who would respond positively to God.

So you're an "Arminian"?

I am a Christian that holds to a Calvinist view on salvation, are you an Arminian?

 

[YeshuaFan]

I did.

The Hypocrisy of Calvinists

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

 

[SaintCody777]

Calvinists often love to boast about their assurance of salvation. Calvinists often strike at Arminians saying that Arminians and other non-Calvinists never really know if they are saved and that their salvation is like a fragile egg. But the truth is, there is a Domascles' sword swinging upon the head of every Calvinist. I have a question for Calvinists: If you are so sure that you indeed are one of the elect, then how do you know if whether or not you'll fall away from faith in the future?
Cause if that happens, you'll find out that maybe God tricked you into thinking that He will save you because of your supposed "faith" you had there. Sure you might use 1 John to answer that question, but while 1 John is a good epistle of assurance for salvation, even the most Godly and Holy Calvinist today will never really know if and when he'll fall from the faith. For instance, John MacArthur will never really know if in the future, he will renounce the faith and become a nominal, lukewarm "Christian" or even an atheist.
I myself, a Classic Arminian, holds to the Perseverance of the Saints, and it makes a lot more sense that way because you know for sure that if you trust in Jesus to save you from your sins, then God surely WILL save you not "maybe" or "maybe not" or even "no, but I'll make him think he is saved" (2 Peter 3:9) and that those who believe on Christ will preserve in the faith and WILL NEVER be cast out for sure.

 

[Hammster]

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

That’s not it exactly. I’ve been in debates with him before through the years. It’s been covered. But no matter how many times it’s explained, the straw man “arguments” still rear their ugly heads.

 

[Albion]

It is true that freewill/works righteousness people never actually know their eternal destiny until the moment of death, while predestinarians figure that they either are saved or they are not...and being believers themselves, they have reason to hope, and they do trust that they are among the Elect.

But of the Calvinists whom I speak with, the idea that they can just take it for granted that they are among the Elect merely because they belong to a church and do accept Christ as Lord and Savior is never present.

 

[Hammster]

Calvinists often love to boast about their assurance of salvation.

Can you name one?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

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.

John Calvin's Institutes of Religion is the defining document of Calvinism. If you have never read it right through (as I have), you would have absolutely no idea of what Calvinism actually is. What you are believing is an extremist view, and not what Calvin taught at all.

Did you know that right up to the 1960s, people thought that New Zealanders wore grass skirts like natives, had dirt roads, and still had hitching rails for horses in the streets! Problem is, they were believing stuff that were the basis of rumour, instead of actually coming here and seeing what New Zealand is really like!

This is the same with many who spout of whole lot of nonsense about Calvinism. They take one minor aspect of it, which is a mystery anyway, forget the rest, and say that Calvinism is false!

Tell that to George Whitefield, a strict Calvinist, who started the type of evangelism that Billy Graham was famous for, and won thousands to Christ. Read his sermons and see whether his brand of Calvinism fits in with your uninformed theory!

Going back to the 1600s, John Flavell, a strict Puritan Calvinist, evangelised and urged many to turn to Christ. He was famous for his soul-winning ministry. Also, Joseph Alleine, who wrote An Alarm To The Unconverted, was tireless in his efforts to win souls for Christ, and was imprisoned for it. Charles Spurgeon, probably the greatest soul-winner of the 19th Century, a strong defender of Calvinism. Read his sermons, and see whether they fit in with your views.

You see, with the overwhelming amount of evidence from real Calvinists who won thousands upon thousands to Christ through their preaching and evangelism, your extremist views go down like a lead zeppelin!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It IS the case (according to Calvinists) that salvation is by Faith in Christ and that coming to Faith results from a decision on the part of God made before the persons birth.

This is a mystery. No one has ever been able to successfully work out how a person can take hold of the promises of God, receive Christ and be saved, and then know that they were elected of God from the foundation of the world. God has not explained that to us fully in the Bible. What He has done is to present His promises, given us the invitation, and then for those who accept the invitation and receive Christ, He then informs them that they were elected.

I guess if we could work out fully everything that God does, then we would be like Him and have the measure of knowledge that He has. That desire for knowledge was Adam and Eve's downfall and brought sin and rebellion into the world.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Calvinism proposes that election is not based upon God's foreknowledge of ones faith or lack thereof. So when you say "alternative" you're not dealing with the issue at hand, namely what Calvinism proposes. Since I don't know what kind of soteriology you're constructing I don't know how to answer in the framework of such a construction, nor would I find any relevance in doing so as I doesn't speak to the issue at hand - namely Calvinist soteriology.

Read and learn:
The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith

 

[bcbsr]

Okay then, try this one: I believe all of the scriptures(the 66 books of the Bible). Do you?

If so, how do you reconcile Romans 8:28-30 with justification by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8)? Cannot one be elected and justified by faith in Christ at the same time?

I don't see as Rom 8 and Eph 2 have to be reconciled. In what way do you see a contradiction between the two passages?

As for election, yes those who are justified by faith are elect. You seem to be avoiding the OP. The premise of Calvinism is that people are elect to eternal life or eternal damnation prior to birth, and not based on God's foreknowledge of events to follow. So it logically follows that under Calvinism those elect to eternal life are saved from going to hell prior to them even coming to faith in Christ.

That's the OP. If you have a problem with that, then specify your reasons. If you want to talk about something else, then why not start your own thread.