The Hypocrisy of Calvinists

[bcbsr]

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

Prior to coming to faith were those elected to eternal life in any danger of ending up in hell, according to Calvinism.

 

[Albion]

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.

Why would there be any necessity to know that you were elected before the foundation of the world? The opponents of predestination usually can be counted on to raise the issue about how we will know...but not the proponents. It is no more necessary than that we must know exactly when the Second Coming will occur, what the judgment will be like exactly, or what the nature of heaven and eternity really are.

 

[bcbsr]

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.

So you're claiming that the premise that God assigns people's fate, whether that of eternal life or eternal damnation, by election prior to their being born of which they cannot change is not Calvinism. Yes, that is Calvinism. You can check wikipedia, or any source. It will tell you that is Calvinism. If people who call themselves "Calvinists" don't believe that, then they're not Calvinists.

I then go on to show in the OP that such a Calvinist premise goes on to logically show that effectively Calvinism teaches that people are saved by election and that coming to faith doesn't change that fate.

If people disagree with the premise, they're not really Calvinists, which seems rather hypocritical (another point of the OP) Alleged Calvinists not believing in Calvinism and its application.

If people disagree with the logical inference, then they should show where the logical fallacy lies. But so far no one has refuted this argument other than with a "raise a flag and see if someone salutes it" type of proposition, simply claim "it's nonsense", which itself is nonsense.

 

[bcbsr]

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

So, provide information that deals with the OP. You people are just spouting out accusations, but providing no substantive argument, no content, no logic.

 

[bcbsr]

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.

Seems to me the argument I made in the OP is clear enough for anyone with basic reading comprehension skills to understand. What may I clarify for you?

 

[Radagast]

Under Calvinism salvation is not by faith in Christ

That's a complete misrepresentation of what Calvinists believe.

 

[SleepingAtLast]

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.

If anyone's theology results in boasting, one of three things is flawed: 1) their theology, 2) their understanding of their theology, or 3) their application of their theology. It has been said that Calvinists tend to more or less be arrogant about their theology, especially at first, and that accusation is not without merit, but I have never really felt that way. I look at the depth of my sin and think it is a wonder that I would be saved at all. While I have critiques of the Arminian point of view, I do not see myself as somehow better, and I believe that the soteriological reality of our world actually lies somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism, although I cannot say specifically where or in what ways.

 

[bcbsr]

I did.

The Hypocrisy of Calvinists

No, you didn't. You essentially claimed that Calvinism is not Calvinism. People being elect to eternal life or eternal condemnation prior to coming to faith (prior even to birth), and that such a fate cannot be changed, is Calvinism. If you don't know that, that you don't really know Calvinism.

I show that the Calvinist premise means effectively that Calvinism is teaching that people are save by election rather then by faith, seeing as coming to faith doesn't change their fate.

But you simply respond with accusations rather than substance.

 

[Hammster]

Prior to coming to faith were those elected to eternal life in any danger of ending up in hell, according to Calvinism.

Prior to coming to faith, were those God knew would believe ever in danger of ending up in Hell, according to what you believe?

I know you’ll continue to refuse to answer this, but it actually goes to the heart of this discussion.

 

[Hammster]

No, you didn't. You essentially claimed that Calvinism is not Calvinism. People being elect to eternal life or eternal condemnation prior to coming to faith (prior even to birth), and that such a fate cannot be changed, is Calvinism. If you don't know that, that you don't really know Calvinism.

I show that the Calvinist premise means effectively that Calvinism is teaching that people are save by election rather then by faith, seeing as coming to faith doesn't change their fate.

But you simply respond with accusations rather than substance.

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.

 

[bcbsr]

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

So, as a Calvinist, you hold to the idea that people are born elect, fated either to heaven or hell, and nothing they do can change that status. Or are you not really a Calvinist?

Now if you're a Calvinist, then I ask you, are those who are elect from birth to eternal life even in danger of going to hell? If you're actually a Calvinist, you would say NO. Then I would ask, when those who are elect to eternal life come to faith, does their fate change? Again NO. Under Calvinism they weren't in danger of going to hell prior to coming to faith in Christ. Nor were they in danger of going to hell after they came to faith in Christ. So my point is that "faith" didn't change their fate.

Calvinists are caught in a logical contradiction by claiming that people are not saved by election to eternal life and yet claiming that those who are elect to eternal life are in no danger of going to hell. And that's what I mean by the hypocrisy of Calvinists.

 

[SleepingAtLast]

So you're claiming that the premise that God assigns people's fate, whether that of eternal life or eternal damnation, by election prior to their being born of which they cannot change is not Calvinism. Yes, that is Calvinism. You can check wikipedia, or any source. It will tell you that is Calvinism. If people who call themselves "Calvinists" don't believe that, then they're not Calvinists.

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.

I then go on to show in the OP that such a Calvinist premise goes on to logically show that effectively Calvinism teaches that people are saved by election and that coming to faith doesn't change that fate.

You began with the premise that Calvinists don't believe in salvation by faith in Christ. You started there, you did not end there. Let's make sure we establish that. Now, as for your critique, I would argue that the Bible holds God's absolute sovereignty and human responsibility in tension with each other. Free will does not exist, however free choice does. To say that people are saved by election is an oversimplification and a misunderstanding of the work of salvation. When a person is born, they might be elect, but they have not undergone regeneration yet at that point in time. The work of regeneration and the decision to follow Christ are still events in the life of a believer that must take place. Surely you have heard of the "ordo salutis." Election --> regeneration --> salvation --> sanctification.

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that there will be varying views on this within the Reformed community.

If people disagree with the premise, they're not really Calvinists, which seems rather hypocritical (another point of the OP) Alleged Calvinists not believing in Calvinism and its application.

"Hypocritical" seems like an overdramatic and accusative word for it. The word "hypocrisy" assumes that there is some sort of moral claim or practice in play here, but we are just talking about a theological stance. "Inconsistent" would be a better word. Assuming we are talking about the premise you copied from Wikipedia and not the faulty and inaccurate premise you began your OP with.


Also, I'm just curious about your intentions in creating this thread. Did you create it in order to learn something? Convert Calvinists? Disprove Calvinism?

And you still have not answered the question as to what exactly you believe when it comes to soteriology. You seem to be dodging it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So, provide information that deals with the OP. You people are just spouting out accusations, but providing no substantive argument, no content, no logic.

The actual Scripture that mentions predestination is:
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according go his purpose. For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom he predestined, these he also called; and whom he called, these he also justified; and whom he justified, these he also glorified (Romans 8:28-30).

God has predestined every human being to be conformed to the image of Christ. This goes along with God not being willing that any should perish but that all may be saved. This is the reason why the gospel invitation is given to all. But we know that not all will accept the invitation, so even though they may be predestined to be conformed to Christ's image, it will not be validated for them. It will only become real for those who accept invitation and receive Christ.

Jesus showed this in a parable about the man who threw a party and invited all his friends, but one by one his friends gave excuses as to why they could not attend, so the man sent his servant out into the highways and byways to invite anyone who is prepared to come.

So, the original group were predestined to attend the party, but they turned down the invitation, so it did not become real to them. They missed out. The ones whose predestination did become reality were the ones who accepted the invitation.

 

[☦Marius☦]

While I don't agree with Calvinists by any stretch, I find these constant aggressive accusatory thread topics quite tiresome. What fruit do they produce?

Not only that but they always end up on the homepage and anyone coming to the site for the first time would assume we only enjoy arguing (which is pretty much the reality).

 

[YeshuaFan]

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.

I would say that Romans 8 answers it well for me, as salvation is of the Lord from its start to its finish!

 

[YeshuaFan]

Can you name one?

I have found it more that we are in awe and humbled that God would save a worm such as I!

 

[SleepingAtLast]

Prior to coming to faith, were those God knew would believe ever in danger of ending up in Hell, according to what you believe?

I know you’ll continue to refuse to answer this, but it actually goes to the heart of this discussion.

It seems the OP wants to ask all the question with no mind to answer any. If so, fruitful discussion will be pretty much impossible.

 

[YeshuaFan]

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!

One needs to read Calvin, and supplement that with likes of a Berkhof to get the main gist of Calvinism!

 

[YeshuaFan]

So you're claiming that the premise that God assigns people's fate, whether that of eternal life or eternal damnation, by election prior to their being born of which they cannot change is not Calvinism. Yes, that is Calvinism. You can check wikipedia, or any source. It will tell you that is Calvinism. If people who call themselves "Calvinists" don't believe that, then they're not Calvinists.

I then go on to show in the OP that such a Calvinist premise goes on to logically show that effectively Calvinism teaches that people are saved by election and that coming to faith doesn't change that fate.

If people disagree with the premise, they're not really Calvinists, which seems rather hypocritical (another point of the OP) Alleged Calvinists not believing in Calvinism and its application.

If people disagree with the logical inference, then they should show where the logical fallacy lies. But so far no one has refuted this argument other than with a "raise a flag and see if someone salutes it" type of proposition, simply claim "it's nonsense", which itself is nonsense.

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!

 

[bcbsr]

We hold that God decided freely Himself to place the elect into a Covenant relationship with himself, so by His own will He causes us to be enabled and willing to accept Jesus to save us!

How does that relate to the OP?