What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[RickReads]

I’m going to answer no, although I’m responding to your point not because I believe that’s a sincere question, like in the case of Clare (who believes that your comment was funny) I’m sure your point was meant as a mocking jokey sort of comment. I’m replying because I think this is a teachable moment. Please read the next portion carefully.

My points are about logical rigour and intellectual honesty, however. Maybe you’d be tempted to undermine books explaining the criminal psychology of rapists because the author herself was the victim of rape.

Perhaps in your opinion victims of racism don’t have valid, logically meaningful points to make against racism because they have been victimised by racists.

Maybe even the New Testament itself is simply an opportunity for users to mock the pain and suffering that was inflicted on the Lord. To Christs salient observations about justice, sin and redemption you could respond “did the Romans steal your coat and beat you up or something?”

Needless to say your reply was very bad, and taking part in agreeing or humouring your reply was also unfortunate on the part of Oscar and Clare.

@Oscarr “Calvinist or not, has an arrogant opinion of others, they are hypocrites and not true believers.”​

“From what I read of true Calvinists (not the extreme ones),”​

What you describe as extreme is what I’d describe as logical consistency. How extreme was Jesus or mother Teresa about their loving ethics, very extreme. Those extremists aren’t bad though, because they have valuable doctrines, not dirty babies steeped in determinism.

Extreme love is only good, extreme Calvinism only bad. Love thy neighbour taken to an extreme is only dangerous to the person who’s doing the loving. Calvinism taken to an “extreme” endangers everyone but the self righteous Calvinist.

The problem with the corrective lenses of Calvinism is that you can’t remove them, not ever. Not within the Bible, nor without. Your messages @Oscarr & @Clare73 are simply presupposing that Calvinism is right and insisting so from that point onwards. Like @RickReads you’re not interacting with the substance of my message.

Now because of the online Calvinists need to be right people in the pews who believe in John Calvins work, the 5 points, effective irresistible grace and many other reformed doctrines aren’t “real” Calvinists, because they act in a way that’s as elite as the things they believe about themselves.

Only by adopting an intellectual disconnect between what they believe and how they respond to those beliefs can the man in the pews not become an arrogant believer. Divorcing our thought life and theology from our living behaviour is as disastrous as it sounds though.

@Clare73 “It's not Calvinism causing them to do that. That's a false rap. No one, in whose heart is the gospel, thinks they've achieved or earned anything from God.”​

The how vs that problem remains. Redirecting to how Calvinists are spiritually superior to non Calvinists (e.g. via Gods grace) does nothing to subdue the pride that arises in that Calvinists are spiritually superior.

I’ll explain this one more time by way of an analogy.

Imagine an awful lifelong illness that is taking hold of the worlds population, not fatal, but seriously lowering the quality of life for everyone. Now imagine an array of doctors and medical researchers have managed to engineer an effective cure, but it’ll only be administered to a select few.

They’re now cured, even going through an enhanced, improved quality of life. Wouldn’t it be rather silly for the healthy population to go about saying “All glory to my doctors, I’m not healthier than anyone else. My health isn’t better than anybody else’s health, thank you doctors! You’re wonderful! Don’t fall into the sin of pride by believing you’re healthier than anybody else.”

This is very much like the Calvinism of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, it’s known as inconsistent Calvinism.

Brute reality is that people who believe in Calvinism have a humility problem due to the beliefs they hold. No amount of presupposing the truth of Calvinism undoes that point, although to routinely presuppose the truth of Calvinism does leave you incapable of responding to the substance of my post.

In a round the barn sort of way I was trying to say that your vicious attacks on Calvinists are getting a little tired in my opinion.

And given your tendency to decorate your comments with crying laugh smileys this is a bit of a glass house that you are in.

 

[Cormack]

Well, laughter is a delicate, telling sort of thing, @RickReads. It’s all of those things because sometimes people think the joke is on them even when it’s not.

What’s less ambiguous however is the point that we can’t invalidate someone’s logical arguments based upon whether or not the person arguing has been motivated by past trauma. A teachable moment.

You might believe that my “vicious,” though logically sound arguments against Calvinism are becoming tired, in that case I’d advise against reading those messages.

No doubt it’s better to not read things that are triggering rather than to read those messages and reply with the male equivalent of “who hurt you?”

Nobody has kicked my sand castles or crumbled my cookies, at least not anymore than I’ve kicked theirs.

I’ve shared logical arguments and articles made by even Calvinists that point towards an issue within the Calvinistic community, and that’s something I’ve shared in light of the question “What’s wrong with Calvinism?”

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I’m going to answer no, although I’m responding to your point not because I believe that’s a sincere question, like in the case of Clare (who believes that your comment was funny) I’m sure your point was meant as a mocking jokey sort of comment. I’m replying because I think this is a teachable moment. Please read the next portion carefully.

My points are about logical rigour and intellectual honesty, however. Maybe you’d be tempted to undermine books explaining the criminal psychology of rapists because the author herself was the victim of rape.

Perhaps in your opinion victims of racism don’t have valid, logically meaningful points to make against racism because they have been victimised by racists.

Maybe even the New Testament itself is simply an opportunity for users to mock the pain and suffering that was inflicted on the Lord. To Christs salient observations about justice, sin and redemption you could respond “did the Romans steal your coat and beat you up or something?”

Needless to say your reply was very bad, and taking part in agreeing or humouring your reply was also unfortunate on the part of Oscar and Clare.

@Oscarr “Calvinist or not, has an arrogant opinion of others, they are hypocrites and not true believers.”​

“From what I read of true Calvinists (not the extreme ones),”​

What you describe as extreme is what I’d describe as logical consistency. How extreme was Jesus or mother Teresa about their loving ethics, very extreme. Those extremists aren’t bad though, because they have valuable doctrines, not dirty babies steeped in determinism.

Extreme love is only good, extreme Calvinism only bad. Love thy neighbour taken to an extreme is only dangerous to the person who’s doing the loving. Calvinism taken to an “extreme” endangers everyone but the self righteous Calvinist.

The problem with the corrective lenses of Calvinism is that you can’t remove them, not ever. Not within the Bible, nor without. Your messages @Oscarr & @Clare73 are simply presupposing that Calvinism is right and insisting so from that point onwards. Like @RickReads you’re not interacting with the substance of my message.

Now because of the online Calvinists need to be right people in the pews who believe in John Calvins work, the 5 points, effective irresistible grace and many other reformed doctrines aren’t “real” Calvinists, because they act in a way that’s as elite as the things they believe about themselves.

Only by adopting an intellectual disconnect between what they believe and how they respond to those beliefs can the man in the pews not become an arrogant believer. Divorcing our thought life and theology from our living behaviour is as disastrous as it sounds though.

@Clare73 “It's not Calvinism causing them to do that. That's a false rap. No one, in whose heart is the gospel, thinks they've achieved or earned anything from God.”​

The how vs that problem remains. Redirecting to how Calvinists are spiritually superior to non Calvinists (e.g. via Gods grace) does nothing to subdue the pride that arises in that Calvinists are spiritually superior.

I’ll explain this one more time by way of an analogy.

Imagine an awful lifelong illness that is taking hold of the worlds population, not fatal, but seriously lowering the quality of life for everyone. Now imagine an array of doctors and medical researchers have managed to engineer an effective cure, but it’ll only be administered to a select few.

They’re now cured, even going through an enhanced, improved quality of life. Wouldn’t it be rather silly for the healthy population to go about saying “All glory to my doctors, I’m not healthier than anyone else. My health isn’t better than anybody else’s health, thank you doctors! You’re wonderful! Don’t fall into the sin of pride by believing you’re healthier than anybody else.”

This is very much like the Calvinism of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, it’s known as inconsistent Calvinism.

Brute reality is that people who believe in Calvinism have a humility problem due to the beliefs they hold. No amount of presupposing the truth of Calvinism undoes that point, although to routinely presuppose the truth of Calvinism does leave you incapable of responding to the substance of my post.

Looks like you have your Sunday sermon sorted!

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I’m going to answer no, although I’m responding to your point not because I believe that’s a sincere question, like in the case of Clare (who believes that your comment was funny) I’m sure your point was meant as a mocking jokey sort of comment. I’m replying because I think this is a teachable moment. Please read the next portion carefully.

My points are about logical rigour and intellectual honesty, however. Maybe you’d be tempted to undermine books explaining the criminal psychology of rapists because the author herself was the victim of rape.

Perhaps in your opinion victims of racism don’t have valid, logically meaningful points to make against racism because they have been victimised by racists.

Maybe even the New Testament itself is simply an opportunity for users to mock the pain and suffering that was inflicted on the Lord. To Christs salient observations about justice, sin and redemption you could respond “did the Romans steal your coat and beat you up or something?”

Needless to say your reply was very bad, and taking part in agreeing or humouring your reply was also unfortunate on the part of Oscar and Clare.

@Oscarr “Calvinist or not, has an arrogant opinion of others, they are hypocrites and not true believers.”​

“From what I read of true Calvinists (not the extreme ones),”​

What you describe as extreme is what I’d describe as logical consistency. How extreme was Jesus or mother Teresa about their loving ethics, very extreme. Those extremists aren’t bad though, because they have valuable doctrines, not dirty babies steeped in determinism.

Extreme love is only good, extreme Calvinism only bad. Love thy neighbour taken to an extreme is only dangerous to the person who’s doing the loving. Calvinism taken to an “extreme” endangers everyone but the self righteous Calvinist.

The problem with the corrective lenses of Calvinism is that you can’t remove them, not ever. Not within the Bible, nor without. Your messages @Oscarr & @Clare73 are simply presupposing that Calvinism is right and insisting so from that point onwards. Like @RickReads you’re not interacting with the substance of my message.

Now because of the online Calvinists need to be right people in the pews who believe in John Calvins work, the 5 points, effective irresistible grace and many other reformed doctrines aren’t “real” Calvinists, because they act in a way that’s as elite as the things they believe about themselves.

Only by adopting an intellectual disconnect between what they believe and how they respond to those beliefs can the man in the pews not become an arrogant believer. Divorcing our thought life and theology from our living behaviour is as disastrous as it sounds though.

@Clare73 “It's not Calvinism causing them to do that. That's a false rap. No one, in whose heart is the gospel, thinks they've achieved or earned anything from God.”​

The how vs that problem remains. Redirecting to how Calvinists are spiritually superior to non Calvinists (e.g. via Gods grace) does nothing to subdue the pride that arises in that Calvinists are spiritually superior.

I’ll explain this one more time by way of an analogy.

Imagine an awful lifelong illness that is taking hold of the worlds population, not fatal, but seriously lowering the quality of life for everyone. Now imagine an array of doctors and medical researchers have managed to engineer an effective cure, but it’ll only be administered to a select few.

They’re now cured, even going through an enhanced, improved quality of life. Wouldn’t it be rather silly for the healthy population to go about saying “All glory to my doctors, I’m not healthier than anyone else. My health isn’t better than anybody else’s health, thank you doctors! You’re wonderful! Don’t fall into the sin of pride by believing you’re healthier than anybody else.”

This is very much like the Calvinism of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, it’s known as inconsistent Calvinism.

Brute reality is that people who believe in Calvinism have a humility problem due to the beliefs they hold. No amount of presupposing the truth of Calvinism undoes that point, although to routinely presuppose the truth of Calvinism does leave you incapable of responding to the substance of my post.

Oh boy how true this is in real life. On another forum I was high 5 all the time by them every day when I was the team leader against non calvinists. Now I have a target on my back and get mocked by the same ones who "loved" me over there for the past 15 years. I literally cannot oppose "calvinism" there or I get banned every time I oppose any part of tulip, double predestination, determinism, Sovereignty in calvinism etc..... I never make it personal and attack the person( ad hominem) but always the doctrine. These same guys would call me, text me, email me all the time with questions and how to use apologetics and now all they do is mock. So I have experienced it both ways as you have described.

 

[Clare73]

I’m going to answer no, although I’m responding to your point not because I believe that’s a sincere question, like in the case of Clare (who believes that your comment was funny) I’m sure your point was meant as a mocking jokey sort of comment. I’m replying because I think this is a teachable moment.

But not of what you think it "teaches."

Please read the next portion carefully.

My points are about logical rigour and intellectual honesty,

Rose-colored glasses?
Actually, those points are about human reasoning raised against the truth and wisdom of God in his word of Romans.

however. Maybe you’d be tempted to undermine books explaining the criminal psychology of rapists because the author herself was the victim of rape.

Perhaps in your opinion victims of racism don’t have valid, logically meaningful points to make against racism because they have been victimised by racists.

Maybe even the New Testament itself is simply an opportunity for users to mock the pain and suffering that was inflicted on the Lord. To Christs salient observations about justice, sin and redemption you could respond “did the Romans steal your coat and beat you up or something?”

Needless to say your reply was very bad, and taking part in agreeing or humouring your reply was also unfortunate on the part of Oscar and Clare.

@Oscarr “Calvinist or not, has an arrogant opinion of others, they are hypocrites and not true believers.”​

“From what I read of true Calvinists (not the extreme ones),”​

What you describe as extreme is what I’d describe as logical consistency. How extreme was Jesus or mother Teresa about their loving ethics, very extreme. Those extremists aren’t bad though, because they have valuable doctrines, not dirty babies steeped in determinism.

Would that be self-justifying "logic". . .extreme is good for me, but not for thee?

Extreme love is only good, extreme Calvinism only bad. Love thy neighbour
taken to an extreme is only dangerous to the person who’s doing the loving.

Logical consistency or logical flaw?

That danger is also harmful to others if the one in danger has others for whom they are responsible and upon whom the others depend.
Things aren't as simple as the simplistic often purport.
So actually . .extreme love is not "only good." Nothing on earth taken to extreme is "only good."

Calvinism taken to an “extreme” endangers everyone but the self righteous Calvinist.

As those taking love to an extreme also endangers everyone depending on them.

The problem with the corrective lenses of Calvinism is that you can’t remove them, not ever. Not within the Bible, nor without. Your messages @Oscarr & @Clare73 are simply presupposing that Calvinism is right and insisting so from that point onwards.

However, my argument is Romans, with which Scripture you disagree based on human reasoning, and which argument you do not address without setting Scripture against itself, that being a de facto demonstration regarding the misunderstanding of your argument's assertions.

Like @RickReads you’re not interacting with the substance of my message.

And in all that getting, you're not "getting it."

I don't do "Calvinism," I do Paul.
It is you that labels it "Calvinism," which for convenience I use to refer to the doctrine presented in the NT book of Romans.
It is you that must demonstrate the error of Romans, which you assert, based on the error of human reasoning.

Now because of the online Calvinists need to be right people in the pews who believe in John Calvins work, the 5 points, effective irresistible grace and many other reformed doctrines, aren’t “real” Calvinists, because they act in a way that’s as elite as the things they believe about themselves.

What we're actually dealing with here is group prejudice. . .lumping all "Calvinists" together and judging them all as the same. . .not cool.

Only by adopting an intellectual disconnect between what they believe and how they respond to those beliefs can the man in the pews not become an arrogant believer.

Who made that rule. . .conveniently leaving the Holy Spirit out of the equation?

Divorcing our thought life and theology from our living behaviour is as disastrous as it sounds though.

Only if such "thought life" is contrary to Scripture, which Romans is not, itself being Scripture.
Nor does your assertion account for the indwelling Holy Spirit, but instead assumes what the behavioral consequences of Romans must be--that is, according to flawed human-based reasoning.

@Clare73 “It's not Calvinism causing them to do that. That's a false rap. No one, in whose heart is the gospel, thinks they've achieved or earned anything from God.”​

The how vs that problem remains. Redirecting to how Calvinists are spiritually superior to non Calvinists (e.g. via Gods grace) does nothing to subdue the pride that arises in that Calvinists are spiritually superior.

Often such charges tell us more about the one leveling the charge than they do about the one at whom the charge is levelled.
They act as the fig leaf for unrecognized assumptions, based on judging others by oneself, and then applying those self-based blind assumptions to "Calvinists," in an effort to "cover" the moral superiority they are demonstrating in being "non-Calvinists."

Physician, heal thyself?

I'll explain this one more time by way of an analogy.

Imagine an awful lifelong illness that is taking hold of the worlds population, not fatal, but seriously lowering the quality of life for everyone. Now imagine an array of doctors and medical researchers have managed to engineer an effective cure, but it’ll only be administered to a select few.

They’re now cured, even going through an enhanced, improved quality of life. Wouldn’t it be rather silly for the healthy population to go about saying “All glory to my doctors, I’m not healthier than anyone else. My health isn’t better than anybody else’s health, thank you doctors! You’re wonderful! Don’t fall into the sin of pride by believing you’re healthier than anybody else.”

This is very much like the Calvinism of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, it’s known as inconsistent Calvinism.

So what does Spurgeon or Calvin have to do with the NT doctrine of Romans, other than serve as a distraction from having to deal with Romans itself?

Brute reality is that people who believe in Calvinism have a humility problem due to the beliefs they hold.

More group prejudice? All Texans must be immoral because the one I know is immoral? . . .not cool.

And I suggest that the "brute reality" going on here is that of judging others by oneself, with no conception of the operation of the Holy Spirit in those who take Romans at its word. . .and even believe it!

No amount of presupposing the truth of Calvinism undoes that point,

So what I'm seeing here is
self-based assumption. . .elevated to supposedly "logical reasoning". . .and all due to
one's smug self-righteous and supposed moral superiority in not being a "Calvinist."

And that would be the teaching of this "teachable moment". . .the self-righteous moral superiority of the "non-Calvinist," and which blindness makes you unable to see no matter how much it is explained.

although to routinely presuppose the truth of
Calvinism does leave you incapable of responding to the substance of my post.

What "substance" did you have in mind. . .capable of withstanding Biblical examination?

we can’t invalidate someone’s logical arguments based upon whether or not the person arguing has been motivated by past trauma. A teachable moment.

How about when they are motivated by simple self-justification? (Luke 10:29)

 

[RickReads]

I'll say! . . .but not of what you think it "teaches."

Nice rose-colored glasses there. . .
Contraire. ..those points are about human reasoning raised against the truth and wisdom of God in his word of Romans.

Nice self-justifying "logic"--extreme is good for me, but not for thee.

Logic already flawed here. . .

That danger is also harmful to others if the one in danger has others for whom they are responsible and upon whom the others depend.
Things aren't as simple as the simplistic purport.
So no. . .extreme love is not "only good." Nothing on earth taken to extreme is "only good."

As one's taking love to an extreme endangers everyone depending on that one.

My argument is Romans, with which Scripture you disagree based on human reasoning, and which argument you do not address without setting Scripture against itself, de facto demonstrating the misunderstanding of your argument's assertions.

And in all the pious getting, you're not "getting it."

I don't do "Calvinism," I do Paul.
It is you that labels it "Calvinism," which for convenience I use to refer to the doctrine presented in the NT book of Romans.
It is you that must demonstrate the error of Romans, which you assert based on the error of human reasoning.

What we're dealing with here is group prejudice. . .lumping all "Calvinists" together and judging them all as the same. . .not cool.

Who made that rule. . .so self-servingly leaving the Holy Spirit out of everything?
Only if such "thought life" is contrary to Scripture, which Romans is not, itself being Scripture.
Are you sure about that?. . .when it does not account for the indwelling Holy Spirit, and assumes man's objection from human reasoning to be what the behavioral consequences of Romans must be.I'm seeing here the fig leaf of unrecognized assumptions based on judging others by oneself, and then applying those self-based assumptions to "Calvinists" in an effort to "cover" the moral superiority being demonstrated by the "non-Calvinist" in his own blind assertions.

Physician, heal thyself.

So what does Spurgeon or Calvin have to do with the NT doctrine of Romans, other than serve as a distraction from having to deal with Romans itself?
Wow!. . .more group prejudice! All Texans must be immoral because the one I know is immoral.

Pathetic. . .and goes a long way to explaining the "logic" of this seriously-flawed rationale.

I say the "brute reality" going on here is that of judging others by oneself, having no conception of the operation of the Holy Spirit in those who take Romans at its word and what's more. . . gads!. . .they even believing it!

Blind assumption . .being blindly elevated to logical reasoning. . .due to
one's own supposed moral superiority of non-Calvinism.

And that is the teaching of this "teachable moment."
What "substance"?

You failed to mention the irony in Cormack complaining that he is a victim of bad humor.

 

[Clare73]

When you were a kid did the Calvins at your school beat you up, kick sand on you and steal your lunch money?

Or maybe just the wound of a sound trouncing at the hands of logic, creating a need
to self-justify that defeat.

 

[Clare73]

You failed to mention the irony in Cormack complaining that he is a victim of bad humor.

I was hoping to leave something for you to do.

 

[RickReads]

I was hoping to leave something for you to do.

Believe it or not I try not to be a cyber bully.

 

[Clare73]

Believe it or not I try not to be a cyber bully.

Good for you! . . .you just encourage others to do so?

 

[RickReads]

Good for you! . . .you just encourage others to do so?

That hurts me deeply.

 

[Cormack]

On another forum I was high 5 all the time by them every day when I was the team leader against non calvinists. Now I have a target on my back and get mocked by the same ones who "loved" me over there for the past 15 years.

Are those basic, angry, scornful characters really ambassadors of Christ? Just as people, do we see them as able to carry out a ministry of reconciliation, a great commission or any other grand work that requires tact, self control and humility?

When reviewing the poor reaction they receive from others or the inward, self congratulatory nature of their faith, there’s only one answer to those questions.

Those conversations that were a test of doctrine for your old friends turned out to be a test of character too, since when their apologetics had failed that was their opportunity to cultivate the fruits of the spirit.

Patience, self control, peace, joy and kindness, imagine how far those qualities would have gone in preserving the shared aspects of your faith if the community had exercised them towards you. For many believers those things are beyond their reach, even love being an alien concept, yet Christians are supposed to be known by their love.

To look back on many groups of people and social interactions demands of us these questions: were those people really little Christs? Are they cultivating the qualities that Jesus asked from His own kind? Woe to you and I if those people are the nearest thing to Jesus Christ on this planet.

 

[RickReads]

Are those basic, angry, scornful characters really ambassadors of Christ? Just as people, do we see them as able to carry out a ministry of reconciliation, a great commission or any other grand work that requires tact, self control and humility?

When reviewing the poor reaction they receive from others or the inward, self congratulatory nature of their faith, there’s only one answer to those questions.

Those conversations that were a test of doctrine for your old friends turned out to be a test of character too, since when their apologetics had failed that was their opportunity to cultivate the fruits of the spirit.

Patience, self control, peace, joy and kindness, imagine how far those qualities would have gone in preserving the shared aspects of your faith if the community had exercised them towards you. For many believers those things are beyond their reach, even love being an alien concept, yet Christians are supposed to be known by their love.

To look back on many groups of people and social interactions demands of us these questions: were those people really little Christs? Are they cultivating the qualities that Jesus asked from His own kind? Woe to you and I if those people are the nearest thing to Jesus Christ on this planet.

Jesus made a lot of people angry. It's certainly a challenge to know how to approach people who differ on details of the gospel.

Years ago a friend of mine had a chance to be an usher at a Billy Graham crusade and wanted me to do it with him. The primary job was to escort people to the front when the altar call was given. I was going to do it but then I read the rules for ushers.

I wasn't going to be allowed to have any conversation about Jesus or to pray with anyone going forward. I didn't feel like I could agree to that so I didn't even go to the crusade.

To be interdenominational you have to be willing to compromise your beliefs. It's the path of least resistance and an evangelist can get a lot further that way.

This way of thinking is foundational for the one world religion movement that is being sponsored by the UN.

Or people will often choose to defend their beliefs against compromise. This action is often aggressive and hostile because people are passionate about their religious beliefs, but it is often a display of loyalty to the gospel.

I think it is very hard to find the proper balance. You certainly don't have it.

 

[roman2819]

Where are you at with Calvinism? Your post sounds like a repudiation of it.
I didn't know it but my thinking was Calvinist when I was a young man, a result of listening to Baptist and Pentecostal sermons.

Once I learned what Calvinism really means I began looking for Biblical reasons to shift my positions.
It took several years of wrestling with it before I was satisfied with what I was seeing in the gospel.

How has your view changed? What is your view of Calvinism now? How do you define calvinism ? Is it scriptural?

 

[RickReads]

How has your view changed? What is your view of Calvinism now? How do you define calvinism ? Is it scriptural?

Thanks for the questions. They seem sincere. Over the years God has allowed my understanding of the gospel to slowly expand. Changes in your opinions are inevitable when that is going on.

Calvinism is mostly Biblical but it has a handful of problems, 2 in particular that make it useless as a belief system. Now it may be that many Calvins are saved. Saved or not is a different question but Calvinism is bad doctrine.

Calvins say that God is random in choosing who He saves. Pretty much he's just filling a quota and if you do not have a winning ticket you get tossed into the fire.

Calvins say that God must regenerate you before you can be a Christian. Regeneration is the salvation so
they believe God has to save you before you can seek salvation. You have to get saved in order to get saved and that isn't the way it works.

These 2 defects alone just ruin the whole thing.

 

[roman2819]

Thanks for the questions. They seem sincere. Over the years God has allowed my understanding of the gospel to slowly expand. Changes in your opinions are inevitable when that is going on.

Calvinism is mostly Biblical but it has a handful of problems, 2 in particular that make it useless as a belief system. Now it may be that many Calvins are saved. Saved or not is a different question but Calvinism is bad doctrine.

Calvins say that God is random in choosing who He saves. Pretty much he's just filling a quota and if you do not have a winning ticket you get tossed into the fire.

Calvins say that God must regenerate you before you can be a Christian. Regeneration is the salvation so
they believe God has to save you before you can seek salvation. You have to get saved in order to get saved and that isn't the way it works.

These 2 defects alone just ruin the whole thing.

I agree with you that Calvinists are also saved. They are still Christians who confess sins to Jesus, they are saved despite being mistaken that God chose individuals to repent.

Calvinists mistaken that God cause or chose certain individuals to repent because they focus on the words "He predestined us" and neglect context of Ephesians chapters 1,2 and 3. If we interpret in context, it will be different.

Ephesians 1 :1 To God’s holy people in Ephesus, .... 1:4For He chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 1:5 He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ,... 1:11 In Him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him .... 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ...
Meaning = "We" refer to the Jewish Christians who were first to be saved in Jesus

13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth... 2:11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised”... 12 you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise...
Meaning = Clearly, "you who are Gentiles" means Paul was writing to Gentile Christians, to explain that formerly, Gentiles were excluded from God, but now they can be saved if they confessed their sins.

Ephesians chapter 2 13 But now in Christ Jesus you... have been brought near by the blood of Christ...:14 For He ...has made the two groups one... 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations
= Jesus' atonement has abolished the need to fulfill the Law (such as circumcision and OT laws)

15: His purpose was to create... one new humanity out of the two... and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross... 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit... .. 3:16 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus...”
= Both Jews and Gentiles can now be saved if they confessed their sins to Jesus, unlike the past before Jesus' atonement,

So what is predestination? It is just a word that refers to how God planned it all ahead to offer salvation to the Jews and then to Gentiles. In context, therefore, predestination does NOT mean choosing ahead who to save individually. There is no discussion of individual predestination in Ephesians or Scripture. God did not predestine the persons, He predestined the plan to offer redemption to the Jews and Gentiles. The.offer is there but it up to individuals to decide.

In some verses, the Bible does say "God choose us". During biblical times, people don't say they chose to believe in God. Instead they said God chose them -- this is out of humility. In those ancient times, people on earth - the Jews but also other people and religions -- were more humble towards God and heaven; they were more submissive. "Chosen by God" is a figure of speech spoken in humility. Such linguistic elements have been lost over time. When interpreting Bible, we have to appreciate how words were used in different times, culture and context.

 

[Clare73]

Thanks for the questions. They seem sincere. Over the years God has allowed my understanding of the gospel to slowly expand. Changes in your opinions are inevitable when that is going on.
Calvinism is mostly Biblical but it has a handful of problems, 2 in particular that make it useless as a belief system. Now it may be that many Calvins are saved. Saved or not is a different question but Calvinism is bad doctrine.

Calvins say that God is random in choosing who He saves. Pretty much he's
just filling a quota and if you do not have a winning ticket you get tossed into the fire.
Calvins say that God must regenerate you before you can be a Christian. Regeneration is the salvation
so they believe God has to save you before you can seek salvation.

These 2 defects alone just ruin the whole thing.

Well. . .that's not quite how it is in the NT. . .so by all means, let me disabuse you of these 2 notions.

Defect #1: God is just filling a quota.
Actually, God is fulfilling his purpose, just as he was when he chose Jacob and not Esau, "in order that his purpose. . .might stand." (Romans 9:11-12).

Defect #2: God has to save you before you can seek salvation.
1) You don't "seek" salvation, anymore than you "seek" faith.
2) For you can't make yourself believe what you do not believe, no matter how much you "seek" faith.
3 And you can't procure/acquire salvation no matter how much you "seek" salvation.
That is how it is in the NT.

So in response to how it is, we have the NT revealing:
1) faith and salvation are not "found" by anyone's "seeking," because
2) "the man without the Spirit (not reborn) does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for he cannot understand them, and they are foolishness to him" (1 Corinthians 2:14), he wanting no part of foolishness, so that
3) anyone's true "seeking" is actually God at work preparing the heart for what cannot be "found," but must be received from above, embraced, believed and obeyed.

And that is because
"Salvation is the Lord's!" (Revelation 7:10), ALL of it!
His and his alone (Revelation 19:1; Psalms 37:39).
Man contributes nothing, for man must have nothing about which he could boast.
(Romans 4:2; 1 Corinthians 1:29; Ephesians 2:9)
For God does not give nor yield his glory to another (Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 48:11).
Even man's "seeking" is a work of God (Philippians 2:13) rather than a work of man.

God's "first law of salvation:" Man must have nothing about which he could boast.

Hopefully now disabused. . .

 

[Clare73]

I agree with you that Calvinists are also saved. They are still Christians who confess sins to Jesus, they are saved despite being mistaken that God chose individuals to repent.
Calvinists mistaken that God cause or chose certain individuals to repent because they focus on the words "He predestined us" and neglect context of Ephesians chapters 1,2 and 3. If we interpret in context, it will be different.

Ephesians 1 :1 To God’s holy people in Ephesus, .... 1:4For He chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 1:5 He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ,... 1:11 In Him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him .... 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ...
Meaning = "We" refer to the Jewish Christians who were first to be saved in Jesus

13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth... 2:11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised”... 12 you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise...
Meaning = Clearly, "you who are Gentiles" means Paul was writing to Gentile Christians, to explain that formerly, Gentiles were excluded from God, but now they can be saved if they confessed their sins.

Ephesians chapter 2 13 But now in Christ Jesus you... have been brought near by the blood of Christ...:14 For He ...has made the two groups one... 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations
= Jesus' atonement has abolished the need to fulfill the Law (such as circumcision and OT laws)

15: His purpose was to create... one new humanity out of the two... and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross... 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit... .. 3:16 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus...”
= Both Jews and Gentiles can now be saved if they confessed their sins to Jesus, unlike the past before Jesus' atonement,

So what is predestination? It is just a word that refers to how God planned it all ahead to offer salvation to the Jews and then to Gentiles.
In context, therefore, predestination does NOT mean choosing ahead who to save individually.
There is no discussion of individual predestination in Ephesians or Scripture.

Actually, there is, in about a dozen texts.

Predestination is in relation to the course of events, to effects, to outcomes preordained by God; e.g., adopted as his sons; conformed to the likeness of his Son; to reveal his Son; the plan of his will (Ephesians 1:5; Romans 8:29; Galatians 1:16; Ephesians 1:11),

and for which some are elected/chosen by God for its accomplishment by him (Romans 9:11,
Romans 11:28; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:10).

It is election that is about "individual predestination;" i.e., the actual persons chosen for the purposes of fulfilling God's predestination (Romans 9:11-12). "Election" and "chosen" are the same thing--selected by God to fulfill the predestined purpose of God.

God did not predestine the persons, He predestined the plan to offer redemption to the Jews and Gentiles. The offer is there but it up to individuals to decide.

God did elect (choose) specific persons to accomplish his predestined plan/purpose.

In Romans 9 we learn that God both predestined the plan (seed of Abraham),
and elected (chose) the persons for the plan, Isaac (Genesis 17:19) and Jacob (Romans 9:11-12),
just as he elects/chooses (2 Peter 1:10; Ephesians 1:4, 11)
the persons (the elect) for his predestined purpose/plan of redemption in Jesus Christ (Romans 11:7;
2 Timothy 2:10; Titus 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1)

In some verses, the Bible does say "God choose us". During biblical times, people don't say they chose to believe in God. Instead they said God chose them -- this is out of humility. In those ancient times, people on earth - the Jews but also other people and religions -- were more humble towards God and heaven; they were more submissive. "Chosen by God" is a figure of speech spoken in humility. Such linguistic elements have been lost over time. When interpreting Bible, we have to appreciate how words were used in different times, culture and context.

Actually, that notion enjoys no Scriptural support.
And pardon me for saying so, but with all due respect, that is one of the most lame human reasons known to man for overturning the word of God.

 

[Clare73]

Charles Spurgeon taught that we must put believing the Gospel of Christ and receiving Christ must come first, then sorting out election should come afterward.

Anyone standing before Christ at the Judgment cannot use predestination as a defence, because there are abundant promises and directions to believe the Gospel and that whoever comes to Christ will not be cast out. So the question asked will be, "Why didn't you believe the Gospel and put your faith in Christ?" The reprobate ones will have no answer to that question because they know that they are guilty of ignoring the salvation that was offered to them and that condemnation to Hell is their fault, not God's.

Election and Reprobation are mysteries that are in the mind of God, through
His foreknowledge of who is going to believe the Gospel of Christ and who is going to reject it.

An interesting sidenote:

Divine foreknowledge, as used in Scripture, does not refer to God knowing in advance what men are going to do, but refers to God knowing in advance what he is going to do. . .because he has decreed that he shall do it.

God executed in their present the choice and purpose he made before they were created;
i.e., he executed/accomplished his foreknowledge (his previous choice and purpose).

 

[Clare73]

BUMP:

Charles Spurgeon taught that we must put believing the Gospel of Christ and receiving Christ must come first, then sorting out election should come afterward.

Anyone standing before Christ at the Judgment cannot use predestination as a defence, because there are abundant promises and directions to believe the Gospel and that whoever comes to Christ will not be cast out. So the question asked will be, "Why didn't you believe the Gospel and put your faith in Christ?" The reprobate ones will have no answer to that question because they know that they are guilty of ignoring the salvation that was offered to them and that condemnation to Hell is their fault, not God's.

Election and Reprobation are mysteries that are in the mind of God, through
His foreknowledge of who is going to believe the Gospel of Christ and who is going to reject it.

An interesting sidenote:

Divine foreknowledge, as used in Scripture, does not refer to God knowing in advance what men are going to do, but refers to God knowing in advance what he is going to do. . .because he has decreed that he shall do (execute) it.

Acts 15:18 - "Known to the Lord for ages is his work."

Isaiah 48:3 - "I foretold (predestined) the former things of long ago,
my mouth announced (decreed) them, and I made them known;
then suddenly I acted (executed), and they came to pass.

See Acts 2:23, 4:28; Isaiah 37:26.

God executed in their present the choice and purpose he made before (predestined) they were created;
i.e., he executed his foreknowledge (his previous choice and purpose).