What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Jesus is YHWH]

slicks? Doesn't answer my point.

I’m talking about Calvinists on that forum I’ve been on for the past 20 years . And I know a few on my personal life as well .

 

[ReverendRV]

I've never heard of any Calvinist who does that. Are you calling them Calvinists because they call themselves Calvinist, or because they fit your concept of Calvinist? Or do you call them Calvinists because of their doctrine?

They may be otherwise 'Calvinistic' but that doctrine is not Calvinism.

It happens a lot on Matt Slick's CARM Forums...

But I wouldn't say that any Calvinist there defends it as their Antinomian Right. I'd say they defend the truth Christians do indeed still Sin after being Born Again. If we Sin we have an Advocate with the Father; and Saint Peter did Sin when he was called out by Saint Paul for his discrimination of the Gentiles...

 

[Mark Quayle]

Unacceptable...it must mean to predict the outcome of a person's free will decision will indeed be fulfilled.

Iow, predestination refers to prediction, not to causation.

I'm not sure I understand the strange construction of your first sentence there, but from what I can make of it, you are reworking the passage to fit your theology, and ignoring the plain meaning of the greek word translated pre-destine or pre-determine, or pre-appoint or fore-ordain.

Eisegesis.

 

[Clare73]

Unacceptable...it must mean

Who made that rule?

to predict the outcome of a person's free will decision will indeed be fulfilled.

Iow, predestination refers to prediction, not to causation.

Nope. . .not according to the meaning of the word in either English or Greek (proorizo),
where it is "to decree, to predetermine, to foreordain."

Seems Mark has in right in the post above, #1083.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I’m talking about Calvinists on that forum I’ve been on for the past 20 years . And I know a few on my personal life as well .

I've heard of John MacArthur being accused of believing this, with quotes taken out of context. I know him well enough to know he believes no such thing, nor does he wish to be taken that way. I'm guessing your distaste for Calvinism is why you take them to believe that. But what you describe is not Calvinism.

 

[TedT]

TedT said: ↑
Unacceptable...it must mean

Who made that rule?

It is not a rule...it is working within the logic of the self revealed nature of GOD as LOVE.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I've heard of John MacArthur being accused of believing this, with quotes taken out of context. I know him well enough to know he believes no such thing, nor does he wish to be taken that way. I'm guessing your distaste for Calvinism is why you take them to believe that. But what you describe is not Calvinism.

No Mac doesn’t believe that at all far from it. I’ve followed his ministry for 45 years .

 

[Clare73]

Unacceptable...it must mean

Who made that rule?

It is not a rule...it is working within the logic of the self revealed nature of GOD as LOVE.

One's own working "within the logic" is eisegesis.

One working "according to the Scripture," is exegesis,
and in which Scripture the word is proorizo, which is "to decree, to predetermine, to foreordain."

So Mark did get it right.

 

[Clare73]

No Mac doesn’t believe that at all far from it. I’ve followed his ministry for 45 years .

Good for you!

 

[Mark Quayle]

It happens a lot on Matt Slick's CARM Forums...

But I wouldn't say that any Calvinist there defends it as their Antinomian Right. I'd say they defend the truth Christians do indeed still Sin after being Born Again. If we Sin we have an Advocate with the Father; and Saint Peter did Sin when he was called out by Saint Paul for his discrimination of the Gentiles...

I'm not sure what you are saying now. If they are not defending it as their Antinomian right, but merely saying that believers do still sin, even after regeneration, then they are not saying what @Jesus is YHWH attributes to many so-called 'Calvinists'. I'm guessing it is like with John MacArthur, who is so adamant about eternal security that he is is taken to say that the believer is free to sin all he wants, and such.

I haven't read Matt Slick except for some exerpts. I'm not sure, from what you are saying, whether it is Matt himself, or someone from his organization, or just others in the forums commenting.

There are many who say, and I agree, that Protestant Christianity in general is Calvinistic; I know personally several free-willers who abhor being called Arminian. They call themselves four-pointers, (or less). But I don't call them Calvinists.

 

[Mark Quayle]

TedT said: ↑
Unacceptable...it must mean



It is not a rule...it is working within the logic of the self revealed nature of GOD as LOVE.

In other words, eisegesis

 

[ReverendRV]

I'm not sure what you are saying now. If they are not defending it as their Antinomian right, but merely saying that believers do still sin, even after regeneration, then they are not saying what @Jesus is YHWH attributes to many so-called 'Calvinists'. I'm guessing it is like with John MacArthur, who is so adamant about eternal security that he is is taken to say that the believer is free to sin all he wants, and such.

I haven't read Matt Slick except for some exerpts. I'm not sure, from what you are saying, whether it is Matt himself, or someone from his organization, or just others in the forums commenting.

There are many who say, and I agree, that Protestant Christianity in general is Calvinistic; I know personally several free-willers who abhor being called Arminian. They call themselves four-pointers, (or less). But I don't call them Calvinists.

That is my opinion, that some Calvinists on Slick's Forum do seem to be Antinomian; but most of the Calvinists are not. I also am a long time Poster there; I think it's wrong to paint us all with that brush...

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I'm not sure what you are saying now. If they are not defending it as their Antinomian right, but merely saying that believers do still sin, even after regeneration, then they are not saying what @Jesus is YHWH attributes to many so-called 'Calvinists'. I'm guessing it is like with John MacArthur, who is so adamant about eternal security that he is is taken to say that the believer is free to sin all he wants, and such.

I haven't read Matt Slick except for some exerpts. I'm not sure, from what you are saying, whether it is Matt himself, or someone from his organization, or just others in the forums commenting.

There are many who say, and I agree, that Protestant Christianity in general is Calvinistic; I know personally several free-willers who abhor being called Arminian. They call themselves four-pointers, (or less). But I don't call them Calvinists.

No it’s posters on the forum I deal with on a daily basis who claim the sin by the minute, hour , day, week , month , year habitually and it never stops when scripture says the opposite that those who practice sin , make it a habit will not enter the kingdom of God . That’s the issue

 

[jamiec]

I'd argue the central error of Calvinism is that it asserts human reason over the word of God by forcing Scripture to conform to itself, rather than conform itself to Scripture.

TULIP is a very reasonable set of propositions that very neatly and logically fall in place. The problem is that much of TULIP is just unbiblical--as is also the case of the Five Articles of Remonstrance, which TULIP sought to rebuke.

Scripture absolutely teaches the predestination of the elect (not merely the foreknowledge of the elect; but it does not teach that God has decided that some will be saved and others will be not be saved. Rather Scripture is explicitly clear that God desire and will the salvation of all, and that Christ died for all. Not merely dying for all in potential as the Arminians falsely teach, nor only for the elect as the Calvinists falsely teach, but for everyone. EVERYONE. Yes, Jesus died even for those who will, in the end, choose the darkest corner of hell rather than be healed and find joyous life in the light of God. The worst, the most despicable, the most atrocious and blasphemous person that could be conceived: That one also was with Christ on Calvary, for Christ died the death of ALL MEN.

So the problem with TULIP is that, just like the Articles of Remonstrance the Gospel takes a back seat to human reason.

The Gospel isn't reasonable, it is absolutely absurd. God, who cannot die, died. God, who cannot suffer, suffered. God became man. He who knows all things also grew in wisdom before men and God. He who decorated the trees with leaves and flowers hung upon the tree. Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, buried, descended into hell, and on the third day rose again. Our faith is ridiculous. Glory be to God.

-CryptoLutheran

I thought that last paragraph was the very best part of the entire post. If the Gospel were meant to be reasonable, we would not have the God-man, the Incarnation, or the Passion. The Gospel is a tissue of follies and scandalousness. How anything so offensive & foolish could have become the foundation of this-worldly societies, is anyone’s guess.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

That is my opinion, that some Calvinists on Slick's Forum do seem to be Antinomian; but most of the Calvinists are not. I also am a long time Poster there; I think it's wrong to paint us all with that brush...

And you are not one of them as you know just like David , clay are not as well . But you guys are the exception

 

[jamiec]

Charles Finney had problems with the American version of Calvinism (different from the English), in that the New England Presbyterians did not evangelise but had the opinion that either God brought the unsaved into their churches to be converted to Christ, by some mysterious process.

That sounds uncommonly like what in England was called Hyper-Calvinism, and was rejected by UK Calvinism (one of its opponents being Spurgeon).

The great flaw of Hyper-Calvinism, is that it is not evangelical. The “well-meant offer of salvation” is essential to Calvinism, for it makes evangelism a duty, in agreement with the Great Commission. This agrees well with Irresistible Grace, though it does return attention to the doctrine of two Wills in God, which risks undermining the “sincerity” of God.

As a result, not many actually got converted in those churches. Finney was invited to join a Presbyterian church but told them that because God never answered their prayers why should he have confidence that God would answer his prayers or their prayers for him? Finney became an evangelist and worked to win many for Christ, while suffering opposition from the Presbyterians. But in the English Puritan era, there were some very effective Calvinist evangelists who were well known for winning souls for Christ. Incidentally George Whitefield was a Methodist Calvinist who had extensive mass evangelistic crusades and won tens of thousands to Christ.

So American Calvinists were a breed of their own, and had a much more strict and unloving form of Calvinism than anywhere else.

 

[jamiec]

I think it was an extreme form of Calvinism, and many of the atrocities that American Calvinists did (Witches of Salem, and evicting people out of communities to starve to death in the wilderness) were things that Calvin never would have approved of.

The “villain” may be Scots Calvinism, specifically as mediated by Samuel Rutherford in “Lex Rex”. But that is my guess only. Calvin was not mild towards heresy. Most of the Reformers (those whose positions are known) were not. I think that is partly because they were formed in a Catholicism that was not.

 

[Clare73]

The Gospel isn't reasonable, it is absolutely absurd. God, who cannot die, died. God, who cannot suffer, suffered. God became man. He who knows all things also grew in wisdom before men and God. He who decorated the trees with leaves and flowers hung upon the tree. Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, buried, descended into hell, and on the third day rose again. Our faith is ridiculous. Glory be to God.

Then the absurdity of

the absolute inability of unregenerate man to come to God (Romans 8:7-8),
free grace (Ephesians 2:8-9),
Jesus' atonement for those who believe in him (Romans 3:25),
power of God working in the heart of the unregenerate (John 6:65), and
guarantee of the believer's inheritance (2 Corinthians 1:22, 5:5; Ephesians 1:14)

shouldn't be a problem for you, right?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Then the absurdity of

the absolute inability of unregenerate man to come to God (Romans 8:7-8),
free grace (Ephesians 2:8-9),
Jesus' atonement for those who believe in him (Romans 3:25),
power of God working in the heart of the unregenerate (John 6:65), and
guarantee of the believer's inheritance (2 Corinthians 1:22, 5:5; Ephesians 1:14)

shouldn't be a problem for you, right?

None of those are a problem for me, correct.
Neither is Jesus' atonement for the whole world (Romans 5:18, 1 John 2:2, Hebrews 2:9) a problem for me.
or God's unconditional love for everyone (John 3:16, Romans 11:32)
or that God is the Savior of all men (1 Timothy 4:10)
or that God wills that none should perish and to save all (2 Peter 3:9)

Is any of this a problem for you?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

None of those are a problem for me, correct.
Neither is Jesus' atonement for the whole world (Romans 5:18, 1 John 2:2, Hebrews 2:9) a problem for me.
or God's unconditional love for everyone (John 3:16, Romans 11:32)
or that God is the Savior of all men (1 Timothy 4:10)
or that God wills that none should perish and to save all (2 Peter 3:9)

Is any of this a problem for you?

-CryptoLutheran

Nope. . .all is one and the same.