Why do other Christians hate Calvinist so much?

[Bella Vita]

I really don't understand this very clear hatred of those who believe in the theory of Calvinism. You may disagree and that is your right but it is also our right to believe in it. There are scriptures to back both sides of this debate to each his own after doing your own individual research. I see it all over CF and it gets very mean and cruel at times. Something about this debate makes people leave the Christian part of them outside the debate and the anger takes over. I don't see why this has to divide us as much as it does we all have the same big goal and the same big belief system. The little stuff is stupid to fight over discuss it give your views fine but when it crosses into being sinful behavior to back your side enough is enough you are no longer pleasing anyone especially not God!

Everyone here really needs to reel it in on this topic. I have seen enough around here to make me sick. Many should be ashamed of the way they have behaved toward others because of this topic.

Get it together and be like Christ in all things!!

 

[Robs07M6S]

In all honesty Bella I believe it is rejected by many because it takes away their supposed free will which is something that a lot of people have a hard time dealing with.

It puts God in the drivers seat where he belongs and puts man in his appropriate place. I think that there is a certain level of fear when a man first realizes that its not up to him to secure his salvation, you take a man out of control of his destiny and you take away his freedom to choose. This in turn causes many to go absolutely nuts until they finally come to an understanding of the Sovereignty of the Lord.

 

[98cwitr]

What Rob said...and that it doesn't line up with who they think God is.

I personally don't like being labelled as a Calvinist though...since I've never studied Calvin nor any of his teachings. I believe what I do because I take the Bible literally...and do my best not to pick and choose which verses are true...but accept everything written.

Christ preached about man turning from evil, to act (which involves choice), to have faith and believe, but also preached that God is sovereign and in control. You separate the two, as much as one might try.

As far as the bickering is concerned...I agree, we need to find some unity here...because difference in doctrines have torn communities...heck countries apart before. We need to find some truth here. The question is: Do we rebuke or be silent? Do we correct and seek or fail to act? Bella, you sig says it all! What is that sword? What is that sword's purpose?

 

[Bella Vita]

What Rob said...and that it doesn't line up with who they think God is.

I personally don't like being labelled as a Calvinist though...since I've never studied Calvin nor any of his teachings. I believe what I do because I take the Bible literally...and do my best not to pick and choose which verses are true...but accept everything written.

Christ preached about man turning from evil, to act (which involves choice), to have faith and believe, but also preached that God is sovereign and in control. You separate the two, as much as one might try.

As far as the bickering is concerned...I agree, we need to find some unity here...because difference in doctrines have torn communities...heck countries apart before. We need to find some truth here. The question is: Do we rebuke or be silent? Do we correct and seek or fail to act? Bella, you sig says it all! What is that sword? What is that sword's purpose?

Driscoll says it best Calvinism actually came after Calvin LOL yes it is named after him but it doesn't have everything to do with him.

 

[Bella Vita]

In all honesty Bella I believe it is rejected by many because it takes away their supposed free will which is something that a lot of people have a hard time dealing with.

It puts God in the drivers seat where he belongs and puts man in his appropriate place. I think that there is a certain level of fear when a man first realizes that its not up to him to secure his salvation, you take a man out of control of his destiny and you take away his freedom to choose. This in turn causes many to go absolutely nuts until they finally come to an understanding of the Sovereignty of the Lord.

I know it just sucks I hate telling people were I stand on this because I know what will follow as soon as I do. I am scared to say I am a Calvinist because of all the hate and negativity attached to it. But I feel in my heart it is the truth I just hate being judged before I ever get a chance to explain. =[

 

[98cwitr]

There's a lot of negativity associated with being a Christian too

John 15:18
[ The World Hates the Disciples ] “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.

 

[Bella Vita]

There's a lot of negativity associated with being a Christian too

John 15:18
[ The World Hates the Disciples ] “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.

Yes but I expect that from the secular world. It is harder to cope when it is people who are fighting for the same team as you. Especially when it gets out of control to the point of looking just like the fights of the secular world.

 

[VCViking]

I know it just sucks I hate telling people were I stand on this because I know what will follow as soon as I do. I am scared to say I am a Calvinist because of all the hate and negativity attached to it. But I feel in my heart it is the truth I just hate being judged before I ever get a chance to explain. =[

Some Famous Calvinists

C.H. Spurgeon was a Calvinist and is called the "Prince of Preachers." Just about every sermon he peached, he went to the cross.

Evangelism Explosion was created by Dr. James Kennedy who was a Calvinist. Many Arminians use his course.

William Carey known as the father of modern missions was a Calvinist.

John Bunyan, author of Pilgrims Progress, was a Calvinist.

Evangelist George Whitefield was a Calvinist.

Matthew Henry, the famous Bible commentator was a Calvinist.

Approx 14 of the 50 or so members of the KJV translation committee were Calvinists.

Some of the founding fathers were Calvinists, including 12 signers of the Declaration of Independence and 12 signers of the U.S. Constitution were Presbyterians/Calvinists.

Approx 9 former U.S. Presidents and 12 former Vice-Presidents were Presbyterians, i.e. Calvinists.

And lets not forget the Pilgrims and the Puritans were Calvinists.



Sounds like you are in good company

 

[His_disciple3]

I really don't understand this very clear hatred of those who believe in the theory of Calvinism. You may disagree and that is your right but it is also our right to believe in it. There are scriptures to back both sides of this debate to each his own after doing your own individual research. I see it all over CF and it gets very mean and cruel at times. Something about this debate makes people leave the Christian part of them outside the debate and the anger takes over. I don't see why this has to divide us as much as it does we all have the same big goal and the same big belief system. The little stuff is stupid to fight over discuss it give your views fine but when it crosses into being sinful behavior to back your side enough is enough you are no longer pleasing anyone especially not God!

Everyone here really needs to reel it in on this topic. I have seen enough around here to make me sick. Many should be ashamed of the way they have behaved toward others because of this topic.

Get it together and be like Christ in all things!!

I can only speak for myself I don't hate calvinist, but do hate the calvinist doctrine of Grace, you say that there are scriptures that support both sides, but yet strive against each other. this just can't be, there are no contradictions in the scriptures, the reason I hate the theory ( as you call it) is that you have to say too many times that scriptures don't mean what they say, in order to support calvinist. if the calvinist believer was debating another religion, they would be the first to say that if someone says that scriptures don't mean what they say then that is how we get false teachings, but yet to a calvinist, God so loved the World don't mean the world, just the world of the elect, that whosoever, don't mean whosoever, it is just referring to the elect, that's two times that scriptures don't mean what scriptures says, in just one very important verse, according to calvinist, I didn't know I would be in another calvinist debate so early. let me show you something about John 3:16 that God just showed me today, this will proved that the world means the World and not just the world of the elect. a calvinist says limited atonement meaning that Jesus died for whom He died for and that He just died for the elect, not the Whole world, for His atonement is limited, If he died for someone then they are saved/elect. but watch, so the world in John 3:16 can't mean the whole world :

John 3:16-17
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
KJV
keep in mind limited atonement, the third letter in the TULIP doctrine. but look at verse 17. "BUT THAT THE WORLD THROUGH HIM MIGHT BE SAVED" if in verse 16 Jesus only died for the world that He saved/the elect, but verse 17 He died that the World might be saved. the calvinist says that the ones He died for, are the saved,. but scriptures says The world MIGHT BE saved, might be saved is stating that they could be saved but also they would not be saved. so if john 3:16 means only the world of the elect is what Jesus died for, then 17 should read : BUT THAT THE WORLD THROUGH HIM IS SAVED. Hope you can see this and turn from that false teaching before you lead too many in the everlasting. without them ever calling upon the name of the Lord,( as the Bible says) as calvinist also tell us that dead people can't call upon the name of anything, so that don't mean what it says either! for whosoever is only the elect that He hath called!!

 

[His_disciple3]

Some Famous Calvinists

C.H. Spurgeon was a Calvinist and is called the "Prince of Preachers." Just about every sermon he peached, he went to the cross.

Evangelism Explosion was created by Dr. James Kennedy who was a Calvinist. Many Arminians use his course.

William Carey known as the father of modern missions was a Calvinist.

John Bunyan, author of Pilgrims Progress, was a Calvinist.

Evangelist George Whitefield was a Calvinist.

Matthew Henry, the famous Bible commentator was a Calvinist.

Approx 14 of the 50 or so members of the KJV translation committee were Calvinists.

Some of the founding fathers were Calvinists, including 12 signers of the Declaration of Independence and 12 signers of the U.S. Constitution were Presbyterians/Calvinists.

Approx 9 former U.S. Presidents and 12 former Vice-Presidents were Presbyterians, i.e. Calvinists.

And lets not forget the Pilgrims and the Puritans were Calvinists.



Sounds like you are in good company

thank you for your post it just proves that the Bible is true again, Let God be true but every man a lair, well I know that won't have the impact that it should, for with Calvinist every don't mean every, as all don't mean all. now does it?

 

[His_disciple3]

In all honesty Bella I believe it is rejected by many because it takes away their supposed free will which is something that a lot of people have a hard time dealing with.

It puts God in the drivers seat where he belongs and puts man in his appropriate place. I think that there is a certain level of fear when a man first realizes that its not up to him to secure his salvation, you take a man out of control of his destiny and you take away his freedom to choose. This in turn causes many to go absolutely nuts until they finally come to an understanding of the Sovereignty of the Lord.

there should even a greater fear of misleading people, on what the Bible teaches, yes as Bella points out there are scriptures supporting predestination as well as scriptures that support choice, I have set before ye this day heaven or hell, life or death, choose Life. but these scriptures are not against one another, only people's understanding of these scriptures put them in conflict with one another. But rather to fully see The right way to interpet scriptures is to see that predestination and choice works together, the bible says to rightly divide, but to say that scripture causes strife within itself, is not rightly dividing anything. and again to say that the word of God don't mean what it says, is the very way false teachings get their very foundation of misleading and misunderstading scriptures. i do admire john Mac, in several aspects, he is a great bible teacher, and he will even admit that there are some scriptures that speak of choice concerning salvation/grace that even he can't explain, that's a humbled man. but no one in here, i have seen humble themselves and say that there are some scriptures, that they don't understand, yet they will just say that those scriptures don't mean what they are saying! and that's adding to or taking away, from their meaning! but then again even to some that don't mean what it says now does it?

 

[His_disciple3]

I know it just sucks I hate telling people were I stand on this because I know what will follow as soon as I do. I am scared to say I am a Calvinist because of all the hate and negativity attached to it. But I feel in my heart it is the truth I just hate being judged before I ever get a chance to explain. =[

well to even say you are calvinist is to say that you are following man. of course paul did say to follow Him as he followed Christ but if paul indeed taught predestination as calvin says he did, shouldn't you say that you are a Paulist? there is no hatred toward you as a calvinist, but as I have said before, I would study what calvism is before I would label myself as one, I really think there are some true calvinist, that would debate you as being a true calvinist. so to say you are a calvinist and not understand what that really means, as you have shown in your post, has taken away from your ability to show what you really believe, which would show that, your understanding of man's teachings on the subject you claim is so true to your heart, would even be found wanting to a true calvinist. maybe it is some stuff a calvinist teach that you can't let yourself believe, that this is what your God would do, so then that would put in in the same boat of the people that you say judge you and hate you for your belief! so if you don't believe a calvinist on who God is. why stand up and say I am a calvinist?

 

[DeaconDean]

The preceding four posts are clear cut examples of the hatred of Calvinists like myself and the constant:

you are following man

We are constantly accused of following John Calvin rather than Christ.

Is there any question as to why there is animosity here?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Hammster]

Oh heck, I'll chime in.

I gave been part of this debate for over three years now, mostly over in Soteriology. And with very few exceptions, it usually comes down to the anti-Calvinists making false accusations against what we believe (such as HisDisciple saying we follow a man and not Christ).

We have been accused of changing the meanings of words (I started a thread once and asked for examples and got nothing). We have been accused of making man into puppets/robots. And the list goes on. In other words, the arguments are weak and rely on twisting what we actually believe and ignoring the evidence.

Although I don't run from the Calvinist moniker, I prefer monergist because it avoids some of the negative connotations.

Also, in almost any debate/discussion over this issue, we can provide scriptural support of our doctrine be using whole passages and good exegesis. The angry response is most often a single verse or a string of verses that are removed from their context (John 3:16, 2 Peter 3:9, etc), and this is the entirety of the rejoinder.

What would be nice is to have this discussion with someone who is familiar with what we believe and has taken the time to do just a little reading on their own (as opposed to reading what someone else has said about it). The simplest is the Canons of Dort, which can be found online. Then the discussion can be on what we actually believe, and not on some straw-man argument.

 

[DeaconDean]

Oh heck, I'll chime in.

I gave been part of this debate for over three years now, mostly over in Soteriology. And with very few exceptions, it usually comes down to the anti-Calvinists making false accusations against what we believe (such as HisDisciple saying we follow a man and not Christ).

We have been accused of changing the meanings of words (I started a thread once and asked for examples and got nothing). We have been accused of making man into puppets/robots. And the list goes on. In other words, the arguments are weak and rely on twisting what we actually believe and ignoring the evidence.

Although I don't run from the Calvinist moniker, I prefer monergist because it avoids some of the negative connotations.

Also, in almost any debate/discussion over this issue, we can provide scriptural support of our doctrine be using whole passages and good exegesis. The angry response is most often a single verse or a string of verses that are removed from their context (John 3:16, 2 Peter 3:9, etc), and this is the entirety of the rejoinder.

What would be nice is to have this discussion with someone who is familiar with what we believe and has taken the time to do just a little reading on their own (as opposed to reading what someone else has said about it). The simplest is the Canons of Dort, which can be found online. Then the discussion can be on what we actually believe, and not on some straw-man argument.

I couldn't agree more.

It has been said:

I...do hate the calvinist doctrine of Grace,

I wonder why?

Is it because Calvinists take man out of the equasion?

Is it because scriptures say that God always takes the first steps towards us?

Is it because Calvinists make it all about grace?

Is it because we make God the rightful sovereign the He is, while man is no more than an insignificant "fly-speck" that he is?

I guess it is because we make it all about God, while others make it all about man.

Never mind what God has done for us, its more along the lines of what man has done, or can do, or will do for God.

Grace, Grace, Wonderful Grace,
It’s only by Grace I stand.
Grace, Grace, Wonderful Grace,
It’s only by Grace I stand.

Not what my hands have done,
Can save my guilty soul;
Not what my toiling flesh has borne
Can make my spirit whole.

Not what I boast or say,
Can give me peace within
It’s only by Your Grace I stand,
By Your Grace I stand redeemed.

Grace, Grace, Wonderful Grace.
It’s only by Grace I stand.
Grace, Grace, Wonderful Grace
It’s only by Grace I stand.

Grace Grace, Wonderful Grace, Words and Music by: Edwin Brown

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Bella Vita]

Some Famous Calvinists

C.H. Spurgeon was a Calvinist and is called the "Prince of Preachers." Just about every sermon he peached, he went to the cross.

Evangelism Explosion was created by Dr. James Kennedy who was a Calvinist. Many Arminians use his course.

William Carey known as the father of modern missions was a Calvinist.

John Bunyan, author of Pilgrims Progress, was a Calvinist.

Evangelist George Whitefield was a Calvinist.

Matthew Henry, the famous Bible commentator was a Calvinist.

Approx 14 of the 50 or so members of the KJV translation committee were Calvinists.

Some of the founding fathers were Calvinists, including 12 signers of the Declaration of Independence and 12 signers of the U.S. Constitution were Presbyterians/Calvinists.

Approx 9 former U.S. Presidents and 12 former Vice-Presidents were Presbyterians, i.e. Calvinists.

And lets not forget the Pilgrims and the Puritans were Calvinists.



Sounds like you are in good company

My husband and I really like Charles Spurgeon he has some good stuff =]

 

[WinBySurrender]

I believe the best response to all the nonsense about who is "Calvinist" and what that means is stated by Richard A. Muller, professor of theology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan (The random numbers throughout are footnote citings):

At a somewhat more complex level, the question assumes that “Calvinist” is an appellation that might have been happily accepted by Calvin himself and by pastors, theologians, and exegetes who belonged to the same theological trajectory or tradition as Calvin within, let us say, a hundred years after his death. That assumption is false on both counts. Calvin himself viewed the term Calvinist as an insult and thought of his own theology as an expression of catholic truth. It has been quite well documented that the terms Calvinism and Calvinist arose among the opponents of Calvin, notably among Lutheran critics of Calvin’s work on the doctrine of the Lord’s supper, and the beginning of the usage marks not a distinct tradition flowing from Calvin but the identification of a rift among the reformers who had initially understood themselves as “evangelical” and only after the middle of the sixteenth century began consciously to separate themselves into distinct confessional groups, namely Lutheran and Reformed.5 In 1595, when William Barrett attacked the teachings of Calvin, Vermigli, Beza, Zanchi, and Junius, he was rebuked, among other things, for calling these stalwarts of the faith “odious names” including identifying them as “Calvinists.”6 Later theologians in the tradition of which Calvin was a part typically identified themselves as Reformed Catholics, members and teachers in the reformed and therefore true Catholic Church, as distinct from the un-reformed Roman branch of the catholic or universal church. When the noted exegete and theologian Andreas Rivetus (1573-1654), defended elements of Calvin’s exegesis against various detractors, he also took pains to indicate that Calvin was neither the autor or the dux of “our religion.”7 Such comments, often connected with repudiation of the name “Calvinist” are common among seventeenth-century Reformed thinkers.8 In short, none of the theologians whose thought is at issue in the question, “Was Calvin a Calvinist,” identified themselves in this way.

By extension, then, the question raises the issue of the identification of followers — and this, albeit perhaps a somewhat clearer way of posing the query, is a rather difficult issue to settle historically. Precisely what constitutes a follower? If to be a follower one must identify one’s self as a follower, then there was probably only a single Calvinist in the century following Calvin’s death, namely Moyses Amyraut. In the debate over Amyraut’s so-called hypothetical universalism, moreover, most of the theologians usually identified as Calvinist thought of Amyraut as departing significantly from the spirit of Calvin’s theology, particularly at the point of his citing Calvin. Of course, after the era of Reformed orthodoxy, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, self-proclaimed “Calvinists” abound, typically so called because of their advocacy of one or another form of the doctrine of predestination, whether or not clearly rooted in Calvin’s own formulations, and because of their opposition to so-called “Arminians,” so called because of their soteriological synergism, whether or not (usually not!) they actually followed Arminius’ teachings.

This is actually a fascinating work of 32 pages, done by a man most would call a Calvinist at a college founded as a Reformed Christian institution. The entire work can be read here:

http://www.calvin.edu/meeter/lectures/Richard%20Muller%20-%20Was%20Calvin%20a%20Calvinist.pdf

 

[DeaconDean]

That also reminds me of what Lawrence Justice said:

For Baptists the church is a visible congregation of regenerated, baptized individuals. To the Reformers in the sixteenth century the Roman Catholic Church was still "the church," and it only needed reforming. They sought to reform a church which they, regarded as the true body of Christ. They assumed that both the baptism, and the ordination of the Roman Church were still valid. Neither John Calvin nor any other Reformers denounced their Catholic baptisms. The Reformers did not set out to restore the true church by copying the instructions revealed in Acts. Instead they worked to reform the "church" which already existed.

Lawrence Justice, Are Baptists Reformed?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Robs07M6S]

but no one in here, i have seen humble themselves and say that there are some scriptures, that they don't understand

I have made it abudantly clear in the past that their are plenty of scriptures which I do not understand and leave me scratching my head when I consider the calvinistic view of Salvation. I do lean towards calvinism but I have yet to fully embrace it because of many passages which would seem to teach against it and the failure of others to properly explain the passages which I have in question. Instead it seems that many just get mad or aggravated when I bring up a good honest issue regarding calvinism and eventually they just stop speaking to me all together I guess because they themselves cannot answer my concerns.

 

[miamited]

hi bella,

This is, sadly, another example of the use of inflammatory words to garner sympathy or support. It's used a lot in the political arena, but I'm convinced that among believers it should not be so.

You ask: Why do other Christians hate Calvinist so much? (italics added)

What I want to know is why born again believers throw around such words as hate?

You're right that we all are allowed to disagree with one another, although I believe that among the 'church' (as defined by Jesus) there is not so much disagreement. Paul acquiesces that disagreement must be a part of the fellowships in part to show who has the truth. However, I find that when we use words like hate merely to question why there is such disagreement is being a bit disengenious.

Among the born again believers there is no hate. It just isn't a holy and godly attitude. It isn't a gift of the Spirit. Many of the homosexual community throw this 'attitude of hate' around, and while I'm confident that that lifestyle may in some cases cause hate, it isn't from the born again believers. Born again believers may disagree with one's lifestyle; one's understanding of the Scriptures, but it doesn't then become hate. It is just merely not agreeing with someone else's ideas, thoughts or understandings of God, His word and how He asks us to live. In some cases the one who misunderstands may be enlightened by discussion and study, but certainly not always. It just is human nature.

I agree that we, all who's names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life, are saved by faith. However, I firmly disagree that those who's names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life were predestined as individuals unto salvation. My understanding and, I believe, thorough study of the Scriptures that when God's word speaks of predestination is is not speaking in regards to Tom or Sue or Bill or any particular individual, but rather to those who will believe. In basic english here's my understanding. God predestined before the foundations of the world were set in place that all those who would believe would receive the promise of His salvation. It isn't understood by me to be regarding specific people such as to say that,"Well, God didn't choose this person but he did choose that one." No, not at all. God chose that all those who would believe. This seems to me to be as clear as crystal in Jesus' teaching to Nicodemus.

So, as regards calvinism for myself, there are some valid points and there are some of his teaching, which we now refer to as TULIP, that is perfectly in line with the Scriptures, but not all. Just as with the catholic organization, mormons, jehovah's witnesses, that all contain some grains of truth. Even the muslim faith has some grains of truth, but not all of it is the truth.

Similarly with Calvinism, and the sad part about our tendency to label different teachings that then encompass a complete tying together of several points, all the points must be true, not just some.

God bless you and persevere to the end.
In Christ, Ted