Why do other Christians hate Calvinist so much?

[VCViking]

My very first post here was that I don't hate calvinist, but I hate calvinism, it is no surprise to me that you also try to twist my word, you have twisted God's word before you did mine. I hate false teachings, man made doctrines, I listen to John Mac almost everyday, very good teacher, but as I say because they misunderstand grace don't make them evil.

That is why I asked you the question before assuming. So ease upon your "twisting" accusations. Now, you say you don't hate Calvinists but you hate Calvinism and think it is evil and a false doctrine as you stated below,

Originally Posted by His_disciple3

I know what you mean by this post but You have to hate evil, you have to hate false doctrines, Job hated evil, and paul and the disciples (excluding Judas) stood up against false teachings. your understanding of not thinking that God ever meant for all to see things the exact way, is straight from the gates of hell itself,
​

If you hate Calvinism and think it is evil and a false doctrine, then why on earth would you read and listen to Calvinists, like John MacArthur and Spurgeon? That makes no sense and defies logic and you appear to be confused. If you like Spurgeon and MacArthur, who are Calvinists, then perhaps your view of Calvinism is not correct, as mine once was not.

 

[Skala]

I love Calvinists, but strongly disagree with Calvinism that teaches another Gospel, diminishes the completed work of my Jesus claiming that he died for only tiny portion of humanity.
I love Calvinists, but strongly do not like divisive Calvinism. Nowadays they put people out of church because they are not Calvinists. This is what happened to us. Non-Calvinists were not even allowed to be in a worship team and had to leave. And one middle aged lady who for years played the piano was asked to step down, again because she was not a Calvinist.
I love Calvinists, but strongly oppose Calvinism that snatches hope from the unsaved and throws into a despair many sinning Christians who think that they are predestined for Hell.
I love Calvinists!

With all due respect sister, I believe you are viewing things exactly opposite from what they really are!

I love Calvinists, but strongly disagree with Calvinism that teaches another Gospel, diminishes the completed work of my Jesus claiming that he died for only tiny portion of humanity.

On the contrary, Calvinists say that Christ saves every single person he dies for. He does not fail to save a single person he intends to save. The other view - that Christ died for all but fails to save most - is what really diminishes his work on the cross. It means the cross alone isn't sufficient to save, but something else is lacking that must be added to it. To me, that diminishes Christ's work on the cross.

I love Calvinists, but strongly oppose Calvinism that snatches hope from the unsaved and throws into a despair many sinning Christians who think that they are predestined for Hell.

Again, on the contrary, Calvinists teach that grace is completely and absolutely free. They teach that election is unconditional meaning nothing you do in your life can qualify you or disqualify you from being elected. Thus, every single sinner can be hopeful that they can be saved, since grace is absolutely free and election is not based on anything they, themselves do, but rather is based on God's grace alone!

Thanks for your time.

 

[Hammster]

In all fairness, there are those who quote the confessions and Calvin before they ever do the Scriptures.

Point taken.

 

[Skala]

you twist my question or maybe you misunderstood it, let me word it this way: are you saying when Jesus said If I be lifted up that I will draw all men unto to me that that meant all men or just the elect

,

Obviously it means "all men", but the question is, what does "all men" mean? You act as if there's only one possible meaning for the Greek phrase that is translated into "all men". Is that just ignorance or are you purposely ignoring the other possibilities? Such as "Jews and Gentiles both" as opposed to just Jews only?

In the context of John 12 some Greeks had just approached Christ, thus Christ says "I will draw all men to me"

It cannot possibly mean "every individual" as Christ does not draw 100% of individuals. For in that very same chapter (John 12) it says "therefore they could not believe because God is blinding their eyes and hardening their hearts" (v40)

It is contradictory to say that God is drawing 100% of individuals but at the same time be hardening and blinding some individuals. So either the Bible is contradictory or your understanding of the phrase "all men" is wrong. You are ignoring the context of the passage. You are ignoring the other meanings of the word "all" in the Greek. You assert (with no scholarly evidence or arguments) that the word "all" always and without exception means "every single individual since Adam". On what basis do you insist that?

that the world in john 3:16 meant the whole world or just the elect,

World means world. But again, "kosmos" has around 10 definitions. Why do you insist, with no evidence and no argument, that only 1 definition is a possibility here? Seems the burden of proof is on you, not anyone else. You insist and presuppose and assert that "kosmos" only and always means "every single individual since Adam", then accuse people who believe that John is employing one of the other 9 definitions that they are "changing the word". No change is being done brother. No change is necessary. What they disagree with is your assertion that only one definition exists and that John only used that one definition. And again, you assert this with no evidence and no exegesis and no argument. Yet you have the nerve to accuse others of being unreasonable and imposing beliefs onto the text. Do you see the hypocrisy?

that whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord, means all can call or only the elect will call?

Whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord means exactly that. Whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord. Not a single person more, or a single person less. Only those that call upon the name of the Lord.

The phrase "whosoever will call up on the name of the Lord" does not say anything about who will do this or why they do it. It is simply an indicative statement. Everyone who does call, will be saved.

 

[VCViking]

Originally Posted by Hupomone10

Amen!

I promised the other side of the fence. This sort of thing is not isolated to attack on Calvinists. Here are two recent ones on the Semper Reformada sub-forum, not to me personally.

"Is the god of the Arminain God? Not at all. The pygmy god of Arminianism is a figment of men's imaginations and is no more able to save than a knat can. Does God desire anything that He can't have? The Arminian god does. Is there anything God wants that He can't bring about? That is the god of Arminianism.

"Calling an Arminian brother isn’t being compassionate toward their error it is assenting to their heresy. If you believe that they are saved then why even try to show them Calvinism?"

The following ones were directed at me in several posts from a well-known Calvinist on the Soteriology sub-forum, but not on the Baptist sub-forum. It was on a thread I started called “verses supporting predestination & election, verses supporting man's responsibility.” It got the attention of the resident attack dog…

"another person who has come here to combat a perceived theological bent out of some kind of paranoia."

"Patronizing."

"paranoia,… antagonization."

"we will see if true colors come out for all to see."

"no grand Illuminati strategy".

"hyper-Calvinist theologians are not hiding under your bed or in your closet."

"put away the tin-foil hat for a moment".

"the monsters are not out to get you.

"No, rather, I think this is more paranoia talking."

"Tell the little birds whispering in your ear to fly away."

"How about some substance now so what you really believe can come out in the open."

"If your conduct and few posts with substance are any indication, it is becoming quite clear what your true colors."

“This kind of self-righteousness is nauseating to me.”

I need to point out that these are two of the more belligerent 5-pointers out there, and not typical of those I’ve known generally on here.

Bella,

One thing that's curious to me. Why do you identify yourself to others as Calvinist?

In 30+ years as a believer, until I came onto CF I've never had more than a couple of encounters with fellow brothers and sisters where I felt the need to identify myself as such or where they did so either. Doctrinal discussions in the myriads, but never the label thrown out there. It many times became obvious where one stood, but generally Christians don't in my experience feel the need to identify themselves with the label of either Calvinist or Arminian.

Just wondering...
​

If you are going to quote me then give me the credit. But I also expect you to make sure that the context of my statements are understood. I stand behinds my statements but they are not to be thrown out willy nilly without context. Which is exactly what you have done here. You put on a great show but when it actually comes down to it you are willing to use dishonest tactics such as this.

Throws popcorn bag in microwave...

 

[VCViking]

John MacArthur
Grace to You
Answering the Key Questions About the Doctrine of Election




I am not calvinist and can't say that I "agree a lot with him" because I don't know much about him, but I do believe that Pastor MacArthur, who is theologically a Calvinist, is one of the finest theologians and expositors of the 21st century

 

[VCViking]

Disgusting, totally and completely disgusting.

Could you elaborate please? Thank you.

 

[VCViking]

Originally Posted by Hammster

I didn't expect that your first post would have a bad tone and accuse Calvinists of preaching a false Gospel.
​

Hammster, what you did is you lied, ignorantly, but a lied nonetheless. What I did is answered OP. Big difference.

Perhaps OP was a genuine question, but it was hijacked and sacrificed at the altar of Calvinism.

Unsubscribing as I hate to see the followers of Christ at their worst.

How did he lie? You did say it was a false Gospel.

I love Calvinists, but strongly disagree with Calvinism that teaches another Gospel, I love Calvinists!

You come in swinging and then bow out when challenged?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

In all fairness, there are those who quote the confessions and Calvin before they ever do the Scriptures.

You can generally find that kind on the Puritan Board.

 

[greatdivide46]

Originally posted by Skala

It cannot possibly mean "every individual" as Christ does not draw 100% of individuals.

If this is true have you ever wondered why Christ does not draw 100% of individuals? Is it because: (1) He is unable to; (2) He just doesn't want to; or (3) He foreknows who will accept Him or not and just doesn't bother to draw the ones He know will reject Him anyway? Or is there some other reason I haven't thought of.

Oh, wait, #3 implies free will, so I don't suppose that could be the right answer, could it?

 

[Hupomone10]

I hope God covers the SBC in truth and Calvinism comes back in full force in the SBC. That would be a blessing.

One does not have to come back to where one is. And if they were covered in truth then that rules out the possibility that Calvinism, the 5-point variety, could come back in force.

 

[Robs07M6S]

Could you elaborate please? Thank you.

Just the over all nastiness in this thread.

 

[Hupomone10]

If you are going to quote me then give me the credit. But I also expect you to make sure that the context of my statements are understood. I stand behinds my statements but they are not to be thrown out willy nilly without context. Which is exactly what you have done here. You put on a great show but when it actually comes down to it you are willing to use dishonest tactics such as this.

I was trying to protect you by leaving it anonymous, but you have taken care of that.

As far as the comments, did you make the belligerent comments, or not? If you did, then I have not been dishonest. Such a suggestion is ridiculous. Please show me which part was dishonest, cite ore retract. But we both know you won't do that, don't we?

Your style is the spitting image of another hyper-calvinist that used to be on here. hmmm....

More popcorn anyone?

 

[Skala]

One does not have to come back to where one is. And if they were covered in truth then that rules out the possibility that Calvinism, the 5-point variety, could come back in force.

Huh?

 

[DeaconDean]

Just the over all nastiness in this thread.

And there you go.

People come in misrepresenting Calvinism, telling us we follow a man, change the meaning of words, accuse of spreading false doctrines and spreading a false gospel and other such stuff, and when we defend ourselves we are accused of being hotheaded among other things.

Solomon said:

"A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war," -Eccl. 3:8 (KJV)

And even Jesus said:

"he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Lk. 22:36 (KJV)

Shyloch comes to mind here:

If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

Shylock's speech, The Merchant of Venice, Act 3, Scene 1, William Shakespeare

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[phoenixdem]

I have read that there is a call which includes everyone and there is an effectual call which is only the elect. God does ensure that those who are elect come to salvation. We are also told that those who don't come to Christ for salvation are responsible for their actions. Scripture is plain about Predestination and calling. So, however all of that ties in we may have to leave the matter partially unanswered until we see Him face-to-face.

 

[phoenixdem]

And there you go.

People come in misrepresenting Calvinism, telling us we follow a man, change the meaning of words, accuse of spreading false doctrines and spreading a false gospel and other such stuff, and when we defend ourselves we are accused of being hotheaded among other things.

Solomon said:

"A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war," -Eccl. 3:8 (KJV)

And even Jesus said:

"he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Lk. 22:36 (KJV)

Shyloch comes to mind here:



Shylock's speech, The Merchant of Venice, Act 3, Scene 1, William Shakespeare

God Bless

Till all are one.

The only thing that we have to do to pick up a pack of enemies is quote Scripture and that applies to both the unsaved and many Christians.

 

[DeaconDean]

If this is true have you ever wondered why Christ does not draw 100% of individuals? Is it because: (1) He is unable to; (2) He just doesn't want to; or (3) He foreknows who will accept Him or not and just doesn't bother to draw the ones He know will reject Him anyway? Or is there some other reason I haven't thought of.

Oh, wait, #3 implies free will, so I don't suppose that could be the right answer, could it?

In response #3, that disgraces God.

God using foreknowledge of who will and who will not accept and believe takes grace clean out of the scriptres for it makes it one of merit rather than grace.

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt...Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace;" -Rom 4:4, 16(KJV)

And in another place:

"And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." -Rom. 11:6 (KJV)

If it is by "foreknowledge" of knowing who would or would accept and believe, then it is not grace, it is by merit and we will have bragging rights in heaven.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[strelok0017]

Agreed but we should never be the ones to decide who is the elect and who is not. Such Calvinism isn't even Calvinism. Many people in my Baptist Church have such a view of Calvinists. It's really unfortunate because I tried to explain that it's not really like that. I guess they met some Hyper-Calvinists but other than that I see no reason for Calvinism having such a bad reputation. Being God centered should be a passion of our lives. God really doesn't care if you put a label Calvinist on it or not but if you want to you are welcome to. Just don't forget that we are to identify ourselves with Christ not a human person. We worship Him. As much as I love Calvinist preachers that I listen to I would very much hate hearing anyone say that being a Calvinist is more important than being a Christian. Which is why I don't enforce, and never will enforce, my Calvinistic views on anyone. I am also a culturally conservative person, but I will never condemn anyone for not being as I am.

 

[Robs07M6S]

In response #3, that disgraces God.

God using foreknowledge of who will and who will not accept and believe takes grace clean out of the scriptres for it makes it one of merit rather than grace.

But wait, can we really be so sure about that Dean? Take a look at Hebrews 12:15, unless I see im seeing it wrong it is mans responsibility to lay hold of the grace laid before him by God. Go on to Hebrews 12:17 and you will see the results of what happens to the one who fails to lay hold of that grace.

If it is by "foreknowledge" of knowing who would or would accept and believe, then it is not grace, it is by merit and we will have bragging rights in heaven.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I fail to see how its works and not grace when we have human responsibility to accept it or reject it.