Featured To Those Who Hate Calvinism: What is Your BIG problem With it?

Dr. J, welcome to BB!:wavey: I post this not to convince you as I'm sure your mind is already made up, but for the benefit of those who might be on the fence like I once was.

http://www.reformedreader.org/e&c.htm

.

 

Dr. James, it will be helpful in the discussion to accurately define that which you're attacking, and avoid straw men.

First, you misrepresent Calvinism by equating it with hyper-Calvinism. It is hyper-Calvinists (Primitive Baptists or Hardshells) who hold that people can be saved independently of the gospel.

Every Calvinist I know holds to the truth of I Corinthians 1:21

To repeat, God says people by sending them the gospel. The foolishness of preaching.

Then you mis-characterize Calvinists by making a general statement that we all wait for God to bring the elect to them. I don't know of a single Calvinist who believes that. They take Jesus' commission seriously. Calvinists are perfectly willing to preach the gospel around the world, to exhort men and women to repent and trust Christ, and leave the results to the Lord.

If every Calvinist were as you described them, I'd be opposed to Calvinism as well.

 

As would I. Most non-Calvinists do not understand the difference between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism and that is why they are against it. The most ardent Calvinists are generally the most evangelical and mission-minded.

 

Limited Atonement is hyper-Calvinism


http://www.challies.com/guest-blogg...essage-on-limited-atonement-by-dr-david-allen

 

A Calvinist being willing to preach the gospel around the world and doing it are 2 different things. When was the last time a Calvinist knocked on a door or passed out a tract? If they preach the gospel, where is it done? IN THEIR CHURCH which means that they are waiting for people to come to church and hear it, instead of going to gather people (soul winning).

And just what does a Calvinist preach? Do they tell the sinner to repent? The Calvinist tells you that God will GRANT you repentance IF you are one of the elect, then you will repent. Repentance is never preached as an option to the sinner; of course not, because the person has no free will and repentance is a willful change of mind and turning to Christ.

I never said that a Calvinist doesn't believe in preaching. The "Great Commission" is not just preaching in your church, it includes the word GO, and I don't know of any Calvinistic group, hyper or not, that takes on confrontational, personal soul winning. Why would they? There's no way to determine who is elect and who isn't and according to admissions by Calvinists in this forum "Who God elects is up to God". Thus if it's up to God, then that admits that who the elect are (including yourself) can not be knowable, and that is an enormous discouragement to soul winning.

If a Calvinists truly believed in soul winning, then I would expect to see testimonies written by Calvinists of their experiences. How many times have you heard of a Calvinist that spoke about the gospel to someone that rejected it? Never, because that would be an embarrassment to Calvinism since grace is supposed to be irresistible, and why would God send someone to give the gospel to a person who was predestinated to reject it?

The issue of evangelism DOES provide a problem to Calvinists whether they admit it or not. Paul preached to many that rejected his preaching, but if God knew they were not elect, why lead him to preach in areas that he knew there would be rejection?

Furthermore, what of the third world communities that have not heard the gospel? Where does their predestination and election fit in? A Calvinist would be forced to conclude that God just did not love them and therefore there was no need to send any missionaries to them, but then why send missionaries to preach to people that God knew would reject the gospel as was the case with Paul?

Calvinism simply takes the rhetoric of a Catholic heretic (Augustine) and accepts them at face value without thinking through the biblical and logical fallacies one will find when boiling all 5 points to their lowest common denominators:

Total Depravity: man is dead in sin and must have God wake him up to even hear the voice of God, yet when Adam was dead in his sin he not only heard God but responded to him.

Unconditional Election: based on eternal decrees that not one Calvinist can point to that was created outside of eternity so they add "decrees" to the Bible where they are not found. Moreover, Calvinism ignores the dispensations of the Bible and confuses the elect of Israel with the elect of the church and the elect during the tribulation. A Calvinist can never have true assurance of salvation because whom God elects is totally up to him and therefore unknowable to any believer which forces the believer to rely on works to prove his election (Arminianism).

Limited Atonement: When John writes that God so loved the world, the Calvinist manages to write volumes over that simple statement to mean that God only meant the elect. Calvinists butcher passages like Romans 5:18-19 and claim that while the many in one half means only the elect are saved, that many in the SAME VERSE AND CONTEXT means that ALL means ALL when it comes to the description of sinners. Thus Calvinism does not consistently adhere to basic hermeneutic principles when attempting to prove that atonement is limited. If terms such as all only mean some, then that would also mean that not ALL are sinners forcing the Calvinist to butcher the Bible to fit their dogma.

Irresistible Grace: Covered this somewhat in my opening paragraphs, but again the Calvinist must do gymnastics to explain Jesus comments in Matthew 23 where Jesus plainly says that Israel rejected Christ because they WOULD NOT: a clear and unambiguous statement to the will of man to accept or reject the gospel. If it was irresistible, then Jesus wouldn't have wasted His time preaching to them, and Judas would have never chosen to leave. Calvinist logic says that John 6:37 proves that all that was given to Christ SHALL come to him, but ignore what Jesus says in John 17:12 where that same statement is used for the 12, and one of them was lost (Judas) which means that the Calvinist interpretation of who is chosen based on John 6:37 is erroneous.

Perseverance of the Saints: Although a believer that is saved can never lose their salvation, the Calvinist interpretation is that if one ever backslides then they were never saved in the first place (which emphasizes comments above about assurance under unconditional election). The only way that a Calvinist can determine they are elect is if they remain faithful because works are the only test to prove the validity of their election which demonstrates that Calvinism ultimately leads to Arminianism.

There is no confusion about the roots of Calvinism. Any cursory perusal of the Synod of Dort and Westminster Confession reveals that those who oppose Calvinism have rightly stated the Calvinist positions and correctly rejected it. The Calvinists simply reject the conclusions that have been reached by those who have honestly thought the system through, and therefore the Calvinist complains that the conclusions are wrong merely because that's not what they said in all the synods and confessions written about it. For example, the Calvinist argues "We never said that God doesn't love everyone", and those of us that oppose Calvinism never accused them of saying that: ITS THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION OF THE BELIEF SYSTEM, and it doesn't need to be specifically said in order for the honest reader to come to that conclusion.

And regarding "general statements" it's a forum where there often short comments. Sometimes general statements can be acceptable, and then sometimes a general comment is directed to a specific audience (even if that audience is one person who gets the generalization because the 2 of you are on the same page).

Even in this response, it is still somewhat of a general response, so I hope you don't hold it against that I failed to write a 100 page volume of my objections.

 

DrJamesAch

Before you try and speak about the great commission,How about trying to respond to your mis-understanding of romans 5....which along with this foolish post,shows you do not have any understanding of the topic.

You posted and were answered...then you disappeared now offer this???

 

As Tom said earlier, the "foolishness" of preaching will accomplish God's purpose.

Isaiah 55:8-11
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Isaiah 46:9-10
9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

I doubt you looked at the link I posted earlier, if so you would of read this about that lazy bum, no zeal Calvinist Whitfield.

 

I clearly stated my position about Romans 5 in this thread, and elsewhere. I typically ignore people that offer pejorative responses that serve to attack a person's character and demean them simply because they do not agree with another person. Thus when I write something, and then you respond with comments like "all your foolish posts" "you don't know the Bible" "you are a liar" "you must have mis understood the Bible because *I* did not come to that conclusion and I am obviously far more superior in my knowledge of the Bible than you are": for future reference, those responses get ignored.

Now back to Romans 5:18

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

Now here is the obvious interpretation which Calvinism rejects: ALL MEN are sinners because of the offense of one, Adam. However, the free gift came by one man and is offered to ALL MEN.

The Calvinist argues that salvation is not offered to ALL MEN, but only to some, and those some are the elect. But if "ALL MEN" means only SOME MEN are offered the free gift, then it logically and grammatically follows that only SOME MEN were made sinners. The grammatical structure in English and Greek are the same for both halves of the verse, and it is grammatical and hermeneutic suicide to interpret the plain meaning of that verse any way other than the plain meaning of that verse.

 

SMACK DOWN!:tongue3::laugh:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QGJsGw36Hk&list=PLA6856749491A71CA

 

If I spent all my time reading every link someone sent to me or posted I would lose 50 pounds because I would not even have time to eat. I have spent several years reading about various doctrines and have studied Calvin, Whitefield extensively (I have several books containing Whitefields sermons, and Calvin's "Institutes").

I have also read George Whitefield's letter to John Calvin and Whitefield and Calvin were not on the same page when it came to Calvin's doctrines. Furthermore, the Reformation was still a fresh movement and not many-even popular preachers-had fully developed their doctrines as to whether or not they were consistent in repeating Calvin's theories.

It is to me erroneous to rely on preachers that were evangelistic hundreds of years ago, whom did not wholly agree with Calvin, and use them as examples of Calvinists today. Those Calvinists who have in the past had any modicum of evangelism (like D. James Kennedy) were totally inconsistent in their beliefs regarding Calvinism.

Those who are completely immersed in all 5 points of Calvinism, whether "Low" "Neo" "Hyper" "Reformed" "Moderate (Norman Geisler's invention) are not evangelistic in practice when they are consistent in their Calvinism.

Now regarding your quote of Isaiah, God's word not "returning void" does not mean that when it goes forth, everyone that hears it will be saved which is what that interpretation would imply (Universalism). When God speaks in the context of prophecy, it is going to be accomplished as He said it. When He says those who receive Christ as Saviour are saved, then He saves them and keeps His promise to keep them saved. When He says those who reject Him will spend an eternity in the lake of fire, then His word is true when a sinner rejects Christ. Isaiah 55 nor ch 46 have anything to do with an evangelist preaching the gospel and then the message either saving or condemning the listener.

 

Iconoclast



And one other thing to add, when you did respond, you cherry picked only certain points to rebut, left half of my arguments unanswered, and promised they would be included in "Part 2" and instead of there being a complete answer in a Part 2, was made sporadically over about 10 different comments and still did not address some of the primary arguments I made, not to mention that someone closed the thread.

 

DrJamesAch

I clearly stated my position about Romans 5 in this thread, and elsewhere.

Nice try, trying to avoid the answer...but you did not respond to this:

If you understand it biblically that is exactly what it says.....

ALL mankind was in Adam by physical birth

All in Christ started dead in Adam by physical birth....but By new birth, or rather being born from above they are In Christ..

Not all mankind are described as ......ALL In Christ

ALL In ADAM...does not equal ALL In Christ.......

if you deny this ...you are denying the basis of the gospel.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive

No Calvinist says this.....The gospel is preached to all men everywhere.

Your failure to answer this is clear

 

I answered your post with one lenghty post that because of a bad connection did not post....which post do you want responded to...which point do you think is valid.....to be honest..your last three posts here are horrible...do you really want to stand by what you just posted???

 

It is odd how you can accuse me on not answering your question when I just did. Just because you don't like or agree with the answer does not mean it was not answered.

Your premise is that I did not "understand it Biblically". I wasn't aware that I was quoting from some other source than the Bible for my response, so if there's some other means of responding "Biblically" please enlighten me. But NO, that is NOT "exactly what it says" and I just spelled it out.

I never said that "all in Adam" EQUALS "all in Christ". I believe that the explanation I just gave above is clear and concise and accurate. Romans 5:18 says that ALL MEN were under condemnation, and then it says that the free gift came upon (came upon doesn't mean it saved them it means it was offered to them, "came upon" does not mean forced) ALL MEN.

You are fish tailing your argument by claiming that "Calvinist PREACH to ALL MEN", and again, that wasn't the argument. My contention about Romans 5 has nothing to do with whether Calvinists preach to all men, but rather their interpretation of all men being only applicable to the elect. And therefore if the usage by Calvinism in Romans 5:18 that makes ALL MEN into only the elect, then that same line of logic has to apply to the first half of the verse that says ALL MEN were sinners to mean that only SOME are sinners.

And again, any other way of interpreting that verse is simply adding something that is not there.

 

18 So, then, as through one offence to all men [it is] to condemnation, so also through one declaration of `Righteous' [it is] to all men to justification of life;

19 for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous.

It does not say...offered...they are made, or constituted righteous...only the elect are...

I will give a more detailed answer tomorrow on your more lengthy post....but your response is ignoring the reality of Union with Christ...that is why I say it is not really a response.

Logic has nothing to do with it.....

all men are physical descendants of dead Adam

not all men are spiritually alive In Christ. That is why it is only the elect...there is no other possibility.

I must sleep now...must work in a few hours....

 

You are misusing 1 Cor. 15:22. You are essentially using it to reinterpret what is being said in Romans 5:18. It is NOT talking about the same thing as Romans 5:18. You are equivocating between them. ALL of 1 Cor 15 is about physical resurrection. And it does indeed refer to ALL humans beings. All, everyone....sum toto.

Everyone experiences a physical resurrection: The question is whether you will experience the resurrection unto life or unto damnation.
Jhn 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

What you are trying to do is imply that the All in Romans 5 is not Universal by equivocating it to the All of I Cor 15. That dog don't hunt. Because the "all" in 1 Cor 15 does indeed include everyone saved and damned. Possibly, if you were exegeting 1 Cor 15 instead of eisegeting Calvinism into it. That would have been plain as day to you.

Romans 5: All (sinned)-Universal
The (gift) of salvation-Universal
ICor 15: All (die) physically: Universal
All will be (ressurected): Universal again

 

HeirofSalvation

Let's take a look....

Paul wrote both passages by the Spirit,true.....so let's take a closer look-

The larger context is about the resurrection of Christ and it is extremely important which we would agree on. that is not what is at issue as it relates to Romans 5 however.....

Okay.....agreed:thumbsup:

:laugh: here your anti-cal agenda causes you to have a temporary mental disconnect:laugh:

Hint and explanation:

While speaking of the truth are reality of the resurrection Paul himself{the great Calvinist that he was} see's how the truth of saving Union with Christ,and the Image Bearer doctrine.. Gen1:26-27
.teach federal headship!
If you read a bit further.....

The first man [Adam}was of the earth....earthy
The last Adam..Jesus was heavenly

As we have born the IMAGE of the earthly...we shall bear the image of the Heavenly....

So even in discussing the vital topic of the resurrection......the truth of romans 8:29-30 comes into play....

You are not going to try and make a case that universal salvation is in view for every human son of Adam......ARE YOU??????:laugh:

Every son of Adam......is not going to bear the Image of the heavenly...that is why there is an eternal separation at the White throne judgement.....

[/QUOTE]
you say:
1] All (sinned)-Universal.......yes all men ever born,all men around the world...yes

2]The (gift) of salvation-Universal

Wrong.....universal in that it goes worldwide......but not universal to everyman who ever lived...ALL men universally as in all men are saved is not the teaching of scripture.....

Even now we are told to preach the gospel to all men.....many men have lived and died without ever hearing the gospel.

3]All (die) physically: Universal......
all men die physically....and spiritually In Adam...The passage is speaking of Physical resurrection true......but for those who remain in Adam....they remain in the realm of death.That is why they go into what is called the SECOND DEATH.

4]All will be (ressurected): Universal again

Yes all men will be raised up, however you cannot ignore that the federal headship and image bearer doctrine that is taught here and Romans 5 is what determines the destiny of those raised up.

I cor 15:22 stands....

 

..............

 

You are not reading my responses evidently.I kept them separate to focus on each point.When a post gets too long many will not read it. I will list my responses in one place for you:

Nope..it is a wrong view of sin and the fall, and then a wrong view of scripture itself....man has lost the capacity to rightly understand divine revelation ...correctly..it must be God given.

Sure...right here:
You are attempting to argue as the jews in Jn 8 did..jesus told them what was what>>>.
31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

no...you look right at it and miss it???

The text no where mentions "free will" at all scripture does not mention the false idea of a will that is "free'....your will is bound by your nature....romans 618-18 i posted before.
Men have a will that is bound and a slave to sin....they are servants....willing bondslaves to sin...they have self will which is sinful.
inMT 23 :37 IT DECLARES THEIR CONDITION....You WILL NOT.....come to me....no man comes to God unless drawn by the Father....that is why He wept over them ....he was willing, they were responsible but...would not come.
"how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"