1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Top 10 misconceptions about Calvinism

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by whetstone, May 5, 2005.

  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian

    F. Calvinism does not have the need to "redefine scripture" in places where EVEN CALVIN admits that it has unlimitted scope and application for the death of Christ.


    So you modify the initial point "F" by saying in Real Calvinism -- "SOME Calvinist need to redefine texts that Calvin would leave as is"??

    So "Owen-ist" vs "Cavlinist"?? or -- "Owenian Calvinism"??

    You got me.

    Christ's death is the unlimited "Atoning Sacrifice" of 1 John 2:2.

    But "ATONEMENT" involves BOTH the sacrifice AND the High Priestly work of Christ (Heb 8-10) according to God's Word that defines the term in Lev 16 on the "Day of Atonement" Gospel subject worked out in visual format.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Myths of Calvinism

    G. Calvinism has ever proven that the one who RECEIVES a gift -- has EARNED that gift as a wage -- by simply choosing to RECEIVE it.


    No response.

    Myths of Calvinism


    H. Calvinism has "some explanation" for why God allowed Lucifer to sin, for why He allowed Adam to sin (freely choosing - AGAINST their sinless nature) and why God allowed sin to CONTINUE for 6000 years.


    God had to "CHOOSE" free will for the universe EACH time He allows Luciver to sin or the angels to fall or Adam to fall -- and has to CHOOSE free will at "great cost" to Himself and His kingdom. God's OWN choice for a free will universe is the only REASON to "let" Lucifer or Adam fall into sin with the following "great consequences".

    God knew the end from the beginning but never said "My plan for you Lucifer is to go to hell".

    Nor does He say to Adam "My plan for you is utter failure so that I then have to save you from hell by dying for you".

    Yet God "knew" the end from the beginning all along.


    Myths of Calvinism

    I. Calvinism has answered the question -- "Does God have free will?" when it keeps arguing that mankind doesnt' have any other choice just because God has foreknowledge.


    #1. You are wandering from the point of "I". The point in "I" is that God has free will EVEN THOUGH He knows HIS OWN future actions. The result is that foreknowledge DOES NOT stop free will not EVEN for God. (And His is the "worst case scenario"). Therefore HIS foreknowledge is not stopping anyone's free will. If they are stopped it is not by the argument of foreknowledge - because that argument would STOP GOD HIMSELF were it true!

    Again you are getting mired down in obscurity when the problem is much simpler.

    If God knows He will have the second coming on Tuesday -- can He later choose Wednesday??

    Your attempt to limit this to "good vs evil" barely scratches the surface of the problem that the "forknowledge argument" introduces and is not needed since a much simpler choice is available to test that bogus proposition that foreknowledge stops free will.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  3. whetstone

    whetstone <img src =/11288.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Bob. However- not being a Calvinist yourself raises an eyebrow from me as you 'inform' non-Calvinists what Calvinism is not. After all- as a non-Calvinist yourself, you may be misinformed! An atheist is more likely to write '10 misconceptions about atheism' than a theist is. Not because the theist is stupid- but because the atheist knows the areas in which he has been misrepresented on a personal level. That said, I will briefly comment on each of your misrepresentations and (very likely) leave it at that (as I have decided recently to refrain from BB arguments).

    You are basically rewording my misconception #7- therefore proving it true.

    Personally, I base my understanding of the doctrines of grace on no less than 180 specific verses that teach each point of TULIP or a combination of many of them. Read these verses here: http://www.pre-evangelism.com/learn/theology_articles/soteriology/whycalvinist.htm

    Whether 180 verses is enough Biblical evidence to prove a doctrine is your call I suppose. I am currently going through the NT the third time in so many months finding yet MORE verses explicitly teaching these wondrous doctrines.

    This is a rewording of my point #4. So far so good.

    If 180+ verses of scripture speaking explicitly toward Calvinism be true- Calvinism is true. You be the judge.

    Now you are proving misconception #3.

    I don't know a single Calvinist that claims God didn't have any reason at all for choosing who He did. You have created your own myth here. Debtors to free grace will tell you point blank- God chose out of the good pleasure of His will. Case closed.

    which also proves my misconceptions 7 and 3.

    Mat 7:14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

    Your 'myth' isn't really about Calvinism at all. It's about the number of those saved at the last. Just because there are few that find it doesn't mean there will be few in heaven:

    Rev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

    I think a God that fills heaven to overflowing is good. We must not forget the saved infants and those saved during the millennium. What is your 'myth' again? I'm not sure I see it.

    This is intellectual mumbo jumbo. Your OPINION is that Calvinists aren't 'allowing themselves to think about' something. this isn't a widely held myth. it's your narrow opinion.

    You are here proving the misconceptions I gave in points 1 and 2 of the OP. please reread them.

    You are confused about the Calvinist position. Choosing isn't a work: it's just simply not possible if your nature will not allow it. The T in TULIP doesn't stand for "The fact that receiving is a work." It stands for Total Inability. Calvinists do not say receiving is a work because once you are receiving- you have been enabled to receive! The work is entirely God! Perhaps I need to add a new misconception to my list now?

    If you (an Arminian I assume) have an adequate Biblical explanation for the mystery of God's will in allowing sin, by all means share with the class. Are you an open theist maybe?

    More mumbo-jumbo. You are posing questions that have nothing to do with Calvinism- and strawman 'misconceptions' that most people couldn't even understand let alone hold as an opinion.

    Apparently this 'myth' is disproven if I say that I do not see it as transparent (since I am part of the 'all'). You might need to rethink this 'myth.'

    Could you please offer me a glance at the 'Arminian's handbook to witnessing' and why you think Calvinists read it religiously? If anything I see that Calvinists witness for a FAR DIFFERENT reason than Arminians do:

    Arminians witness out of fear, and out of guilt that they are not doing all they can. (personal experience talking. I was an arminian for 22 years)

    Calvinists witness out of confidence that God has a harvest- and the Holy Spirit will lead them into the right situations so they can obey the great commission.

    I think the biggest misconception here is in your own mind. You keep repeating "I know what I'm talking about and I'm gonna prove this idiot wrong!"
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Calvinist myths continued


    K. Calvinists have a good explanation for why they always use ARMINIAN methods to evangelize - other than the frank confession that "Calvinism doesn't work" for evangelism - so "we wait to spring it on them later".


    Arminian as in

    Etc etc etc.

    Calvinist "evangelism".
    "Obviously" Calvinist evangelists are using Arminian methods.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    You know what - I left out a key Calvinist myth

    Calvinist Myth:

    Arminians do not know what Calvinism is they only know they are Arminian and that in some innexplicable way - Arminianism is not Calvinism"

    Thanks for reminding me.

    So Christians don't know what Atheism is "because they are not atheists"???

    Trinitarians do not know what Arianism is "Because they are not ARians".

    Calvinists can not possibly know what Arminianism is "because they are not Arminian"??

    (I do see some Calvinists pretending not to know what the Arminian position is - but I seldom believe it).

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  6. whetstone

    whetstone <img src =/11288.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never said u don't know what Calvinism is- or that the theist doesn't know what atheism is. Only that the ATHEIST is more likely to write on misconceptions because it has effected him on a personal level. please try to take my words at face value rather than putting an emotional spin on them. We're just Christians discussing doctrine right? [​IMG]
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    E. Calvinists can address (or even allow themselves to "think about") the logical innevitable implications of their own doctrine --&gt; the "Future Calvinist scenario" in detail and will respond logically, paying close attention to "disconfirming details" without rejecting Calvinist principles.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the contrary -- I have posted that SAME scenario many times on this board only to watch Calvinists flee the "details" in droves.

    Here it is again. "The Calvinist future scenario"

    (Because Whetstone is doubting its existence)

    The inner quotes contain “The scenario”. Everything else is my commentary. (Of course the entire thing is my own test scenario for Calvinism)

    &lt;You see the problem when the Calvinist model is not “allowed the luxury" of disregarding the fate of the lost - as in the case above?&gt;

    God who arbitrarily selects out the FEW of Matt 7 and loves THEM alone - and then represents that to Calvinists as "So Loving the World". Oh the pure joy that thought must cause the Calvinist mind.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Here is a quote showing the fact of arbitrary selection accepted by Calvinists today.
    Establishing the fact that “yes” you can have a parent saved and their child “lost”.

    Establishing the all deserve hell but is it not great that some are saved (saved for some unknown reason not related to any attribute in the individual)
    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1406/5.html#000069
    Calvinist overjoyed at this “inexplicable choice of one and not the other” idea..
    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  8. whetstone

    whetstone <img src =/11288.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    i read maybe half your post. i'm bored by this thread already. could u sum up your question or whatever in one sentence so we can finish this?
     
  9. Brandon C. Jones

    Brandon C. Jones New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    0
    God had to "CHOOSE" free will for the universe EACH time He allows Luciver to sin or the angels to fall or Adam to fall -- and has to CHOOSE free will at "great cost" to Himself and His kingdom. God's OWN choice for a free will universe is the only REASON to "let" Lucifer or Adam fall into sin with the following "great consequences".

    Hmmm...this opens the door to the problem of evil from the Arminian side. He "has" to choose free will at "great cost." Some people who suffer would say, thanks but no thanks. This does not give a reason that's any more appealing than the Calvinistic answer. Why did God choose a world with free will? He has to at a great cost. Yes, but I asked why He chose to create a world with free will? It has great value.

    I'm not dissing the free will defense from those who have held it from Augustine to Plantinga, but it's not a perfect defense by any means and to discuss it would be yet a different thread.

    God knew the end from the beginning but never said "My plan for you Lucifer is to go to hell".

    Nor does He say to Adam "My plan for you is utter failure so that I then have to save you from hell by dying for you".

    Yet God "knew" the end from the beginning all along.

    Some would respond...if He knew the end from the beginning, then why did He create this world in the first place with all of its problems? It would have been better had He not created anything at all. Yes, but God is wise in all He does....that sounds like what a Calvinist would say.

    Myths of Calvinism

    I. Calvinism has answered the question -- "Does God have free will?" when it keeps arguing that mankind doesnt' have any other choice just because God has foreknowledge.


    #1. You are wandering from the point of "I". The point in "I" is that God has free will EVEN THOUGH He knows HIS OWN future actions. The result is that foreknowledge DOES NOT stop free will not EVEN for God. (And His is the "worst case scenario"). Therefore HIS foreknowledge is not stopping anyone's free will. If they are stopped it is not by the argument of foreknowledge - because that argument would STOP GOD HIMSELF were it true!

    Sorry, I guess I didn't know your point of (I). I thought the value of libertarian free will was it it the only way one can be morally responsible...(this was an assumption and an illustration about how easy it is to be misunderstood [​IMG] ). If this is your point, well we can discuss freedom/foreknowledge and its necessary piggy-back issue of God's relationship to time, but that would be yet another thread. I will say that your comments here equivocate free will. Are you explaining the Calvinist's understanding of God's free will or libertarian free will?

    Again you are getting mired down in obscurity when the problem is much simpler.

    This is not obscure....does libertarian hold true in heaven as it does on earth? Is God morally praiseworthy in the same sense as we are or if He does not choose to be morally perfect, are we just giving Him aesthetic praise like one would a painting. (These are Arminians arguments by the way and I don't see how they are obscure in discussing God's freedom).

    If God knows He will have the second coming on Tuesday -- can He later choose Wednesday??

    If God is omniscient, then He holds only true beliefs and rejects false beliefs, so no He could not later choose Wednesday, if He "knows" or believes that He will come back on Tuesday. But this involves God's relationship to time and the freedom/foreknowledge issue...another thread for another day.

    Your attempt to limit this to "good vs evil" barely scratches the surface of the problem that the "forknowledge argument" introduces and is not needed since a much simpler choice is available to test that bogus proposition that foreknowledge stops free will.

    What is the "foreknowledge argument" because I'm thinking of Nelson Pike and the issue of libertarian freedom and omniscience and the standard responses of simple foreknowledge, molinism, ockhamism, and presentism---what are you talking about with this phrase? I know no one who says that foreknowledge stops free will, but I define free will in a different way...are we discussing Calvinism or Arminianism here?...hence, the misconceptions over free will.

    I'm willing to discuss these tangential matters but start a new thread for each one.

    Blessings,
    BJ


    In Christ,

    Bob
    </font>[/QUOTE]
     
  10. Brandon C. Jones

    Brandon C. Jones New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry for the confusing post...you'll have to read above in BR's post to see what the new material is...please forgive me as a newbie to this style of boards. I'm sorry.

    BJ
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Calinist Myth
    C. Calvinisms "unconditional election" is not really "arbitrary selection" in a thinly veiled disguise.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Calvinist claim that there is NO difference between the elect and the lost and to find one is to be in error.

    Case re-opened.

    quote:
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Calvinst Myth
    D. Calvinism has some explanation for why God is ONLY selecting the "FEW" of Matt 7.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That is odd since in Matt 7 Jesus SAYS top those that "did not find it" (Depart from Me you workers of iniquity I never knew you).

    And since He claims they are not the one who "enter the kingdom of heaven".

    But if you "know better" please say on!

    Christ Himself is the one that numbers them all and says that compared to each other - the LOST group is the MANY and the elect are the FEW.

    No attempt to rewrite Matt 7 can be done by using Rev 7 as a "few is not as few as Christ thinks" kind of logic.

    It remains FEW and Calvism claims that there is NO DIFFERENCE at all between the FEW and the MANY even though Christ tries to get us to think that there is something "about THEM" that is determining something in Matt 7.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Brandon -- use the QUOTE button to include a quote and then delete out of the text anything you want.

    To leave a section of the post in quotes indented
    Just be sure to insert the [ quote ] at the start and the [ / quote ] at the end.

    (without the spaces between the characters).

    [​IMG]
     
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Sure - just look at the first quoted section of my post to you- it has the "Calvinist scenario' in it.

    The other quoted sections are just "proof" from other Calvinists posting and "Showing" the scenario.

    I will post the scenario again - by itself.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The inner quotes contain “The scenario”. Everything else is my commentary. (Of course the entire thing is my own test scenario for Calvinism)

    &lt;You see the problem when the Calvinist model is not “allowed the luxury" of disregarding the fate of the lost - as in the case above?&gt;

    God who arbitrarily selects out the FEW of Matt 7 and loves THEM alone - and then represents that to Calvinists as "So Loving the World". Oh the pure joy that thought must cause the Calvinist mind.
    </font>[/QUOTE]
     
  15. whetstone

    whetstone <img src =/11288.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    please reword it in one sentence?
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Ok?

    "I think Calvinism is wrong".

    (And then there is -- "I don't think Calvinists have an answer for that scenario")

    You can choose either sentence.

    Bob
     
  17. Brandon C. Jones

    Brandon C. Jones New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hesitate to extend this thread anymore...but this scenario is nonsensical. Let me pose a brief corollary for the Arminian.

    An Arminian dies and goes to heaven while his children are still alive. He had prayed for his children that they would get saved, but they never did while he was still alive. While in heaven God delivers him some terrible news...during a family gathering some terrorists came and killed everyone. His entire family is dead. Every person there was over the age of accountability and no one had yet accepted the gospel. The Arminian man rejoices because the terrorists exercised their free will and God created a world where something like a mass murder can happen. He rejoiced because his children's free will was never compromised and they died and went to hell because they never accepted the gospel. He thanked God fore creating a world with free will and never interfering with what men do with it whether for good or evil.

    That scenario is just as ridiculous and as pointless as its Calvinistic counterpart.
     
  18. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    First of all I congratulate you on taking an obvious step and actually proposing an Arminian scenario.

    However you get "low marks" for simply "presuming" that the Calvinist scenario makes no sense without actually "dealing with the details". By doing that you simply PROVE my assertion that Calvinists have no substantive "response to details" in that Calvinist future scenario.

    I suppose I should applaud you for confirming my point against Calvinism - but frankly I keep hoing that Calvinists "can do better" on that one specific point.

    (As some Calvinists might see it "I keep hoping that God will choose that Calvinists should start doing better and actually make a substantive response to the details".)

    The Arminian scenrio by Brandon -- later.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    #1. The opening scenario is not rediculous because it really shows "in details" real life events (people do refuse salvation and people really do suffer as victims of Crimes and Arminians really do have to include those "details" in whatever view of free will they hold to -- and how it reflects on their view of God).

    So though it may shock you - making a logical argument is not "rediculous".

    #2. In the scenario you should probably include the same "Armininan goes running to God and cries out "oh My Lord and Savior COULDN't you have done SOMETHING to stop this?".

    This sets up the same "equivalent" moment for "The scenario" for both Calvinism and Arminianism to "Show" the kind of God they serve.

    (Instructive - that you left it out -- but "anyway" on with our story).

    Some key points for the Arminian model --

    #1. People DO care about ALL and God really does SO LOVE ALL! ALL the World and yes ALL their relatives -- still.. So in showing the Arminian with "concern" for their loved ones is true to Arminianism - (at least for this Arminian).

    #2. As the saints were torn by animals in the Roman theaters of sport so both good and bad people suffer as victims in every age. The "bad event happens to someone who is Arminian" is legit.

    #3. Arminians never argue that they are happy that bad things happen to them or to their relatives.

    #4. Your argument that "God allows bad things to happen" in a free will system - is generally accepted as true. It is THE point of Arminianism that the WAY that God is NOT directly responsible for evil - is "free will". God creates free will and a sinless, painless environment. Lucifer and Adam CHOOSE evil (against their natures) and the consequence is sin and suffering.

    Your scenario is getting back to "Why did God LET THEM choose".

    #5. Now lets try your SAME scenario - using Calvinism as "the explanation".

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
     
Loading...