What's Wrong with Calvinism?

He is not a respector of persons, because to RESPECT some one they have to do something to earn it. God chose whom He chose before they had ever done anything to be respected for!!

God is just because we ALL DESERVE damnation, He shows us grace by choosing some, so that we may be thankful for the grace we received when it should have been wrath. Your definition of just is exactly that YOURS. What is just in God's eyes may not be in yours, that is why we are commanded to have faith, and trust.

God does not OWE us anything but wrath and damnation. Your view makes it out like we deserve His love.

 

HP, I think many Baptist avoid the doctrine because they have been told that it is heresy so much from the pulpit that they lose the right that God gave them (in their minds) to study for themselves to find the truth. The pulpit now days has been turned into the only place where you can find the truth.

 

Well, the average Baptist as I have, has heard messages about how unjust it would be for God not to send Jesus to die for everyone. Many words are used for what they think of that kind of teaching. Myself, I came from the Independent Baptist's. I never saw the truth of election until I was called to pastor a Baptist church & began to preach verse by verse. Now I believe in all 5 points of what most refer to as "Calvinism", but I avoid the term because Noah Webster defined the term as "A follower of Calvin" and there is much I would disagree with John Calvin on, but I do agree with a lot of his teachings. But I believe that the doctrine is found & defined & defended without any ambiguity in the Bible.

 

The Baptist churches I came from did not believe in unconditional election & described irresistible grace as God storming down the door instead of just knocking on it. They said Jesus is a gentleman & will not force himself on anyone. All of the illustrations I heard used were always misrepresentations built on emotion rather than a contextual interpretation & exposition of the Scriptures.

 

It is the unfortunate reality that there are many 'Calvinists' today who do not understand nor know either 'Calvinism' or 'Election', and at heart are free-willers or Arminians - that's the unhappy truth. Cause? Simply nobody any longer takes the Word seriously; they just follow the trend of popular - even secular - opinion driven by mighty media.

 

What's wrong with Calvinism? Disinterest in God's word and being preoccupied by worldly interests. All that matters is how comfortable I live, how peaceful and self-gratifyingly. Men have forgotten God; they NEVER read and less listen to the Bible. They don't mind God, judgement or faith. Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die, is all the world cares about. WHO WANTS TO BE BOTHERED BY DOCTRINE?

 

What's wrong with Calvinism? I am a Calvinist if ever there was one; Calvin is one of my great spiritual heroes. It says not I agree on everything Calvin wrote or preached, although the differences are far between and insignificant. I accept Calvin as a great and trustworthy -HONEST- leader - an epochmaking personality, as Karl Barth described his preferment of him rather than Luther as leader in Christian thinking.

But I would say the big problem with Calvinism -- not with Calvin! -- is that it would not reform. Reform in what respect? Not in the basic doctrine of Election, but in its consequentials (so to speak), of, e.g., Sunday observance and baptism (relics from the anti-christ). As a 'Sabbatharian' and 'abaptist' these are the two specific points in doctrine I find unacceptable in 'Calvinism'-as-we-know-it.

 

The problem with your analgy HP is that it does not even come close to representing the truth. Let's see what it looks like when it is written to be a little clser to the truth...

If there were say five men that committed the exact same crime under the very same circumstances, and the governor decided to pardon just one of them and he made his decision before any of them set foot in front of them before he even looked at their files, and the others he left to die in prison including his brother, in your opinion would he be a respecter of persons?

This is closer to the truth, By adding that the person was the governor's brother in your version HP implies partiality which God is not.

So yes in my version God would be just.

 

The problem with this view is that it merely points out that INSTEAD of saing "God so LOVED THE WORLD that HE GAVE" God had every right to say "God so loved the arbitrarily selected FEW that HE GAVE".

And I think that all would agree that He COULD have gone that Calvinist direction and we would not have room to complain for ALL have sinned and all deserve the 2nd death.

But INSTEAD OF THAT - God decided to "SO LOVE THE WORLD" that HE GAVE... not just an arbitrarily select FEW. (the FEW of Matt 7 that God says will ultimately go to heaven vs the MANY of Matt 7 -- the WIDE ROAD travelers that do not go to heaven).

So basically "Calvinism fits another Bible" theoretically had such a Bible been written.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In Romans 2:11-13 God says he is NOT partially selecting out those whom He arbitrarily decides to "So LOVE" while ignoring the rest.

But in your example God already has a family relationship with one person that He does not have with the others. So even your case is not as arbitrary as Calvinism would have it.

IN Christ,

bob

 

Agreed that IS limited atonement - limited Grace -- limited god.

By contrast to the God of the Bible saying "God so LOVED THE WORLD" that He Gave.

"God is NOT willing that ANY Should perish BUT THAT ALL should come to repentance" 2Peter 3.

In Christ,

Bob

 

it is EXACTL arbitrary selection - that is obvious.

And it IS exactly Calvinism's limited grace, limited love, limited god, limited Atonment where God arbitrarily selects out the FEW of Matt 7 to "SO LOVE" INSTEAD of sovereignly chosing to "SO LOVE THE WORLD".

But even worse - (in that Calvinist model of arbitrary selection) - God THEN goes on to call that "SO LOVING THE WORLD" !!

And so now having looked at the sample "scenario" above - it is time for the CLASSIC scenario -- "The Calvinist future scenario" -- coming up!!

How tragic!

in Christ,

Bob

 

Now come on guys - you know they are just begging for the classic scenario - first with Calvinism as the doctrinal model AND THEN THE SAME SCENARIO using the Arminian doctrinal model.

 

I agree - that is the way a specific group of Calvinists (4 and 5 pointers) view it.

Thankfully there are 3 point Calvinists that do accept truth much closer to "God so loved THE WORLD - yes REALLY" -

In Christ,

Bob

 

The so is not an all inclusive statement you guys always read into it incorrectly and forget to take the rest of that chapter in John and consequently the rest of the entire book. The "so" is how he loved the world not who.

 

You see that is the problem you are so focused on God being love and compassion you are blind to His hatred and wrath. The God of the OT is not Love and Compassion. He is anger and wrath, He is do it my way or die. Do you even read the OT or does that not fit into your model of what God should be in your eyed instead of who He actually is?