Why so many unfounded attacks on Calvinism?

Trying would be impossible because like I said before you do not have enough knowledge to discuss such a matter.

After all I am extremely shaky in my viewpoint because I have had this discussion with some professors who taught at SWBTS when I was a student there. One was the top Greek professor in the SBC and also in charge of the doctoral program at SWBTS. After all he would be just too dumb and ignorant for you to be satisfied. So don't even waste your time trying to learn from him either. Obviously you have all of the answers you want which I would suggest that you keep to yourself . Your answer are so full of wisdom and knowledge which is so deep that nobody can reach them.

I can remember when I was in seminary and there were some who had their minds already made up and who today have learned little except to criticize the very same people who tried to teach them. They are still in their ignorance.

 

Give us the biblical understanding.

 

In Defense of Calvinism

God have mercy on my soul, I'm about to defend Calvinism. Really.

Disclaimer: I am a card carrying Arminian. You predestinarians can take this post and use it as ammo all you wish. Here is an Arminian defending Calvinism.

You anticalvinists listen up. I, too, used to think and say idiotic things about systems I didn't understand. (I quit several days ago, although I might start again if you tick me off.) I even did it regarding Arminianism long ago.

There are three things y'all need to get clearly distinguished in your minds: (1) Calvinism, (2) perverted Calvinism, and (3) Calvinists.

Let's take (3) first: Calvinists. Some of them are more irritating than mosquitos. If you want to avoid them, it's still legal to do so. But that's a personal choice.

As for (2) perverted Calvinism, you'll find that most often in anticalvinist books, but you can also find it in obscure books. If someone opposes evangelism or takes a passive attitude toward Christian responsibilities ("God will correct my rebellious teen, so I don't have to worry with him."), that's just a perversion. No doctrinal system has ever been devised that hasn't been perverted by some loon somewhere.

Regarding (1) Calvinism itself, have you ever read one entire reputable book explaining it? Just one? If not (and I hope you never do), how on earth can you claim to understand it and have the answers to it? Has it occurred to you that many or most (dunno which) of the greatest Baptists in history were convinced of its scriptural fidelity? And do you think that you can thump them off the table like a dead housefly just because you heard somebody explain election as "Jesus voted for me, the devil voted against me, I cast the deciding vote, and me & Jesus won by a two-thirds majority!!!"?

Every conceivable attack against Calvinism has been made repeatedly down through the centuries, and answers to every objection are available in so many books, even I haven't read them all.

Since Calvinism is incorrect, I hope that you will stay clear of it, ignore the books, and just keep on believing that God loves the lost. But fer cryin' out loud, if you have this uncontrollable urge to bump the nest here at the BB and set them to swarming, please begin by reading the actual Calvinist theologians and refer to their actual teachings.

 

I am amazed when I ask some of those who post as calvinists about what books they have read. The answer is close to the same in almost every case. Most of them have never read Calvin's Institutes and very few if any of his writings. It kind of speaks for itself. Most have read someone else who wrote about calvinism but have never read the author himself.

 

I commend you Pipedude.(They also should know what characterizes a hyper-Calvinist.)

I don't understand the contradiction here.You ask on the one hand if he's ever read a reputable book explaining Calvinism -- but you take that back in your next breath by saying "and I hope you never do".

Not good advice.

Very good advice.

You're at variance with yourself.

 

I said stay away from Calvinism. But if you can't, at least be quiet until you know what Calvinism is.

I accept your apology. :saint:

 

The typical James ad hominem...why such hate and fear, James?

Going by your own flawed defintion of these terms, your evolutioin here on the BB would suggest you are one of the most hateful, fearful posters here. You started out here as cordial, polite and someone I enjoyed discussing things with, to rude, arrogant, unpleasant and "hateful" using your own terms. If we were in Star Wars, you should be a Sith Lord by now...

"Much fear I sense in you. Fear leads to anger...anger leads to hate...hate leads to suffering" - Master Yoda

 

I wanted to touch on the above bolded. Who built your house? Did God, or did home builders? I mean, if everything includes everything, God would have built your home, right?

 

Whats your point? In regards to reformed soteriology, at least, all you need to do is take a summary of it's teachings, and compare it to the Bible. People all have different takes on the "Doctrines of Grace"; so it is fruitless to read "Institutes" and then declare that THAT is Calvinism: it is just one persons take on Calvinism...

And before you say "It's named after him", remember that we 5 pointers are not the ones who applied that name. That was a derogatory term used by Arminians, which has no basis in fact (BTW, I HAVE read "Institutes"). YES, John Calvin believed in the Doctrines of Grace, but He did not invent them.

All you have to do, to qualify as a "Calvinist" (soteriologically) is to recognize the doctrines of Grace as biblical concepts. Everything ELSE is just a particular persons BELIEF, NOT Calvinism, per se.

For instance, if I read in Wayne Grudems "Systematic Theology", about HIS definition of Calvinism, it might differ substantially from Millard Erickson's definition of Calvinism, but they will agree on the core: represented by the acronym "TULIP".

So, DOES the Bible teach "Total Depravity"? YES> just read the scriptures. BUT Does it teach "John Macarthur's" version of Total Depravity? Well to answer that question, you have to read Macarthur's explanation, and compare it to scripture...

As stated in another thread, discussions such as this one make me think of a car. You see one car with a sunroof, and then try to define all cars by the fact that they have a sunroof. All cars don't have sunroofs.

 

This was my point. It is a man-made system, and not necessarily Biblical. For 1500 years Calvinism was never around. Augustine was, but not even he dates back to the Bible; besides he was heretical in many of his teachings. Why do so many think that his teachings are Biblical when it was only brought out into the light in the 16th century. It is entirely a 16th Century doctrine put forward by one of the reformers.

 

The same can be said of "Sola Fide", "Sola Scriptura", "Sola Gratia" etc. A LOT of truths of scripture had a relatively late development and at least in a fuller understanding of the terms. This was due to the "Babylonian Captivity" of the Church...

Of course, Paul, who penned much of the New Testament, was an obvious 5 pointer.

 

There is no comparison. There you are simply looking at theological terminology, such as the "trinity," not an entire theological "system." There is a great difference. How many volumes did Calvin write in his Institutes? And how many points are in TULIP? That is a system. It needs more than just one simple definition.

 

You don't have to be an expert to tell Calvinism isn't true all you have to do is read the Bible and let it be the judge. None of your doctrines of Grace can be explained with scripture alone. Not a single one. Calvinist here at Baptist Board have tried to change the meanings of words to make it fit there doctrine. Which is really nonsense. Everytime a verse is presented that disproves Calvinism it must mean something else. And this is where the twisting of scripture starts.
MB

 

I disagree Paul never wrote anything that even remotely resembled Calvinism. You should show us the proof of your claim.
MB

 

I find this a misnomer. There is a big difference between grace (or even the doctrines of grace) and TULIP. They are not one and the same thing. In fact, if any thing, they are at polar opposites. Salvation is offered by grace to all, not just to the elect. That is grace.

 

"There are some people who fetch out the Doctrines of Grace just in that way!
I can see them trotting along with the Doctrine of Election just in order
that some Arminian may dispute with them about it and that they may then bark at him!
Do not act so, Beloved!" ---Spurgeon

 

Please give the context of Spurgeon's quote. I am sure that he was not responding to TULIP.

 

When Spurgeon speaks of the "Doctrines of Grace" he is indeed referring to TULIP.

 

The "Doctrines of Grace" is the historical name for TULIP.