Why so many unfounded attacks on Calvinism?

I believe in the doctine of grace...and I don't adhere to TULIP.

 

A confession of faith, circa 1890:

"We, the undersigned, banded together in Fraternal Union, . . . .
We hold and maintain the truths generally known as "the doctrines of grace." The Electing Love of God the Father, the Propitiatory and Substitutionary Sacrifice of his Son, Jesus Christ, Regeneration by the Holy Ghost, the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, the Justification of the sinner (once for all) by faith, his walk in newness of life and growth in grace by the active indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and the Priestly Intercession of our Lord Jesus, as also the hopeless perdition of all who reject the Savior, according to the words of the Lord in Matthew 25:46, "These shall go away into eternal punishment,"—are, in our judgment, revealed and fundamental truths.
Our hope is the Personal Pre-millennial Return of the Lord Jesus in glory.

C. H. SPURGEON. . . ."

 

Really? Define "chosen" and "choose"...

Define "will" and "choice" such as in verse Rom 9:16

So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.


Define "give", such as the scriptures say of Repentance and Faith...("that God may give them Repentance" and "in the measure of faith God has given")

Define "all" in John 12:32, Matthew 10:22...

We'll start with those. I will prepare for your hypocritical reasoning away of these words...

 

I would, but you are too caught up [snipped] to actually recognize them for what they are. You will say in your mind "MY GOD would NEVER be like that..."

 

I suppose you are right. But as I said at the beginning I believe it to be a misnomer. Here is a quote from Wikipedia:

"The five points of Calvinism are sometimes called the doctrines of grace."
So they are. But in what context? They were used as a summation of Calvin's points of doctrine in a debate against Arminianism that were rendered at the Synod of Dort. That has nothing to do with me. I really don't care about the Canons of Dort.



But I do care about Grace, and the doctrines that surround it.

I do believe in the Sovereignty of God, and in God's sovereign grace.

Calvinists do not have a monopoly on Biblical doctrine, even when unbiblical doctrine may be presented. Again it is a man's system of doctrine presented solely to combat another man's system of doctrine which he considered heretical.

And for the record I am not Arminian, and I am not Calvinist. I fall into neither one's camp, and don't believe that a man must be boxed into any man's system of doctrine.

 

To pick one thing over another. Of course that doesn't apply to man, since they can only choose between one thing and that one thing alone.

. I think you need to learn the definitions for those in context of Roman 9:16 first. It is not speaking of salvation of individuals.

What butchering of Scripture. To think that God repents of Himself, and you do know the second part of your quote is speaking to those who are already believers, don't you?

John 12 "all" are clearly all those who are stricken like the analogy being used of those bitten, i.e., metaphorically all who are sinners / lost. Matthew 10 "all" is the same as those in John 12...the lost.

 

This I can agree with: TULIP, I don't.

 

Salvation is the work of God. I do not deny that.

I deny that man has to be regenerated before he can hear and understand the gospel. This is a complete fabrication on the part of the doctrines of grace.

Man has a will though he doesn't choose Christ with it. It isn't that he can't choose Christ but, he will never choose Christ unless he is drawn and and then only if he doesn't resist.

It is false to assume that man cannot understand the gospel when he hears it.

Man is not saved against his will to rebel. God draws man Convinces man convicts man as long as man doesn't choose to rebel. These acts of God will drive the man to repentance and surrender. The entire event completely of God.

Can man resist God? Well the Jews did and it clearly says so in the Bible.
MB

 

Why did the Calvinists hate Baptists

I don't know. Why did the early Calvinists hate and persecute the Baptists to the point of drowning them?

 

The truth is you can't prove any of it with scripture alone. If you could I'm sure you would. What I wonder about is why when you know you can't really prove it you still hang on to it.
MB

 

Too broad question

Sir, I believe your question is too broad and general to be answered specifically and intelligently. Furthermore, your question is prejudical of itself. You need to give specific attacks or instances of fear-mongering. Can you specify what the critics of Calvinism don't understand about Calvinism? What have they gotten wrong? Otherwise, such generalizations are inane complaints rather than matters of substance.

 

Not so Jarthur. Can you document this? Was the term "Doctrines of Grace" used before 1500, and was it used to refer to TULIP? That was the question being asked. There was no TULIP before the 1500's. It is Calvin's invention. You will have to document it with some historical references.

 

TULIP is not John Calvin's invention. He did not even list those doctrines in the same order. TULIP was a later invention, after Calvin's death, as an answer to Arminianism's 5 points.

Cheers,

Jim

 

The only one of the five points that is even debatable, from scripture, is limited atonement. Even that one, though, is well supported.

As far as "hanging on" to it, I was an Arminian for nearly 8 years, before realizing that was exactly what I was doing: hanging on to an unbiblical doctrine, because I did not like it.

The fact is, I have been through countless debates just like this one, and EVERY TIME, it ends with the Arminian backed into the corner, making arguments of "human Logic" (such as "God didn't make robots!", "MY God isn't like that!"{which is idolatry} etc.) while the Calvinist still has an entire arsenal of scriptures that he has not even called upon.

The Bible never speaks of a free will. The Bible DOES call us slaves (doulos is actually used to describe the human condition more than any other word in the Bible: a slave, chained, completely at the mercy of someone else).

 

The term "Calvinism" certainly wasn't around before the era of John Calvin -- but the doctrines certainly were.John Calvin clarified and organized the distinctive biblical teachings that we associate with his last name -- but he certainly did not invent the doctrines.That's silly and shows no appreciation for Church History.

 

That's an awkwardly worded sentence.His Institutes usually come in two volumes.In some editions both are combined in one book.

Five.But that's just the commonly used handy device which greatly condenses the Canons of Dort.

 

Yes,the Bible will evidence that Calvinbism is biblical.

So you are that uninformed?I guess there are two classes of Christians -- the Reformed=minded ones,and the uninformed.
Really MB,I have given you lots of Scripture in the past -- but you fluffed it off as a nuisance.You are comfortable with your views and will not yield to the authority of the Word of God.