Why Do People Hate Calvinst?

I'm curious where it says in the Bible it is the church who must agree with the theology of the pastor, and not vice-versa.
I ask this really out of curiosity and nothing else.

 

No, sag, I asked you a question. I did not call you anything. I stated that a person who believes in unlimited atonement, IE that all people everywhere without exception will be saved, is a universalist. I asked you if you believed that or, like me, believe the atonement is limited to believers only.

You are derailing this thread. The topic of this thread isn't about universalism and the derivatives thereof. Plus, but I'm not going to play your little game of twister. You will have to find another playmate.

 

It is vice-versa. You must have misread my post. The pastor had better agree with the theology of the church or he won't be there long. I'm not saying the pastor should follow the church into error or anything like that. If the church goes into error, the pastor should be prepared to leave. It is, after all, the church that is his employer.

 

Its statements like these that bother me about Calvinists (as Particular Baptists are on the subject of soteriology)...and most would consider me a Calvinist Just as so many non-Cists have a tendency to misconstrue the Cist position, Cists have just as much a tendency to misconstrue the non-Cists' positions. Its not unique to Cism or those against Cism - its just human nature.

FWIW, historical Aism believed the same thing as you state above so its not like its a Cist definer as you seem to imply it is. From Article III of the Remonstrance:
"That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."

 

I am just trying to point out that many "non-Calvinist" would not assert such. We Cists have a tendency to "label" too many people with a semi-Pelagian view when their actual position is actually a different - just as non-Cists have a tendency to see Cists in terms of hyper-Cism. Both sides tend to exhibit the exact same problem IMO. Lots of reasons for that - some not unreasonable (although still to be avoided, some quite unreasonable.

I guess the thread topic just seems overly "whiny" to me when the opposite question is just as valid. Too self-focused and doctrinally introverted IMO. But thats just me.

 

..........way to go Andy; this is just what we needed, another C/A debate.....

 

I'm saying those who don't hold to your soteriology do not fall into either or both categories by default. Last I checked Calvinism is nothing more than an explanation of the mechanics of the Gospel by "men".

 

...and you say most people don't understand calvinism while giving your own caricature of the "non" side :laugh:

I will also say you must be the first person in history saved without faith if you were saved solely by Christ's death on the cross. I guess if you lived during the Passover, you would have also been saved without applying the blood to the door post as well. Those haughty "works of men" that God required to save their firstborns...

 

I'm following it just fine, thank you.

 

I don't hate Calvinists, but I believe Calvinism is complete error.

Total Depravity as Calvinists believe is false. Calvinism teaches that a person must be regenerated to have the ability to have faith in Christ. This is easily shown false.

If regeneration must precede faith as all Calvinists teach you have a serious problem, because you are teaching a person can be born again, spiritually alive and yet be dead in trespasses and sins at the same time. Take the example of the Philipian jailer.

Acts 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

In verse 30 we see the Philipian jailer desired to be saved. He was not saved at this moment, he was still in all his sins, yet he had a desire to be saved. Several Calvinists here have said this is evidence the Philipian jailer was regenerated.

But do you see the problem with that? He was still dead in all his sins, because you are not justified until you believe. And we know for certain he had not yet believed, because Paul told him he must believe in verse 31. And Paul told him once he believes he "shalt be saved". So being saved (regenerated) follows faith, not precedes it.

So those who teach he was regenerated are teaching that he was born again, spiritually alive, and yet spiritually dead in his sins at the same moment. Some Calvinists teach that a person can be regenerated for many years before they believe on Jesus. This person would be spiritually alive and yet dead in all their sins for many years. This is absolutely impossible.

The Philipian jailer was not regenerated in verse 30 when he sprang in and asked how to be saved. He was still dead in trespasses and sins. Only after hearing the gospel and believeing on Jesus was he justified and his sins forgiven. This is when he was regenerated, after expressing faith, not before.

And Ephesians 1:13 shows this order. It shows a person first hears the gospel, then believes the gospel, and afterwards receives the Spirit and is regenerated. It is receiving the Holy Spirit that regenerates a person.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

So, the teaching of Calvinism that a person must be regenerated to have the ability to believe on Jesus is false and unscriptural.

 

Good question, why can't people who disagree get alone?

Well, I do not hate Calvinism. I have found a fair number of Calvinist believers irritating. Why? Well, two reasons ...

1. I have never met a Calvinist who did not staunchly believe they were of the elect. They believed there was no possibility they were not.

2. When I did not agree with them on a point of theology they held often them immediately say, "You are not of the elect. You are going to hell."

That is irritating.

 

...and yet more obfuscation from you without addressing a single thing by "intelligently addressing the issue" as you say in your own words. Pot or kettle? Stick to the personal attacks and insults, you are quite good at those.

 

I would like to hear Shortandy's response to this...quite incriminating on the surface.