10 reasons why free-willers fear accepting Calvinism

I have met many, many Calvinists who are not sure if they are the elect and are going to heaven. That is heresy.

I do not accept Calvinism as presented by so many today because of two reasons. 1) it is not scriptural and 2) even Calvin recognized the shortcomins of his theology. I really do not care what Calvin believed. What I care is what the Bible teaches. I would ratehr study the Bible and get my hteology than to do eisegesis and read Calvin. Another reason why I do not side with most Calvinists is because thgey have not read Calvin's Institutes and do not know what he believed. That is just plain dishonesty to call yourself a follower of Calvin and have not read his writings.

I am a Baptist and not a Reformed theologian.

One must also understand the political situation to gain an appreciation of Calvin.

He was a smart man but I am sure many who call themselves a Calvinist after reading his writings such as his commentaries and Institutes would not agree with everything he wrote.

 

I assume you started reading the Bible to get a different picture.

Have you read Calvin's Institutes and his commentaries?

 

The first hurdle a man must get over to accept the doctrine of grace is his denial of total depravity.
Arminians believe that man is capable of saving himself by utilizing his logic, reason and will to choose to appropriate the saving Grace and Mercy of Christ. The Bible teaches that without being "quickened" by the Holy Spirit and regenerated first, No man can come to Christ unless he is drawn of the Father.

 

One question is:
What part of the Bible do I read to get a Calvinistic understanding? Is there even one complete chapter that outlines Calvinism as it is taught today? I don't see it, and it hasn't been presented.

Calvinism, as it is presented, is a patchwork quilt of verses picked from here and there to from an opinion of man.

Another issue is the source of what is called Calvinism. There are some Calvinists who will give a true account of where Calvinism came from. Spurgeon knew, and Calvin knew, but it appears that most Calvinists today don't have a clue.

The author of what is known today as Calvinism is Augustine.

Boettner has not been refuted as far as I know. His writing on the source of Calvinism is an honest appraisal, but not widely known. It's too bad that this group in not known as the Disciples of Augustine.


The Reformed Doctrine Of Predestination
By Loraine Boettner D.D.a

http://www.ccel.org/b/boettner/predest/28.htm
(edit - the link does not work, unfortunately. I will try to locate it)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.vii.ii.html


1. Before the Reformation

It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century.

The earlier church fathers placed chief emphasis on good works such as faith, repentance, almsgiving, prayers, submission to baptism, etc., as the basis of salvation. They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel. Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will. Since they could not reconcile the two they would have denied the doctrine of Predestination and perhaps also that of God's absolute Foreknowledge. They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free will. It was hard for man to give up the idea that he could work out his own salvation.

But at last, as a result of a long, slow process, he came to the great truth that salvation is a sovereign gift which has been bestowed irrespective of merit; that it was fixed in eternity; and that God is the author in all of its stages. This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West. In his doctrines of sin and grace, he went far beyond the earlier theologians, taught an unconditional election of grace, and restricted the purposes of redemption to the definite circle of the elect.

It will not be denied by anyone acquainted with Church History that Augustine was an eminently great and good man, and that his labors and writings contributed more to the promotion of sound doctrine and the revival of true religion than did those of any other man between Paul and Luther.

 

Again, the usual misrepresentation of non-calvinism.

Non-Calvinists, like myself, certainly believe John 6:44. No one would seek God unless He first sought us. God takes the initiative through: general revelation, the Holy Spirit, the Incarnation, and the preaching of the Word.

Cornelius the centurion is the prime biblical example of an unregenerate man responding to God's call and seeking Him. Even Adam and Eve, after the fall, communicated with God. And Paul says in Romans 1 that the unregenerate know and suppress the truth (not that they are blind to it.)

The number one reason why "free willers" reject total inability and the rest of Calvinism is that the system is unbiblical. Period.

 

Daniel,

Would you be so kind as to answer these questions (one of which I have asked you on another thread?)

1. Could you name a book you feel is a fair and balanced treatment of Calvinism by a non-Calvinist?

2. Could you explain how to reconcile the doctrine of total inability (regeneration must precede faith) and the story of Cornelius the Centurion?

 

whet,
We must have been taught differently about how to come to a conclusion about what constitutes a valid doctrine.

Context, Context, Context - this is what I was taught.

I looked at your link, and it was just what I thought it would be; a patchwork quilt approach to producing a doctrine.

Calvinists don't think so, but I consider the CONTEXT topic to the most damaging to Calvinism. But I understand that Calvinists tend to hold other doctrines that are consistent with their approach to developing doctrine. Such as end times, cessationism, etc.

When a person wants to create a doctrine from scripture that is not scriptural, you will usually find that it lacks context. That is, you don't source the doctrine from a book, or even a chapter. You source the doctrine from a patchwork of verses pulled from here and there.

I have to admit, it is fun. But in the eternal sense, it is not prophetable, or profitable.

 

Daniel,

Thank you for your responses. I am sad to see that you have not found what you consider to be an intellectually honest non-Calvinist.

As to your explanation of Cornelius, it is novel, if nothing else. Given your view of unregenerate men seeking God, your definition of total inability, and your apparent rejection of regeneration preceding faith (that the Holy Spirit calls in a manner short of regeneration) - I rejoice that you espouse such a mild variant of "Calvinism."

 

I politely concur. There is an abundance in the world of hypercalvinists (as well as hyperarminians). These hyper-views do great damage to the Gospel, imo. It does appear to me that whetstone's views are scripturally suppored.

 

Explain why God would create man with a "desire to fill his empty soul with God", but then deliberately exlude those same men from salvation? This is the tyranical, monster of calvinism.

 

Explain why God would create man with a "desire to fill his empty soul with God", but then deliberately exlude those same men from salvation? This is the tyranical, monster of calvinism. </font>[/QUOTE]Before your next post I suggest you study the meaning of calvinism, which is only a true, biblical interpretaion of God's Word! You could never make such a statement as above if you understood calvinism and the doctrines of grace!!
God owed no one anything but HIs wrath, but in His great mercy He chose to save some, thankfully and now any who come to HIm, calling for HIs mercy will receive mercy! How do you find fault with such a pure and loving God!!

 

Didn't Calvin baptize infants?

 

So do many Baptists every year during or shortly after VBS.