Calvinism Critiqued by a Former Calvinist

Ruiz...

Gosh, its just amazing. The haughty, pridefull eliteism just never ends. They just cant help it.

 

And from what you posted ...you do not.:thumbsup::thumbsup:


And can I quote commentaries?
you said;

Well you made statements that I am sure you cannot back up...so i am calling you on it.....
I named three bible teachers that are well respected and known worldwide....for someone who has studied these "simple truths".....it should be no problem for you to help us out with your extensive teaching......have not seen it as yet
First of all, there are are no "real issues", there are only simple Bible truths.

Ok...so tell us then.....

Understand? Again, a Calvinist implies that anyone that doesn't agree with him has a lack of Bible education and a generally ignorant knowledge of theology.

You have made this allegation.....but offer no proof.

[QUOTEAnd finally, I don't need a confession from 1689, I just need the Bible.][/QUOTE]
I'm sure...lol
Like I said....you cannot back up your wild and rash statements when faced with Simple questions and answers that have been believed by many for hundreds of years........you cannot begin to deal with the basic confession....not because you do not need it....but when you compare your knowledge to those who put together the confession.....it will be seen who only needs the bible....and who does not need the confession.....

Why don't you write a confession of 2011 and maybe someday Calvinists will take your word as Gospel over the Bible.

I do not have to re-invent the wheel my friend.....I have learned not to cast off and despise teachers God has used and given as gifts to His church.
perhaps you might want to reconsider your stance.
PS, I aint reading no confessions for Godly instruction. I only need the Bible.
John[/QUOTE]

Well I am sure this will prove interesting.

 

This article was posted in july by skan....it was dealt with there and here

Anyone who follows Clark Pinnock has gone down the wrong path to start with.....His arguments are not solid...I think this was posted before.

Steve Jones gets toasted right here;
http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/fb007.html

and here;
http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2005/06/critiquing-critique-of-my-critique.html

 

Icon, now you certainly Must know that this criticism (Pinnock) is essentially irrelevant as there only a single citation with respect to Mr. Pinnock.


"Certainly most of the authors I was introduced to in those early days as theologically 'sound' were staunchly Calvinistic....Theirs were the books that were sold in the Inter-Varsity bookroom I frequented. They were the ones I was told to listen to; sound theology was what they would teach me." 1


Hardly an essential bit of prose to the composite arguments of the author. No need for such criticism. I don't know Mr. Pinnock, but my guess is that, some of the arguments in the article would be agreeable to him, while he would certainly find others as missing the mark.

 

QF...read the two response articles to steve Jones article...also here on Pinnock;
http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?42


Clark Pinnock drifted off into open theism...and other non -orthodox beliefs...so when our hero Mr Jones remarks that he has followed the same path if does not help his cause any...see the two responses i posted.
1) "Barth was right to speak about a distance between the Word of God and the text of the Bible" (Pinnock, SP, 99).

2) "The Bible does not attempt to give the impression that it is flawless in historical or scientific ways" (Pinnock, SP, 99).

3) "The Bible is not a book like the Koran, consisting of nothing but perfectly infallible propositions..." (Pinnock, SP, 100).

4) "The authority of the Bible in faith and practice does not rule out the possibility of an occasionally uncertain text, differences in details as between the Gospels, a lack of precision in the chronology of events recorded in the Books of Kings and Chronicles..., and the like" (Pinnock, SP, 104).

5) "Did Jesus, teach the perfect errorlessness of the Scriptures? No, not in plain terms" (Pinnock, SP, 57).

6) "The New Testament does not teach a strict doctrine of inerrancy.... The fact is that inerrancy is a very flexible term in and of itself" (Pinnock, SP, 77).

7) "Why, then, do scholars insist that the Bible does claim total inerrancy? I can only answer for myself, as one who argued in this way a few years ago. I claimed that the Bible taught total inerrancy because I hoped that it did–I wanted it to" (Pinnock, SP, 58).

8) "For my part, to go beyond the biblical requirements to a strict position of total errorlessness only brings to the forefront the perplexing features of the Bible that no one can completely explain" (Pinnock, SP, 59).

9) "All this means is that inerrancy is relative to the intention of the text. If it could be shown that the chronicler inflates some of the numbers he uses for his didactic purpose, he would be completely within his rights and not at variance with inerrancy" (Pinnock, SP, 78).

10) "We will not have to panic when we meet some intractable difficulty. The Bible will seem reliable enough in terms of its soteric [saving] purpose..." (Pinnock, SP, 104-105).

11) "Inerrancy as Warfield understood it was a good deal more precise than the sort of reliability the Bible proposes. The Bible's emphasis tends to be upon the saving truth of its message and its supreme profitability in the life of faith and discipleship" (Pinnock, SP, 75).

12) "The wisest course to take would be to get on with defining inerrancy in relation to the purpose of the Bible and the phenomena it displays. When we do that, we will be surprised how open and permissive a term it is" (Pinnock, SP, 225).

13) "Paul J. Achtemeier has called attention to the inadequacy of the prophetic model for representing the biblical category of inspiration in its fullness–The Inspiration of Scripture: Problems and Proposals" (Pinnock, SP, 232, n. 8).

14) "I recognize that the Bible does not make a technical inerrancy claim or go into the kind of detail associated with the term in the contemporary discussion.... Inerrancy is a metaphor for the determination to trust God's Word completely" (Pinnock, SP, 224-225).

15) "In the narrative of the fall of Adam, there are numerous symbolic features (God molding man from dirt, the talking snake, God molding woman from Adam's rib, symbolic trees, four major rivers from one garden, etc.), so that it is natural to ask whether this is not a meaningful narration that does not stick only to factual matters" (Pinnock, SP, 119).

16) "On the one hand, we cannot rule legend out a priori. It is, after all, a perfectly valid literary form, and we have to admit that it turns up in the Bible in at least some form. We referred already to Job's reference to Leviathan and can mention also Jotham's fable" (Pinnock, SP, 121-122).

17) "The influence of myth is there in the Old Testament. The stories of creation and fall, of flood and the tower of Babel, are there in pagan texts and are worked over in Genesis from the angle of Israel's knowledge of God, but the framework is no longer mythical" (Pinnock, SP, 123).

18) "We read of a coin turning up in a fish's mouth and of the origin of the different languages of humankind. We hear about the magnificent exploits of Sampson and Elisha. We even see evidence of the duplication of miracle stories in the gospels. All of them are things that if we read them in some other book we would surely identify as legends" (Pinnock, SP, 123).

19) "At most, [in the NT] there are fragments and suggestions of myth: for example, the strange allusion to the bodies of the saints being raised on Good Friday (Matt. 27:52) and the sick being healed through contact with pieces of cloth that had touched Paul's body (Acts 19:11-12)" (Pinnock, SP, 124).

20) "There are cases in which the possibility of legend seems quite real. I mentioned the incident of the coin in the fish's mouth (Matt. 17:24-27).... The event is recorded only by Matthew and has the feel of a legendary feature" (Pinnock, SP, 125). [Yet Gundry was asked to resign from ETS by 74 percent of the membership.]

21) "God is free in the manner of fulfilling prophecy and is not bound to a script, even his own" (Pinnock, MMM, 51).

 

I understand "some" of who Mr. Pinnock is with regard to his position on Open Theism, my point was simply that the single citation of Mr. Pinnock had a "statically insignificant" importance to the article as a whole. That is why I said your criticism was unwarranted. I give no credence to the theological position adopted by Mr. Pinnock, at least not as far as I understand it. I do however, respect Mr. Pinnock's privilege to ask questions and think on theological things. My hearts desire would be that he would reach different conclusions

 

I disagree. When I was at Liberty Seminary, this was a hot topic. People were there studying both sides of the issues from scholars of both sides of the issues. I, thus, had read Boetner's "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" but was still Arminian for quite some time, as were many of my friends. I, though, studied more and was more convinced.

I think your stereotype may be true for some, but the revival in academic circles is without a doubt not true. I can name a number of strongly academic people I knew that changed because of the academic arguments.

As well, if their first exposure to reformed theology from a non-reformed church is through reformed people, I think there may be a bigger problem with expository teaching within non-reformed churches.

 

It would seem that within calvinism there is vast array of differing opinions.

Therefore I think it a little unfair to just give a blanket decree "you don't understand the position" because apparently there is disagreement and therefore the resultant confusion and misunderstanding even within calvinistic academia.

So I would ask whenever this statement of misunderstanding is made that I be given a detailed nomenclature (along with the order of the decrees) concerning the flavor of calvinism it is that I don't understand.

Myself I am undecided.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm


HankD

 

Hank,

Yes, in reformed theology there are differences and a multitude of flavors. What I find astonishing, however, is that in the areas that reformed theologians tend to agree, the Internet and some popular non-Calvinists radically misunderstand. Some of this is just complete ignorance and some of it are merely strawmen arguments that they refuse to surrender.

Thus, I have no problem discussing exegesis of Scripture but Internet debates on reformed theology is fruitless because of the strawmen others have set as being absolutely true, but are not.

 

I seriously doubt that anyone who claims to have been a calvinist in the past became non-cal through serious "scholarly" study.

Most non-cals on here are proof-texters and have not lended a scholarly rebuttal yet against any of the Dogmas of Reformed Theology.

Typically the OP's started to rebutt and ensnare the DoG brothers are begun on a faulty premise laden with out of context proof-texts. This is the major reason I seriously have my doubts some were ever at one time Calvinists, and switched.

Furthermore, there is no solid, scholarly study of the Biblical text which tends toward such a conclusion.

The main basis at fault within non-cal theology is the rejection of the true Biblical nature and indictment of lost mankind, thus it starts on a faulty platform to begin with (and what a serious fault it is!) and then goes off into some of these areas: an exaltation of mankind, down the paths of easy-believisms, unbiblical self-esteem preaching, flawed views of the doctrine of repentance, faith, and deficient views of the "omni's" and Sovereignty of God.

When Calvinists claim to having been a non-cal in the past, and has studied and become Calvinist, he or she is maligned as being elitest or arrogant for such statements. The shoe fits both ways if that is what one foolishly wants to believe. Yet again, I seriously doubt those who say they were cals in the past became non-cals through study. Reading said ones theological conclusions here erases in my mind that they concluded such via true scholarly study.

- Peace

 

When Calvinists claim to having been a non-cal in the past, and has studied and become Calvinist, he or she is maligned as being elitest or arrogant for such statements.

Examples of elitist and arrogant statements from an accuser who instead indites himself.

1. "I seriously doubt that anyone who claims to have been a calvinist in the past became non-cal through serious "scholarly" study."
2. "Typically the OP's started to rebutt and ensnare the DoG brothers are begun on a faulty premise laden with out of context proof-texts."
3. "Yet again, I seriously doubt those who say they were cals in the past became non-cals through study."

 

Indites? :laugh: I think it's "indicts."

I'm entitled to my opinion, which opinion is enforced by the opponents on here. When one who's is non-cal claims to have arrived there via serious study, all the cheerleaders get their pom-poms out. The OPs and threads begun by such prove otherwise. Filled with out of context proof-texts and failed quotes of theologians also taken out of context.

A Calvinist comes out and says it? Well, then it's arrogance and elitism. :laugh:

 

I suppose you have never misspelled words, or used the wrong words in any of you posts. I don't see any cheer leaders around here, where are they?

"out of context..proof text" YOUR opinion, which of course you are entitled to.

 

Among believers there should be a tolerance of both sides in the "I arrived at this by scholarly study" statement, instead of calling one group arrogant, and not both. Better yet? Neither.

 

Agreed. There should also be clear understanding that the "intention" of the statement "I have arrived at this by scholarly study" does not hint at or imply that "my scholarly study" is better than yours. If I read correctly, it is this that some (on both sides) find objectionable.

ALL of us should "agree and disagree", without any implication that "our way" is superior to another reasonably like minded brother in Christ.

 

Well, as I stated there are exceptions, but in my experience with MANY students who have become "Calvinistic" they had (or have) little knowledge of the scholarly views of the "Arminian" perspective. They say things like, "What else can you do with Romans 9 or John 6 or Eph. 1?" and have absolutely no idea how Arminians interpret that text.

In fact, I'd be interested to know how you think "we" deal with those texts. It is very rare to find someone from the Calvinistic perspective fairly represent our views.

We agree on this point. But that goes to prove my point. The "non-Calvinists" are just that..."non"...meaning they don't approach the subject, in fact they often avoid it. This has left a vacuum that Calvinism has filled. When "Arminian" scholars begin to teach and explain their perspectives this void will not be so easy for Calvinists to fill.

Even Calvinists admit they are "dragged kicking a screaming to the DoGs" because of their difficulty. I had the same experience. I didn't want to believe them, but I submitted to them because I couldn't see any other perspective. It is only when you study and understand the historical doctrine of Israel's Judicial hardening (where God actively blinds Israel in their rebellion) that many of these problem texts become quite clear.

 

Think that even our non cals bethren would see a difference between say a RC Sproul and a John Mcarther!

Even though both would be "cals"

 

BINGO!

That is exactly WHY most non calls have such a big problem with biblical doctrines such as election/God in control/salvation/free will etc
as their sotierology mdel tends to NOT see just how devastating the fall of Adam was to man, that jesus did die as a REAL and NOT possible atonement for mankind, and that God is always the One who comes to man for salvation purposes, NOT waiting upon us to show Him obedience and our faith first!

 

It seems the modern "hype" in the Arminian circle is to state Romans 9 is a national entity with no individual implications. The Reformed view is both national and individual in scope as is the historic Arminian viewpoint. For instance, Wesley never denied an individual mandate of Romans 9, in fact he clarified verse 14 that included individuals. I think the modern argument is inconsistent with the historic view of Arminianism and inconsistent with the clear reading of the text and is mostly a modern invention.

The corporate/versus the individual seems to be consistent throughout the texts in modern circles in all these texts. However, this goes against historic exegesis from both sides of this issue and clearly ignores individual issues that no exegete before the modern era would say were corporate. I find their argument rather new and uncompelling. Only the Reformed acknowledge a corporate entity, but also the individual mandate.

John 6 has more views and I think I found 6 different views in writing my Master's Thesis. Truthfully, I was not a Calvinist at the time I wrote this thesis and found all of them inconsistent of exegetically but, at the time, still rejected the Calvinistic viewpoint. I can't remember them all and I could probably pull out that paper, but I found them almost ridiculous to a long stretch, especially in light of the Jewish context (which was the focus of my look into John 6).

I disagree. For instance, a scholar I respect named Malcom Yarnell co-wrote a book in which he adamantly opposed Calvinism but also Arminianism. When Roger Olson approached Yarnell about him being an Arminian, Yarnell adamantly stated he was not an Arminian. Thus, your statement that a non-calvinist is simply not educated, is wrong. Most of the Southern Baptist Seminary trained Pastors are non-Calvinists but they are also not Arminian. I would include (and believe they would agree) such people as Paige Patterson, most at Liberty University's Bible department, most at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary and Danny Akin. Rather, you think people who are not one or the other are the ignorant, rather I believe that if you are not one or the other then you may not be ignorant and still hold to a scholarly position (though I disagree with that position). For the most part, I think people who move that direction have done more study on the subject from both sides than the average Christian in the pew. Those I know, I would say the vast majority read books by scholars on both sides of this issue.

This is one of the reasons I do not like arguing this issue, your first sentence screams of statements taken completely out of context. Normally, those who make this statement resemble something along the lines of Spurgeon or John MacArthur who relates that this doctrine is the most "God exalting and pride crushing doctrine." Thus, we kick and scream because we hate how much pride is crushed, not because it is unclear in scripture.

Yet, this is also where your statement is inconsistent. I agree, we normally do fight this doctrine. Yet, for you to say that they see no other option and can't escape the exegisis, yet then state we fight the doctrine gives more credence to my position. Yes, I looked for any other way to believe but the reformed way because of how pride crushing the doctrine is. However, after trying to find a way around the exegesis, I finally consented.