The biggest is being called Calvinism when it should be called Reformed Theology. You know why? Because those that disagree say we are basing a system of theology on a dead person whom lived in the 16th century when in reality we are relying on the Bible. A book I am reading is explaining the history and defending the five points with scripture. Arminian have a great issue with us because of this and they are correct. I do not like being called Calvinist, I like being called Reformed.
Another flaw is the combative non graceful manner that some speak and treat those that disagree. I had a chat with a strong Calvinist a few months back and he was very condemning towards my wife and even hinted that she was a false convert. She is not Reformed but she loves the Lord. This man did not even know my wife nor her testimony.
Also once I went to see a popular preacher in Atlanta, GA and some hard calvinists were out open air preaching and passing out flyers condemning a whole bunch of non Reformed leaders some of which were.
David Jeremiah
Charles Stanley
Erwin Lutzer
Greg Laurie
Charles Swindoll
Chip Ingram
Charles Colson
Woodrow Crow
Randy Alcorn
Yes they had billboards and passed out flyers condemning these men!!! Well they did not mention Luzter, but when I asked them about him they had some bad things to say about him as well, because he does not teach Lordship salvation and uses the sinners prayer.
Fellow Reformed we need to get it together! Arminian do have a point.
Some flaws to Calvinism.. Reformed we need to get it together!
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by evangelist6589, Jan 14, 2014.
Page 1 of 3
-
evangelist6589 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
You are right that “Calvinism” is not historical Calvinism. But I don’t think that the “biggest” problem with Calvinism (or Reformed Theology) is being called “Calvinism.” For the most part, people understand that Calvinists have rejected much of Reformed thought. The biggest problem of Calvinism, IMHO, is a lack of understanding. Calvinists tend to be unable to understand how much their theology is based on human reasoning…this leads to a straight out hostility to non-Reformed theology based on the claim that non-Calvinistic thought is unbiblical (which is utter nonsense). Calvinists cannot (and I am “broad brushing) understand that there is much to Reformed theology that relies on human understanding and interpretation. Their theology is correct only if their understand and interpretation is correct (systematically). But there are also non-Calvinists who purpose alternate views which are just as Scripturally correct.
-
So "in their actions" they have not been resorting to Calvin to make their case with me. (though they may be doing this with one another when they debate "who holds to the better more orthodox Calvinism" - granted.)
in Christ,
Bob -
-
Calvinism appeals to those who like to believe themselves intellectuals. They think they alone are privy to those great discoveries beyond the grasp of common men. It is also very satisfying to believe they are the "elect", those precious persons God has chosen. They will never outwardly say this, but it is nearly impossible not to feel a little pride when you believe you are one of the few elect.
The problem with Calvinism is that is is not consistent with scripture. Calvinism is inconsistent with Jesus crying over Jerusalem, lamenting how often he would have gathered them under his wings as a hen gathers her chicks, but they would not. Calvinism cannot deal with this as it utterly refutes their whole system, so they tend to simply ignore it.
Folks should quit trying to put the word of God in a box, in a system. It does't work like that. Read the scriptures for what they say, and believe what they say. -
JonC said:Non-Calvinists affirm the same Scripture but come to different conclusions.Click to expand...
The trouble is, we cannot both be correct. Either we are both wrong and another interpretation is the truth, or one of us is correct and the other in error. But we cannot hold contrasting views and both be correct, that is logically impossible. -
Winman said: ↑Exactly. Non Cals interpret the same scripture differently from Calvinists.
The trouble is, we cannot both be correct. Either we are both wrong and another interpretation is the truth, or one of us is correct and the other in error. But we cannot hold contrasting views and both be correct, that is logically impossible.Click to expand... -
Winman said: ↑Calvinism is attractive because it is intellectually complex and very consistent within itself. If the T is correct, therefore the U, L, I, and P must be correct.
Calvinism appeals to those who like to believe themselves intellectuals. They think they alone are privy to those great discoveries beyond the grasp of common men. It is also very satisfying to believe they are the "elect", those precious persons God has chosen. They will never outwardly say this, but it is nearly impossible not to feel a little pride when you believe you are one of the few elect.
The problem with Calvinism is that is is not consistent with scripture. Calvinism is inconsistent with Jesus crying over Jerusalem, lamenting how often he would have gathered them under his wings as a hen gathers her chicks, but they would not. Calvinism cannot deal with this as it utterly refutes their whole system, so they tend to simply ignore it.
Folks should quit trying to put the word of God in a box, in a system. It does't work like that. Read the scriptures for what they say, and believe what they say.Click to expand... -
padredurand Well-Known MemberSite SupporterJonC said: ↑infant-baptismClick to expand...
-
JonC said: ↑You are right that “Calvinism” is not historical Calvinism.Click to expand...
But I don’t think that the “biggest” problem with Calvinism (or Reformed Theology) is being called “Calvinism.” For the most part, people understand that Calvinists have rejected much of Reformed thought.Click to expand...
The biggest problem of Calvinism, IMHO, is a lack of understanding.Click to expand...
[Calvinists tend to be unable to understand how much their theology is based on human reasoning…this leads to a straight out hostility to non-Reformed theology based on the claim that non-Calvinistic thought is unbiblical (which is utter nonsense).Click to expand...
Calvinists cannot (and I am “broad brushing)Click to expand...
understand that there is much to Reformed theology that relies on human understanding and interpretation.Click to expand...
Their theology is correct only if their understand and interpretation is correct (systematically). But there are also non-Calvinists who purpose alternate views which are just as Scripturally correct.Click to expand... -
Winman said: ↑Exactly. Non Cals interpret the same scripture differently from Calvinists.
The trouble is, we cannot both be correct. Either we are both wrong and another interpretation is the truth, or one of us is correct and the other in error. But we cannot hold contrasting views and both be correct, that is logically impossible.Click to expand... -
JonC said: ↑Most people, in my limited experience anyway, understand that Calvinism rejects much of the theology of John Calvin and the Reformers.Click to expand...
When we speak of Calvinism we are not typically talking about a state-Church, infant-baptism, etc, but we are typically speaking of those doctrines that were defined when James Arminius sought to reform Calvinism (TULIP being the response).Click to expand...
When we speak of Calvinism we refer to soteriology that was biblically-based and largely came to prominence in the 16th century with John Calvin and other Reformers. -
preacher4truth said: ↑'So', 'and...'?Click to expand...
preacher4truth said: ↑Citations please or I'd gather you're blowing smoke. Again.
Citations please. Elaborate. Anyone can make the statements you've made. It's utterly ridiculous and totally subjective and filled with ignorance.
Citations please.
Citations please.Click to expand...
Bottom line is that I have not claimed to be a Calvinist. The term is utterly meaningless here (beyond accepting the depravity of man, unconditional election, limited redemption , irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints - which you clearly imply does not constitute "Calvinism" and by doing so you highlight my point of the meaningless of the term). Just because I accept TULIP does not mean that I choose that acronym as an identity for my faith. You are offensively wrong here, brother. I identify myself as Christian. -
JonC said: ↑I disagree that Calvinism is not consistent with Scripture, but I do agree that some Calvinists have made it so. I do agree with you that some Calvinists have chosen to completely ignore, or at least down grade, Scripture to make it conform to their rationale. I do not think that I actually disagree with John Calvin on his soteriological doctrines, but I often find myself at odds with “Calvinists” who place the DoG over Scripture.Click to expand...
For instance, right now on another thread I showed how Ephesians 2:1 actually refutes Calvinism if a person happens to have an elementary knowledge of scripture outside Calvinistic proof texts. -
Rippon said: ↑Most people are uninformed.
Not TULIP --the Canons of Dort.
When we speak of Calvinism we refer to soteriology that was biblically-based and largely came to prominence in the 16th century with John Calvin and other Reformers.Click to expand... -
JonC said: ↑Yet the Cannons of Dort were merely a response, not a concrete theological system.Click to expand...
I have been told that here on the BB "Calvinism" does not mean historical Calvinism as an entire system (i.e., the religion of the Reformers). So I have been taking it to mean soteriology alone - and if I am wrong please correct me.Click to expand... -
Winman said: ↑Well, I believe Calvinism is very inconsistent with scripture. Almost daily I show where Calvinism teaches the EXACT OPPOSITE of scripture.
For instance, right now on another thread I showed how Ephesians 2:1 actually refutes Calvinism if a person happens to have an elementary knowledge of scripture outside Calvinistic proof texts.Click to expand... -
Rippon said: ↑You just quoted me but didn't notice that I said the same thing! Please read more carefully.Click to expand...
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite SupporterAnother flaw is the combative non graceful manner that some speak and treat those that disagree. I had a chat with a strong Calvinist a few months back and he was very condemning towards my wife and even hinted that she was a false convert. She is not Reformed but she loves the Lord. This man did not even know my wife nor her testimony.Click to expand...
Also once I went to see a popular preacher in Atlanta, GA and some hard calvinists were out open air preaching and passing out flyers condemning a whole bunch of non Reformed leaders some of which were.
David Jeremiah
Charles Stanley
Erwin Lutzer
Greg Laurie
Charles Swindoll
Chip Ingram
Charles Colson
Woodrow Crow
Randy Alcorn
Yes they had billboards and passed out flyers condemning these men!!!Click to expand...
Page 1 of 3