Featured The dislike of Calvinism may rest upon the attitude of Calvinists

I told you some months ago not to exchange posts with me. That means shut up.

 

Back to your same old ways. You need to keep your word --you said you had me on ignore --follow through. If you have changed your mind about that then deal with the content of my posts. You went on a tear about Presbyterianism yet this thread has nothing to do with that subject. Besides, your "service" to your previous denomination was when you weren't even a Christian. And it's not at all clear if you are a Calvinist or not --you have made various inconsistent claims on the subject.

 

Thank God:jesus:

 

Am I the only Calvinist who is not comfortable with calling Calvinism DOG? Come on now...really. I know some folks are ill-at-ease in identifying themselves as Calvinists because the term turns them off for some reason. But I don't want my soteriological beliefs called DOG. Am I barking up the wrong tree? ;-)

 

As all illustrations, there is limited application. Perhaps the illustration would have better fit the calvinistic view if one considers that God of Heaven only sees two types of folk - those redeemed already and those not.

God doesn't "stand above the jar..." but desires all men to be saved. He is willing that all come to Him in repentance. He has poured out His Spirit to all men, everywhere to judge this world. All are "condemned already" that have not believed. That many are not reconciled to God is portrayed in Scriptures as those who love darkness more than light; so much so, they shun light, and do not comprehend the light.

Is it God's fault? No.

However, God is never reconciled to man, but man must be reconciled to God. It is a one way street. God doesn't meet people "half way" nor will he accept that which is not holy as His heir.

Calvinists generally present God as having accomplished salvation. That is the total work is done, finished. Believers "ARE new creatures...," and "have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined..."

These are not phrases in which any work of human effort accomplishes, but are presented as already accomplished. The appointment to salvation in the concept of time, is not for God, but for human experience. Not that salvation is applied at that time, but the realization of the salvation. Look at the statement found in Romans 8:

"For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified."
​

See how this is all in the past tense? It is already accomplished in the timelessness of God. This is why Christ could state very clearly that those without belief "are condemned already."

The non-cal generally present God as having an incomplete salvation that needs some human effort to complete or remains incomplete/lost. I don't know any verses that would support that thinking. The non-cal uses terms such as "accept, reject, take, ..." which are indicative of some human effort needed to secure what is offered.


Perhaps those that are saved are the vinegar and those who are not are merely water. The soda is poured out into both, but only that of vinegar reacts.

Sometimes an illustration can be taken too far, though and I caution all to rely upon Scriptures and Scripture principles, not human illustrations.

 

This is an interesting post, because I too have a problem with the term "Calvinism" because of the association to a person to whom I don't consider I would have much in common, nor he with me.

Doctrines of Grace, sounds good, and I am somewhat more comfortable with that term, however, for those of us who do not hold to the typical covenant thinking amil view, it remains problematic.

Perhaps something along the lines of TULIPites.

Rippon, it is true that sometimes labels can be a quick reference yet so inaccurate to our own thinking and temperament.

I would hate for a scheme to be called by my name, and then centuries later have folks poke all about me looking for excuses to reject it because of some real or perceived flaw in me.

One of my favorite terms is "undeserving adopted heir."

God chose me before I even knew Him, made his own by adoption, and placed me as righteous before him totally by His grace and mercy.

Perhaps a good term for the DofG and Calvinists might be "The Redeemed."

Do you have any working ideas? Perhaps some Chinese term?

 

First off your OP was this ---->

So some of us get the reason, and what you describe above in others was actually the very thing your OP has accomplished.

You made an OP that belittles, slanders, degrades, insults and stereotypes my reformed brothers, put words in my mouth and say I stated something I never said (your false 'SBC' debacle)...yet now you mewl over doing yourself what you loathe in others? So tell me what else did you expect to happen?

I do however see you made attempt to clean up the ad hominem mess of your OP at its conclusion by adding a call to love after all the directed negative banter. Doing that was like presenting a steaming pile with a candle stuck in it while trying to convince everyone it's cake. Not buying it pal. :thumbsup:

As Tom Butler wisely stated, it's not the attitudes that are hated, it's the doctrine, and the OP took a quote and ran with it and expressed the same in the end.

 

Its these kind of misrepresentations that drive me crazy. Grace is not opposed to effort, grace is opposed to earning. It is never incomplete, even when your side tries turning faith into a work from our vantage.

I don't know any that would support such a strawman either.

God has supplied everything needed to come, it begins and ends with Him. Man is accountable for accepting or rejecting the soda. Your further illustration is even more faulty as it requires the jar of water to be vinegar, and when the soda is poured in, the one pouring the soda in takes out his wrath on the jar since no reaction took place...knowing full well all along nothing would happen. It makes God out to be bipolar at best, a monster at worst. This is the "complete salvation" you talk about?!?

 

My original response which was called out by the OP by saying I said the SBC is 'thus and so' when I never mentioned the SBC at all:

None of the content of this was addressed by the OP accept for false and unfounded accusations by the same. The post was objective.

 

Interesting post.

Much of the criticism by the non-cal folks is from a flawed understanding of the doctrine or attempts to undercut some Calvinistic thinking - guilt by association.

As far as criticism within the calvinistic community:

I wonder if strife is not generated by those who are consumed with alliances and personalities more than by actual doctrines; the exception being the doctrines of eschatology. It can be a real bummer if one can't find a DofG church that is pre-mill.

Because the doctrines are basic thinking and not hodgepodge, thrown together, "sound good to the ears," there is more consistency between the DofG churches (imo) when it comes to what and why they believe what they do.

However, I also think that the teaching/preaching of the typical Baptist church over the last century, or better (since Finney impacted the Baptists), has caused a huge misunderstanding and lack of education among many (not of just the pew sitters) of the leadership.

People generally react with rejection followed by hostility to what they do not understand and lack educationally.

Often, folks rely upon reputation and personality to determine truth.

It is therefore most important as to HOW one presents themselves in all manners of public and private; for that element has certainly become as important or even more important that the doctrine preach. Particularly when it comes to the Calvinistic views.

 

Have you read any of his works? Have you dipped into his sermons,lectures,commentaries,treatises,letters --The Institutes? If not, then don't be so quick to say you wouldn't have much in common with him.

This next point isn't specifically aimed at you but I don't understand many who identify themselves as Calvinists who seem to pride themselves because they haven't read anything by John Calvin. Now when I embraced the doctrines nicknamed Calvinism it wasn't by reading any of Calvin's works. It was by going through Dr.D-M-L-J's long series on Romans and reading the Bible in a deeper way. It was as if the clouds had rolled away. I couldn't believe that the same passages I had read before actually came alive with their actual meaning. I don't want to come off sounding like a mystic or something though.

But after a few years,being an avid reader. I had to turn to Calvin. His monumental works stood before me like a mountain that could not be ignored.Why some who hold to Calvinism tenaciously would go out of their way to avoid him is silly. Of course there are other men that the Lord has raised up throughout Church history. Not reading Calvin's works is not an essential of the Christian faith! But why deliberatly evade his insights? Godly men since his time right up through the present have extolled his ministry. If men like CHS,AW Pink,Warfield,Barnhouse,Boice,S.L.Johnson,MacArthur,Horton,Sproul and many more have endorsed the reading of Calvin's works why would professed Calvinists run away from a valuable resource?

 

U

For the most part I agree with this, it is the doctrine that is objectionable. But then the condescension and arrogance of the Calvinists are heaped on top. The attitude that they, and only they are enlightened to the truth and any non-Cal professing to be a Christian are probably false converts that walked an aisle and recited the sinners prayer without really repenting. We are easy-believeism Finneyites that accomplished our own salvation by sheer human will.

Which can be seen by the frequent accusations of Calvinists questioning the salvation of non-Cals. Rarely do you see a non-Cal question of a Calvinists salvation experience was legitimate, whereas you have Calvinists question non-Cals experiences on an almost daily basis here.

Then there are the constant strawman arguments. The appeal to "mystery" when their arguments break down, the parsing of words and phrases to make them fit their theology, etc. etc.

The eager zealousness of Calvinists to rebut any doctrine that deviates from TULIP. Always ready to jump in and expose "error".

(Tom, I quoted your post to make my response because you said something I agreed with. I want to say that I don't find these negative attributes I listed in your posts.)

 

Let your speech be alway with grace.

 

I disagree. The unmerited favor of God is unswayed by human effort. In fact when Scriptures display human effort in attempts to gain Godliness, it is seems put in the light of either dangerous (tower), foolish (rich man), and/or misguided (Baptism of John that Paul encountered at Ephesus).

The Scriptures clearly state:

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

​

Your statement would be accurately applicable to the believer following the salvation experience. Effort after salvation is much a part of the believer's life and living.

Do not the Scriptures state that even the effort of righteousness (before salvation) is as nothing but stinky diapers.

Again, this isn't the thread for such a debate as your post would desire to engage.

It is enough to point out that your non-cal view does not fit into the Calvinistic perspective.

 

The stinky diaper comment made me lol. thank you.

 

I think you may have drawn the wrong conclusions from a poorly worded post.

I did not come lightly to Calvinistic thinking. As you, it was a process.

In my post, I was speaking more about the man's living, lifestyle... not so much about his writings, though I do think that there are some areas that He would have been better had he separated and become a "baptist."

Here are some areas that Calvin and I wouldn't have gotten along:

Paedobaptism, Sacriments (believed in a mixture of symbolism as physically only bread and wine, and by the spirit actually becoming the substance of the body and blood), and finally, the element of imposing upon society, the rule of the church.

Perhaps the area of atonement would also be an issue.

As best I can tell, Calvin would not have embraced limited atonement.

I do in the sense that God has provided the complete blood sacrifice satisfying the penalty for all sin of every person who ever lived.

What God did not do was provide total reconciliation. (reconciliation is a synonym for atonement). I don't know any "scheme" that does not limit the atonement in some measure - accept full Pelagianism in which no one goes to hell.

At best we would have had some spirited debates - he being a lawyer, and me being ... well me.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

I say proudly own what you are. Probably most detractors of calvinism (intellectually speakin) reference the who pedo-baptism issue. But most baptists understand this not to be the case. Some only use it as a "weapon" at times to score perceived "easy points".

 

The only ones worse than Calvinists- are the non-calvinists.

This thread being exhibit a.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

I know I am late to the party on this thread, but I have spent all of last week in sunny Florida hitting the links and traversing the Disney World theme parks with my family.

Allow me to dispel a misnomer. Most Calvinistic Baptists accept the label "Calvinist" as defining their belief in the doctrines of grace only. Calvin believed in infant baptism and Presbyterian ecclesiology (among other things). Calvinistic Baptists reject these teachings of Calvin. Calvin's name is prominently referenced because he was an eloquent statesman of the doctrines of grace. Any connection between Baptists and Calvin's theology ends there.

You are painting with a broad brush when you ask Calvinists to modify their behavior. Do you not mean some Calvinists? Specific Calvinists? You certainly do not mean the whole lot of us, do you?

I am not Southern Baptist and have never been a member of an SBC affiliated church. Could it be that there is something lacking in the majority of SBC churches that has lead to this "Young, Restless, and Reformed" as you put it?

As far as a "traditional understanding of salvation in the Baptist church" that depends on how you define traditional. The SBC has roots in Calvinistic soteriology. Tradition is often defined by the one doing the defining.

You are referred to as Arminian in your soteriology only. You are synergistic in your soteriology. Ariminus believed in a lot of other things that I am sure you reject. It is just like a Calvinistic Baptist being linked to everything else Calvin taught. The connection ends with soteriology.

I have to disagree with you. If the disagreement with Calvinist thought was a insignificant as you make it out to be then every Baptist would be a Calvinist! The fact is that the theological difference is the fundamental catalyst of division.

I agree that there are rude and crude Calvinists. This is not news. There are rude and crude people in every theological camp. Their attitude is often times reprehensible and they deserve to be castigated. But no one should make the mistake of judging a theological position based on the person who holds to it.