Why Do People Hate Calvinst?

Should a pastor be suprised that saints are abandoning "his" church, when he talks of not being on the same "team" as them?

 

How can you quote someone and turn their words completely around as you do?

 

This is like saying I never met a Christian who didn't think they were Christian.

It is perplexing that so many non-Cals claim to have met individuals who have said such things. I,as a Calvinist have never encountered a Calvinist (not hyper-Calvinist)who has has ever uttered such things.Of course someone who is non-elect will go to eternal perdition --but as I have said on this board dozens of times many non-Cals are,and will be residents of Heaven.

 

Hoping Shortandy will be back to address this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome
Re: Lack of forthrightness by Calvinist ministerial candidates



The OP pastor posted this two years ago, after he had been called to the church.
I would like to hear Shortandy's response to this...quite incriminating on the surface.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shortandy
What Love Is This by Dave Hunt. It is over 500 pages of anti-calvinism. A lady at my church gave it to me...not sure why because I have no idea exactly what I believe in the topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shortandy
Yes I wear a Reformed jersey and play for team Calvin. I recently admitted this to a few church members who asked where I stood on the debate. It only took them 3 years to ask.
__________________

 

Note that the passage does not say that he was still in his sins (what does that term even mean to being with?). This is an assumption on your part. You are reading into the passage assumptions you bring to it. Ignore that assumption and the supposed conflict no longer exists.

Of course, the passage doesn't say that he was regenerate either. If the Cist is honest, he will admit that he reads such into the passage based on the assumptions he himself brings to the passage.

Thus, it is essential to keep very distinct what the passage *says* and what one thinks they conclude from the passage.

Note, the above is not at all meant to show you are wrong about Cism or that they are right about the verse, merely that you are analysis is fallacious. Maybe your belief about Cism being unscriptural is correct, but here you rely on a fallacy to demonstrate such.

Maybe it is false and unscriptural...but the above passage doesn't demonstrate this. It again relies on reading into the passage certain assumptions and/or arguing from silence. The only way the above passage could demonstrate what you claim is by what it *doesn't* say. What is actually does say isn't contradictory to Cism.

 

You need to meet some different Cists

 

True. I have seen it nearly as often in the opposite direction though Its a human thing, not a non-Cist thing.

Please understand that I say this as a Cist myself.

Agreed. And I think its worthy of discussion. But to present it as a reaction to specifically to Cism instead of an issue of say, anti-intellectualism in general, is to skew the discussion. Skew it in ways that (regardless of the actual motive and intent), *appears*, IMO, to be as I describe. But like I said, maybe thats just me.

 

I don't see that. If he, as I believe is the case, meant his statement in an ironic way to make a point, then it seems he is following the discussion quite well...and is making a valid point.

 

FWIW, it is a fairly accurate statement. The number of non-Cists who really do understand Cism (or at least refrain from straw men or other fallacies when addressing Cism) is much fewer than those who do. But then, I have met many Cists who don't really understand Cism either

This is a good example of using fallacies to address Cism. Your first statement is correct. However, your second paragraph then attempts to negate Cism by applying your own assumptions and paradigms to it. Certainly, IF your terms and understanding of Scripture are correct THEN you may right conclude that Cism is false. However, that is a fallacy of begging the question.

So, when you use the concept of "in your sins" you are filtering Cism through your own paradigm and negating Cism using a concept that is essentially foreign to Cist thought. So sure, in your paradigm, Cism is obviously false. But then its equally true that from a Cist paradigm your own position is obviously false To assume your paradigm is correct and then argue from it is begging the question.

Again you are applying your paradigm to Cism and thus begging the question. The trick is to show Cism contradictory by its own standards and views, not yours.

 

Cist do NOT deny that man can do any good at all. Instead they create a distinction between that which seems good on the outward and that which is truly good. So they readily grant that man can do the former sort of good (Luke 6:33 being one example of this) but deny that he can do what is truly good (Rom 3:12). So, your reasoning here is either a straw man or a fallacy of amphiboly.

 

Rather than preservation and perseverance being very different things, they are seen by Cists as being two sides of the same coin - different, but only because you are looking at the same thing from two different sides.

And let me point out that Perseverance of the saints does NOT mean that one is saved because they are faithful to Jesus. Rather it means that those who are saved *will* persevere. Cism does *not* hold that one needs to persevere to be saved, but instead that if one is truly saved then they will. Its an extension of the Cist view of regeneration.

 

FWIW, it is a fairly accurate statement. The number of non-Cists who really do understand Cism (or at least refrain from straw men or other fallacies when addressing Cism) is much fewer than those who do. But then, I have met many Cists who don't really understand Cism either

I know you are not trying to sound arrogant but none the less this statement reeks of arrogance. In reality you are confirming Winman's allegation. Who made you the Calvinism policeman? What qualifies you to make such a statement? I would have a lot more respect for your declaration if you stated it as an opinion and not as a fact. And, some wonder why there's a bad taste in some folks mouth when they encounter the Doctrines of Grace.

 

I have never seen anyone else ("Calvinist") who would act like you described other than Marc Carpenter and his ilk. These fringe lunatics nit pick and dissect writings of people in their "heterodoxy hall of shame" and find anything that would conflict with the "five points." If something expresses the slightest interpretation of not strictly demonstrating complete adherence to the five points, they cast doubt on that person's salvation. They even go so far as to believe that John Calvin was quite possibly unregenerate because he may have said something that sounded like "general atonement."

Spurgeon, Whitefield, MacArthur, all known "Reformed" theologians come under their gun as unregenerate "God haters" because they have all stated something that "speaks peace" to "Arminians," making them not truly five-pointer, making them unbelievers.

 

There are two ways something can be "totally". If you took a glass of water and mixed some soluble poison into the water, it would be perfectly accurate to say that the water is "totally" poisoned. That is, there is no part of the water that isn't poisoned. However, is the water as "totally" poisoned as it could be? Well, in that sense of "totally" the answer is no - one could add more poison to make the water even more poisonous.

Both meanings are distinct and both are valid. By "totally" depraved Cist mean the former sort of "totally", but not the latter. Thus, there is no contradiction, and to try and create one is to rely on a straw man or an amphiboly.

FWIW, historical Aist hold the same as Cists on this particular point.

 

My apologies. Consider it as qualified with IMO at every point. And please don't read into this statement the assumption that I consider myself to understand Cism either

Actually, just ignore the statement altogether. It *does* sound arrogant and I appreciate you pointing it out.

 

Some men I know are starting a reformed theology church in my city. Recently I met with them, at their request, so they could solicit my support for this endeavor. During the course of our conversation they never referred to themselves as Calvinists or as reformed theology-types. It was only when I brought up the subject that they said they were reformed in theology.

I told them that I would not support their efforts nor invite them to my church (though I am not currently pastoring) to present their new church start to my people.

I have looked over their printed material, and nowhere do they even hint that the church will be Calvinistic. I think that is deceptive. They should be upfront about their theological position.

Our meeting was cordial.

 

Where do Cal's get this notion of perseverance? I could only find a few verses using this word (persevere, perseverance) and the only one that even might be what you're referring to would be Rev. 3:10

'Because you have kept the word of My *perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of *testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole *world, to *test those who dwell on the earth. (NASB)

Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth. (NIV)

"Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. (NKJV)

Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. (KJV)

This appears to be a command of Christ to wait patiently for His deliverance from the time of tribulation. I don't see where it refers to salvation.