Why Do People Hate Calvinst?

I came to my convictions on this matter just a year or so ago so there is no contradiction at all. If I miss-spoke I am sorry. This has been a struggle for me. For a while I just said I was a 4-pointer...then a 5 pointer....the a middle of road. Mostly struggling with Limited Atonement. I stayed confused more than I was sure about anything. However, after some study and long, long conversations with people on both sides my team is Reformed. Still open to being wrong though.

With that aside the question is still a valid question regardless of my beliefs on the issue or not. Is it not possible for Reformed and non-reformed to exist as a church family under one roof? Is it fair to demonize either side?

 

I'll come back to this thread. It is possible to live together in a church. I have some Calvinists in my church. We don't just co-exist but we serve together. One is even on our leadership team. Part of what I ask of myself and them is that we don't try to convert other people or even each other. We have even talked about it on a Sunday night2 years ago. They got to present and I got to present.

Our fellowship is around our salvation and serving Jesus.

 

Thanks for clarifying. Do you think this is why nobody in your church asked in 3 years?

That's a great attitude to have...never lose it, because if you don't, you'll be back :D

There would have to be some indication or some reason for their suspicions, no? Someone knowledgeable on this subject can smell it out quite easily.

It is quite possible...my pastor's one. It's possible due to the fact I at one point leaned in that direction myself. Of course we should never "demonize" someone due to their soteriological view. The irony is this "demonizing" tends to be the MO of the reformed side. Here is an email received from a BB administrator just this week after I reported a post stating non calvinistic theology was "false gospel" and "man centered" (both violations of BB rules...and done by a BB moderator no less)

So is that "demonizing" or what (not to mention blatantly violating BB rules and NOT enforcing the rules...which is sin)?

 

If the label needs to be corrected then where is the standard published?

 

They knew I was no longer a pastor. No, they did not address the issues you ask about. But for what it is worth, they did state that they would not focus on evangelism but on discipleship. No big surprise to me.

 

That's the discipline called historical theology, and it deals with both ancient and more recent. Labels develop because of the way they are used. Furthermore, by looking at who uses a term, we can also tell what it means. We need mostly to look at those who use the label sympathetically. In other words, for an example, if you want to know what a Calvinist is, listen to me, not to Webdog. That's nothing against Webdog, but he does not use the label sympathetically so he is not the best source on what it means. So in sum, by knowing history of a label and its current usage, it is fairly easy to correct it.

 

This is true.
A celebrity writer may speak and write of "the world of celebrities" as if "that" world had its own set of values and such.
A technology writer (not necessarily a technical writer) may write of "the world of computers or the technological world" and those who move and breathe and understand technology are familiar with the terms he uses.
Then somebody may speak of "the legal world" as in the environment, language, and jargon understood among lawyers, judges, paralegals, etc.
Similarly, non-believers have very little, if at all, idea of the concepts of church, doctrine, atonement, election, freewill, persecution, Christ, God, mercy, justice, and things we talk and hear about regularly in the "world of Christianity" and an unbeliever happening into this forum for example may as well be listening to a language he recognizes but does not understand.

 

My friend when I was in seminary which was a Calvinist school we were taught that we believed this soteriological view, but we could be wrong or partly wrong. There were to many Scriptures that would back the other sides.

I changed my view in my last semester of school there. Even then we often had preachers from the reformed speak in our churches and we spoke in theirs, we were not enemies.

Over the last 10 or 20 years or so they have come out often with what your received. Churches ripped apart over this, what a shame.

I wish I could think of his name but a Free Presbyterians pastor up in Greenville, SC( I believe he is from Ireland) has said Calvinist need to have a better attitude, we know our doctrine but we seem to lack love. That PM shows great love.

He said look and see how many well know Calvinist were saved in a Methodist church, had a list from Spurgeon on, there was quite a number.

 

Several times I have asked for an interpretation of 1 Sam 16:14-16 in regards to their theology of God and evil in terms of God's sovereignty. All I got was a restatement of the words of scripture not an interpretation and explanation. What good is your systematic theology if you cannot interpret scripture other then for eisegesis? Isn't that kind of like impure salt--useless?

It seems studying calvinism is much like studying a greased pig. It is all over the place. It seems that there are almost as many brands of calvinists as there are calvinists. Which one are you? For some strange reason the calvinism of today keeps adding to Calvin. Kind of like the scribes and the Pharisees in their interpretation of the law and adding traditions.

What makes you the standard of calvinism?

 

Better check that word for "distressing" again in the MT and LXX. The origin of the evil spirit? The word used in the LXX is ponhros and you call that distressing? To suggest that it is simply a distressing spirit is to suggest that the LXX translators did not know what they were doing and were ignorant. I do not find distressing to be the word used in most English translations. A concordance check will seldom translate see that word translated that way.

I think the answer to the interpretation is not lookng at an American understanding but a Jewish understanding of that word and theology of God and evil.

 

Okay. So what?

What makes you the standard of whether or not something is eisegesis?

No, the fact that you don't agree means nothing about the quality of an exegetical decision.

No, not if you know what you are talking about. The reason you think there are a lot is because you don't understand the basic tenets. Compare it to a car. You could say "cars are confusing because there are so many." But not really because everyone knows what a car is. The fact that there are varieties of cars does not change the fundamental nature of a car.

Here is a common misunderstanding. Calvinism is not about "Calvin." Calvinism existed long before the 1500s and never was based on Calvin. It is based on an interpretation of the Scriptures.

Not like that at all.

I'm not. I never claimed to be.

 

I know that is what they say but I am sure it is more about Piper now. Can you give an example of calvinism from the 1500s? Could you also give an example of a Hebrew or Greek scholar who is a declared calvinist?

I have continually kept pressing for an interpretation of the origin of evil and a consistent theoloigy of God that are coinsistene twiht scripture. So manyh times I read from calvinists on BB that evil does not have as its origin, God. If you believe that then interpret and form a theology of God and evil from what is written in 1 Sam 16:14-16. I believe that too man have stuck their heads in calvinists books without ever studying those issues in scripture. I trust scripture not what calvinists claim. Scripture is always right. That is the standard not what thinks or does not think about scripture. The attacks today from non-believers are upon scripture not a calvinism or arminianism.

I think one has to abolish scripture as Jesus talked about in Mt. 5:17 to arrive at calvinism and arminianism.

 

I already showed a letter written by an associate of Sproul's who said infants can be born again, they can be regenerated, and quickened, but not express faith for many years. Did you miss that?

Here is a statement from the Lutheran church which also believes infants can be regenerated, but not express faith for many years.

While this is not a statement from Calvinists, this is precisely what many (actually, all) Calvinists believe. They believe an infant can be regenerated for many years before they are mature enough to understand and express faith. You have to believe this if you are a Calvinist, because all Calvinists believe it impossible to have saving faith without being regenerated. But you cannot be forgiven of your sins until you believe and trust on Christ afterwards. It is unavoidable.

Regeneration means to be born again, to be made spiritually alive. If an infant is regenerated by the Holy Spirit but does not accept Christ until they are 10 years old, then for 10 years they would be both spiritually alive and spiritually dead in their sins at the same time. This is impossible.

Actually, it is impossible to be both spiritually alive and spiritually dead at the same moment for any amount of time whatsoever, even if that was the one minute it took you to hear the gospel, understand it, and place faith in Christ. You are dead in your sins until you are justified. Justification follows faith, and even Calvinists admit and teach this. You cannot be justified until you hear the gospel and believe it, and that takes time. So, according to Calvinism, a person has to be made spiritually alive to have the ability to believe the gospel to be justified. This is impossible, because you would be spiritually alive and spiritually dead at the same time.

There has to be if the doctrine of Calvinism is true. Faith is not some physical thing or force you carry around in your pocket. Faith requires an object of faith. Faith requires understanding. You cannot possibly have faith in the gospel until you hear it, and that takes time. But you also have to understand the gospel before you believe it, and that takes time too. So, for that one or two minutes it takes to hear the gospel and understand it, if you are regenerated you are spiritually alive, but you are also dead in your sins because you have not trusted Christ yet. The moment you trust Christ you are justified and no longer in your sins.

You can try to wiggle around this all you want, but it is impossible. Faith must precede regeneneration, because you cannot be justified until you believe. You must be forgiven of your sins before you are spiritually alive.

 

Not at all. Probably just a lack of understanding on your part, but who knows. For my part, I don't particularly strive for "consistency." I strive to teach what Scripture teaches. It is the Arminian side that is driven by logic, such as the logic that man can't have free will if God elects individuals to salvation, or that God cannot judge someone for something they are unable to do. Those are not a scriptural arguments. They are logical ones. As a Calvinist, I affirm both. I don't have to work them out.

That's not an answer to the question. The question was, "What makes you the standard?" not "What makes the standard?" Yes, proper use of the Scripture to develop sound theology is the key. I am just not sure that you are the standard on that. I haven't seen particularly good hermeneutics from you, or a particularly consistent use of Scripture and theology. But I don't read you much so I could be wrong. My point is that I don't think you are the standard of that.

So it is about disagreement. You think it's "liberal nonsense" because you disagree with them. But the fact is that you might be the one who is wrong. Here again you see part of the your problem: You talk out of both sides of your mouth saying "It is not about disagreement" when in fact it is about disagreement. You disagree with them over the exegesis and interpretation of Scripture. You find it "liberal nonsense" (which probably reveals a misunderstanding of what liberalism is).

I don't know. I don't pay that much attention. I haven't seen you ask about it. Not sure why you would because it's not a major issue. I don't have any interest in talking about it.

Which would you like to me explain? They are not called "followers of Calvin" because they aren't. They aren't called "Presbyterians" because they are not always presbyterians. I myself am a Baptist as are many Calvinists. Calvinist is a term describing in a nutshell what someone believes about soteriology.

No it's not. You don't get to change the analogy. You could make that analogy, but that's not mind.

It is more likely that you are unwilling to accept an explanation that they offer due to your own precommitments. That's fine. But don't play the nonsensical card that they aren't giving you an answer when you know they are and you simply disagree with the answer.

Nope.

Yes.

Yes, most of the evangelical ones are.

I think you are actually looking for one that fits your precommitments about what Scripture says.

This is true, and it is something you need to accept. If the Scripture teaches Calvinism (which it almost certainly does in terms of soteriology), then it is right, no matter what you say. Over the years here at the BB, we have been treated to all manner of absurdity and humor in the name of refuting Calvinism. The attacks today from non-believers are upon scripture not a calvinism or arminianism.

I think that's utter nonsense.

 

Here is a Calvinist who says infants can be regenerated.

Source:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1245734/posts

If we are born sinners as Calvinists teach, then an infant can be regenerated and a sinner at the same time, because they have never placed faith in Christ to be justified.

 

If you want to start a new thread, I would be interested in discussing that with you.

FWIW, I don't believe I have ever read a calvinist book. Generally I stay away from books on theology altogether (I did by one on Amillennialism though). My doctrine is, in as far as one can honestly say this, derived from Scripture. Thats not to say that I am right or somehow better or that my doctrine is more pure, merely to say that the above cannot possibly apply to me.

 

God is consistent. All scripture is inspired by the same God and he does not change. Therefore His word is consistent and does not change when interpreted in light of its historical context. That is the real issue not calvinism or aminianism. Personally I think both are a partial truth mixed with error. God is not part of both. He is not a dichotomy.

That is the reason why I am not a calvinist. Too many times what I read is filtered through the calvinist theological system rather than letting scripture interpret itself in light of its historical context. If I am wrong, then do what Jesus did in scripture when he spoke to the Sadducees. You won't convince anyone of what scripture teaches by appealing to anyone through the filter of calvinism, unless they accept the same filter.

Show me one place where I have disagreed with their exegesis and left it there. I cannot think of any place where I did not give a reason. Why should I accept their exegesis when I still have questions and challenges about what they stated? Why would you make such a statement if you did not assume you or they were right. I have put 1 Sam 16:14-16 out there many times. I am open to other interpretations. There have been times when challenged on BB and I believe I was wrong after considering what someone else wrote. All I can do is to reveal what I believe at the time whether it be right or wrong. In fact I talked with a scholar and he corrected me about God and evil from1 Sam 16:14-16. I came to the conclusion that I was wrong and that is the reason why I like to challenge others on that passage. The fact is that previously I had just accepted what I heard others teach until I began to consider the correction I received. The more research I do on the subject the more I am coming to the same conclusion. If you want to entertain an intelligent discussion on the matter I would be happy to do that. Truth is truth and we must strive after that. It is not about theological systems but about God. If you challenge my theology and I find that it does not hold up then something is wrong in what I believe. We should be grateful that others challenge us on what we believe so that we become sharper.

I once believed as I read many calvinists believe until I started studying Jewish culture and talked with a man who grew up in orthodox Judaism and then became a Christian. I used to have a roommate from Greece. He challenged me in many ways. I also participate in a forum of scholars where I know I am not close to where they are but am challenged and encouraged to keep studying.

Name a couple of them.

Actually not. My commitment is to what scripture teaches. That is basic to my theology and hermeneutics. I cannot take scripture and teach what it soes not say to match what I think. When my theology does not seem to line up with scripture then my theology or my understanding of a passage is wrong. I trust scripture not a theology.

I believe scripture teaches much more than calvinism. I also do not believe a dichotomy exists in God. He is one and He does not change. He is one and not two.

I will ask you to interpret 1 Sam 16:14-16 in light of its historical context and give your theology of God and the origin of evil from that passage.

I am on a journey and like so many others I would like to know, but I will not until Jesus comes. I have many freinds who are calvinists and we have some of these same discussions. I would like to think that all of us benefit from that.

What I think the critical part is to ask where the fruit is.

 

GB93433

What exactly is your question about 1 Sam 16:14-16? Please be specific.