The false claims of a "loving Calvinist"

[praise_yeshua]

Okay, I will, thanks. Your boring me. Still.

Maybe I'll stop "boring" you. Till then....

 

[Frank Russell]

Love isn't unique among humanity. Everyone human being loves. Every human being. The difference is in HOW humans love. Some of greatest evils that have ever been perpetrated was done so with the words "I love you".

The rapist "loves his victim". The liar loves those who believe their lies. Sinners loves those that love them.

Luk 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

This is how human beings/sinners love.

However, God loves differently.

Rom 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

The Calvinist would have you believe this only includes certain types of sinners........

These Scriptures prove them wrong. Read it again. Start with the contrast in Romans 5..... back to Luke 6:33.

The distinction relative to how God loves sinners is defined as those who only love those that love them. Which is the only class of sinners that exists. The entire human race.

@The Rogue Tomato @brightfame52 @Presby02

For if the sinner loves more than God, then what a puny God one serves.

 

[makesends]

To the forum in general:

Just so you know, Calvinism does not claim to be a complete doctrinal system. It does not, for example, hold to any one Eschatology; it does not take any particular position on many many other things. There are, for example, Reformed Charismatic congregations while most Reformed believers think that the sign gifts have ceased.

Even TULIP is not of itself a Calvinist or Reformed explanation of all fact, but is only a response to "The Five Points of Arminianism".

We have seen a complaint lately that Calvinism has no reference to the love of God. While I disagree with that, I wonder —why should it reference what is so obvious? The Reformation was a reaction to false doctrine —and it remains so to this day. Implied within it is God's particular love for his own, undeserving though they are, and a mindset assuming God's uniqueness, sovereignty and supremacy over his creation, and yes, that is a huge understatement.

(Calvinism (and Reformed Theology) eschews the mindset of mankind being by nature deserving of God's respect, as fellow-sentients with God in this universe. God is not a resident within the scope of man's 'reality'. Calvinism considers God the default fact —all else being subsequent to and dependent on Him. God's creation (mankind) does not govern what God does. God is not a victim of circumstance.)

The Gospel is not Calvinist; Calvinism is only useful in defining the terms of the Gospel —who God is, what sin is, where man stands in his own ability, God's "plan for the ages", God's immanence, God's power. Just by way of example: If any of those of us who defend Calvinism provide a sequence of events leading up to and including the life of pursuit of Christ, and even the "arrival" in Heaven, it is as a result of Reformed or Calvinist tenets, and not a tenet in itself. When I say that Salvific Faith is generated by the Spirit of God within a person, I may consider that axiomatic, but it is not of itself Calvinism's claim.

Try to think of Calvinism and Reformed theology, as a response to falsehood, and a mindset, and not as a complete theology. If you have a problem with Calvinist or Reformed thinking, it is a matter of views: God's sovereignty vs self-determination. The question is not whether God is at the head of all causation, nor whether man does actually decide, but which is supreme.

 

[Rockson]

The Reformation was a reaction to false doctrine —and it remains so to this day. Implied within it is God's particular love for his own,

And when you expand on that on just what you mean by that ;that's when you fall into a major problem.

The Gospel is not Calvinist; Calvinism is only useful in defining the terms of the Gospel —who God is, what sin is,

Most don't question you're wrong on who God is and what sin is.

where man stands in his own ability,

And on that issue you should be rightly challenged.

 

[Theophilus]

To the forum in general:

Just so you know, Calvinism does not claim to be a complete doctrinal system. It does not, for example, hold to any one Eschatology; it does not take any particular position on many many other things. There are, for example, Reformed Charismatic congregations while most Reformed believers think that the sign gifts have ceased.

Even TULIP is not of itself a Calvinist or Reformed explanation of all fact, but is only a response to "The Five Points of Arminianism".

We have seen a complaint lately that Calvinism has no reference to the love of God. While I disagree with that, I wonder —why should it reference what is so obvious? The Reformation was a reaction to false doctrine —and it remains so to this day. Implied within it is God's particular love for his own, undeserving though they are, and a mindset assuming God's uniqueness, sovereignty and supremacy over his creation, and yes, that is a huge understatement.

(Calvinism (and Reformed Theology) eschews the mindset of mankind being by nature deserving of God's respect, as fellow-sentients with God in this universe. God is not a resident within the scope of man's 'reality'. Calvinism considers God the default fact —all else being subsequent to and dependent on Him. God's creation (mankind) does not govern what God does. God is not a victim of circumstance.)

The Gospel is not Calvinist; Calvinism is only useful in defining the terms of the Gospel —who God is, what sin is, where man stands in his own ability, God's "plan for the ages", God's immanence, God's power. Just by way of example: If any of those of us who defend Calvinism provide a sequence of events leading up to and including the life of pursuit of Christ, and even the "arrival" in Heaven, it is as a result of Reformed or Calvinist tenets, and not a tenet in itself. When I say that Salvific Faith is generated by the Spirit of God within a person, I may consider that axiomatic, but it is not of itself Calvinism's claim.

Try to think of Calvinism and Reformed theology, as a response to falsehood, and a mindset, and not as a complete theology. If you have a problem with Calvinist or Reformed thinking, it is a matter of views: God's sovereignty vs self-determination. The question is not whether God is at the head of all causation, nor whether man does actually decide, but which is supreme.

Excellent post. Something we could all learn from.

There are changes Changes in all denominations that suggest the stage in the development of a movement called “routinization”—the stage that comes after a movement’s been around for a while. I'm sure Calvin would hardly recognize Calvinism today. It is also relevant to explaining these changes in Calvinism that they occurred during a period of singular disorder, caused among other things by a century of religious warfare.

 

[Theophilus]

Maybe I'll stop "boring" you. Till then....

Or maybe you should stop twisting his arm and making him read your posts.

Sarcasm off!

 

[Theophilus]

Love isn't unique among humanity. Everyone human being loves. Every human being. The difference is in HOW humans love. Some of greatest evils that have ever been perpetrated was done so with the words "I love you".

The rapist "loves his victim". The liar loves those who believe their lies. Sinners loves those that love them.

Luk 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

This is how human beings/sinners love.

However, God loves differently.

Rom 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

The Calvinist would have you believe this only includes certain types of sinners........

These Scriptures prove them wrong. Read it again. Start with the contrast in Romans 5..... back to Luke 6:33.

The distinction relative to how God loves sinners is defined as those who only love those that love them. Which is the only class of sinners that exists. The entire human race.

@The Rogue Tomato @brightfame52 @Presby02

I was just talking about that today. And there are the vast amount of people that do not have the ability to love others because they only care about themselves. The best example that I can think of is someone that's addicted. All their love and affection is directed toward the object of their addiction. And they'll use whatever and whoever they can to feed it. I know this is Off Topic. But the same holds true if you're so wrapped up in your theology To a point where that's all you can see. Then you can't see versus what John 3:16. And the result is the word World gets changed To the elect.

 

[praise_yeshua]

To the forum in general:

Just so you know, Calvinism does not claim to be a complete doctrinal system. It does not, for example, hold to any one Eschatology; it does not take any particular position on many many other things. There are, for example, Reformed Charismatic congregations while most Reformed believers think that the sign gifts have ceased.

Defend your comments.

Most of what you've stated is not entirely true. Historical Calvinism is based upon the prolific writings of John Calvin. Calvin wrote extensively. We can read his words. There is a problem with this. Calvin wrote in Latin. Latin is a difficult language to discern and many of comments are significant different relative to the English "translator" who "translated" his works. I once took pride in identify the difference. No one ever challenged me on these facts because it is true.

If you really want to know if what you say is true, then you need to know Calvin. I put this behind me a long time ago. Which is why I know you're wrong. Calvin was most assuredly Amillennial. He somewhat avoided the topic because he was a "reformer" yet his view is largely identical to the Catholic Church. (So much for the "reformer" in Calvin)

Also, you can't judge "Calvinism without including John Knox and Myles Coverdale. These are indisputable fact. If you accept the origins of real Calvinism.. Then you need to acknowledge this. If you acknowledge this then there is more than enough evidence to establish a systematic view of Calvinism.

Even TULIP is not of itself a Calvinist or Reformed explanation of all fact, but is only a response to "The Five Points of Arminianism".

We have seen a complaint lately that Calvinism has no reference to the love of God. While I disagree with that, I wonder —why should it reference what is so obvious? The Reformation was a reaction to false doctrine —and it remains so to this day. Implied within it is God's particular love for his own, undeserving though they are, and a mindset assuming God's uniqueness, sovereignty and supremacy over his creation, and yes, that is a huge understatement.

Self serving nonsense isn't Godly love. Which is important. Who cares how you love? I don't. You're not my standard. Christ is.

(Calvinism (and Reformed Theology) eschews the mindset of mankind being by nature deserving of God's respect, as fellow-sentients with God in this universe. God is not a resident within the scope of man's 'reality'. Calvinism considers God the default fact —all else being subsequent to and dependent on Him. God's creation (mankind) does not govern what God does. God is not a victim of circumstance.)

Who said anything about a victim? However, I'll "bite".

Is Christ a victim of your sin alone? Since Christ only died for what you consider the "elect", then you should be able to clearly answer such?

Victim, YES.... you treat Christ(GOD INCARNATE) as a victim of your sin. So did Calvin. So did Knox. So did Myles Coverdale.

The Gospel is not Calvinist; Calvinism is only useful in defining the terms of the Gospel —who God is, what sin is, where man stands in his own ability, God's "plan for the ages", God's immanence, God's power. Just by way of example: If any of those of us who defend Calvinism provide a sequence of events leading up to and including the life of pursuit of Christ, and even the "arrival" in Heaven, it is as a result of Reformed or Calvinist tenets, and not a tenet in itself. When I say that Salvific Faith is generated by the Spirit of God within a person, I may consider that axiomatic, but it is not of itself Calvinism's claim.

Then tell your "buddies" to stop insisting that Calvinism is the "Doctrines of Grace". You do it. They do it. You all do it. Make a rational decision to stop this nonsense or continue to be "double minded" in ignoring your words.

Try to think of Calvinism and Reformed theology, as a response to falsehood, and a mindset, and not as a complete theology. If you have a problem with Calvinist or Reformed thinking, it is a matter of views: God's sovereignty vs self-determination. The question is not whether God is at the head of all causation, nor whether man does actually decide, but which is supreme.

That is funny. You're asking me to recognize a false doctrine that is a response to false doctrine as being true because it is a response.......Yeah. Right.

Got to love the "supreme" argument. How many times has someone made that argument before?

Okay. I'll take another bite.....

Why did Christ die for you if God is "Supreme" above all things? If what you say is true, God would let you die in your sin so He alone could be "Supreme".....

That takes about 5 seconds of taught to know such arguments are not really sincere at all. Just postering excuses.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I was just talking about that today. And there are the vast amount of people that do not have the ability to love others because they only care about themselves. The best example that I can think of is someone that's addicted. All their love and affection is directed toward the object of their addiction. And they'll use whatever and whoever they can to feed it. I know this is Off Topic. But the same holds true if you're so wrapped up in your theology To a point where that's all you can see. Then you can't see versus what John 3:16. And the result is the word World gets changed To the elect.

I've often thought just how this life is a lesson in Empathy. We have a hard time seeing ourselves in others....... when God in Christ sought to empathize with us in our very condition. How can we ever be so bold as to be so "self serving" when with the selfless efforts of Christ are at the very center of our theology.

 

[makesends]

Defend your comments.

Most of what you've stated is not entirely true. Historical Calvinism is based upon the prolific writings of John Calvin. Calvin wrote extensively. We can read his words. There is a problem with this. Calvin wrote in Latin. Latin is a difficult language to discern and many of comments are significant different relative to the English "translator" who "translated" his works. I once took pride in identify the difference. No one ever challenged me on these facts because it is true.

If you really want to know if what you say is true, then you need to know Calvin. I put this behind me a long time ago. Which is why I know you're wrong. Calvin was most assuredly Amillennial. He somewhat avoided the topic because he was a "reformer" yet his view is largely identical to the Catholic Church. (So much for the "reformer" in Calvin)

Also, you can't judge "Calvinism without including John Knox and Myles Coverdale. These are indisputable fact. If you accept the origins of real Calvinism.. Then you need to acknowledge this. If you acknowledge this then there is more than enough evidence to establish a systematic view of Calvinism.

"...Calvin would hardly recognize Calvinism today." I don't need to know what Calvin wrote to know something about what modern Calvinism/ Reformed Theology believes. Consider, for example, a well-known proponent, James White, who for many years, called his Eschatology, if I remember right, 'Pan-millenial", (because he didn't know what to believe except that it would all pan out in the end), has apparently gone through Amil to Postmil, and still doesn't sound too sure. I really don't need to know where Calvin stood on the question to say that Calvinism doesn't take any particular stand on Amillenialism.

Self serving nonsense isn't Godly love. Which is important. Who cares how you love? I don't. You're not my standard. Christ is.

I agree. Where did I say anything about how I love? What in the world are you talking about here? I can only guess you read something wrong.

And, by the way, Calvin isn't my standard either.

Who said anything about a victim? However, I'll "bite".

Is Christ a victim of your sin alone? Since Christ only died for what you consider the "elect", then you should be able to clearly answer such?

Victim, YES.... you treat Christ(GOD INCARNATE) as a victim of your sin. So did Calvin. So did Knox. So did Myles Coverdale.

I didn't say that anybody said anything about a victim. I brought it up to make the distinction between the kind of POV of the self-determinist, vs the POV of the calvinist. The self-determinist seems to think that God has to fly by the seat of his pants, in order to somehow make his plans work out in spite of all the mayhem that results of 'free-will', denying that what happens does so by God's design.

God planned for Christ to be murdered, and that, for the sake of the redeemed. And yes, that is love. That is not "victim of circumstance", but God's plan from the beginning. So what I said, which you took all out of context and away from my rather obvious meaning/use, is not that Christ is not a victim of my sin, but that God is not a victim of circumstance. There is no plan B.

God runs this show. It does not run him. Better?

Then tell your "buddies" to stop insisting that Calvinism is the "Doctrines of Grace". You do it. They do it. You all do it. Make a rational decision to stop this nonsense or continue to be "double minded" in ignoring your words.

You must have skipped a step or two. How does what you quote me saying above your comment here, have anything to do with this?

I can't speak for "my buddies" and it seems rather plain you don't speak for yours either. (They may cheer you on, but there have been several times I can imagine them cringing from, yet not bringing up the fact of, your poor arguments). But for myself, I would like to see where you can quote me saying that Calvinism is the "Doctrines of Grace". I don't do it. You are wrong, sir.

But maybe I am wrong. Show me where I said it.

That is funny. You're asking me to recognize a false doctrine that is a response to false doctrine as being true because it is a response.......Yeah. Right.

Got to love the "supreme" argument. How many times has someone made that argument before?

Okay. I'll take another bite.....

Why did Christ die for you if God is "Supreme" above all things? If what you say is true, God would let you die in your sin so He alone could be "Supreme".....

Let me see if I am hearing you right: Are you saying God is not supreme above all things? Wow! Yep, I would cringe about now, if I was one of your buddies!

That takes about 5 seconds of taught to know such arguments are not really sincere at all. Just postering excuses.

To answer your 5 seconds of "taught", if God is not supreme above all things, he is not God. I can only be glad that the grace of God goes way beyond our silly constructions and notions. And yes, I mean even those of the Calvinists too. None of us humans really know what we are talking about, when we go to arranging our thoughts.

 

[praise_yeshua]

"...Calvin would hardly recognize Calvinism today." I don't need to know what Calvin wrote to know something about what modern Calvinism/ Reformed Theology believes. Consider, for example, a well-known proponent, James White, who for many years, called his Eschatology, if I remember right, 'Pan-millenial", (because he didn't know what to believe except that it would all pan out in the end), has apparently gone through Amil to Postmil, and still doesn't sound too sure. I really don't need to know where Calvin stood on the question to say that Calvinism doesn't take any particular stand on Amillenialism.

I'm going to break your responses apart to focus on each individual response.

Yes. You do need to know what Calvin said. To say otherwise to lose any sense of anchor in what Calvin and the Reformers began. Would you disconnect Christianity from Christ?

 

[praise_yeshua]

I agree. Where did I say anything about how I love? What in the world are you talking about here? I can only guess you read something wrong.

And, by the way, Calvin isn't my standard either.

You talked about love. I responded about love. Your measure of love is clearly not "Christ like".

If you're going to claim Calvinism (which you do at times and at times you don't) then you must deal with what Calvin expressed. I'm asking you to be consistent. Right now, you're not being consistent at all. At one point you want to embrace Calvinism and the next you do not.

I reject most the silly arguments that center around Calvinism and Arminianism both. However, again. I know them both.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I didn't say that anybody said anything about a victim. I brought it up to make the distinction between the kind of POV of the self-determinist, vs the POV of the calvinist. The self-determinist seems to think that God has to fly by the seat of his pants, in order to somehow make his plans work out in spite of all the mayhem that results of 'free-will', denying that what happens does so by God's design.

You underestimate the abilities of God. You can't imagine a world where God could possibly be Sovereign over anything with a free will. As I've told you before and I'll say again. Free-will is a matter of the mind. Freedom does not imply power. However, mankind can be "anything" in their free mind. Which, in and of itself, is culpable relative to love, desire, lust, kindness and etc. As a person "thinks in his heart".... so is he.

God planned for Christ to be murdered, and that, for the sake of the redeemed. And yes, that is love. That is not "victim of circumstance", but God's plan from the beginning. So what I said, which you took all out of context and away from my rather obvious meaning/use, is not that Christ is not a victim of my sin, but that God is not a victim of circumstance. There is no plan B.

God runs this show. It does not run him. Better?

Perfect example here. Man did not literally murder Christ. It was impossible for any man to literally murder Christ. Christ laid down His life. However, in their mind and in their hearts... they MURDERED Christ.

Free will...... Limited in power but binding none the less.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You must have skipped a step or two. How does what you quote me saying above your comment here, have anything to do with this?

I can't speak for "my buddies" and it seems rather plain you don't speak for yours either. (They may cheer you on, but there have been several times I can imagine them cringing from, yet not bringing up the fact of, your poor arguments). But for myself, I would like to see where you can quote me saying that Calvinism is the "Doctrines of Grace". I don't do it. You are wrong, sir.

But maybe I am wrong. Show me where I said it.

"Cringe"? "Poor arguments"... I'm glad you're the not the judge of anyone. We are debating the subject. Judge as you will.

I'm going by memory. I don't know the times I've heard it from "Calvinists". The fact you're open to being corrected indicates you actually use or have used the reference. No forum has a search index worth much relative to phrases. Phrases are difficult to index as such. I did a quick search and found plenty. I didn't see one for you but I didn't go past a couple of pages and threads tend to index above single references in a large thread.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Let me see if I am hearing you right: Are you saying God is not supreme above all things? Wow! Yep, I would cringe about now, if I was one of your buddies!

No. It was a logical question relative to your own view of "Supremacy". Maybe you should have given more than 5 seconds of thought to my response. God doesn't have any problem letting ants rule their domain. After all, what impact do "ants" have on God?

To answer your 5 seconds of "taught", if God is not supreme above all things, he is not God. I can only be glad that the grace of God goes way beyond our silly constructions and notions. And yes, I mean even those of the Calvinists too. None of us humans really know what we are talking about, when we go to arranging our thoughts.

Thoughts have logical ramifications. If you can't organize thoughts, then have no rational context whereby to operate in reality. Sure, there are is plenty of conjecture to be seen everywhere. However, it is the rational construct of natural existence that sets a framework of order in our reality.

I can't see how you can deny this.

 

[makesends]

I'm going to break your responses apart to focus on each individual response.

Yes. You do need to know what Calvin said. To say otherwise to lose any sense of anchor in what Calvin and the Reformers began. Would you disconnect Christianity from Christ?

What I believe comes from Scripture —not from Calvin. Scripture is the anchor for Doctrine, and I found what I believe from Study, agonized prayer, reason and hard experience. Didn't even know it resembled Calvinism till somebody had me read some things Calvinists/Reformed had written. Again, I am not anchored in Calvin and the Reformers, and have no desire to be; I'm only coincidentally interested in what they have to say, in order to find better ways to put some of the things I already think.

 

[makesends]

I'm going to break your responses apart to focus on each individual response.

Yes. You do need to know what Calvin said. To say otherwise to lose any sense of anchor in what Calvin and the Reformers began. Would you disconnect Christianity from Christ?

What I believe is Christianity. Not self-determinism. Whether it is also called Calvinism or Reformed, I really don't care.

 

[praise_yeshua]

What I believe comes from Scripture —not from Calvin. Scripture is the anchor for Doctrine, and I found what I believe from Study, agonized prayer, reason and hard experience. Didn't even know it resembled Calvinism till somebody had me read some things Calvinists/Reformed had written. Again, I am not anchored in Calvin and the Reformers, and have no desire to be; I'm only coincidentally interested in what they have to say, in order to find better ways to put some of the things I already think.

The natural man seeks things that tell him he is unique in his experience. Have you seen me say anything about prayer? I don't claim privilege's that others can not have. I do study. I don't look for confirmation. I look for things that prove me wrong.

 

[praise_yeshua]

What I believe is Christianity. Not self-determinism. Whether it is also called Calvinism or Reformed, I really don't care.

I ask almost every Calvinists that says this basically the same thing. Tell me how you value Christ. Christianity is all about Christ.

 

[makesends]

You talked about love. I responded about love. Your measure of love is clearly not "Christ like".

If you're going to claim Calvinism (which you do at times and at times you don't) then you must deal with what Calvin expressed. I'm asking you to be consistent. Right now, you're not being consistent at all. At one point you want to embrace Calvinism and the next you do not.

I reject most the silly arguments that center around Calvinism and Arminianism both. However, again. I know them both.

I sometimes represent Calvinism in order to defend it. But, once again, Calvin is not Calvinism. I don't claim to be a Calvinist. I stopped doing that a a few months ago (actually, I called myself Reformed), because I found out 'Calvinism' (nor 'Reformed') is not a homogenous bunch, and does not represent me in every respect. I call myself a monergist. Many Calvinists, I found out, see "free will" almost identically with Arminians, with the one exception being of monergism in the matter of regeneration.