Why Calvinism is a bad thing.

[civic]

You are simply side stepping once again, true to your mo, what you said about Calvinism that wasn't true.

The truth about what C teaches is this:

Quote a Calvinist source and prove it. I just quoted one that affirms exactly what I stated is taught in Calvinism .

 

[Darby]

It is good that you are interested. But you can't learn about it from someone who hates it as @civic does. I have never seen him once state any of the doctrines of the TULIP correctly---and there is much more to it than that. He expresses the beliefs of the tulip in the most negative light that he can and always wrong. I started a thread that Civic named the 5 points of Calvinism and should have been titled TULIP explained. Civic moved it from where I first posted it so it looks like he started it. I did it because of all his misstatements that even when shown where he was misrepresenting he still continues to do the same thing.

That right there is an indication that he doesn't care what it really says he wants people to hate it just as he does so he bases all his arguments on what isn't true and supports his own arguments with nothing but isolated from their context and from the full content of the Bible, proof texts. That is all he can do because if he is told what the doctrine truly states, and is shown where they are arrived at from the whole counsel of God, he has nothing to argue against it with. All false teachings run into the same problem and arrive at the same end. Just repeating the false statements.

And when he is shown where his proof texts are seen in an entirely different but legitimate light from the premise of the sovereignty of God and everything God says about Himself, nothing is done to even examine it. The proof texts against it are simply repeated.

One should be given the chance to decide for themselves, to examine for themselves the scriptures and make an informed decision as to what theology most agrees with what the Bible presents. No one can do that if they are given the wrong information to begin with. It is not a salvational issue imo but that part is just an opinion.

Do you really think that about him?

Why would he hate it?

 

[Ladodgers6]

How is it baseless when one sentence before this you, yourself, accused me of being man-centered?

In you OP did you provide any resource for research to support those comments? A simple yes or no will suffice. Free-Willers place all the Glory into man hands by stating God cannot do anything without consent of the individual. Basically you oppose Calvinism obviously, which leads to a lofty view of man. Its man that possesses the power over God in what he can or cannot do without written consent. The human race is not fallen just weakened if that, and specially not dead in sin and trespasses. So, if according to you and your regime, if all what you say and believe is true, then why do we need a Savior? If people are basically good and can determine their own fate, then why did Christ have to come in the first?​

You have no proof that it is conjecture—you're conjecturing.

LoL...are you going to provide any substance to this debate?

Classical Arminians such as myself do not believe in any inherent goodness or righteousness of man, but that which is produced by preceding grace alone through Christ's vicarious virtues.

Finally some meat to sink my teeth into. Why isn't there any goodness or righteousness in man? Why is Grace needed?​

Because this would attribute low value to God, and so, belittle and demean his glory.​

How? God is Love, he tells us to forgive one another, correct? Why can't God forgive Adam & Eve?

You are talking like sin is some rational head knowledge that you can sit down and tabulate on a spreadsheet.​

Why not? Just because it presents a huge problem for your position doesn't make it wrong, right? We must question and seek the answer just like the Bereans, right? Your view of Prevenient Grace is man-made and not Scriptural at all. That's the Arminians have to come up with Grace prior to anything man can do. Arminian himself wrote the following:
​

Arminius on "The Free Will Of Man"
​

"But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good."

I'll like to point out the similarities between Arminianism and Calvinism here. Both agree that apart from God's regenerating power of the Holy Spirit in Christ, sinners are not capable either to think, or will, or do that which is really good. Excellent because this is a Biblical teaching which is why Arminius himself knew that without God's regenerating Grace nobody would be saved. Now, where part ways though is the application of this Grace; is it effective or not. And we know the Arminian position on this, they believe and teach that this Grace of regenerating power can be resisted and rejected. So, in essence it doesn't save anyone, according to their paradigm.

Side note: Roger Olson a prominent teacher and advocate for the Classical Arminian position also states this Prevenient Grace is not salvific or effectual in saving anyone. This was where as an Arminian I questioned and asked, if this Prevenient Grace or Regenerating Power of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit is not effectual or Salvific in saving anyone, what is the cause of our Salvation? They would the person accepting or rejecting God. But this is not an adequate response, because this is what is actually double talk. And I'll prove it by Arminius own words. He forst states that Man lapse in his sinful state cannot, by himself, think, will or do anything really good. That is it necessary for him to be REGENERATED & RENEWED in his intellect, affections, and faculties. So, if he is regenerated in all his faculties; mind, heart, soul by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, how is this not effectual? This is renewal and regeneration reveal God's and his truth? Is this regenerated person given the full illumination of his condition and what God has done for him in Christ? If so, how would anyone who is regenerated by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit reject God? Once they have been renewed in intellect, will or affection and in all his powers? Do you see the contradiction?

How absurd is it to say that this RENEWAL & REGENERATION of all his faculties and powers, being illuminated by the Holy Spirit to understand, hear God, and trust God, would reject God??? So, let's say he does reject God after being fully renewed & regenerated in all his powers to understand God in intellect and affection. Does God remove the heart of flesh and puts back the heart of stone, and wipes his memory and all his faculties & powers? Like in the movie MIB, pulls out a flashy thing to wipe his memory? Make no sense at all.

This is why I said you have a man-made & man-centered theology.​

Sin has attractive and appealing qualities to a sin nature, that are supernatural and beyond mental reasoning.​

Why, you have a Free-Will.

I'm not civic, you are being paranoid here.

In fact, we once sent a book to each other, and it's sad you cared so little for our friendship you don't even remember me.

But I'm used to being mistreated by Christians.​

Because he has so many sock puppets.

 

[Ladodgers6]

The funny thing on the old forum when I would get falsely accused I would quote my old posts as a Calvinist where they all affirmed what I said and saying I was a good teacher. But when I left Calvinism all of a sudden I did t know Calvinism .

I’m not bragging but I know more about Calvinism than 95% of the Calvinist who post on forums . One of the things I often do when a Calvinist disagrees with what I’m saying is quote either Calvin or any other respected Calvinist as a hostile witness against them. I’m just saying what Calvinism actually teaches and they don’t like what is reflected in the mirror.

Well stop bragging about it and prove it without going to a 3rd site to cut & paste what they present there.

I'll ask you again, How is a sinner justified before a Holy God?

 

[Dizerner]

If people are basically good and can determine their own fate, then why did Christ have to come in the first?​

You are arguing against a so-called Pelagian position here.

Free will does not equal self-righteousness, that is a non-sequitur.

Why isn't there any goodness or righteousness in man? Why is Grace needed?

Because Classical Arminians accept Total Depravity and Original Sin, and that because we are spiritually dead in Adam, we can neither will nor desire the good without the grace Christ merited for the lost human race.

How? God is Love, he tells us to forgive one another, correct? Why can't God forgive Adam & Eve?

God CAN do anything he wants, so let's not make a category error.

God DOES not devalue himself, because God is the sole infinite source of all that exists and continually upholds all things, thus holding a unique place of importance, glory and value that honors his own holiness.

Your view of Prevenient Grace is man-made and not Scriptural at all. That's the Arminians have to come up with Grace prior to anything man can do. Arminian himself wrote the following:

Please realize that both Classical Calvinists and Arminians believe in preceding grace, Calvinists just make it irresistible.

So what you really "mean" here is, you believe in a different KIND of preceding grace.

Arminius on "The Free Will Of Man"

I've already posted this work on this very forum, but thanks.

I'll like to point out the similarities between Arminianism and Calvinism here. Both agree that apart from God's regenerating power of the Holy Spirit in Christ, sinners are not capable either to think, or will, or do that which is really good.​

Then why are you arguing against me like I'm a Pelagian. You are contradicting yourself here.

This was where as an Arminian I questioned and asked, if this Prevenient Grace or Regenerating Power of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit is not effectual or Salvific in saving anyone, what is the cause of our Salvation? They would the person accepting or rejecting God. But this is not an adequate response, because this is what is actually double talk. And I'll prove it by Arminius own words. He forst states that Man lapse in his sinful state cannot, by himself, think, will or do anything really good. That is it necessary for him to be REGENERATED & RENEWED in his intellect, affections, and faculties.​

It's not double talk you are just making a logical error in your reasoning.

So, if he is regenerated in all his faculties; mind, heart, soul by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, how is this not effectual?​

Because nothing about it logically necessitates it be irresistible—God's grace empowers, it doesn't force.

If so, how would anyone who is regenerated by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit reject God? Once they have been renewed in intellect, will or affection and in all his powers? Do you see the contradiction?​

No, there is no contradiction, you are making one up in your head because you have been preprogrammed to think free will is necessarily meritorious in nature.

God ALLOWS a decision, this does not logically mean that it merits something. There are non-meritorious works, things we do that allow something without our earning them.

How absurd is it to say that this RENEWAL & REGENERATION of all his faculties and powers, being illuminated by the Holy Spirit to understand, hear God, and trust God, would reject God???​

There's nothing absurd about it, you just want to eliminate free will because there is more safety in having no personal responsibility.

If our choices can literally determine the eternal destiny of ourselves and others, that is a lot of responsibility we would rather not have!

So, let's say he does reject God after being fully renewed & regenerated in all his powers to understand God in intellect and affection. Does God remove the heart of flesh and puts back the heart of stone, and wipes his memory and all his faculties & powers?​

"Take not thy Holy Spirit from me."

"And the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul."

Like in the movie MIB, pulls out a flashy thing to wipe his memory? Make no sense at all.​

Has nothing to do with the memory, straw man.

This is why I said you have a man-made & man-centered theology.​

Your logic is man-made and man-centered, and thus full of non-sequiturs, things that do not logically follow.

Why, you have a Free-Will.

Free will does not eliminate other influences, that's not how it works.

It also needs a work of grace to free, empower and persuade it towards the good.

Because he has so many sock puppets.

Still does not justify your baseless assumption.

 

[Arial]

Do you really think that about him?

Why would he hate it?

I don't know why he hates it, but anyone can tell that he does. He comes against it by saying things that aren't true about it, completely distorting its teachings.

If you are really interested in learning the truth about it you need a reliable source and be willing to put in the work and thought. It isn't for babies. Best to just stick with what keeps one happy and goes down easy.

Good beginning source: "Doctrines That Divide" by Erwin Lutzer. This book not only deals with this issue but all those issues that the church dealt with in its history and how the traditional protestant was established. It deals with the free will controversies that preceded Arminius/ Calvin debate and that debate. What is helpful about the way this book is done is that it gives the content of both sides---let the reader decide. And it is an easy read.

R C Sproul is a helpful source for further information and source. Googling youtube reformed preachers will bring up sermons and teachings to give one a break from reading. It is each individual's responsibility to check with scripture what they hear or read.

 

[Dizerner]

So many Calvinists that think the other side "doesn't get it" have actually spent far less time studying it.

It's a weird theological Dunning-Kruger effect and a way to insulate oneself from criticism and trust confident sounding superiors.

"They just... don't get it. So I don't have to listen to the logic of what they are actually saying."

We see that exemplified in Calvinists already "rage quitting" the server.

 

[Darby]

I don't know why he hates it, but anyone can tell that he does. He comes against it by saying things that aren't true about it, completely distorting its teachings.

If you are really interested in learning the truth about it you need a reliable source and be willing to put in the work and thought. It isn't for babies. Best to just stick with what keeps one happy and goes down easy.

Good beginning source: "Doctrines That Divide" by Erwin Lutzer. This book not only deals with this issue but all those issues that the church dealt with in its history and how the traditional protestant was established. It deals with the free will controversies that preceded Arminius/ Calvin debate and that debate. What is helpful about the way this book is done is that it gives the content of both sides---let the reader decide. And it is an easy read.

R C Sproul is a helpful source for further information and source. Googling youtube reformed preachers will bring up sermons and teachings to give one a break from reading. It is each individual's responsibility to check with scripture what they hear or read.

Thank you for the resources. I’m interested in looking this stuff up,

 

[Arial]

Quote a Calvinist source and prove it. I just quoted one that affirms exactly what I stated is taught in Calvinism .

The source you quoted does not say what you said at all! Try reading it for comprehension instead of understanding it from your own point of view. It is saying exactly what I said with more words and from a different angle.

Quoting Calvinist sources, as you have shown, can be used in just as isolated a way for the purposes of distortion as is the Bible in attempting to defend a pov.

 

[civic]

So many Calvinists that think the other side "doesn't get it" have actually spent far less time studying it.

It's a weird theological Dunning-Kruger effect and a way to insulate oneself from criticism and trust confident sounding superiors.

"They just... don't get it. So I don't have to listen to the logic of what they are actually saying."

We see that exemplified in Calvinists already "rage quitting" the server.

Just like Alana doesn’t understand Calvinism after she left it lol. She bleed it and can articulate it very well . What a gem of a person . You can tell she loves the Lord. I identify with her and I reasoned just like she did then and does now .

 

[Dizerner]

You know what.... Calvinists just don't understand Arminianism.

 

[Arial]

So many Calvinists that think the other side "doesn't get it" have actually spent far less time studying it.

It's a weird theological Dunning-Kruger effect and a way to insulate oneself from criticism and trust confident sounding superiors.

"They just... don't get it. So I don't have to listen to the logic of what they are actually saying."

We see that exemplified in Calvinists already "rage quitting" the server.

And you would know this how?

I put forth my understanding not someone else's. Although I am often asked to debate writings of others opposed to C/R that are put forth as an authority. An actual authority.

I have found no logic, a complete lack of logic in those who try and defend their free will view. That is what makes it so frustrating. They never listen to what is being said or even bother to disprove it. Ignore it is the tactic used.

Rage quitting is another use of derogatory emotional language in order to degrade people who leave because why would they stay where they are not wanted and not respected?

 

[Arial]

You know what.... Calvinists just don't understand Arminianism.

That is a generalization, an argument by stereotyping,

Personally I do understand the free will argument. I even see how God could have chosen to do it that way. But on close examination of the conclusions of the argument and all that God tells us of Himself in the Bible, it seems in opposition to Himself and to the power and glory of the atonement to have done so.

 

[Arial]

I can testify—I have seen with my own eyes—that civic has posted as a Calvinist supporting Calvinism for many years.

During that time not once—not one single time—did any fellow Calvinist call him out and say he misrepresented Calvinism.

In fact, they all constantly patted each other on the back nonstop, saying how good and correct everything they said was.

Well, I only have your word for that and in any case it is completely irrelevant as to an argument or as validation of anyone. It is however to be expected of someone who is coming to the defense of himself? or someone he admires and agrees with. What it doesn't do is make anything I said untrue.

Now what does that information tell me about your critique?

You are not critiquing any actual information or doctrine—you are critiquing someone being critical, someone not agreeing.

And that, in the end, is logically just bias—just saying "if you don't agree, you don't understand."

Actually what I was doing was offering necessary information to someone who expressed an interest in learning about the subject. That information about a theology given only from the side of someone who dislikes the theology and prefers a whole different one, and who therefore as I have witnessed again and again, presents it as teaching those things which it does not teach, making use of inflammatory caricatures because if they were accurate, no one would believe it. Which is the intention---otherwise they would not stoop to the use of such tactics.

BTW the the word critique may tend to add weight to what is being said----my post was a criticism not a critique. And my reason for doing so is not found in your head but but in mine. My actual reason was stated above.

In which case (see above) it is not bias and logically has nothing to do with even your statement, but is my informed observation.

 

[civic]

Well, I only have your word for that and in any case it is completely irrelevant as to an argument or as validation of anyone. It is however to be expected of someone who is coming to the defense of himself? or someone he admires and agrees with. What it doesn't do is make anything I said untrue.

Actually what I was doing was offering necessary information to someone who expressed an interest in learning about the subject. That information about a theology given only from the side of someone who dislikes the theology and prefers a whole different one, and who therefore as I have witnessed again and again, presents it as teaching those things which it does not teach, making use of inflammatory caricatures because if they were accurate, no one would believe it. Which is the intention---otherwise they would not stoop to the use of such tactics.

BTW the the word critique may tend to add weight to what is being said----my post was a criticism not a critique. And my reason for doing so is not found in your head but but in mine. My actual reason was stated above.

In which case (see above) it is not bias and logically has nothing to do with even your statement, but is my informed observation.

That is not true since I quote Calvin, MacArthur, Bavinck, Spurgeon, Luther, Sproul, Voddie and all the other Calvinists who affirm exactly what I say. I know the doctrines of grace(tulip) like the back of my hand and the oxymoron of compatibilism. That is for people who cannot swallow Reformed teaching and make excuses for God and try to get Him off the hook.

I have much more respect for hyper-calvinists than I do compatibilists. At-least they stand by who they see God is in scripture.

And this site is not an echo chamber for callvinists, there are plenty of other sites out there if you don't want your doctrines challenged and for everyone to agree with you. I'm not a Calvinist and I won't hide that especially on the Calvinist/Arminian forum where we discuss those differences that we will never agree on this side of the grave.

I can talk on all the other forums here and not discuss calvinism. This forum is for that very debate,discussion to take place.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Arial]

That is not true since I quote Calvin, MacArthur, Bavinck, Spurgeon, Luther, Sproul, Voddie and all the other Calvinists who affirm exactly what I say. I know the doctrines of grace(tulip) like the back of my hand and the oxymoron of compatibilism. That is for people who cannot swallow Reformed teaching and make excuses for God and try to get Him off the hook.

It is true that you seldom use your own words, and that you cherry pick quotes from others, isolate the from their full content, for the sole purpose of tearing something down.
Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.

Again you are arguing from the view of something that doesn't exist in Calvinism or Reformed. They deny that the will if free. See Luther on The Bondage of the Will. See Romans 6:15-23. A person can't make a valid argument against C/R if they approach it "thinking like themselves", meaning in this case that since they believe in free will, so do Calvinists and Reformed.

The fact that the will is not free comes from the doctrine of every part of man being affected by the fall, which includes the will and perhaps most of all the will, for now we not only know sin but quite frequently love it and in no instance want to give it all up. Calvinism/Reformed does not see the will as a free floating island in us but an integral part of us---that part that moves us one way or another. And scripture tell us with no ambiguity that all of us are by nature at enmity with God, that none seek God, that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The glory, holiness of God being what we are measured against. The plumb line.

And not having free will is not synonymous with having no will at all. We still have that will that freely makes choices----we follow our greatest desires at any given moment. We obey our desires, not God's.

So the tension in the opposition to the theology is not in compatibilism but in God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.

 

[Arial]

I have much more respect for hyper-calvinists than I do compatibilists. At-least they stand by who they see God is in scripture.

This so called defense presented in the form of opinion goes out the window with what I previously said about compatibilism in post #337.

And this site is not an echo chamber for callvinists, there are plenty of other sites out there if you don't want your doctrines challenged and for everyone to agree with you. I'm not a Calvinist and I won't hide that especially on the Calvinist/Arminian forum where we discuss those differences that we will never agree on this side of the grave.

It is an echo chamber for anti-Calvinists but that aside I would at least expect the arguments against it be reasonable and accurate and contain logic. I would expect the anit's to actually attempt to disprove what is said to them as counter arguments rather than simply denying them. And I would expect them to articulate their own beliefs rather than simply quote other people.

A very simple example of not doing this would be an answer to the question that has never been answered. Where in any scripture in the NT where it refers to repentance or believing are any words used in those passages that say anything about making a personal choice? And where does it ever say that a person's choice brings about the new birth?

 

[Darby]

Calvinism has a lot of good emphases, the sinfulness of man, the greatness of God's holiness, and the need and power of Christ's atonement.

Where Calvinism makes a wrong turn, is deciding how God should run his world, and that it is offensive for God to put his holiness and glory above the well-being of God's creation.

Ironically, this is what the Calvinists generally accuse others of doing, of being "man-centered," and making doctrines around preferences.

But the truth is, Calvinism sacrifices the love of God and the holiness of God, to collapse all that God allows into God's primary desire, for the sole intent purpose of resolving offense and finding security in removing all free will. The fact that God's holiness is more important than my own personal security, and whether God makes sure I'm not a lost person but guarantees everything I selfishly want in salvation, is something my sin nature will never like or agree to.

It is sinful to find our security in attempting to formulate a doctrine that disallows God to sacrifice our personal security for God's own holiness. We can rest in grace and find our security in God's promise, without needing the false security of God desiring and decreeing all evil things and lost souls.

For those Calvinists who defend with doublespeak, I urge them to just be logically consistent, and admit that God does not decree free will choices.

So why is Calvinism a bad thing???

So far I see Arial making the strongest case and the most sense.

 

[Dizerner]

So why is Calvinism a bad thing???

So far I see Arial making the strongest case and the most sense.

We see what we want to see...

You know what Calvinism teaches?

The heart is deceitful above ALL things and desperately wicked.

Don't you trust your motivations, spend more time in prayer than being brainwashed.

 

[Ladodgers6]

I don't know why he hates it, but anyone can tell that he does. He comes against it by saying things that aren't true about it, completely distorting its teachings.

If you are really interested in learning the truth about it you need a reliable source and be willing to put in the work and thought. It isn't for babies. Best to just stick with what keeps one happy and goes down easy.

Good beginning source: "Doctrines That Divide" by Erwin Lutzer. This book not only deals with this issue but all those issues that the church dealt with in its history and how the traditional protestant was established. It deals with the free will controversies that preceded Arminius/ Calvin debate and that debate. What is helpful about the way this book is done is that it gives the content of both sides---let the reader decide. And it is an easy read.

R C Sproul is a helpful source for further information and source. Googling youtube reformed preachers will bring up sermons and teachings to give one a break from reading. It is each individual's responsibility to check with scripture what they hear or read.

Well said and great resources. Check out the whitehorseinn.org great site for Reformation teaching, and excellent podcast. Check out the podcast on Justification and the Gospel.