Calvinism: why such animosity?

[Hospes]

First, I will out myself and declare myself a Calvinist. By Calvinist I do not mean I support everything John Calvin ever did or write; it means my doctrine aligns with the points described by the acronym TULIP.

What I find curious is the level of dislike and vitriol from Christians toward Calvinism and the caricatures, i.e. cartoon-like images, many of them have of Calvinism.

Given all this, I am curious enough to ask "Why?"

Finally, I'd ask everyone to respect my desire this thread not devolve into debating for/against TULIP. (I'd be glad to do that sometime elsewhere.)

 

[reba]

I do hope you get some Christian answers... People can be just plain ol ugly .. Years back i was kicked out of chats for posting scripture i had no idea what a calvinist was... I am not a full calvinist for lack of better words...

 

[reba]

The only reason i could ever figure for the hostility i received was people what to be in control of their own destiny.

 

[smaller]

First, I will out myself and declare myself a Calvinist. By Calvinist I do not mean I support everything John Calvin ever did or write; it means my doctrine aligns with the points described by the acronym TULIP.

What I find curious is the level of dislike and vitriol from Christians toward Calvinism and the caricatures, i.e. cartoon-like images, many of them have of Calvinism.

Given all this, I am curious enough to ask "Why?"

Finally, I'd ask everyone to respect my desire this thread not devolve into debating for/against TULIP. (I'd be glad to do that sometime elsewhere.)

Being against flawed theological positions doesn't equate it to being against a person. Many would agree with some sights of Calvin, derived from the scriptures, not from Calvin.

There is a distinct difference between Divine Sovereignty and any man who claims to have a lock on what Divine Sovereignty is and consists of. That is circular reasoning. Divine Sovereignty means that any man can be usurped in their factual partial sighted understandings by Divine Sovereignty.

A similar problem exists in the logic that older orthodoxy employs. They say, in essence, "God has given us all truth, therefore WE entirely determine what that is and consists of." Unfortunately part of the equations of all truth means we only see in part, therefore within "all truth" is that truth, which usurps their logic equations. No collective of partial sighted believers can define and contain "all truth" because of the truth all truth brings, partial sight to all men.

Get the picture? It's nearly an identical problem in both determinist and freewill camps.

Divine Sovereignty Himself is the sole holder of the entirety of what He Is and Consists of, and only He Knows what that is AND only He can Perform His Will. No man controls God. No man sees everything.

What is held up as God in most sects is never anything but the pale reflections of the observers in any case. Concoctions of men, in most cases.

Ecclesiastes 3:11
He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I had heard of Calvin, thought he was a great Christian thinker, but never read anything by him.
I never heard of TULIP until I came on this forum.
Everything negative about TULIP came from this forum.

Now that my eyes are open, I see and hear of Calvinism in many places.
Most people I've read or discussed with are at odds with some doctrines.
Calvin the man beyond TULIP is seldom discussed.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

First, I will out myself and declare myself a Calvinist. By Calvinist I do not mean I support everything John Calvin ever did or write; it means my doctrine aligns with the points described by the acronym TULIP.

What I find curious is the level of dislike and vitriol from Christians toward Calvinism and the caricatures, i.e. cartoon-like images, many of them have of Calvinism.

Given all this, I am curious enough to ask "Why?"

Finally, I'd ask everyone to respect my desire this thread not devolve into debating for/against TULIP. (I'd be glad to do that sometime elsewhere.)

When you set up walls of predefined doctrines with nice little labels on them you almost invariably invite a beating.
I prefer to just talk about specific things in the Bible and only use man made labels for the sake of the person I'm talking to. It seems most Christians simply can not think outside of the little boxes of doctrine with labels attached that they have constructed for themselves or borrowed from someone else.

What I have found is the real truth lies somewhere in between the hard extremes that virtually all Christians gravitate to. For some reason we humans, particularly Christians, automatically reject everything someone says if just one thing or point they make is wrong. I grew fast in my Christian walk and education when I stopped doing that.

 

[Mike S]

I might be anti-Calvinist - because I believe in a theology closer to Arminiansim - if they had the power to force me to accept their views. They don't, and we have about 30,000 different Christian denominations in the world. We have free will, and we all work out our own salvation in fear and trembling.

 

[Malachi]

Given all this, I am curious enough to ask "Why?"

False doctrine. And in my experience the vitriol works both ways (not that it is necessary).

 

[Malachi]

Calvin the man beyond TULIP is seldom discussed.

And that is as it should be. The issues are not with the man, but with his doctrine. There are some very fine people who are Mormons and JWs, and one could not find fault with them as people. But their doctrine is not according to Scripture. The same principle applies here. Rollo could be a wonderful person, but if his doctrine is faulty, that is what must be questioned.

 

[JohnDB]

Because doctrines are usually personal in nature... Even though they really shouldn't be.

So when you say someone's doctrine is wrong they only hear that they are wrong as a person.

Sure I am not a Calvinist. I have my reasons (usually common sense) but Calvinists demand sola scriptures for common sense. And it's an exercise in futility to get them to see reason (like most people).

Just like when I prove that Jesus wasn't actually a wood worker as an occupation people hyperventilate trying to refute the known world and geography.

The only reason is that they believe it is tradition... Nothing more.
SDA are about to hyperventilate when they learn that the true Sabbath is actually on our modern calendars as Sunday. They are hyperventilating now over the Sanhedrin council.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I think the opposition to TULIP + Calvinism is rooted in the American idea of democracy...everybody's supposed to get a shot. I think that carries over into our understanding of God.

 

[JohnDB]

I think the opposition to TULIP + Calvinism is rooted in the American idea of democracy...everybody's supposed to get a shot. I think that carries over into our understanding of God.

No...
Not mine.
The Gospel of John has many of the theological debates contained within it and Jesus' thoughts on them.
They had a debate in that day and age that mirrors the Calvinism/Armenian debate. Slightly different but with the basic same arguments. Jesus sided with neither side.
So guess where I stand?

 

[Mike]

Great topic and nice OP, but I'm going to have to move this thread. If you wrote your OP as a defense of one side or the other with scripture to support your stance, it would be spot on for the A&T. Asking why there is such heat in discussing the topic really doesn't fit the guidelines for this forum, so I'm moving it to the Lounge.

To all participants, please keep in mind that the Lounge is NOT a debate forum. Hospes didn't set one up, anyway. It clearly is not intended to be debated. Discuss and be nice.

 

[JohnDB]

Great topic and nice OP, but I'm going to have to move this thread. If you wrote your OP as a defense of one side or the other with scripture to support your stance, it would be spot on for the A&T. Asking why there is such heat in discussing the topic really doesn't fit the guidelines for this forum, so I'm moving it to the Lounge.

To all participants, please keep in mind that the Lounge is NOT a debate forum. Hospes didn't set one up, anyway. It clearly is not intended to be debated. Discuss and be nice.

Sorry.

I just consider proper hermeneutics to include all the sciences and proper logic. My bad. I tried. Hard for me. But I'm out.

 

[reba]

I just consider proper hermeneutics to include all the sciences and proper logic. My bad. I tried. Hard for me. But I'm out.

I just hate when you guys use those kind of words .. i have to go look them up

 

[JohnDB]

I just hate when you guys use those kind of words .. i have to go look them up

Hermeneutics is a word that refers to the blend of art (literary use of hyperbole, metaphor, allusion, metaphor, simile, syndochyne, and others) and sciences including geography, history, anthropology, mathematics, and stellar cartography that helps us decipher what the Bible says.

Blending the arts and sciences is rather individual in nature. But often, in the case of Calvinism, there's no real consistency with how they blend.
Which speaks to making the scriptures say what you wish instead of what they actually say, which is more often what we need to hear.

 

[OzSpen]

I just hate when you guys use those kind of words .. i have to go look them up

reba,

Hermeneutics is the discipline of interpretation of any document. Here it relates to the various issues that are involved in arriving at a correct understanding of a biblical text.

 

[Mike]

Sorry.

I just consider proper hermeneutics to include all the sciences and proper logic. My bad. I tried. Hard for me. But I'm out.

No problem. No harm, no foul.

In response to the OP, I would urge you to read any thread, even a single page, in the A&T where this topic is discussed. Read with an open mind, as I suspect you do, and you'll see the heat comes from both sides of the aisle. I would go so far as to say it's equally janky.

I grew up in the Catholic Church where such a thing like Calvinism was never spoken of. It wasn't until we left that fishbowl that I ever heard of such a thing, but admittedly I wasn't searching very hard before then. I warred with this for years, and it was only several years ago that God placed on my heart the love that's expressed in knowing I am chosen rather than in choosing. It seemed way too harsh until then.

Even so, I can see my election believing brethren matching others for every intense response. Although it strikes right at the heart of why we're saved, I don't believe salvation is dependent on our stance. Therefore, I cannot get up the stamina to fight a long fight over it.

 

[JohnDB]

No problem. No harm, no foul.

In response to the OP, I would urge you to read any thread, even a single page, in the A&T where this topic is discussed. Read with an open mind, as I suspect you do, and you'll see the heat comes from both sides of the aisle. I would go so far as to say it's equally janky.

I grew up in the Catholic Church where such a thing like Calvinism was never spoken of. It wasn't until we left that fishbowl that I ever heard of such a thing, but admittedly I wasn't searching very hard before then. I warred with this for years, and it was only several years ago that God placed on my heart the love that's expressed in knowing I am chosen rather than in choosing. It seemed way too harsh until then.

Even so, I can see my election believing brethren matching others for every intense response. Although it strikes right at the heart of why we're saved, I don't believe salvation is dependent on our stance. Therefore, I cannot get up the stamina to fight a long fight over it.

In agreement here.
And in defense of Calvinists they have been used as work horses in driving the Gospel message forward. Carrying the bulk of the load in works. But then at the same time refusing to allow them a place at the table of decision making when it comes to deciding where resources should be placed.

 

[OzSpen]

First, I will out myself and declare myself a Calvinist. By Calvinist I do not mean I support everything John Calvin ever did or write; it means my doctrine aligns with the points described by the acronym TULIP.

What I find curious is the level of dislike and vitriol from Christians toward Calvinism and the caricatures, i.e. cartoon-like images, many of them have of Calvinism.

Given all this, I am curious enough to ask "Why?"

Finally, I'd ask everyone to respect my desire this thread not devolve into debating for/against TULIP. (I'd be glad to do that sometime elsewhere.)

I respond as a Reformed/Classical Arminian (without agreeing with all that Arminius wrote). My view is that some of the hostility between the Calvinist and Arminian camps relates to:

1. Misrepresentation by both sides of the other side's view. When something false is said about you or me, we often want people to know this falsehood. Arminian theology is often identified with semi-Pelagian views. Semi-Pelagian is human-centred salvation.
   
2. The doctrinaire approach used by both sides. Doctrinaire means 'Seeking to impose a doctrine in all circumstances without regard to practical considerations' (Oxford dictionaries, online, 2016. S v doctrinaire). For me, I find the nature of the God of Calvinism who predestines people to damnation (Calvin's view) to be abominable.
3. Deeply held beliefs by both sides. When these are challenged as wrong, it can sometimes cause more heat than light.

Oz