Calvinism: why such animosity?

[JLB]

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.)

Go ahead and begin with the first point, and why you agree with what Mr. Calvin taught.

Please use scripture.


Thanks, JLB

 

[Malachi]

Can we imperfect creatures ever know the full will of the sovereign God of the universe? I don't think so, we see as through a glass darkly.

Not sure what you mean by "full will"? God's "full will" for all humanity is that all get saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth. We also know that his full will is that those who are genuinely saved shall be perfected and conformed to the image of His Son. That's what election is all about. As to the things of eternity, we can only understand those when we are perfected.

 

[OzSpen]

Go ahead and begin with the first point, and why you agree with what Mr. Calvin taught.

Please use scripture.


Thanks, JLB

Why don't we stick with the OP?

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?"

Why do you think such dislike and vitriol can be leveled at Calvinistic Christians? I'm of the view that it also happens towards Arminians. However, the topic is hostility towards Calvinists and why it happens.

Do you have any further ideas?

Oz

 

[Chopper]

Most of the arguments against Calvin's TULIP is "Limited Atonement" my understanding of that was God only projected Salvation only to the Elect, no one else. That left the masses, out of reach. Calvin's main Scripture, IMO, was....

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

The fact that Calvin left out the the cry of God that He is not willing that any perish, doesn't make Calvin right. He was wrong in leaving out the world that needed Jesus Christ. I've reported before that I agree with TULIP in all it's meanings except that the Atonement, beyond the Elect, was for "whosoever will".

That's where my "General Call of the Gospel" comes in. Look, some here have noted that evangelism is not needed in true Calvinism, that's simply not true. The Elect of God is not automatically saved before the foundations of the world. They, just like every one else must confess, repent, by faith receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior at some point in their life according to God's will and purpose for them.

Irresistible Grace, according to Calvin, cannot be rejected by the Elect. Now, for all others, IMO according to my General Call, they have free will to accept or reject.

 

[OzSpen]

That's true, I really hadn't thought about, I was thinking more in terms of individual Christian living. Our Methodists have always been very active in sending evangelizing missionaries around the world. I myself have been active in volunteer missions, where we always have opportunities to spread the Gospel.

Interesting that since we have a sizeable group of liberal Methodists in the U.S. determined to change our Disciple so that we can ordain openly and active gay clergy, and include same sex couples in our marriage rituals, the Africans to whom we sent missionaries (very conservative traditional Bible centered Christians) in centuries past are now offering to send missionaries to us in America. I like their spunk. Thank God we are a global church.

You are very tolerant. I could not continue to worship with a denomination that ordains homosexual clergy and marries same-sex couples, contrary to the content of Scripture.

It's amazing that other conservative, Bible-centred cultures of the Methodist tradition are sending missionaries to the USA. You and I know that both Arminian and Calvinistic based denominations (e.g. United Methodist & Presbyterian Church of the USA), when they move away from the authority of Scripture promote all kinds of secular alternatives.

Back to the title of this thread. What do you think are some of the reasons why there can be considerable hostility towards Calvinism, even on a forum such as CFnet?

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

For Ozpen

I believe one could lose their salvation. I believe it's difficult to do. That's where I stand.
Just to explain that I've had encounters with Calvinistic concepts here on CF and I think the hostility seems to rise out of the idea of "works."

I haven't been able to discover why, but when one is speaking to Calvinist theology, like OSAS, works always pop in somehow. I don't understand why. Do Calvinists believe we, on the other side, have to WORK our way to salvation? Do they not believe in doing any works at all?

Works has something to do with this, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Wondering
P.S. I mean, I don't have anything against them, but they seem to be upset with me for declaring that Jesus requires works. (not for salvation).

 

[JLB]

Most of the arguments against Calvin's TULIP is "Limited Atonement" my understanding of that was God only projected Salvation only to the Elect, no one else. That left the masses, out of reach. Calvin's main Scripture, IMO, was....

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

The fact that Calvin left out the the cry of God that He is not willing that any perish, doesn't make Calvin right. He was wrong in leaving out the world that needed Jesus Christ. I've reported before that I agree with TULIP in all it's meanings except that the Atonement, beyond the Elect, was for "whosoever will".

That's where my "General Call of the Gospel" comes in. Look, some here have noted that evangelism is not needed in true Calvinism, that's simply not true. The Elect of God is not automatically saved before the foundations of the world. They, just like every one else must confess, repent, by faith receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior at some point in their life according to God's will and purpose for them.

Irresistible Grace, according to Calvin, cannot be rejected by the Elect. Now, for all others, IMO according to my General Call, they have free will to accept or reject.

Thanks for sharing.

I don't think there are that many here who even understand all of what Calvin believed and taught.

I would like to see one from each side go down the list of TULIP, and briefly list, what each letter stands for and why the agree or disagree, with what this man taught.

Or maybe summarize the core [root] of this theology, and why they agree or disagree.



JLB

 

[OzSpen]

Most of the arguments against Calvin's TULIP is "Limited Atonement" my understanding of that was God only projected Salvation only to the Elect, no one else. That left the masses, out of reach.

That is not where Arminians (and I as a Reformed Arminian) object. Arminius agreed with Calvin's Total Depravity and Perseverance of the Saints. However, he and I disagree with Calvinism's theology of Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace.

For a summary of the Arminian position, see FACTS.

Oz

 

[Mike S]

You are very tolerant. I could not continue to worship with a denomination that ordains homosexual clergy and marries same-sex couples, contrary to the content of Scripture.

The denomination doesn't accept those positions, but a sizable group of liberal American Methodist does. They ignore the UMC's positions on these issues. The conflict will not be peacefully resolved, there will be a split.

 

[Hospes]

What a deluge of responses to deal with! Thank you.

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.

I think the reason we have predefined doctrines is because we have 2000 years of various people doingexposition of the Bible. After so many have done this, it would follow that in my reading of the scriptures I am unlikely to find novel doctrines not addressed by church fathers. We probably agree, though, that it is not good when we become more interested in defending a doctrinal position than in understanding the truth of God's word.

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 agree the heat goes both ways. Heat in moderation is good, but too much gets destructive. It's sad when we allow our pride to damage the bride of our Lord.

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.

Agreed. I do wonder if it's intentional misrepresentation. I think our natural tendency - there's that durn depravity (Sorry, couldn't help myself. ) - is to not really try to understand the opposing view and also tend toward laziness by finding it much more easy to argue against misrepresentations.

And if your church has altar calls then functionally they are only Calvinists in name only.

Never knew I was Calvinist in name only! Who'd of thunk!

It can have considerable impact on the way one approaches evangelism. Many Arminians I know are active in evangelism outside of the church walls. Why? God said he wants the Gospel to be preached to the whole world. They are very active in sending missionaries.

I have an evangelical Presbyterian (Calvinistic) pastor friend and when my wife spoke with him about evangelism, his answer was, 'God will bring them in'. As a result, that Calvinistic church does no outreach evangelism. The result? The church is shrinking in numbers as the members become old and older.

Oz, be careful to not generalize from the specific. The reformed, i.e. Calvinist, tradition has centuries of missions and evangelism, e.g. The Great Awakening, William Carey, etc.

BTW, much of the Presbyterian church has strayed so far it could hardly be considered Calvinist, or even orthodox.

OzSpen made a good point which I bring up when someone tells me we're all saved. Why send out missionaries?It would make no sense if we're all saved anyway, and it would make no sense if God chooses whom He will.
Christ Empowered has it right too. He said we all want a shot at being saved. And one poster said he couldn't serve such a mean God that would, of His own choice, send someone to hell.

W, I swore I'd not engage in arguing for reformed doctrine, but you make it so hard to not do so! Lobbing statements like the ones underlined ===>
I'll just make the point that such statements are examples of what I mentioned as caricatures in the OP; oversimplified cartoons of doctrinal positions.

 

[OzSpen]

The denomination doesn't accept those positions, but a sizable group of liberal American Methodist does. They ignore the UMC's positions on these issues. The conflict will not be peacefully resolved, there will be a split.

That's what happened in the early 20th century in the Presbyterian Church (USA) with the split led by Gresham Machen, professor at Princeton Seminary, and the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. I can't see any other way out of it when heresy dominates a denomination.

Oz

 

[Christ_empowered]

I was pondering calvinism the other day. My dad comes from a Dutch calvinist tradition (immigrants up north) and my mom comes from a scots-irish presbyterian family. Anyway...since the bible tells us that you can judge a tree by its fruits, what are the fruits of calvinism?

Max weber says calvinism=american version of capitalism and a lot of secular american values have their roots in american-style calvinism. The calvinist churches seem to be going quite worldly, by and large. If numerous denominations that originally centered on one concept, one doctrine end up going the way of society as a whole, do you think perhaps that means there is/was something wrong with Calvinism itself?

 

[Hospes]

Fun facts: Calvin was already dead and long gone when the acronym TULIP was formed. TULIP came about as a response to Arminians stating where they disagreed with Calvin's doctrinal positions.

 

[Hospes]

I was pondering calvinism the other day. My dad comes from a Dutch calvinist tradition (immigrants up north) and my mom comes from a scots-irish presbyterian family. Anyway...since the bible tells us that you can judge a tree by its fruits, what are the fruits of calvinism?

Max weber says calvinism=american version of capitalism and a lot of secular american values have their roots in american-style calvinism. The calvinist churches seem to be going quite worldly, by and large. If numerous denominations that originally centered on one concept, one doctrine end up going the way of society as a whole, do you think perhaps that means there is/was something wrong with Calvinism itself?

FYI: here's a place where you may be able to see fair number of Calvinist leaders of today: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/

 

[GodsGrace]

W, I swore I'd not engage in arguing for reformed doctrine, but you make it so hard to not do so! Lobbing statements like the ones underlined ===>
I'll just make the point that such statements are examples of what I mentioned as caricatures in the OP; oversimplified cartoons of doctrinal positions.

Well, I stated far better ideas in no. 37 than what you chose up above.
For instance:
So for some threads we'll list our scripture and put forth what we believe. But I think God is a big God. He's not protestant, He's not Catholic, He's not Calvinist and He's not Arminian, or anything in between. He's not any of these, and He's all of these.

The above represents my idea more than the two doctrines you singled out.

And maybe there should be a different thread to understand what you mean by:
We probably agree, though, that it is not good when we become more interested in defending a doctrinal position than in understanding the truth of God's word.
Your post 50, reply to Jethro Bodine.

Is not a doctrinal position the truth to the church declaring it?
AND What Is The Truth??

I can be so dense. I know you have a reason for this thread.
Could you please clarify.

Wondering
P.S. As far as caricatures, of course it's all caricatures - unless we want to do what JLB is suggesting and tip toe through the tulip.

 

[smaller]

Or could it be the reverse? Since salvation is offered to all, it carries over into the concept that who governs is to be decided by all.

Calvinism denies this fundamental Bible truth -- that all can be saved if all will repent, since eternal life is freely offered to all (Rev 22:17).

Largely depended on how stingy the people are, who believe, share The Word of Life and the kinds of hoops they demand to be jumped.

I share Christ from the lowest possible threshold, jump in point, so as not to cause ANY to stumble.

Calvin's TULIP does not capture a scripturally adequate picture of the unbelievers whatsoever. NOR does it capture the scriptural condition of the believers adequately.

In these 2 counts I'd consider Calvin's postures a fail, and inadequate.

So, examples?

Calvin posture that man is totally depraved. This is NOT the case. There is not just "a man" in view in any scripture in the cases of the unbeliever.

Here is the scriptural depiction of the unbeliever:

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

There is "an ENTITY" that is not man upon the mind of the unbeliever. Who then is totally depraved? God seeks to SAVE the MAN. And, simultaneously the "god of this world" is in fact totally depraved, always was.

The relationship in the above equation goes inverse for believers. The believer is placed ON TOP of the equations, or more accurately, God in Christ is on TOP in behalf of same, as our Savior. But the adverse relationship of our adversary is still in place with the believers, in their flesh, in the forms of temptations/lusts and various deceptions.

Calvin fails to isolate the real "totally depraved" in his equations, and drags the captive into the same state as the captor. I've seen some determinists handle this part of the equations semi-OK.

Where it gets dicey for every determinist is when the position comes to Romans 11:25-32. That even unbelieving enemies of the Gospel are saved as it pertains to Israel. All of them are saved by virtue of God having called "out" that nation of people, and are so because of Gods Love for the fathers of faith, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I've encountered a paltry few determinists who can see this. But it is not a common sight among them.

On the other side of the equations, total depravity still exists for believers. Our own flesh still remains "contrary" and "against" the Spirit. So, yes, total depravity is a remaining reality in the flesh, and it is so because of sin dwelling in the flesh and evil present withIN all of us. These are not forensic matters or matters that can be proven empirically. It is THEREFORE an ANTI-SPIRITUAL working, internally, in mind. And this is epitomized by temptations/lusts/deceptions in the mind. Every believer still has these and this working is "in the flesh" but it is of our ADVERSARY, not ourselves. We are to see the difference.

Calvin himself, by his own postures, wasn't that far off of freewillism. Freewill people for the most part only speculate on their salvation, because they, like determinist Calvin postures, believe they must persevere to the end before they find out for sure. And in both camps they are simply wrong on this count. Those who have called upon Christ to save, SHALL BE saved by Christ, and not of themselves. The adversary will not prevail over believers, even if they fall back into spiritual blindness in this present life. Why is this so? The adversary is ALSO heaping up in his forthcoming demise, adverse judgments, to be eternally meted out, by imposing this blindness.

Not all is as it appears on the surface equations of Mr. Calvin.

 

[smaller]

OzSpen made a good point which I bring up when someone tells me we're all saved. Why send out missionaries?It would make no sense if we're all saved anyway, and it would make no sense if God chooses whom He will.

In all preaching of the Gospel we are called out to battle our adversary. We make a similar battle within ourselves. The effort to save people is NOT the only part of the equations. We declare the LIFE of God in Christ to the world, and that partly to bring about the destruction of our adversary.

In every way, when we deliver the Gospel, it is also an appeal to God Himself, for forthcoming destruction. Few are very good at seeing this aspect of "preaching" the Gospel.

Was the Gospel preached to Israel? YES! And what followed? Their nation was destroyed and the people were scattered. This working doesn't change. It's part of "how" the Gospel is spread.

The Word isn't here to do this present world any favors.


1 John 2:15
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

 

[GodsGrace]

Largely depended on how stingy the people are, who believe, share The Word of Life and the kinds of hoops they demand to be jumped.

I share Christ from the lowest possible threshold, jump in point, so as not to cause ANY to stumble.

On the other side of the equations, total depravity still exists for believers. Our own flesh still remains "contrary" and "against" the Spirit. So, yes, total depravity is a remaining reality in the flesh, and it is so because of sin dwelling in the flesh and evil present withIN all of us. These are not forensic matters or matters that can be proven empirically. It is THEREFORE an ANTI-SPIRITUAL working, internally, in mind. And this is epitomized by temptations/lusts/deceptions in the mind. Every believer still has these and this working is "in the flesh" but it is of our ADVERSARY, not ourselves. We are to see the difference.

Calvin himself, by his own postures, wasn't that far off of freewillism. Freewill people for the most part only speculate on their salvation, because they, like determinist Calvin postures, believe they must persevere to the end before they find out for sure. And in both camps they are simply wrong on this count. Those who have called upon Christ to save, SHALL BE saved by Christ, and not of themselves. The adversary will not prevail over believers, even if they fall back into spiritual blindness in this present life. Why is this so? The adversary is ALSO heaping up in his forthcoming demise, adverse judgments, to be eternally meted out, by imposing this blindness.

Not all is as it appears on the surface equations of Mr. Calvin.

Sorry Smaller,
Have erased some for space and because I don't wish to derail Hospes' thread.
The first highlighted and underlined (mine). Very good.
The second: I often wonder what camp I'm in. Maybe none! I'd say I'm a free will person (if there can be such a thing). But I don't believe I have to persevere till the end to know if I'm saved. I'm trusting in Jesus to save me, not myself. AND, not to mention, that we DON'T KNOW when the end will be. It could be 10 minutes from now, so as of this moment - which is all I have - I believe I'm saved by the blood of our Lord.

But then I read, as you've stated above, that I'm NOT sure of my salvation.
Confusing.
But I really don't care - maybe I'm a bit all over the place with my doctrinal beliefs and cannot fit them into a neat little box.

Wondering

 

[smaller]

Most of the arguments against Calvin's TULIP is "Limited Atonement" my understanding of that was God only projected Salvation only to the Elect, no one else. That left the masses, out of reach. Calvin's main Scripture, IMO, was....

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

The fact that Calvin left out the the cry of God that He is not willing that any perish, doesn't make Calvin right. He was wrong in leaving out the world that needed Jesus Christ. I've reported before that I agree with TULIP in all it's meanings except that the Atonement, beyond the Elect, was for "whosoever will".

That's where my "General Call of the Gospel" comes in. Look, some here have noted that evangelism is not needed in true Calvinism, that's simply not true. The Elect of God is not automatically saved before the foundations of the world. They, just like every one else must confess, repent, by faith receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior at some point in their life according to God's will and purpose for them.

Irresistible Grace, according to Calvin, cannot be rejected by the Elect. Now, for all others, IMO according to my General Call, they have free will to accept or reject.

Every believer "adheres" in one form or another to "limited" atonement.

How so? We do not extend "atonement" to the devil and his messengers for example. So, to that extent, it is limited. We do not extend atonement to inanimate objects, another example.

The atonement is specific only to man.

 

[smaller]

Sorry Smaller,
Have erased some for space and because I don't wish to derail Hospes' thread.
The first highlighted and underlined (mine). Very good.
The second: I often wonder what camp I'm in. Maybe none!

There is no command for us to bow to any "man." I won't, and don't. Not even to myself.

I'd say I'm a free will person (if there can be such a thing).

Were our wills the only wills in play, you'd have a point. But that was never the case. There is also the Will of God and the will of the adversary, in play upon the earth.

When we see that 'all 3 wills' are at work, even in ourselves, freewill kind flies out the door imho. So, no, I don't buy it. Freewill is a form of spiritual deception. Any of us would trade our will for Gods in a heartbeat. We'd be fools not to.

But I don't believe I have to persevere till the end to know if I'm saved. I'm trusting in Jesus to save me, not myself. AND, not to mention, that we DON'T KNOW when the end will be. It could be 10 minutes from now, so as of this moment - which is all I have - I believe I'm saved by the blood of our Lord.

But then I read, as you've stated above, that I'm NOT sure of my salvation.
Confusing.
But I really don't care - maybe I'm a bit all over the place with my doctrinal beliefs and cannot fit them into a neat little box.

Wondering

The boxes of man individually or collectively can't hold a candle to Gods Will.