Calvinism: why such animosity?

[JohnDB]

And yet here we have a great example of why Calvinists get treated with such animosity.
Their propensity to beligerantly debate the merits of their beliefs when no such thing has been asked for nor invitation sent. Just so they can tell us "poor schmucks" how wrong and stupid we all are and yet how much of a biblical scholarship they have parroting a man who has been dead for how long now?

 

[Hospes]

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.

I confess it is unfair of me to skip over where I agree with you to zero in on other controversial statements. If you knew how much worse I use to be, you'd congratulate me for being only a partial jerk. Regardless, my apologies.

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 don't mind explaining here. It is a tendency within myself - and I think I recognize it in others - to become so invested in defending my doctrinal positions and attacking opposing doctrinal positions, I lose sight of more important and higher goals. If I can destroy my opposition with arguments, but leave them damaged and shaken in their faith,then I have sacrificed a member of the Bride of Christ for my own perverse desire at all costs to "win" the debate. Somehow I do not think my Lord will look at such behavior kindly, much less with pleasure. I do not want to become so pro-Calvinism or anti-Arminianism that I cease to love my brothers and sisters in Christ. In the end, we really should simply be trying to discern the truth within the Bible, showing much love and grace to those who disagree.

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.

I am thinking of inviting, via another thread, the discussion of 6 or 7 video lectures teaching on TULIP. When I listened to them, I thought the speaker seemed very fair to the opposing side. What do you think of the idea? (Not asking for commitment, just asking if you think such a thing would work on a forum.)

 

[Chopper]

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

If you don't mind me butting in, it's because they don't really understand Calvinism and what he failed to address, namely that God is not willing that any perish. Thank you for the intrusion.

 

[reba]

I am thinking of inviting, via another thread, the discussion of 6 or 7 video lectures teaching on TULIP. When I listened to them, I thought the speaker seemed very fair to the opposing side. What do you think of the idea? (Not asking for commitment, just asking if you think such a thing would work on a forum.)

IF you choose to do so .. videos do not tend to get "good study results" they are ignored or countered with an opposing video.. .

 

[Hospes]

IF you choose to do so .. videos do not tend to get "good study results" they are ignored or countered with an opposing video.. .

Thanks for the input. If I lay out ground rules, do you think it may work? Example: you actually have to listen to the audio/video lecture to discuss the specific lecture. Admittedly, I think it would not be a large group willing to make the commitment, but it may be a great discussion among those that do.

 

[reba]

In the past staff has made the mistake of letting some members kinda establish some thread rules .. lessen learned to the point this is in the TOS
2.6: A member may not impose additional rules upon threads by claiming on/off topic or by other means. Moderators will enforce only the rules as included in the ToS and are not obligated to enforce regulations promoted by a member.

 

[reba]

The Lounge which is where this thread is , is not set for heavy discussion..
"Christianity and other religions would be the better fit"... if you do decide to go forward one video at a time would be best..

 

[GodsGrace]

I confess it is unfair of me to skip over where I agree with you to zero in on other controversial statements. If you knew how much worse I use to be, you'd congratulate me for being only a partial jerk. Regardless, my apologies.

I don't mind explaining here. It is a tendency within myself - and I think I recognize it in others - to become so invested in defending my doctrinal positions and attacking opposing doctrinal positions, I lose sight of more important and higher goals. If I can destroy my opposition with arguments, but leave them damaged and shaken in their faith,then I have sacrificed a member of the Bride of Christ for my own perverse desire at all costs to "win" the debate. Somehow I do not think my Lord will look at such behavior kindly, much less with pleasure. I do not want to become so pro-Calvinism or anti-Arminianism that I cease to love my brothers and sisters in Christ. In the end, we really should simply be trying to discern the truth within the Bible, showing much love and grace to those who disagree.

I am thinking of inviting, via another thread, the discussion of 6 or 7 video lectures teaching on TULIP. When I listened to them, I thought the speaker seemed very fair to the opposing side. What do you think of the idea? (Not asking for commitment, just asking if you think such a thing would work on a forum.)

No problem for paragraph one. Just wanted to make sure you read EVERYTHING I wrote!
I agree with pp two. We're here to discuss and debate - not to tear down.
Paragraph 3 could be very interesting. I'd certainly learn a lot since I know very little of Calvinism.

Wondering

 

[Chopper]

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

I'll be happy to do that my good friend.

T - Total depravity (No one is capable of saving oneself)
U - Unconditional election (God's choosing of the saved isn't conditioned by anything in them)
L - Limited atonement (Christ's atonement is adaquate to save all people but it is efficient for God's elect only)
I - Irrestible grace (the sovereignly given gift of faith cannot be rejected by the elect)
P - Perseverance of the saints (those who are regenerated and justified will persever in the faith)

 

[Chopper]

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

Hey, that's Ok, stick with what you believe. So, you're a Reformed Armenian? Good for you!! Keep on keeping on my Brother. You are loved by our great and wonderful Savior Christ Jesus and I love you too.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Thanks for the input. If I lay out ground rules, do you think it may work? Example: you actually have to listen to the audio/video lecture to discuss the specific lecture. Admittedly, I think it would not be a large group willing to make the commitment, but it may be a great discussion among those that do.

You could always pick someone to go one on one with you in a debate.
We do have a one on one debate forum.
Then you can agree with that person about the ground rules.

 

[reba]

Thanks Rollo Tamasi i had totally forgotten 2

 

[Malachi]

T - Total depravity (No one is capable of saving oneself)

Chopper, with all due respect, it gets worse. No one is capable of responding to the Gospel without the New Birth preceding the response to the Gospel! Think about that.

 

[JLB]

I'll be happy to do that my good friend.

T - Total depravity (No one is capable of saving oneself)
U - Unconditional election (God's choosing of the saved isn't conditioned by anything in them)
L - Limited atonement (Christ's atonement is adaquate to save all people but it is efficient for God's elect only)
I - Irrestible grace (the sovereignly given gift of faith cannot be rejected by the elect)
P - Perseverance of the saints (those who are regenerated and justified will persever in the faith)

Maybe you could give the main scripture for each Letter description, and why you agree or disagree with that particular Letter definition.

Also, you seem to be very well versed in this man's doctrine, and have a slightly different interpretation, which being the general call... and the call of the elect.

Thank you in advance for your trouble.


JLB

 

[JLB]

Chopper, with all due respect, it gets worse. No one is capable of responding to the Gospel without the New Birth preceding the response to the Gospel! Think about that.

Did I read that right?

You are saying a person gets born again first, then they are able to respond to the Gospel?

Surely that's not what your saying?


JLB

 

[Malachi]

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.

These items have no bearing on the subject. For the Calvinist "limited atonement" means that Christ died only for the elect. Since Scripture makes it abundantly clear that Christ tasted death for EVERY MAN (Heb 2:9), the only conclusion is that this is a man-made doctrine (along with all five points).

The real reasons for strong opposition to Calvinism is that (1) it distorts the character of God and (2) it distorts the true Gospel. Those are very serious distortions.

 

[reba]

How i first learned anything about Calvinism...
I posted this verse in a chat room a christian chat room ..

Joh_15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

The 'owner" of the chat Poem... Said O YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE... shouting ..and locked me out... I had no idea what she was referring to.. ... I was simply posting a scripture that to me fit the discussion.. I no longer remember the how or way i got back in.. For a few days no one would tell me what ONE OF THOSE was... finally some one said the bad word Calvinist.. so i looked it up...

I never studied calvin i did read a short bio..
When considering his teachings should we also remember what was going on the the 'christian ' world of his day.?

 

[reba]

Battling over Calvin is not the OP of this thread.. Start another thread.. Admin

 

[Malachi]

Did I read that right?

You are saying a person gets born again first, then they are able to respond to the Gospel?

Surely that's not what your saying?

That's exactly what they believe. They call it "total inability". For the Calvinist "total depravity" means that sinners are so "dead" that they are totally unable to respond to the Gospel, therefore they must be regenerated first, and then believe. This ties in with irresistible grace.
http://www.gfcto.com/articles/the-doctrines-of-saving-grace/total-inability

 

[Deborah13]

I don't mind explaining here. It is a tendency within myself - and I think I recognize it in others - to become so invested in defending my doctrinal positions and attacking opposing doctrinal positions, I lose sight of more important and higher goals. If I can destroy my opposition with arguments, but leave them damaged and shaken in their faith,then I have sacrificed a member of the Bride of Christ for my own perverse desire at all costs to "win" the debate. Somehow I do not think my Lord will look at such behavior kindly, much less with pleasure. I do not want to become so pro-Calvinism or anti-Arminianism that I cease to love my brothers and sisters in Christ. In the end, we really should simply be trying to discern the truth within the Bible, showing much love and grace to those who disagree.

:nod