Calvinism: why such animosity?

[Jim Parker]

Being against flawed theological positions doesn't equate it to being against a person.

Thank you.

 

[JLB]

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

Ok. I thought that is what you believe.

You are saying this is one of the "beliefs" of John Calvin, and those who follow Calvinism?


JLB

 

[reba]

 

[JohnDB]

Control over the framing of the questions,
Then wanting to control how the opposing side may answer...
Then false accusations for any who disagree....

Pretty much most Calvinists deserve the animosity they ask for when discussing this theology that Jesus denounced as false.

 

[OzSpen]

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.

Those of us who know historical theology know that. Also, the theologies of the Calvinism-Arminianism debate were around long before Calvin and then TULIP (Canons of the Council of Dort), 1618-1619.

Free will issues were debated by the church fathers at the time of the Pelagius-Augustine controversy in the 4th-5th centuries. See also: 'Calvinism: Free will & early church'.

 

[JohnDB]

Those of us who know historical theology know that. Also, the theologies of the Calvinism-Arminianism debate were around long before Calvin and then TULIP (Canons of the Council of Dort), 1618-1619.

Free will issues were debated by the church fathers at the time of the Pelagius-Augustine controversy in the 4th-5th centuries. See also: 'Calvinism: Free will & early church'.

Actually long before that even. "Who sinned?" Is the reference to the debate alongside same lines as Calvinism.

 

[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.)

There's another reason why there is some hostility towards Calvinism (it also happens by Calvinists towards Arminians also):

• Some see the God of Calvinism as being unjust. He damned the whole of humanity through original sin, but only provided the opportunity of salvation to ‘some’ of humanity whom he saved through unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace.
  
• This seems to make God into an impartial, unjust being who doesn’t care for the whole of humanity, but only for the damnation of all of humanity through original sin.
• This impartiality is seen especially in John Calvin's support for double predestination (predestination to salvation and damnation). See the article,
  Did John Calvin believe in double predestination?

Just some thoughts on this topic from a fellow traveller.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Actually long before that even. "Who sinned?" Is the reference to the debate alongside same lines as Calvinism.

I was referring to church history - after the passion-resurrection of Jesus. Where do we find Calvinistic teaching in the church fathers before Augustine? Was there Arminian-type theology around prior to and after Augustine?

Oz

 

[JohnDB]

I was referring to church history - after the passion-resurrection of Jesus. Where do we find Calvinistic teaching in the church fathers before Augustine? Was there Arminian-type theology around prior to and after Augustine?

Oz

Yes. that is where he got the ideas from.

Bethmidrash was the theological debate education section equivalent to our secondary to post secondary education. They would debate the elements of the Law and other theologies according to the scriptures. They also would work on memorizing the rest of history and prophetic books.

Telmadeem were the "graduates" who were now on the Rabbinical track. (Doctorate work)

But essentially the same parameters of Calvinism were debated in Beth midrash.

The "man born blind" is the story in John which shows both sides of the debate and those so caught up in the debate that they "missed" the miracle.

But most of the early church Fathers usually spent more time on millennial reign discussions.

 

[OzSpen]

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.

An Armenian is a person from Armenia.

I am a Reformed Arminian in my doctrine of salvation (soteriology).

What you said doesn't deal with the issues I raised, but that's OK with me if that is the way you want to go in a discussion. There's nothing further to discuss.

Oz

 

[Chopper]

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.

If you're saying that no one can respond to the responsibilities of the Gospel, I agree. If you are saying that a person has to have had a New Birth experience before responding to the Gospel, I disagree. Do you have a Scripture to validate your thinking?

 

[OzSpen]

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.)

Who is the speaker?

I would like to see Arminians taken seriously by Calvinists. That has not been my experience.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I think calvinists view their outlook as more intellectual and/or sophisticated and also more true to the Gospel than Arminianism. That's been my very limited experience, at least, dealing with those who love actually reading calvin.

 

[smaller]

These items have no bearing on the subject. For the Calvinist "limited atonement" means that Christ died only for the elect.

And Calvin was clearly, openly wrong on that count. I gave the example earlier of Romans 11:25-32, showing that even enemies of the Gospel are saved, all of them, as it pertains to unbelieving Israel. They are saved on account of the fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. There is a substantial basis of why this is so. They are termed, believer and unbeliever alike, "children of God" in the O.T. Deut. 14:1 and Psalm 82:6 for quick reference, but it's in other scriptures as well. All having ONE Heavenly Father for another example, by Jesus in Matt. 23:9, which makes them Gods children.

Freewill double deals the atonement in any case. Even when they say it is atonement for ALL people, it is basically ineffectual atonement. So, they too LIMIT it's effect, openly, where it is basically worthless unless one believes. The unbeliever, by their unbelief, makes the atonement meaningless in most freewill equations.

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).

Freewillers are no different in this regards, so it's hardly something new with Calvin or determinism.

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.

I think Calvin was spot on with predestination and election for the most part. We really don't know "why" any person believes. Freewillers don't handle these scriptures very well. They say everyone is predestined to believe, but they have to believe or they are not predestined. Again, a bit of double dealing or circular logic on the subject matter, imho. Not unusual though on a lot of subjects in freewill land.

 

[OzSpen]

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

I agree, reba. I would not interact if watching a video was necessary as a prerequisite. I find it better to present the case with writing and then ask for responses.

 

[OzSpen]

I think calvinists view their outlook as more intellectual and/or sophisticated and also more true to the Gospel than Arminianism. That's been my very limited experience, at least, dealing with those who love actually reading calvin.

However, as a long time reader of Arminius, I do not find him intellectually inferior to Calvin. In fact, Arminius died at the young age of 49 and I'm given to understand that it was related to the stresses associated with the disputations associated with his theological position.

New World Encyclopedia states:

Arminius and his followers believed that a national synod should meet to win tolerance for their views. His opponents, resisting any changes to the strict Calvinist confessions of the Dutch Reformed Church, maintained the authority of local synods and denied the necessity of a national convention. When the Dutch State General finally called together both parties, Arminius' opponents—led by fellow professor Franciscus Gomarus—accused him of errors regarding the doctrine of grace, the authority of scripture, the Trinity, original sin, and salvation. Arminius not only denied the charges, but argued that his views were more compatible with Calvin's than were those of his opponents.

While Arminius was acquitted of any doctrinal error, the process left him terribly weak. Still seeking to win legal tolerance for his views, he accepted an invitation of the State General to a "friendly conference" with Gomarus but his health caused the conference to end prematurely. Two months later, on October 19, 1609, Jacobus Arminius died (2013. S v Jacob Arminius).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

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

Malachi,

That's also related to the Calvinistic view that regeneration precedes faith. I have addressed this issue in, Does regeneration precede faith?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

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.

I'm not a Calvinist, but I don't expect them to agree with you that TULIP is a man-made doctrine. I consider that a good case can be made biblically for total depravity and perseverance of the saints. But that is off topic.

Are you suggesting that hostility towards Calvinism is related to points (1) and (2) that you made?

Oz

 

[Hospes]

Who is the speaker?

I would like to see Arminians taken seriously by Calvinists. That has not been my experience.

John Piper. If you make the effort to listen to him, I'd like to hear if and how he misrepresents Arminianism.
http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/tulip-2013-part-1

 

[JohnDB]

John Piper. If you make the effort to listen to him, I'd like to hear if and how he misrepresents Arminianism.
http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/tulip-2013-part-1

Well to start with any who aren't a Calvinist is an Armenian.

And some of us are neither.