Calvinism: why such animosity?

[Hospes]

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

And some of us are neither.

Eh? I'm not sure how your response is a response to what I wrote. Would you understand me better if I'd written he is fair to opposing viewpoints?

 

[JohnDB]

Eh? I'm not sure how your response is a response to what I wrote. Would you understand me better if I'd written he is fair to opposing viewpoints?

A Calvinist believes that anyone not a Calvinist is an Armenian. And usually says so. Piper has stated such before on a regular basis.

But I do not hold to the views of either Jacob Arminius nor John Calvin.
I am neither.

I am by definition undefinable.
So are many. I am not alone in my opinion.
I consider it an insult to be labled on either side of this debate...

 

[Malachi]

Do you have a Scripture to validate your thinking?

Since I don't accept Calvinism, you would need to ask a Calvinist to validate that belief. The funny thing is that they really would not have a Scripture to back that up, so they would simply say "everyone is so dead that they cannot respond to the Gospel" (and then quote from Ephesians 2). To which I say that God overcomes that issue with (1) the POWER of the Gospel and (2) the POWER of the Holy Spirit to convict and convince sinners.

 

[smaller]

Since I don't accept Calvinism, you would need to ask a Calvinist to validate that belief. The funny thing is that they really would not have a Scripture to back that up, so they would simply say "everyone is so dead that they cannot respond to the Gospel" (and then quote from Ephesians 2). To which I say that God overcomes that issue with (1) the POWER of the Gospel and (2) the POWER of the Holy Spirit to convict and convince sinners.

That's pretty much the Calvinist position on that count too, fwiw.

 

[Malachi]

I am by definition undefinable. So are many. I am not alone in my opinion.

I would say the same thing. One does not need to be either a Calvinist or an Arminian, since a Biblicist should be sufficient. Jacobus Arminius accepted and believe some (if not the bulk) of the Reformed teaching of the Calvinists.

 

[OzSpen]

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

And some of us are neither.

This is not true. Do you know what an Amyraldian is? Many non-Calvinists are semi-Pelagians.

Please learn how to spell Arminian.

 

[OzSpen]

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

It's too late to tell me that John Piper doesn't misrepresent Arminians. This is one of the things about Piper that angers me - his misrepresentation of Arminians.

I have listened to enough of John Piper over the years to know that he does not have a high regard for Arminians and often misrepresents their theology. See:

• My Response to John Piper’s Comments about Arminians (Roger E Olson);
  
• John Piper Does It Again: My Response to “The Self-centeredness of Arminianism” (Roger E Olson);
  
• 'I wish John Piper understood Arminian theology' (William Birch);
  
• Why does John Piper misrepresent evangelical Arminianism?

Here is a helpful article that exposes some Arminian teaching: 10 Things I Wish Everyone Knew About Arminianism (Joseph Dongell).

I attend a church where the pastor is a TULIP, Presbyterian Calvinist. He on several occasions has misrepresented Arminianism. When I talk to him about it, he tells me that he has not read much of Arminius. Most of his Arminianism is sourced through reading Calvinistic texts (especially those recommended by his Reformed college professors) that disparage Arminianism. He doesn't go to the correct source for his information.

I have met my share of Arminians or semi-Pelagians who do something similar. They do not read Calvin to get an accurate understanding of his theology.

However, the issue here is the misrepresentation of Arminian beliefs promoted by John Piper. Therefore, I would not be prepared to engage in listening to a John Piper video to obtain his view of Arminian theology. He has already declared his hand by his promotion of false views of Arminian teachings.

Oz

 

[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.)

Southern Baptist professor of theology (George W Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University, Waco TX) and Arminian scholar, Roger E Olson, provided one of the reasons for dislike of Calvinists: 'The sole reason non-Calvinist evangelical Christians object to monergism is because it makes God the ultimate, even if indirect, cause of the reprobates’ unbelief and damnation. It does serious harm to God’s reputation' (Olson 2011:158).

Note: Monergism is 'in theology, the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration - that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration' (The Century Dictionary, p 3831. S v monergism).

Oz

Works consulted
Olson, R E 2011. Against Calvinism: Rescuing God's Reputation from Radical Reformed Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

 

[OzSpen]

Eh? I'm not sure how your response is a response to what I wrote. Would you understand me better if I'd written he is fair to opposing viewpoints?

But John Piper is not fair to Arminians. I've provided links above to demonstrate how he misrepresents Arminian theology.

 

[JohnDB]

"Not Pelagianism, not arminianism, nor Calvinism believer.....we don't belong anywhere....and very happy to be there.

No we don't want to argue our position.
No, we don't really wish to explain ourselves.
If you want to know you can research it all by yourself.... After all most Calvinists declare themselves to have a better understanding of scriptures than most. "

 

[OzSpen]

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.

I would never argue from a specific instance to the general. I gave you one sample. However, I attend an evangelical Presbyterian church and there is NO outreach evangelism done by this church. There is 'inreach' attempts at evangelism (attempts to bring the people in through a family service) but no outsiders come. It's a general problem across this Presbytery with the churches not engaging in outreach. It has become so bad at my church that a young fellow and I are planning to join an interdenominational evangelistic outreach in downtown Brisbane.

I agree with you that some famous Calvinists have been involved in evangelism and missions. I could add D James Kennedy, the founder of Evangelism Explosion, a widely used evangelistic programme. He is an evangelical Calvinist.

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

You are speaking for North America and Europe. That's not the case in Australia. The Presbyterian Church of Australia is an evangelical denomination. However, numbers are shrinking because of an absence of intensive evangelism. There is the added problem that members are getting older and dying off.

Previously the liberal Presbyterian Church in Australia joined with liberal Congregationalists and liberal Methodists to form the liberal Uniting Church that ordains homosexuals.

Oz

 

[JohnDB]

Ooh yeah....

Isn't semi-pelagian kinda like semi pregnant?

 

[OzSpen]

Ooh yeah....

Isn't semi-pelagian kinda like semi pregnant?

No!

Why don't you tell us the beliefs of semi-Pelagians?

 

[JohnDB]

No!

Why don't you tell us the beliefs of semi-Pelagians?

Dunno....
I'm not one of them. Nor do I believe in such a controlling God. Sovereign yes, but controlling no. Capable of being controlling but just doesn't.

 

[OzSpen]

Dunno....
I'm not one of them. Nor do I believe in such a controlling God. Sovereign yes, but controlling no. Capable of being controlling but just doesn't.

So are you saying you are not interested in knowing the beliefs of semi-Pelagians?

 

[JohnDB]

So are you saying you are not interested in knowing the beliefs of semi-Pelagians?

Oh I understand them....but since I'm not one I really have no standing to speak for them. I'll let those who believe in such speak for themselves.

 

[OzSpen]

Oh I understand them....but since I'm not one I really have no standing to speak for them. I'll let those who believe in such speak for themselves.

Of course you have a standing to investigate this theology if you want to determine if semi-Pelagianism is orthodox Christianity or a heresy. See 'Semi-Pelagianism' (New World Encyclopedia).

This relates to the OP. If many Arminians are labelled as semi-Pelagians, what is their view of God in relation to the initiation of salvation? Turn the coin with supralapsarian Calvinists and their view of the nature of God.

Oz

 

[Hospes]

A Calvinist believes that anyone not a Calvinist is an Armenian. And usually says so. Piper has stated such before on a regular basis.

I thought I was pretty familiar with Piper, yet I don't recall him saying this. Would you do me the favor of citing a couple of times he has from the times he does "on a regular basis"? Thank you.

But I do not hold to the views of either Jacob Arminius nor John Calvin.
I am neither.
I am by definition undefinable.
So are many. I am not alone in my opinion.
I consider it an insult to be labled on either side of this debate...

An insult to be labeled either! By definition undefinable! You truly do occupy a place of high honor, above all us rubes and the church fathers who accepted such labels. (Tongue in cheek. )

Oh I understand them....but since I'm not one I really have no standing to speak for them. I'll let those who believe in such speak for themselves.

Truly a good practice. I'm thinking if you'd extend the courtesy to someone, maybe a Calvinist, who specifically asked that their "thread not devolve into debating for/against TULIP."

 

[Hospes]

It's too late to tell me that John Piper doesn't misrepresent Arminians. This is one of the things about Piper that angers me - his misrepresentation of Arminians.

I have listened to enough of John Piper over the years to know that he does not have a high regard for Arminians and often misrepresents their theology. See:

• My Response to John Piper’s Comments about Arminians (Roger E Olson);
  
• John Piper Does It Again: My Response to “The Self-centeredness of Arminianism” (Roger E Olson);
  
• 'I wish John Piper understood Arminian theology' (William Birch);
  
• Why does John Piper misrepresent evangelical Arminianism?

Here is a helpful article that exposes some Arminian teaching: 10 Things I Wish Everyone Knew About Arminianism (Joseph Dongell).

I attend a church where the pastor is a TULIP, Presbyterian Calvinist. He on several occasions has misrepresented Arminianism. When I talk to him about it, he tells me that he has not read much of Arminius. Most of his Arminianism is sourced through reading Calvinistic texts (especially those recommended by his Reformed college professors) that disparage Arminianism. He doesn't go to the correct source for his information.

I have met my share of Arminians or semi-Pelagians who do something similar. They do not read Calvin to get an accurate understanding of his theology.

However, the issue here is the misrepresentation of Arminian beliefs promoted by John Piper. Therefore, I would not be prepared to engage in listening to a John Piper video to obtain his view of Arminian theology. He has already declared his hand by his promotion of false views of Arminian teachings.

Sorry to hear he angers you. Curious as to which of Piper's books you have read to cause such a reaction.

I do appreciate the sources. I will look at them.

What do you think of Piper's presentation of Calvinism? The point of the videos is much more about explaining TULIP and only incidentally addresses Arminianism.

 

[Hospes]

I have listened to enough of John Piper over the years to know that he does not have a high regard for Arminians and often misrepresents their theology. See:

• My Response to John Piper’s Comments about Arminians (Roger E Olson);
  
• John Piper Does It Again: My Response to “The Self-centeredness of Arminianism” (Roger E Olson);
  
• 'I wish John Piper understood Arminian theology' (William Birch);
  
• Why does John Piper misrepresent evangelical Arminianism?

Here is a helpful article that exposes some Arminian teaching: 10 Things I Wish Everyone Knew About Arminianism (Joseph Dongell).

Oz, one down!

I read the first Olsen article and then listened to the seven minute Piper audio clip to which is he is responding with the article. Did you really think the Olsen article was much more than questioning of Piper's credentials, followed by explaining why Calvinist have problems with performing exegesis well, ending with an argument why C.S.Lewis was Arminian. This was all in response to a very civil audio in which Piper said he had found Arminian writers not influential due to their exegesis of scripture. In the audio, Piper praises G.K. Chesterton, John and Charles Wesley, and George McDonald - all non-Calvinists.

So what we have so far is you think Piper misrepresents Arminianism because he said he has not found the exegesis of the Arminian writers he has read very compelling. Doesn't seem like a reason to get too worked up.

I sure hope the rest of your citations are better at making your point, because that first one was weak at best.

Just curious, did you listen to the audio clip by Piper?