Is Calvinism of the Bible?

[Drew]

Hello stranger:

I am a little unclear as to what you are saying about Romans 9.

Yes, Paul mentions individuals. But this does not justify a conclusion that the text is making a theological statement about the predestination of individuals unto salvation or loss. The context, although most people miss this, is God's faithfulness to the covenant, and specifically how He has treated national Israel. Paul uses God's "passing by" of Esau and His hardening of Pharaoh as representative examples of how He has the right to intervene in history in service of the covenant. This is not about election of people unto salvation and loss - the overall context strongly argues against that.

What is Pharoah's hardening all about anyway? It is about God using Pharoah to set up a great redemptive act on the part of God - the delivery of the Jews out of Israel. The reference to Pharoah appears right before the famour potter's account. Contextually and logically, the reader has been set up to expect a further elaboration on how God uses people (or nations) in service of specific redemptive purposes in the grand plan. It would be very strange form indeed for Paul to suddenly dive into the theology of the salvation of individuals.

Given what the hardening of Pharoah is all about - God using people in his plan of redemption - and given the overall context, it makes far more sense to see the potter's account as being about God's using national Israel as an instrument in God's grand redemptive plan than to see this as a statement about individuals being predestined or elected.

How does Fred's election to life and Joe's election to loss have anything to do with God's redemptive plan?

How does Fred's election to life and Joe's election to loss have anything to do with God's treatment of Israel within the covenant, which is what chapters 9 and 10 are all about.

There are a number of other arguments as to why Romans 9 has nothing to do with the election of individuals.

 

[handy]

Hi Drew,

I'm not going to go into whether or not the Calvinistic interpretation of these verses is correct or incorrect. Clearly, they are still up for debate, as are interpretations of just about every verse in Scripture.

But, Biblereader asked if Calvinism is Biblical or even Christian, and my response is say "yes" and "yes". Biblical in the sense that the doctrines were formed by the study and interpretation of Scriptures by someone who embraces God. Christian in the sense that the God they embrace is clearly the God of Scripture.

I brought up Mormonism. Mormonism is an example of a non-Christian religion. Even though the language of Mormonism is pretty much the same as the language of Christianity (i.e.: Jesus, Son of God, Heavenly Father, atonement, redemption) a careful look into the Mormon definition of the language will show that Mormonism teaches an anti-Biblical religion. They even have a couple of little books on hand to try to reconcile their totally anti-Biblical beliefs with the Bible. Oh, they'll say the Bible was inspired, but it was also corrupted and you need the works of Joseph Smith to set things right.

This isn't the case with Calvinism. The differences between Calvinists and Armenians are pretty much the same as the differences between Baptists and Lutherans, or the Assemblies of God and the Church of the Nazarene: in house debates over how to interpret God's word and apply it to our lives. One can even extend this to traditionalists and liberal Christians. A lot of times, we can erase many of the differences that divide us with the simple question of "Who do you say Jesus Christ is?" It's the answer to THAT question that delineates the Christian from the non-Christian.

I've never been of the mind-set that these differences of opinion are necessarily a bad thing, but it is bad when someone refuses to even recognize the Christianity of someone who disagrees. And, while the term "hyper-Calvinist" is labeled upon those within Calvinistic doctrine who take things to an unhealthy extreme, the term "hyper" can be applied to just about anyone holding to an extreme view of their own doctrine. I was once accused by a "hyper-Pentecostal" of not being a Christian because I didn't speak in tongues. Pentecostals who are better educated in their own doctrines would be the first to step up and correct that fallacy. Just as Calvinist who are well grounded in their own doctrines will be the first to correct fallacies such as there being no point in evangelism, or even Godly living and that man has no responsibilities regarding his own salvation.

The myth that Calvinism reduces man to apathy was even posted in this very thread. I find it ironic that folks still hold to that tired old charge, even after it was a Calvinist pastor who developed Evangelism Explosion and led one of the first and still largest “mega-churches†in American. As if Apathy can take a congregation from 45 people to over 5000 in just 13 years which is what happened at Coral Ridge Presbyterian.

So, while Calvinistic doctrine is up for debate, the Christianity of Calvinists isn’t. Or shouldn’t be at any rate.

 

[Biblereader]

I will dig up my reply to my relative, about tulip, and reply to you soon.
As for calvinism, it is not grounded in biblical truth.

Answer this:
Since God does all the pre-choosing of who will go to Heaven,
why does God do all the pre-choosing of who will burn in torment, suffering forever,
in the lake of fire?

This IS what one of the bottom lines of calvinism is.

Why does Jesus say, whosoever WILL, let him come....
instead of, my chosen ones, with no will of their own, must come....

Do you believe God created you as a person who will be held accountable for your life,
your choices?
Before and after being born again?

Why does the bible say: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Notice the "IF", which clearly means there is a choice going on, WHILE the person is being CALLED to salvation, by grace, through faith.

 

[Biblereader]

The above is a reply to this post, from handyman.

By the way, where my post was, was equally appropriate.

by handy on Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:51 am
Thank you Vic, for moving the topic to an appropriate venue.

Is Calvinism of the Bible?

Yes. Can you tell me even one petal on the TULIP that isn't based upon Scripture?

Let's see:
Total Depravity
Romans 5:12
Mark 4:11-12
Ephesians 2:1-5
Unconditional Election
Romans 9:10-24
Ephesians 1:4-8
Limited Atonement
John 17:9
Matthew 26:28
Ephesians 5:25
John 6:37
Irresistible Grace
John 6:37
John 6:44
Romans 8:14
1 Peter 5:10
Preservation of the Saints
Romans 8:28-39
Philippians 1:16
John 6:39

Hmmmm, can't come up with one that doesn't have Scripture as it's basis.

 

[handy]

Bibleman, I exhort you not to fall into the trap of thinking just because someone interprets Scripture differently than you do, that makes them "not grounded in Biblical truth". Mormonism isn't grouded in Biblical truth, as they add their own books to declare their beliefs that go against Scripture. Jehovah's Witness isn't grounded in Biblical truth, as they actually rewrote the Bible to say what they want it to say. Oneness Pentecostalism isn't grounded in Scriptures, because they deny the essential truth of Who God is that the Scriptures teach.

Calvinism worships the one true God, and revere His Word as divinely inspired. They neither rewrite nor add to the Scriptures. The difference between a Calvinist and what you believe is that you interpret certain Scriptures one way, and Calvinists interpret them a different way. You sincerely believe the way you have interpreted the Scriptures is the Truth. Well, so do they. So there's a disagreement. Happens in the best of families.

Don't pull out any lengthly arguements regarding TULIP on my account. I've already said that I don't agree with the Calvinistic POV regarding anything other than the Preservation of the Saints. ( I waffle a bit about Irresistable Grace. I do think that God will draw those whom He wills to Himself. I just don't think that it's done in the manner that Calvinists do.)

But, you are acting as though your relative has joined some hell-bound cult and is soon to take tainted Kool-Aid instead of wine for communion. This is why I think you should go to church with him and take a stab at overcoming some of your own prejudices.

What I think I might do, just to be onery, and just to try to get some folks around here to rethink their own prejudices is to quote some famous Christian teachers. Y'all can decide if the teacher is of God or barking up the wrong tree. You can also guess whether or not the teacher is Calvinist or not. Maybe you might find that there is a wealth of great Christian teachings in the Calvinist tradition.

And, I'm going to do this right here on this thread, as the thread wasn't set up with the idea of discussing specific Calvinistic doctrines and holding them to the light of Scriptures, but rather with the idea that Calvinism is not only not Biblical, it's not even Christian. If Calvinism isn't Christian, then there can be no good thing that comes out of the tradition, for it is Biblical truth that we will be known by our fruits and one cannot get good fruit from a bad tree.

 

[handy]

OK, so here's the challenge: Below are some quotes from the sermons and writings of Christian teachers, both historical and contemporary. AT LEAST ONE IS A CALVINIST. Can you guess which one it is? (There may or may not be more than one Calvinist on the list.) But, if the premise is that Calvinism is not Biblical and not even Christian, surely it would be simple to detect the twisting of God's truths in a Calvinist's writings.

Here goes:

What think you about the person of Christ? "Whose Son is he?" This is the question our Lord put to the Pharisees in the words following the text; and never was it more necessary to repeat this question than in these last days. For numbers that are called after the name of Christ, and I fear, many that pretend to preach him, are so far advanced in the blasphemous chair, as openly to deny his being really, truly, and properly God. But no one that ever was partaker of his Spirit, will speak thus lightly of him. No; if they are asked, as Peter and his brethren were, "But whom say ye that I am?" they will reply without hesitation, "Thou art Christ the Son of the ever-living God." For the confession of our Lord's divinity, is the rock upon which he builds his church. Was it possible to take this away, the gates of hell would quickly prevail against it. My brethren, if Jesus Christ be not very God of very God, I would never preach the gospel of Christ again. For it would not be gospel; it would be only a system of moral ethics. Seneca, Cicero, or any of the Gentile philosophers, would be as good a Savior as Jesus of Nazareth. It is the divinity of our Lord that gives a sanction to his death, and makes him such a high-priest as became us, one who by the infinite mercies of his suffering could make a full, perfect sufficient sacrifice, satisfaction and oblation to infinitely offended justice.

My soul, search thyself this morning, and see whether thou art guilty of double-dealing. Thou professest to be a follower of Jesusâ€â€dost thou truly love Him? Is thy heart right with God? Art thou of the family of old Father Honest, or art thou a relative of Mr. By-ends? A name to live is of little value if I be indeed dead in trespasses and sins. To have one foot on the land of truth, and another on the sea of falsehood, will involve a terrible fall and a total ruin. Christ will be all or nothing. God fills the whole universe, and hence there is no room for another god; if, then, He reigns in my heart, there will be no space for another reigning power. Do I rest alone on Jesus crucified, and live alone for Him? Is it my desire to do so? Is my heart set upon so doing? If so, blessed be the mighty grace which has led me to salvation; and if not so, O Lord, pardon my sad offence, and unite my heart to fear Thy name.

The very reason why Christians are put in the position of giving a reasoned account of the hope that is in them is that not all men have faith. Because there is a world to be evangelized (men who are unconverted), there is the need for the believer to defend his faith: Evangelism naturally brings one into apologetics. This indicates that apologetics is no mere matter of "intellectual jousting"; it is a serious matter of life and death - eternal life and death. The apologist who fails to take account of the evangelistic nature of his argumentation is both cruel and proud. Cruel because he overlooks the deepest need of his opponent and proud because he is more concerned to demonstrate that he is no academic fool that to show how all glory belongs to the gracious God of all truth. Evangelism reminds us of who we are (sinners saved by grace) and what our opponents need (conversion of heart, not simply modified propositions).

What is the reason that former times were called dark times (and so they were), the times of popery a dark age? Christ was veiled, the gospel was veiled, there was no preaching of salvation by Christ alone, people were sent to stocks and stones, and to saints, and instead of the word, they were sent to legends and such things. Christ was obscured, thereupon they were dark ages. Those ages wherein the Spirit of God is most, is where Christ is most preached, and people are best always where there is most Spirit; and they are most joyful and comfortable and holy, where Christ is truly laid open to the hearts of people. The preaching of mere morality, if men be not careful to open Christ, to know how salvation is wrought by Christ, and how all good comes by Christ, it will never make a man perfectly good and fit him for heaven. It may make a man reform many abuses, like a philosopher, which has its reward and respect amongst men, but nothing to give comfort at the hour of death and the day of judgment. Only that whereby the Spirit is conveyed, is the knowledge and preaching of Christ in his state and offices.

God certainly desires nothing more than for those who are perishing and rushing toward death to return to the way of safety. This is why the gospel is today proclaimed throughout the world, for God wished to testify to all the ages that he is greatly inclined to pity.

That is something that the Church of our day needs to take to heart. Life, according to the New Testament, is founded upon truth; and the attempt to reverse the order results only in despair and in spiritual death. Let us not deceive ourselves. Christian experience is necessary to evangelism; but evangelism does not consist merely in the rehearsal of what has happened in the evangelist's own soul. We shall, indeed, be but poor witnesses for Christ if we can tell only what Christ has done for the world or for the Church and cannot tell what He has done personally for us. But we shall also be poor witnesses if we recount only the experiences of our own lives. Christian evangelism does not consist merely in a man's going about the world saying: "Look at me, what a wonderful experience I have, how happy I am, what wonderful Christian virtues I exhibit; you can all be as good and as happy as I am if you will just make a complete surrender of your wills in obedience to what I say." That is what many religious workers seem to think that evangelism is. We can preach the gospel, they tell us, by our lives, and do not need to preach it by our words. But they are wrong. Men are not saved by the exhibition of our glorious Christian virtues; they are not saved by the contagion of our experiences. We cannot be the instruments of God in saving them if we preach to them thus only ourselves. Nay, we must preach to them the Lord Jesus Christ; for it is only through the gospel which sets Him forth that they can be saved.

 

[stranger]

Hello stranger:

I am a little unclear as to what you are saying about Romans 9.

Yes, Paul mentions individuals. But this does not justify a conclusion that the text is making a theological statement about the predestination of individuals unto salvation or loss. The context, although most people miss this, is God's faithfulness to the covenant, and specifically how He has treated national Israel. Paul uses God's "passing by" of Esau and His hardening of Pharaoh as representative examples of how He has the right to intervene in history in service of the covenant. This is not about election of people unto salvation and loss - the overall context strongly argues against that.

What is Pharoah's hardening all about anyway? It is about God using Pharoah to set up a great redemptive act on the part of God - the delivery of the Jews out of Israel. The reference to Pharoah appears right before the famour potter's account. Contextually and logically, the reader has been set up to expect a further elaboration on how God uses people (or nations) in service of specific redemptive purposes in the grand plan. It would be very strange form indeed for Paul to suddenly dive into the theology of the salvation of individuals.

Given what the hardening of Pharoah is all about - God using people in his plan of redemption - and given the overall context, it makes far more sense to see the potter's account as being about God's using national Israel as an instrument in God's grand redemptive plan than to see this as a statement about individuals being predestined or elected.

How does Fred's election to life and Joe's election to loss have anything to do with God's redemptive plan?

How does Fred's election to life and Joe's election to loss have anything to do with God's treatment of Israel within the covenant, which is what chapters 9 and 10 are all about.

There are a number of other arguments as to why Romans 9 has nothing to do with the election of individuals.

Drew,

Short response: by normal custom Esau the elder or firstborn was to receive the inheritance - but God chose Jacob. At this stage we are dealing with individuals in the context of God working out His promise to Abraham. What I am saying is this: Paul talks about individuals BUT then he (Paul) draws a few conclusions. Paul's argument is quite specific (which I will get into in a more detailed response to your post) about Jacob, Esau, Pharoah and Moses, and then he draws a conclusion:
18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

What I am saying is this - in verse 18 Paul is drawing a general conclusion about God based on the examples he has just used. He has moved from specific to general. The important focus is now upon God not the object of whom God chooses.

How often have you heard the exact argument many on this forum use to criticise predestination - it is astounding, is it not, that Paul answers that argument:

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?

Does verse 19 sound familar to you? Are you not hearing the same questions and objections that Paul deals with? This is central to the whole controversy and so deserves more detailed treatment than I have time for right now, so I shall endeavour to get back to you.




in the many responses that

It seems that folks are not content with Paul's answer - they want to know more than has been revealed.

 

[Biblereader]

Handy, please answer all of these questions, below, based on your calvinistic beliefs.
Don't try to derail the conversation by posting a little test.
Stick to the subject.
Please answer the questions I posed, below.

Answer this:
Since God does all the pre-choosing of who will go to Heaven,
why does God do all the pre-choosing of who will burn in torment, suffering forever,
in the lake of fire?

This IS what one of the bottom lines of calvinism is.

Why does Jesus say, whosoever WILL, let him come....
instead of, my chosen ones, with no will of their own, must come....

Do you believe God created you as a person who will be held accountable for your life,
your choices?
Before and after being born again?

Why does the bible say: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Notice the "IF", which clearly means there is a choice going on, WHILE the person is being CALLED to salvation, by grace, through faith.

 

[Biblereader]

Handy said: But, you are acting as though your relative has joined some hell-bound cult and is soon to take tainted Kool-Aid instead of wine for communion.

Using ad hominen tactics is just too funny.
Stay on course, and answer the questions, one at a time, that I've politely asked
you.
I never gave any indication that I believe my relative is about to engage in any such
activities which you've mentioned.
Stay on topic, handy, and answer the questions.
Thank you.

 

[Biblereader]

handy says:
it would be simple to detect the twisting of God's truths in a Calvinist's writings.

biblereader replies:
I'll bet you didn't know Calvin believed in infant baptism.

That act, for one instance in being unbiblical, is commonly known about Calvin.
I wonder why he believed in paedo baptism?
Not in the bible......hmmm......

 

[handy]

Biblereader,

I think I'm going to drop out of this discussion for the basic reason that you are not reading my posts. You seem to be just scanning them to pull out things to disagree with.

biblereader replies:
I'll bet you didn't know Calvin believed in infant baptism.

Yes, I knew that. How on earth do you think I could have been in the Presbyterian Church for as long as I did without knowing that they teach infant baptism? Calvinist churches to this day practice infant baptism and will point you to the Scriptures that explain why they do so. However, I don't agree with their interpretation those texts and have not nor will not practice infant baptism. It's one of the reasons why I left the Calvinist denominations.

Handy, please answer all of these questions, below, based on your calvinistic beliefs.

This is why I'm dropping out. I didn't answer your questions because, as I've said once and then repeated, I don't agree with Calvinistic doctrine:

Now, one can disagree with the interpretations that the Calvinists apply to the above verses. After years of study on these key doctrines, I've come to different conclusions on just about every point exept the preservation of the Saints. (Which differs greatly from "Once saved, always saved".)

Don't pull out any lengthly arguements regarding TULIP on my account. I've already said that I don't agree with the Calvinistic POV regarding anything other than the Preservation of the Saints. ( I waffle a bit about Irresistable Grace. I do think that God will draw those whom He wills to Himself. I just don't think that it's done in the manner that Calvinists do.)

One last time, I don't agree with the Calvinistic doctrines as taught by the TULIP. However, I also vehemetly disagree with anyone who out right states:

Vic, Calvinism is not Christianity, but, some people believe it is.

Don't try to derail the conversation by posting a little test.
Stick to the subject.

Is not the 'subject' of this thread whether or not Calvinism is of the Bible? Whether or not Calvinism is Christian? The little test is well within the conversation as you are the one who said that Calvinism isn't Christianity or Biblical. The test is to show what great Christianity can be found within the Calvinistic tradition. To say that Calvinism is NOT Christian is to deny the Christanity of men like Charles Spurgeon (#2 on my test) and George Whitefield (#1). In my little 'test', all the quotes are from Calvinistic theologians. #5 being quoted from John Calvin himself.

Biblereader, if you had set this conversation as a discussion on the theology of Calvinism and whether is it correct when viewed in the light of all Scripture, I would be taking a different track and actually be agreeing with you. I believe pretty much the same as you do. But you didn't. You set this in the realm of Calvinism not being Christian. And you are wrong about that.

 

[handy]

Handy said: But, you are acting as though your relative has joined some hell-bound cult and is soon to take tainted Kool-Aid instead of wine for communion.

Using ad hominen tactics is just too funny.

Fair enough, although sincerely, I didn't mean for that to come off as an ad hominen attack, but rather as an exaggeration to get a point across. However, you are correct, you didn't give that impression at all.

 

[Vic C.]

Yes, I knew that. How on earth do you think I could have been in the Presbyterian Church for as long as I did without knowing that they teach infant baptism? Calvinist churches to this day practice infant baptism and will point you to the Scriptures that explain why they do so. However, I don't agree with their interpretation those texts and have not nor will not practice infant baptism. It's one of the reasons why I left the Calvinist denominations.

Many of the Reformers held to the practice of infant baptism. Luther certainly did. They still practice it today. Is Lutherism not Biblical either? I wouldn't go there.

Handy, I'm in agreement with you. My contention has never been that Calvinism isn't Biblical and I'd NEVER say or think they are not Christian. My bone of contention has always been a matter of interpretation in light of Biblical and historical context, going all the way back to Genesis.

Biblereader, you posted this:

Answer this:
Since God does all the pre-choosing of who will go to Heaven, why does God do all the pre-choosing of who will burn in torment, suffering forever, in the lake of fire?

This IS what one of the bottom lines of calvinism is.

Why does Jesus say, whosoever WILL, let him come... instead of, my chosen ones, with no will of their own, must come....

Do you believe God created you as a person who will be held accountable for your life,
your choices? Before and after being born again?

Why does the bible say: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Notice the "IF", which clearly means there is a choice going on, WHILE the person is being CALLED to salvation, by grace, through faith.

Good, you quoted some scripture. To be fair and balanced, please provide scriptural backing for all your questions. I think that's only fair. Then, they can be compared to the scriptural references Handy provided. Until then I doubt any Calvinist would waste their time defending their beliefs.

I wish they would though; it would make for a much more interesting discussion.

 

[lovely]

Hi Biblereader,

Biblereader wrote:

Vic, Calvinism is not Christianity, but, some people believe it is.

Because of this statement, I also had the impression that you believed your family member to be joining a cult of some kind. I apologize if I misunderstood your meaning.

Reformed Baptists do not believe in infant baptism, but are still considered Calvinists. I think Calvinism, like every other denomination in the world, has some flaws, but they are most certainly part of Christianity. I attended a Reformed Baptist Church for five years, and I still only think of them as my brothers and sisters in Christ even in my points of disagreement. We studied the Bible expositionally, not Calvin...not even the Tulip. We also believed in sharing the Gospel through support of missions, through families, and through individuals. Jesus commands us to go and be a light to all nations, and Calvinists hold to this as well.

I think it is best to encourage your family member to study the Word with the aid of the Holy Spirit, and to put the Word of God above EVERY denominational teaching of man as a rule. We should all be very careful to do this. The Lord bless you.

 

[stovebolts]

Hello Biblereader,
In reply to my post back on page one, you wrote;

Yes, the calvin view of pre election does matter.
It reduces man to apathy, and blaming God for who goes to hell,
and for who is tempted.

Calvinists say, why bother to witness to someone? God will draw them irresistably, anyways, when their time comes.

I understand, and share your frustration toward this view and I was not inferring the view did not matter, but rather to go beyond the view to the reality. You see, in reality, the hyper Calvinistic view has no bearing on your salvation, but rather how our Lord is presented to those that do not hold the knowledge or understanding that you do.

For me, when I read scripture there are certainly those that are of the elect and those that are, or were pre-destined, while other’s simply aren’t. Where the argument comes in (the view) is when we distort these views to bolster our own position from within the kingdom of heaven. Take for example when Jesus washed the disciple’s feet (John 13). Jesus, as an example came to serve and not to be served. The apostles, and certainly Peter didn’t quite understand this point as they were jostling for a higher position within the kingdom.

When we lose sight of this, then I believe it leads us to the kind of thinking Paul described to Timothy.
2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they draw to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Imagine the humility it took to have the Son of God wash your feet, yet this is the example Christ set forth. Now, if we want to serve, we must act as servants and by doing so, we can lead many to Christ, but it starts with us (2 Peter 1:3-10)

James says,
3:8-10 But no human being can subdue the tongue; it is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse people made in God’s image. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. These things should not be so, my brothers and sisters.

When we start believing that God created people in his own image for the sole purpose of tormenting them in hell, then not only have we skewed scripture for our own gain, but we have denied Christ to the lost and suffering when in fact, God is the God of the oppressed. So then, you may ask, “How is my friend suffering with his bold, Calvinistic statementsâ€Â. To which I would reply, He suffers because he is in bondage to sin by his own desires to bolster his position within the kingdom and is being yoked with a Burdon that he construes as freedom.


I’ll end my post with a quote from Paul to his beloved child Timothy,
2 Timothy 2:19-21 Nevertheless the foundation of God stands sure, having this seal, The Lord knows them that are his. And, Let every one that names the name of Christ depart from iniquity. But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honor, and some to dishonor. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and fit for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

Point in case, I believe that there are those who follow Christ within Calvinistic teachings as there are those within the Roman Catholic Church that also belong to Christ... enough said.

 

[Biblereader]

When we start believing that God created people in his own image for the sole purpose of tormenting them in hell, then not only have we skewed scripture for our own gain,....

this is one of the points I'm getting at. Calvinism DOES believe that only a certain amount of people were pre-elected. So, that means the rest of the humans, whom God created in His image, are
going to hell.
According to Calvin, either you are pre-destinated to go to heaven, and can't resist when God draws you to salvation, through irresistable grace, as they call it,
OR, if God does NOT draw you, then you haven't got a chance of making it into Heaven.
So, according to their man-made philosophy, God indeed sends people straight to hell.
My own relative agreed with that!!!
Calvinists say it, not me, which is why I won't support their claims with scripture, because there
aren't any scriptures to support God purposely sending people to hell.

Now, handy, that's why I titled the post "Is Calvinism of the Bible", because it can't possibly BE,
since the bottom line philosophy is anti-bible, anti-Jesus, anti-responsibility for your choice when your accept or reject Jesus.
Calvinists say man has NO part in being born again, no part in salvation. They consider you to be making yourself out to be higher than God, if you say you have a choice that has to be made, when Jesus calls you.
Am I making myself clear?
I hope so.
This religion is wonky, and the believers are blindly devoted, in a cultish sort of way, to his teachings, dismissing or avoiding the myriad of verses in the bible that have to do with PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

 

[handy]

You're making yourself clear enough Biblereader.

The problem is that Calvinists don't teach even half of what you've posted there. I don't know if your relative is 'hyper-Calvinist' or new to Calvinism and simply doesn't understand a lot of the doctrine, or if you aren't understanding what your relative is trying to say about it. All I know is that you've extrapolated Calvinist doctrines to extremes that have nothing to do with what is preached and taught in Calvinist churches or universities.

Any church's doctrine can be brought to the same kind of unBiblical extreme's that you've applied to Calvinism. I've heard it said that those who believe in Free-Will don't believe in the sovereignty of God. I've heard that those who believe in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit don't believe you will go to heaven unless you speak in tongues. (I was told that by a Pentecostal once, that I was going to hell because I didn't speak in tongues.)

This is why I keep bringing up the topic of prejudices. You can easily find the truth of what Calvinism does teach simply by logging onto one of the many web-sites devoted to Calvinistic apologetics.

Look at it this way, I can easily take just a portion of what you just said: " I won't support their claims with scripture, because there
aren't any scriptures to support God purposely sending people to hell. "

and now claim that Biblereader doesn't believe in the Bible and isn't a true Christian because he doesn't believe what Jesus taught about hell.

Ridiculous, I know, but take a step back and maybe you'll see you've applied the same type of questionable 'logic' to your anti-Calvinist assumptions.

 

[stovebolts]

if God does NOT draw you, then you haven't got a chance of making it into Heaven.
So, according to their man-made philosophy, God indeed sends people straight to hell.
My own relative agreed with that!!!

Logic at it's greatest weakness ;-)

Biblereader,
I understand your frustrations and if I may, let me leave you with some advice.

It appears that your realative know's of only one side of scripture and is getting caught up in the "Authority" of scripture, thus abusing it. Why? I'd take a guess that it's because it makes him feel big and knowledgable. It's called pride. When a male, and sometimes a female, is pushed, it is a natural reaction for him to push back, hence, logic pushed to it's logical conclusion to the extreem... Nobody wants to be wrong.

In the case of your relatives logical conclusion, it can only be concluded thus if the whole authority of scripture is ignored. In this case, he made the mistake by saying, "if God does NOT draw you" and does not define to what one is being drawn to. Remember, we are all part of the Body and as such, we all have different talents and functions. Does God desire that all men be saved and is Jesus the savior of all men? Absolutely
1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those that believe.

You see, if God has predestined man, whom is created in His own image to eternal hell, then how could Jesus be the savior of All men while it remain true that there will be those that do indeed suffer hell?

Just some thoughts to ponder... have a good weekend.

 

[Biblereader]

if God does NOT draw you, then you haven't got a chance of making it into Heaven.
So, according to their man-made philosophy, God indeed sends people straight to hell.
My own relative agreed with that!!!

Biblereader,
I understand your frustrations and if I may, let me leave you with some advice.

It appears that your realative know's of only one side of scripture and is getting caught up in the "Authority" of scripture, thus abusing it. Why? I'd take a guess that it's because it makes him feel big and knowledgable. It's called pride. When a male, and sometimes a female, is pushed, it is a natural reaction for him to push back, hence, logic pushed to it's logical conclusion to the extreem... Nobody wants to be wrong.

Just some thoughts to ponder... have a good weekend.

Now, that, stovebolts, makes more sense, and shines a good, clear light on why he might have
been so stubborn. Yes, men have a hard time admitting they are wrong. Yes, maybe it made him feel important and knowledgeable.
Very good analysis.

 

[mondar]

I have a relative who recently turned to Calvinism.

What do any of you know of it? I've studied my KJV bible, and can not
make Calvinism agree with the teachings of Jesus.

Basically, my relative says there is no hope of being saved if you weren't
pre-elected.
He puts all the responsibility for those going to heaven, and those going to
eternal damnation, on God's shoulders.

After reading this thread, I am again feel I have waisted my time. Biblereader does not have a clue what Calvinsim teaches, and he thinks he is refuting it. Notice...

"Basically, my relative says there is no hope of being saved if you weren't
pre-elected."
* Has anyone ever heard a Calvinist talk like this? Never once in all my days have I heard any Calvinist use the term "pre-elected." With such terminology, you actually expect me to believe that this thread is bonafide?
* Biblereader says that his Calvinist relative believes "all the responsibility for those going to heaven, and those going to eternal damnation, on God's shoulders." I can only draw one of three conclusions.
1) Biblereaders is merely trash talking. With such gross misrepresentations of Calvinism, I actually consider the possibility that he has no Calvinist relative.
2) Biblereader actually has a Calvinist relative, but does not have the foggiest idea what the Calvinist relative is talking about, so he follows his own tradition which makes up straw men to define what Calvinists teach.
3) Biblereader has a hyperCalvinist relative. Neither one of them know the difference between Hyper-Calvinism and Classic Calvinism.

To set the record strait, Calvinism believes that man is responsible for his own condemnation. However, Calvinists do disagree with non-Calvinists in that Calvinists see salvation as totally the work of God for man. So therefore when we are accused of teaching:
"all the responsibility for those going to heaven . . .(is) on God's shoulders. To this part of Biblereaders charge... we plead guilty! In fact we will happily proclaim our guilt in blaming God for our salvation.

Beware, the Calvinist boogie man has been here. :crazyeyes: