"The Many Errors of Calvinism" -

[Danus]

OK, those who know a little about me might be thinking I've totally lost my mind, but fear not. RC and I are still pals, so before this thread get's devoured let me chum the waters.

WARNING: please don't post in here if your unsure about John Calvin's theology. If you need to do some research, please do so first. There is no need to discuss Calvin the man, this is about what Calvin wrote.

Personally I think a good comparison for thought to John Calvin's theology would be John Wesly. Both of these men are "understudies" by the way. Neither really developed anything beyond what the bible says, but both take a strong variance of path and since many protestants take these same paths of truth I thought I'd first lay them out clearly and anyone can take any side and beat the other with their views.

So, ...ARE YOU READY TO RUMBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's see what each man says about the acrostic TULIP. Calvin is in RED and Wesly is in GREEN

T - Total Depravity - Human beings are so affected by the negative consequences of original sin that they are incapable of being righteous, and are always and unchangeably sinful; human freedom is totally enslaved by sin so we can only choose evil.

T -Deprivation - Human beings are sinful and without God, incapable (deprived) on their own of being righteous; however, they are not irredeemably sinful and can be transformed by God’s grace; God's prevenient grace restores to humanity the freedom of will.

U - Unconditional Election - Since human beings cannot choose for themselves, God by His eternal decree has chosen or elected some to be counted as righteous, without any conditions being placed on that election.

U - Unlimited Atonement - The effects of the Atonement are freely available to all those whom He has chosen, which includes all humanity, "whosoever will."

L - Limited Atonement - The effects of the Atonement, by which God forgave sinful humanity, are limited only to those whom He has chosen.

L - Resistible Grace - God’s grace is free and offered without merit; however, human beings have been granted freedom by God and can refuse His grace.

I - Irresistible Grace - The grace that God extends to human beings to effect their election cannot be refused, since it has been decreed by God.

I - Resistible Grace - God’s grace is free and offered without merit; however, human beings have been granted freedom by God and can refuse His grace.

P - Perseverance of the Saints - Since God has decreed the elect, and they cannot resist grace, they are unconditionally and eternally secure in that election.

P - Assurance and Security - There is security in God’s grace that allows assurance of salvation, but that security is in relation to continued faithfulness; we can still defiantly reject God.


Calvin is an understudy of the Augustine line of theology and Wesly is an understudy of the Arminius line of theology.

ZEKE, have at it.

 

[jasoncran]

im well aware that augustine has some basis of calvin but any rcc here will tell you that aint right. i have no desire to pick on reformed theology. i merely wanted to address childeyes poor understanding reformed thinking.

 

[Danus]

im well aware that augustine has some basis of calvin but any rcc here will tell you that aint right. i have no desire to pick on reformed theology. i merely wanted to address childeyes poor understanding reformed thinking.

What's not right? that Calvin adopted Agustine's line of theological thinking, or that I'm starting the thread at all ?

 

[zeke]

ZEKE, have at it.

Well, Danus I appreciate you starting this thread - it could be interesting. Good overview. To understand where you are coming from let me ask - are you a Calvinist? Are you a five-point Calvinist? Do you affirm the Canons of the Synod of Dordt? Are you a hyper-Calvinist?

Regarding the five-points – do you preach “repent or perish” to the lost? If you do, why do you preach it when Calvinism teaches that the non-elect can’t repent and the elect can’t perish?

I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.
(Luk 13:3)​

 

[jasoncran]

What's not right? that Calvin adopted Agustine's line of theological thinking, or that I'm starting the thread at all ?

the catholics of today and others that know of agustine will say the church in his day didnt teach the idea of tulip.that is why its called calvinism. i think it would be hard pressed to say in america that we have a historical anti-calvinist bias when this country was founded by calvinists!

 

[Danus]

the catholics of today and others that know of agustine will say the church in his day didnt teach the idea of tulip.that is why its called calvinism. i think it would be hard pressed to say in america that we have a historical anti-calvinist bias when this country was founded by calvinists!

And they would be correct in saying Agustine did not tech the acrostic TULIP, but the concepts are there. Calvin made an attempt to better teach the bible using the TULIP acrostic as more of a clever way of teaching. It's so twisted today, and for some in his own time, that it almost doesn't matter.

I think the error many make is labeling Reformed theology as Calvanism, but the real issue is between these two great theologians. Wesly and Calvin. Both where very bold in their theology.

Well, Danus I appreciate you starting this thread - it could be interesting. Good overview. To understand where you are coming from let me ask - are you a Calvinist? Are you a five-point Calvinist? Do you affirm the Canons of the Synod of Dordt? Are you a hyper-Calvinist?

Regarding the five-points – do you preach “repent or perish†to the lost? If you do, why do you preach it when Calvinism teaches that the non-elect can’t repent and the elect can’t perish?

I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.
(Luk 13:3)​

Well, I'm going to disappoint you ;). However, of these two lines of theology, I side with, understand and accept more of what Calvin was saying than I do Wesley.

Both are great men and I respect both. However, Wesley is falls way short in my opinion and experiences regarding salvation and our relationship with God, or the Christian life.

He seems correct, and it's very natural to side with Wesley. I get, understand, and agree with Wesley to a great extent. He is not wrong in principal, but he falls short of God's glory, and power. He gives way too much credit to man. Where as Calvin places all the glory where it belongs.

So, Am I a Calvinist? There is no such thing. John Calvin was just a man who wrote what he knew. Even John Calvin is not a "Calvanist". That's just a term people say to label what they don't agree with, or understand.

No one says, "Are you a Wesley-ist"? No, they refer to Wesley as an Armenian. No one says Lutherist, or Augstinist, or Paulist, or Christist.....or Christianist....Calvin did not say anything unique at all, BUT Arminius did. Yet no one faults him??? That's odd. Especially since he started out defending Calvin.

 

[farouk]

There was this bunch of guys in Holland around 1618 that used some of Calvin's writings to refute some other guy in Holland; and Calvin had died in 1564.

So when people say Calvinists it can mean a whole load of things.

i) Calvin; ii) ppl that followed Calvin when he was alive; iii) people that said they followed Calvin after he was dead; iv) other people talking about people that said they followed Calvin after he was dead.

And so it goes.

 

[zeke]

Well, I'm going to disappoint you ;).

Yes you did - we are discussing Calvin's TULIP dogma, aka Calvinism. Right?

 

[Danus]

Yes you did - we are discussing Calvin's TULIP dogma, aka Calvinism. Right?

I laid out Calvin and gave the opposite reformed view. Have at it. Pick it apart. I have no problem with John Calvin, but I'm not John Clavin. If you ask me to choose between Wesley and John Calvin, I'll take Calvin.

If the TULIP Acrostic = Calvinism to you then call it what you will.

 

[farouk]

So anyway, quite apart from the study of particular passages of Scripture, when it comes to Calvinists it's often a case of: will the real Calvinists please stand up.

Or: if you think you're a real Calvinist, then maybe you are; and if you don't think you are, then maybe you're not.

 

[Danus]

There was this bunch of guys in Holland around 1618 that used some of Calvin's writings to refute some other guy in Holland; and Calvin had died in 1564.

So when people say Calvinists it can mean a whole load of things.

i) Calvin; ii) ppl that followed Calvin when he was alive; iii) people that said they followed Calvin after he was dead; iv) other people talking about people that said they followed Calvin after he was dead.

And so it goes.

It became sort of what it is today. Sort of a slander

 

[farouk]

It became sort of what it is today. Sort of a slander

Danus:

Yep. Except that some ppl have a sort of psychological need to go around and use a label that they know will annoy as many people as the others that it pleases. I have found some of Calvin's writings to be of profit. But I think that some of these Reformed Conferences where enthusiasts wax lyrical about this or that obscure point in order to prove their supposed ideological purity, and end up fighting among themselves, (and then starting new Reformed Conferences) are largely a waste of time, frankly.

 

[zeke]

I laid out Calvin and gave the opposite reformed view.

Then you are not an apologist for Calvinism - you only thought you might be?

I have no problem with John Calvin, but I'm not John Clavin. If you ask me to choose between Wesley and John Calvin, I'll take Calvin.

Do you 'choose' the doctrine of Christ over Calvin and Wesley or do you not have freedom of choice?

If the TULIP Acrostic = Calvinism to you then call it what you will.

I have called it what it is.

 

[zeke]

Yep. Except that some ppl have a sort of psychological need to go around and use a label that they know will annoy as many people as the others that it pleases.

Does the label 'Calvinism' do damage to your psyche?

 

[zeke]

So anyway, quite apart from the study of particular passages of Scripture, when it comes to Calvinists it's often a case of: will the real Calvinists please stand up.

Do you deny the reality that many Calvinists are proud to be called 'Calvinists'?

 

[farouk]

Do you deny the reality that many Calvinists are proud to be called 'Calvinists'?

zeke:

This is exactly the problem.

For those who claim to represent a view of human nature that I would sympathize with (as having considerable Scriptural evidence), known as total depravity, if they then claim to have more or less unique insights into theological theory and proudly wear labels: this is exactly what I have problems with.

 

[Danus]

Then you are not an apologist for Calvinism - you only thought you might be?


Do you 'choose' the doctrine of Christ over Calvin and Wesley or do you not have freedom of choice?


I have called it what it is.

I am a Christian, a follower of Christ Jesus and I study the bible. We can talk about Calvin is you like, but lets talk about what the man actually said, not what people think he said.

I laid out the points. I fully except Calvin's points as orthodox and completely Christian and biblical. What more can I offer

I'm I a Calvanist? Well, no. Because there is no such thing, but I'll let you call me that if you like.

 

[farouk]

I am a Christian, a follower of Christ Jesus and I study the bible. We can talk about Calvin is you like, but lets talk about what the man actually said, not what people think he said.

I laid out the points. I fully except Calvin's points as orthodox and completely Christian and biblical. What more can I offer

I'm I a Calvanist? Well, no. Because there is no such thing, but I'll let you call me that if you like.

Danus:

This is always the trouble with labels, isn't it?

Some people have a strong desire to label other people; then, on the basis of what they think or want the labels to mean, they will use those labels to promote or oppose them. (I'm not referring to anyone here; just to the general idea of how it so often happens.)

Calvin did indeed have a lot to say about the Scriptures.

It's always good when one's appeal is to Scripture, rather than to someone else's label.

 

[zeke]

zeke:

This is exactly the problem.

For those who claim to represent a view of human nature that I would sympathize with (as having considerable Scriptural evidence), known as total depravity, if they then claim to have more or less unique insights into theological theory and proudly wear labels: this is exactly what I have problems with.

Well, Calvinism certainly claims unique insights into theological theory. What is your understanding of "total depravity"?

 

[zeke]

I laid out the points. I fully except Calvin's points as orthodox and completely Christian and biblical. What more can I offer

I'm I a Calvanist? Well, no. Because there is no such thing, but I'll let you call me that if you like.

If it looks like a duck and swims like a duck...guess what. If you are in full agreement with all the points of Calvinism why are you not a Calvinist - exactly? Are you ashamed to wear that name?