"The Many Errors of Calvinism" -

[farouk]

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

zeke:

Why do you want to know? to use a label?

This is what I would probably say, labels or not; if the phrase 'total depravity' means what I think it does and what generations of Christians have thought it meant, more or less, it would include recognizing that unbelievers are 'dead in trespasses and sins' (Ephesians 2) and therefore need to be 'born again' (John 3). It should in no way negate the need for the Gospel to be preached 'to every creature'.

I've finished with arguing points in graduate seminars. This was all too long ago.

 

[Danus]

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?

Because the term is a misnomer. What you call a Calvinist, I call a Christian. However, I also label what they call Armenian's as Christians also.

Take the points of Calvin and let's get started. If I don't answer, someone will. You said Calvin was wrong, so I assume you will say Calvin is biblicaly wrong. I say he is biblicaly correct.

 

[zeke]

zeke:

Why do you want to know? to use a label?

As noted earlier many Calvinists are proud of their label. Does that disturb you?

This is what I would probably say, labels or not; if the phrase 'total depravity' means what I think it does and what generations of Christians have thought it meant, more or less, it would include recognizing that unbelievers are 'dead in trespasses and sins' (Ephesians 2) and therefore need to be 'born again' (John 3). It should in no way negate the need for the Gospel to be preached 'to every creature'.

But Calvinism teaches that the non-elect can’t repent and the elect can’t perish (part of the five-points)? Why preach 'to every creature'?

 

[zeke]

Because the term is a misnomer. What you call a Calvinist, I call a Christian.

But many who follow Calvin's error claim to be Calvinist and Christian. Are they wrong to wear 'labels' (your words)? Are you ashamed to wear the name, "Calvinist"? If yes, why?

Take the points of Calvin and let's get started.

I already started but I don't think you fully answered my question to you. Maybe you are the one who misunderstands what Calvinism really teaches - yes? Do you really know that which you think you believe?

 

[farouk]

As noted earlier many Calvinists are proud of their label. Does that disturb you?


But Calvinism teaches that the non-elect can’t repent and the elect can’t perish (part of the five-points)? Why preach 'to every creature'?

zeke:

There you go. This is exactly what I mean. You decide what you think Calvinism means and then on that basis you tell me that my extrapolation from Scripture is inaccurate.

Obviously, in some aspects, what your understanding of 'Calvinism' means (of which there are, like Heinz Beans, 57 varieties) is a little different from mine.

If we look at church history, preachers such as Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield, who might be described as having a strong emphasis on the sovereignty of God in their doctrine (and thus maybe also 'Calvinistic', if I can even use that word) have also had a very strong emphasis on the earnestness of the Gospel call; they indeed had an evangelistic zeal, too.

 

[zeke]

zeke:

There you go. This is exactly what I mean. You decide what you think Calvinism means and then on that basis you tell me that my extrapolation from Scripture is inaccurate.

You have read the OP - right? It lays out the five-points. Where are you confused? Does your "extrapolation" differ from Calvin's five-point extrapolation? Are you a Calvinist? :yes

 

[farouk]

You have read the OP - right? It lays out the five-points. Where are you confused? Does your "extrapolation" differ from Calvin's five-point extrapolation? Are you a Calvinist? :yes

z:

Someone who is dead in trespasses and sins (call this total depravity, if you like) needs to be born again; he or she needs a work of the Spirit in the new birth.

In my simple mind, this is consistent with both a Calvinistic statement of the human condition, AND the need to go out and preach the Gospel to every creature.

You seem to be using labels as a principal basis for disagreement with people. You are deciding what you think other people's use of terminology is, and proceed to tell them that their own assessment in the light of our reading of Scripture must be wrong because it doesn't happen to fit your understanding of the labels. (See what I mean? )

 

[farouk]

Maybe one of the mods. could do the honors and put this thread out of its misery?

(Then someone else will start another Calvinism thread, and it starts all over again.)

 

[zeke]

You seem to be using labels as a principal basis for disagreement with people.

You still misunderstand - the thread is about the errors taught by Calvinism - the five points are clearly laid out. Again, I ask--have you read the OP? Calvinism teaches that the non-elect can’t repent and the elect can’t perish (part of the five-points)? Are we on the same page? :p

 

[farouk]

You still misunderstand - the thread is about the errors taught by Calvinism - the five points are clearly laid out. Again, I ask--have you read the OP? Calvinism teaches that the non-elect can’t repent and the elect can’t perish (part of the five-points)? Are we on the same page? :p

Again, zeke, my friend:

What I would do is see that the unbeliever's spiritual death (no repentance or faith there, at all, as you indicate) means that nothing less than the new birth, as operated by the Spirit of God is necessary, and so we must preach the Gospel to that end.

Any version of Calvinism which suggests that Gospel preaching is pointless, is obviously in error; obvious, at least, to me.

But we must be careful how we use labels, and not just assume that other people are using them in the same way.

 

[childeye]

Hi guys, thought I'd comment on the thread. I can't help but feel a little sheepish here since I am not aquainted with either of these beliefs. So I have a question. If this tends to throw off the intent of this thread, please ignore this post.

According to Calvin, he says we are counted as righteous without any conditions being placed on that election. So in my mind this conjures some questions.

Does counted as righteous mean that God just counts someone as righteous without them actually being righteous in any way shape or form? Are we made unrighteous and righteous by God declaring so without any tangible form of righteousness? What does the righteousness of faith mean then?

What form does Grace take? Is it in the Christ presented alone or the Christ revealed and seen? Is it in the man passed down from Adam in the form of some residue of Godly Love? Is it placed in the man prior to believing?

Or does this mean they are chosen to become righteous, wherein a man would be endowed with a Spirit of great Love? Is God choosing randomly or with a certain methodology? What of Godly Love? Does not one need this to recognize that dying on a cross, and forgiving those who do it, is not foolish? Would this be considered a condition of election?
What about God choosing the lowly things over the high things, is this a condition of election, that one be lowly and despised of men?

Moreover, he says that this is because human beings can't choose for themselves. Does he mean that without the option presented clearly they can't choose it, or given the option clearly presented they can't choose it?

 

[zeke]

Again, zeke, my friend:

What I would do is see that the unbeliever's spiritual death (no repentance or faith there, at all, as you indicate) means that nothing less than the new birth, as operated by the Spirit of God is necessary, and so we must preach the Gospel to that end.

Any version of Calvinism which suggests that Gospel preaching is pointless, is obviously in error; obvious, at least, to me.

But we must be careful how we use labels, and not just assume that other people are using them in the same way.

Then we agree - Calvinism's non-biblical notion that the non-elect can’t repent and the elect can’t perish is one of "the many errors of Calvinism"?

 

[farouk]

Then we agree - Calvinism's non-biblical notion that the non-elect can’t repent and the elect can’t perish is one of "the many errors of Calvinism"?

zeke:

How nice that we agree; but hold on; remember what I said about labels? a lot of people would read what you read and I read and come to the conclusion that a very authentic reading of 'Calvinism', or whatever one calls 'it', can combine a high view of the sovereignty of God in working the new birth in those who are dead in trespasses and sins, with a consequent need to preach the Gospel.

What you read and what I read and what other people read, might not always be exactly the same thing. You see my basic point about labels?

 

[jasoncran]

im not interested in bashing calvin, not that i believe in his doctrine.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Tulip Truth is part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ !

 

[Danus]

But many who follow Calvin's error claim to be Calvinist and Christian. Are they wrong to wear 'labels' (your words)? Are you ashamed to wear the name, "Calvinist"? If yes, why?

Sorry, I'm a bit behind.

No. They are not necessarily wrong. Maybe they are proud to identify with Calvin and call themselves that, but I don't know. I can't speak for a general people.

I think often folks identify with a particular mode of thought for whatever reason and they like to identify with that. Some folks will take a little bit of this and that and build their own unique theology, as dangerous as that might be. but people do that.

I have found it best, and I think we can agree, to review theology strictly biblical. However, there can be issues with that.

It's easy to dismiss, or marginalize certain verses for other verses and be a bit one sided. or....while it's fair to deduce thoughts that may not be explicit in the bible, we have all seen that go off a cliff also.

I will catch up on the post so far, but I've yet to see anyone fairly challenge any of the points. Again, I've not read before typing this so I may be surprised.

 

[Mike]

Danus, I'm sure you know that I am a Lutheran, but I only say that if I am describing my denomination. That said, I don't consider myself a follower of Luther. I disagree with some of his teachings. So, I get why you are hesitant to be labeled a "Calvinist". My question to you is, do you disagree with anything Calvin taught on the topic? If so, what?

 

[farouk]

I think part of the background is that, while people from many Protestant churches will generally appreciate Luther as an historical figure, Calvin, and 'Calvinism', in all its manifestations, forms a fighting arena for all sorts of arguments and controversies, many of them being little more than a dialogue of the deaf. So I guess that unless, sentence by sentence (and their constructions), people know what other people are saying and meaning, some people would be reluctant to use the label 'Calvinist'.

 

[Danus]

Then we agree - Calvinism's non-biblical notion that the non-elect can’t repent and the elect can’t perish is one of "the many errors of Calvinism"?

Now come on. This is not fair.

How about we start with election? That is probably one of the main sticking points. Keep in mind that the 5 points run together, one into the other. But what do you think Calvin means by the elect?

Also, do you identify more with Wesley? What labels might you wear, or do you?

 

[Danus]

Danus, I'm sure you know that I am a Lutheran, but I only say that if I am describing my denomination. That said, I don't consider myself a follower of Luther. I disagree with some of his teachings. So, I get why you are hesitant to be labeled a "Calvinist". My question to you is, do you disagree with anything Calvin taught on the topic? If so, what?

Not really, no. I hesitate to say even that because 1, I don't want anyone thinking I'm a pompous $$, and 2) think that I think I'm somehow superior in my theology...or "the Chosen" over someone else.

Calvin is not an easy pill to swallow, but he makes perfect sense to me. I'm completely comfortable with it. His theology fits with my understanding of my own salvation and relationship with God, and that's how I first identified with his teachings, years after I was born again, or converted.

I am a huge fan of Luther. Don't get me wrong. I'd far more rather read Luther. than Calvin. Calvin puts me to sleep. That is why I don't think we will get past the usual stuff here. Calvin is a bore, he's heady, and bottom line, no one needs to understand Calvin to be saved. what Calvin has to say is not essetial to understanding our relationship with God, but I would argue that Luther is more so than Calvin. Especialy when we consider what Luther was saying in contrast to the church in his time.

Both men are essentially saying that Salvation is not initiated by man, If we boil it down. Man does not choose to save himself. he either will be saved or he won't. Does God choose? Is it a cooperative effort between God and man? Both Luther and Calvin say NO, it is God and God alone, and until we understand that we are to question are salvation.

Yep, pretty bold statement.