The disparity (disunity) in Calvinism

[prism]

Spot on! I will have to admit that when I was a Classical Arminian, I too took the same approach to Classical Calvinism when I first heard it. Without taking the time to read it or understand it, I condemned it with ignorance and bias. I just couldn't believe that the TULIP was biblical.

I really appreciate this. My experience with "Calvinism" was somewhat similar. I was raised in an Arminian church. So I was obviously opposed to Calvinism, and the whole discussion was so earth shattering that it effected me greatly.

I find it quite interesting that the flow goes generally from Arminian thought to more of a Calvinistic thought rather than vice-versa. I've known many others down that same road rather than C--->A.

 

[Josheb]

You say you are a "compatibalist" (which isn't a word either), but I take it to mean you like to argue with people to no good end.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[His clay]

If you are saved already, how can you be unsaved? What does a person have to do to be unsaved? Are you saying that you have no experience of God spiritually and factually? Is your assurance of salvation bereft of any experience of God? If you actually have experienced God, please let us all know what that was like to you and describe it in words. If you can't do that, I don't believe you can have any assurance of salvation at all, even 1%.

You say you are a "compatibalist" (which isn't a word either), but I take it to mean you like to argue with people to no good end.

Link dealing with Compatibilism.

Compatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Regarding the argumentative comment: ad-hominem fallacy & well-poisoning fallacy.

Do better if you want to be persuasive

 

[ReverendRV]

Link dealing with Compatibilism.

Compatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Regarding the argumentative comment: ad-hominem fallacy & well-poisoning fallacy.

Do better if you want to be persuasive

Thanks buddy...

 

[TMSO]

Why is that a bad thing? Don't things get better has we learn? Just look at DNA for example, huge strides, leaps and bounds have been made.
My daughter is on a research team at Stanford growing hearts, lungs, liver, kidneys, from cancer patient cells and utilizing CRISPR technology to cut out and remove mutated cells in the DNA sequence strand. Hereditary diseases will no longer carry over to progeny of parents.​

That is the point. Why is it a good idea for anyone who doesn't know anything about calvinism, to face TULIP alone. What are they to think after reading the one or two sentence explanation of each letter? What happens when they reach Limited atonement? I would say that that is arguably the most confusing point, and the one that turns off the most people. (The reason why there are four-pointers out in the wild.) Sure, we have made huge strides, but we are stuck with the old retread in introducing the amazing truth of God's gift of salvation. Some people never grow beyond TULIP. At ground level, I see TULIP as a starting point. To some, it is the end all. Some are proud to say they are of Calvin, perhaps even prouder then being able to say they are of Christ.

The same goes for Theology. Excellent growth and wisdom have excelled from our ECF's. Geerhardus Vos, Bavinck, Warfield, Kline, Sproul, Horton, Phillip Lee, just to name a few. Some people have a very hard time understand old english writers and need modern writers to explain to dumb lay Christian like me.

It's not just that. When translating from ancient languages (or older languages), not everything translates directly. Such as grammar. Some words have nuance that just doesn't carry over. There is nothing wrong with translating the Bible into modern english. I mean, at one time that old english was modern. However, paraphrasing does not always convey proper understanding in translation.

So, explaining it in a way people in the pew can understand it without sacrificing the content is just fine to me. Especially in this day in age. People do not want academic seminary jargon, right? So, I am all for keeping it simple, so people can understand and follow.

So changing Limited Atonement to Definite Atonement is not in the least lost in the translation. Because the content is intact, right? Answer me this, if you would. Do you believe or hold a position that God has a Plan of Salvation?​

Definite redemption. In other words, the reason why the atonement is said to be limited. Sufficiency vs. efficiency is the traditional way of understanding, but it does not truly convey all that is involved. I'm not sure how to say it as I get wordy (Just look above). Look up RC Sproul on limited atonement. The one I read was easy reading, and not very long. I agree with all he said, but I could never expound on it that way, even after reading it.

Well, Arminius himself said one can lose he salvation if he/she sinned, correct? Look it up.

From what I read, (wikepedia...great source right?) was that arminians believe in eternal security, and that salvation is secure, but if one is living outside of Christ, or apostate, then their salvation can be lost. That is in line with what the Baptist church I grew up in believed. They were all about perseverance of the saints. (Granted, while the pastor was die hard arminian, the associate pastor was a calvinist.)

Not me, I am the opposite, I do my homework, if not then how can one debate a topic? I think this is my tired emotion of people trying to debate topics they have no clue of, or just blur out whatever in an attempt to win an argument. I could care less about winning an argument, I only seek the truth. If, I am corrected by another, that's just fine by me. If not then what's the point.

I haven't changed much from what I have said on CARM or any other forum. I went from being dead set against calvinism, to having it just make sense one day. Something snapped, and the part that I could not reconcile with fell into place. And it wasn't Limited Atonement. Or anything about election or predestination. Not even free will. (I had a whole line on how free will is but an illusion. When you look from God's point of view, can we think or do anything that would surprise Him?)

Grace is the greatest gift any sinner can receive, because it is not merited or earned, but given freely through a promise in Christ to the ungodly. And it's in this condition that we receive it. No moral improvement is needed, or exhortation to follow. Just God's Promise that he saves sinners in Christ through Faith Alone! This is where I spend most if not all my time. The Gospel; specifically Law & Gospel.

I'll be honest, I go beyond that to Ephesians 1, and find amazement in that. You don't normally hear a creator adopting their creation as children, and treating them as more than simple property. He even gave them an inheritance in His kingdom, alongside His Son. Hearing that from our Creator should be humbling in the greatest understanding of humility. Considering the nature of humanity and sin, why would the Creator bother? That is the depth of the mystery of grace, with all its wonder to me. (And that is shallow on my part. So much more to it then that.)

I'll leave you with this, an excerpt from one of my favorite theologians.

We must understand that 3 elements belong together: 1) The Promise Itself; 2) The Fact That The Promise Is Free; and 3) That The Merits Of Christ Are The Payment And Atoning Sacrifice. So what is necessary? That God promised me, you, the forgiveness of your sins, all on account of Jesus Christ and demands nothing from you for it. It's all given to you "FREE"; Gratis! It's By Grace through Faith Alone, and that's what makes the Gospel the Gospel! When you remove the "Aloneness", of this, and make it somehow about my response, my ability, it seizes to be the Gospel, now it becomes something else entirely (legalism-subjective) basically no Gospel, no promise, no hope, no assurance, no life!

---WHI Cast​

Just don't forget the true cost of salvation. The life of God's Son.

Liberalism is always in the imperative mood; whereas Christianity is always in the triumphant indicative! Liberalism always appeals to the human will; Christianity announces first, a Gracious Act of God. What we need is not exhortation, but a Gospel, not directions for saving myself (Legalism), but knowledge of the facts on how God has saved me. Have you any good news? I know your exhortation will not help me, but if anything has been done to save me , will you not tell me the facts?

---J. Gresham Machen​

No issues there. Legalism is death, as the Law is our death. Jesus died to fulfill the law, so that we may have life in Christ. Liberals... I prefer to give them a VERY wide berth.

 

[TMSO]

If we don't stay in Christ, we will Lose our Salvation; he is the Way, the Truth and the Life...

So Jude 24-25 is just a nice thought? God is able, but He doesn't want to do it for you? (Consider that I am writing this even with your next line, because this idea needs to be dealt with.) If we are born again, and don't stay in Christ, can we lose our salvation? My answer is, I don't think it is possible, given Jude 24-25 and other verses, for someone who is born again to be in this position.

The Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints just teaches that Born Again Christians will stay in Christ...

Is there any other kind of Christian? I mean, we allow people to freely label themselves, but even the word Christian means follower of Christ.

The point of arminianism is the question of the possibility of born again people living outside of Christ becoming un-born again. They don't consider the possibility that someone may not have been saved in the first place. I got to see the ugly side of this in Texas during my Army days. The pastor was absolute in not allowing any quarter for Perseverance of the Saints, because his best friend was a perfect saint who went utterly apostate. Therefore, it is possible to be saved/born again, and lose one's salvation. No room for perseverance of the saints. I could not even express to him that there are things that he may have never known about his friend. Nope. No perseverance of the saints. Screw up and your salvation is forever lost.

 

[ReverendRV]

So Jude 24-25 is just a nice thought? God is able, but He doesn't want to do it for you? (Consider that I am writing this even with your next line, because this idea needs to be dealt with.) If we are born again, and don't stay in Christ, can we lose our salvation? My answer is, I don't think it is possible, given Jude 24-25 and other verses, for someone who is born again to be in this position.

Is there any other kind of Christian? I mean, we allow people to freely label themselves, but even the word Christian means follower of Christ.

The point of arminianism is the question of the possibility of born again people living outside of Christ becoming un-born again. They don't consider the possibility that someone may not have been saved in the first place. I got to see the ugly side of this in Texas during my Army days. The pastor was absolute in not allowing any quarter for Perseverance of the Saints, because his best friend was a perfect saint who went utterly apostate. Therefore, it is possible to be saved/born again, and lose one's salvation. No room for perseverance of the saints. I could not even express to him that there are things that he may have never known about his friend. Nope. No perseverance of the saints. Screw up and your salvation is forever lost.

I am a 5-Point Calvinist...

 

[TMSO]

I am a 5-Point Calvinist...

I'll be honest. I already know. And I have never had an issue with it. However, since everyone here has a draw and quarter atitude, I'm not sure what to think.

 

[ReverendRV]

I'll be honest. I already know. And I have never had an issue with it. However, since everyone here has a draw and quarter atitude, I'm not sure what to think.

Not me, I don't have that attitude...

 

[TMSO]

I have seen it....some Calvinists believe in free will, others don't.

The topic of free will is not something easily covered, There have been treatises written on the subject. I don't believe in free will, but that is due to my point of view. Consider there are at least two points of view. Our point of view, or God's point of view. I go with God's point of view, and, since God knows every decision we will make before we make it... no free will. It is a cop out, because if one looks at the human level, we don't have a clue. So, free will. However, given that God's point of view exists, there is no libertarian free will.

Some believe that God is the First Cause of everything, others don't.

God is the first cause... and the last. (Alpha and Omega, beginning and end.)

Some make these issues a hill that they would be willing to die on (saying that one cannot be a Calvinist and not agree), yet other Calvinists disagree with them.

Really? I haven't noticed... oh wait. Some here have already proven this to be true.

I believe that this is because Calvin may have said certain things in some places outright and then said other things in other places that might bring people to an opposite conclusion.

That would be normal. Calvin believed that God was not the author of sin. What accusation keeps coming up with Calvinism? Some things never change.

Otherwise, why is there so much disagreement between Calvinists?

Our humanity. Our pride. Our lack of humility.

Time and time again, I have mentioned what was preached to me by one Calvinist, and then addressed it elsewhere; only to find that it "is not the teaching of Calvinism" according to the Calvinist that I am talking to "now"...

And Paul said that he sought only to know Christ and Christ crucified known. Nothing else, but the gospel, because it is the gospel that matters. However, some believe calvinism is the gospel as though Calvin is Christ.

I am not going to play games with you folks.

If all you are going to do is say that certain beliefs in Calvinism are not believed by you as Calvinists, then I am forced to make this assertion:

That Calvinism is divided against itself and therefore its kingdom cannot stand.

That is quite possible. Or some may reject Christ at the end of the day.

If certain Calvinists believe things that are opposite to Calvinistic teaching, how is the teaching going to survive?

Discernment. Prayer. Focus on Christ, as He is at the heart of everything good.

I would say to all of you that you had better get some doctrinal unity. Even as it is written by Paul,
1Co 1:10, Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

This is important to remember, however, it isn't easy. The gospel has to be the same. No differences in terminology. No differences in understanding. This is where there should be absolute unity. Christ and Christ crucified, who He was/is, what He did, and the end result.

 

[His clay]

I'll be honest. I already know. And I have never had an issue with it. However, since everyone here has a draw and quarter atitude, I'm not sure what to think.

How would you respond to constant misrepresentation? This is misrepresentation even after repeated attempts, over the span of weeks and months, to correct have been given. I'll be honest and answer my own question. It is really really hard to continue to be charitable. However, I generally go into teacher mode when met with constant misrepresentation. I troll the troll by dumping mountains of facts on them and making the misrepresentation look like what it is. Is this a Christian approach? I think that it is. Giving truth in response to error seems like a good tactic. Usually, I'm able to keep from getting riled.

When I see, "everyone here has a draw and quarter atitude," I see a hasty generalization fallacy ("everyone") and an a-hom fallacy ("atitude"). We only see the words people write. In a fact-to-face conversation we can see body language, facial expressions, voice inflection, etc. However, on the internet we only see the words people write. We don't see any of the things mentioned previously (things that appear in fact-to-face conversations). So we need to be careful about jumping to conclusions about people's attitudes on the basis of text on a page.

How would you respond to constant misrepresentation?

 

[His clay]

How would you respond to constant misrepresentation? This is misrepresentation even after repeated attempts, over the span of weeks and months, to correct have been given. I'll be honest and answer my own question. It is really really hard to continue to be charitable. However, I generally go into teacher mode when met with constant misrepresentation. I troll the troll by dumping mountains of facts on them and making the misrepresentation look like what it is. Is this a Christian approach? I think that it is. Giving truth in response to error seems like a good tactic. Usually, I'm able to keep from getting riled.

When I see, "everyone here has a draw and quarter atitude," I see a hasty generalization fallacy ("everyone") and an a-hom fallacy ("atitude"). We only see the words people write. In a fact-to-face conversation we can see body language, facial expressions, voice inflection, etc. However, on the internet we only see the words people write. We don't see any of the things mentioned previously (things that appear in fact-to-face conversations). So we need to be careful about jumping to conclusions about people's attitudes on the basis of text on a page.

How would you respond to constant misrepresentation?

My typo skills have now reached a new level! Not only did I write "fact-to-face", but I also somehow did it twice! lol

In case anyone was wondering, I was intending to write "face-to-face." Hopefully, people can decode the typos.

 

[Arial]

My typo skills have now reached a new level! Not only did I write "fact-to-face", but I also somehow did it twice! lol

In case anyone was wondering, I was intending to write "face-to-face." Hopefully, people can decode the typos.

Hey I have the same difficulty, sometimes discover a left out a portion of my sentence----but I thought it. I tell myself it is because my fingers can't keep pace with my brain but give it a good try.

 

[Ladodgers6]

That is the point. Why is it a good idea for anyone who doesn't know anything about calvinism, to face TULIP alone. What are they to think after reading the one or two sentence explanation of each letter? What happens when they reach Limited atonement? I would say that that is arguably the most confusing point, and the one that turns off the most people. (The reason why there are four-pointers out in the wild.) Sure, we have made huge strides, but we are stuck with the old retread in introducing the amazing truth of God's gift of salvation. Some people never grow beyond TULIP. At ground level, I see TULIP as a starting point. To some, it is the end all. Some are proud to say they are of Calvin, perhaps even prouder then being able to say they are of Christ.

It's called doing your homework. I didn't know or even heard the acronym TULIP until I Calvinist friend shared it with me. It's up to the individual to want to learn what it means and why it is important, right? But to be honest with myself, when I first heard it I didn't want to learn it or for that matter, "do my homework". I preferred having my pet God right where I feel comfortable. It was all about my subjective feelings that were more important than Biblical facts of history. The Joel Osteen method to 12 steps of DIY theology to self-help salvation, is what people prefer than the Historical God of the Bible.

Now, if I wanted the truth, I had to seek it out and read a lot and study which I did. There's a lot of great resources out there to get the gist of these debates. I highly recommend you check out the whitehorseinn.org site. Don't go to third party sites that are totally bias against Calvinism. If you really want the truth look for it, and you'll find it, as I did.

And yes it's a good thing that Theology also has made great improvement as well. You missed my whole point, talking about paraphrasing, translation and so forth. The area I speaking about is being able to explain it to the common folks, the lay person who does not have academic seminary jargon to understand, right? Please by all means do a test and ask people about terms like Justification, Sanctification, Imputation, Penal Substitutionary Atonment or any jargon you have, and see how people respond. My goal is to try to explain these glorious precious doctrines grace to the everyday person on the street.

That's why I love Sproul, Horton because that's exactly they aimed to do.

We are not going to agree and I am fine with that. Instead of complaining about a problem bring a solution, right. The problem most people have is that their egos get in the way, and they refuse to admit when they are wrong, as I once did as an Arminian. But if the truth is more important to you than trying to win an argument, then seek it out. As I did, and finally heard the doctrines of Grace that bring peace of conscience, love, joy, thanksgiving, gratitude.​

 

[TMSO]

How would you respond to constant misrepresentation? This is misrepresentation even after repeated attempts, over the span of weeks and months, to correct have been given. I'll be honest and answer my own question. It is really really hard to continue to be charitable. However, I generally go into teacher mode when met with constant misrepresentation. I troll the troll by dumping mountains of facts on them and making the misrepresentation look like what it is. Is this a Christian approach? I think that it is. Giving truth in response to error seems like a good tactic. Usually, I'm able to keep from getting riled.

When I see, "everyone here has a draw and quarter atitude," I see a hasty generalization fallacy ("everyone") and an a-hom fallacy ("atitude"). We only see the words people write. In a fact-to-face conversation we can see body language, facial expressions, voice inflection, etc. However, on the internet we only see the words people write. We don't see any of the things mentioned previously (things that appear in fact-to-face conversations). So we need to be careful about jumping to conclusions about people's attitudes on the basis of text on a page.

Apologies to you. You asked how I would respond to constant misrepresentation? This was it. However, I lost focus and didn't really that it was only Josheb. He said that all were of one mind with him, and I took him at his word. So my apologies. So you have seen how I would respond to constant misrepresentation. Outside of digging a deeper hole for myself... well, I think that's it.

 

[TMSO]

It's called doing your homework. I didn't know or even heard the acronym TULIP until I Calvinist friend shared it with me. It's up to the individual to want to learn what it means and why it is important, right? But to be honest with myself, when I first heard it I didn't want to learn it or for that matter, "do my homework". I preferred having my pet God right where I feel comfortable. It was all about my subjective feelings that were more important than Biblical facts of history. The Joel Osteen method to 12 steps of DIY theology to self-help salvation, is what people prefer than the Historical God of the Bible.​

You don't want to see my homework list. (Please tell me you don't, I haven't even written it down...) I knew about TULIP for a very long time. I never thought about it, because it had little meaning for me back then. I didn't even know anything about this Calvin guy until college. Sure, I knew the name, but that's about it. Some guy who developed some theology named for him.

Now, if I wanted the truth, I had to seek it out and read a lot and study which I did. There's a lot of great resources out there to get the gist of these debates. I highly recommend you check out the whitehorseinn.org site. Don't go to third party sites that are totally bias against Calvinism. If you really want the truth look for it, and you'll find it, as I did.

I'm not at the point that I should focus on that. There's some backlog I have to deal with first. As for the truth. I have found it. Do understand that I mean the gospel. One of the few non-negotiables of the faith. I have built on that, but now I need to go work on the foundation before it all collapses.

And yes it's a good thing that Theology also has made great improvement as well. You missed my whole point, talking about paraphrasing, translation and so forth. The area I speaking about is being able to explain it to the common folks, the lay person who does not have academic seminary jargon to understand, right? Please by all means do a test and ask people about terms like Justification, Sanctification, Imputation, Penal Substitutionary Atonment or any jargon you have, and see how people respond. My goal is to try to explain these glorious precious doctrines grace to the everyday person on the street.

I probably did miss your point. I have had some success explaining things to the lay person. PSA... know that one all too well. Tried getting people back into it back on CARM, and almost succeeded. Could you give me your take on deconstruction? I find it the most disastrous thing a Christian can do. (I mention it because some of those who leave PSA and even calvinism always seem talk about deconstruction of themselves.

That's why I love Sproul, Horton because that's exactly they aimed to do.

Sproul is great. I may have heard of Horton. In my Army life, I did not stay close to God. Never far away, but I was doing my own thing. Life is rocky, and I am deconstructing...(ok, I am joking. I am reconstructing, where I strengthen the truth I know and rebuild. This is why I am not up to the homework... yet.) You probably already know this, but the reason Peter said that we should always test ourselves, he even gives us a list, is so that we don't falter or collapse under doubt. You don't want to be there. And it isn't something I think I could ever share. I couldn't tell you if things will ever be the same. And I couldn't tell you if I want it to be the same.

We are not going to agree and I am fine with that. Instead of complaining about a problem bring a solution, right. The problem most people have is that their egos get in the way, and they refuse to admit when they are wrong, as I once did as an Arminian. But if the truth is more important to you than trying to win an argument, then seek it out. As I did, and finally heard the doctrines of Grace that bring peace of conscience, love, joy, thanksgiving, gratitude.​

We may agree. However, my focus is off due to certain elements. It all started because I was explaining myself. Then the attacks came. I just lost focus.

 

[Josheb]

It's called doing your homework. I didn't know or even heard the acronym TULIP until I Calvinist friend shared it with me. It's up to the individual to want to learn what it means and why it is important, right? But to be honest with myself, when I first heard it I didn't want to learn it or for that matter, "do my homework". I preferred having my pet God right where I feel comfortable. It was all about my subjective feelings that were more important than Biblical facts of history.​

And it does not help when there is so much misrepresentation of TULIP (even from other Cals), or that there's a significant amount of diversity within Calvinism that within the pale of Calvinist orthodoxy. Even a committed Calvinist can read Calvin, Pink, and Frame (for examples) and come away confused. It can very much be like reading Paul on justification and then reading James on the same subject and coming away polarized to one side or the other, or confused, simply because the different contexts within which they approached the subject wasn't recognized.

The Joel Osteen method to 12 steps of DIY theology to self-help salvation, is what people prefer than the Historical God of the Bible.​

But I like my own theology . It is better than everyone else's .

Now, if I wanted the truth, I had to seek it out and read a lot and study which I did............. That's why I love Sproul, Horton because that's exactly they aimed to do.

However, I don't think most theologians with other views are intentionally disingenuous or write with nefarious intent. The deciding factor is their consistency properly exegeting scripture.* Riddlebarger is amazingly adept. If I read something in his book or hear a lecture and open my Bible to see if a scripture he cites actually states what he says it says, I find consistency and integrity. If, in comparison, I do the same thing with Olson (for example) I find a measurable difference. The synergist soteriologies all read scripture with a lot more inference than the monergist alternatives. The inferences are greater in both substance and frequency. Scripture often does not state what the synergist says it says. The practice is so entrenched in the synergist mind that if I point to the scripture noting what was claimed in conversation is NOT what the scripture actually states in its plain reading the answer is, way more often than not, "Yes, it is."

The disparity is alarming.

But if the truth is more important to you than trying to win an argument, then seek it out.

We should all, certainly, agree with that.
















*Here's an example of a monergist inconsistency: I've been reading a book on evangelism and the author states it is more difficult for God to evangelize someone with a hard heart than it is for Him to evangelize someone with a soft heart. Someone might read that claim without much notice if they do not know their whole Bible, but someone who knows scripture states God hardens and softens the human heart, in salvation God removes the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh, knows that for men it is difficult to get a camel through the eye of a needle, for God nothing is impossible, and an almighty God does not have "difficulty" with anything, (and a pile of other applicable scriptures) the claim proves misguided and unhelpful (since the goal is to understand and promote evangelism). Anyone, even monergists, can make mistakes with scripture. Seeking is important, and it takes work.
.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Pot, meet kettle.

Only when you are a jerk and I am not.