Why so much against Calvinism?

[Carbon]

This topic I posted elsewhere. And wanted to post it here as well. Because I am curious about everyone's thoughts.

Why is it so difficult for Arminians, (semi-pelagians and other free will believers) to accept reformed theology? Why are they so much against Calvinism? And actively against it?

I’m genuinely curious why.

Free willers, synergists, or whatever you prefer? Why?

Calvinists, what do you think are the reasons? Why?

 

[makesends]

At the core, I'm afraid, self-determinism, for most of them. I'd have to go with the arguments I've heard to assess their reasons: Some, the simple distaste for a god who is not always nice and tame. Others, the simple inability to answer the questions of God who "is not fair to all" (doesn't treat all people equally). And a few counter-intuitive notions we seem to thrive on, like, "The command doesn't imply the ability to obey." or worse, but really the same thing, that "God made some vessels for destruction." just galls them. Close to these is the mindset that attributes substance to human thought —thus, "We are able to understand scripture, to include justice, fairness, love, and so to judge other people's theologies or statements by our notions of such things." And last, but not least, the simple idea that "our will or God's will, but not both"; I don't know if their rejection of the 2 wills of God (decree vs command) is automatic or a reaction to a point in the midst of debate, but anyhow, the "puppetry" claim.

I call it self-determinism because it refuses to allow God to do it all from the beginning. They INSIST that the only way for sin to be their fault is for their "decisions to be real choice" —i.e. "uncaused by God". It places them on an equal footing with God, as fellow-residents in this existence, bringing him below the level of First Cause, and Omnipotent, and Sovereign.

Sorry. I get rolling sometimes.

 

[Carbon]

At the core, I'm afraid, self-determinism, for most of them. I'd have to go with the arguments I've heard to assess their reasons: Some, the simple distaste for a god who is not always nice and tame. Others, the simple inability to answer the questions of God who "is not fair to all" (doesn't treat all people equally). And a few of counter-intuitive notions we seem to thrive on, like, "The command doesn't imply the ability to obey." or worse, but really the same thing, that "God made some vessels for destruction." Close to these is the mindset that attributes substance to human thought —thus, "We are able to understand scripture, to include justice, fairness, love, and so to judge other people's theologies or statements by our notions of such things." And last, but not least, the simple idea that "our will or God's will, but not both"; I don't know if their rejection of the 2 wills of God (decree vs command) is automatic or a reaction to a point in the midst of debate, but anyhow, the "puppetry" claim.

Thanks for your reply. There is a lot there.
I also see how they think Calvinists believe God is the author of evil. Which He is not. But you can't convince them we don't believe that.

 

[makesends]

Thanks for your reply. There is a lot there.
I also see how they think Calvinists believe God is the author of evil. Which He is not. But you can't convince them we don't believe that.

Some of them see me as a true believer, just, sadly, misguided, like I see some of them. They don't think I believe God is the author of evil. They only think my theology comes down to that. I see many of them as knowing in their heart that God is sovereign, but not in their doctrine. —As I often say, I have heard their prayers that sound very Reformed!

 

[Carbon]

Some of them see me as a true believer, just, sadly, misguided, like I see some of them. They don't think I believe God is the author of evil. They only think my theology comes down to that.

Yes, that is what I mean also.

I see many of them as knowing in their heart that God is sovereign, but not in their doctrine. —As I often say, I have heard their prayers that sound very Reformed!

An Arminian cannot be consistent with its system when praying. Arminians must pray like Calvinists.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

I believe they are against Calvinism because of Hell, especially double predestination.

 

[CCShorts]

Just my two cents again…

Why are they so much against Calvinism? And actively against it?

Perhaps it is not so much a direct opposition to Calvinism itself, but rather a disagreement with their own misrepresentation of Calvinism under the same name.

Consider this: when a Calvinist uses the term "Calvinism" in a conversation with both a fellow Calvinist and an Anti-Calvinist, it evokes a coherent and biblically grounded understanding in the mind of the Calvinist. However, the same term brings forth a different understanding in the mind of the Anti-Calvinist, which is neither coherent nor aligned with biblical teachings.

As Calvinists, when we hear the Anti-Calvinist present their understanding of "Calvinism," we often respond by saying, "That's not Calvinism." Yet, we find ourselves perplexed and ask, "Why are they against Calvinism?"

Given this confusion, should we continue to label what the Anti-Calvinist understands… with the same label "Calvinism"?

It becomes rather convoluted when we use the term "Calvinism" to also describe their misrepresentation of Calvinism. This confusion arises because the Anti-Calvinist's understanding does not accurately reflect the true tenets of Calvinism.

In order to foster clearer communication and avoid misunderstandings, it may be helpful to distinguish the misrepresented view from genuine Calvinism by using a different label. By doing so, we can engage in more meaningful discussions and prevent the confusion that arises from associating their flawed understanding with the term "Calvinism."

Calvinists, what do you think are the reasons? Why?

When people oppose "Calvinism," it's important to clarify that they are not necessarily opposing the TULIP framework itself. Rather, they are opposing a misrepresentation of Calvinism that replaces the "T" of Total Depravity with a notion of "Free Will." This misrepresentation could be referred to as FULIP. this is not Calvinism!

When a view advocates for a will that is "Free" from the effects of the sin nature and replaces the foundational belief of Total Depravity in the TULIP framework, it misrepresents Calvinism and dismantles the logical coherence of the acronym.

Total Depravity, as an essential component of Calvinism, recognizes the fallen nature of humanity due to the effects of sin. It acknowledges that every aspect of human existence is corrupted by sin, rendering us incapable of choosing God or doing good on our own. This understanding is crucial for the rest of the _ULIP points to align and work together coherently.

However, proponents of a will that is "Free" from the effects of the sin nature introduce a different theological perspective that contradicts Total Depravity. They claim that human beings possess inherent goodness or moral autonomy, enabling them to choose God or act independently of their fallen state. By accepting this perspective, they deviate from the core principles of Calvinism and the TULIP framework.

When the Total Depravity of Calvinism is replaced with the notion of a "Free" will, the resulting acronym no longer represents the coherent view of Calvinism but creates confusion by maintaining the label of "Calvinism." This FULIP misrepresentation aims to garner acceptance for the "free will" perspective while disregarding the logical consistency and internal coherence of the TULIP framework.

By denying Total Depravity and adopting a "Free will" understanding, proponents dismantle the remaining points of ULIP acronym, namely Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. These points are interconnected and depend on the recognition of human depravity and God's sovereign work in salvation. Without Total Depravity, the other points lose their theological foundation and become incongruous, leading to an incoherent and incompatible understanding of Calvinism.

…

 

[ReverendRV]

This topic I posted elsewhere. And wanted to post it here as well. Because I am curious about everyone's thoughts.

Why is it so difficult for Arminians, (semi-pelagians and other free will believers) to accept reformed theology? Why are they so much against Calvinism? And actively against it?

I’m genuinely curious why.

Free willers, synergists, or whatever you prefer? Why?

Calvinists, what do you think are the reasons? Why?

"Consider this..." ~ Rod Serling

I can say the same thing a Calvinist says; but in a way an Independent Fundamental Baptist will HAVE to agree with. This means that a Baptist who hates Calvinism, at heart; hates their own Fundamentals...

This thought works with any Christian. I can get a United Methodist to hesitantly agree with TULIP, as I can get a Pentecostal to ponder the Doctrines of Grace...


Now THAT would be an episode of the Twilight Zone!

 

[ReverendRV]

"Consider this..." ~ Rod Serling

I can say the same thing a Calvinist says; but in a way an Independent Fundamental Baptist will HAVE to agree with. This means that a Baptist who hates Calvinism, at heart; hates their own Fundamentals...

This thought works with any Christian. I can get a United Methodist to hesitantly agree with TULIP, as I can get a Pentecostal to ponder the Doctrines of Grace...


Now THAT would be an episode of the Twilight Zone!

@makesends @CCShorts , I just got done doing this with my brother, and he said it's undeniable...

Now, my brother is sensible and loves me; so maybe my method was easier when used on him...

He said...

Lol, I back spaced a few times while typing that because I realized what I was saying just further confirms what you are saying. There's no way around it

When it comes to denying it, that's Cognitive Dissonance...

 

[fastfredy0]

At the core, I'm afraid, self-determinism

Totally agree.
You go through life and all your observations seem to substantiate the idea that everything you did was self-determined. Heck, I became a Christian and I thought it was up to me as everything else that involved a decision I attributed to me. It is only with biblical study and guidance and the indwelling Spirit that one can come to the conclusion that one's decisions were determined by another source ... and even then there is little to no empirical evidence to substantiate your thesis; just faith in the word of God.
To make things more complex there's the issue of decisions to sin ...

Also, reformed theology is organized. It is difficult to attack a target that is not defined. Reformed theology is defined.

Aside: I think I heard Sproul say once: "everyone to initially comes to Christ is an Arminian"

 

[ReverendRV]

Having him in an arm bar while telling him is very very persuasive.

He said it may be easier being used on him?

I agree here.

After getting him to say "Yes" so many times, and him trying to wiggle out of my Logical Arm Bar; I told him this...

Thus my Premise is correct. Because Grace is unmerited favor, unconditional election is true. Because Jesus only bore the sins nailed to his cross, limited atonement is true. Thus, Baptists who say Yes, but then try to argue their way out of their Yeses; it shows they hate their own fundamentals..

That's when he said he kept erasing his comments, and admitted I was right. He said...

Lol, I back spaced a few times while typing that because I realized what I was saying just further confirms what you are saying. There's no way around it

 

[David1701]

This topic I posted elsewhere. And wanted to post it here as well. Because I am curious about everyone's thoughts.

Why is it so difficult for Arminians, (semi-pelagians and other free will believers) to accept reformed theology? Why are they so much against Calvinism? And actively against it?

I’m genuinely curious why.

Free willers, synergists, or whatever you prefer? Why?

Calvinists, what do you think are the reasons? Why?

I believe, from experience and the nature of their objections, that there are two main reasons why they so actively oppose God's sovereignty in salvation.

1) Pride: they think that it's their will power that makes the difference

2) Sentimentality: they think that God would give everyone a chance to be saved

 

[makesends]

Totally agree.
You go through life and all your observations seem to substantiate the idea that everything you did was self-determined. Heck, I became a Christian and I thought it was up to me as everything else that involved a decision I attributed to me. It is only with biblical study and guidance and the indwelling Spirit that one can come to the conclusion that one's decisions were determined by another source ... and even then there is little to no empirical evidence to substantiate your thesis; just faith in the word of God.
To make things more complex there's the issue of decisions to sin ...

Also, reformed theology is organized. It is difficult to attack a target that is not defined. Reformed theology is defined.

Aside: I think I heard Sproul say once: "everyone to initially comes to Christ is an Arminian"

What I think I meant to get at is that self-determinism at its root (I'm not talking about self-interest, which is endemic to all creatures and not in itself sinful), in the fallen human, and in the "old man", pits itself against God causally, whether actual or merely theoretically, abstract. The resulting hiccups from one doing so and realizing simultaneously that all along it was God's plan that he do so, are hilarious. I love good irony.

I probably laugh at least once per video when listening to Sproul.

 

[makesends]

"Consider this..." ~ Rod Serling

I can say the same thing a Calvinist says; but in a way an Independent Fundamental Baptist will HAVE to agree with. This means that a Baptist who hates Calvinism, at heart; hates their own Fundamentals...

This thought works with any Christian. I can get a United Methodist to hesitantly agree with TULIP, as I can get a Pentecostal to ponder the Doctrines of Grace...


Now THAT would be an episode of the Twilight Zone!

I meant to mention several days ago, that there is a rather large group of here-and-there Charismatic churches that have adopted Reformed theology, love TULIP and are anything but shallow in their pursuit of Christ, and study of the Word of God.

Also, from what I hear (play on words not intended), several churches of the Deaf. I remember hearing tell of a preacher, (the deaf are among themselves extremely, exaggeratedly, expressive in their body language and facial expressions), miming God looking down on his creation and going, "OH NO!!! HOW CAN THIS HAVE HAPPENED???"

 

[PeterJens]

This topic I posted elsewhere. And wanted to post it here as well. Because I am curious about everyone's thoughts.

Why is it so difficult for Arminians, (semi-pelagians and other free will believers) to accept reformed theology? Why are they so much against Calvinism? And actively against it?

I’m genuinely curious why.

Free willers, synergists, or whatever you prefer? Why?

Calvinists, what do you think are the reasons? Why?

Over the centuries believers have taken theoretical positions which are in opposition to each other when taken to extremes but may very well reflect different aspects of the same truth.

God created everything so knows its implications and outcomes. We have though the creation of infinities, and combinations of simple principles that create infinite outcomes. God also created the ability within animals to choose behavioural reactions to events, with different emphasises which lead to many different outcomes. Jesus declared the Kingdom was like the sower and the seed. Different soils react differently because of how they exist. Taking the parable into heart life, some peoples hearts are hard, while other soft and open. The cause of the hardness is a combination of how they are made and their choices. So one can propose people have no choice over their heart reaction because of who they are, while others can emphasis they responded which was a choice.

My problem with predetermism at the extreme is there is no need to seek out the lost and preach, to be a light, to let Gods love shine through good works, rather it is withdrawal from society to create isolated pockets of believers who do their own thing, as if the world will contaminate them. The opposite approach is hard work is needed to convince and draw people unto Jesus, and without this no one will hear or know the gospel.

I believe a person is confronted with Jesus's words, His heart and approach and they can choose to invest time and listen and follow or walk away. I have seen people do both, choose to seek out Jesus and His way and also walk away when faced with the changes they are being called to make and issues to resolve in their lives. I have understood His people hear His voice and follow, and those who do not, are not His people.
The phrase chosen has two aspects, the generic, Jesus chooses those who have followed ie. His people are His followers, or out of a crowd He chooses randomly individuals who come to be a believer.

I have been shocked to know, I do not know because I am not God, but I will preach and pray for and bless everyone, some will respond and some will reject and walk away. But I am called to be a light, so show the power of Christ transforming the heart and making me a disciple of the King.

The divide appears to be what this transformation is and how far it can go. Some are so stubborn they claim to know Jesus but refuse to resolve life issues and relationships which Jesus is calling them to resolve. My test is now if people will not repent, will not work through the issues and let change occur, they do not know the Lord of love. These folk are everywhere on every position theological one can imagine, but equally so are the Lords people. To say we are emotional beings with an intellectual framework of faith that brings us life for some is just too difficult, but it becomes clearer to me, this is what we actually are, and Jesus opens the prison doors so we can be mature, a Holy and cleansed people.

God bless you

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Over the centuries believers have taken theoretical positions which are in opposition to each other when taken to extremes but may very well reflect different aspects of the same truth.

God created everything so knows its implications and outcomes. We have though the creation of infinities, and combinations of simple principles that create infinite outcomes. God also created the ability within animals to choose behavioural reactions to events, with different emphasises which lead to many different outcomes. Jesus declared the Kingdom was like the sower and the seed. Different soils react differently because of how they exist. Taking the parable into heart life, some peoples hearts are hard, while other soft and open. The cause of the hardness is a combination of how they are made and their choices. So one can propose people have no choice over their heart reaction because of who they are, while others can emphasis they responded which was a choice.

My problem with predetermism at the extreme is there is no need to seek out the lost and preach, to be a light, to let Gods love shine through good works, rather it is withdrawal from society to create isolated pockets of believers who do their own thing, as if the world will contaminate them. The opposite approach is hard work is needed to convince and draw people unto Jesus, and without this no one will hear or know the gospel.

I believe a person is confronted with Jesus's words, His heart and approach and they can choose to invest time and listen and follow or walk away. I have seen people do both, choose to seek out Jesus and His way and also walk away when faced with the changes they are being called to make and issues to resolve in their lives. I have understood His people hear His voice and follow, and those who do not, are not His people.
The phrase chosen has two aspects, the generic, Jesus chooses those who have followed ie. His people are His followers, or out of a crowd He chooses randomly individuals who come to be a believer.

I have been shocked to know, I do not know because I am not God, but I will preach and pray for and bless everyone, some will respond and some will reject and walk away. But I am called to be a light, so show the power of Christ transforming the heart and making me a disciple of the King.

The divide appears to be what this transformation is and how far it can go. Some are so stubborn they claim to know Jesus but refuse to resolve life issues and relationships which Jesus is calling them to resolve. My test is now if people will not repent, will not work through the issues and let change occur, they do not know the Lord of love. These folk are everywhere on every position theological one can imagine, but equally so are the Lords people. To say we are emotional beings with an intellectual framework of faith that brings us life for some is just too difficult, but it becomes clearer to me, this is what we actually are, and Jesus opens the prison doors so we can be mature, a Holy and cleansed people.

God bless you

Your problem seems to belong to only you, because Reformed people who believe in predestination (by the way, that word is in the Bible itself, so how you can't believe that is another problem...) have never taught not to evangelise people. The opposite is the case. I must conclude that you picked that idea off of the internet somewhere.

 

[ReverendRV]

Your problem seems to belong to only you, because Reformed people who believe in predestination (by the way, that word is in the Bible itself, so how you can't believe that is another problem...) have never taught not to evangelise people. The opposite is the case. I must conclude that you picked that idea off of the internet somewhere.

Charles Spurgeon is the Prince of Preachers for a Reason...

 

[civic]

This topic I posted elsewhere. And wanted to post it here as well. Because I am curious about everyone's thoughts.

Why is it so difficult for Arminians, (semi-pelagians and other free will believers) to accept reformed theology? Why are they so much against Calvinism? And actively against it?

I’m genuinely curious why.

Free willers, synergists, or whatever you prefer? Why?

Calvinists, what do you think are the reasons? Why?

For me it had more to do with the environment I was in online as many of you know. And I will come out of the gate saying my approach was wrong, there was ego involved trying to disprove and attack the beliefs I held dearly for so long. I think ( and this is no excuse for my behavior) the antagonistic nature of the other place fueled that dissension and discord. That was immature on my part and I take full responsibility.

I was talking about this with my wife the other day who is very excited about her daily study with her womens group on the Holy Spirit.
She would here from me about my complaints all of the time when I was a calvinist and most recently not one. She would tell me to stop wasting my time online. The other day after talking with @Carbon I told her about our conversation and the reconciliation. She was very glad to hear about that and we talked about the unity in the body and the building others up in the faith and not tearing one another down. She said thats what the Holy Spirit would want is unity among brothers as Calvinists and Arminians. I agreed with her and it was rather humbling to look into the mirror and see what I was really doing in my heart. So for that I ask all those who know me that I have not asked personally to forgive me for that behavior as its not only an insult to you, most of all its an insult to Christ.

Like I said in another thread here my roots and foundation were in a Dutch Reformed Church with a pastor who mentored me for a couple of years as a new believer and I know the doctrines of grace like the back of my hand as they were deeply ingrained in me along with Gods Sovereignty. Now I want my speech to be seasoned with salt that it might give grace to those who hear and give an answer to each person.

And the bottom like we are on the same team serving Christ and the cause of the gospel. We may have different views on what that looks like but like Paul- as long as Christ is being preached I can rejoice Philippians 1:18-20. So now I'm looking for balance ( which is not compromise) in my approach with others and not out to "win" any arguments.

 

[ReverendRV]

For me it had more to do with the environment I was in online as many of you know. And I will come out of the gate saying my approach was wrong, there was ego involved trying to disprove and attack the beliefs I held dearly for so long. I think ( and this is no excuse for my behavior) the antagonistic nature of the other place fueled that dissension and discord. That was immature on my part and I take full responsibility.

I was talking about this with my wife the other day who is very excited about her daily study with her womens group on the Holy Spirit.
She would here from me about my complaints all of the time when I was a calvinist and most recently not one. She would tell me to stop wasting my time online. The other day after talking with @Carbon I told her about our conversation and the reconciliation. She was very glad to hear about that and we talked about the unity in the body and the building others up in the faith and not tearing one another down. She said thats what the Holy Spirit would want is unity among brothers as Calvinists and Arminians. I agreed with her and it was rather humbling to look into the mirror and see what I was really doing in my heart. So for that I ask all those who know me that I have not asked personally to forgive me for that behavior as its not only an insult to you, most of all its an insult to Christ.

Like I said in another thread here my roots and foundation were in a Dutch Reformed Church with a pastor who mentored me for a couple of years as a new believer and I know the doctrines of grace like the back of my hand as they were deeply ingrained in me along with Gods Sovereignty. Now I want my speech to be seasoned with salt that it might give grace to those who hear and give an answer to each person.

And the bottom like we are on the same team serving Christ and the cause of the gospel. We may have different views on what that looks like but like Paul- as long as Christ is being preached I can rejoice Philippians 1:18-20. So now I'm looking for balance ( which is not compromise) in my approach with others and not out to "win" any arguments.

What a Helper!

I forgive you...

I want CCAM to be a pleasant Forum. As long as I'm a Moderator, I plan to Moderate Trolls with a heavy hand; until the Administrators get rid of me as a Moderator. Sure; I Pledge not to abuse Moderation...

 

[civic]

What a Helper!

I forgive you...

I want CCAM to be a pleasant Forum. As long as I'm a Moderator, I plan to Moderate Trolls with a heavy hand; until the Administrators get rid of me as a Moderator. Sure; I Pledge not to abuse Moderation...

lol I knew you would make a good moderator with our past conversations but you wanted no part of that elsewhere. You found a home to become one. Well done !