Why so much against Calvinism?

[Dave_Regenerated]

The Reformed position on salvation offends the sensibilities of unbelievers because their pride won't allow them to have someone else determine things for them. They want to have that sense of going to God when they're good and ready on their terms.
If these individuals go to church or speak to some idiot who says 'you' can "accept Jesus into your heart" if you're serious and say "this" prayer (Rom. 10:9-10 is also presented to the other idiot) then you are saved as long as you 'mean it.' Then comes the Reformed view and deep down inside if it is true God is the one that calls and saves without men's help, then the offense against what the second idiot did in going to God injures his pride because it reveals that the second idiot's prayer of "accepting Jesus" was false and they know they are not saved.

When an individual ever meets the Creator of the universe they will know it. The experience changes everything about them.

I honestly don't know why some people cannot see God's election of people in the Bible when it talks about it everywhere!

 

[JIM]

Are you looking for those exact words?

No. And I don't think it even suggests anywhere in the Bible that God ever does that.

 

[JIM]

The Reformed position on salvation offends the sensibilities of unbelievers because their pride won't allow them to have someone else determine things for them.

Oh please, enough of that. The reformed position offends other believers because we think the Reformed position is just plain wrong.

 

[JIM]

I honestly don't know why some people cannot see God's election of people in the Bible when it talks about it everywhere!

I see God's election of people in the Bible. And you are correct that it talks about it everywhere. But I think your definition is wrong.

 

[Carbon]

No.

Okay that is good

And I don't think it even suggests anywhere in the Bible that God ever does that.

That’s your opinion

 

[JIM]

That’s your opinion

Yes, of course. But everything that is ever posted here, except exact quotations from God's word, is someone's opinion. It may offend your sensibilities, but that includes your posts as well.

And I would add that even in the exact quotations, depending upon the translation selected for the quote, might also contain a little bit of opinion.

 

[Carbon]

Yes, of course. But everything that is ever posted here, except exact quotations from God's word, is someone's opinion.

Yes.

It may offend your sensibilities, but that includes your posts as well.

Oh man!

Me too? Really?

And I would add that even in the exact quotations, depending upon the translation selected for the quote, might also contain a little bit of opinion.

Okay

 

[JIM]

Oh man!

Me too? Really?

I assume that was sarcasm.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

I see God's election of people in the Bible. And you are correct that it talks about it everywhere. But I think your definition is wrong.

Where did I give a definition of that word? I didn't. I never gave a definition. So how can my lack of definition be "wrong"?

Let's speed this up. What is YOUR definition of that word? If you can give it, I can answer you.

 

[Rella]

And I am still on the fence.... TYVM

I mean that sincerely.....

 

[jeremiah1five]

Oh please, enough of that. The reformed position offends other believers because we think the Reformed position is just plain wrong.

Tell me, how did you become a born again Christian. Short version is adequate.

 

[His clay]

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?

This morning I looked at another forum, and the Calvinist asked people to try and justify incompatibilism. The entire thread was created to deal with that issue, and the response was to attack Compatibilism. I hate politics for just this very reason. A candidate will not positively justify their position, but rather attacks the opponent. After reading post after post of the opening poster seeking to get the troll back on track, I quit reading. What is with this rabid anti-Calvinism? Do people really think that attacking another position is a substitute for positively supporting one's actual view?

Let's move the topic for better clarity. I'm against abortion; I think it is murder. Now, I can wax eloquent about all the problems at multiple levels. But none of those negatives present the positive case for the image of God, the positive case for God's authority over my mind and life, the positive case for God's design, the positive case for properly understanding human action in light of the previous. In short, any idiot can be an armchair critic, but it takes work to properly justify one's beliefs from scripture. Maybe people are too lazy to actually study the Bible and do the exegetical work?

I really think that it comes down to idolatry. Libertarian freedom is the lord over their life and mind, and anything that could possibly come into conflict must die a thousand deaths.

 

[Manfred]

Just my two cents again…



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."



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.

…

Very insightful post.
What do you propose to substitute Calvinism with?
When in conversation with Arminians, I don't like to use the term exactly because of what you said.
They have created a caricature of their own making and that cannot be broken down.
I tend to refer to Reformed theology or the doctrines of grace.

 

[JIM]

Tell me, how did you become a born again Christian. Short version is adequate.

Short version, I obeyed the gospel.

 

[Carbon]

Short version, I obeyed the gospel.

Every verse in the Bible is either law of gospel. When you talk about obeying, you’re talking about the law.

 

[Manfred]

Short version, I obeyed the gospel.

At what point in your life did you decide to obey the gospel?
What does obeying the good news mean anyway?

 

[JIM]

Every verse in the Bible is either law of gospel. When you talk about obeying, you’re talking about the law.

But I am not talking about the law of Moses.

Paul, in 2 Thessalonians 1:5-12, addresses what will happen to those who "do not obey the gospel". Peter does so as well in 1 Peter 4:12-19. Although it does not address directly obeying the gospel, it certainly implies that there is both obeying the gospel and not obeying the gospel. And given what they both say about not obeying the gospel, it seems logical to assume what it means about obeying the gospel.

And it is safe to assume they were not equating obeying the gospel with obeying the law of Moses.

 

[Carbon]

At what point in your life did you decide to obey the gospel?
What does obeying the good news mean anyway?

Exactly

 

[jeremiah1five]

Short version, I obeyed the gospel.

So, you chose Christ?

 

[JIM]

At what point in your life did you decide to obey the gospel?

I did that when I was 10 years old.

What does obeying the good news mean anyway?

I will leave that for you to determine. God, by the Holy Spirit, has given all you need for that. You should really study that for yourself.