Why so much against Calvinism?

[civic]

Is there a distinction in being like sheep in the characteristic of tending to stray and 'being' a sheep?

If you want my personal opinion sheep is allegory/figurative and I believe it can be taken to an extreme beyond its intended meaning. People are not literally sheep and its symbolism. I think we can take the symbolic meaning to far at times and not only with sheep, but with goats, serpents etc....... I think some take the parables to extremes when they were designed to make a specific point. I see people over spiritualize many things from the OT as well when the N.T. doesn't even mention those same texts that get emphasized and spiritualized as if the person has some special insight into the hidden meaning in Scripture.

For example the Brass Serpent was a good thing. See John 3 where Jesus compares Himself to the Brass serpent

 

[makesends]

Well, you concisely nailed the area that needs attention in the "actively against it" comment.

There are many reasons, of why which we can only speculate, and there are observable reasons as well. One reason is many pastors obviously have not taught them the milk of the word concerning Biblical election. (compare 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 with 1 Corinthians 3:1ff).

Instead of turning to the word to show why one was saved, they begin to teach free will, choosing, decision &c. so they've become accustomed to giving themselves the credit, and not God.

Another issue is they see this as unfair. I don't have too much of an issue with those who question it, but those who daily attack these truths show they are hostile in their minds toward the true God of Scripture, IMHO.

I agree. To me, I can understand the reticence to accept what they don't understand, but when they INSIST that God has not decided from the foundation of the world, what they will decide, they are going a step, or rather, a few steps, beyond the truth of God's creating, that this is not about them, but about God, and the focus of their doctrine is the insistence on Self-Determinism.

There is a principle that is beyond me, that there is something to us that not even the angels can claim, in which the earthly picture of the heavenly marriage is shown, that the bride and groom ever-discover each other. And I don't disagree that there is some "already but not yet" going on with that. There is true virtue, (though all true virtue is from him), for which we will have earned rewards in heaven, yet, it is important to remember that the crowns will be laid at his feet. It is his work in us. It is only IN HIM that we become that bride that is ever delightful and new to him. I think it says something about God's self-existence and his infinity that we can become that to him, and not any kind of thing endemic to humanity that IT is a delight to him, in and of itself.

It may well have something to do with being made in his image, but I hesitate to say that, because the arminianistic believer will run with it, insisting that what is to come is already that completed being. And worse, that such a thing is even possible without regeneration, and for those whom God respects for what they are, apart from his reasons for making each one!

 

[makesends]

Your POV is denied by Scripture (the view that we only become sheep when regenerated), although it's not a very serious mistake.

It's another mistake to think that unbelievers cannot hear God's voice. God can cause anyone to hear his voice, in one way or another (e.g. Balaam, Belshazzar, etc.).

John 10:15,16 (EMTV)
15 Just as the Father knows Me, I also know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.
16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; those also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

The "other sheep" are the elect Gentiles, whom God would later cause to hear the gospel and join the one flock.

How does that show my view to be "denied by Scripture"? I don't see how this means they are not regenerated before being considered 'sheep'.

The "hear his voice" I am referring to is not to say that others cannot hear his voice. Certainly God can and does make some hear him, that are reprobate. That is not what I'm talking about. Do the reprobate hear his voice in the same sense that his own do? They are at enmity with God. The regenerated believer is not.

Even Satan knows to whom he is talking when he converses with God.

 

[David1701]

How does that show my view to be "denied by Scripture"? I don't see how this means they are not regenerated before being considered 'sheep'.

The "hear his voice" I am referring to is not to say that others cannot hear his voice. Certainly God can and does make some hear him, that are reprobate. That is not what I'm talking about. Do the reprobate hear his voice in the same sense that his own do? They are at enmity with God. The regenerated believer is not.

Even Satan knows to whom he is talking when he converses with God.

Jesus said that he had "other sheep" (i.e. Gentiles, who did not believe yet) whom he would bring into the fold (John 10). He called them sheep, before they had even heard the gospel, never mind believed it.

 

[PeterJens]

I'm not just sure which side of this question you are on. You seem to accept that the logic is valid, that if the Creator has predetermined all things, that would then necessarily imply no valid choice on the part of the creature. That logic is not valid.

God is every bit that much above us; in fact, not only is it 'mechanically' true that his decree ESTABLISHES all things, in that all things subsequent to creation are indeed created things, by way of the chains of causation, and thus they are established fact; but it is also according to what you mention in your last paragraph and I discuss below in answer to you, that it is in him, to him, and for him, that all things are what they are and what they will be, and, that principle being established by him over his creation implies that he has established not only what we would properly call "things", but also every principle by which we operate —to wit: Our ability to choose, is established by God, and, in fact, our very choices themselves are established in every particular, by God. —Again, this does not logically imply that our choices are not valid. — It is the only way that our choices can be valid.

And, looking back at the flighty nature of our best choices, experience should bear this out. Our choices are not valid unless HE works them in us.


Makesends said: "Your last paragraph sounds like homemade philosophy. Not at all like scripture. What makes you assume we are born equally loving? Where do you come up with the notion of sin as revenge on betrayal? I don't at all follow how that has anything to do with being made in the image of God and desiring to be in the Kingdom. What you mean by "real choice" in the first sentence of the last paragraph? Are you assuming that "real choice" implies ability to choose either way? The lost, even when they suppose to "choose Christ", if it is not done as a result of God's regenerating them, are still not choosing Christ."

'Common' does not imply 'equal'.

When you mentioned, earlier, sin as "revenge on betrayal" did you mean, sinning in anger at the fact that God allowed one to be betrayed?

BUT, regardless of what we do know about love, we don't know what love is, until we see him as he is.

And here, too, is visible the theme/principle referred to below.

There's a very real sense in which CS Lewis is right, there. He does have a way with words, doesn't he!? Jesus said, "Apart from me you can do nothing." —I like to say that apart from him we ARE nothing. This is the essence of the Christian walk, of what theologians refer to by, 'sanctification'. And this is the very reason for God making us. It is in our nature to become what we will be. We are not yet complete creatures. And God himself is our completion. One with God. When we see him as he is, the sons of God are revealed. Not even the angels have this, and it is for this that they love us, because God loves us.

My simple point is both Calvanism and Armenianism are true but not taken to the extreme. As humans we desire absolutes, one way of looking at everything to come to a conclusion. But take this simple proposal. God can create creation that has the ability to choose, that can react to situations based on their emotions and instincts.

Words like predestined can be taken two ways. All people who wear green shirts will not be allowed in to the hotel. So the rule predestined all green shirt wearers to be excluded. The rule applies to all, but excludes individually. Wearing a shirt is a choice but they are predestined to fail if they are wearing it. The choice is given and persuasion can be applied, to which some respond. This choice is both a gift and also a choice. You can argue both and suggest one point of view dominates when both live together. So Jesus told the apostles He chose them, yet they had to respond and follow.

So scripture supports both, and both are true, but they are emphasises. What is truly wrong is believing one is destined to heaven so ones behaviour has no impact, which some believers have fallen into. Unfortunately Calvinism tends to exaggerate this mistake and excludes in many peoples eyes the ability to walk with Jesus in Holy love. So if I emphasise the love ones enemies, not as a commandment, but as being like God, it is rejected because sinners can never aspire to walk like Jesus and dare claim they could love their enemy.

In my discussions with believers the emotional reality of their love being locked away and not shown is clear, to even accept this is what it means to be a christian, would for them to deny their faith. So I must therefore by deluded and evil to make them feel bad, rather than be an encourager to walk in anothers shoes and understand but by the grace of God we can end up like lost sinners, and were once.

God bless you

 

[makesends]

My simple point is both Calvanism and Armenianism are true but not taken to the extreme. As humans we desire absolutes, one way of looking at everything to come to a conclusion. But take this simple proposal. God can create creation that has the ability to choose, that can react to situations based on their emotions and instincts.

Calvinism says the same, so far.

Words like predestined can be taken two ways. All people who wear green shirts will not be allowed in to the hotel. So the rule predestined all green shirt wearers to be excluded. The rule applies to all, but excludes individually. Wearing a shirt is a choice but they are predestined to fail if they are wearing it. The choice is given and persuasion can be applied, to which some respond. This choice is both a gift and also a choice. You can argue both and suggest one point of view dominates when both live together. So Jesus told the apostles He chose them, yet they had to respond and follow.

Did the rule cause anyone to wear a green shirt? That's not a very good analogy.

But I see you still hold to the Arminianistic notion that being given choice (and Calvinism agrees we are) means that choices are not real, if God has also intentionally caused that choice to come about.

So scripture supports both, and both are true, but they are emphasises. What is truly wrong is believing one is destined to heaven so ones behaviour has no impact, which some believers have fallen into. Unfortunately Calvinism tends to exaggerate this mistake and excludes in many peoples eyes the ability to walk with Jesus in Holy love. So if I emphasise the love ones enemies, not as a commandment, but as being like God, it is rejected because sinners can never aspire to walk like Jesus and dare claim they could love their enemy.

How does Scripture support Arminianism? I don't see it.

How does Calvinism exaggerate the mistake that behavior has no impact? Impact on what? Who are the "sinners" in your last sentence there?

In my discussions with believers the emotional reality of their love being locked away and not shown is clear, to even accept this is what it means to be a christian, would for them to deny their faith. So I must therefore by deluded and evil to make them feel bad, rather than be an encourager to walk in anothers shoes and understand but by the grace of God we can end up like lost sinners, and were once.

God bless you

I don't follow your line of logic here. And what does it have to do with the thesis with which you began this post?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

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?

In MY CASE PERSONALLY, I think that it appears to be partially inaccurate. But after all, it's "Just another Systematic" among many, and of little real value in the absolute.

I knew nothing of "Systematics" when the Holy Spirit Convicted me of SIN, and I repented, and was infilled by the Holy Spirit (Born Again).

The Southern Baptists initially propagandized me with their "Theological system", and 60 years later, I still hold some of their beliefs, which happen to coincide with mine, and have discarded many others. Presently I'm a member in good standing of the Assemblies of God, which adheres (more or less) to the Arminian systematic, which I never bothered with one way or another, since it's of no real practical value, like Calvinism.

Calvinists tend to be "Our way, or the highway" about their precious doctrines, being convinced that "Calvinism" is "God's Word". They "Actively promote" their paradigm, and are scornful of everybody else's. During the Charismatic outpouring (1966-1978 or so) I leaned a lot about the "Importance" of Man's theologies/systematics.

There are beliefs that I CONSIDER CRITICAL, but I don't need any "Systematic" to reinforce my belief in them. The Bible has proven to be a good source without "theologians" messing with it (1 john 2:27).

 

[MamaEtna]

I used to be a freewiller. For me it was hard for me the wrap my mind around God choosing me. But I came to it through reading the bible myself cover to cover every year. It's in there. I am rather soft core. Not a hard core. God still wants us to share the gospel message, not be insular Christians.

 

[Carbon]

I used to be a freewiller. For me it was hard for me the wrap my mind around God choosing me. But I came to it through reading the bible myself cover to cover every year. It's in there. I am rather soft core. Not a hard core. God still wants us to share the gospel message, not be insular Christians.

I'm a 5-point Calvinist, through and through. And I also believe we should share the gospel. I believe only a hyper would think it's not necessary.

 

[Marilyn C]

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?

Actually, I have never discussed Calvinism before, (this forum) so it`s helping me to look more into what I believe.

One thing I have noticed is that there is a huge misunderstanding of God`s purposes through Christ, especially with the Body of Christ.

`...just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the pleasure of His will.` (Eph. 1: 3 & 4)

`And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. ` (Rom. 8: 28 & 29)

I would say that Calvinist think that because it says `predestined` that then God chose these people and not others. (Is that correct what Calvinists believe?)

However, a careful reading of those scriptures keeping in mind God`s overall purpose through Christ for Israel and the nations as well, we realise that when God planned that His Son should have a Body of believers, adopted as sons, then it is those who come into Christ`s Body that are predestined to be like Him, to be conformed to His image.

That was not possible before Christ ascended and was made Head of the Body.

I will also say that Calvinists do not have a good understanding of God`s character and His purposes through Christ.

 

[JIM]

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 could say I am against Calvinism because it is wrong. But that doesn't really answer your question. There are a lot of reasons why I am against Calvinism, but I think the most basic reason is that at it's core, Calvinism has as it's foundation the concept of Total Depravity. I do not even believe in Original Sin, the teaching that God imputed the sin of Adam upon the whole of humanity. And as bad as I think the theory or concept of Original Sin is, the concept of Total Depravity is orders of magnitude worse.

 

[Carbon]

I could say I am against Calvinism because it is wrong.

It’s obvious that’s the way you feel.

But that doesn't really answer your question. There are a lot of reasons why I am against Calvinism, but I think the most basic reason is that at its core, Calvinism has as its foundation the concept of Total Depravity.

So you don’t agree with total depravity. Ummm okay.

I do not even believe in Original Sin,

That’s odd. Since scripture teaches it.

the teaching that God imputed the sin of Adam upon the whole of humanity. And as bad as I think the theory or concept of Original Sin is, the concept of Total Depravity is orders of magnitude worse.

Okay thanks

 

[JIM]

That’s odd. Since scripture teaches it.

I believe you think it does, but it doesn't.

 

[Carbon]

I believe you think it does, but it doesn't.

I believe you think it doesn’t, but it does.

 

[fastfredy0]

I believe you think it does, but it doesn't.

I believe you think it doesn’t, but it does.

Both sides are making very good arguments ....

 

[JIM]

I believe you think it doesn’t, but it does.

It really doesn't say anywhere that God imputed Adam's sin on anyone but Adam.

 

[Rella]

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?

Going back to the OP on this... I will tell you what most bothers me about Calvanism. (Though I truly would love to embrace it whole heartedly)

Preface: I am an Evangelical Presbyterian whose church follows Westminster Confession of Faith and most certainly has beliefs in Calvins Predestination. .... I dont.(We split from Presby USA about 15 years ago when they were becoming quasi-woke)

If we search for the definition of Calvinism we read...

Calvin: Predestination

Calvin on predestination: To his glory, God determined before all creation those who would obtain eternal life, and those who would receive eternal death.

www.theologian-theology.com

According to John Calvin, predestination is God’s unchangeable decree from before the creation of the world that he would freely save some people (the elect), foreordaining them to eternal life, while the others (the reprobate) would be “barred from access to” salvation and sentenced to “eternal death (180, 184).” Calvin was careful to distinguish the predestination of individuals from the corporate election of nations such as Israel (185). He argued that an explanation of predestination is only complete when it includes the election of individuals (187).

The reprobate.... applying to individuals....

Have we not always been told that God made each of us and depending on your understanding Jerimiah 1:5 he knew us before he formed us in the womb. Many peopl cite that verse explaining we were made by God and he indeed knew us before. (I read that differently, but that is for another time.)

Further:

So it was Gods intention from before the foundations of the earth to make the "reprobate" who had no hope of avoiding eternal death...
which of itself would not be so bad but many commentaries say Calvin's predestination says eternal damnation. This person simply had/has no chance

What John Calvin Really Said

Do John Calvin’s modern-day opponents really know Calvin’s theology?

www.crossway.org

Calvin: “Now all are called to repentance, and the hope of salvation is promised to them when they repent: this is true, since God rejects no returning sinner: he pardons all (who come to him) without exception.” (Commentary on Ezekiel)

and the hope of salvation is promised to them when they repent

First I see this as a contradiction, because God could not call all to repentance... not those he predermined would not be
saved in the first place.

I read this and it flies in the face of those " other reprobates destination.... Unless, it is hope dangled like a carrot to those who are without hope?

I see hope of salvation when they/we repent. It is the hope, not a certainty And despite Calvin saying

this is true, since God rejects no returning sinner: he pardons all (who come to him) without exception

God may pardon a returning sinner (prodigal son)... but there still is no hope for those he initially made that
will be damned.

And, yes I know it is God's choice to do as he wishes, I just wish he would let us know why he made those people in the first place.

And we have yet to fit predetermined into the mix of things.

For me... Calvinism is terrifying .

So.... that is my reason

 

[Carbon]

It really doesn't say anywhere that God imputed Adam's sin on anyone but Adam.

Are you looking for those exact words?

 

[Carbon]

Going back to the OP on this... I will tell you what most bothers me about Calvanism. (Though I truly would love to embrace it whole heartedly)

Preface: I am an Evangelical Presbyterian whose church follows Westminster Confession of Faith and most certainly has beliefs in Calvins Predestination. .... I dont.(We split from Presby USA about 15 years ago when they were becoming quasi-woke)

If we search for the definition of Calvinism we read...

Calvin: Predestination

Calvin on predestination: To his glory, God determined before all creation those who would obtain eternal life, and those who would receive eternal death.

www.theologian-theology.com

According to John Calvin, predestination is God’s unchangeable decree from before the creation of the world that he would freely save some people (the elect), foreordaining them to eternal life, while the others (the reprobate) would be “barred from access to” salvation and sentenced to “eternal death (180, 184).” Calvin was careful to distinguish the predestination of individuals from the corporate election of nations such as Israel (185). He argued that an explanation of predestination is only complete when it includes the election of individuals (187).

The reprobate.... applying to individuals....

Have we not always been told that God made each of us and depending on your understanding Jerimiah 1:5 he knew us before he formed us in the womb. Many peopl cite that verse explaining we were made by God and he indeed knew us before. (I read that differently, but that is for another time.)

Further:

So it was Gods intention from before the foundations of the earth to make the "reprobate" who had no hope of avoiding eternal death...
which of itself would not be so bad but many commentaries say Calvin's predestination says eternal damnation. This person simply had/has no chance

What John Calvin Really Said

Do John Calvin’s modern-day opponents really know Calvin’s theology?

www.crossway.org

Calvin: “Now all are called to repentance, and the hope of salvation is promised to them when they repent: this is true, since God rejects no returning sinner: he pardons all (who come to him) without exception.” (Commentary on Ezekiel)

and the hope of salvation is promised to them when they repent

First I see this as a contradiction, because God could not call all to repentance... not those he predermined would not be
saved in the first place.

I read this and it flies in the face of those " other reprobates destination.... Unless, it is hope dangled like a carrot to those who are without hope?

I see hope of salvation when they/we repent. It is the hope, not a certainty And despite Calvin saying

this is true, since God rejects no returning sinner: he pardons all (who come to him) without exception

God may pardon a returning sinner (prodigal son)... but there still is no hope for those he initially made that
will be damned.

And, yes I know it is God's choice to do as he wishes, I just wish he would let us know why he made those people in the first place.

And we have yet to fit predetermined into the mix of things.

For me... Calvinism is terrifying .

So.... that is my reason

There is a lot there.

 

[jeremiah1five]

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?

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.