Calvinism Critiqued

[p_rehbein]

Calvinism Critiqued by a Former Calvinist - Auburn University
www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/calvinism.html
Introduction. For many years, Calvinism was at the heart of my belief system. It was unquestionable that man could not believe the gospel. He had a latent and inborn aversion to all things spiritual, even the gracious gospel that the common people heard gladly in Jesus' day (Mark 12:37).


EXCERPT:

It is true that death passed upon all men through the First Adam. His expulsion from the Garden with its Tree of Life removed him from the source of immortality and made death certain. This is also true of his posterity. But the transmission of Total Inability toward God is nowhere conveyed in the text.

Two primary texts adduced to prove the doctrine of Original Sin (Rom. 5; 1 Cor. 15) say nothing about Total Inability. Nowhere are we told that an invincible tendency to resist God was imparted to the race through the offense of one. If there were a place we would expect to find the doctrine, it would be in one of those passages dealing with the relationship between Adam and his descendants. But there is not a trace of such teaching there.


This is a serious difficulty. The Calvinist's entire system of soteriology is founded on the grand assumption that Adam was created morally impeccable. He lost perfection through sin and assumed a nature totally corrupted and alienated from God, a nature imparted to all mankind as a curse. But the Scriptural evidence for these contentions is, at best, scant. For the most part, the doctrine is assumed unquestionably. Adam's fall from moral perfection was established by Augustine's polemics against Pelagianism and passed on, without alteration, through the barren centuries of the Middle Ages. Calvin received it in toto from his medieval legacy, as has each successive generation of theologians since.

A doctrine that forms such a colossal foundation-stone for the system should have unequivocal proof in the Bible. If a theology is based on an unproven philosophic assumption how can the rest of the system be trustworthy? The Calvinist cannot expect us to believe him unless the consistent tenor of Scripture tells us: (1) God made man morally perfect; (2) Adam's sin immediately corrupted him and rendered him unable to respond to God; (3) God transmitted this inability to all his descendants.

 

[p_rehbein]

EXCERPT:

Just as Martin Luther (1483-1546) was a heretic for teachings the necessity of the sacraments (including water baptism) for salvation, John Calvin (1509-1564) was also a heretic. Calvin taught infant baptism, and also that the Sacraments were EQUAL with the Word of God. Calvin and Luther BOTH taught baptismal regeneration.

Calvin even had people killed for disagreeing with his heresy on infant baptism. So many people today are naive of such men. I've been reading Christian books for years that quote Martin Luther and John Calvin—come to find out they both endorsed the heretical sacraments and infant baptism. Sacraments are NOT taught in the Bible.

FOUND HERE:

John Calvin EXPOSED! - Jesus-is-Savior.com
jesus-is-savior.com/False Doctrines/Calvinism/john_calvin...
John Calvin EXPOSED!. Compiled and edited by David J. Stewart. Just as Martin Luther (1483-1546) was a heretic for teachings the necessity of the sacraments (including water baptism) for salvation, John Calvin (1509-1564) was also a heretic.

EXCERPT:

Calvin Taught Baptismal Regeneration

Listen to the heretic John Calvin teach baptismal regeneration (i.e., the unbiblical teaching that a person must be water baptized in order to go to Heaven). John Calvin was very Catholic in his doctrines...

"Consider Calvin: “But as baptism is a solemn recognition by which God introduces his children into the possession of life [e.g., regeneration], a true and effectual sealing of the promise, a pledge of sacred union with Christ, it is justly said to be the entrance and reception into the church. And as the instruments of the Holy Spirit are not dead, God truly performs and effects by baptism what he figures.” Elsewhere, Calvin wrote, “There is a union complementary with the thing figured, lest the sign be empty, because that which the Lord represents in sign he effects at the same time, and executes in us by the power of the Spirit . . . What indeed do we abrogate or take away from God when we teach that he acts through his instruments, indeed, he alone . . . God works . . . through the sacraments as instruments… The Spirit is the author, the sacrament is truly the instrument used.” —SOURCE​

EXCERPT:

Calvinism is NOT Biblical Doctrine

Calvin was a heretic who taught that God predestines men to salvation. Calvin taught “selective salvation” (or “unconditional election”) where God selects who will be saved and who will not. These are Satanic heresies. Calvin also taught “irresistible grace” (the lie that God forces a person to be saved).

I once heard a New Evangelical pastor tell me that there is no need to go soulwinning because God decides who gets saved or not. That pastor is an utter fool. He was so lazy and far from God that he adopted Calvin's heresies to justify his carnality and unwillingness to preach the Gospel. Proverb 11:30 tells us that a wise Christian wins souls to Christ. The unscriptural attitude of Calvinists is: “If God predestinates men to salvation, then why should we go soulwinning?”

Why did Paul go door-to-door soul-winning in Acts 20:20? Why did Jesus give the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20? Why did Jesus try to convert the wicked Scribes and Pharisees? Why did Stephen continue preaching to the angry mob? Why did the early Christians continue preaching the gospel, after James was killed by Herod for preaching the gospel? It is because there is hope for every sinner to come to Christ. It is because God has given to mankind a free will, and the choice is ours individually to make. God does NOT choose who will be saved or lost. The choice is yours alone to make!

 

[Nehemiah6]

A doctrine that forms such a colossal foundation-stone for the system should have unequivocal proof in the Bible.

Once again we see the power of a lie. In this world lies are more powerful than truth, and truth generally suffers.

You will rarely -- if ever -- find a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist to set aside his erroneous ideas and simply study the Bible and the Gospel from Scripture.

 

[p_rehbein]

Debunking
Calvin's Total Depravity


Total Depravity (not once is it mentioned in the Scriptures), also known as total inability or total corruption, is the unbiblical Calvinistic (and Augustinian ) teaching that every human being, because of the fall, is totally unable to do anything spiritually good, and therefore is unable of his own free will to exercise saving faith in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. It teaches that man only has the free will to sin, and as a result cannot respond positively to spiritual truth; he cannot of his own volition seek for God and find Him.


A Commentary of Romans 1:18-32

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppressthe truth in unrighteousness,


FOUND HERE:

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr...ity.html/RK=2/RS=gEWg6t8cBP56UsZC3Rpz7XmnV74-

 

[posthuman]

Total Depravity (not once is it mentioned in the Scriptures)

i believe the idea is supported by passages such as these --

Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.​

(John 3:3) ​

​

The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit​

(1 Corinthians 2:14) ​

​

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. ​

(John 6:44)​

​

"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you — they are full of the Spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray Him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."​

(John 6:63-65)​

. . put together with Romans 3:9-18 for example.

these ideas didn't come from thin air by people trying to create false doctrine; they came from people studying the Bible and expressing what they understood from it. so i'm not sure 'found nowhere in the Bible' is accurate, even if you don't agree that it is the right understanding. legalistic works-to-earn-salvation is 'found in the Bible' in a certain sense though it is contrary to the message of the gospel when the whole message is taken into account -- i mean, it's not like people who preach that never quote any verses, in fact, that's what the Book says about the law of Moses, that 'the one who does these things shall live by them' - it's just that part of the truth is missing from the argument: that no one does these things, and God in His lovingkindness extends mercy to us through the Son, making for us a way in which we actually can enter into fellowship with Him and have life in Him, through faith in Him, apart from works.

 

[preacher4truth]

Two primary texts adduced to prove the doctrine of Original Sin (Rom. 5; 1 Cor. 15) say nothing about Total Inability...
But the transmission of Total Inability toward God is nowhere conveyed in the text.

Oh, contraire, but it is! Total inability is here: John 6:41-71. Therefore you and your hate source are incorrect. It is no surprise that you can find one who has apostatized to use as "evidence."

The Calvinist cannot expect us to believe him unless the consistent tenor of Scripture tells us: (1) God made man morally perfect; (2) Adam's sin immediately corrupted him and rendered him unable to respond to God; (3) God transmitted this inability to all his descendants.

More drivel. Man cannot respond to God, cannot come to him unless God does a work to rescue him. That is a fact and it is consistent in Scripture.

The entire premise of the OP is absolutely false.

Ever notice p_rehbein rarely or never uses Scripture? Ever wonder why he only scours the internet to find a source that agrees with his hatred of salvation by grace without works, and exaltation of man's ability?

But I digress, Scripture shows both p_rehbein and his sought out agreeable source to both be errant.

 

[preacher4truth]

EXCERPT:

Just as Martin Luther (1483-1546) was a heretic for teachings the necessity of the sacraments (including water baptism) for salvation, John Calvin (1509-1564) was also a heretic. Calvin taught infant baptism, and also that the Sacraments were EQUAL with the Word of God. Calvin and Luther BOTH taught baptismal regeneration.

False! Neither taught baptismal regeneration.

Calvin even had people killed for disagreeing with his heresy on infant baptism.

Another lie...

FOUND HERE:

John Calvin EXPOSED! - Jesus-is-Savior.com

Oh, such an unbiased and truthful source, LOL!!!!!!!!

I snipped the balance because the above "christian" site takes everything out of context to malign, bear false witness and ridicule in ignorance just like p_rehbein does.

For the record p_rehbeinn preaches a works gospel, that we are saved by works.

 

[PennEd]

I don't quite get the concept that because words like "total depravity" or "eternal security" aren't written verbatim in Scripture this voids the doctrine.

We need only look at the doctrine of the Trinity. Nowhere is that word in Scripture, yet we all know that there are numerous passages that confirm God is indeed a Triune Being.

 

[preacher4truth]

If anyone wants to get a good read on "Calvinism" read with an open mind "The Potter's Freedom" by Dr. James White.

You will find if you're honest that anti-Cal theology has no biblical exegesis to stand on to prove its case and that my friends is a fact. All Scripture is taken out of context on the anti-Cal side and is clearly shown in this work. Yes. All.

 

[preacher4truth]

Of course red flags went up with the article in the OP, and frankly this is due to the known bias and false gospel of the OP himself.

I have serious doubts "Steve Jones" was ever a Calvinist. His misunderstanding of what is in Scripture coupled with his error asserting nothing supports it in Scripture is questionable at the least.

Any true Calvinist knows where the Scriptures are that clearly refute his argument.

The article as well as the OP only serve to malign and ridicule, neither are objective sources.

Neither are they credible or biblically based as both ignore clear teachings in Scripture that prove their stance against biblical revelation as errant.

P_rehbein will not allow the Scriptures to correct a sad and well known fact. According to his track record the OP will only offer inflammatory and dismissive responses. He will not deal with the texts with any integrity, showing his true agenda to not be truth but ridicule and contempt without investigation or objectivity.

After trying to get some info on a guy with a common name Steve Jones in the article of the OP who offers zero credentials or information about himself, I ran into this:

"I was sent to a link by a friend who got it from a friend of his attempting to disprove Calvinism. The article is by a fellow named Steve Jones who attempts to critique Calvinism. In this post, I would like to write a rebuttal to it.

Before we start, I would like to mention that it is odd that there is no description of who this guy "Steve Jones" is. I am a proponent that someone who wants to dispute something should not be anonymous. In other words, take responsibility for what you are posting. A second issue I have is that it is hosted on the website of a guy, Ken Allen, who seems to be a universalist with his "True Grace Ministries." While this does not mean that the article is discredited, this poses a question as to the motive behind Steve Jones and what he currently holds to. In other words, I question the use of this article by an evangelical to attempt to discredit Calvinism. Why does Steve Jones decide to post his article on a site maintained by someone at least sympathetic to universalism? In fact, is Steve Jones a universalist himself, judging by his citation of the heretics Clark Pinnock and Faustus Socinus, both of whom had universalistic tendencies? Do evangelicals really want to utilize arguments by a probable universalist just to fight a common enemy, Calvinism, noting that Universalism is just as much an enemy to Evangelical Arminianism as it is to Calvinism?

The author's experience

The author Steve Jones claimed to a former Calvinist. While that seems to portray him as a more credible source as one coming from within the movement, the question to be asked is how much does he really understand of Calvinism? Was he formerly a Calvinist who truly understood the arguments behind Calvinism and then reject it when he was convinced by the Scriptures otherwise? Or was he a former Calvinist in the sense of mere identification of the movement without going deeply into it? I would submit the latter, since he does not deal with the major texts and arguments, as we shall see."


Find more here.

 

[John146]

If anyone wants to get a good read on "Calvinism" read with an open mind "The Potter's Freedom" by Dr. James White.

You will find if you're honest that anti-Cal theology has no biblical exegesis to stand on to prove its case and that my friends is a fact. All Scripture is taken out of context on the anti-Cal side and is clearly shown in this work. Yes. All.

I knew it wouldn't be long until James White showed up.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

I figure Calvinism...especially the hyper Calvinists...is a snare and attempts to confine God's sovereignty to mankind's' understanding

the fact Calvin actually had killed those who opposed him, should be enough to give anyone pause

sounds more like rule by dictatorship and God is no dictator

further, the anger and intolerance exposed when this subject is brought up, is something that should make folks back away from this false doctrine

IMO, certain personality types adhere to Calvinism at all costs, with the majority being sheep who need to follow and prefer to have someone else do the hard work...probably the majority

and here come the x's which mean nothing whatsoever as the opinions have already been expressed and we are clear on who thinks what

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Of course red flags went up with the article in the OP, and frankly this is due to the known bias and false gospel of the OP himself.

that is what I am pointing to when I state the intolerance

Calvinism saves absolutely no one

only the blood of Christ our Savior can wash away sins.

Calvinism is a system. God is not a system

there is only one gospel and that is the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ

 

[eternally-gratefull]

While I am saddened by all the hate towards calvinists and from some of them in this topic. I am even more sad that someone would prefer to attack a man (calvin) and not focus on things more important. Like salvation by grace through FAITH, and not of works. Which will never maitnain anyone salvation, or give anyone assurance of salvation.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

While I am saddened by all the hate towards calvinists and from some of them in this topic. I am even more sad that someone would prefer to attack a man (calvin) and not focus on things more important. Like salvation by grace through FAITH, and not of works. Which will never maitnain anyone salvation, or give anyone assurance of salvation.

oh really?

who has said they hate Calvinists?

perhaps hone your comprehensions skills

 

[eternally-gratefull]

oh really?

who has said they hate Calvinists?

perhaps hone your comprehensions skills

I suggest you actually read some posts people have made against calvanism, You have been here almost as long as me, You should know what I am talking about.. The hate is quite appearant, from BOTH SIDES.

 

[PennEd]

I figure Calvinism...especially the hyper Calvinists...is a snare and attempts to confine God's sovereignty to mankind's' understanding

the fact Calvin actually had killed those who opposed him, should be enough to give anyone pause

sounds more like rule by dictatorship and God is no dictator

further, the anger and intolerance exposed when this subject is brought up, is something that should make folks back away from this false doctrine

IMO, certain personality types adhere to Calvinism at all costs, with the majority being sheep who need to follow and prefer to have someone else do the hard work...probably the majority

and here come the x's which mean nothing whatsoever as the opinions have already been expressed and we are clear on who thinks what

This post could have been written by a democrat talking about republicans. The left will start all kinds of trouble and mischief, bad mouth the right, and then be surprised and angry when the right has the gall to fight back!

Time and time again we see relative harmony on CC and then POOF!!! For no apparent reason a let's bash Calvinist thread starts. I'm not saying there aren't anti Arminian threads, but they sure seem few and far between in comparison.

I didn't know squat about John Calvin or Calvinism, or tulip til I came here. And I have some issues with some of the hard lines that some adhere to, but between the constant calvinist bashing, and the fact that much of the doctrine is Scripturally defensible, it may require more scrutiny.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

This post could have been written by a democrat talking about republicans. The left will start all kinds of trouble and mischief, bad mouth the right, and then be surprised and angry when the right has the gall to fight back!

Time and time again we see relative harmony on CC and then POOF!!! For no apparent reason a let's bash Calvinist thread starts. I'm not saying there aren't anti Arminian threads, but they sure seem few and far between in comparison.

I didn't know squat about John Calvin or Calvinism, or tulip til I came here. And I have some issues with some of the hard lines that some adhere to, but between the constant calvinist bashing, and the fact that much of the doctrine is Scripturally defensible, it may require more scrutiny.

See, I am not the only one who sees this..

 

[preacher4truth]

This post could have been written by a democrat talking about republicans. The left will start all kinds of trouble and mischief, bad mouth the right, and then be surprised and angry when the right has the gall to fight back!

Time and time again we see relative harmony on CC and then POOF!!! For no apparent reason a let's bash Calvinist thread starts. I'm not saying there aren't anti Arminian threads, but they sure seem few and far between in comparison.

I didn't know squat about John Calvin or Calvinism, or tulip til I came here. And I have some issues with some of the hard lines that some adhere to, but between the constant calvinist bashing, and the fact that much of the doctrine is Scripturally defensible, it may require more scrutiny.

Let's stick with the issue at hand, not the vitriol. Describing a persons beliefs and track record does not equate to vitriol -- society has made it to be so, but it isn't true.

Keep in mind Ed I am not describing you concerning vitriol, I am only making a point.

It is useful to describe the opponents beliefs and their track record, showing any bias and the subjective nature of their arguments.

Since the entire objective is to describe what the person believes (The OP) namely Calvinists it is a fitting tool. This is therefore useful in rebuttal.

Secondly, deal with the texts. It is sad, but it is true that the anti Calvinists here and elsewhere on the www do not deal with the text but offer Scripture they think pits itself against other truths.

If the texts are dealt with they are done so out of context. That is a fact and it needs to be faced and treated.

Take time to read "The Potter's Freedom" and you will see exactly what I am saying on all accounts, both of the persons position making objection, and how they take Scripture out of context to support anti Calvinist doctrine, pitting Scripture against Scripture. Sad but true.

 

[Hevosmies]

that Jesus-is-savior website is very very VERY easy-believism. No repentance.

But yeah. Another calvinist thread lets have it a go.

I dare NOT critique calvinism anymore, despite being so hard on it earlier. After being pointed out that some people departed Jesus SPECIFICALLY because of His teaching on predestination. I dont want to mess with that.

John 6:64-66
Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Oh and btw: Calling Martin Luther a heretic is a classic. In the sense that without Luther you wouldn't even be able to read the Bible in your language, or have the knowledge to call him a heretic, you would be bowing to the Pope if it wasnt for him!
Historical context people! Luther was a great man of God!

Maybe this is one of those things we ARENT supposed to have figured out completely. Like Paul says:

Romans 11:33
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!