Is Calvinism the truth?

[AndrewMorgan]

Until a few years ago, I hadn't encountered Calvinism, instinctively thinking it was a form of operation, like methodism, rather than a belief system. To me, it seems wrong and counter-intuitive, but sometimes, if I'm bombarded with assertions over and over again, I tend to start to wonder - "Am I missing something?" "Is there something in this?".
Would anyone like to give his/ her (preferably biblically-based) beliefs on this subject, as I'd like to learn the truth on this subject?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Would anyone like to give his/ her (preferably biblically-based) beliefs on this subject, as I'd like to learn the truth on this subject?

All you need to know is that Calvinism is "another gospel". So just make sure you know what is the true Gospel.

 

[mustaphadrink]

Calvinism like its opposite Arminianism are belief systems that can be justified by any number of scriptures depending on how you interpret them. Having studied them for a debate at the church I was attending I came down on the side of Calvinism but I could see the argument from the other side just as clearly.

The fact that I came down one way or the other didn't bother me as I do not feel it makes any difference to my salvation which way I believe as I think there is good and bad in both views. The important thing is "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded to keep that for me against that day."

 

[AndrewMorgan]

All you need to know is that Calvinism is "another gospel". So just make sure you know what is the true Gospel.

Thanks for responding.
Getting to "All you need to know" is seemingly rushing to a conclusion, without examining the biblical direction. This is apparently not easy. I don't know if you've come across Calvinists' discourses on the subject, but something - eg - James White points out is that even deep-seated beliefs can be what he calls "traditions" - something we may not know we have.
I guess you're aware of the basics of Calvinism - the TULIP acronym. Although it seems counter-intuitive and unbiblical to me, I wonder if my "traditions" are blinding me.

 

[AndrewMorgan]

Calvinism like its opposite Arminianism are belief systems that can be justified by any number of scriptures depending on how you interpret them. Having studied them for a debate at the church I was attending I came down on the side of Calvinism but I could see the argument from the other side just as clearly.

The fact that I came down one way or the other didn't bother me as I do not feel it makes any difference to my salvation which way I believe as I think there is good and bad in both views. The important thing is "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded to keep that for me against that day."

Thanks for your input.
One thing I can't get my head around is the Calvinists' idea of Compatiblist Freedom.
It instinctively seems to me that if God ultimately determines everything, including what we think, desire, etc., how do we have any freedom? Even if we desire certain things, we seemingly aren't ABLE to desire anything different!

 

[Nehemiah6]

I guess you're aware of the basics of Calvinism - the TULIP acronym.

Yes. I am fully aware of TULIP and that is exactly why I said that Calvinism is "another gospel". If you want to see the fundamental flaw of TULIP you just have to examine "L" -- Limited Atonement -- (meaning that Christ died only for the elect) to see how false this gospel is. Limited Atonement contradicts the Bible as well as the words of Christ, and is fully refuted by His own words in John 3:14-17. So take careful note of what Jesus said:

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

How can any honest person claim that Christ died only for the elect, when He Himself said "that the world through Him might be saved". Therefore in order to pervert this truth, Calvinists declare that "the world" DOES NOT MEAN "the world". And that is blatantly dishonest. And "whosoever" means exactly that -- anyone and everyone, regardless of nationality, race, or religion.

 

[AndrewMorgan]

I tend to agree. There are things Jesus said that seem to go against the idea that man is ultimately powerless to thwart God's purpose. Eg - He said - paraphrasing - "How often would I have gathered you like a chicken gathers her chicks?" and effectively asking "Why are you not doing the right things?". These kinds of questions seem strange if God is micro-managing man's every action and desire. As the perfect agent of God, one would think He'd know the answers to those questions - ie - because God determined it that way, according to Calvinist theology.
It just seems strange that seemingly otherwise cogent and intelligent people like James White speak so eloquently and confidently supporting this dogma.

 

[phil36]

I would say it's biblical. All Christians limit the atonement in one way or another.

You have 2 views on the matter of atonement (basically). Either a reformed view which is what is called limited atonement (a misunderstood name), better called definate atonement, then you have the semi-pelagian view which is the second view.

Some would say there is a third view but its heretical so not christian and that is Pelagianism.

So the reformed would say.. That Christ's atonement had a definate purpose and not just a potential purpose. Semi-pelagian view of the atonement is that it is only potential..
It might save some or it might save none.. Man decides. God's done all he can.

Anyhow tonnes of books on this stuff already and tonnes of threads on here about it.

 

[phil36]

He said - paraphrasing - "How often would I have gathered you like a chicken gathers her chicks?" and effectively asking "Why are you not doing the right things?"

Hi Andrew Morgan,

That's not what that portion of scripture say. He doesn't say gather you.. He says gather your children.

This was condemnation against the leaders in Jerusalem. Read the whole chapter its a scathing rebuke on those who were the blind leaders in Jerusalem..

Anyhow, food for thought.. Enjoy the rest of your day 👍

 

[AndrewMorgan]

Hi Andrew Morgan,

That's not what that portion of scripture say. He doesn't say gather you.. He says gather your children.

This was condemnation against the leaders in Jerusalem. Read the whole chapter its a scathing rebuke on those who were the blind leaders in Jerusalem..

Anyhow, food for thought.. Enjoy the rest of your day 👍

Thanks for your input.
As for my "quote" of Jesus - even as I was writing it, I was wary I may be misquoting it - possible mixing up more that one passage - that's why I qualified it with "paraphrasing".
Even 'though your correction is valid, does the overall point not still stand that Jesus was pointing out they were erring from following God and asking "Why?" - something it seems He would have known if Calvinism is true - "because God purposed it."?

 

[phil36]

Thanks for your input.
As for my "quote" of Jesus - even as I was writing it, I was wary I may be misquoting it - possible mixing up more that one passage - that's why I qualified it with "paraphrasing".
Even 'though your correction is valid, does the overall point not still stand that Jesus was pointing out they were erring from following God and asking "Why?" - something it seems He would have known if Calvinism is true - "because God purposed it."?

Jesus was certainly pointing out that the blind were leading the blind.

Matthew ch23 is condemnation on the Leaders whose seat was in Jerusalem (the leaders).

If you read the statement Jesus made he is not 'asking them why'. He already knows why. The blind where leading the blind. And their house will be left desolate.

 

[John146]

Yes. I am fully aware of TULIP and that is exactly why I said that Calvinism is "another gospel". If you want to see the fundamental flaw of TULIP you just have to examine "L" -- Limited Atonement -- (meaning that Christ died only for the elect) to see how false this gospel is. Limited Atonement contradicts the Bible as well as the words of Christ, and is fully refuted by His own words in John 3:14-17. So take careful note of what Jesus said:

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

How can any honest person claim that Christ died only for the elect, when He Himself said "that the world through Him might be saved". Therefore in order to pervert this truth, Calvinists declare that "the world" DOES NOT MEAN "the world". And that is blatantly dishonest. And "whosoever" means exactly that -- anyone and everyone, regardless of nationality, race, or religion.

Obviously, if you look up the Greek, whosoever means whosoever of the elect, and world means the world of the elect. 😂

 

[AndrewMorgan]

Jesus was certainly pointing out that the blind were leading the blind.

Matthew ch23 is condemnation on the Leaders whose seat was in Jerusalem (the leaders).

If you read the statement Jesus made he is not 'asking them why'. He already knows why. The blind where leading the blind. And their house will be left desolate.

I don't have a Bible with me af the moment, but I want to look up the passage you mentioned later.
Is not the main point true? - that Jesus at SOME point asked people why they were disobeying God. If Calvinism were true, He'd know, I think.
Maybe your point will be clearer when I reference my Bible laer

 

[AndrewMorgan]

Obviously, if you look up the Greek, whosoever means whosoever of the elect, and world means the world of the elect. 😂

Also, as I understand Calvinist understanding, a point they make is that as everything is ultimately God-caused, only the elect are ABLE to effectively answer the call.

 

[phil36]

I don't have a Bible with me af the moment, but I want to look up the passage you mentioned later.
Is not the main point true? - that Jesus at SOME point asked people why they were disobeying God. If Calvinism were true, He'd know, I think.
Maybe your point will be clearer when I reference my Bible laer

If you read Matt 23 it's all about judgement and condemnation on the Jewish leaders whose seat was in Jerusalem.. They prevented the people from coming to God through their traditions.. Thats the point of Jesus saying how often would I have gathered your children (the people) but you (leaders) would not. Therefore your house will be left desolate. This comes immediately after all the woes and warnings about and to the Pharisees in ch23.


Regarding your main point. Do you think God is clueless as to why people refuse him?

I think John gives you the answers (Jesus certainly knows the hearts of all men)

Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name e when they saw the signs that he was doing. But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because g he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man. John 2:23ff

Not only does Jesus know all people, he knows their inner private life aswell.

 

[Magenta]

Thanks for your input.
As for my "quote" of Jesus - even as I was writing it, I was wary I may be misquoting it - possible mixing up more that one passage - that's why I qualified it with "paraphrasing".
Even 'though your correction is valid, does the overall point not still stand that Jesus was pointing out they were erring from following God and asking "Why?" - something it seems He would have known if Calvinism is true - "because God purposed it."?

Note: asking questions is a common teaching tactic. Such should certainly not be taken to mean Jesus did not know the answer

 

[AndrewMorgan]

Note: asking questions is a common teaching tactic. Such should certainly not be taken to mean Jesus did not know the answer

Fair point. God said to

Note: asking questions is a common teaching tactic. Such should certainly not be taken to mean Jesus did not know the answer

Fair point - God said to Adam - "Where are you?" That wasn't a sign that He didn't know.
But I've been making a more fundamental point here. The idea that Jesus was admonishing them suggests they were doing something wrong. This seems to undermine the Calvinists' position that God initiates everything.

 

[Snacks]

No

 

[John146]

Also, as I understand Calvinist understanding, a point they make is that as everything is ultimately God-caused, only the elect are ABLE to effectively answer the call.

Yes, I know. That's unscriptural.

 

[Magenta]

Fair point - God said to Adam - "Where are you?" That wasn't a sign that He didn't know.

I have said the same thing before, myself

But I've been making a more fundamental point here. The idea that Jesus was admonishing them suggests
they were doing something wrong. This seems to undermine the Calvinists' position that God initiates everything.

Also, as I understand Calvinist understanding, a point they make is that as everything
is ultimately God-caused, only the elect are ABLE to effectively answer the call.

Yes... and to say God ordains everything (as [some?] Calvinists do) is really reprehensible given
the wickedness humanity gets up to. God's permissive will does not negate God's moral will.