Errors of Calvanism

[Alimantado]

58 minutes ago, Alan said:

I also feel, whether wrong, or right, that I was appropriate in my response as it did detract from the article itself. Nor, did I mention you in particular but I mentioned the method of detracting from the thrust of the lesson.

Firstly I object to it being called a 'detraction', which means to belittle or denigrate. Like I said before, I was trying to provide constructive criticism. You may diagree with the criticism, but that doesn't per se mean I was belittling anyone (and it's obvious from the tone of my post that I was not). And yes you did mention me because you labelled the matter a "futile effort to detract", and so by talking about effort you were talking about motive--my motive, because obviously I was the one who brought the matter up.

[Alimantado]

1 hour ago, Alan said:

Permit me to explain my motives. The method of using one small section of a lesson to throw doubt on the whole lesson is a common practice to detract from the main points. That is a common practice.

Sorry, I missed this last bit. The problem with accusing me of doing that (and you are accusing me, since you're talking about motive), is that I really clearly said in my first post that it was only a "quick response" to the "first few points". Now, I did say that I assumed those points were a summary of the rest of the article--but that wasn't me trying to cast doubt. On the contrary that was me admitting loud and clear that I hadn't checked, a "correct me if I'm wrong" statement, if you will. Had I wanted to mislead others into not reading the rest, I would've pretended that I had read all of it and was commenting on all of it.

And had you just told me that my assumption is wrong, and moreover my points are invalid because of reasons A,B,C I would've been fine with that--points taken and thanks for the correction. But instead you went further...

[Ukulelemike]

21 hours ago, Alimantado said:

Well, while I'm no fan of strict dictionary definitions, for a term as technical as ad hominem I guess we should come up with one. Here's what my Oxford dictionary says: an argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

I think that definition fits what's going on above. If Calvinism is wrong then it's wrong because it's untrue in of itself, not because of what Calvin was like or what he did or didn't do. The acid test is: if you came across the doctrine but didn't know the author, you would still be able to see that it's in error. Therefore the life of Calvin is irrelevant to whether Calvinism is true.

I agree on the definition. I guess my point being, in matters of biblical doctrine, we must, as well, consider the character of the person who is putting forth such doctrines, to aid us. Its true that we can know doctrine is false regardless of whether we know who the author is, And really, its best that way, so we can be careful not to be lulled into careless appraisal of doctrine because we know the person and trust them. Case in point, someone showed me a sermon done by Spurgeon, (not on Calvinism), where he called Michael the Archangel, Jesus Christ. Now, while I disagree with Spurgeon on his Calvinist views, (though at least he believed strongly in witnessing), I generally agree in other areas. So that he would make such a statement was jarring, and his stamp of approval, as it were, on a false doctrine, could lure others into such falsehoods.

 In Calvin's case, we know from history that he was a wicked man with no grace, no compassion, no tolerance for anyone who held a belief different from his own-this is not to say that we ignore other doctrines and just get along, but he wasn't willing to really search the scriptures-he had his doctrine, his box for God, and rather than repudiate what he disagreed with, he would use force and torture to make others follow. Not godly. So, his life and character help, because can a man who shows no sign of regeneration, be trusted in ANY of his doctrines? If he has no leading of the Spirit in his daily walk, can we trust him to have it in his understanding of scripture?

That's all I'm saying. 

[Alimantado]

1 hour ago, Ukulelemike said:

I agree on the definition. I guess my point being, in matters of biblical doctrine, we must, as well, consider the character of the person who is putting forth such doctrines, to aid us. Its true that we can know doctrine is false regardless of whether we know who the author is, And really, its best that way, so we can be careful not to be lulled into careless appraisal of doctrine because we know the person and trust them. Case in point, someone showed me a sermon done by Spurgeon, (not on Calvinism), where he called Michael the Archangel, Jesus Christ. Now, while I disagree with Spurgeon on his Calvinist views, (though at least he believed strongly in witnessing), I generally agree in other areas. So that he would make such a statement was jarring, and his stamp of approval, as it were, on a false doctrine, could lure others into such falsehoods.

 In Calvin's case, we know from history that he was a wicked man with no grace, no compassion, no tolerance for anyone who held a belief different from his own-this is not to say that we ignore other doctrines and just get along, but he wasn't willing to really search the scriptures-he had his doctrine, his box for God, and rather than repudiate what he disagreed with, he would use force and torture to make others follow. Not godly. So, his life and character help, because can a man who shows no sign of regeneration, be trusted in ANY of his doctrines? If he has no leading of the Spirit in his daily walk, can we trust him to have it in his understanding of scripture?

That's all I'm saying. 

Very good points Mike--what immediately puts us on common ground is your statement that the character of the person can be analysed as well as the doctrines they put forth. I assumed the article wasn't going to do that--a wrong assumption, as Alan and Wretched have pointed out. In hindsight I can see I treated the original post as an article, where you might expect an introduction outlining the scope, instead of a set of sermon notes.

[Alan]

7 hours ago, Alimantado said:

Firstly I object to it being called a 'detraction', which means to belittle or denigrate. Like I said before, I was trying to provide constructive criticism. You may diagree with the criticism, but that doesn't per se mean I was belittling anyone (and it's obvious from the tone of my post that I was not). And yes you did mention me because you labelled the matter a "futile effort to detract", and so by talking about effort you were talking about motive--my motive, because obviously I was the one who brought the matter up.

Here is, American Heritage Dictionary meaning of, 'detract.' "To take away (from); divert:" And, that was the meaning that I had in my post. 'Detract does not mean to belittle or denigrate, nor did I have that meaning in my post. Nor did I mention you, nor mention anything that belittled you. I really think you misunderstood the meaning and my usage of the word detract. I cannot stop what you think, but, I want to clarify what the word 'detract' means and how I used it.

[Ukulelemike]

Now, gents, don't make me turn this car around! We will go RIGHT home, so help me!

[Alimantado]

1 hour ago, Alan said:

Here is, American Heritage Dictionary meaning of, 'detract.' "To take away (from); divert:" And, that was the meaning that I had in my post. 'Detract does not mean to belittle or denigrate, nor did I have that meaning in my post. Nor did I mention you, nor mention anything that belittled you. I really think you misunderstood the meaning and my usage of the word detract. I cannot stop what you think, but, I want to clarify what the word 'detract' means and how I used it.

OED says it means to diminish the worth of, and the top synonym is 'belittle'. You know what you meant by it, of course, but I'm highly skeptical that you only meant the equivalent of 'distract' because of the way you used the term:

"... a futile effort to detract..."

"Permit me to explain my motives. The method of using one small section of a lesson to throw doubt on the whole lesson is a common practice to detract from the main points."

You don't have to say my name to mention me. Arguments and 'methods' don't have motives. People do. By saying things like "futile attempt" and "throw doubt", you are accusing someone of acting improperly, since that's exactly what those phrases mean. And since I'm the one who wrote the post you're talking about, then it's obvious you mean me.

It's equivalent to me making some statement about a certain someone who's username refers to an instrument and has a picture of a goat for their avatar, but when challenged insisting that I wasn't talking about Ukelemike because I hadn't actually said his name.

[Alan]

I guess we both have our opinions on the matter. As I stated before, let us move on to the other points in this fine lesson.

[Alan]

On ‎2015‎年‎11‎月‎5‎日‎ ‎上午‎, Shadowfeathers said:

The Contrasts

Armenian = A, Calvanism = C

Depravity: A – Man is depraved, lost, guilty, but has been helped so that he can believe if he will.

Depravity: C – Man is totally depraved. He is dead. Depravity indicates inability.

Man's will is not free, but enslaved by sin.

 

I am a Biblicist, not Calvanist or Arminian. I believe the Bible as Authority, Not John Calvin or Jacobus Arminus.

I really appreciate point # 5, 'The Contrasts."

Especially when it was mentioned, "I am  a biblicast, not Calvinist or Arminian. I believe the Bible as Authority, Not John Calvin or Jacobus Arminus."

This is a good, biblical postion and I agree with it wholeheartedly.

[Alimantado]

4 hours ago, Alan said:

I guess we both have our opinions on the matter. As I stated before, let us move on to the other points in this fine lesson.

Whatever you meant by detract, that you accused me of improper conduct with my original post is a fact, not an opinion:

"Permit me to explain my motives. The method of using one small section of a lesson to throw doubt on the whole lesson is a common practice to detract from the main points. That is a common practice."

You're saying my original post was a deliberate smokescreen to stop people from reading the rest of the article. That's completely untrue, but since you don't withrdraw it then that means you stand by it.

For any others reading: I've been very happy to get UkeleMike's response to my response, I consider that exhange a constructive contribution to the OP and I'm looking forward to reading comments on the rest of the OP.

[Alan]

On ‎2015‎年‎11‎月‎5‎日‎ ‎上午‎, Shadowfeathers said:

Election

• A – God elected those whom He foresaw would believe.

• C – God's election rested solely in His own sovereign will. It is not based on anything foreseen in man.

This point is very important to properly understand the true doctrine of election and to uncover the errors of Calvinism. Election is based on the 'foreknowledge of God,' and not on the understanding, or knowledge, of man.

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." Romans 8:29

 

Edited November 18, 2015 by Alan
spelling

[Alimantado]

In the spirit of getting some more fruitful contributions on this thread:

On 05/11/2015, 00:45:47, Shadowfeathers said:

Questions of Mystery!

• How can God be sovereign and how can man be responsible?

• How can there be responsibility without ability?

• How can limits be placed on an infinite sacrifice?

• Great preachers have strongly emphasized both divine sovereignty and human responsibility.

• You might be surprised that C. H. Spurgeon leaned toward Calvanism, although he strongly disagreed with the doctrine of limited atonement.

I particularly like this assertion that there are questions of mystery. Trying to comprehend God's plan and will does lead to some tricky philosophical questions, which preachers and theologans have been speaking on and writing about since the early church. I don't know what else the preacher said about the questions listed but I tend to think it's fine to say that they are indeed mysteries--things we may not have satisfactory answers for on this earth. There are examples in God's Word, e.g. Job and Romans, where God chooses not to answer direct questions about His workings. Perhaps systems like Calvinism are an attempt to answer absolutely everything, and in doing so they over-reach.

On 05/11/2015, 00:45:47, Shadowfeathers said:

Most Calvanist are probably saved, but just confused on the Scriptures.

This is what I've always believed, since the Calvinists I've spoken to proclaim the Gospel that I acknowledge, though I think they're wrong in many areas. But there are many on this forum who believe the opposite: that a Calvinist is very unlikely to be a Christian and that a Calvinist is really equivalent to, say, a muslim or a mormon.

[Critical Mass]

17 hours ago, Alan said:

This point is very important to properly understand the true doctrine of election and to uncover the errors of Calvinism. Election is based on the 'foreknowledge of God,' and not on the understanding, or knowledge, of man.

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." Romans 8:29

 

Sounds to me like a person is predestined to look like Jesus one day, nothing about being saved.

[Alan]

4 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

Sounds to me like a person is predestined to look like Jesus one day, nothing about being saved.

That is correct. Part of the doctrine of election and predestination, is that after salvation, every saint is predestioned, "... to be conformed to the image of his Son..." Unffortunately, you may not understand that Paul is directly talking to, and about, the saints.

Let us take a closer look at the context.

The whole context of Romans 8:1-39 is only applicable to someone who is saved, redeemed, has the Spirit, is a brother, and is called a saint. To say paul is saying nothing about salvation is not correct. Verse 9, "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

Let us start from verse 27, "And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit [only the saints have the Spirit] because he maketh intercession to the will of God. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God [only a saint can love God], to them who are the called [the saved, the redeemed] according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also [also: in addition too after salvation: after being redeemed; after the Spirit enters the saint] did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." Please also take careful note Paul stated, "among the brethren."

"Also" is the key word. After salvation, also, in addition to, the saint is predestined to "be conformed to the image of his Son," and the other gifts of salvation from verse 30-39

From verse 30 to 39 there are other blessings every saint has after salvation.

I hope the above study helped.

Alan

[Ukulelemike]

We also remember that, if we are to be comformed to the image of His Son, well, the Son is the express image of the Father, sooooo...

As for the mystery of how God can be sovereign, and man responsible, this has never been a stretch for me: If God is sovereign, which He surely is, then is does not that sovereignty expand to ALLOWING man, IN His  sovereignty, the ability and responsibility to make a choice to follow or reject? Apparently, even the angels have some amount of free will is a third of them followed Lucifer in his rebellion, surely an act of free will-else God willed evil, willed rebellion against Himself, willed that man would fall to sin, etc...See the mess we get without free will?

Of course, there are those instances where clearly the Lord has prepared someone to do something to show forth His glory. For instance:

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me. For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth. For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth. And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth." (Ex 9:13-16)

  In this instance, it seems the Lord specifically set Pharaoh to reject His commands to let them go, for the purpose of showing His power, not just to Egypt, but to all the nations that would later hear of it. We see that 40 years later those of Jericho knew of it, and feared them because of it. So it had a more lasting effect than just then and there. We also have the example of Cyrus being called by name as the king who would release the Jews from captivity and make possible the rebuilding of the temple in the book of Isaiah, long before it happened.

So it makes me wonder, perhaps those who would be in power don't have the same amount of free will that others do-those who wield power and earthly authority seem to be more directed by God in various ways, or God just gives us the rulers we deserve, who will bring about the expected end. After all the Proverbs 21:1 tells us "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." Would this not extend to ALL earthly rulers, be they kings, emperors, pharaohs and presidents?