Faith Issues,News & Religions -  Is Calvinism Correct? (769 views) Notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion.Subscribe
 
From: Bob (Bobbylee7) DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by hostSep-4 10:24 AM 
To: crusedude  (1 of 69) 
 40910.1 

bob>Hi Crusedude, I noticed you are a calvinist, I'd like to discuss that with you if you wish. I think it's very far off. God did predestine a few to "serve" Him, not to be "saved" sums up my study on this. The bible has predestination verses and freewill scriptures, so both have to be right, but how they are right should be the issue. 


 

 
 Reply   Options 

 
From: Secundus555Sep-4 2:21 PM 
To: Bob (Bobbylee7) DelphiPlus Member Icon  (2 of 69) 
 40910.2 in reply to 40910.1 

To me, a FORMER Calvinist, the weakest link in Calvinism is Limited Atonement, and the next weakest is Irresistible Grace. These two have the weakest arguments for them, the least Biblical support, and the most Biblical Evidence AGAINST them. 

 It the final nail in the coffin for my belief in Calvinist was the fact that NO ONE in the 1500 yrs before Calvin EVER taught what he taught regarding Predestination and Election.  Not even St. Augustine would have agreed with Calvin's teachings.

If Calvinism is so Biblical and so correct and so central to understanding the Gospel (as they claim it is), how come NO ONE ELSE in the 1500 yrs before Calvin ever taught it? Did NO ONE before Calvin understand the Gospel?

 

I know many godly men and women who are Calvinists. I respect them, but I cannot agree with them on the Doctrines of Election.

 

I do not believe that Calvinism is Heresy, but I do do believe it is not correct. I believe it is a mistaken understanding of Election and Soteriology.

I don't see it as a "salvational" issue. Christians if good conscience can disagree on this issue and it is not an issue if orthodoxy vs Heresy. 

 

Secundus

  • Edited September 6, 2020 3:52 pm  by  Secundus555
 

 
From: Bob (Bobbylee7) DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by hostSep-7 11:34 AM 
To: Secundus555  (3 of 69) 
 40910.3 in reply to 40910.2 

To me, a FORMER Calvinist, the weakest link in Calvinism is Limited Atonement, and the next weakest is Irresistible Grace. These two have the weakest arguments for them, the least Biblical support, and the most Biblical Evidence AGAINST them. 

bob>Good points. It bothers me that John Calvin didn't come up with the theory, but put his name to it. His name on it gave him power and importance, which I assume he loved. 

 It the final nail in the coffin for my belief in Calvinist was the fact that NO ONE in the 1500 yrs before Calvin EVER taught what he taught regarding Predestination and Election.  Not even St. Augustine would have agreed with Calvin's teachings.

If Calvinism is so Biblical and so correct and so central to understanding the Gospel (as they claim it is), how come NO ONE ELSE in the 1500 yrs before Calvin ever taught it? Did NO ONE before Calvin understand the Gospel?

bob>Good points! It seems to have been created by Margaret MacDonald in one of her "visions" and passed on to Darby, which is how it got spread. Is this your understanding? 

I know many godly men and women who are Calvinists. I respect them, but I cannot agree with them on the Doctrines of Election.

bob>I know people who went to a Presbyterian church and didn't know what Calvinism was. The pass time of the calvinist church I attended was to state how many points one was, no one was hardly ever a 5, most were 2 or 3, which hacked off the pastor, he said one was a 5 or they were not calvinist at all. We had one calvinsit pastor visit and gave the sermon and stated if one was not a calvinist, they were not saved. 

I do not believe that Calvinism is Heresy, but I do do believe it is not correct. I believe it is a mistaken understanding of Election and Soteriology.

bob>I think it's really about predestination, and a very few were predestined to SERVE, like Noah, Moses, David, the 12 and a few others, they were not predestined to be SAVED, but to serve. 

I don't see it as a "salvational" issue. Christians if good conscience can disagree on this issue and it is not an issue if orthodoxy vs Heresy. 

bob>It's salvation as those who accept it, don't have to worry about following Christ or His teachings, they are saved before they are born and there is no way they can ever do anything in this life that can change that. So, eat, drink and be merry, you're saved!

 


 

 

 
From: Secundus555Sep-7 1:07 PM 
To: Bob (Bobbylee7) DelphiPlus Member Icon  (4 of 69) 
 40910.4 in reply to 40910.3 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>Good points. It bothers me that John Calvin didn't come up with the theory, but put his name to it. His name on it gave him power and importance, which I assume he loved. 

Actually, Calvin didn't "put his name on it." He called his movement "Reformed". Later followers and opponents calked it "Calvinism". 

And he DID, in fact, come up with the ideas. No one before Calvin ever taught what he taught. He drew some from St. Augustine and St. Anselm, and some from Luther, but went far beyond what they taught. Neither Augustine nor Anselm nor Luther ever taught what Calvin taught about Election.

Calvin was indeed the innovator who developed what would later be called "Calvinism" (which is broader than just the doctrines of Election. It includes an entire approach to Church Governance, Christian Disciplines, Spirituality, etc.)

He didn't put his name to it. He came up with the ideas. Other people put his name to it. 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>Good points! It seems to have been created by Margaret MacDonald in one of her "visions" and passed on to Darby, which is how it got spread. Is this your understanding? 

You are confusing Calvinism with the Pretrib Rapture. Calvin did NOT believe in the Pretrib Rapture. The Reformed Movement in general is Amillenial, not Dispensational Premillennialism. 

The two are completely different and seperate. 

 

Secundus

 

 
From: Secundus555Sep-7 1:19 PM 
To: Bob (Bobbylee7) DelphiPlus Member Icon  (5 of 69) 
 40910.5 in reply to 40910.3 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>It's salvation as those who accept it, don't have to worry about following Christ or His teachings, they are saved before they are born and there is no way they can ever do anything in this life that can change that. So, eat, drink and be merry, you're saved!

That's a bit of a misrepresentation of what they believe. They do not believe that the Elect are saved before they were born. They were predestined to BECOME saved at some point. But they are not technically saved until that point comes along. 

 

Secundus

 

 
From: Bob (Bobbylee7) DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by hostSep-8 11:05 AM 
To: Secundus555  (6 of 69) 
 40910.6 in reply to 40910.4 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>Good points. It bothers me that John Calvin didn't come up with the theory, but put his name to it. His name on it gave him power and importance, which I assume he loved. 

Actually, Calvin didn't "put his name on it." He called his movement "Reformed". Later followers and opponents calked it "Calvinism". 

bob>He burnd a man at the stake because he would not accept "reformed/Calvinism" what a great example/ leader of their theory. 

And he DID, in fact, come up with the ideas. No one before Calvin ever taught what he taught. He drew some from St. Augustine and St. Anselm, and some from Luther, but went far beyond what they taught. Neither Augustine nor Anselm nor Luther ever taught what Calvin taught about Election.

bob>It's reported that another came up with the theory, I have his name in my files somewhere, I will see if I can find it. 

Calvin was indeed the innovator who developed what would later be called "Calvinism" (which is broader than just the doctrines of Election. It includes an entire approach to Church Governance, Christian Disciplines, Spirituality, etc.)

He didn't put his name to it. He came up with the ideas. Other people put his name to it. 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>Good points! It seems to have been created by Margaret MacDonald in one of her "visions" and passed on to Darby, which is how it got spread. Is this your understanding? 

You are confusing Calvinism with the Pretrib Rapture.

bob>You're right! I sure did! Thanks, I'm old, but not as old as Ginger. LOL

Calvin did NOT believe in the Pretrib Rapture. The Reformed Movement in general is Amillenial, not Dispensational Premillennialism. 

The two are completely different and seperate. 


 

 

 
From: Bob (Bobbylee7) DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by hostSep-8 11:07 AM 
To: Secundus555  (7 of 69) 
 40910.7 in reply to 40910.5 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>It's salvation as those who accept it, don't have to worry about following Christ or His teachings, they are saved before they are born and there is no way they can ever do anything in this life that can change that. So, eat, drink and be merry, you're saved!

That's a bit of a misrepresentation of what they believe. They do not believe that the Elect are saved before they were born. They were predestined to BECOME saved at some point. But they are not technically saved until that point comes along. 

bob>They don't come out and say that, but that's the heart of what they believe. One is "chosen BEFORE they are born" and only the "chosen/elect" will be saved and nothing they do in this life can ever change their "election" 


 

 

 
From: Secundus555Sep-8 11:35 AM 
To: Bob (Bobbylee7) DelphiPlus Member Icon  (8 of 69) 
 40910.8 in reply to 40910.7 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>They don't come out and say that, but that's the heart of what they believe. One is "chosen BEFORE they are born" and only the "chosen/elect" will be saved and nothing they do in this life can ever change their "election" 

Again, kind of an oversimplification that distorts what they believe. 

The path each of the Elect takes to salvation is, in their belief, foreordained. But no human being knows for sure who is and who is not Elect. Some who APPEAR to be Elect now, may fall away before the end and thus demonstrate that they were never "truly saved" to begin with. (Again, this is their understanding). Some who APPEAR to be reprobate and hopelessly lost right now, may turn and repent and be saved before the end. We cannot know who is and who is not "Elect" until the very end. "Those who endure to the end" are the truly Elect. Only God knows who they are. No one who is truly Elect will ever fail to be eventually converted as foreordained, nor will they ever apostatize and lose faith. They will remain faithful. 

The "Once Saved Always Saved" thing where a person can get saved and then live however they want and still be saved is NOT what Calvin taught, and it is NOT what Calvinists teach. That is a bastardized version of Calvinism that most Calvinists would reject and condemn. 

They would say that while a truly regenerate Elect person can occasionally fall Into sin, even serious sin, he will not LIVE A LIFE of sin. He will repent of his sins and return to obedience. 

Calvin saw the Spiritual Disciplines of Prayer, Bible reading, church attendance, etc, as a way to "show forth" or "make your election sure" (demonstrate you are truly Elect by continuing in faithfulness), and he saw those who lived sinfully habitually after a supposed conversion to have been "falsely converted". 

He would have rejected the "OSAS" message of many Baptists because it doesn't include true repentance from sin and a truly changed life, which all truly regenerate people (the Elect) will necessarily show forth. 

And again, he never presumed that anyone was necessarily Elect or unelect. That is why, historically, the Calvinists have been among the most active Evangelistic groups. They believe that Christ foreordained PREACHING THE GOSPEL as the means by which the Elect are revealed and converted. And since no human being knows WHO is Elect and who is not, we preach to EVERYONE. 

That is the Calvinist view. 

I may not share that view, but I think it is important to have an accurate understanding of what they ACTUALLY believe and teach, not a distorted "Straw Man" version. 

Secundus 

  • Edited September 8, 2020 11:43 am  by  Secundus555
 

 
From: Len (AryehLeib613)Sep-8 1:06 PM 
To: Secundus555  (9 of 69) 
 40910.9 in reply to 40910.8 

From  my friend,  a former Calvinist, now a Jew:

Eh, one could make the same argument against Christianity.  Why did no one teach it before the first century?
 

Augustine taught it robustly enough.  Heck, even Luther was a bit more strident than Calvin at times.
 

The problem of Calvinism and Arminianism is a misplacement if what happens within time and what happens outside of time.

 

 
From: Len (AryehLeib613)Sep-8 1:07 PM 
To: Bob (Bobbylee7) DelphiPlus Member Icon  (10 of 69) 
 40910.10 in reply to 40910.9 

bump

 

 
Navigate this discussion: 1-10 11-20 21-30 ... 41-50 51-60 61-69
Adjust text size:

Welcome, guest! Get more out of Delphi Forums by logging in.

New to Delphi Forums? You can log in with your Facebook, Twitter, or Google account or use the New Member Login option and log in with any email address.

Home | Help | Forums | Chat | Blogs | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
© Delphi Forums LLC All rights reserved.