Calvinism Refuted

[ezduzit]

Another discussion ?

http://www.soulwinning.info/fd/calvinism/refuted.htm

[Ramblinman]

He is guilty of proof-texting, in this case, categorically dismissing Arminianism with one verse, taken out of context.

But he makes some valid points about Calvin's heresies (and thus John McAthur's).

[bn2bnude]

While I don't agree with much of what I read from Calvinism, using "Heresy" or "Heretic" are rather strong handed.

[Losgatos]

...would suggest that he read, re-read and STUDY the KJV of the Bible praying that the Holy Spirit would open his eyes that he might understand what the Lord has said. Especially I would emphasize reading the WHOLE Bible; a verse or two here and there will not do.

[bn2bnude]

I will say Thomas Jefferson had a rather interesting letter he wrote to John Adams in 1823. He wrote...

DEAR SIR, -- The wishes expressed, in your last favor, that I may continue in life and health until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation of `mon Dieu! jusque à quand'! would make me immortal. I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5. points is not the God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin. Indeed I think that every Christian sect gives a great handle to Atheism by their general dogma that, without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a god. Now one sixth of mankind only are supposed to be Christians: the other five sixths then, who do not believe in the Jewish and Christian revelation, are without a knolege of the existence of a god!

and closes the letter with...

The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.


So much for your quotation of Calvin's `mon dieu! jusqu'a quand' in which, when addressed to the God of Jesus, and our God, I join you cordially, and await his time and will with more readiness than reluctance. May we meet there again, in Congress, with our antient Colleagues, and recieve with them the seal of approbation `Well done, good and faithful servants.'

I think Jefferson was also a little heavy handed.

As I said above, I personally don't agree with Calvin. I do, however, believe he was quite sincere as he sought God.

[natman]

I too stood on the other side of the fence (anti-Calvinism), holding a "prescient" view of predestination, until I read the book "Chosen By God", by Dr. R.C. Sproul. Without the book in hand, I am in no ways as eloquent as Dr. Sproul in conveying a proper defense of Calvin's points, so I typically recommend to others to read the book for themselves (It took about two years for a friend of mine to convince me to read it myself.)

I think that the biggest problem that I see in the linked article(s) is that the author(s) are inferring concepts into Calvinism which Calvin did not intend.

In the sub-link 5 main heresies, which Pastor Curtis Hutson refutes, in reference to "Total Depravity", Dr. Hutson states, "And unless God overpowers him and gives him that ability, he will never come to Christ." However, it is not a matter of "overpowering" someone, but rather a matter of "empowering" or "in-powering" someone by pouring out the measure of the Holy Spirit.

There are so many verses which speak to our inability to save ourselves.

Eph 2:1-2
"As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient."

"Dead" people do not have the power to do ANYTHING, not even save themselves.

Eph 2:8-10
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

Even making a decision to follow Christ is a "work". However, apart for the grace of God, that "work" is entirely insufficient to save us.

John 6:44
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them..."

Note the words "No one", "can" and "draws". "No one" is "exclusive" and "absolute". There are people outside of that grouping. "Can", as opposed to "may" or "might" implies that it is "impossible" to bypass. And the word "draw" (as opposed to "woo" or "entice") is the same word used to describe, forcibly pulling or dragging something, as in "drawing water from a well". We do not "woo" or "entice" water from a well by standing at the top of the well and yell "Here water, water". No, we drop a bucket into the well, scoop up some and drag it up. The water has no choice in the matter.

Dr. Hutson tries to refute this argument by point to Jesus words in John 12:32, "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.". However, in context, Jesus is referring to His death on the Cross becoming the central point of focus for all mankind rather than His own "drawing" of people to salvation. As stated in John 6:44, it is not Christ who draws people to salvation, it is the Father Himself.

Under "Unconditional Election", Dr. Hutson states, "By unconditional election Calvin meant that some are elected to Heaven, while others are elected to Hell...". What he is referring to is double-predestination, which is not what Calvin taught. While it may be true that God elects some to Heaven by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit into some and not all (grace), He in no way predestines the rest to Hell. Instead, they freely choose Hell of their own accord.

You might say that it is "unfair" for God to give only some the necessary indwelling of the Holy Spirit. However, God does not have to give ANYBODY the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. He chooses to do so according to His own sovereign desires. God tells us in Exodus 33:19 and then again in Romans 9:15

"“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

In reference to "Irresistible Grace", Dr. Hutson states, "By irresistible grace, John Calvin meant that God simply forces people to be saved." Again, God does not "force" anyone to be saved. However, once they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, they see things more clearly and naturally "choose" to follow Christ and be saved. There are no puppet strings attached.


Like myself, prior to reading Dr. Sproul's book, I think that most people who refute Calvinism tend to be man-centered rather than God-centered. They tend to think that it is all about man and man's desire and will rather than our sovereign God and His will. Romans 8 and especially Romans 9 deal well with these misconceptions. We are the workmanship of God for His glory alone and not our own. God would be entirely right and just not to "save" ANYONE. However, the fact that He even endeavors to save SOME is a testament to His sovereign grace and mercy.

[jochanaan]

I have expressed my views before, but I am always reminded of C.S. Lewis' words on Time and Predestination: "God does not foresee some things as future, nor remember some things as past, nor experience some things as present; He sees all in His unbounded Now...And obviously, to watch a man doing something is not to make him do it." --from The Screwtape Letters (This may not be verbatim; I don't have access to my copies of Screwtape right now. But I think it's close.)

The passages in the Bible that speak of "works" not saving us do not suggest to me any sort of predestination; rather, they tell me that God's grace is indeed sovereign, and enough.

But once we come to trust Him--then what? "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid." --Romans 6:1-2 "But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." --II Peter 3:18 Just as a plant or an animal tends either to grow or die, so our spirits, with His Spirit infused into ours, tend to grow more and more like Him. That is not "works" done by our own will and sweat; it is "The Normal Christian Life." --Watchman Nee

[Petros]

i suspect my attitude is close to jochanaan's. As stated, I be Arminian [ich kann nicht anders], but I have i hope learned that the elephant is big and uncanny enough and we are blind enough that one should be slow to yell heresy, when it usually means the Other is wired differently or has examned different data.

I think Calvin - or at least his "ists" - runs with the ball a bit too far - but so do we all, each with his own ball in his own direction.

Whether as per Ramblinman John McArthur be heretical, I know not, not having focussed on him nor having any reason so to do.

[bn2bnude]

Whether as per Ramblinman John McArthur be heretical, I know not, not having focussed on him nor having any reason so to do.

I really hate the words heretical and heresy. They just seem to be the "bigger sticks" with which to try and win a fight.

[Petros]

It is interesting in this connection that in the counselling arena the "I'm okay, you're okay" concept did not last long. Far easier to yell "deviationist!"

Again, heresy is basically "difference" - and you would think we here would be tolerant of difference.

It is true that some difference seems wrong, and that some wrongs are wronger than others.

Me, even talking to my brother, let alone someone in an alternate path of the Church, I would much rather discuss differences objectively thanpoint yelling fingers. But my brother and some others are not willing to go there.

[Ramblinman]

I do not believe that all in the Calvinist camp are heretics.
I am not even sure that Calvin was a heretic.
It can be argued that some of what he taught is heretical if you take the Calvinist argument to its logical conclusion, but Calvin may not have appreciated the final destination of some (not all) of his theological positions.

[Ramblinman]

Whether as per Ramblinman John McArthur be heretical, I know not, not having focussed on him nor having any reason so to do.

I really hate the words heretical and heresy. They just seem to be the "bigger sticks" with which to try and win a fight.

If a doctrine is heretical, it is necessary to call it out, without hesitation.

[Ramblinman]

It is interesting in this connection that in the counselling arena the "I'm okay, you're okay" concept did not last long. Far easier to yell "deviationist!"

Again, heresy is basically "difference" - and you would think we here would be tolerant of difference.

It is true that some difference seems wrong, and that some wrongs are wronger than others.

Me, even talking to my brother, let alone someone in an alternate path of the Church, I would much rather discuss differences objectively thanpoint yelling fingers. But my brother and some others are not willing to go there.

Not all differences of opinion reach the extreme of heresy.
Heresy is a damnable offense, a particularly dangerous doctrine that must be withstood with all your might and even that is not enough, the grace of God to assist in opposing it.

[Petros]

Of course, the norm is that the Bigendians and the Littlendians stand in rows facing one anoth, both yelling "HERESY".

And often getting violent.

What price wheat an tares?

[King_David]

I think Jefferson was also a little heavy handed.

And a little heretical, putting the Virgin Birth and the Bible on par with "the fables of Minerva and Jupiter"!

It would be interesting to hear him attampt to explain salvation.