Calvinism

[BeeCee]

Hi there all. This is my first post!

I've been wanting to chat a bit about this. I was in various Arminian churches for many years and when God opened my eyes I started going to a Baptist church which is mostly Calvinistic. In my 7,5 years there, there are so many things that I have questioned.

How do people really know they are born again and that you are in fact part of the elect? I do know that we will be known by the fruit in our lives. But young Christians I think have a huge struggle. I know I initially did have and I consider myself a mature Christian. However, they shove so much into your head - you are depraved, undeserving (I know that). You said the sinners prayer... oh gosh, just so much.

There is so much knowledge also shoved down your throat, I am beginning to wonder if they are in fact legalistic as they tend to judge people on various points and you have to do things a certain way etc. Yesterday, looking at something, there is so much focus on man - Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon and many more - they have a lot to offer, but really.

okay I sound kinda messed up, and I am in a sense, but right now just trying to get my focus onto Christ and off of all their doctrinal issues. Any assistance will be appreciated. It would be nice to chat to someone who is/has been in the same boat.

 

[GWH]

Welcome to Christian Chat, BeeCee. Here is my testimony:

I was raised by loving, Christian (Southern Baptist) parents, who were happily married for 70 years. I attended church regularly as a child, and about the age of eight I had enough courage to walk the aisle in 1958 during an invitation and profess publicly my faith in Jesus by being baptized.

My personality was rather introverted as a teenager, so I discussed my beliefs only with a few close friends. When I was a senior in high school, my favorite teacher was a former preacher turned agnostic, and in my freshman year of college, the daughter of a missionary became an atheist. My ignorance of answers to questions asked by skeptics prompted me to read the entire Bible (NEB) making notes in the margins (which I repeated with three other versions over the years).

After college and military service I attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where a professor of systematic theology, Dr. William Hendricks, stimulated my thinking, while I attended a satellite church that listened to tapes by R.B. Thieme, whose preaching was also systematic teaching. During this time I heard a debate on the radio between Christian evangelist Bob Harrington and atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair. Although the exchange was quite humorous, I was chagrined to concede that the atheist won the debate on substance, and I determined to seek better replies to such questions and criticisms.

Years later as a military chaplain, I encountered the Atheist Community of Austin and offered to speak at one of their meetings. I also debated atheists on an online chat site for several years. Although I cannot claim to have converted anyone, the discussions helped hone my beliefs, which I published on a website in 2005. In 2018 and 2019 I self-published two booklets, The Best Belief and The Christian Creed, which are the basis of two of my threads: Apologetics, and The Kerygma.

The following excerpts from “Love God with All Your Mind” by J.P. Moreland expresses my experience: “I used to be afraid of witnessing... I was rather defensive and nervous... But now I understand why I believe, and this has brought me both peace and a non-defensive boldness to witness to others.” (p.20) “Sunday School should be more effective in training believers how to think carefully about their faith. Training in apologetics should be a regular part of discipleship.” (p.26) “Our discipleship materials often leave Christian young people vulnerable to atheistic college professors.” (p.28) “The apostle Paul... reasoned with and tried to persuade people intelligently to accept Christ.” (p.30)

My motivation since adolescence has been to learn the truth/GW, especially concerning ultimate reality and GRFS, utilizing logical reasoning to edit and harmonize GW so Scripture interprets Scripture as much as possible, then to communicate it as clearly, concisely and completely as I can. Thus, I hope my spiritual gifts include:

a. Theodician – one engaged in theodicy or refuting allegations by atheists and implications by confused Christians that God is unloving and unjust (aka apologist).

b. Logician – one who uses God-given logic or reasoning ability to interpret/harmonize unclear passages of Scripture or to apply Biblical teachings to moral/political issues.

c. Editor – one who sews Scripture together, connecting disparate dots, etc.

d. Learner – one who is humble = teachable, LGW with LIC (cf. 1TM 4:12b, 1TM 6:4, 2TM 2:23-24a

I arrived at my understanding of God's Word by:

1. Attending Sunday school followed by church services with my Southern Bapstist (SBC) parents,
2. Augmented by reading the New English Bible they gave me when I began college in 1967,
3. Augmented by reading the Today's English Version while taking SBC seminary classes and hearing sermons by R.B. Thieme,
4. Augmented by reading my ordination Bible, the New International Version, for the purpose of training Sunday School teachers as a Minister of Education at an SBC/ABC church,
5. Augmented by more SBC seminary classes for becoming a pastor and military chaplain,
6. Augmented by debating atheists in Austin and via an online chat site (AKO),
7. Augmented by lessons developed for sharing with soldiers while mobilized in Bosnia, Del Rio Texas and Iraq,
8. Augmented by self-publishing two booklets before opting to publish via a website,
9. Augmented by reading the Apologetics Study Bible I was given in 2010,
10. Augmented by discussions on CC with Judaizers, Sabbatarians, tulipists and Actsies.

(I guess the list shows that I am a slow learner, but at least I have the gift of perseverance :^)

I have learned that it is futile to witness to closed-minded atheists (Matt. 13:14-15), just as it is pointless to play verbal ping-pong with heretical tulipists, but we should do the best we can by sharing our testimony as 1Pet. 3:15 commands and by providing Scriptural answers to questions causing doubts as Paul did or exemplified in Acts 17:16-31, hoping some will be convicted by the HS in their consciences (Rom. 2:14-15).

Tulip is a pseudo-Gospel, a perversion demeaning God's justness and omnilove. I say this not because of feeling but rather because of belief in God's Word and Divine Love:

1. God loves and wants to save everyone. Seven Scriptures teaching divine omnilove include: 1JN 4:7-12, RM 5:8, MT 5:44&48, GL 5:6&14, EPH 3:17b-19, EPH 5:2 and 1TM 2:3-4, which might be deemed the “7 pearls”. Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (RM 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ).

2. God is just (2THS 1:6a, cf. RM 3:25-26 & 9:14, DT 32:4, PS 36:6, LK 11:42, RV 15:3). Explanations of God’s Word should not impugn God’s justice and love for all people (JL 2:13, JN 3:16). This parameter is affirmed in the OT (PS 145:17): “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” // Need to harmonize 1Tim. 2:12 with Gal. 3:28. In Jesus' day the roles of women did not include leadership over men, but the seed of equality was planted by verses such as Matt. 12:42, 20:26, Gal. 3:28 and Eph. 5:21. [p. 1796]

Tulipism infected Protestant Christianity with a heretical virus called heresy or blasphemy, implicitly demeaning God's justness and love for humanity. Tulipists may be the best example of those who barely make it to heaven through the flames, if they did not realize what they were doing (1Cor. 3:10-15, Luke 23:34).

 

[OMC]

Hi there all. This is my first post!

I've been wanting to chat a bit about this. I was in various Arminian churches for many years and when God opened my eyes I started going to a Baptist church which is mostly Calvinistic. In my 7,5 years there, there are so many things that I have questioned.

How do people really know they are born again and that you are in fact part of the elect? I do know that we will be known by the fruit in our lives. But young Christians I think have a huge struggle. I know I initially did have and I consider myself a mature Christian. However, they shove so much into your head - you are depraved, undeserving (I know that). You said the sinners prayer... oh gosh, just so much.

There is so much knowledge also shoved down your throat, I am beginning to wonder if they are in fact legalistic as they tend to judge people on various points and you have to do things a certain way etc. Yesterday, looking at something, there is so much focus on man - Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon and many more - they have a lot to offer, but really.

okay I sound kinda messed up, and I am in a sense, but right now just trying to get my focus onto Christ and off of all their doctrinal issues. Any assistance will be appreciated. It would be nice to chat to someone who is/has been in the same boat.

Beware that many believe they are following a truth and it is wise to test all they say lest you be taken by their fancy words and fair speeches. For instance I will test what brother GWH has written.
Looking only at the claims and comparing them to Scripture, there is a mixture of biblical reasoning, personal testimony, and man-made conclusions.
The personal history section is simply testimony. There is nothing wrong with explaining how someone arrived at his beliefs. However, none of that history proves a doctrine.
Scripture, not experience, is the authority (Acts 17:11).

His desire to harmonize Scripture with Scripture is biblical.
The apostles regularly appealed to other Scriptures when explaining doctrine (Luke 24:27; Acts 17:2-3).
However, when he introduces categories such as "Theodician," "Logician," and "Editor" as possible spiritual gifts, he goes beyond what Scripture explicitly lists.
The New Testament gives lists of gifts (Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:4-11, 28; Eph. 4:11), and those titles are not found there.
They may describe activities he performs, but they are not identified in Scripture as spiritual gifts.

The strongest example of a framework being imposed on the text is his repeated claim that "Tulip is a pseudo-Gospel," "heresy," "blasphemy," and a "perversion."
Scripture certainly commands believers to reject false gospels (Gal. 1:8-9), but to prove that charge he would need to demonstrate from Scripture that the doctrines represented by TULIP constitute a different gospel.
Merely stating that they conflict with his understanding of God's love and justice does not prove the case from the text itself.

Notice the framework here: he begins with the principle that God's justice and love must be understood in a particular way, and then interprets disputed passages through that lens.
A Calvinist often does the same thing in reverse, starting with divine sovereignty and election as the controlling lens.
Both sides must be careful that the framework is not driving the interpretation.

His appeal to 1 Timothy 2:3-4, John 3:16, Romans 5:8, and similar passages to show God's love is based on explicit texts.
That is a scriptural argument.
However, the conclusion that these passages automatically disprove every Calvinistic reading is not established by those verses alone. That conclusion requires additional arguments and assumptions.

Likewise, his statement that 1 Timothy 2:12 must be harmonized with Galatians 3:28 by viewing the restriction as cultural and temporary is not stated in either text.
That may be his interpretation, but the words "cultural," "temporary," and "the seed of equality was planted" are not found in the passages. That is an interpretive framework being brought to the text rather than a conclusion directly stated by the text.

Scripture does support several of his core affirmations:
God is love (1 John 4:8).
God is just and righteous (Deut. 32:4).
Christians should be ready to give an answer for their hope (1 Pet. 3:15).
Believers should reason from Scripture (Acts 17:2-3).
Scripture should be handled carefully and not twisted (2 Pet. 3:16).

But when he moves from those texts to declaring entire groups of Christians heretics, assigning them a place among those "saved through fire," or explaining difficult passages through modern concepts of equality, he is no longer simply quoting Scripture.
He is making theological judgments that go beyond what the cited passages explicitly say.

In short: the appeal to Scripture interpreting Scripture is biblical; the condemnation of TULIP as a false gospel, the identification of non-biblical spiritual gifts, and the cultural reinterpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12 are the clearest places where a man-made framework appears to be doing work that the text itself does not explicitly do. This is a common theme being played out all over this app.
Ask questions and don't be pushed into a corner. God bless and keep you.

 

[GWH]

BeeCee, FYI I agree with much of what OMC said but would point out that his conclusions are equally "man-made",
so each soul must study Scripture, test interpretations and decide which is best.

Also, please note that my beef as a former Baptist (now Truthseeker) is only with the tulip part of Calvinism, which adopted the Catholic theology of Augustine of Hippo.

My systematic study of tulip is on the thread "Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture", but at this point you will note that OMC did not explain how tulip affirms Scripture teaching God's omnilove that does not show favoritism.

 

[OMC]

OMC did not explain how tulip affirms Scripture teaching God's omnilove that does not show favoritism.

You have explained how TULIP appeals to God's sovereignty and mercy, particularly from Romans 9, but you have not explained how that framework affirms the equally explicit Scriptures that describe God's impartiality and His love toward all mankind.

Scripture states that God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11), that He loved the world (John 3:16), desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), gave Himself a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:6), tasted death for every man (Hebrews 2:9), and is the propitiation not only for our sins but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

Appealing to God's sovereign right to show mercy does not by itself answer how TULIP reconciles these passages with its claims regarding election and atonement. The question is not whether God owes salvation to anyone. Scripture never says He does. The question is how a doctrine harmonizes God's stated love for the world, His desire that all come to repentance, and His impartiality with its understanding of election.

Therefore, I am not asking whether TULIP has an answer. I am asking how TULIP affirms the full testimony of Scripture concerning God's universal love and impartiality without showing favoritism. Until that is addressed directly from the text, the explanation remains incomplete.

 

[GWH]

You have explained how TULIP appeals to God's sovereignty and mercy, particularly from Romans 9, but you have not explained how that framework affirms the equally explicit Scriptures that describe God's impartiality and His love toward all mankind.

Scripture states that God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11), that He loved the world (John 3:16), desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), gave Himself a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:6), tasted death for every man (Hebrews 2:9), and is the propitiation not only for our sins but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

Appealing to God's sovereign right to show mercy does not by itself answer how TULIP reconciles these passages with its claims regarding election and atonement. The question is not whether God owes salvation to anyone. Scripture never says He does. The question is how a doctrine harmonizes God's stated love for the world, His desire that all come to repentance, and His impartiality with its understanding of election.

Therefore, I am not asking whether TULIP has an answer. I am asking how TULIP affirms the full testimony of Scripture concerning God's universal love and impartiality without showing favoritism. Until that is addressed directly from the text, the explanation remains incomplete.

Well, I am opining that tulip has wrong answers where the text is incomplete/not addressed directly,
because the OP mentioned the Arminian-Calvinist debate, but I will see how BC wants to proceed with her thread.

 

[rogerg]

Hi there all. This is my first post!

I've been wanting to chat a bit about this. I was in various Arminian churches for many years and when God opened my eyes I started going to a Baptist church which is mostly Calvinistic. In my 7,5 years there, there are so many things that I have questioned.

How do people really know they are born again and that you are in fact part of the elect? I do know that we will be known by the fruit in our lives. But young Christians I think have a huge struggle. I know I initially did have and I consider myself a mature Christian. However, they shove so much into your head - you are depraved, undeserving (I know that). You said the sinners prayer... oh gosh, just so much.

There is so much knowledge also shoved down your throat, I am beginning to wonder if they are in fact legalistic as they tend to judge people on various points and you have to do things a certain way etc. Yesterday, looking at something, there is so much focus on man - Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon and many more - they have a lot to offer, but really.

okay I sound kinda messed up, and I am in a sense, but right now just trying to get my focus onto Christ and off of all their doctrinal issues. Any assistance will be appreciated. It would be nice to chat to someone who is/has been in the same boat.

BeeCee,
I do not call myself a Calvinist because I have never formally studied Calvin. Yet I have independently reached the same foundational conclusion: that from eternity past, God intended salvation only for His eternal spiritual children (not everyone) and gives it wholly and freely through His mercy and grace in Jesus Christ, the Savior. When a person rests entirely in Christ as Savior—neither adding to nor subtracting from what He accomplished—and remains in that faith, such perseverance is the result of salvation, not its cause. However, many religious groups distort that doctrine by requiring continued human performance and compliance as cause, turning a free gift into a conditional reward.
The emphasis on human depravity is meant to contrast with the absolute perfection of Jesus Christ’s offering and sacrifice. True assurance does not come from evaluating your lifestyle or following a system, but from trusting in the complete Savior who alone fulfilled the Father’s plan of salvation. If salvation could be accomplished any other way besides Jesus Christ, then God, through Scripture, could not rightly have given Jesus the title of the Savior.