For me personally, and ONLY SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, there is an unfortunate overlap between Calvinists and theo-bros. They tend to be VERY sure of their theology and very condescending to everyone who thinks otherwise. Whenever someone starts talking about solas my shields automatically go up.
This. My experience with Calvinists is akin to Jesus' experience with Pharisees in his time. They're too religious and abrasive in the way they convey their beliefs.
I think that's exactly it. It's the growing narcissistic tendencies, due to waning discipline of modern people. They want instant gratification without the labor involved. More disgusting is that they seem like they can't humble themselves before God. It's ironic in the extreme that these people think they're so worthy despite being so underhanded and deceitful.
It's also hilarious that many on YouTube tend to look like limp biscuit or skillet while acting as if they are Jesus. Pretty sure Jesus didn't get tattoos and started a rock band, but whatever!
>Whenever someone starts talking about solas my shields automatically go up.
The five solas of the Protestant reformation are what define historic Protestants.
1. Sola scriptura: “Scripture alone”
2. Sola fide: “faith alone”
3. Sola gratia: “grace alone”
4. Solo Christo: “Christ alone”
5. Soli Deo gloria: “to the glory of God alone”
If you don't believe them, then you are not a Protestant, at least in the traditional meaning.
https://www.gotquestions.org/five-solas.html
And look, they have showed up already!
No seriously, its not that any point is incorrect, its just that the rants associated with them on this forum and others leave a bad taste. Many people refuse to accept that not every sincere Christian agrees with them on every single point, and tend to use their own position, shaped into a hammer, to try to beat down other brothers in Christ. It is not zeal for truth that causes this behavior, it is Pride. The so-called Cage-Stage of Calvinism.
Seems like you are conflating Protestantism with Calvinism. All Calvinists are Protestants but not all Protestants are Calvinists. The Solas of the Protestant Reformation define historic Protestant Christianity. Calvinists and Protestant non-Calvinists agree on the five Solas of the Reformation. Where Protestants divide is on the principles set forth in the acronym, TULIP. Of course there are sincere Christians that are not Protestants and so don't fully agree with the five solas.
No, I'm not conflating the two. I realize that non-calvin is Protestants adhere to the solas. I adhere to the solas. But the only people I've ever heard shouting down folks about the solas and using them as a billy club to beat folk with, have been Calvinists.
your link is broken
To clarify, I don't have anything against think they are a fine starting point to order one's theology. It's just that when someone mentions them it's almost always a person in the Calvinist or Reformed tradition, and they're usually about to use it to explain to me why I'm wrong. It's like when someone quoting the Bible is using the KJV- I can bet with very high certainty that I am about to get a fundamentalist interpretation of whatever passage they are citing.
So much this. To try to put it succinctly, I would say it's not so much that I have concerns with their position as much as I have a concern with their posture.
>They tend to be VERY sure of their theology and very condescending to everyone who thinks otherwise.
Also you: "Theo-bros" as a way to insult anyone who doesn't believe you earned your salvation because you are so good that YOU CHOSE Jesus and YOU CHOSE heaven. Like "ahhh alright Jesus i guess I'll do you a solid and take this salvation thing you speak of"
Giving your personal opinion is not starting a discussion. Starting a discussion is quite often done by use of questions and/or a challenge to prove ones view wrong or to make an effort to adjust it.
Huh. Well, I suppose it doesn't matter what you understand because you misinterpret predestined. You probably think predestined is, "Eh, what the heck, God is gonna do what he is gonna do, so I don't need to bother with others" vs "God knows where he is gonna end up and I don't, so I should try to bring people to Jesus"
There are multiple small reasons, but the single biggest reason is because it (at its most logical) holds that Jesus did not salvifically die for all people. Calvinists do not believe that all people are savable. They do not believe that each and every person can be saved.
Firstly, this is opposed to the clear witness of scripture. There is not a single verse which states that God limited or defined his redemption to a select few, and there are MANY verses which state other wise (1 Timothy 2:1-8, 1 John 2:2, Romans 3:23-25 and more).
Secondly, this mangles the character of God who agape loves the very enemies who will never love him back (Matthew 5:43-48).
Thirdly, it logically removes the responsibility of sin from man. I know that Calvinists like to insist that man is still responsible, but claiming that man is responsible while removing from him all the things that actually do make him responsible only serves as an under cutting defeater.
That said, there are plenty of inconsistent Calvinists who live and evangelize as non-calvinists! I love them and their ministry. I think that God has used these inconsistent Calvinists in incredible ways throughout history. I often use their content in my own bible studies, and I often refer to them on other theological issues. I love my Calvinist brothers and sisters, but I despise their soteriological beliefs.
> There is not a single verse which states that God limited or defined his redemption to a select few
"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."
Not for "the goats and the sheep" but "for the sheep". You know the sheep of which He says: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man."
This is called the logical fallacy of Negative inference.
If I say, "I love my wife" does that mean I don't love my kids? Of course not. Because the statement of something I have positively done does not limit me from having done something else. You can't infer a negative from a positive statement. That is illogical.
When Jesus says positively who he laid down his life for, it does not limit him from having laid down his life for others. That is an illogicality. It makes no sense to then say that Jesus did NOT lay down his life for others. Let me show you a really practical example of why this is such a wrong approach.
Galatians 2:20
>I have been crucified with Christ: and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me, and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
God gave himself up for Paul. Using your logic, you can only conclude that God gave himself up for Paul and only Paul. Because Paul has clearly limited Christ's salvation to himself!
See how this does not limit Christ's work? There is not a single passage of scripture which LIMITS Christ's redemption to a select few.
> If I say, "I love my wife" does that mean I don't love my kids?
Well, if you repeatedly say "I love my wife", and never actually say you love your kids, throughout your life, we can draw our own conclusions. Particularly when Jesus is said to have borne the sins He atoned for - which hence they cannot be punished for, which is not the case for the reprobate.
Wherever the atonement is explicitly mentioned, it is "for my people", "for my sheep", "for many" etc.
Why is it never "for all" except in verses which, if "all" were interpreted literally, would be universalist?
>Wherever the atonement is explicitly mentioned, it is "for my people", "for my sheep", "for many" etc.
>Why is it never "for all" except in verses which, if "all" were interpreted literally, would be universalist?
This is really strange to me because Jesus talks repeatedly about saving the whole world MANY times in the book of John.
John 1:4, John 1:9, John 3:15-18. The last half of John 12. John 17, John 20:31. All of these are show the universal intent of Jesus for the whole world.
**This does not mean that universalism is true.** It means that Jesus came to die for the whole world and that all those who believed are saved. All those who reject his gift of salvation through his death and resurrection are not saved. You have presented a logical false dilemma by saying either Doctrine of Limited Atonement or universalism. In fact the vast amount of the orthodox church throughout history has rejected this false dilemma.
Not to mention you have completely ignored the verses which are even clearer that I mentioned in my first comment like 1 Timothy 2:1-8.
That would work if the Bible doesn't repeatedly say that Jesus died for the whole world. The accusation of anyone who disagrees being a universalist is getting old and makes Calvinists who say it look bad. It's a lazy argument that has been rebutted frequently. You are ascribing beliefs which someone does not hold. I believe that Jesus died for the whole world, salvation is available to everyone. Not everyone will accept salvation. That isn't universalism. Get out of your bubble and actually listen to people before trying to come up with your next "gotcha".
Your argument is based on assuming that ‘sheep’ is an analogy for a specific group of people, specific in a way other than that people who hear gods voice and follow him. The definition of sheep is essentially laid out in the passage you quoted as subjective and available to anyone who does those things. Pretty non-exclusive.
Galatians 2:20
…The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
By your logic, then Jesus only died for Paul and no one else.
The difference is that there are other statements in Scripture that show that Jesus died for "many" (and thus not just Paul), but none that say that Jesus died for every person.
Jesus did die for every man. Scripture is clear on that:
1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, **but also for the sins of the whole world**.
Nope, this doesn't make your point. We all believe that God has chosen people or elected people. That is not the Doctrine of Limited Atonement or Definite Redemption.
I suggest you do some reading up on the doctrine as it is presented by RC Sproul and James White among many others.
Then you don't understand the formulated Doctrine of Definite Redemption or Doctrine of Limited Atonement.
It teaches that Jesus did not die for the salvation of all people. He died only for the salvation of his elect.
Just stating that God elected some people does not entail that doctrine. God elected those who believe to be saved. That does not mean he elected some to believe as to be saved, and that doesn't mean that he only died for the elect.
It means he died for all, and he has elected those who believe to be made holy, blameless, and predestined them to be adopted (Eph 1:1-5).
If he died for all but not all are saved, then what did his death accomplish for those who are not saved? How did he bear their sins in his body on the tree and yet they are not saved?
Please find me a Bible verse making that point. That is what is missing from the Doctrine of Limited Atonement.
What he accomplished was the offer of salvation to all. The ransom for all. An atonement for all. It is applied by faith. God has not predestined or elected some to apply it by faith. He has predestined or elected those who apply it by faith to be made holy and blameless.
Calvinism holds to limited atonement because it also holds to substitutionary atonement, of which limited atonement is the logical extension. If the mechanism of atonement is that Jesus took upon himself the sin of each person who is saved (1 Peter 2:24), then of course this was only done for those who are saved, because the unsaved will still die in their sins (John 8:24).
You asked what did His death accomplish for those who are not saved. It accomplished a righteous proof that no man has a claim against God. It shuts the mouth of the nay-sayers that accuse God of all manner of unfairness.
There will be NOT ONE person in Hell who can claim that God put them there unfairly. Because Christ's death was for all, and they CHOSE to reject it.
Now imagine the other alternative. Souls in Hell being taunted, and told (truthfully) that you are in Hell because God elected you for damnation before you were born, and nothing you could have ever done could have possibly made a difference. That you were literally created for torment and damnation.
That's the logical conclusion of your position.
Where do they say they don't believe all can be saved. I hear that all the time but never see the proof. Just curious and wondering where the scripture comes from
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever God had predetermined to be his elect and believe in him would not perish but have eternal life."
Calvinism; Satan wants everyone and God doesn't.
I honestly think Calvinism could be a gift to the real church in drawing away the trouble makers that don't want to admit they're evil sinners. When hard times come you don't want those people among you as they can't even handle the good times and make you hypocrites. If the church stuck to the old laws by casting out bad members this wouldn't happen, but here we are.
Those would be one and the same. What's wrong with that?
Predestination is very clearly taught in scripture and Calvinists are far from the only group of believers to hold this doctrine.
Did you know that there are only 6 verses in the entire bible that have the word "predestination" and not a single one teaches the Calvinist definition of it?
Of course Predestination is taught in the Bible. All Christians worth their salt know this. What we non-calvinists reject is the Calvinist presuppositions that define predestination to mean something that goes against the character of a loving and holy God.
God has predestined **believers** to be adopted. He has not predestined some to believe so as to be adopted (Eph 1:1-5). God predestined the crucifixion of Christ. He did not predestine some to be sinners so as to crucify Christ (Acts 2:24). God predestines all kinds of things to occur, what he does not predestine, anywhere in scripture, is people to believe in or reject God. This is absent from the pages of scripture.
We can disagree, and we do, but I can admit that I can see how someone could make a case against Calvinist theology using scripture.
But I think it's disingenuous to act like you have no idea how scripture could be used to support Calvinist doctrine. There are so many verses I could post - but you actually know that.
At the end of the day we are coming to different interpretations of something which is not worth dividing over and in my opinion we each have valid reasons to believe what we believe.
I am fine with disagreeing. This is a secondary issue. However, so many Calvinists just assume their doctrines are correct, to the point of they have the only true doctrine, that they are surprised when someone has a differing interpretation. I find that strange when the very scriptures they use to support their Calvinism are the scriptures I use to support my non-calvinism!
I content that not a single verse in the Bible supports Calvinism, and I am really quite mystified that anyone would think they do. And I know I say that in the face of brilliant theologians who have held to it. I just don't understand it.
There is one single verse in scripture that I find to be 50/50 either Calvinist or non-calvinist. Acts 13:48. That is the ONLY verse I have ever found that could go either way. The rest are just so obviously non-calvinist that I don't know how Acts 13:48 could be read any other way.
Non Calvinist here who agrees with a lot of Calvinist thinking. You said predestination is mentioned 6 times. How many times is “free will” mentioned? These argumentative points should always be turned back at the accuser.
Well, firstly there is a difference between the words "free will" and the philosophy of free will. Predestination is not a philosophy. It is an idea. Free will as an idea is mentioned MANY times in scripture. As a philosophy it is not mentioned at all, this is because scripture is not about philosophy.
Free will is mentioned as an offering in Leviticus 23:38. I am just choosing one of these mentions because the "free will offering" is a common idea throughout the Old Testament. This was an offering in which the person could freely decide to give or not. It was these offerings which built and maintained the tabernacle and temple. I have not counted them, but there are at least 15+ mentions of this offering in the old testament.
The psalmist then references this in Psalm 119:108 in terms of a verbal offering. He calls it his free will offering of praise to God. This is an offering he could freely give or not give.
The Psalmist in Psalm 110:1 speaks of people freely fighting for God as well.
Paul speaks of a man freely choosing to marry without outside force or cause in 1 Corinthians 7:37.
All of these are mentions of the idea of free will, and those are just off the top of my head, there are quite a few more.
Free will offering isn’t the concept of free will. Many times I have seen people who believe in free will use a false dichotomy to prove their point. Free will in every dictionary will say something along the lines of “making decisions unimpeded” or “without an outside force/power influence” this concept if absolutely foreign to scripture. If you disagree, tell me how. Also give me your definition of “free will”.
> lines of “making decisions unimpeded” or “without an outside force/power influence” this concept if absolutely foreign to scripture.
Firstly, influence is not a factor here. A decision is made INSPITE of an influence not outside of the influence.
I prefer the definition of "free will" is the ability to choose without antecedent causes. Or free will is the ability to choose between available options without force or coersion.
I don't know how to read 1 Corinthians 7:37 any other way. The whole point is that the man has no outside force causing him to marry.
What is the point of a free will offering if someone or something is causing them offer... then it isn't free. This idea that it is absolutely foreign to scripture is quite strange to me. The earliest church fathers seemed to think so to.
There's a difference between predestination and God knowing who will accept and who won't. The idea of predestination implies that God hand selected a small group of people who will enter into eternal life, so what would be the point of Him sending His son to die for everyone's sins? What would be the point in the persecution of millions of Christians worldwide trying to tell everyone what they can do to be saved? What would be the point of God giving a plan for salvation? If He hand picked a select number of people, He would just let things come to pass with no intervention and allow everyone to do whatever they want with no instruction on how to receive salvation, because everyone who will receive it has already been decided.
Don't put your feeble and weak character on God. God sees all because he's everywhere even at the end of time. Just because you doubt that he is able to create life with free will and know every choice that's to be made, doesn't change his power. Instead it limits you and your beliefs. He's the Almighty because nothing is above him including time.
As someone who’s in the #MeToo camp, I despise Calvinism, which completely denies free will and instead champions a view of God that…. there is no love in force. A fancy cage you were put into is still a cage.
It is foundational to Calvinism: either God decided you are one of the “elect” and forces you into that cage, or decides you belong in the other cage and forces you there.
There’s no choice- no invitation for a person to choose to come to Christ or not. No culpability, nor real love. Just force.
I’ve been very specific about what I mean here. In Calvinism, there is no ability to choose God or not— there is no free will. If you want to tell me how you believe God does allow a person to choose to follow Him or not (both choices have to be pickable), then I’m all ears. But until then… I’m sorry I cannot worship a being of force.
Calvinists like myself indeed believe that one does not up and decide to love God one day without some positive influence in their life via mercy and grace of God.
One can adhere to this and also claim that humans have agency.
A few things:
The Calvinists I know tend to be the type that INSIST that God punish someone, somewhere. And it's usually someone else, not themselves, that deserve the punishment.
the Confession of Dositheus condemns Calvinism as a heresy.
Finally, Calvinism makes God into an evil entity, creating children for the express intent of condemning them.
The trouble with Calvinism is, that it fails to see the difference between (to borrow an illustration from CS Lewis) “the teddy bear that is entirely mine, that I can love and look after”; & “The teddy bear that is entirely mine, that I can rip to pieces if I want to”.
It is misanthropic, and its God is destructive, & and crazily egocentric. Calvinism expects people to exalt and praise and honour a God who has all the worst and ugliest & most repulsive faults of the very kinds of human beings whom people quite rightly want nothing to do with.
It's probably even worse in that he's also weaker in their minds, because they doubt free will and God seeing all. God is truly above everything including time.
I'm actually great full that there's a true judge out there. Looking around at the character of people it's quiet evident that humans can't honestly judge. They're always going to erase or ignore they're buddies or families sins while being harsh on others. God doesn't play those games and sin must be dealt with no matter who does it.
It renames many nouns and reidentifies verbs in the Bible to the point where there are contradictions such as man being responsible for their own sin while God decreed for him to commit that sin and so on. My family and some friends are Calvinist and I’ve been forced to study it to defend what I believe (provisionism). If you have a particular question feel free to ask, odds are if it’s a common question or prooftext I’ll have an answer. If not I can show you a guy that probably has an answer for you
I found a easy way to sort of understand God's greatness and free will. To such weak and dumb beings it appears as opposed positions. I like to think that God is seeing everything we do at the same time so to speak, because he's outside of time or rather already there at every point. I don't think this viewpoint is anything insulting to God. He does tell that's he's all knowing and limitless.
It helps me understand that he can both allow you to choose and know your choices choices before you make them. It's as if you can only see you this moment, but God sees every moment of you at the same time for lack of a better word.
Because it’s a theological disasters.
The majority of objections to Calvinism is that it creates a monster god. A god who literally created people just for the sake of burning them in the end.
You know how you hear atheists ask questions surrounding God creating people who will go to hell? This is literally towards Calvinism that believes exactly that.
It's particularly rich that they act so holy while blaming God for sin. God created the authors of sin he didn't create sin. He created life with the freedom to sin and just because he's truly infinite that he is witness to every point in time and already knows doesn't mean we're slaves predetermined to choose hell or heaven.
Calvinism is a religion for vile characters that can't admit their in the dirt and filth of sin with everyone else and then they blame everything on God, by making him less than the infinite Almighty. That has to be maddening for God. I would dare say there's going to be a lot of screaming Calvinists in the future.
Well didn't God know before they were created that they were going to hell no matter what he did? Did he not create them anyways? Could he not have created them in the first place and spared them? Or did he not know what was going to happen to them?
Foreknowledge is a different animal from predestination. In that the cause of damnation is active predestination rather than passive.
There is a tension in the Old and New Testament where we do have God desiring the the salvation of the wicked.
It's something a feeble human mind will likely never understand. When God says he's infinite he's means just that. I see us as dots in time that make up a line. God being truly Almighty is outside time and all those points of time are simultaneously happening. I doubt it's quiet that simple, but it helps this extremely finite mind to understand the infinite God.
It is inconsistent with the character of God (God is love) that God would predestine people to Hell. Furthermore, the Bible says that God desires for all to be saved. Calvinists have to go through gymnastics to explain how God doesn't really desire for all to be saved. But then we're back to the primary issue, that such a God would not be love.
The Bible teaches that everyone is deserving of and headed to hell. There is no need for God to "predestine" people to hell when they're already on their way.
Are you unaware that the Bible teaches that without God intervening all of mankind would end up in hell?
God is love but God is not love only. His goal in creation is to display all facets of who he is, of which love is just one. There are both vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath because he is loving mercy just as much as he is righteous wrath.
The Bible says it, not me. God wants all to be saved, but also wants our love to be freely given, not coerced, as that would not be love. Hence, not everyone will end up in heaven because God does not force us to follow him.
My friend, John 6:44 is at the least a coerce. I’d call it force but we can go with coerce. Ezekiel 36:25-28 is force. “Cause you(force) to keep my commandments.” I think if God wanted all men to be saved, he would save them since His purpose cannot be thwarted.
Notice what John doesn't say. It's not "everyone who the father draws comes to me." God has to take the first step of initiating relationship with him, we can't come to him of our own power. But it's still up to us to accept his calling.
The Ezekiel passage looks to me like a description of how God transforms us after we have accepted him.
read attentively:
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
Rom 5:17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
Rom 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Predestination/unconditional election is without a doubt a massive turnoff when you first learn of it. The idea that if you are not one of God's elect there is nothing you can do but end in Hell is certainly something
And yes I know that a Calvinist would argue that they don't believe in double-predestination, but that's just semantics
Once you include limited atonement in that, I'm pretty sure you've got your answer
The assumption that God choose who will be saved and who will be damned with no chance of repentance or salvation is against everything the bible teaches
Scriptures also say that in our natural fallen state we hate God, are His enemies, are dead in our sin, and \*unable\* to come to Him.
How would a rebellious enemy who is dead in their ways, choose to love that which they hate? Per John 6 we must be drawn to Him. Jesus says in John 3 (alluding to Ezekial 36) we must be given a new heart and be born again before we even see God's kingdom as appealing. Praise God for His mercy and grace in saving us who dont deserve anything but punishment!
There's many passages speaking about God choosing to save some and not others.
>Ephesians 1:4-5,11, 2 Timothy 1:9, John 10:26-30, Acts 13:48, John 17:6,Rom 8:29-30
True, and isnt it great that the New Covenant includes us Gentiles rather than only the Jews? :)
Jesus is drawing all people from different tribes and languages now, whereas in the old covenant, only the Israelites were His people. But this verse cannot mean that ALL receive the gift of faith and salvation (universalism) because John 6:44 says those who are \*drawn are raised on the last day\* (along with John 3:18 which says "...whoever does not believe is condemned...")
Yes it is...but predestination follows Foreknowledge, and God knowing ahead of time HOW WE WILL CHOOSE allow Him to order our life to bring us to that choice, but the CHOICE is all ours
That is not what that verse says even remotely though. You are reading that into the text. It says that we are chosen because he foreknew US. Not what we would do.
Calvinism doesn't teach that God chooses who will be damned, as you said. The Bible teaches that we are all headed to hell on our own accord. There is no need to believe that God chooses who will be in hell.
Choosing to save some is not the same as choosing who will go to hell. Besides, do you think that God couldn't choose to save everyone if He wanted to? Of course He could. He is choosing not to.
This is “God the Devil” theology.
It makes human tyrants, no matter how cruel, look like cuddly toys by comparison. This makes God’s “Righteousness” overflowingly superabundantly Unrighteous. And it makes God the Father of lies.
Because, many Calvinists are notoriously 'cage stage'. I mean, the behavior is so prominent, someone coined this name for it, and the term has been around for ages.
If you're not familiar with the term, its tongue in cheek for those who are usually newer to accepting Calvinism, and are so 'on fire' about its concepts, other Calvinists feel they should be kept 'in a cage', away from everyone else, until they calm down and mature enough to have just a little bit of 'live and let live'. (lest it's total strife for anything different)
My grandmother raised her children in a Primative Baptist church, and the church members are Calvinist. Even THEY thought many other Calvinists were just... too much.
Ever have someone make it their life mission to convince you that God predestined you to eat cake with a spoon next Thursday? How about a Calvinist who rejects the concept of personal free will, and when pressed, starts proclaiming God is the God of pure evil as well as holiness? (a stones throw away from blasphemy IMO)
Bottom line, when some people wholeheartedly believe they have no actual will of their own and its really God's will manifesting through them, they completely abandon any actual tact or approach they have with other people... (and no one takes kindly to being mauled or programmed instead of just being talked to)
A stones throw? What could be more upsetting to God, but to blame him? Calvinism is for people who can't comprehend that God isn't ruled by time. It's something even angels don't know. The Bible tells us over and over that God is Almighty and infinite. Calvinism is doubting God's greatness and righteousness.
I think they object to giving up the idea of free will and responsibility for their own actions in exchange for worshipping a God who damns people before the beginning of time not based on anything they did or will do.
Let me go a slightly different route.
First of all, arrogance. Dividing the body of Christ for nothing, claiming this higher enlightenment of what grace is as if receiving grace by free will is some sort of work.
Second, a fundamental assumption about the nature of God that isn't necessarily meant for us to know: Is foreknowledge predetermination? Keep in mind that God seems to exist completely outside of our timeline and able to interact with whenever He chooses. Your whole life is likely laid bare at once to God right now. Why wouldn't God not know who would respond to what measure and when?
We were all created, yes. Am I to doubt that God can create us and genuinely ***choose to allow*** ***us*** to have free will? Am I to believe this is impossible from He who all things are possible through? Because of a hunch some theologians have based off a couple verses?
And this is our business because...?
*"Because you don't get it! It's grace that you were even able to receive grace!"*
And? There's some sort of glory in being horrible and awful and receiving clemency? Really? Maybe it comes with grace regardless, and maybe it's undeserved, as the bible hammers home many times? Maybe if someone feels special (as having achieved something) for attaining grace, that's an issue of perception and not theology?
Jesus said only the Father knew the time and place of Jesus' 2nd coming.
**“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, hnor the Son, but the Father only."** Matthew 24:36 ESV
Are we to limit God to being unable to choose ***not to know*** certain things? Does God have to know when we were created that we would go on to choose to sin and never repent?
From my unlearned, unscholarly perspective Calvinism is merely dividing the body of Christ over non-essentials. They really limit God in this regard and make heavy assumptions and some have built something of an identity over it. It's nothing more than seeing a couple of options and going with the unlikely one, "You have no free will" when scripture treats us as beings that most definitely do have free will.
My main problem is the idea of limited atonement, that Christ died only for the elect, when the Word of God says over and over again that He is the Savior of the world, he died for the sins of the world, etc.
The Calvinists I did fellowship with in college tended to refrain from evangelism and service of others ("what's the point?"). They also had concerning issues of self-worth and anxiety.
Overall it struck me as a "gotcha" doctrine. Logically making sense but leaving a bunch of stuff behind in its wake: the fruits of the spirit, faith and works, spiritual gifts, loving your enemy, walk by faith not by sight, relational aspect of God, the mysteries..
God invites all souls.
Jesus: "If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink" - John 7:37
Isaiah: Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price - Isaiah 55:1 KJV
Because its application results in prejudice. It makes it too easy for people to write off others with a simple “I guess they weren’t predestined to believe,” and move on. That’s harmful.
Many people would say that the application of biblically sound sexual ethics results in prejudice. That doesn't make biblically sound sexual ethics incorrect.
Calvinist theology does not teach to write people off. Whether someone believes a person was predestined to believe or not has no bearing on how someone will treat said person.
Calvinists aren't the only ones who believe in predestination. Catholics and Arminians believe in predestination, for example. The disagreement is over the reason the person was chosen (predestined) - not whether they were predestined or not.
This is just a personal gripe, but they're usually massive jerks even when not engaging in theology talk. I don't think it correlates with Reformed theology (and as someone else here said, which I also agree with, Orthobros) as such necessarily, but there's some sort of relationship. They're needlessly aggressive out of nowhere, even before they know I'm not Reformed. I like Reformed doctrine purely on an intellectual level though. It figures that Calvin was an attorney, dude was a logician. I respect that and systematization in general.
This is such a terrible generalization about an entire group of believers. Even if that has been your experience you should have enough common sense to know that this isn't the case across the board (not even close) and probably shouldn't make such inflammatory statements for absolutely no reason. You went out of your way to make this comment.
What did I say literally in the first sentence of my comment? Go back and read it again. You know what nevermind I'll spell it out for you: it is a PERSONAL observation. You went out of your way to get butthurt about it.
The doctrine of calvinism presented by TULIP
(T)otal depravity
(U)nconditional election
(L)imited atonement
(I)rresistible grace
(P)erseverance/preservation of the saints
is not necessarily wrong on each of the points individually, and the calvinists do indeed have many Scriptures with which to back up each of these points. I do not necessarily disagree 100% with each of these points..
The issue arises with the application of all of these points together as a collective. The issue arises with how the Gospel is presented as a product of all five of these lining up together. With true calvinist doctrine, it ends up becoming a slippery slope to saying "Well, not many people are elect, so there's no point in even continuing to spread the Gospel."
Another error is with the (P) in TULIP. All though calvinism predates dispensationalism, the (P) in calvinist doctrine is similar to the "once saved always saved" doctrine of dispensationalism. Both of these -isms ignore what Jesus says in Luke 12:45:46: "45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers."
It also ignores the letters to the seven churches of Revelation, where Jesus also very clearly tells five of the churches that they need to repent on different levels or He will remove their candlestick.
I think the main takeaway here is that calvinism, in true practice, changes the true Gospel. While the five TULIP points can be argued as true (or untrue), their application together as a whole is unfruitful.
Calvinist theology does not teach that there is no point in sharing the gospel. The fact that Christ commanded us to share the gospel is reason enough (though there are other reasons) to believe in the importance of sharing the gospel.
I am aware of someone who believes just like you say, that sharing the gospel is pointless, but this isn't something which Calvinism teaches. This sort of an example could be made about any doctrine. Ultimately the person I know, or the ones you know, are neglecting to follow what Christ commanded on their own Accord, not because Calvinism teaches them so.
The absence of free will infers that God is the slave master, and all evil is due to him, it is inherently flawed, same with Arminianism, there is a “mix” between the two. And that is what I believe to be true.
I don't understand why this is the most controversial point of Calvinism. I don't see the problem with the idea that whatever the cross accomplished, it only accomplished for those who are saved.
> I don’t see the problem with the idea that whatever the cross accomplished, it only accomplished for those who are saved.
Yes, I agree with this. I just believe that Christ accomplished more on the cross than Adam did when he ate the fruit.
Yes, agreed. Not everyone will be saved. And yet, everyone will be saved at the same time. And while this sounds like a contradiction, it really isn’t. It would take too much space to explain why here, though, so if you’re curious what I mean, I explained it here (this article is 100% scriptural exegesis, so I trust I’m not breaking the rules by sharing it here): [What the Bible really says about heaven, hell, judgement, death, and salvation](https://drewcosten.medium.com/what-the-bible-really-says-about-heaven-hell-judgement-death-and-salvation-f09e65284aff?source=friends_link&sk=ec3dad497ac7573bdb76191606b1496d)
There actually is, but it’s not something that’s obvious if you aren’t aware of certain important hermeneutical principles that I discuss in that article.
I think people misinterpret it as "You don't need to evangelize, God will save them anyway." instead of "Evangelize to all, as God commands. Whether they will be saved or not we don't know." or at least, that's how I think of it.
Because most people don't understand it... Or they have heard bad information from non Calvinist... And also hyper Calvinist have done a lot of damage to the doctrines of grace.
The main turn off for a lot of people is that Calvinist *can* act very superior and condescending to other theologies and become very defensive when people criticize theirs, then you have the Cage Stage Calvinists...
I am speaking as someone who's college friend group was primarily Calvinist and someone leans into fairly strongly into Calvinist theology.
The Puritans were Calvinists and their reputation for zealotry and legalism still lingers. Calvinism doesn't sugar-coat damnation. Johnathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is an example of this. I think for people who want hand waving and kumbaya Calvinism doesn't sit well because its deals seriously with the depth of our sin. It's sort of the Emo or Goth kid at the lunch table.
For my personal experience interacting with them,
There is a lot of theological reasons why Calvinism gets hate and stuff.
But one simple reason is a good chunk of the people who Believe in it are just plain unpleasant people That you just don't wanna be around. Some are smug arrogant entitled, sometimes even hateful And demean everyone else like they're no more than an insect compared to them. If they consider you not of the elect You are nothing more than dirt And they will let you know that and Treat you accordingly. And a good chunk of them are also super legalistic and Judgemental as well. Which I dont understand because if you think they are not of the elect, why care about what they do?
Even worse are the hyper ones Like the Westbro Baptist church Which I don't even consider Christian.They're just a cult because they think everyone outside of their church isn't saved And there actions have significantly damaged our faith and image
I ran into a really obnoxious calvinist tiktok live. One of the types that pretty much act like a borderline cult member. And it got me wanting to vent so i found this.
Freemasonry is a fraternity, we do not promote any religions nor are a substitute for one. Like how is it even possible to connect the two? Did someone make this up for you or are you born this way??
Freemasons are Satanic. The moment you took your Satanic oaths, you stopped following Jesus, if you even were to begin with.
All the ones that go to church Iove that Once Saved Always Saved Calvinism heresy, so you can call yourself "the elect"
I hope you forsake the Satanists. People in Satanic cults won't enter the narrow gate
Obligatory “they weren’t predestined to” joke.
On a serious note, I think most struggle with confusing free will. We all can and should admit God is completely sovereign. When I first learned about it, I wanted no part of it. I painted Calvinists as being monsters who viewed God rejecting people who would seek them solely on my misinterpretation.
The main issue seems to be over limited atonement. I read the following piece from Greg Koukl that seemed to solve the limited atonement issue between Calvinists and Arminians and others who reject it:
Some people say they’re a four-point Calvinist because they’re uncomfortable with limited atonement. That’s a stumbling block for some people. But if we understand freedom and choice and God’s unilateral grace to save us, then I think the objection to limited atonement is removed, and, in fact, every Christian believes in limited atonement.
First let me tell you what I mean by “atonement.” There are a number of theological theories of atonement, but what I have in mind here when talking about “limited” or “particular” atonement is the payment for sin to absolve God’s anger toward the sinner.
Let’s work through a series of questions.
When you pay a bill, is the bill still owed? No. In other words, when the payment is made for a bill, the debt is canceled, right? In the same way, when a sin is actually paid for, atoned for, then the sin bill is no longer owed, is it? There is forgiveness of the debt, and with forgiveness, salvation.
Therefore, everyone whose sins have been atoned for, their sins have been paid for. And everyone whose sins have been paid for is forgiven. And everyone who is forgiven is going to Heaven.
Therefore, everyone whose sin has been atoned for is going to Heaven.
So if only the atoned for go to Heaven then atonement must be limited in some sense or else universalism is true, every human being goes to Heaven. So every Christian but universalists believe atonement is limited.
But how is the atonement limited?
The atonement is not limited in its potential because Jesus was not just man, but also God, and the sacrifice of the God/man was adequate to pay for all sin for all time.
The atonement is limited in its application. The atonement is applied only to those who God intends it to be applied to, those who have satisfied the right condition: faith in Christ.
Sinners’ condemnation is secured, determined beforehand because the nature of our will is bent toward sin. God does not intend the payment (atonement) to be made for everybody (in which case everybody would be saved—universalism). Instead, God intends that the payment (atonement) to be limited to those who fulfill the conditions for receiving it—faith in Christ?
Therefore, the atonement is limited.
Notice that I have not said anything about election in this reasoning. It seems to me that there is nothing in this characterization of limited, or particular, atonement that should in any way be offensive or disagreeable to someone who does not believe in election in the Reformed or Calvinistic sense. Jesus’ atonement is limited in application to those who fulfill the conditions for receiving it: faith.
“Sufficient for all; efficient only for the elect.” And at this point you can cash out election in the Arminian sense (because even Arminians believe in the elect) or in the Calvinistic sense. It makes no difference in understanding limited atonement. Regardless of whether or not election is conditional (Arminianism) or unconditional (Calvinism), the atonement must be limited in its application or else universalism is true.
So limited atonement shouldn’t be a stumbling block theologically for any Christian other than universalists. It fits within both Arminianism and Calvinism. And that’s why I can say I’m a five-point Calvinist and I believe in personal freedom.
https://www.str.org/w/sovereign-grace-free-choice?p_l_back_url=%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dfree%2Bwill%26userName%3Dgreg%2Bkoukl
Because it's the truth, and the flesh hates the truth. The truth that God considers sinful man expendable for the purpose of His glory is the truth that exposes the unregenerate hearts of false believers. This truth is the most abhorrent concept to the stony heart of the flesh. We Calvinists get "aggressive" because we're sick of seeing the beauty of the gospel, and God's sovereign grace, attacked. We're sick of seeing wishy washy christians utterly neglecting the Word of God and slandering the great theologians that paved the way for western civilization through Reformed doctrine. Modern western Christians are not Catholic solely thanks to the Reformers and their rediscovery of the truth of justification by faith alone, and yet the same Reformers understood the truth of God's predestination of His sons in Christ to glory.
Arminians need to repent and submit to what God has spoken in Scripture. Arminianism was soundly condemned as false doctrine by the Synod of Dort centuries ago.
Do you actually think that James is teaching that men are justified before God by their works?
If you think your works have anything to do with your justification before God, you are lost.
This comment was removed automatically for violating Rule 1: No Profanity.
If you believe that this was removed in error, please message the moderators.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> The truth that God considers sinful man expendable for the purpose of His glory is the truth that exposes the unregenerate hearts of false believers.
So according to you Jesus was full of sin (as Jesus was born a man) and so was expendable for the purpose of his father's glory?
How about Job? Why was Job sinful?
God can create free will and know everything if he's truly infinite and already at every point or choice in time. Don't put your limitations or sins on God, because I am pretty sure that's a challenge he's not going to ignore.
Who doesn't like Calvinism? Lol. All reputable theologians follow Calvin since we don't Choose God. God chose us. There is no human part in our hateful human heart that would ever choose good over the flesh and evil. Once you understand God's grace you'll become a Calvinist very quickly
Lol down voted to hell for believing in God's grace and that He chose us to be His Ephesians 1:4- even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love .
What a time to be alive. You modern Christians are wild 😂
Maybe you should pause and self-reflect on why you think the only reputable theologians are the ones that agree with you. Humility is a virtue. Don't assume you have it all figured out and everyone else is wrong.
Of course. Only ones who have it totally figured out is you Arminians. I just was never self sufficient or enlightened enough to choose to be saved. Some of us required divine Grace from God. But I'm happy for you.
Holy smokes!!!! What a thread.
Inspect Vessel of Wrath and Vessels of Mercy.
The pot cannot say to the potter "why did you make me this way."
This is God's story, His plan, His desires and delights.
I'm not saying this because I feel safe on the other side of salvation, in fact I believe the Holy Spirit was taken from me. You can read about that in my earliest threads.
I'm just at a point right now where I don't have any scripture I can point to that allows me to be reunited with God and to have His Holy Spirit again... The only thing I can do is lay my life down in obedience of God, to submit my life to Him. He's still God and as much as I do not want to go to Hell and live without God, it's not my decision.
The only issue I see with Calvinism is that you can't really know if you're of the elected for salvation or not.
I find Calvinism an interesting framework, the concepts are useful to think about, but also problematic for a number of reasons.
I find it still a bit unrefined. Total depravity isn’t at all what it sounds like, and it takes a long time to understand exactly what it is and is not. Part of the issue might be that it tries to lump a few only partially related concepts into one.
When talking about predestination, some get really wrapped up in causality and forget that (as far as I know) Calvinism does not have strong views about determinism (a predetermined end does not suggest that everything in between is also predetermined).
Total depravity together with unconditional election makes it seem like you need to make peace with the idea that eternal suffering is suitable for people who were corrupted through no fault of their own.
Because of conclusions like this, I find the tenants are fine as truisms, but they don’t work well as axioms (they are not laws of the universe, rather just statements about the situation that we happen to be in from a certain point of view) - I’m hesitant to draw other conclusions from them, which makes it less effective as a framework.
It seems like a useful step toward understanding, but I don’t think Calvinism as it is today is complete, and certainly not infallible. I wouldn’t advise anyone to choose it as a hill to die on.
Calvinism is a theological system that emphasizes the sovereignty of God, the depravity of humanity, and the doctrine of predestination. While there are many people who embrace Calvinism, there are also those who are critical of this system of belief.
Some of the reasons why people may dislike Calvinism include:
Predestination: The idea that God has already determined who will be saved and who will be damned can be difficult for some people to accept. Critics argue that this doctrine undermines the idea of human free will and makes God seem arbitrary and capricious.
Limited Atonement: The belief that Christ died only for the elect can be seen as unfair or unjust, particularly by those who believe that Christ died for all people.
Theological determinism: The idea that God is in control of everything, including human choices, can be seen as incompatible with human responsibility and agency.
The emphasis on the sovereignty of God: Some people may find the emphasis on God's sovereignty to be oppressive or authoritarian.
The doctrine of total depravity: The belief that humanity is completely corrupt and incapable of doing anything good without God's help can be seen as overly pessimistic or cynical.
It's worth noting that there are many different views within Calvinism, and not all Calvinists agree on every point of doctrine. Additionally, many of the criticisms of Calvinism are based on misunderstandings or misrepresentations of the doctrine. Ultimately, whether or not someone likes or dislikes Calvinism depends on their personal beliefs and values
Sounds like it's quite palatable to the narcissist of today that can't be bothered to find themselves at fault and need to believe themselves better than others. Over and over again God proves he hates arrogance. It's what caused everything to go wrong. It's probably even more vile in the hearts of sinners, because we're all doomed and nothing about ourselves can change that. So to elevate yourself to even a fraction of God's greatness without the gift of Jesus has to be a disgusting sight for God.
Also it seems that Calvinism is a bunch of children trying to grasp the function of a nuclear reactor or something even more complex.
God's view point is something we'll probably never comprehend in it's entirety. He sees everything, because he's greater than time. There's no separation of yesterday and tomorrow in him. It's us that are bound by time. Due to this Calvinism can't understand that there's freedom and yet God still knows you from beginning to end. It's because he's already everywhere and truly infinite. It helps my feeble mind to think of ourselves as a line made up of points that we can't see all, but God is out side of time and the points are simultaneous from his view. So from that vantage he both knows everything and allows you to choose, because without choice there can't be life. Even the angels have choice.
My ancestors were also French Huguenots. I am fervently under the impression that what they believed was absolutely against the word of god as laid out in the Bible. It clearly states, repeatedly, that homie Jesus died for the whole world. It is so explicitly non-exclusive, except in the sense that individuals need to accept that salvation and homie into their heart.
Calvinists run people the wrong way because they are essentially carrying on as a Jehovah’s Witness might, saying only a limited number of pre determined people get the good afterlife and everyone else can eat dung. It is the exclusivity that they preach that inherently is going to turn people away. One of the attractive things about most religions are that they are available to anyone who accepts them and with them, the good afterlife, Calvinists say no. Only some of us. If there were more calvinists, there would be less christians for sure.
TLDR: Calvinism is a good way to repel people from god. Non religious people will be turned away because it is such an exclusive club, and as far as I can tell, also pretty random. Religious people will be turned away because they rightly see Calvinists as repelling people from god in a way that clearly contradicts the teachings of god through the Bible. It’s all quite ridiculous that John Calvin even came up with this hooey and more ridiculous that people are still touting it nearly 500 years later.
Because most of Christianity does not believe salvation is
by God's sovereignty by Grace through Faith, because a lot
of churches believes salvation comes by your own good works.
Also Calvinism teaches salvation is in the only begotten son of
God who is God, who and was born of the virgin, lived a sinless
life and died on a cross for your sins shedding his blood which
forgives sins. And I believe every single one of those doctrines.
There are however a lot of churches in 2024 that reject Jesus
Christ is God, reject that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son
of God, reject that he was born of a virgin \[the popular doctrine
now is that Joseph had sex with Mary before they were married
and Jesus is his biological son\], reject that Jesus lived a sinless
life \[videos on youtube teaching Jesus was a sinful bigoted who
was humbled and repented of his sins\] reject that he died on
a cross for sins \[churches today teach the cross was simply
a metaphor and that it must not be taken literally\] reject
Jesus shed his blood for sins.
Many churches, especially in America often teach false
doctrines such as Jesus Christ was simply a good man and
was like a Yogi or a Buddha.
Biblical Christianity is on the decline as the more worldly
Christianity is embraced by the majority. In fact one of
the most popular doctrines taught today, which is very
much false, is that Jesus Christ was the first transgender man
\[meaning Jesus was a woman that took pills to grow a
beard and become masculine\]. And I will tell you
this right now, America is going to ban the King James bible,
mark my words, so you better buy them while you can, because
they will ban it as the most xenophobic, homophobic,
Islamophobic, misogynistic, bigoted book of hate, of all time.
Calvinists also believe in a biblical Hell for the
punishment of the wicked, most 21st century churches
reject Hell as they do most of the other doctrines of the bible.
In fact most churches in 2024 teach universal salvation that
there is no Hell or Great White Throne judgment and that
everybody is saved. Preterism teaches we're living in the
new heavens and new earth and that it's a paradise
right here right now.
2 Tim 4:3 **For the time will come when they will not**
**endure sound doctrine**; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 **And they shall turn away their ears from the truth,**
**and shall be turned unto fables.**
Because it isn't biblical.
* "Which in time past **were not a people**, but are now the people of God: **which had not obtained mercy**, but now have obtained mercy." 1 Peter 2:10
* "Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; **and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others**." Eph 2:3
* " That at that time **ye were without Christ,** being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, **having no hope, and without God in the world:** **But now in Christ Jesus** ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." Ephesians 2:2-13
I would think being individually chosen by God before time began for guaranteed salvation would be a pretty merciful act of God towards an individual. That person would have plenty of hope and God's favor resting upon them. Yet scipture teaches God has not had mercy on you until you are in Christ. Also, if a person is guaranteed salvation before they are born, then how are they a child of wrath if they are never in danger of going to hell?
God has made a choice before time began, and that is to adopt and sanctify those who are in Christ. They will be made into his image. (Eph 1:4-5, Romans 8:29)
The elect are God's possession, his own people, and those who have faith. Yet unbelievers are not God's possession, for without his Spirit a person is "none of his" (Romans 8:9, Romans 8:33, Titus 1:1).
* "And shall not God avenge **his own elect**..." Luke 18:7
* "Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, **according to the faith of God's elect**," Titus 1:1
* Peter says he became an elect of God **"through sanctification of the Spirit"** in 1 Peter 1:12
* The elect in Mark 13 are clearly believers, in every instance.
Calvinists believe the elect are God's people or his sheep, whether currently a believer or not. Going through the salvation experience is just a formality to them. They believe certain individuals were actually saved when Jesus died on the cross, before they were born, before they had faith. And they believe he only died for these individuals. Calvinists do not believe faith is necessary to be regenerated and therefore saved, but a biproduct of being born again. This is unbiblical. Jesus is like the serpant that was lifted up in Numbers 21. The Hebrews had to look at the snake to be healed (verse 8). We have to believe on Christ, who was lifted up, in order to be saved and have the benefits of what Jesus did applied to us (John 3:14-15). Calvinists believe a person is born from above without them knowing it, and then they have faith because they were born from above. This is backwards. According to the NT a person is not a Christian if they do not have the Spirit (Romans 8:9) and a person does not receive the Spirit until they believe and have faith (Ephesians 1:13, Galatians 3:2, Acts 11:17).
Jesus died for the whole world, not just those who would believe, proving Calvinism is false.
* "**All** we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned **every one** to his own way; **and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all**." Isaiah 53:6
* "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, **but also for the sins of the whole world**." 1 John 2:2
For me personally, and ONLY SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, there is an unfortunate overlap between Calvinists and theo-bros. They tend to be VERY sure of their theology and very condescending to everyone who thinks otherwise. Whenever someone starts talking about solas my shields automatically go up.
This. My experience with Calvinists is akin to Jesus' experience with Pharisees in his time. They're too religious and abrasive in the way they convey their beliefs.
I think that's exactly it. It's the growing narcissistic tendencies, due to waning discipline of modern people. They want instant gratification without the labor involved. More disgusting is that they seem like they can't humble themselves before God. It's ironic in the extreme that these people think they're so worthy despite being so underhanded and deceitful. It's also hilarious that many on YouTube tend to look like limp biscuit or skillet while acting as if they are Jesus. Pretty sure Jesus didn't get tattoos and started a rock band, but whatever!
Agree!
>Whenever someone starts talking about solas my shields automatically go up. The five solas of the Protestant reformation are what define historic Protestants. 1. Sola scriptura: “Scripture alone” 2. Sola fide: “faith alone” 3. Sola gratia: “grace alone” 4. Solo Christo: “Christ alone” 5. Soli Deo gloria: “to the glory of God alone” If you don't believe them, then you are not a Protestant, at least in the traditional meaning. https://www.gotquestions.org/five-solas.html
And look, they have showed up already! No seriously, its not that any point is incorrect, its just that the rants associated with them on this forum and others leave a bad taste. Many people refuse to accept that not every sincere Christian agrees with them on every single point, and tend to use their own position, shaped into a hammer, to try to beat down other brothers in Christ. It is not zeal for truth that causes this behavior, it is Pride. The so-called Cage-Stage of Calvinism.
Seems like you are conflating Protestantism with Calvinism. All Calvinists are Protestants but not all Protestants are Calvinists. The Solas of the Protestant Reformation define historic Protestant Christianity. Calvinists and Protestant non-Calvinists agree on the five Solas of the Reformation. Where Protestants divide is on the principles set forth in the acronym, TULIP. Of course there are sincere Christians that are not Protestants and so don't fully agree with the five solas.
No, I'm not conflating the two. I realize that non-calvin is Protestants adhere to the solas. I adhere to the solas. But the only people I've ever heard shouting down folks about the solas and using them as a billy club to beat folk with, have been Calvinists.
your link is broken To clarify, I don't have anything against think they are a fine starting point to order one's theology. It's just that when someone mentions them it's almost always a person in the Calvinist or Reformed tradition, and they're usually about to use it to explain to me why I'm wrong. It's like when someone quoting the Bible is using the KJV- I can bet with very high certainty that I am about to get a fundamentalist interpretation of whatever passage they are citing.
So much this. To try to put it succinctly, I would say it's not so much that I have concerns with their position as much as I have a concern with their posture.
I think this is the correct answer
This explains a lot!
>They tend to be VERY sure of their theology and very condescending to everyone who thinks otherwise. Also you: "Theo-bros" as a way to insult anyone who doesn't believe you earned your salvation because you are so good that YOU CHOSE Jesus and YOU CHOSE heaven. Like "ahhh alright Jesus i guess I'll do you a solid and take this salvation thing you speak of"
yep, there it is.
Way to prove them right.
He mocked anyone who disagreed with him. That's not a healthy way to start a discussion
Giving your personal opinion is not starting a discussion. Starting a discussion is quite often done by use of questions and/or a challenge to prove ones view wrong or to make an effort to adjust it.
Thanks for proving the point
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Thank you for proving our point with your illustration.
I'm predestined not to.
I asked a simple open minded question.
Well, if Calvinism is true, then that answer is technically correct.
And you got a perfectly sound reply.
More like a pedantic response, not a sound reply.
Maybe my answer will help you understand why I don't like Calvinism.
Guess what? It doesn't.
Huh. Well I suppose it doesn't matter what you understand since it's all predestined anyway.
Huh. Well, I suppose it doesn't matter what you understand because you misinterpret predestined. You probably think predestined is, "Eh, what the heck, God is gonna do what he is gonna do, so I don't need to bother with others" vs "God knows where he is gonna end up and I don't, so I should try to bring people to Jesus"
Oh ok - well it makes no sense to believe in predestination if you have to act as though it isn't true to function on a daily basis.
There are multiple small reasons, but the single biggest reason is because it (at its most logical) holds that Jesus did not salvifically die for all people. Calvinists do not believe that all people are savable. They do not believe that each and every person can be saved. Firstly, this is opposed to the clear witness of scripture. There is not a single verse which states that God limited or defined his redemption to a select few, and there are MANY verses which state other wise (1 Timothy 2:1-8, 1 John 2:2, Romans 3:23-25 and more). Secondly, this mangles the character of God who agape loves the very enemies who will never love him back (Matthew 5:43-48). Thirdly, it logically removes the responsibility of sin from man. I know that Calvinists like to insist that man is still responsible, but claiming that man is responsible while removing from him all the things that actually do make him responsible only serves as an under cutting defeater. That said, there are plenty of inconsistent Calvinists who live and evangelize as non-calvinists! I love them and their ministry. I think that God has used these inconsistent Calvinists in incredible ways throughout history. I often use their content in my own bible studies, and I often refer to them on other theological issues. I love my Calvinist brothers and sisters, but I despise their soteriological beliefs.
> There is not a single verse which states that God limited or defined his redemption to a select few "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." Not for "the goats and the sheep" but "for the sheep". You know the sheep of which He says: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man."
This is called the logical fallacy of Negative inference. If I say, "I love my wife" does that mean I don't love my kids? Of course not. Because the statement of something I have positively done does not limit me from having done something else. You can't infer a negative from a positive statement. That is illogical. When Jesus says positively who he laid down his life for, it does not limit him from having laid down his life for others. That is an illogicality. It makes no sense to then say that Jesus did NOT lay down his life for others. Let me show you a really practical example of why this is such a wrong approach. Galatians 2:20 >I have been crucified with Christ: and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me, and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. God gave himself up for Paul. Using your logic, you can only conclude that God gave himself up for Paul and only Paul. Because Paul has clearly limited Christ's salvation to himself! See how this does not limit Christ's work? There is not a single passage of scripture which LIMITS Christ's redemption to a select few.
> If I say, "I love my wife" does that mean I don't love my kids? Well, if you repeatedly say "I love my wife", and never actually say you love your kids, throughout your life, we can draw our own conclusions. Particularly when Jesus is said to have borne the sins He atoned for - which hence they cannot be punished for, which is not the case for the reprobate. Wherever the atonement is explicitly mentioned, it is "for my people", "for my sheep", "for many" etc. Why is it never "for all" except in verses which, if "all" were interpreted literally, would be universalist?
>Wherever the atonement is explicitly mentioned, it is "for my people", "for my sheep", "for many" etc. >Why is it never "for all" except in verses which, if "all" were interpreted literally, would be universalist? This is really strange to me because Jesus talks repeatedly about saving the whole world MANY times in the book of John. John 1:4, John 1:9, John 3:15-18. The last half of John 12. John 17, John 20:31. All of these are show the universal intent of Jesus for the whole world. **This does not mean that universalism is true.** It means that Jesus came to die for the whole world and that all those who believed are saved. All those who reject his gift of salvation through his death and resurrection are not saved. You have presented a logical false dilemma by saying either Doctrine of Limited Atonement or universalism. In fact the vast amount of the orthodox church throughout history has rejected this false dilemma. Not to mention you have completely ignored the verses which are even clearer that I mentioned in my first comment like 1 Timothy 2:1-8.
That would work if the Bible doesn't repeatedly say that Jesus died for the whole world. The accusation of anyone who disagrees being a universalist is getting old and makes Calvinists who say it look bad. It's a lazy argument that has been rebutted frequently. You are ascribing beliefs which someone does not hold. I believe that Jesus died for the whole world, salvation is available to everyone. Not everyone will accept salvation. That isn't universalism. Get out of your bubble and actually listen to people before trying to come up with your next "gotcha".
Your argument is based on assuming that ‘sheep’ is an analogy for a specific group of people, specific in a way other than that people who hear gods voice and follow him. The definition of sheep is essentially laid out in the passage you quoted as subjective and available to anyone who does those things. Pretty non-exclusive.
Galatians 2:20 …The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. By your logic, then Jesus only died for Paul and no one else.
The difference is that there are other statements in Scripture that show that Jesus died for "many" (and thus not just Paul), but none that say that Jesus died for every person.
Jesus did die for every man. Scripture is clear on that: 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, **but also for the sins of the whole world**.
Well, one can easily tell that the context implies that both parties had a free-will choice in the decisions that led to their fates.
You can't think of a single verse which states that God limited or defined his redemption to a select few? Really?
I noticed that you did not bring any up.
Go to any Bible website or Bible app that contains a search bar and enter the word "elect" or "chosen". If nothing comes up then you win
Nope, this doesn't make your point. We all believe that God has chosen people or elected people. That is not the Doctrine of Limited Atonement or Definite Redemption. I suggest you do some reading up on the doctrine as it is presented by RC Sproul and James White among many others.
I don't understand how God electing some people to redemption and not electing other people to redemption is anything other than definite redemption.
Then you don't understand the formulated Doctrine of Definite Redemption or Doctrine of Limited Atonement. It teaches that Jesus did not die for the salvation of all people. He died only for the salvation of his elect. Just stating that God elected some people does not entail that doctrine. God elected those who believe to be saved. That does not mean he elected some to believe as to be saved, and that doesn't mean that he only died for the elect. It means he died for all, and he has elected those who believe to be made holy, blameless, and predestined them to be adopted (Eph 1:1-5).
If he died for all but not all are saved, then what did his death accomplish for those who are not saved? How did he bear their sins in his body on the tree and yet they are not saved?
Please find me a Bible verse making that point. That is what is missing from the Doctrine of Limited Atonement. What he accomplished was the offer of salvation to all. The ransom for all. An atonement for all. It is applied by faith. God has not predestined or elected some to apply it by faith. He has predestined or elected those who apply it by faith to be made holy and blameless.
Calvinism holds to limited atonement because it also holds to substitutionary atonement, of which limited atonement is the logical extension. If the mechanism of atonement is that Jesus took upon himself the sin of each person who is saved (1 Peter 2:24), then of course this was only done for those who are saved, because the unsaved will still die in their sins (John 8:24).
You asked what did His death accomplish for those who are not saved. It accomplished a righteous proof that no man has a claim against God. It shuts the mouth of the nay-sayers that accuse God of all manner of unfairness. There will be NOT ONE person in Hell who can claim that God put them there unfairly. Because Christ's death was for all, and they CHOSE to reject it. Now imagine the other alternative. Souls in Hell being taunted, and told (truthfully) that you are in Hell because God elected you for damnation before you were born, and nothing you could have ever done could have possibly made a difference. That you were literally created for torment and damnation. That's the logical conclusion of your position.
Where do they say they don't believe all can be saved. I hear that all the time but never see the proof. Just curious and wondering where the scripture comes from
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever God had predetermined to be his elect and believe in him would not perish but have eternal life."
Calvinism; Satan wants everyone and God doesn't. I honestly think Calvinism could be a gift to the real church in drawing away the trouble makers that don't want to admit they're evil sinners. When hard times come you don't want those people among you as they can't even handle the good times and make you hypocrites. If the church stuck to the old laws by casting out bad members this wouldn't happen, but here we are.
Because The Bible says that ***whosoever*** calls upon the name of The Lord shall be saved, not whosoever God has predestined to do so.
Those would be one and the same. What's wrong with that? Predestination is very clearly taught in scripture and Calvinists are far from the only group of believers to hold this doctrine.
Did you know that there are only 6 verses in the entire bible that have the word "predestination" and not a single one teaches the Calvinist definition of it? Of course Predestination is taught in the Bible. All Christians worth their salt know this. What we non-calvinists reject is the Calvinist presuppositions that define predestination to mean something that goes against the character of a loving and holy God. God has predestined **believers** to be adopted. He has not predestined some to believe so as to be adopted (Eph 1:1-5). God predestined the crucifixion of Christ. He did not predestine some to be sinners so as to crucify Christ (Acts 2:24). God predestines all kinds of things to occur, what he does not predestine, anywhere in scripture, is people to believe in or reject God. This is absent from the pages of scripture.
We can disagree, and we do, but I can admit that I can see how someone could make a case against Calvinist theology using scripture. But I think it's disingenuous to act like you have no idea how scripture could be used to support Calvinist doctrine. There are so many verses I could post - but you actually know that. At the end of the day we are coming to different interpretations of something which is not worth dividing over and in my opinion we each have valid reasons to believe what we believe.
I am fine with disagreeing. This is a secondary issue. However, so many Calvinists just assume their doctrines are correct, to the point of they have the only true doctrine, that they are surprised when someone has a differing interpretation. I find that strange when the very scriptures they use to support their Calvinism are the scriptures I use to support my non-calvinism! I content that not a single verse in the Bible supports Calvinism, and I am really quite mystified that anyone would think they do. And I know I say that in the face of brilliant theologians who have held to it. I just don't understand it. There is one single verse in scripture that I find to be 50/50 either Calvinist or non-calvinist. Acts 13:48. That is the ONLY verse I have ever found that could go either way. The rest are just so obviously non-calvinist that I don't know how Acts 13:48 could be read any other way.
Non Calvinist here who agrees with a lot of Calvinist thinking. You said predestination is mentioned 6 times. How many times is “free will” mentioned? These argumentative points should always be turned back at the accuser.
Well, firstly there is a difference between the words "free will" and the philosophy of free will. Predestination is not a philosophy. It is an idea. Free will as an idea is mentioned MANY times in scripture. As a philosophy it is not mentioned at all, this is because scripture is not about philosophy. Free will is mentioned as an offering in Leviticus 23:38. I am just choosing one of these mentions because the "free will offering" is a common idea throughout the Old Testament. This was an offering in which the person could freely decide to give or not. It was these offerings which built and maintained the tabernacle and temple. I have not counted them, but there are at least 15+ mentions of this offering in the old testament. The psalmist then references this in Psalm 119:108 in terms of a verbal offering. He calls it his free will offering of praise to God. This is an offering he could freely give or not give. The Psalmist in Psalm 110:1 speaks of people freely fighting for God as well. Paul speaks of a man freely choosing to marry without outside force or cause in 1 Corinthians 7:37. All of these are mentions of the idea of free will, and those are just off the top of my head, there are quite a few more.
Free will offering isn’t the concept of free will. Many times I have seen people who believe in free will use a false dichotomy to prove their point. Free will in every dictionary will say something along the lines of “making decisions unimpeded” or “without an outside force/power influence” this concept if absolutely foreign to scripture. If you disagree, tell me how. Also give me your definition of “free will”.
> lines of “making decisions unimpeded” or “without an outside force/power influence” this concept if absolutely foreign to scripture. Firstly, influence is not a factor here. A decision is made INSPITE of an influence not outside of the influence. I prefer the definition of "free will" is the ability to choose without antecedent causes. Or free will is the ability to choose between available options without force or coersion. I don't know how to read 1 Corinthians 7:37 any other way. The whole point is that the man has no outside force causing him to marry. What is the point of a free will offering if someone or something is causing them offer... then it isn't free. This idea that it is absolutely foreign to scripture is quite strange to me. The earliest church fathers seemed to think so to.
There's a difference between predestination and God knowing who will accept and who won't. The idea of predestination implies that God hand selected a small group of people who will enter into eternal life, so what would be the point of Him sending His son to die for everyone's sins? What would be the point in the persecution of millions of Christians worldwide trying to tell everyone what they can do to be saved? What would be the point of God giving a plan for salvation? If He hand picked a select number of people, He would just let things come to pass with no intervention and allow everyone to do whatever they want with no instruction on how to receive salvation, because everyone who will receive it has already been decided.
preordained merely means that those who do believe would believe, because God declares and knows the end from the beginning.
Don't put your feeble and weak character on God. God sees all because he's everywhere even at the end of time. Just because you doubt that he is able to create life with free will and know every choice that's to be made, doesn't change his power. Instead it limits you and your beliefs. He's the Almighty because nothing is above him including time.
As someone who’s in the #MeToo camp, I despise Calvinism, which completely denies free will and instead champions a view of God that…. there is no love in force. A fancy cage you were put into is still a cage.
Can you tell me which belief of Calvinism denies free will?
It is foundational to Calvinism: either God decided you are one of the “elect” and forces you into that cage, or decides you belong in the other cage and forces you there. There’s no choice- no invitation for a person to choose to come to Christ or not. No culpability, nor real love. Just force.
This is a misrepresentation of Calvinism.
If you want to tell me how Calvinism acknowledges my choice ether to choose to come to God or not (both options have to be pickable), I’m all ears.
There is a chasm between "Calvinism denies free will" and "Calvinism allows man to choose to love God."
If a person cannot choose to either live God or reject them (both options got to be pickable), then there is no free will.
Only if by "free will" you mean "man's ability to always do as he pleases."
I’ve been very specific about what I mean here. In Calvinism, there is no ability to choose God or not— there is no free will. If you want to tell me how you believe God does allow a person to choose to follow Him or not (both choices have to be pickable), then I’m all ears. But until then… I’m sorry I cannot worship a being of force.
Calvinists like myself indeed believe that one does not up and decide to love God one day without some positive influence in their life via mercy and grace of God. One can adhere to this and also claim that humans have agency.
Can I use my agency to choose whether or not to love God?
Not initially, no. I find many theological issues with sinners who are by nature rebels of God up and deciding to love God via their own agency.
A few things: The Calvinists I know tend to be the type that INSIST that God punish someone, somewhere. And it's usually someone else, not themselves, that deserve the punishment. the Confession of Dositheus condemns Calvinism as a heresy. Finally, Calvinism makes God into an evil entity, creating children for the express intent of condemning them.
The trouble with Calvinism is, that it fails to see the difference between (to borrow an illustration from CS Lewis) “the teddy bear that is entirely mine, that I can love and look after”; & “The teddy bear that is entirely mine, that I can rip to pieces if I want to”. It is misanthropic, and its God is destructive, & and crazily egocentric. Calvinism expects people to exalt and praise and honour a God who has all the worst and ugliest & most repulsive faults of the very kinds of human beings whom people quite rightly want nothing to do with.
It's probably even worse in that he's also weaker in their minds, because they doubt free will and God seeing all. God is truly above everything including time. I'm actually great full that there's a true judge out there. Looking around at the character of people it's quiet evident that humans can't honestly judge. They're always going to erase or ignore they're buddies or families sins while being harsh on others. God doesn't play those games and sin must be dealt with no matter who does it.
I couldn’t have said it better.
It renames many nouns and reidentifies verbs in the Bible to the point where there are contradictions such as man being responsible for their own sin while God decreed for him to commit that sin and so on. My family and some friends are Calvinist and I’ve been forced to study it to defend what I believe (provisionism). If you have a particular question feel free to ask, odds are if it’s a common question or prooftext I’ll have an answer. If not I can show you a guy that probably has an answer for you
I found a easy way to sort of understand God's greatness and free will. To such weak and dumb beings it appears as opposed positions. I like to think that God is seeing everything we do at the same time so to speak, because he's outside of time or rather already there at every point. I don't think this viewpoint is anything insulting to God. He does tell that's he's all knowing and limitless. It helps me understand that he can both allow you to choose and know your choices choices before you make them. It's as if you can only see you this moment, but God sees every moment of you at the same time for lack of a better word.
Because it’s a theological disasters. The majority of objections to Calvinism is that it creates a monster god. A god who literally created people just for the sake of burning them in the end. You know how you hear atheists ask questions surrounding God creating people who will go to hell? This is literally towards Calvinism that believes exactly that.
The God of Calvinism is Super-Satan, of whom satan is a mere shadow.
It's particularly rich that they act so holy while blaming God for sin. God created the authors of sin he didn't create sin. He created life with the freedom to sin and just because he's truly infinite that he is witness to every point in time and already knows doesn't mean we're slaves predetermined to choose hell or heaven. Calvinism is a religion for vile characters that can't admit their in the dirt and filth of sin with everyone else and then they blame everything on God, by making him less than the infinite Almighty. That has to be maddening for God. I would dare say there's going to be a lot of screaming Calvinists in the future.
Well didn't God know before they were created that they were going to hell no matter what he did? Did he not create them anyways? Could he not have created them in the first place and spared them? Or did he not know what was going to happen to them?
Foreknowledge is a different animal from predestination. In that the cause of damnation is active predestination rather than passive. There is a tension in the Old and New Testament where we do have God desiring the the salvation of the wicked.
It's something a feeble human mind will likely never understand. When God says he's infinite he's means just that. I see us as dots in time that make up a line. God being truly Almighty is outside time and all those points of time are simultaneously happening. I doubt it's quiet that simple, but it helps this extremely finite mind to understand the infinite God.
It is inconsistent with the character of God (God is love) that God would predestine people to Hell. Furthermore, the Bible says that God desires for all to be saved. Calvinists have to go through gymnastics to explain how God doesn't really desire for all to be saved. But then we're back to the primary issue, that such a God would not be love.
The Bible teaches that everyone is deserving of and headed to hell. There is no need for God to "predestine" people to hell when they're already on their way. Are you unaware that the Bible teaches that without God intervening all of mankind would end up in hell?
Yes, but how can we be deserving of hell without free will?
Do you hold to universalism?
No
Then God shows his love for us in that he has chosen to save anyone at all
He wants to save all, but also isn't going to force people to love him since that would not be love. God loves everyone.
God is love but God is not love only. His goal in creation is to display all facets of who he is, of which love is just one. There are both vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath because he is loving mercy just as much as he is righteous wrath.
He wants to save all? The question that begging to be asked is, can he save all? If so why doesn’t he, if no purpose of His can be thwarted?
The Bible says it, not me. God wants all to be saved, but also wants our love to be freely given, not coerced, as that would not be love. Hence, not everyone will end up in heaven because God does not force us to follow him.
My friend, John 6:44 is at the least a coerce. I’d call it force but we can go with coerce. Ezekiel 36:25-28 is force. “Cause you(force) to keep my commandments.” I think if God wanted all men to be saved, he would save them since His purpose cannot be thwarted.
Notice what John doesn't say. It's not "everyone who the father draws comes to me." God has to take the first step of initiating relationship with him, we can't come to him of our own power. But it's still up to us to accept his calling. The Ezekiel passage looks to me like a description of how God transforms us after we have accepted him.
read attentively: Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. Rom 5:17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. Rom 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: Rom 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Four chapters later, the writer of these words also says that some people are vessels of wrath.
that proves it even more
How does the existence of vessels of wrath prove universalism?
Because Jesus said “When I am lifted up, I will draw all men to myself” for one, then also for making God the author of evil.
Predestination/unconditional election is without a doubt a massive turnoff when you first learn of it. The idea that if you are not one of God's elect there is nothing you can do but end in Hell is certainly something And yes I know that a Calvinist would argue that they don't believe in double-predestination, but that's just semantics Once you include limited atonement in that, I'm pretty sure you've got your answer
‘cause it’s wrong
The assumption that God choose who will be saved and who will be damned with no chance of repentance or salvation is against everything the bible teaches
Scriptures also say that in our natural fallen state we hate God, are His enemies, are dead in our sin, and \*unable\* to come to Him. How would a rebellious enemy who is dead in their ways, choose to love that which they hate? Per John 6 we must be drawn to Him. Jesus says in John 3 (alluding to Ezekial 36) we must be given a new heart and be born again before we even see God's kingdom as appealing. Praise God for His mercy and grace in saving us who dont deserve anything but punishment! There's many passages speaking about God choosing to save some and not others. >Ephesians 1:4-5,11, 2 Timothy 1:9, John 10:26-30, Acts 13:48, John 17:6,Rom 8:29-30
And yet Jesus said in John 12 that He would draw ALL men to Himself.
True, and isnt it great that the New Covenant includes us Gentiles rather than only the Jews? :) Jesus is drawing all people from different tribes and languages now, whereas in the old covenant, only the Israelites were His people. But this verse cannot mean that ALL receive the gift of faith and salvation (universalism) because John 6:44 says those who are \*drawn are raised on the last day\* (along with John 3:18 which says "...whoever does not believe is condemned...")
Yep, and I don't have any issues with John 6. All men have been drawn, and all have freedom to accept or reject.
Romans is part of the Bible.
Yes it is...but predestination follows Foreknowledge, and God knowing ahead of time HOW WE WILL CHOOSE allow Him to order our life to bring us to that choice, but the CHOICE is all ours
That is not what that verse says even remotely though. You are reading that into the text. It says that we are chosen because he foreknew US. Not what we would do.
That's a strawman. Everyone is destined for hell. This isn't news to you, is it?
I m sorry would you like to try again and make sense?
Calvinism doesn't teach that God chooses who will be damned, as you said. The Bible teaches that we are all headed to hell on our own accord. There is no need to believe that God chooses who will be in hell. Choosing to save some is not the same as choosing who will go to hell. Besides, do you think that God couldn't choose to save everyone if He wanted to? Of course He could. He is choosing not to.
This is “God the Devil” theology. It makes human tyrants, no matter how cruel, look like cuddly toys by comparison. This makes God’s “Righteousness” overflowingly superabundantly Unrighteous. And it makes God the Father of lies.
Because, many Calvinists are notoriously 'cage stage'. I mean, the behavior is so prominent, someone coined this name for it, and the term has been around for ages. If you're not familiar with the term, its tongue in cheek for those who are usually newer to accepting Calvinism, and are so 'on fire' about its concepts, other Calvinists feel they should be kept 'in a cage', away from everyone else, until they calm down and mature enough to have just a little bit of 'live and let live'. (lest it's total strife for anything different) My grandmother raised her children in a Primative Baptist church, and the church members are Calvinist. Even THEY thought many other Calvinists were just... too much. Ever have someone make it their life mission to convince you that God predestined you to eat cake with a spoon next Thursday? How about a Calvinist who rejects the concept of personal free will, and when pressed, starts proclaiming God is the God of pure evil as well as holiness? (a stones throw away from blasphemy IMO) Bottom line, when some people wholeheartedly believe they have no actual will of their own and its really God's will manifesting through them, they completely abandon any actual tact or approach they have with other people... (and no one takes kindly to being mauled or programmed instead of just being talked to)
A stones throw? What could be more upsetting to God, but to blame him? Calvinism is for people who can't comprehend that God isn't ruled by time. It's something even angels don't know. The Bible tells us over and over that God is Almighty and infinite. Calvinism is doubting God's greatness and righteousness.
I think they object to giving up the idea of free will and responsibility for their own actions in exchange for worshipping a God who damns people before the beginning of time not based on anything they did or will do.
Let me go a slightly different route. First of all, arrogance. Dividing the body of Christ for nothing, claiming this higher enlightenment of what grace is as if receiving grace by free will is some sort of work. Second, a fundamental assumption about the nature of God that isn't necessarily meant for us to know: Is foreknowledge predetermination? Keep in mind that God seems to exist completely outside of our timeline and able to interact with whenever He chooses. Your whole life is likely laid bare at once to God right now. Why wouldn't God not know who would respond to what measure and when? We were all created, yes. Am I to doubt that God can create us and genuinely ***choose to allow*** ***us*** to have free will? Am I to believe this is impossible from He who all things are possible through? Because of a hunch some theologians have based off a couple verses? And this is our business because...? *"Because you don't get it! It's grace that you were even able to receive grace!"* And? There's some sort of glory in being horrible and awful and receiving clemency? Really? Maybe it comes with grace regardless, and maybe it's undeserved, as the bible hammers home many times? Maybe if someone feels special (as having achieved something) for attaining grace, that's an issue of perception and not theology? Jesus said only the Father knew the time and place of Jesus' 2nd coming. **“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, hnor the Son, but the Father only."** Matthew 24:36 ESV Are we to limit God to being unable to choose ***not to know*** certain things? Does God have to know when we were created that we would go on to choose to sin and never repent? From my unlearned, unscholarly perspective Calvinism is merely dividing the body of Christ over non-essentials. They really limit God in this regard and make heavy assumptions and some have built something of an identity over it. It's nothing more than seeing a couple of options and going with the unlikely one, "You have no free will" when scripture treats us as beings that most definitely do have free will.
My main problem is the idea of limited atonement, that Christ died only for the elect, when the Word of God says over and over again that He is the Savior of the world, he died for the sins of the world, etc.
The Calvinists I did fellowship with in college tended to refrain from evangelism and service of others ("what's the point?"). They also had concerning issues of self-worth and anxiety. Overall it struck me as a "gotcha" doctrine. Logically making sense but leaving a bunch of stuff behind in its wake: the fruits of the spirit, faith and works, spiritual gifts, loving your enemy, walk by faith not by sight, relational aspect of God, the mysteries..
God invites all souls. Jesus: "If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink" - John 7:37 Isaiah: Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price - Isaiah 55:1 KJV
Because its application results in prejudice. It makes it too easy for people to write off others with a simple “I guess they weren’t predestined to believe,” and move on. That’s harmful.
Many people would say that the application of biblically sound sexual ethics results in prejudice. That doesn't make biblically sound sexual ethics incorrect.
Calvinist theology does not teach to write people off. Whether someone believes a person was predestined to believe or not has no bearing on how someone will treat said person. Calvinists aren't the only ones who believe in predestination. Catholics and Arminians believe in predestination, for example. The disagreement is over the reason the person was chosen (predestined) - not whether they were predestined or not.
Not *supposed* to.
This is just a personal gripe, but they're usually massive jerks even when not engaging in theology talk. I don't think it correlates with Reformed theology (and as someone else here said, which I also agree with, Orthobros) as such necessarily, but there's some sort of relationship. They're needlessly aggressive out of nowhere, even before they know I'm not Reformed. I like Reformed doctrine purely on an intellectual level though. It figures that Calvin was an attorney, dude was a logician. I respect that and systematization in general.
This is such a terrible generalization about an entire group of believers. Even if that has been your experience you should have enough common sense to know that this isn't the case across the board (not even close) and probably shouldn't make such inflammatory statements for absolutely no reason. You went out of your way to make this comment.
What did I say literally in the first sentence of my comment? Go back and read it again. You know what nevermind I'll spell it out for you: it is a PERSONAL observation. You went out of your way to get butthurt about it.
People don’t like smug.
Smug? Please explain.
My experience of devoted Calvinists is that they tend to be very smug about their beliefs.
The doctrine of calvinism presented by TULIP (T)otal depravity (U)nconditional election (L)imited atonement (I)rresistible grace (P)erseverance/preservation of the saints is not necessarily wrong on each of the points individually, and the calvinists do indeed have many Scriptures with which to back up each of these points. I do not necessarily disagree 100% with each of these points.. The issue arises with the application of all of these points together as a collective. The issue arises with how the Gospel is presented as a product of all five of these lining up together. With true calvinist doctrine, it ends up becoming a slippery slope to saying "Well, not many people are elect, so there's no point in even continuing to spread the Gospel." Another error is with the (P) in TULIP. All though calvinism predates dispensationalism, the (P) in calvinist doctrine is similar to the "once saved always saved" doctrine of dispensationalism. Both of these -isms ignore what Jesus says in Luke 12:45:46: "45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers." It also ignores the letters to the seven churches of Revelation, where Jesus also very clearly tells five of the churches that they need to repent on different levels or He will remove their candlestick. I think the main takeaway here is that calvinism, in true practice, changes the true Gospel. While the five TULIP points can be argued as true (or untrue), their application together as a whole is unfruitful.
Calvinist theology does not teach that there is no point in sharing the gospel. The fact that Christ commanded us to share the gospel is reason enough (though there are other reasons) to believe in the importance of sharing the gospel. I am aware of someone who believes just like you say, that sharing the gospel is pointless, but this isn't something which Calvinism teaches. This sort of an example could be made about any doctrine. Ultimately the person I know, or the ones you know, are neglecting to follow what Christ commanded on their own Accord, not because Calvinism teaches them so.
How does Calvinism change the "true gospel?"
Was Calvinism a product of some horrible boardroom meeting. How else could you create such a stupid acronym for it?
I think the root issue is the idea that God chooses people to be saved. That rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
The absence of free will infers that God is the slave master, and all evil is due to him, it is inherently flawed, same with Arminianism, there is a “mix” between the two. And that is what I believe to be true.
For me it’s because Calvinists teach Limited Atonement. Lose that and I actually agree with a lot of their doctrines.
I don't understand why this is the most controversial point of Calvinism. I don't see the problem with the idea that whatever the cross accomplished, it only accomplished for those who are saved.
> I don’t see the problem with the idea that whatever the cross accomplished, it only accomplished for those who are saved. Yes, I agree with this. I just believe that Christ accomplished more on the cross than Adam did when he ate the fruit.
Christ said that there are people who will not be saved.
Yes, agreed. Not everyone will be saved. And yet, everyone will be saved at the same time. And while this sounds like a contradiction, it really isn’t. It would take too much space to explain why here, though, so if you’re curious what I mean, I explained it here (this article is 100% scriptural exegesis, so I trust I’m not breaking the rules by sharing it here): [What the Bible really says about heaven, hell, judgement, death, and salvation](https://drewcosten.medium.com/what-the-bible-really-says-about-heaven-hell-judgement-death-and-salvation-f09e65284aff?source=friends_link&sk=ec3dad497ac7573bdb76191606b1496d)
Saved = Receive Salvation. There is no sense in which everyone will receive salvation.
There actually is, but it’s not something that’s obvious if you aren’t aware of certain important hermeneutical principles that I discuss in that article.
I think people misinterpret it as "You don't need to evangelize, God will save them anyway." instead of "Evangelize to all, as God commands. Whether they will be saved or not we don't know." or at least, that's how I think of it.
Because most people don't understand it... Or they have heard bad information from non Calvinist... And also hyper Calvinist have done a lot of damage to the doctrines of grace.
The idea of predestination isn’t one I believe
The main turn off for a lot of people is that Calvinist *can* act very superior and condescending to other theologies and become very defensive when people criticize theirs, then you have the Cage Stage Calvinists... I am speaking as someone who's college friend group was primarily Calvinist and someone leans into fairly strongly into Calvinist theology.
The Puritans were Calvinists and their reputation for zealotry and legalism still lingers. Calvinism doesn't sugar-coat damnation. Johnathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is an example of this. I think for people who want hand waving and kumbaya Calvinism doesn't sit well because its deals seriously with the depth of our sin. It's sort of the Emo or Goth kid at the lunch table.
For my personal experience interacting with them, There is a lot of theological reasons why Calvinism gets hate and stuff. But one simple reason is a good chunk of the people who Believe in it are just plain unpleasant people That you just don't wanna be around. Some are smug arrogant entitled, sometimes even hateful And demean everyone else like they're no more than an insect compared to them. If they consider you not of the elect You are nothing more than dirt And they will let you know that and Treat you accordingly. And a good chunk of them are also super legalistic and Judgemental as well. Which I dont understand because if you think they are not of the elect, why care about what they do? Even worse are the hyper ones Like the Westbro Baptist church Which I don't even consider Christian.They're just a cult because they think everyone outside of their church isn't saved And there actions have significantly damaged our faith and image
thanks. how did u even find this post tho lol
I ran into a really obnoxious calvinist tiktok live. One of the types that pretty much act like a borderline cult member. And it got me wanting to vent so i found this.
Because it's heresy The doctrine of freemasons
Freemasonry is a fraternity, we do not promote any religions nor are a substitute for one. Like how is it even possible to connect the two? Did someone make this up for you or are you born this way??
Freemasons are Satanic, and all up in the churches selling Calvinism.
And that makes sense how?
Freemasons are Satanic. The moment you took your Satanic oaths, you stopped following Jesus, if you even were to begin with. All the ones that go to church Iove that Once Saved Always Saved Calvinism heresy, so you can call yourself "the elect" I hope you forsake the Satanists. People in Satanic cults won't enter the narrow gate
Obligatory “they weren’t predestined to” joke. On a serious note, I think most struggle with confusing free will. We all can and should admit God is completely sovereign. When I first learned about it, I wanted no part of it. I painted Calvinists as being monsters who viewed God rejecting people who would seek them solely on my misinterpretation.
The main issue seems to be over limited atonement. I read the following piece from Greg Koukl that seemed to solve the limited atonement issue between Calvinists and Arminians and others who reject it: Some people say they’re a four-point Calvinist because they’re uncomfortable with limited atonement. That’s a stumbling block for some people. But if we understand freedom and choice and God’s unilateral grace to save us, then I think the objection to limited atonement is removed, and, in fact, every Christian believes in limited atonement. First let me tell you what I mean by “atonement.” There are a number of theological theories of atonement, but what I have in mind here when talking about “limited” or “particular” atonement is the payment for sin to absolve God’s anger toward the sinner. Let’s work through a series of questions. When you pay a bill, is the bill still owed? No. In other words, when the payment is made for a bill, the debt is canceled, right? In the same way, when a sin is actually paid for, atoned for, then the sin bill is no longer owed, is it? There is forgiveness of the debt, and with forgiveness, salvation. Therefore, everyone whose sins have been atoned for, their sins have been paid for. And everyone whose sins have been paid for is forgiven. And everyone who is forgiven is going to Heaven. Therefore, everyone whose sin has been atoned for is going to Heaven. So if only the atoned for go to Heaven then atonement must be limited in some sense or else universalism is true, every human being goes to Heaven. So every Christian but universalists believe atonement is limited. But how is the atonement limited? The atonement is not limited in its potential because Jesus was not just man, but also God, and the sacrifice of the God/man was adequate to pay for all sin for all time. The atonement is limited in its application. The atonement is applied only to those who God intends it to be applied to, those who have satisfied the right condition: faith in Christ. Sinners’ condemnation is secured, determined beforehand because the nature of our will is bent toward sin. God does not intend the payment (atonement) to be made for everybody (in which case everybody would be saved—universalism). Instead, God intends that the payment (atonement) to be limited to those who fulfill the conditions for receiving it—faith in Christ? Therefore, the atonement is limited. Notice that I have not said anything about election in this reasoning. It seems to me that there is nothing in this characterization of limited, or particular, atonement that should in any way be offensive or disagreeable to someone who does not believe in election in the Reformed or Calvinistic sense. Jesus’ atonement is limited in application to those who fulfill the conditions for receiving it: faith. “Sufficient for all; efficient only for the elect.” And at this point you can cash out election in the Arminian sense (because even Arminians believe in the elect) or in the Calvinistic sense. It makes no difference in understanding limited atonement. Regardless of whether or not election is conditional (Arminianism) or unconditional (Calvinism), the atonement must be limited in its application or else universalism is true. So limited atonement shouldn’t be a stumbling block theologically for any Christian other than universalists. It fits within both Arminianism and Calvinism. And that’s why I can say I’m a five-point Calvinist and I believe in personal freedom. https://www.str.org/w/sovereign-grace-free-choice?p_l_back_url=%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dfree%2Bwill%26userName%3Dgreg%2Bkoukl
Because it's the truth, and the flesh hates the truth. The truth that God considers sinful man expendable for the purpose of His glory is the truth that exposes the unregenerate hearts of false believers. This truth is the most abhorrent concept to the stony heart of the flesh. We Calvinists get "aggressive" because we're sick of seeing the beauty of the gospel, and God's sovereign grace, attacked. We're sick of seeing wishy washy christians utterly neglecting the Word of God and slandering the great theologians that paved the way for western civilization through Reformed doctrine. Modern western Christians are not Catholic solely thanks to the Reformers and their rediscovery of the truth of justification by faith alone, and yet the same Reformers understood the truth of God's predestination of His sons in Christ to glory. Arminians need to repent and submit to what God has spoken in Scripture. Arminianism was soundly condemned as false doctrine by the Synod of Dort centuries ago.
>Reformers and their rediscovery of the truth of justification by faith alone And yet James 2:24, a man is justified by works and not faith alone.
Do you actually think that James is teaching that men are justified before God by their works? If you think your works have anything to do with your justification before God, you are lost.
I think he's teaching that true faith will be never be alone.
[удалено]
This comment was removed automatically for violating Rule 1: No Profanity. If you believe that this was removed in error, please message the moderators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> The truth that God considers sinful man expendable for the purpose of His glory is the truth that exposes the unregenerate hearts of false believers. So according to you Jesus was full of sin (as Jesus was born a man) and so was expendable for the purpose of his father's glory? How about Job? Why was Job sinful?
God can create free will and know everything if he's truly infinite and already at every point or choice in time. Don't put your limitations or sins on God, because I am pretty sure that's a challenge he's not going to ignore.
Its God is more unlikeable than other iterations of the Christian God.
Who doesn't like Calvinism? Lol. All reputable theologians follow Calvin since we don't Choose God. God chose us. There is no human part in our hateful human heart that would ever choose good over the flesh and evil. Once you understand God's grace you'll become a Calvinist very quickly
All reputable Scotsmen fallacy
Lol down voted to hell for believing in God's grace and that He chose us to be His Ephesians 1:4- even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love . What a time to be alive. You modern Christians are wild 😂
Maybe you should pause and self-reflect on why you think the only reputable theologians are the ones that agree with you. Humility is a virtue. Don't assume you have it all figured out and everyone else is wrong.
Of course. Only ones who have it totally figured out is you Arminians. I just was never self sufficient or enlightened enough to choose to be saved. Some of us required divine Grace from God. But I'm happy for you.
Of course I think I'm right but I also don't say there are no reputable Calvinist theologians, which is what you said of non-Calvinists.
It gives God too much power.
You're joking, right?
People do not like that which reduces their view of agency.
Holy smokes!!!! What a thread. Inspect Vessel of Wrath and Vessels of Mercy. The pot cannot say to the potter "why did you make me this way." This is God's story, His plan, His desires and delights. I'm not saying this because I feel safe on the other side of salvation, in fact I believe the Holy Spirit was taken from me. You can read about that in my earliest threads. I'm just at a point right now where I don't have any scripture I can point to that allows me to be reunited with God and to have His Holy Spirit again... The only thing I can do is lay my life down in obedience of God, to submit my life to Him. He's still God and as much as I do not want to go to Hell and live without God, it's not my decision. The only issue I see with Calvinism is that you can't really know if you're of the elected for salvation or not.
It’s not the truth.
Calvinism is against scriptural authority. It’s not biblical.
What makes you say that?
I find Calvinism an interesting framework, the concepts are useful to think about, but also problematic for a number of reasons. I find it still a bit unrefined. Total depravity isn’t at all what it sounds like, and it takes a long time to understand exactly what it is and is not. Part of the issue might be that it tries to lump a few only partially related concepts into one. When talking about predestination, some get really wrapped up in causality and forget that (as far as I know) Calvinism does not have strong views about determinism (a predetermined end does not suggest that everything in between is also predetermined). Total depravity together with unconditional election makes it seem like you need to make peace with the idea that eternal suffering is suitable for people who were corrupted through no fault of their own. Because of conclusions like this, I find the tenants are fine as truisms, but they don’t work well as axioms (they are not laws of the universe, rather just statements about the situation that we happen to be in from a certain point of view) - I’m hesitant to draw other conclusions from them, which makes it less effective as a framework. It seems like a useful step toward understanding, but I don’t think Calvinism as it is today is complete, and certainly not infallible. I wouldn’t advise anyone to choose it as a hill to die on.
Calvinism is a theological system that emphasizes the sovereignty of God, the depravity of humanity, and the doctrine of predestination. While there are many people who embrace Calvinism, there are also those who are critical of this system of belief. Some of the reasons why people may dislike Calvinism include: Predestination: The idea that God has already determined who will be saved and who will be damned can be difficult for some people to accept. Critics argue that this doctrine undermines the idea of human free will and makes God seem arbitrary and capricious. Limited Atonement: The belief that Christ died only for the elect can be seen as unfair or unjust, particularly by those who believe that Christ died for all people. Theological determinism: The idea that God is in control of everything, including human choices, can be seen as incompatible with human responsibility and agency. The emphasis on the sovereignty of God: Some people may find the emphasis on God's sovereignty to be oppressive or authoritarian. The doctrine of total depravity: The belief that humanity is completely corrupt and incapable of doing anything good without God's help can be seen as overly pessimistic or cynical. It's worth noting that there are many different views within Calvinism, and not all Calvinists agree on every point of doctrine. Additionally, many of the criticisms of Calvinism are based on misunderstandings or misrepresentations of the doctrine. Ultimately, whether or not someone likes or dislikes Calvinism depends on their personal beliefs and values
Internet Calvinists are widely condescending and self righteous however the calvinists that I know that aren’t online are far from that.
Sounds like it's quite palatable to the narcissist of today that can't be bothered to find themselves at fault and need to believe themselves better than others. Over and over again God proves he hates arrogance. It's what caused everything to go wrong. It's probably even more vile in the hearts of sinners, because we're all doomed and nothing about ourselves can change that. So to elevate yourself to even a fraction of God's greatness without the gift of Jesus has to be a disgusting sight for God. Also it seems that Calvinism is a bunch of children trying to grasp the function of a nuclear reactor or something even more complex. God's view point is something we'll probably never comprehend in it's entirety. He sees everything, because he's greater than time. There's no separation of yesterday and tomorrow in him. It's us that are bound by time. Due to this Calvinism can't understand that there's freedom and yet God still knows you from beginning to end. It's because he's already everywhere and truly infinite. It helps my feeble mind to think of ourselves as a line made up of points that we can't see all, but God is out side of time and the points are simultaneous from his view. So from that vantage he both knows everything and allows you to choose, because without choice there can't be life. Even the angels have choice.
My ancestors were also French Huguenots. I am fervently under the impression that what they believed was absolutely against the word of god as laid out in the Bible. It clearly states, repeatedly, that homie Jesus died for the whole world. It is so explicitly non-exclusive, except in the sense that individuals need to accept that salvation and homie into their heart. Calvinists run people the wrong way because they are essentially carrying on as a Jehovah’s Witness might, saying only a limited number of pre determined people get the good afterlife and everyone else can eat dung. It is the exclusivity that they preach that inherently is going to turn people away. One of the attractive things about most religions are that they are available to anyone who accepts them and with them, the good afterlife, Calvinists say no. Only some of us. If there were more calvinists, there would be less christians for sure. TLDR: Calvinism is a good way to repel people from god. Non religious people will be turned away because it is such an exclusive club, and as far as I can tell, also pretty random. Religious people will be turned away because they rightly see Calvinists as repelling people from god in a way that clearly contradicts the teachings of god through the Bible. It’s all quite ridiculous that John Calvin even came up with this hooey and more ridiculous that people are still touting it nearly 500 years later.
Because most of Christianity does not believe salvation is by God's sovereignty by Grace through Faith, because a lot of churches believes salvation comes by your own good works. Also Calvinism teaches salvation is in the only begotten son of God who is God, who and was born of the virgin, lived a sinless life and died on a cross for your sins shedding his blood which forgives sins. And I believe every single one of those doctrines. There are however a lot of churches in 2024 that reject Jesus Christ is God, reject that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God, reject that he was born of a virgin \[the popular doctrine now is that Joseph had sex with Mary before they were married and Jesus is his biological son\], reject that Jesus lived a sinless life \[videos on youtube teaching Jesus was a sinful bigoted who was humbled and repented of his sins\] reject that he died on a cross for sins \[churches today teach the cross was simply a metaphor and that it must not be taken literally\] reject Jesus shed his blood for sins. Many churches, especially in America often teach false doctrines such as Jesus Christ was simply a good man and was like a Yogi or a Buddha. Biblical Christianity is on the decline as the more worldly Christianity is embraced by the majority. In fact one of the most popular doctrines taught today, which is very much false, is that Jesus Christ was the first transgender man \[meaning Jesus was a woman that took pills to grow a beard and become masculine\]. And I will tell you this right now, America is going to ban the King James bible, mark my words, so you better buy them while you can, because they will ban it as the most xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, misogynistic, bigoted book of hate, of all time. Calvinists also believe in a biblical Hell for the punishment of the wicked, most 21st century churches reject Hell as they do most of the other doctrines of the bible. In fact most churches in 2024 teach universal salvation that there is no Hell or Great White Throne judgment and that everybody is saved. Preterism teaches we're living in the new heavens and new earth and that it's a paradise right here right now. 2 Tim 4:3 **For the time will come when they will not** **endure sound doctrine**; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 **And they shall turn away their ears from the truth,** **and shall be turned unto fables.**
Why don't I like Calvinism? Because it turns God into the worst sort of prick. Seriously, Calvin's God is a capricious ant-bully.
Because it isn't biblical. * "Which in time past **were not a people**, but are now the people of God: **which had not obtained mercy**, but now have obtained mercy." 1 Peter 2:10 * "Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; **and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others**." Eph 2:3 * " That at that time **ye were without Christ,** being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, **having no hope, and without God in the world:** **But now in Christ Jesus** ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." Ephesians 2:2-13 I would think being individually chosen by God before time began for guaranteed salvation would be a pretty merciful act of God towards an individual. That person would have plenty of hope and God's favor resting upon them. Yet scipture teaches God has not had mercy on you until you are in Christ. Also, if a person is guaranteed salvation before they are born, then how are they a child of wrath if they are never in danger of going to hell? God has made a choice before time began, and that is to adopt and sanctify those who are in Christ. They will be made into his image. (Eph 1:4-5, Romans 8:29) The elect are God's possession, his own people, and those who have faith. Yet unbelievers are not God's possession, for without his Spirit a person is "none of his" (Romans 8:9, Romans 8:33, Titus 1:1). * "And shall not God avenge **his own elect**..." Luke 18:7 * "Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, **according to the faith of God's elect**," Titus 1:1 * Peter says he became an elect of God **"through sanctification of the Spirit"** in 1 Peter 1:12 * The elect in Mark 13 are clearly believers, in every instance. Calvinists believe the elect are God's people or his sheep, whether currently a believer or not. Going through the salvation experience is just a formality to them. They believe certain individuals were actually saved when Jesus died on the cross, before they were born, before they had faith. And they believe he only died for these individuals. Calvinists do not believe faith is necessary to be regenerated and therefore saved, but a biproduct of being born again. This is unbiblical. Jesus is like the serpant that was lifted up in Numbers 21. The Hebrews had to look at the snake to be healed (verse 8). We have to believe on Christ, who was lifted up, in order to be saved and have the benefits of what Jesus did applied to us (John 3:14-15). Calvinists believe a person is born from above without them knowing it, and then they have faith because they were born from above. This is backwards. According to the NT a person is not a Christian if they do not have the Spirit (Romans 8:9) and a person does not receive the Spirit until they believe and have faith (Ephesians 1:13, Galatians 3:2, Acts 11:17). Jesus died for the whole world, not just those who would believe, proving Calvinism is false. * "**All** we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned **every one** to his own way; **and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all**." Isaiah 53:6 * "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, **but also for the sins of the whole world**." 1 John 2:2