# Rejection of the doctrines of Grace



## OrthodoxReformer (Sep 9, 2016)

Greetings PB brothers,
I have read in previous posts discussions about people who don’t believe in the doctrines of grace, predestination etc (arminians) and whether this may affect a person’s salvation. Recently I read an online discussion between a Calvinist and a Baptist and when the word predestination was mentioned the Baptist started saying the God of Calvinism is a monster (and other very harsh words that I can’t even mention here). 

In addition to this yesterday I came across an article written by an eastern orthodox preacher who use the same monstrous words in order to describe predestination and the doctrines of Grace. Because his article is written in Greek I translated a small part of it in English so you can read it. 
“The doctrine of predestination that was proposed by Augustine and promoted by Calvin is blasphemous and heretical. Their God (he talks about the reformers) is a God who never loved the world but instead hated the world. Predestination is the most blasphemous and heretical dogma that has ever existed”. In other places he says that this God is an unjust god and a bad one. Additionally he uses a number of “not so good words” for those who believe in this doctrine. (http://www.diakrisis.gr/articles.php?lng=gr&pg=131)

Now here is my question: Can people who call God a monster and other similar words be saved? Some people say that they (arminians) have good intentions so they can still get saved despite the words that they use and their beliefs…. Personally I don’t agree with that. Calling God a monster is blasphemous no matter what. Unless they repent they have a big problem.

I live in a country where Eastern orthodox Christians are the majority of the population so I have to deal with their theology every day. Even most small evangelical churches in Athens, with a few exceptions are free-will fanatics. 
What are your thoughts? I am a bit confused.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 9, 2016)

OrthodoxReformer said:


> Can people who call God a monster and other similar words be saved?



If it is a considered statement, no they cannot as they hate the God of scripture.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 9, 2016)

Roger Olson:

" I have said that _if_ it were revealed to me in a way I could not doubt that the God of consistent, five point Calvinism is the one true God over all, the maker of heaven and earth, I would not worship him because I would not think him worthy of worship. "

Src: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/05/do-arminians-and-calvinists-worship-the-same-god/

Note the inconsistency. Revelation of such a fact would necessarily come from the very God Olson would refuse to worship.

Sigh.


----------



## Timmay (Sep 9, 2016)

I actually struggle with this too. Just today I was talking with a friend about EOs and their rejection of penal substitutionary atonement. I mean, how can you reject that? It's all over the Bible. 

I await more responses. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## OrthodoxReformer (Sep 9, 2016)

Timmay said:


> I actually struggle with this too. Just today I was talking with a friend about EOs and their rejection of penal substitutionary atonement. I mean, how can you reject that? It's all over the Bible.
> 
> I await more responses.
> 
> ...



I think the problem is that many people who claim to be Christians have created a god that fits their needs. 

They just can't accept the fact that God is in charge and he is sovereign over everything. 

They worship free-will...

I thank the Lord that he took me out of this Arminian man-centered theology.


----------



## Timmay (Sep 9, 2016)

The only thing is, with this line of thinking, only the Reformed will be saved. It sounds very self-centered on our part, and almost salvation by right doctrine.


----------



## timfost (Sep 9, 2016)

Only those who put their trust in the living God will be saved.

I think it's wise to stay out of the business of trying to determine who is saved and who isn't. That's God's prerogative. Rather, we should focus on being faithful witnesses and living lives consistent with what we say we believe.

If someone thinks that the doctrine of predestination is destructive, we should demonstrate just the opposite as those who hold these doctrines dearly. We should live as those who establish the law, not as those who abuse grace. We should care for the sick and needy, emulating our Savior.

Often people associate the doctrine of predestination with hyper-Calvinism. Again, we should demonstrate that such doctrines don't inhibit the proclamation of the gospel but rather comfort us, knowing that no one would respond to the gospel apart from God's determination to change the heart.


----------



## OrthodoxReformer (Sep 10, 2016)

Thank you all for your answers.

I never intended to say who will and who will not get saved.

Maybe I should have asked my question in a different way.

God bless you all.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 10, 2016)

I have most found that most people who say they hate the God of Calvinism simply have many misunderstanding of of what Calvinism is, and thus I in a sense I hate that misrepresentation of God also.


----------



## timfost (Sep 10, 2016)

earl40 said:


> I have most found that most people who say they hate the God of Calvinism simply have many misunderstanding of of what Calvinism is, and thus I in a sense I hate that misrepresentation of God also.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 10, 2016)

earl40 said:


> I have most found that most people who say they hate the God of Calvinism simply have many misunderstanding of of what Calvinism is, and thus I in a sense I hate that misrepresentation of God also.



This is very true.

The problem is that most such people are utterly convinced that their understanding of Reformed theology is correct, and will not make any attempt to let someone who is _actually_ Reformed explain to them otherwise. I am convinced that this is so because many of them realize that if they concede that their understanding of Reformed theology is off, their cavils are doused with water, and they will no longer have pricks against which to kick. For many of these vehement people, I thoroughly believe that fighting against Calvinism gives their faith meaning, hence the determination to dig their heels in to their own misunderstandings. In other words, for many of them the misunderstanding is deliberate.


----------



## John P (Sep 10, 2016)

I would say one can be saved and deeply misled. They are not calling God a monster, they are calling the Calvinist God (I actually hate this distinction, since there is only one God) a monster. It is a very deceptive attack on Calvinists that many actually believe.

Now, I think it is unbiblical to think predestination is heresy, since the Bible mentions the word and doctrine of predestination numerous times. If I were debating that Baptist, I would have quoted Romans 11 in large and supplemented it with 1 Peter 1:1-3 and Ephesians 1 to prove that the doctrine of Predestination exists in the Bible. 

I am growing tired of the blatant misunderstandings of Reformed theology, since true Reformed theology teaches that God loved the world so much that He sent His Son to die and resurrect for the forgiveness of sins. Reformed theology essentially boils down to studying the Bible and trying to apply and understand what it says. We hold the Bible as our textbook, and we must adhere to it. 

I'm sure you all knew this already, but it is something that I felt I must say.


----------



## KGP (Sep 10, 2016)

Predestination has a proper place in relation to other doctrines of the Christian faith. On its own; it can be difficult to receive. As a person comes to understand other concepts rightly (the holiness of God, the sinfulness of sin, the purpose of God in redemption; the witness of the Holy Spirit; and so on) it can become easier to see how it all fits together and therefore easier to embrace.

I think we need to remember that God is the best teacher of this doctrine. Jonathan Edwards thought it a 'mean and terrible doctrine' at one point, but it became sweet to him eventually. Spurgeon also came to the doctrine of predestination during a sermon that had nothing to do with the topic; if I recall. He began reflecting on his own conversion and realized God was at the start of it all. I read about a man who was at seminary with John Piper; walked away from his faith in part due to the trouble he had with predestination. But a few years later he was soundly converted after having an argument with one of his own former students over Romans. He went to argue, but read the words 'who are you, O man, to talk back to God?'. He at once saw that he'd been doing just that for years, realized he belonged to God and needed to receive God's gracious provision of Christ for his chosen people.

So it's good to be patient with others if they are not there yet, but also be ready to ask the questions that anti-predestinarians can't really answer straight. I will say that it is a very difficult doctrine to deny from a logical standpoint. I completely agree with James White when he says that the only consistent arminian is an Open Theist. 

It's a very comforting and empowering doctrine when held in a good conscience; Church history and present testimony will show that it's truth is a powerful grace in the lives of those who receive it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 10, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> ...
> 
> The problem is that most such people are utterly convinced that their understanding of Reformed theology is correct, and will not make any attempt to let someone who is _actually_ Reformed explain to them otherwise.


My standard response to this attitude:

_Persons constructing straw men of the Reformed's views by claiming we operate from the same presuppositions they do and therefore believe about our beliefs what they believe about our beliefs leaves no hope for honest discussion._

Scripture teaches us that men will _gnash their teeth_ (growling upward at God) when confronted with the truth, so the typical response from the anti-Calvinist/Reformed is not unexpected.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 10, 2016)

"My sheep _hear _my voice." Who said that?


----------



## moral necessity (Sep 10, 2016)

KGP said:


> Predestination has a proper place in relation to other doctrines of the Christian faith. On its own; it can be difficult to receive.



Well said!

...and sometimes, even difficult to discuss, among we who accept it.


Thanks and blessings!


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Sep 10, 2016)

Just saying the reason most non-Calvinists that call God a "monster" and a "divine rapist" do so because they don't understand Calvinism. Therefore they are not calling God those things but rather calling their blurred view of Calvinism's God those things. Because of this I believe they are saved.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 11, 2016)

Are the doctrines of grace the Gospel or not? If they are, they _need _to be believed by necessity. 

I don't understand it when we say that we can believe the Gospel but don't need to believe the doctrines of grace (i.e. Calvinism). In church history, who ever held _that _position??
So because Pelagius misunderstood Augustine's God, or because Erasmus misunderstood Luther's God, or Pighius misunderstood Calvin's God, they were saved??

In other words, a blurred vision of the doctrines of grace is a blurred vision of the GOSPEL. What part of the Gospel can we do without?

Again, "My sheep _*hear *_my voice, and I know them, and they follow me," (John 10:27).

Remember, it is the meaning behind the words, "I am a sinner" that have to be clarified. I can say all day long "I'm a sinner, and I need Jesus." The Mormon can say that too. So can the JW, and whole host of other cults and deviant forms of Christianese. 
What does it _mean _though? Once you go down the road, "what does it mean," you wind up either receiving the Shepherd's instruction on "dead in sin" (Eph. 2) or you reject it. Either you embrace the truth or are alienated from it.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 11, 2016)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Are the doctrines of grace the Gospel or not? If they are, they need to be believed by necessity.
> 
> I don't understand it when we say that we can believe the Gospel but don't need to believe the doctrines of grace (i.e. Calvinism). In church history, who ever held that position??
> So because Pelagius misunderstood Augustine's God, or because Erasmus misunderstood Luther's God, or Pighius misunderstood Calvin's God, they were saved??
> ...



So, only Calvinists can be saved? I am not asking to be provocative, neither am I accusing in the form of a question. I only wish to understand more fully what you are saying.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 11, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> > Are the doctrines of grace the Gospel or not? If they are, they need to be believed by necessity.
> ...



Only those who believe the Gospel are saved. Again: Remember, it is the meaning behind the words, "I am a sinner" that have to be clarified. I can say all day long "I'm a sinner, and I need Jesus." The Mormon can say that too. So can the JW, and whole host of other cults and deviant forms of Christianese. What does it _mean though? __Once you go down the road, "what does it mean," you wind up either receiving the Shepherd's instruction on "dead in sin" (Eph. 2) or you reject it. Either you embrace the truth or are alienated from it.

_Keep in mind that people must be regenerated before they ever hear the Gospel with the ears of a sheep, so to speak (John 3:3, or like John the Baptist or Jeremiah). But when they hear the Gospel, they believe it, they don't reject it.
It might even take them a while to understand it, but they will never reject it once they "hear" it. Or, they fall into one of two of Paul's camps - savor of life or savor of death.

I'm working on a book by Zachary Crofton who said, "For although we must not call the convinced conscience a gospel-convert, yet the convert is always convinced." Quite good on the point and question at hand. He is speaking about depravity and repentance and says that someone who does not understand or do X Y and Z cannot be a convert to Christ.

It is also why we have "church discipline". Preventative or corrective discipline guides God's people on the course of sound doctrine. Rejecting that is rejecting the truth.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 11, 2016)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Only those who believe the Gospel are saved. Again: Remember, it is the meaning behind the words, "I am a sinner" that have to be clarified. I can say all day long "I'm a sinner, and I need Jesus." The Mormon can say that too. So can the JW, and whole host of other cults and deviant forms of Christianese. What does it mean though? Once you go down the road, "what does it mean," you wind up either receiving the Shepherd's instruction on "dead in sin" (Eph. 2) or you reject it. Either you embrace the truth or are alienated from it.
> 
> Keep in mind that people must be regenerated before they ever hear the Gospel with the ears of a sheep, so to speak (John 3:3, or like John the Baptist or Jeremiah). But when they hear the Gospel, they believe it, they don't reject it.
> It might even take them a while to understand it, but they will never reject it once they "hear" it.



Thank you, sir. That's precisely how I interpreted what you said before. I just wanted to be sure I understood you correctly. Makes sense to me.


----------



## OrthodoxReformer (Sep 11, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> > Only those who believe the Gospel are saved. Again: Remember, it is the meaning behind the words, "I am a sinner" that have to be clarified. I can say all day long "I'm a sinner, and I need Jesus." The Mormon can say that too. So can the JW, and whole host of other cults and deviant forms of Christianese. What does it mean though? Once you go down the road, "what does it mean," you wind up either receiving the Shepherd's instruction on "dead in sin" (Eph. 2) or you reject it. Either you embrace the truth or are alienated from it.
> ...



Dr McMahon's argument is solid. Actually it is not an argument, it is Scripture!!! I could have not said it any better myself.


----------



## johnny (Sep 11, 2016)

I agree with Matthew on this.

I'm sure we have all met Christians who not only dislike the doctrines of grace but also oppose any form of systematic doctrine. For these reasons they are unteachable unless they "feel" a thing to be correct. I have often wondered by what spirit are they getting these feelings from, as it seems opposed to knowledge and sanctification.


----------



## Timmay (Sep 12, 2016)

Here's what someone said to me after I was talking with them about the doctrines of grace:

"I also think there's some danger in saying a certain Protestant theological system is better than another or saying one Protestant sect is more honoring than another. I love non denominational stuff because to me the small stuff doesn't matter. It comes to the core belief of Jesus and what He did for us and then growing in our faith as we get to know him and then being the church by reflecting His love."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 12, 2016)

I'm working on a book by Zachary Crofton on the Reformed Doctrine of Repentance, where he says the following:



> So that, in its very form, men of reason and the least measure of religion must necessarily conclude their conversion devilish, not divine; yet, in the effect of it, their repentance must necessarily appear not to be true gospel and saving repentance, as being dissonant to the nature in the very formality of it.



He is speaking about false repentance. What he says (often) is that those who are familiar with Scripture see false repentance, and know its false. Though it might use certain Christian terms or ideas, the repentance of men like Esau, Saul and Judas is false. Jesus wasn't lying when he said, "You _*can *_tell a tree by its fruit." 

I think this translates into all kinds of theological positions. False theological positions are readily visible to those, as Crofton says, who have even a _cursory _understanding of Scripture. Crofton calls such false positions, _devilish_. (In this quote above, he is describing the false position of non-supernatural repentance.)


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 12, 2016)

Timmay said:


> Here's what someone said to me after I was talking with them about the doctrines of grace:
> 
> "I also think there's some danger in saying a certain Protestant theological system is better than another or saying one Protestant sect is more honoring than another. I love non denominational stuff because to me the small stuff doesn't matter. It comes to the core belief of Jesus and what He did for us and then growing in our faith as we get to know him and then being the church by reflecting His love."


_
They aren't even thinking about what they are saying._
They aren't thinking about truth.
They don't know what constitutes truth (based on the quote).
They don't care what Scripture says except it suits them.
They are content not to know what the bible teaches.
What constitutes teaching about Jesus?
Jesus who? Jesus in the bible?
Is "my" small stuff different that "his" small stuff?
Non-denominational as far as who? Joel Osteen? 
What did Jesus do for us?
What is faith?
What does "growing in faith" mean?
What is the church?
What does the love of God mean?
What does it mean to reflect his love?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 12, 2016)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Roger Olson:
> 
> " I have said that _if_ it were revealed to me in a way I could not doubt that the God of consistent, five point Calvinism is the one true God over all, the maker of heaven and earth, I would not worship him because I would not think him worthy of worship. "
> 
> ...



I don't remember the exact quote but I've read something similar that Wesley wrote.

This is, sadly, a more common thing that I've heard or read and is sort of said as a badge of false piety. It usually arises out of an abstract or philosophical view of what is "good" or "loving" applied to God. The person making this argument has determine, ahead of time, that his thoughts are God's thoughts. Whatever he conceives of good and love is also God's thoughts (in other words, God thoughts are not higher but identical to his own). Consequently, all of what God reveals is bent toward man's idea of what a good God would do. The solution to the "problem" of evil is God needing autonomous creatures who can choose to love Him and so He is forced to permit sin and evil for the greater "good" of having some people that will autonomously choose to love Him.

What I find remarkable about this admission by Olson and his ilk is that they are basically stating that, if God is really like that then they are eseentially willing to dictate to God the circumstances under which they, the autonomous creature, will worship Him. God wouldn't measure up.

This reminds me of a story David T. King reounted years ago (oh how I miss his interactions here). He was at a big evangelical High School in Georgia as an invited speaker to explain to high school students what the Regulative Principle was. In the middle of his presentation a teenage girl interjected.

"Nobody is going to tell me how I'm going to worship God!", she exclaimed.

Pastor King replied: "I think you're right. If God Himself told you how He commanded you to worship Him then you would not listen." (or words to that effect).

The teenage girl fell silent.

That teenager had more wisdom than Roger Olson.


----------



## MW (Sep 12, 2016)

OrthodoxReformer said:


> What are your thoughts? I am a bit confused.



It appears that people can misunderstand some of the details of the gospel and still believe what is central to the gospel, that whosoever believes in Christ shall not perish but have everlasting life. Calvin said the Papists had perverted the gospel, but he recognised God still had believers among them: "in the Papacy such declension has grown up through many ages, that they have altogether denied God. Hence they have no connection with him, because they have corrupted his whole worship by their sacrilege, and their religion is vitiated in so many ways, that it differs in nothing from the corruptions of the heathen. And yet it is certain that a portion of God's covenant remains among them, because although they have cut themselves off from God and altogether abandoned him by their perfidy, yet God remains faithful. (Romans 3:3, 4.)

It also appears that people can have strong feelings about "the gospel" and not separate their feelings on particular details from the feelings they have concerning salvation by Christ. Perhaps we can be of assistance in helping them to distinguish different aspects so that they might be clearer on the matter.

At the same time we ought to make the distinction between different kinds of errorists, as made in Jude 22-23. Some require compassion, and some require fear.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 12, 2016)

johnny said:


> I have often wondered by what spirit are they getting these feelings from, as it seems opposed to knowledge and sanctification.



I think this quote by Mr. Calvin might be applicable here:



> "Of late, certain giddy men have arisen who, with great haughtiness exalting the teaching office of the Spirit, despise all reading and laugh at the simplicity of those who, as they express it, still follow the dead and killing letter. But I should like to know from them what this spirit is by whose inspiration they are borne up so high that they dare despise the Scriptural doctrine as childish and mean. For if they answer that it is the Spirit of Christ, such assurance is utterly ridiculous."
> 
> —John Calvin, _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, I.ix.1.


----------



## John P (Sep 13, 2016)

I don't know how people are arguing whether grace and predestination are in the Bible. It's rather obvious that mercy is up to God to dispense at his will (Romans 9:15-16). Further, Predestination is clearly taught in Ephesians 1. Even Augustine and Ignatius taught predestination, and they are from two different (time-wise) periods of church history. In short, there is a doctrine of grace, that God gives grace to whom He pleases, and a doctrine of predestination, that God predestined, before the foundations of the world, those whom He chose to be holy and blameless before Him.

BTW, Just thought I'd paste what Matthew Henry had to say about Romans 9:16:



> Hence he infers (v. 16), It is not of him that willeth. Whatever good comes from God to man, the glory of it is not to be ascribed to the most generous desire, nor to the most industrious endeavour, of man, but only and purely to the free grace and mercy of God. In Jacob’s case it was not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth; it was not the earnest will and desire of Rebecca that Jacob might have the blessing; it was not Jacob’s haste to get it (for he was compelled to run for it) that procured him the blessing, but only the mercy and grace of God. Wherein the holy happy people of God differ from other people, it is God and his grace that make them differ. Applying this general rule to the particular case that Paul has before him, the reason why the unworthy, undeserving, ill-deserving Gentiles are called, and grafted into the church, while the greatest part of the Jews are left to perish in unbelief, is not because those Gentiles were better deserving or better disposed for such a favour, but because of God’s free grace that made that difference. The Gentiles did neither will it, nor run for it, for they sat in darkness, Mt. 4:16. In darkness, therefore not willing what they knew not; sitting in darkness, a contented posture, therefore not running to meet it, but anticipated with these invaluable blessings of goodness. Such is the method of God’s grace towards all that partake of it, for he is found of those that sought him not (Isa. 65:1); in this preventing, effectual, distinguishing grace, he acts as a benefactor, whose grace is his own. Our eye therefore must not be evil because his is good; but, of all the grace that we or others have, he must have the glory: Not unto us, Ps. 115:1.


----------



## Free Christian (Sep 15, 2016)

I wonder what Calvin would have thought about people calling themselves after his own name. Dont think it would take too much imagination to guess the response. I think that more damage is done by people calling themselves that than they realise. I have zero problems with Calvin, its just the "sect" like word association i dont like.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 16, 2016)

Free Christian said:


> I wonder what Calvin would have thought about people calling themselves after his own name.



Historically speaking, "Calvinist" was a derogatory term that has since been apprehended by Reformed people to distinguish themselves doctrinally. "Christian" came to us in the same way.


----------



## Free Christian (Sep 17, 2016)

Christian, Acts 11 v 26. Not the same.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 17, 2016)

Free Christian said:


> Christian, Acts 11 v 26. Not the same.



I am fully aware that the term is in Scripture. How is it not the same because of this? The fact that it is mentioned in Scripture does not take away the fact that, at first, it was likely a derogatory term. Here is Darrell Bock from the Baker Exegetical Commentary:



> The probably intransitive passive expression "be called" (_chrematisai_ suggests that the name was given to believers by others. *It may well have been derisive*...
> 
> —Darrell Bock, _Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Acts_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 416.


----------



## timfost (Sep 17, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> The fact that it is mentioned in Scripture does not take away the fact that, at first, it was likely a derogatory term.



Simon Kistemaker makes the same point in his commentary on 1 Pet. 4:16. It was a derogatory title that believers embraced.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 17, 2016)

timfost said:


> It was a derogatory title that believers embraced.



Hence the connection I made to the term "Calvinist." It was a derogatory term which adherents now (generally) embrace.


----------



## Free Christian (Sep 17, 2016)

Hi Taylor. Not the same in this way. The term, name, Christian is mentioned in the Bible and not spoken against. It appears, is used also elsewhere later in the Bible but appears acceptable. That cannot be said for calling ones self after that of a mans name. Twice it is spoken against doing so. To imply both are acceptable is false.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 17, 2016)

Free Christian said:


> Hi Taylor. Not the same in this way. The term, name, Christian is mentioned in the Bible and not spoken against. It appears, is used also elsewhere later in the Bible but appears acceptable. That cannot be said for calling ones self after that of a mans name. Twice it is spoken against doing so. To imply both are acceptable is false.



Pardon, but, unless I am mistaken, nowhere have I been trying to argue (or even imply) that the term "Calvinist" is somehow acceptable. I was simply making the statement that it, just like the term "Christian," was in history initially a derogatory term that was apprehended by its victims to distinguish themselves. I, like the New Testament authors, am not making a moral judgment for or against.

I am not saying that the two terms are equal is rightness, but merely arguing that they came about in a similar way. That's it. Anything else read into my statements beyond that is simply bad reading.


----------



## Free Christian (Sep 20, 2016)

Where ever or how the two names/terms came about is really just useless trivia and has no real bearing upon the issue of using a persons name to identify ones self in opposition to Gods word. So what was your point and purpose of it?


----------



## Taylor (Sep 20, 2016)

Free Christian said:


> Where ever or how the two names/terms came about is really just useless trivia and has no real bearing upon the issue of using a persons name to identify ones self in opposition to Gods word. So what was your point and purpose of it?



To show similarity of origin, not to make a moral judgment as to its use. I thought I was perfectly clear in my previous post.


----------



## Free Christian (Sep 26, 2016)

Similarity of origin for no purpose. Personally i believe, in keeping with giving an answer of sorts to the OP, that many difficulties people encounter with expressing Calvinism is because of the use of the term. The Bible says not to twice. This directive given by God in His Word by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There is a reason for that. Yet people dont listen. So for every action, positive or negative, there are reactions and consequences. If we are doing something we are told not to do then we cannot expect all positive outzcomes. Nothing against Calvin from me but attributing in ways God breathed doctrine from the Bible, or should i say, naming it after a man doesnt exactly give all the glory to God. Calvin never discovered anything in the Bible that wasnt plainly there anyway. He did shine a light on it during a dark period in history and leave us many good writings. But to call Biblical God breathed Bible doctrine Calvin is wrong, full stop.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 26, 2016)

Free Christian said:


> Similarity of origin for no purpose. Personally i believe, in keeping with giving an answer of sorts to the OP, that many difficulties people encounter with expressing Calvinism is because of the use of the term. The Bible says not to twice. This directive given by God in His Word by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There is a reason for that. Yet people dont listen. So for every action, positive or negative, there are reactions and consequences. If we are doing something we are told not to do then we cannot expect all positive outzcomes. Nothing against Calvin from me but attributing in ways God breathed doctrine from the Bible, or should i say, naming it after a man doesnt exactly give all the glory to God. Calvin never discovered anything in the Bible that wasnt plainly there anyway. He did shine a light on it during a dark period in history and leave us many good writings. But to call Biblical God breathed Bible doctrine Calvin is wrong, full stop.



Sigh...

For the last time, I am not making a moral judgment on the use of the term. I merely wanted to point out the similarity in origin—that's it. I don't know how many times I have to say it in plain English before it is finally read.


----------



## Christian Teegardin (Sep 27, 2016)

The reprobate can only make of themselves a 'God' who fulfills their needs, or makes them feel assured in their own depraved and desperately wicked state. The focus is on _them_, not God.

The elect accept God for who He is, and accept that He has chosen a select people out of the mass of people. They accept that all the others are consigned to damnation by hell-fire.

God bless.


----------



## OrthodoxReformer (Sep 28, 2016)

Thank you all for your responses and your opinions.
I think that my main question has been fully answered.


----------



## LadyCalvinist (Sep 28, 2016)

I once my former RPCNA pastor say that one reason people reject the Doctrines of Grace is because they have a Muslim understanding of what predestination means.

Just a thought.


----------



## ReformedInSweden (Oct 24, 2016)

timfost said:


> Only those who put their trust in the living God will be saved.
> 
> I think it's wise to stay out of the business of trying to determine who is saved and who isn't. That's God's prerogative. Rather, we should focus on being faithful witnesses and living lives consistent with what we say we believe.
> 
> ...




Here in Sweden 5-point Calvinism is hardly known. And those who do know about this, those who have done some serious studies in theology (often pastors) reject it. Also the reformed view of the Lord's Supper is very harshly judged by confessional Lutherans. You're almost considered worse than a pagan in the eyes of a Lutheran when you're view of the Lord's Supper isn't the same as theirs. I do believe they are Christians though and I do believe their lack of understanding/denial of what the Scripture clearly teaches is also covered by the blood of Christ. Otherwise we would be saved by holding on to the right doctrine and not saved by faith alone in Christ alone. 
I also think it can be very hard to even give 5-point Calvinism a thought when you've been taught differently your whole life and live among those who reject 5-point Calvinism.


----------

