What is so bad about Calvinism

Status
Not open for further replies.
with the altar call and asking for decisions to be made.

Decisions made by who?
In our Sunday School class this morning we were talking about what gives the SBC a bad rap
A "bad rap" to who? Unbelievers?
I cannot agree to fatalism.
Neither does Scripture.
I see many scriptural passages that proclaim God's sovereignty and many that proclaim man's responsibilty to come to Jesus.
I was the same way, initially, probably viewing this as something like a continuum of a 60/40 division of Scripture,
It seemed the majority of Scripture seems to lean toward the sovereignty of God (in salvation), but 40% seem to lean toward man's responsibility. So, it was more reasonable to lean "Calvinist."

Understand the unbiblical and illogical presuppositions implicit even in this... it sets the Word of God against each other (but Scripture is clear as one whole message and intended to be so by its author), AND
it defines "sovereign" as if it were relative, 60% sovereign. Not logical- like being 60% pregnant.

Then, as I studied the immediate context of the 40% Scriptures, it resolved some more of the "leaning man" Scriptures toward "leaning God" in two ways:

1) their immediate context
2) the context of the whole of Scripture
The systematic theology of the Westminster Confession (the London Baptist Confession is very similar in this regard) is very helpful in this regard.

But while 85% was still clearly "Calvinist" (sovereignty of God), it still left about 15% of Scriptures unclear or seeming to lean the other way.
E.g. John 3:16
Then a light bulb went on. First, how can God be "sovereign" if his creature can change his own nature (by regeneration) and choose and abide in Him?

Second,
"The world" was to the believer of the first century, representative of the (gentile) "world" often outside of Israel. Jesus died for (all sorts) of people in the (whole) world, Jew and Gentile.
John 3:3-15 before this talks about how being "born again" is impossible with men. Man cannot re-enter the womb, as Nicodemus reasoned. Like the wind, which cannot be controlled, it goes wherever it pleases v. 8.

So it is with salvation.

Man cannot control it, it does not even make sense to him, it is impossible to man.

Now, John chapter 3 is one of the best passages to explain "the doctrines of grace" (Calvinism) because, by God's grace, I understand it in context.

Dr RC Sproul, "What is Reformed Theology" has an on-line teaching series that may help (12 lessons):
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/what_is_reformed_theology/
 
Last edited:
What is "hyper-calvinism", and what is an example of a "hyper-calvinist"?

Brother Jason, I would provide a clear answer, but I am not sure there is a precise one, it is a subject of much debate among Calvinists/Reformed Christians. To get an idea about the history of the debate I recommend the following article:

A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism

Here is a list of linked articles:

Monergism :: Hyper-Calvinism

John Hendryx sums up the points nicely the most serious differences in my mind include:

"- that God is the author of sin and of evil
- that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
- that it is wrong to evangelize
- that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do
- that God does not command everyone to repent
- that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men
- that saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination
- that only Calvinists are Christians (Neo-gnostic Calvinism"

A book on this subject by Ian Murray titled "SPURGEON V. HYPER-CALVINISM: THE BATTLE FOR GOSPEL PREACHING":

Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching :: Historical Theology :: Church History :: Monergism Books :: Reformed Books - Discount Prices - Free Shipping
 
Don't get distracted by what is sometimes called "hyper" Calvinism. Usually that term is used in a pejorative way by people who simply misunderstand "Calvinism." They are illogically, unbiblically trying to place an absolute, (sovereignty) on a continuum.

Sometimes the term is used to mean the church is not to evangelize, which is a misunderstanding of the God who ordains the ends (salvation), also ordains the means (ordinarily, through the preaching of the gospel).

In either case, "hyper" is not Calvinism,

just as the "new morality," is not new (or moral).
 
Non-Calvinist generally have never understood man's depravity. I think that's why Luther's Bondage of the Will was so powerful in pushing me into Calvinism. (Though a non-believer, growing up in the deep south I absorbed "free-will" theology by osmosis it seems.) Also, I have met Baptists who primarily have difficulty with particular redemption.
 
Responsibility does not necessitate capability.
Can you explain that a little more? I think you're absolutely right on it and all the biblical evidence says that as man we are responsible for things we are inherently capable of and must absolutely rely on God for. However, I have to admit having trouble with 'feeling' settled about it. I don't understand why it feels unfair for us to hold people responsible for things they are incapable of, but it does feel unfair. Anyone else ever try to break this 'feeling' down or struggle with it?
 
Responsibility does not necessitate capability.
Can you explain that a little more? I think you're absolutely right on it and all the biblical evidence says that as man we are responsible for things we are inherently capable of and must absolutely rely on God for. However, I have to admit having trouble with 'feeling' settled about it. I don't understand why it feels unfair for us to hold people responsible for things they are incapable of, but it does feel unfair. Anyone else ever try to break this 'feeling' down or struggle with it?

I've had this feeling before. It can often almost feel unfair that someone who is incapable of something is required to do it anyway. Something that I keep in mind (an if this is wrong, forgive me, I'm new here), is a comment I once read on the passage in Romans on the sovereign choice of God. And it went along the lines of, if someone is so bad (or depraved), they are incapable of doing good (spiritually), does that exempt them any more from the fact that they don't do good? Many would probably say that it condemn's them all the more so. If someone is so spiritually depraved that they cannot accept God by themselves, does it make it unfair for God to require it of them? In the same way, we would answer that with a "no".

---------- Post added at 03:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 PM ----------

Responsibility does not necessitate capability.
Can you explain that a little more? I think you're absolutely right on it and all the biblical evidence says that as man we are responsible for things we are inherently capable of and must absolutely rely on God for. However, I have to admit having trouble with 'feeling' settled about it. I don't understand why it feels unfair for us to hold people responsible for things they are incapable of, but it does feel unfair. Anyone else ever try to break this 'feeling' down or struggle with it?

I've had this feeling before. It can often almost feel unfair that someone who is incapable of something is required to do it anyway. Something that I keep in mind (an if this is wrong, forgive me, I'm new here), is a comment I once read on the passage in Romans on the sovereign choice of God. And it went along the lines of, if someone is so bad (or depraved), they are incapable of doing good (spiritually), does that exempt them any more from the fact that they don't do good? Many would probably say that it condemn's them all the more so. If someone is so spiritually depraved that they cannot accept God by themselves, does it make it unfair for God to require it of them? In the same way, we would answer that with a "no".

---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

Sorry about the lack of signature. Changed. Also, sorry about the double post...
 
In my experiences most folks don't like to admit that they really were that bad. They like to believe that there was some good in themselves.

When I speak of the way I was before I was saved I use the word "worm" but I still think I am giving myself too much credit. Worms were a lot more worthy than I was.

Praise God for His Grace.
 
I see it like this....you rack up a debt that is far too greater than you can pay in your lifetime through "ordinary means", but you are still responsible for its payment.

You are responsible for it, yet being responsible does not necessitate that you are capable of taking care of the debt. The debt is the initial separation from God passed down by Adam's federal sin....any debt is separation. It isn't that we are so bad that we are incapable of doing any good. It is that any good we do is not what God has required for the remission of sins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top