Calvinism

[John Caldwell]

Myself I am not a thorough going Calvinist. But I do hold to much of Calvinist doctrine. I have nothing against Calvinism though I may disagree in certain areas. It seems only in the past few years that Calvinism has become a hated doctrine by many believers. Much like dispensational doctrine too has become hated by many and even likened to cult status.

So, just what do you say are the presuppositions of Calvinism? You don't have to explain them right now. Just list them.

Stranger

Hi Stranger,

What I mean by the presuppositions is the reasons behind how they interpret Scripture. For example, @Steve Owen explains that Christ bore the 'curse which accompanies death' and asks whose curse is that? He assumes this is the curse of God against sin. He notes that Jesus 'was cursed for our offences' and assumes Christ bore that curse so that we do not have to and assumes this curse is 'These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.....' so he concludes that Christ endured the pains of hell on the cross as well as separation from His father which is Penal Substitution Theory.

That is a lot of assumptions, but they are unaddressed assumptions. I am not even sure some recognize what is being assumed.

Here are a few assumptions: presuppositions that need to be addressed:

Why center redemption on divine justice (that the central purpose is to satisfy the demands of divine justice, not that justice goes unmet)?

Why view divine justice as retributive justice (as if men were Jean Valjean and God were Inspector Javert)?

How is sin transferable?

How is it just to punish sin apart from the sinner (to impute sin to another person who bears the punishment)?

Why the belief that "death" is speaking of a "spiritual death" (Scripture speaks of a second death for those absent spiritual life)?

Why assume the "curse" is more than is stated in Genesis?

If Divine Justice is not retributive justice then Calvinism is a false belief (as is Penal Substitution Theory).

If redemption is not centered on satisfying the demands of divine justice then Calvinism is false.

If sin is not transferable then Calvinism is false.

If it is not unjust to punish sin apart from the actual sinner then Calvinism is false.

If "death" is not speaking of a spiritual death that the spiritually dead will somehow die then Calvinism is in question (not necessarily false, depending on one's type of Calvinism).

If the "curse" is as stated in Genesis then Calvinism is false.

Those are just a few issues that need to be addressed because Calvinism assumes those things true.

I hope that helps understand my issue with the theology and the theory.

John

 

[John Caldwell]

Steve,

Look at the post again.

1. I grew up in Marietta Georgia (I moved in middle school to Nashville). I remember KKK and Black Panther rallies on the square.

Some of the klan people read that white people were God's chosen and minorities bore the mark of Cain. They passed out fliers explaining Scripture to defend their hatred.

I learned at an early age how presuppositions color peoples understanding. Without addressing the flawed philosophies and ideologies I do not think the Word could ever come through (they only read hated into the biblical text).

The same is true with Calvinism. Until the underlying philosophy is identified and addressed they will always see the theology as if it were Scripture.

This is not saying if it is correct or incorrect. Just we all need to be objective enough to examine our understanding as our understanding rather than Scripture itself. We are not God.

In all this discussion Calvinists here have nit even attempted to prove their presuppositions. I suspect they do not even understand they exist.

You can twist my words to claim I am saying Calvinists are racists (I suspect some are and some are not, just like people who hold other theologies). But this is dishonest (either intentionally or out of a lack of comprehension). I am not sure which.

Again, you read my post to say that Calvinists are racists and extract sentences to "prove" your misunderstanding.

This is EXACTLY how you read Scripture.

And that is the problem.

 

[Willie T]

Repeating some posts does not change the fact that what you wanted to see was never there in the first place.

If I say that a plane crashed because the instruments were defective and they unknowingly didn't have sufficient fuel to cover the necessary distance of its proposed flight...…. and compare that to someone making an inadequate argument concerning a particular theology or philosophy, that does NOT mean I am calling that believer a terrorist bringing down planes.

 

[Steve Owen]

Steve,

Look at the post again.



You can twist my words to claim I am saying Calvinists are racists (I suspect some are and some are not, just like people who hold other theologies). But this is dishonest (either intentionally or out of a lack of comprehension). I am not sure which.

Again, you read my post to say that Calvinists are racists and extract sentences to "prove" your misunderstanding.

This is EXACTLY how you read Scripture.

And that is the problem.

I have put your post together with your denial, so people can read them and make up their own minds.
You are not as crass as some of your chums on this forum whom I simply ignore, and I hope you are less malevolent. But your dog avatar is very apropos. They whistle and you run to join in with them. Before doing so, you should read Exodus 23:2.

 

[Steve Owen]

Myself I am not a thorough going Calvinist. But I do hold to much of Calvinist doctrine. I have nothing against Calvinism though I may disagree in certain areas. It seems only in the past few years that Calvinism has become a hated doctrine by many believers. Much like dispensational doctrine too has become hated by many and even likened to cult status.

So, just what do you say are the presuppositions of Calvinism? You don't have to explain them right now. Just list them.

Stranger

Hello Stranger,
You've been on this board longer than I have so you'll know that the atmosphere is pretty poisonous against Calvinists. Asking @John Caldwell about the subject is like trying to find out about pork pies by going to a synagogue. If you want to know anything about Calvinism, just ask. It will be a joy to answer sensible questions.

 

[John Caldwell]

I have put your post together with your denial, so people can read them and make up their own minds.
You are not as crass as some of your chums on this forum whom I simply ignore, and I hope you are less malevolent. But your dog avatar is very apropos. They whistle and you run to join in with them. Before doing so, you should read Exodus 23:2.

I do not use my theology as a factor to be unkind or disassociate with members. The dog avtar is appropriate because he is my dog.

 

[John Caldwell]

Hello Stranger,
You've been on this board longer than I have so you'll know that the atmosphere is pretty poisonous against Calvinists. Asking @John Caldwell about the subject is like trying to find out about pork pies by going to a synagogue. If you want to know anything about Calvinism, just ask. It will be a joy to answer sensible questions.

Steve,

You do not have to slander me in order to express your opinion or understanding of Calvinism.

You should have simply said that you are willing to discuss the theology with him.

 

[Mjh29]

Yes.

I would like yo hear your thoughts, if you don't mind sharing?

 

[Stranger]

Hi Stranger,

What I mean by the presuppositions is the reasons behind how they interpret Scripture. For example, @Steve Owen explains that Christ bore the 'curse which accompanies death' and asks whose curse is that? He assumes this is the curse of God against sin. He notes that Jesus 'was cursed for our offences' and assumes Christ bore that curse so that we do not have to and assumes this curse is 'These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.....' so he concludes that Christ endured the pains of hell on the cross as well as separation from His father which is Penal Substitution Theory.

That is a lot of assumptions, but they are unaddressed assumptions. I am not even sure some recognize what is being assumed.

Here are a few assumptions: presuppositions that need to be addressed:

Why center redemption on divine justice (that the central purpose is to satisfy the demands of divine justice, not that justice goes unmet)?

Why view divine justice as retributive justice (as if men were Jean Valjean and God were Inspector Javert)?

How is sin transferable?

How is it just to punish sin apart from the sinner (to impute sin to another person who bears the punishment)?

Why the belief that "death" is speaking of a "spiritual death" (Scripture speaks of a second death for those absent spiritual life)?

Why assume the "curse" is more than is stated in Genesis?

If Divine Justice is not retributive justice then Calvinism is a false belief (as is Penal Substitution Theory).

If redemption is not centered on satisfying the demands of divine justice then Calvinism is false.

If sin is not transferable then Calvinism is false.

If it is not unjust to punish sin apart from the actual sinner then Calvinism is false.

If "death" is not speaking of a spiritual death that the spiritually dead will somehow die then Calvinism is in question (not necessarily false, depending on one's type of Calvinism).

If the "curse" is as stated in Genesis then Calvinism is false.

Those are just a few issues that need to be addressed because Calvinism assumes those things true.

I hope that helps understand my issue with the theology and the theory.

John

What you are calling 'assumptions' many believe are Scriptural. So why is it an 'assumption'? Is it an assumption because you disagree with it?
Do you believe that you do not have some 'presuppositions' when you come to the Bible to interpret? What are your presuppositions, or 'assumptions'? Are they Scriptural?

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Hello Stranger,
You've been on this board longer than I have so you'll know that the atmosphere is pretty poisonous against Calvinists. Asking @John Caldwell about the subject is like trying to find out about pork pies by going to a synagogue. If you want to know anything about Calvinism, just ask. It will be a joy to answer sensible questions.

Yes it is. But not just here. I find lately that it is everywhere. Just as I said, it is also with dispensationalism. I believe I have a working understanding of Calvinist doctrine. If you see where I misrepresent it, feel free to correct me. My own doctrine is in line with Calvinism though not completely. But, I believe it to be Scriptural.

Herein lies the crux, I believe. Did the Reformers have a complete understanding of the Bible? I say no. They moved on what they did understand, and praise God they did. But we are still learning. So I don't like to believe just what the Reformers believed. By the same token, I support the truths that they pressed during the Reformation period.

Stranger

 

[Steve Owen]

Yes it is. But not just here. I find lately that it is everywhere. Just as I said, it is also with dispensationalism. I believe I have a working understanding of Calvinist doctrine. If you see where I misrepresent it, feel free to correct me. My own doctrine is in line with Calvinism though not completely. But, I believe it to be Scriptural.

Herein lies the crux, I believe. Did the Reformers have a complete understanding of the Bible? I say no. They moved on what they did understand, and praise God they did. But we are still learning. So I don't like to believe just what the Reformers believed. By the same token, I support the truths that they pressed during the Reformation period.

Stranger

I don't think the Reformers or the Puritans would have claimed to have a complete understanding of the Bible. Ecclesia Reformata semper reformanda. 'The Reformed Church is always in need of Reformation.' We need constantly to be looking at our beliefs and practices to see if they comply with the Scriptures. However, just because a doctrine is old, it does not mean it is wrong. 'Test all things; hold fast what is good' (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Personally, I find that I have drawn closer to the Reformed confessions over the last several years, rather than away from them.

 

[John Caldwell]

What you are calling 'assumptions' many believe are Scriptural. So why is it an 'assumption'? Is it an assumption because you disagree with it?
Do you believe that you do not have some 'presuppositions' when you come to the Bible to interpret? What are your presuppositions, or 'assumptions'? Are they Scriptural?

Stranger

I am calling assumed ideas that becone tge foundation to the doctrine as "assumptions". I suppose "presuppositions" would be better.

No. They are not assumptions because I don't hold them.

The are presuppositions because they are not taught by Scripture but instead are read into it (or, perhaps, Scripture is viewed through its lens) to interpret Scripture and create doctrine.

Look at @Steve Owen 's post (where he offers Scripture "proving" Penal Substitution Theory). The passages do not really support his conclusions. Presuppositions are those ideas and philosophies that fill in the gap between Scripture and his conclusion.

For example, I believe Hell is a place of eternal torment. One presupposition I hold is that we are all created with souls that exist in some context forever. I can explain why I believe this, but it is not really stated in Scripture. The text of Scripture can just as easily support annihilation. It is not Scripture that differs but our presuppositions.

The same is true of baptism. I hold presuppositions that "baptism" is used litterally as immersion. I hold a presupposition that it is related to the experience of a believer rather than an introduction into a community or faith. These change how I read Scripture.

We all have presuppositions. Calvinists have defended their assumptions. But not the Calvinists here. They do not even understand these presuppositions exist.

 

[John Caldwell]

I would like yo hear your thoughts, if you don't mind sharing?

It was the preacher preaching to the choir. When I read it I was a Calvinist so I appreciated it more than I would should I read it today. What I once thought scholarly and biblical now I would see as scholarly and sad.

I did like his focus on God's love. I did not like that he approached the topic as a defense of his view for those who hold it. He never really proves why his view os correct.

 

[Stranger]

I don't think the Reformers or the Puritans would have claimed to have a complete understanding of the Bible. Ecclesia Reformata semper reformanda. 'The Reformed Church is always in need of Reformation.' We need constantly to be looking at our beliefs and practices to see if they comply with the Scriptures. However, just because a doctrine is old, it does not mean it is wrong. 'Test all things; hold fast what is good' (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Personally, I find that I have drawn closer to the Reformed confessions over the last several years, rather than away from them.

Yes, and neither would I. Yes, always looking at Scripture. I agree, just because something is old doesn't mean it is wrong or in need of reforming. We always grow in knowledge which is governed by the Scripture.

In our day, I am not surprised that you are drawn closer to the reformers based on the condition of the Church today. The visible Church today is spiraling away from Christ. But that doesn't mean we toss everything out that may have been learned in Scripture since the Reformation. I guess the point is always, Scripture.

Stranger

 

[CharismaticLady]

Yes, and neither would I. Yes, always looking at Scripture. I agree, just because something is old doesn't mean it is wrong or in need of reforming. We always grown in knowledge which is governed by the Scripture.

In our day, I am not surprised that you are drawn closer to the reformers based on the condition of the Church today. The visible Church today is spiraling away from Christ. But that doesn't mean we toss everything out that may have been learned in Scripture since the Reformation. I guess the point is always, Scripture.

Stranger

Which reformers do you believe reflects the mission of Jesus coming to earth? John says Jesus was manifest to take away our sin and in Him there is no sin. Who of the following believes that and how does that manifest in us?

Calvin
Luther
Arminius
Wesley
Other

 

[John Caldwell]

It was the preacher preaching to the choir. When I read it I was a Calvinist so I appreciated it more than I would should I read it today. What I once thought scholarly and biblical now I would see as scholarly and sad.

I did like his focus on God's love. I did not like that he approached the topic as a defense of his view for those who hold it. He never really proves why his view os correct.

My bad! I just looked on my shelf.

I was talking about his book The Atonement. I have not read the other.

 

[Enoch111]

We need constantly to be looking at our beliefs and practices to see if they comply with the Scriptures.

The problem arises when non-Reformed Christians present Scriptures which clearly refute Five Point Calvinism. Even though the passages or verses are very clear, Reformed Christians fail to accept that, and move away from (or flatly reject) their false gospel. In other words, once a Calvinist, always a Calvinist. John's Caldwell says he came out of Calvinism, but then rejects the penal substitution of the finished work of Christ (out of the frying pan and into the fire) which is believed by all conservative Christians.

 

[Stranger]

Which reformers do you believe reflects the mission of Jesus coming to earth? John says Jesus was manifest to take away our sin and in Him there is no sin. Who of the following believes that and how does that manifest in us?

Calvin
Luther
Arminius
Wesley
Other

This is a very broad question. It requires me to know all the doctrine of these and other reformers. And I have not studied any one persons complete doctrine. The reformation in general reflects Christ mission in coming to earth. The insistence on Scripture alone. The insistence on faith alone.

I believe you have something to say behind these questions.

Stranger

 

[CharismaticLady]

This is a very broad question. It requires me to know all the doctrine of these and other reformers. And I have not studied any one persons complete doctrine. The reformation in general reflects Christ mission in coming to earth. The insistence on Scripture alone. The insistence on faith alone.

I believe you have something to say behind these questions.

Stranger

I have a lot to say, but usually I'm wasting my breath and am ignored?

 

[Grailhunter]

I have a lot to say, but usually I'm wasting my breath and am ignored?

Ya, but still say it.