Calvinists, Let's Calm Down

Yep. You should know the other side well enough to defend it.

Michael,
You are spot on with your comments regarding the vitriolic war being waged between Calvinists and Arminians in the www blogosphere. My experience sees it equally bad on both sides but that is not a really important distinction. If two skunks are in a spraying contest, the degree of their individual stench doesn’t really matter. The whole area just stinks!
We all need to look for higher ground here and return to dialogue instead of rage. The Apostle Paul, someone I respect even more than Calvin, says in I Cor. 13, “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. . . love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,”
We’ve got way too many noisy gongs and clanging cymbals out there on both sides.

I really wanted to jump in on this, but I’m glad I waited. Is there room for a “Calminian” ?

Basically whether I am saved thanks to God’s election leading me here, bringing people into my life and thus allowing me to worship Him; or whether I somehow made decisions that now are bringing me a lot closer to Him by making a conscious decision on my own trusting Christ… does it really matter ?

I for one am starting to realize only very recently that I can now fully answer “Yes” to the question on whether I am saved. And it took me something like 10 years to get there. I always, and still on occasion as you may have read, refer to Matthew 7 that it ultimately is God who will judge, but I am more and more confident in Christ.

That is I think the mark of a true believer, not whether it ultimately came to pass on His terms, or somehow on us accepting Him.

I know this sounds simple, and I fully realize I enjoy the intellectual discussion around it, but once it becomes vitriolic, accusatory or anything less than loving, we missed the boat.

“In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity”, R.Meldenius

Even though that’s not a Scripture quote, I think it does quite nicely fit in this matter. If you’d like a Scripture passage, I would suggest perhaps Deut 29:29. I don’t think the “How” of salvation, in which I imply the matter of election, is clearly revealed in Scripture. On occasion, it’s clear God picked people (Abraham, the apostles, Saul, etc).. on others, perhaps they accepted Him (some passages in Acts, etc).

So let’s discourse, let’s discuss, but above all let’s love and respect.

May His peace be with you and the Spirit bring you wisdom in all your conversations.

In Him
Mick

I am a mean calvinist. Problem with the appellation is that it means something different to everyone who uses it. In an increasingly emotive climate, this sort of polarization is inevitable. While we do need to recover civility, I think this includes the banishment of victimization response or dyspeptic reaction to disagreement to the outer ring of darkness, as well as the flaming rhetoric. Some of us get just as tired of passive aggressiveness.

I am noticing this on some blogs-disagreement with those outside the Reformed faith is being shut down. You can no longer even discuss it without having comments deleted or being accused of imperiousness. Holding Reformed doctrine is imperious these days. People are convinced before you even interact that you are “one of those”. I think that while we may admit some blame for putting a chip on someone’s shoulder, the one with the chip must take some also.

Some Calvinists are idiots sure. Some *people* are idiots. That’s just the way things are. I find that the net result of the idiocy is that everyone wants us to apologize for what we believe these days-yet I don’t think it is honest to do so. I’m really not sorry for believing as I do.

Five or six years ago I would have been like the little brother feeling joy and satisfaction that his other brother got whoppin’ after both of them had been acting wrongly. Back then I was seriously hostile toward Calvinists. How could I not…I lost my bestfriend/girlfriend over the issue. Bitterness entered in.

I have grown SOOO much since then and God had worked on my heart. Now I kinda feel bad for Calvinists in this post when they have to deal with this issue still (while many Arminians cause problems as well).

I have probably become more Arminian and less moderate Reformed since that time, but my love and respect for fellow Calvinist brothers has grown more. I appreciate so much their part in the body of Christ and the richness and scholarly value they add to to the Corporate body in Christ.

That being said I think that the pride of Knowledge is a temptation that will not go away anytime soon. This seems to be a sin that entraps many Calvinists. However, I think the pride of Love is also a sin that can enter Arminian camps. We love the sinner and mankind as Christ does, but those Calvinists don’t…is a thought process that is not healthy either. Both sides have good orthodoxy and orthopraxis for the most part.

My distinctives are an important part of my faith and add richness to the core beliefs that we all hold to. But my battle is not against my fellow saints. It is a spiritual battle that plays it self out in the realm of truth challenges today. But that battle is more evident today in our battle against those hostile to apathetic against the church today. I wish to put on my spiritual armor to battle the devil rather than turn against my brother standing next to me. However, if my brother standing next to me is attacking me, sometimes I have no choice but to take upon two battles. Are we being divided an conquered?

I have got to ask exactly how this debate brings the Kingdom closer, how it helps us to love God and neighbor.

Rather than being in the world making it a more Christ-like place, we sit on computers and debate one another.

Calvinists, the individuals in the Armenian camp you are debating are either in the elect or not, so why do you care?

Armenians, why do you care if a Calvinist believes that God is making you blog, or that He has destined you to heaven or hell?

None of you will ever know the answer until it is too late to blog about it.

You’re simply engaging in an intellectual exercise that does not make disciples, does not help the least of these and does not matter one iota in the overall scheme of God’s plan for humanity.

I’m sorry, that’s just my $0.02. I am engaged in self-examination as to why I spend time on religious blogs. I am coming to the conclusion that it is my ego, pure and simple, and there is nothing God-like about it.

Joe,

I will concede some things, but it is very difficult to concede that doctrine does not matter. It would be like saying, “What does it matter what your wife says? What does it matter if you know her name? What does it matter if you know what she does? What does it matter what she looks like? What does it matter what her personality is? She does not really care whether you know about her in particulars (even though she tries to tell you about herself all the time). All she cares about is that you love her.

This is the cause of many a counseling session. Knowing about is parallel to knowing. You can’t really have one without the other. If God has told us something, we should listen.

People are simply trying to know God.

What we need to avoid is BOTH apathy and arrogence. I would say that your post leans toward apathy because of the difficulties in knowing and the uncertianty that is often involved. It is understandable, but I would certianly say that we should try not to go there.

Also, I try to remind myself that non-essential does not mean non-important. Otherwise we would just white-out 90% of Scripture.

I think Michael raises a good point about people just trying to know God better. I think this debate can be seen as people following men rather than God, that Calvinists defend Calvin and Arminians defend Arminius. While that is probably true of some, the meat of the matter is that we are trying to make sense of what the Bible is saying and defend Scripture. The systemization of Scripture of those who have gone before should not be disregarded for God does work through man. But the goal is to know God better and understand what He, not Calvin or Arminius, have communicated.

Char
I do agree that the discussion needs to continue. I’m sorry if you’re being shut down somewhere else. And I’m definitely not trying to be passive aggressive (if the comments were even addressed to me at all).

CMP
People are simply trying to know God
Absolutely true.. but when it goes at the cost of a fellow believer, are we trying to know God or are we trying as JJoe put it, trying to stroke our ego ?

Also, I try to remind myself that non-essential does not mean non-important. Otherwise we would just white-out 90% of Scripture

True again, but is the Calvinistic/Arminian topic important enough to cause others run away from our faith ? Or is one of those, “Here’s two positions Christianity has struggled with for several hundred year and we don’t really know the answer”.

I vote for the latter. Either one of those can speak to the majesty of God. Neither one of those denounces the sacrificial atonement. As we long as we agree that “the main thing remains the main thing” (eg. I would pose the Nicaean Creed), we should have liberty and charity in our discussions.

In Him
Mick

Michael, exactly, and thus this post!

How strange that there is another Smallville authority named Nick…

Great post Michael. I’ve done well to avoid the Calvinist-Arminian rhetoric that used to plague me when I frequented internet chat rooms. The other day I was telling a friend about a Paul Washer sermon where he got passionate and started shouting once he talked about so-called Christians living sloppy. My friend said, “If he gets like that then how much longer do you think he’ll stay a Calvinist.” I could have laughed and agreed but I took a moment to explain that Calvinists don’t believe that grace is a license to sin (and I say that as an unabashed Arminian).

Ah but Nick Norelli, the difference is I have no competition in this area…..

JJoe,
I for one never classified myself as Arminian until I came to the blog site. I had never heard of it applied in my church at all. I studied both when I heard it and determined that I believe in Arminianism according to the definitions presented. But after a lot more study and searching I seem to be leaning more toward Christian Zionism. That may be political but what isn’t nowadays.

It hurts me when people say they have never seen the widespread bigotry, it is there, and on both sides. But to hide your head in the sand and pretend just keeps it worse. It grieves me that I see people who are damaged and doctrines keep them damaged. I have seen from personal experience just the hurt heaped onto people in the name of doctrine.

I have seen people so overwhelmed by the guilt and sin in their lives and go to church weeping and crying and instead of the people telling them that Jesus can change them they are told they have all the salvation they need. That is the problem I have because I have had to go in the middle of the night to the mental facility to speak to someone who was a victim of election theology.

When we recognize just what Jesus came to do and as His representatives of grace and love then we can reach out to the hurting. It is trite and condescending to say to someone who is torn up that it is ok as it is because God determined them to be like they are, torn up. Remember the people of Nineveh? They didn’t know their right hand from their left and Jonah said no he did not want to go because he just didn’t feel like they were worthy of being saved. God was very quick to show Jonah just what He meant.

Just my couple cents on the issue of when a book deserves caution. I don’t think I would ever caution someone over the “ideas” presented in a book no matter how much I disagree with them. People must be allowed to come to their own conclusions. This of course doesn’t mean that I won’t challenge their conclusions. What I would caution people about is books that I know contain factual inaccuracies or are so biased in their choice of facts as to be deceptive. Another one would be books that present something that is pure speculation or something with very little evidence as fact.

Michael L, my comment was not directed to anyone specifically in this thread. Just a generality, as I believe the OP was.

J Joe, I could turn your question back on you and ask why do you care if people discuss theology? I do not expect everyone to like the same things I do-that makes the world interesting. Shouldn’t we all extend such a courtesy to one another?

Kara Kittle, I am trying to figure out what you are talking about in your last comment. What does “they have all the salvation they need” mean? Sola Fide? Imputation? THAT is meant to be depressing? I have both seen and experienced the exact opposite. It is the belief that I still need to do something to gain God’s favour that is depressing. Pietism is depressing-if you’re honest anyway. Law is depressing. They are depressing because I can’t do it. To tell a person Christ has already purchased their acceptance and given them his righteousness so that they need no more is not depressing. How can it be?

One thing however-some doctrines are problematic or damaging, which may make them suspect, but I wouldn’t judge every doctrine only by how mentally unstable people may react to it. Rather I would judge it by how it adheres to scripture. And after all, the Christian life is one of having Christ’s sufferings flow into our lives. Frankly, this stinks sometimes.

Kara,

I really believe that you have a problem of doctrine and it is grossly unfortunate. The NT is replete with references to doctrine – what do we do, throw them out?

Doctrine is not the problem – people are. If people cannot suck it up and be adult about their disagreement, it’s not the doctrine’s fault – it’s the meathead’s fault. It seems pretty clear to me that you are either anti-doctrine or just don’t see the point, which is your prerogatives.

Comments like these however are not wise at all:

It grieves me that I see people who are damaged and doctrines keep them damaged. I have seen from personal experience just the hurt heaped onto people in the name of doctrine. – So have I. I was a Pentecostal and almost had a nervous breakdown because I believed you could lose your salvation.

That is the problem I have because I have had to go in the middle of the night to the mental facility to speak to someone who was a victim of election theology. – No, they were a victim of some unstable moron using the Biblical concept of election wrongly. Again – not the doctrine’s fault, but the meathead who caused that person to lose it.

Our brother clearly called those of us who are called Calvinists to a higher standard. I personally think that you need to come to that high standard and actually learn what it is that you are so opposed to, because when you rail on Calvinism, I really don’t recognise the “Calvinism” of which you speak, and you provided one right here:

It is trite and condescending to say to someone who is torn up that it is ok as it is because God determined them to be like they are, torn up.

Who in their right mind would say that, Calvinist or otherwise. Frankly, the broadbrush comments are unbecoming and betray your ignorance.

Kara,

You obviously have a love for people and a great heart of compassion for the hurting. Those are wonderful qualities to have. Jesus can be seen in our love for others and He is certainly very pleased when His love shines through us.

I would, however, like to add to what Douglas said above and just remind you that doctrine is, after all, God’s idea. He inspried the writer’s of Scripture to speak of it and of it’s importance many times. It is hard to know from the things you say sometimes exactly what you do believe about doctrine other than all of your comments on the subject tend to be very negative.

I would just like to appeal to you as a fellow Sister in Christ, to stop and take another look. Please don’t let the way doctrine has been used by some to cause you to think in a very negative way about something the Lord has given us that is for our instruction and our protection.

I’m a Calvinist with Arminian sympathies (meaning while I disagree with them, I know where they are coming from and I understand their position…the rest of my family has an Arminian viewpoint).

I remember one occasion on TheologyWeb where a hyper-Calvinist was going on an extended rant about Arminians, and John Wesley in particular. I responded with a quote from Spurgeon that I think is most apt:

Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one “of whom the world was not worthy.” I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.

Cheryl,
Thank you for being so kind in your blog posts. I did make the point in my comment that all denominations have their innate problem, but when we are referring to doctrines we must know which ones are of God and which are not. I am saying not all come from God. But I did say both sides just so people would not think I am picking on one side or the other.

God does allow for doctrines to exist because there are so many viewpoints and understandings. There were many in Jesus’ day. There were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Epicurians and many others, so we can see the idea of doctrines have always been around. But by that same token, when we agree to live under and identify with a particular doctrine we must investigate it to see where it lines up with what God teaches us in His word. And I like to look at it like this:

1:Does it allow the teaching of Jesus primarily?
2:Does it include or exclude on the basis of Jesus’ teaching?
3:Does it bring us closer in relationship or take us away from?
4:Does it have the power to impact and change society for the better?

I am not anti-doctrine, but the approved doctrine that Paul taught was one Lord, one faith, one baptism. There were not some saved by Peter and not some saved by Paul, we are saved by Jesus Christ. But in that identification comes accountability and responsibility. That is what I try to present in my posts. As much as I am Arminian and must take accountability for why I believe the way I do, I believe that other people of doctrines must do so as well and if they aren’t willing to do so then we can suspect.

It’s not so much a matter of interpretation, but how that interpretation touches every part of our lives. And how that interpretation touches those around us. What is the purpose of having the Living Christ indwelling in us, then don’t take His words to heart? The Bible says “and they were astonished at His doctrine, speaking as one with authority”. We should be as well, looking into it to see what He said. Living by what He said.

Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith. Should He not also be the author and finisher of our doctrine? I am not aiming this at Calvinists or Arminians because we both have missed the mark.

A Born Again Christian and an Arminian for more than 20 years, I am Reformed in my faith for more than 7 years, i.e. embracing Orthodoxy, the Five Solas and the Doctrines of Grace), I say. . . Amen! I am one of those who did doubt of my salvation in Jesus Christ before understanding and embracing Reformed teachings. Now, having grown, my salvation is yet sweeter. I am thankful for those who were (and still are) patient with me.

Even should our fellowship with our Arminian friend(s) seem to be strenuous, shouldn’t we understand, hold to, and practice 2 Tim 2:24 – 26?

“And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”

A little closer:

• kind to everyone
• able to teach
• patiently enduring evil
• correcting his opponents with gentleness

My prayer is that my Brothers and Sisters will escape the rising disturbing trend wherein many who THINK they are suffering for the cause of Christ and His Gospel ARE ACTUALLY only suffering for their own misconduct and rude behavior.

Matthew 22:36 – 40

Blessings!

A Born Again Christian and an Arminian for more than 20 years, I am Reformed in my faith for more than 7 years, i.e. embracing Orthodoxy, the Five Solas and the Doctrines of Grace, I say. . . Amen! I did not doubt of my salvation in Jesus Christ before understanding or embracing Reformed teachings. Now, having grown and with an expanded understanding, my salvation is yet sweeter. I am thankful for those who were (and still are) patient with me.

Even should our fellowship with our Arminian friend(s) seem to be strenuous, shouldn’t we understand, hold to, and practice 2 Tim 2:24 – 26?

“And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”

A little closer:

• kind to everyone
• able to teach
• patiently enduring evil
• correcting his opponents with gentleness

My prayer is that my Brothers and Sisters will escape the rising disturbing trend wherein many who THINK they are suffering for the cause of Christ and His Gospel ARE ACTUALLY only suffering for their own misconduct and rude behavior.

Matthew 22:36 – 40

Blessings!

[…] a comment from my favorite young Calvinist Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on the Parchment & Pen blog.  He said:  “I was a Pentecostal and almost had a nervous breakdown because I believed you could lose […]

Thank you very much for this post.

[…] […]

G. Boyd has had to continually correct misapprehensions, misunderstandings and misrepresentations of his views. He does believe that God is completely sovereign over the future and can bring about any event that he desires and that is consistent with his character. There is no doubt in Boyd’s mind that God can and will bring about what He intends to occur / be done. He also believes that God knows everything there is to know about the future.

As has been correctly noted by other scholars, almost every argument against Boyd’s views can be made against the various traditional Arminian views. Where Boyd’s views differ is in the scope of what counts as what type of knowledge. He argues that since the future has not yet happened, it cannot be known in the same way as the past, and that there is not one settled future that will without a doubt occur. Though I have done quite a bit of reading on the topic of will and choice, I have not yet arrived at an understanding that would exclude Boyd’s views (though I’m quite settled that TULIP Calvinism is incorrect).

I also think that Boyd deals with other views fairly. The same cannot be said for some of his vociferous opponents, such as Bruce Ware. I lost respect for Ware as a scholar after reading some of his work opposing open theism. Ware did not appear to understand Boyd’s arguments, constructed straw men, etc. He certainly does not demonstrate the same level of mental ability as Boyd and other theologians. I’m not saying he’s an idiot, he is smart, but if theology and biblical studies was basketball then Ware would make a pro team but not be a Michael Jordon or Lebron James.

Regards,
John

“I see less Christ-like character in many Calvinistic brethren than I do in just about any other tradition in Christianity.”

That’s obvious, since Calvinism isn’t at all about following the example of Christ, but is about claiming that people are saved primarily by inflexible predestination and secondarily by the death of Jesus. Even so, due to the P of TULIP, once saved always saved, Christ is merely seen as a divine whipping boy who died so we can go on in sin and still be saved by predestination.

Christ as teacher is totally missing, as is the obvious biblical teaching that a true inward change made by a man’s free choice is necessary to salvation. (of course these are missing since they are the opposite of Calvinism).

What’s more, whereas in Hebrews 11:6 the Bible says “without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever would approach him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who diligently seek him,” Calvinism denies that anyone even can seek God. How then can a Calvinistic faith ever please God? The Calvinist believes that God exists, but not that God rewards those who diligently seek him. Will God be pleased by this sort of half-faith? I think not.

rey,

your not helping calm down the Calvinists.

rey, now I take it back. This post is about you! 😉

Seriously though. That is kind of an odd way to respond considering what this post is about, don’t ya think.

Thanks for commenting.

In the spirit of this post, Rey, please actually read what Calvinists have written, not the strawman which seems to halting what could be a pleasant and godly discussion.

“rey, your not helping calm down the Calvinists.”

What could possibly calm Calvinists down more than leaving their silly demon worship that makes them attack the gospel night and day and be unable to sleep unless they turned some poor Christian away from Christ to agnosticism?

Pray tell, which demon do we worship, rey? You sound like a fool to be honest with your assertions. Some of the most evangelistic people in history were CALVINISTS – Whitefield, Spurgeon, Edwards, Brainerd, Judson, etc. – so I really don’t get your comments about Calvinists WANTING to turn people from Christ to agnosticism.

By the way, Calvinists get the idea that no-one seeks after God from Romans 3, y’know – “There is none who seek after God…” People will only seek God after the blindness over their eyes is removed by God’s grace.

Rey, I am not a Calvinist and I don’t appreciate your comments. “silly demon worship”, really? Is that really what you meant?

Makes no sense to me. Hopefully you will come back with some humility and restate yourself.

Rey. I’m not a Calvinist either and I made sure to save the email about your comments to respond. Let’s state the honest facts.

There are a lot of Calvinists out there that are high and lofty in their doctrine and are quite honestly, jerks. I don’t think that’s because of their Calvinism. I think that a lot of them are like that beforehand and when they become Calvinists, they just mold that into the system without really changing their personality as they should.

There are a lot of Arminians who are hyper-legalists who will condemn me to Hell in July when I go see the new Harry Potter movie and be insistent that I lost my salvation. There are many out there that have you walking on eggshells where if you have any doubt of your salvation, well that’s proof you didn’t have it to begin with. I think it’s the same deal. These people had personalities of that type and then when they became Arminians, they molded it to that.

On the other hand, there are some Calvinists out there who are far more devoted than I to Christ and some Arminians who are far more devoted. There are a lot of people I disagree with ideologically who I realize care more about Christ than I do and God help me with that.

I would never charge my Calvinistic brethren of demon-worship. Now I can tell even those who I think more devoted than I why I think they’re wrong and I should. Personal devotion to the Lord does not equal infallability. Someone can be really devoted to the Lord, be orthodox, and other than that have terrible doctrine. C.S. Lewis talked about seeing the old lady in church and realizing she doesn’t understand the deep side of theology as you do, but be careful because as far as holiness is concerned, you’re not worthy to tie her shoelaces.

As an Arminian, I do not like what I am seeing from you. This is not the style of Arminianism vs. Calvinism debate. You’ve seemingly made it into an orthodoxy vs. heresy debate. This is an in-house debate. Don’t make it anything more.

As always, very nicely said Nick.

rey,

“unless they turned some poor Christian away from Christ to agnosticism?”

If you are refering to Bart Ehrman and my comments about him and the connection those comments had to the teaching of the security of the believer, well I googled it….. Bart Ehrman was not a Calvinist. You will have to come up with a new theory as to what happened to him because Calvinism did not turn him agnostic.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/2008/04/why-suffering-is-gods-problem.html

Fundamentalism/ inerrancy did not turn him agnostic either. Now he does admit that he believed in free will 🙂 ,.. ???

I am not referring to Bart Ehrman. What I am referring to is that Calvinists can’t stand it if anyone believes that God is merciful and just, or that God is a loving Father (as in the parable of the prodigal son) who allows his children to err but longs for them to return. The Calvinists, however, sees such goodness as weakness, and the only way for God to be strong in his view is for God to cause evil, to make the prodigal prodigal on purpose. Unless you believe that God is the absolute cause of evil, the Calvinist is not satisfied and will stop at nothing until he either makes you twice the child of hell that he is, or turns you away from God. And it is true of all of them, even those who play nice. Their act will only last long enough to set you up in their Satanic trap. An although Ehrman may not have been a Calvinist, I am sure that it was Calvinists that made him lose his faith, since he says he lost his faith due to the “problem of evil.” In other words, the Calvinists wouldn’t shut their Satan worshiping mouths and let him enjoy the joy of his salvation…oh no, they had to convince him that God is the cause of evil, and they eventually convinced him that there is no way for God to exist and not be the cause of evil, and therefore, he became an agnostic. It is not by being a Calvinist that one becomes an agnostic but by being assaulted by Calvinists. Calvinists certainly believe in a god, but their god is Satan.

rey,

As your brother in the Lord Jesus Christ, I beg you: Please stop with these divisive and unnecessary comments.

The Calvinists, however, sees such goodness as weakness, and the only way for God to be strong in his view is for God to cause evil, to make the prodigal prodigal on purpose.

What? Calvinists have long defended the idea that God is NOT the author of sin, neither does he make people sin like some puppet-master.

Unless you believe that God is the absolute cause of evil, the Calvinist is not satisfied and will stop at nothing until he either makes you twice the child of hell that he is, or turns you away from God. And it is true of all of them, even those who play nice. Their act will only last long enough to set you up in their Satanic trap.

??? I mean, c’mon. Have you met a Mormon missionary? JW pioneer? Yeah, thought so…

An although Ehrman may not have been a Calvinist, I am sure that it was Calvinists that made him lose his faith, since he says he lost his faith due to the “problem of evil.” In other words, the Calvinists wouldn’t shut their Satan worshiping mouths and let him enjoy the joy of his salvation…oh no, they had to convince him that God is the cause of evil, and they eventually convinced him that there is no way for God to exist and not be the cause of evil, and therefore, he became an agnostic. It is not by being a Calvinist that one becomes an agnostic but by being assaulted by Calvinists. Calvinists certainly believe in a god, but their god is Satan.

And millions of kids believe in a fat Caucasian men, dressed in red, who drops presents and owns a cosmic motorcade of reindeer with a name of Santa Claus(!?) You magically were there when Ehrman renounced his faith? You saw the Satanist Calvinists, Institutes in hand, cajoling him to accept God as the author of evil. You saw them pick and pick at his salvation until he couldn’t take it.

Gimme a break, dude.

Rey’s behaviour counts as “troll” behaviour, that is, posting obnoxious comments that bait others to reply in a similar fashion. The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them. I will not respond to his comments, and I suggest that others ignore him as well.

The Calvinist / Arminian discussions here are normally much more interesting and fun because they occur irenically and without the sarcasm and mocking that occurs on a number of other sites. I’d like to keep it that way.

Regards,
John

I hear that.

Calvinists and Arminians aren’t much different, really. In the end, they both believe God to be the author of evil. This is why they debate for fun rather than truth, for neither one is a Christian but only someone playing church and destroying many souls in the process. To them it is all about intellectualism and praise from men. That’s why the Arminian cannot really oppose Calvinism, for he craves the praise of the Calvinist. He gets as close to Calvinism as he can so the Calvinist will praise him as intellectual. But at the same time he makes God vomit.

In rereading the posts, I think that Raphael on 17 May 2009 at 3:48 pm had the last really good one on the topic raise by CMP. I don’t think there is much else to do with CMP’s lede other than agreeing with him. Any suggestions? We could continue with one of the previous Calvinist / Arminian posts.

Regards,
John

Yeah John, I agree. In the end we are Christians trying to make sense of the Scriptural basis for our faith – faith seeking understanding. I do indeed think that honors God when we seek to learn what He has handed down rather than rest in contentment of ignorance. Wasn’t that the passion behind Calvin, Arminius and Wesley and countless other? Seeking to learn about God on His terms. In the end, we may not agree but honor one another as servants of Christ, seeking His heart in all things.

Uh, just for those who know me (Rey) on Theologica and in my blog, the rey above is not me.

(I sometimes sign my name as Rey on this site, so I wanted to disambiguate)

Rey and Rey and whatever other Rey-alities are in there,

This satanist would like you to pass the popcorn.

Interesting post… I agree with the premise, but wonder about the ultimate ability of dialogue between the positions. I’m sure both sides might say the same thing, but all too often the discussion moves from explanation to debate to anger. I’m not certain how seriously to take “rey” in the comments above, but I’ve certainly seen efforts at honest discussion met by diatribes like rey’s.

Is it possible that the differences between the viewpoints are both

-so important that both sides ought to understand the others clearly, and “be fully convinced in their own minds” and

-so fundamentally different that it is difficult to be laborers together in much of ministry – after all, “how can two men walk together except they be agreed?”

I agree with you that we should certainly be charitable to all, and I am not in the camp that assigns all arminians to hell(!). How do we, though, practically be charitable about – or even tolerant of – viewpoints that we hold as fundamental, serious error?

“How do we, though, practically be charitable about – or even tolerant of – viewpoints that we hold as fundamental, serious error?”

Good question, Wes, one that I have seriously wondered about in many areas of difference Christians may have with each other.

I should probably clarify my last comment. I have come from a church situation in the past where I simply could not continue to walk together with the people there because of extreme differences in doctrine and practice. Those differences could be talked about charitably, but they were so fundamental that I could not walk together with them anymore. That doesn’t mean they were not fellow Christians. (It wasn’t a Calvinism/Arminianism debate by the way.)

Cheryl,

I understand your point. Using Calvinism/Arminianism as an example, our understanding of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility will at least in some fashion inform our philosophy of ministry (for example, in evangelism). I can believe that God works through both a “Wesley” and a “Whitefield” but the manner of proclamation – and perhaps even the methodology employed may be very different. Other areas could be used as examples as well (for example, “worship” methodology).

I’m a little jealous of your situation if the circumstance you faced was discussed charitably. My experience has been that “the party in power” tends to marginalize – or even demonize – the minority view… all too often without even getting to the substance of the issue.

Perhaps that’s part of the frustration among at least some of those holding a reformed position within Evangelicalism these days. Wrongly expressed, perhaps, but frustration at being dismissed on the basis of “tone” alone… sadly, it’s easy to dismiss people for how they are talking and avoid discussion about what they are saying.

My experience is that one is in danger of drawing this objection regardless of tone – because holding an opinion firmly in any manner is increasingly viewed as intolerant and arrogant. But if you honestly believe that God has spoken clearly on an issue – even Calvinism (!) – it isn’t arrogant to hold to it firmly. It would be arrogant to call unclear and debatable what God has made clear. That mindset, though, is toxic and maddening to our culture today, regardless of how charitably it is expressed.

Wes and cheryl u,

Charismatic vs non, young-earth vs old, premillennialism, postmillennialism or amillennialism, republican vs democrat, etc. so many things that can divide us.

How indeed! By being humble, realizing that we may be wrong! If it is not a “burn in hell” issue than we need to get a hold of our pride and throw it down before the throne! If these issues were crystal clear then there would be no division in our ranks. But they are NOT, there are good men and women of faith on each side and so we must first heed the Father who tells us, “And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?” Are we being kind? Are we humble? Do we treat each other with love and respect even when we disagree?

Can it work? Absolutely! I have friends and co-workers in the Kingdom’s work on the opposite side from me on each of the issues I listed above. I am sure that they are wrong just as they are equally sure that I am but I’m going to keep listening to them and looking for flaws in my arguments and in theirs.

As to the quote from Amos 3:3, I think that if you read the whole passage it becomes clear that what the two men need to agree on before they can walk together is on obedience to the Lord.