Big Picture

[Guest]

This is a question that is likely to please nobody, but it is triggered by some of Mr. Gregg's remarks during the second day of the dialogue with Dr. White. The background here is that I've only been a Christian for about six years and have not yet had the chance to dig deeply into the qustion of Calvinism. I know this isn't an original question, but my big picture question is, could the right answer be that there just isn't enough information to know for sure whether Calvinism is right or wrong? There are passages that look like they go both ways, and it's pretty clear that there are ways for each side to deal with the others. In light of that, why shouldn't the right approach be one of agnosticism about Calvinism rather than having a dogmatic view on it one way or the other?

Curious to hear your thoughts, and apologies if this has been covered already -- I have a heard time searching effectively on this forum.

Regards,

CThomas

[Guest]

Hi CThomas,

Something I've come to realize is that ideas (be they religious, political, etc.), are not disembodied things that exist apart from the material world (despite what Plato might have said). Ideas manifest themselves in the behavior of the people who hold the ideas. Ideas have consequences in reality.

I once read that the seeds of the Khmer Rouge killing fields in Cambodia could be traced to a series of philosophical discussions in Paris decades earlier. Likewise, if you look through history at the fruits of Calvinism--for example in the way Calvinist Puritan settlers dealt with Native Americans--you see a manifestation of their theological ideas. It's cause and effect.

Calvinism teaches one to look upon mankind as utterly depraved and reprobate and, for the most part, consigned to Hell. The implication therefore is that most people are not all that valuable in God's eyes. This view will effect how one interacts with their fellow man or woman.

A similar point can be made about eschatology. One's eschatology is more than an abstract idea or viewpoint. It effects how one views the world which, in turn, effects how one lives one's life.

Ideas bear fruit and we should examine the fruit of an idea or concept or theology to see if it is in keeping with righteousness.

[Guest]

Welcome.

There are passages that look like they go both ways, and it's pretty clear that there are ways for each side to deal with the others. In light of that, why shouldn't the right approach be one of agnosticism about Calvinism rather than having a dogmatic view on it one way or the other?

I agree that agnosticism is preferable to dogmatism when one is undecided, and that your doctrinal humility, which should always be present in great measure, should be increased according to your uncertainty (and the clarity of the issue from Scripture).

This is, indeed, a very difficult subject (though important and does lead to likely consequences, it's not the most important doctrine in the bible). Time will come, though, when you will likely form an opinion on the subject (and others). My advice is that when that time does come, recognize that it may well change over time and try to avoid using words you won't want to eat one day.

The balance between speaking truth and retaining humility is a hard road, but it is the only way.

Though flawed people, the folks around here try to do this (though we definitely fail at times). I hope you will find this an agreeable forum to explore this wonderful gift our Lord has provided to us.

[Guest]

Thanks, guys. These are great points. Clearly I have my work cut out for me.

In Christ,

CThomas

[Guest]

CThomas asked:

...why shouldn't the right approach be one of agnosticism about Calvinism rather than having a dogmatic view on it one way or the other?

At this point I can say I am thankful that I was not brought up to believe the Calvinist doctrine of individual election, if it is anything like I have so far understood it to be.

It was bad enough trying to justify God’s seeming plan to never-endingly burn in hell those who fail to make it into heaven;
(my daughter, who is not at this time a Christian, could not get past the enormity of this happening to her best friends, & asked me why couldn’t God just kill them off & be done with it).

Although I don’t now believe that the bible actually teaches eternal torment, at that time, because I had the same questions in my mind, all I had recourse to was to assure my daughter that God is a God of justice & we needed to take on faith that He WILL judge everyone fairly.

I absolutely cannot imagine how I would even begin to explain to my daughter that, actually, the God (who I told her is a God of Love and a God of Justice), has in fact deliberately created some of her best friends (assuming they don’t ever become followers of Jesus), had DELIBERATELY made it IMPOSSIBLE for them to ever become saved, then at the judgement He was actually going to hold THEM responsible for not choosing HIM (like they had a choice), and not only that, but now they will have to pay the penalty, and be tortured for ever and ever without respite in a burning lake of fire. And why? All for God’s GLORY. (Never mind that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked).

I just cannot fathom it.
IS there a palatable way of presenting this?
But I have not yet done a lot of in-depth study of this topic, so if I have misunderstood the Calvinist position in this, I am willing to be corrected.

[Guest]

a calvinist would probably bring up something about the audacity of a lump of clay talking back to the the potter about what type of vase it was made into. or something like that!

I'm right there with you, suzana. before i knew any better (i.e. before being exposed to non-calvinist teachings) i just had to grit my teeth and bear it. not very God-honoring, to say the least.

TK

[Guest]

Acts 16:29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

I need no other passage to convince me that we are given the free choice to accept salvation. It is offered and it is obtained by choice.

[Guest]

Acts 16:29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, *Sirs, what must I do to be saved?*
31 So they said, *Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.*

I need no other passage to convince me that we are given the free choice to accept salvation. It is offered and it is obtained by choice.

Where is the household's free choice to accept salvation? Perhaps you need more than just this passage.

But how does this passage argue against Calvinism (if you think it does)? I'm a Calvinist, but if someone asks me how to be saved, I give this answer: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

Acts 16:29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, *Sirs, what must I do to be saved?*
31 So they said, *Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.*

I need no other passage to convince me that we are given the free choice to accept salvation. It is offered and it is obtained by choice.

Where is the household's free choice to accept salvation? Perhaps you need more than just this passage.

But how does this passage argue against Calvinism (if you think it does)? I'm a Calvinist, but if someone asks me how to be saved, I give this answer: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."

Cheers,
Bob

Simple - the jailer asks what must he do to be saved. He is asking what action must he take for salvation which of course means he came to a choice. Likewise this same offer is made to everybody which included, in this instance, the jailers whole family.

[Guest]

This is a question that is likely to please nobody, but it is triggered by some of Mr. Gregg's remarks during the second day of the dialogue with Dr. White. The background here is that I've only been a Christian for about six years and have not yet had the chance to dig deeply into the qustion of Calvinism. I know this isn't an original question, but my big picture question is, could the right answer be that there just isn't enough information to know for sure whether Calvinism is right or wrong? There are passages that look like they go both ways, and it's pretty clear that there are ways for each side to deal with the others. In light of that, why shouldn't the right approach be one of agnosticism about Calvinism rather than having a dogmatic view on it one way or the other?

Curious to hear your thoughts, and apologies if this has been covered already -- I have a heard time searching effectively on this forum.

Regards,

CThomas

Hi CThomas,


I can tell you something about Calvinism. I was a five point Calvinist. The doctrines are flawed, there is scripture that disproves every point of Calvinism. Calvinism relies heavily on philosophy. I would be more than happy to discuss this with you. I've spent the last two years dismantling the doctrines of Calvinism, I was being led down that road by those who I trusted as teachers. This was my fault because I did not study the way I should have. I began listening to the New Testament over and over, as I did, I began to see scripture that contradicted the doctrines I had been taught. The more I listened the more numerous the contradictions became, soon they became so numerous that I had to question the doctrines that I believed. I began to look at other interpretations of the scriptures and found that these interpretations more closely match scripture. I took the Calvinist proof texts and began to understand them from a different perspective and soon found they easily fit this new perspective, however there were still many scriptures that did not fit the Calvinist perspective. There are many verses of Scripture that Calvinists just skirt around because they can not answer questions regarding these verses. Then there are verses that outright contradict Calvinism. If you really study the doctrines of Calvin you will see that these interpretations are incorrect, most Calvinists today do not follow Calvin's teachings to the full extent. If you take the Calvinists doctrines to their logical conclusion they usually end up at the absurd.


Butch