Read it and weep!

[Guest]

I guess people would categorize me as a Calvinist although I do not like that term since I have never read Calvin, but I do believe in “Perseverance of the Saints”, election and the sovereignty of God. So I guess by what I have read in the posts I would be categorized as a Calvinist.

The first thing I would like to say is that I was raised an Armenian, and spent many of my early years in Christ under Armenian teachers from the good to the bad I think I have heard most of the arguments and to tell you the truth I believed them. So what happened that made me begin to question my beliefs? I think two things begin to change my opinion, 1) As I began to look for a church in the town I live in I went from church to church that held the Armenian doctrine and found a very superficial treatment of the scripture (Important: Not true in all churches, just my experience in my town). 2) As I began to read I found the vast majority of the augments that I had heard against “perseverance of the saints” and election were made in ignorance. I’ll try to list some of those arguments:

1. Those who believe in election become pew sitters, do not evangelize or witness: As I began to grow in Christ I became interested in the early church history I found man after man who believed in divine election and perseverance of the saints who also evangelized sometime at risk of losing their own life. There were men like Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, Thomas Watson, David Brainerd, Charles Spurgeon were all strong witnesses for Christ, and most Armenian churches I have gone to recognize these men as great men of God. Believe or not it was actually my Calvinist views that convinced me to start sharing the gospel. When I was a Armenian I believed that if I presented the gospel in a way that was not perfect that I could actually lose them to Christ and condemn them to eternal darkness, but as my understanding change I realized that salvation has nothing to do with me. So presenting the gospel the best way I can and the Holy Spirit do the work. In other words when someone comes to Christ because of my witness it was not me, but God who gets the glory.
2. “Perseverance of the Saints” (Once saved always saved) = Sinfest 2005: Being eternally secure is not a license to sin, and in fact hyper-Calvinists can be as legalistic as a hyper-Armenians, but leaving out the extremes both liberal and conservative I only need to point you to sermons like “Sinners in the hands of an Angry God (by Jonathan Edwards)’ and the writings of many Puritan writers to show that is not true. People may well say that they know of a church or churches do not teach that, but historically most Calvinists have been strong witnesses for Christ. The doctrine that I get from the bible, and was taught and is taught in the church that I attend is that true salvation will a difference in your life. In other words you will show fruit, and those who would fall completely give evidence that they were never saved. An Armenian would say that they lost their salvation. So in that respect I do not see a huge difference in our thinking
3. Once saved always saved = Calvinist: Simply not true. Have gone to a number of churches that held that once you were saved always saved, but at the same time denied predestination, election and total depravity. I do admit that I went to churches whose doctrinal statement you could put on a business card with large print. The last church I attended had no doctrine it was what you would call “seeker sensitive”, and in the time I went there I did not hear one time a call to repentance.

I didn’t write this to try to convince anyone of my point of view, but to discuss myths about Calvinists not witnessing or thinking that we believe now that we are saved that we can sin away.

[Guest]

Hi Rechew.

I've never gotten involved in the Calvinism vs. Armenianism debate before now simply because I consider myself to be almost completely ignorant of the details. But something you said made me decide to speak up.

I myself believe that people can lose their salvation. They can "quench the Spirit" in other words. I also believe that while people have complete freedom of choice, God knows in advance what they'll do. Furthermore, I believe that God allows people to be called and later to fall away for a purpose beyond just their own salvation. We don't exist in a vacuum and I don't think God calls people or allows them to fall away in a vacuum either.

Something you said made me think, though. You said that before you decided to become a Calvinist, you had this fear that you might say the wrong thing (or do the wrong thing, for that matter) and cause people to be lost. I'm curious about that, because that's how I've always understood Matthew 18:6-14.

Now, I myself have never had a fear about this, although I have felt ashamed or guilty that I've "offended" others, as Matthew puts it. I can understand why you changed your belief, but I seem to fall on the opposite side of the fence from you. (I might be oversimplifying things, but bear with me.)

I also think I've taken a vastly different turn as well, since I used to be very abrasive in how I expressed my beliefs to others (although I later decided that this was wrong) but I've since learned to value and appreciate different religious perspectives, leading to a marked softening in my tone.

I guess I'm just wondering what your experiences have been in sharing the Gospel after your change in beliefs. I'm curious to hear more details.

Damon

[Guest]

Hi Damon,

After reading some of the posts in this forum on this subject I am reluctant to say anything else, but you ask a fair question.

I would argue that Jesus is talking about people who purposely or through false teaching keep the children out. I do not believe He was talking about someone who properly and with a loving heart presented the gospel, and it was rejected. For example, an atheist confronts you and you do not have an answer to “well, who created God?”, or maybe you were nervous and stuttered a lot and the person used that as an excuse to ignore you.

Here is an example from my life: a church I used to go to was “seeker sensitive”, and in the years I went there the gospel was not once presented in a way that a person could accept or reject. In other words the gospel was watered down so as not to offend people. Never would you hear a call to repent, turn to and accept Jesus as you Lord and Savior (you can fill in the blanks).

The object in not offending people was to get them to stay in the church and maybe today they will make Jesus their savior and at some point in the future they will make Him their Lord. They think that slick marketing, a great band, fantastic plays and motivating speeches will reach people for Christ, and that is not biblical.

I now believe that scripture is sufficient and I can point someone to the scripture when they have a question or objection, because I don’t bring anyone to Christ the Holy Spirit does. God can use my feeble inarticulate speech to bring someone to Christ because His word is sufficient I don’t need to repackage it so that people will not be offended, but at the same time I don’t try to offend. We just let the Word speak for itself and if someone is offended let the Holy Spirit deal with that person.

Rich

[Guest]

Hi Rich,

First, thanks for joining this discussion and sharing your experiences. You have, no doubt, discerned that many of us here are not Calvinists, but I don't think there are any who are hostile toward Calvinists, or uninterested in hearing their evidence.

You mentioned that you think you are familiar with most of the arguments against the doctrine of inevitable perseverance. The arguments you (quite handily) debunked are indeed arguments that some irresponsible Arminians raise against the doctrine, and (as you have well pointed out) they are weak and fallacious arguments. No biblically-oriented Arminian should be caught dead using such arguments.

The problem with those arguments (the ones you disproved) is that they are ad hominem arguments, rather than scriptural ones. The problem with the doctrine of perseverance, as near as I can tell, is an exegetical one. To believe such a doctrine requires reading meanings into certain passages that neither the original languages nor the contexts justify, while explaining away clear passages that warn against and describe cases of true Christians falling away from Christ. I know that Calvinists have seen most of these texts (I have read their commentaries), and the thing that is most obvious from their comments is, I think, their desperation, and apparent willingness to twist plain statements of scripture in order to maintain a pet doctrine.

I myself have no emotional objections to the doctrine of perseverence (except, I suppose, that those who hold it can not rightly have any assurance of salvation until they are on their death-bed), and would personally be fine with it, if it were true. My problem is the naivete with which Calvinist commentators approach the verses which they think prove the doctrine, and the outright dishonesty with which they treat the passages that disprove it.

There are many threads at this forum where the Calvinistic proof texts are presented and answered. I think you will find, in reading the discussions, that the Arminians actually enjoy exegeting the texts presented by the Calvinists, but that the Calvinists ignore the texts presented by the Arminians, and simply move on to their next stock argument, based on another passage taken out of context. I could be a Calvinist myself, if I was not so turned-off by their greater devotion to their five points than to scripture.

As for passages that teach against inevitable perseverance, here are just a few examples: Matt.24:45-51/ Luke 8:13/ John 15:1-6/ Romans 11:17-22/ 1 Cor.8:11; 9:26-27/ Gal.5:3-4/ Col.1:21-23/ 1 Tim.1:19-20; 4:1; 5:15/ 2 Tim.2:11-13/ Heb.2:1; 3:1, 12; 6:4-6; 10:35-39/ James 5:19-20/ 2 Peter 1:8-11; 2:1, 20-22/ 1 John 2:24/ Rev.3:5; 22:19...

Perhaps you (or someone else) may be the first at this forum to actually try to explain one or more of these passages from a Calvinistic point of view. I think the reasons that the Calvinist defenders who have visited this forum have not tried to engage the non-Calvinists on any of these scriptures is that they sense that the Arminians here are set for the defense of the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that we enjoy rigorous exegesis. There is no commitment to Arminianism in this writer...only to truth. So any Calvinist who has truth on his side will find me an easy convert. However, the truth of these matters must be determined by responsible exegesis of (not hiding from) the relevant scriptural passages.

I have nothing against an honest Calvinist, who cares more about scripture than about "reformed theology." Such Calvinists are fairly easy to win over, if the scriptures can be fairly laid open and discussed. It is the dishonest Calvinists, who present an unexamined litany of proof texts and who are unwilling to be cross-examined, lest they be shown to be careless Bible students, that I personally find irritating.

Too often, they appear to feel a need to defend the honor of God against His own unfortunate choice of words in scripture. Perhaps it doesn't occur to them that God said exactly what He meant to say, that He is not embarrassed about anything He said, and that He doesn't need ideologues to defend Him against His own words. I am making no judgment about which kind of Calvinist you may be, and, again, I appreciate your joining us here.

[Guest]

Thanks for answering, Rich.

By the way, I wasn't really looking for a defense of your beliefs. I was just curious about your experiences.

I don't know if you've followed some of the other threads I've posted to, but I've mentioned that I've never been part of a large church. Most of my Christian experience has been in small group or bible study settings. The people I meet with don't do much in the way of evangelizing - not because we don't see it as important, but rather because our small group that we have now often discusses problems of a very personal and private nature. (We talk about these things because we're convicted of the need to overcome these things.) Bringing newcomers into this group would prove quite awkward, because we wouldn't want to share these very personal issues with them. So, I don't have any evangelization experience, so to speak.

On the other hand, there've been plenty of times that I've had the opportunity to talk about my faith. I've noticed that I often use what seem to me to be very unique arguments when people question me about God, about why sin is a problem, about why bad things happen to good people, and so forth. What I say usually gives people pause for thought, but that's about as far as it seems to go. *shrugs*

However, I used to visit churches and other small groups, and back then I used to be a lot more abrasive in how I talked about my beliefs. I'm glad I'm not that way any more because the groups I visited sometimes had new believers that didn't know how to handle me.

Anyway...my only other thought on this subject is when Christians conscientiously try to witness and, through no conscious fault of their own, end up offending someone away from Christ. I've personally seen that happen and it troubles me.

Talk to you later...

Damon

[Guest]

May I suggest "God of the Possible", by Greg Boyd? It's easy reading, very intersting and makes a lot of sense! (For those of us who are not super intellectuals.)