Any Former Calvinists Hete?

[Valerie]

.y good friend is in a discipleship class. She was asked to in her own words explain the doctrine of election. Someone gave her this to read. John MacArthur is a Calvinist.

Anyone care to ",read" or listen to this & share thoughts? Personally i get troubled in spirit by full Calvinist theology- but i can tell my friend is seemingly supporting his conclusions.

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-273/

[Sudsy]

.y good friend is in a discipleship class. She was asked to in her own words explain the doctrine of election. Someone gave her this to read. John MacArthur is a Calvinist.

Anyone care to ",read" or listen to this & share thoughts? Personally i get troubled in spirit by full Calvinist theology- but i can tell my friend is seemingly supporting his conclusions.

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-273/

Don't know what 'Hete' means in the thread title but I'm guessing 'Here'.

I have been involved in two Calvinist churches over my lifetime and am quite familiar with Calvinist doctrine.

There are two guys I recommend watching on Youtube if one is interested or troubled by the 5 points of Calvinism. James R. White on the Calvinist side and Leighton Flowers on the opposite side. Leighton was a 5 point Calvinist but is no longer.

Here is a short clip by Leighton regarding election -

And another -

Although both of the pastors of the Baptist churches I attended were Calvinists, they both taught the need to evangelize. But I have known some in Baptist churches that say 'well if God has already determined who He will save then whether or not I get involved in the process is irrelevant'. These pastors would challenge them on this but it didn't appear to change their thinking. I also had a buddy who sang in our Gospel quartet and at a point in his life he felt he was not predestined to be saved and went off living not making Jesus his Lord and Saviour.

I think Leighton Flowers does a real good job in refuting Calvinism. There are many scriptures, as was stated in that link you gave, that appear to support a Calvinist view and need the alternative understanding of them. It is hard to get one's mind around a God that choses certain individuals to be saved and allows the rest to have a never ending existence in a non-stop torture place called hell. But this is how the scriptures are understood by Calvinists. God can do what He wants to do and that is to be considered as good. It is our lack of knowing God rightly throught the scriptures, they say is the problem. And we non-Calvinists would say the same of them.

[Valerie]

Thank you Sudsy. Yes i meant here - i was barely awake when I asked the question but my friend had texted me so threw it out there on the forum.

I will share your videos with my friend. You're example of someone you know walking away from the faith because they concluded they were not predestined is why I believe 5-point Calvinism is a dangerous doctrine.

[Josh]

Valerie,

Don’t you go to a Calvinist church?

[Coifi]

My good friend is in a discipleship class. She was asked to in her own words explain the doctrine of election. Someone gave her this to read. John MacArthur is a Calvinist.

Anyone care to "read" or listen to this & share thoughts? Personally i get troubled in spirit by full Calvinist theology- but i can tell my friend is seemingly supporting his conclusions.

Not a former Calvinist, but a former Anglican. Because the Anglican church's book of common prayer has heavy Calvin influences, the renunciations at my chrismation included a specific reference to his doctrines. Aside from that, I'm presently reading a book on the Westminster Confession. It's a commentary called What Do Presbyterians Believe by Gordon Clark that goes through all 33 chapters of the Confession. So...

My thoughts about Calvinist theology are predominately negative. John Calvin was a trained lawyer not a trained theologian and his Institutes (which is what the Westminster Confession is based on) reflect that. The best way I can describe the Institutes and the Confession is as a legal code which reads as a courtroom argument. My interaction with TULIP is as a series of syllogisms (i.e., if T then U, if U then L, if...then P). It seems to be as legalistic as Roman Catholic theology with the only difference being that it attempts to remove humans from the trial proceedings. Yay, monergism!

I've heard a Reformed individual say in a discussion about inter-denomination relationships that Calvinists just prefer to emphasize God's sovereignty while other denominations emphasize other things. Setting aside whether or not you take this perspective on inter-denomination relationships, this is probably a fair frame for the doctrine of Election. Considering the syllogistic nature of the Confession, you cannot talk about the doctrine of Election without the doctrine of Scripture and God (in the Confession, chapters 1 and 2 respectively). Chapter 3 of the Confession is regarding "God's Eternal Decree." The chapter on Scripture is placed first because it is the sole inspired authority for learning things about God. In the chapter about God, the argument runs something like the following: "God is the first cause of all and works all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will." So, if God wants to save someone he would and nothing can stop him from doing so. Additionally, if someone is not saved, then that means God must not have tried to save that person because God can't fail. This chapter of the Confession on Election is rather short. You can read it here.

So, personally, I think a Calvinist's view of God's "sovereignty" would be better thought of as "selfishness." Yes, God can "do what he wants", but for some reason, God wills to be the sole actor in the world (monergism) in the Calvinist perspective. Why God cannot will those that he creates to share or not share in the just management of His creation is unknown to me. Additionally, the way the premise is set out has God in opposition to Himself (i.e., God cannot just forgive sins - Chapter 2 of the Confession - but isn't God plenteous in mercy?). A Reformed friend of mine informed me that, "God has, in a sense, two competing wills. One where he desires all people to be saved, and one where that doesn’t happen." It sounds like new Marcion's theology repackaged and, on top of that, it feels capricious. An atheist's critique of God is usually made on Calvin's terms God and, frankly, I sympathize.

A couple additional thoughts so that my post is not just a polemic of negation: God wants to share His creation with us and therefore has called us to a foreordained (i.e., predestined) purpose - co-heirs with Christ. He allows us and his creation to act in the world; to act apart from God is death and to act with God is life (synergism). Justification, instead of being like a verdict of a courtroom, is about right alignment with God. It is like justification in a word document. It isn't about acquitting Microsoft Word (or whatever software you are using), but about aligning the words on the page. Therefore, justice to those who are victims of injustice is nice, but seems like wrath to those who are unjust.

I hope my assessment has been fair. Cheers!

[Valerie]

Valerie,

Don’t you go to a Calvinist church?

No, in 7 years never heard one sermon with a Calvinist point of view or we would have left. In fact we asked about that because we had heard Pastor quote Calvin so we had to know. He quotes all kinds of different pastors so we realized just because he quotes one doesn't mean he leans towards their theology.

[Josh]

What, exactly, is Begg’s doctrine?

[Valerie]

My good friend is in a discipleship class. She was asked to in her own words explain the doctrine of election. Someone gave her this to read. John MacArthur is a Calvinist.

Anyone care to "read" or listen to this & share thoughts? Personally i get troubled in spirit by full Calvinist theology- but i can tell my friend is seemingly supporting his conclusions.

Not a former Calvinist, but a former Anglican. Because the Anglican church's book of common prayer has heavy Calvin influences, the renunciations at my chrismation included a specific reference to his doctrines. Aside from that, I'm presently reading a book on the Westminster Confession. It's a commentary called What Do Presbyterians Believe by Gordon Clark that goes through all 33 chapters of the Confession. So...

My thoughts about Calvinist theology are predominately negative. John Calvin was a trained lawyer not a trained theologian and his Institutes (which is what the Westminster Confession is based on) reflect that. The best way I can describe the Institutes and the Confession is as a legal code which reads as a courtroom argument. My interaction with TULIP is as a series of syllogisms (i.e., if T then U, if U then L, if...then P). It seems to be as legalistic as Roman Catholic theology with the only difference being that it attempts to remove humans from the trial proceedings. Yay, monergism!

I've heard a Reformed individual say in a discussion about inter-denomination relationships that Calvinists just prefer to emphasize God's sovereignty while other denominations emphasize other things. Setting aside whether or not you take this perspective on inter-denomination relationships, this is probably a fair frame for the doctrine of Election. Considering the syllogistic nature of the Confession, you cannot talk about the doctrine of Election without the doctrine of Scripture and God (in the Confession, chapters 1 and 2 respectively). Chapter 3 of the Confession is regarding "God's Eternal Decree." The chapter on Scripture is placed first because it is the sole inspired authority for learning things about God. In the chapter about God, the argument runs something like the following: "God is the first cause of all and works all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will." So, if God wants to save someone he would and nothing can stop him from doing so. Additionally, if someone is not saved, then that means God must not have tried to save that person because God can't fail. This chapter of the Confession on Election is rather short. You can read it here.

So, personally, I think a Calvinist's view of God's "sovereignty" would be better thought of as "selfishness." Yes, God can "do what he wants", but for some reason, God wills to be the sole actor in the world (monergism) in the Calvinist perspective. Why God cannot will those that he creates to share or not share in the just management of His creation is unknown to me. Additionally, the way the premise is set out has God in opposition to Himself (i.e., God cannot just forgive sins - Chapter 2 of the Confession - but isn't God plenteous in mercy?). A Reformed friend of mine informed me that, "God has, in a sense, two competing wills. One where he desires all people to be saved, and one where that doesn’t happen." It sounds like new Marcion's theology repackaged and, on top of that, it feels capricious. An atheist's critique of God is usually made on Calvin's terms God and, frankly, I sympathize.

A couple additional thoughts so that my post is not just a polemic of negation: God wants to share His creation with us and therefore has called us to a foreordained (i.e., predestined) purpose - co-heirs with Christ. He allows us and his creation to act in the world; to act apart from God is death and to act with God is life (synergism). Justification, instead of being like a verdict of a courtroom, is about right alignment with God. It is like justification in a word document. It isn't about acquitting Microsoft Word (or whatever software you are using), but about aligning the words on the page. Therefore, justice to those who are victims of injustice is nice, but seems like wrath to those who are unjust.

I hope my assessment has been fair. Cheers!

Thank you for taking the time to share yours and others position on this!