The Lie
Paul – in my time in the reformed church, I was taught and agreed that through our faith we are saved (justification and salvation done – complete) and we then begin our lifelong journey of sanctification as we learn and grow in our knowledge and faith. When I view the chart I have always interpreted it in the same way that I interpreted my college education – the more you learn the more you realize what you don’t know. In that same way, the more I know of our father, the more ugly and selfish my sins look to me. I have never been taught any more than that and I believe the chart makes a good point in that regard. If there is a deeper meaning than what I have presented I have not heard it.
Anon,
Your perfectly reasonable sounding statement is the bait that hooks people into the lie. The chart is indicative of the founding principle of Reformed theology: knowledge of good and evil. Read the first sentence of book one in the Calvin Institutes. Hence, deeper knowledge of those two things define both (reality) and continually glorify God. But the Scriptures make it clear that God is most glorified by us becoming more like Him and displaying that to the world, not a deeper self-realization of our own potential evil. Moreover, if we aren’t guilty of certain depths of evil, to ascribe ourselves to it is not the truth. Therefore, this is just another primary pillar of biblical metaphysics that Calvinism turns completely upside down. And the implications are chilling: without evil, wisdom cannot be obtained. That is a precedent that has given birth to horrific episodes of evil throughout human history. Obviously, if a deeper knowledge of evil is efficacious to gaining wisdom, evil will not be perceived in a healthy way. I am utterly convinced that this is at the root of indifference to injustice that is so prevalent in Calvinistic circles.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Is there a purpose to the madness?
I am trying to figure out what is so amazing about Calvin? I mean I do find the Word of God to be amazing, but to put such stock in a man is baffling to me. The Lord will not be asking us whether we were following Calvin or not, He will be asking us if we were following His Word. I also do not understand the reasoning of those who want to come to this blog and try to debate Scripture through the filtered lens of Calvinism- it does not make sense. You must be insecure with your own doctrine to have to waste the time debating why Calvinism is more superior- I know I do not waste mine by going on Calvinism websites debating these issues. My doctrine is the Bible and I do not even waste time trying to debate with someone even on that- if they do not accept it, I will just brush the dust off my feet and move to the next person who would hear it. I just rely on the Holy Spirit to move in that persons heart then to try to debate them into salvation. Why don’t you try it?
No one here would EVER go back to a Reformed/Calvinist church again; we have seen the damage of the 5 point TULIP- no thank you! So why waste the time?
LikeLike
Trust4himonly,
I suspect no Calvinist would ever post on this blog again if Paul did not regularly misrepresent our position with straw man arguments. If he wishes to state our position as we state it and then present his Arminian arguments, you could all continue to enjoy your common beliefs without being bothered. I have personally never followed Calvin. I simply believe what the Scripture teaches, but at least I am honest enough to understand that there are certain doctrines that affect the way I approach the Scriptures. You need to be that honest and admit that there are certain things you suppose to be true before you read a text of Scripture. Then deal with all the verses of the Bible in context and not just the ones that fit your suppositions. Somehow, I suspect that isn’t going to happen. It is too easy to agree with Paul and his malcontent friends.
LikeLike
Anon,
Well, I have heard this complaint long enough from my Calvinist friends who accuse me of being an Arminian because well, if you aren’t a Calvinist, what else is there? So, Susan and I have decided to cram a book project in before Christmas that will explain the position of this blog against Calvinism in detail. The book will address the gospel of first importance specifically. Actually, the format is complete along with the introduction and half of the first of five chapters. All of this during this bust holiday season to serve my Calvinist buddies. We think it will be rolling off the presses in about 10 days.
Hugs and kisses always, paul
LikeLike
Do you think people who are called Calvinist don’t also believe they are following the Bible? I don’t think any of them would say, I don’t care what the Bible says, I’m going to follow Calvin, do you?
LikeLike
I also don’t understand the “filtered lens” thing. Can you tell me what that means?
LikeLike
I also believe what the Scripture states and to tell you truth- Calvinism. Arminianism, all have elements of truth to them; but there are also plenty of lies. These lies are couched in truth. I would not call Paul, by the way, an Arminianist. That is just an easy out for Calvinists to call someone if they do not go by the doctrine of Calvin. I do not believe that man has total free will where God is just sitting up in heaven allowing man to go wild. I believe that God is both Sovereign and allows free will- this is a mystery and one that is both stated in Scripture.
Sam, what I meant by seeing Scripture through the “filtered lens” of Calvinism is that only Calvinists state that Scripture can be interpreted by the doctrine of Calvinism. That their way is the way. My belief is that you always do the opposite- you discern ALL doctrines through the lens of Scripture, not the other way around. I find Calvinism sorely lacking.
Anon, Barba, etc….knock yourself out by coming on here and trying to debate Calvinism- I give you one thing you would be great debaters on a debate team.
LikeLike
“I suspect no Calvinist would ever post on this blog again if Paul did not regularly misrepresent our position with straw man arguments. If he wishes to state our position as we state it and then present his Arminian arguments, you could all continue to enjoy your common beliefs without being bothered. ”
I LOVE THIS! Read this part again, “….If he wishes to state our position as we state it and then present his Arminian arguments, you could all continue to enjoy your common beliefs without being bothered.”
First of all, in Calvinland there are only Calvinists and Arminians. I am NO Arminian or Calvinist so what do I do?.
This is the Calvin false dichotomy. The “either/or” they so love. If you think about it, they insist on defining the parameters of any discussion and we must use their definitions and “either/or” dichotomy. It iis all they have. That is part of the filter. But the main filter is their view of God and how they define his Sovereignty. It colors everything else.
Barba wrote: “As I asked you in another post, does that mean you don’t believe we need pastors and if we have pastors they shouldn’t teach theological truth? The reason you need to read people like Hodge is that you will find they didn’t teach anything like what you and your friends here are alleging.”
Barba, this is why this discussion is futile and never ending. I doubt we would even define “pastor” the same way as represented in scripture. I see it as a spiritual gift function within the body not an “office” (as added by the translators). And I am not convinced the main gifting of pastor is teaching as you would define it but it could be part of it.
Barba, I never mentioned Hodge. You did. As if he and the others were guru’s we must learn truth from. I simply do not see it that way. You presented him as someone who could explain theology to me from your point of view. The only reason I have read and studied the Reformers is because of history and the resurgence of Calvinism. That led me to study Augustine, The Puritans and other such groups in history. That doctrine has a legacy of a bloody mess.
I would suggest that having guru’s is the biggest problem in this debate. Paul Dohse and I do not agree on many things but we do agree that Calvinism and the Augustine filter for it, are dangerous and leading people away from Christ. Ironically, it leads people to mere men as we can see by your thinking I should read these men to understand scripture. I have met enough guru followers to last me a lifetime from Piper, Mohler, Mahaney, Sproul, Calvin, Luther…ad nauseum. Everyone but Jesus Christ.
I am one of the few who will admit publicly that I question whether Calvin had the fruit in keeping with salvation.
Also, look up the definition of Gnosticism. Stay away from the Reformed web sites of the bubble thinking. Yes, the Calvinism filter fits the definition. Gnosticism is the word for what– translated?.
LikeLike
trusthimonly,
there is a big move in Reformed circles to stop using Calvin’s name at all. This began in Reisingers book written years ago to not use that term when trying to take over SBC churches and make them Calvinist. They have tried everything from Doctrines of Grace, Sovereign Grace, New Covenant Theology, Reformed, etc, etc. Now the big thing to to make the word “Baptist” mean Reformed.
When one knows Calvinism, it is harder to hide it as the filter is always there. You just gotta know the REAL Jesus and one will catch it. And the internet has not been helpful for them at all.
LikeLike
Lydia,
I just read your posts. Actually, I think if you will check it out, you will find that the word”episkope” does mean office of a bishop or overseer. Peter makes it clear how they are to lead or oversee the flock. They are not to be Lords over God’s flock. You are quite right that the words translated “pastor” or “shepherd” and “bishop” or overseer, describe the function of an elder. Elder is the title assigned to those who perform these functions. I think this is so because it was usually given to older men.
Which one/ones of the points of Arminism would you omit? My guess would be the eternal insecurity of the believer.
Does your belief in free will come from a belief in prevenient grace?
I read what Barba said to you about reading Hodge and others. I don’t think he told you to read them so you can understand Scripture but so you would see what they were really teaching. I’ll go read it again to be sure, but I am pretty sure that is what he said.
One other thing. You seem to basing you conclusion that Calvinist are Gnostics on the fact that Gnosis means knowledge. But, didn’t Jesus and the apostles talk a lot about knowledge too as well as the contrast between light and darkness. The thing is, they don’t seem to mean the same things by the terms that the Gnostics did. Can’t people use the same or similar terms to refer to different things? It doen’t look at all like Calvin or Augustine were talking about the same thing as the Gnostics.
LikeLike
Trust4himonly,
Thanks for your answer. I was in some sense a “Calvinist” a long time before I ever read Calvin. I find a lot of disagreement with Calvin and Calvinists have written. When I use the term, I don’t mean I am a follower of Calvin or that I have to see what he wrote before I can understand the Scriptures. It is just a convenient label for those who understand theology to identify themselves as those who believe salvation is all the work of God, or if it is a cooperative effort between God and the sinner. To me, it doesn’t matter what you call it. When I said I believed salvation is all the work of God, I did not mean sinners do not voluntarily believe and repent in response to God’s work. The real question is who takes the first step in the conversion process?
Can you tell me what you mean by free will?
Sam
LikeLike
Lydia,
If you don’t accept that teachers and pastors are the same things, do you think the teachers are to teach theology?
LikeLike