Why I reject Calvinism as false

Dizerner

Well-known member
I have a confession to make—I used to be very intimidated by the idea of Calvinism because underneath I didn't feel 100% sure it couldn't possibly be true. This made me in practice scared of God—scared of who he might be and whether I was made for his wrath. Over years of prayer and study I have grown in my confidence that I am no longer intimidated by Calvinism and really don't think it's a very big threat anymore. The major reasons I reject Calvinism are as follows:

1. It makes God less loving than he is.

Just as God is completely holy, completely just and completely powerful, so God is completely loving. The argument comes that God allowing a person to be lost that he could have theoretically saved, makes God less loving than he could be. But this is a wrong definition of love. Love does not mean that God does not have any other reasons or motives for doing something that might be stronger or more important to him than the love he holds for the lost. So whatever mysterious reasons God had for allowing people to be lost, does not override the truth that God genuinely loved those lost people.

2. It makes God more evil than he is.

These points overlap. Underneath all the secondary decrees and compatibilistic philoso-doublespeak Calvinism employs, is the unalterable logic God decrees all things. This means that however many "degrees of separation" you want to create in between the ultimate decree of God that something would be, and the enactment through external means to get to that decree, there is still underneath a chain from the decree of God to the fulfillment of God's decree that cannot logically be broken. This does indeed make God his own enemy and the author of all evil.

3. It takes away all sense of true responsibility.

If everything I do is decreed by God before I am born, then my will cannot be the deciding or effectual agent of my sin. This is not to argue or imply that all sin is done through the will of a human; but it is also to support that there is indeed some sin that is done through the will of a human, the sin that rejects the grace of God that is freely offered and well meant. We could redefine "responsibility" as not "the ability to respond," but the mere bare culpability for what is decreed through secondary means, but again this is just philoso-doublespeak obscuring that it is in the end decreed by God.

All the babble of rejections like "free will isn't in the Bible" and "you didn't use enough Scripture verses" are just pious rhetoric assuming what the objector sets out to prove by preloading the terms free will and exegesis to be deterministic friendly; that is unless you say the Bible verses mean a certain thing you are "eisegeting" and "rationalizing" because you don't agree with deterministic presuppositions brought to the Scripture.

And for the reasons above I do consider Calvinism to be a different Gospel than the one the Bible declares, although by the mercies of God their doctrinal sin can be forgiven.
 

civic

Well-known member
I have a confession to make—I used to be very intimidated by the idea of Calvinism because underneath I didn't feel 100% sure it couldn't possibly be true. This made me in practice scared of God—scared of who he might be and whether I was made for his wrath. Over years of prayer and study I have grown in my confidence that I am no longer intimidated by Calvinism and really don't think it's a very big threat anymore. The major reasons I reject Calvinism are as follows:

1. It makes God less loving than he is.

Just as God is completely holy, completely just and completely powerful, so God is completely loving. The argument comes that God allowing a person to be lost that he could have theoretically saved, makes God less loving than he could be. But this is a wrong definition of love. Love does not mean that God does not have any other reasons or motives for doing something that might be stronger or more important to him than the love he holds for the lost. So whatever mysterious reasons God had for allowing people to be lost, does not override the truth that God genuinely loved those lost people.

2. It makes God more evil than he is.

These points overlap. Underneath all the secondary decrees and compatibilistic philoso-doublespeak Calvinism employs, is the unalterable logic God decrees all things. This means that however many "degrees of separation" you want to create in between the ultimate decree of God that something would be, and the enactment through external means to get to that decree, there is still underneath a chain from the decree of God to the fulfillment of God's decree that cannot logically be broken. This does indeed make God his own enemy and the author of all evil.

3. It takes away all sense of true responsibility.

If everything I do is decreed by God before I am born, then my will cannot be the deciding or effectual agent of my sin. This is not to argue or imply that all sin is done through the will of a human; but it is also to support that there is indeed some sin that is done through the will of a human, the sin that rejects the grace of God that is freely offered and well meant. We could redefine "responsibility" as not "the ability to respond," but the mere bare culpability for what is decreed through secondary means, but again this is just philoso-doublespeak obscuring that it is in the end decreed by God.

All the babble of rejections like "free will isn't in the Bible" and "you didn't use enough Scripture verses" are just pious rhetoric assuming what the objector sets out to prove by preloading the terms free will and exegesis to be deterministic friendly; that is unless you say the Bible verses mean a certain thing you are "eisegeting" and "rationalizing" because you don't agree with deterministic presuppositions brought to the Scripture.

And for the reasons above I do consider Calvinism to be a different Gospel than the one the Bible declares, although by the mercies of God their doctrinal sin can be forgiven.
Can the Calvinist doctrinal sins be forgiven if they are not confessed and denied ?

Also can a different gospel save anyone from their sins ?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
The major reasons I reject Calvinism are as follows:

1. It makes God less loving than he is.

2. It makes God more evil than he is.


3. It takes away all sense of true responsibility.

I was a rabid anti-Calvinist until Scripture convinced me that Calvinism is true.
I don't find any of your three concerns to be true in light of Calvinism, properly understood.

It seems to me that the reason you reject Calvinism is that it doesn't portray God as YOU want Him to be.

And for the reasons above I do consider Calvinism to be a different Gospel than the one the Bible declares, although by the mercies of God their doctrinal sin can be forgiven.

You seem to be confusing "gospel" with "theology".

We share the same gospel as non-Calvinists:

1) God is holy;
2) man has sinned;
3) Man's sinned makes him deserving of hell.
4) God showed mercy, and sent His son to atone for sin.
5) Those who believe in Jesus as Lord and Saviour will be saved.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
1) God is holy;
2) man has sinned;
3) Man's sinned makes him deserving of hell.
4) God showed mercy, and sent His son to atone for sin.
5) Those who believe in Jesus as Lord and Saviour will be saved.

Not saying I am right ...... but this might be fun.

1) God is holy;

Reply .... God is terrible.

2) man has sinned;

Rather open ended; . especially when theology has the noun sin thingy.


3) Man's sinned makes him deserving of hell.

OK ..... not sure I want to respond to that.

Kind of complicated, back to post 2?


4) God showed mercy, and sent His son to atone for sin.

That is interesting.

You going with Adam's sin or every soul that sin's die's?

5) Those who believe in Jesus as Lord and Saviour will be saved.

Unless they are not ..... then you guy's get to rejoice ..... with they never believed anyway.


Anyway, good point about the theological overlap.

Saw the OP as being something like that.
 
Last edited:

GeneZ

Well-known member
I have a confession to make—I used to be very intimidated by the idea of Calvinism because underneath I didn't feel 100% sure it couldn't possibly be true. This made me in practice scared of God—scared of who he might be and whether I was made for his wrath. Over years of prayer and study I have grown in my confidence that I am no longer intimidated by Calvinism and really don't think it's a very big threat anymore. The major reasons I reject Calvinism are as follows:

1. It makes God less loving than he is.

Just as God is completely holy, completely just and completely powerful, so God is completely loving. The argument comes that God allowing a person to be lost that he could have theoretically saved, makes God less loving than he could be. But this is a wrong definition of love. Love does not mean that God does not have any other reasons or motives for doing something that might be stronger or more important to him than the love he holds for the lost. So whatever mysterious reasons God had for allowing people to be lost, does not override the truth that God genuinely loved those lost people.

2. It makes God more evil than he is.

These points overlap. Underneath all the secondary decrees and compatibilistic philoso-doublespeak Calvinism employs, is the unalterable logic God decrees all things. This means that however many "degrees of separation" you want to create in between the ultimate decree of God that something would be, and the enactment through external means to get to that decree, there is still underneath a chain from the decree of God to the fulfillment of God's decree that cannot logically be broken. This does indeed make God his own enemy and the author of all evil.

3. It takes away all sense of true responsibility.

If everything I do is decreed by God before I am born, then my will cannot be the deciding or effectual agent of my sin. This is not to argue or imply that all sin is done through the will of a human; but it is also to support that there is indeed some sin that is done through the will of a human, the sin that rejects the grace of God that is freely offered and well meant. We could redefine "responsibility" as not "the ability to respond," but the mere bare culpability for what is decreed through secondary means, but again this is just philoso-doublespeak obscuring that it is in the end decreed by God.

All the babble of rejections like "free will isn't in the Bible" and "you didn't use enough Scripture verses" are just pious rhetoric assuming what the objector sets out to prove by preloading the terms free will and exegesis to be deterministic friendly; that is unless you say the Bible verses mean a certain thing you are "eisegeting" and "rationalizing" because you don't agree with deterministic presuppositions brought to the Scripture.

And for the reasons above I do consider Calvinism to be a different Gospel than the one the Bible declares, although by the mercies of God their doctrinal sin can be forgiven.

Keep in mind.... After many years of darkness and fake news coming from the Catholic church, folks like Calvin and Luther were being the equivalent of baby Christians being freed to explore and discover what is contained in God's Word.

In other words? There was much to consider by these men, and mistakes would inevitably be made. Mistakes that later generations should work out and find solid answers that agrees with the full council of God's Word.

Again, the likes of Calvin, Luther , Arminius were literally coming out of the dark ages in regards to understanding Bible doctrine.

So... mistakes are to be expected.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
Keep in mind.... After many years of darkness and fake news coming from the Catholic church, folks like Calvin and Luther were being the equivalent of baby Christians being freed to explore and discover what is contained in God's Word.

In other words? There was much to consider by these men, and mistakes would inevitably be made. Mistakes that later generations should work out and find solid answers that agrees with the full council of God's Word.

Again, the likes of Calvin, Luther , Arminius were literally coming out of the dark ages in regards to understanding Bible doctrine.

So... mistakes are to be expected.

Kind of extreme.......

What are you getting at?
 

eternomade

Well-known member
I have a confession to make—I used to be very intimidated by the idea of Calvinism because underneath I didn't feel 100% sure it couldn't possibly be true. This made me in practice scared of God—scared of who he might be and whether I was made for his wrath. Over years of prayer and study I have grown in my confidence that I am no longer intimidated by Calvinism and really don't think it's a very big threat anymore. The major reasons I reject Calvinism are as follows:

1. It makes God less loving than he is.

Just as God is completely holy, completely just and completely powerful, so God is completely loving. The argument comes that God allowing a person to be lost that he could have theoretically saved, makes God less loving than he could be. But this is a wrong definition of love. Love does not mean that God does not have any other reasons or motives for doing something that might be stronger or more important to him than the love he holds for the lost. So whatever mysterious reasons God had for allowing people to be lost, does not override the truth that God genuinely loved those lost people.

2. It makes God more evil than he is.

These points overlap. Underneath all the secondary decrees and compatibilistic philoso-doublespeak Calvinism employs, is the unalterable logic God decrees all things. This means that however many "degrees of separation" you want to create in between the ultimate decree of God that something would be, and the enactment through external means to get to that decree, there is still underneath a chain from the decree of God to the fulfillment of God's decree that cannot logically be broken. This does indeed make God his own enemy and the author of all evil.

3. It takes away all sense of true responsibility.

If everything I do is decreed by God before I am born, then my will cannot be the deciding or effectual agent of my sin. This is not to argue or imply that all sin is done through the will of a human; but it is also to support that there is indeed some sin that is done through the will of a human, the sin that rejects the grace of God that is freely offered and well meant. We could redefine "responsibility" as not "the ability to respond," but the mere bare culpability for what is decreed through secondary means, but again this is just philoso-doublespeak obscuring that it is in the end decreed by God.

All the babble of rejections like "free will isn't in the Bible" and "you didn't use enough Scripture verses" are just pious rhetoric assuming what the objector sets out to prove by preloading the terms free will and exegesis to be deterministic friendly; that is unless you say the Bible verses mean a certain thing you are "eisegeting" and "rationalizing" because you don't agree with deterministic presuppositions brought to the Scripture.

And for the reasons above I do consider Calvinism to be a different Gospel than the one the Bible declares, although by the mercies of God their doctrinal sin can be forgiven.
I like that you're consistent.
 

SovereignGrace

Well-known member

“Why I reject Calvinism as false”​


Wait! The OP title actually states they reject Calvinism as false, which means they really do not reject it but embrace it. 🤔

Someone needs to brush up on their grammar.
 

SovereignGrace

Well-known member
I have a confession to make—I used to be very intimidated by the idea of Calvinism because underneath I didn't feel 100% sure it couldn't possibly be true. This made me in practice scared of God—scared of who he might be and whether I was made for his wrath. Over years of prayer and study I have grown in my confidence that I am no longer intimidated by Calvinism and really don't think it's a very big threat anymore. The major reasons I reject Calvinism are as follows:

1. It makes God less loving than he is.

Just as God is completely holy, completely just and completely powerful, so God is completely loving. The argument comes that God allowing a person to be lost that he could have theoretically saved, makes God less loving than he could be. But this is a wrong definition of love. Love does not mean that God does not have any other reasons or motives for doing something that might be stronger or more important to him than the love he holds for the lost. So whatever mysterious reasons God had for allowing people to be lost, does not override the truth that God genuinely loved those lost people.

2. It makes God more evil than he is.

These points overlap. Underneath all the secondary decrees and compatibilistic philoso-doublespeak Calvinism employs, is the unalterable logic God decrees all things. This means that however many "degrees of separation" you want to create in between the ultimate decree of God that something would be, and the enactment through external means to get to that decree, there is still underneath a chain from the decree of God to the fulfillment of God's decree that cannot logically be broken. This does indeed make God his own enemy and the author of all evil.

3. It takes away all sense of true responsibility.

If everything I do is decreed by God before I am born, then my will cannot be the deciding or effectual agent of my sin. This is not to argue or imply that all sin is done through the will of a human; but it is also to support that there is indeed some sin that is done through the will of a human, the sin that rejects the grace of God that is freely offered and well meant. We could redefine "responsibility" as not "the ability to respond," but the mere bare culpability for what is decreed through secondary means, but again this is just philoso-doublespeak obscuring that it is in the end decreed by God.

All the babble of rejections like "free will isn't in the Bible" and "you didn't use enough Scripture verses" are just pious rhetoric assuming what the objector sets out to prove by preloading the terms free will and exegesis to be deterministic friendly; that is unless you say the Bible verses mean a certain thing you are "eisegeting" and "rationalizing" because you don't agree with deterministic presuppositions brought to the Scripture.

And for the reasons above I do consider Calvinism to be a different Gospel than the one the Bible declares, although by the mercies of God their doctrinal sin can be forgiven.
I praise God I don’t have you as my judge.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
I have a confession to make—I used to be very intimidated by the idea of Calvinism because underneath I didn't feel 100% sure it couldn't possibly be true. This made me in practice scared of God—scared of who he might be and whether I was made for his wrath. Over years of prayer and study I have grown in my confidence that I am no longer intimidated by Calvinism and really don't think it's a very big threat anymore. The major reasons I reject Calvinism are as follows:

1. It makes God less loving than he is.

Just as God is completely holy, completely just and completely powerful, so God is completely loving. The argument comes that God allowing a person to be lost that he could have theoretically saved, makes God less loving than he could be. But this is a wrong definition of love. Love does not mean that God does not have any other reasons or motives for doing something that might be stronger or more important to him than the love he holds for the lost. So whatever mysterious reasons God had for allowing people to be lost, does not override the truth that God genuinely loved those lost people.

2. It makes God more evil than he is.

These points overlap. Underneath all the secondary decrees and compatibilistic philoso-doublespeak Calvinism employs, is the unalterable logic God decrees all things. This means that however many "degrees of separation" you want to create in between the ultimate decree of God that something would be, and the enactment through external means to get to that decree, there is still underneath a chain from the decree of God to the fulfillment of God's decree that cannot logically be broken. This does indeed make God his own enemy and the author of all evil.

3. It takes away all sense of true responsibility.

If everything I do is decreed by God before I am born, then my will cannot be the deciding or effectual agent of my sin. This is not to argue or imply that all sin is done through the will of a human; but it is also to support that there is indeed some sin that is done through the will of a human, the sin that rejects the grace of God that is freely offered and well meant. We could redefine "responsibility" as not "the ability to respond," but the mere bare culpability for what is decreed through secondary means, but again this is just philoso-doublespeak obscuring that it is in the end decreed by God.

All the babble of rejections like "free will isn't in the Bible" and "you didn't use enough Scripture verses" are just pious rhetoric assuming what the objector sets out to prove by preloading the terms free will and exegesis to be deterministic friendly; that is unless you say the Bible verses mean a certain thing you are "eisegeting" and "rationalizing" because you don't agree with deterministic presuppositions brought to the Scripture.

And for the reasons above I do consider Calvinism to be a different Gospel than the one the Bible declares, although by the mercies of God their doctrinal sin can be forgiven.
So, you abandoned sound, Biblical soteriological theology for shallow straw man arguments?
 

GeneZ

Well-known member

“Why I reject Calvinism as false”​


Wait! The OP title actually states they reject Calvinism as false, which means they really do not reject it but embrace it. 🤔

Someone needs to brush up on their grammar.
How could you see that detail, yet miss all the consistencies of Calvinism? Does that mean you really know that Calvinism is an illogical authoritarian imposition of using verses to say what someone wants them to mean?

The reformation years was an era that was mixed with some good doctrinal breakthroughs, but still having a sense of spiritual idiocy abounding because of all the insanity that the Catholic church had imposed upon its victims for years....

The Catholic church had become a demonic cancel culture. Calvinism was an anti-cancel stand. One that resorted to also being a cancel culture of its own.

Now, don't debate me. God sovereignly made me to say that.

edit per mod
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mike McK

Well-known member
I believe your statement is predicated upon your belief that you are part of the Elect. I believe Dizerner was considering everyone. Not just himself.

Which is one of the problems I have with Calvinism. Calvinism is very selfish.
One of the problems I have with Arminians is that Arminians are very ignorant.
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
Really?

Arminians typically exclude Calvinists from the kingdom of heaven.
But Calvinists generally don't exclude Arminians.

So which group is the "selfish" one?
Who cares? Both sides are wrong...

Its making an issue out of something of vanity, so that we can divert away from finding what imparts wisdom and knowledge that allows us to think with God.

You can not think with God unless we gain and have an accurate understanding. Arguing about two opposing errors should be something observed for a few minutes of your life, and then moved away from and left alone... Not debated about continuously. If it does continue on and on like we see in countless threads? It stems from a human competitive desire that loves to argue and fight. Even, if its done in what appears to be a most dignified way. For we are left knowing nothing as we should. But, only feeling like we really got em that time. Its game hunting.
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
One of the problems I have with Arminians is that Arminians are very ignorant.
Who is not? Its seeing the ignorance of the other that keeps the argument alive. Its when both sides face their own ignorance that peace might be found.
 
Top