I Almost Hate to Post This

Greetings and Sincere Felicitations,

As many of you know, I am not a Calvinist. I harbor no ill-will towards those of you who are Calvinists, and I do not disassociate with those who believe in TULIP. I am still your friend, although I may differ greatly with you on several key points of doctrine.

I wanted to say that before I continued with this post so that y’all can’t come back at me later saying that I am attacking you. Nothing could be further from the truth. I sincerely love you, but I also sincerely hate the doctrines that you espouse.

Calvinism is a far reaching set of doctrines. It spreads and influences practically everything, and it creates a difficult atmosphere for those of us who aren’t Calvinists, as many of the fundamental aspects of various disciplines (politics, government, fantasy writing, etc.) are dramatically effected by whether one believes in TULIP or not.

As such, to perhaps explain some of my odd beliefs, I am posting this playlist of videos (a nine part series detailing why I and many others do not believe in TULIP).

Have Fun!

What Love is This?

Oh, just a side note, I am not Arminian either. ๐Ÿ™‚

Advertisements

43 Responses

  1. Hey Jay,

    No matter how you look at it there are really only three variations of Christianity: Calvinism, Aminianism, and Catholicism. Everything else is just a wierd mix of those three.

    If you say your not a Calvinist or an Arminian. Then what are your exact beliefs.

    You said you do not agree with TULIP (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresitable grace, and Perseverence of the saints). If you do not agree with that than what do you believe?

    ~Ethan

  2. Whoa, not a predestination OR a free willist? O_O

    You’re a cooler guy than I thought!

    Nothing like not going with the flow. ๐Ÿ˜€ I’m a little different too even though I still believe in TULIP. ๐Ÿ˜€ Gonna watch that video!

    • I do believe in free will. I just do not follow Jacob Armin. Therefore, I am not an Arminian, and cannot be. I am a Berean insofar as the name goes (I am not from Berea), as I check everything by the Bible. I do not subscribe to any predefined set of beliefs.

    • Arminianism is not following Jacob Arminius, it is the subscription to the beliefs that his followers articulated years after he was dead. These beliefs were specifically articulated in five points (they were known as the five points of the remonstrance and later as the five points of Arminianism), the protestants at the time responded with the five points of Calvinism (i.e. TULIP).

      I say that I am a Calvinist only because I agree with most everything that he taught (so far the only thing I have found to disagree with him on is his view of music, ie no instruments), not because I am a follower of Calvin. In the same way if you hold to the five points of Arminianism then you are an Arminian. We are all followers of Christ (I hope and pray), thus to say that we ‘follow’ any other man is heresy, but we can say that we agree with them.

      I personally don’t like the term Calvinist, nor do I believe Calvin would have either, I prefer to call my theology Protestantism which is what it was historically called. Nonetheless, I do call it Calvinism for others sake, so that they can understand my point of view.

      PS still listening to the lectures. Here is something for you to read. http://www.solochristo.org/info_sermons.asp?action=play&series=
      I know it is a lot but it is well worth it.

    • I might agree with Jacob Armin, but that really isn’t the point. ๐Ÿ™‚

      Actually, I am not a Protestant or a Catholic. I am a part of the ‘trail of blood,’ if you are familiar with that term.

    • No I’m not familiar with that term, could you expound?

    • I’m ‘trail of blood’ as well. (though I’d never heard that term before).

      Out of curiosity, are you southern ‘trail of blood’, or fundamental ‘trail of blood’ ? (I think there might be other kinds too, but I can’t remember right now)

    • I am ‘Berean’ trail of blood. ๐Ÿ™‚

  3. It’s so great to hear of another non-Calvinist/non-Arminian! ๐Ÿ˜€ I love Dave Hunt’s book What Love Is This?, and also his other books on Calvinism. He does a good job looking at different doctrines in light of Scripture. Thanks for posting!

  4. Good going,

    Anyone who checks everything by the Bible is cool. ;D

    By doing that, I find that I come across things that most people don’t believe in about Christianity. ๐Ÿ˜€ Considering that there are many passages that seem to support both predestination and free will I can understand your views. ๐Ÿ™‚

    I like to think of God as an author. Authors create stories. Characters in stories seem to make their own choices, but it’s really the author. ๐Ÿ˜€

    – Leighton

    • ‘Seem to’ is the key phrase there. ๐Ÿ™‚ I have done much study on it, and am firm in my doctrine. This is just one debate that I prefer not to get into (for the most part), as it generally creates massive division.

      But I did want to let people know where I stand, and where to go to find out some of why.

    • As I understand it both free will and Predestination exist (in both beliefs). As I see it, and as do several others that I respect, it is really a question of which is first. Does the will of God come before the free will of man, or does the free will of man come before the will of God. Is God sovereign enough to work through man’s free will or can man throw God’s plan out of sink.

      The question is really not about mans free will, but about God’s soveriegnty. Man obviously has free will.

    • I would agree with that delineation (although I know of some Calvinists who would not).

      Take it a step further in the logical train: Either God loves everyone unconditionally, or He only loves that small fraction of people whom He decides to allow to have faith in Him.

    • That is not only my view, but it is the view of our church, John Calvin, and of the Westminster confession of Faith. Those Calvinist who do not believe this, but instead believe that man is a robot controlled by God, they are wrong. That belief is known as Hyper-Calvinism, which is a very scary belief system, and which is just as wrong if not more than Arminianism.

      I do believe that God has chosen certain people who He calls His own. He has also condemned others to eternal punishment. Why would he not have the right to do this. First He is the one who defines what is right so whatever He does is right this why he can do nothing wrong (and this is where the definition of evil comes from evil is that which is not in the nature of God). Second we all deserve hell, thus when God chooses to redeem some and not others he is being gracious and merciful, not terrible and unjust. Third no person ever would turn to God of his own free will, there will be no one who is in hell saying: “I wanted to get into heaven, but God wouldn’t let me in.” No, on the contrary, everyone in heaven will say “that is were I will be if it were not for God’s mercy.”

      Let me clarify, this doesn’t mean that we don’t evangelize, we don’t know who are called and we don’t know by what means they shall be brought into the kingdom of heaven. God may use us to bring that person into the kingdom of heaven and he may not. As Charles Spurgeon said: “If all how are chosen had a yellow stripe painted up their back than wouldn’t need to evangelize, we would just go around pulling up shirt-tails” (I paraphrase). What he is saying is that as mortal humans we cannot know who is called into the kingdom. All that we can do is obey God’s word.

      Also one more point of clarification, no one will make it into the kingdom of heaven unless he accepts Christ as his Lord and Savior. One mistake many make is that they believe that if God has called someone he shall make it into the kingdom of heaven no whether he accepts Christ or not (and vise versa). This is not true, what is true is that no one will accept Christ unless God has called him.

      ~Ethan

    • If you do not believe that God chooses to love some, but to hate others, what about Jacob and Esau. Romans 9:13 says: “As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I have hated.” God choose to hate Esau before either he or Jacob were born.

      Going furthur with the same verses Paul makes it even more clear that God indeed does choose. Romans 9:14-18 says this: “14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on Godโ€™s part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.”

      I think that this scripture is very clear that God indeed does choose some vessels for destruction and others for glory (Romans 9:22).

      ~Ethan

    • Herein lies the debate. Your responses are refuted in the above series of videos. I don’t want to take the time to reiterate them in the comments, sorry. ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Ok I will try and find time to watch the videos. I have watched several other such videos though, and none of them do a great job of refuting my beliefs. From what I have watched thus far it looks as if he is going to just restate what I have already heard. I might be wrong though so I will listen to them when I can.

      ~Ethan

      PS right now I cannot listen to them I have to go do yard work.

    • These videos are honestly all I will be able to spend time giving you. Anything more than what he says will take a long time to formulate how to present, and I have other priorities (like theonomocracy).

    • Well I have listen to it and of all my concerns the only one that he addressed was that of Jacob and Esau, and even that he didn’t do very well. To say that he was refering to two nations is true, but it doesn’t explain the fact that Esau never bowed and worshiped God, or that God showed favor to Jacob.

      ~ Ethan

    • Alright, sorry you missed it. I am not surprised, sadly.

      The key, is, however, in the difference between Paul’s definitions of ‘foreknow’ and ‘predestination.’ This is unfortunately a topic which would tend to a very long debate between us, and I do not consider that a profitable venture.

    • What then do you believe that Paul meant by โ€˜foreknowโ€™ and โ€˜predestineโ€™? I believe that he meant exactly what he said to foreknow and to predestine.

      Do you know the original Greek, I donโ€™t but to bring that to light would be a help. I have someone I know who speeks and reads Greek fluently so I shall ask him.

    • I fixed your other posts. ๐Ÿ™‚

      I agree, foreknow and predestinate mean just that… but ‘just that’ can take different meaning depending on context.

    • Does it not also talk about some vessels for destruction and others for glory? As well as the Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.

      My belief is that in context, foreknew and predestine mean that God both knows that something will happen (foreknowledge), and that he has chosen that something will happen (predestine). Whatever that something may be.

    • Whew . . . Thanks for fixing the other posts. I felt like an idiot there for a second. ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Right, but we differ on the ‘something.’

      I would like to drop the debate for now. We both know where the other stands (for the most part). And we each are going to need to spend a good amount of time figuring out how to articulate the rest of our views: time that I do not have. Sound good?

    • Sounds good to me, but we should pick up the debate at some later time (when both of us are a little more experienced, maybe). I always love to debate a good topic, even when I may be wrong. Besides ”
      Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.” ~ Proverbs 27.17

      But for now lets just agree to disagree.

    • That sounds good. Agree to disagree.

      Sword fights do not sharpen swords: steel must work with steel to sharpen. I disagree with debates. Haha.

  5. That’s completely understandable. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  6. Just wanted to say to those who haven’t yet watched the videos:

    Go watch them!! Right now! ๐Ÿ™‚

    (Sorry, I’m a first born… I can get a bit, um, controlling about things like this at times. :P)

    I assure you, it will be worth the time. My family greatly enjoyed them… each time one ended we were frantically starting the next one because we were so interested in what he was saying. ๐Ÿ™‚ He really explains things well. (from scripture, too!)

  7. You’re welcome. ๐Ÿ™‚

  8. Mr. Hunt did not do a very good job of defeating Calvinism. He really did three things:

    1. He attacked Calvinist’s character personally and historically. Men are sinners and how they sin does not prove that their belief is wrong. Also, many of the facts he quoted I know are wrong, for instance how many people Calvin killed in Geneva, if you look up the timeline Calvin had been banished from Geneva when nearly all of them were killed. It was the Libertines who killed most of these people, Calvin even fought for the lives of many of these men (the most notable instance would be Michael Servetus). On top of that, many of the things he accused Calvinists of, other sects of the Christian faith were doing at the same time (ie the state church). So to point out this problem with Calvinists and not with others is deception or ignorance.

    2 He attacked the Character of God. He said that if God chooses some and not others than God is not loving. God clearly does chose some vessels for wrath and others for glory (Romans 9:22). To say this is judgement upon God.

    3 He misrepresents Calvinism. A classic example of when he does this is on the P in TULIP. He is a one point Calvinist. The belief that he was stating all Calvinists believe was not a Calvinist belief at all, it was a Hyper-Calvinist belief. Which I have already said is as wrong as Arminianism.

    • On your first point, I cannot defend him, as I do not know enough about it to do so, and have not the time to research it out enough to say yes or no.

      On your second: Romans 9 is commonly represented and construed to say that, but indeed it says the exact opposite. I say this not as a prelude to a full explanation of why I say it, but to show that I do not discredit that passage at all.

      On your third point, I am not sure I take your meaning. Sorry.

    • What I was saying with my third point was that Mr. Hunt was often not representing the Calvinist belief system. Rather, he was representing the Hyper-Calvinist system. Which as Calvinist we would join him in refuting.

      As to Romans 9 I would have to see your reasoning as to why you believe that it does not really mean that God has created some vessels for destruction and others for glory. Which is what I see the text saying. Also you have to show much more than just Romans 9, for there are many other such scripture throughout the Bible.

    • I hate to even participate in the conversation, but I feel it is necessary.

      There is no such thing as a one-point Calvinist. If I were to say I adhere to the doctrines of Calvinism, then I mean all the doctrines of Calvinism. If you say you are a Calvinist, then you are saying you adhere to the doctrines of Calvinism. It’s all or none. One-pointers are just one-pointers, not Calvinists.

      And, in my experience, there is no difference between the actual theological beliefs of a hyper-Calvinist and a regular Calvinist. The only difference is in the application of the theology. Calvinists need to realize that it’s an all or none belief, as Calvin himself would have told you.

      That said, my personal belief is that neither Arminianism nor Calvinism are correct. Both contradict scripture I could show you if not for the general sentiment against debate.

      As one of my father’s friends once put it: “It’s like we’re a group of people swimming in a pool, and arguing about how we got in.”

    • It is rare for any statement to be actually necessary. But I do thank you for pointing out that important fact. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

      One thing to be aware of is that ‘hyper’ Calvinism is merely the logical conclusion of Calvinism itself. Each of the five points are logical necessities of the others. If you want to see how valid something is, carry it to its logical conclusion, and see if it contradicts something that you know to be true, such as the Bible. Calvinism fails this test.

      Thanks for the comment!

    • I believe Calvinists protray God wrongly that is a matter of if you look at the bible through the eyes of a Calvinist or not. John Piper said if we say God died for every one we are saying God wasted his precious blood,I would call that blasphemy, maybe you would not but that is a matter of opinion however I would find it very hard now to read any of his works or respect him as a Christian at all. We all have different opinions I dont believe God chose some people for hell and some for heaven I believe we are allowed make that choice does that mean I attack the character of God?

      You said ‘He attacked Calvinistโ€™s character personally and historically. Men are sinners and how they sin does not prove that their belief is wrong’ Hitler murdered thousands of Jews, yet some ‘christians’ hung his picture in their churches and thought he was a great man of God. Are you telling me you’d say ‘Men are sinners and how they sin does not prove that their belief is wrong’. If Hitler died without repenting he will be in Hell, I would not even look at one of Hitlers ‘theories’ and consider if they were right or not! Yes, you may not like what I am going to say but in my opinion if Calvin did not repent before he died I cannot see how God could let him into heaven. Is he going to make an exception between Hitler and Calvin? I think not, the times were different but both murdered the same. Even if his ‘theories’were right ( which I dont believe they are) that doesnt mean God will accept him into heaven because he was right on a point.

  9. Hey there ๐Ÿ™‚ I am happy to announce that I am not a Calvinist either ๐Ÿ™‚ It is not necessary to attach labels to ourselves to describe what we believe in. Just as the Bible says in 1 Corinthians ch. 3 vs 2 to 6: ‘For while one sayeth “I am of Paul;” and another, “I am of Appollos;” are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Appollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man. I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.’ I believe we are followers of the Living God, grafted into the Commonwealth of Israel! We do not need any other label than the precious Name of Jesus.
    On another level, it is not a good idea to align yourself to any man, since the Bible does tell us that the head of every man is Christ. I find it very sad that alot of men refer to Calvin’s five points (TULIP) or even his famous ‘Institutes’ rather than the Bible.
    This is a very hard topic to comprehend…another reason why I disagree with it as the Bible does say that the Gospel is easy enough for a child to undersatnd and I would really like to start a blog on it myself. I like to see where Calivinistic ideas come from and what scriptures they use to back TULIP from the Bible. That would help me to become more able to be able to give an answer to every man…or person!
    I have been studying Romans chapter 9 with my Dad…it has been most interesting. ๐Ÿ™‚
    Thans for posting this:) Much blessings and keep up the good work. ๐Ÿ™‚

  10. Ooh,I was so excited to read this! Most people who like above rubies etc are calvinists, at least all the ones ive met have been! Its so refreshing to meet someone who is not one! Ive been reading What Love is this? by Dave Hunt and have been shocked and horrified at the things he explains. I hate it when you point out to Calvinists that Calvin was a murderer, burnt countless women at the stake because they would not baptise their babies and also tortured and beheaded a man because Calvin thought he had denounced him, and they say the times then were different so this is excusable! Not so! We dont see Jesus or the disciples crucifying people because thats what they did in Jesus’ time. I must say I have got quite annoyed with the subject. Some of my homeschooling friends have 4 lovely children, they want to ask God to save them but their parents (who are calvinists) refuse to allow them to pray the sinners prayer, and say to them you have to ask God if you are one of the elect, go and ask Him about that and when you get the reassurance that you are, then we’ll pray! I feel so sorry for those children and pray they will not be turned away in the end! In another case, the same mother was with a woman and the woman had been to church,been convicted and prayed the sinners prayer. She truned in excitement and said Im saved! God has forgiven me! and tried to hug the other lady; the reply she got was, well I cant tell you wether you are saved or not sorry, you have to ask God if you are one of the elect. How sad! If the saints in heaven are rejoicing over one sinner that repents so should we be!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: