Unashamed of Grace

Sunday, March 25, 2007

A Fun Quote

"Many non-Calvinists don't seem to realize that we Calvinists once held the exact same beliefs they now do. We offered up all the same arguments against the Doctrines of Grace,and were angered if not sickened by said doctrines as they are now. They do not realize that we have seen ALL of their arguments before, having once owned them ourselves."

34 Comments:

Ha!

Fortunately I have been immune to Calvinism, even though toyed with it in undergrad studies. I was introduced to the doctrine in Bible College, and it seemed odd at that time. Then in seminary there was plenty of exposure - guys who tried to convince me and profs like S. Lewis Johnson.

But I got clued in when they tried to convince me that _kosmos_ in John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2 doesn't mean _kosmos_. If they can't take biblical terms with biblical meanings, it is hardly a respectable system of thought.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, March 25, 2007 5:20:00 PM
But then what happened?

God pounded them on the head with His irresistible grace!

"No one can become Calvinist unless the Father first draw him..."

By Antonio, at Sunday, March 25, 2007 6:20:00 PM
Curious...What exactly IS a non-calvinist. I'm well aware of Calvinistic dogma, but what defines an NON-Calvanist? Is it just to the exclusion of calvinism, or is it some narrower, more formal movement?
¿Ridign

By Anonymous, at Sunday, March 25, 2007 9:06:00 PM
I know where you got that quote, Rose . . . can anyone say, Blue ;~).

By Anonymous, at Monday, March 26, 2007 12:22:00 AM
Rose, very true.

Why do some reject Calvinism and some accept it?

Most Christians who argue with Calvinism seem to end up accepting it. Those Christians who reject Calvinism are usually either willingly ignorant or else pretty stubborn, like those of us on this blog.

Anonymous, on this blog use the term Non-Calvinist not in a technical sense, but simply in reference to the fact that we are Evangelical believers who do not accept Calvinism. We use that term in want of the absence of a more specific description of our beliefs. We reject Arminianism as a label because we believe the Arminian denial of eternal security is fundamentaliy false doctrine.

God Bless

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at Monday, March 26, 2007 3:06:00 AM
Bobby Grow reads bluecollar?

Rose reads bluecollar?

Hi Bud.

Hi Antonio

Hi Matthew

By mark pierson, at Monday, March 26, 2007 6:04:00 AM
Antonio: (And no one else, please) If one of those people who believe unto everlasting life comes to God and say, "I'm returning your gift of eternal life. I don't want it anymore. Thanks, but no thanks!" does God "pound them on the head" and tell them to get back into line?

By Colin Maxwell, at Monday, March 26, 2007 6:25:00 AM
Now let's have some real fun. Let's look at the quote in its two part entirety....

"Many non calvinists don't seem to realize that we Calvinists once held the exact same beliefs they now do. We offered up all the same arguments against the Doctrins of Grace,and were angered if not sickened by said doctrins as they are now. They do not realize that we have seen ALL of their arguments before, having once owned them ourselves. Their argumentation proves that there is nothing new under the sun. It is ALL "Garden Variety".

March 23, 2007 11:43 AM

bluecollar said...
There just came a time when I realized that if I truely wanted to have the scriptures themselves be what molded my concept of God, if I truely wanted to be enslaved and captivated by them, then I had to forsake my silly and unscriptural arguments and embrace the Doctrins of Grace.

March 23, 2007 12:29 PM"

By mark pierson, at Monday, March 26, 2007 7:41:00 AM
It's funny how many Calvinists say they used to hold the exact same beliefs and try the exact same arguments until God opened their eyes to the "true gospel" of Calvinism but then have nothing but straw man arguments such as "you work for your salvation" "you think you had a hand in saving yourself" "you deny the Sovereignty of God" blah blah blah.

By Anonymous, at Monday, March 26, 2007 8:35:00 AM
Another funny thing is:

They used to be Non-Calvinists, right?

But then they came to be Calvinists, not by indoctrination or pressure, but by the Scriptures.

Makes you wonder how they once held to Non-Calvinism?

Maybe they were indoctrinated to Non-Calvinism but the Lord irresistibly graced them into Calvinists.

If anyone here doesn't know:

I used to be a modified 4 point Calvinist. (Modified because I did not ever hold to regeneration preceding faith, but I did hold to irresistible grace).

Someday I'll tell you all about my trek from being brainwashed to viewing the Scriptures in the balanced way that they are presented.

Antonio

By Antonio, at Monday, March 26, 2007 1:20:00 PM
Hi Mark! :)

By Antonio, at Monday, March 26, 2007 1:20:00 PM
Thanks again, Rose. 'Twas nice of you to stop by bluecollar to pick up some "post filler". ;)

By mark pierson, at Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:43:00 AM
Matthew said:

"Most Christians who argue with Calvinism seem to end up accepting it. Those Christians who reject Calvinism are usually either willingly ignorant or else pretty stubborn, like those of us on this blog."

Are the Christians who are accepting Calvinism really accepting Calvinism or rejecting what they think it means to not be a Calvinist. I'm afraid the nonCalvinist side has not been very good at articulating exactly what it means to "reject" Calvinism. Most of the Calvinist I know are fighting the straw men and the people who side with them than believe that to not be a Calvinist is to accept the straw men doctrine "You believe there was something good in you that helped you save yourself" yada yada yada!

Antonio you said you were formerly a 4 pointer - did you really have an understanding of the other side? Or was it as you studied you realized the other side to Calvinism wasn't what the Calvinist want everyone to believe it is?

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:25:00 AM
Mary, you make a very good point.

By Matthew Celestine, at Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:27:00 PM
Hey this is Bhedr Antonio. Could you de-link and encourage everyone who reads this blog since it is a well known one to stay away from my old blog as since I deleted it it has gone haywire and out of my control and now it is somehow become an immoral website. horror of horrors. Satan never sleeps. I sent off to blogger to ask them to address the problem but as for now my old blog "For Love Of God" has been overtaken somehow and I cannot control it. Please if anyone is linked to it then I encourage you to take the link off. Thanks to all of you brothers and sisters and I apologize. I wish I knew how this happened.

By brian, at Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:18:00 PM
Hey Mark,

I would like your input on my post two down from this one entitled "What's the Interpretation?"

It has to do with John 12:42.

Please leave your comment in that posts's meta.

thanks,

Antonio

By Antonio, at Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:59:00 PM
Hey Brian,

That same thing happened to Gojira's last blog. I don't know how it happens, but I will de-link you.

Tell us when you get another one!

Antonio

By Antonio, at Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:00:00 PM
Good night safe home,

I can't understand your question. Comes to God, when?

Seems sort of absurd, but maybe not after you explain it a little more.

Antonio

By Antonio, at Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:01:00 PM
Mary writes:
----------
Antonio you said you were formerly a 4 pointer - did you really have an understanding of the other side? Or was it as you studied you realized the other side to Calvinism wasn't what the Calvinist want everyone to believe it is?
----------
A short answer:

I got wrapped up in 4 pt Calvinism through professors I highly regarded. Ivory-towerish, cliquish, fraternity like. Proof-texts superficially read...

It was as I discovered the "dark side" of Calvinism that I began to pray and seek God's word at a much deeper level. What I found out of Calvinism disturbed me greatly.

This was only the two-bit answer. I hope it suffices. Maybe sometime I will write a post on the two to three year period of my sojourn from determinist to biblicist.

By Antonio, at Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:07:00 PM
Antonio, I was wondering that if took God "pound us on the head" (as you word it) to get us to come *to* Christ, then does it take Him to repeat these acts of violence to keep us *in* Christ? Unless you believe there is an opt out clause, so that those who are currently eternally secure in Jesus Christ may renounce their faith and salvation, then your facetious words about Calvinists may also be applied to your own position. In other words, "No one can remain eternally secure in Jesus Christ, unless God pounds him on the head and keeps him in line."

By Colin Maxwell, at Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:07:00 AM
Antonio said:

"It was as I discovered the "dark side" of Calvinism"

Our experience with Calvinists is that they tend to be unaware of the "dark" side because those converting them will tend to ignore it. Also many Calvinist tend to have this ivory tower attitude where if you say something like "but 1 Tim 2:4 says that God wants all men to be saved?" They will pat you on the head and say things like poor exegesis or poor hermneutics (sp?) and send you on your way thinking the Bible really isn't written for those who haven't been to seminary and studied Greek and OT Hebrew therefore leave it to the experts to explain what you should believe. I know in my own denomination that we have been weak in theology so if someone puffs themseleves up and says impressively "I've been to seminary" that we just tend to roll over and accept what they say without question. Also I've yet to see one Calvinist in real life or the internet to present "our" side without the caricutures or straw men. So in sum I see many Calvinists who have been converted without actually understanding what Calvinism is, but they've been given a false impression of what it means to reject Calvinism. It's a "well I know I can't save myself so I guess I must be a Calvinist" attitude. Then let the Calvinist thow out the labels Pelegian and Arminian and they reel the poor misguided souls in.

....and Antonio I've never thought of irresitible grace as pounding anyone on the head - it's more like an electrical zap by the Holy Spirit! Think heart paddles on a dead man! Zap! We have a pulse!

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:03:00 AM
Hey Antonio,

Thanks! I will tell you in a few weeks probably. I opened a little one but am not ready for the full swing of blog traffic as of yet. Kinda in a restful mode right now and enjoying it:-)

May the Lord be with you and make his face to shine on you and give you peace,

Brian

By Bhedr, at Wednesday, March 28, 2007 5:59:00 PM
Perhaps, and they are happier now, less able to prove their new position from scripture, but with more clever words from Calvin to do it with.

By Todd Saunders, at Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:43:00 PM
I struggle with whether I should leave this comment so blog adminstrator please delete if you think I'm too snarky here.

Anonymous said:

"It's funny how many Calvinists say they used to hold the exact same beliefs and try the exact same arguments until God opened their eyes to the "true gospel" of Calvinism but then have nothing but straw man arguments such as "you work for your salvation" "you think you had a hand in saving yourself" "you deny the Sovereignty of God" blah blah blah."

This is being played out perfeclty right now on the thread "Question for nonCalvnist" at Bluecollar's blog. It's the same old tired arguments (you don't believe in total depravity or the sovereignty of God) and the same caricatures of what nonCalvnist believe. Not a real pleasant site IMO.

By Anonymous, at Friday, March 30, 2007 10:22:00 AM
I can't say that I know ALL of the ins and outs of the arguments, but I used to be a proud champion of Weslian Arminianism. So in that regard the quote is accurate. The Arminian position comes natural to us, and to our flesh's sense that we have done something, but that contradicts Scripture IMO. Warm regards,

By Jonathan Moorhead, at Sunday, April 01, 2007 5:14:00 PM
Mary: "I see many Calvinists who have been converted without actually understanding what Calvinism is, but they've been given a false impression of what it means to reject Calvinism."

I've seen the same thing. They've been given scriptures out of their contexts and told they mean things that they do not. Then they are told that God is sovereign and that His sovereignty trumps all freewill. Then they are told that they are worshipping self if they believe they had anything to do with their own salvation and that God sees these things as wicked and sinful.

Many of these people (but not all) are intimidated by the so-called "scholarship" of the great minds who adhere to the Calvinist construct. These people must be right for they have a doctorate which, in some minds, automatically gives them total credibility in matters of theology.

By Dawn, at Monday, April 09, 2007 12:40:00 PM
Mark: "There just came a time when I realized that if I truely wanted to have the scriptures themselves be what molded my concept of God, if I truely wanted to be enslaved and captivated by them, then I had to forsake my silly and unscriptural arguments and embrace the Doctrins of Grace."

Silly and unscriptural? I fail to see what is silly about reading scripture in context and recognizing the balance of God's word?

What is silly and unscriptural is changing the definitions of words such as "all," "whosoever," "anyone," "world," "whole world," etc., to fit one's philosophy and rejecting the intended meaning of specific verses of scripture for an interpretation that fits that philosophy.

I have to wonder if you have really seen ALL of our arguments.

I hope we are still friends. :-)

By Dawn, at Tuesday, April 10, 2007 6:38:00 AM
Dawn - We ARE STILL FRIENDS!

>Silly and unscriptural? I fail to see what is silly about reading scripture in context and recognizing the balance of God's word?<
--------
Interesting charge you level here. It is a kind of Leap Frog you are doing here by beginning at your premise and skipping over the whole of the debate. You see, I do not opperate within the dispensational system, therefore Romans 9 " I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy...and whom He wills He hardens" have their full force. You see, only a perverted form of Dispensationalism can be employed here to try to take away from these verses what they are actually saying.

Why do I say "perverted form of Dispensationalism"? Because many of the earliest Dispy's were Calvinistic in there approach to scripture. They would no doubt be very angry to see how the system they invented and refined was also used by some to try to refute their calvinism. Many of the modern day Dispy's are also Calvinistic. So you see the practice of some to try to use certain Dispy "tools" to refute Calvinism is sandwhiched into the earliest dispy's and the modern day dispy's many of these saying that you are mishandling these "tools".
-------

>What is silly and unscriptural is changing the definitions of words such as "all," "whosoever," "anyone," "world," "whole world," etc., to fit one's philosophy and rejecting the intended meaning of specific verses of scripture for an interpretation that fits that philosophy.<
----------
No one is changing any definitions here. We ARE inviting you to consider the WHOLE Counsel of God while approaching scripture. Throw out the mishandling of Dispy tools mentioned above, then, and only then do you come to the WHOLE counsel of God. You argue just like Dave Hunt. He is one of those Dispy's who mishandles dispensationalism. I believe Darby and Scofield and Chafer would have a real problem with Dave Hunt. Darby, the inventer of Dispensationalism, once closed his Bible and refused to participate any further with Bible readings with D.L.Moody when he discovered that Moody could not embrace Calvinism.
------

>I have to wonder if you have really seen ALL of our arguments.<
----
Yup, seen them all. :)

By mark pierson, at Wednesday, April 11, 2007 8:04:00 AM
>Silly and unscriptural? I fail to see what is silly about reading scripture in context and recognizing the balance of God's word?<

Ooops, at this point I should say "Dawn is right! I really should start to consider context and balance. Where's my head after all these years?" ;-)

By mark pierson, at Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:59:00 AM
Mark: "Ooops, at this point I should say "Dawn is right! I really should start to consider context and balance. Where's my head after all these years?" ;-)"

Heyyyyyyy, that's Dr. Dawn, to you. ;-) ;-) ;-) LOL

By Dawn, at Saturday, April 14, 2007 1:16:00 PM
How about my new friend become a regular at bluecollar?

No matter how much you and I disagree I believe we can still be good friends!

By mark pierson, at Saturday, April 14, 2007 6:36:00 PM
Mark: "How about my new friend become a regular at bluecollar?

No matter how much you and I disagree I believe we can still be good friends!"

Yes, I do try to read regularly at Bluecollar. Though, I'm working on a very large project and probably won't be able to read everyday. But I do plan to play catch-up on my reading at Bluecollar.

Yes, I agree. No matter how much we disagree we can still be good friends. I am thankful for that.

I sure hope you were talkin' ta me!

By Dawn, at Wednesday, April 18, 2007 11:50:00 PM
Yes, Dawn, I was talking to YOU. Now, how 'bout it, c'mon over to bluecollar........Please... Pretty, please.......

By mark pierson, at Sunday, April 22, 2007 4:02:00 PM
See ya over at Bluecollar!

By Dawn, at Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:23:00 PM