Welcome to Gaia! ::

This is just me, but ... I can't accept Calvinism. I agree that a lot of it makes sense, but that's as far as it goes. It leaves too much out, for my tastes.

1. Total depravity? Sure, no problem. I don't need to ready Romans 3:10 or 3:23 to believe that one; all I have to do is look at the world.

2. Unconditional election ... um, no. I believe in a little thing called "free will", and I'll get to that in a minute.

3. Limited atonement ... the way I read the Bible (I think it's in Hebrews, I'm not sure), Jesus made His sacrifice "once, for all". The cross covers everybody, past, present, and future, across the globe. It's just that not everybody accepts His plan, so those people are on their own ... and "on their own" is insufficient.

4. Irresistible grace ... um, some might fuss at me for having a limited view of God, but ... I don't see God's will as so super-powerful. I mean, God told Adam and Eve not to eat the forbidden fruit. If God's will had been the ultimate deciding factor, that fruit would never have been eaten! So either God's will does not overrule human will (by His choice, of course), or God's wanted Adam and Eve to sin.

(Wait ... if sin is rebellion against God, but God wanted them to rebel against Him, then ... logically, by definition, they weren't really rebelling; they just thought they were. Not only is that perfectly reasonable, it's also perfectly ridiculous.)

5. Perseverance of the saints. Did I mention "free will"? I can't provide exact details right now, but a while back I flipped through my concordance and found the word "continue" (as in "continue in Christ" ) 14 times. Four of those dealt with people who don't "continue in Christ", who fall away.

No, I don't believe in "once saved, always saved"; I'm not opposed to it, either. I just don't want to find out the hard way.

On the nature of the Atonement ... well, like I said, I read Christ's sacrifice as being "once, for all" (emphasis mine). But even those who never had a chance to hear God's word, for whatever reason, are written into His plan; Paul wrote of that one in Romans, saying God would judge them based on how they followed the law He put in their hearts. So, I don't see Jesus' sacrifice as being "limited" in any way.

==========

Mind you, these are only my personal theories. I'd love to hear what others think.

I disagree with many aspects of Calvinism too, especially eternal salvation. You can most certainly lose and even regain salvation (I am proof)
However your comment on Gods Will as not so super powerful pertaining to Adam and Eve eating the apple, I disagree with. It was Gods will that Adam and Eve not eat the apple, but it was also Gods will that they have the freedom to choose. I think we can not expect in our state, as man, imperfect, expect to fully comprehend the vast and complex nature of Gods will. We shall see when we go home and are perfected.

Well, I don't really have anything to add that could be called discussion - I basically feel the same way as the rest of you, which is something I don't think I need to write out at this point. I am interested to know if there are any Calvinists out there in the guild though. I've met a few in my life, mostly in the town I was living in during my highschool years, but I didn't even know what calvanism was at the time.

I'm curious, is there anyone around who is Calvinist and would like to share?

Follow up on a post in Help Me witness:

XI I'm sorry if I offended you by using the word "poppycock". If you look at the beginnning of my post I started with "IMHO=In my humble opinion."

As I stated it is my opinion that the doctrine of OSAS is hogwash. You cannot just pull out 3-4 Scripture to support the view without looking at the entire Scripture, church history and the origin of the doctrine.

First you have not addressed "why if this doctrine is valid, was it not taught in the church until 1500 plus years after Jesus' death?" I would think that such "good news" would have been proclaimed as a foundation stone of Christianity. The very basic tenents of Truth.

In fact, the early church fathers (including Irenaeus (120 to 205AD,Tertullian (140 to 230 AD),Cyprian (200 to 258 AD) ) who studied the works of Paul and the speeches given by the early disciples FIRMLY believed that one could lose their salvation. And that was the way the doctrine was taught in the early church.

It wasn't until about 1550, that a man named John Calvin began to teach otherwise. (That's a long, long time, for it to take someone to finally discover that everyone before him (including the early disciples) had it wrong. )

John Calvin was not a theologian (except by "self proclamation") he was a humanistic/lawyer. The humanist of that time believed that it was up to the individual to find their own truth.

So...as a means of (for lack of a better word) "payback" to the Catholic Church, Calvin began to preach his truth to others. The Catholic Church by this time had become corrupt, and had begun to charge people money for things like "prayers for the dead" and "prayers of repentence (confession). His message "tickled the ears" of those who were also growing dissatisfied with the direction the Catholic Church was going. And why not? It was an easy doctrine to follow. All one had to do is say "I believe".

John Calvin was considered a heretic by most in the early church (elders, leadership, and theologians) as his message was contrary to the sound doctrine that had been taught for 1500 plus years before him.

This is not meant to offend anyone it it MY opinion.
When I think of John Calvin I can't help but think of another man who taught his own truth. That man was Joseph Smith...the founder of Mormonism. Both were able to influence millions of people to follow their doctrines. But it is my belief that just because they have millions of followers does not make their doctrine the TRUTH according to Scripture.

Now I can hit you over the head with Scripture, in debate of this Doctrine, but I really don't think that is necessary as this whole arguement can be settled if one understands one little word. That word is BELIEVES. That word as used in the Bible (concerning salvation) is not head knowledge, or a one time profession of faith. It's meaning is much richer.....it means to adhere to, to follow closely, and to remain STEADFAST (minute by minute) in that belief.

The Bible clearly tells us that we will do certain things, and act certian ways if we BELIEVE. So if we do not do those things, or act contrary to those things we know we are supposed to be doing, we either did not truly believe in the first place, or we have left that BELIEF behind in order to follow the "more pleasurable" desires of our flesh. In either case we do not infact have ANY guarantee of Salvation if we have not remained STEADFAST, except through a continual state of repentence (turning from sin and returning to a life of BELIEF).

The Bible says "The way is narrow and few will find it." (A rather chilling verse in my sight given the fact that there are billions of people who say "they believe")

I would rather bet my Salvation on the doctrine that says I MUST live a righteous life (minute by minute), even if it requires more work on my part, than the one that says I can live as I choose, as long as I made a confession of faith once upon a time. I have nothing to loose by following that doctrine even if I am wrong. I have a better life, a better relationship with God, and a better witness to the world, living my life like that, than I think that I would if I adhered to the OSAS doctrine. (Am I saying I am perfect....far from it! But I do attempt with every breath I take, to live my life as closely as possible to the standards pleasing to God. . And I continually ask for forgiveness when I have missed the mark.) so that when the time of death comes for me I will not be caught in a state of unbelief.

I have to ask you...what do those who follow the doctrine taught by Calvin possibly have to loose if they are wrong?

Point of order: we don't know that it was Paul who wrote that. Most scholars are in agreement these days that he didn't write Hebrews.

Otherwise ... yes, Hebrews does clearly say that. But it looks like you're trying to play early church leaders against each other.

Still, you do concede that it's possible to "fall away" (based on the human understanding of the term), then return to God. At least, that's how I'm reading your second paragraph.

From there, it's easy to see that when we mere humans consider ourselves "saved" (given that we don't know the future, or the mind of God; we have only human understanding), that we actually might not be. So calling ourselves "saved" once, for all time, is being ... optimistic. Thus our dispute of OSAS.

No disrespect meant XI but I have read that Scripture in Heb6 over and over again and cannot see how it in any way supports your stand on OSAS. In fact in my opinion it seems to support the fact that you can loose your salvation, turn your back on it or walk away from it.

Can you explain how you are interpretting it, so I can get a better understanding of where you are coming from?

Point of order: Unless you're counting Paul (an apostle of God, certainly, but a special case; he didn't exactly learn things direct from the lips of Jesus like the others), then there's only eleven (Matthias doesn't count; he's a footnote, at best). I corrected Xi, I gotta be fair and correct you.

On the other hand, I'm in full agreement with your shocked sentiment. That sure looks like what Xi's saying.