Rejection of the doctrines of Grace

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder what Calvin would have thought about people calling themselves after his own name. Dont think it would take too much imagination to guess the response.:think: I think that more damage is done by people calling themselves that than they realise. I have zero problems with Calvin, its just the "sect" like word association i dont like.
 
I wonder what Calvin would have thought about people calling themselves after his own name.

Historically speaking, "Calvinist" was a derogatory term that has since been apprehended by Reformed people to distinguish themselves doctrinally. "Christian" came to us in the same way.
 
Christian, Acts 11 v 26. Not the same.

I am fully aware that the term is in Scripture. How is it not the same because of this? The fact that it is mentioned in Scripture does not take away the fact that, at first, it was likely a derogatory term. Here is Darrell Bock from the Baker Exegetical Commentary:

The probably intransitive passive expression "be called" (chrematisai suggests that the name was given to believers by others. It may well have been derisive...

—Darrell Bock, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 416.
 
Last edited:
The fact that it is mentioned in Scripture does not take away the fact that, at first, it was likely a derogatory term.

Simon Kistemaker makes the same point in his commentary on 1 Pet. 4:16. It was a derogatory title that believers embraced.
 
Hi Taylor. Not the same in this way. The term, name, Christian is mentioned in the Bible and not spoken against. It appears, is used also elsewhere later in the Bible but appears acceptable. That cannot be said for calling ones self after that of a mans name. Twice it is spoken against doing so. To imply both are acceptable is false.
 
Hi Taylor. Not the same in this way. The term, name, Christian is mentioned in the Bible and not spoken against. It appears, is used also elsewhere later in the Bible but appears acceptable. That cannot be said for calling ones self after that of a mans name. Twice it is spoken against doing so. To imply both are acceptable is false.

Pardon, but, unless I am mistaken, nowhere have I been trying to argue (or even imply) that the term "Calvinist" is somehow acceptable. I was simply making the statement that it, just like the term "Christian," was in history initially a derogatory term that was apprehended by its victims to distinguish themselves. I, like the New Testament authors, am not making a moral judgment for or against.

I am not saying that the two terms are equal is rightness, but merely arguing that they came about in a similar way. That's it. Anything else read into my statements beyond that is simply bad reading.
 
Last edited:
Where ever or how the two names/terms came about is really just useless trivia and has no real bearing upon the issue of using a persons name to identify ones self in opposition to Gods word. So what was your point and purpose of it?
 
Where ever or how the two names/terms came about is really just useless trivia and has no real bearing upon the issue of using a persons name to identify ones self in opposition to Gods word. So what was your point and purpose of it?

To show similarity of origin, not to make a moral judgment as to its use. I thought I was perfectly clear in my previous post.
 
Similarity of origin for no purpose. Personally i believe, in keeping with giving an answer of sorts to the OP, that many difficulties people encounter with expressing Calvinism is because of the use of the term. The Bible says not to twice. This directive given by God in His Word by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There is a reason for that. Yet people dont listen. So for every action, positive or negative, there are reactions and consequences. If we are doing something we are told not to do then we cannot expect all positive outzcomes. Nothing against Calvin from me but attributing in ways God breathed doctrine from the Bible, or should i say, naming it after a man doesnt exactly give all the glory to God. Calvin never discovered anything in the Bible that wasnt plainly there anyway. He did shine a light on it during a dark period in history and leave us many good writings. But to call Biblical God breathed Bible doctrine Calvin is wrong, full stop.
 
Similarity of origin for no purpose. Personally i believe, in keeping with giving an answer of sorts to the OP, that many difficulties people encounter with expressing Calvinism is because of the use of the term. The Bible says not to twice. This directive given by God in His Word by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There is a reason for that. Yet people dont listen. So for every action, positive or negative, there are reactions and consequences. If we are doing something we are told not to do then we cannot expect all positive outzcomes. Nothing against Calvin from me but attributing in ways God breathed doctrine from the Bible, or should i say, naming it after a man doesnt exactly give all the glory to God. Calvin never discovered anything in the Bible that wasnt plainly there anyway. He did shine a light on it during a dark period in history and leave us many good writings. But to call Biblical God breathed Bible doctrine Calvin is wrong, full stop.

Sigh...

For the last time, I am not making a moral judgment on the use of the term. I merely wanted to point out the similarity in origin—that's it. I don't know how many times I have to say it in plain English before it is finally read.
 
The reprobate can only make of themselves a 'God' who fulfills their needs, or makes them feel assured in their own depraved and desperately wicked state. The focus is on them, not God.

The elect accept God for who He is, and accept that He has chosen a select people out of the mass of people. They accept that all the others are consigned to damnation by hell-fire.

God bless.
 
I once my former RPCNA pastor say that one reason people reject the Doctrines of Grace is because they have a Muslim understanding of what predestination means.

Just a thought.
 
Only those who put their trust in the living God will be saved.

I think it's wise to stay out of the business of trying to determine who is saved and who isn't. That's God's prerogative. Rather, we should focus on being faithful witnesses and living lives consistent with what we say we believe.

If someone thinks that the doctrine of predestination is destructive, we should demonstrate just the opposite as those who hold these doctrines dearly. We should live as those who establish the law, not as those who abuse grace. We should care for the sick and needy, emulating our Savior.

Often people associate the doctrine of predestination with hyper-Calvinism. Again, we should demonstrate that such doctrines don't inhibit the proclamation of the gospel but rather comfort us, knowing that no one would respond to the gospel apart from God's determination to change the heart.


Here in Sweden 5-point Calvinism is hardly known. And those who do know about this, those who have done some serious studies in theology (often pastors) reject it. Also the reformed view of the Lord's Supper is very harshly judged by confessional Lutherans. You're almost considered worse than a pagan in the eyes of a Lutheran when you're view of the Lord's Supper isn't the same as theirs. I do believe they are Christians though and I do believe their lack of understanding/denial of what the Scripture clearly teaches is also covered by the blood of Christ. Otherwise we would be saved by holding on to the right doctrine and not saved by faith alone in Christ alone.
I also think it can be very hard to even give 5-point Calvinism a thought when you've been taught differently your whole life and live among those who reject 5-point Calvinism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top