Charge: Why are Calvinists so Defensive?
Arminian Complaint: Why are Calvinists so Defensive?
Chad from oldtruth.com states: “I’m just getting weary of watching you repeat the same error over and over again. Debate and discussion of doctrine is good and important. You may not agree with Reformed theology but you are not properly informed enough to competently run your own blog on this issue.” (ExaminingCalvinism)
It seems as though some Calvinists are quite hostile to their arch rivals, the Arminians. Obviously, there are Arminians who have done the same in return, as Charles Spurgeon points out:
Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon, states: “The fact is, that the great questions about man’s responsibility, free-will, and predestination, have been fought over, and over, and over again, and have been answered in ten thousand different ways; and the result has been, that we know just as much about the matter as when we first began. The combatants have thrown dust into each other’s eyes, and have hindered each other from seeing; and then they have concluded, that because they put other people’s eyes out, they could therefore see.” (Jacob and Esau)
It’s very important that Christians treat one another with respect and dignity. After all, Jesus states: “‘By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.’” (John 13:35)
However, sometimes Calvinists will use hand-waving arguments to dispatch their “arch rival” as being ignorant, does not understand the issues set before him, smear, error-filled, misrepresentations, ect. This is simply not the speech or tone of the apostle Paul, who states: “The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” (2nd Timothy 2:24-26)
However, when you read John Calvin’s book, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, in it, he makes reference to his opponents as “Cyclops” (p.76), “hog” (p.78), ect. Listen to how angry Calvin is:
From the same book, Calvin writes: “Now some space must be given to Georgius of Sicily also. Everything about this man is so insipid that I feel ashamed to spend time on his refutation. Nor should I think it worth while come to grips with this shadow, did not the foolish consternation show by many force me. Nor do I think there will be wanting those who, seeing me win so easily a victory over such puerile trivialities, will deride such a useless investigation. Indeed, did he not, as I hear with great grief, do mischief, I should think he ought to be met with contempt rather than explicitly refuted with words. But since his books fly about Italy, driving many people to distraction on every side, I would rather myself play the madman with this crazy fellow for a little than by silence allow the Church to be attacked in such furious assaults.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.143, emphasis mine)
Calvin adds: “When we say that men are predestined by the eternal counsel of God either to salvation or to destruction, Georgius thinks that we are deluded in the matter for three reasons.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.143)
So you can see that this alleged attack on “the Church” was actually an attack on Calvinism. There is a big difference.
Calvin writes: “Now I want to consider not so much what and how Pighius speaks, as how this worthless fellow may fall and lie buried under the ruins of his desperate impudence.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.102, emphasis mine)
Here are additional samples from the same book. This is simply not how the Apostle Paul spoke.
So why are the Calvinists so susceptible to bitterness and rage, when challenged on Calvinism? Is it because Calvinism is their “sacred cow”? Realize that Calvinists believe that they were not elected on the basis of their need for salvation, since they believe that they were elected before their need ever arose. Hence, their ultimate salvation does not stem from Calvary, but from Election. That is where they have placed their hope. That is where they have placed their confidence. Then you, the non-Calvinist, inform them that their view of Election is unbiblical. What you have done is dashed their prime source of hope:
John Calvin explains: “God’s grace is illustrated by the fact that he does not give away salvation indiscriminately, but gives to some what he denies to others.” (Institutes of Christian Religion, p.213)
Calvin adds: “There is no other sure ground for confidence.” (Institutes of Christian Religion, p.214, emphasis mine)
Calvin adds: “All who do not know they are God’s special people must be miserable and in constant fear. So those who ignore the advantages of which we have spoken destroy the basis of salvation and do everyone a disservice.” (Institutes of Christian Religion, p.214, emphasis mine)
The Calvinist is absolutely focused on whether or not he is “one of the elect.”
Calvin explains: “If Pighius asks how I know I am elect, I answer that Christ is more than a thousand testimonies to me.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p. 130, emphasis mine)
One member of The Society of Evangelical Arminians states: “If God had ordained that there would be heretics who would call themselves Arminians then why is anyone getting upset? After all it is what He wanted them to do. He ordained that they should, so then His will is being done so we should all be happy about it. I mean isn’t it supposed to glorify God that His will is done?” (SEA)
Exactly, if God ordained this, why are the Calvinists so angry all the time? Are they angry with God’s sovereignty? Are they angry with how God ordained things? “No,” says the Calvinists, because Scripture records that God is angry at in. So, then, what do we conclude, that God is angry over the very things He scripted to occur, simply to display an attribute of anger? The Calvinist account turns God into being disingenuous. What boggles my mind, though, are the contradictions that Calvinists embrace. They will say, “Calvinism is true,” and “the Bible is true,” therefore “while we might not understand how these things all coincide, we can rest on the fact that they must,” and then the whole thing is declared a “mysery.” It’s ironic how when a Calvinist sees a potential scriptural contradiction against Calvinism, it only emboldens their convictions, rather than getting them to question their foundational trust in Calvinism. MacArthur summed it up by saying that the “contradictions” are "one of the reasons why I know that the Bible is written by God,” because if man had written in, he would have edited out all of those “contradictions.” (Election and Predestination: The Sovereignty of God in Salvation)
Arminians are Christians by promise, knowing that God promises “eternal life” to whoever believes in His Son.
Calvinists are Christians by presumption, presuming that they are of “the elect,” and hopefully do not possess a mere, temporary and seasonal grace termed: Temporal Grace.
