John Calvin and Calvinism.

[praise_yeshua]

You say God desires EVERY PERSON to be saved?
Arminian..

https://prts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Canons-of-Dort-with-Intro.pdf

Arminian five points refuted.

Since I am at crossroads, can you refute this with at least two or three scriptures on each point?

Blessings
J.

Can you confirm you will accept the "Canons of Dort" as your sole appeal to a proper view of Calvinism?

I don't know the times that I've dissected "Dort" to just have a Calvinist say that they didn't agree themselves. In my experience, there really isn't an single authority source of modern Calvinism. Calvin, himself, did not adequately deal with every possible outcome of what he taught. Which has left room for many varying interpretations. Not to mention the difficulty you find with those who vary their translation of his words from Latin.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

dude!! Give it a break. Calvinism is Biblical. If you dont like it, go start an arminian thread.

Sorry. Your not fooling anyone who upholds morality and what the Bible says. If Calvinism was biblical, you would be able to easily answer the questions (involving the Bible) in my post with Bible verses of your own. But like 2 Thessalonians 2:10 and Jonah 3:10, such verses will not be explained in a way that is satisfactory to what the text actually says. If Calvinism was moral, you would be able to explain the god of Calvinism and his immoral actions involving UNconditional Election. Seeing you and every other Calvinist I have run into over the years cannot do such things, I am going to continue to fight against the ridiculousness of Calvinism using both the Bible and real world examples of basic morality.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You still haven't told me anything about Calvinism to demonstrate you actually understand it in the first place. You also have shown any part of Calvinism to be unbiblical. So not sure what your point is about DTS alumni (as if that somehow makes your point valid) but you really haven't done anything to debate here.

And where do you see in Scripture that Adam sinned so he would not lose Eve?

Funny. I can read just as you can. I did my senior thesis on Jonathon Edwards. I've spent a very long time dealing with Calvinism. Calvinism is very simple. Nothing complicated about it at all. In fact, it really is a rather childish theology. It is about as "deep" as you average pothole in the road. It is far too simple to explain the existence of God. It is nothing more than the carnal rantings of a man too young to know himself....much less God.

Adam knew exactly what he was doing.....

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

 

[reformed1689]

Funny. I can read just as you can. I did my senior thesis on Jonathon Edwards. I've spent a very long time dealing with Calvinism. Calvinism is very simple. Nothing complicated about it at all. In fact, it really is a rather childish theology. It is about as "deep" as you average pothole in the road. It is far too simple to explain the existence of God. It is nothing more than the carnal rantings of a man too young to know himself....much less God.

Adam knew exactly what he was doing.....

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

And yet another post where you say a lot about "Calvinism" but don't actually show anything wrong with it at all. Go figure.

 

[reformed1689]

But they are still called the five points of Calvinism. Hence, it’s still Calvinism.
I will even claim that I learn more towards Arminianism even if I am not a full fledge Arminian in holding to all five points of Remonstrance.
If I held to all five points in Arminianism (Remonstrance), then I would call myself an Arminian (in relation to the fact that I believe all five points). But I don’t believe exactly hold to all five points.

If you are hung up on the term "Calvinism" then you are just stubborn, ignorant, or both. You still have yet to show what is wrong with any of the points.

 

[reformed1689]

I can see new people of the faith not knowing or understanding calvinism, but people who been round the block a few times should understand it at this point. It aint like this just came out last year, this doctrine has been around for hundreds of yrs. Its Biblical, its what the apostles taught, calvin didnt create these doctrines, he just gave them names and put em in a bundle to make it easier to understand.

Exactly, this is what the Apostles taught. This is what the Fathers taught. This is what Christianity has been from the start. it did not start with Augustine, and it definitely did not start in the 16th Century.

 

[reformed1689]

This is in context to men and what they say and not what the Bible says.
But even in this context, it says that a good part of the world is watching and it is recorded so that anyone can view it later.

While the Bible could say something similar like this it is simply not made clear by the text that this is so.
The general sense of a word is to read it in its most plain sense unless indicated otherwise by other verses or the context.
The Bible uses other related words to refer to the same concept in that Jesus died for all men’s sins (as in reference to the majority of the world).
But yes. I will take it to mean the majority of the world (of which you do not interpret it as such).
Your view of the words whole world is the opposite of that (Meaning a select small few because Jesus said narrow is the way).

Why do I believe 1 John 2:2 is in reference to the majority of the world? Well, because Revelation 13:8, and Revelation 17:8 says that those who worship the beast do not have their names written in the book of life since the foundation of the world. This shows that future election is based on God’s foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:1-2) and it is not based on UNconditional Reprobation or the opposite of UNconditional Election because it is something that these individuals did that banned them from having salvation in the future. God could see into the future corridors of time and know what these people will do was an unacceptable evil. But the god of Calvinism is the cause of those who are saved and not saved (and it is not based on anything they really did).

Anyways, I believe Calvinism borderlines on being Sociopathic. Meaning, there is no morality or heart when a true Calvinist reads the Bible. The problem is that the god of Calvinism is simply not a just and good god because He creates life for the simple purpose of torturing that life for all eternity as their one and only sole destiny. Anytime a Calvinist may see an injustice in this world (if they even think that way and they have not gone full robot mode or sociopathic), they have to turn a blind eye to the god of Calvinism and his UNconditional Election. This sort of relates to Eternal Torment (Which is another unbiblical and immoral doctrine). I used to believe in Eternal Torment, but I could not see the immorality behind it (When I believed it). I chocked it up to a mystery. I just blindly believed the church and thought they were right. But in time, I have come to discover that the Bible does not actually teach this and God is good. It’s only the doctrines of men that interpret a cold and unloving god in their own way of thinking. It is my hope you will also see the immorality in both Calvinism and Eternal Torment one day in this life. If not here, you will definitely see it at the Judgment (No doubt about it). The choice is if you want to love and see God as loving and good as the Bible describes Him.

But many times men believe in a god of their own imagining (even when it comes to their claim that they believe in the Bible). They can twist Scripture to their own ends. They can say that they can literally hate their parents because the Bible tells them so. So the Bible can be used as a billy club to hit others over the head with, or it can be used to love. The choice is ours. We can choose Calvinism (the dark side of the force), or we can choose the love of God as described in the Bible. But there has to be an appeal to why you like Calvinism (Seeing it is not true). Ask yourself why you like Calvinism. Yes. I know you think this is simply what the Bible says and or your church cannot be wrong. But if there is even a small chance you could be wrong, the horror you will face in explaining yourself to the LORD of why you thought so wrongfully of Him will not be something that you will enjoy.



Right, and that’s why you are not explaining 2 Peter 2:1. For if the truth was on your side and it was easy to explain you would simply do so. But seeing this verse does not support Calvinism, it needs to be placed on the back burner to explain away or to simply ignore (if necessary in order to defend Calvinism). For it’s not the Bible first, it’s Calvinism. Your presupposition is Calvinism when reading the Bible when you should just let the Bible speak for itself without any Calvinistic glasses on.

How in the world do you get election based on foreknowledge (with the idea of foresight) in Scripture? You do not see that. That would be a works-based salvation. But that is not what the Bible teaches. Know, it says those he foreknew. That is not foresight. That is a intimate knowledge of, a love of, a choosing of. And yes, there is eternal torment. If you don't believe in that, you don't believe the Bible. It's not immoral. You are a humanist. That's not God's way. Stop using the world's view to shape your theology and look at what God actually says.

As far as 2 Peter 2:1, I have actually explained this before. This is not saying that Jesus bought them. He did not buy everyone's salvation. If he did, all would be saved, but they are not. This is saying this is what these false teachers, this is the focus of the passage, not salvation, stated that they were bought. But they were not. Then they denied that savior, they denied the true Gospel that they claim to preach. That is what the passage is talking about.

 

[reformed1689]

Lol, that's what you all keep saying but you never explain what I don't understand.

That's because you never actually address Calvinism. Care to try?

 

[praise_yeshua]

And yet another post where you say a lot about "Calvinism" but don't actually show anything wrong with it at all. Go figure.

How old was Calvin when he wrote his "Institutes"? Do you even know?

You're not paying attention to what I say.

 

[reformed1689]

How old was Calvin when he wrote his "Institutes"? Do you even know?

You're not paying attention to what I say.

Which version of his Institutes? And how is this even relevant?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Exactly, this is what the Apostles taught. This is what the Fathers taught. This is what Christianity has been from the start. it did not start with Augustine, and it definitely did not start in the 16th Century.

So it took 1500 odd years to define the work of the apostles properly?

You only see what you want to see. The apostles didn't need Calvin. No one does.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Which version of his Institutes? And how is this even relevant?

Because he was too young to know much of anything. When did you start listening to teenagers?

 

[Johann]

Can you confirm you will accept the "Canons of Dort" as your sole appeal to a proper view of Calvinism?

I don't know the times that I've dissected "Dort" to just have a Calvinist say that they didn't agree themselves. In my experience, there really isn't an single authority source of modern Calvinism. Calvin, himself, did not adequately deal with every possible outcome of what he taught. Which has left room for many varying interpretations. Not to mention the difficulty you find with those who vary their translation of his words from Latin.

...not to mention the over 30,000 heteros denominations..wonder why?.. each claiming to have "absolute truth"
Read the Heidelberg and Belgic Canons.
For me it is not a mere outward profession but a style of life consistent with that profession.
J.

 

[reformed1689]

So it took 1500 odd years to define the work of the apostles properly?

You only see what you want to see. The apostles didn't need Calvin. No one does.

Who claimed that? Nobody.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Who claimed that? Nobody.

You said "Exactly" to someone who claimed that Calvin only gave names to what the apostles taught. Which demands the question of what value is such a statement?

Cause. Effect. You should stick with your answers and not do the "greasy pig" dance when someone answers based upon your clear position.

 

[praise_yeshua]

...not to mention the over 30,000 heteros denominations..wonder why?.. each claiming to have "absolute truth"
Read the Heidelberg and Belgic Canons.
For me it is not a mere outward profession but a style of life consistent with that profession.
J.

I believe in absolute truth but such does not come from the doctrines of men. Calvin was a commentator. He got many things wrong. I could care less what he said. I have everything he used to produce his own work. I do the work myself. I do not rely entirely upon others to do the work for me.

 

[Johann]

Who claimed that? Nobody.

@praise_yeshua

I believe in absolute truth but such does not come from the doctrines of men. Calvin was a commentator. He got many things wrong. I could care less what he said. I have everything he used to produce his own work. I do the work myself. I do not rely entirely upon others to do the work for me.

...and for me it is not a mere outward profession that a person is a Christian but a style of life not belying that profession...
J.

 

[PinSeeker]

People have always been saved by faith.

No, but actually saved, not by faith, but through faith:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God..." (Ephesians 2:8-9; emphasis mine)

"...He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Peter 1:3-5; emphasis mine)​

Our faith is not what saved (past tense) ~ or is saving (present tense) us. Otherwise, we should put our faith in our faith, which is a ridiculous notion and as such is quite the unsolvable conundrum.

Also, faith is not manufactured in oneself by... oneself. Faith is, as I'm sure you know, defined by the Bible itself as "...the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). This assurance comes from God, and is a work in us of the Holy Spirit, a gift of the Spirit apportioned to each on of us per the will of God:

"Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit... it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, Who apportions to each one individually as He wills" (1 Corinthians 12:4-11; emphasis mine)​

Most Jews refused God, and God said he did everything he needed to do for them.

Sure. But God was not... flabbergasted... ... or in any way surprised that they refused Him. Yet again, "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" (Romans 9:6).

That does not address the issue of the fact that God wanted all Israel to be saved.

What God wants and what God purposes to do are two very different things. What God wants, or desires, He may not purpose to do. But, some things He wants, He does purpose to do, and those things... always happen. When He wants them to.

That simply shows that it is only by obedience to the Gospel that either Jew or Gentile is saved.

Well, belief in the Gospel, and repentance (Mark 1:15). And ~ back to Ephesians 2, 1 Peter 1, and 1 Corinithians 12 above ~ that is a result of faith having been given by God via His Holy Spirit. Obedience inevitably follows, and is a work of man caused by God's working in us (Philippians 2:13).

Grace and peace to you both.

 

[praise_yeshua]

@praise_yeshua


...and for me it is not a mere outward profession that a person is a Christian but a style of life not belying that profession...
J.

So you know how Calvin actually lived?

The only person that ever proved themselves to humanity was Jesus Christ and He was murdered as a sinner by His own people.

 

[PinSeeker]

I believe in absolute truth...

Good, good...

...but such does not come from the doctrines of men.

Well not ultimately speaking, no. But if these "doctrines of men" are Biblical...

Calvin was a commentator.

Yes, he was. A man, just like me and... maybe you (don't know if you are male or female).

He got many things wrong.

He got some things wrong, yes. He was not God, and therefore fallible. But... not the things we have been talking about here.

I could care less what he said.

That's... unfortunate. I mean, I care what Jacobus Arminius said. That doesn't mean I believe what he said, but I do care about what he said...

I do the work myself. I do not rely entirely upon others to do the work for me.

Ah, so you lean upon your own understanding. Well that's kind of a problem. Meh... I'm just poking a little fun at you, PY.

Grace and peace to you.