Calvinism

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

I’ve found the opposite is true (regardless of belief).

One group always believes the opposing group is wrong (by necessity, otherwise the group would change to the opposing view).

In a cult mindset the cult cannot comprehend that the opposing group may not only understand and disagree – BUT they may see what the cult itself cannot grasp.

That is the problem of indoctrination.

JonC,
I have not seen one non cal give a compelling teaching against the true teaching of Calvinism.
I can make a list of the objections which are 95% emotional, and not scripture based.

 

[John Caldwell]

We say God chose us in spite of who we are. That’s unconditional election. They say God chose them because they were better than those who refuse to believe. That’s conditional election. Conditional election teaches God based His election on what ppl do, therefore, those who did something have something to boast about. A million miles away from the clear teaching contained in Ephesians 2:8-9.

This is "Conditional Election":

That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son before the foundation of the world, has determined that out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who through the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath and to condemn them as alienated from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that does not believe the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

(Article 1)

 

[John Caldwell]

JonC,
I have not seen one non cal give a compelling teaching against the true teaching of Calvinism.
I can make a list of the objections which are 95% emotional, and not scripture based.

I would hope you did not understand their teachings compelling yet remained a Calvinist.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Who are you to judge the servant a of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

CL is judging a worldwide respected elder, calling his teaching of Satan.
JonC, I know you want to oppose me and the brothers at every turn. but are you seriously going to say that CL and her ideas about John,M should be entertained? Are you going on record as claiming John M...is from Satan?

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Exactly, such an accusation is done in complete ignorance of the teaching. Any person so ignorant to make such a statement needs to look up not only the biblical teachings called Calvinism and also look up worm theology and why it was attached to Calvinists.

It's remarkable that such myopic statements are made or even believed.

Do anti-truth anti-cals ever argue with facts or contextual Scripture? Sadly the answer is a resounding no.

A valid critique would quote the teaching as accurate as possible, then offer scriptural correction to be considered.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

We say God chose us in spite of who we are. That’s unconditional election. They say God chose them because they were better than those who refuse to believe. That’s conditional election. Conditional election teaches God based His election on what ppl do, therefore, those who did something have something to boast about. A million miles away from the clear teaching contained in Ephesians 2:8-9.

Right. The teaching called Unconditional Election should give it away just like their error called Conditional Election gives it away.

The former is clear that it is because of nothing good in us, but only God, the latter is just as clear because it teaches the antithesis: God chose them because they jumped through a hoop. It also makes salvation a work, a reward instead of a gift, and renders it performance-based. That fact is crystal clear.

 

[John Caldwell]

CL is judging a worldwide respected elder, calling his teaching of Satan.
JonC, I know you want to oppose me and the brothers at every turn. but are you seriously going to say that CL and her ideas about John,M should be entertained? Are you going on record as claiming John M...is from Satan?

No. I believe John MacArthur has some good teachings and some questionable teachings. I believe his study bible is awful (too much opinion, even when I agree with his conclusions).

I like that he stands firm against sin and guards against culture.

I am more concerned about his hatred for Pentecostals and Charismatics than I am about his Calvinistic philosophy.

I believe any spirit that accuses the breathern is of Satan.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

I would hope you did not understand their teachings compelling.

JonC
If we are looking for truth it takes work . For people to resist the teaching of the historic confessing church is not healthy.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

No. I believe John MacArthur has some good teachings and some questionable teachings. I believe his study bible is awful (too much opinion, even when I agree with his conclusions).

I like that he stands firm against sin and guards against culture.

I am more concerned about his hatred for Pentecostals and Charismatics than I am about his Calvinistic philosophy.

I believe any spirit that accuses the breathern is of Satan.

He and others see it as unhealthy for those involved. They believe it harms souls.I do not think he hates the people but the leaders.
example...I do not hate catholics, but I hate the false teaching of that church and will oppose it at all costs.

going to the base group bible study now, will be back in a few hours. This is better interaction than making personal attacks...

 

[John Caldwell]

JonC
If we are looking for truth it takes work . For people to resist the teaching of the historic confessing church is not healthy.

You have over 20 centuries of confessions in the RCC. Yet neither of us are Catholic. In fact, the Reformers sought to correct flaws they saw in the system. (your logic is lacking here).

 

[John Caldwell]

He and others see it as unhealthy for those involved. They believe it harms souls.I do not think he hates the people but the leaders.
example...I do not hate catholics, but I hate the false teaching of that church and will oppose it at all costs.

going to the base group bible study now, will be back in a few hours. This is better interaction than making personal attacks...

I think the biggest obstacle to our witness is when we try to dictate for other people what they should believe. We are called to work out our salvation- not everybody elses.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

He and others see it as unhealthy for those involved. They believe it harms souls.I do not think he hates the people but the leaders.
example...I do not hate catholics, but I hate the false teaching of that church and will oppose it at all costs.

going to the base group bible study now, will be back in a few hours. This is better interaction than making personal attacks...

I'm glad to see he's laid off of that for a minute. But I cannot help but remember how Peter quoted Proverbs so there is cautious optimism clouded by a well-known history and a poor infamous track record. Several are awaiting repentance and a request for forgiveness.

 

[John Caldwell]

I'm glad to see he's laid off of that for a minute. But I cannot help but remember how Peter quoted Proverbs so there is cautious optimism clouded by a well-known history and a poor infamous track record. Several are awaiting repentance and a request for forgiveness.

He has been quiter since the Charismatic Chaos time. I have wondered if some of this was due to opposition from fellow Calvinists (like Piper).

I doubt he will "repent" or ask for people to forgive him. He did nothing wrong (he is responsible for his teachings and was teaching his congregation).

Looking for people to ask for forgiveness is unbiblical. I think it is a symptom of the culture we live in...too much "political correctness. People just can't stand for others to have an opposing view so they become abusive. Critique his teachings - but know he has a right to them. And a right to teach them to his congregation.

He just does not have a right to impose his philosophy on other people outside of his church.

 

[John Caldwell]

I have not seen one non cal give a compelling teaching against ...

I have been thinking about this for a bit. I think you are approaching it from the wrong direction.

It is not about how convincing an argument against Calvinism may be but about how biblically accurate a representation of Scripture is Calvinism.

 

[Willie T]

Willie,
Keep in mind that any teacher or trusted guide,they need to be tested according to scripture.
Calvin is one person.He is not an apostle.

On page 270 He begins a discussion on the condition of fallen man. I see it as totally scriptural
Where do you take issue with it. Give the page number and we can investigate.

Let's start right at the first sentence of the first Section of Chapter 5, of Book Second.

1. Enough would seem to have been said on the subject of man’s will, were there not some who endeavor to urge him to his ruin by a false opinion of liberty, and at the same time, in order to support their own opinion, assail ours.

How about you explain this "false opinion of liberty" that he says "some" are trying to "urge mankind to his ruin" with.

I see those "some" as offering awareness of an escape from Hell to all men by showing them that Christ has given them the "liberty" to choose to trust in Him... or to not trust in Him. The plain and simple "liberty" of the choice Jesus provided every living human by going to the cross.

As for the rest of the sentence, the "supporting an opinion by assailing the opinions of others".... Well, that is Calvin's basic attack mode all through the book. I think his favorite word to utter when speaking about anyone else's opinion is, "ABSUREDITY !!!" (Go right now and check out how many times he used some form of it just right here in this chapter.)

 

[Mjh29]

I have been thinking about this for a bit. I think you are approaching it from the wrong direction.

It is not about how convincing an argument against Calvinism may be but about how biblically accurate a representation of Scripture is Calvinism.

I agree. In fact, if Calvinism wasn't Scriptural, I personally would not adhere to the doctrine. However, when you read the Institutes, and see that nearly every page of the over 1,600 page work has Scripture written everywhere, and every one of Calvin's thoughts are formulated from the Scriptures first and foremost, you see clearly that he wrote the institutes with the Scriptures on his mind and heart. Then you read other books, like the 5 Points Defined Defended and Documented, and you see that it is a book comprised of more Scripture reference than actual commentary, you start to realize that theses men are concerned with the right understanding of the Scriptures.

The problem is 3-fold: An indoctrinated hate for Calvinism, A lackluster Scriptural interpretation method and a refusal to be corrected from the Scriptures.

 

[John Caldwell]

I agree. In fact, if Calvinism wasn't Scriptural, I personally would not adhere to the doctrine. However, when you read the Institutes, and see that nearly every page of the over 1,600 page work has Scripture written everywhere, and every one of Calvin's thoughts are formulated from the Scriptures first and foremost, you see clearly that he wrote the institutes with the Scriptures on his mind and heart. Then you read other books, like the 5 Points Defined Defended and Documented, and you see that it is a book comprised of more Scripture reference than actual commentary, you start to realize that theses men are concerned with the right understanding of the Scriptures.

The problem is 3-fold: An indoctrinated hate for Calvinism, A lackluster Scriptural interpretation method and a refusal to be corrected from the Scriptures.

I do not think we can be completely subjective about the positions we hold (it is, however, an admirable goal we should all possess).

I am a baptist so right off the bat you know I disagree with the Institutes on several points. That does not mean I discount Calvins thoughts all together, but as a baptist I do have cause to keep them at arms length.

 

[Mjh29]

I do not think we can be completely subjective about the positions we hold (it is, however, an admirable goal we should all possess).

I am a baptist so right off the bat you know I disagree with the Institutes on several points. That does not mean I discount Calvins thoughts all together, but as a baptist I do have cause to keep them at arms length.

I agree. My only point was that, if we are going to be biased, our bias should be towards the Word of God; not towards a preconceived notion about a belief system without regard to it's Scriptural grounds.

 

[Willie T]

I agree. In fact, if Calvinism wasn't Scriptural, I personally would not adhere to the doctrine. However, when you read the Institutes, and see that nearly every page of the over 1,600 page work has Scripture written everywhere, and every one of Calvin's thoughts are formulated from the Scriptures first and foremost, you see clearly that he wrote the institutes with the Scriptures on his mind and heart. Then you read other books, like the 5 Points Defined Defended and Documented, and you see that it is a book comprised of more Scripture reference than actual commentary, you start to realize that theses men are concerned with the right understanding of the Scriptures.

The problem is 3-fold: An indoctrinated hate for Calvinism, A lackluster Scriptural interpretation method and a refusal to be corrected from the Scriptures.

I think we should all be able to agree that there is a Scripture, somewhere, that can be used to "back-up" and "prove" almost anything you can come up with. The Westboro Mob does it all the time. LOL

 

[Mjh29]

I think we should all be able to agree that there is a Scripture, somewhere, that can be used to "back-up" and "prove" almost anything you can come up with. The Westboro Mob does it all the time. LOL

Agreed. Which is why I refuse to debate someone who insists on "One-verse" theology. The WHOLE of Scripture must uniformly claim something for it to be taken as true.