Calvinism

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
1 John 1:8-10; 2:1-2.

You forgot one describing the unsaved. 1 John 1:6

It, as well as 8 and 10 are unsaved. Notice they are all separated from one another by one verse.

Are you relating to 1 John 1:8? Sorry about that, but verse 9 tells you how to become a Christian, so there is hope for you.
 
Last edited:

Mjh29

Well-Known Member
May 28, 2017
1,466
1,433
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You forgot one describing the unsaved. 1 John 1:6

It, as well as 8 and 10 are unsaved. Notice they are all separated from one another by one verse.

Are you relating to 1 John 1:8? Sorry about that, but verse 9 tells you how to become a Christian, so there is hope for you.

So... John AND Paul are both non believers?

Read verse 8 again;

1 John 1:8 -- If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

John counts himself among his audience by saying we and us

So... John and Paul are both unbelievers?

Wow... I'm starting to get the feeling that, if you are right, you and Jesus will be the only people in Heaven...

And why are we treating their writings as Scripture if they are non-believers? If they aren't even saved, why should we believe a word they say?
 

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Romans 7:19

Paul himself said that he still sinned... it's right there in black and white.

So, Paul isn't a Christian?

You are taking that out of context. That was BEFORE he was a Christian. Paul was a Spirit-filled Christian that no longer committed willful sin as he had before Christ.

The problem is his use of the word "I." You believe it was current. But let's look in the same chapter at verse 9. "I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. So was Paul alive before Moses? Was Paul there when Moses received the law? Of course he was. He said "I" didn't he? So he must have been. But I'm just kidding. If I said that for real, I would be as dumb as a Calvinist with the multiple claims they made that are totally unscriptural and taken out of context.

It is the same with John's use of we.
 

Mjh29

Well-Known Member
May 28, 2017
1,466
1,433
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You are taking that out of context. That was BEFORE he was a Christian.

Then why does He count himself still with them by saying "we" and "us"? It still makes not sense! Here's why;

He is talking about himself in the present tense, not the past tense in Romans 7:19.

Romans 7:19 -- For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

This is what the verse actually says. Here's what you're saying it says:

For the good that I would I did not: but the evil which I would not, that I did.

Paul speaks in the present tense when he is writing this, admitting to his sins. Because that's what Christians do; admit their sins. Not pretend they don't exist.

The problem is not the word I as you claim, but rather the present tense in which he speaks clearly in Romans 7, which you insist is in the past tense.

I could fire back with some sideways snide remark about your beliefs, but I won't. I refuse to stoop to name calling to "win" an argument. I make sure that what I believe is back up by Scripture, not ridicule.

[PS Isn't slandering someone's name a sin? But I'm sure that was just a mistake.]
 

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Then why does He count himself still with them by saying "we" and "us"? It still makes not sense! Here's why;

He is talking about himself in the present tense, not the past tense in Romans 7:19.

Romans 7:19 -- For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

This is what the verse actually says. Here's what you're saying it says:

For the good that I would I did not: but the evil which I would not, that I did.

Paul speaks in the present tense when he is writing this, admitting to his sins. Because that's what Christians do; admit their sins. Not pretend they don't exist.

The problem is not the word I as you claim, but rather the present tense in which he speaks clearly in Romans 7, which you insist is in the past tense.

I could fire back with some sideways snide remark about your beliefs, but I won't. I refuse to stoop to name calling to "win" an argument. I make sure that what I believe is back up by Scripture, not ridicule.

[PS Isn't slandering someone's name a sin? But I'm sure that was just a mistake.]

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire.

HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE LAW!!! Are we under the law? Are you? No! But why didn't the law work? It was because of our old SIN NATURE. THAT is what Jesus cured through being born again of the Spirit. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ FREES US FROM THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH. Jesus was manifest to TAKE AWAY OUR SIN, AND IN HIM THERE IS NO SIN. So why would Paul say he was still struggling with sin if Christ took away his sin. You do not understand the simplest things regarding the gospel. All you know is the false doctrine of Calvinism.
 

Mjh29

Well-Known Member
May 28, 2017
1,466
1,433
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE LAW!!! Are we under the law? Are you? No! But why didn't the law work? It was because of our old SIN NATURE.

I agree. The Law is perfect; the problem is man's inherent sin nature. We all have an inclination to sin; we are born with it.

The law of the Spirit of life in Christ FREES US FROM THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH.

It freed us from the penalty, yes. But that does not then mean that breaking the law is not a sin. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I can go murder someone because I'm "no longer under the law."

Jesus was manifest to TAKE AWAY OUR SIN, AND IN HIM THERE IS NO SIN.

That's correct; in Christ there is no sin. He is the only human being who will ever be counted as perfect. We are viewed as perfect because of His robes of righteousness, but we in and of ourselves are still sinners. We are just sinners saved by the grace of God. When we stumble, we have a mediator between us and God to plead our case on behalf of His blood and sacrifice.

So why would Paul say he was still struggling with sin if Christ took away his sin.

Because he was still human. Because the flesh is constantly at war with the Spirit, and forever will be until we are with Christ in glory. We should make constant effort to weed out any and all sin in our lives, and should learn more and more to be like Christ.

You do not understand the simplest things regarding the gospel

So, you've called me stupid AND slandered my name... that's 2 sins.

~ James 4:11
~ 1 Peter 2:1
~ Ephesians 4:31
~ Ephesians 4:29
 

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I agree. The Law is perfect; the problem is man's inherent sin nature. We all have an inclination to sin; we are born with it.

That is correct, and why if someone says they don't sin when their sin nature is still intact, they are a liar, and the Truth/Spirit is not in them. Our nature must be born again from the carnal nature to the divine nature.

That is why 1 John 1:6, 8 and 10 are those who still have never been born again of the Spirit, because they have never Repented and received the Spirit/Truth.

It freed us from the penalty, yes. But that does not then mean that breaking the law is not a sin. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I can go murder someone because I'm "no longer under the law."

You believe it ONLY freed us from the penalty of sin, rather than the nature that produces sin. Without that nature you will not break the commandments of God. It is not by our OWN works of keeping the law, but following the Spirit.

That's correct; in Christ there is no sin. He is the only human being who will ever be counted as perfect. We are viewed as perfect because of His robes of righteousness, but we in and of ourselves are still sinners. We are just sinners saved by the grace of God. When we stumble, we have a mediator between us and God to plead our case on behalf of His blood and sacrifice.

You believe it is just imputed righteousness, but we still sin because you believe we still have the sin nature. This is the MAJOR error of Calvinism that will send countless numbers to hell. We are righteous because we no longer commit willful sin that would make us unrighteous. When we do not commit sin, it is because the Holy Spirit has changed our desires from sin to righteousness due to our new divine nature. 2 Peter 2.

Because he was still human. Because the flesh is constantly at war with the Spirit, and forever will be until we are with Christ in glory. We should make constant effort to weed out any and all sin in our lives, and should learn more and more to be like Christ.

Here again you think the power to learn is all us. Our works. NO! It comes naturally from our divine nature given to us by Jesus the giver of this grace/power.
 
Last edited:

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So, you've called me stupid AND slandered my name... that's 2 sins.

Yes, and I'm sorry. I am against all doctrines of demons, not just Calvinism, and frustrated that none of the followers have ever learned to read Scripture in context. That is just plain dumb. We have to know the meaning of the words of the Author. And you cannot do that without context. I judge the teachers of false doctrine, but we are still accountable to check what they say for accuracy.
 
Last edited:

Willie T

Heaven Sent
Staff member
Sep 14, 2017
5,869
7,426
113
St. Petersburg Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Several pages back, I mentioned that John Calvin seems to have had an affinity for using the word, "Absurd" (or some variation thereof), when talking about others and their ideas (He usually referred to them as enemies or opponents). Well, I got to thinking that I may have been a little hard on him, so I did an actual "word count" of the times he used that word in The Institutes. It was 286 times.

BTW, I also thought I would include another "section" he wrote just for you people who have not yet had the opportunity of reading any of his work:


— When it is said that the Word was made flesh, we must not understand it as if he were either changed into flesh, or confusedly intermingled with flesh, but that he made choice of the Virgin’s womb as a temple in which he might dwell. He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For we maintain, that the divinity was so conjoined and united with the humanity, that the entire properties of each nature remain entire, and yet the two natures constitute only one Christ. If, in human affairs, any thing analogous to this great mystery can be found, the most apposite similitude 105 seems to be that of man, who obviously consists of two substances, neither of which however is so intermingled with the other as that both do not retain their own properties. For neither is soul body, nor is body soul. Wherefore that is said separately of the soul which cannot in any way apply to the body; and that, on the other hand, of the body which is altogether inapplicable to the soul; and that, again, of the whole man, which cannot be affirmed without absurdity either of the body or of the soul separately. Lastly, the properties of the…….
105 Augustine employs the same similitude, Epist. 52.​
……. soul are transferred to the body, and the properties of the body to the soul, and yet these form only one man, not more than one. Such modes of expression intimate both that there is in man one person formed of two compounds, and that these two different natures constitute one person. Thus the Scriptures speak of Christ. They sometimes attribute to him qualities which should be referred specially to his humanity and sometimes qualities applicable peculiarly to his divinity, and sometimes qualities which embrace both natures, and do not apply specially to either. This combination of a twofold nature in Christ they express so carefully, that they sometimes communicate them with each other, a figure of speech which the ancients termed ijdiwmavtwn koinoniva (a communication of properties).
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Caldwell

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Several pages back, I mentioned that John Calvin seems to have had an affinity for using the word, "Absurd" (or some variation thereof), when talking about others and their ideas (He usually referred to them as enemies or opponents). Well, I got to thinking that I may have been a little hard on him, so I did an actual "word count" of the times he used that word in The Institutes. It was 286 times.

BTW, I also thought I would include another "section" he wrote just for you people who have not yet had the opportunity of reading any of his work:


— When it is said that the Word was made flesh, we must not understand it as if he were either changed into flesh, or confusedly intermingled with flesh, but that he made choice of the Virgin’s womb as a temple in which he might dwell. He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For we maintain, that the divinity was so conjoined and united with the humanity, that the entire properties of each nature remain entire, and yet the two natures constitute only one Christ. If, in human affairs, any thing analogous to this great mystery can be found, the most apposite similitude 105 seems to be that of man, who obviously consists of two substances, neither of which however is so intermingled with the other as that both do not retain their own properties. For neither is soul body, nor is body soul. Wherefore that is said separately of the soul which cannot in any way apply to the body; and that, on the other hand, of the body which is altogether inapplicable to the soul; and that, again, of the whole man, which cannot be affirmed without absurdity either of the body or of the soul separately. Lastly, the properties of the…….
105 Augustine employs the same similitude, Epist. 52.​
……. soul are transferred to the body, and the properties of the body to the soul, and yet these form only one man, not more than one. Such modes of expression intimate both that there is in man one person formed of two compounds, and that these two different natures constitute one person. Thus the Scriptures speak of Christ. They sometimes attribute to him qualities which should be referred specially to his humanity and sometimes qualities applicable peculiarly to his divinity, and sometimes qualities which embrace both natures, and do not apply specially to either. This combination of a twofold nature in Christ they express so carefully, that they sometimes communicate them with each other, a figure of speech which the ancients termed ijdiwmavtwn koinoniva (a communication of properties).

Yes, and he would just kill those who he thought were absurd.
 

Mjh29

Well-Known Member
May 28, 2017
1,466
1,433
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That is correct, and why if someone says they don't sin when their sin nature is still intact, they are a liar, and the Truth/Spirit is not in them. Our nature must be born again from the carnal nature to the divine nature.

That is why 1 John 1:6, 8 and 10 are those who still have never been born again of the Spirit, because they have never Repented and received the Spirit/Truth.

So... are you then not of the Spirit? Because you slandered my name...
If I said that for real, I would be as dumb as a Calvinist

Which is a sin...
~ James 4:11
~ 1 Peter 2:1
~ Ephesians 4:31
~ Ephesians 4:29

You believe it ONLY freed us from the penalty of sin, rather than the nature that produces sin. Without that nature you will not break the commandments of God. It is not by our works of keeping the law.

So if I still have my sin nature [which causes me to sin] I am not a Christian?
Then you aren't a Christian, right? Because to slander is a sin, which can only come from a sin nature, which you claim only the reprobate have.

You believe it is just imputed righteousness, but we still sin because you believe we still have the sin nature. This is the MAJOR error of Calvinism that will send countless numbers to hell. We are righteous because we no longer commit willful sin that would make us unrighteous. When we do not commit sin, it is because the Holy Spirit has changed our desires from sin to righteousness due to our new divine nature. 2 Peter 2.

Again, are you saying that YOU don't have this "divine nature" yourself? Because you slandered my name, which is a total sin; provable from the Scriptures.

How am I supposed to try and take this seriously [believe me, I am trying] when you blatantly sinned by slandering my name, and then turn around and say you don't sin anymore!!
 

Waiting on him

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2018
11,674
6,096
113
56
North America
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Then why does He count himself still with them by saying "we" and "us"? It still makes not sense! Here's why;

He is talking about himself in the present tense, not the past tense in Romans 7:19.

Romans 7:19 -- For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

This is what the verse actually says. Here's what you're saying it says:

For the good that I would I did not: but the evil which I would not, that I did.

Paul speaks in the present tense when he is writing this, admitting to his sins. Because that's what Christians do; admit their sins. Not pretend they don't exist.

The problem is not the word I as you claim, but rather the present tense in which he speaks clearly in Romans 7, which you insist is in the past tense.

I could fire back with some sideways snide remark about your beliefs, but I won't. I refuse to stoop to name calling to "win" an argument. I make sure that what I believe is back up by Scripture, not ridicule.

[PS Isn't slandering someone's name a sin? But I'm sure that was just a mistake.]
Maybe it was unintentional, in that case wouldn’t it not count?
 

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So... are you then not of the Spirit? Because you slandered my name...


Which is a sin...
~ James 4:11
~ 1 Peter 2:1
~ Ephesians 4:31
~ Ephesians 4:29



So if I still have my sin nature [which causes me to sin] I am not a Christian?
Then you aren't a Christian, right? Because to slander is a sin, which can only come from a sin nature, which you claim only the reprobate have.



Again, are you saying that YOU don't have this "divine nature" yourself? Because you slandered my name, which is a total sin; provable from the Scriptures.

How am I supposed to try and take this seriously [believe me, I am trying] when you blatantly sinned by slandering my name, and then turn around and say you don't sin anymore!!

It would have to be a lie to slander. I don't lie. But you do about what Jesus accomplished, but just don't know any better because that is what Calvinism teaches.
 

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is a lie [sin]. Calvin many times called people "absurd" in his Institutes, and yet did not kill a single one of them.

Plus, this is bearing false witness [sin]

He did have someone killed because they didn't believe what he taught. Willie knows. But I'm sure that information is not uncovered in your church.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Caldwell

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,480
31,620
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
God gives us what we need. In the wilderness it was not a land flowing with milk and honey. God provided their food. "I have never seen the righteous go hungry."
In the wilderness there was no self help available so God provided the necessary food. In Promised Land people had to plant and harvest their own crops in order to survive. That physical food was a type of the spiritual food today.... which is the flesh and blood of Jesus which we are to consume. His flesh is the scripture which we read or hear. His blood is the Holy Spirit which quickens what we have eaten bringing it to Life. If we stop this necessary nourishment of the new man we will stunt our own growth and the end result will be spiritual death.

Of course there are people who presume that God will provide it all, but they need to come out of the wilderness. Most of those in the wilderness died before time to enter into the Promised Land. Can we follow the example of Caleb and Joshua?
 

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,480
31,620
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
"It is finished" (John 19.30).
For Jesus personally it was finished indeed. He was ready to die. Are we? Only if we lean on Jesus continually will he be the finisher of our faith. We must hold to Him by faith until He has finished also the work in us:

"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." Heb 12:2