Calvinism is a Cult

[SovereignGrace]

To all who have read and participated and to those who have read and have not...

Go back and read this thread and see who have approached this through God centered theology and those who have approached this through meology. We have defended God(not that He needs defended, but we still defend Him) and His right to do as He pleases with His creation. Then look at those who have defended self and their mythical free will. Its easily to glean it is us, the Calvinists, who have came into this thread to defend God, while the other side defends themselves and their right to this mythical free will.

Unless God meets their self-righteous demands, they will never bow to Him. Unless He agrees with them on everything, He is not worthy of their praise and worship. They are the potter and He is the clay and when they find something about Him they do not like, they mold Him into the god they wish to serve.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

If they have a god that agrees with them on everything then their god is the person looking at them in their mirror every morning.

 

[SovereignGrace]

If they have a god that agrees with them on everything then their god is the person looking at them in their mirror every morning.

If that's the case, mine is overweight and loves doughnuts and coffee.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

If that's the case, mine is overweight and loves doughnuts and coffee.

No worries, the leftists will ban both eventually.

 

[SovereignGrace]

No worries, the leftists will ban both eventually.

Doughnuts and coffee banishment?

Say it ain’t so Joe, and stuff.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Doughnuts and coffee banishment?

Say it ain’t so Joe, and stuff.

They plan on having humans grazing like cattle, then they'll kill all of us for farting just like they do the cattle.

Of course they'll be eating ribeyes from their non-farting cattle.

 

[SovereignGrace]

They plan on having humans grazing like cattle,

Worked for Nebuchadnezzar.















And stuff

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

@Lady Crosstalk Let's look at some places where God has actually killed ppl...

But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was evil in the sight of the LORD, so the LORD took his life.[Genesis 38:7] God killed Er, not because he was innocent, but evil. Then Onan was killed because he was told to lay with Er's widow and have children in Er's stead. When he wasted his seed on the ground, God killed him. Not innocent here either.

Then Achan goes against God's decree and takes things from Jericho they were forbidden to take. God then has the ppl stone him and his whole family. Hardly innocent.[Joshua 7]

Ananias and Sapphira both lie to the Holy Spirit and are killed.[Acts 5]

Then Herod gave a speech and when the ppl said he sounded like God, worms devoured him.[Acts of the Apostles 12]

Korah, Dathan, and Abiram confront Moses and then all these were swallowed up under the ground.[Numbers 16]

None of these were innocent ppl.

I didn't say they were. You are twisting things around. In order to save your immoral argument that babies are guilty of sin, you are pointing to actual incidents where God judged the guilty and think that supports your point? Show me in Scripture where it says that babies are guilty of anything. I already pointed you to the Romans 9:11 passage which acknowledges that babies do neither good nor bad (which you did not address, by the way). If you must have guilty babies in order to save your theology, then perhaps it is your theodicy that needs some work.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I didn't say they were. You are twisting things around. In order to save your immoral argument that babies are guilty of sin, you are pointing to actual incidents where God judged the guilty and think that supports your point? Show me in Scripture where it says that babies are guilty of anything. I already pointed you to the Romans 9:11 passage which acknowledges that babies do neither good nor bad (which you did not address, by the way). If you must have guilty babies in order to save your theology, then perhaps it is your theodicy that needs some work.

The onus is on you my Sister. You said God kills innocent ppl. That was you that imported it into this conversation. Now it’s up to you to support your statement via scripture. I have shown you the errors of your statement by showing you that you are misrepresenting the scriptures you use for proof.

The Bible clearly states the wages of sin is death.[Romans 6:23] The Bible clearly states all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.[Romans 3:23]

David said he never saw the righteous forsaken, neither begging for food. We know this to be true. So, if God never forsakes the righteous, why would He kill innocent ppl who are righteous?

You are putting sin on God, because if He killed even one innocent person, it’s murder, and murder is sin. If a jury convicted a known innocent person, there would (rightly) be a huge public uproar. Why? Someone was falsely condemned. If God killed an innocent person, then He is no longer righteous.

As Paul wrote What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be![Romans 9:14]

The biggest injustice is to murder someone, but you say God can violate His own nature and do it.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I didn't say they were. You are twisting things around. In order to save your immoral argument that babies are guilty of sin, you are pointing to actual incidents where God judged the guilty and think that supports your point? Show me in Scripture where it says that babies are guilty of anything. I already pointed you to the Romans 9:11 passage which acknowledges that babies do neither good nor bad (which you did not address, by the way). If you must have guilty babies in order to save your theology, then perhaps it is your theodicy that needs some work.

When the Christ stood before His Father, He stood in the place of sinners, as a sinner. He never sinned once, but was reckoned a sinner. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.[2 Corinthians 5:21] He was not a sinner, yet when He was imputed our sins, He was treated as a sinner. Now, all who are saved, even though they are sinners, stand justified before the Father via the imputed righteousness of the Christ.

Babies are born with Adam’s sin imputed unto them. Just as the Christ was reckoned a sinner, though He never sinned even once, babies are reckoned as sinners, even though they have never sinned.

 

[Vince]

It is clear from reading much of this thread that Christians cannot agree on even how we are saved. Wouldn't god clear this up somehow? It seems to be the most important thing ever.

 

[SovereignGrace]

It is clear from reading much of this thread that Christians cannot agree on even how we are saved. Wouldn't god clear this up somehow? It seems to be the most important thing ever.

God has cleared it up. Faith and repentance are what saves. No faith and repentance, you’re condemned already.

“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”[Mark 1:15]

 

[Vince]

God has cleared it up. Faith and repentance are what saves. No faith and repentance, you’re condemned already.

“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”[Mark 1:15]

Other Christians use other verses to say repentance is not required, or god saves everyone or ..... The reason that sincere Christians come to different conclusions about salvation is because the bible is not clear. An example is this thread.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

It is clear from reading much of this thread that Christians cannot agree on even how we are saved. Wouldn't god clear this up somehow? It seems to be the most important thing ever.

You've been thoroughly answered in your own thread on this topic. Apparently you don't want answers, you want to make pretense, quarrel, and play coy.

God gave his Gospel and we've show it clearly. There have been and always will be false gospels. That said your point is moot and irrelevant.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Other Christians use other verses to say repentance is not required, or god saves everyone or ..... The reason that sincere Christians come to different conclusions about salvation is because the bible is not clear. An example is this thread.

The Bible is clear, just some handle it poorly. Faith and repentance are very necessary. Without them, none can be saved.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

God has cleared it up. Faith and repentance are what saves. No faith and repentance, you’re condemned already.

“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”[Mark 1:15]

He's been clearly answered bro. He, like others, will not accept he's been refuted and that his topic is bogus. It's his way of sowing discord, ridicule and division. He thinks he's found some "gotcha" question.

He also claims he was Reformed, yet doesn't know the position, and says he's listened to numerous James White debates but can't answer very simple theological questions.

 

[Vince]

You've been thoroughly answered in your own thread on this topic. Apparently you don't want answers, you want to make pretense, quarrel, and play coy.

God gave his Gospel and we've show it clearly. There have been and always will be false gospels. That said your point is moot and irrelevant.

I think the fact that Christians cannot agree on the fundamentals of salvation is relevant. Doesn't it affect the eternal life of everyone on the planet? You say you have shown the gospel clearly yet I can go to other gospels on this site that have very different ways you are saved. I just hope you picked the correct one.

 

[Vince]

The Bible is clear, just some handle it poorly. Faith and repentance are very necessary. Without them, none can be saved.

Can you clearly lay it out then?

 

[Vince]

He's been clearly answered bro. He, like others, will not accept he's been refuted and that his topic is bogus. It's his way of sowing discord, ridicule and division. He thinks he's found some "gotcha" question.

He also claims he was Reformed, yet doesn't know the position, and says he's listened to numerous James White debates but can't answer very simple theological questions.

You like others here must ridicule and call other liars to maintain your theology in tact. Its not a gotcha question but a reasonable question based on the difference of opinion shown on this thread.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

When the Christ stood before His Father, He stood in the place of sinners, as a sinner. He never sinned once, but was reckoned a sinner. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.[2 Corinthians 5:21] He was not a sinner, yet when He was imputed our sins, He was treated as a sinner. Now, all who are saved, even though they are sinners, stand justified before the Father via the imputed righteousness of the Christ.

Babies are born with Adam’s sin imputed unto them. Just as the Christ was reckoned a sinner, though He never sinned even once, babies are reckoned as sinners, even though they have never sinned.

And NOW, you compound your error with the insistence that babies are "imputed" with Adam's sin, as was Christ??! How is that not justifying the crucifixion of Christ all over again (since babies die every day)? And how does that not fly in the face of Ezekiel 18:4? I don't know who your god is, but it is not the God I find in Scripture. Can you honestly say that Jesus would teach such a thing? Please stop calling me, "my sister" as if it were the evidence of your piety. I expect that you don't consider me your sister at all, either in Christ or in any other way since you and your cohorts say that you are praying for the "conversion" of non-Calvinists. That's the problem with you Calvinists, you think that you are in some exclusive intellectual club. You have elevated yourselves to the "elect", and you think you are incapable of misrepresenting God. Anyone who takes the murderer, John Calvin as their spiritual leader has rocks in his/her head and heart.