Calvinism

[reformed1689]

I did not mean exactly 500 years ago, but in the 16th century. Sorry you found the statement confusing.

But even if I did mean Calvinism began exactly 500 years ago that would not be ad hominem.

John don't be an idiot, though I'm wondering if you even have that capacity, it did not start in the 16th Century. WELL before that.

That being said, the ad hominem was accusing Calvinists of not bringing Bibles to a theological debate.

As far as BB it's not inappropriate. You are a snake there and you are one here too.

 

[Giuliano]

You are kidding right?
1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ro 1:1.

You really think Calvinism started 500 years ago? That just shows ignorance. Ad hominem is the name of your game. Your true colors are showing John just like at BB.

That doesn't say he was "saved" already. That says he was "called." Try again.

 

[John Caldwell]

That's not what I said. Apparently you are the one who is not attentive. You said Calvinists...etc... I am a Calvinist by your definition and I have never posted a meme or gif (quite frankly I can't stand them).

See above.

Do not be childish. You do not represent all Calvinists.

Here is your reference, kid. You did say "good theology", do I guess technically you could mean Calvinism is bad theology....but then we'd agree.

That's not how good theology works. With that mindset you shouldn't believe in the Trinity either.

 

[John Caldwell]

John don't be an idiot, though I'm wondering if you even have that capacity, it did not start in the 16th Century. WELL before that.

That being said, the ad hominem was accusing Calvinists of not bringing Bibles to a theological debate.

As far as BB it's not inappropriate. You are a snake there and you are one here too.

You can imagine it did, but prior to Calvin there is no evidence. And even here it is not TULIP Calvinism.

I know you believe I am a snake because I disagree with you. If you felt otherwise I would be offended. There should always be enmity between your philosophy and the Church.

 

[Giuliano]

Open your Bible to A.W. Pink chapter 3.....

I doubt any of the Calvinists here advocate bringing Bibles to a theology fight. You risk knocking down the house of cards they've been building for 500 years.

It does astonish me at times.

 

[reformed1689]

Do not be childish. You do not represent all Calvinists.

No, but you lumped all Calvinists into one statement.

Here is your reference, kid. You did say "good theology", do I guess technically you could mean Calvinism is bad theology....but then we'd agree.

I am not a kid and you are not my dad so I am definitely not your kid. so you don't get to call me that. And what does good theology and my statement have to do with anything. You are a deceiver John. You don't know the Bible like you think you do. You twist, deceive, distort, lie, and goodness knows what else.

 

[reformed1689]

You can imagine it did, but prior to Calvin there is no evidence. And even here it is not TULIP Calvinism.

It's in Scripture so it started then.

I know you believe I am a snake because I disagree with you.

A snake would say that.

If you felt otherwise I would be offended. There should always be enmity between your philosophy and the Church.

Yeah, the Catholic Church. But not Scripture.

 

[Giuliano]

Oh brother, you are dense.

Still waiting. He never once said he was "saved." So who's being dense? Hmm?

Is insulting people the best "defense" you have when you can't back up your beliefs with Scripture? If so, perhaps you could find better beliefs.

Isaiah 5:21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

 

[reformed1689]

Still waiting. He never once said he was "saved." So who's being dense? Hmm?

Is insulting people the best "defense" you have when you can't back up your beliefs with Scripture? If so, perhaps you could find better beliefs.

Isaiah 5:21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

Do you not understand that to be an apostle you had to be saved?

 

[Willie T]

Do you not understand that to be an apostle you had to be saved?

Careful there….. You just said Judas was saved.

 

[reformed1689]

Careful there….. You just said Judas was saved.

Fair enough, but it is clear from Romans Paul was already saved. Not to mention he wrote it AFTER his conversion as recorded in Acts. To say that he was not saved when he wrote this is asinine.

 

[Giuliano]

Do you not understand that to be an apostle you had to be saved?

You give me human logic not Scripture.

Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Philippians 3:12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

Shortly before he died, he wrote:

2 Timothy 4:6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.
7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:

 

[reformed1689]

You give me human logic not Scripture.

Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Philippians 3:12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

Shortly before he died, he wrote:

2 Timothy 4:6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.
7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:

Good grief, here we go. I guess you think you can lose your salvation right?

 

[Giuliano]

Fair enough, but it is clear from Romans Paul was already saved. Not to mention he wrote it AFTER his conversion as recorded in Acts. To say that he was not saved when he wrote this is asinine.

Produce the passage then where it's said. Stop insulting and produce it from the Bible.

 

[Giuliano]

Good grief, here we go. I guess you think you can lose your salvation right?

You can't lose what you don't have. I trust if I persist in faith, I will be saved; but I cannot say I have already been saved.

 

[reformed1689]

You can't lose what you don't have. I trust if I persist in faith, I will be saved; but I cannot say I have already been saved.

Wow so you have no idea of whether or not you are going to Heaven or Hell? You must live in terrific fear of death.

 

[reformed1689]

Produce the passage then where it's said. Stop insulting and produce it from the Bible.

Acts 9

 

[Giuliano]

Acts 9

The word "saved" is not to be found in Acts 9.

 

[Willie T]

Fair enough, but it is clear from Romans Paul was already saved. Not to mention he wrote it AFTER his conversion as recorded in Acts. To say that he was not saved when he wrote this is asinine.

What I am trying to point out (besides the problem with "flash-bang" answering without much thought, as fast as we can get to our keyboards ) is that if we are going to have one side of our mouths demanding SCRIPTURE!!! from people, and saying we always back-up our words with Scripture..... then we really shouldn't let the other side of that same mouth say that everyone should just "know" an accepted (assumed?) POV.

 

[reformed1689]

The word "saved" is not to be found in Acts 9.

Wow, do you really need to see the word saved? Guess what the word Trinity is not found in the Bible either.