John Calvin and Calvinism.
- Thread starter Lifelong_sinner
- Start date
-
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!
nonsense! calvin never said that. Here is what he said;
“The oldest evidence of this debate found is in Calvin’s Institutes, where Calvin condemned Servetus. He said that Servetus’ theology was so twisted that it stressed free will to the point that if you followed him, you would be forced to conclude that even infants who died were damned to hell because they were not able to exercise their will to believe in saving faith (Institutes IV, 16, p 31). In that same section, Calvin addresses John 3:36
, and argues that it points to infant salvation, as infants were not able to exercise willing unbelief, so they do could not possibly stand condemned.”
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
First, it's called Arminianism and not armenianism.
Armenians are an ethnic group native to the Armenian Highlands of Western Asia. Armenians constitute the main population of Armenia and the de facto independent Artsakh. There is a wide-ranging diaspora of around 5 million people of full or partial Armenian ancestry living outside modern Armenia.
Second, I am not surprised you find my points that are Arminian influenced to be worse. Your a Calvinist and anything to do with our free will choice involving God is offensive to you (Because that is what Calvinism has brainwashed you to believe). But take a step back a moment, and ask yourself this question: Why is God angry at the wicked every day?
For it is written:
“...God is angry with the wicked every day.” (Psalms 7:11).
So if God is angry at the wicked every day, then why doesn't God just Elect them to salvation and not be angry?
The god of Calvinism simply has anger issues that he cannot control.
But if mankind has free will and he or she can make a free will choice towards God and allow God to do the good work through them, and yet they reject that choice... then it makes sense why God is angry. God is angry that man is making the wrong choice. But with the god of Calvinism, it makes no sense why he is angry. It seems like he is the incredible Hulk when he is on one of those rampages of uncontrollable anger. That's why Calvinism is just dumb. It self implodes if you just think about it logically.
what?
What?
*confused look*
Free will? Did you pick out your own meal tonite? Did you pick out which car you drive? Seems like you have free will to me.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
nonsense! calvin never said that. Here is what he said;
“The oldest evidence of this debate found is in Calvin’s Institutes, where Calvin condemned Servetus. He said that Servetus’ theology was so twisted that it stressed free will to the point that if you followed him, you would be forced to conclude that even infants who died were damned to hell because they were not able to exercise their will to believe in saving faith (Institutes IV, 16, p 31). In that same section, Calvin addresses John 3:36
As Tweety Bird said, He don't know me really well. I posted that to call you guys out because I know just like the Jehovah's Witnesses you guys have canned responses. Of course you know if God damned people before the creation of all things the babies that died would go to hell. John Calvin did not speak of any reprieve. Here ya go....
Did Calvin teach "There are babies a span long in hell."?
Introduction:
- John Calvin mystery quote: "There are babies a span long in hell."
- This specific quote has been attributed to Calvin but is undocumented.
- There is enough history for us to judge that Calvin indeed did both teach and say this, even if it has passed down to the present in oral tradition.
- The Calvinists were accused of teaching this as far back as the 1600's.
- Inconsistent Calvinists will teach election, predestination and irresistible grace, but that no newborns go to hell.
- They rationalize predestination and no babies in hell by asserting that only elect babies die. This ridiculous doctrine also teaches that unelect babies never die and go to hell, they must wait till they are 3 - 15 years old before they can go to hell.
- Some can teach this because they realize the words of Christ prevent it, while ignoring the obvious conclusions of their doctrine.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
There are Calvinists who believe that you can make free will choices that is not related to choosing God. But there are Calvinists (High Calvinists) who believe God ordains evil in this world. Piper is one Calvinist who believes God ordains evil.
Piper and Olson: Does God Ordain All Sinful Human Choices?
But generally speaking: Calvinists tend to agree that man cannot make a choice in regards to choosing God and it is God who regenerates man in order to believe and choose God. It's why it's called UNconditional Election. It's because God is choosing people not based on any conditions found within the individual. They claim that this glorifies God, but it really doesn't.
When looking at the five points of Calvinism: It's easy to come away thinking Determinism.
While the tent is big in Calvinism with a wide variety of different beliefs (with there being three point Calvinists or four point Calvinists, etcetera), the point here is to deal with where Calvinism came from in the first place (Which is by a murderous man named John Calvin). That is what this thread is talking about. John Calvin and his beliefs (i.e. his false beliefs).
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
I talked with a Calvinist at my work and he told me that babies who die go to hell.
I have talked with Calvinists online who also have stated this to me, as well.
This simply is monstrous at best and they have turned off their moral compass to not see basic morality. Calvinism is turning men into thinking like sociopaths.
One definition for a sociopath is that they are a person whose behavior lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. This is the problem with Calvinism. When confronted with the moral problems found within Calvinism, they just say that is how things are. This is greatly disturbing because Jesus wept, and loved people. That's not the impression I get from Calvinism. It's a cold heart religion far removed from a basic reading of the gospels and Paul's letters on God's love and grace.
I have talked with Calvinists online who also have stated this to me, as well.
This simply is monstrous at best and they have turned off their moral compass to not see basic morality. Calvinism is turning men into thinking like sociopaths.
One definition for a sociopath is that they are a person whose behavior lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. This is the problem with Calvinism. When confronted with the moral problems found within Calvinism, they just say that is how things are. This is greatly disturbing because Jesus wept, and loved people. That's not the impression I get from Calvinism. It's a cold heart religion far removed from a basic reading of the gospels and Paul's letters on God's love and grace.
Last edited:
That does not address the issue of the fact that God wanted all Israel to be saved. That simply shows that it is only by obedience to the Gospel that either Jew or Gentile is saved.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Read Acts of the Apostles 15:1, Acts of the Apostles 15:5, and Acts of the Apostles 15:24.
Then read Galatians 5:2.
When you do, please get back to me in what you think those verses say.
In other words, please tell me what you think each of those verses are telling us.
The Law of sin and death is the 613 Laws of Moses. One could be stoned (death) if they did not keep certain laws within the law of Moses. In Romans 8:2 the law of sin and death is referring to the entirety of the 613 Laws of Moses as a package deal. The false belief of circumcision for initial salvation was one background reason why Paul was writing to the various Gentile churches. Paul did not want the Jews to to deceive any of his fellow brethren into thinking they had to first be circumcised in order to be saved or how they must keep ALL of the 613 laws of Moses (Which was a heresy that was being warned about at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15).
You said:
I have deeply poured over Romans 7 many times.
Here is one of my previous write ups (that fleshes out more the writing of another).
In Defending the true meaning of Romans 7:
Peter says this about Paul's writings,
"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16).
In Romans 7:1-6, Paul is telling Messianic Christians (i.e. those brethren who know Old Testament Law - Romans 7:1) that the Old Law is dead and that they should serve in newness of Spirit (i.e. the New Testament Scriptures that were still being formed) and not in oldness of the letter (i.e. the Torah, etc.). This makes sense because Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed. This lines up with the temple veil being torn from top to bottom when Christ died (Which started the New Covenant officially). The Old Testament Laws on animal sacrifices was no longer in effect anymore and Jesus Christ was now our passover Lamb or perfect sacrifice. Hence, why Romans 7:2 says, "if the husband [i.e. Jesus] be dead, she [i.e. the body of believers] is loosed from the law [i.e. the Old Law] of her husband."
In Romans 7:7-13, Paul is recounting Israelite history and speaking as a Jew throughout time with the coming in of the Law of Moses and what that was like.
In Romans 7:14-24, Paul is recounting his experience as a Pharisee before he became a Christian. Paul (Saul) is describing his experience of what it is like to struggle in keeping the Old Covenant Law that did not include Jesus Christ.
It is true that the use of first-person present verbs in the passage (“I am” “I practice” “I want” “I hate” “I do”) sounds like Paul is talking about his present experience. But Paul sometimes uses “I” in a rhetorical sense to describe generic experience rather than his own present experience (1 Corinthians 10:30; 1 Corinthians 13:2-3, 1 Corinthians 13:11). In at least one other place, Paul uses a first-person present verb to describe his opponents’ experience (Galatians 2:18).
Romans 7:25 is a verse that transitions back to the present day reality as Paul being a Christian. He is thankful that he now has victory in Jesus Christ His Lord who can deliver him from his body of death (Which was a problem before). Otherwise why is Paul thanking Jesus?
Paul asks the question in verse 24.
Who shall deliver me from this body of death?
I like how the Good News Translation answers this question. It says,
"Thanks be to God, who does this through our Lord Jesus Christ! This, then, is my condition: on my own I can serve God's law only with my mind, while my human nature serves the law of sin." (Romans 7:25 GNT).
The NTE says,
"...So then, left to my own self I am enslaved to God’s law with my mind, but to sin’s law with my human flesh." (Romans 7:25 NTE).
But Romans 13:14 says,
"But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof."
(Continued in next post):
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
However, if you are still in doubt, there are 8 reasons in Scripture that show us that Paul is indeed talking as a Pharisee (recounting his past experience) and he is not talking in the present tense as a Christian in Romans 7:14-24.
(Continued in next post):
(Note: Article source link for a small paragraph in this post is provided in next post).
#1. In Romans 7:6, Paul says we should serve in newness of the spirit and not the oldness of the letter (Which is the Old Law and not the New Testament Scriptures that were still being formed). We are told to SERVE. How do we serve? Do we just do our own thing? No. We follow God's commands in the New Testament. This talk of the Old Law is the context of verses 14-24.
#2. We are dead to the Law by the body of Jesus Christ (Romans 7:4). Would this be the Old Law or ALL law? 1 John 3:23 is a commandment that says we are to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. This is a New Covenant Law. So obviously we are not dead to this Law or Command. The Scriptures also say, "but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30). Are we dead to this Law? Surely not. Jesus said "repent or perish." (Luke 13:3). Peter told Simon to repent (by way of prayer to God) of his wickedness of trying to pay for the gifts of the Holy Spirit so that he may be forgiven (Acts 8:22). Sin is merely transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4). All this lets us know that men of God can break God's laws and they can be separated from GOD because of it. So surely some kind of Law of God is still in effect and has dire consequences for any person's soul who commits them. For Jesus said that if we do not forgive, we will not be forgiven by the Father (Matthew 6:15). If Jesus was talking to unbelievers, this would not make any sense. They would first need to accept Christ. So the only logical conclusion is that Jesus is talking to believers in Matthew 6:15. You do not forgive (i.e. you sin or break this law of God) and you will not be forgiven or saved. 1 John 3:15 says if you hate your brother you are like a murderer and no murderer has eternal life abiding in them. Again, you hate your brother (which can be a one time act) and you do not have eternal life. It's that simple. Also, Paul condemns circumcision several times. Galatians 5:2 is the biggest verse that condemns circumcision salvationism. Circumcision is an Old Covenant Law and it is not a New Covenant Law. Paul uses the word "law" when he speaks against circumcision. So we have to conclude that Paul is saying we are dead to the Old Covenant Law and not all Law. So again, this talk of the Old Law plays into verses 14-24.
#3. Paul says, "For without the law sin was dead." (Romans 7:8). He also says, "I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." (Romans 7:9). This type of saying is nonsensical from a present tense reading as an adult Christian. The only way it sort of works is if Paul is referring to himself as a baby who had no knowledge of God's laws yet. But there are two problems with even that interpretation. One, this view does not seem as consistent with the phrase, "For without the law sin was dead" because even though Paul as a baby did not have any knowledge of the Law yet, the rest of the adult world would have the Law and sin would still be alive to them. Second, Paul says, "And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me." (Romans 7:10-11). Okay, so if Paul grew up and became aware of the Law one day, how could the commandment be ordained to life at this point in his life? The commandment was ordained for life back in the time of the Law of Moses. Also, Paul found that "the commandment" was death unto him and that it slew him. There are no death penalties attached to the commands given to us under the New Testament. Death penalties are only associated with the Laws given to us in the Old Covenant. This is how the Law slew him. For breaking the Old Law could be a loss of his own physical life. So this is talking about the Old Law (and not all Law). So again, this talk of the Old Law plays into verses 14-24.
#4. Paul says, "But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." (Romans 7:13). Okay. Let's break this down. Paul says, "But sin, that it MIGHT APPEAR SIN, works death in me." (Romans 7:13). Now, how can sin make it appear like it may not be sin? Well, if Jesus was raised and Saul (Paul) was still a Pharisee striving to obey the Old Law when the New Covenant Law was still in effect, the sin that Saul (Paul) was struggling with as a pharisee during that time would not really technically be sin in every case. For if Paul disobeyed certain Old Covenant laws while the New Covenant and it's laws were in effect, then Saul (Paul) is not really breaking any real commandments from God in every case. Hence, why Paul said, "...sin, that it MIGHT APPEAR (as) SIN." (Romans 7:13). The beginning of verse 13 is a foreshadow of what is to come in verses 14-24. Paul is stepping out for a brief moment as speaking as an Israelite living throughout history to speak of his condition as a Pharisee when he says, "...sin, that it might appear sin." In the second half of verse 13, Paul says, that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." (Romans 7:13). This is saying that when God provided the written Law of Moses to his people, there would be a double accountability to keeping God's laws because they are written for all to see now. So an Old Testament saint would feel exceedingly sinful or guilty for breaking God's law back in the Old Testament times because he had in his possession a written down visual law clearly telling him what is right and wrong. So again, Paul is referring to the Old Law here and not all law. This talk of the Old Law plays into verses 14-24.
#2. We are dead to the Law by the body of Jesus Christ (Romans 7:4). Would this be the Old Law or ALL law? 1 John 3:23 is a commandment that says we are to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. This is a New Covenant Law. So obviously we are not dead to this Law or Command. The Scriptures also say, "but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30). Are we dead to this Law? Surely not. Jesus said "repent or perish." (Luke 13:3). Peter told Simon to repent (by way of prayer to God) of his wickedness of trying to pay for the gifts of the Holy Spirit so that he may be forgiven (Acts 8:22). Sin is merely transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4). All this lets us know that men of God can break God's laws and they can be separated from GOD because of it. So surely some kind of Law of God is still in effect and has dire consequences for any person's soul who commits them. For Jesus said that if we do not forgive, we will not be forgiven by the Father (Matthew 6:15). If Jesus was talking to unbelievers, this would not make any sense. They would first need to accept Christ. So the only logical conclusion is that Jesus is talking to believers in Matthew 6:15. You do not forgive (i.e. you sin or break this law of God) and you will not be forgiven or saved. 1 John 3:15 says if you hate your brother you are like a murderer and no murderer has eternal life abiding in them. Again, you hate your brother (which can be a one time act) and you do not have eternal life. It's that simple. Also, Paul condemns circumcision several times. Galatians 5:2 is the biggest verse that condemns circumcision salvationism. Circumcision is an Old Covenant Law and it is not a New Covenant Law. Paul uses the word "law" when he speaks against circumcision. So we have to conclude that Paul is saying we are dead to the Old Covenant Law and not all Law. So again, this talk of the Old Law plays into verses 14-24.
#3. Paul says, "For without the law sin was dead." (Romans 7:8). He also says, "I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." (Romans 7:9). This type of saying is nonsensical from a present tense reading as an adult Christian. The only way it sort of works is if Paul is referring to himself as a baby who had no knowledge of God's laws yet. But there are two problems with even that interpretation. One, this view does not seem as consistent with the phrase, "For without the law sin was dead" because even though Paul as a baby did not have any knowledge of the Law yet, the rest of the adult world would have the Law and sin would still be alive to them. Second, Paul says, "And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me." (Romans 7:10-11). Okay, so if Paul grew up and became aware of the Law one day, how could the commandment be ordained to life at this point in his life? The commandment was ordained for life back in the time of the Law of Moses. Also, Paul found that "the commandment" was death unto him and that it slew him. There are no death penalties attached to the commands given to us under the New Testament. Death penalties are only associated with the Laws given to us in the Old Covenant. This is how the Law slew him. For breaking the Old Law could be a loss of his own physical life. So this is talking about the Old Law (and not all Law). So again, this talk of the Old Law plays into verses 14-24.
#4. Paul says, "But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." (Romans 7:13). Okay. Let's break this down. Paul says, "But sin, that it MIGHT APPEAR SIN, works death in me." (Romans 7:13). Now, how can sin make it appear like it may not be sin? Well, if Jesus was raised and Saul (Paul) was still a Pharisee striving to obey the Old Law when the New Covenant Law was still in effect, the sin that Saul (Paul) was struggling with as a pharisee during that time would not really technically be sin in every case. For if Paul disobeyed certain Old Covenant laws while the New Covenant and it's laws were in effect, then Saul (Paul) is not really breaking any real commandments from God in every case. Hence, why Paul said, "...sin, that it MIGHT APPEAR (as) SIN." (Romans 7:13). The beginning of verse 13 is a foreshadow of what is to come in verses 14-24. Paul is stepping out for a brief moment as speaking as an Israelite living throughout history to speak of his condition as a Pharisee when he says, "...sin, that it might appear sin." In the second half of verse 13, Paul says, that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." (Romans 7:13). This is saying that when God provided the written Law of Moses to his people, there would be a double accountability to keeping God's laws because they are written for all to see now. So an Old Testament saint would feel exceedingly sinful or guilty for breaking God's law back in the Old Testament times because he had in his possession a written down visual law clearly telling him what is right and wrong. So again, Paul is referring to the Old Law here and not all law. This talk of the Old Law plays into verses 14-24.
(Continued in next post):
(Note: Article source link for a small paragraph in this post is provided in next post).
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
#5. Paul says in Romans 7:14 that he is carnal and is sold under sin; And yet in Romans 8:2, Pauls says he is free from sin. So unless Paul is contradicting himself, he is talking from two different perspectives.
#6. In Romans 7:25, Paul asks the question: "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Asking this kind of question as a Christian does not seem consistent with Paul's following statement if he is already delivered thru Jesus Christ as a Christian. If a believer is delivered by Jesus, and is thankful of that fact, there would be no cry to ask any question that says, "Who shall deliver me from this body of death?"
#7. Here is the final nail in the coffin for this argument. Romans 8:3-4 says,
3 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:3-4).
So which Law did God send His Son for so as to condemn sin in the flesh?
It was the Old Covenant Law.
For when Jesus died on the cross, the temple veil was ripped from top to bottom letting us know that the Old Testament laws were no longer valid because the Old Laws on the animal sacrifices and the priesthood were no longer acceptable.
Jesus Christ was now our Passover Lamb.
Jesus Christ was soon be our Heavenly High Priest (after He ascended to His father after His resurrection 3 days later) so He can be our mediator between God the Father and man.
Romans 8:4 says, "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
This is saying that the righteous part or aspect of the Old Law can be fulfilled in us.
Paul says elsewhere,
8 "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
(Romans 13:8-10).
So loving your neighbor is the righteousness of the Old Law!
We fulfill this law by walking after the Spirit and not after the flesh (i.e. sin).
So we see a consistent theme here. The word "law" used in general (with no actual description attached to it) is in reference to the Old Law in Romans 7 and Romans 8. This helps us to understand that Paul is telling us his past experience or life as a Pharisee in struggling to keep the Old Law unsuccessfully because he did not have Jesus Christ yet (in verses 14-24).
#8. In addition, in Romans 8:2, we see the mention of how there are TWO laws. We also learn from this verse that keeping one of these Laws helps us to be set FREE from the other one.
In Romans 8:2, we see:
Law #1. - Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.
This is a New Covenant Law that we are still under. What is this Law?
It is fulfilling the righteousness of the Law (i.e. to love your neighbor - Romans 13:8-10) by walking after the Spirit (See Romans 8:3-4).
Law #2. Sin and Death.
This is in reference to the Old Covenant Law as a whole (i.e. the 613 Old Testament Commands within the Torah). It is called the Law of Sin and Death because you could physically be put to death by not obeying this Law.
What is the relationship of these two laws in Romans 8:2?
Keeping the New Law helps us to be free of the Old Law.
For there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus who WALK not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:1).
#6. In Romans 7:25, Paul asks the question: "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Asking this kind of question as a Christian does not seem consistent with Paul's following statement if he is already delivered thru Jesus Christ as a Christian. If a believer is delivered by Jesus, and is thankful of that fact, there would be no cry to ask any question that says, "Who shall deliver me from this body of death?"
#7. Here is the final nail in the coffin for this argument. Romans 8:3-4 says,
3 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:3-4).
So which Law did God send His Son for so as to condemn sin in the flesh?
It was the Old Covenant Law.
For when Jesus died on the cross, the temple veil was ripped from top to bottom letting us know that the Old Testament laws were no longer valid because the Old Laws on the animal sacrifices and the priesthood were no longer acceptable.
Jesus Christ was now our Passover Lamb.
Jesus Christ was soon be our Heavenly High Priest (after He ascended to His father after His resurrection 3 days later) so He can be our mediator between God the Father and man.
Romans 8:4 says, "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
This is saying that the righteous part or aspect of the Old Law can be fulfilled in us.
Paul says elsewhere,
8 "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
(Romans 13:8-10).
So loving your neighbor is the righteousness of the Old Law!
We fulfill this law by walking after the Spirit and not after the flesh (i.e. sin).
So we see a consistent theme here. The word "law" used in general (with no actual description attached to it) is in reference to the Old Law in Romans 7 and Romans 8. This helps us to understand that Paul is telling us his past experience or life as a Pharisee in struggling to keep the Old Law unsuccessfully because he did not have Jesus Christ yet (in verses 14-24).
#8. In addition, in Romans 8:2, we see the mention of how there are TWO laws. We also learn from this verse that keeping one of these Laws helps us to be set FREE from the other one.
In Romans 8:2, we see:
Law #1. - Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.
This is a New Covenant Law that we are still under. What is this Law?
It is fulfilling the righteousness of the Law (i.e. to love your neighbor - Romans 13:8-10) by walking after the Spirit (See Romans 8:3-4).
Law #2. Sin and Death.
This is in reference to the Old Covenant Law as a whole (i.e. the 613 Old Testament Commands within the Torah). It is called the Law of Sin and Death because you could physically be put to death by not obeying this Law.
What is the relationship of these two laws in Romans 8:2?
Keeping the New Law helps us to be free of the Old Law.
For there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus who WALK not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:1).
Source used for a small paragraph within this write up:
Paul is not Talking about Himself: Why I take the "pre-Christian" Reading of Romans 7:14-25
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
But this does not sound like Calvin's UNconditional Election. According to UNconditional Election, the god of Calvinism elects to salvation based on no conditions found within the individual. So in the bizarro world of Calvinism: Future foreknowledge does not play a part in God's decision in election. According to the god of Calvinism (described by a pure 5 point Calvinist), he elects based not on anything they would do so he gets all the glory. So knowing the end from the beginning really does not factor into the equation within Calvinism. Time has no real purpose involving Election.
But in real election according to how the Bible describes it: Foreknowledge is a key component. 1 Peter 1:1-2 says that believers are elected according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. Meaning, God elects based on what he will see that they will do of their own free will in the future (i.e. their positive response). So God's election is based on his future foreknowledge. He can state something to be true before it happens.
As for Jesus drawing all men unto Himself:
Well, many are called, but few are chosen. Why would God bother to call many if only a few are chosen? This means that salvation is conditional. God calls many to salvation, but only a few are chosen in that they choose of their own free will to respond and abide with Him in faithfulness their whole lives.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
My Bible says draw and not drag.
John 6:44-45
44 “No man can come to me,
except the Father which hath sent me draw him:
and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God.
Every man therefore that hath heard,
and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”
except the Father which hath sent me draw him:
and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God.
Every man therefore that hath heard,
and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”
John 6:44 is saying that no man can come to GOD on their own terms. Meaning if they disobey God's Word or the Scriptures, then GOD is not going to abide in their life and they are not going to have a relationship with GOD in order to be guided by GOD.
John 6:45 is referring to the Jew who has HEARD and LEARNED of the Father (Suggesting that they have a relationship with GOD) so as to be guided by GOD to come to Jesus. They are guided or drawn by GOD to come to Jesus because they have a relationship with GOD the Father. Without this relationship, they cannot be drawn or guided by GOD.
It's that simple.
Having GOD in your life means you get the benefits (like being drawn, illuminated, etc.). How does one have GOD and or Jesus in their life? Jesus says if you keep my commandments, the Father and Jesus will make their home or abode in you (See: John 14:23). One of these commands is to believe on Jesus Christ (1 John 3:23).
Does it make any sense for GOD to command you to believe in Him if GOD is the One who makes a person to believe? Why give us a commandment if it is GOD who ultimately forces us to believe? It makes no sense. God gives us commands because we have a free will choice to either obey His commands or disobey them. For if a Robot was programmed to do a certain function and yet I commanded the robot to do what it was already programmed to do, it would be kind of pointless.
That's why Calvinism and or beliefs with Calvinistic leanings is crazier than a bag of cats.
You said:
Jesus is the source of salvation (1 John 5:12).
Jesus (Who is salvation) only abides or lives in us if we are keeping His commandments.
1 John 2:3-4
“And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”
This again proves Salvation is conditional and not forced upon a person. John does not speak in any Calvinist terms here. He says if we confess our sins (1 John 1:9). He says if walk in the light (1 John 1:7). John tells believers to “sin not.” (1 John 2:1). Just as Jesus told us to “sin no more” to two people (John 5:14, John 8:11). Why would Jesus need to tell them anything if they were Elect? They would just obey God, right?
Anyways, we are told not to sin because believers who do iniquity will be cast out at the Lord's Judgment by Christ's angels.
Read Matthew 13:41-42.
When you do read this passage very slowly, please get back to me in what you think it says.
Side Note:
It's God will for us to live holy.
1 Thessalonians 4:3 (NLT)
“God’s will is for you to be holy, so stay away from all sexual sin.”
Why does God not drag you to live a holy life?
Is that not God's will?
This is why Calvinism fails yet again.
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
I think if you hold to the 5 points of Calvinism, it's pretty safe to say you are a Calvinist even if you don't accept everything else they teach or if you don't even go to their church, etcetera (or you don't believe or approve of everything John Calvin said or did). If I was a 5 point Arminian, I would say I was an Arminian even if I did not hold to everything Jacobus Arminius taught.
You are the second Calvinist to misspell the word Arminian.
Armenians are an ethnic group native to the Armenian Highlands of Western Asia. Armenians constitute the main population of Armenia and the de facto independent Artsakh. There is a wide-ranging diaspora of around 5 million people of full or partial Armenian ancestry living outside modern Armenia.
You could say I am a 1 point Arminian. One of my points appears to agree with one of the points in Arminianism. The other four points differ.
Here are the Original 5 Articles (or Points) of Traditional Arminianism:
- Conditional Election.
- Unlimited Atonement.
- Total Depravity.
- Prevenient Grace.
- Conditional Preservation of the Saints.
I believe in something close to this.
Here are my points (that are similar to Arminianism):
#1. Conditional Election (Based upon God’s Foreknowledge).
#2. Conditional Salvation.
#3. Unrestricted Initial Drawing(s) & Illumination(s) by God For Majority; A.K.A. Free Will Involving One’s Choice Towards the Lord, Grace, or Salvation (Note: Christ draws all men unto Himself, and God is not willing that any should perish.) (Note: All men are given an opportunity or opportunities by God to understand the "Offer of the Love of the Truth" so that they are able to receive it, or reject it of their own free will. - See: 2 Thessalonians 2:10.).
#4. Provisional Majority Atonement (Based upon God’s Foreknowledge).
#5. Partial Depravity.
Note: My Arminian influenced points on my list above when rearranged spells CCUPP.#2. Conditional Salvation.
#3. Unrestricted Initial Drawing(s) & Illumination(s) by God For Majority; A.K.A. Free Will Involving One’s Choice Towards the Lord, Grace, or Salvation (Note: Christ draws all men unto Himself, and God is not willing that any should perish.) (Note: All men are given an opportunity or opportunities by God to understand the "Offer of the Love of the Truth" so that they are able to receive it, or reject it of their own free will. - See: 2 Thessalonians 2:10.).
#4. Provisional Majority Atonement (Based upon God’s Foreknowledge).
#5. Partial Depravity.
If I held to all five points of Arminianism, I would say that I am an Arminian (even if I did not believe everything else taught by Jacob Arminius).
You said:
There are Calvinists who are King James Only like myself. Will Kinney is one such individual. I like his writings in defense of the King James Bible over Modern Translations. But it's unfortunate he holds to Calvinism (Which to me is an exceptional wrong view about God, and salvation). I have came up with 101 reasons why the King James Bible is the pure Word of God for today, but I do use and encourage others to also compare it with Modern Translations.
You said:
There is a difference between holding to a particular belief held by another vs. holding to their main tenets or core belief system (like say the five points of Calvinism). If one holds to the 5 points of Calvinism, I think that makes them a Calvinist because that is the core tenets of Calvinism.
You said:
Provisional Atonement (not "Limited Atonement").
(A 100% Work of God alone that can only be applied personally to an individual's life via by being saved by God's grace and Sanctification).
This is Jesus paying the price for the sins of the entire world so as to offer mankind the free gift of salvation (if they so choose to accept it); Note: Christ's resurrection (to give us a new body not tainted by sin one day), and the ascension to the Father (after Christ telling Mary not to touch Him), and his entering the holy temple by his blood (to be our Heavenly High Priest) is also included in the Provisional Atonement, too. (For Provisional Atonement verses, see: John 1:29, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:6, 2 Corinthians 5:19, Romans 5:6-8.) (Note: The best way to describe the Provisional Atonement is like a man who paid the price to pay off your debts by his handing you a check to be debt free; But it is up to you to receive the check, deposit it into your checking account, and pay off those you are in debt to; It's a gift, but like all good gifts in life, you have to receive the gift and use it properly to be of any benefit). Jesus provided an atonement, but it is up to us to receive it to personally apply to our lives by having a proper faith. Men will remain as sinners if they reject the Provisional Atonement of Jesus Christ. Jesus provided a provisional atonement (salvation) in dealing with sin as a way of escape for mankind to be saved through accepting Him (Who is the gift).
When somebody provides a provision for you, that does not mean you will take the provision. For example: I could provide a provision of food for you to get you through the next month, but it is up to you to accept that provision. I paid the price for the food. That's what the Provisional Atonement is talking about. Christ's atonement can be personally applied to our lives if we apply the right kind of faith that God is requiring of us according to His Word (i.e. To be saved by His grace - Ephesians 2:8-9, and to live a holy life by the Spirit - 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14).
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
If Calvinism is true... Why does the devil fight to stop people from believing?
If it is impossible for some men to believe and impossible for other men to not believe, as Calvinism teaches, why do we see Satan fighting so hard to get people off track? Obviously, Satan must not be a Calvinist, as he surely believes man has a choice to make.
2 Cor. 4:4 “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”
If Calvinism is true... Why does God have to blind the eyes of some to ensure that they do not believe?
John 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
This passage quotes Isaiah 6:9-10 and shows us that God, who was angry at his people because of their wickedness, chose to blind the eyes of the people of Israel and make it impossible for them to believe. Calvinists may use this passage in an attempt to prove that God picks who can and who cannot believe, however, a closer analysis of the context reveals that if God had to blind their eyes to make it impossible for them to believe, then it must have been possible for the people to believe before this moment.
Interestingly enough, John 12 ends in the very non-Calvinistic tone of Jesus explaining that salvation is for “whosoever believeth” and that those who reject Christ and do not receive His words will stand before God and give an account for these decisions.
If Calvinism is true... Why is Jesus amazed that some people do not believe?
Mark 6:6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages,
In today’s world when a person hears the gospel and does not get saved, the common Calvinist does not marvel at all about why such a person does not believe. They simply write the person off as not being one of the “elect.” Jesus, on the other hand, apparently is not a Calvinist because he often marvels at unbelief as well as demonstrations of faith or a lack of faith.
Mark 4:39-40 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?
According to this verse in Mark, it would appear that Jesus Christ, the very Son of God, does not understand that the reason His disciples have no faith is because God has not granted it to them. Or so it would appear through the eyes of Calvinist doctrine.
For the true Bible believer, however, this passage in Mark is easy to understand. The disciples, afraid of the wind and waves, started believing more in the danger of the storm than in the saving invisible, hand of God. They made a choice to be afraid instead of choosing to trust God, and Jesus Christ noticed their lack of faith and pointed it out to them.
This was not the only time that Jesus reprimanded his disciples and others for a lack of faith. Jesus rebuked his disciples for a lack of faith in Matt. 16:8, and also rebuked Peter after his failed attempt to walk to Jesus on the water. And note how the passage regarding Peter relates to this discussion.
Matt. 14:31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
If Calvinism is true... Why is God angry at those who do not repent?
Not only does the Bible teach that God is angry at people for not believing, it also tells us that God grows angrier at those who hear the gospel and reject it.
Mark 6:11-12 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. And they went out, and preached that men should repent.
Why is God so angry at them? They obviously weren’t elected, right? And what about the following verse in Matthew where God expresses his desire that the people of Jerusalem turn to Him. Mankind must have a free will, or what else would hinder almighty God from simply gathering the people of Jerusalem by force?
If Calvinism is true... Why does God give time to repent?
Rev. 2:21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
According to this verse, it appears God gives people time to repent and do good. But why would God do this, or even say this, if the option to do good was not even available? This is akin to locking a child inside a room, waiting two hours before setting the house on fire, and then later stating, “Well, I gave the kid plenty of time to leave.”
If Calvinism is true... Why does God blot people out of the Book of Life?
Ex. 32:33 And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.
Psa. 69:28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.
Rev. 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
According to the Bible, all men have their name written in the book of life, and, as these verses show, at some point God blots out the names of those who reject God and the truth. But notice how this blotting happens after the choice of man. Does this not give credence to the fact God has given every man a chance and a choice, and that a man is not damned until he chooses to reject the truth?
Furthermore, if Calvinism is true, why do the non-elect have their name in the book in the first place? Or, why aren’t their names blotted out immediately considering they have no chance of ever being redeemed?
Article Source:
http://www.biblevslies.com/media/1638/calvinism.pdf
If it is impossible for some men to believe and impossible for other men to not believe, as Calvinism teaches, why do we see Satan fighting so hard to get people off track? Obviously, Satan must not be a Calvinist, as he surely believes man has a choice to make.
2 Cor. 4:4 “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”
If Calvinism is true... Why does God have to blind the eyes of some to ensure that they do not believe?
John 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
This passage quotes Isaiah 6:9-10 and shows us that God, who was angry at his people because of their wickedness, chose to blind the eyes of the people of Israel and make it impossible for them to believe. Calvinists may use this passage in an attempt to prove that God picks who can and who cannot believe, however, a closer analysis of the context reveals that if God had to blind their eyes to make it impossible for them to believe, then it must have been possible for the people to believe before this moment.
Interestingly enough, John 12 ends in the very non-Calvinistic tone of Jesus explaining that salvation is for “whosoever believeth” and that those who reject Christ and do not receive His words will stand before God and give an account for these decisions.
If Calvinism is true... Why is Jesus amazed that some people do not believe?
Mark 6:6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages,
In today’s world when a person hears the gospel and does not get saved, the common Calvinist does not marvel at all about why such a person does not believe. They simply write the person off as not being one of the “elect.” Jesus, on the other hand, apparently is not a Calvinist because he often marvels at unbelief as well as demonstrations of faith or a lack of faith.
Mark 4:39-40 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?
According to this verse in Mark, it would appear that Jesus Christ, the very Son of God, does not understand that the reason His disciples have no faith is because God has not granted it to them. Or so it would appear through the eyes of Calvinist doctrine.
For the true Bible believer, however, this passage in Mark is easy to understand. The disciples, afraid of the wind and waves, started believing more in the danger of the storm than in the saving invisible, hand of God. They made a choice to be afraid instead of choosing to trust God, and Jesus Christ noticed their lack of faith and pointed it out to them.
This was not the only time that Jesus reprimanded his disciples and others for a lack of faith. Jesus rebuked his disciples for a lack of faith in Matt. 16:8, and also rebuked Peter after his failed attempt to walk to Jesus on the water. And note how the passage regarding Peter relates to this discussion.
Matt. 14:31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
If Calvinism is true... Why is God angry at those who do not repent?
Not only does the Bible teach that God is angry at people for not believing, it also tells us that God grows angrier at those who hear the gospel and reject it.
Mark 6:11-12 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. And they went out, and preached that men should repent.
Why is God so angry at them? They obviously weren’t elected, right? And what about the following verse in Matthew where God expresses his desire that the people of Jerusalem turn to Him. Mankind must have a free will, or what else would hinder almighty God from simply gathering the people of Jerusalem by force?
If Calvinism is true... Why does God give time to repent?
Rev. 2:21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
According to this verse, it appears God gives people time to repent and do good. But why would God do this, or even say this, if the option to do good was not even available? This is akin to locking a child inside a room, waiting two hours before setting the house on fire, and then later stating, “Well, I gave the kid plenty of time to leave.”
If Calvinism is true... Why does God blot people out of the Book of Life?
Ex. 32:33 And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.
Psa. 69:28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.
Rev. 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
According to the Bible, all men have their name written in the book of life, and, as these verses show, at some point God blots out the names of those who reject God and the truth. But notice how this blotting happens after the choice of man. Does this not give credence to the fact God has given every man a chance and a choice, and that a man is not damned until he chooses to reject the truth?
Furthermore, if Calvinism is true, why do the non-elect have their name in the book in the first place? Or, why aren’t their names blotted out immediately considering they have no chance of ever being redeemed?
Article Source:
http://www.biblevslies.com/media/1638/calvinism.pdf
dude!! Give it a break. Calvinism is Biblical. If you dont like it, go start an arminian thread.
Johann
Well-Known Member
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.
nonsense! calvin never said that. Here is what he said;
“The oldest evidence of this debate found is in Calvin’s Institutes, where Calvin condemned Servetus. He said that Servetus’ theology was so twisted that it stressed free will to the point that if you followed him, you would be forced to conclude that even infants who died were damned to hell because they were not able to exercise their will to believe in saving faith (Institutes IV, 16, p 31). In that same section, Calvin addresses John 3:36
You bet your Calvin Hell fire he did! Infact, Servetus was so denounced by Calvin He was burned at the stake. Servetus traveled to speak to Calvin... and was murdered. A Historical Fact... Burning at the stake was outlawed by the Church after/due to the cruel nature of how they burned Servetus... Google it! Calvin is/was not whom you think... Servetus was a brilliant man and did not deserve to die by such an idiots teaching!!!
Paul
wow! You need more research. Calvin didnt burn anyone. The church/state was responsible for burning servetus, not calvin. The church had excommunicated calvin, they didnt like him either. Matter of fact, calvin warned servetus to avoid geneva.
You calvin haters are something else.
Similar threads
