The dangers of Calvinism belief - Eternal Security

Tzaousios · Jun 26, 2011

Terene said:
If you read clearly my posts, I never even actively mention the reformed theology, and thus I never actually attacked or implied anything about reformed thelogy like you say. I am debunking man made doctrines, and it doesn't matter which side it is from.

Whatever lipservice you pay towards being non-partisan, it is very clear from reading your posts that the vast majority of your criticisms and dislike goes towards Reformed theology. The record of your interaction with Nobdysfool displays this quite clearly.

Also, the notion that one has to call it "Reformed" by name in order for it to be such is ridiculous. Everyone here has easily discerned what it is you are attacking whether you use "Reformed" in a particular post or not. For all intents and purposes, "man made doctrines" is anything which views predestination positively and questions "free will." In most cases, that is Reformed theology and Calvinism.

Terene said:
So I can safely say I am neutral and unbiased in terms of theological conflicts and thus your comment does not apply to me.

Special pleading.

Terene said:
I am not as "educated" about the different terminologies about theologies and I never engaged in any theological studies in my 6 years of faith.

There is that denigration of education and careful study again. Why do you feel the need to say this other than to set up a false dichotomy between what is perceived to be a nefarious educated theological elite and a pure, untainted common reader who "just believes what the Bible clearly teaches"?

Terene said:
My so called "implication" is directed at doctrines of demons and nothing else. It is true that doctrines of demons are propagated by satan's servants (under his leading) and are full of lies, if not the Word will not label them as "doctrines of demons". This is the only kind of doctrine I am wholly against, and has nothing to do with whether that doctrine comes from reformed theology or from some other theological background.

Once again, despite the lip service, from nearly all of your posts the "doctrines of men/demons" suspiciously is comprised of characteristically Calvinist and Reformed doctrines, whether mentioned by name or implication.

Terene said:
I have the reason to believe that no single theology is 100% right. But saying I am making an anti-Calvinist trope is nothing but false assumptions against my intention.

No one is haphazardly making guesses about your "intention," nor are they prying into your mind and making false accusations. It is based upon empirical observation of your argumentation and methodology.

Terene said:
So let's assume that indeed A FRIEND has posted some prooftexts, but what about the other posts when he quoted verse numbers and gave explanations of them? I never saw anyone deal seriously what that kind of posts he made.

What you are re-defining here is the litany of prooftexts. The "explanations" are largely the seemingly blind posts in which he ignored challenges and called predestination a false doctrine.

Terene said:
Forget the cumbersome distinction of "exegesis" and "exiegesis" and what not. The Lord never commanded us to study the Word to such a detail when His Word is meant to be spiritually discerned and can be understood by uneducated fishermen and tax collectors.

More anti-intellectualism and special pleading. There are educated people who derive much spiritual fulfillment through the prayerful study of church history and Biblical languages.

Terene said:
Why do I denigrate careful exegesis? Simply because God never intended His Word to be studied like that. The Pharisees and the scribes prided in themselves as teachers of the Word with their impressively deep analysis of the letters of the Law. But what is the result? They couldn't even understand the prophecies of the Messiah and they imposed so much human traditions that the Israel people were yoked with heavy burdens.

Again, this is rhetorical denigration in which you fallaciously associate educated people who pay attention to exegetical method and Biblical languages with the pejorative image of "Pharisees."

Terene said:
God's Gospel is to be preached to all creatures, and since even the uneducated can and will understand His Word with His guidance, I see no need for such cumbersome study that really profits nothing in terms of spiritual growth and maturity. We are to DO the Word and put it into practice, not study it like some historical literature and conduct complicated analysis of its original language, grammar, context and what not.

Don't you think that this sounds just as arrogant as the way in which you have described the supposed exegetical "Pharisees"?

Besides, that an educated person studies church history, Biblical languages, and exegetical method does not preclude reading the Bible plainly for spiritual fulfillment, nor does it prevent putting the Word into practice. Thus, this is more drawing of false dichotomies and special pleading.

Terene said:
Then please allow me to kindly point out to you that while you say I am making a rhetoric denigration, you yourself have done the same thing to A FRIEND in one of your comments to him. This is actually the kind of judgment Jesus forbade us from doing.

No, it was not rhetorical denigration on my part. I know nothing about A-Friend's person. Rather, I have pointed out the deficiencies in his methodology. Please do not conflate ad hominem with criticism of methodology, which is an essential component of debate.

A-FRIEND · Jun 26, 2011

I think Terene is doing an excellent job in presenting the truth found in Scripture.

Apologetic_Warrior · Jun 26, 2011

oworm said:
Acts 1:15-20

"In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said, Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry. (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) For it is written in the Book of Psalms,
May his camp become desolate,
and let there be no one to dwell in it;

and
Let another take his office. "

cygnusx1 · Jun 26, 2011

A-FRIEND said:
From Genesis through Revelation, the bible clearly shows us that God has given every person a moral free will.

No it doesn't !

Free-will is a philosophical man made construct , scripture doesn't say man has any free will .

Scripture deals with man's status , either he is free in Christ or he is in bondage to sin , free will isn't mentioned .

Can men choose ? of course , but that has NOTHING to do with the philosophical theory of free-will .

heymikey80 · Jun 26, 2011

A-FRIEND said:
Robert Barclay wrote in his famous Apology in 1676 “We may safely call this doctrine a novelty, seeing the first four hundred years after Christ there is no mention made of it...

Granted the view comes from a Christianity that was outside the Roman Empire. But Mani did indeed embrace the idea.

He came from the Parthian empire, if I remember right. His writings are preserved in fragments. mid-200's.

Of course, there's also Paul.

oworm · Jun 26, 2011

I think a lot of the problems arise in this subject because of the different perspectives on the sovereignty of God. I've always thought to myself that If I were ever to write a systematic theology I would like to start from the perspective that God is absolutely sovereign in all things and works all things together for his purposes. It seems that those who oppose the Reformed view think that God has exercised his sovereignty in such a way by giving up some of his control of circumstances and human wills and limited working all things according to the counsel of his will. but the plain reading of Ephesians 1:11 is that God works all thingsaccording to the counsel of his will.

This means that for God to be God he has to be immutably involved in all things. He has to be involved (working) in every single microcosmic detail of every single event that happens in the universe and that they all must comply with his decreetive will. If they do not then we would have to conclude that all things are not working according to his counsel and he isn't really in complete control of his creation. Even sin is used by him and is employed for his purposes. Two classic examples of this are Genesis 50:20 and Acts 4:27,28.

Genesis 50:20 said:
As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

In Genesis 50, Joseph informs his brothers that even though they intended evil against him, God meant it for ultimate good because through their evil actions God was working out his plan for the preservation of his people in Egypt during the famine that would strike. Did Joseph's brothers act out of their willingness to sin? Yes they did because they were acting out of their natural tendency to sin. God did not need to force them against their will to sin. It came naturally but behind it all God was working out his predetermined plan. Any other understanding of this would have to conclude that God was reactive rather than proactive in these events.

Its a similar story in Acts

Acts 4:27 said:
for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

Herod and Pilate acted out of their natural tendency to sin but they were carrying out Gods will to do whatever His hand and plan had predestined to take place. Again, any other understanding other than that God predetermined these events puts him in the realm of a god who reacts to circumstances rather than the one who brings these circumstances to be. It is plainly clear from the text that God raised up Herod and Pilate and the Jews involved here to do what he had predestined to take place in handing over his son to die.

In both cases it is plainly clear from scripture with even going into grammar and syntax that evil men were doing the will of God who works ALL THINGS according to the counsel of his will. This is not a theology of man. It is biblical theology plain and simple.

Apologetic_Warrior · Jun 26, 2011

oworm said:
I think a lot of the problems arise in this subject because of the different perspectives on the sovereignty of God. I've always thought to myself that If I were ever to write a systematic theology I would like to start from the perspective that God is absolutely sovereign in all things and works all things together for his purposes. It seems that those who oppose the Reformed view think that God has exercised his sovereignty in such a way by giving up some of his control of circumstances and human wills and limited working all things according to the counsel of his will. but the plain reading of Ephesians 1:11 is that God works all thingsaccording to the counsel of his will.

This means that for God to be God he has to be immutably involved in all things. He has to be involved (working) in every single microcosmic detail of every single event that happens in the universe and that they all must comply with his decreetive will. If they do not then we would have to conclude that all things are not working according to his counsel and he isn't really in complete control of his creation. Even sin is used by him and is employed for his purposes. Two classic examples of this are Genesis 50:20 and Acts 4:27,28.

In Genesis 50, Joseph informs his brothers that even though they intended evil against him, God meant it for ultimate good because through their evil actions God was working out his plan for the preservation of his people in Egypt during the famine that would strike. Did Joseph's brothers act out of their willingness to sin? Yes they did because they were acting out of their natural tendency to sin. God did not need to force them against their will to sin. It came naturally but behind it all God was working out his predetermined plan. Any other understanding of this would have to conclude that God was reactive rather than proactive in these events.

Its a similar story in Acts

Herod and Pilate acted out of their natural tendency to sin but they were carrying out Gods will to do whatever His hand and plan had predestined to take place. Again, any other understanding other than that God predetermined these events puts him in the realm of a god who reacts to circumstances rather than the one who brings these circumstances to be. It is plainly clear from the text that God raised up Herod and Pilate and the Jews involved here to do what he had predestined to take place in handing over his son to die.

In both cases it is plainly clear from scripture with even going into grammar and syntax that evil men were doing the will of God who works ALL THINGS according to the counsel of his will. This is not a theology of man. It is biblical theology plain and simple.

Soli Deo Gloria!

A-FRIEND · Jun 26, 2011

From Genesis through Revelation, the bible clearly shows us that God has given every person a moral free will. For me to accept Calvins doctrine of predestination, I would have to completely ignore what the bible teaches in the following verses: John 14: 15; John 15:7; Romans 2:10; 1 Corinthians 9:24; 1 Timothy 6:12-14; 2 Timothy 2:21; 1 John 5:1; John 3:16; John 7:17; James 4:7-8; 2 Corinthians 9:7; Joshua 24:5; Deuteronomy 30:19; Isaiah 7:15; Isaiah 65:12; Genesis 2:15-17; Psalms 119:45; Genesis 4:7; 1 Kings 18:21; Proverbs 1: 29; Leviticus 25:10; Isaiah 38:13-14; Jeremiah 34: 11; Jeremiah 34:17; Exodus 25:2; Leviticus 1: 3.

These verses clearly show us that God, in His sovereignty, has decided to give people a free will to either choose or reject Jesus as their Savior. God will never make that choice for us.

heymikey80 · Jun 26, 2011

None of the verses demands the modern version of free will -- or even whatever version of free will such as it was in ancient times.

There's no clarity in these Scriptures favoring a view that God gave people a will free from Him.

AndOne · Jun 26, 2011

heymikey80 said:
None of the verses demands the modern version of free will -- or even whatever version of free will such as it was in ancient times.

There's no clarity in these Scriptures favoring a view that God gave people a will free from Him.

So true - Any honest person seriously searching for the truth will see this.

A-FRIEND · Jun 26, 2011

That is just your opinion.

AndOne · Jun 26, 2011

2 Corinthians 5:14-15
14For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

A-FRIEND · Jun 26, 2011

That is another good verse that refutes Calvinism.

drstevej · Jun 26, 2011

A-FRIEND said:
That is another good verse that refutes Calvinism.

Only if you are a Universalist.

Tzaousios · Jun 26, 2011

A-FRIEND said:
These verses clearly show us that God, in His sovereignty, has decided to give people a free will to either choose or reject Jesus as their Savior. God will never make that choice for us.

First of all, it is also your opinion and assumption that the verses say anything definitive about "free will."

Secondly, the comment "God will never make that choice for us" is a common anti-Calvinist trope. It is related to the Argumentum ad Robotos, which caricature's the Reformed position to say that it turns people into robots/puppets/marionettes/zombies/automatons.

A-FRIEND · Jun 26, 2011

Whose Rob Bell? I only go by what Jesus taught. To deny that Jesus died for the sins of the world is heresy.

Hentenza · Jun 26, 2011

A-FRIEND said:
Whose Rob Bell? I only go by what Jesus taught. To deny that Jesus died for the sins of the world is heresy.

Can you point to the council that declared that those who "do not believe that Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world" are declared anathema?

drstevej · Jun 26, 2011

Hentenza said:
Can you point to the council that declared that those who "do not believe that Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world" are declared anathema?

Does 2 PhDs equal a council?

Hentenza · Jun 26, 2011

drstevej said:
Does 2 PhDs equal a council?

He has 2 PhDs? lol

drstevej · Jun 26, 2011

Hentenza said:
He has 2 PhDs? lol

These dudes: Walls & Dongell

The dangers of Calvinism belief - Eternal Security

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός

Newbie

Pilgrim

Jacob the twister.....

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Veteran

Pilgrim

Newbie

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men

Newbie

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men

Newbie

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός

Newbie

I will fear no evil for You are with me

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

I will fear no evil for You are with me

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

Similar threads