Reasons to remain a Calvinist

nobdysfool · May 25, 2012

Hupomone10 said:
hmm...

Your very first post on CF, and you choose to attack someone, and flame them?

I think a person would have a lot of animosity to do so, or maybe they are simply unaware that the Christian walk is a walk after the Spirit, not in the flesh. Brother, we can recommend several books that lay out these principles and help one who is caught up in the ABC's of the faith (TULIP) and on to something that will help you deal with this bitterness and live the Christ-filled life effectively.

Blessings,
H.

(something tells me this is a sock account for someone who's already on here...)

You're absolutely right. This person violates the privacy of people calling them by their real-life names, and makes a practice of combing the internet looking for info about them. He's been here before under other names, such as Pinkman, Black Adder, and several others. The intent seems to be to stir things up, and get people fighting. The best thing to do is to ignore the posts, report any which violate the rules, and in short order he will be gone, again...

Calminian · May 25, 2012

nobdysfool said:
You're absolutely right. This person violates the privacy of people calling them by their real-life names, and makes a practice of combing the internet looking for info about them. He's been here before under other names, such as Pinkman, Black Adder, and several others. The intent seems to be to stir things up, and get people fighting. The best thing to do is to ignore the posts, report any which violate the rules, and in short order he will be gone, again...

Well said. I think it's a bit futile to attempt to rebuke rabble rousers and true trolls. Let the mods deal with it. Report all flaming posts and just ignore trolls.

Hupomone10 · May 25, 2012

Exp1orer16 said:
Thanks H
But it ain't bitterness. Rest assured on that.

This is a mission field to those who like 'punch fests'. ( Yeah noddy I know you are watching)

The word of God will be put forth.

Count on it. (Ham, nob etc)

God bless you H

(Please don't get me wrong; I appreciate all complimentary words; but could you be in someone else's corner? You're going to ruin my reputation.

)

cygnusx1 · May 25, 2012

Calminian said:
You actually believe this is Christ speaking in this passage?
Acts 26:4 “The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. 5 They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee. 6 And now it is because of my hope in what God has promised our fathers that I am on trial today.
Honestly, are you even trying? Seems you're really being evasive.

I cite the above because it's one of the few appearances in the GNT of that term translated "to foreknow" in Romans 8:29. Here are all the occurrence. And only 3 of the verses were spoken by Paul. Luke records one of those in Acts. (yes it is Paul speaking in the 1st person in that passage, not Christ.)

Acts 26:5 “They knew me from the first, if they were willing to testify, that according to the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
Rom. 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom. 11:2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying,
1Pet. 1:20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you
2Pet. 3:17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;

I just don't see why you wont' address this. It's obvious that the way Paul used the word in Acts 26 it can't be translated or understood as love. Yet you're dogmatic that's the only way it should be translated. The truth is, it doesn't fit in any of these passage. You have a theologically driven argument, not an exegatically driven one.

I really don't care what the translation is, I just want scripture to give me the translation, not a system of theology.

Do you have any exegetical evidence that this term in Romans 8 should be translated foreloved? I realize it works well for your theology, but is there a scriptural basis for the case you are making?

so now you turn to one example in Acts "They have known me" and wish to make this a test case for Gods foreknowledge ? I ask again who are the foreknown in Romans 8 , it cannot mean everyone , but God knows all things !

btw just to clarify my view , Christ is the foreknown in Acts 2:23 , ..... 26 is human knowledge of Paul

I realise it doesn't work too well for your theology to see foreknowledge as foreloved , yet Christ will pronounce to some "I NEVER knew you"

Calminian · May 25, 2012

cygnusx1 said:
so now you turn to one example in Acts "They have known me" and wish to make this a test case for Gods foreknowledge ? I ask again who are the foreknown in Romans 8 , it cannot mean everyone , but God knows all things !

Okay, so now we're making progress. You at least acknowledge that the word you so dogmatically pointed out can only mean "forelove" actually doesn't always mean that. And as I also said, it doesn't mean to know of. I keep agreeing with you on this, and you keep accusing me of believing it. We're on a serious failure of communication. So again for the record (if you'll believe me this time), I don't believe the word means to "know of."

So again, in Romans 8 Paul is speaking about knowing of specific knowledge of specific beliefs of specific individuals in the future. It's used in the same way it's used in Acts 26. Paul wasn't saying the jews had merely heard of him, but rather the jews knew intimately Paul's convictions and beliefs as a pharisee. They knew him on a very kindred level sharing his core beliefs.

cygnusx1 said:
btw just to clarify my view , Christ is the foreknown in Acts 23 , ..... 26 is human knowledge of Paul

I'm not sure which greek word you're referring to there, but that list of 5 verses I gave are all the occurrences of the greek word for foreknowledge used in Romans 8:29. Acts 23 does not contain that greek word.

cygnusx1 said:
I realise it doesn't work too well for your theology to see foreknowledge as foreloved , yet Christ will pronounce to some "I NEVER knew you"

Like I said, I'm not that insecure about my theology. I like to freely derive my theological positions from the text, rather than forcing the text to fit within my views.

Now, in regard to the love interpretation, this creates the same problem for you, that you say it creates for me. For scripture says God so loved the world. Thus that would mean, taking your view to its logical conclusion, you believe that all are predestined. That would be universalism. Isn't that what you just accused me of?? And since I highly doubt you are a universalist, I would think the logic of that position would be a problem for you.

Thus (for I believe the 4th time), the term cannot mean forelove nor can it mean to foreknow of someone in general. It has to be knowledge of specific things about the individuals. Faith fits perfectly.

cygnusx1 · May 26, 2012

Calminian said:
Okay, so now we're making progress. You at least acknowledge that the word you so dogmatically pointed out can only mean "forelove" actually doesn't always mean that. ..

"They have known me " is not a word

cygnusx1 · May 26, 2012

Calminian said:
Okay, so now we're making progress. You at least acknowledge that the word you so dogmatically pointed out can only mean "forelove" actually doesn't always mean that. And as I also said, it doesn't mean to know of. I keep agreeing with you on this, and you keep accusing me of believing it. We're on a serious failure of communication. So again for the record (if you'll believe me this time), I don't believe the word means to "know of."

So again, in Romans 8 Paul is speaking about knowing of specific knowledge of specific beliefs of specific individuals in the future. It's used in the same way it's used in Acts 26. Paul wasn't saying the jews had merely heard of him, but rather the jews knew intimately Paul's convictions and beliefs as a pharisee. They knew him on a very kindred level sharing his core beliefs.

this is Arminianism plain and simple , Charles who is not a Calvinist set out right from the OP to attempt a position that undermines your views and allegedly state Calvinists have missunderstood the Arminian forseen faithy/works arguement . clearly the view is ALIVE AND WELL .. CHARLES !

I'm not sure which greek word you're referring to there, but that list of 5 verses I gave are all the occurrences of the greek word for foreknowledge used in Romans 8:29. Acts 23 does not contain that greek word.

AND THERE LIES YOUR PROBLEM ! acts 2:23

man i.m rusty on posting , my apologies for any confusion

Like I said, I'm not that insecure about my theology. I like to freely derive my theological positions from the text, rather than forcing the text to fit within my views.

so Predestination means ?

Now, in regard to the love interpretation, this creates the same problem for you, that you say it creates for me. For scripture says God so loved the world. Thus that would mean, taking your view to its logical conclusion, you believe that all are predestined. That would be universalism. Isn't that what you just accused me of?? And since I highly doubt you are a universalist, I would think the logic of that position would be a problem for you.

you are aware of Covenant Love as opposed to a general love of God .... all are shown love , the elect are intimately beloved.

Thus (for I believe the 4th time), the term cannot mean forelove nor can it mean to foreknow of someone in general. It has to be knowledge of specific things about the individuals. Faith fits perfectly.

as has been said already ;

A.W. Pink said: "It is individuals God is said to foreknow, not the actions of those persons." In the Scriptures to know or foreknow means to regard with favor, with special affection, to love intimately. It is an act of love on the part of God concerning His elect. The following scripture references will prove the point in question.

ReformedPharisee · May 26, 2012

ConsumedByHisCall said:
Reasons to remain a Calvinist

There are none.

No good ones, anyway...

ConsumedByHisCall · May 27, 2012

cygnusx1 said:
The fact that Calvin can be read either way on the extent of the atonement does not negate the fact you deny the Arminian classic view of foreseen faith and opt for the so called "more scholarly view" and try to pretend it is the classic Arminian view , it plainly isn't : its neo Arminianism based upon a realisation the old stuff ain't Biblical or even logical.

One, it depends on which "Arminian" you are reading and what view you are reading into what they say. Any view can be made into a 'caracture" and be made to look ridiculous. I think that is what the 'foreseen faith' view has become. It over individualizes a view that originally was understood more corporately, which makes it sound silly. You like that because it is easier to dismiss, but i'm challenging you to go deeper than a caracture and deal with the actual scholarly corporate view of election and predestination. I'm not dening the idea of God's foreknowledge and His plan to save all who believe, I'm only helping you to see this was never intended to be intepretated from the individual perspective (i.e. God looks down the corridors of time to see what individual would believe and then elects to effectually save them) Rather, God has predetermined to effectually save anyone and everyone who believes in Christ, Jew or Gentile. The latter perspective is simple, easy to understand, and not at all silly. The first view is a caracture of the second made to sound as silly as possible and I could do the same with your view. (as some do)

Even IF , I did say IF , Calvin taught universal atonement , then two wrongs do not make a right !

That is beside the point. The point is that there are scholars and non-scholarly believers who hold to both views and so for you to deny that one view is "Calvinistic" based on your own perspective of "Calvinism" begs the question, which is exactly what you are doing by accusing me of not representing Arminianism simply because its not the view of Arminianism you've come to understand.

and that is relevant ? no it isn't , Calvinists don't try to hide a difference of opinion , we don't say "hey look here you Arminians we never taught ABC ... which is why you started this thread .

I'm not hiding the difference. In fact, I acknowledged very clearly that there are some who wrongly take this view individualistically, just as you would claim some Calvinists would be wrong to deny "limited atonement." You have just as much right to represent your form of Calvinism as I have to represent my form of Arminianism.

yeh , the corporate view is Arminian and therefore error

I thought you said it wasn't ARminianism? Which is it?

ConsumedByHisCall · May 27, 2012

cygnusx1 said:
The fact that Calvin can be read either way on the extent of the atonement does not negate the fact you deny the Arminian classic view of foreseen faith and opt for the so called "more scholarly view" and try to pretend it is the classic Arminian view , it plainly isn't : its neo Arminianism based upon a realisation the old stuff ain't Biblical or even logical.

One, it depends on which "Arminian" you are reading and what view you are reading into what they say. Any view can be made into a 'caracture" and be made to look ridiculous. I think that is what the 'foreseen faith' view has become. It over individualizes a view that originally was understood more corporately, which makes it sound silly. You like that because it is easier to dismiss, but i'm challenging you to go deeper than a caracture and deal with the actual scholarly corporate view of election and predestination. I'm not dening the idea of God's foreknowledge and His plan to save all who believe, I'm only helping you to see this was never intended to be intepretated from the individual perspective (i.e. God looks down the corridors of time to see what individual would believe and then elects to effectually save them) Rather, God has predetermined to effectually save anyone and everyone who believes in Christ, Jew or Gentile. The latter perspective is simple, easy to understand, and not at all silly. The first view is a caracture of the second made to sound as silly as possible and I could do the same with your view. (as some do)

Even IF , I did say IF , Calvin taught universal atonement , then two wrongs do not make a right !

That is beside the point. The point is that there are scholars and non-scholarly believers who hold to both views and so for you to deny that one view is "Calvinistic" based on your own perspective of "Calvinism" begs the question, which is exactly what you are doing by accusing me of not representing Arminianism simply because its not the view of Arminianism you've come to understand.

and that is relevant ? no it isn't , Calvinists don't try to hide a difference of opinion , we don't say "hey look here you Arminians we never taught ABC ... which is why you started this thread .[/qutote] I'm not hiding the difference. In fact, I acknowledged very clearly that there are some who wrongly take this view individualistically, just as you would claim some Calvinists would be wrong to deny "limited atonement." You have just as much right to represent your form of Calvinism as I have to represent my form of Arminianism.

yeh , the corporate view is Arminian and therefore error

Click to expand...

I thought you said it wasn't ARminianism? Which is it?

nobdysfool · May 27, 2012

Just to be clear, your claims vis-a-vis "individual" view vs "coporate" view ARE just your opinion, are they not? I don't see where there is any definitive, 'can't be refuted' proof that your opinion is in fact the way it truly is. Accept the fact that opinions vary, and leave it at that.

And your claim that " any view can be made into a 'caracture" and be made to look ridiculous", applies to you as much as to anyone else, does it not? Personally, I believe you are guilty of the second point vis-a-vis Calvinism, as much if not more so than your accusations that Calvinists are guilty of inventing a caricature of Arminianism and trying to promote it as 'the way it is'.

ConsumedByHisCall · May 27, 2012

nobdysfool said:
Just to be clear, your claims vis-a-vis "individual" view vs "coporate" view ARE just your opinion, are they not?

They are my interpretation of the text, just as your claims are your interpretation of the text. Both of us have scholars who support are respective views, and others who vary slightly or greatly on one point or another...I think that is a given.

And your claim that " any view can be made into a 'caracture" and be made to look ridiculous", applies to you as much as to anyone else, does it not?

Sure. Either of us could intentially or unintentially misrepresent the others view, but that is what a debate is for, to discuss such things...

If you feel I have created a caricature of Calvinism, then point it out and tell why, as I have.

nobdysfool · May 27, 2012

StigFI said:
We have considered Romans 8:28-30 and Ephesians 1:3-14, and found it to be not a decree of unconditional election and reprobation marking certain men for salvation and all others for damnation, as Calvin and his disciples have assumed, but rather Gods predetermination of the purposes and objectives and eternal circumstance of election: sonship, inheritance, and glorification with Christ.

In. your. opinon.

We have observed that the election is corporate rather than particular and comprehends all men potentially, no man unconditionally, and the Israel of God (all the faithful) efficiently.

In. your. opinion.

The above considerations imply the authentic universality of the Gospel call as against Calvinisms thesis of a general call addressed to all men and a hidden special call arbitrarily granted to some men and withheld from others.

In. your. opinion.

Thus, for one to interpret Ephesians 1:3-14 and Romans 8:28-30 (and other similar passages) as teaching that God chose who should be saved and who should be lost before the foundation of the world is to place an interpretation upon them that brings them into violent conflict with the overall teaching of the Scriptures. The Calvinistic doctrines of election, foreordination, and predestination are incorrect and violate the truth of the Gospel

In. your. opinion.

Please understand that opinion does not carry the imprimatur of established fact, nor does it carry any authority. Seeing the level of misrepresentation of correct Calvinist doctrine here (oddly, it is the non-Calvinists who want people to believe that they are the authorities on Calvinism, and Calvinists cannot be trusted), the conclusions drawn can not rise above the level of opinion, seeing that there is a built-in bias in arriving at the conclusions drawn.

Therefore, while the attempt is made to appear "authoritative", in reality all that has been concluded is a set of strongly-held opinions which satisfy only those who are predisposed to accept them, because it is what they already wish to believe.

Opinions vary....

nobdysfool · May 27, 2012

ConsumedByHisCall said:
They are my interpretation of the text, just as your claims are your interpretation of the text. Both of us have scholars who support are respective views, and others who vary slightly or greatly on one point or another...I think that is a given.

Your interpretation is your opinion, is it not? Why not just answer the question, instead of trying to add justification to your opinion, to make it appear bigger? A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

CBHC said:
Sure.

You could have stopped right there. That was a clear answer to a clear question. Thank you.

Either of us could intentially or unintentially misrepresent the others view, but that is what a debate is for, to discuss such things...

Or, we could take the time to be sure that what we think the other believes is in fact what they do believe, before launching offensives against imaginary positions, and causing needless strife, anger, and rising blood pressures. Fellowship consists not in argumentation, wrangling and jockeying for position and bragging rights, it consists of dealing with common ground. Hence, there has been very little fellowship in this forum for as long as I have been here, because there seems to always be someone who thinks they have a mandate to 'set everyone straight", or "defeat____________" (insert favorite -ism you oppose here)

CBHC said:
If you feel I have created a caricature of Calvinism, then point it out and tell why, as I have.

I'll just wait for the next one. I'm sure it won't be a long wait....

ConsumedByHisCall · May 28, 2012

nobdysfool said:
Your interpretation is your opinion, is it not? Why not just answer the question, instead of trying to add justification to your opinion, to make it appear bigger? A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression this was a Christian Debate forum where people come to discuss their various OPINIONs about interpretations of the text? Apparently it is less about being Christian and less about Debate and more about answering your yes or no questions?

Or, we could take the time to be sure that what we think the other believes is in fact what they do believe, before launching offensives against imaginary positions, and causing needless strife, anger, and rising blood pressures.

Again, if I've misrepresented your view in some way I welcome a discussion over that point. That is what debate is all about, but thus far you have only offered unfounded accusations and frankly appear to be aggitated that I dare come to a soteriological debate forum with the intent of debating soteriology.

Fellowship consists not in argumentation, wrangling and jockeying for position and bragging rights, it consists of dealing with common ground. Hence, there has been very little fellowship in this forum for as long as I have been here, because there seems to always be someone who thinks they have a mandate to 'set everyone straight", or "defeat____________" (insert favorite -ism you oppose here)

Oh, so your issue is not so much with me specifically but with the clearly stated purpose of this forum? I understand. It appears you may need to visit a Christian fellowship forum rather than a soteriological debate forum, or maybe start one that matches your OPINIONS of what a forum should be.

I'll just wait for the next one. I'm sure it won't be a long wait....

Awww, you can't find one, thus proving your accusations to be unfounded. BTW, when you point out my cariacture of Calvinism please be sure to let us know if Im miscaracterizing Supra or Infra or Compatibilistic or Deterministic or some other camp in the wide umbrella nicked named "Calvinism," Okay?

nobdysfool · May 28, 2012

ConsumedByHisCall said:
I'm sorry, I was under the impression this was a Christian Debate forum where people come to discuss their various OPINIONs about interpretations of the text? Apparently it is less about being Christian and less about Debate and more about answering your yes or no questions?

No, not at all. I just object to the projected attitude that since you claim to be a former Calvinist, that everything you say about Calvinism should be accepted without question, as a preface to you espousing your opinion about what Scriptures say about whatever nuance of Soteriology we happen to be dealing with. It's fine to have your opinion, we all do. It just seems that you spend a great deal of energy trying to elevate your view, while suppressing opposing views. I'm fine with just agreeing to disagree. I don't like being subtly portrayed as backward because I don't enthusiastically cave to your interpretation, no matter how great you may think that interpretation is. I reserve the right to think for myself.

CBHC said:
Again, if I've misrepresented your view in some way I welcome a discussion over that point. That is what debate is all about, but thus far you have only offered unfounded accusations and frankly appear to be aggitated that I dare come to a soteriological debate forum with the intent of debating soteriology.

You don't truly know what I do believe, now do you? You think you know, which I find as a failing among most non-Calvinists. They have this crazy idea that Calvinists all march in lock-step, all believe precisely the same things down to the smallest detail, and adopt an attitude of defense and circling the wagons at the slightest hint of an attack on their position. They apparently think that we view Calvin the same way as the Nazi's viewed Hitler, as "mien Fuhrer!" That is an overly simplistic, ridiculous view. I realize that it works well for their attacks on the Calvinist position, but it's based on falsehoods, lies, and assumptions, none of which are true on the whole, and certainly not true in my case.

I don't think your truly understand just how heavily and viciously Calvinists have been attacked, slandered, misrepresented, and yes, even persecuted in this forum over the years.

CBHC said:
Oh, so your issue is not so much with me specifically but with the clearly stated purpose of this forum? I understand. It appears you may need to visit a Christian fellowship forum rather than a soteriological debate forum, or maybe start one that matches your OPINIONS of what a forum should be.

That is such a ridiculous misreading of what I said, that it's not even worth the time and effort it would take to refute it. C'mon, knock off the subtle snark against Calvinists. We are not the evil people that so many try to make us out to be. We have honest differences of opinion with non-Calvinists. Accept that, and realize that a debate forum is not a recruiting ground, or a proselytization forum.

CBHC said:
Awww, you can't find one, thus proving your accusations to be unfounded. BTW, when you point out my cariacture of Calvinism please be sure to let us know if Im miscaracterizing Supra or Infra or Compatibilistic or Deterministic or some other camp in the wide umbrella nicked named "Calvinism," Okay?

Taunting, baiting, and goading are not allowed in this forum. Not even when the targets are Calvinists.

ConsumedByHisCall · May 28, 2012

nobdysfool said:
No, not at all. I just object to the projected attitude that since you claim to be a former Calvinist, that everything you say about Calvinism should be accepted without question,

I have asked you several times now to feel free to point out specific examples where I have misrepresented Calvinism and you have yet to do so. Instead you have chosen to do what you are falsely accusing me of doing...taunting, goading etc... Revealing.

It just seems that you spend a great deal of energy trying to elevate your view,

Shocking! I'm promoting MY VIEW of soteriology on a soterilogicaly debate forum. Call the FBI!!! :doh:

I reserve the right to think for myself.

I'm sorry, but you appear to be under the impression that debate is an effort to 'think for others' when clearly it is about discussing our disagreements. If I misrepresent you then point it out specifically and make an actual argument. Otherwise you are wasting time.

You don't truly know what I do believe, now do you? You think you know, which I find as a failing among most non-Calvinists. They have this crazy idea that Calvinists all march in lock-step, all believe precisely the same things down to the smallest detail, and adopt an attitude of defense and circling the wagons at the slightest hint of an attack on their position.

You may be confusing me with someone else as I have pointed out the various camps within Calvinism numerous times, remember? As to what you specifically believe, you will need to actually form an argument based upon your views and stop with this senseless banter if you want to discuss that.

I don't think your truly understand just how heavily and viciously Calvinists have been attacked, slandered, misrepresented, and yes, even persecuted in this forum over the years.

You don't play the victim well, so may I recommend either debating the topic or moving on?

That is such a ridiculous misreading of what I said, that it's not even worth the time and effort it would take to refute it. C'mon, knock off the subtle snark against Calvinists. We are not the evil people that so many try to make us out to be. We have honest differences of opinion with non-Calvinists. Accept that, and realize that a debate forum is not a recruiting ground, or a proselytization forum.

My best friend and my brother are both Calvinists, I regularly listen to, read, and even occasionally quote Calvinistic pastors and scholars. I have said nothing which indicates disrepect for any individual. I've cordially and fairly attempted to debate soteriology, the stated purpose of this forum, so if you have an issue with this may I suggest going elsewhere?

3rdHeaven · May 28, 2012

It is rather hard to have a discussion with a lot of Calvinists as they feel it is there way or no way. Their interpretation is the only right one, all the rest are Arminian.

drstevej · May 28, 2012

3rdHeaven said:
It is rather hard to have a discussion with a lot of Calvinists as they feel it is there way or no way. Their interpretation is the only right one, all the rest are Arminian.

It is rather hard to have a discussion with a lot of Arminians as they feel it is theirt way or God's not fair. Their interpretation is the only right one, all the rest yield robots with a cruel god.

b.a.y.

3rdHeaven · May 28, 2012

drstevej said:
It is rather hard to have a discussion with a lot of Arminians as they feel it is theirt way or God's not fair. Their interpretation is the only right one, all the rest yield robots with a cruel god.

b.a.y.

You might be right my friend, I have not got in to any arguments with Arminians tho, just Calvinists. I happen to be nether, but being nether means I'm arminian to Calvinists as they live in a 2 dimension world

Reasons to remain a Calvinist

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Jacob the twister.....

Senior Veteran

Jacob the twister.....

Jacob the twister.....

Messenger of the New Covenant

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Well-Known Member

The original! Accept no substitutes!

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Well-Known Member

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Well-Known Member

Truth Seeker

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

Truth Seeker

Similar threads