Struggles with Calvinism

setst777 · Nov 12, 2019

Dave L said:
If you read free will into scripture, you can make it read differently than intended.

You have not responded to any of the Passages provided. You asked me to give you evidence by Scripture to show what I was stating was correct. I did so, and now you just totally and outright reject to Scriptures given.

The intention is clearly revealed in the Scriptures I gave you. There is no way to contradict what God actually stated in the Scriptures I gave, and which are repeatedly stated and taught all through the Scriptures.

For instance, notice that Calvinism actually twists and reverses everything God actually stated and taught regarding our salvation to something that contradicts God's Word...

God himself - All through SCRIPTURE - says He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked that each person is responsible for. Yet the Calvin God takes pleasure and glory from condemning most of humanity to hell that God forms for damnation to fulfill His purpose.

God himself - All through SCRIPTURE - says that we must repent so we can be regenerated by the indwelling spirit. Yet the Calvin God regenerates us so we can believe.

God himself - All through SCRIPTURE - says we must believe so we can be saved. Yet, in Calvinism, one must be saved so he can believe.

God himself - All through SCRIPTURE - says that he forms us for honor or dishonor, for salvation or condemnation base on how we ourselves respond to His grace. Yet, in Calvinism, God alone is responsible for forming each person for either damnation or salvation based on God's sovereign decree for each person. So, God is responsible, and there is nothing any of us can do about it.

God himself states - All through SCRIPTURE - we must, of ourselves, believe and remain faithful to the end to be saved. Yet, in Calvinism, God creates faith to be saved to those He mysteriously elects, and then guarantees their faith and salvation to the end.

And so many other perversions of God's word Calvinists do that perverts the Gospel of Christ, thus preventing hundreds of millions of people from taking responsibility for their faith before God.

reformed05 · Nov 12, 2019

Kenny'sID said:
I just noticed that, and actually no, they won't. A straight forward, simple, and orderly reply to each individual question will I know the questions. I showed you how to do the "orderly" part a few posts back, but the rest is up to you..

You are asking for nothing but confusion by sending me to some scripture to find the answers myself. Using the scripture to back things up is fine but asking me to find something I don't believe exists in the first place just isn't going to work at all.

If you simply choose not to answer them, just say so please, and I'll no longer expect it. Just know what it will mean to some of us of you do not. And that this debate will be over because things aren't equal.

My questions are basically defense for my end of this, and need to be addressed, as ignoring them is to ignore my end of this. Hope that helps you understand the importance of my request.

I know how to do the quote thing. Can't do it on my kindle which I mostly use as my laptop tends to go wonky on me.
I think I have said all I need to say. If you couldn't get anything out of it So be it. I doubt if it would help for me to follow your prescribed formula. We interpret the same scriptures differently and we always will. I sense that you are not so much interested in understanding how I arrive at my interpretations and conclusions as you are challenging my beliefs. I have no interest in continuing along that avenue. I have no desire to challenge yours or defend mine.

reformed05 · Nov 12, 2019

reformed05 said:
I know how to do the quote thing. Can't do it on my kindle which I mostly use as my laptop tends to go wonky on me.
I think I have said all I need to say. If you couldn't get anything out of it So be it. I doubt if it would help for me to follow your prescribed formula. We interpret the same scriptures differently and we always will. I sense that you are not so much interested in understanding how I arrive at my interpretations and conclusions as you are challenging my beliefs. I have no interest in continuing along that avenue. I have no desire to challenge yours or defend mine.

reformed05 · Nov 12, 2019

And Kenny's
You and everyone else that you say will think badly of me because I don't do what you ask in exactly the way you want me to, go ahead. It just makes you judgemental and maybe arrogant. I have found that most of the responses I get on this site are only when a whole plethora of folks want to argue with me about what I believe. I honestlly, with some wonderful and kind exceptions, have not seen much "christian" behavior. I am being passive aggressively taunted by one person "on a high horse and allegedly self righteous" running along the bottom of their tag. I told them to get off their high horse because of their hostile reaction to something I posted. And I never called them self righteous, nevertheless I apologized but got no response, no acceptance of the apology. Instead they add he above quote to all their posts. It is the type of childish passive aggressive bullying I would expect from a teenage girl.
And that is pretty much what has been happening. I was being nice with you and trying to give you what you asked but it will never be enough I don't feel so I'm not jumping through any more hoops. I feel sad about that. I thought there was hope for a sincere, adult and civilized discussion.

Tra Phull · Nov 12, 2019

I don't think I am being "passive aggressive", reformed05

And you are not the only one my signature alludes to, don't flatter yourself

Tra Phull · Nov 12, 2019

Oh, and btw, I accept whatever apology you may have offered, I don't recall such

All I know is the accusation of "being on a high horse" and "self-righteous free willer" came out of the blue from you, and "silly" came from another Calvinist

Do you want me to modify my signature and take out any reference to things you accused me of?

If so, I will.

Tra Phull · Nov 12, 2019

Whatever. The heinous comments in my signature have been eliminated.

Kenny'sID · Nov 12, 2019

reformed05 said:
I know how to do the quote thing. Can't do it on my kindle which I mostly use as my laptop tends to go wonky on me.
I think I have said all I need to say. If you couldn't get anything out of it So be it.

I Couldn't get it because you didn't give it, so please don't put it off on me as the problem.

reformed05 said:
And Kenny's
You and everyone else that you say will think badly of me because I don't do what you ask in exactly the way you want me to, go ahead. It just makes you judgemental and maybe arrogant.

If it helps, you aren't the only one here that didn't answer.

All I asked of you was to answer the questions. I'm hardly shooting for the stars with the request. It's a normal requirement for most if not all debates to back up your claims, so please don't act as if I've done something wrong by expecting nothing at all unusual.

No, I won't think badly of you personally, I'll just know you are unable to defend Calvinism. As far as calling me judgemental and arrogant, hate to say it, but I'm afraid that's just a bad case of sour grapes. I could ask you to show me where I was judgmental and/or arrogant but we both know already what that would get me.

Just know it was not my purpose to embarrass or make you or anyone else feel bad, but only try to get to the truth of a very serious matter. And even though the residuals of that, and my making it clear exactly what was going on here in order to defend my end as well as possible, can cause bad feelings on a personal level, I'm truly sorry it had to happen/make anyone feel bad.

But if that's what it takes to at least try to see to it you/others get something out of all this, as you say, so be it.

Kenny'sID · Nov 12, 2019

reformed05 said:
And that is pretty much what has been happening. I was being nice with you and trying to give you what you asked but it will never be enough I don't feel so I'm not jumping through any more hoops. I feel sad about that. I thought there was hope for a sincere, adult and civilized discussion.

We were having just that, a civilized discussion, and still are as far as I'm concerned. It's as simple as you getting a bit upset at the end here, and trying to put it off on me because you chose not to answer questions that would incriminate. But even that, nor the two names called bother me, it's normal reaction, I understand, and even consider the reaction within the bounds of civil enough.

FWIW, you did no harm to speak of to me.

reformed05 · Nov 12, 2019

Kenny'sID said:
We were having just that, a civilized discussion, and still are as far as I'm concerned. It's as simple as you getting a bit upset at and trying to put it off on me because you chose not to answer questions that would incriminate. But even that doesn't bother me, it's normal reaction, and I understand that, and even consider the reaction civil enough.

Answer questions that would incriminate? Incriminate me with who? Judge You? I don't mind answering any question. But the only reason you want me to is so you can argue that I'm WRONG! Because of course you are the final authority on all things concerning Bible interpretation. The fact that you might be wrong would not even begin to cross your mind and that is a person who cannot learn. A closed mind.
The argument between Reformed and the other which really has no name it is so varied and borderless the actual doctrines have no definitions; the argument is so senseless and pointless and has nothing to do with whether a person is saved. Who CARES if a person thinks they made the choice of they think God made the choice? Either way, if you are saved your saved. THAT is why I don't want to carry on with this ARGUMENT and that is the only thing it would be. An argument. Some people think arguing makes them sound intelligent. I don't.

reformed05 · Nov 12, 2019

Kenny'sID said:
I Couldn't get it because you didn't give it, so please don't put it off on me as the problem.

If it helps, you aren't the only one here that didn't answer.

All I asked of you was to answer the questions. I'm hardly shooting for the stars with the request. It's a normal requirement for most if not all debates to back up your claims, so please don't act as if I've done something wrong by expecting nothing at all unusual.

No, I won't think badly of you personally, I'll just know you are unable to defend Calvinism. As far as calling me judgemental and arrogant, hate to say it, but I'm afraid that's just a bad case of sour grapes. I could ask you to show me where I was judgmental and/or arrogant but we both know already what that would get me.

Just know it was not my purpose to embarrass or make you or anyone else feel bad, but only try to get to the truth of a very serious matter. And even though the residuals of that, and my making it clear exactly what was going on here in order to defend my end as well as possible, can cause bad feelings on a personal level, I'm truly sorry it had to happen/make anyone feel bad.

But if that's what it takes to at least try to see to it you/others get something out of all this, as you say, so be it.

You probably won't be able to follow this since I'm not breaking up the quotes but here goes.
I THOUGHT I did answer you. I put a great deal of effort and thought into answering you (even though I was and am in a very bad place) and it is beyond me to understand what your problem is with what I wrote. Is it that you didn't get the answers you wanted?
Where have you been arrogant and judgemental? By that I'm guessing you want me to put each time in separate quotes and your right, that isn't going to happen. So let me put it this way. Pretty much in most of what you say to me. Here's one.
"I'll just know you are unable to defend Calvinism." Just because I don't want to play this rediculous, unprofitable game anymore , and play it your way you make the JUDGEMENT that I can't defend my beliefs. That's pretty arrogant. And you never acknowledge any wrong doing in your part, the things that I have pointed out and the things you try to keep hidden. You merely say, once again, I'm in the wrong. I KNOW you didn't use that WORD. Didn't have to. Any way no legitimate complaints from me, just sour grapes.
You say this debate between the two theologies is a serious matter. I don't think it is and in any case it has been debated since Augustine or before so I doubt we'll come to agreement in this thread or this century. I only continued in this thread correcting some atrocious and untrue things that we're being said about Reformed Theology, not to debate whether I'm right and you are wrong. And no matter how often I correct those misstatements, people keep insisting on thinking and repeating them. And if you be honest with yourself, you have no intention of actually CONSIDERING or giving much thought to what I might say, or prove with scripture about Reformed. You really just want to WIN in your own mind. I don't NEED to defend my beliefs to you or anyone else and I don't WANT to.

reformed05 · Nov 12, 2019

Tra Phull said:
Oh, and btw, I accept whatever apology you may have offered, I don't recall such

All I know is the accusation of "being on a high horse" and "self-righteous free willer" came out of the blue from you, and "silly" came from another Calvinist

Do you want me to modify my signature and take out any reference to things you accused me of?

If so, I will.

That would be lovely

reformed05 · Nov 12, 2019

Tra Phull said:
Whatever. The heinous comments in my signature have been eliminated.

Heinous is your word not mine. I only said it was passive aggressive taunting. But thank you.

Tra Phull · Nov 12, 2019

You are welcome.

renniks · Nov 12, 2019

twin1954 said:
Nonsense. He determined and ordained all things in order to glorify Himself in sovereign mercy. He determined that sin enter the world He didn't cause it. Adam was not deceived according to Paul. Adam knew, against all his experience with God, what he was doing.

You just make this stuff up? Where's it say he ordained sin to enter the world?

twin1954 · Nov 13, 2019

renniks said:
You just make this stuff up? Where's it say he ordained sin to enter the world?

If He didn't then how did sin enter the world? Was He taken by surprise?

twin1954 · Nov 13, 2019

Butch5 said:
A red herring is logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. It's an error in an argument one is making. A question cannot be a logical fallacy. My statement, if Calvin had wanted to stop it, he could have, is not an argument. Thus there can be no fallacy in my post. I was not reasoning through an argument. My statement was merely to point out that Calvin had the pull to stop it if he wanted to.

Red Herring

Ignoratio elenchi

(also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation)

Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

twin1954 · Nov 13, 2019

renniks said:
No, all he has to do is know what will happen. To ordain or decree everything that happens would make God the only real sinner, as he would ultimately be the cause of all sin.

Not at all. God's decree didn't force Adam to sin. Adam sinned because he wanted to. The attempt to sit in judgment of God by making Him the author of sin is ridiculous. It discounts His wisdom, His goodness and His righteousness.

If God had not ordained that sin enter the world we would like the angels, not knowing the mercy of God. God commended His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

Colossians 1:15-19 (KJV) 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell;

Ephesians 1:8-10 (KJV) 8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:

twin1954 · Nov 13, 2019

Butch5 said:
If God ordained it and it had to come to pass, Caiaphas had no choice or free will. This is what you guys can't get around, no matter how hard you try. If you're going to claim that God ordains everything that happens as the Confession says, whatsoever comes to pass, there's no option for free will, no matter how hard you try.

There is no option for libertarian free will. Calvinsts do not deny that we have a will only that our will is without being bound by our nature.

As I said before, the Scriptures speak of our unwillingness much more than our inability. Given the choice we will always choose our sin. We love it, we love darkness rather than light, it is our fallen nature to do so.

Butch5 · Nov 13, 2019

twin1954 said:
Red Herring

Ignoratio elenchi

(also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation)

Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

That correct. A question is not reasoning.

Struggles with Calvinism

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ecumenical Loose Canon

Ecumenical Loose Canon

Ecumenical Loose Canon

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ecumenical Loose Canon

Well-Known Member

Baptist by the Bible

Baptist by the Bible

Baptist by the Bible

Baptist by the Bible

Newbie

Similar threads