Anyone have good arguments against Calvinism.

zippy2006 · Friday at 12:44 PM

Hentenza said:
From your post 522.

“Why is it a just punishment for all of the unbelievers who do not sin to burn in the lake of fire for not believing?”

Which unbelievers have not sinned? Are you now arguing that unbelievers don’t go to hell because they have not sinned??This question or suggestion goes against even your church’s teaching on original sin. Why are you accusing others of red herrings and such when you are throwing out such nonsense?

Your misunderstanding has already been explained in this post. @bbbbbbb holds that there are multitudes of blameless unbelievers who will burn in the lake of fire, and he has consistently evaded requests for an explanation of such a remarkable belief.

zippy2006 · Friday at 12:58 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
No, it's neither fancy talk that I'm providing, nor is a denial that heresy exists.

Maybe you need to re-read your post:

2PhiloVoid said:
What's more, I'm willing to say that I'm someone's heretic in one way or another, and I'm fine with that. I still know that if it's the will of the Lord, I'll be saved and with that allowance, I can affirm both of you guys as brothers in Christ. I have little problem doing so.

Therefore, rather than spending time churning out thousands of words of argumentation in order to 'defend' or 'accuse' Calvin, I'll just admit that I'm going to be a heretic to each and every denomination that currently exists...

If you can't see that this is a rhetorical downplaying of assertions of heresy, then I don't know what to tell you. If you see people discussing whether X is a heresy, and you enter that conversation by saying, "Every X is somebody's heresy. My X's are also somebody's heresy, and I don't care," then you've obviously downplayed the concept of heresy.

2PhiloVoid said:
Obviously, I realize there are and there's no way in hell that I'm "unable" to place Mormons smack dab on my own laundry list. It's very, very easy to do

To do so cuts directly against the grain of your post in precisely the way I predicted it would. It makes no sense to say, "Every X is someone's heresy, and the X which makes Mormons heretics is a really important X that ought to be heeded." You can't relativize heresy while simultaneously pretending that certain heresies have a special claim. That would be a classic double standard.

2PhiloVoid said:
I decide. Not them.

Yes, we know that you are very insistent on your autonomy, but the fact of the matter is that no one has ever tried to take it away from you, and your indifference-to-heresy post had no semantic connection to this insistence on self-will. Given the meaning of English words, that was not the point of the post.

2PhiloVoid said:
Some ecclesial authority is a charade. Try visiting some of the Evangelical Churches I used to attend decades ago.

Sure, but the point is that if I am a Lutheran then I think that Martin Luther had a right to form his own church, and because there is no special difference between myself and Martin Luther, therefore I am also entitled to form my own church should I so choose. Denominational proliferation is to be expected given such a precedent.

2PhiloVoid said:
It's really not and it would be great, brother Zippy, if you could stop insisting that that is the case when it isn't.

Sticking to the substantial matter and avoiding the ad hominem, it is the case. When you point to the idea that "Every X is someone's heresy," you are pointing to the mature fruit of denominational proliferation.

bbbbbbb · Friday at 1:02 PM

zippy2006 said:
Your misunderstanding has already been explained in this post. @bbbbbbb holds that there are multitudes of blameless unbelievers who will burn in the lake of fire, and he has consistently evaded requests for an explanation of such a remarkable belief.

zippy2006 · Friday at 1:17 PM

Hentenza said:
What part of what I wrote does not make sense to you? You need to stop talking over me and just address the post.

I did address the post. I asked you what argument you think St. Paul is making. You responded and then I explained why the "argument" you think St. Paul is making lacks coherence. Indeed, I don't see it to be an argument at all, since the reasoning does not make any sense.

Hentenza said:
Correct. Can you point out where they have been declared heretic?

The Second Council of Orange, but this is tangential to the Mormon point.

Hentenza said:
If could judge Catholics along the same lines as Mormons because of the extra biblical Sacred tradition, which you can’t even define, and the catechism but I don’t. There is more issues to Mormonism including their anti Trinitarian stance so your comparison here is useless and disingenuous. I told you earlier that I was a Nicene Christian so keep your comparisons to that standard.

You literally said, "I don’t judge any professed Christian whether they are more Christian than others" (link). Except Mormons are professed Christians who you judge to be less Christian than others, because of your condition regarding the Nicene Creed. It is not disingenuous to point out that you are flat out contradicting yourself.

Hentenza said:
This is an example of your error in thinking. There is no liberal Protestantism except for in your head and it is a Strawman.

You've literally implied that everyone who professes to be a Christian is a Christian. What I said is 100% true.

zoidar · Friday at 2:44 PM

Hentenza said:
I did. The best way to get a quotation is to get it in context. Calvin wrote that the Savior's death was not meant to be common to all men, but rather targeted for those whom God elected to show mercy. He did not use the term “limited”, that came later at Dort.

"Not meant to be common to all men". Where exactly is this taken from? Is this Calvin's exact words or are you paraphrasing? Maybe we would understand the context differently, like we often do with many Bible passages.

Calvin writes this about Romans 5:18:

"As by the offense of one we were made (constitute) sinners; so the righteousness of Christ is efficacious to justify us. He does not say the righteousness -- dikaiosunen, but the justification -- dikaioma, [173] of Christ, in order to remind us that he was not as an individual just for himself, but that the righteousness with which he was endued reached farther, in order that, by conferring this gift, he might enrich the faithful. He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him. [174]"

He seems to distinguish between Christ suffering "for the sins of the whole world" and the fact that "all do not receive him."

2PhiloVoid · Friday at 3:52 PM

zippy2006 said:
Maybe you need to re-read your post:

If you can't see that this is a rhetorical downplaying of assertions of heresy, then I don't know what to tell you. If you see people discussing whether X is a heresy, and you enter that conversation by saying, "Every X is somebody's heresy. My X's are also somebody's heresy, and I don't care," then you've obviously downplayed the concept of heresy.

To do so cuts directly against the grain of your post in precisely the way I predicted it would. It makes no sense to say, "Every X is someone's heresy, and the X which makes Mormons heretics is a really important X that ought to be heeded." You can't relativize heresy while simultaneously pretending that certain heresies have a special claim. That would be a classic double standard.

Yes, we know that you are very insistent on your autonomy, but the fact of the matter is that no one has ever tried to take it away from you, and your indifference-to-heresy post had no semantic connection to this insistence on self-will. Given the meaning of English words, that was not the point of the post.

Sure, but the point is that if I am a Lutheran then I think that Martin Luther had a right to form his own church, and because there is no special difference between myself and Martin Luther, therefore I am also entitled to form my own church should I so choose. Denominational proliferation is to be expected given such a precedent.

Sticking to the substantial matter and avoiding the ad hominem, it is the case. When you point to the idea that "Every X is someone's heresy," you are pointing to the mature fruit of denominational proliferation.

Gee. You're getting into the mood for Fall festivities early, I see.

Hentenza · Friday at 4:57 PM

zoidar said:
"Not meant to be common to all men". Where exactly is this taken from? Is this Calvin's exact words or are you paraphrasing? Maybe we would understand the context differently, like we often do with many Bible passages.

Calvin writes this about Romans 5:18:

"As by the offense of one we were made (constitute) sinners; so the righteousness of Christ is efficacious to justify us. He does not say the righteousness -- dikaiosunen, but the justification -- dikaioma, [173] of Christ, in order to remind us that he was not as an individual just for himself, but that the righteousness with which he was endued reached farther, in order that, by conferring this gift, he might enrich the faithful. He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him. [174]"

He seems to distinguish between Christ suffering "for the sins of the whole world" and the fact that "all do not receive him."

Please link to your citation for context. Thanks.

Hentenza · Friday at 5:17 PM

zippy2006 said:
I did address the post. I asked you what argument you think St. Paul is making. You responded and then I explained why the "argument" you think St. Paul is making lacks coherence. Indeed, I don't see it to be an argument at all, since the reasoning does not make any sense.

And I replied in my post 514 and replied again in my post 527 for clarification. You didn’t answer.

zippy2006 said:
The Second Council of Orange, but this is tangential to the Mormon point.

You literally said, "I don’t judge any professed Christian whether they are more Christian than others" (link). Except Mormons are professed Christians who you judge to be less Christian than others, because of your condition regarding the Nicene Creed. It is not disingenuous to point out that you are flat out contradicting yourself.

I was clear when I expressively told you that I was a Nicene Christian and believe that thus creed describes the minimum required to be a Christian. A person cannot be a Christian that doesn’t know Christ as God incarnate. Your pursue of this point is quite disingenuous.

zippy2006 said:
You've literally implied that everyone who professes to be a Christian is a Christian. What I said is 100% true.

Nope. You know the saying about assuming right?

Valletta · Friday at 5:42 PM

bbbbbbb said:
The encyclical that you posted made me smile at the doublespeak. In paragraph 7 there is a total denial of the necessity for Jesus Christ and His Church to provide salvation for unbelievers. In this case their salvation is neither monergistic nor synergistic. They will be saved solely and completely based on their ethics and morality. This places the Christian faith at the same level as all other works-based religions.
However, in the very next paragraph this is completely and fully contradicted with the historic assertion that there is no salvation apart from the Catholic Church.

You misunderstand the encyclical. In summarizing paragraphs 7 and 8, those who knowingly reject the authority of Jesus and His Church shall not receive salvation. Those who don't believe the Catholic Church is Christ's Church may be saved through God's mercy.

Hentenza · Friday at 6:22 PM

Valletta said:
You misunderstand the encyclical. In summarizing paragraphs 7 and 8, those who knowingly reject the authority of Jesus and His Church shall not receive salvation. Those who don't believe the Catholic Church is Christ's Church may be saved through God's mercy.

My brother don’t you see how pompous of a statement that is? You gave two options. One is to reject Jesus AND His church and the other to reject “His” church and then only through God’s mercy. However, you assume that His church is your church so all other churches are “defective” churches that do not have the fullness of faith. That is not the case. God’s mercy is in every mainstream church not just yours. I believe, just like bbbbbbb’s church, that we have the fullness of faith since Christ is our Lord. I would suggest finding a different approach to keep things civil.

Valletta · Friday at 7:42 PM

Hentenza said:
My brother don’t you see how pompous of a statement that is? You gave two options. One is to reject Jesus AND His church and the other to reject “His” church and then only through God’s mercy. However, you assume that His church is your church so all other churches are “defective” churches that do not have the fullness of faith. That is not the case. God’s mercy is in every mainstream church not just yours. I believe, just like bbbbbbb’s church, that we have the fullness of faith since Christ is our Lord. I would suggest finding a different approach to keep things civil.

He misunderstood the encyclical, just clarifying the position the encyclical took--no offense intended.

Hentenza · Friday at 8:33 PM

Valletta said:
He misunderstood the encyclical, just clarifying the position the encyclical took--no offense intended.

Ok. I don’t doubt that you meant no offense but the wording of the encyclical is quite demeaning to Christians from other churches.

zoidar · Saturday at 1:21 AM

Hentenza said:
Please link to your citation for context. Thanks.

Romans 5 Calvin's Commentaries

Romans 5:18

Hentenza · Saturday at 9:38 AM

zoidar said:
Romans 5 Calvin's Commentaries

Romans 5:18

Thanks.

zoidar said:
"Not meant to be common to all men". Where exactly is this taken from? Is this Calvin's exact words or are you paraphrasing? Maybe we would understand the context differently, like we often do with many Bible passages.

Calvin writes this about Romans 5:18:

"As by the offense of one we were made (constitute) sinners; so the righteousness of Christ is efficacious to justify us. He does not say the righteousness -- dikaiosunen, but the justification -- dikaioma, [173] of Christ, in order to remind us that he was not as an individual just for himself, but that the righteousness with which he was endued reached farther, in order that, by conferring this gift, he might enrich the faithful. He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him. [174]"

He seems to distinguish between Christ suffering "for the sins of the whole world" and the fact that "all do not receive him."

The below is from Calvin’s commentary on John 3:16.

“Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father — that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the
efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.”

https://www.biblestudyguide.org/ebooks/comment/calcom34.pdf pg. 71.

The boldened portion above is what I paraphrased in my post.

zippy2006 · Saturday at 1:14 PM

Hentenza said:
And I replied in my post 514 and replied again in my post 527 for clarification. You didn’t answer.

Here is the exchange:

zippy2006 said:
Let me repeat the first two sentences of my post regarding your appeal to Romans 9: "But what is St. Paul's point? What is the argument he is making?"

Hentenza said:
Paul argues in Romans 9 that God’s promise to Israel has not failed, explaining that God’s selection is based on His sovereign grace rather than human heritage or works. He demonstrates this through historical examples and the concept of divine mercy. You can’t argue that this mercy is “different” in other circumstances. Therefore, what Paul states in the verses I posted in consistent with my argument.

zippy2006 said:
So what is Paul's argument supposed to be? "God's promise to Israel has not failed because God can select whoever he wants for salvation and no one gets to tell him otherwise"? Does that argument make any sense? How would "God elects based on his sovereign grace" get us to "God's promise has not failed"?

You haven't responded. #527 is just evasion - a claim that you don't understand the questions I asked. The questions are clear enough.

Hentenza said:
I was clear when I expressively told you that I was a Nicene Christian and believe that thus creed describes the minimum required to be a Christian.

Someone who says that "I don’t judge any professed Christian whether they are more Christian than others" while simultaneously saying, "I judge that no one who rejects the Nicene Creed is a Christian, regardless of whether they profess to be a Christian," has contradicted themselves. You are such a person.

Hentenza · Saturday at 3:50 PM

zippy2006 said:
Here is the exchange:

You haven't responded. #527 is just evasion - a claim that you don't understand the questions I asked. The questions are clear enough.

I asked you for clarification in my post 527 because you did not reply clearly to my earlier post and continue to cut my posts and only reply to whatever suits you. I think you are not being honest in your responses. You are not responding to my full post and just cropping it to suit your agenda. I think @bbbbbbb already stated the same thing a few posts back. Let me know when you want to have a proper debate. It’s not worth my time to continue engaging with you. Be blessed.

Valletta · Saturday at 6:39 PM

Hentenza said:
Ok. I don’t doubt that you meant no offense but the wording of the encyclical is quite demeaning to Christians from other churches.

The important message I was trying to get across was that the Catholic Church recognizes God's mercy toward ALL of His children. That the pope admonishes sin and error, much like St. Paul did, is considered by him, and other Catholics, as part of his job as a shepherd to the people. Protestants disagree with the position, they have their own interpretations of the Bible, we get it.

bbbbbbb · Saturday at 6:54 PM

Valletta said:
The important message I was trying to get across was that the Catholic Church recognizes God's mercy toward ALL of His children. That the pope admonishes sin and error, much like St. Paul did, is considered by him, and other Catholics, as part of his job as a shepherd to the people. Protestants disagree with the position, they have their own interpretations of the Bible, we get it.

Who do you consider to be ALL of God's children? Some would say that each and every person is God's child. If so, to what extent does God show mercy to His children?

zippy2006 · Sunday at 12:30 PM

Hentenza said:
I asked you for clarification in my post 527 because you did not reply clearly to my earlier post and continue to cut my posts and only reply to whatever suits you.

I am focusing on the heart of the matter and ignoring your gish gallop. You presented Romans 9 as the evidence for your position, and when questioned you failed to give anything more than a superficial account of why your interpretation of Romans 9 is reasonable.

Beyond that, you are simply ignoring everything you dislike in a way that is not intellectually honest. You ignore the fact that you contradict yourself regarding heresy and judging those who profess Christianity. You ignore the fact that @bbbbbbb thinks multitudes of blameless unbelievers will burn in the lake of fire. In an exchange like this you refuse to consider the immediate context of the cherry-picked single-verse proof text you've presented:

Hentenza said:
Tell me the errors of my ways by just posting verse 5.

The "error of your ways" is eisegesis, and eisegesis is not solved by keeping isolated verses isolated, and by ignoring my request to explicate St. Paul's supposed argument.

Hentenza · Sunday at 3:49 PM

zippy2006 said:
I am focusing on the heart of the matter and ignoring your gish gallop. You presented Romans 9 as the evidence for your position, and when questioned you failed to give anything more than a superficial account of why your interpretation of Romans 9 is reasonable.

Beyond that, you are simply ignoring everything you dislike in a way that is not intellectually honest. You ignore the fact that you contradict yourself regarding heresy and judging those who profess Christianity. You ignore the fact that @bbbbbbb thinks multitudes of blameless unbelievers will burn in the lake of fire. In an exchange like this you refuse to consider the immediate context of the cherry-picked single-verse proof text you've presented:

The "error of your ways" is eisegesis, and eisegesis is not solved by keeping isolated verses isolated, and by ignoring my request to explicate St. Paul's supposed argument.

Let me know when you learn how to debate. See ya!

Anyone have good arguments against Calvinism.

Dragonsworn

Dragonsworn

Well-Known Member

Dragonsworn

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

What goes around comes around!

I will fear no evil for You are with me

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Well-Known Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Well-Known Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Dragonsworn

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dragonsworn

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Similar threads