Calvinism, explained.

[ToBeLoved]

Actual quotes by "Calvinists" or not - the first two are spot on. Nothing inflammatory or theologically controversial there IMO. I doubt that they would ever be said to a "babe" in Christ by any Calvinist though.

The third "quote" is not something that anyone, Calvinist or otherwise, would say to a person doubting their salvation.

You'll have to provide a source for that third "quote" or I just won't believe that it was ever said. No offense. Will you provide it please?

Often times people put things in quotes just to emphasis the idea that they are the "type" of thing that people say or think. If that's the case here, I understand that and have done it myself.

But, even if that's the case, it misrepresents what Calvinists teach or even believe.

You know, I can not say why the people who wrote these things wrote what they wrote. If people misrepresent Calvinism, that is not my fault. But the fact is that new Christians do get confused. We are called by God to look out for the babes in Christ. So I will continue to do so.

I am not responsible for what I've read written by others. Only the truthfulness that it did indeed happen. You do not have to believe me, but I do not lie especially about Christ.

 

[Patmos]

It actually places you firmly in Pelagian territory, which was deemed heretical by:

• Councils of Carthage (412, 416, and 418)
• Council of Ephesus (431)
• The Council of Orange (529)
• Council of Trent (1546) Roman Catholic
• 2nd Helvetic (1561/66) 8-9. (Swiss-German Reformed)
• Augsburg Confession (1530) Art. 9, 18 (Lutheran)
• Gallican Confession (1559) Art. 10 (French Reformed)
• Belgic Confession (1561) Art. 15 (Lowlands, French/Dutch/German Reformed)
• The Anglican Articles (1571), 9. (English)
• Canons of Dort (1618-9), 3/4.2 (Dutch/German/French Reformed)

More rubbish from Brian.

Pelagian is denial of OS (hint - that's not Operating System, Brian). Nothing to do with the definition of 'dead' in sin. The 'dead' here being the same as 'dead' to sin. If you, Brian, are dead to sin then why do you continue to sin ? Like posting hit and run bait posts for example.

It is understandable why so many put you on ignore.

 

[Patmos]

Brian, this might help you out. R C Sproul is a Calvinist so better to criticise him.

Why don't you read R C Sproul's article, 'The Pelagian Captivity of the Church'? You will see that Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism is alive and well in the contemporary church.

In the late 1970s I attended a Bible College in Canada where one of the faculty taught (in a course I took) that there is no such thing as original sin. That makes him Pelagian. This was an evangelical, Pentecostal college.

Oz

 

[Patmos]

Brian, from Canon of Dort. https://carm.org/canons-of-dort

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 4. The wrath of God abides upon those who believe not this gospel. But such as receive it and embrace Jesus the Savior by a true and living faith are by Him delivered from the wrath of God and from destruction, and have the gift of eternal life conferred upon them.

Receive first, then delivered is what it says, doesn't it.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 5. The cause or guilt of this unbelief as well as of all other sins is no wise in God, but in man himself; whereas faith in Jesus Christ and salvation through Him is the free gift of God, as it is written: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8). Likewise: "For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him" (Phil 1:29)

You might like this part!

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 6. That some receive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it, proceeds from God's eternal decree. "For known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world" (Acts 15:18 A.V.). "who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will" (Eph 1:11). According to which decree He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe;
So this obstinate unbeliever gets softened. Not the one who alread is soften, or already granted etc

 

[jimmyjimmy]

If people misrepresent Calvinism, that is not my fault.

While that is true, you are responsible since you have been corrected on this weeks ago, yet still repeat the same error.

 

[Patmos]

Slight change of subject - not a deflection, Brian.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 7. Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He has out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from the primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect and the foundation of salvation.


FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 11. And as God Himself is most wise, unchangeable, omniscient, and omnipotent, so the election made by Him can neither be interrupted nor changed, recalled, or annulled; neither can the elect be cast away, nor their number diminished.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 15. ...... And this is the decree of reprobation, which by no means makes God the Author of sin (the very though of which is blasphemy), but declares Him to be an awful, irreprehensible, and righteous Judge and Avenger thereof.

Do you get the picture. Even amongst Calvinism there is disagreement and debate. E,g The Supt's vs the Infras, The double predestinarians vs the Single. They disagree! fact. Not to mention the 5 pointer vs the 4 pointer and so on.

Also, many Calvinists deny that Reformed writing ever says God reprobates anyone (these are the single predestinarians). Yet The Canons of Dort PROVE them wrong. Check it for yourself. I have NOT misquoted or anything so please don't bother with that dodge.

As for the NON Calvinist fraternity this bit ( and much more ) "And this is the decree of reprobation, which by no means makes God the Author of sin" is nothing more than total contradiction (similar for some types of Calvinists - Moderate, low etc).

 

[jimmyjimmy]

More rubbish from Brian.

Pelagian is denial of OS (hint - that's not Operating System, Brian). Nothing to do with the definition of 'dead' in sin. The 'dead' here being the same as 'dead' to sin. If you, Brian, are dead to sin then why do you continue to sin ? Like posting hit and run bait posts for example.

It is understandable why so many put you on ignore.

Yes, it is very understandable why I ignore some people on CF. I put belligerent people on ignore.

Your post - your soteriology, by your own description, is Pelagian or semi-Pelegian, not Arminian. Pelagianism involves more than the denial of OS, as I'm sure you know.

If I read you correctly, you stated that man, unassisted by God's Holy Spirit, has the ability to come to Christ. That is not an orthodox view.

 

[Patmos]

If I read you correctly, you stated that man, unassisted by God's Holy Spirit, has the ability to come to Christ. That is not an orthodox view.

Yes that is the trouble. I quoted the Canons of Dort which expounded in depth what I simply said.
You do not read correctly and add you own presuppositions.

 

[Patmos]

I wonder how many here have read the Canons of Dort!

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Yes that is the trouble. I quoted the Canons of Dort which expounded in depth what I simply said.
You do not read correctly and add you own presuppositions.

Have you ever read any of the texts/documents you quoted ? I have, many time over.

I am guessing you are a 0 point Calvinist. You seem to miss the point of what people actually say, I believe deliberately. Your replies are pointless, I believe to be provocative, so I am putting you on ignore. Bye.

Go on, post something to belittle and insult me.

Go in peace.

 

[ToBeLoved]

While that is true, you are responsible since you have been corrected on this weeks ago, yet still repeat the same error.

What do you mean? What have I been corrected on?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

What do you mean? What have I been corrected on?

We have told you that the Calvinist view was misrepresented by whomever said what you claim they did, yet you continue to attribute what they said to Calvin.

 

[ToBeLoved]

We have told you that the Calvinist view was misrepresented by whomever said what you claim they did, yet you continue to attribute what they said to Calvin.

It is attributed to people who have participated in conversations on CF.

I don't think I said Calvin has participated in CF threads.

So I did not attribute them to Calvin, but someone who considers themselves a Calvinist.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

It is attributed to people who have participated in conversations on CF.

I don't think I said Calvin has participated in CF threads.

So I did not attribute them to Calvin, but someone who considers themselves a Calvinist.

That's what I mean. You are calling it Calvinism, when it is not. Please stop.

 

[ToBeLoved]

That's what I mean. You are calling it Calvinism, when it is not. Please stop.

That is your opinion. Thanks for sharing.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

That is your opinion. Thanks for sharing.

That's very obnoxious and uncalled for. It's not my opinion. You have been saying things about Calvinsts that are not true. We have told you that they are not true, yet you persist. How is that OK? How is that in line with the Greatest Commandment?

 

[ToBeLoved]

That's very obnoxious and uncalled for. It's not my opinion. You have been saying things about Calvinsts that are not true. We have told you that they are not true, yet you persist. How is that OK? How is that in line with the Greatest Commandment?

How does "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind" against my having a different opinion than you?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

How does "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind" against my having a different opinion than you?

"and love your neighbor as yourself."

 

[ToBeLoved]

"and love your neighbor as yourself."

You said the greatest commandment. This ^^ is the second greatest commandment.

Do you need the verses?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

You said the greatest commandment. This ^^ is the second greatest commandment.

Do you need the verses?

They are linked, and you wouldn't speak to me that way in person, so please don't do it simply because you feel some autonomy from the interweb.