calvinism

[ChristianT]

The "history" of Calvin sounds similar to Saul / Paul of Tarsus. Of courses they were born at different times and places and died differently and at different times.

Oh and Paul wrote some of the NT.

 

[iLogos]

The "history" of Calvin sounds similar to Saul / Paul of Tarsus. Of courses they were born at different times and places and died differently and at different times.

Oh and Paul wrote some of the NT.

And Paul was right John was wrong.

But yea other then that they were similar, they both liked killing Christians.

 

[Hammster]

Did Calvin ever support a doctrine of killing heretics? Or, did Calvin support the State in inflicting such penalties?

Oz

It's irrelevant. It's a genetic fallacy.

 

[Hammster]

Anyone who thinks that Calvinism rises or falls on the moral character of John Calvin is being idiotic.

<*(((><

 

[Hammster]

Yes. We all agree John Calvin had very little morals.

And we know that fallacies are all you have to argue with.

<*(((><

 

[Kermmie]

It's irrelevant. It's a genetic fallacy.

Kermmie: The condition of a man's heart is most important, more so than the actual sin.

 

[Hammster]

Kermmie: The condition of a man's heart is most important, more so than the actual sin.

Okay. So why is Reformed Theology wrong even if Calvin was the chief among sinners?

<*(((><

 

[VCViking]

Here is a novel idea I'm sure is difficult for some Calvinists to grasp.

Most people who disagree with Calvinism do so because they took the time to research it and came to a different conclusion then Calvinist did.

Imagine that!

You have Spurgeon as your signature, yet Spurgeon was a Calvinist and stated "Calvinism is the Gospel." So he gets a free pass?

 

[Hammster]

I have noticed what the anti-Calvinists WON'T do us go to a source like the Canons of Dort and pick a point and argue against it. That would be refreshing.

<*(((><

 

[RisingSpirit]

Is Calvinism is a cult? one of my friend is a die hard Calvinist and he has lot of a sign of a cult what you guys think?

The arminians are the cults while Calvinism isn't.

Some will continue to believe backwards theology. Not everyone will be saved.

 

[DeaconDean]

Free Will is the new cult of today

To quote a small section:

Very different is the idea which Scripture gives us, of the ever-blessed God, from that of those false gods worshipped by the heathens; and from that degrading representation of the true God, which Arminianism would palm upon mankind. &#8220;Our God [saysthis Psalm, verse the third] is in the heavens: He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased.&#8221; This is not the Arminian idea of God: for our free-willers and our chance-mongers tell us, that God does not do whatsoever He pleases; that there are a great number of things, which God wishes to do, and tugs and strives to do, and yet cannot bring to pass: they tell us, as one ingeniously expresses it:

That all mankind He fain would save,
But longs for what He cannot have.
Industrious, thus, to sound abroad,
A disappointed, changing God.​

Arminianism: The Golden Idol of Free-will by Augustus Toplady

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[greatdivide46]

Christianity isn't a cult since Christianity are all elects. Free Will is the new cult of today where many learn to save themselves due to arminians preaching another gospel to satisfy men and make money off them. If you give, give to the church of Elects that preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Does this qualify as a strawman or can only non-Calvinists come up with strawmen?

 

[Hammster]

Does this qualify as a strawman or can only non-Calvinists come up with strawmen?

No, it's a strawman.

<*(((><

 

[Skala]

Yes. We all agree John Calvin had very little morals.

Cuz you knew him in person right?

 

[Skala]

Your point?

I should hate all Calvinists because I don't agree with Calvinism?

The truth be told, I like a number of Preachers, some are Calvinists some are not. Spurgeon was a soft Calvinist. He preached the gospel Christ Crucified, rarely made Calvinism a talking point point.

I have yet met a human being I agreed with every thing that came out of their mouth.

I realize this may be difficult for some to grasp.

Preaching Christ crucified doesn't make someone a "soft" calvinist, just a regular Calvinist.

Not sure what you see as a distinction between Calvinist or Soft Calvinist.

 

[Skala]

Do u often make such baseless assumptions?

I totally understand Calvinism, I have read and researched it many, many times and even just recently again too, and I happen to disagree with it. I know such a concept is beyond your ability to comprehend, but trust me it's very possible and happens more often then you realize

Next I'm sure you will assume I'm either too stupid too understand it or I am not an elect.

It's clear you don't understand it based on some of your other posts in this thread.

Case in point:

That there is predestination, calling and elect is no denying. Calvinists take these verses and patch them all together to make it this way all across the board in a universal doctrine and even assign 5 points to it. Furthermore they deny man's free will and argue free will would take away God's Sovereignty as if that was possible. Calvinists have a hard time seeing God doing more then two things at the same time and still being in total control.

Theres soooo many errors and logical fallacies here.

Yet you "totally understand Calvinism" do you?

 

[Skala]

This is why I really get tired of talking to Calvinists.

They ask you a question, then you answer and immediately accuse you of strawman stuff.

Maybe because you always make strawmen.

I've seen most of your "Calvinism" posts and more often than not, you make errors.

 

[Eddie L]

Um.. this is a forum and a thread for discussing/debating Calvinism. If you don't want to do that, why in the world are you posting in this thread?

 

[Skala]

Refreshing would be for Calvinists to actually read the sources provided which are *scripture* based.

Every point is covered in the link I provided, the author well versed former Calvinist. But lets not let such details stop you from changing the subject

Why not start an argument at the beginning (as hamm noted) with the Canons of Dort?

What benefit is there to jumping ahead 400 years to some new article but some "supposed" ex-calvinist?

 

[Eddie L]

Let's please not let one cranky poster get everyone riled up. Up until recently, this has been a civil thread.