Disprove Calvinist Soteriology

[nobdysfool]

Sorry, jsarber. You can see what happens. I responded to Hammster, then someone responds to my response to Hammster. Then I resond to his response...

I have responded to you before. You are a challenge brother. But that's ok. What you say here is like saying "your opinion is only your opinion." Unless you missed the obvious, Hammster's comment was also opinion. If I said that, would I have then made a good point?

Hmmm...apparently, at some level, you agree....Why does that present a problem?

This is regarding my comment of most believers merely staying in the camp they were raised in. I see here you are speaking for others and saying their experience is like yours, that most believers switch theology camps. That is your personal opinion, and since not supported by any statistics other than your statement you're making for yourself and "others here" is as you say, anecdotal.

Seeing that my comment was more "defined" in that I referred to myself and others I know here in this forum, yes, it is my opinion, but it is an opinion based on some knowledge of whom I referred to. Your statement did not appear to be as "defined" as mine. If that is not the case, then we are still at the same point.

I didn't say there weren't many people who change their views; merely countering the insinuation that there are more that change to calvinism than change to anything else. Since I didn't say that many don't change, but merely said that most believe what they were raised in (those raised in church to start with), saying that i deny this is misleading at best, and deceptive at worst.

The way it was stated left the impression that you believe that such changes of beliefs were rather rare, and therefore somewhat irrelevant. I disagree, because my own experience and observation has not matched what you seemed to be saying. Maybe we just revolve around in different circles.

it seems odd to me that you seem to want others to accept your opinions without question, but when someone such as myself disagrees, you are not willing to accord them the same thing. Somehow, their contrary opinion is an "attack", when all it is is a differing opinion.

I am amazed at the need to defend a theology that I see on some of these threads. This gentleman merely asked for verses that disprove calvinism. What's wrong with that?

Not a thing, especially sine he has now given us the reason behind his request. I have to wonder though, would your defense be the same had you known that at the time?

The first response wasn't any verses, but a spiritual proud statement that "there aren't any."

So now you can discern the thoughts and intents of the heart of others,? Characterizing it as "spiritually proud" (which is almost an oxymoron, if you stop and think about it) may be a bit hasty. Perhaps it was an attempt at dry humor. Or merely an opinion. since I know the poster who posted it, I am more inclined to think it was an attempt at humor. Sometimes when we try to be humorous, it doesn't come off as funny to someone else. I think that may be the case here.

Anyone that answers on this thread doesn't mean thatthey are trying "to set people straight", or to "defeat __________", I would agree with you if they were and with those that do.

But there are those who post here whose attitude is precisely that. My statement wasn't really specifically directed at you or about you.

But do you realize that in responding as you do, you sound like the very thing you're condemning?

the risk always exists that I may be misinterpreted, or misunderstood.

Why the need to attack my comments?

Attack?? I was not attacking you. I merely provided another viewpoint. it seems you are taking my challenge and counterpoint to your opinions too personally. I merely expressed a differing viewpoint. I am allowed to do that here. So is everyone else, and there is no requirement that anyone agree with anyone else's opinion.

Do you really think that there are more believers converting to Calvinism as you define it (by your signature) than in the moderate form that I believe, just based on the few scattered people on a series of threads on CF?

Reading a lot into my sig, don't you think? I don't mention Calvinism once in it. Yet you are claiming that my sig is Calvinism as I define it. It is only my sig, but it states what I believe to be true.

If that's true, please explain to me why the largest and growing denominations in the world today are the Southern Baptist Convention and the Assemblies of God, and that all mainline denominations, most of whom are covenant theology and all of whom are liberal, are dying. I know, you will dismiss this as merely my opinion. Anyone can check the internet for recent news articles to prove this. And I would encourage them to check for articles talking about covenant theology groups growth. They may be in for a surprise.

And there are more than a few Southern Baptists who are also Calvinists, including Dr. Albert Mohler. Baptist belief has been historically Calvinist for hundreds of years, although there are several different "flavors" of Baptist, including Arminian. I've attended both Baptist and AoG churches of many different stripes.

God is blessing So Baptists because they have returned to the Word of God, repentance, and faith; and said so in their convention meetings. I am responding to something of which I know something about. Not just making a personal opinion.

And that's wonderful. God always honors His Word. But isn't a return top the ?Word of God defined as "changing their views" in at least some cases? If so, that would tend to support my opinion that changing views is more prevalent than you seem to want to admit.

which was my only point in the original response, if you had been willing to read it as such, instead of intent on countering it merely because I was perceived to be "the enemy." Maybe you should cut your response above and paste it into a response to Hammster.

My, my, for some reason, your opinion being challenged and a differing opinion being expressed has offended you personally, when no personal slight or insult was intended. So tell me, is my opinion as worthy of consideration as yours?

I do not see the evidence of that, example being your response here which had as little substance as you accused mine of. But you couldn't let it die; you had to respond. That's ok.

No, it's not OK, or you would not have responded as you did.

But when you wear your theology on your shirt sleeves, the doctrinal statement in your signature of regeneration preceding faith, it doesn't appear that you are anything but ready for a fight,

That seems rather harsh. I think you are assuming much more than you actually know.

and the fight is for a theological statement that to be honest, doesn't matter a bit to the spread of the gospel and is useless to the further growth of a believer in deliverance and victory over the strongholds in their life. It is just a doctrinal statement, nothing more. I know, that is only my opinion. But before you write it off as such, just imagine: a Christian brother tells you they are really struggling with lust and you offer them your favorite defenses on these threads - "you have to be regenerated to believe."How have you helped him?

I fail to see what that has to do with the discussion at hand. it seems more to me like an attempt at a return volley for an imagined attack on you, which was not the case from my side. My only point was that opinions vary, and when one tries to pass off opinion as some sort of fact, it should be and will be challenged, and an opinion should be seen for what it is: an opinion.

My frustration, as it exists, is with the arminians that continuously spout works, and never lead people to grow in faith that will connect them with the Presence of Christ, the Power of Christ, and their Position in Christ, which will lead to "works" and is the only thing that will produce lasting deliverance, everything else being wood, hay, stubble. And with the Reformed Covenant Calvinists who are good about emphasizing salvation by grace through faith, but then offer nothing beyond that to lead him out, but instead leave the struggling believer to believe that God in His sovereignty didn't ordain them to victory or they would have it; or that they by their own ability must achieve victory; again wood, hay, stubble and totally useless when confronting strongholds like homosexuality, drug addiction, alcoholism, strong lust attachments.

I agree with you here. it would be fine with me if we could move beyond the fundamentals, and quit bickering about what a horrible thing Calvinism supposedly is. But there are some here (not referring to you, necessarily) who will not allow that to happen. There are some here who seem to believe that all of the evils in the world are somehow traceable to Calvinism.

Both groups are almost totally useless when it come to anything but arguing about doctrines like "regeneration comes before faith" or "justification is by works as well as faith."

See above.

I just had a thread where I plainly asked people whether they had had a point of conversion where they accepted/believe in/prayed to receive Christ, and couldn't even get a straight answer out of but half of the people. The rest had to get into a theological discussion to answer a simple question. Either you have or you have not. In the process of some peoples discussions about whether faith was a gift of God or not, one young man who had been struggling with coming to Christ was encouraged by another to "go ahead and make the jump." I rejoice to say that he posted later that he had done so and ended the tottering on the fence. I rejoice in that, as do the angels in heaven. But I doubt there is much rejoicing over the other posts arguing over when faith is granted, or over mine and your posts here. But, that brother, as you so eloquently put it, is only my opinion, which is as we know, worth very little.

I must have missed that thread. I simply don't have time to read every last thing that is posted in every thread in this forum. I'll be happy to share my experience, but I won't burden this reply or this thread with it.

I've said my piece. I wasn't attacking you, and if you were offended (and it appears you were) I apologize.

 

[Hupomone10]

Hmmm...apparently, at some level, you agree....Why does that present a problem?



Seeing that my comment was more "defined" in that I referred to myself and others I know here in this forum, yes, it is my opinion, but it is an opinion based on some knowledge of whom I referred to. Your statement did not appear to be as "defined" as mine. If that is not the case, then we are still at the same point.



The way it was stated left the impression that you believe that such changes of beliefs were rather rare, and therefore somewhat irrelevant. I disagree, because my own experience and observation has not matched what you seemed to be saying. Maybe we just revolve around in different circles.

it seems odd to me that you seem to want others to accept your opinions without question, but when someone such as myself disagrees, you are not willing to accord them the same thing. Somehow, their contrary opinion is an "attack", when all it is is a differing opinion.



Not a thing, especially sine he has now given us the reason behind his request. I have to wonder though, would your defense be the same had you known that at the time?



So now you can discern the thoughts and intents of the heart of others,? Characterizing it as "spiritually proud" (which is almost an oxymoron, if you stop and think about it) may be a bit hasty. Perhaps it was an attempt at dry humor. Or merely an opinion. since I know the poster who posted it, I am more inclined to think it was an attempt at humor. Sometimes when we try to be humorous, it doesn't come off as funny to someone else. I think that may be the case here.



But there are those who post here whose attitude is precisely that. My statement wasn't really specifically directed at you or about you.




the risk always exists that I may be misinterpreted, or misunderstood.



Attack?? I was not attacking you. I merely provided another viewpoint. it seems you are taking my challenge and counterpoint to your opinions too personally. I merely expressed a differing viewpoint. I am allowed to do that here. So is everyone else, and there is no requirement that anyone agree with anyone else's opinion.




Reading a lot into my sig, don't you think? I don't mention Calvinism once in it. Yet you are claiming that my sig is Calvinism as I define it. It is only my sig, but it states what I believe to be true.



And there are more than a few Southern Baptists who are also Calvinists, including Dr. Albert Mohler. Baptist belief has been historically Calvinist for hundreds of years, although there are several different "flavors" of Baptist, including Arminian. I've attended both Baptist and AoG churches of many different stripes.



And that's wonderful. God always honors His Word. But isn't a return top the ?Word of God defined as "changing their views" in at least some cases? If so, that would tend to support my opinion that changing views is more prevalent than you seem to want to admit.



My, my, for some reason, your opinion being challenged and a differing opinion being expressed has offended you personally, when no personal slight or insult was intended. So tell me, is my opinion as worthy of consideration as yours?



No, it's not OK, or you would not have responded as you did.



That seems rather harsh. I think you are assuming much more than you actually know.



I fail to see what that has to do with the discussion at hand. it seems more to me like an attempt at a return volley for an imagined attack on you, which was not the case from my side. My only point was that opinions vary, and when one tries to pass off opinion as some sort of fact, it should be and will be challenged, and an opinion should be seen for what it is: an opinion.



I agree with you here. it would be fine with me if we could move beyond the fundamentals, and quit bickering about what a horrible thing Calvinism supposedly is. But there are some here (not referring to you, necessarily) who will not allow that to happen. There are some here who seem to believe that all of the evils in the world are somehow traceable to Calvinism.



See above.



I must have missed that thread. I simply don't have time to read every last thing that is posted in every thread in this forum. I'll be happy to share my experience, but I won't burden this reply or this thread with it.

I've said my piece. I wasn't attacking you, and if you were offended (and it appears you were) I apologize.

I appologize for taking it that personal. I thought it was a challenge that should be answered, but am not anymore satisfied with my response than I am with the argument I mentioned above. It is more important to me that we are brothers, and share in common that although different emphases in our life, we grow to His image and share love for each other although differing in some emphases.
H.

 

[Hupomone10]

I have a group here that's been studying eternal salvation for the last several weeks. We actually believe salvation is solely by the grace of God without the need for human conditions to be met. We agree with Reformed Theology for the most part.

We were going to look at Bible verses tonight which seem to contradict our views and attempt to discover how they fit. That's why I was asking.

Too bad we didn't come through in this.

I will look in the near future for verses that are "questionable passages." That is only healthy for a believer confident in his position in Christ to branch out and do so. For it is the Word that we live by, not a theological comfort box.

In other words, if it challenges my belief, I need the challenge and can bravely look at it, if there are holes in the challenge I will grow by discovering them.
H.

 

[Hammster]

I have a group here that's been studying eternal salvation for the last several weeks. We actually believe salvation is solely by the grace of God without the need for human conditions to be met. We agree with Reformed Theology for the most part.

We were going to look at Bible verses tonight which seem to contradict our views and attempt to discover how they fit. That's why I was asking.

Even before I was a Calvinist I held to eternal security, so I'm not sure I can help there. But if you go to the "Thoughts Concerning Salvation" thread, and look for the posts by Bible2, you'll find plenty.

 

[WaltonM]

But not all of us define sovereignty in the small way that Reformed theology does, so I fail to see how this line of thinking is applicable to anyone except those who have already bought into the philosophical presuppositions of Reformed theology.

This is a very good description. It seems that many calvinists don't think outside their own box. Therefore most of those on the sidelines just walk away puzzled...

 

[Hammster]

This is a very good description. It seems that many calvinists don't think outside their own box. Therefore most of those on the sidelines just walk away puzzled...

It was thinking outside of the box that led me to Calvinism. How 'bout dem apples?

 

[muldoon]

I need everything you've got to disprove Calvinist beliefs on eternal salvation. I'm looking for Bible verses more than arguments.

You can't disprove Calvinism. It is the Truth, revealed by God to those whom He has forever elected to enjoy eternal salvation. To those that do not see the truth, they are surely those of whom John spoke that God has "blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn..." [Jn 12:40]

The bible, page by page, outlines the truth of Calvinism with clear and obvious example and teachings. There can be no refutation.

 

[anthony55]

mul:

You can't disprove Calvinism. It is the Truth, revealed by God to those whom He has forever elected to enjoy eternal salvation

Thats right.

 

[WaltonM]

It was thinking outside of the box that led me to Calvinism. How 'bout dem apples?

Then how about teaching your fellow Calvinists to think outside the box. Like the two fellas who posted just above me (and below you). They imply that those who aren't Calvinist are blind, dead, and too stoopid.

there is no conversation in that, just declaration. like some churches of Christ saying they are the only christians. calvinists may give lip service that others are christians, but they clearly treat and perceive them - us - as 2nd class citizens.

Last I checked Calvinists are a minority of all christians. Heck, calvinists are even a minority within evangelicalism. Same as churches of Christ who claim they are the only christians. small minority...and there are reasons for that...

now you could not reply to this and just ignore it. but those of us on the sidelines can see what is happening very clearly. those replies are a microcosm of it...

 

[nobdysfool]

Then how about teaching your fellow Calvinists to think outside the box. Like the two fellas who posted just above me (and below you). They imply that those who aren't Calvinist are blind, dead, and too stoopid.

there is no conversation in that, just declaration. like some churches of Christ saying they are the only christians. calvinists may give lip service that others are christians, but they clearly treat and perceive them - us - as 2nd class citizens.

Last I checked Calvinists are a minority of all christians. Heck, calvinists are even a minority within evangelicalism. Same as churches of Christ who claim they are the only christians. small minority...and there are reasons for that...

now you could not reply to this and just ignore it. but those of us on the sidelines can see what is happening very clearly. those replies are a microcosm of it...

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

Snarky attitudes have a tendency to breed more of the same....

Speaking as a Calvinist myself, thinking outside the box is more likely among the Calvinists, in my experience. So let's just stop the peanut gallery remarks, and deal with the subject at hand, which is the OP.

 

[anthony55]

For a person to set out to disprove calvinism, they are set out on a quest to disprove the Gospel of God. You must understand, that calvinism is just a name that men have given truth of scripture.

 

[Hammster]

Then how about teaching your fellow Calvinists to think outside the box. Like the two fellas who posted just above me (and below you). They imply that those who aren't Calvinist are blind, dead, and too stoopid.

there is no conversation in that, just declaration. like some churches of Christ saying they are the only christians. calvinists may give lip service that others are christians, but they clearly treat and perceive them - us - as 2nd class citizens.

Last I checked Calvinists are a minority of all christians. Heck, calvinists are even a minority within evangelicalism. Same as churches of Christ who claim they are the only christians. small minority...and there are reasons for that...

now you could not reply to this and just ignore it. but those of us on the sidelines can see what is happening very clearly. those replies are a microcosm of it...

The individuals mentioned seem to be hyper-Calvinists. If you know anything about Calvinism you will know the difference.

Also, there are procedures in place to deal with situations where members are accused of not being Christians. I followed those procedures this morning when I first saw the posts.

And, FWIW, please don't be so ignorant as to think that many Calvinists have had our salvation questioned. Heck, I've been called a spawn of Satan and a Nazi for my views. And that by those whom hold to the same synergist view I presume you hold.

 

[WaltonM]

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

I'm not the one implying that other Christians are blind and too dumb to see the obvious calvinism in the Bible...your absence of addressing any of what they said is telling...because they say they represent calvinism.

and since they claim Bible = calvinism then that really underscores my point about no thinking outside the box.

 

[Tzaousios]

I'm not the one implying that other Christians are blind and too dumb to see the obvious calvinism in the Bible...your absence of addressing any of what they said is telling...because they say they represent calvinism.

and since they claim Bible = calvinism then that really underscores my point about no thinking outside the box.

Have you read Hammster's posts? He has challenged this individual on a number of occasions and has pointed out that he is in fact a former member with a different account.

 

[WaltonM]

The individuals mentioned seem to be hyper-Calvinists. If you know anything about Calvinism you will know the difference.

If I know anything about Calvinism then I will know the difference?

They claim to be calvinists and represent calvinism. They "seem" to be calvinists to me! Are you saying we aren't supposed to take them seriously? I wouldn't know which calvinist to take seriously or not. The bottom line is that hypercalvinists are still calvinists, they are just a variation within calvinism. they don't distinguish themselves, and I don't see any calvinists calling them out.

Also, there are procedures in place to deal with situations where members are accused of not being Christians. I followed those procedures this morning when I first saw the posts.

Don't know about any of those procedures. What I do know is that these guys are saying they are calvinists and they...don't make calvinism look very good. at all.

And, FWIW, please don't be so ignorant as to think that many Calvinists have had our salvation questioned. Heck, I've been called a spawn of Satan and a Nazi for my views. And that by those whom hold to the same synergist view I presume you hold.

please, I am not ignorant. I see calvinists as christians. just as arminians and catholics and orthodox and others. I think wild claims about people with beliefs are just that - wild claims. I call into question the wild claims that others have about calvinists, too. to say bible = arminianism is too much. So too, is that bible = calvinism.

I take it that you probably don't realize that statements like the two posters made are very damaging to calvinist arguments.

and I really don't care about the debate between monergist and synergist. Its far more heat than light. It is something I just opt out of.

 

[WaltonM]

Have you read Hammster's posts? He has challenged this individual on a number of occasions and has pointed out that he is in fact a former member with a different account.

I haven't read any of his posts outside this thread...

 

[Tzaousios]

I haven't read any of his posts outside this thread...

Well, there you go. Know who you are posting about. It is quite simple to go to his profile or username and click on "find all posts" and read through them.

 

[nobdysfool]

I'm not the one implying that other Christians are blind and too dumb to see the obvious calvinism in the Bible...your absence of addressing any of what they said is telling...because they say they represent calvinism.

I'm sure that you're intelligent enough to realize you can't believe everything you read, when it is written by fallible men, some of whom have an agenda, whether it is hidden or not. Just because a person claims to be a Calvinist doesn't mean they are. And I am not casting any aspersions on anyone. I am not passing any judgment on their standing before God, which is what you seem to be implying that I'm doing. Those that do get reported. That's the way things work here.

Also, I am not going to waste my time trying to answer every last little thing someone says that is claimed to be Calvinist when it isn't Calvinist. And, contrary to unfounded assumptions, Calvinists don't all march in lock-step. Just like non-Calvinists, there is a range of beliefs within the Calvinist tent. For you to basically demand that we do your work for you, in reality marginalizes you, not us. If you want to know something, ask, and do some research yourself. If you don't want to then I don't know what more I can really say.

I'm not saying this to insult you, just pointing out that you should either engage in the discussion with enough information, or get off the playing field.

and since they claim Bible = calvinism then that really underscores my point about no thinking outside the box.

Please consider that it sounds like you're basically saying that you aren't interested in finding out who is speaking the truth, and who is just blowing smoke, so you're basically deciding that we're ALL blowing smoke. If that is how you feel, why torture yourself by remaining here and arguing? We respond better to heartfelt and honest questions, than to sniping and insults. Sorry, we're all just human. Respect begets respect, and the opposite is also true.

 

[Hammster]

They claim to be calvinists and represent calvinism. They "seem" to be calvinists to me! Are you saying we aren't supposed to take them seriously? I wouldn't know which calvinist to take seriously or not. The bottom line is that hypercalvinists are still calvinists, they are just a variation within calvinism. they don't distinguish themselves, and I don't see any calvinists calling them out.

It appears that you fall into the camp, then, that doesn't know much about Calvinists with the exception that you don't like them. If you thought outside of the box, as you have challenged us to do, then you would at least be versed enough to know exactly why you disagree with us. But by your comments we must conclude that you feel safe and secure within your box.

 

[Hammster]

Don't know about any of those procedures. What I do know is that these guys are saying they are calvinists and they...don't make calvinism look very good. at all.

When you signed up as a member you stated that you would abide by the rules. One of the rules is to not call members non-believers if the profess to be Christians. If rules are violated we are obligated to report the violations. That is what I did.