Disprove Calvinist Soteriology

[Hupomone10]

hupo:



I know, because that is what it means.

We don't need to argue over whether the text says something and means something else. We know we differ on this.

There are always two alternatives in such a situation:
1) that it means merely what it says and nothing more, and
2) that it means more than what it says.
Walking in and listening to the Spirit will help guide us into which it is.

Please elaborate on "humanly believe." I'm curious about that one.

 

[heymikey80]

The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ ...

yes.

and what you will do with that.

I've often wondered. Is the Gospel any less the Gospel without our response? This is probably just semantics.

I think the Gospel does dive into Who Christ is, as anthony55 said. And there's obviously an implication, "what will you do?" But a decade ago a theologian thought to scope what Paul meant by "gospel", and it was ... what's above.

Just so you know, I agree that Calvinism is a science; it's a theology after all. It's not the Gospel. And entire understanding is not what's needed to save people -- that's been the case for thousands of years.

 

[heymikey80]

Yes it should.

2 Cor 5:15

and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.

Uh, back up a verse.

For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.​

Are you saying "all died" in Christ? Or is there some other view I'm not seeing yet?

 

[anthony55]

hupo:

We don't need to argue over whether the text says something and means something else.

I am not arguing, I am witnessing the Truth of scripture.

 

[anthony55]

hupo:

Originally Posted by Hupomone10

Yes it should.

2 Cor 5:15

and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.
​

That verse is speaking about all the elect seed in Christ, that when He died, they to died with Him, for He was their Head and represenative.

He died in order that they should not no longer live to themselves, so that is the effect of His death towards them, they will live spiritually for His Glory.

 

[WaltonM]

An appeal to emotion...... or even more directly an argumentum ad populum

you quoted me out of context. its a small part of a post I made to what another poster said.

 

[WaltonM]

I think that's the kind of closed-minded arrogance the previous writer was referring to. The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and what you will do with that.

We all know the gospel was around before Calvin enlightened us, and before those who followed him and exaggerated his teachings enlightened us further.

I am simple folk, and somehow I believe the gospel can be seen in the scriptures without an arminian or a calvinist telling me how to interpret it before I read it.

Perhaps people would be better off just reading the gospel of John and deciding what they will do with it instead of listening to us.

Just a thought.

Yes, my thoughts as well.

 

[WaltonM]

Most Calvinists just find non-Calvinists less precise about their theology, and thus not as accurate. It's when anti-Calvinists propose to accuse Calvinism of being wrong or heretical at specific points that my response is raised. I've no beef with non-Calvinists for being non-Calvinists. It's that specific anti-Calvinists propose to attack Calvinism on 500-year-old allegations that weren't true in the first place.

What about those Calvinists who accuse non-calvinists of being wrong and heretical? That is where my beef comes in...

I object to the not-so-accurate labeling of pelagianism of christians...

 

[WaltonM]

So... does this follow for all minorities? I mean it must if that is the reason why there are minorities in the first place. What about Christianity in general? We are a minority of the world population. Is that because we are wrong, or maybe less credible?

Terrible argument, IMO. If anything, being in the minority and constantly being lashed out against (for ridiculous claims...) assures me even more that this is the right place to be.

So you quote me out of context...and what does that prove?

Nothing.

address what I wrote and then we have some discussion, not some imaginary "one and done" argument on something out of context.

 

[Hammster]

you quoted me out of context. its a small part of a post I made to what another poster said.

I know that I didn't quote you out of context. I just asked a question. But I did go back an reread your post. I don't see how he took what you said out of context. Maybe you can explain further by explaining the purpose of pointing out the minority status of Calvinists. In context, of course.

 

[heymikey80]

What about those Calvinists who accuse non-calvinists of being wrong and heretical? That is where my beef comes in...

Well, my beef is with people who accuse other people of departing the faith when they're not. But that crosses many, many lines.

Wrong has been handled. There's this Guy Who died on a Cross 2000 years ago for that.

I object to the not-so-accurate labeling of pelagianism of christians...

I've seen so many different people object to so many different gradations of Pelagianism, it's not really a factor for me. Is it Pelagius' whole program of sanctification? His level or empowerment? How about semi-Pelagianism as represented in 529 AD?

Y'won't get past it. It's a terminology issue.

 

[Hammster]

What about those Calvinists who accuse non-calvinists of being wrong and heretical? That is where my beef comes in...

For me, I guess it would depend on the circumstance. When I see a member call another mber a heretic just because they have different views, I report it. But there have been some pretty heretical stuff said on here, so I can't make a blanket statement about that.

 

[student ad x]

you quoted me out of context. its a small part of a post I made to what another poster said.

No, those 2 sentences are a self contained dig at the opposition in this discussion, which as you say is/are/was/were a minority view which = a logical fallicy.

 

[WaltonM]

I know that I didn't quote you out of context. I just asked a question. But I did go back an reread your post. I don't see how he took what you said out of context. Maybe you can explain further by explaining the purpose of pointing out the minority status of Calvinists. In context, of course.

The fella equated the gospel of God = Calvinism...among other similar type statements.

so what about those christians outside of Calvinism? at best it means that they are 2nd class christians, not enlightened enough. at worst it means they aren't saved and aren't really christians to begin with.

but christianity is bigger than any one group. and I think just about every group within christianity is a minority, except maybe the catholics. christianity is bigger than calvinism. its bigger than those who speak in tongues, bigger than those who say they are members of THE church of Christ, and so on. Understand?

 

[WaltonM]

I've seen so many different people object to so many different gradations of Pelagianism, it's not really a factor for me. Is it Pelagius' whole program of sanctification? His level or empowerment? How about semi-Pelagianism as represented in 529 AD?

Y'won't get past it. It's a terminology issue.

Its more than that. nobody calls themselves semi-pelagian. To accept that semi-Pelagianism was condemned as heresy in 529 and then turn around and call someone else a semi-pelagian is to call them a heretic. So to me its a sophisticated method of just calling someone else a heretic...

 

[Hammster]

If you want to keep bringing up that other fella, I can't stop you. But your response was to me. And I had already told you that I had reported him for his comments. I have challenged Anthony when he makes general comments that I disagree with. But when they are leveled at someone specific, they get reported. So please stop lumping me in with them. And I won't lump you in with the guy who called me a Nazi.

 

[JustAsIam77]

The fella equated the gospel of God = Calvinism...among other similar type statements.

so what about those christians outside of Calvinism? at best it means that they are 2nd class christians, not enlightened enough. at worst it means they aren't saved and aren't really christians to begin with.

but christianity is bigger than any one group. and I think just about every group within christianity is a minority, except maybe the catholics. christianity is bigger than calvinism. its bigger than those who speak in tongues, bigger than those who say they are members of THE church of Christ, and so on. Understand?

My elderly mother isn't a Calvinist, she's saved. No one here is saying non Calvinists are "2nd class Christians" or are not saved.

 

[heymikey80]

Its more than that. nobody calls themselves semi-pelagian. To accept that semi-Pelagianism was condemned as heresy in 529 and then turn around and call someone else a semi-pelagian is to call them a heretic. So to me its a sophisticated method of just calling someone else a heretic...

The eastern orthodoxy never condemned semi-Pelagianism, nor Pelagianism. It's a question of who you consider authoritative.

It's just a deterrent because it's a deprecating label.

Still, if you line up with the Council of Orange's conditions of condemnation -- what's the point? To slip out of the definition?

The fella equated the gospel of God = Calvinism...among other similar type statements.

Then to the point: anthony55 is not a Calvinist.

But on in more depth: are you saying someone who claims to be a Christian (of your general type), but then claims other people aren't Christians, invalidates your viewpoint? For instance, say you're Baptist. Is Baptist theology invalidated by one narrow-minded follower?

There's no one who would be left. Note that other active anti-Calvinists have called Calvinists non-Christians before.

 

[Hammster]

My elderly mother isn't a Calvinist, she's saved. No one here is saying non Calvinists are "2nd class Christians" or are not saved.

Actually, we have some hypers here who did. I reported them. But I guess I should have had them hanged.

 

[JustAsIam77]

Actually, we have some hypers here who did. I reported them. But I guess I should have had them hanged.

I didn't know that, it's disgraceful to judge someones salvation. GT can get dicy at times but never judge the heart of another believer.