Examining Calvinistic "Proof Texts"

[EmSw]

Hmm, wondered when someone would say that I did not understand Calvinism!

Their ever loving modus operandi.

 

[Samson Reaper]

If you think "Calvinism denies that each individual is responsible and accountable for their own sins" then you do in fact misunderstand it.

So, you have not read John Calvin then. Nor Calvinist text such as Dort ( though you mentioned in one of your previous posts)

What I think you mean is that you don't see how it makes sense to consider someone responsible in the situation described by Calvinism. I can understand that reaction, but I also think there are answers.

I'd be interested in your answers so long as they are not the standard sound bytes that contradict themselves.

Whether holding the non-elect responsible is just is something we can discuss. But claiming that Calvinists deny something that they explicitly affirm is not going to lead to any useful exchange.

Just or not never has been the issue - just a red herring. The issue is does God make/predestine/force/preordain - use any word you like, the meaning is the same - man fo hell before the foundation of the world such they have no possibility of being saved.

Further, does God taunt them with commands that God himself has prevented them from being able to hear.

Further, does God then hold these robot puppets accountable for the very sind that he, God, predestined them infallibly to do.

The Bible says no, no and NO.

Calvinists generally say yes the go around the mulberry bush with a lot of nonsense trying to justify their MAN MADE dogma.

Sure, the calvinist can cherry pick half dozen verses that appear to support their cause, ignoring the thousands of verses that do not.

This has been the history of Calvinism ever since Augustine brought Manicheist Gnostic ideas into Christianity. And no, nothing to do with Pelegism.

 

[Samson Reaper]

The parable of the seed thrown on rocky ground.

Is it such - as the Calvinist says - hat God predestines all things ( all meaning all by the Calvinist) such that even one electron could not 'do its own thing' (R C Sproul)

So the man is saved, filled with the spirit as predestined by God.
He flourishes and grew in the thing of God, as God himself predestined.

Like the seed predestined by God to land on Rocky ground, the man later withered and fell away, as predestined by God.

The man died un saved as he was not really saved in the first place as he thought, the thought was predestined by God.

This is what Calvinism leads to. No one can be sure of their destination as no one knows the mind of God.

So those of you who think/believe you are saved, beware - you might be that seed on rocky ground. Not that you can do anything about it as God might not have predestined you to.

Personally, I'd rather stick with what the Bible ACTUALLY says, not the shenagans of a few men.

 

[JoeP222w]

Hmm, wondered when someone would say that I did not understand Calvinism!

So do you admit you are misrepresenting Calvinism?

 

[EmSw]

So do you admit you are misrepresenting Calvinism?

No one knows what Calvinism fully entails. Calvinists themselves can't agree on doctrine.

It is like an octopus with many arms. You never know which arm each Calvinist embraces.

 

[JoeP222w]

No one knows what Calvinism fully entails. Calvinists themselves can't agree on doctrine.

It is like an octopus with many arms. You never know which arm each Calvinist embraces.

The Bible is the ultimate authority. However, I do find much of Calvinism, while Calvinism itself is not infallible, to be consistent with the truth of the Bible.

How people abuse the definitions of Calvinism does not have any effect of the truths that are in Calvinism.

 

[EmSw]

The Bible is the ultimate authority. However, I do find much of Calvinism, while Calvinism itself is not infallible, to be consistent with the truth of the Bible.

How people abuse the definitions of Calvinism does not have any effect of the truths that are in Calvinism.

So, which arm of Calvinism do you embrace?

 

[JoeP222w]

So, which arm of Calvinism do you embrace?

I follow Jesus Christ, by His grace. I stated where I stand in the post you responded to.

 

[EmSw]

I follow Jesus Christ, by His grace. I stated where I stand in the post you responded to.

So, which arm of Calvinism do you believe holds the truth?

 

[JoeP222w]

So, which arm of Calvinism do you believe holds the truth?

You would need to clearly define each one that you claim to be an "arm of Calvinism".

The Bible is what defines my faith.

 

[Samson Reaper]

So do you admit you are misrepresenting Calvinism?

Don't be silly. Which version, if any, are you by the way. E.g Single/Double predestinarian ?

 

[Samson Reaper]

You would need to clearly define each one that you claim to be an "arm of Calvinism".

The Bible is what defines my faith.

As in in Tim 2:4 or 1 Peter 3:9?

 

[JoeP222w]

Don't be silly. Which version, if any, are you by the way.

I follow Jesus Christ and His inerrant word of the Bible. The Bible defines my faith.

While I agree with much of Calvinism, and I find it consistent with the Bible, Calvinism is subject to the word of God. The Bible is the ultimate authority.

 

[JoeP222w]

As in in Tim 2:4 or 1 Peter 3:9?

I don't know the reference "Tim 2:4".

All of scripture, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 is the authority over me, not just 2 passages.

 

[Samson Reaper]

I don't know the reference "Tim 2:4".

Typo, sorry.

Ill let Calvinist Charles Spurgeon explain it.

God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [1Ti 2:3,4]

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than what it fairly bears? I do not think so. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. “All men,” they say, — “that is, some men”: as if the Holy Spirit could not have said “some men” if he had meant some men. “All men,” they say; “that is, some of all kinds of men”: as if the Lord could not have said “all kinds of men” if he had meant that. The Holy Spirit by the apostle has written “all men,” and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the “alls” according to that critical method which some time ago was very popular, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, “Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth.” Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been most proper, but since it happens to say, “Who will have all men to be saved,” his observations are more than a little out of place. My love for consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it is a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, “God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

 

[JoeP222w]

Typo, sorry.

Ill let Calvinist Charles Spurgeon explain it.

God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [1Ti 2:3,4]

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than what it fairly bears? I do not think so. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. “All men,” they say, — “that is, some men”: as if the Holy Spirit could not have said “some men” if he had meant some men. “All men,” they say; “that is, some of all kinds of men”: as if the Lord could not have said “all kinds of men” if he had meant that. The Holy Spirit by the apostle has written “all men,” and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the “alls” according to that critical method which some time ago was very popular, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, “Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth.” Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been most proper, but since it happens to say, “Who will have all men to be saved,” his observations are more than a little out of place. My love for consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it is a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, “God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

First, I would the whole reference from which you quote Spurgeon.

Secondly, since we are on the topic of Calvinism, why would you use a secondary source to define Calvinism? Spurgeon, although I enjoy much of his works, is not Calvin. Moreover, Spurgeon and Calvin both are not infallible, and I am not aware that either of them ever claimed to be. I have heard something of this claim before (perhaps from Dave Hunt or Norm Geisler), but as I recall, it is removing Spurgeon's complete context, changing the meaning of what Spurgeon wrote. You may not be referring to the same thing, that is why I need the whole reference for Spurgeon to which you are referring.


In regards to 1 Timothy 2:3-4, the context is referring to all kinds of men (1 Timothy 2:1-2), not every single human being that has ever existed, and not universal salvation. Salvation is for all kinds of men, but not all men will be saved because of the sovereignty of God and His decree.

 

[hedrick]

Secondly, since we are on the topic of Calvinism, why would you use a secondary source to define Calvinism?

The problem is that the people who would consider themselves Calvinists by and large don't consider Calvin definitive. They admire him, but Dordt and Westminster are normally quoted as authoritative. In particular, Calvin does not clearly teach the limited atonement, but it is certainly part of Calvinism.

These traditions are confessional. The Institutes is a really important resource, but it's not a confession adopted by any of the Reformed churches. Calvin actually did write a confession, but as far as I know it's not currently an official confession of any of the Calvinist churches. (The PCUSA has considered adopting it, and may still do so at some point.)

 

[Marvin Knox]

Even A

Yes, even Calvinists misrepresent Calvinism. By the way, which group of Calvinism do you belong? Which one of the following has the truth, and which ones are lying?
1). Total hyper-Calvinism:
2). Partial hyper-Calvinism:
3). Ultra-High Calvinism
4). Regular High Calvinism
5). Moderate Calvinism
6). Lower Moderate Calvinism (may pre-date the confessions)
7). Lower Calvinism
8). Lowest Calvinism

Even non-Calvinist misrepresent non-Calvinism.

Which one of the following has the truth, and which ones are lying?

1). Methodism

2.) Roman Catholicism

3.) Mormonism

4.) Jehovah's Witnessism

5.) Pentecostalism

6.) Word of Faithism

7.) 7th day Adventism

8.) Church of Godism

9.) Unitarianism

10.) Christian Sciencism

11.) Quakerism

12.) Plymouth Brethrenism

13.) Anglicanism

14.) Russian Orthodixism

15.) Eastern Orthodixism

16.) Oriental Orthodoxism

17.) Scientologyism

18.) Unificationism

19.) Children of Godism

20.) Aryan Nationism

21.) Klu Klux Klanism

22.) Nation of Islamism

Or any one of at least a hundred other groups who deny the absolute sovereignty of God and refuse to study the Word of God as a unified whole.

 

[EmSw]

You would need to clearly define each one that you claim to be an "arm of Calvinism".

The Bible is what defines my faith.

You don't understand Calvinism either.

 

[EmSw]

Even A

Even non-Calvinist misrepresent non-Calvinism.

Which one of the following has the truth, and which ones are lying?

1). Methodism

2.) Roman Catholicism

3.) Mormonism

4.) Jehovah's Witnessism

5.) Pentecostalism

6.) Word of Faithism

7.) 7th day Adventism

8.) Church of Godism

9.) Unitarianism

10.) Christian Sciencism

11.) Quakerism

12.) Plymouth Brethrenism

13.) Anglicanism

14.) Russian Orthodixism

15.) Eastern Orthodixism

16.) Oriental Orthodoxism

17.) Scientologyism

18.) Unificationism

19.) Children of Godism

20.) Aryan Nationism

21.) Klu Klux Klanism

22.) Nation of Islamism

Or any one of at least a hundred other groups who deny the absolute sovereignty of God and refuse to study the Word of God as a unified whole.

The groups you list, for the most part, do not believe God's predestines what men believe; they allow man's free will to choose as they desire.

You get trapped in your belief of God's predestination of all things. Man cannot ultimately choose for himself without some form of compromise of God's predestination. You want to shake a little here and a little there by saying man has free will, but you know he doesn't in predestination.

However, with all the divisions of Calvinism, we do see each man has free, unbridled will in choosing as he desires. You can't honestly tell us God has predestined all these divisions of Calvinism, with some obviously not having the truth. These elect of God are not even of one mind.

Let me ask you this Marvin. Since you do believe man has free will (a rarity among Calvinists), does man's free will overrule God's predestination and sovereignty?