Hey neo calvinist

[Hammster]

That's a question of faith - something you or I may believe to be true. Whether or not anyone thinks they 'know' it is true beyond all possible doubt is neither here nor there, it either is or it isn't, we can believe it or not but our belief or lack of belief makes no difference to whether or not it is 'absolutely true'.

That’s not what I asked. I asked if it’s true for all people.

 

[Tom 1]

That’s not what I asked. I asked if it’s true for all people.

I answered your question, just read it again.

 

[com7fy8]

The internet is full of calvinist stuff. When you google a meaning of a verse you'll most likely landed on a calvinist site.

Well, I would say that here in Christian Forums you have not found mainly what Calvinists claim

And in my opinion there are different groups represented for different issues. So, in case you have only or mainly been finding Calvinist representations, may be this is because of your way of searching.

But it is possible that people can pay Google to favor their stuff. So, just in case certain ones claiming to be Calvinist have payed to promote their sites, you could need to use a different searching method, in order to bypass that.

Also, not all people claiming to be Calvinist might agree with each other about certain things. And people can misunderstand what they are saying.

But I think I have gotten more from the Bible, than from a lot of people who are mainly comparing their stuff with other people's stuff

If other groups which consist of millions of Christian came to a different conclusion, wouldn't it makes them think they might be wrong?

Well, even if Calvinists were to be wrong, this would not at all be because others don't agree with them! Jesus says many will be deceived and lead many astray. So, great numbers is not at all evidence that so-and-so must be right!

 

[Petros2015]

If other groups which consist of millions of Christian came to a different conclusion

Theology by peer pressure? Might actually work the other way around.

 

[Hammster]

I answered your question, just read it again.

Not really, unless you think it’s only true by faith.

 

[Clare73]

The internet is full of calvinist stuff. When you google a meaning of a verse you'll most likely landed on a calvinist site.
I'm not anti calvinist but when I debate with one they're super sure they're right. Then I asked them did they read anything outside of their eco chamber they can't answer. Not sure it's the same with any other group. In order to debate or discuss, at least your knowledge can't be just

limited to your own circle. Calvinist think they are the only group of the majority in the Christian world but the reality is they have an unique view of certain things.
If other groups which consist of millions of Christian came to a different conclusion, wouldn't it makes them think they might be wrong?

So understanding of Scripture is determined by popular vote?

 

[J3thekingofking]

Well, I would say that here in Christian Forums you have not found mainly what Calvinists claim

And in my opinion there are different groups represented for different issues. So, in case you have only or mainly been finding Calvinist representations, may be this is because of your way of searching.

But it is possible that people can pay Google to favor their stuff. So, just in case certain ones claiming to be Calvinist have payed to promote their sites, you could need to use a different searching method, in order to bypass that.

Also, not all people claiming to be Calvinist might agree with each other about certain things. And people can misunderstand what they are saying.

But I think I have gotten more from the Bible, than from a lot of people who are mainly comparing their stuff with other people's stuff

Well, even if Calvinists were to be wrong, this would not at all be because others don't agree with them! Jesus says many will be deceived and lead many astray. So, great numbers is not at all evidence that so-and-so must be right!

But many become calvinist because some celebrities pastor on youtube

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Well, I would say that here in Christian Forums you have not found mainly what Calvinists claim

And in my opinion there are different groups represented for different issues. So, in case you have only or mainly been finding Calvinist representations, may be this is because of your way of searching.

But it is possible that people can pay Google to favor their stuff. So, just in case certain ones claiming to be Calvinist have payed to promote their sites, you could need to use a different searching method, in order to bypass that.

Also, not all people claiming to be Calvinist might agree with each other about certain things. And people can misunderstand what they are saying.

But I think I have gotten more from the Bible, than from a lot of people who are mainly comparing their stuff with other people's stuff

Well, even if Calvinists were to be wrong, this would not at all be because others don't agree with them! Jesus says many will be deceived and lead many astray. So, great numbers is not at all evidence that so-and-so must be right!

Much of what is argued in the name of Calvinism is putting words into Calvin's mouth that were never there. I should know. I have read his commentaries on most of the New Testament books, and am currently working through Isaiah with Ezekiel to follow. The fact is, I haven't found half of what has been argued on these forums actually written in the commentaries. I guess the neo-Calvinists don't want to be confused with the facts.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

But many become calvinist because some celebrities pastor on youtube

I am making my evaluation of Calvin from the man himself from what he has written.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You're not ready for a debate when you are a Christian with 1 Yr exp and have attended a calvinist for a year. If you don't know something just say don't know.

I have had over 50 years experience in the faith, and have spent the last three years reading Calvin's commentaries, plus his Institutes, and I would say that much of what has been said against Calvin is just verbal garbage.

 

[Hammster]

But many become calvinist because some celebrities pastor on youtube

Please, show your evidence.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Calvin was a lawyer, and that legal training had a profound effect on his interpretation of the scriptures. When anyone tries to nail down a kind of holistic approach to bible interpretation like that, and claims to have got it right, by definition you can be sure they are wrong. The bible is way more complex than some set of legalistic notions about it, but we’re all different and some people find that kind of approach appealing. It offers a kind of clarity that, while entirely false, has a particular appeal.

Charles Grandison Finney was also a lawyer and his theology is somewhere between Calvinist and Arminian, and writes in legalised prose. One needs a dictionary and spiritual knife and fork to make sense of what he is saying. I have an MA in English Literature and still find his theological writing hard going. Calvin, on the other hand is clear, concise, and very easy to understand. This is because he wrote not for theologians, but for ordinary church members. Interestingly enough, both men have been responsible for multitudes turning to Christ through their writing and preaching. Over 80% of Finney's converts became long-term, stable church members. Calvin's writing has resulted in the main revivals of Christianity right through to the Welsh Revival. The great awakenings of the 18th Century in New England were the direct result of Calvin's teaching through Jonathan Edwards. Whether we agree with their theology or not, the results speak for themselves.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Please, show your evidence.

I think he is referring to John MacArthur and Paul Washer. Actually I have found both men to be excellent Bible teachers. Paul Washer seems to be the more passionate of the two.

 

[Hammster]

I think he is referring to John MacArthur and Paul Washer. Actually I have found both men to be excellent Bible teachers. Paul Washer seems to be the more passionate of the two.

If Paul Washer can convince someone to become a Calvinist, then Wow!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

If Paul Washer can convince someone to become a Calvinist, then Wow!

He's put me off getting anyone to pray the sinner's prayer as part of receiving Christ, after he said that more people have ended up in hell through that prayer than anything else!

 

[Tom 1]

Charles Grandison Finney was also a lawyer and his theology is somewhere between Calvinist and Arminian, and writes in legalised prose. One needs a dictionary and spiritual knife and fork to make sense of what he is saying. I have an MA in English Literature and still find his theological writing hard going. Calvin, on the other hand is clear, concise, and very easy to understand. This is because he wrote not for theologians, but for ordinary church members. Interestingly enough, both men have been responsible for multitudes turning to Christ through their writing and preaching. Over 80% of Finney's converts became long-term, stable church members. Calvin's writing has resulted in the main revivals of Christianity right through to the Welsh Revival. The great awakenings of the 18th Century in New England were the direct result of Calvin's teaching through Jonathan Edwards. Whether we agree with their theology or not, the results speak for themselves.

The results speak to the tendency people have to enjoy being told what to think.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The results speak to the tendency people have to enjoy being told what to think.

That's a bit obscure for me. Actually, a think is not a thought until you've thunk it.

 

[Tom 1]

That's a bit obscure for me. Actually, a think is not a thought until you've thunk it.

Sure, but not all of our thinking, or not much (or any) of it, arises in a vacuum. Prescriptive religious systems give people a package deal, something they learn, not a way into understanding and a personal faith in what that system provides a gloss for.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Sure, but not all of our thinking, or not much (or any) of it, arises in a vacuum. Prescriptive religious systems give people a package deal, something they learn, not a way into understanding and a personal faith in what that system provides a gloss for.

I think in the novice states one has to learn many things by rote from faithful mentors. But by maturity and experience one comes to the point where they are able to discern for themselves what is appropriate or not. The Scripture for that is:
"But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil" (Hebrews 5:14).

 

[Tom 1]

That's a bit obscure for me. Actually, a think is not a thought until you've thunk it.

It’s like the difference between Abraham’s faith and that of those among the Pharisees Jesus took issue with, the especially legalistic. The latter were convinced of their rightness, having nailed it all down to a logical set of principles that could be explained as being in concordance with the law. It infuriated Christ. Abraham, on the other hand, had nothing more than a single promise and space to develop a faith, and a sense of good judgment, through a long process of trail and error, a kind of conversation with life. Out of that came something genuine, whereas the religion of the legalists is unhealthy and brittle.