How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

nobdysfool · Jul 17, 2007

You're not worth the time. You are lying, slandering, mocking and acting like a reprobate. If you can't tone it down, and start acting like someone who wants to converse, rather than just spread lies and falsehoods, then I am under no obligation to provide you with anything. Read my signature, as it applies directly to you and your actions and attitude.

pearls....figure it out.

John1and1 · Jul 17, 2007

nobdysfool said:
You're not worth the time. You are lying, slandering, mocking and acting like a reprobate. If you can't tone it down, and start acting like someone who wants to converse, rather than just spread lies and falsehoods, then I am under no obligation to provide you with anything. Read my signature, as it applies directly to you and your actions and attitude.

pearls....figure it out.

LOL ok

this coming from the dude that dont even know if he is calvinist or not

HizLamb, there you see a great teacher girl lol

Dont let something like this confuse you... you serve God and believe His word and youll be fine... we can do more studies together if you like

hizlamb · Jul 17, 2007

Thank you John..I appreciate the help..

I appreciate your stance ..and your scripture to show all you believe and why...and a very good reason to study together

sounds good...thanks

nobdysfool · Jul 17, 2007

Since there is apparently confusion in someone's mind, let me clear things up: I am a Christian first, and a Calvinist because I have become convinced that Calvinism is scriptural truth. I do not try to "force" my beliefs on anyone, but I will defend them. What I will not do, however is get caught up in a game where I am accused of things I did not say, or accused of believing things that I have never stated, because of someone else's faulty and incomplete idea of what Calvinism is. Especially when that person or persons post those accusations before I have said anything even remotely like it, as happened earlier here today.

I do not and will not participate in any such Calvinist-bashing sessions. Such activity is childish, unproductive, and divisive, and only inflames tempers and causes strife. I will not be a party to it.

If you want to discuss Calvinist beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, ask away. But if you bombard, and start accusing, the conversation will cease immediately. We can either converse like rational adults, calmly and quietly, or you will be talking to the thin air, because I will leave, rather than endure the foolishness from self-appointed "crusaders for truth", who use such as an excuse and cover to bash Calvinists and Calvinism.

Such foolishness is not Christian.

cygnusx1 · Jul 17, 2007

nobdysfool said:
Since there is apparently confusion in someone's mind, let me clear things up: I am a Christian first, and a Calvinist because I have become convinced that Calvinism is scriptural truth. I do not try to "force" my beliefs on anyone, but I will defend them. What I will not do, however is get caught up in a game where I am accused of things I did not say, or accused of believing things that I have never stated, because of someone else's faulty and incomplete idea of what Calvinism is. Especially when that person or persons post those accusations before I have said anything even remotely like it, as happened earlier here today.

I do not and will not participate in any such Calvinist-bashing sessions. Such activity is childish, unproductive, and divisive, and only inflames tempers and causes strife. I will not be a party to it.

If you want to discuss Calvinist beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, ask away. But if you bombard, and start accusing, the conversation will cease immediately. We can either converse like rational adults, calmly and quietly, or you will be talking to the thin air, because I will leave, rather than endure the foolishness from self-appointed "crusaders for truth", who use such as an excuse and cover to bash Calvinists and Calvinism.

Such foolishness is not Christian.

Amen bro !!!!

I wondered if they had deleted this part of the forum I couldn't find it straight away , seems things go from bad to worse in here , I mean it's been a while since we saw any trolls.

best thing to do is place arrogant baiters on ignore , and ignore childish games . Otherwise it can only get worse.
I don't mind answering any question as long as the person asks civily , showing respect and human dignity , but if the one asking questions comes over as a ranting basher , then I too am not interested , certainly where there are no signs of any Spiritual fruit it is almost a certainty there is no indwelling of the Holy Spirit ...... oh , I judged ? you betcha!

nobdysfool · Jul 17, 2007

Apparently the two trolls here earlier have gone on to other things. They probably think they "defeated" the Calvinist. They think wrongly.

Rick Otto · Jul 17, 2007

Rick
Why do you only believe part of the scripture?

Howdy, a pleasure to meet you, too!

Why do you not believe it is NOT the Father's will that ANY man perish?

Because some do.
And yet, "Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" Who does He think He is, judging a will He Himself predestined? He acts like He owns us or somethin', huh?! What an unfair, unloving God He must be, huh?

Why do you believe it is Gods will MOST people dont repent?

Because most don't. He doesn't give the gift of repentance to just anyone or, obviously, everyone.
And as far as the reason why, He told us Himself in another scripture I also probably don't believe:
"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"
I haven't bothered to post the chapter or verse, because you obviously already know by heart.

Why do you not believe the blood of Christ was shed for not only US but for the whole world?

Because the whole world isn't going to heaven?
Because I understand & respect context?
Because His atonement was for those who would believe and "all mankind" & "whosoever" are not meant to be universal in the sense of every individual, but universal in the sense that salvation was now for all mankind instead of Jews only.(?)
It is one of the outstanding features of the NT that differ from the OT.

Why do you not believe we can CHOOSE this day whom we will serve?

I do believe that.
And I'm not even the least bit curious why you think I don't- in case you're interested, but thanks for being concerned enough to ask.

...NEXT!

nobdysfool · Jul 17, 2007

Too bad the troll isn't around to see you say that....if he does come back, he'll try to bait you, too. Don't fall for it. He's a know-it-all, and a liar.

Rick Otto · Jul 17, 2007

Sometimes all I got to eat is bait.
Call it a "Troll Sandwich".

nobdysfool · Jul 17, 2007

Careful....could give you heartburn....need some Tums?

Rick Otto · Jul 17, 2007

But open hostility barely tickles my callouses anymore.
BBen mostly wears me out, but I think RG said some stuff I thought I should ches on...
whaddaya think about that?

cygnusx1 · Jul 17, 2007

Rick Otto said:
But open hostility barely tickles my callouses anymore.
BBen mostly wears me out, but I think RG said some stuff I thought I should ches on...
whaddaya think about that?

RG TIRES ME OUT BEN NEVER DOES!!

drstevej · Jul 18, 2007

How's the discussion going.

Ben, how about a book that will end WIKIism ???

Steve

Ben johnson · Jul 18, 2007

Cygnus said:
RG TIRES ME OUT BEN NEVER DOES!!

Ha ha!

DrSteveJ said:
Ben, how about a book that will end WIKIism ???

I don't really understand what "Wiki-ism" is. When I read day-before-yesterday that "wiki" means "wikipedia", it was news to me. How does it affect us?

I had always thought a "Wiki" was a character on Star Wars...

RickOtto said:
Because most don't. He doesn't give the gift of repentance to just anyone or, obviously, everyone.

Hi, Rick --- this statement is classic "Calvinist" (though some Calvinists here do not agree with it) --- I've never understood the position. Perhaps you can help me understand.

If God "gives the gift of repentance to only those-few-whom-He-predestines", then both sin and salvation are fully HIS choice, the Final Judgment is but a "kangaroo kourt" in the sense that we will not be judged for our choices but rather for His sovereign prior choice. And this conflicts passages like Rom2:6-8, which says we will be judged for either seeking God's glory and honor and immortality by doing good, OR for selfishly seeking unrighteousness.

In that passage (on which there is an entire thread), Paul writes essentially:

"God's patience and kindness and forebearance are meant to lead you to repentance; but your stubborn-unrepentant heart is making God MAD..."

So how can "gifted repentance" really be the theme of Scripture, when Scripture says "God's patience is MEANT to lead you to repentance, but He gets mad when you stubbornly REFUSE"?

Thanx in advance. And thank you to all of you, all of whom are clearly saved brothers. There is a time when Calvinism doesn't matter; we can differ on "predestination", but still expect to be together in the clouds with Jesus when He returns. That is my hope and prayer.

drstevej · Jul 18, 2007

Ben johnson said:
Ha ha!
I don't really understand what "Wiki-ism" is. When I read day-before-yesterday that "wiki" means "wikipedia", it was news to me. How does it affect us?

Wait and see. Get out of this thread some.

nobdysfool · Jul 18, 2007

LOL! Good post, and good cartoon! Great to see you, Steve!

frumanchu · Jul 18, 2007

Ben johnson said:
I don't really understand what "Wiki-ism" is. When I read day-before-yesterday that "wiki" means "wikipedia", it was news to me. How does it affect us?

I had always thought a "Wiki" was a character on Star Wars...

That's Wicket, as in the Ewok

The principle of Wiki is simple: rather than a dictionary, encyclopedia or other such repository of knowledge which is written by academics, set, published, and only occasionally updated, the Wiki is formed by pooling the contributions of everyone and formalized by consensus of those in charge of moderating it.

IOW, truth literally becomes a consensus view ratified by a select few.

CF is now using that principle to guide its "ministry."

nobdysfool · Jul 18, 2007

frumanchu said:
That's Wicket, as in the Ewok

The principle of Wiki is simple: rather than a dictionary, encyclopedia or other such repository of knowledge which is written by academics, set, published, and only occasionally updated, the Wiki is formed by pooling the contributions of everyone and formalized by consensus of those in charge of moderating it.

IOW, truth literally becomes a consensus view ratified by a select few.

CF is now using that principle to guide its "ministry."

What a screwed up way to do things! Since when is Truth by consensus?

Oh, but that's how the "truth" of Global Warming has come about, even though scientists who originally signed on have since begun to distance themselves and oppose the conclusions of those who would use it for political gain. And they changed the term to "climate change" because they wanted to be able to claim credit no matter which way the climate goes.....I'd call it "hedging their bets"

Climate Change is a new religion, complete with a Savior (Al Gore) who is also the High Priest, Original Sin (man-made "greenhouse gases", caused by man's sinful "overuse" of natural resources), Indulgences (so-called "carbon credits"), a Great Tribulation ( the predicted melting of the ice caps and subsequent flooding of coastal areas), and Salvation (through adopting a "carbon-neutral" lifestyle). Those who speak against this madness are deemed "heretics", and are "shunned" by the Elites, and have their credentials revoked, and pronouncements (Papal Bulls and Encyclicals) published against them by the "faithful". They have duplicated the structure of the catholic church in many ways, even down to the corruption of the Priesthood.

Yeah, Ben, you do need to get out more.....

Rick Otto · Jul 18, 2007

I guess I have mixed emotions, or somethin'... but,
I am basicaly OK with the changes because as much as there is to fear, there was that much to complain about already.
In the words of that great philospher "Saturday Night Live", Roseanne Roseannadana, "It's always something!"
(S.N.A.F.U.)
All creation groans.
"Everything That Lives Laments" - a song by jazz pianist Keith Jarrett.

Charis kai Dunamis · Jul 18, 2007

John1and1 said:
The scripture says it is NOT the Father's will that ANY man perish but that ALL men come to repentence...

9The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

I'm sorry but the text does not say it is God's will, rather His desire. His heart is different from His will. For example, His heart grieved when His Son died. He did not desire that His Son die. But He willed it. That is a pretty deep concept...but it makes sense.

John1and1 said:
you believe everything except that its not the Fathers will ANY man perish... o yeah, and you dont believe He wishes for ALL men to be saved... am i reading you right?

This kinda goes along with the statement I made above.

John1and1 said:
No no no again no
Calvinism teaches that God picks those who he will save and those predestined for hell... which means it CANNOT agree that it is the Fathers will ALL men repent... just the few you say He chose

First of all, you need to learn your theological terms. "Predestination" only has to do with the works of the elect. See Ephesians 2:10. "Election" is what you are looking for, and the term "elect" is only used in Scripture for the goodness of God, not for evil. There are no passages that state God elected some to Hell, election is a doctrine speaking only of the saved or the elect angels.

Before you start bashing Calvinism you should definitely look into it more. You can't bash other doctrines when you don't even know anything about them. You obviously don't understand the doctrine of the decree, and that God has an active and passive part in that decree. Therefore, He actively elected some to salvation, and passed over others to be judged according to their sin.

John1and1 said:
So your god so loved the few he sent Jesus so that only the few he called could be saved... wow... You should serve MY God... ya see He so loved the WORLD He gave His son so WHOSOEVER could be saved... Again you are saying it is God's express will that most people go to hell... you are completely disregarding scripture saying it is the Fathers express will EVERYONE was saved

Well, once again, you don't know Calvinism too well. Calvinism says Jesus died for all, but His death was only "effecatious" for the elect. So Jesus did die for the whole world. It was offered to all. But in the end the elect are the only ones who's sins are atoned for.

John1and1 said:
Well it you dont believe 'all' means 'all', or 'any' means 'any', and you only believe half the bible, i will look for someone else to teach me context thank you very much

You need to go study more. Don't bash other people if you don't even know what they believe. You obviously don't know much about Calvinism by the way you speak of it.

There, I answered your points. You hardly disproved Calvinism. I know this is personal but, that was honestly one of the saddest attempts I've ever seen...

How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

The original! Accept no substitutes!

John1and1

Guest

Depends on my mood

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Jacob the twister.....

The original! Accept no substitutes!

The Dude Abides

The original! Accept no substitutes!

The Dude Abides

The original! Accept no substitutes!

The Dude Abides

Jacob the twister.....

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

Legend

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

The original! Accept no substitutes!

God's justice does not demand second chances

The original! Accept no substitutes!

The Dude Abides

χάρις καὶ δύναμις

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency