Is Calvinism a false denomination?

[BBAS 64]

And it still stands that your answer is just about the ones who were against their will simply taken from their total depravity and forced (by irresistable grace) to come to Christ.

So the command to repent or to have faith (pistis) is impossible for people who are on their own.

Thats calvinism.

Good day, Solid_care

Who said forced.....?

 

[Hammster]

In calvinism, natural people are given commands they cannot fulfill and some few of them are against their will regenerated and so given faith, repentance and salvation.

The first ones will go to eternal torture and the second ones to undeserved eternal joy.

Not true. But you’re welcome to show that from any classical Reformed Theology teachings, if you’d like.

 

[solid_core]

Good Day Solid_core

God yes indeed removes the heart of stone and give a heart of flesh, he puts His Spirit in us he decides to take that action.

Born of the will of God, and not of man..

Why you are unwilling to trust him with those decisions and responsibilities , knowing that he will make the right decisions is beyond me.

In Him

Bill

Not accepting calvinism does not equal to being unwilling to trust God. Please do not make such wrong conclusions.

In this post you obviously agreed that salvation is forced upon few elect people, according to calvinism.

 

[solid_core]

Not true. But you’re welcome to show that from any classical Reformed Theology teachings, if you’d like.

What exactly is not true, according to calvinism?

Also, "reformed" does not equal to "calvinism", the protestant reformation was much broader than just Jean Calvin.

 

[solid_core]

Good day, Solid_care

Who said forced.....?

Against one's will = forced.

If you want quotation (not sure why), then for example this:

Draw" in 6:44 translates the Greek helkuo. Outside John it appears in the New Testament only at Acts 16:19: "they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace...." John's Gospel uses the word to speak of persons being drawn to Christ (12:32), a sword being drawn (18:10), and a net full of fish being hauled or dragged to shore (21:6,11). The related form helko appears in Acts 21:30 ("they dragged him from the temple") and James 2:6 ("Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?"). It is hard to avoid the impression that John 6:44 refers to a "forceful attraction" in bringing sinners to the Son ["Divine Election in the Gospel of John," in Still Sovereign, p. 50, fn. 10].

 

[Hammster]

What exactly is not true, according to calvinism?

Also, "reformed" does not equal to "calvinism", the protestant reformation was much broader than just John Calvin.

This part isn’t true:

“In calvinism, natural people are given commands they cannot fulfill”

And I’m not a Calvinist.

 

[solid_core]

This part isn’t true:

“In calvinism, natural people are given commands they cannot fulfill”

And I’m not a Calvinist.

That part is true. Calvinism clearly teaches that natural man cannot have faith or repent without God's direct intervention.

Its in "T" of TULIP.

 

[Hammster]

This part is true. Calvinism clearly teaches that natural man cannot have faith or repent without God's direct intervention.

Its in "T" of TULIP.

TULIP wasn’t created by Calvinists.

 

[solid_core]

TULIP wasn’t created by Calvinists.

TULIP is the core of calvinism.

The Five Points of Calvinism, TULIP

 

[Hammster]

TULIP is the core of calvinism.

The Five Points of Calvinism, TULIP

This is better.

Canons of Dort

 

[BBAS 64]

Against one's will = forced.

If you want quotation (not sure why), then for example this:

Draw" in 6:44 translates the Greek helkuo. Outside John it appears in the New Testament only at Acts 16:19: "they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace...." John's Gospel uses the word to speak of persons being drawn to Christ (12:32), a sword being drawn (18:10), and a net full of fish being hauled or dragged to shore (21:6,11). The related form helko appears in Acts 21:30 ("they dragged him from the temple") and James 2:6 ("Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?"). It is hard to avoid the impression that John 6:44 refers to a "forceful attraction" in bringing sinners to the Son ["Divine Election in the Gospel of John," in Still Sovereign, p. 50, fn. 10].

Good Day, Solid_core

Thomas Schneider one of the top 3 world's NT Greek scholar.

Forceful attraction is why I recommended my Grand daughters middle name be Grace. Because she is simply irresistible.

Our wills are not forced, they find Christ simply beautiful so God in his Grace informs our will as to things we did not know before hand.

"It is not that the Holy Spirit drags people kicking and screaming to Christ against their wills. The Holy Spirit changes the inclination and disposition of our wills, so that whereas we were previously unwilling to embrace Christ, now we are willing, and more than willing. Indeed, we aren’t dragged to Christ, we run to Christ, and we embrace Him joyfully because the Spirit has changed our hearts."

TULIP and Reformed Theology: Irresistible Grace

In Him

Bill

 

[solid_core]

This is better.

Canons of Dort

When we are talking about calvinism, you cannot just prefer one source of their doctrines, formulated in Holland, and in the same time reject for example TULIP as not being calvinistic.

Protestantism is also not just Luther's Small and Great Catechism, but much more.

 

[solid_core]

Good Day, Solid_core

Thomas Schneider one of the top 3 world's NT Greek scholar.

Forceful attraction is why I recommended my Grand daughters middle name be Grace. Because she is simply irresistible.

Our wills are not forced, they find Christ simply beautiful so God in his Grace informs our will as to things we did not know before hand.

"It is not that the Holy Spirit drags people kicking and screaming to Christ against their wills. The Holy Spirit changes the inclination and disposition of our wills, so that whereas we were previously unwilling to embrace Christ, now we are willing, and more than willing. Indeed, we aren’t dragged to Christ, we run to Christ, and we embrace Him joyfully because the Spirit has changed our hearts."

TULIP and Reformed Theology: Irresistible Grace

In Him

Bill

Some calvinists are afraid of using strong words, but are saying the same thing with other ones.

The logic behind it is still the same - all men are totally depraved, unable to repent or to trust in God. They must be first (without their will) changed and then they are irresistably drawn or dragged to Christ.

We can call it "forced" or "running to", but its just a play with words. Its against their natural will and they are changed to think otherwise without their part or cooperation.

 

[BBAS 64]

Some calvinists are afraid of using strong words, but are saying the same thing with other ones.

The logic behind it is still the same - all men are totally depraved, unable to repent or to trust in God. They must be first (without their will) changed and then they are irresistably drawn or dragged to Christ.

We can call it "forced" or "running to", but its just a play with words. Its against their natural will and they are changed to think otherwise without their part or cooperation.

Good Day, Solid_core

Certainly you can see forced is not equal to running to so your point is moot no matter how you equivocate it.

I will leave you with Edwards:

The dispute about grace’s being resistible or irresistible, is perfect nonsense. For the effect of grace is upon the will, so that it is nonsense, except it be proper to say, that a man with his will can resist his own will, or except it be possible for a man to will a thing and not will it at the same time, and so far as he does will it. Or if you speak of enlightening grace, and say this grace is upon the understanding, it is nothing but the same nonsense in other words. For them the sense runs thus: that a man, after he has seen so plainly that a thing is best for him that he wills it, yet he can at the same time nill it. If you say he can will anything he pleases, this is most certainly true, for who can deny that a man can will anything he does already will? That a man can will anything that he pleases, is just as certain as what is, is. Wherefore it is nonsense to say that after a man has seen so plainly a thing to be so much best for him that he will it, he could have not willed it if he had pleased. That is to say, if he had not willed it, he could have not willed it. It is certain that a man never does anything but what he can do. But to say, after a man has willed a thing, that he could have not willed it if he had pleased, is to suppose two wills in a man: the one to will which goes first, and the other to please or choose to will. And so with the same reason we may say that there is another will to please; to please to will; and so on to a thousand. Wherefore, to say that the man could have willed otherwise if he had pleased, is just all one as to say, that if he had willed otherwise, then we might be sure he could will otherwise.

The Works of Jonathan Edwards: Volume II IV Revised

In Him,

Bill

 

[Hammster]

When we are talking about calvinism, you cannot just prefer one source of their doctrines, formulated in Holland, and in the same time reject for example TULIP as not being calvinistic.

Protestantism is also not just Luther's Small and Great Catechism, but much more.

I’m not a fan of the acronym. I did create this so folks could make their arguments from classic Reformed Teachings.

 

[solid_core]

I’m not a fan of the acronym. I did create this so folks could make their arguments from classic Reformed Teachings.

Todays calvinism is not just Holland church of the 17th century.

There is no reason to use or prefer the Canons of Dordrecht against for example The Second Helvetic Confession, The Heidelberg Catechism, The Institutes by Jean Cauvin or the Westminster confession of faith.

The USA of today are also more than just the 18th century constitution.

The TULIP is a standard and core teaching of calvinism today, no reason to put it away, then. You will read about the TULIP in almost any calvinistic source.

 

[solid_core]

Good Day, Solid_core

Certainly you can see forced is not equal to running to so your point is moot no matter how you equivocate it.

I will leave you with Edwards:

The dispute about grace’s being resistible or irresistible, is perfect nonsense. For the effect of grace is upon the will, so that it is nonsense, except it be proper to say, that a man with his will can resist his own will, or except it be possible for a man to will a thing and not will it at the same time, and so far as he does will it. Or if you speak of enlightening grace, and say this grace is upon the understanding, it is nothing but the same nonsense in other words. For them the sense runs thus: that a man, after he has seen so plainly that a thing is best for him that he wills it, yet he can at the same time nill it. If you say he can will anything he pleases, this is most certainly true, for who can deny that a man can will anything he does already will? That a man can will anything that he pleases, is just as certain as what is, is. Wherefore it is nonsense to say that after a man has seen so plainly a thing to be so much best for him that he will it, he could have not willed it if he had pleased. That is to say, if he had not willed it, he could have not willed it. It is certain that a man never does anything but what he can do. But to say, after a man has willed a thing, that he could have not willed it if he had pleased, is to suppose two wills in a man: the one to will which goes first, and the other to please or choose to will. And so with the same reason we may say that there is another will to please; to please to will; and so on to a thousand. Wherefore, to say that the man could have willed otherwise if he had pleased, is just all one as to say, that if he had willed otherwise, then we might be sure he could will otherwise.

The Works of Jonathan Edwards: Volume II IV Revised

In Him,

Bill

You can cherrypick single authors who use words you like, but the fact about the change being against our will and without our cooperation, according to calvinism, still stands.

We can exchange calvinistic authors whole day, but it has no meaning.

I do not know what more to say.

 

[Hammster]

Todays calvinism is not just Holland church of the 17th century.

There is no reason to use or prefer the Canons of Dordrecht against for example The Second Helvetic Confession, The Heidelberg Catechism, The Institutes by Jean Cauvin or the Westminster confession of faith.

The USA of today are also more than just the 18th century constitution.

The TULIP is a standard and core teaching of calvinism today, no reason to put it away, then. You will read about the TULIP in almost any calvinistic source.

I hold to the Canons of Dort and some Puritan theology, plus the 1689 LBCF. So if you want to discuss “today’s” Calvinism, then I guess we are done here’s.

 

[solid_core]

I hold to the Canons of Dort and some Puritan theology, plus the 1689 LBCF. So if you want to discuss “today’s” Calvinism, then I guess we are done here’s.

As you said, you are not a Calvinist. So why should I discuss your individual choice and version? Canons of Dodrecht are no more substantial to calvinism than for example The Second Helvetic Confession or other sources.

If you wish to stay freezed in the 17th century and in Holland, your choice. But I highly doubt this thread is limited this way.

 

[Hammster]

As you said, you are not a Calvinist. So why should I discuss your individual choice and version? Canons of Dodrecht are no more substantial to calvinism than for example The Second Helvetic Confession or other sources.

If you wish to stay freezed in the 17th century, your choice.

If it ain’t broke...