Logical Problems with Calvinism

[True Science]

Are the Nazarene stuck in Romans 1 like the Pentecostal are stuck in Acts? Regardless, there are no requirements that a man must meet in order for God to change the heart, lift the veil and give them new life. No man is free. He is either a slave to sin, or a slave to righteousness and he will only act according to his nature. If people are not born in sin, how they can be held accountable for debt owed to God? Why would Christ had need to die for those who are not sinners? If people were not born in sin then there would be the possibility that they may NEVER sin. As far as I know, Christ is the only one to have lived sinless. Man and his control is fleeting in comparison to God. Why pray if he can just do it himself? Why look to God, if he has no need of Him? If you don't like the fact that God is sovereign in ALL things, I can't fault you there but you may as well accept it. What YOU say comes from your mind bent on twisted ideas concerning salvation.

My views on soteriology, minus my position on the Law of Moses, were the unanimous position of the entire Christian community pre-Nicea. Your views are the novel twisted ideas.

It is just that Romans 1 decimates you. And confirms what people already know deep down to be true unless they suppress the truth and sear their God-given conscience.

O how horrible it would be if anyone other than Christ could live without sin! I'm sure God would just hate that seeing how he constantly complains in Scripture about how he hates sin and expresses strong emotional desire for people to stop it.

Even angels without any sinful flesh chose to sin, sir. But to this day most of the angels have not sinned. People are not compelled to become sinners. Maybe Enoch and Elijah didn't sin, at the very least in such a way as to be deserving of the Lake of Fire, and maybe that is why they were chosen to be taken to heaven to not see death to be the two witnesses for the Last Days.

Nobody here is saying that we can actually be exactly righteous as God. BUT Christ did tell us to be perfect as our Father in heaven is, and there is nothing in the context of that verse which implies it is impossible and is a hinted meaning to "Christ's imputed righteousness" but is clearly talking about doing what Christ has commanded in the surrounding context and going beyond that mediocre law-keeping of the scribes and pharisees.

And again the fallacy that if what I'm saying is true it means we don't need God and can do without him.

And in your position even after you have supposedly become a slave of righteousness through conversion in reality you are not but are still the slave of sin till you die and go to heaven and lose your free will by becoming this angelic being, even though even angels sinned. Totally contradictory.

Your views were concocted by pervertedly minded men that came way later in the Christian era who were far removed from the Apostles and some couldn't even read the NT in Greek, like Augustine.

 

[True Science]

Well at some point this going to have to end for me here in this thread. I think that time is now. Let those who have hears to hear, hear.

 

[Albion]

My views on soteriology, minus my position on the Law of Moses, were the unanimous position of the entire Christian community pre-Nicea. Your views are the novel twisted ideas.

That seems fair, considering that the unanimous position of the entire Christian community pre-Nicaea on most other issues goes against what is taught by the "Church of the Nazarene." So we each get to win some and lose some, huh?

Your views were concocted by pervertedly minded men that came way later in the Christian era who were far removed from the Apostles and some couldn't even read the NT in Greek, like Augustine.

as I was saying....

 

[FreeGrace2]

Here's another one: You put God in a box because you don't believe he can make a square circle or create a rock so big he cannot lift it.

Here's a truth: God cannot be contradictory.

 

[GillDouglas]

My views on soteriology, minus my position on the Law of Moses, were the unanimous position of the entire Christian community pre-Nicea. Your views are the novel twisted ideas.

Strange that yours is no longer unanimous and only my view alone is twisted.

It is just that Romans 1 decimates you. And confirms what people already know deep down to be true unless they suppress the truth and sear their God-given conscience.

Does it?

O how horrible it would be if anyone other than Christ could live without sin! I'm sure God would just hate that seeing how he constantly complains in Scripture about how he hates sin and expresses strong emotional desire for people to stop it.

So He would hate it if people could live without sin, yet he hates sin and wants people to stop sinning. I'm confused.

Even angels without any sinful flesh chose to sin, sir. But to this day most of the angels have not sinned. People are not compelled to become sinners. Maybe Enoch and Elijah didn't sin, at the very least in such a way as to be deserving of the Lake of Fire, and maybe that is why they were chosen to be taken to heaven to not see death to be the two witnesses for the Last Days.

So be whatever He decree, but I'd like to know what Enoch and Elijah did to not be deserving of Death.

Nobody here is saying that we can actually be exactly righteous as God. BUT Christ did tell us to be perfect as our Father in heaven is, and there is nothing in the context of that verse which implies it is impossible and is a hinted meaning to "Christ's imputed righteousness" but is clearly talking about doing what Christ has commanded in the surrounding context and going beyond that mediocre law-keeping of the scribes and pharisees.

You haven't been around long enough. There are plenty who say we ought to be perfect, otherwise we lose ourselves. If you knew any better, you'd understand the law is about what a man should do, not what he can do.

And in your position even after you have supposedly become a slave of righteousness through conversion in reality you are not but are still the slave of sin till you die and go to heaven and lose your free will by becoming this angelic being, even though even angels sinned. Totally contradictory.

Was Paul being contradictory in Romans 6:22?

Your views were concocted by pervertedly minded men that came way later in the Christian era who were far removed from the Apostles and some couldn't even read the NT in Greek, like Augustine.

My views have come from reading and studying the Bible before I knew anything about Church history and the doctrines of men. Where do your views come from, Nazarene?

 

[FreeGrace2]

God arranges circumstances. He is alive. He is the real time. He is reality. If god puts a wall in front of you in real time, you must take a left or right or up or down. You use your natural abilty to do all that but to walk through the wall. God put the wall there while you say you have free will to walk through it. You don't really believe god exist and say i got a bloody nose cause I didn't see the wall.
.
.
.
.
Good luck in finding that free maverick molecule. Free will never sends you to heaven.

Why do some think that those who believe that God has given man freedom of choice think that free will has any inherent power?

Free will doesn't do anything. Free will is a condition of freedom to make choices.

Consequences come from what has been chosen. There are no consequences from having free will. Free will doesn't create, doesn't do.

Free will simply IS.

Can Calvinists please just understand that simple point?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"Oh, was there a question? Fire away then."

To which was the response:

I love the ignore feature.

Yeah, you certainly did ignore my question.

Wouldn't it have been much easier and quicker to just repeat whatever question you thought I was ignoring? My post was clearly asking for the question, so that I could answer it.

It therefore appears that there really was no interest in my answer to whatever question you claimed I had ignored.

So why bother even posting, if that is the case?

 

[FreeGrace2]

If you think you have moral independence - wait until the Judgment Seat. Hopefully it won't be the Great White Throne.

Man has moral freedom. Rom 6 indicates that. As does Isa 1:18-20.

There is no independence because man has no excuses for his choices, as Rom 1:20 indicates.

You're correct about the GWT judgment and the BEMA. All men are accountable for their actions. Therefore no one is independent of God.

Or, as Scripture says: “I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. Isa 45:23

For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall give praise to God.” Rom 14:11

 

[True Science]

That seems fair, considering that the unanimous position of the entire Christian community pre-Nicaea on most other issues goes against what is taught by the "Church of the Nazarene." So we each get to win some and lose some, huh?


as I was saying....

I'm not one of those Nazarenes. I'm of the ancient Nazarenes which I document in my book: http://1drv.ms/1lHZB3R

 

[Albion]

I'm not one of those Nazarenes. I'm of the ancient Nazarenes which I document in my book: http://1drv.ms/1lHZB3R

I have nothing in particular against that denomination, but I was fascinated to see you being so certain that Scripture is what determines the truth--yet also make a claim on behalf of consensus (or tradition?) instead--and both of them within a few lines of each other.

 

[True Science]

I have nothing in particular against that denomination, but I was fascinated to see you being so certain that Scripture is what determines the truth--yet also make a claim on behalf of consensus (or tradition?) instead--and both of them within a few lines of each other.

I'm not Sola Scriptura, sir. There isn't much of a case for that doctrine within the text of the Bible itself. Especially when it comes to what the Canon should consist of. Again, the Nazarenes that I belong to are not the same as the protestant denomination you are referring to. One of the obvious major differences is we have held to Mosaic Law and continued to do so from the 1st century till now. If you want to learn about them you can read my book. There are also other sources out there. I like mine though because I connect a lot of things others miss. But even all the sources others have I have, pretty much anyway.

 

[Albion]

I'm not Sola Scriptura, sir. There isn't much of a case for that doctrine within the text of the Bible itself.

I know...the Bible doesn't support the Bible.
Heard that circular logic long before this.

Again, the Nazarenes that I belong to are not the same as the protestant denomination you are referring to.

Yes, I heard you the first time, but neither do I think you should list it as your denomiantion if that's so.

 

[True Science]

"My views have come from reading and studying the Bible before I knew anything about Church history and the doctrines of men. Where do your views come from, Nazarene?"

Sir, I came to faith as a new wineskin with very little Christian background other than being nominal. I came to Christ by reading my KJV Bible for the first time, especially when I got to the Gospels. That was powerful stuff to me. Long long before getting into Church history for quite some time I only read my KJV Bible and slowly other Bibles but in those times I never saw these Reformation doctrines in Scripture and never believed them. I knew Jesus didn't teach these things. I knew that if I wanted to be saved I had to deny myself and pick up my cross and follow him and do whatever he said or else I would be cast away.

 

[True Science]

Yes, I heard you the first time, but neither do I think you should list it as your denomiantion if that's so.

Why? We came first. That cannot be denied. It is right in Acts, man. It is like saying don't call yourself Christian.

 

[Albion]

Why? We came first. That cannot be denied. It is right in Acts, man. It is like saying don't call yourself Christian.

The designation is of your church/denominational preference or affiliation. That's what you're telling the rest of us when you make that your choice. So, Church of the Nazarene is the message you send and we are left, when reading what you've said in the last several posts, to conclude that this is some intra-denominational dispute like High Church and Low Church Anglicans.

 

[True Science]

The designation is of your church/denominational preference or affiliation. That's what you're telling the rest of us when you make that your choice. So, Church of the Nazarene is the message you send and we are left, when reading what you've said in the last several posts, to conclude that this is some intra-denominational dispute like High Church and Low Church Anglicans.

LOL. Well, in a way it is beneficial because it starts a conversation that gives me an opportunity to bear witness of my faith.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I'm going to try hard now to take my leave of this section.

I see that "Jason" has slacked off and that's the only reason why I came back and stayed a while.

This section attracts controversy like bears to honey.

The anti Calvinists are attracted here like liberals are attracted to the "American politics" section of the forum.

Some people simply disagree and that's as to be expected.

Others are flat out strangos who are attracted here like "bees" to honey (pun intended).

Jason left and there are a dozen others to take his place. In most cases they aren't as destructive as him though- and that's good.

EmSw goes away for a while after he embarrasses himself. But he always comes back in time like a bad penny. You can count on him for a little more disjointed logic sooner or later.

Anyway - it's all pretty much been said a dozen times over.

I'll see you all in the pre-Tribulation rapture.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I'm going to try hard now to take my leave of this section.

I see that "Jason" has slacked off and that's the only reason why I came back and stayed a while.

This section attracts controversy like bears to honey.

The anti Calvinists are attracted here like liberals are attracted to the "American politics" section of the forum.

Some people simply disagree and that's as to be expected.

Others are flat out strangos who are attracted here like "bees" to honey (pun intended).

Jason left and there a dozen others take his place. In most cases they aren't as destructive as him though- and that's good.

EmSw goes away for a while after he embarrasses himself. But he always comes back in time like a bad penny. You can count on him for a little more disjointed logic sooner or later.

Anyway - it's all pretty much been said a dozen times over.

I'll see you all in the pre-Tribulation rapture.

Antipsychotic meds are probably over prescribed, but I would image that a few posters in this thread might be helped by them. I've read some craaaaaaaaaaaaazy stuff here. Might be time to shut it down.

 

[tulipbee]

TULIP-Bee,

Now you are just being incoherent.

I'm good

 

[tulipbee]

Rude and insane.

You lied. Bad boy