• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Logical Problems with Calvinism

Status
Not open for further replies.

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,818
✟368,235.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Calvinism is taught. Almost every Calvinist was taught this, they did not deduce it from reading the Word by themselves and draw a conclusion.

The problem I find with many man made doctrines that are taught is that people read the Bible looking to validate a particular position, instead of looking at it by itself.

So you grow up outing that belief into action. That's how I see Calvinist's. They have been taught. Calvin is not in the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

tulipbee

Worker of the Hive
Apr 27, 2006
2,835
297
✟25,849.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The only way God is going is the keep his promises is to make sure we're on the right path toward his planned goals.
 
Upvote 0

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,818
✟368,235.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Calvinism is taught. Almost every Calvinist was taught this, they did not deduce it from reading the Word by themselves and draw a conclusion.

The problem I find with many man made doctrines that are taught is that people read the Bible looking to validate a particular position, instead of looking at it by itself.

So you grow up adding that belief into action of your understanding. That's how I see Calvinist's. They have been taught. Calvin is not in the Bible.u
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,730
USA
✟184,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
This is what I posted:
"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?"

And, this is the response:
The only way God is going is the keep his promises is to make sure we're on the right path toward his planned goals.
Huh? What does this have to do with my post?

So, I'll ask again: can Calvinists please just understand that simple point about free will?
 
Reactions: ToBeLoved
Upvote 0

tulipbee

Worker of the Hive
Apr 27, 2006
2,835
297
✟25,849.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What free will?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married

I'd say it's a "no." But you could always try again, carefully explaining your proposition instead of relying upon a series of teasers like you did here.
 
Upvote 0

GillDouglas

Reformed Christian
Dec 21, 2013
1,117
450
USA
Visit site
✟36,925.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
This is your opinion, and you have every right to it but you couldn't be more wrong in your lame and idiotic assumption, at least concerning me and those I know. Do you believe that every young Christian who eventually follows the Calvinists held beliefs regarding salvation, who seeks guidance in their new Christian life, is approached by some 'Calvinist' who hands them a pamphlet about the Five Points of Calvinism? I don't know of any 'Calvinist' type church that does this sort of thing, pushing Calvinist Theology. I know that's not where I started learning when I started my new Christian life. I started by reading the Bible, a gift from a Catholic priest who I first spoke with after my life changed for the better. Men didn't teach me about how/why God saved me, I came to the conclusion on my own.
 
Reactions: Cush
Upvote 0

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,818
✟368,235.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
It would do you well to read what I said. I said I believe in most people they are taught those beliefs within their church. From youth.

So your entire premise is flawed.

So. Why not respond to what I did actually say.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,685
7,904
...
✟1,317,383.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
While I am for you on the side that a believer must submit to God and His Word (i.e. the New Testament Commands) as a part of Soteriology or that a believer can stop sinning in this life, I am not in agreement with you on a couple of things you said here, my friend.

For one, another poster had investigated your link and they proposed that they endorsed the idea that the Earth is flat. I really do hope that was a misunderstanding on his part or that you do not personally endorse a flat Earth. I really cannot see how any person can see that the Earth is flat today (Especially seeing how any person today can fly around the world in an aircraft - if they have enough money).

Second, you are talking from a political standpoint. I really do not see how that has anything to do with God and His Word. There is no nation that is endorsed by God anymore like Israel (Back in the day). So there are no official politics that are endorsed by God because the politics of this world come from unbelievers and not believers. Believers are to be concerned with what God's Word says and strive to live according to His Word and not by what some men say.

Three, this then leads me into disagreeing with your denial of Sola Scriptura. Why do you feel that the BIble is not your only source of spiritual authority? Do you not know that the problem of many religions today is that they distort God's Word by adding another book, or by adding some kind church tradition, etc.? We will be held accountable to some other spiritual book or will be held accountable to God's Word on Judgment day? Anyways, here is my Biblical case for Sola Scriptura:

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/100040-biblical-defense-sola-scriptura.html

Four, as for obeying the Law of Moses. Well, actually believers are to obey the New Testament Commands and they are not to go back to the Old Law so as to obey God anymore. The "Law" part in the "Law and the Prophets" was fulfilled upon the cross. The "Prophets" part in the "Law and the Prophets" (sometimes abbreviated as just as the word "Law") has yet to be fulfilled because there are many End Times prophecies in the Old Testament that still needs to happen. In fact, Paul warns us about going back to the Old Testament Law of Moses or to be justified by Pharisee type traditions in the book of Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians. For "circumcision" was a part of the Old Law, was one of the heresies Paul was trying to address within the church. In fact, Hebrews 7:12 says there is a change in the Law. For there is a slight change even with God's moral laws. For the moral laws like not murdering, not stealing, etc. are no longer attached with a death penalty anymore. While we are to obey the Laws of the Land (According to Romans 13): We now have God's grace and mercy to fall back upon, though. For if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). Also, at Christ's death upon the cross, the Aaronic priesthood was abolished. The temple veil was torn from top to bottom. So we no longer have to offer animals to a priest as a sacrifice unto God anymore according to the Law. Also, Jesus was making changes in the Law even during His Earthly ministry. He said to no longer render and eye for an eye (Which was according to the Law), but He declared that we are to turn the other cheek if we are smitten on the cheek (i.e. if violence is done towards us). Also, Peter had a vision from God telling him to eat unclean animals now. So we can now eat unclean animals according to the New Testament. So Hebrews 7:12 is correct in that it says there is a change in the Law.

Five, slavery in any shape or form is not endorsed by God or His Word. 1 Timothy 1:10 clearly condemns slavery. Bond servant would be the more appropriate or accurate term to use. Anyways, a good website that I would recommend on this topic is:

http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslavent.html

Anyways, I have to run.
May God bless you.
And may you please be well.

With loving kindness to you in Christ,

Sincerely,

~ Jason.


....
 
Upvote 0

True Science

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2015
689
68
✟1,301.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married

You got it. And let me say, these Reformers Luther and Calvin didn't even get their beliefs from the Bible. Yes, they reasoned some new things from their reading of the Bible. But they already were reading the Bible alongside Augustine. They had the Augustine glasses on and then they came up with a more consistent Augustinianism. They didn't bring us back to the truth.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,730
USA
✟184,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Promises are for his children. All of his children will be saved.
By definition, His children ARE saved.

Jn 1:12 - But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

Gal 3:26 - For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,730
USA
✟184,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
This is what I posted:
"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?"

And, this is the response:

Huh? What does this have to do with my post?

So, I'll ask again: can Calvinists please just understand that simple point about free will?
What free will?
This, instead of an intellectual discussion of what I said.

But this is the kind of response from those who are ignorant of the subject matter; just deny it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,730
USA
✟184,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
This is what I posted:
"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?"

And, this is the response:

Huh? What does this have to do with my post?

So, I'll ask again: can Calvinists please just understand that simple point about free will?
I'd say it's a "no." But you could always try again, carefully explaining your proposition instead of relying upon a series of teasers like you did here.
Teasers? My explanation of what free will means was clear enough. What did you not understand about my proposition?

Freedom of choice is just that. Nothing more. Do you understand this proposition?
 
Reactions: ToBeLoved
Upvote 0

True Science

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2015
689
68
✟1,301.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married

I said I'm finished with the debating on here so I'm going to try to respond in a way that doesn't provoke more debate on this thread.

1) I'm agnostic on the Flat Earth thing. I'm open to it. More open then to the Globe. I'm very anti-Heliocentricism. I believe NASA uses fake images and footage, the moon landing was a hoaxing, they can't go to space and do the things they say they can. I haven't seen curvature in a plane. My wife recently took a flight and she took pictures of outside the window, all pictures have zero curvature except for maybe one that looks like it may have slight but it could just be an illusion. Google Earth flight at 40000 ft. has clear unmistakable significant curvature. But there's a video on YouTube of a rocket with a non-fisheye lens camcorder and it goes up over 120000 ft. and there is no curvature. Anyway, I don't see why it isn't likely they lie to us about this too if they lie to us about pretty much everything else. Flat Earth could be wrong though. But I have learned about so many things that are wrong with science and how unreliable it is, I don't see any reason to trust it. and I definitely am not going to let it shake my faith in God's Word.

2) I'm merely showing how the ways of the world philosophy do not work. What is called progressive really isn't progressing to working society. As Christians who believe the Bible we shouldn't embrace, support, and sync our faith with worldly ideas like this. for the most part I don't think this can happen, especially now when it looks close to the Beast rising to full power and the Tribulation happening, but it has in the past, but i'm not 100% against if it is clear God has given a society of this world into our hands that we should not take it over and run it by biblical principles, God's Law, a theocracy. Anyway, when the Millennial theocratic reign comes everyone will for sure see how a Torah government under the King of Glory Yeshua is the only government that can perfectly work, it is the only way of life that perfectly lines up with God's created world reality.

3) Scripture itself contradicts Sola Scriptura. Just like it contradicts inerrancy in the copies of Scripture. One example is the issue of the canon. There is no internal support for it in the Bible itself and there are blatantly things in it that contradict it. Like check out what I wrote in response to a guy trying to explain away what Jude is clearly doing in his epistle:

"4. No it's not a logical fallacy and giant leap in logic. When you see them quoting and using the same
language as these books, which many scholars recognize, it is not a giant leap in logic. And it is pure
conjecture upon your part to say that Jude's quote of 1Enoch was just some oral tradition that was true
which got added to the book later. You have zero evidence for this I'm sure. It's only something you
conjured up in your mind or got from others who did so to reason away this blatant quote of 1Enoch and
these blatant allusions to it of him, which aren't even comparable to the quotations of pagan writings by
Paul. Let me now show how illogical and nonsensical it is to believe what you do about Jude's epistle:

Jude wrote a very short epistle. Probably so it could be easily circulated widely and quickly, since in that
time copying was not easy like it is today. And the reason was that he wanted to remind the Church of
"the faith once delivered to saints" and to expose and refute the gainsayers quick and clean. What a
horrible job he did by writing something so confusing by authoritatively quoting to and alluding to
Jewish "pseudepigraphal" writings as legit sources of info about the truth and prophecy; writings that he
no doubt knew that certain of his Jewish contemporaries accepted as true genuine authoritative texts.
He totally just opened the door to pure confusion and the acceptance of heretical writings as Scripture
which are not Scripture. Jude wants to remind his readers about "the faith once delivered to the saints,"
which supposedly contains the all-important doctrine of the Protestant Canon being all the Scripture
there is, but instead of listing the Canon for us so there can be no question on the matter at all, he
authoritatively references extra-canonical texts, that certain Jews accepted as authoritative Scripture, as
sources of prophecy and truth. Now you can have "deceived" people like me using Jude's epistle to say,
"Look, Jude believed there were more Scriptures than just the Bible. And look, they say that the belief
about the fallen angels marrying human woman and producing giants by them is true." What a great job
Jude did in telling us what this "faith once and for all delivered", which supposedly includes the allimportant doctrine of the 66 book Protestant Bible, found nowhere in that very Bible itself, is. But any
unbiased person can see to Jude "the faith once delivered to the saints" included Apocryphal literature,
not just the Pharisaic canon. If Jude was just quoting these writings to make a point, but did not accept
them like people like me do, he could have easily added a disclaimer to protect people who would be
misled, like me. Your oral tradition stuff is totally useless in determining truth since you pick and choose
which majority beliefs of the Ante-Nicene Fathers you want to believe. You reject almost all of them from
what I can tell. Like what they believed about the "sons of God" and the "daughters of man." Whatever
oral traditions were being faithfully passed down are corrupted to you as per the fact that you are in a
restorationist movement and reject most of the things the early Church after the Apostles believed, like
how strict, hard and serious it really is in attaining salvation, and their views on divorce and remarriage.
Your final authority is Scripture and it's really all you have in the end to truly determine the truth. And
nothing in any of the OT Scriptures you accept says or even so much as hints at anything about any fallen
angels teaching humans the sins they were committing in Noah's day and being bound at that time. So
you rely on conjecture that Peter is talking about fallen angels bound in Noah's day though the OT is
silent on this according to your views. And if you don't mind I would like to know where I can find these
Jewish historical texts that say that the angels taught man these things in Noah's Day and were bound
then, but say there was no angel fornication going on. But I would also like to know why we need these
things and they aren't so much as hinted at in the OT and then suddenly appear so vaguely out of
nowhere so as to cause readers so much confusion if the Bible is all-sufficient to equip the man of God
with the full knowledge of the truth."


4) I believe most Christians throughout history have misunderstood the NT, especially Paul, which Peter actually warns about, by looking at it from their gentile presuppositions and not being grounded enough in the OT. They read the NT too much into the OT and their NT interpretations are based on not being familiar with OT and its Hebraic culture, thought and idioms. I am working on things and have already put out some things to correct the anti-Torah misunderstandings out there. One example you gave. The eye for an eye thing in the Torah was originally about the judicial system, not personal vendetta. That is how it was being misapplied in Yeshua's day. Even the OT tells us not to quickly have a bad temper, render evil for evil, and tells us to love our neighbours and even enemies. And yes the Law has changed, and it changed before even the NT. In the OT we see the Letter of Law was changed before the Law was given, at the time the time the Law was given and after the Law was given. But by I do not believe the Law can be changed in such a way as to contradict the Spirit/principles/character of God as revealed in the Law of Moses. I do not believe the Law has been completely done away with or that it has been radically changed beyond recognition in the Law for the New Covenant for today.

5) Well whatever you want to term it. But the text you quoted is talking about kidnapping. When Israel bought slaves from other nations it is highly doubtful they didn't ever buy kidnapped people. At least those people being in a nation that has right laws to deal with bondservants would be a lot better for them than being sold to some gentile nation without God's Law. Anyway, if you think this capitalist atheist way things are now is really better than a Torah government with righteous slave laws in an agrarian society, then I don't know how you can believe Scripture that says God's Law converts the soul, enlightens the heart and is perfection and liberty. The societies are a mess we live in. All the details in Scripture about what Christ's Kingdom will be like are a theocratic Torah worldwide rule. And the evil nations tat went against God's people it says will be put in forced slavery to them. Paul clearly tells slaves to obey their masters and work for them as they would the Lord and doesn't discriminate between who was stolen or who sold himself. Even sends a slave back to his master. We aren't in the New Heavens and New Earth yet. Not everything is perfect so we need perfect laws to deal with imperfect situations.

Thanks for the article. I'll have to check it out sometime.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.