Logical Problems with Calvinism

[FreeGrace2]

And... you have to keep reading. Hebrews 10:26 and Hebrews 10:38 refute such a notion that one can sin and still be saved.

You've refuted it yourself. In post #2344 you admitted you're still working on achieveing sinless perfection, meaning you haven't arrived there yet, and in post #2968 you claim that you believe you are saved.

So, you yourself believe in a "sin and still be saved" doctrine.

I mean, stop and think for a moment.

How about you doing that? Actually figure out what you've already posted.

Why on Earth would God condone a believer's sin today?

Why do you keep bothering to ask these totally nonsense questions? Who believes that God condones anyone's sins?

Did He ever condone anyone's sin in the Bible? Did God condone Adam's sin? No. And that was just one sin (Which led to the fall of mankind)....

And He certainly does NOT condone your sins either.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No. I am not admitting that I am still a slave to sin in any way.

Either does anyone on this thread.

My life is not characterized by my past in Christ if I confessed those sins and honestly forsaked them.

Why don't you believe that is true of everyone on this thread as well?

Also, I do not live in sin day in and day out those types of sins that Paul talks about that will cause one not to inherit the Kingdom of God, either.

So, who on this site does do that?

I am also confident that even today, God will forever give me the victory, too.

No different than anyone on this thread.

God has the power to conquer sin in a person's life. God can give the believer the victory.

We all agree with that.

Jesus said to "sin no more." But you look to texts outside our own language to defend the idea that Jesus really did not say that.

Scholars have PROVED that. Where you quoted that isn't found in the earliest manuscripts

And you have to ignore 1 John 2:4 in order to make your wrong interpretation on 1 John 1:8 to be true.

The very day that you think you've achieved sinless perfection, 1 Jn 1:8 WILL apply to you directly.

There is no contradiction in what I believe the Bible to say on Soteriology.

Your beliefs are in total contradiction to Scripture.

There is only contradiction in OSAS because you have to ignore many verses in order to make it work.

I've responded to all of them. It's your view that's in contradiction.

Again, this is what I am talking about in my previous posts. You are making it personal and you are trying to falsely slander me and say that I am lying when I do not believe that to be the case at all. I am willing to die for my belief in Christ and my beliefs in the Bible.
...

So, who here isn't?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I do not want you to trust my opinion. I want you to check the Scriptures that I showed you and plainly read them for what they say and compare Scripture with Scripture.

Paul refutes your ideas in Rom 7, in using the present tense. And Gal 5.

I am not above the Word of God. The Word of God is true despite what anyone here says.

lol. No one does think otherwise. Now, regarding your opinions, yeah, most do not think they are true.

In other words, read the passage for yourself and verify what it says.

We've all done that, and your opinions miss the mark regarding the truth.

 

[nobdysfool]

You are mistaken.

These verses lay out explicit CONDITIONS for salvation which involve human choices and actions.

You demonstrate clearly that you do not understand the Doctrine of Unconditional Election. You showed that right here. You're another one railing against that which you do not even properly know.

I'm betting you got your info from an anti-Calvinist source. That's probably the most biased source you could get it from. Learn the subject correctly before you try to speak against it.

 

[sdowney717]

You demonstrate clearly that you do not understand the Doctrine of Unconditional Election. You showed that right here. You're another one railing against that which you do not even properly know.

I'm betting you got your info from an anti-Calvinist source. That's probably the most biased source you could get it from. Learn the subject correctly before you try to speak against it.

To be a catholic believer naturally would mean to be against any calvinist ideas, I would think so.
The entire reformation was anti-catholic, that is against the 'man made' doctrines of the catholics and Calvin was quite vociferously anti popery.
My own view of roman catholicism is that it is a distortion of scripture and false, but I do acknowledge some in that church are saved regardless of the false doctrines.

 

[Marvin Knox]

You are mistaken.

These verses lay out explicit CONDITIONS for salvation which involve human choices and actions.

You are mistaken.

But then your conception of what all salvation means and how it is achieved is quite a bit different from mine - you being a Roman Catholic.

Perhaps it would be foolish for us to try to talk to one another because we would have to revisit the Reformation battles again to do so.

 

[Thursday]

You are mistaken.

But then your conception of what all salvation means and how it is achieved is quite a bit different from mine - you being a Roman Catholic.

I note that you didn't even attempt to address the scriptures I posted.

 

[Thursday]

To be a catholic believer naturally would mean to be against any calvinist ideas, I would think so.
The entire reformation was anti-catholic, that is against the 'man made' doctrines of the catholics and Calvin was quite vociferously anti popery.
My own view of roman catholicism is that it is a distortion of scripture and false, but I do acknowledge some in that church are saved regardless of the false doctrines.

And yet I am the one quoting scripture, while the Calvinists are spouting doctrines of men. Interesting.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I note that you didn't even attempt to address the scriptures I posted.

Of course I did.

My first post to you said that they did not address in any way the issue of unconditional elect.

After that it is up to you to show me how they did address and refute the idea that God chose who would believe before the foundation of the world without conditions.

We are talking about the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election. None of those scriptures show that doctrine to be illogical as you have asserted.

Just posting a bunch of scriptures that talk about how God deals with sinners in general does nothing to accomplish the task set before you.

If you still disagree that they don't - by all means tell me how they do.

 

[GillDouglas]

Nothing here contradicts Catholic teaching. After all, the New Testament is a Catholic book.

Because Catholics are the only true Christians.

 

[Thursday]

Of course I did.

My first post to you said that they did not address in any way the issue of unconditional elect.

After that it is up to you to show me how they did address and refute the idea that God chose who would believe before the foundation of the world without conditions.

We are talking about the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election. None of those scriptures show that doctrine to be illogical as you have asserted.

Just posting a bunch of scriptures that talk about how God deals with sinners in general does nothing to accomplish the task set before you.

If you still disagree that they don't - by all means tell me how they do.

The verses I quoted clearly lay out conditions for salvation. Men must obey Jesus to remain in his love. We reap what we sow. A man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

You are in denial.

 

[Thursday]

Because Catholics are the only true Christians.

Only Catholics have the fullness of truth. Jesus only started one Church.

If two groups of Christians disagree, then one group is wrong.

 

[Marvin Knox]

The verses I quoted clearly lay out conditions for salvation. Men must obey Jesus to remain in his love. We reap what we sow. A man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

You are in denial.

No Calvinist would disagree with what those verses say or even with what you say above.

It is not denial for me to ask you to show where those verses make the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election illogical.

If you believe they do - it should be a simple task for you to show me how that is.

If you need a refresher course on exactly what the doctrine of unconditional election means in Calvinism - I would provide that for you before you start in your presentation concerning those verses.

Either I or Gill would be happy to school you on that first so we don't waste a lot of posts that don't address that doctrine - only mistaken misrepresentations of it.

 

[Thursday]

No Calvinist would disagree with what those verses say or even with what you say above.

It is not denial for me to ask you to show where those verses make the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election illogical.

If you believe they do - it should be a simple task for you to show me how that is.

If you need a refresher course on exactly what the doctrine of unconditional election means in Calvinism - I would provide that for you before you start in your presentation concerning those verses.

Either I or Gill would be happy to school you on that first so we don't waste a lot of posts that don't address that doctrine - only mistaken misrepresentations of it.

Do you even know what Unconditional Election is?

You seem unfamiliar with Calvinist doctrine.

From Calvinist Corner:

Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not .

What the bible says:

Romans 2
God, 6who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:7to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.

Gal 6
7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Jesus only started one Church.

Sure - and He didn't start His universal church in the location of the Vatican Circus in Rome.

If two groups of Christians disagree, then one group is wrong.

Not necessarily.

They could both be wrong.

On the other hand they could both be right.

Your knowledge of logic seems to be deficient.

 

[Thursday]

Sure - and He didn't start His universal church in the location of the Vatican Circus in Rome.

Not necessarily.

They could both be wrong.

On the other hand they could both be right.

Your knowledge of logic seems to be deficient.

There is only one Truth.

Only one Church was started by Christ. He gave the Church leaders and authority. At what time do you believe it was acceptable to reject this Church?

 

[GillDouglas]

Only Catholics have the fullness of truth. Jesus only started one Church.

If two groups of Christians disagree, then one group is wrong.

He did start one Church, and there might be a few of your ilk that belong to it.

 

[Thursday]

He did start one Church, and there might be a few of your ilk that belong to it.

Do you believe that Church that Jesus started teaches multiple contradictory doctrines?

Where do we find what this true Church teaches?(and scripture is not the answer because hundreds of Churches teach hundreds of contradictory "truths" using scripture)

 

[GillDouglas]

Do you believe that Church that Jesus started teaches multiple contradictory doctrines?

Where do we find what this true Church teaches?(and scripture is not the answer because hundreds of Churches teach hundreds of contradictory "truths" using scripture)

You have no understanding of what the Church is. You think it's something physical, man made and only belonging to corrupt Catholics.

 

[Thursday]

You have no understanding of what the Church is. You think it's something physical, man made and only belonging to corrupt Catholics.

A Church is an assembly. Jesus started a Church and gave it leaders. He didn't write a book, he left that to his Church.

The Church still exists, and although some have left it, it contains over 1.2 billion people.