The Hypocrisy of Calvinists

[Jonaitis]

What I think is that it's not relevant to the OP, which still stands unrefuted. Calvinism proposes that election is not based upon God's foreknowledge of faith or events. So "foreknowledge" is irrelevant to the discussion.

Irrelevant? I think not! But fine.

 

[Hammster]

As I pointed out, the question is irrelevant to the topic. And you yourself have not provided any rebuttal to the simple argument I had already presented.

There’s no actual rebuttal since it’s a straw man. So I’m using this approach to start a dialogue. Is that a problem? Or do you just want to attack?

 

[Hammster]

One thing is knowing other is imposing i guess.

True. But an answer to the question would move the dialogue along.

 

[Hammster]

Good point. Calvinism proposes that election is not based upon God's foreknowledge, and thus imposing rather than predicting. And as such Calvinism is a fatalistic theology.

So you won’t answer my question, but you’ll respond to someone who addresses it?

 

[HosannaHM]

That's an example of the hypocrisy of Calvinists.

Is that you Leighton?

 

[bcbsr]

There’s no actual rebuttal since it’s a straw man. So I’m using this approach to start a dialogue. Is that a problem? Or do you just want to attack?

Saying it's a straw man doesn't make it a straw man. You have failed to show in any way that I have misconstrued Calvinism. And likewise of others, who simply say "you're wrong" as if that settles the matter.

The fact that no one, including yourself, has dared to present a rational argument to dispute my argument speaks for itself. No one has so much as dared to even specify where they think I have misrepresented Calvinism.

 

[HosannaHM]

As I pointed out, the question is irrelevant to the topic. And you yourself have not provided any rebuttal to the simple argument I had already presented.

He has no rebuttal because you have completely misrepresented his position. To put it plainly, it would be like asking you to defend a position that you didn't hold yourself.

Try to understand and study the soteriology of Calvinism, then you'll have a better conversation.

 

[Hammster]

Saying it's a straw man doesn't make it a straw man. You have failed to show in any way that I have misconstrued Calvinism. And likewise of others, who simply say "you're wrong" as if that settles the matter.

The fact that no one, including yourself, has dared to present a rational argument to dispute my argument speaks for itself. No one has so much as dared to even specify where they think I have misrepresented Calvinism.

Under Calvinism salvation is not by faith in Christ,

It’s a straw man because you’ll find nothing in Reformed Theology that teaches it. It’s not even an argument. It’s a statement. So since it’s wrong, everything that follows is wrong as well.

 

[bcbsr]

He has no rebuttal because you have completely misrepresented his position. To put it plainly, it would be like asking you to defend a position that you didn't hold yourself.

Try to understand and study the soteriology of Calvinism, then you'll have a better conversation.

And yet again another person who simply makes a proposition without any proof. So whose position have a misrepresented? What's the point in the claim that I misrepresented something without any evidence to that effect?

 

[bcbsr]

It’s a straw man because you’ll find nothing in Reformed Theology that teaches it. It’s not even an argument. It’s a statement. So since it’s wrong, everything that follows is wrong as well.

So you're saying that Calvinism doesn't teach that a person is elect to either eternal life or eternal damnation prior to their being born and not contingent upon God's foreknowledge of future events.

Apparently you're not as informed about Calvinism as you make yourself out to be.

 

[Hammster]

So you're saying that Calvinism doesn't teach that a person is elect to either eternal life or eternal damnation prior to their being born and not contingent upon God's foreknowledge of future events.

Apparently you're not as informed about Calvinism as you make yourself out to be.

Try reading my post. I stated exactly what Calvinism doesn’t teach.

 

[royal priest]

You're contradicting yourself. Can it be said of the elect, prior to their coming to faith (Yes I understand that Calvinism proposes that faith is inevitable at some point), that it is impossible for such unbelievers to end up in hell? Not according to Calvinism. If that's the case then they have been saved prior to coming to faith in Christ.

Ephesians chapter 1 and 2 addresses this. Though we are predestined to adoption, we are dead in trespasses until God makes us alive in Christ. Until God raises us up and makes us His workmanship, we" live as sons of disobedience. "

 

[HosannaHM]

bcbsr,

Have you ever thought that foreknowledge may mean something different than foresight? I briefly mentioned this in another forum where a topic like this is properly discussed. I argued thus:

In Calvinism, foreknowledge is understood to be the same as personally known or loved beforehand, rather than foreseeing some event in the future. Whenever foreknowledge is used in Scripture, it is always in relation to a person, rather than what the person does. God foreknew his elect, and saved them in that love he had for them before they were born. We are commanded in Scripture to grow in the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, and this is not talking about mere information (2 Peter 3:18, etc).

"We love because he first loved us." - 1 John 4:19

What are your thoughts on this?

That's a good answer.

And yet again another person who simply makes a proposition without any proof. So whose position have a misrepresented? What's the point in the claim that I misrepresented something without any evidence to that effect?

Jonaitis gave you a good answer and you said it has nothing to do with the OP, but it is relevant to the topic. Why give evidence if your only intention is to argue your understanding of a doctrine, but have no desire in actually understand what a Calvinist believes?

 

[SleepingAtLast]

This applies to any group with beliefs differing from yours, but if you cannot state an argument for Calvinism in a manner that Calvinists themselves would agree with, then you demonstrate that you do not understand Calvinism, and thus you are not in a position to coherently argue against it.

 

[bcbsr]

Ephesians chapter 1 and 2 addresses this. Though we are predestined to adoption, we are dead in trespasses until God makes us alive in Christ. Until God raises us up and makes us His workmanship, we" live as sons of disobedience. "

Issue is under Calvinist concept of "election", which is prior to faith and not contingent upon God's foreknowledge of future events, can the unbelieving elect end up in hell?

If not, then it is not faith, but election that has saved them.

 

[bcbsr]

That's a good answer.



Jonaitis gave you a good answer and you said it has nothing to do with the OP, but it is relevant to the topic. Why give evidence if your only intention is to argue your understanding of a doctrine, but have no desire in actually understand what a Calvinist believes?

It's irrelevant because under Calvinism election is not based on God's foreknowledge. Thus foreknowledge is not the issue

 

[royal priest]

Issue is under Calvinist concept of "election", which is prior to faith and not contingent upon God's foreknowledge of future events, can the unbelieving elect end up in hell?

If not, then it is not faith, but election that has saved them.

The fact that you put the spoon to your mouth does not take away the fact that God feeds you. God is in control from the means we use to the end He purposed. Front to back, "let Him who boasts, boast in the Lord"

 

[Jonaitis]

It's irrelevant because under Calvinism election is not based on God's foreknowledge. Thus foreknowledge is not the issue

False. God's eternal and unconditional election is based on his foreknowledge. Or, it is more proper to say that his election is where his foreknowledge is based. Either way you argue, we don't deny foreknowledge and election hand with hand.

Edit: there is no point in arguing with someone like him.

 

[bcbsr]

This applies to any group with beliefs differing from yours, but if you cannot state an argument for Calvinism in a manner that Calvinists themselves would agree with, then you demonstrate that you do not understand Calvinism, and thus you are not in a position to coherently argue against it.

That doesn't follow. I've taken the Calvinist premise and shown where it logically leads. They have provided no evidence that I have misrepresented the premise. Because I know Calvinism. While they are disturbed as to where I show where that premise logically leads, they have provided no evidence that the logic, the reasoning, itself is wrong.

All they've done so far is make vain propositions that I have presented a straw man argument, or simply propose that I am wrong, but have provided no evidence, neither of misrepresenting the premise nor any evidence that my conclusion doesn't logically follow.

And that fact, so far, speaks for itself, as to how Calvinists defend Calvinism.

 

[YeshuaFan]

The Hypocrisy of Calvinists

Under Calvinism salvation is not by faith in Christ, but rather by a pre-birth election whereby God arbitrarily decides ones eternal fate, and that not based upon God's foreknowledge of some future faith. Thus people are born ether saved and eternally secure or unsaved and eternally damned, there being nothing they can do to change that fate in either instance.

Yet when asked the question, as the Philippian jailer asked, "What must I do to be saved?", the typical Calvinist will answer as the apostle, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved?" ("Believe" being in the imperative in the text and not subjunctive as if saying "if you were to believe", and thus, being imperative, indicating to the man that there is something he could do to be saved, and furthermore that he was not saved until doing so).

But if Calvinists actually believed in Calvinism they would respond something like, "There is nothing you can do to be saved, for your fate was determined prior to you being born and there is nothing you can do to change that fate." That's an example of the hypocrisy of Calvinists.

We hold that a sinner is justified before God by receiving the lord Jesus thru faith!