Understanding Calvinism

[2thePoint]

I promised I would reply.. your post seems to twist what you have stated about Calvinists to make it appear they are the ones that are guilty of hatred when it is only yourself that made that specific allegation.

I DO agree with your statement that teachings and arguments should be the focus of discussion and not personal attacks as you have made against Calvinists.

Blessings

No.

I've twisted nothing but only pointed out that the charge of hatred against me is false and in fact more easily leveled at those who originally made it. And if you equate self-defense with attack, we have no hope of communicating. So again, how about we ALL stick to the topic now? Please?

 

[nobdysfool]

Would you please stop with the large bold type?

It is not large, but it is bolded. How would you like it if I complained about your font being too skinny and small? Give it a rest. I am not shouting.

So why is Calvinism so obsessed with knowing who or what is behind the act of believing?

Calvinists are not obsessed, and I object to your use of the word in this fashion. It is unnecessary. having a rational discussion is a two-way street. if you want respect, show some.

Whether it's as it appears or an illusion for God's good pleasure, we all agree that for someone to be saved they must hear the gospel and accept it.

OK

What difference does it make to you to know the mechanics or logical/temporal order?

Some people just like to know these things, or at least try to understand them. If you don't want to, no one is forcing you to do so. You can just move along, you know....

It does not affect the gospel because Calvinists and Arminians preach the same thing, as you agree here. It does not result in holier living, it does not make the believer more humble (there is no objective evidence that it does)... it only divides and causes needless strife.

No, it doesn't "only" do that. It enlightens and edifies, as well, at least for some people. Again, we aren't required to tailor things to anyone's particular liking, as though they are the arbiters of what is proper and correct. Jesus said that He came not to bring piece, but a sword. The Word of God is described as a sword, quick and powerful, able to separate soul and spirit. Christianity isn't all happy-clappy Kum-by-yah feel good times. Sometimes it's hard, offensive, and revealing of motives. It's all part of it.

Of what purpose then is Calvinism? Arminians study the Bible, spread the gospel, strive to be holy, and believe it or not, there are no statistical studies showing that Arminians are less intelligent or informed.

And who exactly has said such a thing? Please provide us with the quotes, in specific, or withdraw the charge. Thank you.

So what importance is there in Calvinist theology besides personal preference? Is it really worth all this debate while we should be joining forces to present a united front to the lost?

In other words, just give up and agree, right? Not gonna happen...

Please explain here and now why Calvinism is vital to the Christian.

Learning more about our Father, His Son, and the Holy Spirit is something that every Christian should be actively engaged in. And over time, they will find that their theology changes, and what they once thought was the way it is, wasn't, and they will increase in knowledge, grace, and holiness. If you are increasing, growing in the Lord, your theology will not remain static.

 

[JustAsIam77]

No.

I've twisted nothing but only pointed out that the charge of hatred against me is false and in fact more easily leveled at those who originally made it. And if you equate self-defense with attack, we have no hope of communicating. So again, how about we ALL stick to the topic now? Please?

I apologize for beating this dead horse but who has stated they hate you in this thread? I'll be the first to reprimand such a person. I've only read honest and sincere debate with the usual disagreement in Theology common in this forum.

 

[2thePoint]

I apologize for beating this dead horse but who has stated they hate you in this thread? I'll be the first to reprimand such a person. I've only read honest and sincere debate with the usual disagreement in Theology common in this forum.

Show me where I stated someone hated me personally.

All I said was that I was charged with hating and the charge is false.

But enough of this; anybody who wants to can read the thread and make up whatever they want.

 

[nobdysfool]

Oh please.

And hatred? The Calvinists in this board positively drip with it. They can't handle being confronted with their own theology's self-contradictions so they slather on the ad hominem as you're doing so intently right now.

Wow.

Speaks for itself....

 

[cygnusx1]

Unbelief not the only sin that condemns a man :

Strike 2 :

"If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, how could He possibly say to certain ones, "Ye shall seek Me, and shall die in your sins?" (John 8:21) Christ was here addressing the Pharisees. The time was only a short while before His death. He was speaking, therefore, of that which lay on the other side of His crucifixion and resurrection. This is seen from the fact that He first said, "I go My way, and ye shall seek Me." Most evidently was He referring to His return to the Father. And yet He expressly declared that after His departure from this world, these men would "seek" Him (but in vain), and they should die in their sins. Their death would be subsequent to His, and their death should be in sins. The striking thing is, that these awful words were uttered, on this same occasion, no less than three times. For in John 8:24 we read, "I said therefore unto you, That ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins." Note, carefully "die," not in your sin, but "in your sins." Here, then, is another indubitable proof that Christ did not bear all the sins of all men. "

AWP

 

[cygnusx1]

Unbelief not the only sin that condemns a man :

Strike 3 :

"If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, why did the apostle Paul (under the Holy Spirit) write, "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolator, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." (Eph. 5:5, 6) The "children of disobedience" (cf. Eph. 2:2) is a name for unbelievers. It views them as rebels against God. The passage now before us tells us why "the wrath of God" shall come upon them-"because of these things," looks back to what had been specified in the previous verses. God's wrath would yet descend upon them not only because of their rejection of Christ, but because they had been guilty of sins of immorality and covetousness.

It is remarkable that v. 6 begins with the words, "Let no man deceive you with vain words." It certainly looks as though the Holy Spirit was here anticipating and repudiating this modern perversion of God's truth. Men do now tell us that no wrath from God will ever fall on men because of the sins of immorality and covetousness. Men now tell us that God's wrath for all sins came upon Christ. But when men tell us such things, none other than the Holy Spirit declares that they are "vain (empty) words." They are empty words because there is no truth in them! Then let us not be deceived by them."


AWP

 

[Pinkman]

We are born condemned read Rom 5 . Hey maybe the scripture about being condemned for unbelief needs to be read in context , it cannot relate to all men , many have never had the Gospel and stand in sin

So are you now suggesting not all men are born condemned ?

Thinking of Rom2 :14-18. Also Ezekiel 18.

 

[billybtennessee]

Unbelief not the only sin that condemns a man :

Strike 3 :

"If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, why did the apostle Paul (under the Holy Spirit) write, "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolator, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." (Eph. 5:5, 6) The "children of disobedience" (cf. Eph. 2:2) is a name for unbelievers. It views them as rebels against God. The passage now before us tells us why "the wrath of God" shall come upon them-"because of these things," looks back to what had been specified in the previous verses. God's wrath would yet descend upon them not only because of their rejection of Christ, but because they had been guilty of sins of immorality and covetousness.

It is remarkable that v. 6 begins with the words, "Let no man deceive you with vain words." It certainly looks as though the Holy Spirit was here anticipating and repudiating this modern perversion of God's truth. Men do now tell us that no wrath from God will ever fall on men because of the sins of immorality and covetousness. Men now tell us that God's wrath for all sins came upon Christ. But when men tell us such things, none other than the Holy Spirit declares that they are "vain (empty) words." They are empty words because there is no truth in them! Then let us not be deceived by them."


AWP

We also can not ignore what Jesus Christ said, "Men loved darkness rather than light." This regards why men are condemned. Love is the key. Do we love the light, found in/and is, JESUS CHRIST, or do we love darkness, and choose to remain in it.

A very key point Jesus makes here. I will let the wrangling over words continue. It is 'unprofitable', obviously, or should be, but we were just warned, not forced to listen. God Bless all of you.

 

[cygnusx1]

I think the Bible contains a lot more Read the whole story, get the whole picture.

and Synods haven't ?

you do know what the point of a synod is ?

The Bible itself contains the point of synods .

 

[Pinkman]

and Synods haven't ?

you do know what the point of a synod is ?

The Bible itself contains the point of synods .

I would preserve free will, even if I were allowed to choose between election of all to heaven and free will with not all saved, for the same reason that God did: one cannot have a real relationship of love without the possibility of rejection and of choosing the loved even in the face of difficulty. I think that love is the higher and more primary rationale over moral responsibility, and that moral responsibility is the corollary of freely willed love. That is, it is necessary to make how God deals with rejection of his love (i.e., hell, annihilation) moral.

 

[Pinkman]

Are the viewers of this thread understanding calvinism now ?

 

[Pinkman]

Human nature being what it is, it is impossible.

However with God, everything is possible.

 

[cygnusx1]

Human nature being what it is, it is impossible.

However with God, everything is possible.

what , even saving the unwilling !

 

[Pinkman]

what , even saving the unwilling !

That is what the Bible plainly teaches Cygnus. Even the unwilling ( don't read universalism). The Bible says this so this is the way it is.

Surely cygnus, in your system ALL the elect were born in Adam were they not ?

Surely in your system they were born 'obnoxious and odious in the sight of God - John Calvin. Or Totally depraved - Essence of Calvinistic logic. Were they not ?

So before God did whatever he did they were UNWILLING.

You contradict yourself sir.
With your own sarcasm you shoot yourself in both feet.



1 Timothy 2:4 .....Who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Galatians 1:3-4 .....Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for OUR sins, that he might deliver US from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:


Romans 3:22 .....Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto ALL and upon ALL them that believe: for there is no difference:

Romans 8:32 ......He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us ALL, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?


Romans 14:9 .....For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord BOTH of the dead and living.

Titus 2:11 .....salvation hath appeared to ALL men,

2 Peter 3:9 .....He is not willing that ANYONE should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:4 ....Who will have ALL men to be saved,

1 John 2:2 .....And he is the propitiation for OUR sins: and not for ours ONLY, but also for the sins of THE WHOLE WORLD.

1 John 4:14 .....And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of THE WORLD.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 .....For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for ALL, then were ALL dead: And that he died for ALL, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

John 1:9 .....That was the true Light, which lighteth EVERY man that cometh into the world.


John 1:29 .....The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of THE WORLD.

John 3:16-17 .....For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life......

....For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that THE WORLD through him might be saved.

 

[cygnusx1]

That is what the Bible plainly teaches Cygnus. Even the unwilling ( don't read universalism). The Bible says this so this is the way it is.

Surely cygnus, in your system ALL the elect were born in Adam were they not ?

Surely in your system they were born 'obnoxious and odious in the sight of God - John Calvin. Or Totally depraved - Essence of Calvinistic logic. Were they not ?

So before God did whatever he did they were UNWILLING.

You contradict yourself sir.
With your own sarcasm you shoot yourself in both feet.

how have I contradicted myself ?

always quote a person to establish where you think the contradict themselves otherwise it's just another future post by you saying "sorry about that " ...

 

[Pinkman]

how have I contradicted myself ?

always quote a person to establish where you think the contradict themselves otherwise it's just another future post by you saying "sorry about that " ...

Repeat post

Surely cygnus, in your system ALL the elect were born in Adam were they not ?

Surely in your system they were born 'obnoxious and odious in the sight of God - John Calvin. Or Totally depraved - Essence of Calvinistic logic. Were they not ?

So before God did whatever he did they were UNWILLING.

 

[cygnusx1]

Repeat post

Surely cygnus, in your system ALL the elect were born in Adam were they not ?

Surely in your system they were born 'obnoxious and odious in the sight of God - John Calvin. Or Totally depraved - Essence of Calvinistic logic. Were they not ?

So before God did whatever he did they were UNWILLING.

and ?

state your case and use quotes where I have contradicted myself , if you can't do that retract

 

[AndOne]

Repeat post

Surely cygnus, in your system ALL the elect were born in Adam were they not ?

Surely in your system they were born 'obnoxious and odious in the sight of God - John Calvin. Or Totally depraved - Essence of Calvinistic logic. Were they not ?

So before God did whatever he did they were UNWILLING.

In all honesty I don't see how he has contradicted himself. Could you elaborate?

 

[Pinkman]

OK Ill have another go

In a previous posts alluding to Gods saving people. Cyg Writes even the unwilling! troll up some post and see. Are men born willing or unwilling. We are told tht all men are born in sin, totally depraved etc etc. So I am saying yes even the unwilling as Calvinits tell us.

Think this all started with cyanoses claim that God ministers to the reprobate way back and the question as to wht God bothers if God as calvinist tells us creates the reprobates in unbelief in the first place.

Have I got it all wrong.
Are you saying God has not predestined the elect and the reprobate and did all this before the foundation of the world?