• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Understanding Calvinism

Status
Not open for further replies.

2thePoint

Looking Up
May 19, 2005
752
87
Visit site
✟23,821.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Its actually a strawman argument in the strictest since of the term. You are basically trying to define for Calvinists what they believe. I've already explained to you what the Calvinist definition of spiritual death is. You are trying to interject your own meaning onto it - but its not the Calvinist belief...

As I said, I am only relating what Calvinists themselves have said, even in this board. You can ask them yourself, such as in the "humor" thread where there is a cartoon mocking Arminianism by a life preserver being thrown toward a grave. This is no straw man but the accurate quotation of Calvinist views by Calvinists right here in this board. But apparently not one Calvinist is interested in facing and discussing their own logical contradictions.
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Its actually a strawman argument in the strictest since of the term. You are basically trying to define for Calvinists what they believe. I've already explained to you what the Calvinist definition of spiritual death is. You are trying to interject your own meaning onto it - but its not the Calvinist belief...


too true bro , it's as straw as straw gets , but no matter how many times you explain it and no matter how many scriptures you post they will continue with a straw man and ignore the relevant scriptures , denying man can be both "dead" and alive at the same time.
 
Upvote 0

2thePoint

Looking Up
May 19, 2005
752
87
Visit site
✟23,821.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
too true bro , it's as straw as straw gets , but no matter how many times you explain it and no matter how many scriptures you post they will continue with a straw man and ignore the relevant scriptures , denying man can be both "dead" and alive at the same time.

Back atcha.

The problem for Calvinism is that they only want the "dead" to be to the gospel, and the "alive" to be to sin. Never mind those pesky scriptures about the saved being "dead to sin" obviously NOT meaning we are incapable of sinning anymore (which means being "dead to God" doesn't mean we are incapable of responding to the gospel).

But clearly there is no point in continuing when Calvinists have Total Inability to make sense of their own teachings. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Not at all. In fact, Calvinism engages in "special pleading": dead only means completely dead when it supports our theory, but "sorta dead" when it doesn't. We can ignore figures of speech and the difference between literal and figurative when it suits us. We can continually use the "dead as Lazarus" tactic to support Total Inability while simultaneously allowing Lazarus to be not quite so dead when it comes to sin. Very convenient-- and fallacious.

PS: you might want to lay off the shouting through big, bold type all the time. Just a suggestion.

It appears that yours is not a quest for knowledge, but simply looking for a platform to spread the false ideas and misconceptions about Calvinism that you've either been taught, or have gotten from anti-Calvinist sources. When we try to explain things to you, the answer we get back is filled with misconceptions and falsehoods about Calvinist doctrine. Since when is that a good way to discuss things?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cygnusx1
Upvote 0

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟36,128.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
As I said, I am only relating what Calvinists themselves have said, even in this board. You can ask them yourself, such as in the "humor" thread where there is a cartoon mocking Arminianism by a life preserver being thrown toward a grave. This is no straw man but the accurate quotation of Calvinist views by Calvinists right here in this board. But apparently not one Calvinist is interested in facing and discussing their own logical contradictions.

Haven't read a single post from that thread - so I have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm a Calvinist and am telling you that your interpretation of our beliefs are wrong.
 
Upvote 0

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟36,128.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
too true bro , it's as straw as straw gets , but no matter how many times you explain it and no matter how many scriptures you post they will continue with a straw man and ignore the relevant scriptures , denying man can be both "dead" and alive at the same time.

"Quick to judge, quick to anger, and slow to understand.... Ignorance and prejudice and fear - walk hand-in-hand..." - NP
 
Upvote 0

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
As I said, I am only relating what Calvinists themselves have said, even in this board. You can ask them yourself, such as in the "humor" thread where there is a cartoon mocking Arminianism by a life preserver being thrown toward a grave. This is no straw man but the accurate quotation of Calvinist views by Calvinists right here in this board. But apparently not one Calvinist is interested in facing and discussing their own logical contradictions.

Well, when you start providing ACTUAL QUOTES, rather than generic accusations, there might be something to discuss.
 
Upvote 0

rturner76

Domine non-sum dignus
Site Supporter
May 10, 2011
11,529
4,030
Twin Cities
✟867,533.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Just a question, please don't jump on me whomever s out there.....As for your every day church goer who does not study Calvin or Arminius (or for me Wesley) how do you think the majority believe? That we are predestine to go to heaven or hell or that we respond with acceptance to grace already given?
 
Upvote 0

rturner76

Domine non-sum dignus
Site Supporter
May 10, 2011
11,529
4,030
Twin Cities
✟867,533.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
As a Methodist, I am aware of Whitfield and his enormous contribution to Methodism and the Holiness movement. As the move away from the Church of England, I was wondering why Wesley did not continue with Calvinism like Whitfield. It broke their companionship apart though Wesley still had great respect for his charisma especially in open air preaching and evangelizing to and winning over many to the holiness movement. So I want it to be known my questions are not an attempt to see Arminius "win" as I am a Christian first and foremost before I am any ism or ist.
 
Upvote 0

rturner76

Domine non-sum dignus
Site Supporter
May 10, 2011
11,529
4,030
Twin Cities
✟867,533.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
How can God hold the non-elect responsible for ‘not believing’ and damn them for it, when He deliberately did not give them the faith to enable them to believe in the first place?
 
Upvote 0

drstevej

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."
In Memory Of
Mar 18, 2003
47,577
27,116
76
Lousianna
✟1,016,631.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How can God hold the non-elect responsible for ‘not believing’ and damn them for it, when He deliberately did not give them the faith to enable them to believe in the first place?

He holds them responsible for their sin.

John 8:24
24 That is why I said that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I Am who I claim to be, you will die in your sins.”
 
Upvote 0

drstevej

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."
In Memory Of
Mar 18, 2003
47,577
27,116
76
Lousianna
✟1,016,631.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As a Methodist, I am aware of Whitfield and his enormous contribution to Methodism and the Holiness movement. As the move away from the Church of England, I was wondering why Wesley did not continue with Calvinism like Whitfield. It broke their companionship apart though Wesley still had great respect for his charisma especially in open air preaching and evangelizing to and winning over many to the holiness movement. So I want it to be known my questions are not an attempt to see Arminius "win" as I am a Christian first and foremost before I am any ism or ist.

You would enjoy Arnold Dallimore's biography of George Whitefield. It was Wesley who publicly challenged Whitefield's preaching of election.

Whitefield said:
The case (you know) stands thus: When you were at Bristol, I think you received a letter from a private hand, charging you with not preaching the gospel, because you did not preach up election. Upon this you drew a lot: the answer was "preach and print." I have often questioned, as I do now, whether in so doing, you did not tempt the Lord. A due exercise of religious prudence, without [the drawing of] a lot, would have directed you in that matter. Besides, I never heard that you enquired of God, whether or not election was a gospel doctrine.
But, I fear, taking it for granted [that election was not a biblical truth], you only enquired whether you should be silent or preach and print against it.
However this be, the lot came out "preach and print"; accordingly you preached and printed against election. At my desire, you suppressed the publishing of the sermon whilst I was in England; but you soon sent it into the world after my departure. O that you had kept it in! However, if that sermon was printed in answer to a lot, I am apt to think, one reason why God should so suffer you to be deceived, was, that hereby a special obligation might be laid upon me, faithfully to declare the Scripture doctrine of election, that thus the Lord might give me a fresh opportunity of seeing what was in my heart, and whether I would be true to his cause or not; as you could not but grant, he did once before, by giving you such another lot at Deal.
 
Upvote 0

rturner76

Domine non-sum dignus
Site Supporter
May 10, 2011
11,529
4,030
Twin Cities
✟867,533.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I was wondering about people who would be Christians when they hear the Gospel given to them properly. I guess I would describe them as "would be Christians" it is inevitable that they will be Christian but they are not as of yet. I don't think either fully describes a person in this state. An Arminian may say they have been given grace but they have not yet accepted it through Christ's atonement.

My question then is....

If Christ has already made an efficacious atonement for the sins of an elect person, is that elect person actually lost during the period prior to their being saved?

Or is the question self defeating because an elect person would never be allowed to perish before they have had a chance to accept Christ?
 
Upvote 0

rturner76

Domine non-sum dignus
Site Supporter
May 10, 2011
11,529
4,030
Twin Cities
✟867,533.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I'm sure this is a question you get all the time but I haven't read this whole thread....

How can God hold the non-elect responsible for ‘not believing’ and damn them for it, when He deliberately did not give them the faith to enable them to believe in the first place?

It seems cruel and not the Forgiving savior I preach the gospel about. It kind of scares me like what if I choose the wrong denomination?
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I'm sure this is a question you get all the time but I haven't read this whole thread....

How can God hold the non-elect responsible for ‘not believing’ and damn them for it, when He deliberately did not give them the faith to enable them to believe in the first place?

It seems cruel and not the Forgiving savior I preach the gospel about. It kind of scares me like what if I choose the wrong denomination?


You cannot measure man's responsibility by God's grace , if the Lord forgave none , He would still be JUST in condemning all.


There are many things this side of glory that seem cruel (hell for one) I trust beyond what I can see.
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
How can God hold the non-elect responsible for ‘not believing’ and damn them for it, when He deliberately did not give them the faith to enable them to believe in the first place?

Does God owe any man the gift of faith ? No

Are all men under a solomn duty to obey the Gospel and believe on Christ ? yes.

Are all men without excuse ? yes

Romans 1-2

everyone knows God exists ;

[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
[19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
[21] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
[22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
[23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
[24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
[25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

all men have been given a conscience :

Rom.2

[1] Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
[2] But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
[3] And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
[4] Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
[5] But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
[6] Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
[7] To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
[8] But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
[9] Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
[10] But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
[11] For there is no respect of persons with God.
[12] For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
[13] (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
[14] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
[15] Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

Why are people "condemned already"? Because of their sins? NO! Because of disbelief in Jesus.

Think first... and read scripture first, then type.

Rejection of the Errors

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those

I
Who teach that, properly speaking, it cannot be said that original sin in itself is enough to condemn the whole human race or to warrant temporal and eternal punishments.
For they contradict the apostle when he says: Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death passed on to all men because all sinned (Rom. 5:12); also: The guilt followed one sin and brought condemnation (Rom. 5:16); likewise: The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).
 
Upvote 0

rturner76

Domine non-sum dignus
Site Supporter
May 10, 2011
11,529
4,030
Twin Cities
✟867,533.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Now it seems that in Romans 2 it is talking about the sins we commit. Judgement, idolatry, disrespect of the law etc. Is it this that condemns man or the original sin that they where born in and unable to be regenerated from? I'm a little confused. I read King James but more as verse by verse. It's herder for me to digest as a full passage. The state of sin described in Romans 2 would seem the state that would indicate the need for repentance.

Now I can see a connection if you think of it like, the elect are pre destined to be repentant? Then non elect would never repent or they may repent but continue to sin?

I know none of is is perfect even after we accept Christ. Will the elect have their post baptised sins forgiven and the non elect will not? Is it more that the non elect will never be brought to repentance and likely won't be baptized or more importantly never accept Christ?
 
Upvote 0

2thePoint

Looking Up
May 19, 2005
752
87
Visit site
✟23,821.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Rejection of the Errors

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those

I
Who teach that, properly speaking, it cannot be said that original sin in itself is enough to condemn the whole human race or to warrant temporal and eternal punishments.
For they contradict the apostle when he says: Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death passed on to all men because all sinned (Rom. 5:12); also: The guilt followed one sin and brought condemnation (Rom. 5:16); likewise: The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).

1. Stop shouting. No more responses to you after this if they contain the usual shouting.

2. Synods are not scripture.

3. Scripture says point blank that disbelief is what condemns people. There is no way for anyone to weasel out of that fact.

4. The Apostle said nothing about inherited sin but only inherited mortality. Prooftexting cannot help you.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.