What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Clare73]

Well, laughter is a delicate, telling sort of thing, @RickReads. It’s all of those things because sometimes people think the joke is on them even when it’s not.

What’s less ambiguous however is the point that we can’t invalidate someone’s logical arguments based upon whether or not the person arguing has been motivated by past trauma. A teachable moment.
You might believe that my “vicious,” though logically sound arguments against Calvinism are

becoming tired, in that case I’d advise against reading those messages.
No doubt it’s better to not read things that are triggering rather than to read those messages and reply with the male equivalent of “who hurt you?”
Nobody has kicked my sand castles or crumbled my cookies, at least not anymore than I’ve kicked theirs. I’ve shared logical arguments and articles made by even Calvinists that point towards an issue within the Calvinistic community, and that’s something I’ve shared in light of the question “What’s wrong with Calvinism?”

That's an over-reach in your assertion of "logically-sound arguments"
(better described as "self-justifyng arguments"). . .and
I'm not buyin' your "issue within the Calvinistic community."
It has all the earmarks of a contrived self-serving accusation.

The whole argument is not actual, it's theoretical, a "Heads, I win; tails, you lose"
of the previously-presented moral superiority of "non-Calvinists" (post #145):
"Only by adopting an intellectual disconnect between what they believe and how they respond to those beliefs can the man in the pews not become an arrogant believer,"

based on the false assumption that one cannot hold such beliefs without being guilty of becoming "an arrogant believer" because of those beliefs and,
if you don't become an arrogant believer, then you're guilty of a "disconnect" between your theology and your actual practice, which is even more "disastrous":
"Divorcing our thought life and theology from our living behaviour is as disastrous as it sounds". . .
So. . ."Heads, I win; tails, you lose."

So. . .does that not make you
as misinformed as you claim are the "Calvinists," and
just as self-righteously morally superior as you assert "Calvinists" think they are spiritually superior, but
with some additional smugness thrown in with the moral superiority?

I'm wonderin' if Jesus would see as self-righteous hypocrites (Matthew 22:18) those morally superior "non-Calvinists" who accuse "Calvinists" of being mean and nasty.

 

[Cormack]

The whole argument is just the self-justifying and theoretical "Heads, I win; tails, you lose"
of the previously-demonstrated smug self-righteousness (post #145):
"Only by adopting an intellectual disconnect between what they believe and how they respond to those beliefs can the man in the pews not become an arrogant believer,"

What I’m writing about is the logical consequences of believing certain things, for example, to believe you’re supernaturally blessed with an ability to discern spiritual truths, an ability that ordinary Christians don’t possess, that means you are spiritually superior to those Christians.

That’s not controversial, nor is it an example of me rigging the game, it’s simply how beliefs work. My analogy on the lifelong global illness and a select few who received a cure really covered this so well that I needn’t reply much more.

Calvinists believe they have been deterministically blessed with discernment that others haven’t, they are superior by virtue of the added spiritual blessing if the English language has any meaning whatsoever.

Remember we are writing about an article I’ve already shared in the topic, that’s the source of our whole interaction over the belief arrogance disconnect. The article shares how a phenomenon of mean spirited Calvinism arises within the community, and about these people they have added:

they inadvertently begin seeing the knowledge of grace as something they’ve earned or achieved,​

As I’ve already explained though, their beliefs aren’t about earning and they have “achieved” this state of superior spiritual discernment. They’ve supposedly achieved this state by Gods grace and deterministically, it’s an effectual change that they have gone through. A change that the Christian world has largely not gone through because we are not 5 point Calvinists, nor are we determinists.

So let’s simplify. We now have two camps, one are the mean spirited Calvinists, another camp is the intellectual disconnect Calvinists.

Both camps believe that they have been supernaturally blessed with an ability to discern spiritual things that the vast majority of Christians throughout history haven’t been given.

Only one camp however attempts to downplay this spiritual superiority by obfuscating “the fact that” with “the means how.”

We return again to the how versus that problem. Because you don’t reply to the substance of my messages I could simply repost messages and you’d have more work to do.

How Calvinists believe that they became spiritually superior to Christians (via Gods determination) does nothing to change the fact that Calvinists believe they are superior.

The mean Calvinists own that fact by virtue of their fruitless, toxic, arrogant behaviours, while the intellectual disconnect Calvinists obfuscate and hide the logical consequences of their view by using Gods how method of determinism to avoid admitting to the fact that they believe they are blessed to be best.

Now to save the coin toss so that you could be somehow satisfied, we would need to affirm that (1) Calvinists believe they are superior to everyone else in the Church, while also affirming that (2) Calvinists are super humble about believing they are superior to everyone else in the Church.

Those two beliefs don’t really work though.

 

[Clare73]

That's an over-reach in your assertion of "logically-sound arguments"
(better described as "self-justifying arguments"). . .and
I'm not buyin' your "issue within the Calvinistic community."
It has all the earmarks of a contrived self-serving accusation.
The whole argument is just a theoretical "Heads, I win; tails, you lose"
of the previously-presented moral superiority of "non-Calvinists" (post #145):
"Only by adopting an intellectual disconnect between what they believe and how they respond to those beliefs can the man in the pews not become an arrogant believer,"

based on the false assumption that one cannot hold such beliefs without being guilty of becoming "an arrogant believer" because of those beliefs, and,
if you don't become an arrogant believer, then you're guilty of a "disconnect" between your theology and your actual practice, which is even more "disastrous":
"Divorcing our thought life and theology from our living behaviour is as disastrous as it sounds."
So. . ."Heads, I win; tails, you lose."

So. . .does that not make you
as misinformed as you claim are the "Calvinists," and
just as self-righteously morally superior as you assert "Calvinists" think they are spiritually superior, but
with some additional smugness thrown in with the moral superiority?

I'm wonderin' if Jesus would see as self-righteous hypocrites (Matthew 22:18) those morally superior "non-Calvinists" who accuse "Calvinists" of being mean and nasty.

What I’m writing about is the logical consequences of believing certain things, for example, to believe you’re supernaturally blessed with an ability to discern spiritual truths, an ability that ordinary Christians don’t possess, that
means you are spiritually superior to those Christians.

Red herring. . .

First rule of holes: When you find yourself in one, stop digging.

 

[Cormack]

Red herring. . .

First rule of holes: When you find yourself in one, stop digging.

You have to explain your point rather than simply asserting the point, @Clare73.

You responded to me, so I’m assuming you’d like a meaningful on topic response to your argument. Maybe these less than informative efforts at trash talk are how you respond to difficult arguments.

 

[Clare73]

You have to explain your point rather than simply asserting the point

See posts #145 and #161.

You responded to me, so I’m assuming you’d like a meaningful on topic response to your argument. Maybe these less than informative efforts at trash talk are how you respond to difficult arguments.

You mean trash talk like:
"The mean Calvinists own that fact by virtue of their fruitless, toxic, arrogant behaviours," (post #162)?

Physician, heal thyself?

 

[Cormack]

I’ve already responded to message 161, @Clare73. It’s unlikely that people are going to respond to every old message of yours, not when you refuse to respond in any meaningful way to their new messages.

Although I could be tempted to explain in full where I believe you’re mistaken on 145, especially if you could manage a meaningful response to my last message. I’ve shared before how you can’t seem to respond to the substance of my messages, and you’re not proving that point wrong.

So you can either respond to this message, an exchange you reignited, or I’ll leave you to your scoffing. I’m not one for wasting my time, which is why some users receive so few responses from me.

I mean, to briefly revisit your earlier message (145,) that post does other strange things like insist the “teachable moment” is just something you want to write about. It’s like you’re not even reading. In the same way I’ve shared how I’m not intending to write on specific verses of scripture, since many other users have done so, and to this your response is to argue about Romans 9. Again it’s like you’re not reading.

The teachable moment was an opportunity to explain proper logic when @RickReads tried to undermine my argument by punting towards abuse as a motivating factor for the logic behind my arguments.

Hence my need to point out that even if it were true that victims of Calvinism, rape or racism were motivated by trauma into arguing against Calvinism, racism and rape, that wouldn’t invalidate their arguments.

We don’t invalidate logical arguments by insulting or bringing up the users history of surviving abuse. The point was very well received by users.

Sadly you and Rick ignored the substance of that teachable moment to console each other in mockery.

You made an argument and I’ve quoted your message and clarified where I believe you’re mistaken. To this point, and despite initiating conversation with me, your reply was to use a debate sounding term like “red herring” and then you told me to (in essence) stop replying.

Responding to a users arguments only to then ask the person to stop replying after they have clarified, that’s strange in the extreme.

 

[RickReads]

BUMP:

An interesting sidenote:

Divine foreknowledge, as used in Scripture, does not refer to God knowing in advance what men are going to do, but refers to God knowing in advance what he is going to do. . .because he has decreed that he shall do it.

Acts 15:18 - "Known to the Lord for ages is his work."

Isaiah 48:3 - "I foretold (predestined) the former things of long ago,
my mouth announced (decreed) them, and I made them known;
then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass (accomplished them).

See Acts 2:23, 4:28; Isaiah 37:26.

God executed in their present the choice and purpose he made before they were created;
i.e., he executed/accomplished his foreknowledge (his previous choice and purpose).

Your argument is moot. In order to predestinate a person which is what Biblical predestination does it is necessary to also predestinate events.

 

[Clare73]

I’ve already responded to message 161,

Thanks.

Previously addressed. . .

 

[RickReads]

I’ve already responded to message 161, @Clare73. It’s unlikely that people are going to respond to every old message of yours, not when you refuse to respond in any meaningful way to their new messages.

Although I could be tempted to explain in full where I believe you’re mistaken on 145, especially if you could manage a meaningful response to my last message. I’ve shared before how you can’t seem to respond to the substance of my messages, and you’re not proving that point wrong.

So you can either respond to this message, an exchange you reignited, or I’ll leave you to your scoffing. I’m not one for wasting my time, which is why some users receive so few responses from me.

I mean, to briefly revisit your earlier message (145,) that post does other strange things like insist the “teachable moment” is just something you want to write about. It’s like you’re not even reading. In the same way I’ve shared how I’m not intending to write on specific verses of scripture, since many other users have done so, and to this your response is to argue about Romans 9. Again it’s like you’re not reading.

The teachable moment was an opportunity to explain proper logic when @RickReads tried to undermine my argument by punting towards abuse as a motivating factor for the logic behind my arguments.

Hence my need to point out that even if it were true that victims of Calvinism, rape or racism were motivated by trauma into arguing against Calvinism, racism and rape, that wouldn’t invalidate their arguments.

We don’t invalidate logical arguments by insulting or bringing up the users history of surviving abuse. The point was very well received by users.

Sadly you and Rick ignored the substance of that teachable moment to console each other in mockery.

You made an argument and I’ve quoted your message and clarified where I believe you’re mistaken. To this point, and despite initiating conversation with me, your reply was to use a debate sounding term like “red herring” and then you told me to (in essence) stop replying.

Responding to a users arguments only to then ask the person to stop replying after they have clarified, that’s strange in the extreme.

I don't recall asking you to teach me how to vilify Calvinists proper.

 

[Clare73]

Your argument is moot. In order to predestinate a person which is what Biblical predestination does it is necessary to also predestinate events.

< GASP! >

You don't pursue with unbridled vigor every post I present?

Predestination was addressed in my post #158.

 

[RickReads]

< GASP! >

You don't pursue with unbridled vigor every post I present?

Predestination was addressed in my post #158.

Yeah, and I disagree with it I just didn't respond to it.

 

[Cormack]

I don't recall asking you to teach me how to vilify Calvinists proper.

I’m not sure what you mean, Rick. @Clare73 wanted to respond to one of my posts, and because their reply seemed remotely interested in making some form of a logical argument, I thought that’s great, and I responded. I’m not interested in the mocking replies or the taunting replies, but that reply seemed to be going somewhere.

My recapping how @Clare73 has been responding is meant to be a help, not an attempt to vilify.

When I write teachable moment about your abuse argument, it’s very silly for Clare to then rip that out of context and run off with a new invented “moment,” one where they write about whatever they want.

When I write about seeing many scripture battles as fruitless and not my intention here, to then send me Romans 9 repeatedly is beyond clueless.

And again to restart a conversation with me only to then ask that I stop replying, it’s so odd.

So it’s not about vilifying, I honestly think users could benefit from this feedback.

 

[Clare73]

Yeah, and I disagree with it I just didn't respond to it.

That works. . .but feel free to Biblically demonstrate its error, being true to the actual words of Scripture, their context and the whole counsel of God.

 

[RickReads]

I’m not sure what you mean, Rick. @Clare73 wanted to respond to one of my posts, and because their reply seemed remotely interested in making some form of a logical argument, I thought that’s great, and I responded. I’m not interested in the mocking replies or the taunting replies, but that reply seemed to be going somewhere.

My recapping how @Clare73 has been responding is meant to be a help, not an attempt to vilify.

When I write teachable moment about your abuse argument, it’s very silly for Clare to then rip that out of context and run off with a new invented “moment,” one where they write about whatever they want.

When I write about seeing many scripture battles as fruitless and not my intention here, to then send me Romans 9 repeatedly is beyond clueless.

And again to restart a conversation with me only to then ask that I stop replying, it’s so odd.

So it’s not about vilifying, I honestly think users could benefit from this feedback.

While it is true that I asked you for your opinion on several occasions it was not my intention to set you up as my teacher. That little stage play is more insulting than anything I've said to you and I`ve been on the receiving end of your humor on several occasions and dint say a word about it.

 

[RickReads]

That works. . .but feel free to Biblically demonstrate its error, being true to the actual words of Scripture, their context and the whole counsel of God.

Maybe some time. It's hard to straighten a bent nail. I don't have the time to spare right now.

 

[Clare73]

Maybe some time.

That works.

It's hard to straighten a bent nail.

Yeah, they're bent for a necessary purpose which straightening would harm.

I don't have the time to spare right now.

 

[misput]

Eph 1:4-11 Paul, by his use of us and we is speaking of believers collectively, not individually.

In Rom 9 Paul is speaking of God choosing individuals for an earthly purpose, not salvation.

 

[RickReads]

Eph 1:4-11 Paul, by his use of us and we is speaking of believers collectively, not individually.

In Rom 9 Paul is speaking of God choosing individuals for an earthly purpose, not salvation.

You sound like a democrat media guy putting on the spin.

Paul speaking of believers collectively is addressing a group of individuals so the point is moot.

Romans 9 is also irrelevant because the issue you are spinning is addressed in Romans 8.

 

[Clare73]

Eph 1:4-11 Paul, by his use of us and we is speaking of believers collectively, not individually.

In Rom 9 Paul is speaking of God choosing individuals for an earthly purpose, not salvation.

Contraire. . .

He is referring to salvation in Romans 9:19, Romans 9:23-24, Romans 9:27, Romans 9:30-32.

 

[AVB 2]

I agree with you that Calvinists are also saved. They are still Christians who confess sins to Jesus, they are saved despite being mistaken that God chose individuals to repent.

There are over 60 passages of scripture in the New Testament that say that God chose us, God chooses us or God has chosen us. Romans 3:11 tells us "There is none that seeks for God." If none seek for God how can we be saved? He seeks for us. Luke 19:10 “for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.” Yes there are numerous passages in the Old Testament that command the Hebrews (God's Chosen people) to seek for him, but we are not Hebrews we are Christians and we are living in the dispensation of the New Testament. The Old Testament is obsolete. Hebrews 8:13 "When God speaks of a “new” covenant, it means He has made the first one obsolete. It is now out of date and will soon disappear."

Satan demands that we prove ourselves holy by keeping the Old Testament law. God gave us the OT to prove to us that we are sinners. According to Galatians 3:24-25 "The Old Testament law was our guardian until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through faith. And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian. For you are all children of God."

I you like I can give you the 60+ passages, just let me know.