Featured Calvinism - a "house of cards'

Very often we find Calvinist threads that try to ignore almost every part of the Bible except for one or two verses.

The idea is that if we can ignore the rest of the Bible - and then "Do some redefining of terms" - and use a lot of inference and speculation - well then we can get 1 or 2 verses to appear to support Calvinism.

Apparently this has to be done "card by card". Where each card is a verse or two lifted out of context from this or that chapter of the Bible - to make Calvinism appear to work.

Then if the Arminian Bible student comes along and points out that the subject matter that is being highlighted in those verses - is found in a number of places - all of which contribute to the meaning well then "that card begins to crumble".

Calvinist arguments are legendary for consistently trying to create a strained interpretation of the text away from the obvious and apparent meaning that it has in the chapter.

So then "God so loved the WORLD that he gave ..." is turned into "God so loved the FEW of Matt 7 calling them (and just them) the WORLD in John 3 - but He did not so love the each and every person without exception world... that He gave...".

And so on.

So the question is this - is it not obvious that each time the Arminian Bible student is confronted with such a myopic snippet-card on a given subject - that we will always enrich the subject by pointing to the many Bible texts that speak to that same subject.

Instead of trying to get one text to delete another one - the way Calvinism is so often presented - it is much better to have a consistent overall view that accepts and even magnifies the details in all the texts that speak to the subject.

in Christ,

Bob

 

That is supposed to be a comment on the OP??

How so??

in Christ,

Bob

 

Indeed. It simply illustrates the "house of cards" principle. One or two verses where all other texts on the same subject are not allowed in the discussion and these two verses used to cancel out the others, rather than an inclusive solution that applies the details of all the verses on the same subject.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Actually - I put that in a quote box - because it was a quote from one of Biblicist's opening posts.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=90555

And when texts were brought in on the same subject matter - the much-predicted response happens - he complains.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Another "card" in the 'house of cards" is the spin put on 2Peter 3

2 Peter 3
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Calvinism's card brought in out of thin air edits/downsizes this "Any" and "ALL" statement to be "ALL of US SAINTS who exists when Peter is writing" and then later will insert this into the word "any" and ALL".

"all the saints at the time of this letter PLUS all the LOST who will one day in the future be saints after hearing and accepting the Gospel".

What an insert!! What a "card".

 

Not true at all - I point to the "entire world" and "entire earth" and "ALL the wicked" etc references IN THE TEXT.

Your argument is that by failing to "INFER" all the limits that Calvinism needs (Calvinism lives by the motto "infer all you need") that I must be ignoring context.

But nothing in the context says "All the saved today plus all the lost that will one day be saved in the future" --- and we both know it.

Telling me you think context is being ignored does not solve that problem for Calvinism. It is merely an accusation without substance.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The thread was closed "the other day" (I can't be blamed for everything as it turns out).

But as it turns out - the post here - refutes the attempt to limit it to "only US saints alive when Peter is writing and none of the lost of Peter's day or ours".

I think we both know that is true.

in Christ,

Bob