Featured The two major shortcomings of Calvinism

You have a big disconnect. You are admitting that you have no clue. You claimed earlier that there was a discontinuity between Calvin and "his students" at the Council of Dort. Then you claimed that you agreed with the conclusions of Dr. Muller who said that there was no discontinuity. Now you are back again with your former position. You are like the proverbial jelly on the wall --hard to nail down. Muller is your ally --then he is not. Make up your mind.

"His students" several generations removed from Calvin and his contemporaries.The Remonstrants initiated the whole affair.

You will not acknowledge that you were mistaken that the Canons of Dort used the term limited atonement. You just bypassed that bit of info altogether. How convenient.

 

Mysteriously,you haven't responded to the above. "Boiled down"? Hardly. Maybe you took a shortcut with Cliffsnotes or something! LOL!

 

I can't access it here. Perhaps you can give me some salient points.

Wait a minute. I was able to get to it. What is it you are trying to maintain? What things about Calvin or Dort do you think I have been wrong about?
What revelations do you expect I will discover?

So far your batting average is rather poor. You claim Dr.Muller as an ally in your beliefs yet contradict his findings.

You claim there was cleavage between Calvin and the delegates at the Synod of Dort. None exists.

You claimed that the Canons of Dort use the term limited atonement. It does not.

 

At over 12,000 words??
Well,well,12,000 words doesn't convey anything "boiled-down" --does it? LOL! We can dispense with your condensed view of the Canons of Dort.

 

this back and forth discussion highlights to me the question MSUT be answered as to what exactly means one is a calvinist?

I maintain that its mainly used here to be those holding to the DoG, calvinistic view of Sotierology, but NOT all of calvin system....

Thise holding to basically all of the system of calvinism, sans the infant baptism/church govt would be Reformed Baptists, but think most holding to calvinism here tend to be more of the "limited" calvinists ones like myself!

 

Essentually this is what I believed as a Roman Catholic....and it troubled me.....if Jesus died for the sins of all mankind then all are saved, which the Bible denies. If he died for the sins of all men, unbelief excluded, then he did not die for all the sins of anybody and all must be condemned.

 

You said in post #52 that "the Council of Dort boiled the argument down to the five points. Don't you remember your own words?

For such a massive display, it cannot very well be called "boiled-down" in any sense.

Do you think you are relaying news to me?

For Baptists of the Reformed pursuasion the 1689 or the later Philadelphia Confession are good summaries of Calvinism. I had never claimed that the Canons of Dort were the sum and substance of Calvinism much less the TULIP acrostic.

Most of your post which I did not quote was filled with hate and misdirected anger --because you won't own up to your contradictions which I have painstakingly listed time and again --to which you have not once tried to interact with.

Do yourself a favor --read Muller and get back with me when you have absorbed his material.

 

thisnumbersdisconnected

If someone believes or not...does not have any effect on the atonement.The Atonement was a Covenant transaction....it was perfect and once for all time.

This post shows why you are not close to truth at all.You speak condescendingly about Calvinism...and yet you really do not know what you speak of.

NO Calvinist says or believes God does anything randomly...or in your sad comment...."capriciously".

Reformed and others asked you to support your opinions and you are unable to do so.This post shows this clearly.

Men will not believe...because of sinful rebellion..psalm 14/romans 3

Those made willing in the day of God's power...gladly come...that is why jn 3 speaks of everyone believing...

This group of believers is known as the sheep, the elect, the wheat....

.

From our point of view ...it could be as we are not told who God has chosen .So we preach to all men everywhere.
From God's point of view....it is certain-
Those who understand their bibles wrote this in the 1689 confession of faith;

This statement has no place in this discussion...as every manner of cal understands that all men having died in Adam...cannot understand , or submit to the things of God.It takes a supernatural work of God to save.

,

What you explained is why you have not come to truth yet.We will see it now...in your next statement....You do not believe in a real atonement that actually saves....you and others have invented a potential atonement that is no atonement at all, unless man adds something to it.

You describe a God who does not save...but only makes a possible salvation...man as you describe..determines for himself if he feels like being saved....God in your view becomes a spectator who just observes as he looked forward in time as a spectator, then "learns by observation ...what man wants to do.....then...once man does what he wants to...then in your view...God can predestine what man has left for Him.

This is quite tragic and God dishonoring and goes against who God is.

-

Yes...we have read this by others before you..and we reject it as unbiblical.It is your philosophy and what you think should be...only scripture clearly says otherwise.

-

,
.....So the world is in control:laugh:

There is no one on the planet who can fit this description.....

Hint and explanation........Efficacious grace....is always...EFFECTUAL....

That is why it is called efficacious:laugh:

Not everyone gets an offer....the reason those persons who hear the gospel and reject it...is a love of sin and rebellion against God.

,

wrong...see all the above-

again..you describe a spectator

Ah yes...the completely unbiblical use of the biblical term foreknowledge...and yet you want to critique calvinists who understand the terms and the teaching....then you wonder why you do not hold to unconditional election, and particular redemption.:wavey:

This is the classic error.....It is not....WHAT...iT IS NOT WHAT HE KNEW ABOUT THEM.......

IT is WHOM He did Foreknow


He knew the persons themselves...not what...but WHOM:thumbsup:

This is a wicked distortion of the plain text.

,

This now goes to an argument from silence.....it does not say he does not call people who eat asparagus with hollandaise sauce over a turkey omlette either...but what does that have to do with anything...

It does not say that anywhere...this is a complete fabrication.

 

He does not get back to anyone...Reformed asked him to back up his opinions and his response was to speak down to Reformed saying he"felt sorry for him"???? everyone else he calls arrogant ...but then he casually attempts to dismiss you or any other Cal...Jmac or anyone else???

 

But he is a faithful church goer! :smilewinkgrin:

 

thisnumberisdisconnected, it is plain that we are not going to agree on the subject of your opening post. To keep going back-and-forth over it is pointless. I stand behind my words and will let other readers pass judgment on their veracity.

I was heartened to see that you finally cited a source for your prior assertion in your opening post. I will address John Piper’s article in a separate post. I want to focus this post on your critique of John MacArthur’s book “Slave” of which I am intimately acquainted. You wrote:

First, you are wrong when you claim, “Throughout the book, MacArthur describes Christian obedience as “pure delight” and “joy-filled”.” He does equate being a Christian (as a slave of Christ) as joyful in the last chapter of the book, but that is not the theme of the book. I challenge you to support your “Throughout the book” claim. If MacArthur used this language throughout the book, it should be clearly seen in each chapter. As it is, that is not the case.

“Slave” was written to undo what MacArthur labels as a “conspiracy”, whether intentional or unwittingly. The conspiracy is the failure of most English translations in regard to the Greek word doulos. The word means “a slave”. It has no other meaning. To translate it any other way is an unfaithful rendering of the Greek word. He then goes on to describe the Christian life in light of the slave-master relationship.

MacArthur does not ignore the difficulty of living the Christian life. He writes on page 93, “Because the Lord is our Master, we can trust Him to take care of us in every situation and stage of life.” That would include good and bad situations. On page 118 he draws attention to the fact that early Christians were often slaves by position, and sometimes treated harshly. “Early Christians would have been well aware of the abuses a slave could suffer at the hands of an unjust owner. Many first-century believers were slaves themselves, and some of them were subjected to harsh and unfair treatment.”

When you write, “A believer who has lost an unbelieving relative or close friend would be an example. A job loss, a prolonged illness personally experienced in self or close family -- these things serve to progressively sanctify, but is MacArthur going to try to convince us that we must face them with joy and delight, with no negatively expressed emotion mixed in, or else we are in sin?” (emphasis mine) have you forgotten what scripture instructs us to do in light of suffering?

James 1:2 Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials,

Matthew 5:11 Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.

While imprisoned for the cause of Christ, Paul wrote: Philippians 4:2-7, "I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to live in harmony in the Lord. Indeed, true companion, I ask you also to help these women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel, together with Clement also and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life. Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice! 5 Let your gentle spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near. Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus (emphasis mine)."

Imprisoned and facing death, Paul was able to write, “Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will, rejoice!” He then went on to write be anxious for nothing. Was that a callous remark by the Apostle? Indeed, Paul puts his suffering in context in Philippians 1:29 “For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake”. Whereas no Christian would dare label the Apostle Paul as callous and unfeeling over his command to “rejoice” and “be anxious for nothing” in the midst of suffering, apparently you must think that of John MacArthur because he does not qualify his words.

Back to page 207 of “Slave”. In context, MacArthur writes: “Slavery to Christ is much more than mere duty; it is motivated by a heart filled with loving devotion and pure delight. Because God first loved us and sent His Son to redeem us from sin, we now love Him – longing from the heart to worship, honor, and obey Him in everything. Our slavery to Him is not drudgery but a joy-filled privilege made possible by His saving grace and the Spirit’s continued working in our lives. As loyal citizens and grateful children, we now serve our King and our Father out of hearts brimming with thankfulness. To be Christ’s slave is a wonderful and blessed reality; to be His “doulos is not partially sweet and partially sour, but totally sweet.””

The above quote from “Slave” is axiomatic. It does not ignore individual suffering, but views all things in the Christian life through the lens of being a slave to Christ. Indeed in the next paragraph MacArthur compares bondage with freedom. He describes the yoke and burden of the Christian life as light. So, he does understand the sufferings Christians endure, but he views them through the lens of Christ.

If MacArthur’s intent was to write a book on Christians and suffering, and he only gave lip service to the hardships of suffering, then your criticism would be valid. But that is not the intent of his book; ergo your criticism is invalid. Actually I am quite surprised that a person who writes so well cannot understand the theme of the book and what the author is trying to convey.

 

perhaps you should be surprised that DCONN even read the book knowing his apparent disapproval of Reformed theology. Have you asked him why he would even read a John Macarthur book to begin with?

 

Calling Servetus "righteous" should sound alarms even for the noncalvinist.

 

:thumbs::thumbs:

TND, I was going to engage you here, but looks like Reformed is taking you to school. :wavey:

 

Evade yes.....Mikey was swiftly moving in the direction of Uniterianism and writing publically regarding his distain for the Trinity. He would have been better served by going to the Muslem Turks for sanctuary.

 

He deserved the death penalty for what?

“The arrest of Servetus in Geneva, where he did neither publish nor dogmatize, hence he was not subject to its laws, has to be considered as a barbaric act and an insult to the Right of Nations.” Voltaire

Maybe his Medical discoveries were too advanced?

Were his maps too correct?

His explanation of the Trinity doctrine, was it too non-Catholic?

Or, is the truth this...

Jn 16:2-3
2 They shall put you out of the synagogues:yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

Jn 8:44
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own:for he is a liar, and the father of it.

?