Calvinism is a cuddly kitten

What's the point of saying the same the same old drivel again? We get your terribly flawed premise.

Care to reword that? It doesn't make any grammatical sense.

Inspector, you are the one who needs to reevaluate your skewed view of Calvinism. You are off the proverbial beam.

 

Did you watch the case Morell made in the video?

 

Since they come form the basis of it being heresy, wouldn't they conclude that he was mistaken ?

 

Most of the problem here is that the presenter's underlying theology, which is well documented in other places, misses the mark of orthodoxy on so many levels. He denies, among other things, the omniscience of God and a penal-substitutionary atonement.

His "axe" to grind with Augustine and Calvinists is based in a deeply flawed theology, not accusations against Augustine which even many Arminians so clearly refute. And, the presenter's "axe" is really no axe at all. His presentation(s) are nothing more than a Quixotic attempt to defend the indefensible, unorthodox, and, possibly, heretical theology to which he holds.

The Archangel

 

ANY holding to more of an Open Thestic God, and denies substitutionary aspect to atonement would indeed by one NOT teaching "sound doctrines!"

 

This is very likely true. Not to mention that his expression of the beliefs of Gnosticism do not agree with anything I've read on the matter(s). There is, essentially, an over application of one aspect of a Gnostic belief to be a universal understanding (in this case the sinfulness of the body). In fact, much, if not all, of his argument on this issue is really nothing more than a Strawman.

The Archangel

 

Interesting to me that those against the teachings of original Sin, God all knowing, atonement views, are usually ground in church fathers and philosophy, that while important, were NOT on par with the bible itself!

 

One must remember, however, that doctrine is codified over time. Many of the church fathers simply did not address specific issues of doctrine because those issues were not, as yet, threatened by heresy.

Doctrine is codified precisely because developed doctrine must be brought to bear against heresies that come up, like Pelagianism, Arianism, etc.

That doctrines are not widely discussed before certain heresies came about isn't a problem. Problems come when people try to make the early church fathers' writings say something they are not saying. Problems also come because an assumption is made that a lack of writing against an issue (a heresy that would occur years or centuries later) is agreement with those who espoused the heresy. This simply is not the case. Silence is not agreement. Silence is silence.

I might add... This is why it is of the utmost importance to read the Bible itself. I've read some writings of many people (rarely do I read Calvin, by the way) and it is a problem to take their arguments as "law." At the most, the reformers, the church fathers, or modern preacher/pastor/teacher types can do is point you to Christ through His word. If what they say--no matter the era they are from--doesn't wash with the Bible as a whole, they ought to be discounted on that point or points. So, while the Bible cannot be taken smorgasbord-style, commentators on the Bible, for the most part, must be.

The Archangel

 

The point is :Why present the same old flawed and untruthful premise once more?