Flaws of Calvinism

[Dave G]

You simply deny this truth, but offer no evidence.

I did, and you don't see it as evidence.

As many as took Paul's direction to eternal life believed.

But that isn't what the words say.
They say, "...as many as were ordained ( appointed ) to eternal life...believed."

Next you fall back on the false doctrine of being predestined to salvation, when nothing in scripture supports that view.

Sure it does, and the Scriptures telling us this have been shown to you many times.
Again, it seems to me that you're not believing the words on the page.

I don't know what else to show you, Van.

 

[Dave G]

Once again addressing me and claiming personal incredulity. Just because I could not rule out one of the two possible meanings, does not mean I did not conclude it means one of them. The issue is your view cannot be found in scripture, but must be read into scripture.

No personal incredulity was offered from my end.
Since it appears that I've offended you, then I ask for your forgiveness.

However, I made a simple observation regarding what you posted and it came out a little sideways...
What I am doing now is asking for clarity:

If the passage in question may mean one thing or may mean another, then what one meaning are you primarily convinced of, when you read it for yourself?

Please support your view rather than change the subject to your claims concerning my behavior.

Please support your view by telling the readers here what this says in your own words:

" Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:
10 for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.
11 And he continued [there] a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them." ( Acts 18:9-11 ).

 

[JonC]

I'm fairly certain that Calvin didn't kill Servetus, he agreed with the decision, but rejected the method, ultimately it was the authorities in Geneva that killed Servetus. It's not justifiable either way, but we are not Old Testament Israel, and Theonomy does not work for any nation (much as I'd like it to).

He argued over the method because he wanted it to be a state ratger than religious execution. But yeah, he wasn't the executioner. And to be fair, under Cakvinism the State is the "arm" of the Church (we cannot evaluate Calvin according to Baptist standards). Calvinists and Lutherans persecuted baptistic Christians. But it was a different time. We shouldn't judge history, or whitewash history. It is history.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

He argued over the method because he wanted it to be a state ratger than religious execution. But yeah, he wasn't the executioner. And to be fair, under Cakvinism the State is the "arm" of the Church (we cannot evaluate Calvin according to Baptist standards). Calvinists and Lutherans persecuted baptistic Christians. But it was a different time. We shouldn't judge history, or whitewash history. It is history.

I'm surprised by the number of Baptists (younger mostly) that advocate for theonomy. In theory it is great, but in practice anyone's theology that differs from the governing body's doesn't typically end to well - heretic or orthodox.

 

[JonC]

I'm surprised by the number of Baptists (younger mostly) that advocate for theonomy. In theory it is great, but in practice anyone's theology that differs from the governing body's doesn't typically end to well - heretic or orthodox.

I as well. It would seem (to me anyway) that a Christian would by nature reject theonomy as Christ 8s the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. I guess it is a step further than theocracy, at least in their minds.

Our law is to be like Christ. If we turn from our will and focus on God's will (set our minds on the Spirit) then all laws are covered. But to form a secular government as a theonomy ... yea, that's asking for trouble.

 

[Silverhair]

I didn't "excuse" Calvin. You need to read my whole statement and not just frame it in a way that best suits you. As to whether Calvin was saved or not doesn't actually deal with the theological beliefs that predated him, nor the scripture cited for said beliefs.

Since he got his views from augustine and we see the result of his views in the RCC then we can see why calvin was not a christian.

If he or augustine had followed the theological views that predated them then they would not have done the things they did.

It just makes me wonder why anyone would follow the odd teachings the came from either of those men.

 

[Silverhair]

@Silverhair



Correction, they professed to be believers, they identified with believers, but werent true believers by the Holy Spirit. They were what Jesus called stony ground believers but had no root in Grace and sooner or later they fall away Matt 13 20-21

20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;

21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

Lk 8 13

13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

That is your opinion but since one cannot fall away from a position that they do not hold your view really has no basis in reality.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Since he got his views from augustine and we see the result of his views in the RCC then we can see why calvin was not a christian.

If he or augustine had followed the theological views that predated them then they would not have done the things they did.

It just makes me wonder why anyone would follow the odd teachings the came from either of those men.

The Catholic church lays claim to all the early church fathers. Have you actually read the early church fathers? I would say it doubtful, since you write Augustine off as the progenitor of Catholicism - which couldn't be further from the truth. I guess by your reasoning the church ceased to exist after the apostles until whatever theology you subscribe to came to be.

 

[Zaatar71]

I did not see an "Oops" but rather a change of subject. God allows repentance by not hardening the heart. That is the issue. I supported the view by explaining allow is the meaning in the context of repentance. I supported it by showing how God disallows repentance in those whose heart He hardens. such a Judas. Your response was the claim repentance is "Spirit energized" but no verse was cited. The gift was given "after believing" so the gift was"repentance into life" or more explicitly, the gift was transferring the person spiritually into Christ where they were made alive together with Christ.

There is no actual support anywhere in scripture for the false doctrines of Calvinism.

No,,, you once again put the cart before the horse, and want us to follow the error. Sorry, that does not work, no matter how much double talk you try,lol

 

[Brightfame52]

That is your opinion but since one cannot fall away from a position that they do not hold your view really has no basis in reality.

Not my opinion but the word of God

 

[kyredneck]

Calvinism promotes fatalism and resignation.

It also promotes the manic fixation known as 'Calvinism Derangement Syndrome' (CDS), and the subsequent rewriting of scripture known as 'Vanology'.

 

[Van]

That is your opinion Van but the text IMHO does not support your view. So we disagree.

So it would seem that you hold to the calvinist view that those that turn away were never really saved in the first place. Again a view not supported by scripture.

Apostasy is a sin which can be committed only by believers, not by those who are deceived but by those who knowingly, willfully, and maliciously turn against the Lord.

Apostasy is after all by definition falling away or rebellion against something one has had a part in and partaken of ~ namely the faith. One can’t fall away from something one never stood for.

Yes, born anew believers can carry out worthless activity and lose potential rewards. It is not my opinion that scripture says we are indwelt forever. It does not say we are indwelt forever, unless we overpower God and snatch ourselves out of God's grip.

 

[Van]

Yes, I do.
I see no reason to abandon what has been God's word in English for over 400 years now, and has served my brothers and sisters in the faith for all of that time.

Respectfully, I disagree.
My Bible says, "ordained", which also means, "appointed", "commissioned", "set forth", "determined".

There may be others who define it as you do, but you're the only one that I've ever seen who defines it that way, Van.

The logical fallacy of Personal Incredulity I see all the time. The word appears in the NT about 7 times, always referring to a mutually agreed upon arrangement. If you believe your translation is infallible, there is nothing more I can say.

 

[Van]

It also promotes the manic fixation known as 'Calvinism Derangement Syndrome' (CDS), and the subsequent rewriting of scripture known as 'Vanology'.

Once again a post of hate, directed at an individual, but changing the subject to hide false doctrines.

 

[Van]

If we change the titles of some of the above Doctrines, such as Limited Spiritual Ability rewritten as Ability to Believe, and Preservation of the Saved written as Eternal Security, we get the acronym "GRACE" and thus can be referred to as the "Doctrines of Grace. "

General offer of Reconciliation
Resistible Grace
Ability to believe
Conditional Election
Eternal Security

 

[Van]

No,,, you once again put the cart before the horse, and want us to follow the error. Sorry, that does not work, no matter how much double talk you try,lol

God allows repentance by not hardening the heart. That is the issue. I supported the view by explaining allow is the meaning in the context of repentance. I supported it by showing how God disallows repentance in those whose heart He hardens. such a Judas. Your response was the claim repentance is "Spirit energized" but no verse was cited. The gift was given "after believing" so the gift was"repentance into life" or more explicitly, the gift was transferring the person spiritually into Christ where they were made alive together with Christ. The gracious gift of salvation is based on crediting the persons commitment to repent as part of their heart felt belief in Christ as Savior and Lord.

There is no actual support anywhere in scripture for the false doctrines of Calvinism.

 

[Silverhair]

The Catholic church lays claim to all the early church fathers. Have you actually read the early church fathers? I would say it doubtful, since you write Augustine off as the progenitor of Catholicism - which couldn't be further from the truth. I guess by your reasoning the church ceased to exist after the apostles until whatever theology you subscribe to came to be.

If you actually did some research you would find that many of the RCC doctrines did come from Augustine just as many of the calvinist views came from him also.

So now you are defending the RCC. That is a rather odd thing for a calvinist to do. Do you think that the RCC started at Peter?

That the RCC lays claim to the ECF's does not make them part of the RCC. But then again the calvinists lay claim to augustine and his pagan views.

 

[Zaatar71]

If you actually did some research you would find that many of the RCC doctrines did come from Augustine just as many of the calvinist views came from him also.

So now you are defending the RCC. That is a rather odd thing for a calvinist to do. Do you think that the RCC started at Peter?

That the RCC lays claim to the ECF's does not make them part of the RCC. But then again the calvinists lay claim to augustine and his pagan views.

Do you have evidence of this? can you provide direct quotes on this? or are you talking about the dime a dozen fake posters who make unfounded claims that attack biblical truth?

 

[Silverhair]

Do you have evidence of this? can you provide direct quotes on this? or are you talking about the dime a dozen fake posters who make unfounded claims that attack biblical truth?

If you had paid any attention to the many posts I have made regarding this then you would know that the RCC used many of augustines false teachings and you would also know that augustine brought many false pagan doctrines into the chruch which calvinism has carried forward to this day.

If you want to prove me wrong then do the research for yourself. Why just trust all those calvinists.

I do find it odd that so many calvinists reject what I have posted but have yet to show where I am wrong.

 

[Zaatar71]

If you had paid any attention to the many posts I have made regarding this then you would know that the RCC used many of augustines false teachings and you would also know that augustine brought many false pagan doctrines into the chruch which calvinism has carried forward to this day.

But who is following the Roman Church

If you want to prove me wrong then do the research for yourself. Why just trust all those calvinists.

You make this link, in your mind.

I do find it odd that so many calvinists reject what I have posted but have yet to show where I am wrong.

You have not given any evidence ,have you? you say it is so, but no proof is given.