Arguments Against Calvinism...

[Iconoclast]

You haven't learned. You need to add an s -- as in "I am looking for confirmation from Calvinists. Got it?

Mr. Steaver, you are not a Calvinist. As a matter of fact you are an ardent anti-Calvinist. You have expended great amounts of energy in lambasting Calvinists and their doctrines for years on the BB.

It is up to you to repeat your worn-out polemics against Calvinists. We don't find your beliefs line up with Scripture. But go for it once more. We will watch you in action and see if you rightly handle the Word of Truth --or not.

Poor little Steaver,
The problem is that it looks as if all the other people have looked at your posts and have seen the same pattern over and over.:sleeping_2:
When asked to produce scriptural arguments you retreat like a turtle in the shell:wavey:

You are just looking to cause trouble and dissention....not really looking to find truth at all. Then you want people who can and have taken a biblical stand to interact with you on this sub Christian and dishonest level and they are rejecting you like they do Van, and DHK....
I am just a neutral observer in this thread but I am sure I have my hand on the pulse of this failed thread.
If you want to get a start on this topic perhaps you could secure a copy of John Murrays Redemption Accomplished and Applied.
If you read that as a starter...come back to us when you are able to conduct adult interaction on that book......

 

[steaver]

Poor little Steaver,
The problem is that it looks as if all the other people have looked at your posts and have seen the same pattern over and over.:sleeping_2:
When asked to produce scriptural arguments you retreat like a turtle in the shell:wavey:

You are just looking to cause trouble and dissention....not really looking to find truth at all. Then you want people who can and have taken a biblical stand to interact with you on this sub Christian and dishonest level and they are rejecting you like they do Van, and DHK....
I am just a neutral observer in this thread but I am sure I have my hand on the pulse of this failed thread.
If you want to get a start on this topic perhaps you could secure a copy of John Murrays Redemption Accomplished and Applied.
If you read that as a starter...come back to us when you are able to conduct adult interaction on that book......

Well, at least we agree the OP declaration by you is failing to produce confirmation. So I guess you were in error when you spoke it. And I have the Scriptures so I won't be needing any man-made twist and spins.

 

[Iconoclast]

steaver

Well, at least we agree the OP declaration by you is failing to produce confirmation.

here is a teachable moment for you ....We do not agree at all...yet you take it upon yourself to pronounce what you think I agree to. I do not agree at all Steaver, and you refuse to just speak for yourself.

I said the people do not like how you conduct yourself, they do not like your immature twisting of statements, so they are not going to feed into your bait and switch notions.

Cals are very familiar with all the objections , based on the wrong uses of the word All......world....foreknow.....the fall.....

Most if they are a believer for any length of time have heard the same foolish claims over and over...sub biblical philosophical, carnal reasoning against God and His word.

In the last closed thread...your hero DHK was corrected and admonished that he had no idea what he was speaking of in Jn 3.....yet he vainly persisted to oppose the truth and could not respond biblically on the topic....he never has answered that and he never will...simply because he is wrong...like you:thumbs:

You were asked to give a scriptural account of your claims, and you like DHK fail to do so. I understand...you cannot so you hide behind Calvin objections rather than give a scriptural response... You shift to historical speculation rather than scriptural truth.

So I guess you were in error when you spoke it.

:laugh:you can guess all you want, but that is not going to change anything but rather support what I am telling you right here.

get the book I suggested to you. You claim you do not need it...but you do as it will give you much needed truth . Your claim that you "have the bible" and that IS ALL you need is not holding up to well.

To claim you "have" the bible.is what all cultists make also. If you cannot glean truth from it ....YOU DO NOT HAVE IT AT ALL:laugh:

And I have the Scriptures so I won't be needing any man-made twist and spins.

The only manmade twists and spins come when you"guess" what others say, or you re-word and add to what people say....that is why no one interaqcts with you. They want to see scripture...not bad and defective ideas that are just causing strife and division.

 

[steaver]

Apart from brother Icon's off topic rants, there has been no responses to the OP's request. So I believe we can conclude Calvinist cannot make a better argument against Calvinism than non Cals can and thus it was just some more bloviating from brother Icon.

Now some advice for you brother Icon. You once held some esteem here on the BB from your fellow Calvinist and even some non Cals I would add, but ever since your getting taken to the wood shed on the TULIP = Sheep stance, you have lost any respect and influence you once had here from what I have observed. You have transgressed into childlike name calling and basically whining. Get it together my friend and try to repair your reputation, a good start would be to admit when you have posted irrationally, and to apologize for the childlike rants you have taken. :wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

Apart from brother Icon's off topic rants, there has been no responses to the OP's request. So I believe we can conclude Calvinist cannot make a better argument against Calvinism than non Cals can and thus it was just some more bloviating from brother Icon.

Now some advice for you brother Icon. You once held some esteem here on the BB from your fellow Calvinist and even some non Cals I would add, but ever since your getting taken to the wood shed on the TULIP = Sheep stance, you have lost any respect and influence you once had here from what I have observed. You have transgressed into childlike name calling and basically whining. Get it together my friend and try to repair your reputation, a good start would be to admit when you have posted irrationally, and to apologize for the childlike rants you have taken. :wavey:

nice try clown:laugh:

 

[OldRegular]

An extra Biblical source of support for the Arminian side would be from Secretary of State John Kerry who declared, "I was saved before I wasn't."

Since the Church of Rome teaches Baptismal regeneration that statement may be the one time he was truthful, at least according to Church of Rome teaching.

*******************************************

 

[Yeshua1]

Apart from brother Icon's off topic rants, there has been no responses to the OP's request. So I believe we can conclude Calvinist cannot make a better argument against Calvinism than non Cals can and thus it was just some more bloviating from brother Icon.

Now some advice for you brother Icon. You once held some esteem here on the BB from your fellow Calvinist and even some non Cals I would add, but ever since your getting taken to the wood shed on the TULIP = Sheep stance, you have lost any respect and influence you once had here from what I have observed. You have transgressed into childlike name calling and basically whining. Get it together my friend and try to repair your reputation, a good start would be to admit when you have posted irrationally, and to apologize for the childlike rants you have taken. :wavey:

Are you asking us to defend the entire theology of calvinism proper, as calvin would have held with, or else the statements of the Grace truths found in the scriptures, TULIP, though here?

As I would NOT agree with his views on infant baptism, nor fully with all of his views....

 

[steaver]

Are you asking us to defend the entire theology of calvinism proper, as calvin would have held with, or else the statements of the Grace truths found in the scriptures, TULIP, though here?

As I would NOT agree with his views on infant baptism, nor fully with all of his views....

Just what the OP asks for. It wasn't asking for a defense of Calvinism, but rather arguments against calvinism by Calvinist. Icon said you guys had some better ones than us non cals had.

 

[convicted1]

Ever notice you never see steaver or Rebel on here simultaenously?

Read their posts. Eerily similiar...

 

[steaver]

Ever notice you never see steaver or Rebel on here simultaenously?

Read their posts. Eerily similiar...

You don't think we are the first two to ever notice calvinism is error do you? Millions reject Calvinism you know.

You know what's wonderful? One day there will be no Christian allowed to call themselves a Calvinist!!! When I get to heaven, I won't have any ism I will have to abandon.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You don't think we are the first two to ever notice calvinism is error do you? Millions reject Calvinism you know.

You know what's wonderful? One day there will be no Christian allowed to call themselves a Calvinist!!! When I get to heaven, I won't have any ism I will have to abandon.

then maybe you will have a better understanding of doctrines of grace.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Ever notice you never see steaver or Rebel on here simultaenously?

Read their posts. Eerily similiar...

at least Rebel identifies himself as rebellious to the faith. I can appreciate honesty. that you can at least work with.

 

[steaver]

at least Rebel identifies himself as rebellious to the faith. I can appreciate honesty. that you can at least work with.

You make such a false statement about Rebel and then you say you appreciate honesty? Ever hear Jesus scold the Pharisees......

 

[steaver]

then maybe you will have a better understanding of doctrines of grace.

Oh what a glorious day it will be! When Calvinism will cease to be!!

 

[convicted1]

at least Rebel identifies himself as rebellious to the faith. I can appreciate honesty. that you can at least work with.

Welp, I've made that accusation twice, so that makes two times both could step forward and refute me and my accusation and they haven't. Some IP address investigating is needed imo.


If this correct, both those usernames should be banned. That's a major 'no no' on here...

 

[Rebel]

Ever notice you never see steaver or Rebel on here simultaenously?

Read their posts. Eerily similiar...

Look, you dolt, he and I are not the same person. I get so sick of this kind of crap. If you want to know that what I am saying is the truth, ask DHK. He knows who I am.

Now shut your face.

 

[Rebel]

Welp, I've made that accusation twice, so that makes two times both could step forward and refute me and my accusation and they haven't. Some IP address investigating is needed imo.


If this correct, both those usernames should be banned. That's a major 'no no' on here...

Well, I just refuted you in the post just before this one. Is that good enough for you? If not, I've got something else for you.

 

[Rebel]

at least Rebel identifies himself as rebellious to the faith. I can appreciate honesty. that you can at least work with.

Rebellious to what faith? Oh, you mean the false gospel of Calvinism? Okay, guilty as charged.

 

[convicted1]

Look, you dolt, he and I are not the same person. I get so sick of this kind of crap. If you want to know that what I am saying is the truth, ask DHK. He knows who I am.

Now shut your face.

Oooooooooh!! Internet tough guy. Well, I PM'd an admin, requesting both your IP addresses be checked. And that 'cr*p' word is quite becoming....

 

[Rebel]

Oooooooooh!! Internet tough guy. Well, I PM'd an admin, requesting both your IP addresses be checked. And that 'cr*p' word is quite becoming....

Hey, you started the accusations and lies, and made a challenge. If you can't take it, don't instigate anything. I am defending myself.

Yeah, I welcome an IP address check. I'll expect an apology from you, but I doubt you have the integrity.