Calvinism is Internally Inconsistent

[AustinC]

Not at all. I enjoy discussing Scripture and opposing views. But you and a few others cannot do this. You want an echo chamber and Crack when members do not submit to your ideas.

Most of the time it is because of an inability to defend a position. A guy hears a Calvinistic message or reads a book and decides he will become a disciple of Reformed teachers.

The reason you are unable to defend your faith is because you hold other people's belief. Rather than working out your faith via Scripture you have followed men who tickle your ears.

Once you are able then we can talk about Scripture. Many here disagree with me, but they are more mature (spiritually) and can discuss (and defend) their faith.

Thanks for telling me why I can't defend the gospel, Jon. I'm sure Jonnyism is the true answer to all things intellectual.
When you are capable of coherently expressing your view on the atoning work of Christ let us know.

 

[Reformed1689]

Not at all. I enjoy discussing Scripture and opposing views. But you and a few others cannot do this. You want an echo chamber and Crack when members do not submit to your ideas.

Most of the time it is because of an inability to defend a position. A guy hears a Calvinistic message or reads a book and decides he will become a disciple of Reformed teachers.

The reason you are unable to defend your faith is because you hold other people's belief. Rather than working out your faith via Scripture you have followed men who tickle your ears.

Once you are able then we can talk about Scripture. Many here disagree with me, but they are more mature (spiritually) and can discuss (and defend) their faith.

Interesting, I've yet to see a Calvinist on this board who cannot defend the views biblically and shred the "proof against" Calvinism to bits with biblical backing.

 

[JonC]

Thanks for telling me why I can't defend the gospel, Jon. I'm sure Jonnyism is the true answer to all things intellectual.
When you are capable of coherently expressing your view on the atoning work of Christ let us know.

I never quite understood what you found so incoherent about my view. I'll repost it so that others can see just how crazy it sounds (in hopes some will get it):

Jesus committed no sin. But men esteemed Him as afflicted by God. He was abused. He did not return the abuse but put His trust in God and God's righteousness. Jesus bore our sins in His body on the Cross, He became a curse for us. The reason was so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. The cross was God reconciling man to Himself. Man is reconciled to God through Christ's death and men are saved through His life. Our salvation is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law. Men must be born again, made new creations, dead to the flesh and born of the Spirit. God is just and the justifier of sinners.

My view certainly is not as complex as God having to punish sinful actions, so He put them on Jesus and punished them so that He could forgive wicked men.

I get my understanding that men must die with Christ, that we must be reborn is kinda childish. But so what? That is what I read in the Bible, and that is good enough for me. You can keep all of your Reformed books and commentaries. I have enough in Scripture.

 

[AustinC]

I never quite understood what you found so incoherent about my view. I'll repost it so that others can see just how crazy it sounds (in hopes some will get it):

• Jesus committed no sin. But men esteemed Him as afflicted by God.
• He was abused. He did not return the abuse but put His trust in God and God's righteousness.
• Jesus bore our sins in His body on the Cross, He became a curse for us.
• The reason was so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.
• The cross was God reconciling man to Himself. Man is reconciled to God through Christ's death and men are saved through His life.
• Our salvation is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law.
• Men must be born again, made new creations, dead to the flesh and born of the Spirit. God is just and the justifier of sinners.

My view certainly is not as complex as God having to punish sinful actions, so He put them on Jesus and punished them so that He could forgive wicked men.

I get my understanding that men must die with Christ, that we must be reborn is kinda childish. But so what? That is what I read in the Bible, and that is good enough for me. You can keep all of your Reformed books and commentaries. I have enough in Scripture.

I added bullet points, just to try figure out what you said as it still didn't make any sense. Other than the bullet points there is no grammatical change so I hope the moderators aren't upset. It is the only way for me to try figure out what you are trying to say.

Unfortunately, I still have no idea how you get your points to somehow equal salvation from your sins.
Moreso, it's like you are just picking fruit off a whole bunch of trees and saying you have an apple pie. There is no connection to the atonement. In fact, I can see no atonement in your view and absolutely no need for the Old Testament in your view. It's as if you have no use for scripture other than a couple cherrypicked random ideas.
Sorry, Jon. I will go with 2000 years of orthodoxy on this one and stay away from jonnyism.

 

[Iconoclast]

Silverhair,

So would you say that general calvinism is close to the bible or not? Just trying to get a sense of this thing. If it is not against the rules could you state who on BB you think would would fit into those types of calvinism. Or perhaps some of the calvinists could say where they land on the calvinist spectrum.

From what I have heard and read, calvinism does not work that well with the bible. Tnks for the info.

Calvinism is the biblical teaching.;
Of the Holy Scriptures — The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (the1689confession.com)

Those who do not understand the teaching, never have understood it, or are in the midst of apostasy deny it is biblical teaching, say it is a theory or philosophy....

philadelphia confession-chapter 1 (reformedreader.org)

 

[Iconoclast]

Here are unbiblical posts by those who oppose the truth known as Calvinism;
Nothing edifying, just attack posts with no substance

Have you taken the time to read those texts that say just that or do you just skip over the parts you do not like. Your just proving the point about calvinism, it is full of contradictions.

Also....you guys can't provide verses saying what you believe.
Just accept that Scripture teaches things happen by chance.

I've been here 20 years. I am accustomed to your klan posting nonsense when they run out of answers to justify their philosophy.[/QUOTE]

I was a Calvinist. No, it is not close to the Bible. It is a Christian philosophy.[/QUOTE]

You are running to your theology books, your theories, but never to the Bible.

This is the common result of those who abandon God's word for books and philosophies that claim to reveal God via their human thinking.

[QUOTE]Has anyone ever prayed for some beneficial thing to happen in the future. Those prayers presuppose the future is not entirely fixed, and God can providentially alter the future for the benefit of believers. However, Calvinism says everything (whatsoever comes to pass) has been predestined and thus no alternate outcome is even possible. The more you consider Calvinism, the more false doctrines become evident.[/QUOTE]

The problem with these Calvinistic points, at least most of them, if now all of them, is that there is no scriptural basis for them. The word all in the Greek literally means all and there is no reason to believe it is being used in a figurative sense.

God chooses individuals for salvation through faith in the truth, thus a conditional election. Calvinism says the verse does not mean what it says.

Verse after verse teach of the lost seeking God. Calvinism says no lost person ever seeks God.

The list folks is long.

 

[Reynolds]

Yea. High Calvinists are real men with real beards who smoke cigars and pipes. They look you in the eye and say "Scripture??? We don't need no stinking Scripture!!".

Low Calvinists have shorter beards and vape. They try to prop their philosophy with Scripture.

I honestly see as much Scriptural support for H.C. as I see for any opposing position.

 

[JonC]

I added bullet points, just to try figure out what you said as it still didn't make any sense. Other than the bullet points there is no grammatical change so I hope the moderators aren't upset. It is the only way for me to try figure out what you are trying to say.

Unfortunately, I still have no idea how you get your points to somehow equal salvation from your sins.
Moreso, it's like you are just picking fruit off a whole bunch of trees and saying you have an apple pie. There is no connection to the atonement. In fact, I can see no atonement in your view and absolutely no need for the Old Testament in your view. It's as if you have no use for scripture other than a couple cherrypicked random ideas.
Sorry, Jon. I will go with 2000 years of orthodoxy on this one and stay away from jonnyism.

I understand. And I suspected you would not see atonement in my view. In the post I even confessed that to many my view would appear as foolishness. But for those "with ears to hear" I will restate my understanding.

Jesus committed no sin. But men esteemed Him as afflicted by God. He was abused. He did not return the abuse but put His trust in God and God's righteousness. Jesus bore our sins in His body on the Cross, He became a curse for us. The reason was so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. The cross was God reconciling man to Himself. Man is reconciled to God through Christ's death and men are saved through His life. Our salvation is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law. Men must be born again, made new creations, dead to the flesh and born of the Spirit. God is just and the justifier of sinners.

 

[JonC]

I honestly see as much Scriptural support for H.C. as I see for any opposing position.

I do for some of it's conclusions but not how it arrives there.

 

[AustinC]

I understand. And I suspected you would not see atonement in my view. In the post I even confessed that to many my view would appear as foolishness. But for those "with ears to hear" I will restate my understanding.

Jesus committed no sin. But men esteemed Him as afflicted by God. He was abused. He did not return the abuse but put His trust in God and God's righteousness. Jesus bore our sins in His body on the Cross, He became a curse for us. The reason was so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. The cross was God reconciling man to Himself. Man is reconciled to God through Christ's death and men are saved through His life. Our salvation is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law. Men must be born again, made new creations, dead to the flesh and born of the Spirit. God is just and the justifier of sinners.

Jon, those with ears to hear what you say will be those who follow Jonnyism, a unique philosophy of JonC that ignores the entire Old Testament, the covenants, and much of the New Testament in order to assert something God does not assert.
I feel bad for anyone whose ears hear what you say on this matter. If they follow you, they will be going down the rabbit hole with you and Alice.

 

[JonC]

Jon, those with ears to hear what you say will be those who follow Jonnyism, a unique philosophy of JonC that ignores the entire Old Testament, the covenants, and much of the New Testament in order to assert something God does not assert.
I feel bad for anyone whose ears hear what you say on this matter. If they follow you, they will be going down the rabbit hole with you and Alice.

They may. That is between them and God.

I am not responsible for what other people believe and what other people reject.

Christians hold different understandings. Some "Christians" are not even Christians and will hear the words "I never knew you". But even among the saved Christians will disagree because we are still human.

For me, this is my belief and where I stand. You think it foolishness. You can't wee the atonement in my view. You think it is a "new philosophy" and is does not include the Old Testameny. I understand. But this is the "foolish philosophy" that I believe:

Jesus committed no sin. But men esteemed Him as afflicted by God. He was abused. He did not return the abuse but put His trust in God and God's righteousness. Jesus bore our sins in His body on the Cross, He became a curse for us. The reason was so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. The cross was God reconciling man to Himself. Man is reconciled to God through Christ's death and men are saved through His life. Our salvation is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law. Men must be born again, made new creations, dead to the flesh and born of the Spirit. God is just and the justifier of sinners.

 

[Van]

Where do I find this verse that says things happen by chance. I am waiting for that prooftext, Van.

If you actually study the bible, why do you need help. Did you provide support for the falsehood that the bible does not teach things happen by chance? Nope.

 

[Van]

If you think ordain and predestine are synonyms theologically in the way you try to make them, you do not know what you are talking about as usual.

Falsehood piled on top of falsehood, words have meanings, and your claimed meaning is not found in dictionaries. OTOH, mine is. I kid you not...

 

[JonC]

is the true answer to all things intellectual.

This is why you fail. You are looking for the answer to all things intellectual. This is why you consider my understanding to be foolish, some kind of "new philosophy".

For the benefit of others who may happen by, I will again state this "foolishness", this "new philosophy" that does not meet your intellectual standards.

Jesus committed no sin. But men esteemed Him as afflicted by God. He was abused. He did not return the abuse but put His trust in God and God's righteousness. Jesus bore our sins in His body on the Cross, He became a curse for us. The reason was so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. The cross was God reconciling man to Himself. Man is reconciled to God through Christ's death and men are saved through His life. Our salvation is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law. Men must be born again, made new creations, dead to the flesh and born of the Spirit. God is just and the justifier of sinners.

 

[Silverhair]

Interesting, I've yet to see a Calvinist on this board who cannot defend the views biblically and shred the "proof against" Calvinism to bits with biblical backing.

Only when you deny clear scripture and or twist other scripture to fit your theology.

 

[Silverhair]

Silverhair,





Calvinism is the biblical teaching.;
Of the Holy Scriptures — The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (the1689confession.com)

Those who do not understand the teaching, never have understood it, or are in the midst of apostasy deny it is biblical teaching, say it is a theory or philosophy....

philadelphia confession-chapter 1 (reformedreader.org)

Now why should I be surprised when a calvinist tells me that calvinism is the only truth. Using the a calvinist confession is just circular reasoning. Still does not help your case. When I see clear contradictions in the calvinixt writings am I just supposed to ignore them? NO. But then I am not a calvinist. I just trust the bible.

 

[Reformed1689]

Falsehood piled on top of falsehood, words have meanings, and your claimed meaning is not found in dictionaries. OTOH, mine is. I kid you not...

I said THEOLOGICALLY. Use a Theological dictionary Van. Not that I expect you to, you would rather put forth false caricatures of others beliefs in order to attack a fairy.

 

[Reformed1689]

I just trust the bible.

Really? Then you know nobody seeks God. Only those who God gives, come to Jesus. This does not include everyone.

 

[Reformed1689]

What I find interesting about this thread is that still nobody has shown these imaginary internal inconsistencies with Calvinism.... Go figure.

 

[Silverhair]

I added bullet points, just to try figure out what you said as it still didn't make any sense. Other than the bullet points there is no grammatical change so I hope the moderators aren't upset. It is the only way for me to try figure out what you are trying to say.

Unfortunately, I still have no idea how you get your points to somehow equal salvation from your sins.
Moreso, it's like you are just picking fruit off a whole bunch of trees and saying you have an apple pie. There is no connection to the atonement. In fact, I can see no atonement in your view and absolutely no need for the Old Testament in your view. It's as if you have no use for scripture other than a couple cherrypicked random ideas.
Sorry, Jon. I will go with 2000 years of orthodoxy on this one and stay away from jonnyism.

Well if you cannot see salvation in what JonC posted then you should get glasses or perhaps learn to read. Just because he does not use your prescribed words, well what can I say. Perhaps your just not enlightened enough to understand the deeper things of scripture. Or I could fall back to that normal calvinist word for when someone questions them, mystery.