-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Calvinism takes Biblical Truth Too Far
- Thread starter Van
- Start date
Here is a typical Calvinist argument. Claims and assertions but not one reference to scripture. I showed Jesus taught in Matthew 13 that fallen men are not so corrupted they cannot seek God and receive the gospel with joy. So strike one. I showed Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3 that fallen men, men of flesh, were able to understand the milk of the gospel. So strike two.
While I agree Calvinism is based on truth, it extrapolates the truth too far and plunges into darkness. For example, Paul teaches fallen man cannot discern the things of the Spirit of God which must be discerned with the aid of our indwelt Spirit. But, then Calvinists add to this truth and falsely claim fallen man cannot understand the fundamentals of the gospel, the milk.
Jesus taught that the rich young ruler was seeking eternal life. This directly contradicts the Calvinist claim that every fallen man always has his or her mind set on the flesh. The claim is refuted again and again in scripture, and the Calvinist answer, you cannot base doctrine on parable or some other method of nullification of scripture. Calvinism is an invention of men such as Augustine and Luther and Calvin, in that they took spiritual truth and added to it their own inventive but fictional ideas. Strike three.
Last edited by a moderator:
That is why we say that its strenght is that it takes into account the TOTALITY of the scriptures when trying to put together a consistent view on theology from the Bible...
That makes it easier to make into a systematic form...
Would say that it is NOT a perfect model to explain the Bible by, but is best that we presently have!
Rich young ruler came to jesus to justify himself, to show off just how "good" a person he was by keeping the law... Jesus revealed to him that law keeping would not save us, it needs a change of heart, and the ruler went off, as natural man receives NOT the things of the Spirit!
IF this was a ballgame, you would have been striking out your "Cal strawmen", while rest of us just are amused and feel sorry for you meaderings on this!
Apostle paul was adressing the "carnal" Christians/babes in Christ, who had refused to "grow up and mature' Further in their walk with God, NOT unsaved there! Paul made a CLEAR distinction between those saved by grace of God, and those whom are natural man, NOT saved by God!
Also, matthew 13 referenced a parable of the Lord, His point was NOT what you asserted it to be, as parables given to explain usually one main point!
Folks, the above is more of the same shuck and jive Calvinists use to muddy the water and hide the truth of scripture. What has the fact Paul was addressing "carnal babes in Christ" like he was addressing men of flesh, have to do with the fact Paul indicated men of flesh could understand milk but not meat? Nothing!! It is like I say the sky is blue, and Jesusfan responds with it is not always blue. Shuck and jive folks.
Next, Jesusfan says the words used to explain the parable of Matthew 13 can be ignored because parables usually have one point. Whether Jesus made one point or a dozen points is not the issue, the issue is the point that He made that unregenerate men can understand and receive the gospel with joy. Calvinists try to nullify this truth rather than admit their false doctrine of total spiritual inability is unbiblical to say the least.
Jesusfan then asks, as if he had not received an answer many times before, whether I believe man is depraved in his fallen state. For the zillionth time the issue is the extent of the ability to understand and learn from God, I say fallen men have "limited spiritual ability" and Calvinists say fallen men have "total spiritual inability." I have demonstrated my view that Calvinism is wrong from passage after passage, and also that my view is supported by passage after passage. Matthew 13, ring a bell. Matthew 23:13?
Next Jesusfan again says scripture does not mean what it says. I say the rich young ruler was seeking eternal life. He asked Jesus, Mark 10:17, "What must I do to inherit eternal life." Calvinists, say this verse does not mean what it says. They deny the very words of Jesus. Folks, if you have to nullify scripture over and over to hold to a view of other scriptures, you should let go and start over seeking to understand the minimum scripture is proclaiming, and not adding in incomprehensible absurdities from the dusk of the dark ages.
Here is another point about the rich young ruler, why is it impossible for a rich man to enter heaven? The reason is if you are "rich" in your own estimation, you think you have something of value in this life, and therefore you need salve for your eyes so you can see you are a wretched naked beggar in need of the riches of heaven. So why did Jesus say "How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of heaven. Calvinists have no answer, their doctrine says it is impossible for any fallen man, rich or poor to enter unless regenerated, and then it is impossible not to enter when regenerated. Therefore Calvinism is again shown to be unbiblical, because they deny some people have more difficulty letting loose of the worldly treasures of their heart.
The ball game is over, Calvinism has been shutout and didn't even get a hit.
Also, matthew 13 referenced a parable of the Lord, His point was NOT what you asserted it to be, as parables given to explain usually one main point!
Folks, the above is more of the same shuck and jive Calvinists use to muddy the water and hide the truth of scripture. What has the fact Paul was addressing "carnal babes in Christ" like he was addressing men of flesh, have to do with the fact Paul indicated men of flesh could understand milk but not meat? Nothing!! It is like I say the sky is blue, and Jesusfan responds with it is not always blue. Shuck and jive folks.
Next, Jesusfan says the words used to explain the parable of Matthew 13 can be ignored because parables usually have one point. Whether Jesus made one point or a dozen points is not the issue, the issue is the point that He made that unregenerate men can understand and receive the gospel with joy. Calvinists try to nullify this truth rather than admit their false doctrine of total spiritual inability is unbiblical to say the least.
Jesusfan then asks, as if he had not received an answer many times before, whether I believe man is depraved in his fallen state. For the zillionth time the issue is the extent of the ability to understand and learn from God, I say fallen men have "limited spiritual ability" and Calvinists say fallen men have "total spiritual inability." I have demonstrated my view that Calvinism is wrong from passage after passage, and also that my view is supported by passage after passage. Matthew 13, ring a bell. Matthew 23:13?
Next Jesusfan again says scripture does not mean what it says. I say the rich young ruler was seeking eternal life. He asked Jesus, Mark 10:17, "What must I do to inherit eternal life." Calvinists, say this verse does not mean what it says. They deny the very words of Jesus. Folks, if you have to nullify scripture over and over to hold to a view of other scriptures, you should let go and start over seeking to understand the minimum scripture is proclaiming, and not adding in incomprehensible absurdities from the dusk of the dark ages.
Here is another point about the rich young ruler, why is it impossible for a rich man to enter heaven? The reason is if you are "rich" in your own estimation, you think you have something of value in this life, and therefore you need salve for your eyes so you can see you are a wretched naked beggar in need of the riches of heaven. So why did Jesus say "How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of heaven. Calvinists have no answer, their doctrine says it is impossible for any fallen man, rich or poor to enter unless regenerated, and then it is impossible not to enter when regenerated. Therefore Calvinism is again shown to be unbiblical, because they deny some people have more difficulty letting loose of the worldly treasures of their heart.
The ball game is over, Calvinism has been shutout and didn't even get a hit.
Last edited by a moderator:
Winman,
you posted this;
As long as you can make this post.....and not see your error.....you will not come to truth at all. This is basic bible ...your view is a denial of the reality of The Spirits work in new birth....if understood and thought out.
1]..........ALL men everywhere[by physical birth] are dead in ADAM
2]..........................All men In Christ {by new birth, born from above} and them only are ALIVE in Christ
The Apostle Paul clarifies it for anyone who has eyes to see:thumbs:
EVERY person is physically born........ALL in Adam
ONLY the elect are spiritually born from above.....ALL In Christ
No new birth, no heaven.
ALL...........gets defined by the rest of the scriptures.....not by you.
you posted this;
As long as you can make this post.....and not see your error.....you will not come to truth at all. This is basic bible ...your view is a denial of the reality of The Spirits work in new birth....if understood and thought out.
Winman
1]..........ALL men everywhere[by physical birth] are dead in ADAM
2]..........................All men In Christ {by new birth, born from above} and them only are ALIVE in Christ
The Apostle Paul clarifies it for anyone who has eyes to see:thumbs:
EVERY person is physically born........ALL in Adam
ONLY the elect are spiritually born from above.....ALL In Christ
No new birth, no heaven.
ALL...........gets defined by the rest of the scriptures.....not by you.
A person without the spirit can't understand things that come from the Spirit according to 1 Corinthians 2:14. These folks are unregenerate.
In 3;1-3 Paul is addressing brothers and sisters in the Lord. Paul said that these believers should have been more spiritually mature. They should have been on a diet of meat not milk. But they were indeed believers --not unregenerate individuals.
Here we go again. You have messed up your understanding of 1 Corinthians 214-3:2. Shall we try Hebrews 5:11-14? This passage also discusses the spiritually immature --believers who should be on a diet of meat--not milk. They are believers though. They are regenerate folks. They are not unsaved fallen men.
Gal 3:2 and Eph 1:13 both refute you.
Gal 3:2 This would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
This verse show men had to hear and believe before receiving the Spirit. How can you be regenerate without the Spirit?
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.
Doesn't get any clearer than this, first they heard the gospel, then they believed, and only afterward received the Spirit. These verses show unregenerate men are ABLE to hear the gospel and believe it, and if they do they will receive the Holy Spirit.
psalms109:31
Active Member
Hebrews 5:12
In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!
That is the sign of the mature is not having to be taught elementary teaching all over again, but to teach it. It is not to reject it if you need it.
We shouldn't be needing milk of the word of God but teaching it and given it to the little one's.
You do not have to understand the scripture, but trust in the Lord. It is Jesus work to teach us and to open our eyes.
In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!
That is the sign of the mature is not having to be taught elementary teaching all over again, but to teach it. It is not to reject it if you need it.
We shouldn't be needing milk of the word of God but teaching it and given it to the little one's.
You do not have to understand the scripture, but trust in the Lord. It is Jesus work to teach us and to open our eyes.
Last edited by a moderator:
See above points, as the Lord open the minds of those who geard the Jesus of the Gospel proclaimed to them, and as many as were the elect of God turned to Christ to be saved, over 3000 alone on day of Pentacost!
Van,please respond to what I have said above.
The trouble with the interpretation of some verses, is that some people tend to make them absolutes when they are not. It is a general statement, generally true, but not always. There are exceptions. Man is given: general revelation that he might understand the things of God (Romans 1:20; 2:14,15: Psa.19:1-3), "so that they are without excuse." The more light they are given the more they are responsible for.
The verse (1Cor.2:14) does not say all natural men. It simply says "the natural man." It is a general statement implying that it is possible for some natural men to understand the Word of God or spiritual things. Otherwise how would you account for the testimonies (and there are many of them) that say: "I got saved by just reading a tract," or "I got saved by just reading a Bible," etc. The natural man obviously understood spiritual things in those few cases.
Quite correct. I agree with your assessment. It also shoots down the LS ideas of "the carnal Christian," for indeed there is a carnal Christian as is clearly taught here in this passage. The immature Christian is that "carnal Christian."
I agree with your assessment. See my comments above.
Regarding 1 Corinthians 2:14 :Of course it is speaking of the unregenerate DHK. The unsaved do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. It's not a "general" principle --it is a fact of the Word of God and impinges on other biblical truths."The person without the Spirit..." How could it be stated any plainer than that?
We're not talking about so-called natural revelation at all.
This is a well known testimony, and not unlike many others.
http://www.wholesomewords.org/missions/biotaylor.html
This kind of testimony goes against all that you have been saying. A man picks up a tract, reads it, understands it, and is saved. You say it can't be done. You are wrong.
Dr. Walter
New Member
What you are confusing is the distinction between natural light and supernatural light. The natural man is capable of perceiving what God has revealed in nature and in conscience and that is sufficient to understand, violate and be condemned. However, what Paul is speaking about in 1 Corinthians is not natural revelation but special revelation that requires spiritual discernment which no natural man can perceive.
Dr. Walter
New Member
The phrase "hearing of faith" is subjective genitive and means "hearing that produced faith" and that "hearing" is the product of a new heart (Deut. 5:29 with 29:4; Ezek. 36:26 with Rom. 10:10). Given through the effectual call or the creative command of God (Rom. 10:17 "rhema" word of command - 2 Cor. 4:6).
Don't confuse regeneration by the Spirit with sealing of the Holy Spirit. Regeneration has to do with giving spiritual life where as sealing has to do with preserving that life through indwelling. The Holy Spirit first cleanses a man through the washing of regeneration before He indwells that man (logical order). He does not enter into an unclean temple.