Calvinism

[InTheLight]

I saw that in Article 1 after posting and I deleted the post (while you were typing your response) ... point acknowledged.

OK.

Accepting the Archaic meaning is the correct one, does a phrase that means either "must believe" or "can believe" with no indication which is the intended meaning not qualify as "wishy-washy". I say it means the Holy Ghost makes it so we MUST BELIEVE and you say the Holy Ghost "enables" us to believe and the text as written say we are both reading it correctly.

That's Political-speek ... "We believe in Jobs and the Future!" ... everyone gets to hear whatever they want to hear.

I understand what you are saying, and I can agree with you to a point. By using the word "shall" we are both seeing what we want to see in that text. However, with the benefit of hindsight and what we know about Arminianism, we now know that the implication of the word "shall" is that the Holy Ghost enables us. Your point was that the original authors intended it to be vague. This is difficult to know without further historical information. I will concede that it can be considered vague, but I can't necessarily go along with it being intentionally vague on the part of the author(s).

 

[InTheLight]

#6

HA HA HA HA!

Well played!

And welcome back!

 

[JonC]

#6

David!!!!!! Missed ya bro!

 

[Reformed1689]

David!!!!!! Missed ya bro!

Nice to be back, but that is all I can say about it in public.

 

[JonC]

Nice to be back, but that is all I can say about it in public.

While you were gone it was difficult as the only people I had to disagree with was disagreeable people.

I, for one, am glad you are back. I look forward to disagreeing with you as a family dispute .

 

[Van]

Your conclusion, in my opinion, does a disservice to those who hold both opposing viewpoints. It seems more than a bit arrogant to assume that you are the only one who has actually "studied" scripture to arrive at their position and everyone else has failed to grasp your obvious right answer because they are all blinded by 400 year old doctrines.

As a point of fact, I was raised atheist, heard the Gospel and learned to read the bible under Wesleyan Arminianism (Church of God) and reached 4 of the 5 points of Calvinism from reading scripture before I ever heard the term "Calvinist" or "Arminian". I had never given any thought one way or another to who Christ died for (Limited vs Universal Atonement) ... it was enough to know that Jesus had died for me.

Romans 9 disagrees with you.

... or these verses speak of HOW God saves rather than WHEN God first loved, as in:

[Rom 8:28-30 NASB] 28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to [His] purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to become] conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.​

Redefining what contradictory verses "really mean" is what you complain the Calvinists and Arminians do.
That is ONE WAY to resolve the difficulty, but not the "only way".

The above post is a typical response. And presents why no actual discussion is possible.

First, my behavior is attacked, I am doing a disservice. Against the man arguments are logical fallacies, and there use indicates deflection rather than discussion.

Second is a repeat of the mantra that an advocate "found" the doctrine in scripture, but since it must be read into scripture, the claim is just more deflection.

Third nothing in Romans 9 says God chooses individuals for salvation without crediting their faith as righteousness. The very idea that God choosing babies in the womb without regard for what they had done has nothing to do with election for salvation. The argument is absurd. And certainly was not the product of study. And still the election was not unconditional, God chose so the older would serve the younger.

Fourth, both 2 Thess. 2:13 and James 2:5 teach both the basis of our individual election for salvation (faith in the truth, and rich in faith, and the love of God) and when the election occurs, during our lifetime after we have put our faith in Christ alone.

Fifth, we get a subject change to another passage which of course also provides no support whatsoever for the bogus viewpoint being advocated. Romans 8:28-30 supports my view.

Sixth, I am again charged, without a quote, with yet another behavior problem. So from start to finish, deflection, and no actual discussion of being chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, or the people chosen being rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God.

 

[atpollard]

The above post is a typical response. And presents why no actual discussion is possible.

First, my behavior is attacked, I am doing a disservice. Against the man arguments are logical fallacies, and there use indicates deflection rather than discussion.

Second is a repeat of the mantra that an advocate "found" the doctrine in scripture, but since it must be read into scripture, the claim is just more deflection.

Third nothing in Romans 9 says God chooses individuals for salvation without crediting their faith as righteousness. The very idea that God choosing babies in the womb without regard for what they had done has nothing to do with election for salvation. The argument is absurd. And certainly was not the product of study. And still the election was not unconditional, God chose so the older would serve the younger.

Fourth, both 2 Thess. 2:13 and James 2:5 teach both the basis of our individual election for salvation (faith in the truth, and rich in faith, and the love of God) and when the election occurs, during our lifetime after we have put our faith in Christ alone.

Fifth, we get a subject change to another passage which of course also provides no support whatsoever for the bogus viewpoint being advocated. Romans 8:28-30 supports my view.

Sixth, I am again charged, without a quote, with yet another behavior problem. So from start to finish, deflection, and no actual discussion of being chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, or the people chosen being rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God.

When you lead with a general insult to all Calvinists and Arminians that they have not studied scripture, that hardly signals that you have come for a discussion. You may want to work on your openings if you are really looking for discussion.

 

[Reformed1689]

Fourth, both 2 Thess. 2:13 and James 2:5 teach both the basis of our individual election for salvation (faith in the truth, and rich in faith, and the love of God) and when the election occurs, during our lifetime after we have put our faith in Christ alone.

And the broken record continues. Those passages do not support your position in any way.

 

[Reformed1689]

Fifth, we get a subject change to another passage which of course also provides no support whatsoever for the bogus viewpoint being advocated. Romans 8:28-30 supports my view.

How do you figure?

 

[Van]

When you lead with a general insult to all Calvinists and Arminians that they have not studied scripture, that hardly signals that you have come for a discussion. You may want to work on your openings if you are really looking for discussion.

And it begins, more on my behavior and nothing on scripture. All these folks post from the same playbook.

 

[Van]

And the broken record continues. Those passages do not support your position in any way.

Yes they do.

All these "taint so" posts are the actual broken record.

 

[Van]

How do you figure?

Just read the passage David.

 

[atpollard]

And it begins, more on my behavior and nothing on scripture. All these folks post from the same playbook.

That would be because your behavior takes center stage.

What scripture would you like to discuss?
(Unless you are just looking for a game of ‘Scripture Pong’, then count me out.)

 

[Van]

Let me repeat. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 teaches we were chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, a conditional election. Thus far the rebuttal has been variations of the theme of "the verses do not support your position." In other words, deflection. And this is all I expect. None of the supporters actually developed the viewpoint, and the arguments for it are repeated again and again.
James 2:5 teaches we were chosen as rich in faith and those who love God. Verse after verse can be cited and nothing but denial will be forthcoming. I have been down this road many times.

 

[Reformed1689]

Yes they do.

All these "taint so" posts are the actual broken record.

It's not a taint so post as you so often claim when I actually exegete the passage and blow your crazed interpretation out of the water. Which I have done many times.

Just read the passage David.

I have. You are the one making the claim so you need to explain.

 

[Revmitchell]

"crazed interpretation" Such rhetoric is neither true nor helpful.

 

[Reformed1689]

"crazed interpretation" Such rhetoric is neither true nor helpful.

And as usual, adding nothing to the actual topic or discussion. Just lecturing in a self-righteous manner....

 

[Revmitchell]

"lecturing in a self-righteous manner"

This of course is a "tu quoque" fallacy. Again neither is it helpful.

 

[JonC]

Well, well, well. I'm seeing this phenomena described by Iconoclast whereby posts disappear. I quoted atpollard in my post (above) and now I see that his post has been removed. It's still preserved in my response to him, but his original post has been removed from the board. Hmmm...

Yes, it looks like exactly the same phenomena. atpollard removed his own post.

 

[atpollard]

Let me repeat. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 teaches we were chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, a conditional election. Thus far the rebuttal has been variations of the theme of "the verses do not support your position." In other words, deflection. And this is all I expect. None of the supporters actually developed the viewpoint, and the arguments for it are repeated again and again.
James 2:5 teaches we were chosen as rich in faith and those who love God. Verse after verse can be cited and nothing but denial will be forthcoming. I have been down this road many times.

Before I repeat an earlier effort by another, could you offer some insight into how davidtaylorjr failed in his exegesis to address those verses?

It's not a taint so post as you so often claim when I actually exegete the passage and blow your crazed interpretation out of the water. Which I have done many times.

I do not want to waste time repeating the same information when I could spend the time building an argument from another direction not yet explored.