doctrines of grace ?

[JonC]

Please note. I'm trying to point the logical conclusion of the 'doctrines of grace'. Many who subscribe to them have never done this.

Believe me, brother, I understand. The "Doctrines of Grace" describe my salvation, but like you I did not know that for a long time . All through seminary I held a strong "free will" position. From the time I first encountered Calvinistic soteriology until I discovered my presuppositions wrong, I came to exactly the same “logical conclusions” as you do here.

When I finally gave in and read the Canons of Dort, I discovered my error. Not only does the Canons describe God’s work (that I took as “compulsion”) as “softening” and “enlightening”, but they flatly deny men are saved contrary to their will. They even affirm men’s freedom of choice. And, of course, when I read the Institutes I realized how foreign the characterizations I had gathered were to Calvinism. In other words, I “uningorantified” myself.

But that only told me that my “logical conclusions” were wrong, not that they were right. So I went through what they believe and what I had believed, without my presuppositions, and discovered that they held a more biblical soteriology than I. It took a long time, a lot of prayer, and a lot of study before I would agree. But, I suppose that is how it should be.

Are there places where I disagree? Sure. For example, I do not agree with their definition of “regeneration”, but I absolutely agree with the doctrine that they call “regeneration”. I don’t agree with their reason children who die in infancy are safe, but I do agree that they are.

As one who does hold the “doctrines of grace”, but once held a “free-will” position, I can tell you that I have put both to the test. My logical conclusion of your position is that you believe God makes a way but man ultimately saves himself. And there is no other conclusion that can be made. My logical conclusion of the Doctrines of Grace is that God saves man.

 

[Agent47]

Believe me, brother, I understand. The "Doctrines of Grace" describe my salvation, but like you I did not know that for a long time . All through seminary I held a strong "free will" position. From the time I first encountered Calvinistic soteriology until I discovered my presuppositions wrong, I came to exactly the same “logical conclusions” as you do here.

When I finally gave in and read the Canons of Dort, I discovered my error. Not only does the Canons describe God’s work (that I took as “compulsion”) as “softening” and “enlightening”, but they flatly deny men are saved contrary to their will. They even affirm men’s freedom of choice. And, of course, when I read the Institutes I realized how foreign the characterizations I had gathered were to Calvinism. In other words, I “uningorantified” myself.

But that only told me that my “logical conclusions” were wrong, not that they were right. So I went through what they believe and what I had believed, without my presuppositions, and discovered that they held a more biblical soteriology than I. It took a long time, a lot of prayer, and a lot of study before I would agree. But, I suppose that is how it should be.

Are there places where I disagree? Sure. For example, I do not agree with their definition of “regeneration”, but I absolutely agree with the doctrine that they call “regeneration”. I don’t agree with their reason children who die in infancy are safe, but I do agree that they are.

As one who does hold the “doctrines of grace”, but once held a “free-will” position, I can tell you that I have put both to the test. My logical conclusion of your position is that you believe God makes a way but man ultimately saves himself. And there is no other conclusion that can be made. My logical conclusion of the Doctrines of Grace is that God saves man.

I started out with the doctrines. And I have sat under different teachers, read books. But I have zero theological foundation. This I suppose pretty makes me ignorant.


I doubt reading Institutes backwards changes the issue I raised. So your subtle hint at ignorance won't wash. You, or others who are more widely read hence less ignorant, should be answering these questions much easily without digression, right?

My departure from Calvinism was in making God not only indirect cause of Sin/Evil for creating a world with possibility of such, but also causing the same by His decrees. No amount of verbiage or theological circus escapes that. Calvinism reckoning of Sovereignty is irredeemably flawed hence the innumerable lame 'mystery' retorts.


The god of Calvinism not only knows what will be, he decrees what must be. He will obliterate masses he has decreed must be reprobate as if it is their fault.

As I shared elsrwhere, Calvinism is attractive because it presupposes it's followers to be on the 'right' side;subscription is election. I will buy the theories when I hear them preached by a certified reprobate

Yes, man accepting Christ's offer is man saving himself...just as Peter walking to freedom from the jail is Peter rescuing him. And believing is work.

 

[JonC]

And I have sat under different teachers, read books. But I have zero theological foundation. This I suppose pretty makes me ignorant..... your subtle hint at ignorance won't wash.

No, brother. I was saying that I formed a “logical conclusion” about Calvinism in ignorance. I do not know you or your experience.

What I am saying, however, is that your “version” of Calvinism is not what Calvinists believe.

You, or others who are more widely read hence less ignorant, should be answering these questions much easily without digression, right?

Believe me, it is not because of our answers but because of your refusal to accept anything but your own presuppositions. If you notice, EVERY Calvinist that has responded has told you the same thing - what you are saying is "Calvinism" is not what Calvinists believe. Yet you continue because you "sat under teachers and read books".

The god of Calvinism not only knows what will be, he decrees what must be. He will obliterate masses he has decreed must be reprobate as if it is their fault.

The God that you slander (the God that men like John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, John Wesley, D.L. Moody, and A.W. Tozier worshipped) is the God who desires that all be saved, who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and who loved the world by sending his Son as the Savior of all mankind, especially those who believe. The God that you deny on this post is the very God who lay down his life that you might not perish. But isn’t that the crux of the matter? God loves you and sacrificed of himself for you. But there is a choice to make and you have to decide. You see, God never forces men…never drags unwilling men into his salvation…this is the God of Calvinists, Arminians, Free-Will Baptists, Reformed Baptists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. Where do you fit in? Who is your God?

I know that you believe Calvinists at heart reject the Canons of Dort and their own writings in favor of your presupposed ideas of their "logical conclusions". I suppose you read that somewhere and have decided to believe it, even when Calvinists tell you that what you are presenting is not Calvinism, but in fact foreign to Calvinistic doctrine. That’s fine. Pride is a part of being human, it’s natural.

Yes, man accepting Christ's offer is man saving himself.

So you are your own savior. And you claim omniscience by looking into the heart of the Calvinist and telling them what they "really" believe. Do you have any more divine attributes we should know about?

 

[Agent47]

No, brother. I was saying that I formed a “logical conclusion” about Calvinism in ignorance. I do not know you or your experience.

That's why I used the word subtle. It's obvious disagreement or misunderstanding can set from ignorance. I certainly have a long way to go in learning.

What I am saying, however, is that your “version” of Calvinism is not what Calvinists believe.
Believe me, it is not because of our answers but because of your refusal to accept anything but your own presuppositions. If you notice, EVERY Calvinist that has responded has told you the same thing - what you are saying is "Calvinism" is not what Calvinists believe. Yet you continue because you "sat under teachers and read books".

One of the best things I learnt about Calvinism is that It is a continuum and not a proposition. There is room for differences within Calvinism.

Now, the highlighted is false. Any interpretation I give can always be dismissed as erroneous. I know this trick. So I started my questions on the basis of what you and Cassidy expressly said. But even then, I have come under a barrage of accusations of misunderstanding. So I tried a different approach; asking very particular questions. Made progress here but I noticed most of my questions are ignored. I can live with that.

The God that you slander (the God that men like John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, John Wesley, D.L. Moody, and A.W. Tozier worshipped) is the God who desires that all be saved, who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and who loved the world by sending his Son as the Savior of all mankind, especially those who believe.

Jesus is no savior of those decreed to perish from eternity.

I can see we are jumping from TD,IR, to LA of the doctrines. This is understandable as they are related but let's take it slow.

The God that you deny on this post is the very God who lay down his life that you might not perish. But isn’t that the crux of the matter? God loves you and sacrificed of himself for you. But there is a choice to make and you have to decide.

I would never mock this God. But I have no time nor tolerance of a god who won't let man choose.

You see, God never forces men…never drags unwilling men into his salvation…this is the God of Calvinists, Arminians, Free-Will Baptists, Reformed Baptists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. Where do you fit in? Who is your God?

Call me a recovering Calvinist.

I will ask you a question. Is irresistible grace available to all men?

I know that you believe Calvinists at heart reject their own words and works, that they “really” believe God causes sin, forces men to salvation, and in truth have adopted your interpretation and logical conclusions even though their base doctrines, writings, preaching, and testimony reject your conclusion

Don't pretend to know what I believe. Thought we went through this. I forgive you in advance.

I suppose you read that somewhere and have decided to believe it, even when Calvinists tell you that you are taking their beliefs wrong. That’s fine. Pride is a part of being human, it’s natural.

It's what makes us cling to stale and expired beliefs

I would urge, however, caution when you determine to take the Lord’s name in vain or to denounce Jehovah as you have on this thread. It is very unbecoming a Christian. And your sin is not against Calvinism, but God.

Thank you. I have not taken God's name in vain though. So your reproof is unwarranted

 

[JonC]

That's why I used the word subtle. It's obvious disagreement or misunderstanding can set from ignorance. I certainly have a long way to go in learning.

Disagreement and misunderstanding can be the result of ignorance. For me, it was ignorance of what actually constituted “Calvinistic soteriology”. I believed people and books, but never even considered the source. I now know where I depart from Calvinism (in terms of the Canons) because I have taken the time to learn of that doctrine, and it is not in the “doctrines of grace”. I didn’t know before I learned.

You seem like an intelligent person. I think that you have a shorter way to go in learning than you do in listening.

One of the best things I learnt about Calvinism is that It is a continuum and not a proposition. There is room for differences within Calvinism.

Yes, there has always been room for disagreement in Calvinism – particularly in terms of Soteriology alone.

Calvinists vary on doctrine, and they argue. But some considered “Calvinists” also deny the Canons of Dort in their theology (Daniel Parker, for example). And maybe some even believe that God compels men to believe, but again this would be a denial of the Canons.

The notion men are saved by compulsion is specifically denied in the Canons of Dort. The notion salvation was not legitimately offered, and the call given, to those who don’t believe is also refuted in the Canons of Dort as error. Christ is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe (this is Calvinistic belief, but it is also Scripture…specifically, it’s Paul). I know that you disagree with Calvinism. But why not let your disagreement be legitimate? Why not debate or discuss rather than troll, slander, and bear false witness? We have the documents, the Canons are available. The Articles they opposed are available. The Institutes are available. We can discuss things honestly, no need to stereotype here.

Now, the highlighted is false. … Made progress here but I noticed most of my questions are ignored.

Your questions were answered, but you dismissed the answers.

What questions are you looking to have answered? Ask, brother, and you will receive. Just stop telling us what we believe and deal with the answers given.

Jesus is no savior of those decreed to perish from eternity.

According to you, he is not. But according to Scripture, he is.

Call me a recovering Calvinist.

I grant that we have had some nasty “Calvinists” here in the past. Some have been banned, others not, but if you had been around a couple of years ago you would have met yourself in Calvinistic form.

I don’t know your past. You seem to have a difficult time dealing with the Canons of Dort, so I wonder what kind of “Calvinist” you could have been.

I will ask you a question. Is irresistible grace available to all men?

I also enjoy Lewis Carroll (just yesterday I was reading “The Hunting of the Snark”).

Is “irresistible grace” available to all man? This is a nonsense question that demonstrates your lack of understanding of the doctrine.

“Irresistible” is not something to be given. This “grace” is mercy. So what you are essentially asking me is if God brings all men to belief. This is universal salvation, something I deny. While God does have mercy on all men, God does not save those who do not believe in Christ.

More to the doctrine, however, is that “irresistible grace” means that the Holy Spirit works in the life of a lost man in such a way that the Truth of the Gospel is revealed (not just that the truth about the gospel is made known and understood, but that man understands it as true). And this is not something that God does in the life of every man.

Don't pretend to know what I believe. Thought we went through this. I forgive you in advance.

Don’t forgive me. What you have been doing this entire time was pretending to know what I believe, and you even ignored evidence that you were wrong in your assumptions…but you continue. This is called hypocrisy.

It's what makes us cling to stale and expired beliefs.

It's what makes us cling to stale and expired beliefs

That is an issue today, isn’t it. Where does the biblical narrative become stale and expired, thus necessitating its intended purpose of a continuation through the ongoing narrative of God’s people? My answer is never and while I understand your “need” for something new, I was never a fan of Brian Mclaren crowd.

I have not taken God's name in vain though.

But you have, twice now. “Taking God’s name in vain” does not mean putting “god” in front of a cuss word. It is much more a serious matter when a believer treats God as common. And you have twice used God as your “lapdog”, your “pawn”, to emphasize your view. And that is a sin.

 

[JonC]

Call me a recovering Calvinist.

Throughout your interaction here you have insisted that Calvinism teaches doctrines that are specifically denied in the Canons of Dort.

What evidences (except your presuppositions and conclusions of what their conclusions should have been) are you offering in support of your position?

Evidence has been presented that contradicts your claims. I am interested in reading your evidence to the contrary.

Soteriological differences within Christianity arise from differences in understanding how God accomplishes his work of redemption. What remains in common is God and that work. That is why Christians of varying beliefs can discuss such things. We are children of the same God.

You, however, seem to reject this God that men like Calvin, Spurgeon, Wesley, and Tozer worshipped. You seem opposed to the God that TCasidy, MB, HeirOfSalvation, and others adore even as we disagree on theological issue of how our God worked things. As you reject and slander the God that both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic soteriologies seek to explain, you need to know you are speaking of the One True God who is not defined by our understanding of him. When someone rejects the God of Calvinism, or the God of a "free-will" Christian theology, they are simply rejecting God.

 

[MB]

As one who does hold the “doctrines of grace”, but once held a “free-will” position, I can tell you that I have put both to the test. My logical conclusion of your position is that you believe God makes a way but man ultimately saves himself. And there is no other conclusion that can be made. My logical conclusion of the Doctrines of Grace is that God saves man.

So are you saying that being freewill first you then believed you saved your self. You see the difference between you and me is that I'm freewill and I know better than that. I was saved by the Grace of my Lord and Savior Not by myself. You say the above because I was willing. Well you were willing to but now you deny it.

You have misrepresented free will. You think I must have done something to get my self saved. You're wrong. From my birth I was raised hearing the gospel every day and night of the week. Jesus Christ was at the center of everything in our home. When I was about twelve I rebelled against all of it and I hated it. I had no choice but put up with being preached at. I tried to run away from home because of it. I just could not deal with what I believed at the time was a bunch of hypocrites. This how I had viewed the Christians I knew. They were all just putting on a show.

Then one Sunday night in Church we had a special speaker. and by the time he was through with what he had to say. I found myself thinking differently. My mind had been changed about the hypocrites and I realized that what I hated most, was what I had become. I was convicted of my hatred. I realized that my own rebellion had kept me from the Lord. I became convinced of the Lord by hearing the gospel preached and it was because of this convincing that I submitted to the Lord's call.

You falsely claim I had something to do with it because I surrendered to Jesus Christ. This is typical Calvinist thinking. If the Lord hadn't drawn me where would I be now? If I hadn't heard the gospel where would I be now? If I hadn't heard that special speaker where would I be now? How would I have been convinced of Christ? Where would I have gotten the faith? How could I have been convinced?

Let me tell you that Salvation isn't cheap We must sacrifice our lives of sin to belong to Jesus. We have to submit so that the Lord can use us to bring more to Christ. Jesus Christ is Lord of my life and there is nothing this old world has that could lure me away from Him.

You're wrong Jon c about what I believe. I could have rebelled all the way to hell. But God could see what it would take to turn my life around. You should never under estimate God's work.
MB

 

[JonC]

So are you saying that being freewill first you then believed you saved your self. You see the difference between you and me is that I'm freewill and I know better than that. I was saved by the Grace of my Lord and Savior Not by myself. You say the above because I was willing. Well you were willing to but now you deny it.

You have misrepresented free will. You think I must have done something to get my self saved. You're wrong. From my birth I was raised hearing the gospel every day and night of the week. Jesus Christ was at the center of everything in our home. When I was about twelve I rebelled against all of it and I hated it. I had no choice but put up with being preached at. I tried to run away from home because of it. I just could not deal with what I believed at the time was a bunch of hypocrites. This how I had viewed the Christians I knew. They were all just putting on a show.

Then one Sunday night in Church we had a special speaker. and by the time he was through with what he had to say. I found myself thinking differently. My mind had been changed about the hypocrites and I realized that what I hated most, was what I had become. I was convicted of my hatred. I realized that my own rebellion had kept me from the Lord. I became convinced of the Lord by hearing the gospel preached and it was because of this convincing that I submitted to the Lord's call.

You falsely claim I had something to do with it because I surrendered to Jesus Christ. This is typical Calvinist thinking. If the Lord hadn't drawn me where would I be now? If I hadn't heard the gospel where would I be now? If I hadn't heard that special speaker where would I be now? How would I have been convinced of Christ? Where would I have gotten the faith? How could I have been convinced?

Let me tell you that Salvation isn't cheap We must sacrifice our lives of sin to belong to Jesus. We have to submit so that the Lord can use us to bring more to Christ. Jesus Christ is Lord of my life and there is nothing this old world has that could lure me away from Him.

You're wrong Jon c about what I believe. I could have rebelled all the way to hell. But God could see what it would take to turn my life around. You should never under estimate God's work.
MB

Thank you for your testimony. I think that sometimes it is even more difficult for those like you and I who grew up in church. So often churches assume salvation when we see hypocrisy, not only around us but with us as we try to live a standard while yet unsaved.

Anyway, you misunderstood my post.

My point in saying what you present is "typical Calvinistic thinking" was to highlight Agents error of doing the same ("typical free-will thinking"). I do not believe "free-will" advocates think that they save themselves any more than you should think I believe I was saved against my will. Calvinism does not teach men do not choose. Does not Scripture say "choose this day..."?

My point in offering what some less than honest Calvinists may argue was to point out the less than honest tactic Agent had taken up.

I believe in the same God who saved me under free will doctrine, regardless to what a minority of "hyper" free willers would suggest.

Agent 47 is the one, not I, who said he saved himself just as Peter freed himself by taking advantage of an opportunity.

 

[MB]

Thank you for your testimony. I think that sometimes it is even more difficult for those like you and I who grew up in church. So often churches assume salvation when we see hypocrisy, not only around us but with us as we try to live a standard while yet unsaved.

Anyway, you misunderstood my post.

My point in saying what you present is "typical Calvinistic thinking" was to highlight Agents error of doing the same ("typical free-will thinking"). I do not believe "free-will" advocates think that they save themselves any more than you should think I believe I was saved against my will. Calvinism does not teach men do not choose. Does not Scripture say "choose this day..."?

My point in offering what some less than honest Calvinists may argue was to point out the less than honest tactic Agent had taken up.

I believe in the same God who saved me under free will doctrine, regardless to what a minority of "hyper" free willers would suggest.

I have no doubt you love the Lord just as I do. It's Christ who judges our hearts. Thank God because man does a lousy job of it.
MB

 

[utilyan]

I not only believe God saves man, But every second of the entirety of existence depends on God including every second of your life.

I believe its God's prerogative on how he keeps you alive.

Matthew 6
11‘Give us this day our daily bread.
12‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

Matthew 6
14“For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15“But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.


Does anyone here breathe or eat to live? Should I challenge them on grounds they don't believe God gives them life?


James 2

15If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?

Well James only God is necessary for their body!


Matthew 19

25When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?” 26And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”


You would think with GOD it would be guaranteed.


21Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.

Did Jesus tell the truth? If this man went and sold all his possessions and followed Jesus would he have treasure in heaven?

Isn't the truth rather "IF GOD wishes you to be complete" instead of "IF you wish"

 

[Agent47]

Going forward, I will be quoting sources.
Don't I love the insinuation that if I read more I'd drop my stance. Yes, Calvinism always charges it's opponents of ignorance.

Disagreement and misunderstanding can be the result of ignorance. For me, it was ignorance of what actually constituted “Calvinistic soteriology”. I believed people and books, but never even considered the source. I now know where I depart from Calvinism (in terms of the Canons) because I have taken the time to learn of that doctrine, and it is not in the “doctrines of grace”. I didn’t know before I learned.

You seem like an intelligent person. I think that you have a shorter way to go in learning than you do in listening. Yes, there has always been room for disagreement in Calvinism – particularly in terms of Soteriology alone.

Calvinists vary on doctrine, and they argue. But some considered “Calvinists” also deny the Canons of Dort in their theology (Daniel Parker, for example). And maybe some even believe that God compels men to believe, but again this would be a denial of the Canons.

The notion men are saved by compulsion is specifically denied in the Canons of Dort. The notion salvation was not legitimately offered, and the call given, to those who don’t believe is also refuted in the Canons of Dort as error. Christ is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe (this is Calvinistic belief, but it is also Scripture…specifically, it’s Paul). I know that you disagree with Calvinism. But why not let your disagreement be legitimate? Why not debate or discuss rather than troll, slander, and bear false witness? We have the documents, the Canons are available. The Articles they opposed are available. The Institutes are available. We can discuss things honestly, no need to stereotype here. Your questions were answered, but you dismissed the answers.

What questions are you looking to have answered? Ask, brother, and you will receive. Just stop telling us what we believe and deal with the answers given.According to you, he is not. But according to Scripture, he is. I grant that we have had some nasty “Calvinists” here in the past. Some have been banned, others not, but if you had been around a couple of years ago you would have met yourself in Calvinistic form.

I don’t know your past. You seem to have a difficult time dealing with the Canons of Dort, so I wonder what kind of “Calvinist” you could have been. I also enjoy Lewis Carroll (just yesterday I was reading “The Hunting of the Snark”).

Is “irresistible grace” available to all man? This is a nonsense question that demonstrates your lack of understanding of the doctrine.

“Irresistible” is not something to be given. This “grace” is mercy. So what you are essentially asking me is if God brings all men to belief. This is universal salvation, something I deny. While God does have mercy on all men, God does not save those who do not believe in Christ.

More to the doctrine, however, is that “irresistible grace” means that the Holy Spirit works in the life of a lost man in such a way that the Truth of the Gospel is revealed (not just that the truth about the gospel is made known and understood, but that man understands it as true). And this is not something that God does in the life of every man.Don’t forgive me. What you have been doing this entire time was pretending to know what I believe, and you even ignored evidence that you were wrong in your assumptions…but you continue. This is called hypocrisy.That is an issue today, isn’t it. Where does the biblical narrative become stale and expired, thus necessitating its intended purpose of a continuation through the ongoing narrative of God’s people? My answer is never and while I understand your “need” for something new, I was never a fan of Brian Mclaren crowd.But you have, twice now. “Taking God’s name in vain” does not mean putting “god” in front of a cuss word. It is much more a serious matter when a believer treats God as common. And you have twice used God as your “lapdog”, your “pawn”, to emphasize your view. And that is a sin.

 

[Agent47]

Are you ok if I quoted institutes on EVERYTHING I say?

Throughout your interaction here you have insisted that Calvinism teaches doctrines that are specifically denied in the Canons of Dort.

What evidences (except your presuppositions and conclusions of what their conclusions should have been) are you offering in support of your position?

Evidence has been presented that contradicts your claims. I am interested in reading your evidence to the contrary.

Soteriological differences within Christianity arise from differences in understanding how God accomplishes his work of redemption. What remains in common is God and that work. That is why Christians of varying beliefs can discuss such things. We are children of the same God.

You, however, seem to reject this God that men like Calvin, Spurgeon, Wesley, and Tozer worshipped. You seem opposed to the God that TCasidy, MB, HeirOfSalvation, and others adore even as we disagree on theological issue of how our God worked things. As you reject and slander the God that both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic soteriologies seek to explain, you need to know you are speaking of the One True God who is not defined by our understanding of him. When someone rejects the God of Calvinism, or the God of a "free-will" Christian theology, they are simply rejecting God.

 

[JonC]

Are you ok if I quoted institutes on EVERYTHING I say?

I'm OK regardless.

 

[JonC]

Going forward, I will be quoting sources.
Don't I love the insinuation that if I read more I'd drop my stance. Yes, Calvinism always charges it's opponents of ignorance.

That would help. But no, I don't think you'd drop your stance on what you believe if you read more....That wasn't what I was saying.

My request for actual Calvinists who believe what you represent their beliefs as a whole to be was not that I thought you were ignorant, but because I am about such Calvinistic teachings.

Who are those Calvinists who reach God saves men against their will?

 

[Agent47]

I'm OK regardless.

I will start a fresh thread on Calvin and God authoring evil. All my quotes will be from Calvin. That way we can leave others to pursue the doctrines.

I will also God willing start another on why [Calvin views God as drawing] kicks from damning men...that he is least interested in saving him.


(post edited)

 

[JonC]

I will start a fresh thread on Calvin and God authoring evil. All my quotes will be from Calvin. That way we can leave others to pursue the doctrines.

I will also God willing start another on why Calvin's god draws kicks from damning men...that he is least interested in saving him.

I will start a fresh thread on Calvin and God authoring evil. All my quotes will be from Calvin. That way we can leave others to pursue the doctrines.

I will also God willing start another on why Calvin's god draws kicks from damning men...that he is least interested in saving him.

Good luck brother.

 

[Agent47]

.
Who are those Calvinists who reach God saves men against their will?

John Calvin himself held so. Of course you differ with him on various issues and it's quite possible you do on this one.

I will substantiate on this by quoting him, as well as his students.

 

[JonC]

John Calvin himself held so. Of course you differ with him on various issues and it's quite possible you do on this one.

I will substantiate on this by quoting him, as well as his students.

I like some of Calvin's work on prayer.

Insofar as "Calvinism" goes, he had been dead over 50 years before the Canons of Dort. I'm not really sure how he would have articulated the doctrines. It was Beza who placed sovereignty where it stands in Calvinism. Also, issues such as the "scope of the Atonement" was not in such sharp focus until much later.

Sometimes people forget that the term "Calvinism" was coined not for Calvin's soterilogy but for how his doctrine of Communion differed from Luther's. Calvinism (soterilogy) was not restricted to Calvin's doctrines. And I think most today would consider James Arminius at least a moderate Calvinist....I know Norman Geisler would....

Although I disagree with Calvin (I am Baptist), his defense for infant baptism as well as his accusations against those who oppose the view are interesting. They serve to highlight that theology consists of "more than meets the eye" and show the extent worldviews come into play.

 

[Agent47]

I like some of Calvin's work on prayer.

Insofar as "Calvinism" goes, he had been dead over 50 years before the Canons of Dort. I'm not really sure how he would have articulated the doctrines. It was Beza who placed sovereignty where it stands in Calvinism. Also, issues such as the "scope of the Atonement" was not in such sharp focus until much later.

In short,Calvin beliefs are no Calvinism. Wonderful

Sometimes people forget that the term "Calvinism" was coined not for Calvin's soterilogy but for how his doctrine of Communion differed from Luther's. Calvinism (soterilogy) was not restricted to Calvin's doctrines. And I think most today would consider James Arminius at least a moderate Calvinist....I know Norman Geisler would....

I've read that Calvin was actually a moderate Arminian. Can't recall the author but he gave compelling evidence.

Although I disagree with Calvin (I am Baptist), his defense for infant baptism as well as his accusations against those who oppose the view are interesting. They serve to highlight that theology consists of "more than meets the eye" and show the extent worldviews come into play.

Technically, Calvin was not Calvinist. By Calvinism I refer to the continuum of beliefs or is it propositions that developed from Calvin, and that generally remain faithful to what Calvin stood for, especially with regard to soteriology.

Regardless of my differences with Calvin(ism), I'd be the last to dismiss everything he wrote. What amuses me are the fence-sitters who pretend not to be overwhelmingly influenced by a man who they defend with blood and sweat

 

[Yeshua1]

I like some of Calvin's work on prayer.

Insofar as "Calvinism" goes, he had been dead over 50 years before the Canons of Dort. I'm not really sure how he would have articulated the doctrines. It was Beza who placed sovereignty where it stands in Calvinism. Also, issues such as the "scope of the Atonement" was not in such sharp focus until much later.

Sometimes people forget that the term "Calvinism" was coined not for Calvin's soterilogy but for how his doctrine of Communion differed from Luther's. Calvinism (soterilogy) was not restricted to Calvin's doctrines. And I think most today would consider James Arminius at least a moderate Calvinist....I know Norman Geisler would....

Although I disagree with Calvin (I am Baptist), his defense for infant baptism as well as his accusations against those who oppose the view are interesting. They serve to highlight that theology consists of "more than meets the eye" and show the extent worldviews come into play.

He would be the proper Father ofPresby reformed viewpoints, but the full blown calvinism system came after him, as they summarized and expanded on him, Did they gt hm right always though? as some have him teachingunlimited atonement for example!