Flaws of Calvinism

[rockytopva]

Calvin's roasting of Servetus....Italian poet Camillo Renato protested: "Neither God nor his spirit have counselled such an action. Christ did not treat those who negated him that way." And French humanist Sébastien Chateillon wrote: "To kill a man is not to protect a doctrine, but it is to kill a man." Servetus himself had said: "I consider it a serious matter to kill men because they are in error on some question of scriptural interpretation, when we know that even the elect ones may be led astray into error."

 

[Zaatar71]

Fact checkers have found this:
Grant

[ 1,,G1325, didomi ]
to give," is rendered "grant" in Mark 10:37; Luke 1:74; Acts 4:29; Acts 11:18; Acts 14:3. See GIVE.

It does not say..."allow",lol

 

[Zaatar71]

Fact checkers have found this:
Grant

[ 1,,G1325, didomi ]
to give," is rendered "grant" in Mark 10:37; Luke 1:74; Acts 4:29; Acts 11:18; Acts 14:3. See GIVE.

It does not say..."allow",lol

Do not make things up.

 

[Van]

No, wasn't referring to "burn the barn down" as ignoring God's Word, was referring to our normal arguments when we get together. We've had some barn burners haven't we?

Anyway, I totally disagree, and I'm sure you already knew that.

Allow me to ask this question, and thank you, Van, for explaining your position.

In Heb. 6:4-6, How is it possible that a person who was "made partaker of the Holy Spirit" if he should fall away (stop believing) that's it's impossible for him to be renewed unto repentance, if as you say man cannot lose his salvation?

I present my understanding of scripture as clearly as I can. Usually the response is taint so, with no actual rebuttal as to why it taint so.

I have posted that no scripture supports Calvinism, except scripture does support once saved always saved. Here is what the OP said:

​

Preservation of the Saved - Once a person has been transferred into Christ, they undergo spiritual rebirth, with their faith protected by the power of God, and then sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit forever, thus salvation cannot be lost. ​

Now, rather than address the scriptures that clearly prove once saved always saved, you have brought up vague verses where others have read into the verse loss of salvation. All those views are precluded by the passages I have referenced. You cannot cause yourself to be no longer indwelt forever. You cannot cause yourself to not be born anew as a spiritual child of God. You cannot transfer yourself out of being "in Christ." Yet rather than accept the evidence presented, you seem to ignore it, and bring up the well know and often rebutted vague verses.

Obviously I can rebut them all, as I have studied the topic.

I presented my interpretation of Hebrews 3:14-15 and your rebuttal was "I disagree."

Now you want me to explain how Hebrews 6:4-6 does not in any way support your biblically impossible doctrine. And when I do, will you simply say you disagree and bring up yet another vague verse?

Recently a good man was shot and killed by those unwilling to engage in debate with truth and integrity. We must be better than that.

Hebrews 6:4-6 NASB
For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance ]since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

First, this passage is referring to people who have heard and understood the gospel, but either have rejected it or did not fully embrace it such that God did not credit their faith as righteousness. Hebrews 6:9 makes clear, this passage is NOT referring to those actually saved, enjoying things (like eternal security) that accompany salvation.

Second, hearing, and understanding the gospel is what is meant by being made (because of the revelation of the gospel) partakers of the Holy Spirit. The inspired word is the work product of the Holy Spirit. What does "tasted" the powers of the age to come. Those would be the three Persons of the trinity, plus the witness of the children of God in my opinion.
Why can those who have rejected, partially or fully, the gospel be restored? Because there is no other gospel, no other path, they must "come to their senses" and stop rejecting Christ crucified.

 

[Van]

I see where someone has claimed "Didomi" (G1325) is not translated as "allow" according to his source. Yes, some translation versions do not translate the Greek word ever as allow. But other do. Thus the implication I made the claim up, was posted, based on little or no study.

No one, not any of our posters, pointed out this claim is blatantly false. We cannot edify if we do not post with truth and integrity.

Does the NASB translate Didomi" as allow? See Acts 2:27.

Does the NKJV translate Didomi as allow? See Acts 13:35

Does the CSB translate Didomi as allow? See Mark 10:37

Does anyone want to say "I was wrong" with truth and integrity?

 

[Zaatar71]

I see where someone has claimed "Didomi" (G1325) is not translated as "allow" according to his source. Yes, some translation versions do not translate the Greek word ever as allow. But other do. Thus the implication I made the claim up, was posted, based on little or no study.

No one, not any of our posters, pointed out this claim is blatantly false. We cannot edify if we do not post with truth and integrity.

Does the NASB translate Didomi" as allow? See Acts 2:27.

I see where someone has claimed "Didomi" (G1325) is not translated as "allow" according to his source. Yes, some translation versions do not translate the Greek word ever as allow. But other do. Thus the implication I made the claim up, was posted, based on little or no study.

No one, not any of our posters, pointed out this claim is blatantly false. We cannot edify if we do not post with truth and integrity.

Does the NASB translate Didomi" as allow? See Acts 2:27.

Does the NKJV translate Didomi as allow? See Acts 13:35

Does the CSB translate Didomi as allow? See Mark 10:37

Does anyone want to say "I was wrong" with truth and integrity?

Does the NKJV translate Didomi as allow? See Acts 13:35

Does the CSB translate Didomi as allow? See Mark 10:37

Does anyone want to say "I was wrong" with truth and integrity?

17 if then the equal gift God did give to them as also to us, having believed upon the Lord Jesus Christ, I -- how was I able to withstand God?'

18 And they, having heard these things, were silent, and were glorifying God, saying, `Then, indeed, also to the nations did God give the reformation to life.'

The repentance that leads to life - Repentance is not a pre-condition as if a man must first by his will determine to repent before he can believe. This passage makes it clear that repentance is not self energized but Spirit energized (God has granted). Men cannot repent relying on their own natural state, for our natural state is adamantly, inveterately opposed to God.


God
theos

has

granted
didōmi

·
ho

repentance
metanoia

that leads

to
eis

life
zōē
.”

 

[Dave G]

Here the defense of Calvinism is based on what someone sees in unreferenced scripture.

I don't think it would do any good to reference the Scriptures that I see stating the things I referenced, Van, as this has already been done in past threads.
Your response to them would probably be the same now as it was then, I'm sorry to say.

The issue is not what a person claims to believe, but on what God's message actually is!

I agree.
So what does this say?

" And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region."

Do we believe what is written, or not?
Further, is there more than one understanding of what is written?
Yes, there is, or we would all be in total agreement with what is written, wouldn't we?

For me, it means that the only reason anyone in the crowd believed Paul's words, was because they were already ordained to eternal life.
That's what I read and understand out of the passage.

 

[Silverhair]

All of us were born on the Highway to hell, and God predestinated Hs own unto salvation, placing them upon highway to heaven

I am curious as to how anyone that God has, according to calvinism, been predestined to be on the highway to heaven can at any time realistically have been on the highway to hell?

 

[Dave G]

When God says "I have many people" He may be referring to believers who would not harm Paul, or He may be referring to people open to God's word, i.e. the fields white for harvest, that need to hear the gospel. But what the phrase does not mean is I have many people I have already chosen for salvation in the city. That view is simply read into the text. There is no actual support for Calvinism anywhere in scripture.

Please help me to understand what you've stated above.
What I'm seeing you say, in essence, is that you can tell people what it doesn't mean, but you cannot tell anyone what it does mean.
I'm confused.

Respectfully,
If you don't know what it does mean, then how is it that you can definitively tell anyone what it doesn't mean?

 

[Dave G]

Calvin's roasting of Servetus....Italian poet Camillo Renato protested: "Neither God nor his spirit have counselled such an action. Christ did not treat those who negated him that way."

I agree.

Neither did the Lord treat anyone the way that the supporters of the Roman Catholic Church did on Saint Bartholomew's Day in 1572...when upwards of an estimated 70,000 French Huguenots ( French Calvinists ) were suddenly killed all across France for no other reason than that they were heretics in the eyes of Rome.

And French humanist Sébastien Chateillon wrote: "To kill a man is not to protect a doctrine, but it is to kill a man." Servetus himself had said: "I consider it a serious matter to kill men because they are in error on some question of scriptural interpretation, when we know that even the elect ones may be led astray into error."

Again, I agree.

That said, in your opinion and since both sides have historically been guilty of bad behaviour ( the Roman Inquisitions many more times as severe and lengthy as what happened at Geneva ), what is the reason for laying the blame for reprehensible treatment squarely at the feet of anyone who seems to believe the Scriptures similarly to what John Calvin did?

The Roman Catholic Church, which has for over 1,500 years taught what closely resembles modern day "Arminianism" with its doctrine of salvation codified by de Molina, burned thousands at the stake and tortured, maimed and killed many thousands more.


I see history relating bad behavior on both sides, and that ought not be so for either side.