Misconceptions

Drew, nice...

If you know that much about Calvinism.. why didn't you know what a Semi-pelagian was? It's o.k. you'll find out well enough.. Or go to an OUTSTANDING website "monergism.com" You'll be like a kid in a candy store there...

 

Hey rc, where did you get that Calvinist insigna in your profile? Looks like that would make a cool T Shirt!

 

Hi Drew;
I agree Calvinism has waverd hasn't it.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
Mike

 

Mike,

How is that an agreement with Drew? Where did he say that Calvinism has wavered?

 

Hi Pastor Larry;
Are there not Hyper Calvinist who take things to the extreme.
Do you agree with everything Drew has posted as to what Calvinism really is?. If so then why don't all Calvinist believe the same thing?. I've found from reading these post from many different Calvinist right here that not many Calvinist actually follow there mentors
Theories.

If Calvinism doesn't say all these things then most of the Calvinist here have wavered from the Original intentions of Calvinism.

You asked;

He doesn't say that anyone wavered but his description of the misconceptions is the result of wavering.
In context of this sentence Drew states;

Who is misconceiving Calvinist, or Non Calvinst.
This misconception as drew states is not a misunderstanding but, a wavering in the Calvinist doctrines. We have one Calvinist that says one thing about a given doctrine and another that says it is different.
This one statement for example;

We have Calvinist here who believe some are predestined to destruction. So how could destruction be to his benefit? I'll bet the one going to destruction would disagree that this is to his benefit.
Drew on the other hand seems to be more reasonable than most I have met here.
I believe that even you disagree with this statement.

You might say well man will choose according to his nature. and by that statement you have taken the free out of will. because you have denied him the right to choose something other than his nature. If nature were in control.
But here in this next statement we have a contradiction of free will;

This in it self is a waver in what Drew believes.
Either we have the ability to choose good and evil or not. And yes we do have that ability before Salvation. Scripture says we can choose good over evil.
Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Eze 33:12 Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth.

When you get down to it. Misconception is not what it is, but a wavering of Calvinism.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
Mike :

 

"Either we have the ability to choose good and evil or not. And yes we do have that ability before Salvation. Scripture says we can choose good over evil." And then Mike quoted Eze 33:11-12 as proof.

But Scripture also says -

(Rom 3:10 KJV) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

(Rom 3:11 KJV) There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

(Rom 3:12 KJV) They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Now if the Unsaved could choose good over evil why does Paul say Not One of them did?

 

Mike,

When you say you agree with someone, it means you agree. It doesn't mean you get to take their words and invest your own meaning. You may be right, but you do not agree with him. Please refrain from that approach to debate.

As for the points Drew made, yes, he seems to be right, at least at a surface glance. Those things are not departures from the "intentions of Calvinism." You have routinely revealed that you do not know much about Calvinism and are unwilling to learn. I will make just a few comments.

Sure, and that is usually what you are addressing, not actual Calvinism.

As a general rule they do. But like arminians, they see some things differently.

Really?? And what were the "original intentions" of Calvinism? Please enlighten us.

Then you appear to have lied. You said you agreed with him; you didn't, and now you admit it. Please refrain from that. If you agree, then agree. But don't say you agree and then contradict him.

You for one. Typically non-calvinists have misconceptions. We have shown that many times. That doesn't mean that Calvinism wavers. It means that you have no idea what you are talking about. We have clearly demonstrated that.

We have Calvinist here who believe some are predestined to destruction. So how could destruction be to his benefit? I'll bet the one going to destruction would disagree that this is to his benefit.</font>[/QUOTE]The grace of God works even for those who are predestined to destruction, no matter what that means. The grace of God causes it to rain on the just and unjust alike. You appear not to understand the grace of God. The grace of God is what gives life and breath and all things to men (Acts 17).

With what statement?

No, you don't understand what "free will" means. God does not have free will by your definition. Do you really want to go there?

Yes, man can choose that, but his sin nature has made it impossible for him to do such. Again, you simply show that you don't know what you are talking about and are not listening to learn.

As I have often said, you don't have to agree with us, but at least try to learn what we actually believe.

Then you don't agree with Drew, and you first post was untrue.

[ January 21, 2005, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

See here in lies the problem in my earthly mind . . . there are misconceptions on both sides of the issue. As a person that has been taught one way most all of his life, I have now come to understand the arguments of the other side of the fence. And the problem is there are misconceptions on both parts.

Not only are there misconceptions on both parts, but there are extremists on both sides of the fence. And from what I've gathered the posts have been trying to deal with the extremists from both sides.

The debate needs to come to the middle where I actually see common ground in a hope that there in the middle is where the answer to both sides can be found. But instead all we get is an "I'm right and you're wrong attitude."

Come let us reason together in the middle. Let us all come to the table with the possibility that we might be wrong instead of I'm right and there's no other way. When we empty ourselves and let God fill in . . . that is where we find learning.

God's Word was given to us so that we could understand things about Him, but when we convince ourselves that we have it all together and we have it all figured out - that's when we have to be careful. God is God and we are merely men.

 

Left out one thing, does not say there is a test for election (being elect or "saved") except good works.

 

Hi Larry;
You keep insisting I lied, but just because you insist it doesn't make it so. I explained my words to you. I made a statement that is true and I will not change my mind about it. I'm sorry that you're so upset about it that you feel you have to take me down a knoch. If I've broken some unseen rule that I desever to scolded by you please point it out. There have been countless times where Calvinist have made like statements about what I believe as well.
May Christ shine His light On Us all;
Mike

 

Hi Drew;

I posted the entire paragraph I didn't take it out of context. You said, what you said. You didn't say that this is mans prefall condition.
Mans condition did not change to total depravity.
It is not supported by Romans 3, because Calvinist take this out of context to support there view. What is quoted by Paul, there is what a sinner or fool says in his heart, nothing more. If Paul had quoted the whole of what david wrote then everyone would know that this is what the sinner thinks not what is fact. It says man doesn't seek God but Josiah did at 8 years old and the Bible says he did.
2Ch 34:3 For in the eighth year of his reign, while he was yet young, he began to seek after the God of David his father: and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, and the groves, and the carved images, and the molten images.
Now I know your going to try and say this isn't what is said here but you only kidding your self. If you'd like more proof that man seeks God just let me know.

If this is so you should be able to back it up with scripture.
May Christ shine His light On Us all;
Mike

 

Kept insisting? I didn't insist at all. I made one statement that said Then you appear to have lied. You said you agreed with him; you didn't, and now you admit it. And one statement that said, Then you don't agree with Drew, and you first post was untrue. That hardly qualifies for either "keep" or "insisting." I made a statement of fact and backed it up with evidence. The truth is that you did not agree with Drew. You should not have said you did.

If you agreed with Drew, then you would be a Calvinist and argue that people have misconceptions about it. You do neither. That means your statement was not true.

I am not upset and I don't feel like anything. You made a false statement and I pointed it out, after asking you first to give you the benefit of the doubt.

The rule is not unseen. Ephesians 4 says to speak truth to your neighbor. You didn't do that. However, I didn't scold you. I merely pointed out a factual error in your post.

When did a Calvinist ever say he agreed with you and did so while misrepresenting the intent of your post? If you can point out a time, I will gladly take a look at it. I really don't care whether you are a calvinist or not. But when you say you agree with someone, that means you agree with them. It does not mean you differ with them. You do not agree with Drew and you should not have said so.

 

Hi JJump;
I'm a fellow Texan my self. Wish I was back home in Dallas right now.
I don't know if you're Calvinist or Arminian but the argument has gone on for over 400 years someday we'll all know all the answers for sure. However for me they aren't any where close to the middle. I'm sure that most Calvinist will say the same.
Calvinist all want to place you in some category but as far as I'm concerned I'm just a follower of Christ trying to show some light.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
Mike

 

Hi Drew;

This is a complete thought according to the English we speak in this country. A sentence is a complete thought. A pararaph is a grouping of complete thoughts of the same subject. I posted the entire paragaraph which should have been the entire subject.
Even if you lumped both paragraphs together you would still be contradicting your self.

You made two seperate statements then you accuse me of taking it out of context. The mistake was your's and I didn't see it because you typed it as two seperate subjects. I read the entire post and then went back to look for what you said so I could coment on it. The fact that you made two paragraphs out one that you intended isn't my doing. If it is out of Context then you are the one who didn't place it in context properly.

I understand that Calvinism isn't the truth and have proved it yet Calvinist are so blind they refuse to acknowledge it. Regardless of Larry's oppinion of me it is only his oppinion. I'm not in agreement with his oppinion. This is a debate forum what we do here is argue the issues of doctrine. I have as much right to my oppinion as anyone.

Don't misunderstand Larry's intent. He may be Calvinist but he is still suppose to be impartial as a moderator.

All these scriptures prove is that man is a sinner. There nothing about being totally depraved. This is why these two words do not appear in scripture together. THERE IS NO SUCH THING.
Not one of these scripture says anything about taking the free out of will. Are you sure you're not just imagining they back you up. To be free from sin has nothing to do with the will. Natural man as Calvinist call him. Can't stop sinning on his own. Seemingly neither can the saved man. But of course maybe you don't sin any more, but just in case you do. Why do you? Are you still a slave to it? If man is a sinner that can't choose good over evil then why did God plead with the Jews to turn from there sin.
Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
If God makes men turn to him as Calvinist suggest with there ideas of predestination and election then why plead with someone who can't turn any way?

May Christ Shine his Light On Us all;
Mike

 

Hello Drew. Nice to meet you.

I wonder why you chose the 1689 LBCF to support Calvinism especially the free will article.
Since Calvinism is scriptural then you must admit that Calvin and company must have made mistakes because scripture tells us we are always falling short. You say that hyper-Calvinists never recognise themselves as such but this is just a sweeping generalised statement meant to disparage? Hyper-Calvinism is essential and healthy and can be forward looking. It is a continuation of the work of the reformers and should be encouraged otherwise we really do follow man. Stuck with their beliefs, afraid to take a step in case we are labeled hyper.
I would suggest that Calvinists refrain from using the word hyper in favour of saying of such that 'they go beyond scripture' when a person has gone beyond scripture. Not all hyper-Calvinists go beyond scripture.

I don't know now if this is the right place to discuss this now. I was going to write this last night but was too tied. Let me know if it is the wrong place and I will desist.
The above article on free will is scripturally wrong. The scriptural proofs used do not give proofs at all that we are able to do spiritual good. We are, after all, mere sinners and incapable of good.
Col 1:13 just tells us of our rescue from darkness. It does not say we can do but we can see. John 8:36 says that we are free, not free to do but free from the consequences of sin and free because we can see and we believe Jesus died for our sins. Philipians 2:13 tells us that any good work that comes from us is in fact God that does not man and the Romans passages are all about the inability of Christians to do.
I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
RO 7:21 So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. Romans 7:15-25.

Does that make me a hyper-Calvinist? That I believe we are still incapbable of good but that we have begun to overcome. That we are still sinners where every action would result in condemnation if it were not for the fact that Christ died for us?

Whatcha think?

johnp.