Monergistic ETERNAL Salvation

[SavedByGrace]

Actually, all of the State Churches supported that murder ... even the RCC tried to execute him.
(I am not condoning murder, I am just pointing out that it wasn't a personal vendetta by Calvin against Servetus.)

No Christian, especially Bible-believers and leaders, should in any circumstances support murder in an form. He and the others who were true believers could have rejected this, as I am sure that you and I would do if faced with the same

 

[atpollard]

This flower was the choice of The Synod of Dort, who where reformed

The Lutheran State Church gave the name "Calvinists" to those that called themselves "Reformed/Reformers", so the Lutherans are responsible for "TULIP" being called "Calvinism". The Lutherans did it for the same reason most anti-Calvinists use the term "Calvinist" today ... to slander the theology by implying that it is the teaching of a man rather than the teaching if scripture.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The Lutheran State Church gave the name "Calvinists" to those that called themselves "Reformed/Reformers", so the Lutherans are responsible for "TULIP" being called "Calvinism". The Lutherans did it for the same reason most anti-Calvinists use the term "Calvinist" today ... to slander the theology by implying that it is the teaching of a man rather than the teaching if scripture.

the Lutherans were themselves "Reformed", from Martin Luther

 

[DaveXR650]

and some of their dodgy teachings!

Baptist's are harmless but sometimes dogmatic. I went out "soul winning" with my fundamentalist pastor in the late 70's. We were driving down the road and he found out I was carrying a New Scofield, KJV Bible. We had to swing by my house and pick up my Old Scofield before we could go on. I'm not making this up!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Baptist's are harmless but sometimes dogmatic. I went out "soul winning" with my fundamentalist pastor in the late 70's. We were driving down the road and he found out I was carrying a New Scofield, KJV Bible. We had to swing by my house and pick up my Old Scofield before we could go on. I'm not making this up!

it is like a friend on mine, who is a very strong Five Point Calvinist. He said that he once had to apologise to the Lord during his prayer, because he said YOU, instead of THOU!

 

[atpollard]

No Christian, especially Bible-believers and leaders, should in any circumstances support murder in an form. He and the others who were true believers could have rejected this, as I am sure that you and I would do if faced with the same

There is a technical term for applying the morality of one time and place to all cultures. I don't remember what it is at this moment. However, your argument implies that there were NO CHRISTIANS in any church leadership throughout Europe in the entire 16th Century because executing heretics was how society functioned. That is a flawed conclusion.

From their perspective, they were responsible Elders defending those God had placed in their care from heretical teachers that threatened to lead the sheep away from God and into eternal damnation through their lies. What would YOU do to protect those that God had commanded you to protect from eternal damnation?

In occupied France, I would have been willing to join the resistance and kill Nazi's with IEDs ... if I should be called to answer to Jesus for my "non-pacifist" actions, then so be it. Let God judge my heart.

So, no, "I" would probably not have supported burning heretics ... but neither would I have been willing to stand in judgement of those that did. Let them answer to God for their hearts.

 

[SavedByGrace]

There is a technical term for applying the morality of one time and place to all cultures. I don't remember what it is at this moment. However, your argument implies that there were NO CHRISTIANS in any church leadership throughout Europe in the entire 16th Century because executing heretics was how society functioned. That is a flawed conclusion.

From their perspective, they were responsible Elders defending those God had placed in their care from heretical teachers that threatened to lead the sheep away from God and into eternal damnation through their lies. What would YOU do to protect those that God had commanded you to protect from eternal damnation?

In occupied France, I would have been willing to join the resistance and kill Nazi's with IEDs ... if I should be called to answer to Jesus for my "non-pacifist" actions, then so be it. Let God judge my heart.

So, no, "I" would probably not have supported burning heretics ... but neither would I have been willing to stand in judgement of those that did. Let them answer to God for their hearts.

I am saying that no Christians should support murder in any form. Not that they are not Christians who do so

 

[atpollard]

the Lutherans were themselves "Reformed", from Martin Luther

I guess the Lutherans were "reformed enough" and these new kids were "too reformed" (They even wanted to deny the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity of Mary) .

 

[SavedByGrace]

I guess the Lutherans were "reformed enough" and these new kids were "too reformed" (They even wanted to deny the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity of Mary) .

Did not Luther himself believe in the Eucharist?

 

[timdabap]

5 pages of Calvinist denial of the monergism of scripture. But the drum beats on...

monergism of scripture ?

 

[Van]

monergism of scripture ?

Yes. Your OP indicated you knew what scripture says. However your question suggests you are clueless. I have provided the biblical case for scriptural monergism, which also demonstrates the Calvinist view is unbiblical.

1) The claim conditional election is not monergistic is unbiblical.
2) The claim election for salvation on the basis of credited faith is a works based salvation is unbiblical.

Shall go on?

 

[timdabap]

Yes. Your OP indicated you knew what scripture says. However your question suggests you are clueless. I have provided the biblical case for scriptural monergism, which also demonstrates the Calvinist view is unbiblical.

1) The claim conditional election is not monergistic is unbiblical.
2) The claim election for salvation on the basis of credited faith is a works based salvation is unbiblical.

Shall go on?

No, You don't have to.
I was not interested in ANYTHING you had to say ten years ago, when I quit coming to the board.
I am STILL NOT INTERESTED in your opinions, or anything you claim Scripture says.

 

[Van]

Yes, do.
Because I never stated any of the two items you enumerated.

As if I said you had understanding! LOL

Calvinisms monergism is false doctrine, totally unbiblical. Salvation based on God crediting our faith as righteousness is not a works based salvation. This claim by Calvinism demonstrates a rather profound ignorance of scripture. Does salvation "depend" on the man that wills or takes action? Nope. Salvation depends on God alone.

 

[Van]

No, You don't have to.
I was not interested in ANYTHING you had to say ten years ago, when I quit coming to the board.
I am STILL NOT INTERESTED in your opinions, or anything you claim Scripture says.

Folks, personal incredulity is a logically fallacious mode of argument.

I have provided the biblical case for scriptural monergism, which also demonstrates the Calvinist view is unbiblical.

1) The claim conditional election is not monergistic is unbiblical.
2) The claim election for salvation on the basis of credited faith is a works based salvation is unbiblical.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 7 am EDT / 4 am PST

 

[atpollard]

Folks, personal incredulity is a logically fallacious mode of argument.
I have provided the biblical case for scriptural monergism, which also demonstrates the Calvinist view is unbiblical.

1) The claim conditional election is not monergistic is unbiblical.

To claim "conditional election" is to deny scriptural truth:

• Romans 9:11 for though [the twins] were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to [His] choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, ...
  
• Romans 9:15 For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOMEVER I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL SHOW COMPASSION TO WHOMEVER I SHOW COMPASSION."
  
• Romans 9:16 So then, [it does] not [depend] on the [person] who wants [it] nor the one who runs, but on God who has mercy. ...
  
• Romans 9:18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. ...
  
• Romans 9:21 Or does the potter not have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one object for honorable use, and another for common use?
  
• Romans 9:22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with great patience objects of wrath prepared for destruction?

2) The claim election for salvation on the basis of credited faith is a works based salvation is unbiblical.

The claim "election for salvation on the basis of credited faith" is not found in scripture, so works or not works is irrelevant since it is a man made fiction.

• However, it is grounds for boasting as it makes the "gift" of grace into a "wage" earned by the merit of belief ... and THAT IS unbiblical.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 7 am EDT / 4 am PST

This thread is closed