Must all true fandamentalisls be Non-Calvinistic? Yes

Good post Van.

And, I didn't have to have 3 Masters Degrees, a Doctorate, and a library full of books on Calvinism to understand what you said.

It's ok to have those credentials, I wish I had them. But it doesn't take them to understand the basic doctrine of salvation of the Bible.

Many Bible scholars have used their vast research to "prove" atheism.

Many Bible scholars have used their vast research to "prove" that God created some people gay, and that God even sanctions gay relationships.

And also, many Bible scholars have used their vast research to "prove" that God created some men to be saved, but for most to go to Hell, without even the oppurtunity for salvation.

It's not the education I loathe, I wish I had more, it is the perversion of the education to the point that scripture, Holy Scripture, given to us by our Lord and Savior, is used to promote ungodly doctrines.

John

 

You do realise that we take our understanding of these doctrines of Grace directly from the Apostles, especially Paul, and from Christ himself, right?

Fundementalists were known to be people of the Bible, who refused higher scholarship/education/learning...

Guess we should stay Evagelicals, as I am, to get into that extra learning and studying, Eh?

 

First of all, the verb is tasso. The word used in Acts 13:48 is tetagmenoi which is the Nominative Masculine Plural Perfect Passive Participle of tasso. It can only be Passive and not Middle because of the verb esan, 'were' in front of it. Because it is in the Perfect Tense, it means something that has been done once and for all. It fits perfectly with 2Thes 2:13 where the same concept is stated in different language.

In Thayer's Lexicon, the meaning of tasso is to 'arrange,' 'assign a place,' 'appoint.' See Rom 13:1 where the word is also used.

This is what J. A, Alexander says in his commentary: "The violent attempts which have been made to eliminate the doctrine of election or predestination from this verse, by rendering the last verb [tasso], 'disposed,' 'arrayed,' etc., or by violent constructions such as that adopted by Socinius ('as many as believed were appointed to eternal life'!) can never change the simple fact , that whenever this verb occurs elsewhere, it invariably expresses the exertion of power or authority, divine or human, and being in the passive voice, cannot denote mere disposition, much less self-determination.'

I don't set myself up as any great expert on Greek, though I do have some education in it. I am prepared to accept correction, but only by someone who actually knows the language.

Steve

 

Oh this is laughable.....Ive seen Fundi pastors nullify scripture over & over when it doesnt fit their agendas & purposes:laugh:

 

Ad hominem my butt.....Im telling you the absolute truth......deal with that instead of cowering in a corner & answer like a man......(now if I added "you weanie" then that would be ad hominem) LOL!

 

Nothing of the word tasso (not tassio as Van supplies erroneously) means mutual. This is not in the definition nor is it it in the tenses or moods. Any person not looking into this would believe Van. Frankly, his teaching here is false and he added this meaning and term himself. It's just not there.

"Gleamed from grammar?" Say what?

This (tasso) is in the passive voice, which means the subject (man) is the recipient of the action, and which action is from God Himself alone, who chose them, and ordained them to eternal life.

More error from Van, but nice try. Well, not really, this is blatantly false and is not supported by the passage, but is a non-cal lensed interpretation, and is unfortunately eisegetical (adding meaning to the text).

 

When this error is promoted non-stop...and every verse gets misunderstood
by the same 5-6 people...what are we to conclude?????
Do you think they are trying to joke????

 

BTW, the title of the thread is a misnomer in itself.

Many well meaning fundamentalists are non-cal, but are simply misinformed, I was one of them, and some Cals are and remain fundamentalists.

One does not have to be a "non-cal" to be a fundamentalist. The OP intends to imply this false notion, and attempts to say that Cals cannot be fundamentalists in belief. This is total error and false.

One more thing, many fly the flag of being "a fundamentalist" and remain clueless to its true meaning. It has nothing to do with whether one is non-cal, or cal, but has everything to do with whether the Scriptures are the sole authority. I as a "Calvinist" hold that the Scriptures are true, and I stand against the attacks of higher criticism and liberal theology.

I am amazed (again) at the many blatantly false and haphazardly written threads which take aim in their sole objective to attack Calvinists. These types of threads clearly show the authors thereof are discombobulated to what they are saying in the first place. They start off on a false premise, with misinterpreted passages, eisegetical misinterpretations, deficient understandings of tenses and moods, and added meanings to words, in this case van adds "mutual," a meaning that is not there, and for non-cals to "win" it MUST be there. For the sake of truth, it is not there.

Plainly I can see why van added this meaning. It is a poor attempt to make Scriptures say something that he wants and begs for Scriptures to say. Well, guess what, the Scriptures do not say what van wants them to say.

:thumbsup:

 

Unfortunately they are not joking. I pray the 5 or 6 look into this and see the error.

Nothing van said is true, except that this is passive, after that it is all error and added meanings that are just not there.

Any person that doesn't look into it would be fooled and believe what he has said.

 

You know, I didn't even read Van's original post. Now that there's up to 2 pages on it, I decided to give it a look.

Van, I gotta say: You've injected a meaning into Acts 13:48. Forget the fact that folks are arguing the greek word involved; you went further and added "by Paul." This is a gross error, dude. It totally changes the context of the verse; since the context of the sentence is talking about eternal life, you've now made it appear that they were ordained by Paul unto eternal life.

Seriously, you should just petition a moderator to close this thread.

BTW: I'm not a calvinist.

 

Is this some sort of strange joke? How could Paul appoint people to eternal life? It would be a nice trick if he could do it, but I rather think it's God's job.

In th O.P. Van wrote:-

Well, I refered to Rom 13:1. 'The powers that be are ordained by God.' I don't see that God requires anybody's consent for His appointments. The other instances of tasso in the Passive Voice in the N.T. are Luke 7:8; Acts 22:10. Again, I don't see that mutual consent is implied in either of these texts. In his lexicon, Thayer references quotations from Plato and Xenophon, and these likewise do not indicate mutual consent.

Let's remind ourselves what the verse actually says: 'And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.' The Calvinist takes the verse to mean exactly what it says. It is only God who can appoint anybody to eternal life. If Van thinks he can do it, then let him tell us how. As I suggested, we should compare Scripture with Scripture and we will see that Eph 1:4-6; 2Thes 2:13 etc. support the clear meaning of the text.

Steve

 

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are mistaken, not lying.

I believe it is very easy to see that in fact, the doctrine of Calvinism did not come from the bible, but from a perversion of what the scripture actually teaches.

Calvinism doesn't look back to the Word of God, but rather to the ideas of well-meaning, but deluded men who took their clue form heretics like Augustine.

Today we see arrogant men who laud their education and ability to parrot the same errors as Calvin, rather than looking to the simple teachings of Christ.

Any so-called biblical teaching that can't even get John 3:16 right certainly isn't based on the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Please provide some proof and points that he is mistaken, or this just remains a meaningless charge with no basis.

Please provide documentation that Calvins teachings did not come from the Bible, and provide Calvins points with Scriptures he uses (which you say he didn't use, but then that he did) wherein he perverts Scripture or this is another baseless accusation.

Prove this statement also, or it remains meaningless banter.

Is the name calling necesarry? Who in particular are you referring to that 1) Is arrogant; 2) Lauds his education; 3) Parrots Calvin; 4) Doesn't look to "simple" teachings of Christ.

By the way, Christs teachings are not simple. Persons who think this way are really making a statement about themselves, not Christ. As any student knows, the more one learns, the less one knows seemingly, and the more questions he or she will have.

Any person claiming His teachings "simple" is completely mistaken. Most who believe the Bible "simple" get hot under the collar when questioned, and turn to the "All I need is my Bible!" fallacy. These are proof-texters and so were many cultic leaders such as Jim Jones and David Koresh. I totally lose respect for any person who holds to the Bible is simple error. Please elaborate here as I will give you as a brother the benefit of doubt.

Provide a specific example and proof of this, or this too is a baseless accusation.

Thanks Robert.

 

This is the thing.

These guys don't realize that intelligent ARMINIANS would not agree with these silly remarks.

It is pointless to try to help them because they think GOD shows them truth from the Bible.

They don't understand ANYTHING about hermeneutics- and they don't care. GOD speaks to them. GOD shows them what the Bible is saying.

Who needs stupid Greek?
Who needs the stupid church that has never in her history made or supported such statements? Not these guys for sure.

That's why your goal cannot be to win them or persuade them. You will stay in a constant state of frustration.

The right goal- the noble goal is this: resist them. Confront them. Obliterate their absurd arguments for all to see.

Do this because it is right. It is right to reprove the unfruitful works of darkness. It is right to cast down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. It is right to earnestly contend for the Faith.

But don't do it for their sakes. Do it for nobler motives.

 

I could not agree more.

I wish that meant you were going to retire from infecting the world with your new doctrines you came up with all by yourself.

Because you certainly don't know the first thing about John 3:16.

 

You keep asking for us to prove that Calvinism is wrong. How can anyone prove a negative. I'ts like saying "I don't like brocolli". Ok, I really don't like brocolli, but i HAVE NO WAY TO PROVE IT TO YOU BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE THAT i DO LIKE BROCOLLI IS NOT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The evidence for Calvinisim is not there either. So, if there is no evidence, how can I prove it is false. It doesn't exist except in the minds of Calvinists. It is certainly not in the Bible. The only evidence you have produced is based on misrepresentation of scripture by changing the meanings of words like "foreordained", "foreknowledge", "predestined", "predestinate", "elect", "election", ect.

God did predestinate the coming of Christ and the establishment of the Church. The members of the Church are God's elect. God does have foreknowledge of the choice we will make before we are born, but He still gave us the freewill to make that choice.

These are truths i can prove, there is no way I can prove an untruth.

If you want to debate scripture, and scripture alone, I will gladly debate you. But if you expect me to debate theology based on the writings and teachings of dead 16th century scholars, I will not. I will only debate theology that is found in the Bible.

Calvinisim is not found there.

John

 

Great points. My frustration level with "them" remains at zero. What is going on here is simple Christianity, and I don't say that as a compliment.

Specifically in context to this is the fact of baseless accusations and arguments from Mr. Snow.

However, this is an example of why the world mocks Christianity as too simplistic. Even the natural man in his state has an inner desire for complexity, and for deepness of subject matter and for much more than superficiality. This then is the void that only God Himself can fill, as He Himself is complex in nature, in attributes He is beyond comprehension. This is why the lost world gives the blank stare to the God of "simple" Christianity.

Though it is true that initially the Gospel seems "simple" this is soley for the fact that Gods Himself enables us to believe and regenerates us, and enlightens our darkened hearts to truth. It was nothing in us at all. After this, true students stand in awe of the depth of the Scriptures, feeling as after years of study they haven't accomplished much and desire for more.

- Peace

 

I asked for you all to name the points of Calvinism and prove they are wrong. Your post here is a fruitless effort, and all I see is one scurrying away from any ability to provide substance to a baseless attack.

Slow down and you'll see my requests are reachable, tangible goals, OK. I mean, what you'll actually have to do is get some real documented teachings, and then soundly refute them with Scripture, which will involve some time and leave off any boorish vapid illustrations from your own mind about broccoli.

What I am saying here is that factually if this were a live debate, you've given no solid proof, nor have your cohorts, and by the very nature of your responses you show that you are scurrying away, and have subsequently lost before you began.