Featured Must we be calvinists?

Must we use the term Calvinist? Yes, because it is an effective way to communicate a theological position in shorthand.

1. Yes, this person should admit to bring a Calvinist, and yes, if he doesn't he is being deceitful.

2. Yes, this person is a Calvinist.

3. Whether or not this person is a Calvinist is unknown with only this tidbit of information.

4. Yes, this person is a Calvinist.

 

The whole problem here are the loaded words "Calvinist" and "Calvinism". For years I was fed the untruths that to be a Calvinist one must be anti-evangelism and anti-missions. I was taught that all Calvinists baptized babies and believed in a board of elders.

Then as I investigated the claims for myself, I found none of those things to be true.

Too many people have placed their stock in caricatures of Calvinism and run screaming in horror when someone says they are one. (The same could be said if you insert the word "Arminianism" in the previous sentence.)

 

Any reasonable Christian on this board or anywhere else has got to be on their last nerve of the continuing third grade temper tantrum between Calvinists and Arminians. There is nothing positive or edifying in any of the threads. Personally, I am sick to the point of throwing up at seminary graduates and other theological genuises declaring their side of the debate as inspired. None of you, either side, has a clue as to the inner mind of the Lord. You cherry pick verses to support your theories. Nothing is accomplished, nothing is learned.

I would urge the Baptist Board Administrators to ban any discussion of the subject, until supposed leaders of the Christian church grow up.

Realizing part of the problem is the life Calvin lead, and we have had threads ad nauseum over this subject, does not mean that those that choose to believe in God's sovereignty are murderers or thugs. It does not mean that those who believe in God's sovereignty agree with infant baptism, or a theocracy. It is a tragedy that such a man was given the name of the doctrine, but that is the way it is. No one on this board is going to change that.

It is quite obvious that both sides are not interested in learning or debating, as things like Calvins name or insults from the other side are being attached to the individual posters. Names like heretic, heresy, false doctrine, supporters of false doctrine are thrown around like baseballs.

The only purpose of these endless threads could be nothing but pure meanness and evil. From the outside, it appears the posts are made by, as said above, third graders that are not being monitered by their parents. Just the type of people we need leading local New Testement churches.

 

Excellent post!:applause:

 

Calvinism must be hidden in double meanings.

1) To attack Calvinism by disparaging John Calvin is without merit. Calvinism cannot be defended scripturally, no matter how many false claims to the contrary are posted.

2) Yes any Pastor who hides his understanding of scripture from those he is pastoring is a hypocrite.

3) The issue is not whether it is acceptable to Arminians, but to God, as to avoiding full disclosure of one's core beliefs.

4)

This is a typical evasion of truth. What Calvinism teaches is that Ephesians 1:4 says God chose individuals for salvation before creation. Not what it says, simply an assumption that requires nullification of all the verses that say God chooses individuals for salvation through faith in the truth.

5) What does it mean to repent and believe in Christ? You mean no one can unless compelled by irresistible grace. So again and again, Calvinism is presented in half truths, sounding like scripture by meaning what scripture denies.

 

Hatred

These continuing post border on out right hatred, remember brothern:
Pro 10:12    Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

To answer the OP's question:

It depends. Did you choose or were you foreordained to be a Calvinist..... :laugh: :love2: :tongue3:

 

And this coming from someone who has an eighth grade diploma hanging on the wall over their bed.

BTW, I agree with this most excellence post! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

I agree completely with your post. I actually think some good could come from discussing Calvinism and Arminianism, if it could be kept objective, calm, mature, and non-accusatory. I have questions I'd like to ask, but I am reluctant to after reading some of the threads here.

Besides that, I have also decided that I will not respond anymore to people who are belligerent and have a chip on their shoulder. People like this are already headed for being taught some manners someday, and it won't be pleasant for them.

I'll read this thread for a while, and if it is mostly civil and informative, I might ask my questions.

Thank you for your post. You seem like one of the sensible members here.

 

Thanks for a very good post. I agree.

It is way past time to stop arguing about theological positions and to be more concerned about what kind of people we are, how we view others, how we treat others. It is out actions that show our faith.

Jesus, as far as I can determine, was much more interested in how people viewed, loved and treated other people. He did not ask the rich young ruler, the woman at the well, the woman taken in adultery, Zacchaeus , ... etc. what they believed. He did not teach theology in an abstract sense. Rather he was concerned, as I said above, how they viewed, loved and treated each other.

I see nothing no questions about belief in the judgment scene in Matthew. Rather I see questions on how we treated each other.

Time we dwelt on how we show our love and adherence to Christ's teachings by how we treat one another.

Remember the admonition to treat others are we want to be treated. This golden rule does not say "believe correctly and beat others into submission to my pet beliefs.

Blessings to all.

 

1 Corinthians 3:1-4 (HCSB)
1 Brothers, I was not able to speak to you as spiritual people but as people of the flesh, as babies in Christ.
2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food, because you were not yet ready for it. In fact, you are still not ready,
3 because you are still fleshly. For since there is envy and strife among you, are you not fleshly and living like unbelievers?
4 For whenever someone says, “I’m with Paul,” and another, “I’m with Apollos,” are you not ⌊unspiritual⌋ people?

I don't mind seeing debate on this subject on a scholarly level, but most it seems that the debate has been reduced to the one Paul had to deal with:
Substitute Calvin and Arminius for Paul and Apollos.

 

I do not call myself a Calvinist. As a matter of fact, I have read very little of what John Calvin wrote.

I prefer to say that I believe in the "Doctrines of Grace".

I do think that linking our doctrine to a man's name is a bad idea- all of the baggage and none of the benefits.

 

So you would throw out the teaching of good doctrine and replace it with ... what, exactly???