Summarizing the Mistakes of Calvinism

[Alive in Christ]

Great descriptor AIC.

Well, thank you very much! :thumbs:

 

[Alive in Christ]

Iconoclast..

Maybe he read your post about the light going to everyone everywhere.

If he read that, I hope he was edified by that wonderfull, and scriptural, truth.

Its right there in Johns gospel.

 

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast..



If he read that, I hope he was edified by that wonderfull, and scriptural, truth.

Its right there in Johns gospel.

:laugh::laugh::laugh: You slay me AIC!

 

[Benjamin]

Maybe he read your post about the light going to everyone everywhere???:laugh:

How sick that you would arrogantly laugh about the true light that lights every man that comes in the world as if another truth was discovered because of adherence to your prideful man made determinist’ philosophy! There's just not another way to say it except you present an absolutely sick distortion of the Gospel and a message from darkness! 1John 1:5

:laugh::laugh::laugh: You slay me AIC!

You slay yourself...

 

[Alive in Christ]

:laugh::laugh::laugh: You slay me AIC!

Have a great day, Iconoclast

 

[Skandelon]

You made a claim with nothing to back it up. Most likely relying on the "common knowledge" argument. I want to see the claims about what they say or argue substantiated.

You deny that some Cals use versus such as John 15:16, Rom. 9, Mark 4, Matt. 13, John 6, Eph 1 etc to support their soteriological views?

These 3 summary statements simply cover the major common areas of error in how they view those passages. What specifically do you need cleared up about that?

 

[glfredrick]

You deny that some Cals use versus such as John 15:16, Rom. 9, Mark 4, Matt. 13, John 6, Eph 1 etc to support their soteriological views?

These 3 summary statements simply cover the major common areas of error in how they view those passages. What specifically do you need cleared up about that?

Are you not "assuming" that there is a Calvinist error in interpretation based on nothing other than another interpretation -- and that not even mainstream in orthodox Christianity -- but rather a modern invention based on an alternative reading of Paul?

 

[preacher4truth]

Here is the premise: a Calvinist has misinterpreted a passage therefore Calvinism is a mistake. Utter fallacy, or what we call a logical fallacy.

I'll apply this same logical fallacy to non-calvinist theology: Just take a gander at the slough of misinterpretations both on the Baptist sections AND Other Denomination section of the BB. There is much more evidence of this here to support the same logical fallacy.

Let one Calvinist make the same conclusion with said evidence and see what takes place. :wavey:

Finally, none of the assumptive interpretations of the OP are founded, they are merely subjective reasonings, and misrepresentative.

 

[Skandelon]

Are you not "assuming" that there is a Calvinist error in interpretation based on nothing other than another interpretation

No, I explained the reasons I believe they make errors in their interpretations. I gave specifics...

-- and that not even mainstream in orthodox Christianity -- but rather a modern invention based on an alternative reading of Paul?

??? Not sure what you mean by this...my view is nothing unorthodox or modern.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Are you not "assuming" that there is a Calvinist error in interpretation based on nothing other than another interpretation -- and that not even mainstream in orthodox Christianity -- but rather a modern invention based on an alternative reading of Paul?

Oh Guy! Heaven forbid.......:laugh:

 

[glfredrick]

No, I explained the reasons I believe they make errors in their interpretations. I gave specifics...

??? Not sure what you mean by this...my view is nothing unorthodox or modern.

In multiple conversations with you on topics akin to this, you have taken all sorts of stances as you test and try new theological ideas on for size. Lately you have taken up a stance that reflects the New Perspective on Paul, in no way an orthodox stance, nor an historical one.

Your explanations beg your own questions... And the way you interpret the verses that support your conclusions are not orthodox. They stem from a liberal branch of Christianity that is a side note in history, not the mainstream teaching that has been ours as Christians for 2000 years of the church.

 

[Skandelon]

In multiple conversations with you on topics akin to this, you have taken all sorts of stances as you test and try new theological ideas on for size.

Prove it. Once again you make an unfounded accusation. I assure you that my views are older and more established than yours.

Lately you have taken up a stance that reflects the New Perspective on Paul, in no way an orthodox stance, nor an historical one.

Quote me and then make an actual argument. Just once...

Just because some author or other 'scholar' who is quoted here or who says some point which we have in common is agreed with doesn't constitute my 'stance.'

You've attempted to label and dismiss just about everyone with whom you disagree and I'm calling you out on it. Put up or hush up.

And the way you interpret the verses that support your conclusions are not orthodox. They stem from a liberal branch of Christianity that is a side note in history, not the mainstream teaching that has been ours as Christians for 2000 years of the church.

Prove it. Make an actual argument. Quote me and then provide sources which support these baseless claims. If you think my views are some new, modern view then you have only revealed your own lack of knowledge about such things.

 

[preacher4truth]

I also see an embracing of NPP, especially in the Federal Vision error and the Corporate Election fallacy.

Even WHEN you prove it, it will still be a merry go round.

 

[gb93433]

I also see an embracing of NPP, especially in the Federal Vision error and the Corporate Election fallacy.

Do you have proof of your statement?

 

[glfredrick]

What say you to the election of Paul? For Israel or Jews, or for individuals?

Your answer is your stance...

Here is a very (VERY) brief summary statement of the New Perspective on Paul. I find that it matches your arguments word for word, even if you do not realize it.

From Theopedia:

The Reformation perspective understands Paul to be arguing against a legalistic Jewish culture that seeks to earn their salvation through works. However, supporters of the NPP argue that Paul has been misread. They contend he was actually combating Jews who were boasting because they were God’s people, the “elect” or the “chosen ones.” Their “works,” so to speak, were done to show they were God’s covenant people and not to earn their salvation.

Where have I erred in understanding your perspective?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Prove it. Make an actual argument. Quote me and then provide sources which support these baseless claims. If you think my views are some new, modern view then you have only revealed your own lack of knowledge about such things.

Ha Ha Ha, you have just thrown down the glove of challange. Now the horse is outa da barn. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

Just so those who are reading along are aware. This so called "New Perspective on Paul" (NPP) is actually just an attempt on the part of some scholars to lift Paul's letters out of the Calvinistic/Reformed framework and interpret them based more on the original language/intent of the first-century Jewish understanding, taken on its own terms.

So, the only thing "NEW" about it is that its NEW to those stuck in a Reformed worldview, who typically only go as far back as Luther or maybe Augustine to gain contextual understanding.

 

[glfredrick]

Just so those who are reading along are aware. This so called "New Perspective on Paul" (NPP) is actually just an attempt on the part of some scholars to lift Paul's letters out of the Calvinistic/Reformed framework and interpret them based more on the original language/intent of the first-century Jewish understanding, taken on its own terms.

So, the only thing "NEW" about it is that its NEW to those stuck in a Reformed worldview, who typically only go as far back as Luther or maybe Augustine to gain contextual understanding.

Thanks for admitting that I am spot on.

And, then, you have the same problem you had the last time you challeneged me in this fashion -- as I recall, it was about Arminius -- and as I recall, I showed some level of evidence that Arminius was merely returning to Trent for his doctrines. Now, you go BEFORE the Reformers to discover a perspective on Paul. We have to ask who was BEFORE the Reformers with this perspective. Oh, I know... Catholiciscm.

Brother, you continue to dig your hole deeper and deeper, and that likely because you are under the influence of those whom you esteem as scholars, but who have their own issues with Scripture.

 

[Skandelon]

Where have I erred in understanding your perspective?

The part where you label it 'new.' I had to look up NPP. I'd never heard of it before you all brought it up. There is nothing NEW about it. It's OLDER, scholastically speaking, than the basis on which your system rests.

 

[Skandelon]

Now, you go BEFORE the Reformers to discover a perspective on Paul. We have to ask who was BEFORE the Reformers with this perspective. Oh, I know... Catholiciscm.

You have a very narrow view of Christian history brother.

How about instead of playing the label and dismiss game you actually deal with the scripture and their ACTUAL historical context, rather than the context of your narrow reformed worldview? You may learn a new perspective.