The two major shortcomings of Calvinism

[saturneptune]

Yeah,that invalidates my post. How many of yours would thus be invalidated?

Post reported........................

 

[saturneptune]

Yeah,that invalidates my post. How many of yours would thus be invalidated?

Post reported......................

 

[Rippon]

Post reported......................

Take a chill pill guy!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Take a chill pill guy!

James Taylor's song, "You've got a Friend" is playing in my head right now. :laugh:

 

[Rippon]

James Taylor's song, "You've got a Friend" is playing in my head right now. :laugh:

Post reported.


Just kidding. It's getting pretty weird.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

If you would take the time to read carefully you would have no need to dig the hole you're in.

The only hole around here is the one Calvinists dig for themselves daily.

I said that we can explain many things that Scripture reveals. I also said to drop the adverb "fully" though.

That doesn't change the fact that Calvinists readily claim to know the mind of God in adhering to the strictest of TULIP principles even in the fact of Scriptural evidence to the contrary. And you asked in the post prior to this, "What Calvinist claims this?" The answer is "all of them on this board" at the very least.

Of course we can explain the things of God --not in an exhaustive manner of course. As I said we are finite --God is infinite. But surely we can explain; expound the Bible. Paul preached the full counsel of the Word of God, as the KJV renders it. A sermon explains the Scripture. Ideally a biblical message will be expository --seeking to explain. Get it?

But that's not what you said in the previous post, and it certainly isn't what is stated on this board daily. Get it?

 

[Rippon]

Calvinists readily claim to know the mind of God in adhering to the strictest of TULIP principles

You have a fixation with TULIP. I have explained over and over to you that that does not define Calvinism. Yet you keep repeating the same old song and dance. You have not really absorbed much of anything that Dr. Richard Muller has said about Calvinism.

And you asked in the post prior to this, "What Calvinist claims this?" The answer is "all of them on this board" at the very least.

Major in hyperbole much? Do speak specifics as to what Calvinists on the board say --don't go down the sad route you're taking.

But that's not what you said in the previous post, and it certainly isn't what is stated on this board daily.

I did say basically the same thing the first go-round with you. But because of your hard-headed attitude I had to flesh it out for you --to explain. Get it? We explain Scripture --not in a perfectly comprehensive manner which the Lord alone can do --but as much as possible. Not fully. I trust you will not repeat the same old mischaracterizations again.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Ahhhhh......christianity! My great grandmother needed a secret password to get into her church....for fear that the Irish Roman Catholic's would somehow ....... well anyway, bottom line they would bomb each others churches.

And I look at it that way today. We are still bombing one anothers churches via harsh criticisms posed at someones faith. Without respect for the other persons faith prospective, we are nothing more than enemies of one another......lobbing bombs. And lucifer is laughing hysterically. Mom always said, if you cant say something nice about someone, then shut up.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You have a fixation with TULIP. I have explained over and over to you that that does not define Calvinism.

Calvinists on this board have a fixation on TULIP. I've pointed out countless times that Calvin taught so much more than what became the revered "Five Points" and get no argument from the Calvinists around here. Yet, when discussions begin, that is all they talk about. So whose fixation is it, really?

Yet you keep repeating the same old song and dance.

Because the Calvinists here do.

You have not really absorbed much of anything that Dr. Richard Muller has said about Calvinism.

I've absorbed a great deal, enough to know that your view of Muller supporting the current state of Calvinism is a gross misunderstanding on your part of what Muller has to say.

Major in hyperbole much? Do speak specifics as to what Calvinists on the board say --don't go down the sad route you're taking.

Limited Atonement, Individual Election, to name a couple. There is no biblical basis for adherence to either of these concepts as they are misunderstood by Calvinists. Yet most persist in citing the same Scriptures to support their misunderstandings without realizing they are also misunderstanding the Scriptures. It is a clear case of man following man, not God.

I did say basically the same thing the first go-round with you. But because of your hard-headed attitude I had to flesh it out for you --to explain. Get it? We explain Scripture --not in a perfectly comprehensive manner which the Lord alone can do --but as much as possible.

And, to extent of continuing to adhere to just those two concepts I just mentioned, incorrectly. But you refuse to see it. I've posted countless arguments against the interpretations typically held by modern Calvinists. What I get in return is generalized attacks on my own faith, my understanding, without any counterbalancing arguments to support the contention that I am wrong. Which leads me to believe, as I said earlier, there are no "proofs" to that effect and I am merely challenging a viewpoint that cannot be defended, which apparently angers and offends those who hold the view too dearly for good spiritual health.

I trust you will not repeat the same old mischaracterizations again.

Only when it becomes necessary to point out that you have, once again, claimed to be able to explain God through Calvin, at which point I will remind you again that it is impossible to do so.

 

[saturneptune]

You have a fixation with TULIP. I have explained over and over to you that that does not define Calvinism. Yet you keep repeating the same old song and dance. You have not really absorbed much of anything that Dr. Richard Muller has said about Calvinism.

Major in hyperbole much? Do speak specifics as to what Calvinists on the board say --don't go down the sad route you're taking.

I did say basically the same thing the first go-round with you. But because of your hard-headed attitude I had to flesh it out for you --to explain. Get it? We explain Scripture --not in a perfectly comprehensive manner which the Lord alone can do --but as much as possible. Not fully. I trust you will not repeat the same old mischaracterizations again.

Post reported..............

 

[Rippon]

I've absorbed a great deal, enough to know that your view of Muller supporting the current state of Calvinism is a gross misunderstanding on your part of what Muller has to say.

You have not even begun to acknowledge that you were wrong in several key areas that Dr.Muller brought out. There was no discontinuity between what Calvin taught and the Canons of Dort. Shall I go item for item?

Limited Atonement,

If,as you claim,that you are so familiar with Calvinism --why do you call it limited atonement. Muller doesn't call it that.

Individual Election,

It is not a novel view. The Reformers and Puritans taught it as it is a doctrine of Holy Writ.

There is no biblical basis for adherence to either of these concepts as they are misunderstood by Calvinists. Yet most persist in citing the same Scriptures to support their misunderstandings without realizing they are also misunderstanding the Scriptures.

You say there is no biblical basis in one breath,and then you say Calvinists cite Scriptures to support the doctrine.

Finally we have you,Van,and Winman to set us straight.

It is a clear case of man following man, not God.

We follow the Scriptures and yet you have the effrontery to say we follow man --that's disgraceful on your part TND.

I've posted countless arguments against the interpretations typically held by modern Calvinists.

You want it every way at once. You oppose what you call the doctrines held by "modern Calvinists" yet you also oppose what the Reformers held to. Make up your ever-lovin'-mind.

you have, once again, claimed to be able to explain God through Calvin, at which point I will remind you again that it is impossible to do so.

That's totally untrue. But then again,you aren't concerned whether it is true or not. You have an agenda that must be steamrolled ahead.

Please demonstrate where any of us has claimed to explain God through Calvin.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You have not even begun to acknowledge that you were wrong in several key areas that Dr.Muller brought out. There was no discontinuity between what Calvin taught and the Canons of Dort. Shall I go item for item?

Never argued that there was discontinuity. But essentially, the Council of Dort boiled the argument down to the "five points" and that's all Calvinists have talked about for 396 years since. Calvin's theology is so much more complex than what is discussed here as "Calvinism" as to boggle the mind. Calvin wouldn't claim to be a Calvinist today. He was also wrong about a great deal, including infant baptism, Christ's descension into hell, and consubstantiation. Those who call themselves "Calvinist" today fail to understand what that label implies about them.

If,as you claim,that you are so familiar with Calvinism --why do you call it limited atonement. Muller doesn't call it that.

Because the Council of Dort did, and that is the authority to which most Calvinists point as having "established" doctrinally what they believe. Most Calvinists haven't even read Muller.

It is not a novel view. The Reformers and Puritans taught it as it is a doctrine of Holy Writ.

Whether it's "novel" or not is not the argument. Whether it's valid is the point of discussion. It isn't.

You say there is no biblical basis in one breath,and then you say Calvinists cite Scriptures to support the doctrine.

Straw man. Logical fallacy. What I said was:

There is no biblical basis for adherence to either of these concepts as they are misunderstood by Calvinists. Yet most persist in citing the same Scriptures to support their misunderstandings without realizing they are also misunderstanding the Scriptures. [Emphasis added]

Citing Scriptures you misunderstand is not providing biblical support, it is misunderstanding and even misrepresenting Scripture. You know that. You deliberately attempted to misrepresent what I said. That, too, is disingenuous.

Finally we have you,Van,and Winman to set us straight.

We follow the Scriptures and yet you have the effrontery to say we follow man --that's disgraceful on your part TND.

You adhere to a human doctrine named for the human who established it, and despite Scriptural evidence presented to you on practically an hourly basis, you continue to revere his teachings to Christ's. So what else am I to say? And who is truly an affront to the Savior and Master? One who defends His word? Or one who attempts to claim He spoke in support of a man-made doctrine?

You want it every way at once. You oppose what you call the doctrines held by "modern Calvinists" yet you also oppose what the Reformers held to. Make up your ever-lovin'-mind.

The Reformers who Catholics who saw the Doctrines of Grace amid the garbage the middle-ages Church taught, yet failed to abandon the other heresies that some Church taught. So yes, I oppose what the Reformers held to as well.

That's totally untrue. But then again,you aren't concerned whether it is true or not. You have an agenda that must be steamrolled ahead.

When you call Calvinism "the gospel" as you and many others have done time and time again here, you have indeed attempted to explain God through Calvin, to your detriment.

Please demonstrate where any of us has claimed to explain God through Calvin.

Just as I said ...

 

[Benjamin]

Please demonstrate where any of us has claimed to explain God through Calvin.

Originally Posted by Rip:
The life that Calvin led was exemplary. He had his failings --but his life is worthy enough to model one's self after. Just as we should follow Paul as he followed Christ.

Does the above demonstrate a claim which would support an example of such a mindset (worthy to model one’s life after -> explaining God through Calvin’s eyes = through worthy Calvin)?

Calvin is worth modeling one’s life after.
Being compared to:

As we should follow Paul as he followed Christ.

Personally, I wouldn’t compare Calvin to Paul while making a claim of worthiness to follow Christ unless I was trying to raise Calvin up as worthy to explain God by such a comparison to Paul. I mean reallyz:

We (err, you) follow Calvin (worthy)

Paul follows Christ (worthy)

Therefore (in the same way), this reasoning is enough to model one’s life after another man's theology - in the same way?!?

Pretty bold comparison (demonstration) Rip!

How does this reasoning (comparison) support following Calvin again? Seems a claim of some sort of equality to explain God through Calvin to me…

Please demonstrate where any of us has claimed to explain God through Calvin.

How am I doing with the demonstration Rip? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Rippon]

Never argued that there was discontinuity.

Of course you have --many times.

But essentially, the Council of Dort boiled the argument down to the "five points"

Can you please get a grip? The Canons of Dort responded to the propositions of the Remonstrants. If you've ever taken the time to read the Canons of Dort(which it clearly appears you haven't)you would know they didn't boil anything down whatsoever.

He was also wrong about a great deal,

He was far more sound than the current crop of non-Calvinists today.

And who is truly an affront to the Savior and Master?

Yes,WHO TND?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Of course .... /// yadda yadda yadda /// ...WHO TND?

Not a single response among that gobbledy-gook, just accusations and anger. Not much of a post. And in the meantime, Benjamin actually took the time to find a post proving you have attempted to explain God through Calvin, even calling his life "exemplary." Really? The man who sent Servitus to the stake for heresy when he had the power to get him simply banned from the city, that's an "exemplary life"? The man who continued to hold to infant baptism, consubstantiation, and other ancient Roman church errors, that man led an exemplary life? An example for who? Surely not a modern day Christian. Please tell me that's not what you meant.

 

[Rippon]

Never argued that there was discontinuity.

You certainly did --although you presented no documentation. You said regarding the five points :"They were formulated by his students after his death,and their hyper-enthusiasm tended to make them misrepresent what their mentor taught."

Of course you muddled some things along the way. "His students" needs to be clarified. Only a few of the delegates were born before Calvin died --and they would have been far too young to be considered proteges! Also, the Calvinists at Dort didn't come up with five points. They dealt with five propositions by the Remonstrants. They were not hatching TULIP. And they did not misrepresent what Calvin and his fellow Reformers taught.

I had told you that you had intimated that Calvin's progeny at Dort had misrepresented what he taught. You replied with :"And I stand by that statement."

So you were indeed arguing for a discontinuity --but had no basis for doing so. Now you suddenly claim that you never believed there was any discontinuity. Which is it? Are you denying your former stance -- or are you confused?

 

[Rippon]

Because the Council of Dort did, and that is the authority to which most Calvinists point as having "established" doctrinally what they believe.

I had said:Why do you call it "limited atonement" since you claim familiarity with Calvinism far beyond that of rank and file Calvinists. And you respond with :"Because the Council of Dort did." Well,no,the Council of Dort did not,as a matter of fact,use the term "limited atonement." You can't quite divorce yourself from the acrostic of TULIP.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You certainly did --although you presented no documentation. You said regarding the five points :"They were formulated by his students after his death,and their hyper-enthusiasm tended to make them misrepresent what their mentor taught."

Old, old news, Rip, and still a valid statement today. His students made the agenda and the presentation at Dort.

I had said:Why do you call it "limited atonement" since you claim familiarity with Calvinism far beyond that of rank and file Calvinists. And you respond with :"Because the Council of Dort did." Well,no,the Council of Dort did not,as a matter of fact,use the term "limited atonement." You can't quite divorce yourself from the acrostic of TULIP.

Neither can you. You act as though you're ignorant of the fact that those in Calvinism and those who stand in disagreement with it use the terms of the TULIP in order to briefly describe the portion of the doctrine that may, at any one time, be discussed. I know you are not ignorant, so why do you attack your own usage of the term when it suits you, then defend it at a later date? Can you spell "D-I-S-I-N-G-E-N-U-O-U-S"?

Nonetheless, that term has become the brief description of the "point" of limited atonement, and it was presented in detail at Dort. Deny that if you can. And when you respond to Ben's evidence and actually have something to say about your own poor memory regarding your insistence that Calvinism explains God, I'll respond. All you're doing is failing completely at defending the indefensible.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Old, old news, Rip, and still a valid statement today. His students made the agenda and the presentation at Dort.Neither can you. You act as though you're ignorant of the fact that those in Calvinism and those who stand in disagreement with it use the terms of the TULIP in order to briefly describe the portion of the doctrine that may, at any one time, be discussed. I know you are not ignorant, so why do you attack your own usage of the term when it suits you, then defend it at a later date? Can you spell "D-I-S-I-N-G-E-N-U-O-U-S"?

Nonetheless, that term has become the brief description of the "point" of limited atonement, and it was presented in detail at Dort. Deny that if you can. And when you respond to Ben's evidence and actually have something to say about your own poor memory regarding your insistence that Calvinism explains God, I'll respond. All you're doing is failing completely at defending the indefensible.

One) What is limited about it?
Two) What is your explanation of atonement?
Three) Out of curiosity, are you a Dispensationalist? You "donut" have to answer the last question if you feel it is confidential.

 

[convicted1]

Not a single response among that gobbledy-gook, just accusations and anger. Not much of a post. And in the meantime, Benjamin actually took the time to find a post proving you have attempted to explain God through Calvin, even calling his life "exemplary." Really? The man who sent Servitus to the stake for heresy when he had the power to get him simply banned from the city, that's an "exemplary life"? The man who continued to hold to infant baptism, consubstantiation, and other ancient Roman church errors, that man led an exemplary life? An example for who? Surely not a modern day Christian. Please tell me that's not what you meant.

Post reported.....


Nah....:smilewinkgrin: