To Those Who Hate Calvinism: What is Your BIG problem With it?

[Iconoclast]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
DrJamesAch



This does not make any biblical sense at all.



All christians are commanded to get a biblical assurance of their salvation.This is why P4T, called your statement a strawman.


The "biblical test" to get a scriptural assurance of ones CALLING and ELECTION...is clearly stated in scripture in a way that is un mistakable:

3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

12 Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.

13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;

14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.

15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.


Here the duty of seeking ,maintaining, and keeping in remembrance "THESE THINGS".....listed in verses 5,6,7,...are very clear. The fruit of the Spirit gives issue to all these virtues and manifestations of fruit of the Spirit.
To not do this ,is to sin against the commandment of God

Not only that....but the language of calling and election is only correctly spoken of in the calvinistic model.




You are exhibiting a series of errors here that leads to your wrong view....
you contradict yourself in using 1jn 5:13, because the view you espouse does not have room for this verse.....

Who God has elected is His concern. Do we have the marks of a scripturally converted person is at issue. Peter is clear we are commanded to do so. John is clear that we can KNOW.....this is not possible if it depended upon our works as you say. Calvinists know that ;
6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:



If there are no good works, if there is no fruit in the life, that person is most likely a false professor of faith....they are yet carnal in the heart...
16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Again...another verse that only finds full expression in the calvinist model you speak against. Perhaps you would like like to take a fresh look at it.
Without even needing to address every point you made, your argument just confirmed my original statement

I think you need to address each point....

 

[Iconoclast]

DRJa,

And if God is not electing based on His foreknowledge of who freely chooses to receive Christ

God does not elect us based on what we do, or will do....He choose us while we were yet sinners, and quite unlovely.
You are posting a wrong view of foreknowledge. God foreknows persons.....not the actions of the persons{while God knows all possible actions and cannot increase or diminish in knowledge or understanding} the biblical language is:

For .....WHOM....he did foreknow...not WHat He did foreknow as you suggest.

A Calvinist can not claim that because what happens if you backslide? Since your proof of election is based on performance, then if you backslide, there goes your assurance

In the bible backsliding is apostasy...it is used 17 times in 3 ot books...it is always rebellion and apostasy to perdition.

What I believe you mean is when we sin...do we lose some degree of assurance...of course we do.I am not saying some small sin....but if we take sin lightly and our lives can be described as the same as the unsaved ...day after day....there is no grounds for any biblical assurance.

And once again, you continue to make an argument based upon sanctification to prove your assurance of justification

The scripture links the two as part of the whole. They can be spoken of separately but they are linked for most regular christians.....no fruit...no root.


Now you said i missed something...what do you want a response on...

 

[Rippon]

I have also read George Whitefield's letter to John Calvin and Whitefield and Calvin were not on the same page when it came to Calvin's doctrines.

You are very mistaken. Calvin was from the 16th century and Whitefield was from the 18th!

 

[preacher4truth]

You are very mistaken. Calvin was from the 16th century and Whitefield was from the 18th!

I wouldn't be too hard on him. He probably meant he emailed him. :thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

DrJamesAch

Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel unto all the elect even though they are going to be saved whether you preach to them or not.

You expect a response and have gotten responses,although this kind of rhetoric demonstrates you do not understand the position....as all Calvinists teach that God has ordained the ways and means

How a Calvinist honestly fulfills the commission to win souls is a mystery which is probably why you never see any of them emphasize it and often even preach against it

.

Give any examples of any well known biblical calvinist that preaches against evangelism.This hollow post does not further the discussion at all.A biblical Calvinist reading your post does not see it is acredible at all.

The Calvinist waits for God to bring the elect to them which doesn't make sense when the Bible says "GO".

Calvinists have been in the forefront of modern missions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Carey_(missionary)



http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000NE9CFM/?tag=baptis04-20

 

[DrJamesAch]

You are very mistaken. Calvin was from the 16th century and Whitefield was from the 18th!

Yup, wrong John. Letters to Wesley about Calvinism.

 

[Iconoclast]

DrJamesAch

It is odd how you can accuse me on not answering your question when I just did. Just because you don't like or agree with the answer does not mean it was not answered.

You are not answering the responses....you give an answer that does not address the issue.

Your premise is that I did not "understand it Biblically". I wasn't aware that I was quoting from some other source than the Bible for my response, so if there's some other means of responding "Biblically" please enlighten me. But NO, that is NOT "exactly what it says" and I just spelled it out.

Let me make it clear enough a first grader could "get It"

On a piece of paper....
1]Draw a big Circle, write in the circle...all mankind ,dead in Adam and sinners.....all men ever born. These are ALL in Adam.....they are condemned children of wrath......if God does not save them they go into second death

2] Now inside the circle...draw another large circle....mark this circle...all who are in Christ by new birth,Spiritually alive,Elect sheep.


Those in circle two[in Christ}...were at one time in circle one{in adam}

That is what eph 2 says.....you in times past WERE children of wrath....even as others.....BUT GOD..

God in electing mercy makes the difference.
So the text makes it clear, that while all are born sinners by first birth, only those by second birth are found in Christ. Do you see it now????

Ephesians says it is God who makes the difference.

I never said that "all in Adam" EQUALS "all in Christ". I believe that the explanation I just gave above is clear and concise and accurate. Romans 5:18 says that ALL MEN were under condemnation, and then it says that the free gift came upon (came upon doesn't mean it saved them it means it was offered to them, "came upon" does not mean forced) ALL MEN.

The context of Romans 5 is Paul is explaining how those described in5:1,have peace with God, being justified. The free gift does not come upon All men in Adam...it comes upon All in Christ.....that is why he says it is unto Manyin the following verses.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.


19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

That is why the ALL...divides into to groups of many!!!!

 

[preacher4truth]

Yup, wrong John. Letters to Wesley about Calvinism.

You've failed to rebut the Word of God which CLEARLY states knowing our election in 1 Thess. 1:4. Yet this is something you falsely swept away and call circular reasoning, which is another fallacious conclusion of yours. '...knowing brothers your election of God...BECAUSE...&c' There is no 'circular reasoning' there, only plain and undeniable Scriptural proof.

You'd do your soul some good to admit your error and that we can and do know we are elect which is opposite your straw man accusation.

Also in 2 Peter 1:10 ...'make your calling and election sure' (by continuing in the following actions) which equals the perseverance of Saints.


- Blessings

 

[Revmitchell]

Yup, wrong John. Letters to Wesley about Calvinism.

Well brother, be prepared that since you misspoke some Calvinists will beat you down until they feel you will be sufficiently scared to ever try to refute Calvinism ever again. The last post case in point.

 

[DrJamesAch]

'George' Whitefield, not 'John'. Thus it is not 'the wrong John'.

Furthermore you've failed to rebut the Word of God which CLEARLY states knowing our election in 1 Thess. 1:4. Yet this is something you falsely swept away and call circular reasoning, which is another fallacious conclusion of yours. '...knowing brothers your election of God...BECAUSE...&c' There is no 'circular reasoning' there, only plain and undeniable Scriptural proof.

You'd do your soul some good to admit your error and that we can and do know we are elect which is opposite your straw man accusation.

Also in 2 Peter 1:10 ...'make your calling and election sure' (by continuing in the following actions) which equals the perseverance of Saints.


- Blessings

I called it circular reasoning because this is how your argument goes against any of my responses to it:

"I am saved because I am elect; I am elect because I am saved; I am saved because I am elect. The evidence that I am elect is because I am saved. The evidence that I am saved is because I showed a verse proving that I am elect. The reason that verse proves that I am of the elect, and therefore proves my election is because I am saved."

Just because a Bible verse states "knowing your election" does not mean that YOUR NAME is in that verse, or that YOU are elected. My original question was how do you know you that YOU are elected, and when I asked that, you quoted a Bible verse that spoke of believers in general under Paul's preaching that Paul knew were saved. I didn't ask you to give evidence about Paul's converts, I asked about YOU.

When I made the statement "is your name written in the Psalms?", for some odd reason you took that obvious rhetorical question and I assumed that I must have really wanted to know if I could open up my Bible and find names written between verses. Forgive me for assuming you were smart enough to figure that out. I overestimated you.

 

[Iconoclast]

Well brother, be prepared that since you misspoke some Calvinists will beat you down until they feel you will be sufficiently scared to ever try to refute Calvinism ever again. The last post case in point.

If you were a bit more objective you might have noticed that he has jumped into the BB saying calvinists do not preach the gospel outside of church, and in fact speak against it, he like many before him then listed strawman after strawman, that he maybe figured no one would answer him back on.
His strawmen did not come close to truth as it is found in scripture.
So why do you act surprised? Yes...he mis-spoke....but even if he meant whitefields letter to wesley.....it indicates he is not offering sincere objections.

We would welcome any sincere biblical objections on any or all the points....but shallow strawmen....not so much.

Dr.White answered your man that you linked to from the blog page...did you listen to the brief answer?

 

[Revmitchell]

If you were a bit more objective you might have noticed that he has jumped into the BB saying calvinists do not preach the gospel outside of church, and in fact speak against it, he like many before him then listed strawman after strawman, that he maybe figured no one would answer him back on.
His strawmen did not come close to truth as it is found in scripture.
So why do you act surprised? Yes...he mis-spoke....but even if he meant whitefields letter to wesley.....it indicates he is not offering sincere objections.

We would welcome any sincere biblical objections on any or all the points....but shallow strawmen....not so much.

Dr.White answered your man that you linked to from the blog page...did you listen to the brief answer?

Objective how? As in have not made up my mind yet? Uh no I am not. My lack of objectivity may only be on your part not mine. If you are referring to James White no I will not listen to him. I have no respect for him whatsoever.

 

[Rippon]

If you are referring to James White no I will not listen to him. I have no respect for him whatsoever.

Why? Because he so cogently defends the faith once delivered on a consistent basis? Or are you an Ergun Caner fan?

 

[Revmitchell]

Why because he so cogently defends the faith once delivered on a consistent basis? Or are you an Ergun Caner fan?

So tell me. What does Ergun Caner have to do with this?

 

[jonathanD]

So tell me. What does Ergun Caner have to do with this?

James White really goes after Caner for his "misrepresentations".

 

[DrJamesAch]

Well brother, be prepared that since you misspoke some Calvinists will beat you down until they feel you will be sufficiently scared to ever try to refute Calvinism ever again. The last post case in point.

Ah, they put all non Calvinists in the same category, and all KJVO's in the same categories and all IFB in the same category, so I'll exercise my liberty to put Wesley and Calvin in the same category (even though I don't remember Wesley burning heretics) So John Calvin, John Wesley..ah..who cares, both infant baptising, amillennial heretics that never completely shook of the shackles of the Roman whore.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Icon....You will IGNORE Scripture and define it as it suits you...and I demonstrate where and how you do it here:

.....so let's take a closer look-
The larger context is about the resurrection of Christ and it is extremely important which we would agree on. that is not what is at issue as it relates to Romans 5 however...

HERE....Right HERE.....You simply ignored I Corinthians 15 by AGAIN re-defining what I Corinthians 15 was about!!

Step 1: You used I Corinthians 15 to re-define Romans chapter 5....
Step 2: I called you on your bad exegesis of I Corinthians 15
Step 3: You respond by simply re-defining I Corinthians 15 BACK to Romans 5!!!!

That is the DEFINITION of a circular Argument.....


HINT:
I Corinthians doesn't "RELATE" back to Romans 5...............that's your OWN invention.
They are not talking about the same topic.

BTW: Your arrogant and presumptuous use of :laugh::laugh::laugh: is getting quite tiresome....It is a DEMONIC Spirit which takes sick pleasure in insulting and de-grading the posts and arguments of your brethren...

Whatever Spirit which is within you which causes you to: :laugh: at the rejoinders of your supposed brethren.......... I want absolutely NO part of.
Your Nastiness toward "DR James" is enough from you....You may treat me as you wish....but your vicious cruelty towards Dr. James says all I need to know about whatever Spirit Calvinism has worked in your life.

 

[Rippon]

So tell me. What does Ergun Caner have to do with this?

I am just wondering why you have no respect for Dr. White whatsoever. I was putting out a possible reason you may have for loathing of him.

 

[Rippon]

Ah, they put all non Calvinists in the same category, and all KJVO's in the same categories and all IFB in the same category,

I guess you really haven't read Dr. White's book on the KJV controversy wherein he lists something like 10 categories or so of varying KJV gradations.

so I'll exercise my liberty to put Wesley and Calvin in the same category So John Calvin, John Wesley..ah..who cares, both infant baptising, amillennial heretics that never completely shook of the shackles of the Roman whore.

Liberty does not = license. You are way off the beam.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Objective how? As in have not made up my mind yet? Uh no I am not. My lack of objectivity may only be on your part not mine. If you are referring to James White no I will not listen to him. I have no respect for him whatsoever.

I even have Calvinist friends that don't like James White. James White is one of those win-the-debate-at-all-costs Bible agnostics and is an expert in straw man arguments against the KJVO position.