• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why Do People Hate Calvinst?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Shortandy

New Member
Shortandy was online last night at 9:30 and failed to address the apparent contradiction. Maybe today?

Hoping Shortandy will be back to address this...



The OP pastor posted this two years ago, after he had been called to the church.
I would like to hear Shortandy's response to this...quite incriminating on the surface.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shortandy
What Love Is This by Dave Hunt. It is over 500 pages of anti-calvinism. A lady at my church gave it to me...not sure why because I have no idea exactly what I believe in the topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shortandy
Yes I wear a Reformed jersey and play for team Calvin. I recently admitted this to a few church members who asked where I stood on the debate. It only took them 3 years to ask.

I came to my convictions on this matter just a year or so ago so there is no contradiction at all. If I miss-spoke I am sorry. This has been a struggle for me. For a while I just said I was a 4-pointer...then a 5 pointer....the a middle of road. Mostly struggling with Limited Atonement. I stayed confused more than I was sure about anything. However, after some study and long, long conversations with people on both sides my team is Reformed. Still open to being wrong though.

With that aside the question is still a valid question regardless of my beliefs on the issue or not. Is it not possible for Reformed and non-reformed to exist as a church family under one roof? Is it fair to demonize either side?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tom Bryant

Well-Known Member
I'll come back to this thread. It is possible to live together in a church. I have some Calvinists in my church. We don't just co-exist but we serve together. One is even on our leadership team. Part of what I ask of myself and them is that we don't try to convert other people or even each other. We have even talked about it on a Sunday night2 years ago. They got to present and I got to present.

Our fellowship is around our salvation and serving Jesus.
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
I came to my convictions on this matter just a year or so ago so there is no contradiction at all. Mostly struggling with Limited Atonement. However, after some study and long, long conversations with people on both sides my team is Reformed.
Thanks for clarifying. Do you think this is why nobody in your church asked in 3 years?
Still open to being wrong but thats the jersey I wear as far as this issue is concerned
That's a great attitude to have...never lose it, because if you don't, you'll be back :D
This family in my church believes I have directly taught this form the pulpit which I don't believe to be true.
There would have to be some indication or some reason for their suspicions, no? Someone knowledgeable on this subject can smell it out quite easily.
With that aside the question is still a valid question regardless of my beliefs on the issue or not. Is it not possible for Reformed and non-reformed to exist as a church family under one roof? Is it fair to demonize either side?
It is quite possible...my pastor's one. It's possible due to the fact I at one point leaned in that direction myself. Of course we should never "demonize" someone due to their soteriological view. The irony is this "demonizing" tends to be the MO of the reformed side. Here is an email received from a BB administrator just this week after I reported a post stating non calvinistic theology was "false gospel" and "man centered" (both violations of BB rules...and done by a BB moderator no less)

Hey, Bro - non Calvinistic IS a false Gospel. Cannot help if moderators are
Bible believers!!

:) Couldn't say this on the site as it would violate rules. But want to be
honest with you since have long-endured the BB. But I truly do believe 98%
of the "Arminian" are really pelagian works-gospel Finney types and I have
no pity on those willingly believing error.

So is that "demonizing" or what (not to mention blatantly violating BB rules and NOT enforcing the rules...which is sin)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dh1948

Member
Site Supporter
Did they list what times they would hold services? Whether or not they use wine at communion? Whether they are dichotomists or trichotomists? Whether Christ was born in 4 or 5 BC?

They preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified. What more do you want?

And why would you lead them to believe your church might support them when you don’t pastor a church?

They knew I was no longer a pastor. No, they did not address the issues you ask about. But for what it is worth, they did state that they would not focus on evangelism but on discipleship. No big surprise to me.
 

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
If the label needs to be corrected then where is the standard published?
That's the discipline called historical theology, and it deals with both ancient and more recent. Labels develop because of the way they are used. Furthermore, by looking at who uses a term, we can also tell what it means. We need mostly to look at those who use the label sympathetically. In other words, for an example, if you want to know what a Calvinist is, listen to me, not to Webdog. That's nothing against Webdog, but he does not use the label sympathetically so he is not the best source on what it means. So in sum, by knowing history of a label and its current usage, it is fairly easy to correct it.
 

pinoybaptist

Active Member
Site Supporter
<snip>
It most certainly can. Words mean whatever the author intends them to mean. Part of interpretation is deciding what a "context" is, and deciding whether or not the word has a different connotation. <snip>


This is true.
A celebrity writer may speak and write of "the world of celebrities" as if "that" world had its own set of values and such.
A technology writer (not necessarily a technical writer) may write of "the world of computers or the technological world" and those who move and breathe and understand technology are familiar with the terms he uses.
Then somebody may speak of "the legal world" as in the environment, language, and jargon understood among lawyers, judges, paralegals, etc.
Similarly, non-believers have very little, if at all, idea of the concepts of church, doctrine, atonement, election, freewill, persecution, Christ, God, mercy, justice, and things we talk and hear about regularly in the "world of Christianity" and an unbeliever happening into this forum for example may as well be listening to a language he recognizes but does not understand.
 

Bob Alkire

New Member
Quote..Hey, Bro - non Calvinistic IS a false Gospel. Cannot help if moderators are
Bible believers!!

:) Couldn't say this on the site as it would violate rules. But want to be
honest with you since have long-endured the BB. But I truly do believe 98%of the "Arminian" are really pelagian works-gospel Finney types and I have no pity on those willingly believing error.

My friend when I was in seminary which was a Calvinist school we were taught that we believed this soteriological view, but we could be wrong or partly wrong. There were to many Scriptures that would back the other sides.

I changed my view in my last semester of school there. Even then we often had preachers from the reformed speak in our churches and we spoke in theirs, we were not enemies.

Over the last 10 or 20 years or so they have come out often with what your received. Churches ripped apart over this, what a shame.

I wish I could think of his name but a Free Presbyterians pastor up in Greenville, SC( I believe he is from Ireland) has said Calvinist need to have a better attitude, we know our doctrine but we seem to lack love. That PM shows great love.

He said look and see how many well know Calvinist were saved in a Methodist church, had a list from Spurgeon on, there was quite a number.
 

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
That's the discipline called historical theology, and it deals with both ancient and more recent. Labels develop because of the way they are used.
Several times I have asked for an interpretation of 1 Sam 16:14-16 in regards to their theology of God and evil in terms of God's sovereignty. All I got was a restatement of the words of scripture not an interpretation and explanation. What good is your systematic theology if you cannot interpret scripture other then for eisegesis? Isn't that kind of like impure salt--useless?

It seems studying calvinism is much like studying a greased pig. It is all over the place. It seems that there are almost as many brands of calvinists as there are calvinists. Which one are you? For some strange reason the calvinism of today keeps adding to Calvin. Kind of like the scribes and the Pharisees in their interpretation of the law and adding traditions.

Furthermore, by looking at who uses a term, we can also tell what it means. We need mostly to look at those who use the label sympathetically. In other words, for an example, if you want to know what a Calvinist is, listen to me, not to Webdog.
What makes you the standard of calvinism?
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Several times I have asked for an interpretation of 1 Sam 16:14-16 in regards to their theology of God and evil in terms of God's sovereignty.
I must have missed something. What does the fact that God sent a distressing spirit to torment Saul have to do with the theology of God and evil in terms of God's sovereignty?

1. God sent the distressing spirit.
2. The distressing spirit troubled Saul.
3. Saul, who was already predisposed to bad judgment and mild paranoia, began to experience depression, anger, and delusion.
4. Saul's servants suggested some soothing music might help calm Saul.
5. David was thus introduced to the royal court for all of Israel to see.

All of this was part of God's sovereign plan to remove Saul and install David as king of Israel.

I fail to see the problem. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
I must have missed something. What does the fact that God sent a distressing spirit to torment Saul have to do with the theology of God and evil in terms of God's sovereignty?

1. God sent the distressing spirit.
2. The distressing spirit troubled Saul.
Better check that word for "distressing" again in the MT and LXX. The origin of the evil spirit? The word used in the LXX is ponhros and you call that distressing? To suggest that it is simply a distressing spirit is to suggest that the LXX translators did not know what they were doing and were ignorant. I do not find distressing to be the word used in most English translations. A concordance check will seldom translate see that word translated that way.

I think the answer to the interpretation is not lookng at an American understanding but a Jewish understanding of that word and theology of God and evil.
 

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Several times I have asked for an interpretation of 1 Sam 16:14-16 in regards to their theology of God and evil in terms of God's sovereignty. All I got was a restatement of the words of scripture not an interpretation and explanation.
Okay. So what?

What good is your systematic theology if you cannot interpret scripture other then for eisegesis?
What makes you the standard of whether or not something is eisegesis?

Isn't that kind of like impure salt--useless?
No, the fact that you don't agree means nothing about the quality of an exegetical decision.

It seems studying calvinism is much like studying a greased pig. It is all over the place. It seems that there are almost as many brands of calvinists as there are calvinists.
No, not if you know what you are talking about. The reason you think there are a lot is because you don't understand the basic tenets. Compare it to a car. You could say "cars are confusing because there are so many." But not really because everyone knows what a car is. The fact that there are varieties of cars does not change the fundamental nature of a car.

For some strange reason the calvinism of today keeps adding to Calvin.
Here is a common misunderstanding. Calvinism is not about "Calvin." Calvinism existed long before the 1500s and never was based on Calvin. It is based on an interpretation of the Scriptures.

Kind of like the scribes and the Pharisees in their interpretation of the law and adding traditions.
Not like that at all.

What makes you the standard of calvinism?
I'm not. I never claimed to be.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Better check that word for "distressing" again in the MT and LXX. The origin of the evil spirit? The word used in the LXX is ponhros and you call that distressing? To suggest that it is simply a distressing spirit is to suggest that the LXX translators did not know what they were doing and were ignorant. I do not find distressing to be the word used in most English translations. A concordance check will seldom translate see that word translated that way.

I think the answer to the interpretation is not lookng at an American understanding but a Jewish understanding of that word and theology of God and evil.
OKay. Now I understand. You think "evil" always means morally evil and that God, therefore, in sending the "morally evil" spirit violated His own Holiness?

The problem with that view is that a check of that same concordance will show many instances where the word "evil" simply means "distressing" or "difficult" or "calamity."

So, the problem is not with the bible, or with Calvinism, but rather with your understanding of the word "evil." :)
 

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
Okay. So what?[/quote[ A lack of consistency in their theology of God and evil.

What makes you the standard of whether or not something is eisegesis?
Good hermeneutics consistent with scripture and theology.

No, the fact that you don't agree means nothing about the quality of an exegetical decision.

It is not about disagreement. It is about exegesis and interpretation of scripture used to develop a consistent theology with scripture . Personally I find a lot of liberal nonsense among calvinists when it comes to the sovereignty of God and the origin evil. I have given you and other calvinists on this board many chances to express an accurate interpretation of 1 Sam. 16:14-16 and where is it?

You could say "cars are confusing because there are so many." But not really because everyone knows what a car is. The fact that there are varieties of cars does not change the fundamental nature of a car.

There are many Christians, and out of those are: many calvinists, many ariminianists, and many who do not believe either one. Christians follow Christ. So can you explain why calvinists are not called followers of Calvin, or Presbyterians? Varieties of cars is like saying there is a varietry of gifts. While I do not possess all of them nor understand all of them I know they are gifts. Calvinism is not a gift but a theological perspective that I have asked from the calvinists on BB to show a consistent theology in dealing with the origin evil and the sovereignty of God. What I consistently get is that God is sovereign but a cat chasing its tail in regard to the origin of evil that is not consisteent with scripture. .

Here is a common misunderstanding. Calvinism is not about "Calvin." Calvinism existed long before the 1500s and never was based on Calvin. It is based on an interpretation of the Scriptures.
I know that is what they say but I am sure it is more about Piper now. Can you give an example of calvinism from the 1500s? Could you also give an example of a Hebrew or Greek scholar who is a declared calvinist?

I have continually kept pressing for an interpretation of the origin of evil and a consistent theoloigy of God that are coinsistene twiht scripture. So manyh times I read from calvinists on BB that evil does not have as its origin, God. If you believe that then interpret and form a theology of God and evil from what is written in 1 Sam 16:14-16. I believe that too man have stuck their heads in calvinists books without ever studying those issues in scripture. I trust scripture not what calvinists claim. Scripture is always right. That is the standard not what thinks or does not think about scripture. The attacks today from non-believers are upon scripture not a calvinism or arminianism.

I think one has to abolish scripture as Jesus talked about in Mt. 5:17 to arrive at calvinism and arminianism.
 

Winman

Active Member
Can you show quotes of people who teach what you claim?

I am pretty sure that people here over and over have explained to you that they do not believe in this "gap" between regeneration and faith. "Regeneration precedes faith" simply means that regeneration is the cause of faith, not that it happens at some point in time prior to the point of initial faith.

Think of firing a gun. Pulling the trigger is regeneration and the projectile is faith. They both happen at the same time; however, regeneration is the logical cause of faith, not the other way around.

There are no regenerate unbelievers, period.

I already showed a letter written by an associate of Sproul's who said infants can be born again, they can be regenerated, and quickened, but not express faith for many years. Did you miss that?

Here is a statement from the Lutheran church which also believes infants can be regenerated, but not express faith for many years.

XIII. Second proposition: "Although infants do not have actual faith, the seed or root of faith cannot be denied to them, which is ingenerated in them from early age and in its own time goes forth in act (human instruc*tion being applied from without and a greater efficacy of the Holy Spirit within)." This second proposition is opposed to the Anabaptists, who deny to infants all faith, not only as to act, but also as to habit and form. Although habitual faith (as the word "habit" is properly and strictly used to signify a more perfect and consummated state) is not well ascribed to them, still it is rightly predicated of them broadly as denoting potential or seminal faith. Now by "seed of faith," we mean the Holy Spirit, the effecter of faith and regeneration (as he is called, 1 Jn. 3:9), as to the principles of regeneration and holy inclinations which he already works in infants according to their measure in a wonderful and to us unspeakable way. Afterwards in more mature age, these proceed into act (human instruction being employed and the grace of the same Spirit promoting his own work by which that seed is accustomed to be excited and drawn forth into act).

While this is not a statement from Calvinists, this is precisely what many (actually, all) Calvinists believe. They believe an infant can be regenerated for many years before they are mature enough to understand and express faith. You have to believe this if you are a Calvinist, because all Calvinists believe it impossible to have saving faith without being regenerated. But you cannot be forgiven of your sins until you believe and trust on Christ afterwards. It is unavoidable.

Regeneration means to be born again, to be made spiritually alive. If an infant is regenerated by the Holy Spirit but does not accept Christ until they are 10 years old, then for 10 years they would be both spiritually alive and spiritually dead in their sins at the same time. This is impossible.

Actually, it is impossible to be both spiritually alive and spiritually dead at the same moment for any amount of time whatsoever, even if that was the one minute it took you to hear the gospel, understand it, and place faith in Christ. You are dead in your sins until you are justified. Justification follows faith, and even Calvinists admit and teach this. You cannot be justified until you hear the gospel and believe it, and that takes time. So, according to Calvinism, a person has to be made spiritually alive to have the ability to believe the gospel to be justified. This is impossible, because you would be spiritually alive and spiritually dead at the same time.

There are no regenerate unbelievers, period.

There has to be if the doctrine of Calvinism is true. Faith is not some physical thing or force you carry around in your pocket. Faith requires an object of faith. Faith requires understanding. You cannot possibly have faith in the gospel until you hear it, and that takes time. But you also have to understand the gospel before you believe it, and that takes time too. So, for that one or two minutes it takes to hear the gospel and understand it, if you are regenerated you are spiritually alive, but you are also dead in your sins because you have not trusted Christ yet. The moment you trust Christ you are justified and no longer in your sins.

You can try to wiggle around this all you want, but it is impossible. Faith must precede regeneneration, because you cannot be justified until you believe. You must be forgiven of your sins before you are spiritually alive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
A lack of consistency in their theology of God and evil.
Not at all. Probably just a lack of understanding on your part, but who knows. For my part, I don't particularly strive for "consistency." I strive to teach what Scripture teaches. It is the Arminian side that is driven by logic, such as the logic that man can't have free will if God elects individuals to salvation, or that God cannot judge someone for something they are unable to do. Those are not a scriptural arguments. They are logical ones. As a Calvinist, I affirm both. I don't have to work them out.

Good hermeneutics consistent with scripture and theology.
That's not an answer to the question. The question was, "What makes you the standard?" not "What makes the standard?" Yes, proper use of the Scripture to develop sound theology is the key. I am just not sure that you are the standard on that. I haven't seen particularly good hermeneutics from you, or a particularly consistent use of Scripture and theology. But I don't read you much so I could be wrong. My point is that I don't think you are the standard of that.

It is not about disagreement. It is about exegesis and interpretation of scripture used to develop a consistent theology with scripture . Personally I find a lot of liberal nonsense among calvinists when it comes to the sovereignty of God and the origin evil.
So it is about disagreement. You think it's "liberal nonsense" because you disagree with them. But the fact is that you might be the one who is wrong. Here again you see part of the your problem: You talk out of both sides of your mouth saying "It is not about disagreement" when in fact it is about disagreement. You disagree with them over the exegesis and interpretation of Scripture. You find it "liberal nonsense" (which probably reveals a misunderstanding of what liberalism is).

I have given you and other calvinists on this board many chances to express an accurate interpretation of 1 Sam. 16:14-16 and where is it?
I don't know. I don't pay that much attention. I haven't seen you ask about it. Not sure why you would because it's not a major issue. I don't have any interest in talking about it.

So can you explain why calvinists are not called followers of Calvin, or Presbyterians?
Which would you like to me explain? They are not called "followers of Calvin" because they aren't. They aren't called "Presbyterians" because they are not always presbyterians. I myself am a Baptist as are many Calvinists. Calvinist is a term describing in a nutshell what someone believes about soteriology.

Varieties of cars is like saying there is a varietry of gifts.
No it's not. You don't get to change the analogy. You could make that analogy, but that's not mind.

Calvinism is not a gift but a theological perspective that I have asked from the calvinists on BB to show a consistent theology in dealing with the origin evil and the sovereignty of God. What I consistently get is that God is sovereign but a cat chasing its tail in regard to the origin of evil that is not consisteent with scripture.
It is more likely that you are unwilling to accept an explanation that they offer due to your own precommitments. That's fine. But don't play the nonsensical card that they aren't giving you an answer when you know they are and you simply disagree with the answer.

I know that is what they say but I am sure it is more about Piper now.
Nope.

Can you give an example of calvinism from the 1500s?
Yes.

Could you also give an example of a Hebrew or Greek scholar who is a declared calvinist?
Yes, most of the evangelical ones are.

I have continually kept pressing for an interpretation of the origin of evil and a consistent theoloigy of God that are coinsistene twiht scripture.
I think you are actually looking for one that fits your precommitments about what Scripture says.

Scripture is always right. That is the standard not what thinks or does not think about scripture.
This is true, and it is something you need to accept. If the Scripture teaches Calvinism (which it almost certainly does in terms of soteriology), then it is right, no matter what you say. Over the years here at the BB, we have been treated to all manner of absurdity and humor in the name of refuting Calvinism. The attacks today from non-believers are upon scripture not a calvinism or arminianism.

I think one has to abolish scripture as Jesus talked about in Mt. 5:17 to arrive at calvinism and arminianism.
I think that's utter nonsense.
 

Winman

Active Member
Here is a Calvinist who says infants can be regenerated.

Calvinists rightly teach that persons dying in infancy are saved in the same manner as are saved adults. God has only one plan of salvation. It teaches that sinners are saved by God's free and sovereign grace in Jesus Christ, totally apart from any works of righteousness they perform or any supposed virtue in them. Everyone who is saved — including all persons dying in infancy — is saved through being elected to salvation by God the Father, redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, and regenerated or born again by the Holy Spirit (as set forth in preceding messages).

Source:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1245734/posts

If we are born sinners as Calvinists teach, then an infant can be regenerated and a sinner at the same time, because they have never placed faith in Christ to be justified.
 

dwmoeller1

New Member
I have continually kept pressing for an interpretation of the origin of evil and a consistent theoloigy of God that are coinsistene twiht scripture.

If you want to start a new thread, I would be interested in discussing that with you.

So manyh times I read from calvinists on BB that evil does not have as its origin, God. If you believe that then interpret and form a theology of God and evil from what is written in 1 Sam 16:14-16. I believe that too man have stuck their heads in calvinists books without ever studying those issues in scripture. I trust scripture not what calvinists claim. Scripture is always right. That is the standard not what thinks or does not think about scripture.

FWIW, I don't believe I have ever read a calvinist book. Generally I stay away from books on theology altogether (I did by one on Amillennialism though). My doctrine is, in as far as one can honestly say this, derived from Scripture. Thats not to say that I am right or somehow better or that my doctrine is more pure, merely to say that the above cannot possibly apply to me.
 

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
Not at all. Probably just a lack of understanding on your part, but who knows. For my part, I don't particularly strive for "consistency." I strive to teach what Scripture teaches. It is the Arminian side that is driven by logic, such as the logic that man can't have free will if God elects individuals to salvation, or that God cannot judge someone for something they are unable to do. Those are not a scriptural arguments. They are logical ones. As a Calvinist, I affirm both. I don't have to work them out.
God is consistent. All scripture is inspired by the same God and he does not change. Therefore His word is consistent and does not change when interpreted in light of its historical context. That is the real issue not calvinism or aminianism. Personally I think both are a partial truth mixed with error. God is not part of both. He is not a dichotomy.

My point is that I don't think you are the standard of that.
That is the reason why I am not a calvinist. Too many times what I read is filtered through the calvinist theological system rather than letting scripture interpret itself in light of its historical context. If I am wrong, then do what Jesus did in scripture when he spoke to the Sadducees. You won't convince anyone of what scripture teaches by appealing to anyone through the filter of calvinism, unless they accept the same filter.

So it is about disagreement. You think it's "liberal nonsense" because you disagree with them. But the fact is that you might be the one who is wrong. Here again you see part of the your problem: You talk out of both sides of your mouth saying "It is not about disagreement" when in fact it is about disagreement. You disagree with them over the exegesis and interpretation of Scripture. You find it "liberal nonsense" (which probably reveals a misunderstanding of what liberalism is).
Show me one place where I have disagreed with their exegesis and left it there. I cannot think of any place where I did not give a reason. Why should I accept their exegesis when I still have questions and challenges about what they stated? Why would you make such a statement if you did not assume you or they were right. I have put 1 Sam 16:14-16 out there many times. I am open to other interpretations. There have been times when challenged on BB and I believe I was wrong after considering what someone else wrote. All I can do is to reveal what I believe at the time whether it be right or wrong. In fact I talked with a scholar and he corrected me about God and evil from1 Sam 16:14-16. I came to the conclusion that I was wrong and that is the reason why I like to challenge others on that passage. The fact is that previously I had just accepted what I heard others teach until I began to consider the correction I received. The more research I do on the subject the more I am coming to the same conclusion. If you want to entertain an intelligent discussion on the matter I would be happy to do that. Truth is truth and we must strive after that. It is not about theological systems but about God. If you challenge my theology and I find that it does not hold up then something is wrong in what I believe. We should be grateful that others challenge us on what we believe so that we become sharper.

I once believed as I read many calvinists believe until I started studying Jewish culture and talked with a man who grew up in orthodox Judaism and then became a Christian. I used to have a roommate from Greece. He challenged me in many ways. I also participate in a forum of scholars where I know I am not close to where they are but am challenged and encouraged to keep studying.

Yes, most of the evangelical ones are.
Name a couple of them.

I think you are actually looking for one that fits your precommitments about what Scripture says.
Actually not. My commitment is to what scripture teaches. That is basic to my theology and hermeneutics. I cannot take scripture and teach what it soes not say to match what I think. When my theology does not seem to line up with scripture then my theology or my understanding of a passage is wrong. I trust scripture not a theology.

If the Scripture teaches Calvinism (which it almost certainly does in terms of soteriology), then it is right, no matter what you say. Over the years here at the BB, we have been treated to all manner of absurdity and humor in the name of refuting Calvinism.
I believe scripture teaches much more than calvinism. I also do not believe a dichotomy exists in God. He is one and He does not change. He is one and not two.

I will ask you to interpret 1 Sam 16:14-16 in light of its historical context and give your theology of God and the origin of evil from that passage.

I am on a journey and like so many others I would like to know, but I will not until Jesus comes. I have many freinds who are calvinists and we have some of these same discussions. I would like to think that all of us benefit from that.

What I think the critical part is to ask where the fruit is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top