Why I am not a Calvinist....

[Iconoclast]

Calvinist are silly angry people....they have no scripture to back up anything they say.

Hello CTS,
A message board like this can be a good place to test your theory.
Feel free to post the verses that you think the Calvinists have no scripture to offer on....and let's see if you get any scriptural response.

 

[Iconoclast]

This message is easy to dismantle by correcting each caricature with scripture....point by point.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Calvinism, so called was a reaction to the teachings of the reformed Dutch theologian, Jakob Hermanszoon, whose eyes were opened by the Holy Spirit, to see that some of what he had believe in, was contradictory to what the Holy Bible actually teaches. It is like those who call themselves, "5 Point Calvinists", who are deluded into thinking that all these "points" have the "blessing" of John Calvin! This is wishful thinking as Calvin did NOT believe in or teach, any "limitation" on the Death of the Lord Jesus Christ, that He died only for the "elect"; or as some think, the "elite". God loves the entire human race, as clearly taught in Scriptures like John 3:16, and Jesus Christ came and died for this entire human race, so that ANYONE who REPENTS and BELIEVES in the Gospel, will be saved. God, says the Bible, does not desire the death of the wicked, but wants them to repent and live forever (Ezekiel 18:18-32; 33:7-20; the Book of Jonah; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9); not so, says the Calvinists, only a "select few", whom they say, can be saved. I thank God that His Word tells ALL who want salvation, that they CAN in the Lord Jesus Christ!

 

[agedman]

Calvinism, so called was a reaction to the teachings of the reformed Dutch theologian, Jakob Hermanszoon, whose eyes were opened by the Holy Spirit, to see that some of what he had believe in, was contradictory to what the Holy Bible actually teaches. It is like those who call themselves, "5 Point Calvinists", who are deluded into thinking that all these "points" have the "blessing" of John Calvin! This is wishful thinking as Calvin did NOT believe in or teach, any "limitation" on the Death of the Lord Jesus Christ, that He died only for the "elect"; or as some think, the "elite". God loves the entire human race, as clearly taught in Scriptures like John 3:16, and Jesus Christ came and died for this entire human race, so that ANYONE who REPENTS and BELIEVES in the Gospel, will be saved. God, says the Bible, does not desire the death of the wicked, but wants them to repent and live forever (Ezekiel 18:18-32; 33:7-20; the Book of Jonah; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9); not so, says the Calvinists, only a "select few", whom they say, can be saved. I thank God that His Word tells ALL who want salvation, that they CAN in the Lord Jesus Christ!

1) I agree (although some call me a calvinistic thinking person) that the blood was shed for all. So does TCassidy and all particular Baptists.

2) There is a limit to atonement (that which you are attempting to refute above) and that limit is not blood, but that limit is on belief.

3) Belief (faith) is not gained by humankind, it is granted by God as a gift. It is granted and results in repentance, just as Romans discusses.

4) The reassignment of the limit from the atonement to the belief does not mar nor does it destroy the other points of the presentation of Scriptures as supported by the Doctrines of Grace.

I have NEVER met a Baptist who does not agree on the following:

One is still born and sinful to the point that they are completely incapable of "coming to God" and therefore, God must do the work as the AUTHOR of salvation.

One is still endowed by God's grace (unmerited favor) that the Holy Spirit will take the time to use the Scriptures to awaken that person to the claims of the Christ upon his life and living.

One is still preserved and perseveres in the faith in which God grants until such a believer is brought into God's presence.

One is still elected by God as an adopted child and is not born by the flesh, the will, or the human strength, courage or the passion of the humankind.​

Now, put away your desire to refute and embrace the truth of Scriptures.

A true Baptist is a calvinistic thinking person in the areas of sin, election, grace, belief, and the security.

Fact is that even the Baptist modernist who would provoke animosity against the Doctrines of Grace will agree with the basic truth of at least 4 of the 5 points of calvinists. And, what is remarkable, when the limited atonement is properly expressed as limited belief, there is total agreement or at least acknowledgement that the Doctrines of Grace are in fact Scriptural.

 

[Jerome]

I agree...the blood was shed for all. So does TCassidy and all particular Baptists.

You've expressed that position so eloquently:

do you not have the view that Christ died for all, everyone? Or are you of those who claim that Christ died only for those in whom God gave to His son. That the Blood was specific and applicable to only those that believed or would believe. Personally,...I hold that the blood was shed for all humankind.

 

[SheepWhisperer]

Well he skipped right over certain scriptures to get to his universalist conclusions.

I thought "univeralists" believe that God is just going to save everybody.
That is not what he is teaching.

 

[TCassidy]

Calvinism, so called was a reaction to the teachings of the reformed Dutch theologian, Jakob Hermanszoon,

And once again you prove you know absolutely nothing about what you are attacking. Particular Redemption (Monergism) originated in the bible and was systematized first by Augustine of Hippo around 395 AD.

Calvin did NOT believe in or teach, any "limitation" on the Death of the Lord Jesus Christ,

Neither does anyone else. His death brought blessings on all mankind. "The rains fall on the just and the unjust."

that He died only for the "elect";

Wrong again. He died for all. 2 Cor 5:14-15.

not so, says the Calvinists

Wrong again. What part of "SUFFICIENT FOR ALL" can't you understand?

You have been corrected over and over again, and your falsehoods have been pointed out over and over again, but you just stop posting for a few days then post the same falsehoods again. Time to tell the truth and shame the devil!

 

[TCassidy]

I thought "univeralists" believe that God is just going to save everybody.
That is not what he is teaching.

That is one of the pet obfuscations used by both sides of the discussion.

Universalism can have two very different meanings.

It can be used to indicate the scope of the atonement. If the atonement is universally applied then salvation is universal. Everyone will be saved.

On the other hand if the atonement is not universally applied, but is universally available, then only believers will be saved.

So, synergists limit the atonement just like everybody else. The monergists limit it in application and the synergist limits it the same say, to believers only.

The problem arises when some synergists insist that the atonement is APPLIED to the sins of all people. Once that happens salvation must be to all people. If sins are gone then there is nothing barring the way to heaven.

So, the atonement is SUFFICIENT for all but EFFICIENT only for elect believers.

The major difference between John Calvin and James Arminius was not the atonement. Both believed in limited atonement.

The difference was with election itself. John Calvin believed in Unconditional Election. That no person met the conditions of perfection necessary for salvation.

James Arminius believed in Conditional Election in that God forsaw that a person would one day believe, and on the basis of that knowledge provided atonement for that person.

The problem with that position (well one of the problems) is that it has God looking down the corridors of time and learning who will believe and who will not. If God learned something He didn't know before, He was not Omniscient prior to His learning, and if not Omniscient, He was not God for God never changes. He never learns. He already knows all things.

But, unfortunately, as with all such emotion based discussions, the synergists won't listen to the monergists and the monergists won't listen to the snyergists, but both either fail to understand the position of the other, or deliberately lie about the position of the other side.

So, for some reason, Truth is often the first casualty of these discussions.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

And once again you prove you know absolutely nothing about what you are attacking. Particular Redemption (Monergism) originated in the bible and was systematized first by Augustine of Hippo around 395 AD.

Neither does anyone else. His death brought blessings on all mankind. "The rains fall on the just and the unjust."

Wrong again. He died for all. 2 Cor 5:14-15.

Wrong again. What part of "SUFFICIENT FOR ALL" can't you understand?

You have been corrected over and over again, and your falsehoods have been pointed out over and over again, but you just stop posting for a few days then post the same falsehoods again. Time to tell the truth and shame the devil!

I am sure you are aware, that Augustine's view of the Death of Jesus Christ was heretical. Therefore whatever he says on this, is based on his heretical view and has no purpose.

You say Jesus' death brought "blessings on all mankind". can you specify beside the unjust enjoying the same "sun and rain" as the just do, exactly what the death of Jesus actually does to "bless" them, because for thousands of years before Jesus died, the "sun and rain" did bless both the just and unjust. So this argument is completely useless for this purpose. you have to much better than this!

where in Scripture does it say that Jesus' death is "sufficient for all"? If, Jesus did die for the entire human race, as even Calvin could see, then it can only mean that this same human race, should they repent and believe, be saved by the same blood shed for them ALL.

You can try to "correct" me, but you fail to show from the Word where I am in error. I think that you cannot see the Truth yourself!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

1) I agree (although some call me a calvinistic thinking person) that the blood was shed for all. So does TCassidy and all particular Baptists.

2) There is a limit to atonement (that which you are attempting to refute above) and that limit is not blood, but that limit is on belief.

3) Belief (faith) is not gained by humankind, it is granted by God as a gift. It is granted and results in repentance, just as Romans discusses.

4) The reassignment of the limit from the atonement to the belief does not mar nor does it destroy the other points of the presentation of Scriptures as supported by the Doctrines of Grace.

I have NEVER met a Baptist who does not agree on the following:

One is still born and sinful to the point that they are completely incapable of "coming to God" and therefore, God must do the work as the AUTHOR of salvation.

One is still endowed by God's grace (unmerited favor) that the Holy Spirit will take the time to use the Scriptures to awaken that person to the claims of the Christ upon his life and living.

One is still preserved and perseveres in the faith in which God grants until such a believer is brought into God's presence.

One is still elected by God as an adopted child and is not born by the flesh, the will, or the human strength, courage or the passion of the humankind.​

Now, put away your desire to refute and embrace the truth of Scriptures.

A true Baptist is a calvinistic thinking person in the areas of sin, election, grace, belief, and the security.

Fact is that even the Baptist modernist who would provoke animosity against the Doctrines of Grace will agree with the basic truth of at least 4 of the 5 points of calvinists. And, what is remarkable, when the limited atonement is properly expressed as limited belief, there is total agreement or at least acknowledgement that the Doctrines of Grace are in fact Scriptural.

Calvinism without the "L" is destroyed!. T.U. and I depend on the "L", so it is a unscriptual theology.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

ALL Calvinists should watch this clip to learn what the Bible says

 

[TCassidy]

Augustine's view of the Death of Jesus Christ was heretical

Really? Give me a quote from Augustine, post 400 AD, which is heresy regarding the death of Christ.

can you specify beside the unjust enjoying the same "sun and rain" as the just do, exactly what the death of Jesus actually does to "bless" them, because for thousands of years before Jesus died, the "sun and rain" did bless both the just and unjust.

So you want me to give you evidence, which you have already rejected, that Christ's death is a universal blessing, then tell me I can't use the verse that proves that Christ's death is a universal blessing? LOL!

So this argument is completely useless for this purpose.

Any argument, from the bible, that you don't believe is useless.

where in Scripture does it say that Jesus' death is "sufficient for all"? If, Jesus did die for the entire human race, as even Calvin could see, then it can only mean that this same human race, should they repent and believe, be saved by the same blood shed for them ALL.

So now you believe that Jesus did not die for all? You do not believe His atonement is sufficient to pay the penalty for all sin?

You can try to "correct" me, but you fail to show from the Word where I am in error. I

You reject it. What more can I say?

 

[agedman]

Calvinism without the "L" is destroyed!. T.U. and I no, depend on the "L", so it is a unscriptual theology.

No, that is merely a false statement.

As I stated, BOTH T.Cassidy are in agreement that the blood was for all.

Yet, that does not remove the depraved condition as completely preventing salvation as the Scriptures teach, nor that God elects those to be adopted as Scriptures teach, nor does it diffuse the unmerited favor of God being the author of salvation, and certainly cannot remove Romans 8 as the complete persevering and preservation of believers.

Which one of those would you destroy by removing limited atonement?

For the reader, I place the limit not upon the blood but upon the choice of God in who and when He will adopt from those that the blood is sufficient. Just because the blood was shed for all as the Scriptures state does not prevent God from selecting from the all those He purposes to adopt.

This view is consistent with the most strick rendering of the book of John.

There are others of Calvinist thinking that do consider that Christ’s blood is only for those saved, but then that is not as consistent with John, for one is not condemned because of a lack of atonement, but from a lack of belief.

Same rebelliousness found in Adam is found in every lost that are cast into the Lake of
Fire.

No one can claim the lack of blood, they will see the lack of belief as the cause.

 

[agedman]

ALL Calvinists should watch this clip to learn what the Bible says

Why should we listen to a guy who also believes in the RCC thinking of a purgatory?

He stands as much in error as any who teach such, and is heretical in his view.

There are only two eternities. One is either “absent from the body and present with the Lord,” or one is “condemned already.”

This Jerry Walls isn’t a source of much true at all.

 

[TCassidy]

This Jerry Walls isn’t a source of much true at all.

But he is indicative of the problem Saved-By-Grace and others have discerning truth. They really think heretics like Walls has the answers. How utterly sad.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Really? Give me a quote from Augustine, post 400 AD, which is heresy regarding the death of Christ.

So you want me to give you evidence, which you have already rejected, that Christ's death is a universal blessing, then tell me I can't use the verse that proves that Christ's death is a universal blessing? LOL!

Any argument, from the bible, that you don't believe is useless.

So now you believe that Jesus did not die for all? You do not believe His atonement is sufficient to pay the penalty for all sin?

You reject it. What more can I say?

tell me this one thing. HOW can the death of Jesus Christ be of ANY benefit for those who are not "elect",as they are bound to go to hell? Calvinism teaches that from eternity past, God predestined only the "elect" to obtain salvation through the death of Jesus Christ. Exactly HOW will any non-elect BENEFIT from this, as they are hell bound? Your reasoning is faulty as it does not follow what the Bible teaches

Show me from Augustine where he changed his view?

 

[TCassidy]

tell me this one thing.

As soon as you defend your assertion regarding Augustine. Here it is again in case you forgot.

Give me a quote from Augustine, post 400 AD, which is heresy regarding the death of Christ.

 

[Reynolds]

Here is a strawman fest...by a foolish person bound up in KJV only and a narrow dispensationalism that many dispensationalists would also reject.

How far can you get before you are disgusted,lol

Why even post that? You have ignorant non-Cals and ignorant Cals. Why find the worst you can and link it?

 

[Reynolds]

Only lasted 24 seconds, when he said Calvinism is a denomination. But seriously, this is almost a strawman argument. He is possibly the poster child for ignorant anti-Calvinism, not a serious opponent of so-called Calvinistic soteriology. Shooting fish in a barrel. You can do better.

He did not say that.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

No, that is merely a false statement.

As I stated, BOTH T.Cassidy are in agreement that the blood was for all.

Yet, that does not remove the depraved condition as completely preventing salvation as the Scriptures teach, nor that God elects those to be adopted as Scriptures teach, nor does it diffuse the unmerited favor of God being the author of salvation, and certainly cannot remove Romans 8 as the complete persevering and preservation of believers.

Which one of those would you destroy by removing limited atonement?

For the reader, I place the limit not upon the blood but upon the choice of God in who and when He will adopt from those that the blood is sufficient. Just because the blood was shed for all as the Scriptures state does not prevent God from selecting from the all those He purposes to adopt.

This view is consistent with the most strick rendering of the book of John.

There are others of Calvinist thinking that do consider that Christ’s blood is only for those saved, but then that is not as consistent with John, for one is not condemned because of a lack of atonement, but from a lack of belief.

Same rebelliousness found in Adam is found in every lost that are cast into the Lake of
Fire.

No one can claim the lack of blood, they will see the lack of belief as the cause.

Now you are speaking in contradictions! You say that the blood of Jesus was shed for all; and then, this does not prevent God from electing some to election. What is the purpose for His death for ALL, if He has made it sure that He has selected only a few to be saved? This is a pretense! God is not sincere in His actions, which is impossible