Why...

I doubt anyone here seriously said this to you: "Many of you have brought up the answer already -- that admittedly you are relying on "the knowledge and faith of Calvinism.""

 

if someone said these exact words we need a link to read it ourselves.

 

Skypair, the exact quote may not be found, but you are on the right track: Lean not to your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him. We owe no allegiance to the writers of commentary and dictionaries ~~ only Him.

:jesus:

 

Because you have shown a constant unwillingness to believe Scripture. Unity is based on truth. When you don't agree with truth, you cannot be unified with those of us who do. You constant changing of the meaning of words and verses and ignoring the things that God has said has caused you to end up where you are.

 

I am not about to comment on who believes Scripture, Truth, or who is saved, because I do not know the true heart of any person, and obviously I am not God, and neither is anyone else on this board.

One observation though, it is amazing in Acts, there was one church, in one accord, united by the Spirit. Today, we have hundreds of denominations and subsets. Why is that? Probably flawed and sinful men creating them. It probably stems from the attitude that my interpretation of Scripture is better than yours.

 

You seem to have the false idea that those us who believe in the "Doctrines of Grace" do so because Calvin taught them. Now of course there may be people in the world who have that idea, though I personally have never come across any. On the other hand, I know plenty of believers who would agree, as I do, with these words by John Piper:

The Reformed Faith is the biblical vision of God and his ways recovered in the Reformation under leaders like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli. I don’t mean that all these men taught was true. Only the Bible is perfectly true. I mean that all these men saw the same thing at the center of the Bible and spoke it with power. We see the same things in the Bible and so we believe them and love them. ​

The very same arguments that you bring against the Reformed doctrines could apply just as well to those doctrines you espouse, such as freedom of the will, inate ability to choose Christ, and so on. Such doctrines have been formulated at different times in history, particularly by the followers of Arminius. Indeed, it was in answer to the "Five Points" of the so-called "Remonstrant Articles" put together by the followers of Arminus, that the "Five Points of Calvinism" later appeared in the "Canons of the Synod of Dordt." You can read the Remonstrant Articles at: http://www.baptistlife.com/flick/remonstrance.htm and "Canons of the Synod of Dordt." at: http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=synod_of_dort.html You will notice if you read those documents that both appeal to scripture. It wasn't that either the Arminians or Calvin thought to themselves, "Let's think up some new doctrine that isn't in the bible." Both believed that what they wrote was taught in the bible, and gave scripture references to back up what they said. So it is wrong to say that "Calvinists" rely on a man for their beliefs, while those who believe otherwise don't.

 

Lets see, if people do not agree with you, then they are not unified, and do not kow scripture, they are on milk, not meat.
But to be mature unified christians they need to agree with you, and not the biblical teaching of grace.

 

Actually, the denominations and subsets stem from difference in belief. They are not all right. Some interpretations are better than others and if you don't think you hold the best one, shouldn't you change? If I thought there was a better belief than I have, I would hold it rather than the one I have.

 

I am in the exact one that I think is better. That is not the point. The fact they exist shows our flawed nature. Yes, only one comes as close to what is right over all the others. (None probably as the one in Acts). Just because an individual thinks he or she is in the closest one, does not make it so. Nor does it mean that only that group is going to heaven. (no titles mentioned here)

 

This is true. It is why the Bible has to be the standard of truth.

 

The Bible is the standard of Truth, indeed. What you think the Bible says is not.

 

Why oh why, do the Calvinists respond to this stuff?
Don't fan the flame.
Seriously.
These posts are foolish and do not deserve a response from the Calvinists.

 

I wasn't aware that was the target. I thought we were supposed to agree with Jesus and the Bible.

No, as we have shown many times, it is you, not us, who redefine words. You make the mistake of thinking that because a label is not found in Scirpture it is illegitimate. That is simply false. The label describes what is found in Scripture. And your theology does how those kinds of things, like Trinity.

That is all I have ever done and I have done it so much it is available all over to read.

Actually, I don't have any issues with those verses.

That is dishonest. You know good and well I don't stand on Calvin. To the dismay of some, I have never even read much of Calvin aside from a few pages in a commentary. I got my theology from Scripture.

 

For the record, I've read even less of Calvin. I've read much more by Arminius than Calvin, only because I wanted to see if someone's claims were true.

 

Which is what skypair is demonstrating. The majority of his posts ever since he started posting had been to attack the Calvinists on this board, what they believe, what they hold on to.

His pet peeve is Calvinism, and to him the lowest kind of being would be the Calvinist. He has made it his life's mission, for as long as this board exists, to prove to Calvinists that they are stupid, robots, unthinking, spoon fed morons (of course he says so in a "loving, Christian" way) who idolize Calvin and he and only he has the truth.

He is the only one whose theology honors God, and any Calvinist who dares to stand up to him will be "lovingly" corrected and told "Christianly" that he is in absolute error and close to heresy.

His opening statements remind me of a joke we had going among us back in the Philippines when resting in-between operations against Moro rebels. One would pretend to be a Moro and speak with a Moro accent, and the other would say: "Oh, gosh, I wonder when all these killings will end." And the "Moro" would say: "Well, when the Army surrenders".

 

There is a reason for this: You do not know what you are talking about and you are unwilling to deal with us and Scripture fairly.

You sense wrongly because you will not accept what Scripture says on this matter. You have built a house on your own thinking. And that is a dangerous way to do theology.

 

That is a danger, certainly. On the other hand, if beliefs are misrepresented or misunderstood (rather than merely being disagreed with), it is natural that people holding those beliefs will want to do all they can to clear up any misconceptions.

In this and similar threads, I have seen many wrong things stated or implied about the reformed faith/doctrines of grace/Calvinism and those who believe it. Here are just four of them:

1. The bible is relegated to a subsidiary position, below the teachings of Calvin.
Not true - we believe it because we believe the bible teaches it. By all means let's discuss our different understandings of God's Word - none of us is anywhere near perfect, and I am fairly certain not one of us on this Board would claim perfect knowledge of the bible. But in doing so, we surely must make sure that we know what our "opponents" actually believe. (I know "opponents" is not the best word by far - I hope you know what I mean.)

2. The reformed faith consists only of the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism".
Not true - those "Five Points" were written to answer the earlier "Five Points" brought up by the followers of Arminius in their so-called "Remonstrant Articles". To take Calvin's points and treat them as if they were the sum total of reformed belief is wrong.


3. The reformed faith teaches that only a few will be saved.
Not true. Possibly this idea comes from the "TULIP" acrostic, where one of the five "points" is called (in English) "Limited Atonement". Such a term is unfortunate, but it doesn't actually occur (as far as I know) in the "Canons of Dordt", the document written to answer the "Five Points of Arminianism.

4. Believers in the reformed faith are hesitant about preaching the gospel to all.
Not true. They believe the "Great Commission", and those words Jesus said in John 6.37:

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out."​

George Whitfield believed those doctrines, and preached to thousands upon thousands of people. William Carey believed those doctrines, and took the gospel to India. And there are many more.

We cannot meaningfully discuss our differences of belief unless we know what those beliefs are.

In his or her original post, Skypair seems to express frustration in those final words: "Representations to the contrary would NOT be from the "knowledge and faith of Christ" --- they would be from the "knowledge and faith of Calvin," don't you see?"

Those who believe the reformed doctrines may likewise feel frustration: "We keep telling you that the way you describe our belief is mistaken, don't you see?"