Calvinism - Another Heresy

[Depleted]

That awkward moment when you don't even know what Calvinism is...

LOL Don't worry about it. Even the ones who think we're heretics don't know what it is either. LOL

 

[Depleted]

I think you are the one with the problem. You come in here blasting a valid soteriological perspective, one that has survived 400 years. Oh right, actually a major movement of the early Protestant Church, after Luther!

You present no evidence that you even know what Calvinism is about. Then you blast Abigail.

Now, Abigail and I do not always see eye to eye on theology, but she is pretty rational. And SHE has been on this forum a lot longer than I have, in one form or another, since 2008. Not some Johnny come lately person like you!

I am not a Calvinist, but I do lean towards Reformed doctrine. In fact, the more Reformed doctrine I read, the more I lean that way. The more I read my Bible, the more I lean that way. So call me a Reformed Baptist!

I think you need to show a little more respect in this forum. If you disagree with a Biblical viewpoint, the better option would be to post what you believe, rather than come up with all these false rumours about what Calvinism is, when everything you say is either trying to slander people, or presenting half truths and lies.

And a little more respect for Abigail, please! She is a long time member of this forum. You are not! Try proving your credibility, before you go on the attack. Because right now, you have zero credibility with me, or most people, from what I have read.

LOL I'm not really comfortable about being called a Calvinist either. I put Calvin in the same boat as Jerome -- the guy who translated the Bible into what we call the Vulgate. Both were amazing guys, eager to learn from scripture, excited by God, and took some deep plunges into the depth of scripture with what they knew.

And both made booboos in some of their interpretations too.

So I prefer reformed too. Reformed Protestant or Baptists? Meh. Don't care. (I get the Baptists have a longer history, but you guys are family to me. Just more native than I am. lol)

I think it's too late for you though. You went off and did what hubby did. You got deep into the study of God and the Bible. I've seen many go deep into the side issues of the Bible (creationism, End Times, tongues, etc.) and remain where they started on who God is. But I have never seen anyone go deep into the study of God and the Bible itself without ending up being reformed. I won't count that as a miracle. It's just that the classic books tend to be from reformed writers, so how else do we come up but on that side?

(And hubby started it, but I'm getting there now. )

We used to be Arminians too. (At least it gives us the knowledge they too are family.)

 

[AbigailZeke]

That awkward moment when you don't even know what Calvinism is...

LOL Don't worry about it. Even the ones who think we're heretics don't know what it is either. LOL

Sadly, some people on this thread have no idea what the subject is and are only here for an opportunity to strike others.

 

[Depleted]

Well PD, you are the first person

to discuss the actual OP. Kudos at least for that.

I think Calvinism is completely wrong, and really an untruth about God's character.

Why do you think it is a true understanding of scripture?

Basic etiquettes of debate/arguing. The person who starts it, is supposed to start with his why. That you have not, (and never will), just tells me you're in this for the rush of the coaster ride. Now you think others should defend their positions? And after you turned it into a brawl? BOGUS!

Especially even now as you ignore questions asked of you.

 

[Depleted]

Utter tripe Angela, take your soapbox somewhere else, please.

Translation: "I got nuttin' so blame you for my ignorance."

 

[Depleted]

Calvinism:

- Having to do with Calvin Klein.

- Usually something to do with underwear.

- People debate it a lot.

- Underwear seems to be both controversial and poorly understood.



* I stay out of these debates, as I'm not experienced in debating the finer points of underwear... although I will concede it's an important topic.

Not even boxers or briefs? I thought you were braver than this.

 

[PinkDiamond]

I love how often I see threads on forums where a member decides they can resolve theological differences, that the church has debated for centuries, with one liners If smarter and more learned Christians couldn't achieve total unity or develop perfect theologies or interpretations of difficult passages, what makes us think this is so simple? It's always best to be open to learning from others and rethinking our views.

 

[Depleted]

Angela - with all due respect and with the fact that I love you, I would have to say it was Abigail who started the snarky comments and remarks.

She took a jibe at the user's name and posted that she couldn't take the OP seriously. Yet she constantly keeps coming back to post more snide comments and remarks on the OP's character.

Quite a vituperative method of aggression.

Also, I don't think that just because a person has been a long time member of the forums, they require special deference from other users.
Credibility on the internet is a personal choice.

[h=2]Calvinism - Another Heresy[/h]^ ^ ^
That wasn't the first snarky? Then, dang! I have been using the word snarky for over 20 years and don't have the definition right.

 

[Depleted]

Well, let me start this post off by saying that I have opinions on Scripture and Calvinism, but I'm not convinced that I have the true understanding on everything.

I think this discussion needs as Roger said a more concrete framework. We need to discuss each point of Tulip and see what issues some have with some or all of the points.

1) Total Depravity
2) Unconditional Election
3) Limited Atonement
4) Irresistible grace
5) Perseverance of the Saints

I personally don't really disagree with points 1 and 5. I find that I struggle to accept the other three points.
I think that if I understood your OP, that you disagree the most with point 2. You view predestination to take away from the fairness of God. I want to make sure we are on the same page before we discuss this further

Now that would be a cool post. People explain where they disagree and why, and we see if maybe they're not getting the meaning of the phrases. (Most don't. Some do and still disagree.)

 

[seed_time_harvest]

If you are worrying about whether you "have a choice to be obedient to Faith", then you got big problems that need fixen' fast

I mean a choice as In,either the persons accepts JESUS or they reject JESUS,but nevertheless,whosoever will.

 

[Desdichado]

I know precious few Reformed Christians who wholeheartedly adopt the term "Calvinist" or live or die by the words of Calvin alone. Most have never even read the Institutes or any of his commentaries, by gum.

His value was as a minister and a wholly unoriginal thinker, capable of sharp, succinct exegesis. As loathe to call Biblical Christianity "Calvinism" as I am to label it as such.

 

[Depleted]

Well said, in total agreement.

Is this going on your Imgur account too? Or only the ones you change enough to add it to your collage of hate?

 

[Depleted]

Are you saying,man doesn't have a choice to be obedient to faith?

No. If we had no choice, then we could not be condemned for what we've done. We had choice, but choice was related to our nature and our sin was sin nature. So we chose to sin, because it never dawned on us to make the good choice.

It's like a starving lion in a wheat field. Like domesticated cats, lions are omnivores. But they don't choose to eat wheat because it never dawns then to eat it. AND like what happens to domestic cats fed on nothing but meat, they die younger because of that. Wheat would stop a lion from starving, but it never thinks to do that because it's set in its nature. So is Man in sin nature. We can. We won't. And we won't because we hate God and love our sin.

God carries it out. Not us.

 

[Depleted]

HIS will Is done to whosoever believes In HIS WORD.I don't believe In calvin one bit because GOD's WORD tolds us WHOSOEVER WILL In John 3:16.

Adam was given a choice and Instead of choosing GOD's WORD which Is the truth,he(adam)chose his own way but GOD didn't abandon man but made a way by sending HIS WORD (JESUS).

BTW I think we are In agreement on Calvinism.

Are you even aware that is one sentence right smack in the middle of a long explanation by Christ? What he says next shows where you missed something. What he says before that does too.

 

[Depleted]

I know precious few Reformed Christians who wholeheartedly adopt the term "Calvinist" or live or die by the words of Calvin alone. Most have never even read the Institutes or any of his commentaries, by gum.

His value was as a minister and a wholly unoriginal thinker, capable of sharp, succinct exegesis. As loathe to call Biblical Christianity "Calvinism" as I am to label it as such.

I can't read Institutes for two really good reasons:
1. I'm already a natural legalist. Don't put bullets in my gun.
2. I ain't that smart.

 

[Desdichado]

I walked away from it far less legalistic and far more in awe of Grace. I have a feeling you would too.

But again, most Reformed Christians are not familiar with Calvin's work. And that may be a good thing. If everybody studied Calvin their entire life, we would be the cult so many straw-man us up to be.

I can't read Institutes for two really good reasons:
1. I'm already a natural legalist. Don't put bullets in my gun.
2. I ain't that smart.

 

[Bladerunner]

If you are going to debate this subject than do it right.

The Sovereignty of God vs. The Sovereignty of Man

Sub debates Calvinism and Arminianism - How are both wrong in what they deny.

 

[StanJ]

I know precious few Reformed Christians who wholeheartedly adopt the term "Calvinist" or live or die by the words of Calvin alone. Most have never even read the Institutes or any of his commentaries, by gum.

His value was as a minister and a wholly unoriginal thinker, capable of sharp, succinct exegesis. As loathe to call Biblical Christianity "Calvinism" as I am to label it as such.

I have to agree, because if they did then they would know that Calvin believed in infant baptism as a way of salvation.

"Now, if we are to investigate whether or not baptism is justly given to infants, will we not say that the man trifles, or rather is delirious, who would stop short at the element of water, and the external observance, and not allow his mind to rise to the spiritual mystery? If reason is listened to, it will undoubtedly appear that baptism is properly administered to infants as a thing due to them."

This so-called spiritual rationale was used in just about everything Calvin came up with.

 

[StanJ]

If you are going to debate this subject than do it right.

The Sovereignty of God vs. The Sovereignty of Man

Sub debates Calvinism and Arminianism - How are both wrong in what they deny.

I'm pretty sure the proper way to do it right would have been to make your concerns known to the moderators so they can decide where it needs to go.

 

[Desdichado]

I have to agree, because if they did then they would know that Calvin believed in infant baptism as a way of salvation.

"Now, if we are to investigate whether or not baptism is justly given to infants, will we not say that the man trifles, or rather is delirious, who would stop short at the element of water, and the external observance, and not allow his mind to rise to the spiritual mystery? If reason is listened to, it will undoubtedly appear that baptism is properly administered to infants as a thing due to them."

This so-called spiritual rationale was used in just about everything Calvin came up with.

This is a rather strong topic of debate within the Reformed community. Many are aware of Calvin's thoughts on the matter...and disagree.

Oh the Paedo-Credo debates. How they rage and rage.