How to defeat Calvinism
- Thread starter phil36
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M
Here are some verses that seem to oppose a Calvinist viewpoint:
Acts 17:30, Revelation 20:17, Matthew 11:28, 2 Peter 3:9
Words like all, everyone are pretty consistent in these verses.
Here is something that Jesus said that puts the responsibility solely on those who listen:
John 8:24(NASB)
24"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
This statement that Jesus made, alone indicates the role and responsibility that the listener has alone in being saved. If this person was predestined to die in their sins, why would Jesus even bother to warn them of a decision that THEY have to make?
So even if God draws/calls you to Him it would seem that we still have a decision to receive or reject Him. This is where I believe God draws a line between His choice to pursue you, and your choice to receive Him. This is where I believe free-will plays its role. I believe that God calls all to Him to some extent. This is why God has to blot some people out of His book of life(Psalm 69:28,Revelation 3:5) Why would He even bother writing people in that He knew He was going to blot out?
I found another thing interesting in Revelation 13:8
Revelation 13:8(NASB)(emphasis mine)
8All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.
Now you may say, well that just proves you wrong right there, but if you look at the word used in the original Greek graphō which means "has been or currently written", and is translated many times in other verses as "it is written" which is in present tense form.
Example verses with graphō :
(Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:6, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:10, Matthew 11:10, Matthew 21:13, Matthew 26:24, Matthew 26:31, Matthew 27:37, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 1:3, Luke 1:63, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4)
In all of these verses this word is used in the present tense as something that was written and currently is written. The two can't be separated in the definition of this word. So the fact that Jesus has to blot you out indicates His desire for the person to be saved and even a call for someone to be saved, yet the person is somehow able to still choose to reject Jesus which causes them to be blotted out of the book of life. If everything that happened on Earth could be attributed to God's sovereign plan, then He would not need to blot out people from His book of life. This supports free-will and is completely contrary to a fundamental part of the Calvinist doctrine.
This is just one of the reasons that i don't agree with Calvinism.
Blessings,
Machew
Acts 17:30, Revelation 20:17, Matthew 11:28, 2 Peter 3:9
Words like all, everyone are pretty consistent in these verses.
Here is something that Jesus said that puts the responsibility solely on those who listen:
John 8:24(NASB)
24"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
This statement that Jesus made, alone indicates the role and responsibility that the listener has alone in being saved. If this person was predestined to die in their sins, why would Jesus even bother to warn them of a decision that THEY have to make?
So even if God draws/calls you to Him it would seem that we still have a decision to receive or reject Him. This is where I believe God draws a line between His choice to pursue you, and your choice to receive Him. This is where I believe free-will plays its role. I believe that God calls all to Him to some extent. This is why God has to blot some people out of His book of life(Psalm 69:28,Revelation 3:5) Why would He even bother writing people in that He knew He was going to blot out?
I found another thing interesting in Revelation 13:8
Revelation 13:8(NASB)(emphasis mine)
8All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.
Now you may say, well that just proves you wrong right there, but if you look at the word used in the original Greek graphō which means "has been or currently written", and is translated many times in other verses as "it is written" which is in present tense form.
Example verses with graphō :
(Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:6, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:10, Matthew 11:10, Matthew 21:13, Matthew 26:24, Matthew 26:31, Matthew 27:37, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 1:3, Luke 1:63, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4)
In all of these verses this word is used in the present tense as something that was written and currently is written. The two can't be separated in the definition of this word. So the fact that Jesus has to blot you out indicates His desire for the person to be saved and even a call for someone to be saved, yet the person is somehow able to still choose to reject Jesus which causes them to be blotted out of the book of life. If everything that happened on Earth could be attributed to God's sovereign plan, then He would not need to blot out people from His book of life. This supports free-will and is completely contrary to a fundamental part of the Calvinist doctrine.
This is just one of the reasons that i don't agree with Calvinism.
Blessings,
Machew
Last edited:
S
16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Arminian view of this scripture;
16 "For God so loved the (entire) world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever (chooses to) believe in him should not perish but have eternal life.
17 For God did not send his Son into the (entire) world to condemn the (entire) world, but in order that the (entire) world might be saved through him.
18 Whoever (chooses to) believe in him is not condemned, but whoever does not (choose to) believe is condemned already, because he has (chosen) not (to) believe in the name of the only Son of God.*
Calvinist interpreation;
16 "For God so loved (His children) that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should (know that they would) not perish but have eternal life.
17 For God did not send his Son (among His children) to condemn (His children), but in order that (His children) might be saved through him.
18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, (because they are His children) but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed (but rejected the) name of the only Son of God.
The problem stems from the interpretation of who the world are.
There is one entire world where all in it reject God in favor of sin.
*
Rom 3:11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. 3:12 They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one."*
This world is then split up into two seperate worlds or one world that is taken out of the entire world thus making two seperate worlds
The world He loves that is saved by faith according to the purpose of Gods election*
John 3:16 For God so LOVED the world
And the world that is condemned because it rejects Gods full authority and remains in darkness and sin
Jn 17:9 "I pray for them. I do NOT pray for the world
*
Perfect example of a world being taken out of the world;*
Jn 15:19 "If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
**
Paul writes;
Romans 9:6 It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all those who are descended from Israel are truly Israel,
The same is said that not the entire world is the world He came to take out of the world*
9:7 nor are all the children Abraham's true descendants; rather "through Isaac will your descendants be counted 9:8 This means it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God; rather, the children of promise are counted as descendants.
It is not all who claim the name of Jesus who are the descendants, but the ones who recieve the Spirit are counted as descendants and It is not those you say they are Gods children that make them Gods children, but rather who God says are His children, they are His children
9:9 For this is what the promise declared: "About a year from now I will return and Sarah will have a son
The promise required of Abraham and Sarah to have faith in God and His word and that God could bring life from their dead bodies.
Rom 4:19 And not being weak in faith, he (Abraham) did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah's womb. 4:20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God,
*
9:10 Not only that, but when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our ancestor Isaac - 9:11 even before they were born or had done anything good or bad (so that God's purpose in election would stand, not by works but by his calling) - 9:12 it was said to her, " The older will serve the younger 9:13 just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated
Before Isaac was born God had already chosen him. And the same goes for Jacob. It is not by their own works that won Gods grace for them but by Gods election they recieve Gods grace * *
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
**
Is God unfair?
Calvinism says No! For God will have mercy on whomever He will have mercy *
*
17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Arminian view of this scripture;
16 "For God so loved the (entire) world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever (chooses to) believe in him should not perish but have eternal life.
17 For God did not send his Son into the (entire) world to condemn the (entire) world, but in order that the (entire) world might be saved through him.
18 Whoever (chooses to) believe in him is not condemned, but whoever does not (choose to) believe is condemned already, because he has (chosen) not (to) believe in the name of the only Son of God.*
Calvinist interpreation;
16 "For God so loved (His children) that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should (know that they would) not perish but have eternal life.
17 For God did not send his Son (among His children) to condemn (His children), but in order that (His children) might be saved through him.
18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, (because they are His children) but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed (but rejected the) name of the only Son of God.
The problem stems from the interpretation of who the world are.
There is one entire world where all in it reject God in favor of sin.
*
Rom 3:11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. 3:12 They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one."*
This world is then split up into two seperate worlds or one world that is taken out of the entire world thus making two seperate worlds
The world He loves that is saved by faith according to the purpose of Gods election*
John 3:16 For God so LOVED the world
And the world that is condemned because it rejects Gods full authority and remains in darkness and sin
Jn 17:9 "I pray for them. I do NOT pray for the world
*
Perfect example of a world being taken out of the world;*
Jn 15:19 "If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
**
Paul writes;
Romans 9:6 It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all those who are descended from Israel are truly Israel,
The same is said that not the entire world is the world He came to take out of the world*
9:7 nor are all the children Abraham's true descendants; rather "through Isaac will your descendants be counted 9:8 This means it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God; rather, the children of promise are counted as descendants.
It is not all who claim the name of Jesus who are the descendants, but the ones who recieve the Spirit are counted as descendants and It is not those you say they are Gods children that make them Gods children, but rather who God says are His children, they are His children
9:9 For this is what the promise declared: "About a year from now I will return and Sarah will have a son
The promise required of Abraham and Sarah to have faith in God and His word and that God could bring life from their dead bodies.
Rom 4:19 And not being weak in faith, he (Abraham) did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah's womb. 4:20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God,
*
9:10 Not only that, but when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our ancestor Isaac - 9:11 even before they were born or had done anything good or bad (so that God's purpose in election would stand, not by works but by his calling) - 9:12 it was said to her, " The older will serve the younger 9:13 just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated
Before Isaac was born God had already chosen him. And the same goes for Jacob. It is not by their own works that won Gods grace for them but by Gods election they recieve Gods grace * *
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
**
Is God unfair?
Calvinism says No! For God will have mercy on whomever He will have mercy *
*
Calvinism is wrong:
"but in order that (His children) might be saved through him."
The bible teaches that if you aren't saved, you aren't His child. Calvinist says if you are His child/chosen, you will be saved.
Calvinism = back to front mumbo jumbo.
John 1:12 (KJV)
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
The Calvinist reads it like this:
Joh 1:12 But as many as were chosen sons of God, to them gave he power to believe on His name.
"but in order that (His children) might be saved through him."
The bible teaches that if you aren't saved, you aren't His child. Calvinist says if you are His child/chosen, you will be saved.
Calvinism = back to front mumbo jumbo.
John 1:12 (KJV)
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
The Calvinist reads it like this:
Joh 1:12 But as many as were chosen sons of God, to them gave he power to believe on His name.
It's not valid really. To make this clear, would you say that you were saved before you were saved? That's pretty much what you are saying. Being a child of God is the same thing as being saved, in practice. But the bible teaches that we are God's children, if and only if we have received the Spirit of the Father into our hearts. This is a technical impossibility if a) we aren't born yet, and b) we have not believed in Christ. God does not save people because He fore-knows they are the ones who will believe in Him. That is back to front illogical mumbo jumbo, and confusing the meaning of foreknowledge to be something else, like fore-ordaining.
Last edited:
S
No I wouldn't say I was saved before I was saved. But I would say God knows who is saved before they're saved. I didn't write the bible, God did. I'm just going from what He has written. So are you saying God DIDNT choose Isaac before he was born? Did you even read my post and check it against scripture? Or are you just adamant about your belief that you convinced Yourself that you are right and a whole doctrine studied throughout the world and debated for the last 500 yrs
When you say things like we were children before we were saved, that is saying "I was saved before I was saved". Do you understand that a child of God is a saved person, and a saved person is a child of God? A child of God by definition is someone who has the Spirit of God in their heart. The bible never says a person is a child of God before they were born, rather it says that there is an event where people who weren't children of God, become children of God:
Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
Yes God knows whos is saved before they're saved...that is called foreknowledge. But God's foreknowledge (knowing something will happen), is not the same as pre-destination (the will or act of destining something to happen in the future).
Of course not. But realise that God chooses individuals for His purposes and callings. But also realise that in the old testament any foreigner was welcome to join God's people, God did not stop them. And I wouldn't say God individually picked and chose which foreigners God wanted to join His people. The correct answer I believe is: God chooses some for His purposes (noted men and women of God, Isaac, Abraham, John the baptism etc). But God also draws and calls people to Himself and this is left to their own decision after His invitation. In fact the ones who God calls... is not for their own salvation and benefit alone...God has called noted men and women of God , for the very purpose of preaching salvation to those He has not individually called.
It's fine to use examples of noted men and women of God such as Isaac to say that God chooses people for salvation. But what you're missing is that God has chosen everyone for salvation in His Son Jesus Christ and by the calling of the Gospel, who died for every person on the face of the earth, and there is a command from Christ to preach the Gospel to every creature, and every creature means every creature...to the whole world... because He has appointed a day in which He will judge the whole world by the One He has chosen - that is Jesus Christ... (Acts 17:30-31).. God commands all men everywhere to repent. That means everyone. That is why so many evangelists are preaching to unreached areas today. What a terrible thing to say that this often dangerous and hard work is only to find those who are already God's children...and not motivated by a desire to see those who are not God's children be saved and become God's children.
And a God who judges people for their sins whom Christ died for , when they are supposed to have no individual choice in the matter is not a fair and just and loving God. But God can hold people to account who hear the Gospel and disobey.
My beliefs have the support of 2000 years of Christianity you see because they go well back before Calvin was even born. It's fairly well established that the early church did not believe in the kinds of things Calvinism teaches. If you were born before Calvin came about...whom would you follow? Would you be able to study and read the bible for yourself? Or would you need to find a man like Calvin to follow and help you interpret it?
Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
Yes God knows whos is saved before they're saved...that is called foreknowledge. But God's foreknowledge (knowing something will happen), is not the same as pre-destination (the will or act of destining something to happen in the future).
Of course not. But realise that God chooses individuals for His purposes and callings. But also realise that in the old testament any foreigner was welcome to join God's people, God did not stop them. And I wouldn't say God individually picked and chose which foreigners God wanted to join His people. The correct answer I believe is: God chooses some for His purposes (noted men and women of God, Isaac, Abraham, John the baptism etc). But God also draws and calls people to Himself and this is left to their own decision after His invitation. In fact the ones who God calls... is not for their own salvation and benefit alone...God has called noted men and women of God , for the very purpose of preaching salvation to those He has not individually called.
It's fine to use examples of noted men and women of God such as Isaac to say that God chooses people for salvation. But what you're missing is that God has chosen everyone for salvation in His Son Jesus Christ and by the calling of the Gospel, who died for every person on the face of the earth, and there is a command from Christ to preach the Gospel to every creature, and every creature means every creature...to the whole world... because He has appointed a day in which He will judge the whole world by the One He has chosen - that is Jesus Christ... (Acts 17:30-31).. God commands all men everywhere to repent. That means everyone. That is why so many evangelists are preaching to unreached areas today. What a terrible thing to say that this often dangerous and hard work is only to find those who are already God's children...and not motivated by a desire to see those who are not God's children be saved and become God's children.
And a God who judges people for their sins whom Christ died for , when they are supposed to have no individual choice in the matter is not a fair and just and loving God. But God can hold people to account who hear the Gospel and disobey.
My beliefs have the support of 2000 years of Christianity you see because they go well back before Calvin was even born. It's fairly well established that the early church did not believe in the kinds of things Calvinism teaches. If you were born before Calvin came about...whom would you follow? Would you be able to study and read the bible for yourself? Or would you need to find a man like Calvin to follow and help you interpret it?
Last edited:
I think Servantofhim is quite capable of reading the bible for himself and arguing his case for Calvinism.
You Calvinists better start following "Christ alone" sometime instead of the idols you have made of your favourite theologians. Christ + Calvin = carnal christian ( 1 Cor 3:4).
I would wonder if you lived before Calvin was even born..who would you have to follow?
You Calvinists better start following "Christ alone" sometime instead of the idols you have made of your favourite theologians. Christ + Calvin = carnal christian ( 1 Cor 3:4).
I would wonder if you lived before Calvin was even born..who would you have to follow?
Your above staement is not very truthful and very leading.. just plainly false. I would say My beliefs have 2000 years of Christianity to support it... your arminian belief has only got a corrupt and vile Roman church. Before Luther would have been allowed to have your own bible to read??? maybe if you want burnt at the stake you could!!
Arminianism got its foot hold through the heretic 'Palagious', then the Roman Catholic church moved to semi-Palagianism and an opinion held (regarding soteriology) sadly by many like yourself.
Phil
Arminianism got its foot hold through the heretic 'Palagious', then the Roman Catholic church moved to semi-Palagianism and an opinion held (regarding soteriology) sadly by many like yourself.
Phil
I am afraid thats an old thing to accuse Calivinists of, its kind of sad really that you have stooped so low this time. That wasn't nice Mahogony, I feel a hatred in your heart for those who oppose your ideals, I will pray for you. and just for your information, within the broad Protestant tradition, theologically there is only< Lutheran, Reformed and Arminian.. you may dress it up how you like but you are Arminian. which is based from a theory of heresy.
I follow Christ not Calvin, but I agree with Calvin in re-establihing biblical truths from the twisting of Roman Catholic heresy.
I think that was a silly question..who do you seve, even you know deep down thats a nonsical question.
Phil
Regarding Arminianism and Pelagianism
You should know that Arminianism and Pelagianism are completely different things. Arminianism did NOT come from Pelagus. And those who follow either would not believe that one is connected to the other or that one is from the other. Yes there are similarities, but there are also plain contrasts between the two beliefs. One is heretical, the other is not. What Arminianism teaches would be closer to Calvinism than it is to Pelagianism.
Regarding Calvinism and Paganism
Did we know that Calvinism comes from a mixture of paganism, Judaism, gnosticism and Roman Catholicism?
Here's some examples. The pagan philospher Epictetus:
Plato said similar.
In contrast, the bible teaches in 1 John that the child of God does not (cannot, rather) sin.
The gnostics believed something very similar to Calvinism. Their beliefs were a mixture of paganism and Christianity:
Irenaeus, in Irenaeus Against Heresies, speaking of Gnosticism,
The idea that only an elect group of people will be saved borrows heavily from Judaism. But this is opposite to what is taught in the new testament and believed by the apostles:
1Ti 2:3 This is good and it pleases God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who wants everyone to be saved and to come to know the truth.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Even the Roman Catholics can get that right - that God desires all men to be saved, unwilling that any should perish.
At its core, what does Calvinism really teach?
Calvinism is a fairly new sect in the history of the church. As ServantIam alluded to - it is only 500 years old.
Calvinism really makes God out to be a cruel person who plays favourites with His creation. In my exchanges with the worst kinds of Calvinist - ultra Calvinist, this is clearly apparent to me. These beliefs are very similar to the pagan beliefs of one's "destiny":
Calvinism rejects man's freedom of will, and treats sin as a natural and unavoidable thing. This is heresy.
Calvinism denies that the sins of a believer brings death to the soul. The bible teaches:
Jas 5:20 know that he who turns back the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
On Calvinism and Augustine: Further proof of Calvinism's Pagan origins:
Spurgeon once stated:
"You may take a step from Paul to Augustine, then from Augustine to Calvin, and then-well, you may keep your foot up a good while before you find such another." When he visited the Simplon Hospice, he said, "I was delighted to find that they are Augustine monks, because, next to Calvin, I love Augustine. I feel that Augustine was the great mine out of which Calvin digged his mental wealth; and the Augustine monks, in practising their holy charity, seemed to say: 'Our Master was a teacher of grace, and we will practice it, and give without money and without price to all comers whatsoever they need.'"[
The Calvinist would deny that there is anything good in us at all.
But funnily, Augustine, did not teach this. Augustine admitted that we do have some good in us:
"So what then? Have we no justice at all? Or do we have some, but not the whole of it?So this is what we have got to find out. So if there’s something we have, and something we haven’t got, we must let what we have grow, and what we haven’t got will be completed. I mean, here we are with people who have been baptized, all their sins have been forgiven, they have been justified from their sins. We can’t deny it.
Again, if we say we have no justice at all, we are telling a lie about God’s gifts. You see, if we have no justice at all, we haven’t got faith either and if we haven’t got faith, we aren’t Christians. But if we do have faith, we already have at least some justice. Do you want to know how much that some of it is? The just live by faith (Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17; Heb 10:38); The just I repeat, live by faith, because they believe what they cannot see.” Sermon 158, sec. 4.""
The Calvinist would make Calvin out to be some great inspired teacher who received direct revelation from God. But this is not the case.
We can easily trace the origins of Calvins beliefs: From Augustine (who brought some gnostic/pagan concepts into Christianity), to Calvin (who according to Spurgeon, relied heavily upon Augustine).. to Calvinists today, who rely heavily upon Calvin.
Given that Calvinism came from Augustine, and Augustine was an ex-gnostic who converted to Christianity and brought some of his gnostic beliefs with him.... how can the Calvinist claim that Calvin's teachings came by "scripture alone" ?
Regarding who would the Calvinist follow before Calvin
I think my question regarding who you would agree with before Calvin came is valid. Has the question got you stumped?
Surely you are capable of studying the bible for yourself by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit within you, without needed to follow any particular theologian such as Calvin?
I think the Calvinist should consider this verse...
1Co 3:4 When one of you says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos"---aren't you acting like worldly people?
You should know that Arminianism and Pelagianism are completely different things. Arminianism did NOT come from Pelagus. And those who follow either would not believe that one is connected to the other or that one is from the other. Yes there are similarities, but there are also plain contrasts between the two beliefs. One is heretical, the other is not. What Arminianism teaches would be closer to Calvinism than it is to Pelagianism.
Regarding Calvinism and Paganism
Did we know that Calvinism comes from a mixture of paganism, Judaism, gnosticism and Roman Catholicism?
Here's some examples. The pagan philospher Epictetus:
Epictetus said: “How, then: is it possible to be sinless? It is impossible; but this is
possible, to strive not to sin.”Plato said similar.
“But having become good, to remain in a good state and be good, is not possible, and is not granted to man.God only has this blessing; but man cannot help being bad when the force of
circumstances overpowers him.”In contrast, the bible teaches in 1 John that the child of God does not (cannot, rather) sin.
The gnostics believed something very similar to Calvinism. Their beliefs were a mixture of paganism and Christianity:
Hippolytus, in his Refutation of all Heresies, says: “For (they would have us believe) that they are not overcome by the supposed vice, for that they have been redeemed.and that they do whatsoever they please, as persons free; for they allege that they are saved by
grace. For that there is no reason for punishment, even though one shall act wickedly; forsuch a one is not wicked by nature, but by enactment.”
grace. For that there is no reason for punishment, even though one shall act wickedly; forsuch a one is not wicked by nature, but by enactment.”
Clement says: “These quotations I have adduced in reproof of the Basilidians [Gnostics], who do not live rightly, either as having power (exousian) to sin because of their perfection, or as being altogether assured by nature of future salvation, although they sin
now, because they are by dignity of nature the elect.”
"But as to themselves, they hold that they shall be entirely and undoubtedly saved, not by means of conduct, but because they are spiritual by nature."
"Wherefore also it comes to pass, that the ‘most perfect’ among them addict themselves without fear to all those kinds of forbidden deeds of which the scriptures assure us that ‘they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.’
"And committing many other abominations and impieties, they run us down (who from the fear of God guard against sinning even in thought or word) as utterly contemptible and ignorant persons, while they highly exalt themselves, and claim to be perfect, and the
elect seed…”The idea that only an elect group of people will be saved borrows heavily from Judaism. But this is opposite to what is taught in the new testament and believed by the apostles:
1Ti 2:3 This is good and it pleases God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who wants everyone to be saved and to come to know the truth.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Even the Roman Catholics can get that right - that God desires all men to be saved, unwilling that any should perish.
At its core, what does Calvinism really teach?
Calvinism is a fairly new sect in the history of the church. As ServantIam alluded to - it is only 500 years old.
Calvinism really makes God out to be a cruel person who plays favourites with His creation. In my exchanges with the worst kinds of Calvinist - ultra Calvinist, this is clearly apparent to me. These beliefs are very similar to the pagan beliefs of one's "destiny":
Calvinism rejects man's freedom of will, and treats sin as a natural and unavoidable thing. This is heresy.
Calvinism denies that the sins of a believer brings death to the soul. The bible teaches:
Jas 5:20 know that he who turns back the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
On Calvinism and Augustine: Further proof of Calvinism's Pagan origins:
Spurgeon once stated:
"You may take a step from Paul to Augustine, then from Augustine to Calvin, and then-well, you may keep your foot up a good while before you find such another." When he visited the Simplon Hospice, he said, "I was delighted to find that they are Augustine monks, because, next to Calvin, I love Augustine. I feel that Augustine was the great mine out of which Calvin digged his mental wealth; and the Augustine monks, in practising their holy charity, seemed to say: 'Our Master was a teacher of grace, and we will practice it, and give without money and without price to all comers whatsoever they need.'"[
The Calvinist would deny that there is anything good in us at all.
But funnily, Augustine, did not teach this. Augustine admitted that we do have some good in us:
"So what then? Have we no justice at all? Or do we have some, but not the whole of it?So this is what we have got to find out. So if there’s something we have, and something we haven’t got, we must let what we have grow, and what we haven’t got will be completed. I mean, here we are with people who have been baptized, all their sins have been forgiven, they have been justified from their sins. We can’t deny it.
Again, if we say we have no justice at all, we are telling a lie about God’s gifts. You see, if we have no justice at all, we haven’t got faith either and if we haven’t got faith, we aren’t Christians. But if we do have faith, we already have at least some justice. Do you want to know how much that some of it is? The just live by faith (Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17; Heb 10:38); The just I repeat, live by faith, because they believe what they cannot see.” Sermon 158, sec. 4.""
The Calvinist would make Calvin out to be some great inspired teacher who received direct revelation from God. But this is not the case.
We can easily trace the origins of Calvins beliefs: From Augustine (who brought some gnostic/pagan concepts into Christianity), to Calvin (who according to Spurgeon, relied heavily upon Augustine).. to Calvinists today, who rely heavily upon Calvin.
Given that Calvinism came from Augustine, and Augustine was an ex-gnostic who converted to Christianity and brought some of his gnostic beliefs with him.... how can the Calvinist claim that Calvin's teachings came by "scripture alone" ?
Regarding who would the Calvinist follow before Calvin
I think my question regarding who you would agree with before Calvin came is valid. Has the question got you stumped?
Surely you are capable of studying the bible for yourself by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit within you, without needed to follow any particular theologian such as Calvin?
I think the Calvinist should consider this verse...
1Co 3:4 When one of you says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos"---aren't you acting like worldly people?
Snail, I am failing to see the links to the doctrines of calvinism in your post. I am begining to wonder if you even know what those doctrines are. The doctrines of grace are found in Genesis. It is not something cooked up 500 years ago. I sometimes wonder how people read their bible. You have to see the doctrine there, you just refuse to believe it.
I will hopefully make this clearer:
The gnostic says:
"or as being altogether assured by nature of future salvation, although they sin now, because they are by dignity of nature the elect"
The calvinist would say they are always saved because they are the elect, no matter how many times they sin in their lifetime.
Gnostics used the term "the elect", as do calvinists: The idea is that they thought they were are a specially selected group of people with a right to heaven. The gnostics claimed similar.
"as utterly contemptible and ignorant persons, while they highly exalt themselves, and claim to be perfect, and the elect seed…”
This one:
"For that there is no reason for punishment, even though one shall act wickedly; forsuch a one is not wicked by nature, but by enactment.”"
The Calvinist would say similar " by nature they are a saint, and as one of the elect shall be saved, even though they do wicked deeds"
The gnostic says:
"or as being altogether assured by nature of future salvation, although they sin now, because they are by dignity of nature the elect"
The calvinist would say they are always saved because they are the elect, no matter how many times they sin in their lifetime.
Gnostics used the term "the elect", as do calvinists: The idea is that they thought they were are a specially selected group of people with a right to heaven. The gnostics claimed similar.
"as utterly contemptible and ignorant persons, while they highly exalt themselves, and claim to be perfect, and the elect seed…”
This one:
"For that there is no reason for punishment, even though one shall act wickedly; forsuch a one is not wicked by nature, but by enactment.”"
The Calvinist would say similar " by nature they are a saint, and as one of the elect shall be saved, even though they do wicked deeds"
"But as to themselves, they hold that they shall be entirely and undoubtedly saved, not by means of conduct, but because they are spiritual by nature."
This gnostic belief reads very similarly to the doctrine of "once saved always saved".
This gnostic belief reads very similarly to the doctrine of "once saved always saved".
S
Firstly Calvinism could not be debated with the name Calvinism until Calvin. His docrines have been debated for the last 500 yrs. That's all I was saying. I would love to call myself just a Christian and not have to qualify it, but those who do not have the Spirit of truth cannot see the truth and make up unjust unsound doctrines and slap the name Christain on it. Calvinist stick to scripture, they don't twist anything, they didn't make up the doctrines of grace from nothing. It's written in the bible.
Your not alone in your hatred though, it's starting to become clear and evident what is it the heart of Arminianism.
Jn 15:19 "If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
Your not alone in your hatred though, it's starting to become clear and evident what is it the heart of Arminianism.
Jn 15:19 "If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
M
Romans 8:28-30(NASB)(emphasis mine)
28And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
29For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
I don't see how this violates that idea of free-will. I believe that God saw that we would make our own choice, and predestined us according to OUR choice. It is possible for God to predestine us as His children and still have it be our choice, since He operates outside of time.
You may say, "well this violates the sovereignty of God." No not really, if you realize that God wrote us into His Sovereign plan, knowing that we would choose Him. Things get quite confusing when you leave the dimension of time, and to say that we have to understand it completely for it to be true, is arrogance at best. I don't believe in a God that we can confine to the limits of human understanding.
The Bible was never meant to be understood by those who rely solely on their own intellect to understand it. In fact, if you have read the gospels, you will notice Jesus intentionally hid truth in parables from people, so only people hungry enough for the truth could understand it.
Is it really so hard to believe that we have a God who is so big that He doesn't need to control our free-will in order to still be in control and have all authority over creation? If we are truly created in the image of God, is it so far fetched to say that we have free-will just like our Father in heaven? Why would God create His children in His image but not give them a mind of their own? Would we truly be His children made in HIS image without free-will? Would we truly be able to co-reign with Him without free-will?
I don't know why people are so scared of this free-will concept. Maybe because it is scary to think that God has given us some measure of responsibility for what takes place here on Earth? God rewards certain people in heaven for a reason. Because they CHOSE what was right, and co-labored with Christ to advance His Kingdom here on the Earth. Why would God reward someone in heaven, if the person didn't have any say in what they did here? What is the point of a reward if they didn't have an opportunity to choose wrongly? God rewards because they chose to do what was right, in the midst of the option to choose what was wrong.
I don't believe predestination and free-will are in conflict with one another. I don't understand why it must be one or the other. The Bible contradicts itself if it isn't both and. And we all know the Bible doesn't contradict itself. So maybe we should be adjusting ourselves to what the Bible says, and not adjusting the Bible to us, writing things in that are not there. We need to read verses that are meant to be read literally, literally(I speak both to the Armenian and Calvinist camp).
Much Love,
Machew
Last edited: