Calvinism Refuted

[crossnote]

Funny thing about Calvinists or at least wanna-bees. They think it's all about T_U_L_I_P. The fact is Calvin himself never got into the topic of predestination etc.,until volume #3 of his Institutes. His major emphasis was on Covenental theology attempting to connect Israel's covenants with the Church, and how they practically work themselves out in the church and society...hence 'little Geneva'.
You can thank Mr. Arminius for the fanfare over the 5 point controversy.

 

[cxjonz]

Sounds like you may know more about Augustine than I. I remember reading How to Become a Bishop without Being religion, in which it was noted how when disgusting Augustine, someone may try to do the old One-Up-Manship by coming back to your Aú-gusteen with an Uhgús-tin. Then the way you win the One-Up-Manship is by maneuvering your adversary somehow having to use the adjective Augustinian.

I don't think of Calvin as any crackpot, but a really brilliant thinker. But in the final analysis, is not trying to figure out election (without going to pot on it) trying to unscrew the unscrewable?

Now I did meet an extreme Calvinist who was to me a real crackpot who had gone to pot on the subject. He was a Camper predicting May 21. And he did not know he was elect or not. But he was sure that you should not tell anyone to believe in the Lord Jesus, because that has to follow election logically -- so it was futile. I guess for him no one should trust Christ as Savior because that would violate election. But that is not typical Calvinism.

Never read Augustine. Calvin's "Institute of Religion" appears to me to be something akin to james joyce. All false proposals of salvation are directed against one profound statement.
"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13 Paul is not referencing the Sinai code of law by the word law in that statement. Instead he is referencing the law which has been added. "The law was added so that the trespass (the sin of the Lord's murder) would increase." Rom. 5:20 Romans cannot be interpreted correctly unless it is understood which law Paul is referencing whenever the word law has been stated in any sentence in Romans. This phenomenon is present in other letters Paul wrote. For example Gal. 3: 10&11, 18 "law" is referencing the Sinai code, but , 3:19 is referencing the addition. The Sinai code was not put into effect through angels nor was the Mediator involved. Stephen is referencing the addition in Acts 7:53. Subsequent to and colliery of those citations the OT has references to making an addition to the law. Isa. 2:3 "the law shall go forth from Zion (the temple mount) and verbatim subordination is in Micah 4:2. Further there are many references relative to the law that has been added in Psalms. In Ps. 119 virtually every instance when the word law is stated it is referencing the law which has been added by making a change of the priesthood. Heb. 7:12 You might have also noted that every pontificator of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement on here always presents the argument that directly objurgates Rom. 2:13 as false, but it isn't.

 

[Spokenpassage]

Funny thing about Calvinists or at least wanna-bees. They think it's all about T_U_L_I_P. The fact is Calvin himself never got into the topic of predestination etc.,until volume #3 of his Institutes. His major emphasis was on Covenental theology attempting to connect Israel's covenants with the Church, and how they practically work themselves out in the church and society...hence 'little Geneva'.
You can thank Mr. Arminius for the fanfare over the 5 point controversy.

I never met a Calvinist who didn't know the history of it before they became one...

Sounds ridiculous to me if they didn't.

 

[cxjonz]

And then along came Jonz!
Slow walking Jonz,
Slow talkin Jonz.

Now look Jonz: (LOL)

If you have some document which you claim is the Word of God, other than the Bible bring it forth and prove it is God's Word. I mean bring forth a document which is readily available to men-in-general now. (Don't refer to the Book of Jasher, 'cause we don't gots.) And explain why since the last book of the NT was written, no document written after that has ever been successfully added to the Bible.

Thanks for your written opinion. But your stated opinion has been reported.

 

[crossnote]

I never met a Calvinist who didn't know the history of it before they became one...

Sounds ridiculous to me if they didn't.

Any comment on Calvin's unemphasis on the Tulip teachings, while Calvinists spend 75% of their emphasis on Tulip?

 

[VCO]

I agree with much of the general gist above. However you opine: "IF THEY BELIEVE IN THE SAME CORE OF BELIEFS TAUGHT BY ALL MAINLINE CHRISTIANITY CHURCHES THEY STILL ARE CHRISTIANS."

I think you would have been mostly right in that statement in 1900, but especially after WWI there was a general doctrinal apostasy in the mainline denominations. I was raised in one as a child where everything was debatable. Even the Son of God could be affirmed on the basis that you and I and everyone are sons of God.

IMHO, nowadays most of the main line denominations agree in being humanistic and denying the basics of the faith.

As far as being humanistic and denying the basics of the faith, what makes you think that has anything to do with Mainline Christianity. Those are charactistics of psuedo-christian cults.

1 John 2:19 (HCSB)
[SUP]19 [/SUP] They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. However, they went out so that it might be made clear that none of them belongs to us.

 

[Spokenpassage]

Any comment on Calvin's unemphasis on the Tulip teachings, while Calvinists spend 75% of their emphasis on Tulip?

Why do you guys keep bringing up Calvin as if our world revolves around him? We don't worship the man, I personally don't agree with everything he taught. I personally believe infant baptism is unbiblical. I don't even quite consider myself reformed, though I agree some things in covenant theology, I stand somewhere near new covenant theology. I don't believe in the same eschatology as all reformed. A Christian who holds to the doctrines of grace don't have to take Calvin's word on everything.

You may not agree, but I see Tulip hand at hand with the gospel. You cannot divide the two, so yes we do talk about God's great grace and sovereignty a lot, why is that a problem? Everything we preach isn't just this, if you thought that I'm sorry to say that's not correct.

 

[cxjonz]

Why do you guys keep bringing up Calvin as if our world revolves around him? We don't worship the man, I personally don't agree with everything he taught. I personally believe infant baptism is unbiblical. I don't even quite consider myself reformed, though I agree some things in covenant theology, I stand somewhere near new covenant theology. I don't believe in the same eschatology as all reformed. A Christian who holds to the doctrines of grace don't have to take Calvin's word on everything.



You may not agree, but I see Tulip hand at hand with the gospel. You cannot divide the two, so yes we do talk about God's great grace and sovereignty a lot, why is that a problem? Everything we preach isn't just this, if you thought that I'm sorry to say that's not correct.

Every Calvinist even if he/she is backed up to the mouth of hell, all of his/hers clothes being burn off their backsides, facing all the guns of the world's armies loaded and cocked to fire, will elect to jump into hell to avoid repenting of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in order to save themselves.

 

[Spokenpassage]

Every Calvinist even if he/she is backed up to the mouth of hell, all of his/hers clothes being burn off their backsides, facing all the guns of the world's armies loaded and cocked to fire, will elect to jump into hell to avoid repenting of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in order to save themselves.

If you are saying we don't believe in repenting and putting faith in the work and Person of Jesus Christ for salvation, you got the wrong group. I think you are talking about a group called hyper-calvinist. It is unbiblical and even heretical. They are not even Calvinists, I wouldn't even dare call it Christian, because it's not.

 

[crossnote]

Why do you guys keep bringing up Calvin as if our world revolves around him? We don't worship the man, I personally don't agree with everything he taught. I personally believe infant baptism is unbiblical. I don't even quite consider myself reformed, though I agree some things in covenant theology, I stand somewhere near new covenant theology. I don't believe in the same eschatology as all reformed. A Christian who holds to the doctrines of grace don't have to take Calvin's word on everything.

You may not agree, but I see Tulip hand at hand with the gospel. You cannot divide the two, so yes we do talk about God's great grace and sovereignty a lot, why is that a problem? Everything we preach isn't just this, if you thought that I'm sorry to say that's not correct.

I don't know why...
Calvin--->Calvinism; Luther--->Lutheranism; Christ--->Christianity.
Just a hunch I guess, but I realize movements digress from their founders.

 

[cxjonz]

If you are saying we don't believe in repenting and putting faith in the work and Person of Jesus Christ for salvation, you got the wrong group. I think you are talking about a group called hyper-calvinist. It is unbiblical and even heretical. They are not even Calvinists, I wouldn't even dare call it Christian, because it's not.

Did I not say every? Friend it does not matter whether hyper or not. Yes you do believe in repenting as long as you elect what to repent of, but your salvation is dependent upon the sin God has elected that you MUST have the faith to repent of. There are no exceptions.

 

[Spokenpassage]

I don't know why...
Calvin--->Calvinism; Luther--->Lutheranism; Christ--->Christianity.
Just a hunch I guess, but I realize movements digress from their founders.

But seriously, it's not a movement, sorry to say bro...

I can be Calvinist while being Baptist.

Just saying...

 

[crossnote]

Did I not say every? Friend it does not matter whether hyper or not. Yes you do believe in repenting as long as you elect what to repent of, but your salvation is dependent upon the sin God has elected that you MUST have the faith to repent of. There are no exceptions.

translate pls.

 

[crossnote]

But seriously, it's not a movement, sorry to say bro...

I can be Calvinist while being Baptist.

Just saying...

I know, there are Reformed Baptists...was one 1689 and all.

 

[Spokenpassage]

Did I not say every? Friend it does not matter whether hyper or not. Yes you do believe in repenting as long as you elect what to repent of, but your salvation is dependent upon the sin God has elected that you MUST have the faith to repent of. There are no exceptions.

I don't understand your post. I think you have a distorted view of it, whether someone who professed it made a horrible example, or someone who told you is ignorant of it, or if you came to hear it on your own terms.

Don't think you understand. How does one know he/she is the elect? Repentance and faith in the work and person of Jesus Christ. That's evidence of who the elect are, whether you believe in Arminianism or Calvinism. They share that much of election.

It does matter, hyper calvinism believes that faith is not a duty, that evangelism is not necessary, that God created sin, that God don't love the reprobate, that Christians shouldn't, etc. There is a sharp distinction between Calvinism and Hyper Calvinism.

 

[cxjonz]

translate pls.

Do you mean extrapolate?
"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13
Let me ask you friend; only a single sin was repented of to obey the Acts 2:38 command, what sin? You do not have a preference of election in this matter. It is either have the faith to obey God this Way or pay hell for not doing so. There are no exceptions.

 

[crossnote]

Do you mean extrapolate?
"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13
Let me ask you friend; only a single sin was repented of to obey the Acts 2:38 command, what sin? You do not have a preference of election in this matter. It is either have the faith to obey God this Way or pay hell for not doing so. There are no exceptions.

You ever hear of the Gospel? Sorry, a different topic.

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
(Rom 3:20-21)

oh phooey, might as well finish...

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
(Rom 3:22-26)

 

[cxjonz]

I don't understand your post. I think you have a distorted view of it, whether someone who professed it made a horrible example, or someone who told you is ignorant of it, or if you came to hear it on your own terms.

Don't think you understand. How does one know he/she is the elect? Repentance and faith in the work and person of Jesus Christ. That's evidence of who the elect are, whether you believe in Arminianism or Calvinism. They share that much of election.

It does matter, hyper calvinism believes that faith is not a duty, that evangelism is not necessary, that God created sin, that God don't love the reprobate, that Christians shouldn't, etc. There is a sharp distinction between Calvinism and Hyper Calvinism.

See post #96 for the nitty gritty. And by the way no man has taught me. God teaches his children himself.

 

[cxjonz]

You ever hear of the Gospel? Sorry, a different topic.

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
(Rom 3:20-21)

oh phooey, might as well finish...

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
(Rom 3:22-26)

Rom. 3: 20& 21 is referencing the written code of law. Rom. 2:13, however is referencing the law that has been added AFTER and by the Lord thy God's ascension. Scripture does not argue against scripture, but every Calvinist makes it do so to avoid repenting of the sin that God has elected for you to repent of before he will grant you the grace of escaping the penalty of eternal death. There are no exceptions.

 

[crossnote]

Rom. 3: 20& 21 is referencing the written code of law. Rom. 2:13, however is referencing the law that has been added AFTER and by the Lord thy God's ascension. Scripture does not argue against scripture, but every Calvinist makes it do so to avoid repenting of the sin that God has elected for you to repent of before he will grant you the grace of escaping the penalty of eternal death. There are no exceptions.

For as many as have sinned without law [Gentiles] shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law[Jews] shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.[speaking of the Jews false assurance of having the law] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another).
(Rom 2:12-15)

Bold brackets are my comments.

All Paul is doing is establishing the fact that Jews and Gentiles are both guilty under or apart from the law.The gentiles even though still guilty put to shame many Jews who hear the law but does not the law. The fact remains all have fallen short.