Calvinism, Right or wrong?

  • 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.
S

sparkman

Guest
Are you willing to watch a 40 minute video or more?
And what would you do about him if I showed he was in error?
I can't post the message board link because that is against the rules.
I'm headed out to church so I don't know if I will have the time.

You're asking me to do something but what are you willing to do?
Most of the time people are asking me to prove something and they aren't willing to do anything.
Wouldn't you agree that it is fair if you are accusing someone of being in error, you should be willing to provide a description of the error?

I will watch it, if it's a video produced by him, and not selective remarks taken out of context. You can list the errors and provide me a link of the video in my cc account. :)
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
The following is a video I don't support and it doesn't represent what I believe.

[video=youtube;JJDJyajU8aM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JJDJyajU8aM[/video]

I believe it is commanded for us to love one another and when we don't love one another, we aren't keeping the commandments of the Lord. I actually love my brothers and sisters in the Lord from that music video.


I believe that Lordship Salvation, Legalism, Salvation by Works is an affront to Justification by faith so I went and bought all of the E-books on Justification by Faith that I could find and I actually found that young people aren't learning Justification by Faith as a doctrine today but I was briefly taught it as a young person and there are Christians who have been stuck with weak pastors who don't necessarily agree with them but we believe in treating people with gentleness and respect. But the author of the video wasted the first 14.5 minutes of this video and only gave me a topic or title on to what he is going to talk about and I am not sure I want to listen to someone who can't articulate his thoughts in less time but I will try.


Some people might do more works than others as we are created to do good works but the funny thing is that those who worked more were angry at those who worked less and Jesus said, 'Didst not we agree for a penny?"


Matthew 20:9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.


Matthew 20:10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.


Matthew 20:11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,


Matthew 20:12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.


Matthew 20:13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?


Matthew 20:14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.


Matthew 20:15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

I was fact checking the video at 35 minutes and 44 second.
James White has the 1 Thessalonians 5:14 in the Message posted where it says "Attentive to Individual Needs".
James reads it from the NASB.

I just want to point out that I possibly found what he glossed over which is "support the weak".

1 Thessalonians 5:14 And we urge you, brothers and sisters, warn those who are idle and disruptive, encourage the disheartened, help the weak, be patient with everyone.

1 Thessalonians 5:14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.

1 Thessalonians 5 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)

I agree that "The Message" is not a translation but I think this is what Eugene Peterson may have been trying to translate.

If this is the case, this is why I do my own research instead of listen to others.

Would we be having this argument if the "pastor" simply quoted from Galatians 6:2 and Matthew 5:41?If we treat people better than ourselves (Philippians 2:3), wouldn't we be doing what James White is accusing the pastor of having no basis for?


And what restrictions are there in love?


In light of this, your enemy (Hillsong) ends up looking like the nice one and the man in the video needs to be fact checked.

Luke 7:37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
Luke 7:38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
Luke 7:39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.
Luke 7:40 And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.


Luke 7:44 And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.
Luke 7:45 Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.
Luke 7:46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.
Luke 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
Luke 7:48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.


I was wondering in light of this discussion, if we traded places with Hillsong and the Woman in Luke 7, what would Jesus do? And remember the context of Luke 7:39 where the Pharisees called her a "sinner". Aren't we all sinners?


And the question should be, wasn't this woman attentive to Jesus' needs?
And didn't Jesus tell the woman her sins are forgiven?

I'm finishing the video from about 47 minutes to the last fifteen minutes and all I want to say is that I disagree with the "theologian" over procedural issues. I'm not going to argue everything.

It is shocking that I can argue with a quote / unquote "theologian" from a youtube video but that is because he isn't accredited.


So here is the issue. My acquaintance on the internet said this and he got it from James White in the video:

Yes, and it is love and protection of the sheep to warn them of false teachers, and first and foremost it is love for God and for the Truth, THEN for our neighbor.

"Then" or "and" for our neighbor? Where is "then" in the Bible? Do you mean one of the ten commandments is optional?


Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Matthew 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Matthew 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


If one of the commandments is optional then all the law and the prophets that hang on them are optional.


There is an aspect to salvation that cannot be seen but the heart can see it so if a person is blind, you won't show them the gospel then how will they be changed? But there is an aspect to showing people the gospel that can be seen through the heart and you refuse to love them so they might be changed. People might be able to perceive the gospel from love and then when they accept it, they will read the Bible and all of the changes like righteousness will take place as they repent as a result of the gospel.

Isaiah 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.
Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.


The Pharisees carried stones to keep lepers away and this leper took a chance:


Matthew 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.


And Jesus said what you said, right? That he has to clean himself up before he has to come to Jesus? No.
Here is what you do. Stop studying people and videos because they're basically commentaries. You interpret the Bible first and then you can listen to commentaries. When you get off the word of God, everyone departs from the word of God and I can do that myself. That is why I stick to the word of God. It is when I take my eyes off that I forget what it says to do!

This is why I stop listening to every person running around with an unaccredited advanced degree.
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
And what was the video he had a problem with?

[video=youtube;qovjUOR_DTg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qovjUOR_DTg[/video]
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
Wouldn't you agree that it is fair if you are accusing someone of being in error, you should be willing to provide a description of the error?

I will watch it, if it's a video produced by him, and not selective remarks taken out of context. You can list the errors and provide me a link of the video in my cc account. :)
I expect you to put your money where your mouth is and tell us what you are going to do about the errors.
 

TMS

Senior Member
Mar 21, 2015
3,875
1,228
113
Australia
One question I'd ask is whether God is on trial.

Seventh Day Adventists claim that God is on trial, and his character needs to be vindicated by redeemed people by keeping the Ten Commandments, primarily the Sabbath. According to them, Satan accuses God of creating a law that is too tough to follow, so they are keeping it to prove Satan wrong and to vindicate God's fairness.

The whole idea that God needs to vindicate Himself (or have some petty humans vindicate Him) before mankind is in error. God is sovereign and none of his judgments are to be questioned by fallen mankind.

By the way, this is quite often the ploy of skeptics and atheists. They wrap themselves in the robes of a judge, and point to various things YHVH did in the Old Testament, and declare them to be unjust, unloving, and unfair, and denying his existence on the basis of their judgments. They do this while at the same time being upheld by the same God that they are accusing...it's like a toddler climbing up in the lap of the father and slapping him repetitively, demanding answers to questions regarding decisions the parent has made regarding their actions, claiming He doesn't exist if he doesn't meet their criteria for fairness or justness.

Regarding your question...if you ask him why he saved a redeemed person rather than another, the answer is simple..grace..simple unmerited favor. We do nothing to earn or merit it. In the opposing viewpoint, salvation is ultimately about merit in some way...I was wise enough to choose God, and others are not, so it's their fault they are lost. Reformed theology would simply answer its all about grace..totally.

Regarding the appropriateness of the atonement, the atonement shows the absolute seriousness of sinning against God, and the fact that someone paid that price in substitution for us, through an agonizing death, should propel us toward loving obedience in appreciation for his suffering and sacrifice, still maintaining the seriousness of the offence of sin. We see God's justness and mercifulness perfectly expressed in penal substitutionary atonement.

It's common nowadays for liberal churches and theologians to deny penal substitutionary atonement, calling it "cosmic child abuse" because this, too, insults their human standards of fairness..there was nothing fair about the atonement...it was all purely about grace and willingness to accept punishment that was not due to Christ.
1Jn_4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
1Co 13:4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
1Co 13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
1Co 13:6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
1Co 13:7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
1Co 13:8 Charity never faileth:

You call it unmerited favour and that we all deserve to die because of sin. True we are unworthy and we do deserve to die. But because of Jesus and His blood we are seen as worthy and as if we have never sinned, Christ's perfect righteousness covers us, (so we become worthy because of Christ).
I didn't choose to be born into slavery and unmerited favour, but Adam did and know i have a choose who i want to serve. I have that choose because God is Love.
He suffereth long, and is kind; He seeketh not his own, He beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. and because Love never failes He didn't fail at making a way to redemn me, or my neighbour or my town or the rest of the world. If God failed in making a way of escape for all of this sick world than He isn't LOVE.

I don't question Gods sovereignty but i am watching Him and so far i find nothing but praise for His loving Character but if i believed that God only give salvation to who He chooses and to bad if you miss out, i'd have to say i'd question His depth of Love.
 
P

psychomom

Guest
I'd suggest reading What is Reformed Theology? by RC Sproul if you want to accurately understand Reformed Theology.
one of my favorite RC quotes: (spoken tongue in cheek to a certain extent)

"The Sovereignty of God is God's favorite doctrine.
and if you were God, it would be your favorite, too." ;)
 

nogard

Senior Member
Aug 21, 2013
331
2
0
Calvinism, right or wrong? WRONG

I suppose it could be right, as long as you're okay with God being a moral monster.
 

nogard

Senior Member
Aug 21, 2013
331
2
0
Allow me to elaborate.

To the believers in Calvinism, they accept that God creates humans, billions of humans in fact, for the sole purpose of sending them to hell. These humans have no choice in the matter. God has chosen not to save them, and there is nothing they can do to accept God's gift of salvation. They were doomed from birth, with no hope for salvation.

As a Calvinist, you need to be okay with this. In fact, you need to view this as good. To a Calvinist, whatever God says/does is considered good, not necessarily because it is inherently good in it of itself, but simply because God says its good. In other words, the action is considered good not on any moral grounds, but simply because an authoritarian figure has invoked it.


So Calvinists, consider yourself lucky that God has chosen you as one of the few he has decided to spare, and not one of the many he decided not to. What a loving God you have.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,779
13,541
113
The following is a video I don't support and it doesn't represent what I believe.
ok..

the following is a video that i support and represents what i believe :)


[video=youtube;nmvFzsLX2ng]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmvFzsLX2ng[/video]

To see the law by Christ fulfilled, to hear His pardoning voice
Can change a slave into a child and duty into choice
No strength of nature can suffice to serve the Lord aright
And what she has she misapplies for want of clearer light

How long, how long beneath the law I lay
How long, how long I struggled to obey

Then to abstain from outward sin was more than I could do
Now If I feel its power within, I feel I hate it too
Then all my servile works were done, a righteousness to raise
Now, freely chosen in the Son, I freely choose His ways

How long, how long beneath the law I lay
How long, how long I struggled to obey
How long, how long in bondage and distress
How long, how long I tried without success...
 
D

Depleted

Guest
If TULIP was or wasn't exactly what John Calvin taught that is what it is called today. I think it is important to study the doctrines and teaching from the past because that is what our churches are built on today. Some doctrines are correct and others wrong so we should test them and see if they are in harmony with the Sure Word of God. The Devil will continue to repaint the false doctrines and resell them with different slants for each generation but they are still false. So regardless of who invented TULIP i just wanted to investigate these teachings and workout whether it was Satan or God that inspired them.
Presbyterianism -- built from Calvin, but has splintered into so many denominations over the years, we'd have to talk which branch of Presbyterianism before we can decide if they do or don't agree with TULIP.

Lutherans -- Don't know. I don't get them, but I suspect that's because they've divided so often throughout the generations that it's roughly like Presbyterianism.

Methodism -- built from the foundation that TULIP is wrong.

Wesleyism -- so broken in so many directions now I also can't tell who they are, or, at this point, if there are any Wesleyans still around. But they too originated from the hatred of TULIP. They're also somehow related the the Azusa Street Revival, which is somehow related to the Jesus People Revival, which is somehow related to the Brownsville Revival, which is somehow related to the Toronto Blessing.

Baptist -- same problem as the other denominations. Who they were may or may not reflect on who they are now except for the fact that some are reformed, (the word we prefer over Calvinist, if you're interested) AND some hate TULIP.

RCC - the reason we needed to protest to start with.

Four-Square, Calvary Chapel, Discipleship, CoC, CoG, etc. all byproducts from stuff people taught in denominations that were rejected by their denominations and so, poof, yet another (multiple "others") denoms, or the word I really get a kick out of nondenom-denoms.

What's confusing you? This stuff has been going on since the Gnostics and Montanaist back in the first century. It will continue to go on until the New Heaven and the New Earth come. This is what Man does -- divide, nitpick, disparage, and turn other beliefs in the same God and the same Bible into splinter groups.

I'm Presbyterian. I absolutely know somewhere in my lifetime two Presbyterian denominations came along over the incredibly stupid argument of whether God set up Jesus coming to earth before or after creation. (Supralapsarianism vs. infralapsarianism.) Completely, utterly, incredibly, fully STUPID reason to divide the church body, and yet...

So why exactly must we study every belief system to determine what is right with them or what is wrong with them? Isn't it just so much less hassle to figure out what you think the Bible is saying and then find a church/denom/nondenom/nondenom-denom that goes along with what you believe, then rinky-dink, nitpicking apart something that simply cannot be explained by one paragraph per principle?

Honestly? No disrespect to the other denoms, (well except for the nondenom-denoms, but mostly because that's up there with the stupidity of separating over supra vs. infra lol), but I really couldn't care less to learn exactly what everyone else believes because it's way too much effort, I'm too lazy, I have better things to do with my time, and a big fat WHY? should I want to put this much effort into something I don't need to understand to go with what I DO understand?

Or, in short form, can you explain the exact distinctness of the principles your denom (and/or nondenom) were built in roughly the same few words you used to supposedly, "thoroughly" describe TULIP? Because, honestly? What you did to TULIP was a 15 second commercial on a miniseries of belief system. You really think you covered TULIP? Not even close. It was a volume, not a blurb.


(And the funny thing is I already said most of these posts are related to proving someone who knows nothing about the principles is trying to convert those who understand the principles, and yet, each and every time, it is the evilness of Calvinist. CLUE: It ain't the Calvinists trying to divide God's church!)

If you don't know the principles (NOT DOCTRINES) than you certainly can't teach anything about them for or against.
 
D

Depleted

Guest
Sure, i understand that without God we can't do anything Good. But the God i know wants to save everyone, Loves the whole world. So if Salvation is all in Gods hands, completely Gods choice, and nothing to do with us than God would save everyone. If it is all in our hands we would all fail to save ourselves because we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
If i can't chose to reject God than it wouldn't be a free choice. It's a choice i have to make, to hear His voice and allow Him in or reject Him.
And you couldn't say this in the beginning? So the reality is the god you know is either inept or a figment of your imagination. I go with the latter choice for you.

But it sure proved why you're so intent on disproving something you don't even understand.

Gotcha.

Outta here.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,779
13,541
113
with God being a moral monster.
to say this, you need to be okay with you having a higher view of morality than your Creator does, knowing better than the Lord of Hosts how He ought to run His universe, and having more authority than the Almighty to judge.

in re: Romans 9, in which the sovereignty of God is established, not a human freewill that can trump His choice.

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.
(Romans 9:16)



 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,779
13,541
113
whoops! used my words :p

sorry, back on track now :)


12524131_1288226567860766_3455424460252549858_n.jpg
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,779
13,541
113
_________________________________
5189279.jpg
 

Grandpa

Senior Member
Jun 24, 2011
11,551
3,190
113
Calvinism is just a view of scripture.

Its the view that God is powerful and we are not.

You can't really say its wrong. Because you would be saying scripture is wrong. And scripture is not wrong.

What you can say is that you disagree.


And most of the disagreements are based on emotion and philosophy, not on actual scripture. I understand you want God to be a certain way. You want God to be like you. But Gods Ways are Higher than your ways. Gods Thoughts are Higher than your thoughts.
 

TMS

Senior Member
Mar 21, 2015
3,875
1,228
113
Australia
Calvinism is just a view of scripture.

Its the view that God is powerful and we are not.

You can't really say its wrong. Because you would be saying scripture is wrong. And scripture is not wrong.

What you can say is that you disagree.


And most of the disagreements are based on emotion and philosophy, not on actual scripture. I understand you want God to be a certain way. You want God to be like you. But Gods Ways are Higher than your ways. Gods Thoughts are Higher than your thoughts.
Yes it is a voew of scripture but is that veiw correct?
My issue is the way calvinism sets up God as All Powerful and takes away Mans ability to choose.
I agree that God is all powerful and that His ways are much higher than mans but i believe man can still choose to reject or accept the gift of salvation.

"Unconditional election" God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those he has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen. Those chosen receive salvation through Christ alone. Those not chosen receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God.
I believe the Bible supports - God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to ALL of mankind. Those that accept the free gift receive salvation through Christ alone. Those that don't accept the gift receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God.
One allows man to accept and choose the other takes that choice away.
Perseverance of God with the saints with the set apart or elected, - asserts that since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end.
I believe in God's perseverance with mankind, but because He is sovereign doesn't mean He forces the saved to stay saved and will not let them reject Him.