Calvinism - Another Heresy

[Zmouth]

Matthew 24 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Kletos (called) and Ekkletos (chosen) -

Kletos means invited, ekkletos means selected.

For many are called,

Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Luke 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Few are choosen,

5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
Luke 1:5-6

 

[PennEd]

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.

This is a very interesting and thought provoking analogy Lynn.

Thanks

 

[wolfwint]

Calvinism is another great heresy polluting the Church to this very day.

It is very cranky, but if you ever hear of it, steer clear!!

It is full of false tenets, probably the worst of which is that some people are predestined to the eternal flames of Hell.

Generally speaking you are unlikely to find a proponent of this doctrine today, but it still percolates into some people's thinking.

I do not know its right to speak from heresy! I am shure that we will find wrong emphases in every denomination. I think the measure about someone is heretic is, how a doctrine is standing to our Lord Jesus, as John wrote in his first letter chapter 4,1-3:
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but test the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, of which you have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

I am not agree with some of clavinism points, too. But the most important thing in our churches is to reach others with the gospel. So far the denomination is not so much important so long the word of god is shared as that what it is: Gods Word!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You believe in univeralism? I did not know that about you before.

How do you get universalism out of what He said? Did you even read it?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Nope. That's sort of like saying "all Catholics pray the rosary every day." While it is true some do, it isn't true all do, or even most do.

Same thing with "Calvinist." Of course some are fatalists. Doesn't mean the majority are or all are. We even have a name for the fatalists.

Until you want to learn what we think, there is no purpose in explaining it. But don't call it an "all" kind of thing, when it is not. There is no free will. Not the same thing as no free agency.

If there is no free will, Then you have a fatalistic view, it states that it does not matter what you do. Your life is predetermined,

That is a term some call fatalism..

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Calvinism is a doctrine that believes some people are predestined to go to hell....

there is more of it if you want....

Actually it is true,, Al those who do not believe in Jesus are condemned already, because they have not believed. If they die in that state, They will go to hell. That has been predetermined. And God already knows who they are.

However, Where the fatalistic view gets it wrong is that these people do not have a choice.. They do.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Well I hate to burst your bubble but there are plenty of Calvinists, even on this forum.The trick is to identify whether they are 1,2,3,4, or 5 point Calvinists.Then of course there is the hyper Calvinist. All alive and well and preaching their false teaching to the church at large.

I think this is where we get into trouble, trying to label people. Then we thiink we know what they believe, and 99 percent of the time, we are wrong (there has been alot of that in here lately))

when In reality, If you do not follow ALL of calvin's theology, you are not truly a calvanist. It seems everyone wants to label people under two camps. Calvin or arminian, when in reality, so many people are neither. Its an argument or point of reference which needs to go by by!!

I think we should stand on what we believe, and discuss this, and not what some guy who has been dead for awhile believed.

We can discuss him if we want, But unless we get our "preconcieved" notions, or biases in check, there will be no real discussion.

 

[PinkDiamond]

Credibility is in the eyes of a person who is objective, not somebody who is biased. This attitude seems to be common amongst your little clique here on this forum, that you think somebody coming in recently has no credibility even though they might know 10 times as much as you do. You pulled the same thing with me but I guess you're not used to people who stand up for the actual truth and to you . Truth is always objective of false teaching never is. I'll take you on anytime on any single petal of the Tulip Doctrine.
The fact is that Jean Cauvin was a hack humanist lawyer and because he couldn't cut it there he turned his attention to the Catholic Church that he grew up in. His understanding of the Bible was a very humanist one and as such he looked for a way to take humanism out of the equation which is why he came up with one of his tenants of sovereign election. What you fail to understand is that mankind is part of the equation and as such has to be part of the answer. As far as I'm concerned you have no right whatsoever to complain about people that take personal shots at anybody seeing as though from my perspective you're the one that instigates a lot of personal shots along with your little clique. Try dealing with the topic of the individual posts instead of coming in with personal attacks on people's abilities and the newness of their appearance here. I'm sure the owners of this site don't like that type of vitriolic behavior.

I have to agree with Angela that this OP was not credible. The issue of credibility has nothing to do with the time a member has spent on the forum, but solely with the content of OP. I'm from a Pentecostal Arminian background and I can see how lacking in logic and fair representation of Calvinist views the OP was. I have no personal bias here. I also agree with the other points she made. It's not very promising when a new member posts such an inflammatory thread and title. In fact, I'm pretty sure I noticed a post by the OP not long ago in another thread condemning American Christians for being so reactionary during theological discussions. What is this thread ( and title) if not reactionary? It's not really fair to label members that want to see valid and reasonable discussions as being part of a clique. Once again, I have no personal bias here since I'm a newer member myself. A far better discussion on this subject is possible if members remain reasonable and try to present both sides accurately

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Which picture is more biblical of God saving: The man drowning in the ocean and calling out to God for help and God then throwing him a life jacket. Then its on him to make the decision to grab a hold of that life jacket and be rescued? OR The man dead at the bottom of the ocean who cannot do anything to save himself except that God throw himself in the depths of the ocean to save you and breathe life into again until you are alive? Ill let you decide?

The first one. Although I would change the saying of. A person has to grab the life jacket, to the fact they guy has to realise he is in danger of dieing, and that God does not throw a lifejacket, He comes and takes you by the hand and pulls you out.. But you have to raise you hand (in humility)

The second one pictures God in a bad light, because there were billions of people at the bttom of the ocean, And God only saved son, and the others, he never even gave a chance.


For a God who claims he is a god of pure love. his actions would not back those claims up. It would more back the claims of his advirsary satan, WHo claims God is not a God of love, he just does what he wants,

 

[Spurgeoncy]

Why not discuss the subject instead of me?

It seems like a lot of personal attacks, but very few people willing to discuss the subject.

What do you want me to say?

Calvinism - A flawed Doctrine

Does that make the pill sweeter?

Look, Calvin taught that some people are predestined to go to eternal damnation.

I have quoted him on that.

Is that a lie? Yes? No?

If not, then he is answerable to it.

If you truly believe he is correct, then defend him. Go on!

Stop attacking me, I am just delivering the mail.

Open the letter and respond

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Why not discuss the subject instead of me?

It seems like a lot of personal attacks, but very few people willing to discuss the subject.

What do you want me to say?

Calvinism - A flawed Doctrine

Does that make the pill sweeter?

Look, Calvin taught that some people are predestined to go to eternal damnation.

I have quoted him on that.

Is that a lie? Yes? No?

If not, then he is answerable to it.

If you truly believe he is correct, then defend him. Go on!

Stop attacking me, I am just delivering the mail.

Open the letter and respond

Your first mistake was opening a thread saying all calvanists were heretics. You in your words. showed you have no desire to discuss anything.

 

[NotmebutHim]

I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm curious: Who exactly is a heretic? Is it someone who actively teaches a false doctrine, or is it also someone who merely believes and follows it? Or is it just a matter of semantics and splitting hairs?

It just seems that we have a difficult time not only pinning down what are and what are not heresies, but also who and who are not heretics.

We must also remember that Scripture has different instructions for dealing with false believers (who are really non-believers) vs. dealing with false teachers.

$0.02

 

[Depleted]

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.

Yeah. Already tried to debate him. Kind of like trying to debate with someone who insists on talking about what to put on the shopping list, and then blames you for not sticking to the subject of the debate. lol

 

[Bladerunner]

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.

Ah,,,,,,, Just wanted to get to the Root of it all. You don't seem to care one way or the other...OK,,,I respect that...then let others decide for themselves.

 

[Utah]

I'm Christian. All isms can go by the wayside.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I'm Christian. All isms can go by the wayside.

ie, Just stick to the word. and stop following men. (isms)

Good idea. it is safer and better that way.

 

[garee]

I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm curious: Who exactly is a heretic? Is it someone who actively teaches a false doctrine, or is it also someone who merely believes and follows it? Or is it just a matter of semantics and splitting hairs?

It just seems that we have a difficult time not only pinning down what are and what are not heresies, but also who and who are not heretics.

We must also remember that Scripture has different instructions for dealing with false believers (who are really non-believers) vs. dealing with false teachers.

$0.02

My $0.02

Heresy... from a Greek word signifying (1) a choice, (2) the opinion chosen, and (3) the sect holding the opinion.

Heresies are another way of saying private interpretations as personal commentaries of men on what they believe the word of God teaches them. In that way we have opinions in a hope they do not make the grace of God without effect. That kind of heresy is considered damnable.Not all opinions are damnable.

2Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.


The Jew who resisted sola scriptura (believing all things written in the law and the prophets ) accused Paul of heresy but could not prove any thing without first shooting themselves in their own foot. .

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way "which they call heresy", so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Scripture say there must be heresies in that way. For we seek the approval of God and not men

1Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

2Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

It just seems that we have a difficult time not only pinning down what are and what are not heresies, but also who and who are not heretics.

God’s interpretation, the Bible is not a heresy, it is law, not subject to change .

 

[lv2ski]

I agree with you but I understand why depleted believes In Calvinism,I just don't know what to tell her to make a good case against Calvinism.

They don't want to hear. You can't read the Bible in context and come up with Calvinism.

Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.
Proverbs 26:12 NKJV
http://bible.com/114/pro.26.12.NKJV

 

[notuptome]

When you break all this down and examine it in the light of scripture you will see that all of us in some form and fashion have accepted parts of the tenets of Calvinism and Arminianism.

The false conflict arises from Arminianism being taught as works based salvation and Calvinism being wholly by grace and man having no ability to save himself. Both extremes are in error and really the majority of believers are somewhere in the middle of these two ideologies.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[posthuman]

Why not discuss the subject instead of me?

It seems like a lot of personal attacks, but very few people willing to discuss the subject.

What do you want me to say?

Calvinism - A flawed Doctrine

Does that make the pill sweeter?

Look, Calvin taught that some people are predestined to go to eternal damnation.

I have quoted him on that.

Is that a lie? Yes? No?

If not, then he is answerable to it.

If you truly believe he is correct, then defend him. Go on!

Stop attacking me, I am just delivering the mail.

Open the letter and respond

yes & i still have that question about the heart

where do i get the right heart?​

who makes them . . ? ​