How to defeat Calvinism

[Consumed]

all this does is not edify the body of Christ, calvanist, agnostics,still dont know whats what and who is who only that by the grace of God we are saved by the blood of the lamb who is a Lion, thats enough for me to wrangle with the mystery behind that in itself which becomes clearer each time i wrangle with it, not calvanism or any other doctrine of man, anyway what is an agnostic?? ok calvanist is predestination doctrine that i know, whatever is my my response to that in its entirety is my response, God only knows whats what, but what is an agnostic then, or maybe i should start a new thread on it, dont really want to cause it will just turn ugly along the way as most threads do when people dont agree but if someone could give me the definition of an agnostic that would be great,

cookie great sermon, batten down the hatches sweetie,
john 3:16 gives us the Fathers heart for His creation, that none should perish, said by Jesus, thats enough for me, why they do, they choose not to come to the light for their sins to be revealed, back to free will.

i can hear merry go round music now when the whole time we should focus on the Words of Jesus, Paul is great, Jesus is greater, calvin, well he is just calvin

ok ive batten down my hatches, thank you Jesus

 

[Consumed]

Jer 32:27 Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

 

[phil36]

Jer 32:27 Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

Amen to that

 

[phil36]

all this does is not edify the body of Christ, calvanist, agnostics,still dont know whats what and who is who only that by the grace of God we are saved by the blood of the lamb who is a Lion, thats enough for me to wrangle with the mystery behind that in itself which becomes clearer each time i wrangle with it, not calvanism or any other doctrine of man, anyway what is an agnostic?? ok calvanist is predestination doctrine that i know, whatever is my my response to that in its entirety is my response, God only knows whats what, but what is an agnostic then, or maybe i should start a new thread on it, dont really want to cause it will just turn ugly along the way as most threads do when people dont agree but if someone could give me the definition of an agnostic that would be great,

cookie great sermon, batten down the hatches sweetie,
john 3:16 gives us the Fathers heart for His creation, that none should perish, said by Jesus, thats enough for me, why they do, they choose not to come to the light for their sins to be revealed, back to free will.

i can hear merry go round music now when the whole time we should focus on the Words of Jesus, Paul is great, Jesus is greater, calvin, well he is just calvin

ok ive batten down my hatches, thank you Jesus

This is a flawed statement, you seem to say on one hand. you just trust God, and we all should and with the other wage war against Calvinism... do you not understand, that your theology is shaped by Arminianism?

So all this nonsense about..I just do this, or I just believe this. does not wash. If your are not reformed, Lutheran or RC then you are Arminian (a follower of Arminius and his teachings), not matter how much you try to dress it up and that is the theological glasses you wear when reading scripture. this is true for all on here. so lets stop being naive!

Phil

 

[Consumed]

never did i say we wage we war on Calvinism, i try and keep the focus on Jesus and Jesus alone, really Phil, you of all people i thought wouldn't be one of those" lets go out and attack the statement type of person".

something set you off in what you read?, ill try and ,make it clearer for you, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES CALVIN MAKE in the bigger picture, how does it edify anything except bring dispute, thats all.

If you can answer what relevance it has to my or your salvation feel free bro, i cant see any. read any post of mine and you will see is i might not agree, yet still make Jesus the central theme as should be and the work of the Cross in our own personal life. love you bro

Jer 32:27 Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

 

[Consumed]

phil go over the pages of this thread, you will see my sentiment thurout has been not one of wage war brother, there are about ten posts or more that i have engaged in within this threadt bro. please look for yourself, i went thru them all, sorry if i have offended you truely

 

[phil36]

never did i say we wage we war on Calvinism, i try and keep the focus on Jesus and Jesus alone, really Phil, you of all people i thought wouldn't be one of those" lets go out and attack the statement type of person".

something set you off in what you read?, ill try and ,make it clearer for you, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES CALVIN MAKE in the bigger picture, how does it edify anything except bring dispute, thats all.

If you can answer what relevance it has to my or your salvation feel free bro, i cant see any. read any post of mine and you will see is i might not agree, yet still make Jesus the central theme as should be and the work of the Cross in our own personal life. love you bro

Jer 32:27 Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

This is the whole problem..what difference does Calvin make? well, I don't follow Calvin, I follow Jesus and affirm the doctrines of what Calvin wrote... just as you follow Jesus and affirm the doctrines of Arminious. this is the whole point.

And you all can say on here.. oh I just believe in Jesus I don't follow this or that, well, then you decieve yourself, for the very fact that you believe in free will put you into the teachings of RC and Arminious and all this stemmed from Pelagious... the heretic.

Do you see what I am saying? no matter what you say, you will be ijnline with some doctrine or other you can deny it if you want but I know its true.

When you read a book, what doctrines does the writer believe and guides you in that direction, when you listen to a sermon, what doctrines does the preacher believe and guides you into that and the list goes on.

Now, I know people on here are going to rage and say..I DO NOT FOLLOW DOCTRINE BUT THE BIBLE' well think again people, you are deceiving yourself.. what does Paul say to Timothy... and ask your say what is Doctrine. everytime you make a statement to do with your Faith you are making a theological and doctrinal statement.

Sorry consumed my pst wasn't primarily aimed at you. but everyone. I just wish people would wake up and grow up, and start realizing what they believe..AND WHY THEY BELIEVE IT.. who told them, what have they read.. what does the author believe (for his beliefs will shine through his writing), what does your preacher believe..ask yourself...how does he know this.. how did he come to this conclusion..who taucght him, and who taught them, and who was their teachers .. what books have they read who have they listened to.. THIS INFLUENCES WHAT YOU BELIEVE>>> wake up and smell the coffee people. start thinking.

WHY DO YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE!

Phil

 

[MahogonySnail]

I don't think anyone can claim that a person follows Arminianism just because they disagree with Calvinism. I think the bible is somewhere in the middle and does not side with either.

Free will did not start with roman catholicism from the early church writings I've read they all believed in free-will even before Constantine converted the roman empire to christianity. What is clear to me is that the early church writings are very non-calvinistic.

If you believe free will was a corruption then I guess you shouldn't depend on the canon of scripture or the nicene creed either because these were all written and decided by people who believed in free-will.

There is a contradiction right here in this statement of yours:

"for the very fact that you believe in free will put you into the teachings of RC and Arminious and all this stemmed from Pelagious... the heretic."

Who condemned pelagius as a heretic, wasn't it the RC church?

 

[Consumed]

ok who is arminous, was he a agnostic whatever that is or some other doctrine
this just gets weirder

 

[phil36]

I don't think anyone can claim that a person follows Arminianism just because they disagree with Calvinism. I think the bible is somewhere in the middle and does not side with either.

Free will did not start with roman catholicism from the early church writings I've read they all believed in free-will before Constantine converted the roman empire to christianity. What is clear to me is that the early church writings are very non-calvinistic.

If you believe free will was a corruption then I guess you shouldn't depend on the canon of scripture or the nicene creed either because these were all written and decided by people who believed in free-will.

What early church writings are you referring to Mahogony? Calvin referred to Scripture.

And I would like to think early writings where not Calvinistic, considering he lived a long time afterward

I can't see anywhere of scripture talking of free will, in fact it doesnt. I do see scripture talking of a universality pertaining to salvation! But, this universality is always restricted to the believer I will give you an example.

Romans 1:16

6For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

you see, you have salvation for everyone, but it is only for the believer. Christ died for all, but it is only applied to the believer. another really important part in this verse, is that of the unity of Jew and greek... so did the church supersede Israel? or was the true Israel widened for gentile inclusion.

I believe the church has not superseded true Israel, but Israel has been widened to allow the gentile inclusion, for the wild branches to be in-grafted. of course that is the reformed position.

But if you want to read what scripture says about the in-grafting of gentilesl, and who the children of Abraham really are. its a great eye opener. I think you will have a pleasent suprse if you actually read what reformed theology is all about. I am not trying to convince you Mahogony, a very good book would be Micheal Hortons 'The God of Promise - Introducing Covenant theology' although it is an introduction, its not an easy quick read, but its not a big read, but it will let you see what reformed people believe its all covenant and God's promise.

athough this debate could go on for ever, (well until the parousia) and then it won't matter. we will probably never agree lol, i think we both have come to this conclusion before lol.

Phil
​

 

[phil36]

I don't think anyone can claim that a person follows Arminianism just because they disagree with Calvinism. I think the bible is somewhere in the middle and does not side with either.

Free will did not start with roman catholicism from the early church writings I've read they all believed in free-will even before Constantine converted the roman empire to christianity. What is clear to me is that the early church writings are very non-calvinistic.

If you believe free will was a corruption then I guess you shouldn't depend on the canon of scripture or the nicene creed either because these were all written and decided by people who believed in free-will.

There is a contradiction right here in this statement of yours:

"for the very fact that you believe in free will put you into the teachings of RC and Arminious and all this stemmed from Pelagius... the heretic."

Who condemned Pelagius as a heretic, wasn't it the RC church?

Just to recap on Pelagious, in the event of the reformation, the RC had refined its beliefs, the reformation actually helped the RC define its belief system, even though I would say in error. even though Pelagian was condemned as a heretic, the RC in its plight against the reformers actually became. semi --Pelagain.. this is also where Arminian though draws its logic.


When we look at church history, we keep seeing re occurrences of bad doctrine and heresy and they keep reappeering, in one form or another.. the pelagian debate is one of them, the other is that God is one, and not a trinity, that was a condemned heresy, yet it is more or less accepted within Christian fellowship, TD JAKES is one of them.

Denial of original sin is another.. QT himself takes this view. its heresy.

You see we all just think these heresy's where in the past, but they never really went away, the have been bubbling under the surface and re-appear

Phil

 

[phil36]

ok who is arminous, was he a agnostic whatever that is or some other doctrine
this just gets weirder

This is the man where you really in the sense of protestantism get your free will theory. Nowhwere in the bible except before the Fall can you show free will.

He was Christian and saved.

Phil

 

[Consumed]

i resign from this thread, this is not what we as christiasn should be engaging in, really calvin arminian pelagoriuos, who ever, they didnt save me, Christ alone by His blood while i was still a sinner

 

[MahogonySnail]

Denial of original sin is another.. QT himself takes this view. its heresy.

Phil it is interesting that you raise the point of original sin.

I wonder if you've ever done an honest study of the origins of Calvinism and what the early church believed eg the anti-nicene church fathers. The western view of original sin may itself be a heretical doctrine if we consider its origins via Augustine. In such cases QT would be entirely justified to deny original sin.

The early church believed in conditional pre-destination. Calvinists believe in unconditional pre-destination. The gnostics who called themselves the 'elect' also believed in unconditional predestination I think, and gnosticism was a mixture of paganism and christianity. Calvin was influenced by Augustine (according to Spurgeon). Augustine himself was a Manichaean (a major Iranian gnostic religion) who converted to orthodox christianity. But he never gave up his gnostic thinking totally, and brought some of that into his theology which found its way into Roman Catholicism and most branches of protestantism existing today. One of them was his views on original sin. That is one of the reasons, among others, why Calvinists believe in unconditional pre-destination. But both roman catholicism and calvinism have one thing in common - both are tainted by gnosticism thanks to Augustine.

If a person had the privaledge of sitting with one of the apostles or pre-augustinian church leaders, they might be surprised just how different their views would be from what is commonly held views in christianity (both catholic and protestant) today.

I don't think we can overlook the fact that the theology which is called "Calvinism" did not come from the apostle Paul, or Peter or John directly via learned study and inspiration of God's Word or directly from the apostle's mouths themselves. It came from Calvin via Augustine. That is one major reason why folk who study the bible alone, will often find their view differ from that of Calvinists or Arminians, even so slightly. Augustine's theology was also influenced by his own past shortcomings (sexual excesses) and pagan philosphy (plato).

This website below provides some Gnostic, Calvinist, Orthodoxy and Church Father quotes where we can see the differences between what the Church Fathers believed and Gnostic and Calvinism...and the similarities between Gnosticism and Calvinism.

Pious Fabrications: Calvinism, Gnosticism, Orthodoxy & Church Fathers: Predestination, a comparison

What is clear from these quotes is that the orthodox and church fathers believe in free will, and that God's judgment and punishment is a direct consequence of humans choosing good or evil. I like the one where they argue that if we had no free will, God could not give rewards or give our punishment for sin.

If we were to make a decision about which one was closest to what the apostles believed, my bet would be on Orthodox and Church Father's.

 

[phil36]

Ive read alot of Augustine, I will admit not it all. I would to have a read of the sources you quote, i would be interested in buying the books, I have three church history books already, but I would like more indepth ones.

One question for you regarding original sin.. what does the whole bible say about sin and our sin nature? once you look at what all of scripture says and not just a couple of verse then you will begin to see the picture.

Anyhow, where you get your source material would still be an interesting read, are they on amazon? How you seem to trcae how the early church Fathers, of course you have polycarp, Have read a a few essays on him , but not as much as I would like. maybe your, reference books will help.

Phil

 

[phil36]

Im sure you have read Polycarps letter to the Phillipians, I have just looked at it again.. ilove how he says: (Polycarp was an early church Father.. He was in the times of John, and said to have been a companion with John. he lived app Ad 70 till I think Ad 155. below is a portion of a letter he wrote app Ad110.


I rejoice with you greatly in our Lord Jesus Christ, having welcomed the replicas of true love and having sent on
their way, as was incumbent upon you, those confined by chains fitting for saints which are the crowns of those
truly chosen by God and our Lord. 2 And because of the secure root of our faith, being proclaimed from ancient
times, {still continues}3 and bears fruit to our Lord Jesus Christ, who endured because of our sins to reach even
death, whom God raised up having loosed the birth pains of Hades.4 3 In whom, not having seen, you believe
with joy inexpressible and glorious,5 which many long to experience, knowing that by grace you have been saved,
not by works,6 but the will of God through Jesus Christ.


Phil

 

[QuestionTime]

never did i say we wage we war on Calvinism, i try and keep the focus on Jesus and Jesus alone, really Phil, you of all people i thought wouldn't be one of those" lets go out and attack the statement type of person".

something set you off in what you read?, ill try and ,make it clearer for you, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES CALVIN MAKE in the bigger picture, how does it edify anything except bring dispute, thats all.

If you can answer what relevance it has to my or your salvation feel free bro, i cant see any. read any post of mine and you will see is i might not agree, yet still make Jesus the central theme as should be and the work of the Cross in our own personal life. love you bro

For a time I thought that Calvinists and Arminians could fellowship under the same roof, but I am increasingly feeling that this is not the case.

I also have a list of offenses from people that hold to Calvinism and it keeps growing. Some especially crude offenses were from those in the church that I found in Calgary. I am saddened that my 63 year old friend still attends this church and it's my fault for leading him there. You can't go 3 weeks without this church slandering Finney or Wesley. What is the necessity of this? Why can we not put our brothers and sisters before doctrine? (My 63 year old friend was always one of those who wouldn't hold to either Calvinism or Arminianism, but his mind has been increasingly swayed, though he is unaware of it).

God help us!

Quest

 

[MahogonySnail]

Phil, from what I've read the early church fathers like polycarp believed in election. But he believed in conditional election.
So looking for writings about God choosing people as you did isn't enough. We need to find how they believed God made the choices. Was it conditional, or unconditional?

As you well know it's difficult to prove things from early church father writings as they are not scripture , but they give us an idea of what the "heavy weights" in the church at the time believed. Also recognising that opinions sometimes varied between different 'church fathers' as they themselves had not completely understand or grasped the answer to the difficult philosophical questions that Jesus and the apostles probably never had the time to delve into. And also we should realise that the early church cross-referenced these early church fathers like polycarp and irenaeus to help decide which books should be in the canon of scripture!!

Nonetheless the clearest writings on this matter of free will and election are those by Irenaeus I believe. Irenaeus was a disciple of polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle john. So Irenaeus, unless he backflipped and taught something contrary to what john had told polycarp and polycarp had told him... it should be fairly reliable.

The best resource would be his Against Heresies Book IV which can be read here:

ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library


If you would go down to here: ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

where the title is:

"Men are possessed of free will, and endowed with the faculty of making a choice. It is not true, therefore, that some are by nature good, and others bad."


Which shows he believed in free will.


And this one:

ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

titled: "Man is endowed with the faculty of distinguishing good and evil; so that, without compulsion, he has the power, by his own will and choice, to perform God’s commandments, by doing which he avoids the evils prepared for the rebellious."


So unless Irenaeus went completely against his mentors views (polycarp), it is highly likely that polycarp and the apostle John believed in free-will too.



Now these were written against gnosticism obviously, but it may as well be written against 5-point Calvinism as the concepts between Calvinism and gnosticism seem so similar (denial of free will, unconditional predestination of the 'elect' etc).

As a side comment, note that he did not believe in once saved always saved. That is another false view that came into christianity much later.

as he says:

Those persons, therefore, who have apostatized from the light given by the Father, and transgressed the law of liberty, have done so through their own fault, since they have been created free agents, and possessed of power over themselves.

 

[QuestionTime]

So unless Irenaeus went completely against his mentors views (polycarp), it is highly likely that polycarp and the apostle John believed in free-will too.

Now these were written against gnosticism obviously, but it may as well be written against 5-point Calvinism as the concepts between Calvinism and gnosticism seem so similar (denial of free will, unconditional predestination of the 'elect' etc).

As a side comment, note that he did not believe in once saved always saved. That is another false view that came into christianity much later.

as he says:

Those persons, therefore, who have apostatized from the light given by the Father, and transgressed the law of liberty, have done so through their own fault, since they have been created free agents, and possessed of power over themselves.

Impressive Snail! Thanks for sharing this info!

As well, thank-you for - somewhat - coming to my defense regarding Original Sin. I just struggle with any doctrine that places the blame on Adam or God, rather than upon myself.

Quest

 

[MahogonySnail]

I'm not fully up to speed with this original sin thing, i've never really given it much thought.

Is this correct? :

Biblical and pre-Augustinian view - we are the guilty sinners. This results in proper focus on how we relate to God , ourselves and each other.

Augustinian and modern christian view - put the blame on adam and eve or God. This results in converts who perhaps haven't come to full realisation that God holds them accountable for their own sin. This is a more attractive view and avoids hurting people's feelings if we can blame someone else, ...but whether it produces real converts or not or whether it really matters at all is a good question.

Augustine had some funny views on sex and sin and pleasure too I think.

I admit that I hold to the augustinian view personally, that our sin is a result of adam and eve. But I'm beginning to see that what I have always taken for granted about this, may not fit exactly with pre-augustinian christianity. And if it doesn't agree with pre-augustinian christianity, then it most certaily will not agree with biblical christianity.

When a person calls a certain view 'heresy'..and I'm guilty of this myself.... is that with respect to the roman catholic's standard of heresy? or the bibles? Maybe I can call myself a heretic.