Calvinists,Im Asking...

[kaylagrl]

"Baby dunker." Can't believe ya'll waterboard infants.

Hahaha! Funny story...one of my cousins told me a story of how my grandmother use to babysit him.Apparently he use to take horrible tantrums. So they took him to the doctor and he said when he takes a tantrum hold his head under cold water and he'll come out of it. So I said I dont see the big deal with waterboarding,they use to use it on kids!!

 

[Depleted]

In our membership booklet the core beliefs with Methodist are all focused on the cross, Jesus, grace and faith.

And yet, Methodism was created to "methodically" argue against Calvinism. That was the purpose of starting that denomination. No idea how it has changed since.

 

[Depleted]

Or your belief of what Wesleyan doctrine is wrong?

Any chance you might be wrong?

Any chance you don't understand both sides to figure that out for yourself yet? Just as likely. (I can't really say what either one of you believe, to decide who is right or wrong.)

 

[kaylagrl]

So one day a few Saints that were not reformed Calvinists died and went to heaven. Peter greeted them at the Gate and begin walking them towards Heavens intake center. As they walked, the ones that were not reformed Calvinists noticed they were coming up to an intersection in the streets of Gold and as they turned left, Peter urged them to be very quiet and not say a word as they passed a large Gate.....As the non-reformed Calvinists passed by the Gate they heard a large party going on behind the Gate. It took everyone about 3 minutes to get past the Gate.

Once they were about 500 feet past the door, Peter motioned to the non-reformed Calvinists they could talk again. One Pentecostal asked Peter why they had to be quiet passing the door.

Oh said, Peter laughing hard, That was the Reformed Calvinist part of heaven.............Jesus commanded us to be quiet when we pass by their Gate.....because they believe he said they are the only ones here.....

This isn't helping the discussion. Remember the Op,thanks.

 

[Depleted]

I made a comment on what someone else said in this thread..go back and call them out. Some Calvinist said that it was true.

.I have no clue what you believe (for or against condemning babies)

I know ForthAngel is against, so hopefully he understood the point I was making.

Which part do you recommend? Baptism?

And there is the problem of not knowing what Calvinists believe, and yet teaching it anyway. You've assumed someone else was a Calvinist because they too told what Calvinist believe. Neither one of them were Calvinist. (Roger, who thinks "hyper-Calvinist" is real, nor Roughsoul who thinks Unconditional election condemns babies.)

My problem with this thread. So many non-Calvinists are just wanting to join in on the discussion, and yet the only ones who can tell they aren't Calvinists are the Calvinist. How, exactly, does that help anyone to understand what Calvinist really believe? It becomes like every other post -- mishmash of nothingness.

 

[Depleted]

Now I would not say we are in Gods kingdom now. Can you explain why you say that? And what would you say has already happened in Revelations?

I could. I could go on for hours of what I think, but I really am trying to clarify what Reformed Theology says compared all other subjects. And, outside of "I agree with the Bible," there isn't a one-definition-fits-all for that in Reformed Theology. It's truly only about God and Man's relationship with God.

I bet it's the same for Pentecostals. Isn't there an entire cross section on what Pentecostals believe when it comes to God's kingdom?

We really are just like every other Christian. The only things that differs are TULIP, The Five Solas and the Order of Salvation. (Paragraphs 3 and 4 show the differences in the order between Reformed and Arminians in quick-and-easy-to-remember.)

All other topics range with us, just like everyone else.

 

[Depleted]

Alright I found it...

1689 LBC: Chapter 10: "Of Effectual Calling"



What about nonelect babies?

You really want this spelled out? Okay, I will. What about nonelected Hillary Clinton? She didn't get elected as President. Should she be elected anyway? And who has that right to decide who elects?

In like kind, God elects. No doubt about that. What happens to the unelected? They get the just punishment we all deserve -- hell.

Babies? I don't know! Do you have the list of everyone God has ever chosen? If you do, you can go down the list and check to see if he added age to the names. He does have the scroll. You know there is a scroll. Whose name is on it?

(I've always wondered what is it about babies that makes them so much more important than a mere 20something year old, a mere 40something year old, a mere old man or old woman? Why is it okay that those people have horrible things happen to them but not the babies? And at which age precisely is the age when we say, "Okay, dump it all on them. They're old enough now"?)

 

[Depleted]

So I would call that a "dedication" where parents are brought forward to promise to raise the child in the faith. Baptism would come at the age of understanding.

Yeah, but, to be clear -- baptismal choice is not a point of Reformed Theology.

 

[Depleted]

I believe its just saying without God we would be like animals. God calls all people. He drags all people to the truth and we have to choose to believe what God has enlightened our minds, or not. He wont force anyone.

Believe whatever you want to believe. Just stop posing as if you understand Calvinism at all, or you're teaching it. (And people have mistaken you for a Calvinist, so you are posing as something you aren't.) How about manners, if common sense doesn't do it for you? Reread the OP. This isn't to argue Calvinism. It's to learn what it means. Since you don't want to, don't add to the thread. It's called "good manners," if nothing else reaches you.

 

[Depleted]

Yeah....and the misrepresentation continues...

Our Wesleyan Heritage - The United Methodist Church

Prevenient grace sounds like what that other article calls "common grace" and justifying grace would be "saving grace"

Tell you what. When someone asks what to Wesleyans believe, you're fully armed. Now how about dropping it from a thread about what Calvinist believe?

 

[Depleted]

Hit up google again...

Pelagius was a monk who lived in the late 300s and early 400s A.D. Pelagius taught that human beings were born innocent, without the stain of original or inherited sin. He believed that God created every human soul directly and therefore every human soul was originally free from sin. Pelagius believed that Adam's sin did not affect future generations of humanity. This view became known as Pelagianism.

Ok,I do not believe we are born in innocent.The Bible says we are born in sin,shapen in inequity. And I do believe Adams sin affected the following generations. So no,I could not be called Pelagan. Preacher this is in answer to your comment. Another new word learned.

And that's where it gets even more confusion. Arminians come in two basic forms -- Pelagans and semipelagans. Same kind of thing as 5-point Calvinist vs. 4-Point Calvinist. It really isn't any more defining other than what we've been saying, "I don't agree 100% with..."

 

[Depleted]

No the preacher dude was saying all people do not have the chance for God to bring them truth. When that may be true for a small percent but even the small percent know of a higher spiritual being.

That is all, moving on

No. That's what you want him to be saying, so you can refute this. After all, you're all about refuting, not learning. And CERTAINLY not about understanding.

You are a clanging cymbal! (1 Cor. 13:1)

And it is an unpleasant sound!

 

[lonestar26]

Relationship Vs. Religion and rules and steps and definitions and processes.

It is real easy to see the difference on this thread.

Some of you can have all your Religion and rules and steps and definitions and processes.

For me and my house, yeah, we will simply Serve the Lord.

 

[Depleted]

so i was correct then , this form topic has nothing to do with a belief , but seek to go over religions systems. that were form by human after the bible went to print.
why would faith lead you to understand an other religion.

Feel free to answer that yourself since you are the "royalscot" by your very user name. You are declaring personal righteousness in your very name.

 

[Depleted]

i answered your first post , whats that got to do with a personal faith. none of the founders of that faith are here.

do both believe in a saviour or christian teachings.

Well, since you chose not to find out by simply reading, why ask?

 

[preacher4truth]

Perhaps you should remember, once again, that we are all sinners in need of Christ. Once you realize that includes you, then maybe you start treating other people like they were you. Maybe you could use a refresher course on Mark 12:31.

Nothing in my statement was unChrist like so I'll just continue to contend for the faith, and contend against the wolves. And the liars.

Methinks you need some 1 Peter 4:15.

 

[Ariel82]

[

And yet, Methodism was created to "methodically" argue against Calvinism. That was the purpose of starting that denomination. No idea how it has changed since.

No actually that gives Calvin too much importance. It was created to methodically call people to live holy lives for God's glory.

Wesley was an organizer and his structure of small groups Covenant Discipleship groups which made commits to walk with one another and hold each other accountable, were the reason Methodism flourish. They study and prayed together. They listened to each other problems and helped and encouraged one another.

The debate between Wesley and Whitehill was a sidenote on the story. They agreed on most things except predestination (free will) and possibility of perfection in the flesh (not what many accuse him of but another conversation)

 

[Ariel82]

Tell you what. When someone asks what to Wesleyans believe, you're fully armed. Now how about dropping it from a thread about what Calvinist believe?

Sure once Calvinist stick to talking about what they believe and stop making false sweeping statements about what others believe.

 

[Ariel82]

And that's where it gets even more confusion. Arminians come in two basic forms -- Pelagans and semipelagans. Same kind of thing as 5-point Calvinist vs. 4-Point Calvinist. It really isn't any more defining other than what we've been saying, "I don't agree 100% with..."

Like this post, it about what Calvinist believe about others, but is that the purpose of the thread?

A free platform to make assertations of others beliefs?

Any proof that Arminians teach a form of Pelagianism?

 

[Ariel82]

And there is the problem of not knowing what Calvinists believe, and yet teaching it anyway. You've assumed someone else was a Calvinist because they too told what Calvinist believe. Neither one of them were Calvinist. (Roger, who thinks "hyper-Calvinist" is real, nor Roughsoul who thinks Unconditional election condemns babies.)

My problem with this thread. So many non-Calvinists are just wanting to join in on the discussion, and yet the only ones who can tell they aren't Calvinists are the Calvinist. How, exactly, does that help anyone to understand what Calvinist really believe? It becomes like every other post -- mishmash of nothingness.

Hyper Calvinist are real. It's spoken against on Reformed websites.

This is the BDF, do you really expect only Calvinist to be on the thread?

Most of the people on this thread ARE NOT FIVE POINT CALVINIST, should they stop posting?

Most call themselves reformed. Wesley considered himself reformed as well, but others have labeled him Arminian and now some would label all Arminians as having some form of Pelagianism.

Which seems to me to be equal to say all Calvinist believe as Hyper Calvinist do because a small sect does.

It's not honest dialogue.