Will The Actual Calvinists Here Please Stand Up?

[Mem]

Recognizing those who answer the poll are free to explain in a reply is common sense.
Don't claim that is an attack because the obvious escaped you and now you think it was an attack.




Except,I answered my own poll first. And said no,I'm not a Calvinists.

The paranoia surrounding John's teaching,that came along well after others who taught the same thing,is deeply entrenched here.

How many discussions regarding Soteriology would have progressed in a positive light were it not for this? Sadly,this site will never know.

So then, a 'yes but no' option would've been a more accurate designation regarding your relevance to Calvinism? I'm just trying to understand the claim that, in summary, "Calvin didn't invent Calvinism, he only discovered that "it" had been there all along... but I'm not a Calvinist." It's very confusing, like double talk and it only attracts a hostility, as everyone can see, whenever clarification is requested.

If you believe that it has been 'ordained' that you speak to me with any condescending tone but continue to take offense if I should follow suit, then it smells somewhat of an adopted elitist philosophy which, imo, Calvinism actually generates.

 

[Jimbone]

It is still in the Bible. You said it wasn't.

I was wondering what the hack his point was with that wall of text. You were 100% undeniably right, not sure why he added all the rest.

 

[bluejean_bible]

So then, a 'yes but no' option would've been a more accurate designation regarding your relevance to Calvinism? I'm just trying to understand the claim that, in summary, "Calvin didn't invent Calvinism, he only discovered that "it" had been there all along... but I'm not a Calvinist." It's very confusing, like double talk and it only attracts a hostility, as everyone can see, whenever clarification is requested.

If you believe that it has been 'ordained' that you speak to me with any condescending tone but continue to take offense if I should follow suit, then it smells somewhat of an adopted elitist philosophy which, imo, Calvinism actually generates.

OK,I'll try to explain in a way you might understand.

Someone is able to be knowledgeable about a doctrine without ascribing to the doctrine.

I hope that helps you.

 

[Mem]

OK,I'll try to explain in a way you might understand.

Someone is able to be knowledgeable about a doctrine without ascribing to the doctrine.

I hope that helps you.

Ok, so, I don't ascribe to the doctrine, but is that because I'm not knowledgeable of it?

I mean, may I assume the assertion as "if I were knowledgeable of the doctrine, then I would asbscribe to it"? or
Even though I'm not ascribed to the doctrine, I know enough about it to...ascribe to the doctrine or...
I'm still confused

 

[GWH]

Nor is Christian, Baptist,Methodist,etc...

They're not found anywhere in scripture.

The first followers of Jesus were called either , people of the book or, followers of The Way.

ACTS 11:26, 26:28, 1PT 4:16.

The first Christian was called a blasphemer. (MT 9:3, MK 2:7), a law-breaker (MK 2:24, MT 12:2), demonic (MK 3:22, LK 11:15), a false prophet (MK 6:3-4), defiler (MK 7:5), a rabble-rouser (MK 11:15-18)&32, a rebel (MK 12:12), a resurrectionist (MK 12:18-25), and Messiah (MK 14:61-62)--back to blasphemer (MK 14:63).

 

[Mem]

No worries, don't fret yourself about trying to explaining it to me, I have to leave anyway.
God bless your day.

 

[bluejean_bible]

It is still in the Bible. You said it wasn't.

I sit corrected.
Though the appellation was not a compliment at first. Even in Antioch.

 

[bluejean_bible]

Ok, so, I don't ascribe to the doctrine, but is that because I'm not knowledgeable of it?

I mean, may I assume the assertion as "if I were knowledgeable of the doctrine, then I would asbscribe to it"? or
Even though I'm not ascribed to the doctrine, I know enough about it to...ascribe to the doctrine or...
I'm still confused

My post was clear and able to be understood by those of a mind.
I believe you are still confused. You have my sympathies and prayers.

 

[Gideon300]

Nor is Christian, Baptist,Methodist,etc...

They're not found anywhere in scripture.

The first followers of Jesus were called either , people of the book or, followers of The Way.

"Christian" was the name given to believers by the people of Antioch. In Greek it is "Christianos". There are 400 or more references to Christians in the NT.

As to denominational labels, I agree absolutely. God has one church and Jesus is the Head. He is not divided and there are no separate heavens for each denomination. There only distinction is locality as far as Christ is concerned. Everything else is man made and unacceptable to God.

 

[Hakawaka]

Even as a newish member here I can't miss how some people's Bible point of view can be dismissed by someone else as being Calvinist.

It's the C word that some appear to think if invoked completely eliminates a person's point of view.

So I got to thinking. I wondered how many here are actually Calvinist? Or,would they even admit it what with the levels of animosity that surrounds just the implication of being one.

So, a poll arrives. Anonymity follows your selection of poll answers. Just as a way to find out if John's teachings are about in our community. Or,if the label of Calvinist is something else.

Thank you for your participation,if you choose to answer.

There are some.

I voted no and im not a calvinist. The reason this word brings out animosity is because of the view of God that calvinism gives.

God simply does not give people the opportunity to be saved in calvinism, their fate is sealed through no fault of their own. They are victims in God's world. Like a man playing with ants using a magnifying glass. God cursed them with the original sin and sin nature, and they cannot repent, they dont want to repent, there is no possibility for them to repent, they cannot believe the gospel to be saved. So not only are people suffering the original sin and its consequences in the physical, bad health, aging, dying, pain, they will also be tormented for eternity and there is nothing they could do about it.

 

[GWH]

There are some.

I voted no and im not a calvinist. The reason this word brings out animosity is because of the view of God that calvinism gives.

God simply does not give people the opportunity to be saved in calvinism, their fate is sealed through no fault of their own. They are victims in God's world. Like a man playing with ants using a magnifying glass. God cursed them with the original sin and sin nature, and they cannot repent, they dont want to repent, there is no possibility for them to repent, they cannot believe the gospel to be saved. So not only are people suffering the original sin and its consequences in the physical, bad health, aging, dying, pain, they will also be tormented for eternity and there is nothing they could do about it.

The objectionable view is called TULIPism,
which gives the flower an odious odor.

 

[Daisy2]

Even as a newish member here I can't miss how some people's Bible point of view can be dismissed by someone else as being Calvinist.

It's the C word that some appear to think if invoked completely eliminates a person's point of view.

So I got to thinking. I wondered how many here are actually Calvinist? Or,would they even admit it what with the levels of animosity that surrounds just the implication of being one.

So, a poll arrives. Anonymity follows your selection of poll answers. Just as a way to find out if John's teachings are about in our community. Or,if the label of Calvinist is something else.

Thank you for your participation,if you choose to answer.

Regardless if someone's Calvinists or not its does not change or determine if a person will go to heaven or not. Thank God he's the judge and not us humans. We can have bad doctrine and still be Christians. Corrie ten Boom and her family are Calvinist and I'm sure we will see her and her family in heaven.

 

[Aaron56]

"Christian" was the name given to believers by the people of Antioch. In Greek it is "Christianos". There are 400 or more references to Christians in the NT.

As to denominational labels, I agree absolutely. God has one church and Jesus is the Head. He is not divided and there are no separate heavens for each denomination. There only distinction is locality as far as Christ is concerned. Everything else is man made and unacceptable to God.

I actually see his point:

The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. That word was only used by Peter and by Luke in Acts. Peter uses the word to write this: "Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter." which I understand to mean "Even if they disparage you by calling you Christian, rejoice because they associate you with Him". Then, Luke recounts the use of ”Christian” by King Agrippa, the last Herodian ruler, in his conversation with Paul.

It wasn’t until the 2nd century that the church, fully ensconced in Roman tradition, began using the term to describe themselves.

In the scriptures, we are called “sons of God”, "Children of God", "believers", "saints", etc. In none of the epistle greetings do the writers refer to the readers as "Christians". We are children of God. It is the only identity that signifies our lineage, standard of living, and birthright. We are made sons in Christ. We are not merely “followers of Christ” or “little Christs” according to the Roman tradition. We are His body: the flesh and bones of the only Begotten of the Father.

So no, because of the way I see it, "Christian" does not work for me. That’s why I do not call myself a Christian. There’s pretty good evidence that if Paul, Peter, or John wrote a letter to me, they wouldn’t call me a Christian either.

 

[bluejean_bible]

Regardless if someone's Calvinists or not its does not change or determine if a person will go to heaven or not. Thank God he's the judge and not us humans. We can have bad doctrine and still be Christians. Corrie ten Boom and her family are Calvinist and I'm sure we will see her and her family in heaven.

Well said. The Animus against Calvinism,and by association those who are implied to be Calvinist,is impossible to miss .

It's seemingly the go-to C word that is meant for the accused to infer they're being accused of not being a "true Christian".

Many communities like this one have accusers of that vein aboard.
And without exception they in their zeal for attack fail to realize they show readers they know nothing about Calvin's writings. Or,even those teachings of Jesus.

Bullys need an outlet it seems.

Again,good post.

 

[bluejean_bible]

There are some.

I voted no and im not a calvinist. The reason this word brings out animosity is because of the view of God that calvinism gives.

God simply does not give people the opportunity to be saved in calvinism, their fate is sealed through no fault of their own. They are victims in God's world. Like a man playing with ants using a magnifying glass. God cursed them with the original sin and sin nature, and they cannot repent, they dont want to repent, there is no possibility for them to repent, they cannot believe the gospel to be saved. So not only are people suffering the original sin and its consequences in the physical, bad health, aging, dying, pain, they will also be tormented for eternity and there is nothing they could do about it.

,if one reads the teachings of Jesus that's exactly what he tells you.

Early writers preceded Calvin and observed the same as he.

And it is all gleaned from the teachings of Jesus himself.

All someone has to do is take the time to extrapolate Jesus ministry across the chapters of his ministry,which began in Mark,and put this together.

I think the wedge that blocks the ability to realize,see,this is the TULIP acronym.

It words Jesus teachings in a simple easy to understand version. Starting with "imputed sin of Adam", which is even addressed by Paul. Who says,unless HS intervenes,the natural mind can never understand the things of God.

 

[Daisy2]

Well said. The Animus against Calvinism,and by association those who are implied to be Calvinist,is impossible to miss .

It's seemingly the go-to C word that is meant for the accused to infer they're being accused of not being a "true Christian".

Many communities like this one have accusers of that vein aboard.
And without exception they in their zeal for attack fail to realize they show readers they know nothing about Calvin's writings. Or,even those teachings of Jesus.

Bullys need an outlet it seems.

Again,good post.

I've not gone into all the threads, so I'm not sure if there has been bullying or not. If there has, I'm sorry. But I know people like Magenta do it to correct a person because, as stated above, we don't know who the elect are. As Christians, we are to be no respecter of persons. We should treat the homeless the same as the king or the highly esteemed. Though we know the rich are less likely to enter heaven, we cannot say that all of them are not among the elect.

 

[GWH]

I actually see his point:

The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. That word was only used by Peter and by Luke in Acts. Peter uses the word to write this: "Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter." which I understand to mean "Even if they disparage you by calling you Christian, rejoice because they associate you with Him". Then, Luke recounts the use of ”Christian” by King Agrippa, the last Herodian ruler, in his conversation with Paul.

It wasn’t until the 2nd century that the church, fully ensconced in Roman tradition, began using the term to describe themselves.

In the scriptures, we are called “sons of God”, "Children of God", "believers", "saints", etc. In none of the epistle greetings do the writers refer to the readers as "Christians". We are children of God. It is the only identity that signifies our lineage, standard of living, and birthright. We are made sons in Christ. We are not merely “followers of Christ” or “little Christs” according to the Roman tradition. We are His body: the flesh and bones of the only Begotten of the Father.

So no, because of the way I see it, "Christian" does not work for me. That’s why I do not call myself a Christian. There’s pretty good evidence that if Paul, Peter, or John wrote a letter to me, they wouldn’t call me a Christian either.

What would they call you?

 

[maxwel]

Even as a newish member here I can't miss how some people's Bible point of view can be dismissed by someone else as being Calvinist.

It's the C word that some appear to think if invoked completely eliminates a person's point of view.

This is not unidirectional; both sides of this debate tend to be dismissive of the other side.

Not everyone on CC does this, but it's a topic which, in a general sense, is accompanied by a fair amount of animosity.

.

 

[Cameron143]

What would they call you?

Mister Sir Coolness

 

[Cameron143]

This is not unidirectional; both sides of this debate tend to be dismissive of the other side.

Not everyone on CC does this, but it's a topic which, in a general sense, is accompanied by a fair amount of animosity.

.

No it's not, and I hate you.