But it has zero to do with the person persevering to the end of anything. The Holy Spirit has sealed the believer for the adoption, the redemption of the body.
Calvinism - Total Depravity
- Thread starter nowyouseem033
- Start date
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
But it has zero to do with the person persevering to the end of anything. The Holy Spirit has sealed the believer for the adoption, the redemption of the body.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
But it has zero to do with the person persevering to the end of anything. The Holy Spirit has sealed the believer for the adoption, the redemption of the body.
that was not the point, the point was that we believe that a person who is saved is saved forever.
S
StanJ
Guest
You're basically just arguing for argument's sake but you're not providing any examples to the contrary. you're the one that said "we" in regards to Calvinists. I am also not in agreement with most Lutheran's and I don't know anybody who claims to be an arminian or an augustinian.oh really? thats quite sad, Because reality is you can not study the bible and NOT come up with some of Conclusions that Calvin did.. Like you can with arminian, and augustine, and Luther and many others.
S
StanJ
Guest
Again who is this 'we' if you're not a calvinist?
that was not the point, the point was that we believe that a person who is saved is saved forever.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
You're basically just arguing for argument's sake but you're not providing any examples to the contrary. you're the one that said "we" in regards to Calvinists. I am also not in agreement with most Lutheran's and I don't know anybody who claims to be an arminian or an augustinian.
you seem to be bent on trying to discredit one person.. Seems like all you want to do is argue..
your in the wrong place..
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
Again who is this 'we' if you're not a calvinist?
if you would read, You would understand in context "we" would mean ANYONE..
S
StanJ
Guest
And what scripture would that be?You are right. Scripture does say the Light shineth on every man. I see it as the two trees in the garden of our heart. We too have to choose at some point of our life, ( drawing) which tree we will eat of.
S
StanJ
Guest
I understand more than you know because in a thread where the context is Calvinism, you keep using the word 'we' and deny being calvinist so I have to wonder if you would be like Peter and deny knowing Christ if push came to shove? You need to stop deflecting and deal with the issues at hand.if you would read, You would understand in context "we" would mean ANYONE..
I understand more than you know because in a thread where the context is Calvinism, you keep using the word 'we' and deny being calvinist so I have to wonder if you would be like Peter and deny knowing Christ if push came to shove? You need to stop deflecting and deal with the issues at hand.
I believe EG means, "We" who oppose the tulip doctrines of Calvinism.
G
GODisLOVE7
Guest
I have to clearly state that I do not know much about Calvinism apart from reading some information on TULIP. Some things resonate, some things do not. I did not choose to explore further, because, well, perhaps I am satisfied with having the Bible as my foundation and do not like to stray from that.So do you know what Calvinism teaches and are you calvinist / reformed or hold to any of that doctrine?
I am definitely not an expert, nor do I profess to be. I do not see myself getting deep into any doctrine, but I do enjoy reading and exploring what other people believe. I find it interesting and am not looking for any human made structures or models to fit my beliefs into. I bring it back to God and ask Him to show me the truth through Bible and prayer.
I trust the Holy Spirit to guide me on my path, because thankfully, He is the expert. That's a beautiful thing!
S
StanJ
Guest
Yes I am bent on discrediting the person because he brought in the doctrine that many people see as being true and it is a false Doctrine. You seem to be unwilling to defend yourself or your beliefs but only to deny what is being presented to you with no defense whatsoever.you seem to be bent on trying to discredit one person.. Seems like all you want to do is argue..
your in the wrong place..
Guess you don't accept the biblical admonition found in 1st Peter 3:15? Being contrary doesn't make you right it just makes you contrary.
S
StanJ
Guest
Well it would be great if he/she actually said that instead of tiptoeing around the issue. His/her responses lead me in the opposite direction however. One cannot oppose the Tulip Doctrine if one believes any of them.I believe EG means, "We" who oppose the tulip doctrines of Calvinism.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
I understand more than you know because in a thread where the context is Calvinism, you keep using the word 'we' and deny being calvinist so I have to wonder if you would be like Peter and deny knowing Christ if push came to shove? You need to stop deflecting and deal with the issues at hand.
You seem to just want to fight.
The context was being a calvanist, My response was if we (meaning anyone) discard all his teachings because we (everyone) disagree wiht one point, we (everyone) would have to discard the whole bible
the second time I used we was in reference to the fact we (you and I) have already been through the fact I am not a calvanist. Yet you seem to keep insisting I am.
so you are being quite dishonest..
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
Yes I am bent on discrediting the person because he brought in the doctrine that many people see as being true and it is a false Doctrine. You seem to be unwilling to defend yourself or your beliefs but only to deny what is being presented to you with no defense whatsoever.
Well while your at it, Lets discredit arminian, Romanism, Luteranism etc etc. Why do you want to pick a fight against one person (or should I say group of people) me? I have nothing to defend, I already told you, I was not a calvanist. Your the one being dishonest.
Guess you don't accept the biblical admonition found in 1st Peter 3:15? Being contrary doesn't make you right it just makes you contrary.
lol.. Same to you bud.. Same to you.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
Well it would be great if he/she actually said that instead of tiptoeing around the issue. His/her responses lead me in the opposite direction however. One cannot oppose the Tulip Doctrine if one believes any of them.
I said it Not only once, but twice.
and yes you can appose to tulip doctrine if you agree with one of them, Because you do not agree with it..
You either agree with it all or you appose it as a whole..
Your reasoning is flawed.
S
StanJ
Guest
Logical fallacy: "any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound" (Dictionary.com). This is the sense in which I used the term, and was clear from my post. While it is a valid synonym of "falsehood", if that is the way you're using it, then we are simply talking past each other. So, given that I introduced the term, how about you use it in the sense that I used it, and we'll continue the conversation.
Right here: "If you follow ANY teachings of Calvin you're a calvinist."
And by the way, "Where does the bible teach we are totally depraved?"... Romans 3:10-12; Jeremiah 17:9; Genesis 6:5.
Error in doctrine is falsehood or false teaching. It's pretty simple unless your goal is to be equivocal.
That's correct anybody who follows the teachings of Calvin is a calvinist because the Bible doesn't teach with Calvin does and I've asked you a dozen times to show me and you continue to deflect and not do it.
None of the verses you quoted here teach depravity and if they do then exegete them properly.
Luke 11:13 in Jesus' own words shows that men may be evil but they're not totally depraved. Typically you're just like a calvinist because you only use scripture that you think supports your doctrine when indeed it doesn't.
S
StanJ
Guest
I said it Not only once, but twice.
and yes you can appose to tulip doctrine if you agree with one of them, Because you do not agree with it..
You either agree with it all or you appose it as a whole..
Your reasoning is flawed.
So you're a 1 point calvinist and you tell me my reasoning is flawed? I think you better look in the mirror.
Calvinism (also called the Reformed tradition, Reformed Christianity, Reformed Protestantism or the Reformed faith) is a major branch of Protestantism that follows the theological tradition and forms of Christian practice of John Calvin and other Reformation-era theologians.(Wiki)
S
StanJ
Guest
the purpose of this thread is not to discredit anything but Calvinism and to show it is wrong, but if you already think that then why exactly are you arguing for it? Sounds to me like you are very confused. if you think anything do Calvinism is acceptable then make your point and your argument and stop deflecting and equivocating all over the place.Well while your at it, Lets discredit arminian, Romanism, Luteranism etc etc. Why do you want to pick a fight against one person (or should I say group of people) me? I have nothing to defend, I already told you, I was not a calvanist. Your the one being dishonest.
S
StanJ
Guest
You seem to just want to fight.
The context was being a calvanist, My response was if we (meaning anyone) discard all his teachings because we (everyone) disagree wiht one point, we (everyone) would have to discard the whole bible
the second time I used we was in reference to the fact we (you and I) have already been through the fact I am not a calvanist. Yet you seem to keep insisting I am.
so you are being quite dishonest..
Again look in the mirror. I'm not the one that continues to defend Calvinism but say they're not one but then won't even say what about Calvinism they defend. Words are important and if you don't know how to use words in proper context and in the right grammatical reference then you're never going to be really successful at communicating.
Nobody says we in the context of being a calvinist unless they are or want to deliberately equivocate to just be argumentative about the subject and if that's what your goal is and please go away.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
Again look in thelly eyours mirror. I'm not the one that continues to defend Calvinism .
you just totally discredited yourself, i have never defended calvanism, i am apposed to it, good lucck with your rant!