What's new
  • This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses

In My Opinion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Free

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2003
Messages
13,677
Gender
Male
False doctrine is false doctrine.
What can I say.
Charles Russell followers today claim to be born again.
Joseph Smith followers call themselves The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Ellen White followers are full of born again Christians, I'm sure as many as any other denomination.
And what can John Calvin claim for himself that is any better than that?
This suggests that you haven't studied any of those that you are lumping in together, which makes me wonder why you're lumping them in together.

Charles Russell claimed that prior to Jesus being born of Mary, he was Michael the archangel, a created being, which he then became again after his ascension. Charles had several false prophesies and his followers continue to change his translation of the Bible, the NWT, as contradictions with their teachings are found. JWs are not Christians.

Joseph Smith claimed that Jesus was a literal spirit-child of the Father and his wife, as was Satan. When those good Mormons who get married in the Temple die, they too can become gods of their own worlds. They have their own Scriptures, the BoM, which is held higher than the Bible. Mormons are not Christians.

As for Ellen White, I am not that familiar with her but she did have many heterodox beliefs, most, if not all, were given to her in visions and dreams. She seems to have been a bit of a loose canon and control freak. She was also a known plagiariser. There appear to be some that are almost entirely orthodox but others that are not.

John Calvin most certainly is not to be lumped in with that kind of company. He is the only legitimate theologian of all of these. There is nothing unorthodox in his teachings.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
10,418
Gender
Female
They did believe in it:

"Arminianism also accepts a doctrine of total depravity, although not identical to the Calvinist position. Total depravity was affirmed by the Five articles of Remonstrance, by Jacobus Arminius himself, and by John Wesley, who strongly identified with Arminius through publication of his periodical ."


Interesting that here "total depravity was affirmed by the Five Articles of Remonstrance," the very article you quoted to show that they didn't believe in total depravity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity


And two of those Five Articles:​
  • Article III — That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."
  • Article IV — That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of a good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting, awakening, following, and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, in as much as it is written concerning many that they have resisted the Holy Ghost,—Acts vii, and elsewhere in many places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Articles_of_Remonstrance

Hence why it appears much of your position on the matter is based on straw-man arguments.
I'll only say this:
I read the articles before posting them.
Did you want me to be intellectually dishonest and post only the ones that suited me?
I posted all five, as any honest person would have done.

I know that III does agree, somewhat as Calvin bellieved.
Item IV, if you read it carefully, does not agree with Calvin.
It's speaking about how the Holy Spirit helps us in our walk.
It says that God's grace IS NOT irresistible, that it is a co-operative grace, and indeed in sanctification we do believe in a co-operative effort between God and man.
God gives us the helper to overcome, but we must also be willing.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
10,418
Gender
Female
Many people say they are good enough to be saved. Do you think their idea of good aligns with God's idea of good?
Only our Father in heaven is good.
Mark 10:18

Perhaps it would help to understand what is meant by total depravity.

'While often misunderstood, the doctrine of total depravity is an acknowledgement that the Bible teaches that as a result of the fall of man (Genesis 3:6) every part of man—his mind, will, emotions and flesh—have been corrupted by sin. In other words, sin affects all areas of our being including who we are and what we do. It penetrates to the very core of our being so that everything is tainted by sin and “…all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” before a holy God (Isaiah 64:6). It acknowledges that the Bible teaches that we sin because we are sinners by nature. Or, as Jesus says, “So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.” (Matthew 7:17-18).

....
There is a common misconception regarding total depravity. Total depravity does not mean that man is as wicked or sinful as he could be, nor does it mean that man is without a conscience or any sense of right or wrong. Neither does it mean that man does not or cannot do things that seem to be good when viewed from a human perspective or measured against a human standard. It does not even mean that man cannot do things that seem to conform outwardly to the law of God. What the Bible does teach and what total depravity does recognize is that even the “good” things man does are tainted by sin because they are not done for the glory of God and out of faith in Him (Romans 14:23; Hebrews 11:6). While man looks upon the outward acts and judges them to be good, God looks upon not only the outward acts but also the inward motives that lie behind them, and because they proceed from a heart that is in rebellion against Him and they are not done for His glory, even these good deeds are like “filthy rags” in His sight. In other words, fallen man’s good deeds are motivated not by a desire to please God but by our own self-interest and are thus corrupted to the point where God declares that there is “no one who does good, no not one!”'


https://www.gotquestions.org/total-depravity.html

I don't really like GotQuestions. I have used it to explain something or other when persons don't understand what I'm saying. It's easy to understand and concise, which is why I would use it.

What you posted above is talking about the sin nature.
Romans 7:25

Everyone loves to post Isaiah re our righteousness being as dirty rags.
Isaiah 64:6

First of all it's speaking about our righteous deeds, not our righteousness.
Righteous deeds are things we do in our own self-righteousness that have no merit with God because, perhaps, we don't really love Him and our works count for nothing.

second of all, in the old testament persons are known as being righteous of themselves.
This was before Jesus and the grace message were given by the N.T. writers and we now believe that we are righteous only in Christ.

I find this interesting:

Righteousness is not a behavior that is in accordance with an ethical, legal, psychological, religious, or spiritual norm; neither is it conduct that is dictated by human or divine nature. It is not an action appropriate to the attainment of a specific goal; neither is it a ministry to one’s fellow man. Rather, righteousness in the OT is the fulfillment of the demands of a relationship, whether that relationship be with men or with God…Each of these relationships brings with it specific demands, the fulfillment of which constitutes righteousness…There is no norm of righteousness outside the relationship itself. When God or man fulfills the conditions imposed upon him by the relationship, he is, in OT terms, righteous.

source: http://artkatzministries.org/articles/righteousness-in-the-old-testament/

Total depravity means that man is so depraved that he is unable to respond to God, therefor God must do everything for him, incl MAKING man have faith and believe in God.
This does not correspond to what love is. Love is free to give or not give.



As this is something Calvinism teaches, how can you not know it if you've studied what Calvinism actually teaches?
You're talking about common grace.
I stated that I do not know what common grace is.
Did I say I've studied Calvinism to the umpth degree?
I know enough to know it's not biblical.
I know enough to know that no other theologian in all time agreed with him.
Even Augustine did not agree in double predestinaltion --
John Calvin came up with this doctrine with some help from Luther, but he went beyond what Luther believed.

I've never seen that in the Bible. Do you have evidence for this?
Evidence for what?
I don't speak about anything that is not biblical.
 

Free

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2003
Messages
13,677
Gender
Male
I'll only say this:
I read the articles before posting them.
Did you want me to be intellectually dishonest and post only the ones that suited me?
I posted all five, as any honest person would have done.

I know that III does agree, somewhat as Calvin bellieved.
Item IV, if you read it carefully, does not agree with Calvin.
It's speaking about how the Holy Spirit helps us in our walk.
It says that God's grace IS NOT irresistible, that it is a co-operative grace, and indeed in sanctification we do believe in a co-operative effort between God and man.
God gives us the helper to overcome, but we must also be willing.
The only point we were discussing was that Arminians didn't believe in total depravity but they did.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
10,418
Gender
Female
It's just as easy to Google that as it is "Arminianism." A straw man argument is one where an individual ignores what an opponent's position actually is and instead, whether purposefully or due to ignorance, argues against a distorted or misrepresented position. It is fallacious because refuting a caricatured position does not in any way refute the actual position.

Perhaps that is not the best way to go about things. An opinion is one thing; an informed opinion is quite another. It really does seem that you haven't actually studied what Calvinist's believe from Calvinist sources. Hence why I believe most of your arguments against Calvinism are straw men.



That is what I said.



Perhaps you should study Calvinism from Calvinist sources.



I said that is what I think Calvinist's believe. I am certain it is what Reformed theology teaches.


Calvinists would say that since Paul was writing to believers, that he would be referring to those who would be saved.
Free,

1.
I don't google anything.
I learned about arminianism from a Nazarene church I attended for 10 years and did much studying there. I also learned a great deal from the Catholic Church. May it never be!
Go figure....they really know a lot of stuff. Their theologians seem to be quite intelligent.

Ditto for everything else. Let me ask you this:
Could you learn about Christianity from google?
I don't think so. It's quite complicated and comprehensive.

2.
If I'm distorting your position, why don't you just say so and correct me instead of telling me I'm presenting a strawman argument? Seems to me it would save a lot of typing.

3. I didn't "study" Calvinism. I learned about it from Calvinists. I also know that it's a lot more complicated than what is presented in the five point or tulip. Unless a Calvinist here wants to speak up and proclaim his belief and correct me ---- I'll have to believe I'm stating correct Calvinist teachings.

So you see, I did learn about it from Calvinist sources. IF you mean learn about it from Prof. Google, well, I already answered to that.

4. You tell me to study Calvinism and then you say "that is what I THINK Calvinists believe."
Looks like you're about as ignorant about it as you claim I am --- of your own statement.

5. Why are you speaking for Calvinists? Are you one but you're afraid to say so?

Paul was speaking only to the saved?
I was in Athens on the hill where the Parthenon stands. Down below you could see a small round mound of a hill.
The Agora'.
There was a market there. People gathered there to discuss the latest news, to hear preachers and teachers.
Paulmost probably preached here. He went to the top of the small hill and everyone gathered around down below. This made it easy to hear the speaker.

So Paul was speaking to these people.
You think only believers were there?
He went all the way to Athens to preach to believers?
Not to preach to unbelievers?
Did they put guards all around the outer perimeter of the hill to send unbelievers away?

You know, I like reading the bible and posting supporting scripture when it's necessary.
But so much could be gleaned just by using our common sense...
 

Free

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2003
Messages
13,677
Gender
Male
Well,
maybe that's the only point YOU were discussing.

I presented all five to you.
Now you're arguing just to argue. Your previous posts show that you are only reading what you want into my posts as you are making a number of false assertions. I'm tired of the spiritual superiority that comes through your posts, so I'm just going to bow out.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
10,418
Gender
Female
Now you're arguing just to argue. Your previous posts show that you are only reading what you want into my posts as you are making a number of false assertions. I'm tired of the spiritual superiority that comes through your posts, so I'm just going to bow out.
:thumbsup
 

reba

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
47,083
Gender
Female
It's just as easy to Google that as it is "Arminianism." A straw man argument is one where an individual ignores what an opponent's position actually is and instead, whether purposefully or due to ignorance, argues against a distorted or misrepresented position. It is fallacious because refuting a caricatured position does not in any way refute the actual position.
it is not always ignoring or ignorance .... much of what i post that has been labeled "strawman" was posted because that is how the other guys post made me think or feel.. Women are not the only ones who post from emotions... :tongue
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
12,227
Gender
Male
it is not always ignoring or ignorance .... much of what i post that has been labeled "strawman" was posted because that is how the other guys post made me think or feel.. Women are not the only ones who post from emotions... :tongue
I'm never emotional.
I'm always Mr. Cool.
 

for_his_glory

Light in darkness
Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
9,049
Gender
Female
Christian
Yes
I agree FHG.
But Calvinism is bad theology...
bad, bad, bad.
It changes God into a being I don't recognize...
Latin root word for religion is bondage, which is different then that of Gods pure religion of James 1:27, but that of following tradition and the doctrine of a mans church, not Gods true Church. The Latin root word is religare as re is a prefix that means return and ligare means to bind. Religion tells you what you can and cannot do and becomes socially acceptable by mans interpretations, traditions and doctrines. Religion is what nailed Christ to the cross because the Bible is not socially acceptable to society, if it were then Christ would have died in vain. God is not about mans religion, nor does he recognize organized religion. God is about a personal relationship with you and His son Jesus Christ.
John 1:1-5
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Messages
2,462
Christian
Yes
Latin root word for religion is bondage, which is different then that of Gods pure religion of James 1:27, but that of following tradition and the doctrine of a mans church, not Gods true Church. The Latin root word is religare as re is a prefix that means return and ligare means to bind. Religion tells you what you can and cannot do and becomes socially acceptable by mans interpretations, traditions and doctrines. Religion is what nailed Christ to the cross because the Bible is not socially acceptable to society, if it were then Christ would have died in vain. God is not about mans religion, nor does he recognize organized religion. God is about a personal relationship with you and His son Jesus Christ.
John 1:1-5
The sad thing glory, is they are few and far between. As a Church (Christ Spirit indwell ed body) we should be sending missionaries, meeting together in prayer and supporting each other with Christ in the midst of us, and seeing the fruit of our calling and election together as a body. I guess we will have to be satisfied with praying for our unknown brothers in service of the Lord.
 
J

Justicewolf

Guest
This resource isn't here to promote Arminianism nor Calvinism. Rather it is offered to provide a concise comparison of the doctrinal statements and differences side by side.
I've encountered the charge that I'm a Calvinist. A subtle behind the back implication and by one who it has been noted by another, knows nothing of Calvinism so as to make such allegations toward Christians here.
This is an educational resource that should help this entire conversation. And as an aside, if someone here is a Calvinist, so what?
Calvinism vs Arminianism – Comparison Chart
By GOLArminianism, Five Points of Calvinism
The following material from Romans: An Interpretative Outline (pp.144-147). by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, contrasts the Five Points of Arminianism with the Five Points of Calvinism in the clearest and most concise form that we have seen anywhere. It is also found in their smaller book, The Five Points of Calvinism (pp. 16-19). Both books are published by The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia.(1963). Messrs. Steele and Thomas have served for several years as co-pastors of a Southern Baptist church, in Little Rock, Arkansas.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

for_his_glory

Light in darkness
Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
9,049
Gender
Female
Christian
Yes
The sad thing glory, is they are few and far between. As a Church (Christ Spirit indwell ed body) we should be sending missionaries, meeting together in prayer and supporting each other with Christ in the midst of us, and seeing the fruit of our calling and election together as a body. I guess we will have to be satisfied with praying for our unknown brothers in service of the Lord.
Each of us has a personal relationship with Christ as we have all come to Him in various ways through that of God calling us and we have answered the call. Our calling is also in Gods will for our life as we are His servants here on earth as it is Gods Spirit that works in us and through us. We have a choice to either let that light of Christ shine through us or to put a bushel over it, but if we hide that light as many types of religious people do then who will hear the truth if it is not preached to them, Romans 10:12-21. There is a spirit of religion that has the Jezebel spirit teaching from the pulpit and God will deal with those who follow her, Rev 2:20-23.
 

for_his_glory

Light in darkness
Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
9,049
Gender
Female
Christian
Yes
People need to wise up as it is not about Calvinism vs Arminianism, Protestant vs Catholic or any other religion vs religion or doctrine. It's about our relationship with Christ as when God looks down on these types of arguments it brings no glory or honor to His name, but disappointment for His own. Seek those things from above where Christ sits at the right hand of the Father and truth will always be in your heart as it is only by the Spirit of God that reveals all truth to us and not any mans religion.

Ephesians 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. 8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
10,418
Gender
Female
This resource isn't here to promote Arminianism nor Calvinism. Rather it is offered to provide a concise comparison of the doctrinal statements and differences side by side.
I've encountered the charge that I'm a Calvinist. A subtle behind the back implication and by one who it has been noted by another, knows nothing of Calvinism so as to make such allegations toward Christians here.
This is an educational resource that should help this entire conversation. And as an aside, if someone here is a Calvinist, so what?
Calvinism vs Arminianism – Comparison Chart
By GOLArminianism, Five Points of Calvinism
The following material from Romans: An Interpretative Outline (pp.144-147). by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, contrasts the Five Points of Arminianism with the Five Points of Calvinism in the clearest and most concise form that we have seen anywhere. It is also found in their smaller book, The Five Points of Calvinism (pp. 16-19). Both books are published by The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia.(1963). Messrs. Steele and Thomas have served for several years as co-pastors of a Southern Baptist church, in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Thanks for posting JW.
Very clear and concise.
 

Mike

Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Mar 13, 2010
Messages
15,270
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
I've shut this discussion down for discussion among the team. It might remain closed, be moved to a new forum, or even re-open here. Ideally, the Lounge Forum is intended to be for light-hearted fellowship. This isn't to say that there cannot be serious issues discussed, but usually these topics have more appropriate forums to be discussed in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.