"The Many Errors of Calvinism" -

[zeke]

You are mistaken.

Are you saying the blood of Christ doesn't make the new birth possible? Have you been “cleansed by the blood of Christ"?

Do you agree that you should stop molesting little boys?

You appear to be be confused and desperate to make some kind of point but you simply come off sounding rather odd.

In reality Calvin makes quite a great deal out of the impossibilty to know the wheat from the tares.

Does your version of Calvinism leave you in doubt about your own salvation? Sad. Does God force men to serve Him "from the foundation of the world".

But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him.
(1Jn 2:5)​

 

[zeke]

Exactly where does Scripture teach that dead men have free will ?

Throughout the OT and NT - where have you been...choose you this day whom ye will serve...

Joshua 24:15
King James Version (KJV)
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.​

 

[Mike]

OK Mike im convinced no limitations ALL means ALL GoD said it I believe it....

Welcome to Mike's First Universalist Lutheren Church

Its great no limitations even dead folks can be saved, and the only thing needed is to wait long enough.

Falls off the table pretty quickly doesnt it?

If you think free will = universalism, you have more to learn about free will than I have to learn about Calvinism.

I was trying to be respectful with my post. Danus, buddy... Where are ya, boy!

 

[Hitch]

Are you saying the blood of Christ doesn't make the new birth possible? Have you been “cleansed by the blood of Christ"?

See # 78

You appear to be be confused and desperate to make some kind of point but you simply come off sounding rather odd.

If you're going to dish it out zeke you're going to get some back, I wont let your 'have you quite beating your wife' type of questioning go unchallenged.

Does your version of Calvinism leave you in doubt about your own salvation? Sad. Are you not sure whether or not you were forced to serve God "from the foundation of the world".

So you planning to quit with the little boys or what?

But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him.
(1Jn 2:5)​

So here we are Zeke tell us all right now that you perfectly keep his word, after all since eternity hangs on your own free will if you admit to sin you have willfully stepped on the blood of Christ. So answer yes or no.

 

[Hitch]

If you think free will = universalism, you have more to learn about free will than I have to learn about Calvinism.

I was trying to be respectful with my post. Danus, buddy... Where are ya, boy!

For example, 2 Peter 3 tells us that He is patient, that ALL will come to
believe.

that ALL will come to believe.

Sorry somebody using your handle posted that. I think it was you and you emphasied all (ALL)

Now if you didnt mean that ALL will come to believe. What did you mean ?Did you mean 'some' limitations? Or did you mean God 's will is secondary to mens?


And no I wont pretend I said anything at all about free will despite your attempt above to imply otherwise . But if it makes you feel better I do believe that if 'that ALL will come to believe.' is to be literalized it must be univeralism.

 

[zeke]

So you planning to quit with the little boys or what?

You are becoming more odd - is that your intent or do you have no argument to support your error? You talk a lot about "little boys" - what is your obsession?

So here we are Zeke tell us all right now that you perfectly keep his word, after all since eternity hangs on your own free will if you admit to sin you have willfully stepped on the blood of Christ. So answer yes or no.

I have no fear of eternity but Calvinists don't know if they were chosen before the world began or if God has condemned them to damnation before they were ever born. Sad.

But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
(1Jn 1:7-9 NKJV)
​

 

[Danus]

If you think free will = universalism, you have more to learn about free will than I have to learn about Calvinism.

I was trying to be respectful with my post. Danus, buddy... Where are ya, boy!

Sorry. My men's group meets Wed nights. Just got back.

I like you post. very honest, and you're correct in that I think it's important to lay out both views and take am honest look at what is actually being said by each.

I left off making a few statements on Unconditional election, but I think it died after that. Although Hitch made some good contributions I thought as well with his piece from Sturgeon in a layman defense of Calvin.

The problem with Calvin is that you just about have to sign up for a course in Calvin to get to the heart of it, but I think we can start with a few truths.

Truth 1. There are people who are not saved and will in fact die unsaved.

Truth 2. God knows all before the foundation of the world.

Truth 3. Man is fallen by nature, and NO man can save himself by his own effort. God must intervene.

Maybe we can better understand Calvin if we can agree with these fundamental Christian truths. Then we can examine Calvin and the bible, but we have to keep these truths in tact. Calvin does do that. Wesley does not.

Wesley would agree with the three truths, yet his theology does not allow for them. I'm picking on Wesley a bit, but only as example. Wesley is not alone.

 

[zeke]

But if it makes you feel better I do believe that if 'that ALL will come to believe.' is to be literalized it must be univeralism.

You are much more confused that you appear.

 

[zeke]

S
Truth 1. There are people who are not saved and will in fact die unsaved.

Truth 2. God knows all before the foundation of the world.

Truth 3. Man is fallen by nature, and NO man can save himself by his own effort. God must intervene.

But one can agree with all of the above and completely reject the errors of Calvinism.

 

[Mike]

For example, 2 Peter 3 tells us that He is patient, that ALL will come to
believe.

that ALL will come to believe.

Sorry somebody using your handle posted that. I think it was you and you emphasied all (ALL)

Now if you didnt mean that ALL will come to believe. What did you mean ?Did you mean 'some' limitations? Or did you mean God 's will is secondary to mens?


And no I wont pretend I said anything at all about free will despite your attempt above to imply otherwise . But if it makes you feel better I do believe that if 'that ALL will come to believe.' is to be literalized it must be univeralism.

I was paraphrasing from my phone. I'll put this out there, not to argue and pick at certain verses.

2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

Is this universalism to you, Hitch?
---------------------------------------
Perhaps someone who's not trolling for an argument can tell me how this fits into Calvin theology. I know there are very studied theologians who see it. I just do not.

 

[Mike]

The problem with Calvin is that you just about have to sign up for a course in Calvin to get to the heart of it, but I think we can start with a few truths.

Truth 1. There are people who are not saved and will in fact die unsaved.

Truth 2. God knows all before the foundation of the world.

Truth 3. Man is fallen by nature, and NO man can save himself by his own effort. God must intervene.

Danus, I don't know if you were addressing my point about scripture (like 2P3) not limiting who will come to repentance, but saying He is wanting that everyone will. I promise not to yell back at you that you're wrong, but I'd like to see how someone takes a very profound statement like that and wraps Calvinism around it.

 

[Hitch]

I was paraphrasing from my phone. I'll put this out there, not to argue and pick at certain verses.

2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

Is this universalism to you, Hitch?

This is;

For example, 2 Peter 3 tells us that He is patient, that ALL will come to believe. It doesn't put limitations on who can.

it is also direct evidence of at least two major alterations to the text ; the ALL which you added and exchanging that ALL will come to believe. for but everyone to come to repentance."

And a heft of bias.

---------------------------------------
Perhaps someone who's not trolling for an argument can tell me how this fits into Calvin theology. I know there are very studied theologians who see it. I just do not.

A lot of believers need to come to repentance, and Pete is explicit in that this letter is not an open document but the second addressed to the same group, specifically

To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: niv




So when you get a letter from grandpa and he asks you to tell everyone hello ,,,he means those commonly addressed, not everyone in the whole town,state or country.



You went on to note what you said were 'imputations' contra ,I suppose to free will, but it is clear in this case ,at least , the imputations, in support of free will are your own. When this is read as though it were written to those the Apostle defines and names as God's elect, and the verse is taken as written there is no need to be a Calvinist to see that it makes poor support for the free will camp. Im reasonably certain Calvin read this passage in the context provided by 1 Pete 1;2 and he surrounding verses. Which speak of either the judgement coming to Jerusalem and Israel or the Second Advent, but not general salvation.

 

[Danus]

Danus, I don't know if you were addressing my point about scripture (like 2P3) not limiting who will come to repentance, but saying He is wanting that everyone will. I promise not to yell back at you that you're wrong, but I'd like to see how someone takes a very profound statement like that and wraps Calvinism around it.

Hitch beat me to it.

I would add to this one of the fundamental truths I stated. Not everyone is saved. The Gospel is widely available to anyone in the world today, yet many totally reject it.

 

[Danus]

But one can agree with all of the above and completely reject the errors of Calvinism.

yes they can. They have the free will to do that.

 

[zeke]

yes they can. They have the free will to do that.

Do you have the free-will to reject "The Many Errors of Calvinism" or were you forced (before the foundation of the world) to 'wear the albatross' of Calvinism around your neck?

 

[Danus]

Do you have the free-will to reject "The Many Errors of Calvinism" or were you forced (before the foundation of the world) to 'wear the albatross' of Calvinism around your neck?

The gospel is not a burden or a struggle for me, if that is your question.

I'd be cautious on what you consider false or a lie in regard to Calvin. Not for anyone's sake but your own. It's one thing to not accept Calvin. Many don't, but will at least admit it's for lack of clarity, or their own understanding.

I gave the opposite view to Calvin when I opened this thread at your request. However there are a whole host of opposite views that are really not mentioned. Islam does not agree. Mormons don't agree. 7 day Adventist, universalism, Humanist, agnosticism, atheist....We could go on and on, but all these views and more are so far in agreement with you about the many errors of Calvin because none of these views even accept the gospel.

So saying there are many errors of Calvin, does not bluster your argument. That's been a bit of a broken record thus far. I need you to present a Gospel argument against John Calvin if we are to get any where.

Typically, anyone with a Christian theology who wants to say something is not true, will give a reason and an alternative for that position. OR - They will hold a view and test the view being presented to make dead sure they actually have an argument against it.

My intent Zeke, is to lend you credibility, but I'm running out of patients. I thought you might present a more credible Armenius or Pelagius, argument. These are the credible arguments against Calvin. To make it fair I even started off using John Wesley. I brilliant theologian BTW. Someone you could use to argue Calvin with, but you wanted to make your own argument against Calvin. So where is it? :

I even took one bit of Calvin "Unconditional election", one of the bigger sticking points and you've yet to argue it. I thought we might then move into Predestination.That's a big one, then we could talk more about the "will of man". Still nothing.

I am limited on time. I try to get in here every day. I work, volunteer, have church responsibilities and a family. I have little time for snowball fights when discussing this stuff.

Give me something bigger please. Look up one of the big arguments against Calvin and hit me with that. Something we can all get our teeth into.

Debate is an art. It's lost these days. It's been boiled down to na-na-na-booboo and your a doody-head, or simply "I'M RIGHT SO THERE!"

Debates teach, Debates inform, Debates allow for growth and valid ideas. Debates are a means of honest reflection and thought, with banter and fun; make some jokes and all and take a few cheap shots at the opposing ideas. That's part of it also, but that's after points are made.

Can you come up with some questions? Mike had a good one. He might even come back with a counter point to Hitches response, or he might divert to another question and then come back, or he might leave it as is.

You started off asking what I preach. I think you might have been asking what's the value of even preaching the gospel if everything is predetermined? Do you want to explore that or shape another argument on Calvin around something like that?

 

[Hitch]

Hi guys, thought I'd comment on the thread. I can't help but feel a little sheepish here since I am not aquainted with either of these beliefs. So I have a question. If this tends to throw off the intent of this thread, please ignore this post.

According to Calvin, he says we are counted as righteous without any conditions being placed on that election. So in my mind this conjures some questions.

Does counted as righteous mean that God just counts someone as righteous without them actually being righteous in any way shape or form? Are we made unrighteous and righteous by God declaring so without any tangible form of righteousness? What does the righteousness of faith mean then?

Very shortly ;its important to remember Calvin is battling Rome. At the time Rome would sell (salvific) righteousness for works or cash, Calvin and the Reformation in general assert that salvific right standing with God has one source,that being Christ's own righteousness imputed by grace to the believer.

What form does Grace take? Is it in the Christ presented alone or the Christ revealed and seen? Is it in the man passed down from Adam in the form of some residue of Godly Love? Is it placed in the man prior to believing?

There is 'common grace' the rain falls on the righteous and the unrighteous. Special grace could be illustrated comparing Peter and Chiaphas. Both were honored to live at the time of Christ, both were able to see him and speak to him. Peter reigns with him today, Chiaphas roasts.

Or does this mean they are chosen to become righteous, wherein a man would be endowed with a Spirit of great Love? Is God choosing randomly or with a certain methodology? What of Godly Love? Does not one need this to recognize that dying on a cross, and forgiving those who do it, is not foolish? Would this be considered a condition of election?

'Condition of election' is an oxymoron.

What about God choosing the lowly things over the high things, is this a condition of election, that one be lowly and despised of men?

see above

Moreover, he says that this is because human beings can't choose for themselves. Does he mean that without the option presented clearly they can't choose it, or given the option clearly presented they can't choose it?

He means that unregenerate men are dead and cant do anything.

24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 25Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.



'Blessed is he who has ears that hear ' is more than just a saying.

 

[zeke]

Typically, anyone with a Christian theology who wants to say something is not true, will give a reason and an alternative for that position. OR - They will hold a view and test the view being presented to make dead sure they actually have an argument against it.

My intent Zeke, is to lend you credibility, but I'm running out of patients. I thought you might present a more credible Armenius or Pelagius, argument. These are the credible arguments against Calvin. To make it fair I even started off using John Wesley. I brilliant theologian BTW. Someone you could use to argue Calvin with, but you wanted to make your own argument against Calvin.

Well Danus we all have time restraints and this is your thread - aptly titled, "The Many Errors of Calvinism". I am not here as an apologist for Armenius, Pelagius or Wesley. I am here to defend the gospel of Jesus Christ and that gospel does not include the errors found in Calvinism.

I recommended you start this thread and we could discuss those “many errors’. That’s what we are doing. I have presented biblical text exposing some of the errors in Calvin’s dogma. If you don't have time to defend your thread then so be it – if you want to defend Calvin’s many errors then present your defense.

 

[zeke]

Special grace could be illustrated comparing Peter and Chiaphas. Both were honored to live at the time of Christ, both were able to see him and speak to him. Peter reigns with him today, Chiaphas roasts.

God calls ALL ‘whosoever will’ to come to Him. The offer of salvation is and has always been to all who will hear the gospel, believe that gospel message and obey from the heart the Gospel of Christ. Peter, via faith chose to follow Christ - Chiaphas rejected the Messiah via free-will. Calvinism teaches the error that the non-elect can’t repent and the elect can’t perish? God is not a Calvinist and you have yet to address that error of Calvinism. Why?

 

[Danus]

Well Danus we all have time restraints and this is your thread - aptly titled, "The Many Errors of Calvinism". I am not here as an apologist for Armenius, Pelagius or Wesley. I am here to defend the gospel of Jesus Christ and that gospel does not include the errors found in Calvinism.

I recommended you start this thread and we could discuss those “many errors’. That’s what we are doing. I have presented biblical text exposing some of the errors in Calvin’s dogma. If you don't have time to defend your thread then so be it – if you want to defend Calvin’s many errors then present your defense.

Ok, well this was started on your request and I think you're out of your league. I presented the argument and you've yet to defend or point out any errors. So far this has been a slow pitch underhand game.