Arminians & Calvinists Limit God's Power To Save
- Thread starter Samie
- Start date
Calvin's history:
1) He was called "The Pope of Geneva."
2) He participated in the execution murders of several people who disagreed with his beliefs.
3) He had one man he hated, burned at the stake with green wood which guaranteed a slow torturous death.
4) He burned at the stake a number of "so-called" witches."
5) He was an evil, wretched human being.
6) He preached false doctrine.
7) His beliefs had a Gnostic background.
This is the kind of man the Calvinists follow.
1) He was called "The Pope of Geneva."
2) He participated in the execution murders of several people who disagreed with his beliefs.
3) He had one man he hated, burned at the stake with green wood which guaranteed a slow torturous death.
4) He burned at the stake a number of "so-called" witches."
5) He was an evil, wretched human being.
6) He preached false doctrine.
7) His beliefs had a Gnostic background.
This is the kind of man the Calvinists follow.
If you try and tell a Calvinist something about their belief, their answer is; "You don't know anything about Calvinism." (Reformed theology.)
As to the OP, God will save anyone who hear's the True Gospel and places their faith in Christ as their Savior. Nothing can slow down that process.
That's beside the point, I guess, GM.
The issue is - as discussed in post #3 - whether spiritually alive first BEFORE hearing and believing, or as Arminians have it, hear and believe first to become spiritually alive.
I already said that one must hear the True Gospel then, place their faith in Christ. Do you have reading comprehension problems?
The reason for your ire is, I have no interest in following John Calvin, Calvinism or Reformed Theology. None of those are reasonable to me. I believe the God of the Bible is different from the god you and your
ilk see. When I read, I see a Biblical God. Calvinists read and see Him differently. We cannot have a meeting of the minds because of this.
Last edited:
You seemed to have responded to a different issue. Again: "The issue is - as discussed in post #3 - whether spiritually alive first BEFORE hearing and believing, or as Arminians have it, hear and believe first to become spiritually alive."
None, I suppose. Is there really a need for your last statement, brother?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
We have discussed this at length and you show no willingness to consider the fallacies you are adopting. Here is an all in one place summary once more for your careful consideration:
http://theologyonline.com/entry.php?3060-The-quot-Calvin-is-a-Murderer-quot-Meme
AMR
You're not going to convince me that John Calvin was the "cream of the crop." I have searched out his history. Do you doubt that he was complicit in the execution of several people during his reign of terror? Do you doubt that he purposely had the executioners use green wood while burning one of his doubters? The green wood guaranteed a slow and Torturous death. Do you doubt that Calvin was complicit in having, "so called" witches burned at the stake? Do you doubt that he was called, "The Pope of Geneva?" Calvin was an evil and wretched dictator.
Sorry to say, I've placed AMR and Samie on my ignore list. It's useless to go around and around with these two. They cannot convince me to become a Calvinist and I cannot convince them to become a "Grace Gospel Believer." No sense in sitting around arguing about these things. I wish you both the best. GM...
Thank you for the honor, GM. You placed me alongside a great and revered man of TOL.
Sadly, you erred in labeling me as a Calvinist, because I am not, as I have for so many times told you. Again, as I have posted in another thread:
| "Calvinists don't believe in blotting out of names from the book of life. I do. Calvinists doubt the existence of the book of life. I don't. Calvinists don't preach free-will. I do. Calvinists believe in a limited atonement. I don't. Calvinists step hard on the accelerator down the floor when speaking about Total Depravity. I step hard on the accelerator down the floor when speaking about Total Spiritual Enlightenment." |
And still, for reasons unknown to me, you insist I am a Calvinist.
And I don't think you are sincere in labeling yourself as a "Grace Gospel Believer". It more seems you are not, brother, as gleaned from our limited discussions, where some of my questions and requests, you don't even care to extend the courtesy of answering, as a true grace-gospel-believer would have gladly done. Instead, you even bluntly told me in one post you don't owe me an explanation.
How could one be a true "Grace Gospel Believer" when he is a staunch defender of the biblically indefensible Arminian doctrine of general but conditional atonement that unless people FIRST hear the gospel and believe in Christ, they cannot be in Christ and so are saved? How can this be "saved by grace" when unless and until man first puts into the basket his share of the deal, God cannot save him? Hadn't Christ EXPLICITLY said that apart from Him, man can do NOTHING?
But you don't seem to care responding to issues like this in our discussions, knowing fully well you can't find haven in Scriptures. And your only way to bail yourself out is feign impossibility of convincing me into becoming a "Grace Gospel Believer", and join you the side of the fence where I am already in but you are yet nowhere to be seen.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
[MENTION=13925]Grosnick Marowbe[/MENTION]
I have given you plenty to research for yourself. If you refuses to review the material, which is unbiased and accurate, even critical of Calvin when appropriate, that is not my problem. I have been quite explicit in noting that Calvin, despite not being in a formal position to circumvent the magistrates of his day who actually were the responsible parties, could have used his pulpit for more calls for mercy. You are just stubbornly resistant to actually learning more. Such are most anti-Calvinists who prefer to not make actual arguments versus just the usual opinions.
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Each and every time without exception when you have proffered statements that are incorrect or asked questions, you have been met by me with substantial answers. You want to imply you can actually engage, but in every instance you have found a facile excuse to not do so, e.g., too many 'big words', too much content, too much effort required. Your acedia is plain for all to see, GM.
In your behavior is evidence of how unethical anti-Calvinists typically are when they attempt to critique Calvinism. The animus towards Calvinism of anti-Calvinists often disarms their critical judgment. Due to confirmation bias, they are suckers for any bad objection to Calvinism. The anti-Calvinists don't pause to consider if what they assert is an accurate representation of Calvinism. They don't stop to consider if the objection is even logical. Because anything anti-Calvinist is what they what to hear, they are predisposed to believe the worst about Calvinism, and vapidly nod their heads in agreement.
GM, when you are willing (or able) to actually engage with iron sharpening iron per Scripture, do not lull yourself into thinking no Calvinist is unwilling or unable to meet you in the hope that all will be edified. If you are not, then perhaps you should reconsider the usual offerings of questions and assertions, "Have you read the Bible?", "Do you have a testimony?", "Calvinists believe....". The reasonable person assumes you actually want to be answered giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not just being rhetorical.
Placing me on ignore is probably a wise course of action. I tend to ignore those that have proven themselves to be just drive-by posters seeking attention anyway.
AMR
Last edited:
Calvinism is the only belief in which God is supremely sovereign and actually holds up in doctrine rather then in mere proclamation.
What I see with other theologies- a consistently opposed set of ideas against God's omnipotence with a splash of 'God is Almighty' on top of it all, as if a wood wall becomes stone by painting it gray.
On the matter of TULIP, it is the entirety of the Gospel. There's not one single point you won't see in the Scriptures.
This thread singles out 'Limited atonement', and ignores 'Unconditional election.
Likewise, those such as Robert Pate single out 'Perseverance of the Saints', and ignore 'Irresistible Grace'.
These arguments- and comparing the REAL reformists to those such as Arminius, is garbage. All the opposed argumentation is on base, stubborn attitude unwilling to change to proper reason.
What I see with other theologies- a consistently opposed set of ideas against God's omnipotence with a splash of 'God is Almighty' on top of it all, as if a wood wall becomes stone by painting it gray.
On the matter of TULIP, it is the entirety of the Gospel. There's not one single point you won't see in the Scriptures.
This thread singles out 'Limited atonement', and ignores 'Unconditional election.
Likewise, those such as Robert Pate single out 'Perseverance of the Saints', and ignore 'Irresistible Grace'.
These arguments- and comparing the REAL reformists to those such as Arminius, is garbage. All the opposed argumentation is on base, stubborn attitude unwilling to change to proper reason.
Disagree. You haven't even tried addressing this post. I'll engage you in a healthy discussion, if you are willing.