Then you do not believe the following scripture;
John 3:16 New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
How the Gospel Works
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
Then you do not believe the following scripture;
John 3:16 New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Please make your own account. That was a long time ago. Knight does let banned people back after a while if they can behave themselves on here. Please keep your nose clean. Attack ideas rather than persons. Please bear in mind that the owners of this board are dispensational/Open Theist. So the bias is going to be in that direction. You are a guest here and you need to behave like a guest.
Musty--please follow the same advice. Attack ideas rather than the person. It will get less heated.
I would like to see this site become less of a Wild West and get back to a debate site like it used to be.
musterion
Well-known member
Musty--please follow the same advice. Attack ideas rather than the person. It will get less heated.
Then with all due respect, please implement severe sanctions for those few specifically like Nang and a couple others who are known for repeatedly and deliberately misrepresenting the beliefs of others, which keeps throwing gas on personalized fires that invariably derail honest debate.
I will try to moderate my tone so you don't have to. But as for Calvinism, I will continue to attack it - as a system - as the blasphemy it is every time it comes up. I will also continue to rebuke those who adhere to Calvinism every chance I get because they are partakers in blasphemy. If such rebuke is now being counted as personal attack, then I ask to be given a very long time out, effective immediately.
No disrespect or insubordination intended in any of this, please don't take it as such.
I made it very clear that the bias of this site does not favor Calvinism. As long as you attack the ideas rather than the members than you are fine. :up: She probably thinks you are misrepresenting her beliefs as well. The terseness of your terminology is what makes the conversation heated. My advice to both sides is to not go around calling each other liars because you find their belief system repugnant. Instead grow a thick skin and have a lively debate.
Remember you do have common ground--you believe in the Deity of Jesus and other things that are very important.
Lon
Well-known member
No, your version of Calvinism and mine are not the same. If that DOESN'T make me a Calvinist, all the better for you, no? Why are you so hung up on my Calvinism or lack thereof? A lot of you should just be talking scriptures. Do so more, this forgettable banter and chat, not so much. Simply share the gospel as you know it! Crusades are not really that great, never have been. As you say, Calvin may be a double-pred as you say. I'm NOT. Can we move beyond that? If I 'must' be double-pred to be a Calvinist, then I am not one, at least according to you. "WHY" didn't you start the 'If you are not this, this, or this, you are not a Calvinist" thread? Do you have no self-control? This thread is about the gospel. Tell it to me. When appropriate, simply say "That's not Calvinist, Lon!" Me? "Okay, great, I'm not a Calvinist. Let's talk about 's-c-r-i-p-t-u-r-e.' Tell me the story, how a King came from glory."
Eagles Wings
New member
Please make your own account. That was a long time ago. Knight does let banned people back after a while if they can behave themselves on here. Please keep your nose clean. Attack ideas rather than persons. Please bear in mind that the owners of this board are dispensational/Open Theist. So the bias is going to be in that direction. You are a guest here and you need to behave like a guest.
Musty--please follow the same advice. Attack ideas rather than the person. It will get less heated.
Sherman,
Since you're here would you please address the continuous Calvin bashing in Pate's threads, even after many admonishments from you?
As a Reformed guest here, are we to sit idly by as truths we hold dear and our personal testimonies of salvation in Christ, are ridiculed and questioned?
Yes, others do this as well, yet for some reason Pate has been given this platform with impunity.
Regards,
EW
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Anti-Calvinism Memes A Substitute for Heavy-Lifting
Anti-Calvinism Memes A Substitute for Heavy-Lifting
I do not know anyone who has spent time studying what Calvin has written who would deny that he held to double predestination. All Calvinists and Reformed do. So do most non-Calvinists. The issue is whether Calvin advocated equal ultimacy {<--will be leveraging this link below) in the double predestination or not. This equal ultimacy can in no way be assigned to Calvin. Unfortunately most do not take the time to understand this distortion:
God does not work evil in us by creating evil in us. A Luther observed (op. cit.):
He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God's own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation
Which is to say, God wills righteously, what men do wickedly. All are fallen, none deserve mercy. Those who are not shown mercy, are not able to not sin and all the actions of God upon them, while yielding more sin given their sin natures, is made good use of by God.
Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Zanchius, Turrettin, Edwards, Hodge, Warfield, Bavinck, Berkouwer, and more held to an asymmetrical view of double-predestination, as do all Confessional Calvinists and Reformed. It is only some loosely-defined hyper-Calvinists leveraging a distortion of supralapsarianism, who claim God's decree to reprobate some did not contemplate the fall of man in the Garden. Historic Calvinism and Reformed views plainly state that the decree of reprobation by God was made with the view of the fall of man. In other words, the lump of clay was contemplated as a fallen lump of clay.
I have extracted content above from the article so linked above as I am certain not a few will simply not read it, or if they do, not really study it carefully.
In any case, other than the usual misunderstandings highlighted above, the whole "Calvin was {insert a pejorative here}" as an argument hoping to prove something about soteriological matters is a smokescreen of the desperate. I have yet to find a Calvinist who believed each and every thing Calvin actually advocated in his writings. Some folks just like to use "man worshiping" arguments because they make for good crowd appeal and can hide the lack of depth in the things that are being actually discussed.
Most Calvinists are Confessional, so when folks want to argue or discuss what we believe, they should be pointing to our Confessional summaries of Scripture, such as the LBCF, Belgic, Heidelberg, Helvetic, or the WCF. These confessions define the boundaries of a community of believers, what is in and what is out. They are subordinate standards to our ultimate standard, Scripture, and carry authoritative weight only as long as they are shown to be accurate summaries of Scripture.
Want to summarize what a Calvinist believes about predestination?
Try one of the linked Confessions above.
What do Calvinists think about falling away from the faith?
Again, see one of the Confessions above.
What do Calvinists believe about the Sabbath?
Again...etc. etc.
Telling me how mean and nasty Calvin was, as if that is somehow the distinguishing factor of some theological discussion, only tells me how desperate a person has become to make their point. Calvin could have ate baby angels for breakfast each morning, for all men are sinners from birth. What little or nothing that has to do with one's understanding of who God is and what God has revealed seems lost on some folks.
Determining and understanding theology proper or soteriology are weighty efforts, not for the faint of heart, the lazy, or the choleric. Sadly, it is much easier to dismiss one's opponent with a few pejorative statements and then smugly declare victory.
AMR
Anti-Calvinism Memes A Substitute for Heavy-Lifting
Nicely done, Lon.
I do not know anyone who has spent time studying what Calvin has written who would deny that he held to double predestination. All Calvinists and Reformed do. So do most non-Calvinists. The issue is whether Calvin advocated equal ultimacy {<--will be leveraging this link below) in the double predestination or not. This equal ultimacy can in no way be assigned to Calvin. Unfortunately most do not take the time to understand this distortion:
The distortion of double predestination looks like this:
There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.
....
This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism or often involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.
There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.
....
This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism or often involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.
God does not work evil in us by creating evil in us. A Luther observed (op. cit.):
He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God's own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation
Which is to say, God wills righteously, what men do wickedly. All are fallen, none deserve mercy. Those who are not shown mercy, are not able to not sin and all the actions of God upon them, while yielding more sin given their sin natures, is made good use of by God.
Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence.
Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Zanchius, Turrettin, Edwards, Hodge, Warfield, Bavinck, Berkouwer, and more held to an asymmetrical view of double-predestination, as do all Confessional Calvinists and Reformed. It is only some loosely-defined hyper-Calvinists leveraging a distortion of supralapsarianism, who claim God's decree to reprobate some did not contemplate the fall of man in the Garden. Historic Calvinism and Reformed views plainly state that the decree of reprobation by God was made with the view of the fall of man. In other words, the lump of clay was contemplated as a fallen lump of clay.
I have extracted content above from the article so linked above as I am certain not a few will simply not read it, or if they do, not really study it carefully.
In any case, other than the usual misunderstandings highlighted above, the whole "Calvin was {insert a pejorative here}" as an argument hoping to prove something about soteriological matters is a smokescreen of the desperate. I have yet to find a Calvinist who believed each and every thing Calvin actually advocated in his writings. Some folks just like to use "man worshiping" arguments because they make for good crowd appeal and can hide the lack of depth in the things that are being actually discussed.
Most Calvinists are Confessional, so when folks want to argue or discuss what we believe, they should be pointing to our Confessional summaries of Scripture, such as the LBCF, Belgic, Heidelberg, Helvetic, or the WCF. These confessions define the boundaries of a community of believers, what is in and what is out. They are subordinate standards to our ultimate standard, Scripture, and carry authoritative weight only as long as they are shown to be accurate summaries of Scripture.
Want to summarize what a Calvinist believes about predestination?
Try one of the linked Confessions above.
What do Calvinists think about falling away from the faith?
Again, see one of the Confessions above.
What do Calvinists believe about the Sabbath?
Again...etc. etc.
Telling me how mean and nasty Calvin was, as if that is somehow the distinguishing factor of some theological discussion, only tells me how desperate a person has become to make their point. Calvin could have ate baby angels for breakfast each morning, for all men are sinners from birth. What little or nothing that has to do with one's understanding of who God is and what God has revealed seems lost on some folks.
Determining and understanding theology proper or soteriology are weighty efforts, not for the faint of heart, the lazy, or the choleric. Sadly, it is much easier to dismiss one's opponent with a few pejorative statements and then smugly declare victory.
AMR
Last edited:
musterion
Well-known member
With all respect, believing in the Deity of Christ is not the sole ground for fellowship, according to Paul. Rejoicing in the Gospel of grace is the primary basis for fellowship, so please, respectfully, tell me how we're to fellowship in Christ on the shared basis if the Gospel with those who (whether they are honest enough to admit it or not) believe this:
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/unablelimited.html
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/four-point.htm
Two cannot walk together unless they're agreed. How is true fellowship in Christ possible with such? One side or the other here is blaspheming Christ by either overapplying or underapplying His death, burial and resurrection. Real fellowship isn't possible.
musterion
Well-known member
I'm "hung up" on any person or system that denies that God sent Christ to die for all mankind with no exceptions or distinctions. So you'll forgive me, or not, for being "hung up" on someone who has in his signature "Is Calvinism OK? :up: Yep!" That's no different than having "Is Catholicism OK?
Now if YOU believe God did NOT limit the death of Christ, meaning you REJECT the "L" of TULIP, then you need to reject Calvinism as a whole. The Monergism quote I posted just above is correct -- it is necessary to the logic of how the Reformed view salvation. If you reject part of that system, logically you should reject ALL of it.
Cross Reference
New member
God does not work evil in us by creating evil in us. A Luther observed (op. cit.):
Evil by nature or simply weak by nature? Is it a given unregenerate man cannot to good? How will unregenerate man be judged?
Is that how Jesus understood the written word, He lived by, when He was being tempted?
Tell us, AMR, is "vanity" evil or simply a yielding to the law of our flesh? Will it, of itself, send one to hell? Under what condition might it?
Evil by nature or simply weak by nature? Is it a given unregenerate man cannot to good? How will unregenerate man be judged?
Is that how Jesus understood the written word, He lived by, when He was being tempted?
Tell us, AMR, is "vanity" evil or simply a yielding to the law of our flesh? Will it, of itself, send one to hell? Under what condition
Cross Reference
New member
(2) things: Though man was born in a fallen condition he was nevertheless born "blameless" and given a "measure of faith" to be exercised in the "fullness of time", i.e, at the age of his accountability.
If *by His mercy, God has saved us, it can be easily understood in this instance as being "Redemption" for which we had nothing to do: "And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again." 2 Corinthians 5:15 (KJV) Redemption now becomes the new foundation intended for the born again of Him to begin experiencing life by building upon it, His salvation as purposed by it per John 17:3 now enabled by it by one's act of "faith OF the Son of God". cf Gal 2:20 KJV only.{discipleship here]
*Titus 3:5,KJV.
Right Divider
Body part
So is it your contention that God created some people with the express intent of not allowing them to believe and then condemning them to hell for their unbelief?
musterion
Well-known member
That question is the reason I kept raising the point in this thread. If God deliberately reprobated some (presumably most) of humanity, then the Gospel DOESN'T work as Paul taught it does.
The fact remains. Calvinist believe that God is unjust and that his Son Jesus Christ is a failure. In my book that is not Christianity.
This is material a person has written. It is his opinion Second link is dead BTW. It isn't scripture. The various schisms in the church resulted from opinions and material written after the Bible was written. It isn't inspired scripture. Personally I find myself getting lost in discourses written by a theologian. The Bible is easier to follow. If we focused on the Bible instead of books written outside of the Bible I think there would be fewer schisms. We should also read all of what God says in his Word. Not cherry pick either. Now I am going to leave this right here:
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1 Timothy 2:3-5
It's right there in the Bible. Now what are you going to do with it.
Right Divider
Body part
Amen!
musterion
Well-known member
I could ask you the same question.
If TULIP is true, then God only wants SOME to come to repentance. The rest can't and were never meant to.
If TULIP is true, then God will NOT have all men to be saved -- only the elect. Reprobates are already as good as in Hell forever.
If TULIP is true, then there is one Mediator between God and SOME men, the elect, but not all men.
Where am I wrong here? If TULIP is true then what you quoted from Peter and Paul CAN'T be true. The only alternative is, TULIP is a false gospel that deceives many.
For the life of me, I don't know why calvinists hate to hear that salvation has appeared to ALL men.
1 Timothy 4:10 KJV -
Titus 2:11 KJV -