Is that, Alexander Pelagian the infamous baker who created the 'Holeless Doughnut?"
Omniscience means fatalism.
- Thread starter Stripe
- Start date
Is that, Alexander Pelagian the infamous baker who created the 'Holeless Doughnut?"
It seems to me you're being disruptive, making false accusations, and looking for trouble.
Rosenritter
New member
You didn't learn at all, did you? Define your term first. Here, I'll provide another example:
troll2
trōl/
noun
noun: troll; plural noun: trolls
1.
- a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post.
- informal
a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting.
- informal
That makes you a Yooper. [emoji56]
Your basic premise fits with Pelagius. That's for you to live with.
Yep. He fits the description.
Their version of God is even worse than Josef Mengele! Josef had a reason why he chose one to die and another to live. It was a horrible, unjust and evil reason but it was a reason. Josef didn't just go around town arbitrarily picking people to send to the gas chamber. Oh no! They had to have been prisoners who were delivered to him - mostly Jews. And then once they were delivered he still didn't pick in an arbitrary fashion, there were criteria that were either met or not and it was on that basis that he made his decisions.
As disgustingly evil as that was, imagine if he had simply chosen to kill people or allow them to live by pure arbitrary whim, as the Calvinists claim God did. Not only that but it could be argued that the gas chamber was a mercy in comparison to the lingering death that awaited those who were selected to live. Calvin's God sends people to a permanent, eternally torturous existence for no reason whatsoever.
Additionally, they believe that Josef Mengele did precisely as God commanded that he would do before the creation of the world! In effect, Mengele's actions were merely a subset and inevitable result of God's own actions.
“God is moved to mercy for no other reason but that he wills to be merciful.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 8)
“… predestination to glory is the cause of predestination to grace, rather than the converse.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 9)
“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christia/n Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)
“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)
“But since he foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place, they vainly raise a quarrel over foreknowledge, when it is clear that all things take place rather by his determination and bidding.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)
“… predestination to glory is the cause of predestination to grace, rather than the converse.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 9)
“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christia/n Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)
“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)
“But since he foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place, they vainly raise a quarrel over foreknowledge, when it is clear that all things take place rather by his determination and bidding.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)
Amen!
There are many Calvinists who believe that Calvinist doctrine it the Gospel itself and that a rejection of it is a rejection of God's only plan of salvation. Others (most) not so much. Most people who identify as Calvinist think that the TULIP is 99.999% of what the doctrine teaches and give no thought to the implications.
Clete
Are you denying that you're a Calvinist?
I have never been to a church of Calvin. I have never read more than a few quotes attributed to Calvin. I have read the Bible and believe what it says. You and others tend to call it Calvinist rather than call it scriptural or biblical.
So, I am not following Calvin, thus I can say I am not a Calvinist. But, it seems that Calvin may have observed similarly to me.
This seems to be similar to you and Pelagius.
Good post. Calvinism is a horrendous distortion of the 'character of God' and His written Word.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Labels help move a discussion forward. Those that claim to be not able to be labeled usually misunderstand the issue.
Unfortunately, the label "Calvinist" is used by the misinformed to imply a follower of Calvin, assuming Calvin is one's regula fidei. If they would take the time to actually think, these same persons tossing about the label would no doubt take issue with being called "Enyartists" "Boydists" "Pinnockists" (open theists), or even "Paulists" (so-called grace gospelites as they define the term), and so on. Obviously, none of these men are one's regula fidei, but these vitriolic label tossers often just like poisoning the well, adopting genetic fallacies, and being seen.
The history of the church is such that there is really no one who can escape some sort of theological label of a sort. There really is nothing new under the sun. So be it. In theological discussions, these categories help to define presuppositions and eliminate the need for explanations that actually go without saying to the theologically informed.
Making plaintive and strident claims to the effect "I cannot be labeled" is but self-righteousness and ignorance of church history. It only feeds one's humanistic sense of individuality and autonomy. In fact, most of these sorts will quickly claim to have no man-made creed, rather just the Bible, as if what they just said is not actually a creed—Just Me and My Bible—made by, er, a man.
Nonsense then abounds:
https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B120919
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/teachable-spirit/
Lastly, and for the record, the credit for the label "Calvinist" was first assigned by the Lutherans. You know, those folks who agreed with what Luther had to say, particularly as it relates to the Lord's Supper.
AMR
Well stated, AMR.
Derf
Well-known member
You do the same, and while enjoying the holiday, tolle lege...
The complete sermon excerpted above:
http://archive.spurgeon.org/sermons/0052.php
Another look:
http://notatthedinnertable.weebly.com/christianity-applied/everyone-is-a-calvinist-when-they-pray
As cited earlier above.
AMR
There was a very good response to the not at the dinner table article:
It's pretty easy to win an ideological fight when your opponent is filled with straw.
Rosenritter
New member
Or if you persecute them to extinction.
If we can veer back to the subject of prayer, I think we would be more instructed if we paid attention to how Christ prayed.
As Jesus instructed us and showed by example, we ask for his will to be done, but we also pray that if possible that his will might change.
What he didn't do is tell us to pray as if God would overwrite someone's heart, and he didn't tell us that it was merely for our own benefit of acceptance of the inevitable will of God.
All of these arguments I see (had read) from Calvinists arguing that non-Calvinists pray as Calvinists seem to be in ignorance of how other people pray. Yes, I have prayed for the conversion of loved ones, and I know that God does not overrule their will if it is against him. I can ask for them to be led knowing that they may not follow. I myself can lead by example and to win by my good conduct all the while knowing that this is not the ultimate deciding factor.
So besides the argument that "all non-Calvinists pray as Calvinists" (which is frankly wrong) that argument also ignores how God's saints (and even Jesus himself) prayed from scripture.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Heh.
Why not take the time to write down your prayers in detail and examine them?
I would like to see the prayers of the anti-Calvinists on all various and sundry things. Each and every one of them. I suspect that if one would actually take the effort to provide a private record of one's prayers, one would find much of what has been claimed in the articles you readily assume are but straw men. After all lex orandi lex credendi.
Unfortunately, few are willing to subject themselves to painful scrutiny, preferring instead to live a life of cognitive dissonance contrasted by what they say in public and what they do in private.So, yes, as you demonstrate, it is easy to wave off a counter view with some few words soaked in the usual dismissals. Yet, that does not make a defeater for what has been previously proffered.
AMR
Rosenritter
New member
Heh.
Why not take the time to write down your prayers in detail and examine them?
I would like to see the prayers of the anti-Calvinists on all various and sundry things. Each and every one of them. I suspect that if one would actually take the effort to provide a private record of one's prayers, one would find much of what has been claimed in the articles you readily assume are but straw men. After all lex orandi lex credendi.
So, yes, as you demonstrate, it is easy to wave off a counter view with some few words soaked in the usual dismissals. Yet, that does not make a defeater for what has been previously proffered.
AMR
How am I to write down all my prayers if we are (attempting to be) in a constant state and attitude of prayer? "Pray always" we are told, and as Jesus himself said, we know that God hears our thoughts always. I've given an example above of how I have prayed for a loved one. I know that God can alter the world around us, perform miracles at the microbiological level where we might never notice, help guide us with a thought or an idea in our mind through the Holy Spirit, and he can stop the mouths of lions or place blindness in the minds of enemies.
Yet even if he were to cause an enemy to act favorably towards us, if he were to force them against their heart, this is a temporary thing that reflects God's will, and not their own. Conversion is ultimately the measure of if a person is converted, if they are actually changed. Picking up the rebellious sinner with a whirlwind and depositing them in the belly of a fish may force that person into a location, but if that person was led by the Holy Spirit (and one of his) such a measure would have been unnecessary. God could confuse their mind by the Spirit and force them into that location by other means of course, but again, they would be being forced rather than willingly led.
With the example (from that second article you gave) there may indeed be ignorant (or self-contradicting) anti-Calvinists but as Derf was pointing out, this can only be used as an example for contrast, and cannot be fairly used as a straw-man representative of the whole.
By the way, on topic, a loved one was baptized into the body of Christ yesterday. It was something I have prayed for and hoped towards for years, and it was not as a Calvinist.
Indeed! In fact, I'd say that this is the central argument against it and any doctrine that makes similar claims about God.
Either God is good or Calvinistic doctrines are true, not both. They are truly mutually exclusive concepts.
When pinned down, the Calvinist (or Augustinian or whatever you want to call it) will admit that the term "good", as in morally good, does not apply to God in the same sense that it applies in any other context and that it is arbitrarily defined by God and was not defined by Him the way it is for any reason other than that's just what God decided to do. In other words, Calvinists and others who believe in Calvinistic doctrines trade in God's righteousness for their idea of divine sovereignty.
In fact, what they are actually guilty of is what is called a stolen concept fallacy. The stolen concept fallacy occurs when someone accepts or uses a concept while at the same time denying other concepts upon which the concept that they accept is rationally dependent. A good example of a stolen concept fallacy is when the liberal college professor tells his students that, "All private property is theft.". He is undercutting the concept of private property while up holding the concept of theft. But theft has no meaning if there is no private property. Similarly, the Augustinian (Reformed or otherwise) shouts from the roof tops that God is just while believing that everything that happens does so at His arbitrary whim. All the while ignoring the fact that the concept of justice presupposes that one is NOT arbitrary. That's what the term means! Their solution is to redefine the terms that get in their way, which almost always ends up causing them to mean their opposite. Justice means arbitrary, Love means impassibility, "Now I know" means "I not only knew it I predestined it", etc. etc. That and they also compartmentalize the issues, never dealing with them together or even mentioning them in the same paragraph amongst themselves or in their own minds.
Clete
Hallelujah!
Funny how people don't like the label when it falls on them.
Scripture teaches God's choosing, election and predestination. You don't need to read anything by Calvin to see this truth.
I am reminded of a spoken word artist who goes by the stage name, Propaganda, who said he was telling his pastor/uncle about what he was reading in scripture and the uncle said..."You're a Calvinist." Propaganda responded by saying, "I don't know about that, but this is what I read in the Bible." He had no idea he was speaking like a Reformed Christian.
By the way, I highly recommend Propaganda's music. It will test you social comfort zone and force you to evaluate your theology.
Rosenritter
New member
Whether or not Mennosota thinks you are stupid is a different matter, but if Mennosota thinks he is telling the truth (and is not) then that would be properly addressed as "deluded" rather than "liar" at least in this instance.
He may deserve to be put on an ignore list, but I think he is not intentionally being dishonest with that above statement.