Omniscience means fatalism.

[genuineoriginal]

Human nature wasn't changed, but man was demonstrated to be sinful (capable of sin) by nature. When someone defines Original Sin in those terms I agree as they explained the term. There are the judgmental types that will yell "You deny original sin!" because you refuse to agree carte blanche with anyone's definition of the term, but should we worry about those types, really?

According to the Bible: man is capable of both good and evil, both righteousness and wickedness.
Man must choose whether to do good or to do evil, whether to be righteous or to be wicked.

Most people that refer to Original Sin are claiming that man is not capable of good and righteousness, but is only capable of evil and wickedness.
That comes from taking a few verses out of context and building an entire (false) doctrine off of them.

The source of the doctrine of Original Sin is Augustine.
The Reformed version of Original Sin is Total Depravity.

Original sin - Augustine Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all humans inherit. Justo Gonzalez interprets Augustine's teaching that humans are utterly depraved in nature and grace is irresistible, results in conversion, and leads to perseverance.

​

I think the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity is an abomination.
I also think that Augustine was unduly influenced by the heresies of Manichaeism and brought many of them into mainstream Christianity.

When our human nature is changed, we call that something else. I'd point to Paul's use of the phrase "made perfect" as it seems to include the a spiritual transformation in that physical resurrection as well.

I don't think anyone will be able to remember our sins when God acts upon His promise to remember our sins no more.
We will truly be "made perfect" at that moment.

Jeremiah 31:34 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.​

 

[Rosenritter]

According to the Bible: man is capable of both good and evil, both righteousness and wickedness.
Man must choose whether to do good or to do evil, whether to be righteous or to be wicked.

Most people that refer to Original Sin are claiming that man is not capable of good and righteousness, but is only capable of evil and wickedness.
That comes from taking a few verses out of context and building an entire (false) doctrine off of them.

If I had a hard drive that failed sometimes and performed perfectly other times, I would condemn it and count it as faulty. As such "some good and some evil' would still summarized as "evil" just as some poison and some food is still poisoned food, and best if never eaten at all. If you took a person that was mostly good, ninety-nine out of one hundred parts good, that is still one portion bad that would be a disaster in the long run.

I haven't supported Total Depravity in the past (I don't think I am now either) but as I seem to be a bit faded as to the full extent of what Calvinists mean by the term so I'll review that later.

 

[genuineoriginal]

If I had a hard drive that failed sometimes and performed perfectly other times, I would condemn it and count it as faulty. As such "some good and some evil' would still summarized as "evil" just as some poison and some food is still poisoned food, and best if never eaten at all. If you took a person that was mostly good, ninety-nine out of one hundred parts good, that is still one portion bad that would be a disaster in the long run.

God is much more forgiving of mankind, and that is a good thing.

Ezekiel 18:20-24,26-28 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. 23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? 24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. 26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. 27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. 28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.​

 

[Clete]

That is the only right way to look at it.
:thumb:

Well, there was a bit of intentional hyperbole in my comment, but I appreciate the sentiment! :up:

 

[Clete]

I believe MS is merely a TROLL out to cause disruption and arguments. He/she calls a lot of names, etc. Hopefully, he'll soon receive, at least, a stern reprimand.

I can live with some name calling here and there as doctrinal discussions are prone to high levels of emotional discharge. The problem comes when that's pretty much all someone's got and they make no attempt to be substantive in anything they say. What in the world would anyone even get out of being on this forum if they never had any intention of making and responding to actual arguments? That's what I just will never get about these people. I mean, they need to get a life already, right?

Clete

 

[Clete]

Excellent post. AMR is intelligent, articulate, and a devoted Calvinist. However, he is completely WRONG about the 'Character of God,' and he teaches a false doctrine. Regreatable, to say the least.

I have very mixed feelings about AMR. I've often gone back and forth between thinking that he intentionally lies and thinking that he's just so deluded that he can't tell when he's saying crazy and even blasphemous things. I haven't read 100 words he's written in the last year and I haven't regularly read his posts for several years. I remember a long long time ago he said some things that had me convinced that there was no way he could possibly ever have been a seminary professor. I've since met a few people whom I know to be professors who have said and written crazier things than AMR has ever uttered (that I know of) and so I no longer doubt the claims he makes on his profile page. In fact, now, when I read his posts, it comes off to me as sounding very ivory tower and "litterateur". That, however, could just be a product of the man's personality along with my own prejudices. I still thing that his propensity toward posting links to other people's arguments rather than taking the time to make his own is laziness (assuming he still does that - like I said, I don't read much of his posts any more). And he can't seem to ever respond to any argument directly. He would always deflect to something else and say things that were just ridiculously unrelated to the argument that had been made. Does he still do that?

Regardless, we don't get along and I've thought it best to leave him mostly alone. He doesn't really seem to be here to debate anyway. He seems to mostly want to be the lead yodeler in the Calvinist echo chamber.

Clete

 

[Clete]

I'm unable to view that link...

Oops! Sorry, that thread isn't in the regular forum.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I have very mixed feelings about AMR. I've often gone back and forth between thinking that he intentionally lies and thinking that he's just so deluded that he can't tell when he's saying crazy and even blasphemous things. I haven't read 100 words he's written in the last year and I haven't regularly read his posts for several years. I remember a long long time ago he said some things that had me convinced that there was no way he could possibly ever have been a seminary professor. I've since met a few people whom I know to be professors who have said and written crazier things than AMR has ever uttered (that I know of) and so I no longer doubt the claims he makes on his profile page. In fact, now, when I read his posts, it comes off to me as sounding very ivory tower and "litterateur". That, however, could just be a product of the man's personality along with my own prejudices. I still thing that his propensity toward posting links to other people's arguments rather than taking the time to make his own is laziness (assuming he still does that - like I said, I don't read much of his posts any more). And he can't seem to ever respond to any argument directly. He would always deflect to something else and say things that were just ridiculously unrelated to the argument that had been made. Does he still do that?

Pretty much

Regardless, we don't get along and I've thought it best to leave him mostly alone. He doesn't really seem to be here to debate anyway. He seems to mostly want to be the lead yodeler in the Calvinist echo chamber.

Clete

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I have very mixed feelings about AMR. I've often gone back and forth between thinking that he intentionally lies and thinking that he's just so deluded that he can't tell when he's saying crazy and even blasphemous things. I haven't read 100 words he's written in the last year and I haven't regularly read his posts for several years. I remember a long long time ago he said some things that had me convinced that there was no way he could possibly ever have been a seminary professor. I've since met a few people whom I know to be professors who have said and written crazier things than AMR has ever uttered (that I know of) and so I no longer doubt the claims he makes on his profile page. In fact, now, when I read his posts, it comes off to me as sounding very ivory tower and "litterateur". That, however, could just be a product of the man's personality along with my own prejudices. I still thing that his propensity toward posting links to other people's arguments rather than taking the time to make his own is laziness (assuming he still does that - like I said, I don't read much of his posts any more). And he can't seem to ever respond to any argument directly. He would always deflect to something else and say things that were just ridiculously unrelated to the argument that had been made. Does he still do that?

Regardless, we don't get along and I've thought it best to leave him mostly alone. He doesn't really seem to be here to debate anyway. He seems to mostly want to be the lead yodeler in the Calvinist echo chamber.

Clete

Well said. There's a well-known phrase: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" The typical Calvinist, according to my experience, is usually well-educated, pretentious, uncompromising, somewhat condescending, arrogant, and rather angry. I wonder, which came first, a particular personality that's drawn to the Calvinistic belief system, and all it consists of, or does this belief system itself, create the characteristics that exemplify those that adhere to it? Personally, I find Calvinism to be unreasonable, illogical, and a typical false doctrine' that misrepresents/misinterprets the tenets of Scripture and changes the charactor of God.

One thing that stands out for me, is the Calvinist view that humanity has no free-will of its own and one cannot see any within the confines of the Bible. I've read the entire Bible cover to cover, word for word, and continue to read. I see copious amounts of proof that humanity has an undeniable ability to make choices. My favorite verse that 'proves' to me that humanity has a free-will is, Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

 

[Clete]

That is what the Bible teaches, so Pelagius (or whoever said that) is correct.

I'd have to disagree with you.

If AMR's quote of Sproul about what Pelagius taught is accurate, which I have no reason to doubt, then he sounds similar to some of the teaching of the Nazarine Church and hard line Church of Christ, which teaches that sinless perfection is attainable by the Christian. I think this is more or less a Wesleyan doctrine but that's neither here nor there. The point is that sinless perfection is not a biblical doctrine. It would make for an interesting debate though!

As for the doctrine of "original sin", I do reject it as it is usually presented but I don't completely reject the notion entirely.

In a nut shell, Adam fell in Eden and, as a result, people have a sinful nature and a propensity toward sin. Paul called this condition, "the flesh" and it is passed down through one's father and we are stuck with it until our bodies have been redeemed. Jesus did not have an Earthly father and so did not inherit a sinful nature nor "the flesh".

All of that is pretty common "original sin" type doctrine. Where I depart is in that I acknowledge that God is just and that He, therefore, would not and does not hold anyone accountable for the sins of their ancestors (See Ezekiel 18) and that the problem of the inherited nature of mankind was dealt with by Jesus at Calvary (Romans 5:12-21).

That is not what the Bible teaches.
It is a perversion of grace to claim grace facilitates righteousness.

Grace is God showing His favor to someone that merits it through pleasing God, and God is pleased by our faith.

This is dangerously close to saying that we earn our salvation or that we pay for our salvation through faith. I hope that this is not what you intended to suggest.

Our faith is merely our acceptance of the offered gift of salvation. If your father gives you a gift on your birthday (or whenever) and you accept the gift gladly, it doesn't follow that your father gave you the gift because you accepted it. It's the reverse! He offered it because he loves you and expected (hoped) that you would accept it and you accepted it because he offered it and because you love your father. If you hated your father, you'd dispise his offered gift and reject it and him.

Agree?

Clete

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I can live with some name calling here and there as doctrinal discussions are prone to high levels of emotional discharge. The problem comes when that's pretty much all someone's got and they make no attempt to be substantive in anything they say. What in the world would anyone even get out of being on this forum if they never had any intention of making and responding to actual arguments? That's what I just will never get about these people. I mean, they need to get a life already, right?

Clete

I guess that's why they call them, Trolls.

 

[Clete]

Well said. There's a well-known phrase: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" The typical Calvinist, according to my experience, is usually well-educated, pretentious, uncompromising, somewhat condescending, arrogant, and rather angry. I wonder, which came first, a particular personality that's drawn to the Calvinistic belief system, and all it consists of, or does this belief system itself, create the characteristics that exemplify those that adhere to it? Personally, I find Calvinism to be unreasonable, illogical, and a typical false doctrine' that misrepresents/misinterprets the tenets of Scripture and changes the charactor of God.

I have no doubt that it is some of both. There are clearly certain personality types that would be more or less drawn to a particular flavor of doctrine but being a particular type of person is no guarantee that one will or won't adopt any particular doctrine.

One thing that stands out for me, is the Calvinist view that humanity has no free-will of its own and one cannot see any within the confines of the Bible. I've read the entire Bible cover to cover, word for word, and continue to read. I see copious amounts of proof that humanity has an undeniable ability to make choices. My favorite verse that 'proves' to me that humanity has a free-will is, Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

That is such a great verse that it literally gave me goose bumps when I read it. Thank you for that!

There are, of course, dozens of verses that I'm tempted to present but they'd be no better than that one so I'll let it stand undeluted.


You know, another thing that is astounding about the belief that we have no ability to choose is that everyone who believe that has to do so BY CHOICE! There is nothing in our experience that would suggest to anyone that we do not have a free will. Our lives are filled with choices that are made almost constantly. Nearly very waking moment of our lives belies the idea that we have no free will. And so, when presented with the doctrine of Predestination, one is force to intentionally CHOOSE to reject a whole lifetime's worth of experience in favor of a religious doctrine.

Clete

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I have no doubt that it is some of both. There are clearly certain personality types that would be more or less drawn to a particular flavor of doctrine but being a particular type of person is no guarantee that one will or won't adopt any particular doctrine.



That is such a great verse that it literally gave me goose bumps when I read it. Thank you for that!

There are, of course, dozens of verses that I'm tempted to present but they'd be no better than that one so I'll let it stand undeluted.


You know, another thing that is astounding about the belief that we have no ability to choose is that everyone who believe that has to do so BY CHOICE! There is nothing in our experience that would suggest to anyone that we do not have a free will. Our lives are filled with choices that are made almost constantly. Nearly very waking moment of our lives belies the idea that we have no free will. And so, when presented with the doctrine of Predestination, one is force to intentionally CHOOSE to reject a whole lifetime's worth of experience in favor of a religious doctrine.

Clete

Excellent post.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Pelagius said there is no such thing as original sin. Adam’s sin affected Adam and only Adam. There is no transmission or transfer of guilt or fallenness or corruption to the progeny of Adam and Eve. Everyone is born in the same state of innocence in which Adam was created. And, he said, for a person to live a life of obedience to God, a life of moral perfection, is possible without any help from Jesus or without any help from the grace of God.​

That is what the Bible teaches, so Pelagius (or whoever said that) is correct.

I'd have to disagree with you.

If AMR's quote of Sproul about what Pelagius taught is accurate, which I have no reason to doubt, then he sounds similar to some of the teaching of the Nazarine Church and hard line Church of Christ, which teaches that sinless perfection is attainable by the Christian. I think this is more or less a Wesleyan doctrine but that's neither here nor there. The point is that sinless perfection is not a biblical doctrine. It would make for an interesting debate though!

The quote attributed to Pelagius says moral perfection, not sinless perfection.
Sinless perfection is not a Biblical doctrine.
Moral perfection is a Biblical doctrine.

2 Chronicles 16:9 9 For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him. Herein thou hast done foolishly: therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars.​

Moral perfection means you have the right heart towards the Lord, not that you do everything right.

2 Chronicles 15:17 17 But the high places were not taken away out of Israel: nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days.​

You can do everything right and still not have a right heart towards the Lord.

2 Chronicles 25:2 2 And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, but not with a perfect heart.​

Adam fell in Eden and, as a result, people have a sinful nature and a propensity toward sin.

I cannot agree with the idea that Adam's sin corrupted all of mankind.
People who believe that only look at the verses about the wicked, but there are too many verses in the Bible about the righteous that they completely ignore.

Paul called this condition, "the flesh"

Paul did not teach Original Sin.
Paul's teaching about walking "in the flesh" and walking "in the spirit" has been revamped by Sigmund Freud into his ideas about the Id, Ego, Superego.

Id, Ego and Superego According to Freud's model of the psyche, the id is the primitive and instinctual part of the mind that contains sexual and aggressive drives and hidden memories, the super-ego operates as a moral conscience, and the ego is the realistic part that mediates between the desires of the id and the super-ego.

​

Freud's "id" is Paul's "the flesh" and Freud's "superego" is Paul's "the spirit".
Paul was teaching that we are to act according to our moral conscience instead of acting according to our animalistic tendencies.

Grace is God showing His favor to someone that merits it through pleasing God, and God is pleased by our faith.

This is dangerously close to saying that we earn our salvation or that we pay for our salvation through faith. I hope that this is not what you intended to suggest.

Does this sound like we earn our salvation or pay for our salvation through faith?

Malachi 3:16-18 16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name. 17 And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. 18 Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.​

We can choose to be pleasing to God (righteous) or to be displeasing to God (wicked).
God will never grant salvation (eternal life) to anyone who is displeasing to Him.
God will not grant salvation (eternal life) to everyone that chooses to be pleasing to God.
The choice of who will be granted salvation (eternal life) is always God's choice.

Our choice is whether we will be righteous or wicked.
If we are wicked, we will not be granted salvation.
If we are righteous, we may or may not be granted salvation (eternal life), depending on whether God has decided that He is pleased with our faith.

I do not believe in salvation by works, but I strongly believe in damnation by works.

Our faith is merely our acceptance of the offered gift of salvation. If your father gives you a gift on your birthday (or whenever) and you accept the gift gladly, it doesn't follow that your father gave you the gift because you accepted it. It's the reverse! He offered it because he loves you and expected (hoped) that you would accept it and you accepted it because he offered it and because you love your father. If you hated your father, you'd dispise his offered gift and reject it and him.

I can't agree with that because it doesn't match what the Bible shows about faith and salvation.

 

[Rosenritter]

You know, another thing that is astounding about the belief that we have no ability to choose is that everyone who believe that has to do so BY CHOICE! There is nothing in our experience that would suggest to anyone that we do not have a free will. Our lives are filled with choices that are made almost constantly. Nearly very waking moment of our lives belies the idea that we have no free will. And so, when presented with the doctrine of Predestination, one is force to intentionally CHOOSE to reject a whole lifetime's worth of experience in favor of a religious doctrine.

Clete

The Calvinist might say they were predestined to change their belief in that way at that time, and nothing they could will would change that. Taken to the extreme it's a doctrine that cannot be tested or disproven by experience or experimentation. When it comes to scripture that always seems to be read first through the filter of assumed Calvinism, statements regarding will of God can be dismissed as anthropomorphism, statements as to the will of man can be dismissed as delusion, commands from God that are disobeyed are somehow the will of God that he be disobeyed.

So if we discard all of those lines of reasoning, we are left with the practical application. If Calvinism is true, then nothing matters really. It doesn't matter what we do, what we believe, whether we think or do good or evil, there is no need for you to repent. If God wants you to repent, he will force you to repent, but if God does not want you to repent, he will reject your repentance or deny you the ability to repent. If God is Calvinist and has chosen you as the elect, you will be redeemed regardless of whether you accept said doctrine.

Thus a slightly different version of Pascal's argument leaves us with that it doesn't actually matter if Calvinism is true or false, the only logical and sane option is to deny Calvinism completely and live as if the scripture does mean what it says on the most basic level: hear the gospel, obey the call to repent, live by faith, willingly come to the Lord and serve him with all of your heart and mind and soul... and love thy neighbor, and one another, and thy enemy.

 

[Clete]

I can't agree with that because it doesn't match what the Bible shows about faith and salvation.

This one sentence seems to sum up your entire post.

To it I would respond, saying it doesn't make it so. I even cited passages to support what I said. You seem to be mixing God's relationship with the Jews with that which He has with those in the Body of Christ but this is not the thread on which to debate it.

The bottom line is that I do not agree with Pelagius on either the concept of sinless (or moral - same thing) perfection or on the issue of original sin.

Clete

 

[Clete]

The Calvinist might say they were predestined to change their belief in that way at that time, and nothing they could will would change that. Taken to the extreme it's a doctrine that cannot be tested or disproven by experience or experimentation.

Taken to the extreme it is a doctrine that is rationally unfalsifiable and I think intentionally so.

And I've never understood why Calvinists aren't willing to admit that God must have predestined me to believe in free will and for them to lose nearly every debate I've ever seen them engage in.

When it comes to scripture that always seems to be read first through the filter of assumed Calvinism, statements regarding will of God can be dismissed as anthropomorphism, statements as to the will of man can be dismissed as delusion, commands from God that are disobeyed are somehow the will of God that he be disobeyed.

Exactly! This is true of every single proof text they ever cite! They invariably bring their doctrine to the text and render it in the context of Calvinist doctrine. They are flatly unwilling to admit that this is circular reasoning/question begging and it a big percentage of what makes their doctrine unfalsifiable.

- Since Calvinism is true, ABC Bible verse means Clavinist doctrine X is valid, therefore Calvinism is true.

That is the form of their thought process! They may or may not be aware of it but that is the way they think.

So if we discard all of those lines of reasoning, we are left with the practical application. If Calvinism is true, then nothing matters really. It doesn't matter what we do, what we believe, whether we think or do good or evil, there is no need for you to repent. If God wants you to repent, he will force you to repent, but if God does not want you to repent, he will reject your repentance or deny you the ability to repent. If God is Calvinist and has chosen you as the elect, you will be redeemed regardless of whether you accept said doctrine.

If Calvinism is true, it is pointless to even point this out because everything everyone thinks, does or says has been predestined, including their belief that one must repent, their thoughts about what is right and wrong and even your having pointed this out! They can't keep from thinking it's not pointless any more than you could have chosen not to point out the pointlessness of it.

It's a hopelessly convoluted quagmire of irrational nonsense!

Thus a slightly different version of Pascal's argument leaves us with that it doesn't actually matter if Calvinism is true or false, the only logical and sane option is to deny Calvinism completely and live as if the scripture does mean what it says on the most basic level: hear the gospel, obey the call to repent, live by faith, willingly come to the Lord and serve him with all of your heart and mind and soul... and love thy neighbor, and one another, and thy enemy.

Indeed! Even the Calvinist is FORCED to live as if his doctrine is false! He is forced to make choices all day every day! He can choose to deny that he is choosing but he cannot keep from making choices. The Calvinist argues against his own doctrine every time he chooses to eat rather than to starve or to use the toilet rather than wetting his pants.

Clete

 

[genuineoriginal]

You seem to be mixing God's relationship with the Jews with that which He has with those in the Body of Christ but this is not the thread on which to debate it.

I am simply going with the testimony of the whole scriptures.

The bottom line is that I do not agree with Pelagius on either the concept of sinless (or moral - same thing) perfection or on the issue of original sin.

Most Christians are trained to reject what Pelagius taught, but that does not mean his beliefs were fundamentally wrong.
Most Christians are trained to accept what Augustine taught, but that does not mean his beliefs were fundamentally right.

We need to examine the teachings for the underlying beliefs and then compare those beliefs against the whole of scriptures to see whether they match or not.

 

[genuineoriginal]

And I've never understood why Calvinists aren't willing to admit that God must have predestined me to believe in free will and for them to lose nearly every debate I've ever seen them engage in.

It is simple.
Calvinists must have been predestined to be wrong about predestination and free-will.

If Calvinism is true, it is pointless to even point this out because everything everyone thinks, does or says has been predestined, including their belief that one must repent, their thoughts about what is right and wrong and even your having pointed this out! They can't keep from thinking it's not pointless any more than you could have chosen not to point out the pointlessness of it.

Yep.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Taken to the extreme it is a doctrine that is rationally unfalsifiable and I think intentionally so.

And I've never understood why Calvinists aren't willing to admit that God must have predestined me to believe in free will and for them to lose nearly every debate I've ever seen them engage in.


Exactly! This is true of every single proof text they ever cite! They invariably bring their doctrine to the text and render it in the context of Calvinist doctrine. They are flatly unwilling to admit that this is circular reasoning/question begging and it a big percentage of what makes their doctrine unfalsifiable.

- Since Calvinism is true, ABC Bible verse means Clavinist doctrine X is valid, therefore Calvinism is true.

That is the form of their thought process! They may or may not be aware of it but that is the way they think.


If Calvinism is true, it is pointless to even point this out because everything everyone thinks, does or says has been predestined, including their belief that one must repent, their thoughts about what is right and wrong and even your having pointed this out! They can't keep from thinking it's not pointless any more than you could have chosen not to point out the pointlessness of it.

It's a hopelessly convoluted quagmire of irrational nonsense!


Indeed! Even the Calvinist is FORCED to live as if his doctrine is false! He is forced to make choices all day every day! He can choose to deny that he is choosing but he cannot keep from making choices. The Calvinist argues against his own doctrine every time he chooses to eat rather than to starve or to use the toilet rather than wetting his pants.

Clete

That's why I believe that Calvinism is convoluted, irrational, and a false doctrine.