The Slaying of Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Nope.
It is no different than your insults to others, while telling them they shouldn't be insulting.

Most of what GT condemns of others, she does herself.

[MENTION=14521]God's Truth[/MENTION] and [MENTION=3698]Tambora[/MENTION],

If the claws come out, I'm not responsible. I merely can suggest we focus on task at hand. We are all guilty of being harsh. This is my stance as moderator of this OP.

I directed the "Please No In Fighting" at Tambora because I know she comes out swinging and understands the concept of "water off a ducks back".

When we in fight, we divide and stand alone. But, ahem ..it happens.

 

[God's Truth]

[MENTION=14521]God's Truth[/MENTION],

If the claws come out, I'm not responsible. I merely can suggest we focus on task at hand. We are all guilty of being harsh. This is my stance as moderator of this OP.

I directed the "Please No In Fighting" at Tambora because I know she comes out swinging and understands the concept of "water off a ducks back".

When we in fight, we divide and stand alone. But, ahem ..it happens.

I am not guilty.

Please do not drag me back in to getting insulted, even by you.

I have condemned no one as Tambora has claimed, and I was not even going to respond to that, except that you wanted to address me instead of the culprit.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I am not guilty.

Please do not drag me back in to getting insulted, even by you.

I have condemned no one as Tambora has claimed, and I was not even going to respond to that, except that you wanted to address me instead of the culprit.

I forgot to address it to both of you. And I understand. I edited it to denote addressing you both.

As for me. I perpetually have to fight the urge to unleash Metric Tons of Humorous sarcasm when people don't give logical, legitimate or Scriptural replies.

 

[steko]

opcorn:

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Bolstering OP assertion...

On this note, I believe doctrines of men like Calvinism interfere with people's honest, open minded expressions of their understanding of scripture. They sort of attemp to lord over believers and non believers ability to search God out in an intimate and experiential manner.

Sort of like this...

Searcher: "I understand such and such this way and am excited to share it."

Calvinist or Doctrines of Man person: "WRONG!!! Idiot!!! It's THIS way. Here's 40,000,000 extra biblical resources to help your relationship with God."

This thread will slowly build towards its goal. This I have faith towards.

 

[God's Truth]

I forgot to address it to both of you. And I understand. I edited it to denote addressing you both.

As for me. I perpetually have to fight the urge to unleash Metric Tons of Humorous sarcasm when people don't give logical, legitimate or Scriptural replies.

I don't think you fully get it. You do not need to address to me when I have done nothing wrong and I am not guilty of what you accuse me of doing.

I am ignoring Tambora and her insults, and am not sure why you are going against what you asked us all to do and that is to only speak of the Op.

Can we move on?

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

opcorn:

Wiping tear of laughter from my eyes.

#Emoticon
#Perfect timing

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I don't think you fully get it. You do not need to address to me when I have done nothing wrong and I am not guilty of what you accuse me of doing.

I am ignoring Tambora and her insults, and am not sure why you are going against what you asked us all to do and that is to only speak of the Op.

Can we move on?

From What?

: )

#Insinuating it's done

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I don't think you fully get it. You do not need to address to me when I have done nothing wrong and I am not guilty of what you accuse me of doing.

I am ignoring Tambora and her insults, and am not sure why you are going against what you asked us all to do and that is to only speak of the Op.

Can we move on?

You have called me out and I agree.

This is why I despise human doctrines. Extra biblical discussions easily bring out humanities sour nature. #Pointing at myself, not you.

What cracks me up is Reformed "saints" were at each other's throats as they generated volumes of extra biblical rubbish.

# Murder even resulted of the public kind.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

The OP remains scripturally uncontested by the Calvinists but is full of interesting and exciting dialogue.

# Fact

 

[God's Truth]

The OP remains scripturally uncontested by the Calvinists but is full of interesting and exciting dialogue.

# Fact

There are many here who do not like it that we have so much agreement and they want to see that not happen.

I have debated Calvinists much and they usually never debate long or admit to error.

 

[God's Truth]

What Calvinism comes down to is that their false teachings are all based on God saving unbelievers.

However, they can give no scripture that says that.

God saves believers.

God does not save unbelievers.

 

[Tambora]

Paging @Tambora

If you would be kind enough to lend an assist:

How should I articulate that the Calvinists arguments against the OP were without substance or scriptural defense in such a manner that it appears that they are bucking a scriptural challenge due to lack of ability or supporting grounds?

I will not accept their whining as substance of OP rebuttal and want to verbally put the screws to the matter.

What works in one situation may not work as well in another.
It's not really a standard either/or method (as if there is only one way to do it).

You could pick a doctrine in order to tell what's wrong with it, or you could just give your doctrine and why you think it's right.
You could debate Calvin doctrine without even mentioning that it is Calvin doctrine.
Just start by asking, "Does scripture gives credence that not everyone has the means to know GOD and His grace?"
Don't have to mention Calvin, Reformed, or any other particular doctrine name.

But by starting with, "Does scripture gives credence that not everyone has the means to know GOD and His grace, like Calvinists teach?"
Now you've made it a call out thread.
If you took the time to go through every post in thread and eliminate every unnecessary comment to the topic, this thread would be much shorter (as would most other threads as well).

TOL even has a forum for threads where people can get a little more down and dirty (so to speak). The Back Alley.
Personally, I think it would be great if all call out threads were moved to there.

But this ain't my site, and is not run by my rules.
As reminder, everyone that joins has to agree with the TOL rules.
And here is part of the rules everyone agreed to when they joined:

You do not have the right to NOT be offended on these forums. We have a diverse group of members and we do not control the things they post (within reason) including things that might offend you.

TOL also states upfront that it is biased, and makes no apology for it.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

There are many here who do not like it that we have so much agreement and they want to see that not happen.

I have debated Calvinists much and they usually never debate long or admit to error.

I have enormous experience in assisting people with being freed from human doctrine.

Before the last 2 weeks, Normons, Eleventh Day Adventist's and Blaboba Witnesses were at the top of my list as being enormously difficult to reason with.

# Blind to the bull within the matter... so to speak.

But, now I am adding a full blown, Trinitarian group to the list.

BW's don't know Jesus is God
Eleventh Day Adventists minimize the Divinity of Jesus
Norman's think they'll be God's
And now "Walvinist's" treat doctrines of men like they are god's

# Names skewed to protect the guilty


Now I'm adding

 

[Tambora]

What Calvinism comes down to is that their false teachings are all based on God saving unbelievers.

However, they can give no scripture that says that.

God saves believers.

God does not save unbelievers.

Where do you find Calvinism teaching that GOD saves unbelievers?

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

What works in one situation may not work as well in another.
It's not really a standard either/or method (as if there is only one way to do it).

You could pick a doctrine in order to tell what's wrong with it, or you could just give your doctrine and why you think it's right.
You could debate Calvin doctrine without even mentioning that it is Calvin doctrine.
Just start by asking, "Does scripture gives credence that not everyone has the means to know GOD and His grace?"
Don't have to mention Calvin, Reformed, or any other particular doctrine name.

But by starting with, "Does scripture gives credence that not everyone has the means to know GOD and His grace, like Calvinists teach?"
Now you've made it a call out thread.
If you took the time to go through every post in thread and eliminate every unnecessary comment to the topic, this thread would be much shorter (as would most other threads as well).

TOL even has a forum for threads where people can get a little more down and dirty (so to speak). The Back Alley.
Personally, I think it would be great if all call out threads were moved to there.

But this ain't my site, and is not run by my rules.
As reminder, everyone that joins has to agree with the TOL rules.
And here is part of the rules everyone agreed to when they joined:

You do not have the right to NOT be offended on these forums. We have a diverse group of members and we do not control the things they post (within reason) including things that might offend you.

TOL also states upfront that it is biased, and makes no apology for it.

I'll edit the OP to leagally conform

Oops. I can't edit the title. It should read "Fictionally named group called 'Walvinists' and such forth. This group is loosely based on a similar group of individuals, but any immediate resemblance to an actual group is merely coincidence."

# But seriously

I understand

 

[Tambora]

But, now I am adding a full blown, Trinitarian group to the list.

What list?

 

[God's Truth]

I have enormous experience in assisting people with being freed from human doctrine.

Before the last 2 weeks, Normons, Eleventh Day Adventist's and Blaboba Witnesses were at the top of my list as being enormously difficult to reason with.

# Blind to the bull within the matter... so to speak.

But, now I am adding a full blown, Trinitarian group to the list.

BW's don't know Jesus is God
Eleventh Day Adventists minimize the Divinity of Jesus
Norman's think they'll be God's
And now "Walvinist's" treat doctrines of men like they are god's

# Names skewed to protect the guilty


Now I'm adding

That is very good that you have got an enormous amount of people to repent of their false doctrines.

Have you got any here at TOL to admit they had false doctrines?

 

[God's Truth]

Where do you find Calvinism teaching that GOD saves unbelievers?

Calvinists claim no one can believe in God unless they are first regenerated/saved first, and no one can obey God until that same time.

That IS saying God saves unbelievers.

It is a deeper look into the Truth.

It is the whole crux of Calvinism.

 

[God's Truth]

What works in one situation may not work as well in another.
It's not really a standard either/or method (as if there is only one way to do it).

You could pick a doctrine in order to tell what's wrong with it, or you could just give your doctrine and why you think it's right.
You could debate Calvin doctrine without even mentioning that it is Calvin doctrine.
Just start by asking, "Does scripture gives credence that not everyone has the means to know GOD and His grace?"
Don't have to mention Calvin, Reformed, or any other particular doctrine name.

But by starting with, "Does scripture gives credence that not everyone has the means to know GOD and His grace, like Calvinists teach?"
Now you've made it a call out thread.
If you took the time to go through every post in thread and eliminate every unnecessary comment to the topic, this thread would be much shorter (as would most other threads as well).

TOL even has a forum for threads where people can get a little more down and dirty (so to speak). The Back Alley.
Personally, I think it would be great if all call out threads were moved to there.

But this ain't my site, and is not run by my rules.
As reminder, everyone that joins has to agree with the TOL rules.
And here is part of the rules everyone agreed to when they joined:

You do not have the right to NOT be offended on these forums. We have a diverse group of members and we do not control the things they post (within reason) including things that might offend you.

TOL also states upfront that it is biased, and makes no apology for it.

There is nothing wrong with the OP.