The Slaying of Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

What I truly did like about your OP is LOVE, and I do not know if some of that has been changed since last I looked you appear to have been forced into changing some of the post: but LOVE is what is missing from Calvinism and Reform, it isn't even found in "TULIP" for goodness sake. Calvinism and Reform are essentially over and done with in three simple little words: "GOD IS LOVE", not "God has some love", not "God loves the elect", nope, but rather "GOD IS LOVE" as follows:

1 John 4:6-21 ASV
6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he who is not of God heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is begotten of God, and knoweth God.
8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
9 Herein was the love of God manifested in us, that God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him.
10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
12 No man hath beheld God at any time: if we love one another, God abideth in us, and his love is perfected in us:
13 hereby we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
14 And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father hath sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God.
16 And we know and have believed the love which God hath in us. God is love; and he that abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth in him.
17 Herein is love made perfect with us, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as he is, even so are we in this world.
18 There is no fear in love: but perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath punishment; and he that feareth is not made perfect in love.
19 We love, because he first loved us.
20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen.
21 And this commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God love his brother also.

And if GOD IS LOVE then what alternate universe does a man have to be from to come up with the psychopathic notion that LOVE would predestine any human being to eternal conscious torment when that same human being did not have a freewill so as to choose that condition to begin with? HOW can LOVE create LIFE and condemn it to HELL beforehand just because it is pleasing? The very notion is oxymoronic because LOVE does no such thing: it is contrary to the very definition of LOVE which GOD IS.

We agree on much incidentally. The differences simply make for fun debate.

1st John 4 is my favorite chapter of scripture!

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I wonder if some truly know what they think they know?AMR

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

#Best silent quote... ever.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

John Calvin authorized the prosecution of priests who were spreading heresy and sin in Geneva. He made a clear initiative to extinguish what the Catholic Church excused for it's own gain, who were yet prosecuting others for the same exact things.

People want to call it 'murder' because they fail to comprehend that by today's standards, heretics and corrupted churches don't have as much influence as they did five centuries ago.

They believe in a god who called His people to decimate every man, woman, child, and beast within a tribe, and yet clutch their pearls when hearing about the Catholic Church suffered by an iconoclast.

You can't make this stuff up- these people are as contradictory as they come

Matthew 5:44

#Crucible defects to the non-doctrine side!

 

[Crucible]

Matthew 5:44

#Cricible defects to the non-doctrine side!

Heresy was illegal because it caused civil unrest and violence. You may as well say that society is wrong for punishing crime- stop trying to use the Bible to support nonsense.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Heresy was illegal because it caused civil unrest and violence. You may as well say that society is wrong for punishing crime- stop trying to use the Bible to support nonsense.

I cite scripture and you contest it with human conjecture.

Notice the pattern yet?

Do you count the Reformed above the "Law" of Love that Paul says fulfills the "Law"?


<(I)>

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Final tally for the night...
[MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] is the scripture warrior...
[MENTION=10685]Brother Ducky[/MENTION] is the last Calvinist standing to still challenge OP premise


<(I)>

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Because it agrees with the scriptures. It begins where the Scriptures say to begin- with GOD, not YOURSELF. Wisdom begins at HIS SOVEREIGNTY, not YOUR FREE WILL.

Calvinism actually holds to God, in which God shapes people- you all believe in a fallible being whom you shape to secure your salvation.

# Irony

 

[Crucible]

I cite scripture and you contest it with human conjecture.

Notice the pattern yet?

Do you count the Reformed above the "Law" of Love that Paul says fulfills the "Law"?


<(I)>

Citing scripture alone doesn't win a case. I don't post scripture unless it is necessary, and the fact is that it's simply wasted on you. All you do is stand by your refuted OP and pretend you've 'slain' historical Christianity with a few verses and some hammy interpretation.

There is certainly a pattern, and it's me choosing to waste my time with every idiotic thing you state.

 

[daqq]

Citing scripture alone doesn't win a case. I don't post scripture unless it is necessary, and the fact is that it's simply wasted on you. All you do is stand by your refuted OP and pretend you've 'slain' historical Christianity with a few verses and some hammy interpretation.

There is certainly a pattern, and it's me choosing to waste my time with every idiotic thing you state.

Assuming your position to be that of "historical Christianity" is a gigantic assumption.

 

[Crucible]

Assuming your position to be that of "historical Christianity" is a gigantic assumption.

From Saint Augustine to John Calvin :wave2:

The early Christians were Calvinistic, they didn't believe in your flimsy idea of what constitutes a sovereign god. The Catholic Church began true enough, and then quickly dissented into mad theology the same as yourselves. The truth whispered from the 4th century to the 16th and then sprang to life again, and yet you all just can't help but continue on with you're Pelagian nonsense.

 

[Eagles Wings]

Praise Jesus,

You're the second Calvinist to assert this. There may be hope.

I consider lately how, Our Lord, thinks of frivolous praise laced with sarcasm. Let us praise God, with humility.

 

[daqq]

From Saint Augustine to John Calvin :wave2:

The early Christians were Calvinistic, they didn't believe in your flimsy idea of what constitutes a sovereign god. The Catholic Church began true enough, and then quickly dissented into mad theology the same as yourselves. The truth whispered from the 4th century to the 16th and then sprang to life again, and yet you all just can't help but continue on with you're Pelagian nonsense.

Lol, it "whispered" for twelve centuries eh? However I already told you where my theology comes from and it no doubt predates both yours and that of your mother church.

 

[meshak]

Calvinism and MAD both don't honor Jesus' word.

shame on you guys.

 

[daqq]

From Saint Augustine to John Calvin :wave2:

The early Christians were Calvinistic, they didn't believe in your flimsy idea of what constitutes a sovereign god. The Catholic Church began true enough, and then quickly dissented into mad theology the same as yourselves. The truth whispered from the 4th century to the 16th and then sprang to life again, and yet you all just can't help but continue on with you're Pelagian nonsense.

By the way your charge of Pelagianism carries several different subcategories, some of which are of course unfounded accusations, so I suppose it depends on what you mean by that accusation. For instance I could accuse you of Manichaeism for things you have already said here and, by default, simply because of the fact that you have leveled the charge of Pelagianism against me. The charge which the Pelagians leveled against the Augustinians was Manichaeism because everyone knew that Augustine was a Manichaean before his supposed conversion. He thus, (before his supposed conversion), believed that all flesh was sin and therefore would have denied that Messiah came in the flesh. Was that another "truth" according to you that only "whispered" for twelve centuries before rising again from the dead? I think not.

Pelagius rejected the Augustinian concept of grace.[1] According to his opponents, Pelagius taught that moral perfection was attainable in this life without the assistance of divine grace through human free will. Augustine contradicted this by saying that perfection was impossible without grace because we are born sinners with a sinful heart and will. The Pelagians charged Augustine with departing from the accepted teaching (e.g.: John 8:11) of the Apostles and the Bible, demonstrating that the doctrine of original sin amounted to Manichaeism, which taught that the flesh was in itself sinful (and thus denied that Jesus came in the flesh). This charge would have carried added weight since contemporaries knew that Augustine had himself been a Manichaean layman before converting to Christianity. Augustine also taught that a person's salvation comes solely through a free gift, the efficacious grace of God, but that this was a gift that one had no free choice to accept or refuse.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism

Moral perfection without the assistance of divine grace? I never said any such thing. However you do appear to claim that the free gift of the salvation from God is a gift that one has no freewill choice to accept or refuse. And do you not have anything to say about the "GOD IS LOVE" post which quoted all of that scripture you love so dearly? If GOD IS LOVE then how can LOVE legitimately offer a free gift to anyone knowing ahead of time that those to whom it is offered are not even capable of choosing to accept or reject it? Moreover can you please explain where LOVE may be found at all in your doctrine? I cannot find it anywhere and it does not appear on the surface to be in your TULIP memory clip. Where is love found in your doctrine since clearly, according to the scripture, GOD IS LOVE.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I consider lately how Our Lord, thinks of frivolous praise laced with sarcasm. Let us praise God, with humility.

Fair enough. I can't make any promises though.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Citing scripture alone doesn't win a case. I don't post scripture unless it is necessary, and the fact is that it's simply wasted on you. All you do is stand by your refuted OP and pretend you've 'slain' historical Christianity with a few verses and some hammy interpretation.

There is certainly a pattern, and it's me choosing to waste my time with every idiotic thing you state.

Apparently, Scripture Alone is a paradox to the reformed.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

From Saint Augustine to John Calvin :wave2:

The early Christians were Calvinistic, they didn't believe in your flimsy idea of what constitutes a sovereign god. The Catholic Church began true enough, and then quickly dissented into mad theology the same as yourselves. The truth whispered from the 4th century to the 16th and then sprang to life again, and yet you all just can't help but continue on with you're Pelagian nonsense.

Now... Crucible! I'm trying so hard to stay civil, but the things I could do with this statement would be so hilarious and cutting to your literal assertion here.

Do I play choir boy, or do I joke at your expense? No concern for now. I'm sure you'll provide the same gargantuan opportunity again.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

By the way your charge of Pelagianism carries several different subcategories, some of which are of course unfounded accusations, so I suppose it depends on what you mean by that accusation. For instance I could accuse you of Manichaeism for things you have already said here and, by default, simply because of the fact that you have leveled the charge of Pelagianism against me. The charge which the Pelagians leveled against the Augustinians was Manichaeism because everyone knew that Augustine was a Manichaean before his supposed conversion. He thus, (before his supposed conversion), believed that all flesh was sin and therefore would have denied that Messiah came in the flesh. Was that another "truth" according to you that only "whispered" for twelve centuries before rising again from the dead? I think not.



Moral perfection without the assistance of divine grace? I never said any such thing. However you do appear to claim that the free gift of the salvation from God is a gift that one has no freewill choice to accept or refuse. And do you not have anything to say about the "GOD IS LOVE" post which quoted all of that scripture you love so dearly? If GOD IS LOVE then how can LOVE legitimately offer a free gift to anyone knowing ahead of time that those to whom it is offered are not even capable of choosing to accept or reject it? Moreover can you please explain where LOVE may be found at all in your doctrine? I cannot find it anywhere and it does not appear on the surface to be in your TULIP memory clip. Where is love found in your doctrine since clearly, according to the scripture, GOD IS LOVE.

There it is! You have brought the OP together at it's fiercest stance! The best part is that the other 4 points shift and combine to prevent Reformed doctrine from even beginning to contend with the point you have made. Reform teaches strong debate and defense of its doctrine. Unfortunately, the illusion fades when brought before scripture and demanded to come clean of its trickery.

Within the first week of this OP, [MENTION=7209]Ask Mr. Religion[/MENTION] has attempted to dismantle 1 John 2:27 through [MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION]. Why? Because 1 John 2:27 shatters the lens of doctrines of men. The yes and no references deception employed by burying simple TULIP assertions in complex, circular rhetoric and makes that act an expected tactic, thus shutting down the walls of theology before they come.

[MENTION=7209]Ask Mr. Religion[/MENTION] even references this point in his own words. I'll be right back... Edit to come...

Given their propensity for verbosity and polemic speech, given the times they were living, I suspect we would have been blessed with even more of their insights.

AMR

More edit to come...

2: Let no man teach you

The defense of any extra biblical document as entry into scholarly, theological debate is rendered as heresy by this simple 1 John reference.

3: Let your yes be yes and your no be no, anything else is from the evil one

This Matthew reference fully destroys a doctrine based believer's ability to skirt around any direct question with a wall of theological effort.

Like all manmade doctrines... obfuscation is employed by their supporters to mask the simple errors.

Because this is magnified by the OP's simplicity, the "straw man, juggernaut" is brought to its knees.

Current Thread Tally:

Not only uncontested at any point, but revealed true... The light is on the matter and the damage of what was brought to light is irrefutable. This is why simple scripture overpowers the Juggernaut of doctrines of men.

Shine on of the moment...

#

 

[Brother Ducky]

Given their propensity for verbosity and polemic speech, given the times they were living, I suspect we would have been blessed with even more of their insights.

AMR

And what a blessing that would be!

And more books to get!!