Calvinism, Right or wrong?

[Depleted]

This is all that I know about Calvinism.

LOL Thank you for the best copy/paste seen so far on this thread! Love it! Feel it often. LOL

 

[Depleted]

The OP is not fully accurate. Total inability means that even regenerate man does not have free will. Man has become so damaged that essentially GOD must do everything for him.

Well, since Calvinists don't think there is "free will," I can't imagine anyone who actually knows what Calvinists believe or Calvinists themselves would bring up free will. Kind of like adding "regenerated man has no Santa Claus." It's simply so far removed from the topic it doesn't need mentioning.

Then again, you seem to prove over and over again that the only person who understand anything about anything is you, so this is probably moot too.

 

[Depleted]

Romans 4 talks about Abraham believing and it being credited to him as righteousness. Hebrews 11 also goes on about many old testament figures having faith. It would seem God is always and has always been involved, so people have always been responding in faith. Some faculty is involved even if it doesn't stand on its own.

Bingo! "Responding." The very nature of the word says something happened beforehand or it's not a response. Men respond after God saves, and because God saves, he gives us that faith in him.

I will give you full faith in you giving me a brand new car after you give me a brand new car. That is the reaction to the gift, not our effort in getting the gift.

 

[Depleted]

_________________
View attachment 147322

You're officially giving Tourist a run for the money on humorous contributions to this thread. lol

 

[posthuman]

_____________________________________________________________

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

_____________________________________________________________
View attachment 147333

Poor guy's been brainwashed by total inability to believe he can't lift his left leg.

 

[Desdichado]

Here we go again, equating predestination with determinism.

 

[posthuman]

_____________________________

 

[posthuman]

_____________________________________

 

[Desdichado]

_____________________________
View attachment 147358

Dankest meme ever. The internet exploded.

 

[posthuman]

You're officially giving Tourist a run for the money on humorous contributions to this thread. lol

i happen to think - and i suppose Tourist does too - that these are more productive for us than posting some argumentative paragraphs

 

[John146]

You're not getting the reason God sent Jonah. It was ALL due to protecting the "seed" promised in Genesis 3:15. The entire Old Testament is about preserving the "seed."

Question: Did God have every intention of destroying Nineveh? Yes. We see this through the message, "Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown." Did God destroy Nineveh? No. Why? Because they repented of their wickedness and cried out to God. God in turn changed His mind and did not destroy them.

Calvinist have a hard time with Jonah. For a Calvinist it's impossible for God to change His mind, but we see it over and over in the Old Testament. Instead of agreeing, they usually become Bible correcters.

Soooo, Jonah didn't choose the repentance message either? Okay. He had that choice too. And yet, once again, God got his will. There is no "It just happens" because God is and always gets what he wants.

Thanks for showing me more of Jonah's choices.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

_____________________________________
View attachment 147359

That is priceless...

 

[Desdichado]

TULIP is not Calvinism as Calvin taught. TULIP was a reaction against the 5 points of Arminius and is called 'Calvinism' today.
Calvinism has more to do with taking a Covenantal approach to Scripture and practice.

It's very sad that John Calvin's name has become associated with only a pretty narrow portion of the Reformed view of soteriology. That and playing a significant part in executing a heretic.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

It's very sad that John Calvin's name has become associated with only a pretty narrow portion of the Reformed view of soteriology. That and playing a significant part in executing a heretic.

I'm sure glad that Jesus covered in the beatitudes the need to execute fellow Christians for not believing in infant baptism and the trinity.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm sure glad that Jesus covered in the beatitudes the need to execute fellow Christians for not believing in infant baptism and the trinity.

Oh how sweet it is to live in a softer time in which the burning of someone for religious expression is but an aberration.

If we are to compare Geneva with other communities of the time (even Protestant communities), they were far more tolerant of others. Heck, Servetus was initially given asylum from the Catholic Inquisition on the condition that he wouldn't be a rabblerouser.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Oh how sweet it is to live in a softer time in which the burning of someone for religious expression is but an aberration.

If we are to compare Geneva with other communities of the time (even Protestant communities), they were far more tolerant of others. Heck, Servetus was initially given asylum from the Catholic Inquisition on the condition that he wouldn't be a rabblerouser.

I think Calvin got pissed that Servetus marked up his book.

 

[Chuckt]

I don't know any of your references, so thought I'd pick the name of just one author you chose and see what I could find out about him. I chose George Bryson -- only because you referenced him twice. One of the first posts I looked at about him, and yes, I do look at the comments too. Got to say, can't really get excited about a denomination that's not a denomination but gets as abusive as you are about what others must or mustn't agree about.

I just don't like my scholars as emotional as I am. I'd rather have sound teaching than arguing over logos and trademarks for a non-denom denom.

But I now see why you think your nonstop combativeness is a sign of something good.

I've seen that website you posted and I don't recommend it and when I say I don't recommend it, I mean it. I've communicated with the author of that website and I don't recommend talking to him. His website has no credibility with me.

The problem is that Calvinism / Arminianism is a debate that people hold to usually if they are Calvinists and a lot of people have a hard time arguing without the debate getting personal or degenerating into something not polite.

 

[TMS]

TULIP is not Calvinism as Calvin taught. TULIP was a reaction against the 5 points of Arminius and is called 'Calvinism' today.
Calvinism has more to do with taking a Covenantal approach to Scripture and practice.

If TULIP was or wasn't exactly what John Calvin taught that is what it is called today. I think it is important to study the doctrines and teaching from the past because that is what our churches are built on today. Some doctrines are correct and others wrong so we should test them and see if they are in harmony with the Sure Word of God. The Devil will continue to repaint the false doctrines and resell them with different slants for each generation but they are still false. So regardless of who invented TULIP i just wanted to investigate these teachings and workout whether it was Satan or God that inspired them.

 

[TMS]

Sure, i understand that without God we can't do anything Good. But the God i know wants to save everyone, Loves the whole world. So if Salvation is all in Gods hands, completely Gods choice, and nothing to do with us than God would save everyone. If it is all in our hands we would all fail to save ourselves because we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
If i can't chose to reject God than it wouldn't be a free choice. It's a choice i have to make, to hear His voice and allow Him in or reject Him.