Calvinist Kitchen...stirring the pot
- Thread starter GraceAndTruth
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
"Quick smears" huh? As if the other side has engaged profitably. 
Hmmmmm. Just wanted to point out some obvious things here:
1) One would have to overlook a whole lot of posts from "the other side" to come up with this rather weak accusation and single him out.
2) One would also have to overlook the times @NOV25 tried to engage rationally, only to become subject to ridicule. Well, this apparently happens to all who disagree with "the other side", as they become subjects of ridicule and mocking.
3) Therefore it is quite odd that the above post went along with "the other side" with no genuine or substantiated reason to do so, and just did so "out of the blue." The whole entire thing lacks credibility imho.
4) It is glaringly apparent "the other side" rarely, if ever, actually engages with rational, reasonable responses. Page after page after page testifies to this fact. Yet we have this thing nit-picked? Hmmm...
5) Even the assertion Arminianism wasn't declared a heresy is untrue in saids post.
Hmmmmm. Just wanted to point out some obvious things here:
1) One would have to overlook a whole lot of posts from "the other side" to come up with this rather weak accusation and single him out.
2) One would also have to overlook the times @NOV25 tried to engage rationally, only to become subject to ridicule. Well, this apparently happens to all who disagree with "the other side", as they become subjects of ridicule and mocking.
3) Therefore it is quite odd that the above post went along with "the other side" with no genuine or substantiated reason to do so, and just did so "out of the blue." The whole entire thing lacks credibility imho.
4) It is glaringly apparent "the other side" rarely, if ever, actually engages with rational, reasonable responses. Page after page after page testifies to this fact. Yet we have this thing nit-picked? Hmmm...
5) Even the assertion Arminianism wasn't declared a heresy is untrue in saids post.
Even if it is, "they started it" is hardly an excuse for poor conduct. After all, are we not instructed "Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but enjoy the company of the lowly. Do not be conceited. 17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Carefully consider what is right in the eyes of everybody. "( Romans 12:16-17 Berean study Bible)
-
1
- Show all
Bible-believing Christians do not give a hoot about all these ancient heresies. Mentioning them is simply an attempt to smear genuine Christians, not arrive at the truth.
The Bible itself clearly REFUTES Calvinism, and Calvin's own commentaries IRONICALLY refute his theology. I could post a lot more from his commentaries and show Calvinists that this is true.
But instead of having the honesty, humility, and grace to publicly admit that he was leading Christians astray, John Calvin doubled down in his errors. And that is exactly what all Calvinists do. I have yet to see one who HONESTLY admits that Calvin was in error, or that Reformed Theology was in error as regards the offer of salvation and the finished work of Christ.
It is interesting to note that even though the Reformers held to the Five Solas (which in fact all Christians do), they followed the teachings of Catholics in many important matters. And there is no question that Catholic Augustine -- rather than Christ -- dictated Reformed doctrine.
https://theglobalchurchproject.com/augustines-influence-calvin-luther-zwingli/#_ftn7
The Bible itself clearly REFUTES Calvinism, and Calvin's own commentaries IRONICALLY refute his theology. I could post a lot more from his commentaries and show Calvinists that this is true.
But instead of having the honesty, humility, and grace to publicly admit that he was leading Christians astray, John Calvin doubled down in his errors. And that is exactly what all Calvinists do. I have yet to see one who HONESTLY admits that Calvin was in error, or that Reformed Theology was in error as regards the offer of salvation and the finished work of Christ.
It is interesting to note that even though the Reformers held to the Five Solas (which in fact all Christians do), they followed the teachings of Catholics in many important matters. And there is no question that Catholic Augustine -- rather than Christ -- dictated Reformed doctrine.
https://theglobalchurchproject.com/augustines-influence-calvin-luther-zwingli/#_ftn7
-
2
- Show all
Of course the Catholics condemned Reformed Theology. It has condemned all other denominations as anathema.
And you're still incorrect. Arminianism was condemned as heresy and still under Biblical scrutiny it remains such. A council doesn't have to be ecumenical to be valid, unless you want to make up your own rules which is the epitome of bias. Other Synods have come up with Biblical decisions that remain valid.
By the ending of the ecumenical councils era there was the control of apostate Rome over "Christianity" and any councils coming out during and after this era would have to be denominational. This only meant they were against Rome, and against any heresy that may rise within the ranks of the Church.
And you're still incorrect. Arminianism was condemned as heresy and still under Biblical scrutiny it remains such. A council doesn't have to be ecumenical to be valid, unless you want to make up your own rules which is the epitome of bias. Other Synods have come up with Biblical decisions that remain valid.
By the ending of the ecumenical councils era there was the control of apostate Rome over "Christianity" and any councils coming out during and after this era would have to be denominational. This only meant they were against Rome, and against any heresy that may rise within the ranks of the Church.
-
1
- Show all
It's absolutely hilarious you cite a synod that was convened and administrated for the sole purpose of denouncing Arminianism as proof of Calvinism. The synod specifically excluded anyone who didn't already agree with Calvinist doctrines. It was an exercise in politics not Biblical discernment.
In order for a council to have authority over the whole church it needs to include input from the whole church, not simply a political wing bent on condemning political enemies as the synod of dort was.
While I don't particularly care about whether Arminianism is Biblical it is reformed use of Arminianism as a boogey man to quickly denounce opponents that is objectionable. It's nothing more than a tactic to squash any actual discussion and it belies the weakness of Calvinist doctrine to sound exegesis.
In order for a council to have authority over the whole church it needs to include input from the whole church, not simply a political wing bent on condemning political enemies as the synod of dort was.
While I don't particularly care about whether Arminianism is Biblical it is reformed use of Arminianism as a boogey man to quickly denounce opponents that is objectionable. It's nothing more than a tactic to squash any actual discussion and it belies the weakness of Calvinist doctrine to sound exegesis.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
The more I see from you, the more I question your assertions. I'm not going through 100 pages of discussion for something that is largely irrelevant to the question at hand. You speak in a hostile manner so you're going to get pushback.
And just so you know, I haven't used an ad hominem. Your contention is that you are being attacked for your beliefs so my response was to question the validity of your perception. It necessarily revolves around personal issues. An ad hominem would be if you had produced an argument and I went after your character rather than addressing points you bring up. So far the only argument brought up has been an attempt to give the synod of dort the force of ecumenical councils, which I discarded based on the manner in which the synod was convened.
And just so you know, I haven't used an ad hominem. Your contention is that you are being attacked for your beliefs so my response was to question the validity of your perception. It necessarily revolves around personal issues. An ad hominem would be if you had produced an argument and I went after your character rather than addressing points you bring up. So far the only argument brought up has been an attempt to give the synod of dort the force of ecumenical councils, which I discarded based on the manner in which the synod was convened.
-
7
- Show all
Your bias is extreme, isn't it? Sounds good to the uneducated.
Reformed boogeyman? More emotional pleas? More baseless accusations? Another "quick smear?"
Their tenets are heretical and Pelagian based. But I get it, just accuse Calvinists of labelling opponents and that makes the other side all good. Reminds me of Leftist tactics, like pulling a race card.
What's funny is that the attack was brought against the reformed church and you're crying because since they were being attacked they showed up in larger numbers from foreign lands to fend off the grave heresy. That excuse also sounds like a Leftist complaint. "Unfair?" Wow. Hmmm.
They should have waited for the followers off the heresy to grow in number, then have the council. Episcopus (so?) decried the numbers but iirc he had time to bring in more, like a month or so before proceedings.
Let's get to the real issues:
It is a known fact the Remonstrants knew they must first present a biblical apologetic of their new unbiblical teachings. They refused to defend their new doctrines biblically and instead wanted to go the emotional route hoping to gain some support which wouldn't happen. You also play the emotional card since you lack substance.
The council went on without them since they refused to follow protocol. Looks to me they wanted to run things their way to stack the deck if it were. You don't get to attack someone and write your own rules in proceedings. They were refused and rightly so. They had full opportunity to bring their case.
Imagine Luther complaining "unfair" like you when he had to answer his objections to the church. No, he manned up instead.
Today these same "Arminians" cannot defend their stance with contextual biblical arguments and resort instead to emotional pleas, accusations against God, demands of God, with ridicule, mockery and unsubstantiated claims such as yours against "Calivinism." Seems the apple hasn't fallen far from the tree.
Have a good day sir.
Reformed boogeyman? More emotional pleas? More baseless accusations? Another "quick smear?"
Their tenets are heretical and Pelagian based. But I get it, just accuse Calvinists of labelling opponents and that makes the other side all good. Reminds me of Leftist tactics, like pulling a race card.
What's funny is that the attack was brought against the reformed church and you're crying because since they were being attacked they showed up in larger numbers from foreign lands to fend off the grave heresy. That excuse also sounds like a Leftist complaint. "Unfair?" Wow. Hmmm.
They should have waited for the followers off the heresy to grow in number, then have the council. Episcopus (so?) decried the numbers but iirc he had time to bring in more, like a month or so before proceedings.
Let's get to the real issues:
It is a known fact the Remonstrants knew they must first present a biblical apologetic of their new unbiblical teachings. They refused to defend their new doctrines biblically and instead wanted to go the emotional route hoping to gain some support which wouldn't happen. You also play the emotional card since you lack substance.
The council went on without them since they refused to follow protocol. Looks to me they wanted to run things their way to stack the deck if it were. You don't get to attack someone and write your own rules in proceedings. They were refused and rightly so. They had full opportunity to bring their case.
Imagine Luther complaining "unfair" like you when he had to answer his objections to the church. No, he manned up instead.
Today these same "Arminians" cannot defend their stance with contextual biblical arguments and resort instead to emotional pleas, accusations against God, demands of God, with ridicule, mockery and unsubstantiated claims such as yours against "Calivinism." Seems the apple hasn't fallen far from the tree.
Have a good day sir.
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
It's not a matter of fairness, it's a matter of truth. The synod of dort was a political exercise excluding Remonstrants on the voting committees prior to requesting a defense. It, like your emotionally driven screed you just laid out, is an example of the type of tactics that the reformed deploy rather than actually engaging in discussion. As I said, the Biblical basis for Arminianism is neither here nor there since it is trotted out anytime someone criticizes reformed doctrine as a means of silencing dissent rather than engaging criticism.
And it's been that way since the beginning which is evidenced in how Calvin and the original dutch reformers smeared Cassian by drawing out a monastery that was loosely linked to him and found to be teaching heretical doctrine not even remotely close to what he taught.
Is cheap emotion all you have to offer?
And it's been that way since the beginning which is evidenced in how Calvin and the original dutch reformers smeared Cassian by drawing out a monastery that was loosely linked to him and found to be teaching heretical doctrine not even remotely close to what he taught.
Is cheap emotion all you have to offer?
-
3
-
1
- Show all
Ad hominem is a formal fallacy, and given you haven't profferred a formal argument there is no way for me to have engaged in such a fallacy. My characterization of your attempt to garner sympathy may have been demeaning, but it was not a personal attack in place of formal argumentation.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
What is also funny is how @Bbrdrd tosses out the decision of the Synod because according to him it was a bunch of churches up against a smaller group promoting heresy. Yet isn't that exactly what happened with the 7 Councils?
He then uses the ecumenical Councils as his proof that they were correct in damning the heresies of their day, but not others, because others did it lopsided and biased, there were fewer numbers of the heretics, so it was "unfair", the others were biased in their doctrines, but not the ecumenical councils, because he says so. Yet that is a skewed view and is not accurate.
The glaring facts show decisions and verdicts were handled in the same manner within the 7 Councils as with the Synod of Dort. Smaller sects of heresies arose in the church period during the Councils just as in the days of the Synod. Documents were sent about and read to the church heads concerning the errors, were examined, and the larger orthodox body convened to condemn the heresies of Nestorianism, Pelagianism, Arianism &c.
It was exactly the same thing with the Synod sans any Catholic representation for obvious reasons. Handled in the same manner, the larger body of orthodoxy condemned the heresy.
To him it is different and unfair only because of his obvious disdain for the Doctrines of Grace. An overview of the details in history shows his view to be scanted in order to support him, not history, which is why he wants to toss out and mitigate councils he doesn't like.
He then uses the ecumenical Councils as his proof that they were correct in damning the heresies of their day, but not others, because others did it lopsided and biased, there were fewer numbers of the heretics, so it was "unfair", the others were biased in their doctrines, but not the ecumenical councils, because he says so. Yet that is a skewed view and is not accurate.
The glaring facts show decisions and verdicts were handled in the same manner within the 7 Councils as with the Synod of Dort. Smaller sects of heresies arose in the church period during the Councils just as in the days of the Synod. Documents were sent about and read to the church heads concerning the errors, were examined, and the larger orthodox body convened to condemn the heresies of Nestorianism, Pelagianism, Arianism &c.
It was exactly the same thing with the Synod sans any Catholic representation for obvious reasons. Handled in the same manner, the larger body of orthodoxy condemned the heresy.
To him it is different and unfair only because of his obvious disdain for the Doctrines of Grace. An overview of the details in history shows his view to be scanted in order to support him, not history, which is why he wants to toss out and mitigate councils he doesn't like.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
They don’t, it’s just the way @Nehemiah6 reads Calvin’s writings, the same way he reads the scripture, blinded by prideful bias. Incidentally, even @Nehemiah6 ’s cohorts will not stand with him on these statements and have openly corrected him. See prior posts.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Yes, they ignore whatever doesn't fit their doctrine, Scripture, history, facts et al.
I challenge any of them to read The Potters Freedom. I've read their side for years and still examine these things. I sense a fear among them to read the writings of others, I mean, they may find out they are *gasp* WRONG. One of them says he doesn't need to study what he believes any longer. Hmmmm. Still trying to find this example in Scripture.
Now, a tribute to our free willers, sponsored by Charles G. Finney, Robert Sandeman, and other heretics. Brought to us by RUSH:
I challenge any of them to read The Potters Freedom. I've read their side for years and still examine these things. I sense a fear among them to read the writings of others, I mean, they may find out they are *gasp* WRONG. One of them says he doesn't need to study what he believes any longer. Hmmmm. Still trying to find this example in Scripture.
Now, a tribute to our free willers, sponsored by Charles G. Finney, Robert Sandeman, and other heretics. Brought to us by RUSH:
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I went to read Calvin since these guys seem obsessed with him and read him a lot. So I read through the things @Nehemiah6 quoted, and of course, per status quo, he took him out of context, failed to assess the audience he was addressing, didn't comprehend what he was saying, and misrepresented him completely. That was found in only one portion of what he quoted.
Wonder, are there any honest seekers that would read it through and see the fact he took him out of context? I highly doubt it.
When I was challenged concerning my understanding of Soteriology, free willism, I accepted that challenge and admitted my error before God. I read nothing of Calvin at that time.
Wonder, are there any honest seekers that would read it through and see the fact he took him out of context? I highly doubt it.
When I was challenged concerning my understanding of Soteriology, free willism, I accepted that challenge and admitted my error before God. I read nothing of Calvin at that time.
-
1
- Show all
- Status