Mike Winger's "Why I think Calvinism is Unbiblical"

  • 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.

Inquisitor

Well-known member
Mar 17, 2022
2,860
845
113
why have you not replied to what I said below? Please show me what I said was false rather than go off on tangents.

you utterly ignore the abundant Scriptures that show that no man seeks after or chooses God without God first choosing them. Man can not and does not want to choose God because he is spiritually dead and to obey God is foolishness to him unless he has been born again by grace who are given new wills to obey God out of gratitude and not merit. Do I need to quote these Scriptures to you?
I can assure you that I am well aware of the verses you would quote.

The parable of the sower and the seed clearly demonstrates that in the second verse
below (Luke 8:7). Those people heard and grew in faith but were eventually overcome.

That is impossible in Calvinism.

Luke 8:5
The sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed, some fell beside the road, and it was trampled underfoot, and the birds of the sky ate it up.

Luke 8:7
Other seed fell among the thorns; and the thorns grew up with it and choked it out.

Luke 8:8
And yet other seed fell into the good soil, and grew up, and produced a crop a hundred times as much.” As He said these things, He would call out, “The one who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
 

Inquisitor

Well-known member
Mar 17, 2022
2,860
845
113
why have you not replied to what I said below? Please show me what I said was false rather than go off on tangents.

you utterly ignore the abundant Scriptures that show that no man seeks after or chooses God without God first choosing them. Man can not and does not want to choose God because he is spiritually dead and to obey God is foolishness to him unless he has been born again by grace who are given new wills to obey God out of gratitude and not merit. Do I need to quote these Scriptures to you?
Here is a verse you would quote.

Romans 9:13
Just as it is written: “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

Which has nothing to do with Calvinism. The selection of Jacob concerned the lineage
of the Christ. Jacob represented God's grace through faith ultimately. But Esau represented
the will of man and legal works for justification.
 

studier

Well-known member
Apr 18, 2024
1,189
233
63
All men are given general revelation and natural law but special revelation which is saving faith is only given by grace to the elect through the ministry of the Gospel who are made willing to accept it (Psalm 110:3).

It seems you do not yet understand the nature of man after the Fall. Please tell me on a scale from one to ten where the words that God spoke describing man in Genesis 6:5 as being "only evil continually" fit?

Please don't divert but stick with the topic and question of my post. Then maybe we can move on.

BTW, I won't be accepting any of your theological constructs or definitions apart from your explaining them, which includes explaining Scripture you use to proof-text. My concern at this point is that you understand a theological system, but not necessarily Scripture.
 

studier

Well-known member
Apr 18, 2024
1,189
233
63
You should consider studying Soteriology and loose the wisecracks related to Scripture.

Get back to me when you can tell me who man is according to Scripture.

Again, and at this point, Scripture only. Every time I respond to any or your uses of Scripture, even minimally, you divert.
 

studier

Well-known member
Apr 18, 2024
1,189
233
63
if you choose not to submit to Scripture then this conversation is over for this is the reason it is given.

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Please feel free to stop any time. The Ignore function also works well. Thanks for some of the graphics.

You've gone from graphics, to proof-texts without explanation, to diversion, to termination of discussion.

Did you notice no systematic theology is stated in those 2 verses? I don't think I'm the one who diverted at the suggestion we get deeper into certain Scriptures you've simply posted as proof-texting for your systematics.
 

FollowerofShiloh

Well-known member
Jan 24, 2024
4,321
714
113
did you build a strawman because you have absolutely no response to the points that were made?
No, I know an evangelist who has her phd + doctorate and has done work with John Hopkins. Her thesis were accepted without question but the moment they learned she was a follower of God they began to act as if she had some missing parts running loose to her logic.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
59,828
29,203
113
I sincerely wish you’d please reconsider your panels that detract from the Word of God. …why women? …with tons of makeup?
I sincerely doubt your sincerity, finding it much more likely you are still resentful of being
shown how wrong you were about your ideas on who is chosen and/or elect, your refusal
to admit your errors, and the dishonesty you displayed around it all. The person who liked
your post has a similar problem with being shown their inconsistencies and contradictions.
 

Rhomphaeam

Active member
Dec 14, 2021
832
218
43
England
www.nblc.church
If you do not understand that because man is spiritually dead he needs Christ then you must be judicially blinded.
That SEEMS like a very express form of words.

To be 'judicially blinded' one would assume, could mean 'to be blinded by the Judiciary and perhaps expressly to be 'blinded' by a Senior Judge' else, to be blinded by The Law.

Seeing as that latter designation would necessarily include a sense of your Calvinism i.e. your determination to apply a biblical and necessary fact of the Sovereignty of God with the TULIP designations and especially unconditional Election alongside Limited Atonement, then there MUST absolutely be a Legal Contract that can govern Civic and {public square precepts) to outwardly uphold in conduct and behaviour those Sovereign Graces that Our Lord Gives.

So I politely suggest to you dear brother that you may NOT have understood your own words, as you ask them.

Their prerequisite to understanding your question can only be taken from the clausal direction of the first clausal threshold.

In Language you need to have a way to 'anticipate' ALL misunderstandings and at least sense when we have taken a domain conceptual route to a matter that had the Barristers of England being directed by their Noble Lords of the Upper House, both Spiritual and Temporal to have regard to the Book of Romans for more than an Hundred Years, before they abrogated their power to the Lower House and to the Secular Judiciary that was already in the wings of warning. Those warnings were expressed in both Houses and are recorded to the beginning of the 19th Century in men such as Lord Wellington and Robert Peele. On the opposing benches Earl Grey and his Whigg Set.

In Britain Calvin is a simple matter to understand if one has at least some sense of former times reaching back into the closing vestige of the 19th Century when simultaneously America began its relentless Rise to World Domination. Thankfully we had our foot in both camps for the very same reason we now wrestle to settle a matter that is so simple in truth that even a child can grasp it.

If we desire to properly express and present in our conduct and speech, where our behaviour is in our OWN control, then in that place we can offer our lives up to Christ with confidence because we have a settled legal contract upon which to stand. First written in Christs' own blood and expressed through His graces in our Sovereign King. Did you watch the Coronation of His Majesty King Charles III ?

But I do take your point, that were it in fact the case that a claimed believer did NOT understand that our spirits [in our unbelief] are dead and that we NEED Christ in such a condition, then of course he must be a blind man.

I hope you don't mind dear brother but my view is to take a more formal linguistic position and consider how to parse the greek of the New Testament and 'make sense' of how it is that new birth and sanctification are better understood compassionately if we intelligently understand what Salvation means from a Biblical and Greek definition of terms amounting to a legal argument that gave Britain enormous confidence to take the gospel into the farthest reaches of the Earth.

America has now also come to the fore as the same ambitious man as his wayward King of former times. And what America brings is God without His Law and God without His sure Graces. Britain is no better off by now.

I could give you the script to make your own sight of this kind of approach. It MAY also help you to be 'less' forthright in your honesty.
 

Everlasting-Grace

Well-known member
Dec 18, 2021
5,843
1,854
113
No one is justified by faith in and of itself but by grace through faith in the blood of Christ (Romans 3-5). Those who belong to your man-centred theology think that faith is something that man does within himself and that God therefore saves men upon that condition when Paul clearly boasted not in himself or his abilities but in the grace of God given to him to believe on Christ.

Please look at the chart below. You are currently on the left side which was cast out as heresy by the Protestant church at the Synod of Dordt.

View attachment 264071
here is the who issue in a nutshell

people do not want to discuss the word of God. They want to pit arminian against Calvin. Well guess what, 90 % of the churches are neither calvin nor arminian..

Yet we have this fifth so deep. That if you believe in OSAs. Well your a calvinist, and I must defeat you no matter what

Or if you believe in NOSAS you must be Arminian so I must defeat you no matter what.

the problem is, People w=believe in OSAS and reject calvinism ( I am one of them)

in the same token, people believe in NOSAS and reject arminian doctrine.

yet no one can discuss anything, because it has to be one or the other.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
59,828
29,203
113
"Dead" like all words has a range of meaning connected to the context of the passage and the original language, I know
you like this meaning best which supports your five point dogma but it is on the reductionist side of interpretation.
re·duc·tion·ism
noun
derogatory

  1. the practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of phenomena that are held to represent
    a simpler or more fundamental level, especially when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation.
And yet life does exist in Christ, and those not found in Him at the end of this age suffer the second death.

Why? Because they do not have the incorruptible Word of God indwelling and sustaining them.
They are already counted as dead, and Scripture attests to this fact in a number of places.


I wonder why people who claim to understand Scripture deny this simple yet salient fact.


John 5:24-25
:)
 

selahsays

Well-known member
May 31, 2023
2,796
1,484
113
I sincerely doubt your sincerity, finding it much more likely you are still resentful of being
shown how wrong you were about your ideas on who is chosen and/or elect, your refusal
to admit your errors, and the dishonesty you displayed around it all. The person who liked
your post has a similar problem with being shown their inconsistencies and contradictions.
Well hello there. :)

Here’s the deal. I know you don’t agree with scripture regarding biblical election but hey, that’s fine; a lot of people don’t. My honest question to you is about your panels. I asked you why you almost always use overly made up women for your focal point. You have an eye for color and beauty; why not focus on nature instead of women? Why not use the beautiful seasons, flowers and animals that our Father made naturally? How about mountains and rivers, etc.? —selah
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
59,828
29,203
113
Well hello there. :)

Here’s the deal. I know you don’t agree with scripture regarding biblical election but hey, that’s fine. a lot of people don’t. My honest question to you is about your panels. I asked you why you almost always use overly made up women for your focal point. You have an eye for color and beauty; why not focus on nature instead of women? Why not use the beautiful seasons, flowers and animals that our Father made naturally? How about mountains and rivers, etc.? —selah
Why are you bearing false witness against me? Your statements concerning election were way off the mark
and you are still denying it. I thought you had amended your view based on a more recent post I saw of yours,
but obviously I was wrong about that, as it seems you are sticking to your guns, wrong as that may be. Part
of your error comes from you thinking that a slave to sin is free to choose to believe. Many get that wrong.

Concerning my panels, I am not always constructing women, so again, you are off the mark. Quite
a few of them are scenic and even some of those you now criticize have flowers and scenes in them.



Psalm 34:19 plus 2 Corinthians 4:8-9~ Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the LORD delivers us from them all. In every way we're troubled but not crushed, frustrated but not in despair, persecuted but not abandoned, struck down but not destroyed. :)
 

selahsays

Well-known member
May 31, 2023
2,796
1,484
113
Why are you bearing false witness against me? Your statements concerning election were way off the mark
and you are still denying it. I thought you had amended your view based on a more recent post I saw of yours,
but obviously I was wrong about that, as it seems you are sticking to your guns, wrong as that may be. Part
of your error comes from you thinking that a slave to sin is free to choose to believe. Many get that wrong.


Concerning my panels, I am not always constructing women, so again, you are off the mark. Quite
a few of them are scenic and even some of those you now criticize have flowers and scenes in them.



Psalm 34:19 plus 2 Corinthians 4:8-9~ Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the LORD delivers us from them all. In every way we're troubled but not crushed, frustrated but not in despair, persecuted but not abandoned, struck down but not destroyed.:)
Ah! …now that’s much better! Lovely!!!
 
N

Niki7

Guest
Never any apology from your for repeatedly falsely accusing me...
I do not believe those 2 ever got over their playmate being exercised from the forum