Calvinism and Context?

Starting with a few of the popular verses Calvinsm teaches in support of the T.U.L.I.P i thought it would help to show if they can be supported, not by the TULIP but with context. Often the 'keep reading principle ' reveals the issue with some of the 'proof texts 'Calvinists use that they believe supports reformed doctrines .
The ' keep reading principle ' is of course as it sounds . Often a verse or passage is read in isolation to the bigger picture.
For example Romans 9 is read without including Romans 10 and 11 .Ephesians 1 without Ephesians 2 .
And many more like this which i hope we can discuss .
The other hermeneutic is asking the observation questions . Like what is the Author trying to convey? who's the audience? what's the central theme ? is it past ,present or future focused ? Who , when , why and what questions .
And finally the observation method . What does the verses say ? not what they are presumed to teach . One method I see being used often by Calvinists is 'deductive reasoning ' . An example of this would be . An 8 year old boy is seen doing 20 back flips in a row at the park therefore all 8 year old boys can do 20 back flips in a row . The observation of course should be we observe that this is not the case and that this boy is probably trained at gymnastics from a young age . This is done with the bible in that for example God opens Lydia's heart that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. This does not necessarily mean God always does this to everyone in the same way all the time. Other examples could be David numbering Israel , The drawing in John 6.44 ; Paul's conversion experience ect .

Ok starting with 2 thes 2.13 no prizes as to how this may be used to support Calvinsm. But let's see .
13¶But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Thoughts ?

Starting with a few of the popular verses Calvinsm teaches in support of the T.U.L.I.P i thought it would help to show if they can be supported, not by the TULIP but with context. Often the 'keep reading principle ' reveals the issue with some of the 'proof texts 'Calvinists use that they believe supports reformed doctrines .
The ' keep reading principle ' is of course as it sounds . Often a verse or passage is read in isolation to the bigger picture.
For example Romans 9 is read without including Romans 10 and 11 .Ephesians 1 without Ephesians 2 .
And many more like this which i hope we can discuss .
The other hermeneutic is asking the observation questions . Like what is the Author trying to convey? who's the audience? what's the central theme ? is it past ,present or future focused ? Who , when , why and what questions .
And finally the observation method . What does the verses say ? not what they are presumed to teach . One method I see being used often by Calvinists is 'deductive reasoning ' . An example of this would be . An 8 year old boy is seen doing 20 back flips in a row at the park therefore all 8 year old boys can do 20 back flips in a row . The observation of course should be we observe that this is not the case and that this boy is probably trained at gymnastics from a young age . This is done with the bible in that for example God opens Lydia's heart that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. This does not necessarily mean God always does this to everyone in the same way all the time. Other examples could be David numbering Israel , The drawing in John 6.44 ; Paul's conversion experience ect .

Ok starting with 2 thes 2.13 no prizes as to how this may be used to support Calvinsm. But let's see .
13¶But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Thoughts ?

They say that a good lawyer never asks a question that he cannot himself answer.

But my observation is that this verse, alone, or in context, does not help Calvin. Calvin promulgated "divine predestination" - not choice according to foreknowledge (1st Pet.1.2). "Predestinate" is a different concept to "Elect in foreknowledge". Even the Greek words are different. And of the 6 times "proorizo" appears in the Greek text, not one alludes to salvation.

My question is rather, why the fuss and fixation on Calvin and Arminius on this Forum? Both had to ignore their opponents proofs, both held onto many of the Roman doctrines, and both missed things that were later to come out of the Brethren movement, and which settled the issue.

Methinks that Calvin's good should be appreciated, his errors recognized and his doctrine put to bed.

They say that a good lawyer never asks a question that he cannot himself answer.

But my observation is that this verse, alone, or in context, does not help Calvin. Calvin promulgated "divine predestination" - not choice according to foreknowledge (1st Pet.1.2). "Predestinate" is a different concept to "Elect in foreknowledge". Even the Greek words are different. And of the 6 times "proorizo" appears in the Greek text, not one alludes to salvation.

My question is rather, why the fuss and fixation on Calvin and Arminius on this Forum? Both had to ignore their opponents proofs, both held onto many of the Roman doctrines, and both missed things that were later to come out of the Brethren movement, and which settled the issue.

Methinks that Calvin's good should be appreciated, his errors recognized and his doctrine put to bed.

In 2Thes.2:13, Paul is referring to God choosing the way of salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth, which the the believers he's addressing employed. Others won't be saved because,

because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 2Thes.2:10

They say that a good lawyer never asks a question that he cannot himself answer.

but it doesn't say God 'chose the way of your salvation' in 2 Thessalonians 2.
it says God chose them "from the beginning" for salvation, a salvation to which He called them.
it doesn't say in this book, stand fast and hold to what you have been taught in order that you may be saved -- it says rather, because God called and chose you from the beginning therefore stand fast and hold to what you were taught and believed.

so what you're doing is eisegeting, my dude.
the language in vv. 13-15 isn't saying what you are saying. yes, verse 10 says that they did not receive the truth - and v. 11 says for that reason God sends them strong delusion, to believe the lie, in order that ((v.12)) they be condemned. but their not receiving isn't evidence of their either being elected or double-predestinated, nor is it evidence to the contrary: it's the bare fact that they didn't, without a theological statement as to why. the theological statement as to how/why/by whom comes in verse 13, and it's not a Pelagian statement by any stretch of imagination; you have to twist it to say exactly the opposite of what it literally says to take the 'calvinism' out of it - which isn't 'calvinism' at all; it's the sovereign purpose of God in election.

maybe try again, and harder this time

yes

so every time in scripture Jesus/God asks a question, we're in a judicial/courtroom setting in the passage. because He is God; He knows all things! He is never asking because He doesn't know: He's establishing facts before witnesses.

Simply put, God called the Gentiles to salvation through Paul’s gospel.

They say that a good lawyer never asks a question that he cannot himself answer.

But my observation is that this verse, alone, or in context, does not help Calvin. Calvin promulgated "divine predestination" - not choice according to foreknowledge (1st Pet.1.2). "Predestinate" is a different concept to "Elect in foreknowledge". Even the Greek words are different. And of the 6 times "proorizo" appears in the Greek text, not one alludes to salvation.

My question is rather, why the fuss and fixation on Calvin and Arminius on this Forum? Both had to ignore their opponents proofs, both held onto many of the Roman doctrines, and both missed things that were later to come out of the Brethren movement, and which settled the issue.

Methinks that Calvin's good should be appreciated, his errors recognized and his doctrine put to bed.

even more simply put, there is only one gospel and only ever has been one, and that includes all men, as has always been His will, that all men come to knowledge of Him. from Moses any foreigner could eat Pascha, they only need to become circumcised. and Abraham was not a Jew.

but it doesn't say God 'chose the way of your salvation' in 2 Thessalonians 2.
it says God chose them "from the beginning" for salvation, a salvation to which He called them.
it doesn't say in this book, stand fast and hold to what you have been taught in order that you may be saved -- it says rather, because God called and chose you from the beginning therefore stand fast and hold to what you were taught and believed.

so what you're doing is eisegeting, my dude.
the language in vv. 13-15 isn't saying what you are saying. yes, verse 10 says that they did not receive the truth - and v. 11 says for that reason God sends them strong delusion, to believe the lie, in order that ((v.12)) they be condemned. but their not receiving isn't evidence of their either being elected or double-predestinated, nor is it evidence to the contrary: it's the bare fact that they didn't, without a theological statement as to why. the theological statement as to how/why/by whom comes in verse 13, and it's not a Pelagian statement by any stretch of imagination; you have to twist it to say exactly the opposite of what it literally says to take the 'calvinism' out of it - which isn't 'calvinism' at all; it's the sovereign purpose of God in election.

maybe try again, and harder this time

but it doesn't say God 'chose the way of your salvation' in 2 Thessalonians 2.
it says God chose them "from the beginning" for salvation, a salvation to which He called them.
it doesn't say in this book, stand fast and hold to what you have been taught in order that you may be saved -- it says rather, because God called and chose you from the beginning therefore stand fast and hold to what you were taught and believed.

so what you're doing is eisegeting, my dude.
the language in vv. 13-15 isn't saying what you are saying. yes, verse 10 says that they did not receive the truth - and v. 11 says for that reason God sends them strong delusion, to believe the lie, in order that ((v.12)) they be condemned. but their not receiving isn't evidence of their either being elected or double-predestinated, nor is it evidence to the contrary: it's the bare fact that they didn't, without a theological statement as to why. the theological statement as to how/why/by whom comes in verse 13, and it's not a Pelagian statement by any stretch of imagination; you have to twist it to say exactly the opposite of what it literally says to take the 'calvinism' out of it - which isn't 'calvinism' at all; it's the sovereign purpose of God in election.

maybe try again, and harder this time

He knows where Adam is when he hid in the garden, and who it was that told them they were naked. He knows why the rich young man called Him "good" and He knows who people say that He is, and when He is raised up on the cross He knows it is impossible that He is forsaken and He knows exactly why to the Jews watching Him giving up His life purposefully & in full control, that it appears He has been.

and He needs no one to testify of man to Him: not even that man himself, because He knows what is in every man ((John 2:25)); He knows all things and there is no time from the beginning to the end in which He does not know all things. it is not 'calvinism' and it is not 'augustiniainism' -- it's the implications of that knowledge & fear of Him.


wish we could one day have a thread on this ant's nest of a topic in which we actually think soberly about it
but i suspect this is just gonna be one more in a long list of fruitless arguing & bashing threads.

Its not necessarily on these men ,but on the Systems we know today as T.U.L.I.P .Each point is false teaching . That should be enough for any believer to point out .

We would fair better to understand where it all began . Augustine.

yes

so every time in scripture Jesus/God asks a question, we're in a judicial/courtroom setting in the passage. because He is God; He knows all things! He is never asking because He doesn't know: He's establishing facts before witnesses.

While I agree some seem pre-occupied with dismissing Calvin's soteriology, the central issue for me is that it maligns God's character. Many in their zeal for maintaining God's sovereignty end up portraying God in a way totally unlike the character revealed in Jesus.

And it must be combatted vigorously because it is an easy theology. First, because many of its errors are preached so often that the Calvinist twist is the one that seems "natural" even if it is the less likely reading grammatically. Second, because it's built on a bad but easily presentable hermeneutic of taking verses out of context and overwhelming with numerous snippets that can be read a certain way rather than drawing the meaning from the context of the passage.

It's a theology thats strength is treating the Bible like a series of soundbites.

And Calvinist soteriology has multiplied the error such as by giving ground to dispensationalism and other modern theologies that further distort the message.

Through their systematic theologies men have taken the simple gospel and turned it into a complex thing to be understood only by a select few shutting out the common man.

The teachings of Calvin, like any teaching, has a result. What is the result of a Christian embracing Calvin? And if it produces a problem, how serious is it in comparison to what is true?

And Christmas began in Babylon nearly three thousand years before Augustine, and Christians embrace and love it without a comment from anyone. It seems to me that you have decided that Calvin's teaching, or present day version is wrong. But you have yet to answer your own question in posting #1. Don't you owe to us, your brothers, to show the truth when you possess it?