Run AWAY from Calvinism!

[Ronald Nolette]

Romans 9 is not the focal point of the Scriptures, and any time a portion of the Bible is preferred over others, error will surely ensue. The other texts that are used to support theological determinism would never be used the way they are if Romans 9 were not so abused.

God's vocation is Creator. And His purpose in creating is to relate—to love. The relational aspect of His character lends itself very well to synergism. Monergism would require no relationship. God wants to dwell with His people.

There can be no doubt that He is all-knowing, but the human logic that insists He thus dictates the affairs of His creatures to end in despair and desolation is madness. Madness, I say.

Once in a while, I give voice to my views on Calvinism, but I find it largely confusing and boring at the same time. For every 10 Calvinists you ask, you will get at least 11 different explanations of it and, frankly, Arminianism can be almost as bad. I mean what in the world is "unconditional atonement?" The proponents of this nonsense must not even know what atonement is. I understand and agree with some of the details of it but the label sounds like Universalism.

No Romans 9 is not the focal point of all SCripture, but is the focal point of something Paul is declaring about who God is!

And your whole synergism/monergism rationale is just human wisdom. YOu trying to box god into a human frame of reference.

And it is unconditional election, not atonement.

And no, god does not dictate teh affairs of men to end in despair. YOu do not understand Scripture if that is what you think.

 

[Johann]

No Romans 9 is not the focal point of all SCripture, but is the focal point of something Paul is declaring about who God is!

And your whole synergism/monergism rationale is just human wisdom. YOu trying to box god into a human frame of reference.

And it is unconditional election, not atonement.

Calvinism is an unsettled theology.
Calvinists are seriously divided among themselves and
always have been. There is Supralapsarianism vs.
Sublapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism. “Te Supralapsarians
hold that God decreed the fall of Adam; the Sublapsarians,
that he permitted it” (McClintock & Strong). Te Calvinists at The Calvinism Debate
14
the Synod of Dort were divided on many issues. Te Swiss
Calvinists who wrote the Helvetic Consensus Formula in
1675 were in confict with the French Calvinists of the School
of Saumur. Tere are Strict Calvinists and Moderate
Calvinists, Hyper and non-Hyper Calvinists (diffffering
especially on reprobation and the extent of the atonement
and whether God loves all men), 5 pointers, 4 pointers, 3
pointers, and 2 pointers. In America, Calvinists were divided
into Old School and New School.
Whenever, therefore, one tries to state TULIP theology and
refute it, there are Calvinists who will claim that you are
misrepresenting Calvinism. You might be quoting directly
from various Calvinists or even from Calvin himself. Te
problem is that you are misrepresenting THEIR Calvinism!

A whole lotta division-es wouldn't you say?

 

[Johann]

Calvinism is an unsettled theology.
Calvinists are seriously divided among themselves and
always have been. There is Supralapsarianism vs.
Sublapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism. “Te Supralapsarians
hold that God decreed the fall of Adam; the Sublapsarians,
that he permitted it” (McClintock & Strong). Te Calvinists at The Calvinism Debate
14
the Synod of Dort were divided on many issues. Te Swiss
Calvinists who wrote the Helvetic Consensus Formula in
1675 were in confict with the French Calvinists of the School
of Saumur. Tere are Strict Calvinists and Moderate
Calvinists, Hyper and non-Hyper Calvinists (diffffering
especially on reprobation and the extent of the atonement
and whether God loves all men), 5 pointers, 4 pointers, 3
pointers, and 2 pointers. In America, Calvinists were divided
into Old School and New School.
Whenever, therefore, one tries to state TULIP theology and
refute it, there are Calvinists who will claim that you are
misrepresenting Calvinism. You might be quoting directly
from various Calvinists or even from Calvin himself. Te
problem is that you are misrepresenting THEIR Calvinism!

A whole lotta division-es wouldn't you say?

What about this?


There are Calvin Calvinists and Andrew Fuller Calvinists and
Arthur Pink Calvinists and Presbyterian Calvinists and
Baptist Calvinists and other sorts of Calvinists. Many
Calvinists have never read Calvin’s Institutes of Christian
Religion for themselves. They are merely following someone
who follows someone who allegedly follows Calvin (who, by
his own admission, followed Augustine).
Calvinists believe that they have the right to reject or
modify some parts of Calvin’s teaching. I agree with them
100% on this, and I say, further, that we also have the right to
reject the entire system if we are convinced that it is not
supported by Scripture!
It is not wise to follow John Calvin; he was unsound at
the very foundation of the Christian faith.
Calvin never gave a personal testimony of the new birth;
rather he identified with his Catholic infant baptism. Note the
following quotes from his Institutes:
“At whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and
purified once for the whole of life” (Institutes, IV)

?

 

[marks]

ὅλος holos (ho'-los) adj.
1. whole or all, i.e. complete (in extent, amount, time or degree).
2. (especially, neuter, as noun or adverb) all.
[a primary word]

ὅλος ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ ...κεῖται..Lambano I concur what you are saying but why is κεῖται in the Middle Voice? Or should we read it as Passive?


Part of Speech: Verb
Tense: Present
Voice: middle or passive depoNent
Mood: Indicative
Person: third [he/she/it]
Number: Singular

Is it really speaking of all individuals or the whole world as a whole?
I am no scholar, so forgive me for asking..
J.

As a deponant verb, you'd have to answer based on other passages, I think. Middle, the world causes itself to lie in evil, passive, the world is made to lie in evil.

John 17:11 KJV
11) And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

John 17:15-18 KJV
15) I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16) They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17) Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18) As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

We are in the world, but not of the world. The world lies in evil.

1 John 5:18 KJV
18) We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

Though we are in the world, which lies in evil, the evil cannot touch us, and we are kept from it.

Much love!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Calvinism is an unsettled theology.
Calvinists are seriously divided among themselves and
always have been. There is Supralapsarianism vs.
Sublapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism. “Te Supralapsarians
hold that God decreed the fall of Adam; the Sublapsarians,
that he permitted it” (McClintock & Strong). Te Calvinists at The Calvinism Debate
14
the Synod of Dort were divided on many issues. Te Swiss
Calvinists who wrote the Helvetic Consensus Formula in
1675 were in confict with the French Calvinists of the School
of Saumur. Tere are Strict Calvinists and Moderate
Calvinists, Hyper and non-Hyper Calvinists (diffffering
especially on reprobation and the extent of the atonement
and whether God loves all men), 5 pointers, 4 pointers, 3
pointers, and 2 pointers. In America, Calvinists were divided
into Old School and New School.
Whenever, therefore, one tries to state TULIP theology and
refute it, there are Calvinists who will claim that you are
misrepresenting Calvinism. You might be quoting directly
from various Calvinists or even from Calvin himself. Te
problem is that you are misrepresenting THEIR Calvinism!

A whole lotta division-es wouldn't you say?

And if you do not think that there is not the same kind of confusion in the Armenian side of theology, you are either naive', gullible, or woefully uninformed!

Colloguially people are considered 0 point to 5 pointers which means that 3 of less they are considered Armenian in foundation with Calvinistic flavor!

Personally I do not give a hoot over the arguments among churches, I study and study, pray and then draw what I believe is the best biblical conclusion! I do not let sects or man convince me blindly! I strive to remain like a Berean to search the scriptures whenever biblical claims are made I am unsure about or challenged to change.

 

[praise_yeshua]

And if you do not think that there is not the same kind of confusion in the Armenian side of theology, you are either naive', gullible, or woefully uninformed!

Colloguially people are considered 0 point to 5 pointers which means that 3 of less they are considered Armenian in foundation with Calvinistic flavor!

Personally I do not give a hoot over the arguments among churches, I study and study, pray and then draw what I believe is the best biblical conclusion! I do not let sects or man convince me blindly! I strive to remain like a Berean to search the scriptures whenever biblical claims are made I am unsure about or challenged to change.

You think someone that has been all over the world teaching/preaching theology would stop saying......
"Armenian" in reference to "Arminianism".

Armenia is a country

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You think someone that has been all over the world teaching/preaching theology would stop saying......
"Armenian" in reference to "Arminianism".

Armenia is a country

Thank you for pointing out that sliver in my eye!

 

[marks]

...and this amazes me, this is an open forum, everyone can read it, sounds like open confession and no one knows the other...??

We know what we want to know. I find that often times my self-revelatory statements are replaced in the reader's mind with their own misconceptions, and I find those are what are responded to.

Many people here are in reality talking to themselves, thinking they are talking to others, but really just collecting self-affirmations.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Then you have to reconcile that with the places that John uses exclusive language. This is what happens when you take one verse out of context, you come up with a bogus interpretation.

If you are thinking of a place that contradicts the plain meaning of that passage, quote it for us, and show how that is so, and we can discuss it.

Much love!

 

[marks]

No, that is not a verse. That is PART of a verse that is PART of an overall passage. What sloppy handling of Scripture!

The verse you are referencing, out of context, is 2 Peter 3:9 which states:
9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (ESV)

So yes, it does say "not wishing that any should perish" but that is one phrase out of the verse. The question is who is the any. The context is he is talking about the "you" and who are the "you"?? You don't get it from taking verse 9 out of context. You need to look at the whole passage. The you is the beloved, those who are elect.

God is patient to not destroy the world now, to not come now, as the scoffers mock us that he has not done, because there are more to be saved. There are more elect out there. This verse in no way is saying God wants every individual to be saved. The only way to make it say that is to ignore everything except that one phrase itself and that is sloppy exegesis and a mishandling of the Scripture.

You have to add words to the text to make it say what you are asserting. And that is specifically NOT exegesis. You are literally adding in.

The verse you are referencing, out of context, is 2 Peter 3:9 which states:
9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any of you should perish, but that all of you should reach repentance. (ESV)

A similar thought construction is seen in Matthew, "if those days were not cut short, no flesh would survive, but for the sake of the elect, those days have been cut short". The general group is "all flesh", the sub-group is "the elect". In Peter, the general group is "all", and "any", generally inclusive, the sub-group is "you".

Without your implied additional words, the reading is simple, God doesn't want anyone to perish, God wants all to come to repentance, and God is patient toward you for that reason.

Much love!

 

[Johann]

And if you do not think that there is not the same kind of confusion in the Armenian side of theology, you are either naive', gullible, or woefully uninformed!

Colloguially people are considered 0 point to 5 pointers which means that 3 of less they are considered Armenian in foundation with Calvinistic flavor!

Personally I do not give a hoot over the arguments among churches, I study and study, pray and then draw what I believe is the best biblical conclusion! I do not let sects or man convince me blindly! I strive to remain like a Berean to search the scriptures whenever biblical claims are made I am unsure about or challenged to change.

You sound prideful, to the point of being arrogant.
So this is how it is going to be...the Armenians making imprecatory prayers to Calvinism, and vica versa?
No common ground or a no-man's land?
What I have posted to you is just the tip of the iceberg...not to sling mud but to see if possible, if the two opposing camps can work together on this forum.
Yeah?
J.

 

[Johann]

We know what we want to know. I find that often times my self-revelatory statements are replaced in the reader's mind with their own misconceptions, and I find those are what are responded to.

Many people here are in reality talking to themselves, thinking they are talking to others, but really just collecting self-affirmations.

Much love!

Hey marks, can you clarify what you have posted?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Thank you for pointing out that sliver in my eye!

I knew what you meant. Just poking you so you will always remember...... :)

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

You sound prideful, to the point of being arrogant.
So this is how it is going to be...the Armenians making imprecatory prayers to Calvinism, and vica versa?
No common ground or a no-man's land?
What I have posted to you is just the tip of the iceberg...not to sling mud but to see if possible, if the two opposing camps can work together on this forum.
Yeah?
J.

never happen. Arminianism is a lie. Calvinism is truth.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

This is the part that is your perception.

I've put you on ignore at times in the past to help myself to enforce what I believed to be the correct choice, to stop engaging with you for a time.

I find I'm often drawn back to conversations that I've felt impressed upon by God that it's no longer useful, so to help myself disengage, I've used Ignore. It's got more to do with me that it does you.

Much love!

I had the perception that it was because you thought I attacked your character because you specifically said it was why you were doing it...but I don't care. It's not a big deal.

 

[Johann]

never happen. Arminianism is a lie. Calvinism is truth.

This sounds like war..flesh against flesh.

 

[Johann]

You think someone that has been all over the world teaching/preaching theology would stop saying......
"Armenian" in reference to "Arminianism".

Armenia is a country

Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

This sounds like war..flesh against flesh.

call it what you will. We arent supposed to sit back and do nothing against false doctrines.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You sound prideful, to the point of being arrogant.
So this is how it is going to be...the Armenians making imprecatory prayers to Calvinism, and vica versa?
No common ground or a no-man's land?
What I have posted to you is just the tip of the iceberg...not to sling mud but to see if possible, if the two opposing camps can work together on this forum.
Yeah?
J.

Well how can you tell how I sound with no audio here?

I write direct and blunt. With no intent of pride or arrogance. If you wish to think that, that is your privilege, but i know my heart .

I do not think there can be any common ground. Armenianism and Calvinism are at near extremes theologically.

YOu cannot find a reconciliation between believing you can lose your salvation and believing you can't!

There is no common ground between Divine Sovereignty and Free Will without Divine Sovereignty! I tried and could find none.

How can one reconciel unconditional and conditional?????

 

[stunnedbygrace]

No, that is not a verse. That is PART of a verse that is PART of an overall passage. What sloppy handling of Scripture!

The verse you are referencing, out of context, is 2 Peter 3:9 which states:
9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (ESV)

So yes, it does say "not wishing that any should perish" but that is one phrase out of the verse. The question is who is the any. The context is he is talking about the "you" and who are the "you"?? You don't get it from taking verse 9 out of context. You need to look at the whole passage. The you is the beloved, those who are elect.

God is patient to not destroy the world now, to not come now, as the scoffers mock us that he has not done, because there are more to be saved. There are more elect out there. This verse in no way is saying God wants every individual to be saved. The only way to make it say that is to ignore everything except that one phrase itself and that is sloppy exegesis and a mishandling of the Scripture.

Patient with YOU, means patient with them. Got it.