The disparity (disunity) in Calvinism

[justbyfaith]

I have seen it....some Calvinists believe in free will, others don't.

Some believe that God is the First Cause of everything, others don't.

Some make these issues a hill that they would be willing to die on (saying that one cannot be a Calvinist and not agree), yet other Calvinists disagree with them.

I believe that this is because Calvin may have said certain things in some places outright and then said other things in other places that might bring people to an opposite conclusion.

Otherwise, why is there so much disagreement between Calvinists?

Time and time again, I have mentioned what was preached to me by one Calvinist, and then addressed it elsewhere; only to find that it "is not the teaching of Calvinism" according to the Calvinist that I am talking to "now"...

I am not going to play games with you folks.

If all you are going to do is say that certain beliefs in Calvinism are not believed by you as Calvinists, then I am forced to make this assertion:

That Calvinism is divided against itself and therefore its kingdom cannot stand.

If certain Calvinists believe things that are opposite to Calvinistic teaching, how is the teaching going to survive?

I would say to all of you that you had better get some doctrinal unity. Even as it is written by Paul,

1Co 1:10, Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

 

[justbyfaith]

This will be my last post (I reserve the right to change my mind later).

 

[Arial]

I have seen it....some Calvinists believe in free will, others don't.

Define what Calvinism means by the will isn't free?
Define what Calvinism means when they say the will is free?
Define what a Calvinist means when they say there is no such thing as free will?

That way we will know where you are coming from and what you base the above claim on and it may be we discover there is no disparity at all.

Some believe that God is the First Cause of everything, others don't.

Give actual examples of why you are calling this a disparity and let those who are proponents of one thing or another answer for themselves. That was it won't be just a he said, she said, and maybe we will discover there is no disparity, just different lenses.

Some make these issues a hill that they would be willing to die on (saying that one cannot be a Calvinist and not agree), yet other Calvinists disagree with them.

In order to discuss that we will need statements actually made that you find disparity in.

I believe that this is because Calvin may have said certain things in some places outright and then said other things in other places that might bring people to an opposite conclusion.

It is also possible that people think for themselves and are going by what they think the Bible says and not following Calvin by the letter. I doubt anyone follows Calvin exclusively to arrive at their beliefs. It is kind of an irrelevant statement and conclusion.

Time and time again, I have mentioned what was preached to me by one Calvinist, and then addressed it elsewhere; only to find that it "is not the teaching of Calvinism" according to the Calvinist that I am talking to "now"...

That may be so, or it may not be so. However it is not a pertinent point of this conversation, as we have only "one Calvinist" who is not identified and what he preached not given, and "elsewhere" and another Calvinist, not identified and what he said not given, to go on. How does that present an issue that can be dealt with?

If all you are going to do is say that certain beliefs in Calvinism are not believed by you as Calvinists, then I am forced to make this assertion:

You are not forced to make any assertion. You make it all on your own. But that aside, you have not addressed anything that was given in all those many other threads. You simply ignore what you are told, and now blame Calvinism and Calvinists for disparity in belief for your frustration. You don't begin your threads on Calvinism with a disparity but with a definitive statement that is then addressed by Calvinists. Is there any group of people in any walk of life who agree on everything? What difference does that make? Is your position that if not all Calvinists think exactly alike and agree on everything, that alone makes Calvinism wrong?

That Calvinism is divided against itself and therefore its kingdom cannot stand.

It isn't divided against itself, and it is not a kingdom.

If certain Calvinists believe things that are opposite to Calvinistic teaching, how is the teaching going to survive?

It has survived for centuries, even came back to life about twenty or so years ago after many thought it was dead. And I do not think that the differences among Calvinist amount to opposite beliefs, and you have no way of proving that they do.

I would say to all of you that you had better get some doctrinal unity. Even as it is written by Paul,

1Co 1:10, Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

There is more doctrinal unity in Calvinism than there is in the church of the free will. The church of the free will threw out the need for the traditional doctrinal positions from the age of enlightenment forward in ever increasing measure, and just began making it up as the went along and according to the pastor and whatever tickled their ears. Calvinism actually has a doctrinal foundation. Even the art of establishing a solid, Bible based and derived doctrinal foundation has been all but lost.

 

[David1701]

This will be my last post...

...(I reserve the right to change my mind later).

 

[justbyfaith]

Give actual examples of why you are calling this a disparity and let those who are proponents of one thing or another answer for themselves.

Of course they can answer for themselves. The examples are in previous threads.

 

[justbyfaith]

It is also possible that people think for themselves and are going by what they think the Bible says and not following Calvin by the letter. I doubt anyone follows Calvin exclusively to arrive at their beliefs. It is kind of an irrelevant statement and conclusion.

So, Calvin disagrees with the Bible?

If they follow Calvin and the Bible, or Calvin exclusively, there ought to be no disparity if Calvin's doctrine is biblical.

 

[justbyfaith]

Calvinism actually has a doctrinal foundation.

TULIP; not the Bible.

 

[justbyfaith]

Might as well face it...I'm addicted to posting here (1 Corinthians 16:15 (kjv)).

 

[Arial]

TULIP; not the Bible.

TULIP is an acronym of the teachings on that subject found in Calvinism. Calvinism came first and then the acronym. And those teachings are found in the Bible and supported with the Bible, systematically and consistently. You can disagree with them if you like, but you cannot prove that it was not a systematic process, taken on with all seriousness of integrity with the scriptures, and by theologians whose life work was to get it right for the glory of God. And who dealt honestly with the word with a much higher degree of knowledge and know how than any of us. So again, you are not dealing with what is being said at all.

 

[Arial]

So, Calvin disagrees with the Bible?

If they follow Calvin and the Bible, or Calvin exclusively, there ought to be no disparity if Calvin's doctrine is biblical.

Stop simply arguing and deal with what is posted.

 

[Arial]

Of course they can answer for themselves. The examples are in previous threads.

You started a new thread. What is in previous threads is irrelevant. It is for you to bring them forth not for us to go hunt them up. If you are not going to do that, then don't even mention them as they remain useless to this thread. If they are all in other threads why didn't you deal with it there.

 

[justbyfaith]

TULIP is an acronym of the teachings on that subject found in Calvinism. Calvinism came first and then the acronym. And those teachings are found in the Bible and supported with the Bible, systematically and consistently. You can disagree with them if you like, but you cannot prove that it was not a systematic process, taken on with all seriousness of integrity with the scriptures, and by theologians whose life work was to get it right for the glory of God. And who dealt honestly with the word with a much higher degree of knowledge and know how than any of us. So again, you are not dealing with what is being said at all.

Actually, the Bible disagrees with TULIP.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/is-tulip-biblical.1098/

 

[justbyfaith]

Stop simply arguing and deal with what is posted.

You deal with what I posted.

 

[justbyfaith]

You started a new thread. What is in previous threads is irrelevant. It is for you to bring them forth not for us to go hunt them up. If you are not going to do that, then don't even mention them as they remain useless to this thread. If they are all in other threads why didn't you deal with it there.

We have been having an ongoing conversation here...and I expect people to remember what has been said in previous parts of that conversation.

You don't have to hunt anything up if you have been paying attention to the conversation.

The answer to your question is, it is a specific contention that I wanted to bring up here as the subject of an entire thread, that there is disparity in Calvinism.

This is a continuation of the conversation that was going on before.

 

[Arial]

We have been having an ongoing conversation here...and I expect people to remember what has been said in previous parts of that conversation.

You don't have to hunt anything up if you have been paying attention to the conversation.

The answer to your question is, it is a specific contention that I wanted to bring up here as the subject of an entire thread, that there is disparity in Calvinism.

This is a continuation of the conversation that was going on before.

If you start a thread about a particular thing, which you did, then to now say it is a continuation of all the other threads so I don't have to present any actuals, I can just make assertions, and you all have the responsibility to remember everything said and by whom is TROLLING. And if not trolling, you are embarrassing yourself badly.

 

[Arial]

You deal with what I posted.

When you post something that has something to deal with I will.

 

[Arial]

Actually, the Bible disagrees with TULIP.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/is-tulip-biblical.1098/

That is one person's opinion. If you continue in the thread you will find that Calvinism from an actual Calvinist tore it to shreds. So it does not prove that the Bible disagrees with TULIP it proves that person disagrees with TULIP and their reasoning was flawed to the hilt, and full of logical fallacies.

So how about you prove the Bible disagrees with TULIP. I am waiting for some substance from you.

 

[Josheb]

I have seen it....some Calvinists believe in free will, others don't.

Can you provide some evidence some Calvinists do not believe in free will?

Do you understand what Calvinists mean by "free will" in comparison to what a Pelagian means by free will?

Are you aware Arminius was an adherent of the doctrine we now call "Total Depravity," and thereby held to a soteriology much different than synergists of the Traditionalist or Pelagian views?

 

[Arial]

@justbyfaith
Still waiting on a response to the following.

Define what Calvinism means by the will isn't free?
Define what Calvinism means when they say the will is free?
Define what a Calvinist means when they say there is no such thing as free will?

That way we will know where you are coming from and what you base the above claim on and it may be we discover there is no disparity at all.

Is your position that if not all Calvinists think exactly alike and agree on everything, that alone makes Calvinism wrong?

There is more doctrinal unity in Calvinism than there is in the church of the free will. The church of the free will threw out the need for the traditional doctrinal positions from the age of enlightenment forward in ever increasing measure, and just began making it up as the went along and according to the pastor and whatever tickled their ears

 

[Josheb]

@justbyfaith
Still waiting on a response to the following.

Don't hold your breath.