The disparity (disunity) in Calvinism

[justbyfaith]

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.

You have been privy to the conversation before.

All you have to do is not pretend that you haven't, and talk to me like the conversation is continuing and not like it has just started in this thread.

 

[justbyfaith]

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.

Did you read the whole thread; specifically my post within the thread?

I go through TULIP line-by-line and give the biblical teaching on each point,

 

[justbyfaith]

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?

Search the boards, the evidence is readily available; even right in front of you.

 

[justbyfaith]

@justbyfaith
Still waiting on a response to the following.

Going to church right now, will seek to address this when I get back.

 

[justbyfaith]

@justbyfaith
Still waiting on a response to the following.

Please re-post, without putting your questions in quotes so that I can respond using the quote feature.

 

[Arial]

Please re-post, without putting your questions in quotes so that I can respond using the quote feature.

It is post #3. You can use the quote feature there.

 

[Josheb]

Search the boards, the evidence is readily available; even right in front of you.

Not answers to my questions. You said if I re-posted the questions then you would answer them. I reposted the questions. You did not answer them.

You know what that makes you?

Let's try it again.

No dodging. Just answer the questions asked. Do it immediately, do it directly, do it succinctly.

• 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? (if not, would you like me to show the evidence in Arminius' own words?)

No more avoidance, please.

 

[ReverendRV]

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.

Calvinists are united on the Fundamentals of Calvinism; right? For instance, you have to accept TULIP to be a Calvinist; I accept TULIP. I would say that also accepting the 5-Solas make you a Calvinist. For instance, if you accept TULIP but deny Sola Fide; you are a Hyper Calvinist, not a Calvinist. I think these two things are the Fundamentals of Calvinism...

Your OP has much to do with Categories and Category Mistakes. So what if a Hyper Calvinist tells you he's a Calvinist? It would be a Category Mistake for him to tell you that, right?

 

[Josheb]

Calvinists are united on the Fundamentals of Calvinism; right? For instance, you have to accept TULIP to be a Calvinist; I accept TULIP. I would say that also accepting the 5-Solas make you a Calvinist. For instance, if you accept TULIP but deny Sola Fide; you are a Hyper Calvinist, not a Calvinist. I think these two things are the Fundamentals of Calvinism...

Even more fundamentally, every soteriological Calvinist believes God is the sole cause of salvation. That is what the term "monergism" means. "Mono" = one or single. "Ergon" = to work. Monergists believe there is one single and only one single agent at work in salvation and that work is the work of God and God alone. Synergism, in comparison means there is a synthesis or synergy of two or more works combining to effect salvation and the Calvinist rejects that premise other than to say, in the words of Jonathon Edwards, the only thing we bring to our salvation is the sin that made salvation necessary, and from which we are being saved. 4-pointers and three-pointers can be found among Calvinism, but there are no noon-monergistic Cals. That would be a contradiction in terms.

Your OP has much to do with Categories and Category Mistakes...

Yep. Because of that fact much of the op is a baiting, trolling, red herring.

 

[Josheb]

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

No. the truthful fact is there is a range of views on the volitional agency of the human will within Calvinism ranging from strict determinism to limited agency within the confines of a dichotomy that is either sin or Christ.

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

Perhaps, but I have yet to see any evidence any Calvinist does not believe the Creator is not the first cause of all things created, your lack of evidence is the most frequently occurring complaint in these threads, and God as the First Cause is not uniquely Calvinist. Synergists of all varieties also believe God is the First Cause of all causes within creation.

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.

Prove it.

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.

Your belief is in error.

Perhaps one very real and foundational reality has escaped you: just because the soteriological doctrine bears his name does not mean everything, he said was correct and it does not mean every Calvinist believes everything he wrote. Calvinism has evolved over the last 500 years and refined its positions through the vigorous and prayerful examination of scripture and just as vigorous and prayerful debate both within Calvinism and outside with its critics. Calvin believed infant baptism was salvific. No Protestant Calvinist today believes that (or if they do then they are a heretical normative and statistical outlier not representative of the whole in any way.

Otherwise, why is there so much disagreement between Calvinists?

Well, do you see any of the Cals here arguing with one another in this thread? I, for one, will dispute real and perceived errors with my fellow Cals and every single one of them here will testify to that effect. But on this day, in this thread, we post with a shared set of views that itself testifies as a refutation of your gaslighting attempt to leverage diversity against us.

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.

ROTFLMBO!

Every word in every post in every thread these last two or three days have been games, and you were called on the blatant subterfuge almost from the beginning and have yet to change. If you wanted cogent discourse then one single topic would be picked and discussed, and any diversity expressed by the respondents would be explored with sincerity, good will, manners and respect until both the common ground and any areas of disparity were understood without rancor.

You have not done that in any of these threads despite the abundant opportunity to do exactly that. No, you are a troll.

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:

No, you are not. No one forces you to do anything. You choose to post the way you post. Do you understand what I just posted? I, a Calvinist, just said you have the liberty to choose, and you choose to post the way you do because of that which is at work within you.

Luke 6:45
The good person out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil person out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.

You post the way you do because that is what is within you. If you wanted to learn how there can be simultaneous homogeneity and diversity within ANYTHING these threads would look much different, and you'd be setting a much different tone with everyone. It is irrational to ask people for their diverse views and then criticize them for giving you what you asked for. You are a troll.

From the very beginning it was wrong of you to assume any soteriology would be monolithic.

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

Misappropriation of scripture misrepresenting the facts of Calvinism.

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

False cause fallacy. The existence and survival of the doctrine is not dependent upon those who believe differently.

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.

Paul was a Calvinist .

You are a troll.

 

[justbyfaith]

So, I feel that I am being forbidden to deal with some of the doctrines inherent in hyper-Calvinism simply because most of the Calvinists here are not of the hyper- sort and therefore deny those doctrines.

If you are not a hyper-Calvinist, then simply don't respond to my arguments against hyper-Calvinism.

And also, don't think that you are correct in saying that hyper-Calvinism is not Calvinism. It is Calvinism of the hyper- sort.

 

[ReverendRV]

So, I feel that I am being forbidden to deal with some of the doctrines inherent in hyper-Calvinism simply because most of the Calvinists here are not of the hyper- sort and therefore deny those doctrines.

If you are not a hyper-Calvinist, then simply don't respond to my arguments against hyper-Calvinism.

And also, don't think that you are correct in saying that hyper-Calvinism is not Calvinism. It is Calvinism of the hyper- sort.

That's fine. Just start calling it Hyper Calvinism, okay? We will all agree with you then; I know I will...

 

[justbyfaith]

your lack of evidence

The evidence is in the record of things that have already been said over the short time that I have been here.

 

[justbyfaith]

Prove it.

It is in the record of posts.

 

[justbyfaith]

Well, do you see any of the Cals here arguing with one another in this thread?

I see them saying that what has been preached to me by certain Calvinists is not the true teaching of Calvinism.

 

[justbyfaith]

If you wanted cogent discourse then one single topic would be picked and discussed,

Have I not confined discussions on certain topics to specific threads?

This thread is a case in point. It was discussed in a different thread briefly; but I considered that the topic merited its own thread.

 

[justbyfaith]

No, you are not. No one forces you to do anything. You choose to post the way you post. Do you understand what I just posted? I, a Calvinist, just said you have the liberty to choose, and you choose to post the way you do because of that which is at work within you.

Luke 6:45
The good person out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil person out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.

You post the way you do because that is what is within you.

And my motivation for posting the way I do has to do with the shirking of responsibility to receive Christ that is promoted by Calvinistic doctrine.

I want for Calvinists to understand that they are responsible to receive Christ and that they will be held accountable if they reject Him.

Therefore, it is for the sake of evangelism that I post what I post; the desire that certain souls be saved.

But you will say that this is "another lie"; and that what I have posted is "based on the evil within my heart".

In this, you are judging me and even my salvation, I hope you realize this.

Apparently, you have never read Matthew 7:1-5 or Luke 6:37, 41-42.

 

[justbyfaith]

You have not done that in any of these threads despite the abundant opportunity to do exactly that. No, you are a troll.

Again, I would refer you to Matthew 7:1-5 and Luke 6:37, 41-42.

Also Revelation 12:10-11.

I am redeemed by the blood of the Lamb (v.11).

 

[ReverendRV]

And my motivation for posting the way I do has to do with the shirking of responsibility to receive Christ that is promoted by Calvinistic doctrine.

I want for Calvinists to understand that they are responsible to receive Christ and that they will be held accountable if they reject Him.

Therefore, it is for the sake of evangelism that I post what I post; the desire that certain souls be saved.

But you will say that this is "another lie"; and that what I have posted is "based on the evil within my heart".

In this, you are judging me and even my salvation, I hope you realize this.

Apparently, you have never read Matthew 7:1-5 or Luke 6:37, 41-42.

Calvinists know this, Hyper Calvinists don't...

 

[justbyfaith]

Paul was a Calvinists

No, he was not.

He lived some 1600 years before Calvin was even born.