What type of Calvinist am I?

[Carbon]

Where do you type it on the message?

First you need a typewriter. Do you have one?

 

[Eleanor]

First you need a typewriter. Do you have one?

I'm sure I can scare one up.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

RV & ELEANOR:

Relative to your #30 & #32 posts, I have submitted many scriptures that pertain to the erroneous doctrinal agenda of you Calvinists, not just suppositions and suggestions, as you claim. But I'll submit a few more.

A loving and merciful God would never create billions of people for the single purpose of condemning and banishing them from His presence forever. Yet, this is what the Calvinist position signals.

God wants all men to be saved. Listen to the Spirit as He writes through the apostle Paul, “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). God, through the sacrifice of His Son, made it possible for all men to achieve a state of salvation. Paul says again, “This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance—and for this we labor and strive—that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe” (1 Timothy 4:9-10).

Apparently, God foreknew who would be saved, and these became His elect or chosen ones (Rom. 8:29-30). Tell me, please—and consider this carefully: If God’s elect must accept the offer of salvation, if they must choose to be saved, salvation and eternal life are no longer free gifts but obligations. And if obligations, we work to achieve our salvation, the very opposite of what heaven teaches. “Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation” (Rom. 4:4).

If a believer must accept God’s gracious gift of salvation, if he has no choice in the matter, the “free gift” becomes a forceful act on the part of the giver. A gift that is enforced upon its recipient is not free. And, if required to receive a “free gift,” the gift ceases to be free and becomes a coercive exercise on the part of the giver. If God’s elect must choose to be saved, they are like mechanical robots and lifeless puppets who were arbitrarily programmed before the foundation of the world. They can make no move or author any decision until their creator feeds into them certain commands and codes, or pulls a certain string.​

The Calvinist retorts, “True, we have no choice in this matter, but we are not forced into it. We are irresistibly drawn into it by God’s power.” This is a play upon words. For if the elect have no choice in the matter of salvation, if they are irresistibly drawn into it and cannot refuse, they are compelled to accept God’s grace.

No tossing of the coin will topple this principle. And if irresistibly drawn or forced into it, the gift is no longer free. To be sure, if a precise number of the human family must choose to be saved, thus in essence condemning all others, or if salvation was addressed only to the elect and not to any other class, someone needs to define the above scriptures—as well as a bushel of others that could be cited.

 

[fastfredy0]

A loving and merciful God would never create billions of people for the single purpose of condemning and banishing them from His presence forever. Yet, this is what the Calvinist position signals.

Premise 1: God knows before people were born whether or not they would go to hell
Premise 2: God could stop the birth of anyone He knows is going to hell
Conclusion: A loving and merciful God would never create billions of people for the single purpose of condemning and banishing them from His presence forever.
You can't fight empirical facts.

Premise 1: Billions of people after Christ's death have died having never heard of Christ
Premise 2: People are saved by hearing of Christ
Conclusion: A loving and merciful God would never create billions of people for the single purpose of condemning and banishing them from His presence forever.
You can't fight empirical facts.

God wants all men to be saved. Listen to the Spirit as He writes through the apostle Paul, “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4).

Wrong ... see above.
Also study the word ALL which is ambiguous unless the group all is referring to is defined.
I.E. of ambiguity ... Jill says, "All motorcycles have two wheels. " Greg responds, "That's ridiculous. A single motorcycle has two wheels. And there are of 200,000,000 motorcycles in the world. Therefore, all motorcycles would have over 400,000,000 wheels. Thus the word ALL is ambiguous and often construed by one's bias.

Apparently, God foreknew who would be saved, and these became His elect or chosen ones (Rom. 8:29-30). Tell me, please—and consider this carefully: If God’s elect must accept the offer of salvation, if they must choose to be saved, salvation and eternal life are no longer free gifts but obligations.

The premise that "we choose" is misunderstood. We are free to choose to believe but that doesn't consider the motivation to choose. 100% of people choose choose to not believe unless God regenerates them first. We are saved by the will of God and not the independent will of man (John 1:12-13)

The Calvinist retorts, “True, we have no choice in this matter, but we are not forced into it. We are irresistibly drawn into it by God’s power.” This is a play upon words. For if the elect have no choice in the matter of salvation, if they are irresistibly drawn into it and cannot refuse, they are compelled to accept God’s grace.

We are free to follow our desires. God controls our desires. It is circular logic to think you create your own desires. From nothing nothing comes so you can't create your desires.

someone needs to define the above scriptures—as well as a bushel of others that could be cited.

Most of your verses depend on the ambiguous words ALL or WORLD. I'll help you: John 3:16, John 6:51, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4,6, 1 Timothy 2:6, 2 Peter 3:9
Aminianism is man-centered (man's view point), Calvinism is God-centered (God's view point)

 

[atpollard]

A loving and merciful God would never ...

Says who?

If one is going to make claims about what GOD will or will never do, one needs more than empty rhetoric [unsupported opinions and emotional appeals]. Remember, GOD once killed every man, woman and child in a terrible flood ... except for 8 people ... in the entire world. God once ordered the genocide of an entire city [Jericho] including the women, children and infants. God once killed EVERY FIRST BORN in an entire nation ... man, woman, and child.

A "loving and merciful God" DID DO all of those things. So the task of PROVING what GOD "would never" do falls on you, since you are building your house of cards on that foundation of sand.

 

[Eleanor]

RV & ELEANOR:

Relative to your #30 & #32 posts, I have submitted many scriptures that pertain to the erroneous doctrinal agenda of you Calvinists, not just suppositions and suggestions, as you claim. But I'll submit a few more.

A loving and merciful God would never create billions of people for the single purpose of condemning and banishing them from His presence forever. Yet, this is what the Calvinist position signals.
God wants all men to be saved. Listen to the Spirit as He writes through the apostle Paul, “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). God, through the sacrifice of His Son, made it possible for all men to achieve a state of salvation. Paul says again, “This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance—and for this we labor and strive—that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe” (1 Timothy 4:9-10).

Apparently, God foreknew who would be saved, and these became His elect or chosen ones (Rom. 8:29-30). Tell me, please—and consider this carefully: If God’s elect must accept the offer of salvation, if they must choose to be saved, salvation and eternal life are no longer free gifts but obligations. And if obligations, we work to achieve our salvation, the very opposite of what heaven teaches. “Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation” (Rom. 4:4).

If a believer must accept God’s gracious gift of salvation, if he has no choice in the matter, the “free gift” becomes a forceful act on the part of the giver. A gift that is enforced upon its recipient is not free. And, if required to receive a “free gift,” the gift ceases to be free and becomes a coercive exercise on the part of the giver. If God’s elect must choose to be saved, they are like mechanical robots and lifeless puppets who were arbitrarily programmed before the foundation of the world. They can make no move or author any decision until their creator feeds into them certain commands and codes, or pulls a certain string.​

The Calvinist retorts, “True, we have no choice in this matter, but we are not forced into it. We are irresistibly drawn into it by God’s power.” This is a play upon words. For if the elect have no choice in the matter of salvation, if they are irresistibly drawn into it and cannot refuse, they are compelled to accept God’s grace.

No tossing of the coin will topple this principle. And if irresistibly drawn or forced into it, the gift is no longer free. To be sure, if a precise number of the human family must choose to be saved, thus in essence condemning all others, or if salvation was addressed only to the elect and not to any other class, someone needs to define the above scriptures—as well as a bushel of others that could be cited.

Non-responsive to my post #132.

 

[donadams]

How are opposed to Calvin’s view of Mary and perpetual virginity in particular?

John Calvin

(On the Heretic Helvidius) Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s “brothers” are sometimes mentioned. (Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55)

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called “first-born”; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107)

Under the word “brethren” the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3])

Thanks

 

[atpollard]

Under the word “brethren” the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

What of the ordinary meaning of the words "husband" and "wife" and "married"?
Do any of these imply a lifelong celibate cohabitation?

 

[Eleanor]

What of the ordinary meaning of the words "husband" and "wife" and "married"?
Do any of these imply a lifelong celibate cohabitation?

They imply such at the time of the statement.

 

[donadams]

When did Calvin become “the way, the truth, and the life”?

Thanks

 

[atpollard]

They imply such at the time of the statement.

The Shakers tried to live that lifestyle ... they are extinct.

The POINT of the Gospels is a VIRGIN BIRTH (not a celibate marriage).
Like so many RCC 'Marian' Doctrines, the traditions are extra-Biblical and often from centuries later. That does not automatically make them false ... it just means that Protestants deserve a little slack for rejecting them [traditions are not God-breathed].

 

[atpollard]

When did Calvin become “the way, the truth, and the life”?

Thanks

That's an easy one ... Same time Mary and the Pope did ... NEVER!

 

[donadams]

What of the ordinary meaning of the words "husband" and "wife" and "married"?
Do any of these imply a lifelong celibate cohabitation?

Were not Abraham and Lot brothers?

Were Adam and Eve married in the garden? But no sex!

Thanks

 

[Eleanor]

The Shakers tried to live that lifestyle ... they are extinct.

The POINT of the Gospels is a VIRGIN BIRTH (not a celibate marriage).
Like so many RCC 'Marian' Doctrines, the traditions are extra-Biblical and often from centuries later. That does not automatically make them false ... it just means that Protestants deserve a little slack for rejecting them [traditions are not God-breathed].

Oh, wow! I got that wrong! Misread "celibate."

 

[atpollard]

Were not Abraham and Lot brothers?

I think Lot was Abraham's nephew.

Were Adam and Eve married in the garden? But no sex!

Thanks

Married ... yes.
Sex ... I believe Scripture is silent, so:

• I dunno. ​

 

[donadams]

I think Lot was Abraham's nephew.


Married ... yes.
Sex ... I believe Scripture is silent, so:

• I dunno. ​

Adam and Eve were married in the garden but did not have sex there!
Gen 4:1

Gen 12:5 and Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son..

Gen 13:8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen; for we are Brothers.

The 12 sons of Jacob are brothers but all are not the children of Leah and all are not the children of Rachel! They had 4 mother’s, These may be brothers but they are simply not the children of One mother and the brothers of Jesus are not the children of Mary!

Thanks

 

[atpollard]

and the brothers of Jesus are not the children of Mary!

Assumption and tradition, but not scriptural fact.
That makes it a "MAYBE".
Counterbalancing that are all the scriptural references to Jesus "brothers and sisters" and his "family" with not a single mention of any other "wife of Joseph" or complex family dynamic (other than John being his cousin through Mary and Elizabeth).

It forever comes down to the value one places on "tradition". Thus the reason that the Protestant/Catholic divide remains as strong today as it was in 1600 [at least the heretic burning has stopped, for both camps].

 

[atpollard]

Adam and Eve were married in the garden but did not have sex there!
Gen 4:1

1 Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have obtained a male child with the help of the LORD.”

That only establishes when the first child was born. Maybe they never had sex or maybe Eve just never became pregnant before then.

 

[donadams]

Assumption and tradition, but not scriptural fact.
That makes it a "MAYBE".
Counterbalancing that are all the scriptural references to Jesus "brothers and sisters" and his "family" with not a single mention of any other "wife of Joseph" or complex family dynamic (other than John being his cousin through Mary and Elizabeth).

It forever comes down to the value one places on "tradition". Thus the reason that the Protestant/Catholic divide remains as strong today as it was in 1600 [at least the heretic burning has stopped, for both camps].

If you reject “tradition” you must not know what tradition means

What is your understanding of tradition?

Thanks

 

[donadams]

1 Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have obtained a male child with the help of the LORD.”

That only establishes when the first child was born. Maybe they never had sex or maybe Eve just never became pregnant before then.

No cos it says aman knew his wife.

He knew (knowledge) her in the garden, but he knew (sex) her only after Gen 4

Thanks