Why so much against Calvinism?

[Arial]

Post #1 of this topic?

post #223

 

[jeremiah1five]

Is anyone ever born again and not saved?

You tell me. I asked for your testimony and you stall. Either you are saved and praise the Lord in my witness or you are not saved and YOU KNOW IT.
Anyone who meets the Almighty God experiences a changed life and they in turn glorify God for the salvation. So, you tell me. What is your witness for Christ in His coming into your life and delivering you from death and into eternal life.

 

[JIM]

post #223

Arial, post #223 in simply your view of things. It is no more than mine.

 

[JIM]

You tell me.

No one is ever born again and not saved. Those born again are saved.

 

[Arial]

Arial, post #223 in simply your view of things. It is no more than mine.

Of course it is my view of things but it is my view from my experience and you yourself have been shown to be evidence of it. Just like in this post. If I am mistaken, then a good place to begin would to actually present your view, support your view with sound exegesis of those scriptures you might present as "proof texts to your position; refute what is said in return in this same manner. You have done none of that but merely stated your opinions and make "cute" pithy quips.

 

[JIM]

The difference between the Calvinist view and the Arminian view is not what the Bible says; rather it is the difference between how the Calvinist and the Arminian interpret what the Bible says.

 

[Arial]

The difference between the Calvinist view and the Arminian view is not what the Bible says; rather it is the difference between how the Calvinist and the Arminian interpret what the Bible says.

That would imply that the Bible does not contain absolute truths and/or that they can not be ascertained from the Bible itself. It denies that the Bible is self interpreting and the best we can do is develop our opinions and beliefs by the Bible being read and understood through pieces of it here and there, rather than as a whole, unified, non contradictory, revelation of God and His truth.

People have a tendency to do that and do do it at times, but when it comes to the Bible supporting the free will argument as it relates to salvation, doing what is described above is the reason they cannot adequately support their theory, when those who are using the whole counsel of God refute their position. Why they resort to "proof texts" only, cannot hear when those texts are being misinterpreted by them when they are put into the context of the whole of scripture, and fall back eventually on ad hominem, strawmen and various logical fallacies.

If you disagree, I invite you to demonstrate that this is not so.

 

[JIM]

That would imply that the Bible does not contain absolute truths and/or that they can not be ascertained from the Bible itself. It denies that the Bible is self interpreting and the best we can do is develop our opinions and beliefs by the Bible being read and understood through pieces of it here and there, rather than as a whole, unified, non contradictory, revelation of God and His truth.

Nah. That does not imply anything like that at all. And the very fact that it does not imply it deflates and negates the very argument you posted in the next paragraph.

 

[Arial]

`...just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the pleasure of His will.` (Eph. 1: 3 & 4)

`And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. ` (Rom. 8: 28 & 29)

I would say that Calvinist think that because it says `predestined` that then God chose these people and not others. (Is that correct what Calvinists believe?)

That is correct and that is what they say. But it is not just because the word predestine is used. It is because of all the many, many times the NT refers to the believer as being "elect", "chosen," "called," "foreknown." The argument against this says the election and predestination do not refer to individuals but to the church, or as in the above passages to being holy, without blame, before Him, adopted and conformed to His image. As though all those things can applied to the body of Christ, but not individuals. As though someone God elected and predestined would not automatically be all those things.

As well, the theology stems from God's self revelation that we see in the OT as sovereign, as the One who saves, as the One who chooses, individuals, nations, times, places etc.

However, a careful reading of those scriptures keeping in mind God`s overall purpose through Christ for Israel and the nations as well, we realise that when God planned that His Son should have a Body of believers, adopted as sons, then it is those who come into Christ`s Body that are predestined to be like Him, to be conformed to His image.

See above.

That was not possible before Christ ascended and was made Head of the Body.

And----? How does that exactly refute the Calvinist view of predestination?

I will also say that Calvinists do not have a good understanding of God`s character and His purposes through Christ.

That is just a statement of opinion. We all have them. Opinions are not bad. Humans are full of them from head to toe. They may conform to truth or they may not. I have no way of addressing this because it doesn't tell my why and in what way their understanding of God's character and purposes through Christ are not good. Or what the good understanding is. Therefore I rest my case on what I said about the manner in which Arminianists address the issues.

 

[Arial]

Nah. That does not imply anything like that at all. And the very fact that it does not imply it deflates and negates the very argument you posted in the next paragraph.

JIM! To simply say it does not imply anything like that at all is simply to justify your position, not support it. In what way does it not imply it? SHow your work!

 

[JIM]

JIM! To simply say it does not imply anything like that at all is simply to justify your position, not support it. In what way does it not imply it? SHow your work!

Arial, you simply said it did. To simply say that does imply that is all simply to justify your position, not support it.

 

[Arial]

Arial, you simply said it did. To simply say that does imply that is all simply to justify your position, not support it.

Listen either stop the tit for tat, support what you say, offer some substance to your posts, or be quiet. It is like a mosquito buzzing around the ear. Otherwise the natural conclusion is that you are just here to be disruptive and that against forum rules.

There are other forums that love that sort of thing but this isn't one of them.

 

[CCShorts]

Very insightful post.
What do you propose to substitute Calvinism with?
When in conversation with Arminians, I don't like to use the term exactly because of what you said.
They have created a caricature of their own making and that cannot be broken down.
I tend to refer to Reformed theology or the doctrines of grace.

Calvinism is Calvinism but what they have manufactured is something different but they call it “calvinism” to intentionally create confusion.

The purpose of a straw man is to make it appear like a “man” when it’s not.

I have suggested in the past that we call it Leightonism:

Leightonism
[leyt-n-ˈizəm]

NOUN
informal
derogatory

• a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, marked by strong emphasis on the misrepresentation of Calvinism while maintaining the continued mislabeling of it under the same name as “Calvinism”:

Leightonistic
[leyt-n-ˈnistik]

ADJECTIVE

• of or pertaining to a misrepresentation of Calvinism while continuing to mislabel it “Calvinism”:

“You can tell that post is very Leightonistic in its intent.”

Leightonist
[leyt-n-ist]

NOUN
informal
derogatory

• a follower of a distinct practice, system, or philosophy, weather intentional or accidental, that misrepresents Calvinism and continues to mislabel the misrepresentations under the same name as “Calvinism” even after being corrected multiple times:

“I corrected her multiple times but he remains a strict Leightonist.”

 

[Bob Carabbio]

When an individual ever meets the Creator of the universe they will know it. The experience changes everything about them.

BOY HOWDY!!! Is this ever absoletely true!!!! I've never been the same since that day back in '63 when I surrendered, Repented and cried out to God in FAITH - and everything changed. And no "ism" had anything whatsoever to do with that.