We could simply copy and paste all the posts from the last 50 times this discussion took place on FR.
Your scriptural references are useful.
No it isn’t. This forum is for news, not a religious war.
WHAT A COINCIDENCE!
***T.U.L.I.P. is an acronym used by Calvinists to describe the main five points of Calvinism. ***
Did Calvin come up with this or did it come about after he he had died, at the time of the Remonstrants who wanted the beliefs of Jacob Arminius.
Wasn’t TULIP the Calvinist answer to them?
No it isn't. It's just trolling for an argument that promotes disunity among the body of Christ. In this day and age, the less disunity we all have, the better.
A more worthwhile action is to study your bible, ALL of it, and largely ignore what other people claim to get out of it. If it's there, and you study frequently, you will find it. We must be like the Bereans, intelligent and studious, not mindless idiots who must be spoon-fed dogma of any flavor.
Too many people on FR are consumed with dividing the Christians. Why? What purpose does it stand? I grew up Calvinist and mos tof my family still are. They are going to heaven! I am no longer Calvinist but I am also going to heaven!
Quit letting the devil divide us! Quit spreading disention and animosity! That is not the Holy Spirit but the pride of man!
I object to this thread primarily because of the inflammatory title. I certainly do not object to the discussion.
Second, it is simplistic to reduce the doctrines propounded by John Calvin to the “TULIP” acronym. The reality is that those doctrines embodied by TULIP were documented in response to a divergence from sound doctrine long AFTER Calvin was dead by the Synod of Dordt held by Calvin’s followers. John Calvin espoused a wide range of doctrines well beyond TULIP. His life work, Institutes of the Christian Religion, begins with a dissertation on the subject of personal piety. Calvin moved his description of election to later sections of the Institutes in order to allay such objections.
Third, the arguments proposed in this post are also simplistic with no regard for alternative views. For instance, reading Ephesians 1:4 it is quite plain that it is “us” who are chosen “from the foundation of the world”. Of course Christ had been chosen, but, as stated in Eph 1:4, so are we!
Clearly Calvin, and those of us from the Reformed tradition, believe that God’s offer of the Gospel; i.e., Good News, is to be delivered to ALL people. However, as much as one doesn’t like the implications of Ephesians 1:4 (and a host of others) some folks will simply not respond because, in the end, they were not chosen by God.
The point of the doctrine is two-fold: First, salvation is the work of God, not ourselves “lest any man should boast!” Second, it is intended for assurance of salvation so that those who follow Christ can be confident that He who chose us will hold us in His hand until our final deliverance is secured.
“Its a discussion worth having. “
...with God. Only God knows whether Calvinism is correct or whether Mary was a perpetual virgin and other similar Catholic vs Protestant debates. No one here knows. If they claim to know - run away from them.
Go have your religious wars somewhere else.
bleeeech.... There is so much distortion in this piece I won’t even bother
The Calvinist were also enthusiastically beheading Anabaptists and Catholics at the same time the former were minding their own business and the later were fighting off the invasion of the Muslim hordes invading southeasten Europe.
It was the Anabaptists who are largely responsible for bringing the tradition of religious freedom to America, not the Calvinistic Protestants.
It was the Catholics who were largely responsible for protecting Europe from the invading Muslim hordes, not the Calvinists.
So, on one hand, I don't mind seeing them get their come-uppance from a Calvinist trashing thread. But, on the other, I will observe that they are one of the most conservative voting Christian groups in America and it is unproductive and undesirable to form circular firing squads.
I assert that the argument posed here can be refuted by a single biblical example that contradicts the assertions of the argument.
For example, if I can find one example in the Bible of a person who was unable to be saved through faith in Jesus, that would refute the argument that Jesus died for All, and that All have the choice.
Hebrews provides the argument that such people exist, through it’s discussion of how God creates some vessels for honor, and some for dishonor. No child of God ends in dishonor, and no creation of God can be turned from God’s purpose. So when Hebrews claims that God has purposely created some people for dishonor, it should mean that some people simply can NOT be saved. If they could, they could overcome God’s will for their lives.
Pharoah had his heart hardened, so he could not choose the “right” thing. The Pharasees clearly could NOT choose to believe in Jesus and take him down from the Cross, because without their unbelief, Jesus would not be sacrificed for our sins.
There are of course scriptures which state that we are chosen by God. But they have been argued, and it would take dissertations to explain why such scriptures mean what they seem to say, while other scriptures such as those presented here do not.
But an example: Saying Jesus died for All does not refute that some cannot accept. In fact, if you assert that Jesus actually did die for ALL, then you have asserted that Jesus is not all-powerful, because you are not arguing that all people ARE saved, just that all people COULD be saved.
Which makes the argument “Jesus died to pay for ALL the sins of ALL people, but some people then make his sacrifice ineffectual”. How can a person make Jesus’ sacrifice ineffectual? Only if Jesus did not actually die for ALL can some not be saved.
But if some will not be saved, and therefore Jesus did not die for ALL our sins, clearly the ALL in the sentence does not mean “effectually for every person”. So you can’t argue that the ALL means that his death opened the door for ALL. It is cleaner for the doctrine of omnipotence that Jesus would know at the time of his death exactly which sins he was dying for, and that his death would pay for only those sins. Note that this does NOT in any way prove predestination, only foreknowledge. I only offer to refute the claim that “ALL” requires that everybody have some shot at salvation.
There are many other procedural arguments. If everybody has an opportunity to be saved, then what is the point of sending out missionaries? It seems odd to argue that God does not choose who can be saved, but some lowly creation of his, by deciding whether or not to be a missionary, chooses whether some other person will EVER get to hear the good news, and therefore will get the “chance” to decide for themselves.
Calvinism provides a “fairer” view, which is that if God has chosen someone, God clearly will provide a way for that person to come to the saving Faith needed. Again, not proof, just saying that it seems more logical.
I prefer the Calvinistic doctrine to one where my salvation rests on the happenstance of my birth, the goodwill of others in sharing the Gospel, and the luck of the draw to manage to avoid being killed by some other fallen creation before I get a chance to hear the good news and respond to it.
Which is always my last argument. Here is some person, who has not made a choice, but is about to make a choice to believe and be saved. But, from a free will perspective, they have not yet made that choice, it will happen in 10 minutes. But here is an evil gunman, a tool of Satan. He has a gun to our future brother’s head.
Can that tool of Satan deny salvation to this future brother, by pulling the trigger? According to the pure free-will argument, yes. According to Calvinism, no. It seem odd to provide such power to the devil.
We could argue that God would intervene, preventing the tool of Satan from pulling the trigger. But that would deny the tool free will. And wasn’t the argument that we all have free will?
My argument is that we have free will, but also that God has control over everything. This is contradictory, and I can only live my life to the best of my ability to follow God’s commandments. Which means I must tell others how to be saved, because I am commanded to do so, even though I might believe that only the chosen will be saved.
I know of a Baptist pastor who is mission minded and leads mission trips locally, nationally, and to undeveloped countries (the latest to Haiti), praises the Lord openly with raised hands, and preaches free will of the individual.
He was fired by a minority of his church who accused him of being Calvinist, while at the same time proclaiming him to be a Godly pastor. Of course the Calvinistic claims came four to five months after he was dismissed, in order to convince those members who still asked why.
The claim that he was Calvinistic was the last explanation, and followed claims that he was charismatic, too ecumenical, did not spending enough time taking care of local missions, and was taking mission teams on what one elderly member described as “vacations”.
The real reasons were for Godly stands he took against marrying a nonbelievers and believer (who were living in sin), preventing a young man who had spent 18 months in jail for having sex with an under aged girl from helping with the youth group, telling a 17 year old (who had dropped out of school and taken the GED)that he could no longer be part of the high school youth group, and not pursuing an advanced degree from a seminary. The pastor had served the church for ten years.
For over a year the group undermined the pastor at every turn, they spread a whisper campaign against the pastor, saying he wanted the fire the deacons and change the by laws. As part of the process they contacted members who had not been in church for a long time (calling and sending letters to these members)to come and vote against the pastor. When members would ask why they were trying to remove the pastor, they would say you need to ask “man who was leading the movement”. Reasons changed with individuals asking the question.
The one that really stuck was the charge of “Calvinism”, and seems to be the latest “trend” in explanation for three or four churches in our area being without pastors.
So the church goes on, lead by the deacons.
IF you desire a ‘discussion’ of God, why not start at Genesis 1:1? IT is not an allegory as many claim. Why is it all these sects always have a man/woman before GOD?
In the future you will approach the FR Posting Council on bended knee and say, “By yer leave m’lardship” keeping in mind the advice from The Great Rodney, “Can’t we all just get along!?”.
I disagree with all three and attend a southern baptist church.
BTW, I also believe that when the bible says “eternal life” vs death, destruction, perish, etc. that it means that only those with “eternal life” have “eternal life”. The rest are destroyed.
That can cause heated arguments at church (and did once), so I only bring it up if I think it’s not gonna cause a scene.
Sounds like the old Pellagus vs. Augustine, Luther vs. Eurasmus, Calvin vs. Jacob Arminius arguments.
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)