Calvinists' Dilemma

[Samie]

Again, He was talking to Jews at this point so we certainly are not teaching against Him. I remind you I told you that this was 'deduced' (deductive). Inductive comes from the text directly. Deductive is what we 'think' applies from the text but what we are logicking away from it. For future reference, whatever is not agreed upon and not explicit from scripture, cannot be used in argument.


You aren't seeing what is applied on the time-line and when it changes, imho. It is my estimation that this is ONLY applicable to Jews in this point of time. A change-over doesn't automatically mean we extrapolate from earlier directives. There was a dramatic change from the Law to the gospel. Paul, for example, preached against Judaizing in Galatians.

Let's try to apply it to the Jews, as you wanted it applied.

The Jews are the descendants of Jacob whom God called Israel. In the OT, the Jews are referred to as Israel. The Father called Israel His elect. Jesus said the words He speak are not His own but His Father's. So what Jesus calls the subjects of the kingdom of God which you said refer to the Jews or Israel, are God's elect.

But for Calvinism, God's elect is not Calvinism's elect.

It really looks like Calvinism teaches opposite what God through Christ taught.

 

[Samie]

Let's try to apply it to the Jews, as you wanted it applied.

The Jews are the descendants of Jacob whom God called Israel. In the OT, the Jews are referred to as Israel. The Father called Israel His elect. Jesus said the words He speak are not His own but His Father's. So what Jesus calls the subjects of the kingdom of God which you said refer to the Jews or Israel, are God's elect.

But for Calvinism, God's elect is not Calvinism's elect.

It really looks like Calvinism teaches opposite what God through Christ taught.

If Calvinism's elect is NOT God's elect and vice-versa, then the teaching of Calvinism regarding the elect is not from God. And if not from God, then, . . .

The conclusion is obvious.

 

[Lon]

If Calvinism's elect is NOT God's elect and vice-versa, then the teaching of Calvinism regarding the elect is not from God. And if not from God, then, . . .

The conclusion is obvious.

Don't take this as a slam, just a inability: I don't think you are cut out for theology discussion. You miss more and don't seem to comprehend what the rest of us are able to get and understand. I realize AMR and others have told you the same. Just chalk this up to yet another who thinks and assesses the same about you. If you learn something, you can move on to something you are actually good at. If not, we can just put up with you, nod our heads, but think something else about you in the back of our minds...

 

[Samie]

Don't take this as a slam, just a inability: I don't think you are cut out for theology discussion. You miss more and don't seem to comprehend what the rest of us are able to get and understand. I realize AMR and others have told you the same. Just chalk this up to yet another who thinks and assesses the same about you. If you learn something, you can move on to something you are actually good at. If not, we can just put up with you, nod our heads, but think something else about you in the back of our minds...

Completely understood, brother. But at least you tried to defend Calvinism. Sadly, you seemed to have miserably failed.

Going back to where our discussion started a couple of hours ago, your failure more likely than not simply underscored the fact that to defend Calvinism in this issue is, borrowing your phrase, "a bit beyond the prowess of about every [Calvinist] member of TOL".

 

[Samie]

20 days after it was asked someone finally stood up for Calvinism. Good try.

Maybe another Calvinist wants to defend Calvinism in this issue:

If Calvinism teaches the truth, why could it not stand the test of Scriptures? Example:

Calvinism teaches NONE of the elect can perish.

Christ teaches there are from the elect who will perish:

Matthew 8:11-12 NIV 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

 

[Lon]

Completely understood, brother. But at least you tried to defend Calvinism. Sadly, you seemed to have miserably failed.

Thanks, said at least in a way that leaves room for the needed doubt.

Going back to where our discussion started a couple of hours ago, your failure more likely than not simply underscored the fact that to defend Calvinism in this issue is, borrowing your phrase, "a bit beyond the prowess of about every [Calvinist] member of TOL".

Well, of course you are free to turn it around. I'm simply saying you aren't grasping the pertinent to the conversation. I 'think' I explain things fairly clearly, if a bit overtly simplistic. I've also seen others talking with you explain the answer in ways I understand, but appreciate that you do not. Between all conversation, is probably not even a 'desire' to understand. That's where it stops being conversation, even more so if it is inability rather than desire. I could keep going, but all I am saying is that most will not entertain 'yet another' proverbial nail in the Calvinists coffin when you are just going to move on looking for another. It is very much 'agenda' at that point, Samie.

Crusades tend to only ever be seen as fanatical. Other fanatics enjoin them, but that is a rather small and eclectic audience. You can blow-horn your victory at that point, but most of us don't picket outside office buildings with a blow-horn, nor get handcuffed and arrested. There might be a need or nitch filled by it, but I don't think most of us actually appreciate that kind of thing and prefer to go through other stable channels. It is rather similar on TOL as well. We do have a few street-corner crusaders. They don't tend to do will in negotiation or defining discussions. They aren't really interested in that.

So, when I said not your strength, I wasn't implying you had none, perhaps the protestor on the street has a significant place in society. :idunno:

 

[Samie]

Thanks, said at least in a way that leaves room for the needed doubt.


Well, of course you are free to turn it around. I'm simply saying you aren't grasping the pertinent to the conversation. I 'think' I explain things fairly clearly, if a bit overtly simplistic. I've also seen others talking with you explain the answer in ways I understand, but appreciate that you do not. Between all conversation, is probably not even a 'desire' to understand. That's where it stops being conversation, even more so if it is inability rather than desire. I could keep going, but all I am saying is that most will not entertain 'yet another' proverbial nail in the Calvinists coffin when you are just going to move on looking for another. It is very much 'agenda' at that point, Samie.

Hi Lon;

I think there's no need to sour-grape after what's been posted in our short-lived discussion. Our posts speak for themselves.

Jews are God's elect. Scriptures say so EXPLICITLY. But Christ said many of them will be thrown out into outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And that's against Calvinism.

The Calvinists' dilemma seems to remain unresolved thus far. 20 days and counting.

 

[Lon]

The Calvinists' dilemma seems to remain unresolved thus far. 20 days and counting.

I realize it 'seems' that way to you. All of my previous points address that fact. You can keep counting what 'seems' to be, to you.

I suppose it is a bit sour, but I'm only troubled that theological discussion doesn't 'seem' to make sense to you. You 'seem' a bit sour toward Calvinists and worse, for not 'seeming' to grasp answers given nor 'seemingly' willing to look into sincere answers. It is this 'seeming' disdain against another's sincerity in trying to answer your question that might further sour any further conversation. "Why" and "bother" will quickly become the only response. Such will be accompanied by ignore-list relegation, occasional but half-hearted interaction from some, and generally an avoidance of your threads by all but a few. There are a few Calvinists on TOL that will entertain the sour dialogue. I'm not one of them. There is a point where I feel I need to cut losses or be bled to death by more razoring. You'll note that my response is increasingly headed that way. When dialogue is no longer honoring Christ, no longer meaningfully conveying mutually uplifting dialogue, no longer progressing toward the meaningful, I try to leave before it gets ugly and/or casts dispersion mutually upon our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a debate website, but I try to not do it without purpose. -Lon

Lets just say 'you win' so you can stop counting? You don't 'seem' to be interested in truth. It is a general dismissal that such is possible, even when counterfacts have been sufficiently given that would stop a sincere person from 'counting.' "Maybe I've been given sufficient reason to stop counting" I'll leave you to your 20days and counting...It doesn't look honest to me, doesn't 'seem' like you are concerned with Christ, but it 'seems' yourself and whatever you deem your prowess, by concern.

 

[Robert Pate]

There are Calvinists who are fond of calling themselves and some others the Elect. The Elect, as per Calvinism, are specific persons for whom Christ died, and are assured of salvation with no possibility of getting lost.

However, the gospel that Jesus preached calls people to repentance (Mark 1:14, 15), because said He, unless people repent, they shall perish (Luke 13:3, 5).

Obviously, Jesus' call to repentance also applies to Calvinism's Elect, because Scriptures teach that God commands ALL people to repent:

ESV Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent

It appears that the gospel Calvinism teaches is different from the gospel that Jesus preached. And Scriptures warn people of preaching another gospel (Gal 1:6-9).

Will any Calvinist please explain?

Your silence could mean indirect admission that indeed you are preaching a gospel different from the gospel of Christ.

Of course its another Gospel. In the true Gospel Jesus atones for the sins of the world, 1 John 4:14. In the true Gospel "God so loves the world that he gives his only begotten Son" John 3:16.

The Calvinist Gospel is not about Christ at all, it's about being predestinated, which is a false Gospel.

 

[Robert Pate]

I realize it 'seems' that way to you. All of my previous points address that fact. You can keep counting what 'seems' to be, to you.

I suppose it is a bit sour, but I'm only troubled that theological discussion doesn't 'seem' to make sense to you. You 'seem' a bit sour toward Calvinists and worse, for not 'seeming' to grasp answers given nor 'seemingly' willing to look into sincere answers. It is this 'seeming' disdain against another's sincerity in trying to answer your question that might further sour any further conversation. "Why" and "bother" will quickly become the only response. Such will be accompanied by ignore-list relegation, occasional but half-hearted interaction from some, and generally an avoidance of your threads by all but a few. There are a few Calvinists on TOL that will entertain the sour dialogue. I'm not one of them. There is a point where I feel I need to cut losses or be bled to death by more razoring. You'll note that my response is increasingly headed that way. When dialogue is no longer honoring Christ, no longer meaningfully conveying mutually uplifting dialogue, no longer progressing toward the meaningful, I try to leave before it gets ugly and/or casts dispersion mutually upon our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a debate website, but I try to not do it without purpose. -Lon

Lets just say 'you win' so you can stop counting? You don't 'seem' to be interested in truth. It is a general dismissal that such is possible, even when counterfacts have been sufficiently given that would stop a sincere person from 'counting.' "Maybe I've been given sufficient reason to stop counting" I'll leave you to your 20days and counting...It doesn't look honest to me, doesn't 'seem' like you are concerned with Christ, but it 'seems' yourself and whatever you deem your prowess, by concern.

You are a Calvinist sympathizer. You see nothing wrong with these people that degrade the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and make it worthless.

 

[Crucible]

"All objections to predestination proceed from the wisdom of the flesh"
~Martin Luther

 

[Samie]

I realize it 'seems' that way to you. All of my previous points address that fact. You can keep counting what 'seems' to be, to you.

I suppose it is a bit sour, but I'm only troubled that theological discussion doesn't 'seem' to make sense to you. You 'seem' a bit sour toward Calvinists and worse, for not 'seeming' to grasp answers given nor 'seemingly' willing to look into sincere answers. It is this 'seeming' disdain against another's sincerity in trying to answer your question that might further sour any further conversation. "Why" and "bother" will quickly become the only response. Such will be accompanied by ignore-list relegation, occasional but half-hearted interaction from some, and generally an avoidance of your threads by all but a few. There are a few Calvinists on TOL that will entertain the sour dialogue. I'm not one of them. There is a point where I feel I need to cut losses or be bled to death by more razoring. You'll note that my response is increasingly headed that way. When dialogue is no longer honoring Christ, no longer meaningfully conveying mutually uplifting dialogue, no longer progressing toward the meaningful, I try to leave before it gets ugly and/or casts dispersion mutually upon our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a debate website, but I try to not do it without purpose. -Lon

Lets just say 'you win' so you can stop counting? You don't 'seem' to be interested in truth. It is a general dismissal that such is possible, even when counterfacts have been sufficiently given that would stop a sincere person from 'counting.' "Maybe I've been given sufficient reason to stop counting" I'll leave you to your 20days and counting...It doesn't look honest to me, doesn't 'seem' like you are concerned with Christ, but it 'seems' yourself and whatever you deem your prowess, by concern.

You have not given counterfacts relative to what Jesus taught that there are from the elect who will perish. You thought what you gave were counterfacts, but they are not when viewed under the lens of Scriptures.

In Matt 8:11-12, you said Jesus was referring to the Jews when he used the phrase "subjects of the kingdom" who will be thrown outside to darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, and according to you the Jews are not among Calvinism's elect. But according to the Bible, God called the Jews (or the Israelites) His elect.

For Lon: Jews are NOT among Calvinism's elect.
For God: Israel is His elect. (Isa 45:4)

Since Jesus' words are those of His Father's, then God's elect is Jesus' elect, but NOT Calvinism's elect. Ergo, Calvinism teaches against what Jesus taught.

Your turn, Lon. This time, please give valid counterfacts relative to the issue being discussed. And to be valid, they must be Bible-based.

 

[Lon]

Your turn, Lon. This time, please give valid counterfacts relative to the issue being discussed. And to be valid, they must be Bible-based.

...you aren't grasping the pertinent to the conversation. I 'think' I explain things fairly clearly...others talking with you explain the answer in ways I understand, but appreciate that you do not. ...where it stops being conversation....most will not entertain 'yet another' proverbial nail in the Calvinists coffin...you are just going to move on looking for another. It is very much 'agenda' at that point, Samie.

Crusades tend to only ever be seen as fanatical. :idunno:

 

[Samie]

OK, Lon. Thank you for throwing in the towel. At least you tried, but sadly, failed.

The Calvinists Dilemma remains unresolved. For other Calvinists who want to try and bail out Calvinism, here again:

If Calvinism teaches the truth, why could it not stand the test of Scriptures? Example:

Calvinism teaches NONE of the elect can perish.

Christ teaches there are from the elect who will perish:

Matthew 8:11-12 NIV 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

 

[Derf]

OK, Lon. Thank you for throwing in the towel. At least you tried, but sadly, failed.

The Calvinists Dilemma remains unresolved. For other Calvinists who want to try and bail out Calvinism, here again:

I think you lost that exchange. Lon is right that you are completely unresponsive to what he was saying. I'm not Calvinist, but your tactics (not your arguments, as they are vacuous, at best) make people want to go do something more productive.

 

[Crucible]

There is no Calvinist dilemma you moron :doh:

Put a sock in it- Reformed theology cannot be refuted because it mirrors your own presumptions- it is immune to reproof just as, let's say, Einstein's relativity. You cannot refute it Broseph

 

[Derf]

There is no Calvinist dilemma you moron :doh:

Put a sock in it- Reformed theology cannot be refuted because it mirrors your own presumptions- it is immune to reproof just as, let's say, Einstein's relativity. You cannot refute it Broseph

I'm not sure what that means. In reverse order:

Einstein's relativity is not immune to reproof except if it is completely proven. Since it is constantly subjected to testing, not everybody believes it is sufficiently proven--though it has survived significant testing.

Calvinism may very well be like that; it deserves respect for a comprehensive explanation, but it is hardly "completely proven".

Calvinism is just a subset of "Reformed theology", as evidenced by some pretty severe disagreements among Reformed theologians, living and dead. Which means that a goodly chunk of "Reformed theology" is indeed open to reproof, at least according to those disagreeing (and often very vocal) Reformed theologians.

As to mirroring one's "own presumptions", is that a reference to Samie's descriptions? Or a generic reference?

And as to Calvinist dilemmas, I presented some evidence of such earlier. And the proliferation of Calvinistic denominations due to disagreements is a fairly strong evidence of dilemmas within Calvinism, scriptural or otherwise.

 

[Samie]

There is no Calvinist dilemma you moron :doh:

Put a sock in it- Reformed theology cannot be refuted because it mirrors your own presumptions- it is immune to reproof just as, let's say, Einstein's relativity. You cannot refute it Broseph

It's been 21 days, and that's what you have come up with? Remember, that post was initially for you, but you ran away. So Lon took up the cudgels for you, but failed in his attempt.

Here again:

:rotfl:

You've done nothing more than randomly throw whatever you think is against Calvinism- all which is frankly weak and due to your inability to understand or accep predestination theology.

The only thing 'competent' is you're incompetence, in which you compensate for by getting people to chime in with your biases.

Weak? And me, incompetent? Let's see where your competence brings you.

If Calvinism teaches the truth, why could it not stand the test of Scriptures? Example:

Calvinism teaches NONE of the elect can perish.

Christ teaches there are from the elect who will perish:

Matthew 8:11-12 NIV 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Can you wiggle out from this Calvinist dilemma, competent one? It is weak, you say. Then bring out all what Calvinism has and resolve this dilemma brought against it by what Christ Himself declared.

I will wait either for you to address the above issue, or you may prefer to fabricate all sorts of excuses. You could even run away and hide. Your choice, competent one.

Are you ready to discuss now, or run away again?

 

[Crucible]

It's been 21 days, and that's what you have come up with? Remember, that post was initially for you, but you ran away. So Lon took up the cudgels for you, but failed in his attempt.

Here again:Are you ready to discuss now, or run away again?

Discuss what? That you've rehashed the same 'point' for three weeks straight, and no matter how it's shown to you to be false, you keep sitting here with exactly this over and over?

I'm not running away, you are just running your mouth with the same old thing. Is there an end to it? Find it, please.

 

[Samie]

Discuss what? That you've rehashed the same 'point' for three weeks straight, and no matter how it's shown to you to be false, you keep sitting here with exactly this over and over?

I'm not running away, you are just running your mouth with the same old thing. Is there an end to it? Find it, please.

You haven't even tried. Afraid?