What's calvinism?

[smaller]

helmut, it is a simple fact of Calvinism that God created the majority of humanity for the sole purpose of frying them forever and these people cannot do anything about it. They were predestined for this purpose, therefore my RIGHTful observation.

p.s. This is completely abhorrent to me. I cannot express how vile and depraved this belief is.

 

[helmet84]

Originally posted by helmet84

No. Go read Smaller's post 18 above. He said calvinism claims that the sole purpose of creating the majority of humanity was to torture them in fire forever .

That is not what Z man is saying. That is a false conclusion that you are drawing from his words.

-- helmet84

There, I changed my emphasis for clarification -- in case Zman reads this. Zman, read post 40 above to get the context.

Oh, and Smaller. Some calvinists believe that 'eternal destruction' does not imply 'eternal torture'. Rather, 'eternal destruction' means a destruction that is eternal in its nature, i.e. once that destruction takes place, there will be no resurrection for the participants. Or in other words, it is a 'death' that is eternal. They would say that the smoke from the destruction of the wicked that is described in Revelation is symbolic in meaning, not literal.

 

[smaller]

You are right helmet...

some are eternal annihilationists rather than eternal torturists...

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Clete--Putting words in God's mouth, hmm?

What are you talking about? :kookoo:

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by smaller

nice try turbo but lying is not profitable for anyone

and excuses for eternally damning your neighbor are worse

I don't damn anyone. But you're the one who's lying, giving unbelievers a false sense of security, rather than warning them that they need to repent and accept Christ.

• "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
  "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:16-18
  
  
  Deliver those who are drawn toward death,
  And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.
  If you say, "Surely we did not know this,"
  Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it?
  He who keeps your soul, does He not know it?
  And will He not render to each man according to his deeds? Proverbs 24:11-12

 

[Rolf Ernst]

The young lady started this thread by asking what is Calvinism. I notice that a lot of preople who are NOT Calvinists have taken it upon them selves to answer that question and have either out of ignorance or deliberate deceit grievously misrepresented what Calvinism is. I have no recollection of an Arminian making an effort to not misrepresent the doctrines they neither understand nor have any taste for, but I expect that she knows to give no credit to someone's words even if they do not know when they should be silent.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Why Smaller, you little wascal, where is your authority for saying that Calvinists believe God created men for the sole purpose of frying them ferever? I ain't never seen 'at in Scripture, an' ain't never heerd any1 say so but you. Play fair now, yawl hear?

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
in that case, i say that God did not create them for hell. they chose that themselves when they rejected God. why should they be with God when they don't want to be? that's like going against their will, kinda like calvinism.....

How is it at all possible that someone is a Christian when they do not really want to be? Have you ever heard someone say, "Well God, thanks for the salvation so that I will have eternal life, but I really wish I had the option to go to hell."???

That's absurd. Is this something Bob Enyart is teaching these days?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Swordsman

How is it at all possible that someone is a Christian when they do not really want to be? Have you ever heard someone say, "Well God, thanks for the salvation so that I will have eternal life, but I really wish I had the option to go to hell."???

That's absurd. Is this something Bob Enyart is teaching these days?

i'm not saying that about christians. i'm saying that God will save those who want to be saved (thus, christians) and won't save those who don't want to be saved (thus, not christians).

by the way i know nothing of what Bob Enyart teaches. the only place i've ever seen his work was back on this forum a while back on the debate of "does God exist" between him and Zakath.

 

[Apollo]

Don't take my jab at you too seriously! I'm just fooling around. But it is sort of silly to say that we are only truly free when our actions have no consequences. Every action has consequences! The "free" world you suggest couldn't even exist.

Not a problem. Clete, there are consequences for our actions, negative consequences, assuming a “crime” has occurred. What was Adam’s “crime”? Picking fruit out of season? No. Exercising free will. What was the penalty? Death. We are not talking about the “consequences” of running a stop sign, or walking on the grass, both “limitations” on our “free will.” We are talking about the consequences of rejecting Christianity’s god.

If the Christian god has made rejecting him a crime, punishable by death, how can we even pretend that we have a “free will” to accept or reject him? This, I thought, was relevant in a discussion of Calvinism. Calvinism rejects free will. Arminianism embraces free will. Yet, both systems deny free will by denying man the freedom to determine good and evil for himself. The freedom to “choose Jesus” – or else – is a strange sort of freedom.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Apollo

Not a problem. Clete, there are consequences for our actions, negative consequences, assuming a “crime” has occurred. What was Adam’s “crime”? Picking fruit out of season? No. Exercising free will. What was the penalty? Death. We are not talking about the “consequences” of running a stop sign, or walking on the grass, both “limitations” on our “free will.” We are talking about the consequences of rejecting Christianity’s god.

If the Christian god has made rejecting him a crime, punishable by death, how can we even pretend that we have a “free will” to accept or reject him? This, I thought, was relevant in a discussion of Calvinism. Calvinism rejects free will. Armenianism embraces free will. Yet, both systems deny free will by denying man the freedom to determine good and evil for himself. The freedom to “choose Jesus” – or else – is a strange sort of freedom.

But this misses the point! The fact is that we do choose, whether to our own destruction or otherwise is another topic. Besides that, it is the consequences of your actions that determine whether they are right or wrong in the first place. You pretend that God's rule against eating of the Tree of Knowledge was an arbitrary one, but you are wrong. The Tree was given as an alternative to God. Adam could have lived for thousands of years in a direct personal relationship with the living God during which he would have learned all there is to know about what it means to be good (and therefore what it means to be evil) but he CHOSE to disobey God and forfeit that relationship. And by the way, his punishment was both just and merciful.
Your thesis presumes God to be arbitrary and therefore unjust. It further is non-sequitur in that it doesn't follow as an argument against either Calvin or Armenius because your definition of ‘freedom’ is totally unrelated to either of theirs. Take your pick, either one of these reasons would be more than sufficient to reject what you've said here.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

But this misses the point! The fact is that we do choose, whether to our own destruction or otherwise is another topic. Besides that, it is the consequences of your actions that determine whether they are right or wrong in the first place. You pretend that God's rule against eating of the Tree of Knowledge was an arbitrary one, but you are wrong. The Tree was given as an alternative to God. Adam could have lived for thousands of years in a direct personal relationship with the living God during which he would have learned all there is to know about what it means to be good (and therefore what it means to be evil) but he CHOSE to disobey God and forfeit that relationship. And by the way, his punishment was both just and merciful.
Your thesis presumes God to be arbitrary and therefore unjust. It further is non-sequitur in that it doesn't follow as an argument against either Calvin or Armenius because your definition of ‘freedom’ is totally unrelated to either of theirs. Take your pick, either one of these reasons would be more than sufficient to reject what you've said here.

Resting in Him,
Clete

So, Clete. I'm assuming you "chose" God. If I am correct, then you have reason to boast about your salvation. Correct?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Swordsman

So, Clete. I'm assuming you "chose" God. If I am correct, then you have reason to boast about your salvation. Correct?

you can't boast in what all people are capable of :doh:

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

you can't boast in what all people are capable of :doh:

That's not what the Bible teaches. Hear it from the mouth of Jesus Himself.

John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Salvation isn't like buying a car or a TV. You don't go out and shop for it.

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Swordsman


John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Salvation isn't like buying a car or a TV. You don't go out and shop for it.

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

All men are drawn to God, and yet some refuse the gift of life.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Swordsman

So, Clete. I'm assuming you "chose" God. If I am correct, then you have reason to boast about your salvation. Correct?

This is such a tired and idiotic argument! Is this the best Calvinism has to offer in an attempt to debunk those who disagree with their heresy?

Do you have something to brag about because you said, "I do" when you married your wife?

When someone gives you a gift for your birthday, do you go around bragging about how terrific it is that you accepted the gift?

If you were drowning in a swimming pool and the lifeguard threw a life preserver to you, would you get the big head and start showing off about how you were so great to have grabbed it?

Give me a break!
You (that is Calvinists in general) give people a hard time saying that they have "saved themselves" and at the same time tell people that if they don't tithe that they've stolen from God. In one breath you say that you can do nothing to be saved and in the next you put them under the law and require them to obey.
Calvinist are so internally conflicted that they can't see up from down! If you want to debate Calvinism on its merits then lets get it on, but don't waste my time with this weak crap that's designed primarily to score cheap emotional points with those who don't know anything about the issues being debated.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Swordsman]

OK. Gonna have to break down your post here.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

This is such a tired and idiotic argument! Is this the best Calvinism has to offer in an attempt to debunk those who disagree with their heresy?

Its not Calvinism at all. Its Christianity. And just because something isn't open theology doesn't mean it's heresy.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Do you have something to brag about because you said, "I do" when you married your wife?

No. God brought her into my life. I do brag about her though because I'm proud of her. She is my wife. Equally, I like to glorify God, and show and tell others what He's done for me.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
When someone gives you a gift for your birthday, do you go around bragging about how terrific it is that you accepted the gift?

No, I did nothing to "get" the gift. Same with salvation. Any concept of salvation other than salvation by grace really isn't salvation at all.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
If you were drowning in a swimming pool and the lifeguard threw a life preserver to you, would you get the big head and start showing off about how you were so great to have grabbed it?

No. I sure wouldn't. Good analogy though. I'll remember that one.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Give me a break!

No breaks for you Private Pfeiffer! Now drop and give me 20!

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You (that is Calvinists in general) give people a hard time saying that they have "saved themselves" and at the same time tell people that if they don't tithe that they've stolen from God.

This doesn't sound anywhere near what a Calvinist might say.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
In one breath you say that you can do nothing to be saved and in the next you put them under the law and require them to obey.

Not it at all. I think you're confusing the law with exercising faith. Two completely different ideas.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Calvinist are so internally conflicted that they can't see up from down!

I would expect a comment like this from an OVer.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
If you want to debate Calvinism on its merits then lets get it on, but don't waste my time with this weak crap that's designed primarily to score cheap emotional points with those who don't know anything about the issues being debated.

Resting in Him,
Clete

It's not a debatable issue really. Salvation by grace is clearly taught in most of the NT. This view of how someone can "choose" God and create his own saving faith is not at all Biblical. I would venture to say that you know where these particular passages are, you just draw your own conclusions to fit your own personal views. Don't do that. That's why there are so many different sects of religion out there. They open their ears to a certain passage and close them for another.

And what's "weak" about John 6:44? No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him. That is very clear. No need for your greek dictionary there.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Swordsman

That's not what the Bible teaches. Hear it from the mouth of Jesus Himself.

John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Salvation isn't like buying a car or a TV. You don't go out and shop for it.

John 12:32
But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Originally posted by Swordsman

That's not what the Bible teaches. Hear it from the mouth of Jesus Himself.

John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Salvation isn't like buying a car or a TV. You don't go out and shop for it.

Sword,

I ask you also (along with rolf, helmet and lee) to consider the context before ripping a verse out of context and making it a pre-text. Concerning John 6:44, we must also look at verse 45...

John 6:44,45
6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me drags him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
6:45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who hears and has learned from the Father comes to Me.

So, what's the point here? Who comes to the Son? "They shall all be taught" refers to everyone. Only those who hear and have learned from the Father come to the Son.

In short, all are taught by God. Those who hear the gospel and respond (have learned) come to the Son. Quite simple, huh?

--Jeremy

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

John 12:32
But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

WOW! So even the non-Christians too huh. Is that what the "all" means here?