The Theology in Calvinism

[Arial]

And lets not forget that when someone comes against non reformed believers, before they do so they misstate and misrepresent their teachings in order to come against it. When the non calvinist does the work of showing where their misrepresentation is and why its a misrepresentation, and how, that too is ignored in the entire rest of the exchanges.

hope this helps !!!

Well that is bound to get us a long way down the road to a productive discussion. I have seen the same type of one ups man ship used on the playground of elementary school. But one would expect it there, given the age of the participants. It is kind of a shock here though.

 

[civic]

Well that is bound to get us a long way down the road to a productive discussion. I have seen the same type of one ups man ship used on the playground of elementary school. But one would expect it there, given the age of the participants. It is kind of a shock here though.

The opposite is true which I was pointing out to you . Of course you will see your opponents that way just like the other side does. No one is unbiased and if you think you are then I can’t help you see otherwise .

 

[Arial]

There are several Calvinist posters on the forum . And everyone is free to frequent any forum they want. Personally I like to debate Calvinists and have my views challenged.

That would be wonderful except that you never consider your views challenged. Mainly because you simply disregard what they say.

The truth is Calvinists don’t like debating me since I know the doctrines of grace better than most of them and can argue them better with scripture than they can. I did it for decades and known them well and have them memorized since I defended them on a daily basis online for the past 20 years . I know it’s strengths and its weaknesses.

That is a bit like me saying I have studied math, and I used to want to be a mathematician and began to be one, and agreed but no longer want to be a mathematician, but I know math better than a mathematician. Anyway you are using your word, as the sole support for your argument that your view of Calvinism is superior to what the doctrines truly teach as stated by those who debate (and I use that word as loosely as you do for a debate requires all points to be presented and refuted and you do not do that). A bit arrogant and presumptions wouldn't you agree, for someone to take that stance, make that claim? Especially when they do not follow through with what they claim to do.

 

[Arial]

The opposite is true which I was pointing out to you . Of course you will see your opponents that way just like the other side does. No one is unbiased and if you think you are then I can’t help you see otherwise .

Of course I am biased. If I weren't I wouldn't have any beliefs at all! The question is, is the bias towards what scripture teaches,, taken as a concise integrated teaching, or does it lean more towards personal preferences and then the bias confirmed by ignoring some things and accepting others. IOW does it start from internal desires or does it involve seeking truth whether one likes it or not.

 

[civic]

That would be wonderful except that you never consider your views challenged. Mainly because you simply disregard what they say.

That is a bit like me saying I have studied math, and I used to want to be a mathematician and began to be one, and agreed but no longer want to be a mathematician, but I know math better than a mathematician. Anyway you are using your word, as the sole support for your argument that your view of Calvinism is superior to what the doctrines truly teach as stated by those who debate (and I use that word as loosely as you do for a debate requires all points to be presented and refuted and you do not do that). A bit arrogant and presumptions wouldn't you agree, for someone to take that stance, make that claim? Especially when they do not follow through with what they claim to do.

Not the same at all a terrible analogy . I mentioned the non Calvinist posters I debated when I was a Calvinist mentioning them in my post and they affirmed what I said was true. So it does not matter one iota what you think about me being a Calvinist . The ones I mentioned who know me can attest it was a fact and I know the doctrines of grace ( tulip ) inside out.

hope this helps !!!

 

[e v e]

I'm glad i do not know tulip 'inside and out'
since I know for sure its wrong and do not
want to be in a snakes belly.

all I need is to read T and the rest is only going down hill. I don't trust calvin or his invented sect.

 

[civic]

I'm glad i do not know tulip 'inside and out'
since I know for sure its wrong and do not
want to be in a snakes belly.

all I need is to read T and the rest is only going down hill. I don't trust calvin or his invented sect.

as we know the T came from augustine. Then the reformers bough into it and developed the doctrine. It was absent from the church until augustine infiltrated the church with his many heresies

 

[Arial]

Not the same at all a terrible analogy . I mentioned the non Calvinist posters I debated when I was a Calvinist mentioning them in my post and they affirmed what I said was true. So it does not matter one iota what you think about me being a Calvinist . The ones I mentioned who know me can attest it was a fact and I know the doctrines of grace ( tulip ) inside out.

hope this helps !!!

Could we get back to the subject instead of self defense? You have a lot of questions I asked that you have not yet answered. Things that I have said on the subject not yet addressed head on. That would mean in order to refute what I have said, you would need to show me what is wrong with them in some way besides simply quoting scriptures out of context that you present as though your interpretation of them is the only possible one.

 

[Arial]

Penal means to punish and the doctrine teaches that the Father was punishing the Son, forsook Him , sin separated the Father and Son and could not look upon Him. It’s a disunity in the Tri- Unity of God. A fractured Godhead. PSA 101.

Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.

Background

The Penal-Substitution Theory of the atonement was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity; however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution.

 

[civic]

Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.

Background

The Penal-Substitution Theory of the atonement was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity; however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution.

What is the source for the above quote ?

Please site the source . Did you get it from theopedia ?

 

[Arial]

someone comes against non reformed believers, before they do so they misstate and misrepresent their teachings in order to come against it.

No non Calvinist has ever stated that is misstate or misrepresent their teachings. And I never have. On the other hand I have shown you how everytime you declare something as being a Calvinist doctrine you mistate it. I show you HOW it is misstated and how it misrepresents what Calvinists teach, by showing you the reality. You ignore it utterly and simply say you know more than I do about my own beliefs. And you are not now having exchanges with any other Calvinist from your past, but with me.

Here is an interesting fact thought. Charles Finney became a pastor in a Reformed Presbyterian church by passing all their theological testing before ordaining him. Once in their pulpit he made the claim of having been Reformed and then proceeded to tear down all the Reformed teachings from within, presenting himself as an expert. And his intention was to kill the doctrines that are in tulip. He nearly did. In fact it was declared dead by a judge. But oh sad news, it only slumbered for awhile.

 

[Arial]

What is the source for the above quote ?

Please site the source .

https://www.theopedia.com › penal-substitutionary-atonement

 

[civic]

https://www.theopedia.com › penal-substitutionary-atonement

Figures it’s unreliable just like wiki.

Let me know when you have a known and recognized Reformed / Calvinist source .

Until then it’s still nothing but your subjective opinion on the topic.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Arial]

Figures it’s unreliable just like wiki.

Let me know when you have a known and recognized Reformed / Calvinist source .

Until then it’s still nothing but your subjective opinion on the topic.

hope this helps !!!

How easy that is to say. Here is this from theopedia themselves.

An editor is not required to agree with everything in the secondary doctrinal statement, but all of Theopedia's content is, in accordance with the writing guide, required to conform to it. This secondary statement affirms the Together for the Gospel Statement, the The Cambridge Declaration of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, and the Calvinistic doctrines of grace.

Maybe you should have checked before you simply made a statement, with such sneering satisfaction.

 

[civic]

How easy that is to say. Here is this from theopedia themselves.

An editor is not required to agree with everything in the secondary doctrinal statement, but all of Theopedia's content is, in accordance with the writing guide, required to conform to it. This secondary statement affirms the Together for the Gospel Statement, the The Cambridge Declaration of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, and the Calvinistic doctrines of grace.

Maybe you should have checked before you simply made a statement, with such sneering satisfaction.

No one on theology debate boards uses wiki/theo as a reliable source.

 

[Arial]

@civic @atpollard

 

[Arial]

No one on theology debate boards uses wiki/theo as a reliable source.

No one!!!!!???? I just did. And being a Calvinist myself, I find what it said about PSA correct. Of course that accounts for nothing because it disagrees with the way you choose to portray it. In any case, per usual, what you post as the the be all and end all to the matter is as empty as empty can possible be.

But I understand.

Here are some truisms concerning the male of the species. And of course it is stereotype but like old wives tales, they contain an element of truth based on evidence.

They find it humiliating to ask for directions.
They find it humiliating to say "I don't know," or "I was wrong." And so they will not do any of those things no matter how wrong or what foolishness arises because of these mental roadblocks.

 

[civic]

No one!!!!!???? I just did. And being a Calvinist myself, I find what it said about PSA correct. Of course that accounts for nothing because it disagrees with the way you choose to portray it. In any case, per usual, what you post as the the be all and end all to the matter is as empty as empty can possible be.

But I understand.

Here are some truisms concerning the male of the species. And of course it is stereotype but like old wives tales, they contain an element of truth based on evidence.

They find it humiliating to ask for directions.
They find it humiliating to say "I don't know," or "I was wrong." And so they will not do any of those things no matter how wrong or what foolishness arises because of these mental roadblocks.

Exactly you did lol. That was my point.

 

[Rockson]

Stating that something is a universal truth does not make it one.

And your trying to connect doubt to something which is sure doesn't make you right.

First of all it is something you could never support as universal and as long as there are agnostics and atheists it couldn't possibly be universal as truth.

So when Jesus brought up being a good neighbor and the royal law that your neighbor is any human being in need Luke 10:29 then your of the opinion it's OK to pass right on by someone. You recall that's what the religious priests did to the beaten up man along the side of the road. So your position is God is like the religious priest who is indifferent and really couldn't care less about the pain and grief of others.

Deut 14:2 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for His treasured possession, out of all the people who are on the face of the earth.

You're not getting that was not a favoritism in regard to salvation itself but to whom will be used to deliver it to the human race. Israel was chosen to be a lighthouse nation to the world. Lest you doubt that see the next verse. Being Israel and being chosen for a job and assignment had nothing to do with a favoritism you're talking about....a favoritism of who gets life.

Matt 8:11, Many will come from the east to the west and will take their place at the feast with Abraham, Issacs and Jacob but the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown out in to outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing or teeth.

So let's keep this straight and it should be self evident what I've always meant. God not having partiality or favoritism we have ALWAYS meant that to mean when it come to salvation.

Are those instructions to God or are they instructions to believers.

And you were talking about here the Bible verse in James 2 but there you go again. Trying to make it seem that one's neighbor ISN'T REALLY any other human being in need which God says it is and making it seem God won't love people on the same level he asks us to. Another thing I think you failed to consider. For us to even LOVE all those about us requires the fruit of the Spirit one of which is LOVE to enable us to do it. Galatians 5: 23

We can do all things through Christ which strengthens us. Phil 4:13 So....God loves through us all neighbors.....oh but hold on now.....I forgot.....God can't really do that for he doesn't even have love towards them! So I guess we're on our own with our own capacities right? Nope, wrong. God LOVES ALL neighbors a million times more than we ever could and it's his love flowing through us that they're to see.

And what exactly was James talking about? (Again with isolated from any context in order to produce a "proof text".)

Sorry Arial but it's isolated nothing. For your own sake Arial you should just acknowledge. God loves all neighbors and it's not possible that we can love more than God. If you said we can and must I'd have to ask are you kidding me??? And that alone would have God be less than God.

 

[civic]

And your trying to connect doubt to something which is sure doesn't make you right.

So when Jesus brought up being a good neighbor and the royal law that your neighbor is any human being in need Luke 10:29 then your of the opinion it's OK to pass right on by someone. You recall that's what the religious priests did to the beaten up man along the side of the road. So your position is God is like the religious priest who is indifferent and really couldn't care less about the pain and grief of others.


You're not getting that was not a favoritism in regard to salvation itself but to whom will be used to deliver it to the human race. Israel was chosen to be a lighthouse nation to the world. Lest you doubt that see the next verse. Being Israel and being chosen for a job and assignment had nothing to do with a favoritism you're talking about....a favoritism of who gets life.

Matt 8:11, Many will come from the east to the west and will take their place at the feast with Abraham, Issacs and Jacob but the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown out in to outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing or teeth.

So let's keep this straight and it should be self evident what I've always means. God not having partiality or favoritism we have ALWAYS meant that to mean when it come to salvation.


And you were talking about here the Bible verse in James 2 but there you go again. Trying to make it seem that one's neighbor ISN'T REALLY any other human being in need which God says it is and making it seem God won't love people on the same level he asks us to. Another thing I think you failed to consider. For us to even LOVE all those about us requires the fruit of the Spirit one of which is LOVE to enable us to do it. Galatians 5: 23

We can do all things through Christ which strengthens us. Phil 4:13 So....God loves through us all neighbors.....oh but hold on now.....I forgot.....God can't really do that for he doesn't even have love towards them! So I guess we're on our own with our own capacities right? Nope, wrong. God LOVES ALL neighbors a million times more than we ever could and it's his love flowing through us that they're to see.

Sorry Arial but it's isolated nothing. For your own sake Arial you should just acknowledge. God loves all neighbors and it's not possible that we can love more than God. If you said we can and must I'd have to ask are you kidding me??? And that alone would have God be less than God.

thank you for revealing the heart of God/Christ with scripture brother. that is irrefutable regardless of ones position. Jesus and Paul go to the heart of the matter.