The Theology in Calvinism

Dream boat? Well you won't be the first Calvinist I'm sure who felt their Calvinist ship could never sink. Regardless of well solid and secure you might think things are if you even hear of Calvinists getting into the life boats you might not want to laugh it off.
Well you know what they said about the Titanic... it was unsinkable. Apparently the iceberg didn't get the memo.
 
That is what happens when one believes in the doctrines of man, it sinks like the titanic did when its tested.
It's actually way worse than that. Check this out from the history Of Calvinism.

Jacques Gruet, a known opponent of Calvin, was arrested and tortured twice a day for a month in an effort to get him to confess to the accusations against him. Then, on July 26, 1547, he was tied to a stake, his feet were nailed to it, and he was beheaded.

Gruet’s book was later found and burned along with his house while his wife was thrown out into the street to watch. This was not unusual behavior to those who dared to challenge or disagree with Calvin: Gruet was put to the torture many times (444) during many days … In reality such unmeasured use of torture was in Geneva a Calvinistic innovation.

Gruet, refusing under the worst stress of torture to incriminate anyone else, at length, in order to end it, pleaded guilty to the charges against him, praying in his last extremity for a speedy death. On July 26, 1547, his half-dead body was beheaded on the scaffold, the torso being tied and the feet nailed thereto. Such were the judicial methods and mercies of a reformed Christianity, guided by a chief reformer.

Michael Servetus, a scientist, a physician, and theologian was born in Villanova in 1511. He angered Calvin by returning a copy of Calvin’s writings with critical comments in the margins. Calvin drew up a doctrine of over thirty official charges against Servetus, one of which was the rejection of John Calvin’s teaching concerning infant baptism leading to salvation. Five days into the trial, Calvin wrote, “I hope the death sentence will at least be passed upon him.” He also stated regarding Servetus, “If he come, and my influence can avail, I shall not suffer him to depart alive.”

Calvin got his wish on October 27, 1553. Servetus was burned at the stake. He was screaming as he was literally baked alive from the feet upward and suffered the heat of the flames for thirty minutes before finally succumbing to one of the most painful and brutal methods of death possible. Servetus had written a theology book, a copy of which was strapped to the chest of Servetus. The flames from the burning book rose against his face as he screamed in agony.6 While Michael Servetus definitely had some unbiblical teachings, such as his rejection of the Trinity, he was, as the late apologist Dave Hunt puts it, “right about some things: that God does not predestine souls to hell and that God is love.”

Some have tried to say that Calvin was not responsible for the cruel manner in which Servetus was executed and that all he wanted was for Servetus to be beheaded (obviously, a less painful way to be executed). Brenda Nickel, a former Calvinist who was featured in a documentary film about Reformed Theology, provides some insight: Calvin had a long-standing vendetta against Servetus. Servetus foolishly taunted Calvin through letters; thus, Calvin insisted on having him arrested and charged when he entered Geneva. Calvin wanted the death penalty for him.

Servetus pleaded with Calvin to be beheaded instead of being burned at the stake, and Calvin was willing to go along with the idea. If Servetus was beheaded instead of burned, then Calvin couldn’t be blamed. Beheading, in this case, was attractive to both Servetus and Calvin. Beheading would be seen as a civil crime and free Calvin from having blood on his hands. French reformer William Farel rebuked Calvin for the thought. Since the charge was religious and not civil in nature, Servetus was burned at the stake. Melanchthon (Luther’s friend and successor) praised Calvin for Servetus’ death. This execution basically skyrocketed Calvin to fame throughout Europe. It put him on the map, so to speak, as a noteworthy and respected reformer.

Apparently, Calvin must have felt a need to appease himself of guilt in the murders he had helped to institutionalize.

Kirkland D.D., Bob. Calvinism: None Dare Call It Heresy: Spotlight on the Life and Teachings of John Calvin
 
Well you know what they said about the Titanic... it was unsinkable. Apparently the iceberg didn't get the memo.
And before it took off the owner shook his fist at God declaring nothing could sink his ship. Just like people shake their fist at God and cry, "That is not fair!! You cannot do it!" And they can't worship Him if He is who He Himself says He is and so they just change who He is in their own minds. They know who can be trusted to apply salvation to themselves. They can.

But you all can carry on among yourselves, pat one another another on the back, say you won if we leave. You don't fool me. You do fool yourselves. You don't fool God.

I too have had enough of the maniacal building of walls within the community of Christ by those who can only do so with the insulation of a forum format where they can just ignore it when there theology falls short of an answer. And are shown in what way it does. And it does. In a thousand places. None I have ever encountered on a forum could actually win a debate with a well grounded Calvinist in person, with a genuine debate format and debate rules which always have the burden of supporting statements made and arguments made against it. No ignoring allowed. Where logical fallacies don't count and their opponents are skilled in the art of critical thinking and can spot those fallacies a mile away---won't be fooled by them or let them slide. Where one person announces the belief in Calvinism ( and folks it is in all of true Christianity so where does that leave you) of penal substitution, and says it all wrong; is shown what it really is form a Calvinistic site, and the answer to that is "Nobody on the forum quotes from that site as reliable." And considers that to be the final authority on the matter. And continues with his false statements. Would that pass muster as a debate point anywhere with anyone? But all that is irrelevant. The point is to kill Calvinism once and for all. Who cares about the people.

The glee you guys take in castigating beliefs you don't like is deplorable.

You all say you want to debate the issue? And then don't debate, only degrade. All you want is a platform from which you can wreck havoc and create destruction. And like a jihadist no doubt tell yourselves you are serving God. So it's been a blast and so long. @civic @atpollard @dizerner
@Theophilus I only directed this through your post because of the Titanic remark. I haven't really seen you in these debates.
 
And before it took off the owner shook his fist at God declaring nothing could sink his ship. Just like people shake their fist at God and cry, "That is not fair!! You cannot do it!" And they can't worship Him if He is who He Himself says He is and so they just change who He is in their own minds. They know who can be trusted to apply salvation to themselves. They can.

But you all can carry on among yourselves, pat one another another on the back, say you won if we leave. You don't fool me. You do fool yourselves. You don't fool God.

I too have had enough of the maniacal building of walls within the community of Christ by those who can only do so with the insulation of a forum format where they can just ignore it when there theology falls short of an answer. And are shown in what way it does. And it does. In a thousand places. None I have ever encountered on a forum could actually win a debate with a well grounded Calvinist in person, with a genuine debate format and debate rules which always have the burden of supporting statements made and arguments made against it. No ignoring allowed. Where logical fallacies don't count and their opponents are skilled in the art of critical thinking and can spot those fallacies a mile away---won't be fooled by them or let them slide. Where one person announces the belief in Calvinism ( and folks it is in all of true Christianity so where does that leave you) of penal substitution, and says it all wrong; is shown what it really is form a Calvinistic site, and the answer to that is "Nobody on the forum quotes from that site as reliable." And considers that to be the final authority on the matter. And continues with his false statements. Would that pass muster as a debate point anywhere with anyone? But all that is irrelevant. The point is to kill Calvinism once and for all. Who cares about the people.

The glee you guys take in castigating beliefs you don't like is deplorable.

You all say you want to debate the issue? And then don't debate, only degrade. All you want is a platform from which you can wreck havoc and create destruction. And like a jihadist no doubt tell yourselves you are serving God. So it's been a blast and so long. @civic @atpollard @dizerner
@Theophilus I only directed this through your post because of the Titanic remark. I haven't really seen you in these debates.
We are debating our beliefs nothing more nothing less. Maybe debating non calvinists is something you should reconsider. Just my 2 cents fwiw. You are making things personal when there is no need to make them personal. I love calvinists and I have family and many friends who are calvinists. So that is your caricature that you have painted which is not true..

hope this helps !!!
 
But you all can carry on among yourselves, pat one another another on the back, say you won if we leave. You don't fool me. You do fool yourselves. You don't fool God.

The glee you guys take in castigating beliefs you don't like is deplorable.
Well you should know our good friend Arial that you don't fool us with your extreme use of hyperbole in making it seem that we've been overly aggressive with you. You are challenged here with the things you'd like to dish out but that's the nature of message boards. If you don't choose to come back here then we sincerely wish you all the best and PEACE.
 
We are debating our beliefs nothing more nothing less. Maybe debating non calvinists is something you should reconsider. Just my 2 cents fwiw. You are making things personal when there is no need to make them personal. I love calvinists and I have family and many friends who are calvinists. So that is your caricature that you have painted which is not true..

hope this helps !!!
Well, Arial, since you're such an expert on Calvinism, why don't you consider a public debate with a non-Calvinist, to show everybody how correct Calvinism is? In fact, Steve Gregg is a non-Calvinist who has debated Calvinists before. Maybe you could ask him to join you on stage, so to speak, and defend your position. Steve has much knowledge about both sides and has concluded that Calvinism is not what the Bible teaches. He can be contacted at thenarrowpath.com website. There is an address there. I don't know if they have an email for him. But you can call him personally each weekday on his Bible Q & A radio program at 844-484-5737 from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. Mountain Time. It's best to start calling at about 2:55 p.m. to insure you can get on the program. There's a lot of callers, so if you call too late, you may not be able to talk with Steve. Then just try the next day. I call his show all the time with questions.
I'll be the first to admit that I do not have the sheer volume of knowledge of both sides of the debate that someone like Steve has. Otherwise I would consider a debate. I do however, have enough knowledge of the basic Calvinist ideas, so that I have reached the conclusion that it contradicts scripture. In fact, pretty much all of that knowledge, I have learned from Steve.
 
Well, Arial, since you're such an expert on Calvinism, why don't you consider a public debate with a non-Calvinist, to show everybody how correct Calvinism is? In fact, Steve Gregg is a non-Calvinist who has debated Calvinists before. Maybe you could ask him to join you on stage, so to speak, and defend your position. Steve has much knowledge about both sides and has concluded that Calvinism is not what the Bible teaches. He can be contacted at thenarrowpath.com website. There is an address there. I don't know if they have an email for him. But you can call him personally each weekday on his Bible Q & A radio program at 844-484-5737 from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. Mountain Time. It's best to start calling at about 2:55 p.m. to insure you can get on the program. There's a lot of callers, so if you call too late, you may not be able to talk with Steve. Then just try the next day. I call his show all the time with questions.
I'll be the first to admit that I do not have the sheer volume of knowledge of both sides of the debate that someone like Steve has. Otherwise I would consider a debate. I do however, have enough knowledge of the basic Calvinist ideas, so that I have reached the conclusion that it contradicts scripture. In fact, pretty much all of that knowledge, I have learned from Steve.
Arial seems to be typical of some Calvinists that I have met and heard of through the years - very angry and making over-the-top accusations. Steve Gregg noted that it was also his experience over the years that, between the Calvinists and the non-Calvinists, it was usually the former who were the "hotheads" and the latter were usually quite peaceful. That in itself says something about the fruit of that doctrine.
 
Arial seems to be typical of some Calvinists that I have met and heard of through the years - very angry and making over-the-top accusations. Steve Gregg noted that it was also his experience over the years that, between the Calvinists and the non-Calvinists, it was usually the former who were the "hotheads" and the latter were usually quite peaceful. That in itself says something about the fruit of that doctrine.
I agree. If you feel so inclined check out this thread " in Calvinism Where is the love".

 
I'm not against any soul of jacob...
its not a soul's fault but rather the pastors
and scholars who oppress many souls.

what is horrible is that many souls on either
sides of this situation... debate,
may go through trib....
:(
 
Arial seems to be typical of some Calvinists that I have met and heard of through the years - very angry and making over-the-top accusations. Steve Gregg noted that it was also his experience over the years that, between the Calvinists and the non-Calvinists, it was usually the former who were the "hotheads" and the latter were usually quite peaceful. That in itself says something about the fruit of that doctrine.
And that leaves us to ask the question why? First I think we can concede that are there are non-Calvinists which can and do not demonstrate as much Christian charity as they should.....but usually it is the other way moreso....I agree with that and I truly don't think it because I'm biased.

I'd suggest the following....Calvinism most certain is a way of thinking which portrays God as NOT VALUING too many human beings. Oh you get the standard line he values them for the glory of his wrath or some strange unusual thought but I don't think you could get away from fact that if Calvinistic thinking were true then God truly doesn't value very, many people. Now if someone has embraced that way of thinking I have a hard time believing they really can rise above that way of thinking themselves, or at least it would be a struggle to.

The feeling that probably works over in their mind if God doesn't care for you why really should I as there must be something so not valuable about you. A Non-Calvinists however doesn't have such working in their consciousness they feel God loves everybody, he hates the sin but loves the sinner.....therefore their whole internal being seeks to do the same for God has set for them the example.

Can't stress enough though I do believe there are good loving Calvinist but I do consider the above to be true.
 
And that leaves us to ask the question why? First I think we can concede that are there are non-Calvinists which can and do not demonstrate as much Christian charity as they should.....but usually it is the other way moreso....I agree with that and I truly don't think it because I'm biased.

I'd suggest the following....Calvinism most certain is a way of thinking which portrays God as NOT VALUING too many human beings. Oh you get the standard line he values them for the glory of his wrath or some strange unusual thought but I don't think you could get away from fact that if Calvinistic thinking were true then God truly doesn't value very, many people. Now if someone has embraced that way of thinking I have a hard time believing they really can rise above that way of thinking themselves, or at least it would be a struggle to.

The feeling that probably works over in their mind if God doesn't care for you why really should I as there must be something so not valuable about you. A Non-Calvinists however doesn't have such working in their consciousness they feel God loves everybody, he hates the sin but loves the sinner.....therefore their whole internal being seeks to do the same for God has set for them the example.

Can't stress enough though I do believe there are good loving Calvinist but I do consider the above to be true.
Agreed it makes our God look like He is not Good, not Benevolent, not Loving. And like I always say all one needs to do is look at the life of Jesus in the gospels and how He treated people ( He is God ) and how He told us to treat people and we will know what God is really like. He is God manifest in the flesh- His words and deeds are the very words and deeds of God. We see its the opposite of what we read in the teachings of calvinism with tulip, sovereignty, determinism, PSA ,etc......
 
Last edited:
Well you know what they said about the Titanic... it was unsinkable.

Actually, NOBODY ever said that the Titanic was unsinkable.​

(Go ahead, identify the source of a quote stating the Titanic is unsinkable from before it sank.)
Something to think about if one wanted to compare the analogy ... to this discussion on the Doctrines of Grace. :cool:
 
John 6:44
  • "No one can come to me" = [Total Inability]
    • no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God [Romans 3:11]
  • "unless the Father who sent me" = [Unconditional Election]
    • it does not depend on human will or effort but on God who shows mercy [Romans 9:16]
  • "draws him," = [Irresistible Grace]
    • those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified. [Romans 8:30]
  • "and I will raise him up on the last day." = [Preservation of the Saints]
    • "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand." [John 10:28]

sola scriptura (Scripture alone)

solus Christus (Christ alone)

sola fide (faith alone)

sola gratia (grace alone)

soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone)


The Doctrines of Grace are All Still True!
 
None I have ever encountered on a forum could actually win a debate with a well grounded Calvinist in person, with a genuine debate format and debate rules which always have the burden of supporting statements made and arguments made against it. No ignoring allowed.

I accept the challenge. Such can be mimicked in a forum environment. I can assure you. I don't ignore anything. I prefer a "line by line", precept by precept model.

Where do you want to start?
 
John 6:44
  • "No one can come to me" = [Total Inability]
    • no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God [Romans 3:11]
  • "unless the Father who sent me" = [Unconditional Election]
    • it does not depend on human will or effort but on God who shows mercy [Romans 9:16]
  • "draws him," = [Irresistible Grace]
    • those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified. [Romans 8:30]
  • "and I will raise him up on the last day." = [Preservation of the Saints]
    • "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand." [John 10:28]

sola scriptura (Scripture alone)

solus Christus (Christ alone)

sola fide (faith alone)

sola gratia (grace alone)

soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone)


The Doctrines of Grace are All Still True!

"No one can come to me"........ fallacy in Calvinism.

Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Since there is talk about proper methods and "no ignoring"... I'll wait for your response to the Scriptures mentioned above proving your claim wrong.
 
I accept the challenge. Such can be mimicked in a forum environment. I can assure you. I don't ignore anything. I prefer a "line by line", precept by precept model.

Where do you want to start?
I don’t think she was serious . It’s like getting them to discuss the Trinity with me concerning the nature of God. When challenged they disappear or divert the discussion.
 

Actually, NOBODY ever said that the Titanic was unsinkable.​

(Go ahead, identify the source of a quote stating the Titanic is unsinkable from before it sank.)
Something to think about if one wanted to compare the analogy ... to this discussion on the Doctrines of Grace. :cool:

I believe a retraction is in order.....

Yet, when the New York office of the White Star Line was informed that Titanic was in trouble, White Star Line Vice President P.A.S. Franklin announced ” We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe the boat is unsinkable.” By the time Franklin spoke those words Titanic was at the bottom of the ocean.
 
I believe a retraction is in order.....

Yet, when the New York office of the White Star Line was informed that Titanic was in trouble, White Star Line Vice President P.A.S. Franklin announced ” We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe the boat is unsinkable.” By the time Franklin spoke those words Titanic was at the bottom of the ocean.
You beat me to it.
 
Back
Top Bottom