Why are Calvinists so mean ?

[TomL]

Acts 4:27,28 prime example

You do not read anywhere that it did not come into his mind in that verse

You continue to dodge and alter the argument

The question is how could God determine someone to do something without it coming into his mind that they should do it

note the text states it did not enter his mind that they should do it

It does not state it did not enter his mind to command they do it

as the spin of Presby02 puts it

God stated it did not come into his mind that they should do it

Jeremiah 32:35 (KJV 1900) — 35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.


please stop the dodging

 

[Presby02]

You do not read anywhere that it did not come into his mind in that verse

You continue to dodge and alter the argument

The question is how could God determine someone to do something without it coming into his mind that they should do it

note the text states it did not enter his mind that they should do it

It does not state it did not enter his mind to command they do it

as the spin of Presby02 puts it

God stated it did not come into his mind that they should do it

Jeremiah 32:35 (KJV 1900) — 35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.


please stop the dodging

LOL, you don't read anywhere Hod would order the murder of His own Son.

Acts 4:27,28

 

[TomL]

Easy. See Acts 4:27,28

Afraid not

Nowhere does it state it did not come into his mind they should do that

 

[Presby02]

Afraid not

Nowhere does it state it did not come into his mind they should do that

Where does it say in Jer. He did not determine it to occur? It was not among the "all things worked out according to His will"? Two can play that game.

By the way are you implying God would command the murder of His own Son?

 

[TomL]

Where does it say in Jer. He did not determine it to occur? It was not among the "all things worked out according to His will"? Two can play that game.

By the way are you implying God would command the murder of His own Son?

The question you keep dodging is how can God determine it if it did not enter into his mind they should do it

You have been avoiding it like the plague

 

[civic]

You do not seem to be answering the question

How could God determine someone to do something without it coming into his mind that they should do it

The dodgers continue to ignore the “ obvious “ contradictory position they espouse.

 

[Red Baker]

I think that it is more of a myth than actual fact that saying we are Calvinists answers a multitude of questions. Am I a Amillennial or Postmillennial Calvinist? Am I a Baptist Calvinist or a Presbyterian Calvinist? Am I of the Pilgrims, Puritans, Huguenots, Dutch, or German variety? Am I from the doctrines of Reformed Palatinates, Scottish, or Scotch-Irish? Do I believe in New Covenant Theology or Covenant theology? To say that Christians, calling themselves Calvinist, simplifies things, is a panacea for all contrary opinions.

The fact that Christians prospered and their doctrines of Grace were understood for over 1400 years before Calvin was even a gleam in his father's eye, is evidence enough that we don't need to be called Calvinists in order to have people know what we stand for. That is obviously just a convenient excuse to old to tradition. I don't want to be called Calvinist because I believe that it points to John Calvin and puts improper emphasis on him, rather than on Jesus Christ. We should take His name alone as the identifier of our doctrines~as for me and my house, we shall.

Mark 9:5-7

• "And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
• For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid.
• And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him."

Any way you cut it, calling ourselves Calvinists exalts Calvin and the doctrines he held, when we should be exalting Christ alone, and the doctrines He held.

And the argument that because there are professing Christians who aren't faithful to Christ's Predestination doctrines, this is a good reason that we should take hold of the name Calvin, has no solid basis. Because there has always been unfaithful Christians, but that didn't make the church start calling themselves by the name of the Apostles, or of Paul or anyone else in order to differentiate themselves from those unfaithful people. Paul somewhat touched on this briefly in his epistle to the Corinthians. And we should consider it wisely.

1st Corinthians 1:12-13

• "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
• Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"

Clearly, this illustrates we should not be called of Paul or the Pauline sect, we should not be called of Apollos, and we should not be called of Calvin either. Despite unfaithful teachings of some Christians, we are not divided. There are only Christians, and false doctrines. This argument of differentiation doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. The early Church didn't need these type labels to differentiate themselves from the many antichrists and sects by calling themselves "of Paul" to show they held to the Biblical doctrines. And neither do we. Granted, we are a lot more creative today in coming up with reasons (imagined or otherwise) why we need to be called by John Calvin's name. But they don't stand the test of scripture, comparison nor of time. And this is the very topic Paul was addressing here. That we shouldn't say we are of Paul or of Apollos. We're not Apollians, or Paulites/Pauline, because we are all just Christians, and Christ is not divided. That divinely inspired message seems to be lost in our day where Calvinist Church traditions sometimes actually mirror Roman Catholic Church traditions. The truth is, we "really" don't need to say we are "of Calvin" anymore than these Godly men of the early Church needed to say that they were "of Paul" or Apollos. And make no mistake, the term Calvinism actually means "of Calvin." Moreover, I don't think (actually, I know) Calvin wouldn't have wanted that, anymore than Paul did. Of course, this is ignored.

 

[TomL]

I think that it is more of a myth than actual fact that saying we are Calvinists answers a multitude of questions. Am I a Amillennial or Postmillennial Calvinist? Am I a Baptist Calvinist or a Presbyterian Calvinist? Am I of the Pilgrims, Puritans, Huguenots, Dutch, or German variety? Am I from the doctrines of Reformed Palatinates, Scottish, or Scotch-Irish? Do I believe in New Covenant Theology or Covenant theology? To say that Christians, calling themselves Calvinist, simplifies things, is a panacea for all contrary opinions.

The fact that Christians prospered and their doctrines of Grace were understood for over 1400 years before Calvin was even a gleam in his father's eye, is evidence enough that we don't need to be called Calvinists in order to have people know what we stand for. That is obviously just a convenient excuse to old to tradition. I don't want to be called Calvinist because I believe that it points to John Calvin and puts improper emphasis on him, rather than on Jesus Christ. We should take His name alone as the identifier of our doctrines~as for me and my house, we shall.

Um early christians pre Augustine did not hold to Calvinism and 5 point Calvinism began with Beza

 

[atpollard]

You do not seem to be answering the question

How could God determine someone to do something without it coming into his mind that they should do it

I did answer it using the example of the evil desires of those whom God gave over to follow their evil desires.
If you want a clearer explanation, then you will need to more clearly define “coming into His mind”.

Omniscience means, by definition, that there is NOTHING that God does not know. So NOTHING “comes into” the mind of God … God already knew everything before He said “Let there be light”.

 

[atpollard]

Sorry but you're still off the rails here.

You're saying all things were happened according to his plan. That's having a thought about it before it happened. Jer 32:35 --->neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination
You can't therefore have the occurrence of Jer 32 as a part of his plan. It never entered his mind that they should do, that they should do, that they should do this abomination.

Sorry but Calvinism therefore collapses.

There are three possibilities:

1. You are misunderstanding or misapplying the quote from Jeremiah.
2. Jeremiah was not “God Breathed” scripture and is in error.
3. You have proven that God in NOT OMNISCIENT and we are wasting our time attempting to worship a ‘god’ of our own creation.

So which is it?

• Is God ALL KNOWING or NOT?
• Is Jeremiah SCRIPTURE or NOT?
• Is your interpretation proving God is not OMNIPOTENT correct or not?

Ultimately, what I really need is for you to explain what YOU MEAN by “enter God’s mind”.

 

[Rockson]

There are three possibilities:

1. You are misunderstanding or misapplying the quote from Jeremiah.
2. Jeremiah was not “God Breathed” scripture and is in error.
3. You have proven that God in NOT OMNISCIENT and we are wasting our time attempting to worship a ‘god’ of our own creation.

No I'd say there's another possibility. I have proven something but not what you assert in No 3.

So which is it?

• Is God ALL KNOWING or NOT?

So where do you get off asserting something never came into God's my mind, that they should do this abomination that he means he was not aware of what they'd do? If he knew it by foreknowledge does that mean he put it in their brains to do this? You're merely just trying to reassert Calvinism with no justification for doing so.

• Is Jeremiah SCRIPTURE or NOT?

Of course but now I ask you the same question. Why don't you just accept the deeds they were doing in Jer 32 never entered God's mind that they should do this????? Maybe it's you that are not accepting it is scripture?

• Is your interpretation proving God is not OMNIPOTENT correct or not?

What I'm saying doesn't have to touch on this subject in any way shape of form.

Ultimately, what I really need is for you to explain what YOU MEAN by “enter God’s mind”.

I mean just what the words mean and say. It never entered God's mind that they should do this sin. Calvinism puts forth all these things are in God's mind before hand that if they actually do sin he ordained it. This in light of Jer 32 and other verses is false.

 

[TomL]

I did answer it using the example of the evil desires of those whom God gave over to follow their evil desires.
If you want a clearer explanation, then you will need to more clearly define “coming into His mind”.

Omniscience means, by definition, that there is NOTHING that God does not know. So NOTHING “comes into” the mind of God … God already knew everything before He said “Let there be light”.

No actually you did not

How could God determine someone to do something without it coming into his mind that they should do it
Jeremiah 32:35 (KJV 1900) — 35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

Letting someone do something is not determining they should do it

 

[atpollard]

So where do you get off asserting something never came into God's my mind, that they should do this abomination that he means he was not aware of what they'd do?

From the common meaning of 'never entered his mind'. If he was aware they would do it, then it did enter his mind, didn't it?

Do things that you are aware of "never enter your mind"?

 

[TomL]

From the common meaning of 'never entered his mind'. If he was aware they would do it, then it did enter his mind, didn't it?

Do things that you are aware of "never enter your mind"?

Not would but should

Jeremiah 32:35 (KJV 1900) — 35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

 

[civic]

So they are cowards in person?

not the ones I know but online is a different animal.

 

[atpollard]

Not would but should

Jeremiah 32:35 (KJV 1900) — 35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

If all you are arguing is that God does not CAUSE people to sin, God does not DESIRE people to sin, and EVIL is not in God's nature, then we have no disagreement (nor would anyone claiming to believe the Doctrines of Grace that was actually also a Christian). Neither the Westminster Confession of Faith nor the Baptists Faith and Message (London Confession) disagree with you, either. [I cannot speak to the writings of Jon Calvin as I have never read them.]

You appeared to be beating a drum of God being IGNORANT of the sin that men would do. THAT is not a biblical position. [OMNISCIENT and all that]. You appear to advocate that God is POWERLESS to stop or control the evil that men do. THAT is also not a biblical position. [OMNIPOTENT and all that].

 

[atpollard]

Letting someone do something is not determining they should do it

Here is an analogy to consider. When I turn the handle on a faucet, water comes out of the spigot. I can control how much water comes out of the spigot (a stream, a trickle or a drip) and I can control whether the water coming out is HOT or COLD. Do I MAKE the water come out of the spigot by turning the handle? Am I the source of the water? Do I make the hot water hot? Do I make the cold water cold?

In both Job and Romans 1:18-32, we see God as controlling the handle on the flow of EVIL. Satan can do what God permits ... AND NOT ONE IOTA MORE! Evil men can follow their evil desires as far as God turns them over ... AND NOT ONE IOTA MORE! Joseph's brother's wanted to MURDER him, but God would only PERMIT Joseph to be sold into slavery. God allowed only the evil which served GOD'S PLAN and restrained the evil that did not serve God's Plan.

God is not the source of the evil, but God is not a helpless bystander wringing His hands in frustration. God controls the handle that regulates the flow.

"I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting people may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things." - Isaiah 45:5-7 [NIV]

 

[civic]

A small collection of comments from the non-calvinists that demonstrates their brotherly love.

Yep they are elected outside of Christ since they are the worthy sinners

Come to think of it, Calvinism has incorporated several foundational elements of Hinduism. Calvinists believe that God maintains a caste system, elect verses non-elect in their case. Also, enlightenment is a strong element of their beliefs.

ie regeneration which is mystical like in Hinduism

A biased Calvinist no thanks

Obviously by their own beliefs Jesus is hiding it from them .

The greatest humility I’ve seen within Christianity comes from those who hold to free will . Calvinism feeds the natural man’s ego.

Filled with pride at birth

Yes it’s the antithesis of Calvinism lol

Maybe someone can write a eulogy for Calvinism? Except that I can't think of even one good thing to say for calvinism.

Nope and faith without works is dead. So you just admitted your faith is a dead faith. Next

Were you a sinner ? Yes or no

So then how do you hear Christ's words if not through the word of God? Through voices in your head?

He does not believe in the necessity of the Gospel to hearing.

They really really want to replace Christ. Christ was/is favored. So much for their false claims to uniquely find "grace" among men.

I can see you are not a student of church history. Do you know who st augustine was ?

He doesn't know how to make an meaningful argument at most any level.

And? You want to tell us something about the voices in your head?

It still looks like you don’t understand election or free will

The vessels of wrath fitted for destruction are the chosen/ elect Jews/ Israel . Next fallacy

Exactly down goes the calvinist election/chosen/predestination/ doctrines down the drain- call roto rooter

The only conclusion they are willing to consider are the one's that make them look good......

Ya think lol

I wonder what they will do when it happens to them?

Claiming grace for yourself while denying it to others shows exactly were your heart is.

Do you have a problem with English?

Not that you'll ever understand this. You prefer things that feed your ego.

You are incapable of having this discussion. I didn't quote you to have a conversation with you. I responded to show how ignorant you are.

Here you are insisting that God leads all men. You didn't give much thought to this at all.

He is incapable of having the discussion. He isn't a student of the Scriptures.

The fact you make statements that can equally be applied to both of us........... shows just how lost you are in any sense of debate ethics.

You use it to exclude "things" all the time. You have to love how a Calvinist ignores their own doctrines.

Why such instability from you?

I have vastly more knowledge about the Scriptures than any of you.

I take it that your total inability to offer any arguments against the verses I quoted means that you're in full agreement with what I wrote.

Yep some cannot follow simple logic and reasoning

It might be difficult for a Calvinist to tell someone who is lost that Jesus loves them and died for their sins.

substitute arminian and you would think it was calvinist sayings.

 

[civic]

Here is an analogy to consider. When I turn the handle on a faucet, water comes out of the spigot. I can control how much water comes out of the spigot (a stream, a trickle or a drip) and I can control whether the water coming out is HOT or COLD. Do I MAKE the water come out of the spigot by turning the handle? Am I the source of the water? Do I make the hot water hot? Do I make the cold water cold?

In both Job and Romans 1:18-32, we see God as controlling the handle on the flow of EVIL. Satan can do what God permits ... AND NOT ONE IOTA MORE! Evil men can follow their evil desires as far as God turns them over ... AND NOT ONE IOTA MORE! Joseph's brother's wanted to MURDER him, but God would only PERMIT Joseph to be sold into slavery. God allowed only the evil which served GOD'S PLAN and restrained the evil that did not serve God's Plan.

God is not the source of the evil, but God is not a helpless bystander wringing His hands in frustration. God controls the handle that regulates the flow.

"I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting people may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things." - Isaiah 45:5-7 [NIV]

so you would say God allows evil correct ?

 

[atpollard]

so you would say God allows evil correct ?

"evil" is too undefined a term for a simple "yes" or "no" answer to your question. God allowed EVIL men to crucify Christ ... and in doing so, we were redeemed. So was the act which God allowed "evil" or "good"? ... it was CERTAINLY part of God's plan and no accident! ... so God definitely ALLOWED it.

Did God allow "evil" or did God allow "good"?

I say what Joseph said: "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to keep many people alive." [Genesis 50:20]