Why Calvinism is a bad thing.

[GeneZ]

There are people who are saved that don’t believe in Jesus?

Today? No.

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under
heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12

For today there is only one Name given to be known and to be saved by.

Before the Church age? The name was not given to mankind.
Before the Incarnation and becoming the man for us to know as Jesus?
Before? ... Men called on the Lord God.
The Jews called on the Lord God of Israel.

The Jews believed in 'Adonoy Eloheinu' and were saved!
Abraham did not know the name "Jesus."
Neither did Noah.
The name Jesus had not yet been given to mankind.
The name had to be given!

“Abraham believed God (Jehovah/Adonay/Elohiym), ​

and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Romans 4:3​

Before the Incarnation men were saved when they believed in the one who was destined to become the man/God named Jesus.
They believed on the Lord God.
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

grace and peace ..............

 

[Darby]

Today? No.

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under
heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12

For today there is only one Name given to be known and to be saved by.

Before the Church age? The name was not given to mankind.
Before the Incarnation and becoming the man for us to know as Jesus?
Before? ... Men called on the Lord God.
The Jews called on the Lord God of Israel.

The Jews believed in 'Adonoy Eloheinu' and were saved!
Abraham did not know the name "Jesus."
Neither did Noah.
The name Jesus had not yet been given to mankind.
The name had to be given!

“Abraham believed God (Jehovah/Adonay/Elohiym), ​

and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Romans 4:3​

Before the Incarnation men were saved when they believed in the one who was destined to become the man/God named Jesus.
They believed on the Lord God.
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

grace and peace ..............

Well then, I would say they believed in Jesus.

 

[Fool4Christ]

Well then, I would say they believed in Jesus.

As close to the opening line I use when I'm Street witnessing to homeless people. I asked them" So how are you and Jesus doing?" You'd be amazed at the responses I get. I had one guy just break down in tears.

 

[Arial]

Calvinists have them being in Christ before creation , before they existed , prior to faith .

No Calvinism doesn't. It agrees with the Bible that God knew them before the foundation of the world, and predestined them to come to Christ, and in His timing He called them. His sheep hear that voice and follow Him. They hear of Jesus and the good news and believe what they hear. Then they are in Christ.

 

[civic]

No Calvinism doesn't. It agrees with the Bible that God knew them before the foundation of the world, and predestined them to come to Christ, and in His timing He called them. His sheep hear that voice and follow Him. They hear of Jesus and the good news and believe what they hear. Then they are in Christ.

Election “in Christ.” When Paul speaks of God’s choosing us “in him” (Eph. 1:4, 11), he refers to union with Christ. In these places, Paul says that God chose people before the foundation of the world (v. 4). In every other case when Paul uses the phrase “in Christ,” except for 2 Timothy 1:9, he tells of God’s uniting people to Christ in history. God’s choosing us “in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4; see also v. 11) speaks of our union with Christ before creation. But because we did not exist before our creation, Paul speaks of God’s plan to unite us to Christ.

Though Arminianism holds that election “in Christ” means that God chose people for salvation based on his foreknowledge of their faith in Christ, Paul does not speak of a condition that sinners must meet in order for God to choose them. Paul’s words do not speak of human beings’ response, but of God’s sovereign will. It is the same in Ephesians 1:11, where Paul says, “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.” The apostle teaches that God not only chose a people for himself, but also chose the means by which he would actually save that people—he would send his Son and Spirit and unite them to Christ in saving grace.
Robert A. Peterson, Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility

 

[Darby]

No Calvinism doesn't. It agrees with the Bible that God knew them before the foundation of the world, and predestined them to come to Christ, and in His timing He called them. His sheep hear that voice and follow Him. They hear of Jesus and the good news and believe what they hear. Then they are in Christ.

Which one of you are telling the through? Because @civic this message seems to explain a lot more than just opinion.

I’m interested in this issue.

 

[GeneZ]

Well then, I would say they believed in Jesus.

They believed in the same Lord God. The Lord who made Himself become as the man named Jesus. Yes...

The following (in part) ARE from notes on the exegesis of Philippians 2:6-8 taught by a pastor.
Its from notes taken by a congregational member.

The pastor was keen on delving into the Greek tenses and grammatical structure which are often times
glossed over by conventional mainstream translations.

Who (Christ), though He eternally existed in the essence of God,
He did not think equalities {plural} with God a gain to be seized ​

{means to violently take} and held.​

(that is where some translators got the notion of robbery)​

​

But He Himself (Christ) deprived Himself of the proper function of deity
when He had received the form of a servant/slave having been born in ​

the outward likeness/image of mankind.​

​

In fact, although having been discovered
in outward appearance as a man,
He humbled Himselfby becoming obedient to the point of death . . .
that is, the death of the cross."​

grace and peace ............

 

[Darby]

They believed in the same Lord God. The Lord who made Himself become as the man named Jesus. Yes...

The following (in part) ARE from notes on the exegesis of Philippians 2:6-8 taught by a pastor.
Its from notes taken by a congregational member.

The pastor was keen on delving into the Greek tenses and grammatical structure which are often times
glossed over by conventional mainstream translations.

Who (Christ), though He eternally existed in the essence of God,​

He did not think equalities {plural} with God a gain to be seized ​

{means to violently take} and held.​

(that is where some translators got the notion of robbery)​

​

But He Himself (Christ) deprived Himself of the proper function of deity​

when He had received the form of a servant/slave having been born in ​

the outward likeness/image of mankind.​

​

In fact, although having been discovered​

in outward appearance as a man,​

He humbled Himselfby becoming obedient to the point of death . . .​

that is, the death of the cross."​

grace and peace ............

So you are one of those Calvinist’s ?

 

[GeneZ]

So you are one of those Calvinist’s ?

That is a total disconnect from what I said.

Why did you even say that?

 

[Darby]

That is a total disconnect from what I said.

Why did you even say that?

Well I’m glad you’re not one of them.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Calvinism has a lot of good emphases, the sinfulness of man, the greatness of God's holiness, and the need and power of Christ's atonement.

Where Calvinism makes a wrong turn, is deciding how God should run his world, and that it is offensive for God to put his holiness and glory above the well-being of God's creation.

All of this and no evidence to support such baseless claims. My encounter with Calvinist haters is not they only hurl caricatures, convoluted comments and baseless accusations. I am still waiting for a debate with substance that address the topics, not biases that are ill-well at best. Another thing is that they never even try to answer to the tough asked them. If you are seeking the truth, you shouldn't be afraid in answering the tough questions. I know I don't have all the answers, but I for sure will not distort or hide the truth for the sake in winning a debate. Winning a debate is the furtherest thing on my mind. The truth is the most important thing to me. And as a former Classical Arminian I sought out the truth when trying to disprove Calvinism or the Doctrines of Grace that I prefer to call it. Arminianism is a man-centered theology, giving a lofty view of man. Arminianism doesn't believe any promises that God made and that he will fulfill for his people. They also deny that God has a Plan of Redemption to save his people. All of it is in man hands to do it all, only making Salvation possible if we make it so.​

Ironically, this is what the Calvinists generally accuse others of doing, of being "man-centered," and making doctrines around preferences.

More baseless accusation without a single resource to research or shred of evidence.

But the truth is, Calvinism sacrifices the love of God and the holiness of God, to collapse all that God allows into God's primary desire, for the sole intent purpose of resolving offense and finding security in removing all free will.

This comment right here is pure conjecture. This is prove that you do not know or understand Classical Calvinism. So, for the record this is Calvin himself on Free-Will.

John Calvin ascribed "free will" to all people in the sense that they act "voluntarily, and not by compulsion." He elaborated his position by allowing "that man has choice and that it is self-determined" and that his actions stem from "his own voluntary choosing."

The free will that Calvin ascribed to all people is what Mortimer Adler calls the "natural freedom" of the will. This freedom to will what one desires is inherent in all people.

Calvin held this kind of inherent/natural free will in disesteem because unless people acquire the freedom to live as they ought by being transformed, they will desire and voluntarily choose to sin. "Man is said to have free will," wrote Calvin, "because he acts voluntarily, and not by compulsion.

So what is Calvin talking about here? Calvin is saying that nobody forces sinners to sin. They do it willingly because this is the desire of their hearts and minds. Paul depicts this natural sinful behavior in Ephesians 2.

Which brings me to another point. If man according to Free-Willers, do possess the goodness and righteous disposition to meet God's standard of holiness. Why does Paul say that all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory? Why do we need to be saved, if people are basically good in the Free-Willers paradigm? Why can't God just forgive Adam & Eve and move on? Having a weak view of sin and the fall, leads to a weak view of God and his Grace!​

The fact that God's holiness is more important than my own personal security, and whether God makes sure I'm not a lost person but guarantees everything I selfishly want in salvation, is something my sin nature will never like or agree to.

Again this is the precise reason why I am not an Arminian anymore! You guys teach about Prevenient Grace that places a person somewhere in limbo between life and death to make a decision that decides your fate. Furthermore, this Prevenient Grace no matter how many times I ask Free-Willers this question, they can't answer it. Why would anyone who knows what will happen if you reject the offer to be saved and go to heaven want or even think about rejecting it? Makes no sense, and if everyone is put in this position to decide their own fate, would ever want to reject it? And if nobody rejects why are people going to hell? Or if there is even a Hell in your teaching.​

It is sinful to find our security in attempting to formulate a doctrine that disallows God to sacrifice our personal security for God's own holiness. We can rest in grace and find our security in God's promise, without needing the false security of God desiring and decreeing all evil things and lost souls.

For those Calvinists who defend with doublespeak, I urge them to just be logically consistent, and admit that God does not decree free will choices.

Now Civic, I hope you take the time to read my response, and there's no need to use sock puppets, you can debate me in the open. I am still waiting for our debate to happen.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Well I’m glad you’re not one of them.

You said this by your own free-will?

 

[Darby]

You said this by your own free-will?

Of course.
You’re not one of those Calvinist’s are you?

 

[GeneZ]

No Calvinism doesn't. It agrees with the Bible that God knew them before the foundation of the world, and predestined them to come to Christ, and in His timing He called them. His sheep hear that voice and follow Him. They hear of Jesus and the good news and believe what they hear. Then they are in Christ.

He predestined them in Christ because He knew they would believe, and wanted them to be the Bride of Christ.

Just as if the Lord predestined someone to be a follower of Moses when he would believe?
Then God would have chosen him before the foundation of the earth to be born in Israel at the time of the Exodus..

God does not predestine us to believe. But, rather. Knowing all who will believe, predestined what we were to enter into when we believe.

As for the Church? He predestined us to be alive during the Church age, so that when we believed? We would find ourselves
IN Christ. Just like Eve was hidden in Adam before she was revealed. We are now hid in Christ awaiting to be revealed in the Resurrection.

God decreed a time for corrections to be made known.

grace and peace ....

 

[Dizerner]

More baseless accusation without a single resource to research or shred of evidence.​

How is it baseless when one sentence before this you, yourself, accused me of being man-centered?

This comment right here is pure conjecture.

You have no proof that it is conjecture—you're conjecturing.

Which brings me to another point. If man according to Free-Willers, do possess the goodness and righteous disposition to meet God's standard of holiness. Why does Paul say that all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory? Why do we need to be saved, if people are basically good in the Free-Willers paradigm?

Classical Arminians such as myself do not believe in any inherent goodness or righteousness of man, but that which is produced by preceding grace alone through Christ's vicarious virtues.

Why can't God just forgive Adam & Eve and move on? Having a weak view of sin and the fall, leads to a weak view of God and his Grace!

Because this would attribute low value to God, and so, belittle and demean his glory.

Again this is the precise reason why I am not an Arminian anymore! You guys teach about Prevenient Grace that places a person somewhere in limbo between life and death to make a decision that decides your fate. Furthermore, this Prevenient Grace no matter how many times I ask Free-Willers this question, they can't answer it. Why would anyone who knows what will happen if you reject the offer to be saved and go to heaven want or even think about rejecting it? Makes no sense, and if everyone is put in this position to decide their own fate, would ever want to reject it? And if nobody rejects why are people going to hell? Or if there is even a Hell in your teaching.​

You are talking like sin is some rational head knowledge that you can sit down and tabulate on a spreadsheet.

Sin has attractive and appealing qualities to a sin nature, that are supernatural and beyond mental reasoning.

Now Civic, I hope you take the time to read my response, and there's no need to use sock puppets, you can debate me in the open. I am still waiting for our debate to happen.

I'm not civic, you are being paranoid here.

In fact, we once sent a book to each other, and it's sad you cared so little for our friendship you don't even remember me.

But I'm used to being mistreated by Christians.

 

[Arial]

Which one of you are telling the through? Because @civic this message seems to explain a lot more than just opinion.

I’m interested in this issue.

It is good that you are interested. But you can't learn about it from someone who hates it as @civic does. I have never seen him once state any of the doctrines of the TULIP correctly---and there is much more to it than that. He expresses the beliefs of the tulip in the most negative light that he can and always wrong. I started a thread that Civic named the 5 points of Calvinism and should have been titled TULIP explained. Civic moved it from where I first posted it so it looks like he started it. I did it because of all his misstatements that even when shown where he was misrepresenting he still continues to do the same thing.

That right there is an indication that he doesn't care what it really says he wants people to hate it just as he does so he bases all his arguments on what isn't true and supports his own arguments with nothing but isolated from their context and from the full content of the Bible, proof texts. That is all he can do because if he is told what the doctrine truly states, and is shown where they are arrived at from the whole counsel of God, he has nothing to argue against it with. All false teachings run into the same problem and arrive at the same end. Just repeating the false statements.

And when he is shown where his proof texts are seen in an entirely different but legitimate light from the premise of the sovereignty of God and everything God says about Himself, nothing is done to even examine it. The proof texts against it are simply repeated.

One should be given the chance to decide for themselves, to examine for themselves the scriptures and make an informed decision as to what theology most agrees with what the Bible presents. No one can do that if they are given the wrong information to begin with. It is not a salvational issue imo but that part is just an opinion.

 

[Dizerner]

But you can't learn about it from someone who hates it as @civic does.

I can testify—I have seen with my own eyes—that civic has posted as a Calvinist supporting Calvinism for many years.

During that time not once—not one single time—did any fellow Calvinist call him out and say he misrepresented Calvinism.

In fact, they all constantly patted each other on the back nonstop, saying how good and correct everything they said was.


Now what does that information tell me about your critique?

You are not critiquing any actual information or doctrine—you are critiquing someone being critical, someone not agreeing.

And that, in the end, is logically just bias—just saying "if you don't agree, you don't understand."


There's nothing intellectually fair in that criticism.

 

[Dizerner]

 

[civic]

I can testify—I have seen with my own eyes—that civic has posted as a Calvinist supporting Calvinism for many years.

During that time not once—not one single time—did any fellow Calvinist call him out and say he misrepresented Calvinism.

In fact, they all constantly patted each other on the back nonstop, saying how good and correct everything they said was.


Now what does that information tell me about your critique?

You are not critiquing any actual information or doctrine—you are critiquing someone being critical, someone not agreeing.

And that, in the end, is logically just bias—just saying "if you don't agree, you don't understand."


There's nothing intellectually fair in that criticism.

The funny thing on the old forum when I would get falsely accused I would quote my old posts as a Calvinist where they all affirmed what I said and saying I was a good teacher. But when I left Calvinism all of a sudden I did t know Calvinism .

I’m not bragging but I know more about Calvinism than 95% of the Calvinist who post on forums . One of the things I often do when a Calvinist disagrees with what I’m saying is quote either Calvin or any other respected Calvinist as a hostile witness against them. I’m just saying what Calvinism actually teaches and they don’t like what is reflected in the mirror.

 

[Arial]

Election “in Christ.” When Paul speaks of God’s choosing us “in him” (Eph. 1:4, 11), he refers to union with Christ. In these places, Paul says that God chose people before the foundation of the world (v. 4). In every other case when Paul uses the phrase “in Christ,” except for 2 Timothy 1:9, he tells of God’s uniting people to Christ in history. God’s choosing us “in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4; see also v. 11) speaks of our union with Christ before creation. But because we did not exist before our creation, Paul speaks of God’s plan to unite us to Christ.

Though Arminianism holds that election “in Christ” means that God chose people for salvation based on his foreknowledge of their faith in Christ, Paul does not speak of a condition that sinners must meet in order for God to choose them. Paul’s words do not speak of human beings’ response, but of God’s sovereign will. It is the same in Ephesians 1:11, where Paul says, “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.” The apostle teaches that God not only chose a people for himself, but also chose the means by which he would actually save that people—he would send his Son and Spirit and unite them to Christ in saving grace.
Robert A. Peterson, Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility

You are simply side stepping once again, true to your mo, what you said about Calvinism that wasn't true.

Calvinists have them being in Christ before creation , before they existed , prior to faith .

The truth about what C teaches is this:

No Calvinism doesn't. It agrees with the Bible that God knew them before the foundation of the world, and predestined them to come to Christ, and in His timing He called them. His sheep hear that voice and follow Him. They hear of Jesus and the good news and believe what they hear. Then they are in Christ.