What Are The Differences In Calvinists?

There is yet another category, those of us who refuse to align ourselves under a doctrine made by man! The "Anti-nomians". Those of us who are "non-hyphenated" and unabashedly "CHRISTIAN" because we adhere to the teachings of Jesus, the CHRIST!

 

And sometimes rightfully so. It's no easy matter to find a nearby reformed church for so many, and all you have to do is listen to the reactions of non-cals on this forum to get a taste of how one can be treated.
Gina

 

This is the group called Calvinist by its detractors. I would prefer to be called a Christian, but that name has become associated with people who believe other things. The early Calvinists were simply called Christians, because they believed and taught the Scriptures.

 

Can you find a place where I have said, "I'm right"? Please search for us and post it. I would appreicate it. Of course, you probably won't actually find that because I don't think I have actually said. I have, in different words, acknowledged that I do know what we believe better than you do. That is not superiority any more than you claiming to know what you believe is superior. I would hope you know what you believe better than I do, and I would hope that you would acknowledge that I know what I believe better than you do.

You think you will get a different answer from him than you will from most other calvinists??

 

That person would be what they claim they are--a calvinist. That is the calvinist position.
Repentance and faith are conditions for justification. No one is save apart from repentance and faith.

Here is a page you might find imformative: A list of common misunderstanding about calvinism

See numbers 19 and 23 in particular.

 

Which says:

5) Calvinists do believe in man's responsibility, but deny his ability to repent and believe the gospel. The two terms are not synonymous. Calvinists believe that man's inability to repent and believe are caused by his own sin ... not any positive imposition on God's part.

I suppose it would have been clearer if he had said "natural man" instead of just plain old "man". Men repent and believe when they are enabled/drawn by the Holy Spirit.

But I have a feeling you already understood that......

And hey, you'll be able to knock me over with a feather if Dr. Bob disagrees with the statement that people need to repent and believe in order to be saved.......

 

Do you really think I intended a double negative thinking it was proper???? Surely you know better than that. I was actually looking for an actual grammatical problem, which you didn't really post. We all make typos. I am sure that if you sort through my 7000+ posts, you will find plenty. You and I both know your attack on my grammar was personal and prejudicial. The way that we know that is that it had nothing to do with what was being discussed in this forum. You brought my typing and proofreading skills into this discussion when they had no place in it. I rarely use the latter skill anyway. It ain't not worth the time . So in the future, deal with the actual arguments.

Now, there it is as you asked and as you claimed probably couldn't be found. As I said, you can not even remember what you just posted yesterday. Go ahead with your expected smarmy response. </font>[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]Hah hah ... you failed. You said I said, "I am right." Then you cite my quotation as "I am still right." So I still didn't say what you said I said, and since you want to play technicalities, I will accomodate you.

But seriously, go back and look at what this was referring to and compare that to what I said in asking you to post this. When you compare the context in which it was said, you will find that I said I am still right about what Calvinists believe, which was contention from the beginning. To my knowledge, the only thing I have said I am right about is knowing what I believe. You tried to tell me I was wrong about what Calvinism believes. It is strange to me that you know what I believe better than I know what I believe. In fact, not only is it strange; it is preposterous. That is why I said I am right. To my knowledge, I have not unequivocally said I am right about this particular issue of Scripture. I do believe that I am, but I recognize that I am a fallible human. You are the same. Surely you are not deceived into thinking you are infallibly right on this issue. I certainly hope not.

I have noticed that you have a strange way of twisting words and yanking them around to fit your notions of how you would like to argue a particular point. I content that is unethical and the discussion about God's word, whichever side you come down on, deserves better. I hope you will put that method aside. If you are confused about something someone says, then ask for clarification.

You think you are right in your doctrine; I think I am right. There is no problem with that. If we didn't think we were right, we shouldn't be discussing it at this level. The fact is that when you accuse me of saying "I am right," that is only offensive to you becuase you think you are right. I understand that; I have no problem with it.

I simply wish you would answer my arguments the way that I put them forth, rather than making up my arguments and then answering those. That was my request from the beginning, indeed from the beginning of this forum. If you are going to talk about your opponents, use your opponents actual arguments; don't twist their positions to fit your own mind.

So here, you have struck out in your attempt, instead proving what I already said above, that I said I was right about knowing what Calvinism in general believes. On that issue, I am right (there ... quote that one) and you are wrong. But thanks for playing

 

Hmmmm ... I wasn't aware anyone said that. Perhaps you were thinking of another post when you quoted mine because I know I didn't say that. I can read the plain words on the page and see that I said nothing of the sort.

You show us yet again that you are unwilling to use people's words with integrity. That is disappointing. Theological discussions deserve better than that kind of tripe.

You face the same problem with "arminianism." It has the name of a man. These two systems are opposed to one another, and every short of open theists and atheists, believe in one or the other. You condemn yourself with this argument. (To head your argument off at the pass, "biblicist" means nothing. Both sides argue that they are the biblicists.)

The fact is that "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" are names attached to a set of beliefs. Both sets of beliefs predate the men whose names got attached to them. Neither one sprang on the scene in the Reformation era. Both existed for more than a millennia before that. These names are simply the ones that got attached to it.

However, we can see from reading the words of Christ, Paul, Peter, and John that they were calvinistic long before any of them except Christ knew what a calvinist was.

In short, you made a ridiculous response to my assertion about the name Christian. My point is that calvinism is not antiChristian or antibiblical. A Calvinist can be a Christian just like an Arminian can be. It's just easier for us because we didn't have to do anything to become one ...

 

But your position belies your claim. You are an arminian whether you like it or not. The beliefs you hold are what are known as arminian.

Did you think I didn't know this??? I was not referring to a systematized form of the doctrine (as you can tell by my failure to talk about a systematized form of the doctrine). I was talking about the beliefs themselves.

I didn't say that. You need to go back and read what I said. You need to be more careful with people's words. You have a very bad habit of twisting people's word and making them out to be saying somethign they never said. I have warned you about this several times. It is a very unethical and unChristian way to treat people. You need to cease that method or cease posting.

[ November 30, 2003, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

As we have repeatedly pointed out, you are confusing regeneration with salvation. Do your homework before you post this kind of stuff. It is not what we believe.

Because, in technical terms, they are different things. Hodge describes a broad and narrow sense of regeneration. You are confusing them. You are right about the broad sense of regeneration. But you try to apply the teachings about the narrow sense to it.

[/qb]See how you confuse the terms??? You talk about one thing and then suddenly switch and hope no one notices. We are not that dumb.