Calvinism Critiqued by a Former Calvinist

:laugh:

:laugh::laugh::laugh: sure....no doubt....could you explain your calvinistic beliefs for us AIC?

 

Name calling and false accusations.

 

Welcome to the BB. Your posting against calvinism shows you do not understand the position as when you try to answer you are not really getting at the issues.
[QUOTEBe honest, Calvinism is a religion in itself where the believers think that they are somehow superior to other believers. The Calvinists are the chosen ones of God and we are lost, stupid, hell bound sinners][/QUOTE]

You say this...but you do not see calvinists say this.

John ...you believe calvinists to be in error and you say;

The thing is....you need to demonstrate this ...for example...do you have a quotation from.....John Murray.....John Owen...Matthew Henry...that you can demonstrate how they have taken verses randomly,and patched them together out of context? or is this just in your imagination??:thumbs:

hey John....here is a link to the 1689 confession for you....maybe you can show which parts are out of context for us...take your time and read it over!
http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html

 

Missing my point

Iconolast:

So, my answers don't get at the real issues?

And I do not understand?

And can I quote commentaries?

First of all, there are are no "real issues", there are only simple Bible truths.

Understand? Again, a Calvinist implies that anyone that doesn't agree with him has a lack of Bible education and a generally ignorant knowledge of theology.

And finally, I don't need a confession from 1689, I just need the Bible.

Why don't you write a confession of 2011 and maybe someday Calvinists will take your word as Gospel over the Bible.


PS, I aint reading no confessions for Godly instruction. I only need the Bible.
John

 

Haaaaaa Haaaaaaaaa!!!!! Unelected Unelectable Unelect! ROLF! :tongue3:

 

Rather....It was a PERIOD! Period. Get it LOL

"My God can beat up your God" :tongue3:

 

Iconoclast posted...

What are you talking about Iconoclast??

You know I do not hold to calvinism.

 

I think he means before you got muddled.

 

Iconoclast posted to seekingtruth.....

Classic.

 

OK, I went back and checked the previous posts.

Iconoclast was asking what my calvinist beliefs were back when I was a calvinist.

Answer: Just like do you now, Iconoclast. Just like you do now.

 

I find it ironic that a person who claims they were once a Calvinist and are now writing against Calvinism is news. Most of the books supporting Calvinism are written by people who were once not a Calvinist. This is so prevalent in Calvinistic circles, it would never make news.

So, for the non-calvinists who finally get an author who switches sides, I am glad you have one token author and excited this is such a big deal for you.

 

Yea....I was pretty impressed also. BTW try breaking down the word...."Class" stands out...however the definition of the word classic is "of the first or highest quality, class, or rank.":thumbs:

 

This is true. One either accepts God's appraisal of man, or he does not. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Gen. 6:5

This is better understood as "Total Depravity." "Total Inability" leaves out the fact that not only is man incapable of doing good, he has no desire to do so. He loves the darkness. He loves his wallow in mire.

If God was wrong, and the thoughts of men are not evil c.ontinually, that he doesn't love the darkness, that his real desire is for good and for deliverance, then Calvinism is indeed wrong.

 

Touche':smilewinkgrin:

 

Why is it that every time it seems that when someone posts against Calvinism that some Calvinist will come along and say something along these lines? "Your posting against Calvinism shows you do not understand the position." By the way thanks for the chuckle Iconoclast. We would expect no less from you.

 

Just think of all the illiterate Gentiles back in the first century that didn't get it either! I mean, why bother preaching to them, they couldn't have understood the position!

 

Desperation. :tonofbricks:

 

This is due to all believers coming to faith as non cal's. That alone speaks volumes.

 

Web,

No doubt there are more non-cal Baptist Churches since the late 1800's. Yet, it is great that as people grow in the Lord and hold strongly to Scripture, they tend to move towards reformed theology. Serious students of the Bible has had a tendency to move our direction, just as Spurgeon predicted. The results have been a stronger missions movement, evangelism movement, and theological movement as we have grown. Praise God.

 

I think it is more than that. Believers who become Calvinistic are typically NOT "Arminian" prior to becoming Calvinists...they are "nothing." They are simply ignorant of the issues surrounding the difficult passages such as Eph. 1 and Romans 9. They don't know how else to deal with these complex passages until a Calvinistic scholar tells them what they must mean. Once those lenses are on they are difficult to remove so as to gain any objectivity.

On the other hand, those of us who were Calvinists who have converted to a more "Arminian" position have typically dealt with both scholarly views of these passages. Of course there are exceptions to this, but I think this is reflective of the resurgence we are seeing of the Calvinistic view among the youth. It's a response to a vacuum of scholarly preaching and non-Calvinistic scholarly believers willing to spend time addressing such matters in churches so as to properly educated the youth before confronting other views.