Calvinists- How many points?

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/dort.htm
http://www.puritanseminary.org/media/CanonsOfDort.pdf

 

So you believe this?

The rest of His creation He preordained to Hell? I'm sorry, that's not the God I know. People are in Hell because they rejected God of their own free will, not because He went "eny meny miny mo" and chose some and rejected others. Yet, it really is that simple according to Calvinism, no matter how you dress it up.
Btw, I never said Calvinsts weren't Christians. Just that they are wrong about Calvinism.

 

Unless you believe in universalism, then that's exactly what happened.

of course. Who said otherwise?

Really, you have Bible to back that up that God chose randomly. I have yet to see a Calvinist say God chose randomly. Nice straw man though...

no it's not. It's for the pleasure of His good will that he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world.

I know you weren't saying that. I was trying to get you to be careful on how you word things.

 

I think I will bow out of this discussion. Try as I might, I cannot wrap my head around Calvinism. I have tried. I know many good Christians who are Calvinists. I just don't know ANY Baptists who are. I'm amazed at apparently the amount of you that are. I tend to post things in a way that can seem condemning or angry, so I think I'll just follow this discussion without commenting since I've already made my views clear.

 

Don't back away from the Board entirely, many would appreciate your input. I do understand though the desire to refrain from commentary, as often it simply just creates unnecessary friction.

 

That just shows you can think without asking Calvin what you should believe.

 

See your drawing conclusions ..... for example, who said "God went "eny meny miny mo" and chose some and rejected others?" Where is that a passage in Scripture? Rather, "For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy (Exodus 33:19) and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. Therefore, to the clear doctrine of Scripture, we assert that by an eternal and immutable counsel God has once for all determined both whom He would admit to salvation, and whom He would condemn to destruction.

 

That is quite true. If you go by Calvin's entire belief, then sprinkling is the way to baptize, after all, it saves on the water bill. If you follow Calvin, then you must believe in a hierarchy, oh and don't forget the ever famous, have people murdered who do not agree with you theologically. Too bad he was not the founder of this country. We could have had a theocracy instead of a Republic.

 

You miss the greater point, which is that Calvin is not the only source of Reformed doctrine, nor do we parrot Calvin. We, like he, turn to the Scriptures! Which of the 5 points of the Calvinistic TULIP did Calvin write?

What you might want to study a bit is the way that the Church, under Catholicism, turned away from the Scriptures, building on the teachings of one Father of the Church after another -- each in succession assuming that those who came before them had actually exegeted the Scriptures to arrive at their point. By the time of the Reformation, the RCC had drifted so far away from Scripture as to be heretical and unrecognizable as biblical Christianity.

That was, in large part, cured by men like Luther ("Reformed"), Calvin ("Reformed") and others. In the line of Catholicism, the last "Father" who was even close to the Scriptures was Augustine, who was also "Reformed" in the way he saw the doctrine of grace and God's sovereignty.

You really gain nothing by promulgating straw man (and patently false) arguments that you gather from certain IFB websites.

Additionally, do you realize that Calvin was not JUST the pastor of the church in Geneva... He was also the political leader of the city, akin to a mayor or governor today. In following the laws of his land, he came up against ONE individual who, by those laws, was condemned to death. It was not as if he ran out and just murdered everyone who disagreed with him. Get the story right by reading ACTUAL history instead of those weird and false web sites.

 

How is this statement profitable? It's sad the way you speak about your brothers and sisters in Christ. Just because you disagree over interpretations of particular passages doesn't mean you have to make comments like this. No Calvinist puts Calvin over the Bible. Many of us, including myself, have never read Calvin. Besides, Calvin was a presbyterian, I'm a baptist.

 

Now this post doesn't make sense. You approve of Christians being Calvinists, and even call them good. But a Baptist cannot be a Calvinist ? If a Baptist is a Calvinist, then in your book you cannot classify them as Christians, maybe even call them "good" Christians ?

So you feel.......what ?
Threatened by Baptists who are Calvinistic ?
Your "comfort" zone is violated ?

 

I believe he was saying the he didn't know any Baptists that were Calvinists. This is because some baptists(like Sword of the Lord) pretend that Calvinism isn't part of baptist history. I'm assuming that the churches that he has been to did the same thing.

 

Actually, you miss the point. If there are more Reformed leaders, then why is a thug picked for a naming of an entire doctrine. There is nothing wrong with the doctrine, not at all.

Why even mention Catholicism? Is that your standard for believing doctrine, or what is in the Bible? By the way, I have never been to a IFB website in my life, and could care less what they believe.

Your post is indeed odd, for example "you might want to study is a bit the way the Church, under Catholicism." is a ridiculous statement. The Church was never, ever under the Catholic Church. The Church has always been under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and was administered by local New Testement churches similiar like the ones we have today. The Church has never been Catholic, never will be, and you got lots of nerve using the term Church in the same sentence as a heretical organization like the Roman Catholic Church.

As far as Calvin being head of state, not hardly. He was a thug in charge of a city briefly. He claimed to believe in seperation of church and state, yet, when it came time to fufill his lust for power, he became mayor of Geneva. A human being, a creation of the Lord, forfeited his life for the likes of this garbage. If you wish to live under a theocracy, move to Iran or Saudia Arabia. It seems odd to me you stay in this country founded as a Democratic-Republic.

 

Calvinism -- not John Calvin. have you yet to discern the difference?

Blah,blah,blah, joining in with Robert Snow,B4L,Winman and rest are you?

 

If your attitude is representative of Calvinists, I'm glad I'm not one!

 

You say one thing, then another to suit your purpose at the moment. Actually, I am exactly the opposite of the ones you mentioned on Docrtrines of God's sovereignty. This is just another post where you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Trust me, I wish this guy was a free willer. His posts are a disgrace to either side. There is no reason the two sides cannot hold a civil conversation.

 

TULIPPIT

adding P- perpetual virginity of Mary
I - Infant sprinkling and calling it baptism
T - Theocracy led government

 

Saturn.....where do you come off calling Calvin a thug? Is this what you pick up from belonging to a apostate liberal anything goes church (Presbyterian Church-USA)? Unbelievable.

 

Examples please. You need to show what you are talking about. I have been as honest as possible.

What in the world does that mean? What points do you deny or affim?