Flaws of Calvinism

In a recently closed thread, a number of Calvinists posted blatant falsehoods, because that is the only defense of false doctrine.

In post 148 a Calvinist asked what is the difference between saving faith and sanctifying faith. Both of these fictional constructs of false doctrine rest of the false premise something in the faith caused God to save and sanctify. Was the fact it is God's action, crediting flawed faith, that results in salvation or sanctification? Nope, as Calvinists must run from truth.

In post 150 a Calvinist regurgitated the fiction of the gift of faith. However, the only support effort in the thread was a reference to being given faith after being born anew. Nothing exists in scripture to support the fiction of pre-salvation gift of faith via "Irresistible Grace." And again, no mention of Matthew 23:13 where people had faith sufficient to be entering the kingdom, yet they did not come by it because of "irresistible grace" as they were prevented from entering.

Next, a Calvinist asks me to define "exhaustive determinism." No mention of the Calvinist doctrine that God ordains (predesitines) whatsoever comes to pass. Nope, we are supported to accept posting Calvinists do not know Calvinism. Go figure.

Next, post 153 a Calvinist regurgitates the fiction of the gift of faith with no scripture reference. I kid you not.

Next a Calvinist claims the biblical views I presented with associated scripture, are not in accord with those scriptures. However, just the charge and no evidence was hurled.

Next a Calvinist posts as if he did not misconstrue Ephesians 2:3. Just read it folks...

Next a Calvinist claims their false doctrine of "exhaustive determinism" does not create robots. I kid you not.

Next, in post 166, one Calvinist is allowed to gossip about a poster to another Calvinist, continuing the on-slot of false charges.

Next a fount of falsehood posts I labeled someone an Idiot. However because of their idiotic posts I said I did not know if the classification was valid.

Next, these disinformation posters start discussing my behavior rather than the thread topic, which of course is allowed. Go figure...

Next a Calvinist pretends he is unaware of my rebuttal of the Lydia passage misused by Calvinists endlessly. I kid you not.

Finally a Calvinist claims that if God allows a person to believe (i.e. does not allow their heart to be hardened) it actually means "instills faith by irresistible grace." Such is the hogwash upon which Calvinism is mired.

 

Learn to spell Van. It's onslaught.

 

This thread will not close fast enough

JMO

 

:Roflmao

One needs to learn to read the Scriptures.

What does it say, Van?

 

Shall I list the errors of Vanism, again?

Nope, for the fault of Vanism is plain to those who rightly understand the Scriptures and practice discerning truth from error.

 

:Roflmao:Roflmao:Roflmao:Roflmao:Roflmao:Roflmao another deep thread:Frown:Notworthy:CautiousConfusedConfused

 

Ok, you are a Mod

just don’t see any good in this thread

oh well

 

By no power endowed to me, I give you my permission which is of worthless value, but I see no edification or urge of study in the OP, rather opportunity to vent by one that is hopefully struggling in conviction and looking to blame others for their own discomfort(s).

 

Let's put Calvinism to the test. Van is big on free will. I say he does not have the ability in his free will to complete 5 posts just stating his opinion and not insulting anyone and actually having a meaningful discussion. It is not in his nature.

 

Van, in the nearly eleven years that you have been with the BB dialoging is something you just don't do. Interaction is anathema to you. Yet having an honest back-and-forth would be in your best interest. It's about to become a New Year. Resolve to change your ways. Rid yourself of your tired old formula. I am aware of the old adage : You can't teach an old dog new tricks. Hopefully, though your habits have been so ingrained, you will be open to a positive change in your ways.

What is Calvinism Van? Are you capable of giving a straight-forward summary of what it is without going off the deep end? What particular Calvinistic authors and/or theologians have you read with some degree of depth?

Of course Calvinists see what's called "Calvinism" throughout the Scripture. But I'd like to know what source material of Calvinistic origin you are familiar with.

 

Was just trying to prevent a melee Salty

 

Van, I and others have explained this verse to you umpteen times, though you could easily look up the meaning of it in any half-decent commentary.
Do you really want me to explain it again?

 

One flaw of Calvinism is that in our salvation WE aren't consciously involved until very late in the process - when we personally have faith in Christ for our salvation. I value the theology of Calvinism both for it's logic and what I think is the accurate use of scripture. And it is perfectly legitimate to defend that vigorously on a debate forum. But we as Calvinists need to be careful how we handle the average Christian who is not an amateur theologian. If someone is thankful that they believed the gospel and came to Christ they do not need to be corrected and told they didn't really initiate it. There is no requirement in the Bible that says you have to have an understanding of predestination, the extent of the atonement, whether God meticulously governs all events, what the true definition of free will is. I value those things, and think the system we call Calvinism explains them best, but I would never run around at church talking like we do on here. But some Calvinists do and that's a flaw.

 

Where this conversation takes place is in the course of Bible study. I am in a men's Bible study where we have studied through Matthew, Romans, and now, Hebrews. This study has brought us to specific passages where the issue of God's choosing and calling is addressed. This has then been the time where free will objections have been addressed and considered.
It is interesting how many times this topic comes to the forefront in these books. More than I originally thought. This past week, as we went through Hebrews 9, the men who had free will as their premise were confronted with the author of Hebrews outlining that the New Covenant is actually a "Last Will and Testament" where the persons who are given their Inheritance have their names read off. It points to the writer of the will determining who receives what in the will. It utterly smashes free will salvation. The one person who struggled with this exclaimed, "now we are getting into the deep waters." He was right. Unfortunately, plucking sentences from various passages can create a distorted understanding of salvation. It is in studying the whole where the truths of God are openly revealed.

 

DaveXR650,

I have asked you in the past what RB church you attended.
Your explanations do not ring true.
What is known as Calvinism is derived from scripture which we believe to be without flaw.
We do not "personally have faith", but rather it is granted to us by the Spirit of God, then we exercise it.

okay

When people come on a message board mostly they are not novices.
They come in often times with an agenda.
Any Cal will take their time and help any novice.
All Christians are to be theologians.
If they have not studied their bible enough, they should come in with sincere questions, with a view to learn and grow.

No one is looking to jump on a new believer's words. Salvation is not totally based on a theological test. That being said, there is a faith once delivered to the saints that must be upheld in the midst of error.
Most Calvinists are found in confessional churches for this reason.

[QUOTE]I value those things, and think the system we call Calvinism explains them best, but I would never run around at church talking like we do on here. But some Calvinists do and that's a flaw.[/QUOTE]

So when someone comes up to you speaking things that are clearly not correct, how do you go about correcting that person? Do you do anything?
Do you just smile and say, it is all good? Do you offer a vague answer and side step the issue?

In any case, here on the BB. many are hostile to the truth.

 

I believe that it is correct to say that a person is actually justified after they come by faith to Christ. I believe saving faith is made possible by the acting of the Holy Spirit on a person but that the person, not the Holy Spirit actually exercises faith. I believe it is OK to say you are predestined to salvation yet preach fervently that people need to repent and believe the gospel. I believe that it is OK to say that faith is a gift from the Spirit and yet say you should strive with all your might for faith. I believe the offer of the gospel is real and to everyone. Why do I believe all this? Because I spent a lot of time actually reading what Thomas Watson, John Bunyan, Robert Trail, John Owen actually wrote and preached, and not just the logical arguments you hear from the internet. I can back up everything I say by quotes from the men who actually did Calvinism. Some of the best sermons were preached by Calvinists who would know nothing of the dry, intellectual argumentation you call Calvinism. You can still hear Martyn Lloyd Jones in his own voice. I suggest everyone listen to some of his sermons. You will end up a Calvinist, but not like some of the guys on here.

 

"It is one thing to believe in the Doctrines of Grace, but quite another thing to accept all the encrustations which have formed upon those doctrines and also a very different matter to agree with the spirit which is apparent in some who profess to propagate the pure Truth of God." —Charles Spurgeon, "Rivers of Water in a Dry Place"

 

Spurgeon, like the earlier Puritans, believed in the sovereignty of God but realized that God has chosen to use means, often time ordinary means like the Word and preaching. He had no trouble, and neither did the Puritans, preaching that you needed to repent or you needed to strive to get faith. Some of these Calvinists on this site would go nuts if you said in a post that you need to strive for faith. That is a flaw, not really of Calvinism, but of Calvinists.