How far Did Calvinism Go beyond teaching/Doctrines Of calvin?

As I asked before could you give some scripture to support of your position.
Take a look at James 1:4 and do a search on the Greek word for it.

So are you saying that man cannot sin. Isn't that like saying. "Shall we sin that grace may abound? In response Paul uses the strongest language possible to say may it never be!!!!

 

God's choice to 'limit' is different from man's choice to limit. You take our believe that God chooses to limit and apply it to a strawman argument in which man does the limiting. You commit fallacies of this nature over and over and over. It is quite exhausting.

And, by that same standard then, I contend it is necessary for Calvinism to be anti-evangelistic and fatalistic to be remotely logical.

Both systems appeal to mystery at some level Luke, so this argument is non-sensical.

Think about it.

 

My brain was engaged when I deliberately made a choice to follow Jesus. My intellect was engaged followed by emotion followed by an act of the will to act on the decision and trust God for the result of trusting God and His word.

Follow in the context of the NT is imitating someone who leads them. A couple of good book to read on the subject is Following the Master by Michael J. Wilkins. I went to one of the most prestigious woodworking schools in the world and can easily recognize the work of past students because there are characteristics of the work that go back to what we were taught by its founder. We imitated the master. We saw him work and heard what he said. He and the instructors critiqued our work.

Jesus taught, "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men." If that is not a choice then we would have churches that completely lacked any fear. The early church prayed for boldness. Was not Peter a follower of Jesus? Did he deny Jesus 3 times by his choice of God's choice?

When I had put the cows in the pasture was that God's choice or my choice? While the cows were in the pasture was it my choice or the cow's choice of where to eat?

It seems that what you suggest is that God's actions are always in the active voice but if you read the Hebrew text of the OT there are numerous actions of God that are in the passive voice.

There are people who choose to believe and follow lies and choose to not believe even when confronted with the truth. I have had Mormons be convinced and tell me that what I told them was true but they still chose to stay with Mormonism.

Think about the following God is all powerful then ask the question and provide an answer "Can God create a rock he couldn't lift. That is much the same as the statement you made.

In the NT belief in an action not just intellectual knowledge. Belief is a verb.

 

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

 

If you were persuaded you believed.

Being persuaded is believing.

The word pisteuo MEANS "fully persuaded".

Saying what you say above is like saying, "I was dunked in water and then I CHOSE to get wet."

No. Getting dunked in water is what MADE you get wet.

Being persuaded is what MADE you believe.

Once you are persuaded you don't choose to believe.

Once you are persuaded you are believing.

 

I cite not one Scripture but the whole Bible.

The whole Bible is full of God telling man what to do and man not being able to do it because of his nature.


Unless you are a Pelagian you do not believe that man can keep God's commandments perfectly.

But God commands him to keep his commandments.

So, obviously God commands men to do a host of things he cannot do.

Acknowledge that and I will tell you WHY God does that.

 

Then like Skandelon, you do not believe men are saved by grace alone through faith alone.

You believe men are saved by grace through faith and through acting somehow upon that faith.

That is not what the Bible teaches.

The Bible clearly teaches that people who REALLY believe DO act but not that they have to act in order to be saved. All they have to do is BELIEVE.

But you believe that man has to believe AND act- which I think is not biblical and dangerous.

 

'Tis Not That I Did Choose Thee
lyrics by Josiah Conder, 1836

'Tis not that I did choose thee,
For Lord, that could not be;
This heart would still refuse thee,
Hadst thou not chosen me.
Thou from the sin that stained me
Hast cleansed and set me free;
Of old thou hast ordained me,
That I would live in thee.

'Twas sovreign mercy called me
And taught my op'ning mind;
The world had else entralled me,
To heav'nly glories blind.
My heart owns none before thee,
For thy rich grace I thirst;
This knowing, If I love thee,
Thou must have loved me first.

 

good way to start the day brother! thanks:love2:

 

All who understand it disagree with you,and your opinion.You give no example...you just falsely accuse.....this is not helpful ...is it?

 

Sorry to be delayed in replying, its a busy season right now.

So you know...for a fact...these people would call Jean Calvin a heretic?

 

Not to butt in...but...

No...this is not only what the word means. You're making a very bad argument based on this position.

There is a whole epistemic condition you're not addressing, and quite frankly you're messing it all up. The act of knowing and being persuaded are not, absolutely, linked in with faith or the acceptation of salvation. The case gets even harder when considering the NT evidence.

 

This is called an unsubstantiated claim.

We see this often on baptistboard.

Someone makes an argument.

Then someone responds saying something like you say here- "That's not a good argument."
This person does not bother to support that claim. We are just supposed to accept it because he says it.

If you have no support for your claim, your claim is pointless.

Support this notion that it is a bad argument.

Evidence which I assume you actually do not have since you did not provide one single shred of it.

Also you do not support this unwarranted claim that there is an entire epistemic condition that I am not addressing.

I am not being a bully here, but I must say that I do not understand why you would even bother posting this stuff if you are not going to back it up.

Why did you?

 

Romans 4:20-22 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

Abraham was persuaded and therefore he believed. Therefore it was imputed unto him for righteousness. That is the way it works with any individual. They must be persuaded of the facts of the gospel before they believe them. It doesn't make sense any other way.

Paul disputed daily in the market places. Some he persuaded; some he didn't. Those that he persuaded believed.

 

I'm not really seeing what the disagreement said. DHK said, "Abraham was persuaded and therefore he believed." Luke said, "Once you are persuaded you are believing." He said this following the statement, "Once you are persuaded you don't choose to believe." I'm understanding Luke to mean that once persuaded, you are believing. It's not that you are persuaded, than then later believe. Am I missing something?

 

You are missing the action component. Did not Judas believe with an intellectual belief. The demons believe and shudder. The difference between being persuaded and genuine belief is action upon their intellectual belief.

I can remember years ago that two men who came to my door named elder _____ and elder ______. As we talked I noticed that they would present their doctrine to me along with some verses. As we went along I asked if we could take a look at those verses. We did and each time they would go onto their next point. When I picked up on that I would tell them that is not what I got from that verse. Then when I saw them move on again I asked them what they got from that verse. After three of their points and saying that I was right I asked them about how they could believe what they were saying. Before they left they handed me a BOM and said it cost them $1 if I had a dollar. As they handed me the BOM and were near the door one of them said, "Maybe later." I asked, "When is a good time?" So we set a time for the following week. When they did not show I phoned one of them and asked if they were coming. Her told me, "No, the bishop said that we are not to come by your place any more." The bishop had been one of my professors at the university. He was on my MA committee later and I never got my thesis proposal through. Those men were persuaded but refused to act at the time.

 

I have the Holy Spirit that does this for me. Why do you feel you need someone else to do it besides the Holy Spirit?
MB

 

My point is that faith is not a choice.

Faith is the result of something happening to you (namely you being persuaded).

Choice FOLLOWS faith. It does not precede it.

You don't choose to believe anything.

You are convinced. choice has nothing to do with it.

For example, try CHOOSING to believe you don't exist.

You can't. Faith is not a choice.

 

That is ridiculous.

I dont have to choose to believe that I exist because i have physical evidence of it. It does NOT take faith to KNOW something you have proof of.

But say I tell you right now that I am wearing a blue shirt. You can't see my shirt, so you have to CHOOSE whether you believe me or not. Your faith in my word will determine whether you believe my shirt is blue or not.

That is how faith in God manifests itself in us. We choose to believe the Bible or we choose not to believe it. (And many say they believe it, but refuse to act on that belief. This is what freewill is all about.)

Rick, you have the most skewed and illogical reasoning I have ever encountered. Your analogies make no sense.

What seminary did you go to?

John