Featured is calvinism based upon John Calvin, Or Upon Jesus And the Gospel?

1) Christ died for all mankind, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4-6, which of course includes all those actually saved. This view is not slanderous or shameful.

2) The Calvinist doctrine of penal substitution is simply a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement, it is mistaken and unsupportable in scripture. Christ's death was substitutional, He died for us. Anyone spiritually placed in Christ and washed with His precious blood has their sins taken away. The sins were not taken away when He died, the Calvinist fiction, but when we are spiritually place in Him. This view is not slanderous or shameful.

3) Calvinism is mistaken doctrine, as shown by verse after verse, such as:

(1) Total Spiritual Inability is shown false because everyone would be as the first soil of Matthew 13:1-23, but scripture teaches some men have lost all their natural ability to understand some spiritual things, the milk of the gospel, i.e. the first soil, but other men, i.e. soils 2, 3 and 4 still have limited spiritual ability and therefore can seek God and understand the gospel.

(2) Unconditional Election is shown false by 2 Thessalonians 2:13 which teaches we are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth. This view is not shameful or slanderous.

(3) Limited Atonement (and Penal Substitution) are shown to be false doctrine by 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4-6, and John 3:16 (whoever believes teaches the reconciliation is available to all.)

(4) Irresistible Grace is shown to be false doctrine by Matthew 23:13 where men are entering heaven (and therefore according to Calvinism under the influence of Irresistible Grace) who are blocked by false teachers teaching false doctrine. ​

 

Fiction indeed.....your response is well worded and quite accurate:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

So, why did it take 1500 years for it to be "discovered" in scripture?

Just had to come back in to ask that.

 

Two reasons.

1. The early church was superficial in its treatment of the atonement. It was weighed down by an almost universal belief in baptismal regeneration that obfuscated the atonement.

2. Rome controlled the majority of theological development from the late 4th Century until the Reformation.

Penal substitution was not the only doctrinal "discovery" of the Reformation. Add to that justification by faith alone.

 

Well, I can't believe it: an actual sensible post without personal insult! Thanks! I like what you said.

Now, I do disagree with the first part of your point 1. The early church was actually very scholarly and thought deeply about issues. It was in the East that the great theological and philosophical questions regarding doctrine were raised, debated, and definitions settled upon. The early Greek fathers wrote extensively about the atonement. Penal substitution was not taught. I think that is significant.

However, you do make a good point about justification by faith alone. I think in all the discussions I have been in about this that no one has argued the way you have. You made good, objective points, and this is refreshing. If all the discussions could be like this, we might actually be able to learn from each other, and then these debates would truly be productive instead of the opposite of that.

 

Amen Brother:thumbs:

 

BINGO....:thumbs:

 

Penal Substitution is a Trojan horse for limited atonement, thus conflicts with all scripture. Christ died for our sins, the just for the unjust. Anyone spiritually placed in Christ has their sins removed, forgiven and taken out of the way.

The Calvinist doctrine of penal substitution is simply a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement, it is mistaken and unsupportable in scripture. Christ's death was substitutional, He died for us. Anyone spiritually placed in Christ and washed with His precious blood has their sins taken away. The sins were not taken away when He died, the Calvinist fiction, but when we are spiritually placed in Him when we undergo the circumcision of Christ. This view is not slanderous or shameful, but rather simply biblical truth.

 

Christ died for those He actually died for. Is this the sort of tommy rot up with I must put?

Christ died for all mankind, including those among mankind who would be redeemed, thus He did die for those He actually died for, i.e. all mankind including those subsequently redeemed.

As shown by 1 John 2:2, Christ became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, all mankind. He laid down His life as a ransom for all, 1 Timothy 2:4-6. Calvinism's limited Atonement results from Calvinism putting the cart before the horse. But once 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is accepted as truth, we are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, you get the correct order, Christ died for all, whoever believes, according to God's assessment, is set apart in Christ, the sanctification by the Spirit. This fits with God desiring all to be saved according to His purpose and plan, which was not to compel through irresistible grace, but to persuade through the gospel of Christ.

 

Calvinism conflicts with Scripture

1) Christ died for all mankind, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4-6, which of course includes all those actually saved. This view is not slanderous or shameful.

2) The Calvinist doctrine of penal substitution is simply a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement, it is mistaken and unsupportable in scripture. Christ's death was substitutional, He died for us. Anyone spiritually placed in Christ and washed with His precious blood has their sins taken away. The sins were not taken away when He died, the Calvinist fiction, but when we are spiritually place in Him. This view is not slanderous or shameful.

3) Calvinism is mistaken doctrine, as shown by verse after verse, such as:

(1) Total Spiritual Inability is shown false because everyone would be as the first soil of Matthew 13:1-23, but scripture teaches some men have lost all their natural ability to understand some spiritual things, the milk of the gospel, i.e. the first soil, but other men, i.e. soils 2, 3 and 4 still have limited spiritual ability and therefore can seek God and understand the gospel.

(2) Unconditional Election is shown false by 2 Thessalonians 2:13 which teaches we are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth. This view is not shameful or slanderous.

(3) Limited Atonement (and Penal Substitution) are shown to be false doctrine by 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4-6, and John 3:16 (whoever believes teaches the reconciliation is available to all.)

(4) Irresistible Grace is shown to be false doctrine by Matthew 23:13 where men are entering heaven (and therefore according to Calvinism under the influence of Irresistible Grace) who are blocked by false teachers teaching false doctrine.​

 

Van responded:

Brother, let's make a deal. I'll support what I believe with scripture, and you and I can stick to discussing the meaning of scripture in the context it was written.

But do not call me a liar about when I learned certain doctrine, since you obviously don't know my life and I do. I do not claim the name "Calvin", and as such, I have no dog in your fight against "Calvinists". I do understand that the doctrines I believe are called "reformed" doctrine, or the "doctrines of grace" or "Calvinism". But since I don't know a lot about Calvin, I don't attempt to defend or accuse him.

Now, if you want to attempt to discuss the meaning of scripture, without name calling and assuming you know my life and motivation, I'll be happy to join you. If you can't help yourself, then I'll let you debate yourself.

You mentioned "T", which I have heard means "total depravity" or "total inability", the latter being a better phrase, IMHO.

I understand from the scripture I have read that a person is not able to come to Christ in Saving faith without the intervention of God in that person's life. That intervention comes by Holy Spirit. That is what I believe "total inability" means.

Just so we can avoid confusion, do you agree to this meaning of "total inability"?