Featured To Those Who Hate Calvinism: What is Your BIG problem With it?

If you have seen my website at Do Right Christians (dorightchristians.wordpress.com) the very top section is "Will Kinney's KJV Index". Will Kinney is a die-hard Calvinist, but a defender of the KJV.

And speaking of Calvinist friends that disagree with James White and his straw man arguments, here's one of his articles James White's Shell Game.

I also made a statement as to White's dishonesty on post #151

Now when it comes for demands for evidence, sometimes a person is simply stating an opinion in general that does not require specific facts, and then when a specific debate requires it, THEN you give facts because the thread is about that subject. This thread is about Calvinism, so I did not feel inclined to offer support for every comment that I made. I think lollipops are evil, do I need to offer evidence for that too?

And no, you didn't answer my last response to you, but I've kind of gotten used to how some of you fellas operate. You made a generalized response in post 157 that merely repeated your circular rhetoric and I answered your post in post #161 which you have not answered. Just because you're too lazy to read past the front page doesn't mean that I didn't respond, or give an example of why I do not like James White. But the more I see how you respond, the more sympathy I gain for you.

But before I finish this post, lets recap:

1. You doubted my statement and mocked it that I claimed I have Calvinist friends which is something that you said without evidence even though it can be verified at the top of my website, but yet you demand that others make statements with supporting documentation for their claims.

2. You stated that I made claims about James White and apparently missed post 151. Strike 2.

3. You claimed to have answered my post yet I see nothing in response to post 161. Waist high, above the knees, right over the plate. Maybe you should call James White personally because you need a designated hitter.

 

Wow. You're seriously turning a blind eye to the text of Scripture I gave you that clearly makes your straw man argument and myth about Calvinists incorrect proving it a false assumption. I'm not the only one on here who has shown how you are incorrect based upon Scripture not upon false absurdities such as your 'psalms' argument.

Titus 1 is to, guess who? The elect. Thus Scripture uses the term synonymously with genuine believers and assures us of salvation. So you're saying that you cannot accept on that basis, and on 1 Thess. 1:4ff that you're elect, or you don't know if you are elect? It's the same thing! You don't happen to like the term, but plainly the text calls those who believe 'elect' and that their election is therefore 'known' and, one more time 'because...'

Not even close friend. Nothing you've supplied proves your point in any of your several posts. Just because you post something doesn't make your points valid just because you did. I don't believe the points of KJVOers to be truthful scholarly, or valid. I've watched many vidoes and have listened to many debates and honestly they bring nothing to the plate whatsoever. Sam Gipps arguments are horrendously inaccurate and based upon presuppositions and he's a ringleader in this group. Being part of the IFB for years I've heard most of their arguments, and was pressured to preach their nonsense from the pulpit about a version, and it never happened.

I've given you ample proof against your myth and straw man accusations within this thread against the brethren. It's plainly conveyed within the text and your theory is incorrect.

You should stick to valid accusations and or know Scripture better prior to posting some straw man arguments against anyone.

Scripture refutes you.

- Blessings

 

Ephesians 2:1-2 says we were dead in trespasses and sins wherein we WALKED in time past. It does not say we were BORN dead in sin, and much scripture proves that we are not born dead in sin.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

This scripture says God has made man upright. The word THEY is plurial, showing this is speaking of all men, not just Adam. There is much more.

Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

In Romans 7, Paul is speaking of when he came to know the law. Pauls says that he had not known lust except the law had said thou shalt not covet. So in verse 9 Paul is telling us that when he came to understand just what sin is, that he was convicted by the law as a sinner and spiritually died.

If we are born dead in sin as Augustine and Calvin taught, then no man could EVER say he was alive, but that is exactly what Paul tells us. There is more.

Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

When the prodigal son repented, twice Jesus said he was alive AGAIN. If we are born dead in sin, then it could not be said of any man that he is alive again, but that is exactly what Jesus told us. There is more.

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Peter said that Christians are RETURNED to Jesus. If we are born dead in sin, separated from God, then it could never be said that any man is returned to God, but that is exactly what Peter taught.

I know this is new to you, but the scriptures DO NOT teach that we are BORN dead in sin, they teach we are born upright and alive, but all men leave home like the prodigal and die in sin. When a man repents, he is made alive AGAIN as Jesus taught.

I tell you because I can see you are a person who believes what the scriptures say.

 

A Message For The Hermeneutically Impaired

You gave scripture and I gave it back. So if your argument is that any person who quotes scripture is the winner, Genesis 1:1, there, I quoted scripture so now I'm ahead. Look up "Red Herring" arguments while you're at it.

Secondly, do you even know what a straw man argument is? Look it up before you use it so recklessly.

I gave you several passages of Scripture that prove that election and saved are not synonymous terms. You seem to think that two words being in the same sentence together makes the terms synonymous. You have much learning to do grasshopper.

And you have yet to answer a simple question: How do you know that YOU are elect. You have danced around that question more than an centipede at a Broadway tap show. I must conclude you simply don't know how to answer it. But I bet any of the good ole fashioned independent fundamental Baptists in here know how to answer it. Even my teenager knows how to answer it. Trying to throw you a bone here but "Ye would not".

And I have read all 2 books against the KJVO position by Dr James White and DA Carson. There's a few others that are so pitifully written they're not worth mentioning. The former 2 at least make a few attempts to quote some text sources although they are dishonest in their classifications of texts and following their own translation rules.

I have studied Gipp, Riplinger, Ruckman, Waite, Burgon (who's work on the last 12 verses of Mark have never been refuted), Jasper Ray, Fuller, Donovan and about 100 other authors that have defended the KJV and TR. I studied Greek even using Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Vine, Strong, Pappas, and Robertson. So since I have listed more names than you have, I guess I win that one since siting authors that you have read on the subject and then disagreeing with their position proves that you have refuted them. My Burgon, Fuller, and Ray trump your White and Gipp reference, and I'll raise you one Will Kinney (White won't debate with him or I anymore, but Will really gets under his skin!).

Now regarding Titus. Neither Titus 1:1, nor 1:2 prove your hippopotamus. A declarative statement on the faith of God's elect. Verse 1 proves who Paul's audience is, but it doesn't prove that YOU are elect. And what is it that God promised before the world began in verse 2? "The hope of eternal life". The verse says nothing about anyone being saved before the world began.

And you still have not responded to the argument about Judas. If election and being chosen prove that all elect will be saved according to the Calvinist view, then how did Judas end up getting lost? He was one of the 12 that was said to have been given to Christ in John 17:12. If election is unconditional, then how can many be called but few chosen? If Israel was God's elect, Isaiah 45:4, and elect is synonymous with saved, then how did Israel not "obtain that which he seeketh for" Romans 11:7. And if the elect are always a reference to those who are saved in any dispensation, then why are they several references to different elected groups (Notice that in Romans 11:4, there is an elect group selected OUT OF AN ELECT group!).

And then here's the real kicker for election:

"As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes." Romans 11:28. I highlighted "Gospel" and "Election" for the hermeneutically impaired. I don't want to go too fast here, so I'll take it slow. I'll let you catch up, and then I'll explain how Romans 11:32 is a death blow to Calvinism and Replacement Theology (another theological blunder of Calvin's in agreement with his Catholic amillennial roots, but more on that at another time).

And for those with common decency reading this, I have an entire Glad Bag full of ad hominem and corn beef reserved for people that respond the way this gent does to others. Prov 26:5. I prefer talking to adults, but sometimes you have to use your Donald Duck voice to talk to children.

 

We are almost on the same page here at least as far as the results are concerned. Either one of our views of Eph 2 is still opposed to Calvinism. But I do believe the Bible is pretty clear on the subject of being born in sin, and if we are born in sin, then we are born dead in sin.

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Psalm 51:5. This does not mean, as some opine, that David was born into a sinful environment. David was "Shapen...in....iniquity".

Although John 9:34 is stated by heretics, it shows the understanding they had of the law. "Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us?"

And in Romans 5, if Adam is the reason that all die, then the curse of sin must logically occur at conception.

The idea that there was no original sin is based on an old teaching called Pelagianism.

The issue then becomes when sin is imputed. Romans 4:1-7.

When Ecclesiastes is mentioning God making man upright, Solomon is speaking in a moral sense, not a sinless sense. God made man with a conscience and holds him accountable to his conscience. Romans 2:12-14.

When Paul states he was alive, Paul was a Jew under the law, and keeping the law kept them alive, literally (Prov 7:2, Deut 4:40). When Paul was physically alive in the world, once the knowledge of sin came because of the law, sin was imputed to him. The fact that everyone that is not saved is already under condemnation further serves to support that. John 3:17-18.

Notice that Romans 7:9 says that sin REVIVED and he died, which means it was there before. It is a matter of being born in sin, but not having the sin nature imputed to you until your become consciously aware of the need to repent.

The prodigal son is symbolic of the relationship between God and Israel (not God and a backslidden or unsaved person as is the popular usage of it). Israel was a nation that was given promises and sat in the Father's house, and then chose to reject what the Father had done, but will come back to Him during and after the tribulation after they have spent 2,000 years eating with the pigs. Romans 11:1, 26, and Revelation 7:4-7 for those who think Israel is the church, tell me which tribe you are in during the tribulation!) The nation of Israel was once alive and then became dead as a nation when they rejected Christ (Romans 11:25).

Peter said we were AS sheep going astray, not that were were alive at some point. To be alive at some point and then to be dead when sin came would imply losing your salvation at some point. Going by the interpretation you offered would imply that as sheep we at some point had knowledge of Christ and then left and returned. When the sheep returned is a universal statement (not be confused with Universalism). As Peter later says, it is not God's will that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. Christ died so that all would come to Him, and thus when as sheep return, they are returning to Someone who's original intent was to be their Shepard in the first place.

The whole matter of repentance involves turning to Christ from what you ARE, not what you became, or what you've done (e.g. Luke 18:13).

This is where Calvinism by many is misunderstood because it is held that because Calvin believed in original sin and then called it Total Depravity, that critics are now attempting to revive the Pelagian rebuttal to original sin. But it is not the view of original sin that is the problem with Total Depravity. It is the idea that man can not hear God or respond to him, and thus needs God to superimpose and irresistible grace to wake the sinner up and grant him repentance, which as I have shown from Genesis 3 where Adam not only heard God but responded to Him while he was dead in his sin. is just one example that refutes that.

 

But we are not born dead in sin, the scriptures I showed refute that. If we are born dead in sin, then Paul could never say he once was alive, but that is exactly what he told us. If we are born dead in sin, then Jesus could not have said the prodigal son was alive AGAIN, but that is what Jesus said twice. If we are born dead in sin, separated from God, then Peter could not say we are RETURNED to Jesus, but that is exactly what he said. You cannot return someplace you have never been. Folks minds are so conditioned by false teaching they simply do not see what scripture plainly says.

Yes, the flesh is corruptable (able to be corrupted), but the soul and spirit are received from God and are not corrupt (at first).

Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Total Depravity as taught by Calvinism is false doctrine. Jesus here shows the disciples were willing in their human spirit to obey, but their flesh was weak. This was before the disciples received the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Our spirit is given to us by God, God is called the "father of spirits" in scripture. God does not give us evil spirits.

And they were in complete error.

Adam introduced sin into the world which brought condemnation and death. Those who copy Adam die as he did. Notice that verses 13-14 only speak of men from Adam to Moses. Why doesn't it say all men from Adam? Paul had explained in chapter 2 that men without the law perish without the law. Why? Because they have the law written on their hearts. This is what Paul is saying in Rom 5:13-14. Paul is not saying these men sinned in Adam, God said the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father, or vice versa (Eze 18:20)

He was correct.

Sin is not imputed when there is no law. This is why babies cannot be sinners, because they have no knowledge between good and evil. Romans 9:11 clearly shows babies have committed no evil.

Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

God did not punish the children of the Jews who sinned in the wilderness, because they had no knowledge between good and evil. God does not impute sin to babies and small children. See also Isa 7:16, and Jon 4:11, and of course Romans 7:9. This is exactly what Paul is explaining, that he was spiritually alive until he came to know the law. He thought the law would lead him to eternal life, but sin working by the law convicted him as a sinner and he spiritually died. If men are born dead in sin, then Paul could NEVER say he was alive once. And Paul was of course speaking of spiritual life here, he could not possibly be saying he physically died.

Perfect example of how Calvinists explain scripture away. The verse is simple, God made men upright, but all men seek out inventions or sin and spiritually die as the prodigal son did.

Nope, Paul could not say he was ever alive if OS is true. You are listening to those who explain scripture away.

Sin without law has no power, it is dormant. Until Paul learned the law, sin had no power over him. When he learned the law he was convicted of his sins and spiritually died. Sin is only imputed when there is law.

No, Jesus is clearly speaking of lost sinners. In all three parables, none was originally lost. The sheep was not originally lost, but BECAME lost, Jesus sought him out and found him. Jesus explains this was a lost sinner who repented. The woman had 10 pieces of silver, none was lost. When one BECAME lost, she searched and found it. Jesus explained this was a lost sinner who repented. The prodigal son was not lost at first. He left home and was joined to a citizen of a far country (Satan). This is when he BECAME LOST and he died. When he repented, Jesus said he was ALIVE AGAIN. Do not let folks explain scripture away, it is plain and simple.

You cannot RETURN someplace you have never been. Words have meaning. If you were born separated from God, you could not return to him.

Funny, because Psalm 14 says we have BECOME filthy, Paul rewords this in Romans 3 and says we have BECOME unprofitable. The scriptures say man CORRUPTED himself. The scriptures say we fade as a leaf. All leaves begin green and alive, no leaf starts out dead. It is all plain, but folks are blinded by false doctrine.

I believe Pelagius has been misrepresented, he did not believe any person could be saved without God's grace and neither do I. If God had not revealed himself to us through his word, then no man could be saved (Rom 10;14). Faith comes by hearing the word of God.

Men are born with the innate ability to believe, but no man can believe what he has never heard and does not know. This is why Paul asked how any man can believe unless he has heard, and how can he hear without a preacher?

When a man hears the gospel, he is enabled to believe or not.

Pay attention to the words and you will see Original Sin is false doctrine. Almost every single thing that Calvinism teaches is the exact opposite of scripture. It is a complete LIE.

 

ACH,

Winman has posted these verses dozens of times and assures us they are true. Are you sure you have considered his explanation carefully enough?

 

All scripture is true, whether my interpretation is correct or not is the question. I interpret scripture literally, Jesus said the lost sheep was a sinner who repented.

Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Jesus is not speaking of Israel here, Jesus plainly tells us he is speaking of a sinner who repents. But originally this sinner was not lost, Jesus told us the shepherd had 100 sheep.

Luk 15:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

The shepherd, who represents God the Father originally HAD 100 sheep. None were lost.

Notice also that Jesus speaks of 99 just persons who need no repentance. Who could these be? If Original Sin is true (it is not), then there could be no such thing as 99 just persons who need no repentance. Yet Jesus himself speaks of these persons.

Did Jesus speak of these 99 just persons anywhere else in scripture? Yes, in Matthew chapter 18. And Jesus identifies who these 99 just persons are, they are children.

Mat 18:12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

In Matthew 18 Jesus picks up a small child and places him in the midst of the disciples. Jesus tells his disciples unless they be converted and become as little children they shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. We know that no unclean or defiled thing shall ever enter heaven, so it is clear little children are not filthy sinners.

And again Jesus speaks of 99 persons which "went not astray". Is there any person who has never gone astray? Yes. Unborn babies who die and little children who die have never sinned. Romans 9:11 shows this.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Paul clearly says that Esau and Jacob had done no evil while they were alive in their mother's womb. And if they had died at this point (as millions of babies do), they would be no sinners and need no repentance.

Of course Icon, you cannot possibly understand this. You have been completely misled and deceived by the false doctrine of Augustine and Calvin. You believe the doctrines of men, and not what the scriptures plainly say.

 

But Winman...it is ACH that offered you biblical teaching here on this thread.
He calmly walked you through your verses....read it again.:wavey:

 

No, he did what many do. The false doctrine of Original Sin is so pervasive, that even most non-Calvinists believe it. But it is squarely an Augustinian and Calvinistic doctrine.

Anybody who believes OS cannot understand scripture that speaks of just persons who need no repentance, even if it was Jesus who said this. It is mumbo jumbo to them, their mind is corrupted by misinformation and error.

So, they come up with all sorts of wild explanations for who the prodigal son is. Many say he is a backslidden Christian, but Jesus said the prodigal was DEAD and LOST, terms never used of a believer. They come up with wild stories about Israel and all sorts of goofy stuff. There was a thread not long ago where someone asked what the prodigal son meant. Go back and read all the goofy explanations folks came up with. All because they cannot understand that men are not born dead in sin.

No, men are not born dead in sin, or separated from God. At first they belong to God, but when they knowingly and willingly go out in sin as the prodigal did they BECOME filthy, they become lost, and are joined to a citizen of that far country, Satan. But when they come to themselves and repent, they are forgiven and made ALIVE AGAIN.

Of course you cannot possibly understand that.

 

...he also used them to refute total depravity. Is it still biblical teaching?

 

,

Winman...no one makes doctrinal basics from the parables...that is unsound.

In luke 15.......three things were lost,three things were found...resulting in joy.

Your attempts to read into the parables is misguided.

ACH was telling you this.

 

WD,

We are still waiting for ACH to respond to 2 pet.1: 1-10.He avoided it completely. He has not refuted anything yet.

 

What a joke, Calvinism takes obvious hyperbole like Psa 51:5 and Psa 58:3 and forms doctrine from it.

The parables of Jesus are spiritual truths, but they are hidden from the lost.

Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

The sheep was not originally lost, the silver piece was not originally lost, the prodigal son was not originally lost.

And YOU were not originally lost either.

 

To the OP...

There is a difference between Calvinism and Reformed Theology and Hyper of either. So clarifying can help in noting distinctions and differences.

 

Winman,

Of course they are spiritual truths.....but almost every time there is only one main truth in view.....they are not doctrinal books like Romans,and Ephesians,and the epistles.

 

Yes for sure.Failing to understand the distinctions results in much of the confusion.

 

Thread has reached a 20 page limit and will be closed!

Blackbird