Omniscience means fatalism.

[Lon]

One of the travesties of Calvinism is, it takes the simplicity of Paul's Gospel (the Gospel of the grace of God) and uses a 'false doctrine' to make the Gospel more complicated than it is. When a Calvinist shares the Gospel with an unbeliever, does the Calvinist bring up the 'theory' of predestination and the Elect? Or, do they avoid discussing that part of their doctrine, for fear it will hinder their testimony of faith? After all, if you tell an unbeliever that they may or may not be one of the elect, that would tend to confuse the listener, would it not?

Somewhat different between Calvinists. Many Presbyterians have been involved with Billy Graham crusades and participated in counseling.

As far as doctrine, it 'happens' so there is less need to explain in as much detail as you are inquiring. Take for example your salvation, ask a couple of questions and I'll see if I can answer them for you. :e4e:

 

[Lon]

Not addressed to me, so this is a sounding board response. "IF" any of it would help, please feel free to respond, but otherwise just have in mind for those of us following along and rather address such when talking to AMR (and thanks for reading and considering).

When people join churches and are then required to pledge an allegiance to a document that then stands as the only accepted standard by which to interpret the scriptures, that is in danger of being a form of idolatry, exchanging the holy that is given by God and putting in its place a man-made image that replaces the scriptures for practical purposes.

:think: Isn't this a set of rules made by you, at this point? It 'seems' to me to be he said/she said. Rather, aren't we both trying to be biblical in our requirements? Would you suggest we tackle such more broadly with membership? Or not at all? You might be right but two things: 1) such isn't done so we need a model for such a proposition and 2) does that mean a JW could be a member of my church with such broad membership parameters?

And I have seen this method in action, when the Statement of Beliefs contained a statement in error (when compared to the scripture) and a separate statement that all doctrine must be derived from the scripture.

Which, I think, is why we have many denominations to some degree, however, most of our doctrinal statements are alike and the difference generally are over less essential doctrines like exercise of the gifts of God etc. I'd be interested in what your observation of 'not biblical' is if you mean essential doctrines.

The practical result was when confronted with the error, a falling back to repeated chant of "We believe our Confession of Faith" rather than to recognize that even by its own definition, it only had authority if it was first in line with the scripture.

Beyond the general, a specific and your role in such would be helpful.

Perhaps it may have been other items in the contract of that church that influenced that style of response, such as that they could lose their jobs and the church could be stripped of its property if they came into offense of higher-ups within that church system. The ultimate deciding factor of truth was defined as that determined by a ruling committee.

Or even that the church did not educate the member concerning the doctrine :think:

By the way, this was not a Calvinist church in my example, rather an example of how this comes into play if we commit to agree to obey men rather than God. I think it's better to avoid such a pledge all together.

But such does help us decide membership. It does lead to multiple denominations, but I'm still curious. Of all the doctrinal statements I've read, I generally disagree with nonessential practice rather than doctrines outright. That said, some of them have me less 'comfortable' in service, but for the most part, I have been comfortable in most evangelical churches (uncomfortable in liberal ones who have lost Christ as the focus of regenerate lives).

Again, no need to respond here.

 

[Rosenritter]

Not addressed to me, so this is a sounding board response. "IF" any of it would help, please feel free to respond, but otherwise just have in mind for those of us following along and rather address such when talking to AMR (and thanks for reading and considering).
:think: Isn't this a set of rules made by you, at this point? It 'seems' to me to be he said/she said. Rather, aren't we both trying to be biblical in our requirements? Would you suggest we tackle such more broadly with membership? Or not at all? You might be right but two things: 1) such isn't done so we need a model for such a proposition and 2) does that mean a JW could be a member of my church with such broad membership parameters?


Which, I think, is why we have many denominations to some degree, however, most of our doctrinal statements are alike and the difference generally are over less essential doctrines like exercise of the gifts of God etc. I'd be interested in what your observation of 'not biblical' is if you mean essential doctrines.


Beyond the general, a specific and your role in such would be helpful.

Or even that the church did not educate the member concerning the doctrine :think:

But such does help us decide membership. It does lead to multiple denominations, but I'm still curious. Of all the doctrinal statements I've read, I generally disagree with nonessential practice rather than doctrines outright. That said, some of them have me less 'comfortable' in service, but for the most part, I have been comfortable in most evangelical churches (uncomfortable in liberal ones who have lost Christ as the focus of regenerate lives).

Again, no need to respond here.

If Jesus wanted us to recite a creed, where is that creed located in scripture? If I were attempting to make a legitimate creed, I would form it from scripture, and attempt to use exclusively scripture to such a degree that none of my words (or anyone else's) were used. The best possible statement that can be made is to quote what is already written in its appropriate context.

For example:

The Creation of the Earth and Man

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth; in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is. (Genesis 1:1, Exodus 20:11). So God created man in his own image, male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27, 5:2).

In this (small) example, none of my own words are used, so the only way it could be contested would be to challenge the context or to directly attack scripture itself. God's words are inspired, and I am not put in the position or temptation of substituting my own words for the Highest authority.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

When people join churches and are then required to pledge an allegiance to a document that then stands as the only accepted standard by which to interpret the scriptures, that is in danger of being a form of idolatry, exchanging the holy that is given by God and putting in its place a man-made image that replaces the scriptures for practical purposes.

The confessions stand as subordinate standards and so state it clearly in all the historic confessions. The norming norm is Scripture.

For example, WCF 1.X
"The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."

So if there are churches that run afoul of these clear distinctions, then one should find another church. To claim there are abhorrently behaving churches grants no warrant to avoid churches that confess the boundaries of their corporate assemblies.

Everyone has a confession of a sort, despite their often self-righteous "No creed but the Bible!" chanting. No one can hold to such a creed, else they should refrain from ever speaking and only quoting Scripture in public. Then again, even when they do so in response to another, they have chosen to merely quote this or that Scripture based upon their inward reasoning, hence an unstated creed. It is inescapable.

It is in plain evidence when anyone writes down or says anything with respect to the faith that a creedal statement is being made. Unfortunately, not a few are but little-popes formulating their own views, versus the mandate from Scripture to confess what we believe in community of the saints.

AMR

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Somewhat different between Calvinists. Many Presbyterians have been involved with Billy Graham crusades and participated in counseling.

As far as doctrine, it 'happens' so there is less need to explain in as much detail as you are inquiring. Take for example your salvation, ask a couple of questions and I'll see if I can answer them for you. :e4e:

I attended a few Billy Graham Crusades during the course of my long life, (thus far) one in the later 60s and the other in 1985. Other denominations, including the Catholic Church, helped out at his Crusades. So, if you were a Catholic, for instance, you might be 'counseled' by a Priest at the end of one of the Crusades, or a Presybeterian, etc. I always admired/respected Billy Graham, however, the last few years of his life, he started to waver about the Gospel and saying that one need not even know Christ, and still may end up in the Kingdom. He also was close with the Catholic Church. In my opinion, he became more 'ecumenical' than anything else. That said, numerous people became Christians through his ministry. I have a couple of friends I've known for many years were saved under Graham's evangelism.

Do you or any other Calvinist you know of, tell unbelievers about predestination or about the 'Elect' when you're trying to share the Gospel? If not, why not?

 

[Rosenritter]

The confessions stand as subordinate standards and so state it clearly in all the historic confessions. The norming norm is Scripture.

For example, WCF 1.X
"The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."

In theory such a foundation statement (as above) is good and right, but as I have seen in practice such statements are usually just for decoration.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

In theory such a foundation statement (as above) is good and right, but as I have seen in practice such statements are usually just for decoration.

As I noted earlier, find some better churches if this is what you are observing.

AMR

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I understand why I couldn't get any Calvinist to answer my question in Post #465. Self-explanatory.

 

[Clete]

I understand why I couldn't get any Calvinist to answer my question in Post #465. Self-explanatory.

The Calvinists on this website NEVER debate Calvinism - ever! They ignore every argument and evade every question. They prefer antinome to logic and thus have no basis for debate. All they have is the stating and repeating of their doctrine.

I think the motive is that they are addicted to the interaction but are tired of loosing actual debates. Nang came here years ago to harass me after I crushed her husband to powder in a debate on a different forum. Wasn't long after she arrived that the quality of the exchange with Calvinists took a nose dive on TOL and it has never recovered. 99.999% of these discussions are almost totally fruitless wastes of time. This is the fist attempt I've even made to have any interaction with AMR in a very long time. I see nothing has changed with him either. He's just as intnetionally irrational as he's always been. The man claims to be a genius, of all things. If he's not lying about that then there's no way he didn't know that he was begging the question from the word go on his "God always gets what He wants" post.

In short, they're all fools. You cannot expect that they will discuss anything with you like a normal person might. Most of them here don't worship any god that actually exists and they rutinely blasheme the One that does.

Clete

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The Calvinists on this website NEVER debate Calvinism - ever! They ignore every argument and evade every question. They prefer antinome to logic and thus have no basis for debate. All they have is the stating and repeating of their doctrine.

I think the motive is that they are addicted to the interaction but are tired of loosing actual debates. Nang came here years ago to harass me after I crushed her husband to powder in a debate on a different forum. Wasn't long after she arrived that the quality of the exchange with Calvinists took a nose dive on TOL and it has never recovered. 99.999% of these discussions are almost totally fruitless wastes of time. This is the fist attempt I've even made to have any interaction with AMR in a very long time. I see nothing has changed with him either. He's just as intnetionally irrational as he's always been. The man claims to be a genius, of all things. If he's not lying about that then there's no way he didn't know that he was begging the question from the word go on his "God always gets what He wants" post.

In short, they're all fools. You cannot expect that they will discuss anything with you like a normal person might. Most of them here don't worship any god that actually exists and they rutinely blasheme the One that does.

Clete

You're correct. I don't see much (if any) logic or reason in Calvinism. It just does not make any sense. Like I've said before, Calvinism changes the 'character of the God of the Bible' and relies on misinterpretation and misrepresentation of Scripture.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I understand why I couldn't get any Calvinist to answer my question in Post #465. Self-explanatory.

You quoted Lon, hence you are asking Lon, especially given the "you" or "any other Calvinists you know" in your question.

Be patient. I suspect Lon will answer you.

If you want any Calvinist to answer a question, then formulate your question accordingly so we do not have to attempt to read your mind.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

In theory such a foundation statement (as above) is good and right, but as I have seen in practice such statements are usually just for decoration.

See also this:

https://heidelblog.net/2016/10/what-good-are-confessions-and-catechisms-if-they-are-not-inerrant/

Worth a read.

AMR

 

[Rosenritter]

See also this:

https://heidelblog.net/2016/10/what-good-are-confessions-and-catechisms-if-they-are-not-inerrant/

Worth a read.

AMR

I did read that, and by itself it speaks well. My concern is that the intent and the application may sometimes diverge.

2Ki 18:3-4 KJV
(3) And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did.
(4) He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

Even that brass serpent became an idol in time. That's even aside from potential value gained when we know that what we believe is the same even if it is built from scratch without prior influence to color our perceptions. It goes back to how we learn best, when we must understand something well enough to teach it to ourselves or others, rather than well enough to repeat the expected answers to the satisfaction of an instructor.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I am an adherent to the doctrines of grace, what is commonly called Calvinism.

You can continue to stridently claim what I believe is a false belief system, thereby consigning me to eternal perdition

It is up to God to decide whether your false belief system will consign you to eternal perdition or not.

Thus, good works may be said to be a condition for obtaining salvation in that they inevitably accompany genuine faith. Good works, while a necessary complement of true faith, are never the meritorious grounds of justification, of acceptance before God. ~Dr. John Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth

​

Calvinists can have saving faith in God (with the accompanying good works) despite having a false belief system that causes them to misunderstand how, when, and why God chooses to save some people and chooses to condemn others to destruction that lasts forever.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Isn't the inheritance also predestined? The inheritance is eternal life, and that was even foreshadowed in the Tree of Life in Eden.

If Adam was predestined for eternal life, there was no reason to test him by putting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden.
If Adam was predestined for eternal perdition, there was no reason to put him in the Garden of Eden.

Predestination makes every event described in the Bible meaningless.

 

[genuineoriginal]

"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it." (Isaiah 46:10, 11)

The Almighty God is declaring that He has the power to make His prophecies come true.
He is not claiming that before the foundation of the world He predestined every event that would ever happen.

Obviously from the teachings of Scripture, what God volitionally wills, that is, God's desire qua desire, cannot not happen.

Calvinists teach that God's desire is not God's desire, God's will is not God's will, and God prevents us from doing what God tells us to do.

If everything written about God in the Bible is false, what is true?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You quoted Lon, hence you are asking Lon, especially given the "you" or "any other Calvinists you know" in your question.

Be patient. I suspect Lon will answer you.

If you want any Calvinist to answer a question, then formulate your question accordingly so we do not have to attempt to read your mind.

AMR

Then I will ask you, personally. When you are sharing the Gospel with an unbeliever do you share the Calvinist doctrine of predestination and the Elect with that person? If not, why not?

 

[Rosenritter]

If Adam was predestined for eternal life, there was no reason to test him by putting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden.
If Adam was predestined for eternal perdition, there was no reason to put him in the Garden of Eden.

Predestination makes every event described in the Bible meaningless.

I use the English meaning for destined and predestined, not the Calvinist definition. That the tree of life was in the garden and made available and that he was specifically commanded not to take the alternative is evidence that it was a planned destiny. Adam failed to fulfill that destiny.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I believe that by God's Grace through one's faith 'ANYONE' who hears the Gospel and places their faith in Christ and His death, and subsequent resurrection can have: forgiveness of ALL their sins, (past, present, and future) and eternal life. (Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.") Calvinists believe that only a certain number of people were chosen before the foundation (called the Elect) of the world, and the rest of humanity is damned to Hell for eternity. They believe it was by God's Sovereign Will that He chose the Elect. Whereas, the Apostle Paul preached that ANYONE who hears the Gospel (Gospel of the grace of God) will be saved.

Calvinists reject Paul's Gospel or simply misinterpret/misrepresent what Paul preaches in order to have Paul's words fit the Calvinist doctrine. I will make an assumption and any Calvinist on TOL is free to disagree with what I'm about to say. It appears to me that your average Calvinist would have to admit to the 'idea' that Christ ONLY died for the sins of the Elect, and due to God's Sovereign Will, ONLY the 'Elect' will respond to the Gospel. Therefore, if one is not of the 'chosen Elect' they CANNOT respond, because they are damned to Hell and the Lake of Fire for eternity. Is this NOT true? Effectively, if God chose those who would be saved, then, He had to choose the others for eternal damnation. That could be the ONLY logical explanation.

If the Calvinists of TOL disagree with what I've said, please set Old GM, straight.

 

[Clete]

Predestination makes every event described in the Bible meaningless.

Philosophically, it turns every event into an accident; events that happen that are not caused by nor the responsibility of any of the parties involved.

I've only ever gotten one single Calvinist to ever concede that there is no guilt associated with accidents. He had no response to the fact that Calvinistic predestination turns every event that occurs into an accident.

Clete