Is Calvinism Wrong?

[Clete]

When God imposed His will on you without your consent , was it at this point you understand He sealed in you the Spirit of Christ ?

In case you haven't figured it out yet, AMR does not debate his doctrine, he simply states it and then repeats himself. He will not engage you on your terms - no Calvinist will - ever!

So, answer your own question. I'm curious to know what your point is.

I'll put my understanding on the table to be tested by anyone . And just maybe , God will grant me a better understanding through someone .

But your understanding is built on a mistranslation . You know it , but for some reason , you can't accept it .

So do so, already! Let's see it! Put your understanding on the table and see if it stands the test of someone who isn't afraid to debate.

What exactly is it that you think has been mistranslated and just were is it that this mistranslation has occurred and in what context?
Where did you come across what you think is an accurate translation and on what basis did you make this judgment?

it doesn't bother me that I'm in a minority . In fact , I've never had anyone agree with the facts I'm presenting , much less the rest of the Salvation process I have yet to even talk about .

What facts? I haven't seen you present anything yet. If I missed it, please tell me the post number or else just repost it for me.

What, in your view, is "the salvation process", as you put it?

Clete

 

[Faither]

In case you haven't figured it out yet, AMR does not debate his doctrine, he simply states it and then repeats himself. He will not engage you on your terms - no Calvinist will - ever!

So, answer your own question. I'm curious to know what your point is.


So do so, already! Let's see it! Put your understanding on the table and see if it stands the test of someone who isn't afraid to debate.

What exactly is it that you think has been mistranslated and just were is it that this mistranslation has occurred and in what context?
Where did you come across what you think is an accurate translation and on what basis did you make this judgment?


What facts? I haven't seen you present anything yet. If I missed it, please tell me the post number or else just repost it for me.

What, in your view, is "the salvation process", as you put it?

Clete

So I don't have to repost the facts , go to ECT . I have a thread called " Pisteuo , the secret of the universe ." Check it out .

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Robert Pate]

A man named Harold Camping (a Calvinist) felt he had discovered an special knowledge that he needed to convey to the world, in 2011. His so-called 'knowledge' ended up being wrong and he temporarily ruined the lives of many people who followed his fantasies.

I remember Camping. He thought that he had figured out when Jesus was going to return. He was very convincing. Some of his followers sold everything that they had and lived it up.

One of the sins of man is to think that they know as much as God knows. Satan said, "I will be like the most high" Isaiah 14:14. The Bible plainly tells us that no man knows the hour or the day when Jesus will return, Matthew 24:36.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Clete]

It appears as if he created his own 'individualized' views. No one else is privy to his views.

Yeah well, that may well be the case, but if he'll actually discuss his beliefs in some detail he'll be 1000 times less boring than all the Calvinists on this site combined.

Clete

 

[Clete]

So I don't have to repost the facts , go to ECT . I have a thread called " Pisteuo , the secret of the universe ." Check it out .

Lovely. Too much trouble for you to tell anyone what the hell it is you're on about inside the thread where you showed up to discuss it, I suppose.


Ok so I read the OP of that thread. It seems that you think that every translation of the English bible mistranslates one single Greek word to the point that none of them contain "saving faith" therein. BRILLIANT!


So, what about the rest of what I asked you? Too lazy to answer direct questions or is it that you just really aren't interested in discussing it?

I happen to be at least somewhat interested in whatever point you're trying to make but I'm not so interested that I'm willing to drag it out of you or beg you to explain yourself.

Last chance!

Ready?

Go!

 

[Faither]

Lovely. Too much trouble for you to tell anyone what the hell it is you're on about inside the thread where you showed up to discuss it, I suppose.


Ok so I read the OP of that thread. It seems that you think that every translation of the English bible mistranslates one single Greek word to the point that none of them contain "saving faith" therein. BRILLIANT!


So, what about the rest of what I asked you? Too lazy to answer direct questions or is it that you just really aren't interested in discussing it?

I happen to be at least somewhat interested in whatever point you're trying to make but I'm not so interested that I'm willing to drag it out of you or beg you to explain yourself.

Last chance!

Ready?

Go!

I started a new thread here to address your specific questions . It's called rediscovering Faith, faithing , and the salvation process .

If you can't have a civil discussion without the attitude , don't bother responding .

 

[Clete]

I started a new thread here to address your specific questions . It's called rediscovering Faith, faithing , and the salvation process .

If you can't have a civil discussion without the attitude , don't bother responding .

Thin skinned - this isn't looking promising.

There's no attitude. I asked you several questions and you responded by giving me a whole thread to read. You can't blame people for being annoyed when you're being annoying.

Do you want to maybe give a link to your new thread or do we have to hunt that down as well? Sheesh.

 

[Rosenritter]

Yeah well, that may well be the case, but if he'll actually discuss his beliefs in some detail he'll be 1000 times less boring than all the Calvinists on this site combined.

Clete

I couldn't get him to tell me details. He kept trying to go to a list that he had pre-made expecting "yes" answers all the way along, but it broke down when he kept trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole and I could not honestly say "yes that precisely fits" ... and so he wouldn't go any further and just say what it was that he had in mind.

Faither, maybe you'd like to actually come forward and speak clearly what your objective is?

 

[Rosenritter]

Lovely. Too much trouble for you to tell anyone what the hell it is you're on about inside the thread where you showed up to discuss it, I suppose.

Ok so I read the OP of that thread. It seems that you think that every translation of the English bible mistranslates one single Greek word to the point that none of them contain "saving faith" therein. BRILLIANT!

I suspected that was his real goal.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Lon]

It appears as if he created his own 'individualized' views. No one else is privy to his views.

Well, it was to the chagrin of my open theist friends, but I think Knight was privy to His views?

As far as debating on 'your' terms, Clete, that's a bit of an odd expectation when it concerns another's views and theology (why I have you on ignore btw, you just aren't a good listener nor want to be):idunno:

 

[Lon]

Many people would agree that this is an accurate statement (or at least one accurate statement) of the gospel:

John 3:14-17 KJV
(14) And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(17) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

The question is whether Calvinism denies that "whosoever believeth in him should not perish" or whether it says that "whomever God chose to believe in him should not perish" and as such it might be good to look at the purpose of the gospel.

The Calvinist, or God? :think:
Romans 9:11,12,15,16,18 Am I 'just an ignorant Calvinist' for reading and "I think" correctly grasping these scriptures? If not, how can ANYONE not be 'a dirty Calvinist' at this point? Scripture is the beginning and ending of such a conversation as this. I really don't care what a fallible human hates or disapproves but rather want to embrace what God has to say over the matter, even if it makes me 'a dirty Calvinist.' I don't care what vitriol is said of me if I am embracing scripture. I'd hope such a thread as this always and ever is concerned AND embracing scriptures but that seldom happens. Romans 9 is quickly waved away imho, with no honest wrestling. I rarely have seen anyone willing to go the distance with Romans 9 and other scriptures. I post them, Open Theists and others (for the most part) quickly gloss over them and forget them as if they do not exist. I OFTEN hear 'a nation, not individuals' BUT the illustration is SPECIFICALLY individuals in EVERY case in Romans 9. :think: :e4e:

Mark 1:14-15 KJV
(14) Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
(15) And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Again, the difficulty arises where Calvinism says that the sinner cannot repent or believe unless God has selected him from before the beginning of the world. As such, it is not the hearer (or the sinner) that believes and repents, but rather God that believes and repents on behalf of the sinner and imparts this belief and repentance on the person who has no choice in the matter.

Those passages are normally understood easily enough in their simplest sense. There is a simple call for the sinner to hear the gospel, repent, and proceed in faith and belief, and in so doing he shall be saved by Christ. But with Calvinism in the equation, the sinner can do none of this, God can do this and he has chosen only a few people that are allowed to repent.

I have a couple (non-Christian) friends who once were speaking of their impression of Christianity. And somehow they had heard about Calvinism as well. Their words (as I can recollect?) "Calvinists are insane" they said. I didn't actually know what Calvinism was at that time, but that still was not a good testimony...

To me? Doesn't matter and is beyond the need. No nonCalvinist, for example, should be bringing up 'Calvinism' in their presentation of the gospel. It'd be akin to trying to get someone to become an Open Theist WHILE they are in need of Salvation. If an Open Theist preaches a Gospel that must/necessarily involve Open Theism in the presentation, they are complicating something. I do not mention Calvinism when sharing Christ with another person. I'm in agreement with Stripe at the beginning of this thread that we need to share scriptures, not 'our thoughts/interpretation about them' when talking to another of Christ's work. Christ saves, we do not. "How" Christ saves may be a theology idea in our minds we disagree upon, but that is Christ's business as well. I don't need to tell a nonCalvinist how to think and live. Such is also God's business, but I will explain whatever God is leading any nonCalvinist to ask. Argue about? :nono: Simply looking at Romans 9 and other passages. Scriptures, not your or my 'ideas' are the important thing. They will be the maker and molder of our theology else we are just winging it. Doctrine should be near and dear to us, but if you have a biblical discussion and biblical counterpoint: I'm interested. Hopefully you too are open to biblical data that may challenge your view. There is nothing fruitful in denying Romans 9 nor quickly dismissing or waving away its content. The message therein, as far as my good and faithful mind grasps and understands, is indeed aligned with is termed Calvinism. Proverbs 16:9 Psalm 37:23; 40:2

 

[Rosenritter]

The Calvinist, or God? :think:
Romans 9:11,12,15,16,18 Am I 'just an ignorant Calvinist' for reading and "I think" correctly grasping these scriptures? If not, how can ANYONE not be 'a dirty Calvinist' at this point? Scripture is the beginning and ending of such a conversation as this. I really don't care what a fallible human hates or disapproves but rather want to embrace what God has to say over the matter, even if it makes me 'a dirty Calvinist.' I don't care what vitriol is said of me if I am embracing scripture. I'd hope such a thread as this always and ever is concerned AND embracing scriptures but that seldom happens. Romans 9 is quickly waved away imho, with no honest wrestling. I rarely have seen anyone willing to go the distance with Romans 9 and other scriptures. I post them, Open Theists and others (for the most part) quickly gloss over them and forget them as if they do not exist. I OFTEN hear 'a nation, not individuals' BUT the illustration is SPECIFICALLY individuals in EVERY case in Romans 9. :think: :e4e:

Romans 9 is speaking in the sense of peoples, not specific persons.

Romans 9:6-7 KJV
(6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
(7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Even when you consider Jacob and Esau, it was not the individual brother that would serve the other, but rather the nation that would spring from him.

Romans 9:11-13 KJV
(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
(12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
(13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Esau meaning the Edomites, Jacob meaning the children of Israel. Jacob is not the person called Jacob, and Esau is not the person called Esau. And again, when he speaks of Pharaoh, it is because Pharaoh is representative of Egypt.

Romans 9:20-22 KJV
(20) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
(21) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
(22) What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Again, even this (oft-Calvinist claimed passage) is from the context of corporate election, not individual predestination.

Jeremiah 18:4-10 KJV
(4) And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
(5) Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
(6) O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
(7) At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
(8) If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
(9) And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
(10) If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.



And even within this context of nations, does he not also say that if the wicked nation shall turn, should he not repent of the evil he might do to them?

 

[Lon]

Calvinists CHANGE (Ephesians 2:8-9 " For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.) by saying that the GIFT is faith and not GRACE. The verse is actually saying, that we are SAVED by God's Grace through OUR faith and that we don't receive God's Grace by our own WORKS. Otherwise, we could boast that we EARNED His Grace. This is an example of how the Calvinists interpret Scripture to make it fit their 'belief system.' And, it is truly a 'belief system' and NOT the truth of the Word of God.

Hebrews 12:2 :think:

 

[Lon]

Romans 9 is speaking in the sense of peoples, not specific persons.

Shoot. My first knee-jerk response was " :doh: " but let me entertain your thought...

Romans 9:6-7 KJV
(6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
(7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Even when you consider Jacob and Esau, it was not the individual brother that would serve the other, but rather the nation that would spring from him.

Rosen, these are bold statements AND said as if they were gospel true. To me, they don't look true, but like false assertion. Why? Let me give counterpoint verses, that for me, at least, say you are WAY overstated: Romans 9:12,16 "...NOT dependent upon human desire...!" That to me, is huge. I cannot assert or assert over that. It was said, by Paul, so emphatically and clearly. I've always asked prior: "Are you reading the same bible I am reading??? " Romans 9:14,15 asks the very question that MAKES this individual, as far as my-educated-Language-Arts-rules mind is concerned. Now certainly an open theist is welcome to counterpoint, but how in the wide-world is such the 'preferred' interpretation when it at least seems contextually clear it is the opposite here in Romans of what he/she is saying? :idunno:

Romans 9:11-13 KJV
(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
(12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
(13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Esau meaning the Edomites, Jacob meaning the children of Israel. Jacob is not the person called Jacob, and Esau is not the person called Esau. And again, when he speaks of Pharaoh, it is because Pharaoh is representative of Egypt.

I've seen this interpretation many times but again, to me, with a good mind, this looks COMPLETELY opposite of what Romans 9 is saying. Look at Romans 9:14,15 again. Look at the VERY NEXT example: Pharaoh, also an individual :noway: (some dramatic emphasis here, but not untowardly, I'm simply trying to get good interaction on what are, to me, VERY important scriptural conveyances Romans 9:16 in Him).

Romans 9:20-22 KJV
(20) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
(21) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
(22) What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Again, even this (oft-Calvinist claimed passage) is from the context of corporate election, not individual predestination.

???? "Thing" (singular) not "things." To me? Looks like hoop jumping for your assertions. Do you AT LEAST see why I and others, Calvinists and nonCalvinists, read this VERY differently??? :idunno:

Jeremiah 18:4-10 KJV
(4) And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
(5) Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
(6) O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
(7) At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
(8) If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
(9) And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
(10) If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.



And even within this context of nations, does he not also say that if the wicked nation shall turn, should he not repent of the evil he might do to them?

He does, but this is Jeremiah. While Paul certainly pulled from Jeremiah AND had the national context in mind (I'd think as a certainty), his whole argument is individual here. IOW, Paul allows the national context to speak, BUT he is saying more specifically that "God's word has not failed" specifically because "Not all Israel is Israel." Paul says rather, it depends 1) on God's choice and 2) as it applies to individuals and NOT corporate consideration.

Romans 9:19,20 is 'me' not 'us.'

As I'm reading scripture, I cannot help but believe what I'm saying here. To me, the passage itself is steering the thoughts, but granted you or I have suppositions that may drive what we are seeing, wee need to be especially sure of our understanding of them. In this hope, I've submitted, prayerfully, my cogent understanding of them as well as substantiation for the way I'm reading them. in Him -Lon

 

[Rosenritter]

Shoot. My first knee-jerk response was " " but let me entertain your thought...

Sometimes it might be very difficult to know why someone sees something one way compared to another. Thank you for continuing regardless (and I am going to try to "condense" this to the Reader's Digest version, no offense intended.

Question: is there any record of the person of Esau literally serving the person of Jacob? I remember Jacob pleading to Esau and sending him very large gifts, and as such it would seem that Jacob served Esau. Yet we do have record of Israel conquering Edom, such as 2 Samuel 2:14. Wouldn't that imply that the application of that verse was corporate rather than personal?

I already pointed out the next verse. Pharaoh would be corporate just like Jacob or Esau. If Jacob is Israel, and Esau is Edom, then likewise Pharaoh is Egypt. It is not unusual to refer to a kingdom by the name of its king or the descendants by its patriarch.

In response to "do you at least see why Calvinists read this [Romans 9] differently" I can say yes, I do. Today's culture is very individualistic and it likely affects the way you or I might understand our initial reading. I was also born into this individualistic culture and I understand how Romans 9 by itself would support your view. It is the contradictions it creates that spurs us to look deeper to resolve the conflict.

But the bible often does use the corporate for which we would naturally think of the individual. Does not Paul say, "In Adam all die?" and have you given thought as to why Israel was required to pay tithes only after they entered Canaan, and only then on the agricultural increase (but not the hire of the workman's labor?)

Genesis 28:20-22 KJV
(20) And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on,
(21) So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God:
(22) And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.

God gave Canaan to Israel, and the tenth was required of all that inherited the land that his descendants inherited and unto which they carried his bones for burial. God called in that promise that made by Jacob; it applied to his descendants that inherited that land.

BUT he is saying more specifically that "God's word has not failed" specifically because "Not all Israel is Israel." Paul says rather, it depends 1) on God's choice and 2) as it applies to individuals and NOT corporate consideration.

Somehow we are seeing to entirely different things here. "Not all Israel is Israel" because all Israel shall be saved. It remains true that corporate Israel shall be saved, but the individuals that will finally be in that Israel is still not set. And here in Romans Paul tells us that this Israel is without regard to Jew or Gentile.

One more thing to ask: in the Old Testament parable of the potter and the clay, does the potter form the clay badly on purpose, or does it indicate that it is a fault with the clay, which will ultimately be shattered and destroyed unless it repents? Doesn't it indicate that the Potter wants the clay to repent, to be formed into a good vessel?