U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-02-2009, 10:20 PM
 
6,221 posts, read 6,418,833 times
Reputation: 682

Advertisements

Quote:
Here is a reprint from post #124:


"The hyper-Calvinist and those holding to equal ultimacy would agree with this (your misinformed view of Calvinism) - I don't."

This is what is known in logic as a false premise.
Sorry this is no false premise. You claim I am misinformed, but I believe you need to read some of the reformed heavies, like Pink, John Piper, or Jon Edwards. They all assert that God predestines some to be saved, and likewise predestines the rest to NOT be saved. They also assert that God has ordained and predestined all sins. If you don't believe these two points, you might not be "reformed" view.

Quote:
Another possible answer is that those going to hell are volunteering to go to hell. Did God foreknow that those going to hell would volunteer to go to hell? Yes. Did God cause them to go to hell, want them to go to hell, or create them for the express purpose of going to hell? No."
Ok this is where you seriously differ from Calvinism. All the above mentioned (Piper, Pink, Edwards) assert that God does want them to go to hell, otherwise why do they go to hell? Calvinism/reformed view is heavily focused on God's sovereignty - God gets what He wants, therefore if people go to hell, that is what God wants. That is what the reformed view teaches. It teaches that God chose some to be saved, while leaving the rest for hell, so clearly God did not want to save the others who were left for hell. I've never heard a reformed teacher say that God elects all, but some volunteer to hell. That really sounds like Arminian (not reformed).

To be blunt, I really think you are confused - you claim to hold reformed views but then explain them as the classical Arminian position.

Quote:
and from post #169:

"Yes, back to the OP and the false premise which you refuse to see as a false premise. How about this analogy: Two people in the room are invited to have lunch. One accepts the invite and the other chooses to dine elsewhere. Both are invited (elected) but one decides to refuse (not run for election).

You keep asserting that this notion is illogical. If that is still your assertion, please explain."
Ok, what I am getting from you is that your belief is like the "BOTH are invited to lunch, but only one accepts" analogy. If that is your belief, fine with me, but that is not what I understand reformed/Calvinist view to be. Do you truly believe that all are elected, but some just "volunteer" to be in hell? Personally I don't think scripture teaches that (obviously because I believe in universal salvation), but I also don't think Calvinism teaches this either.

I've read plenty of articles by John Piper, Arthur Pink etc. They all assert that only few are elected, and the rest are "passed over" for election, and thus end up in hell for their sins. That is what I understand Calvinism to teach. That doesn't fit your analogy.

Have you read "The Sovereignty of God" by Arthur Pink? Specifically this chapter:
5. The Sovereignty of God in Reprobation

In it Pink boldly states that "God created them [the non-elect] unto damnation". That is predestination to hell. That is what the reformed position teaches. Perhaps you would call Pink a "hyper-Calvinist".

So that is why I say your position is illogical - if you are claiming to be reformed. I recommend you read the full text of "The Sovereignty of God", because Pink does cover it well.

Be well Tiget, I'm not sure how much farther we will progress since your "reformed" view does not seem to match the classical reformed view that is taught. That's where my OP was targeted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-03-2009, 06:33 PM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,399,335 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Sorry this is no false premise. You claim I am misinformed, but I believe you need to read some of the reformed heavies, like Pink, John Piper, or Jon Edwards. They all assert that God predestines some to be saved, and likewise predestines the rest to NOT be saved. They also assert that God has ordained and predestined all sins. If you don't believe these two points, you might not be "reformed" view.
You would do well to keep one thing in mind - something I view as extremely important. Calvin and Luther were both willing to put their necks on the line for what they believed. I'm sure you are familiar with John Huss.

I haven't read or listened to Pink, Piper or Edwards. For the purpose of our discussion, what they teach or say is of absolutely NO consequence. Perhaps they all hold to equal ultimacy. So what? Neither Calvin or Luther held to equal ultimacy. Therefore, while they could claim to be Calvinists - they may all actually be hyper-Calvinists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Ok this is where you seriously differ from Calvinism. All the above mentioned (Piper, Pink, Edwards) assert that God does want them to go to hell, otherwise why do they go to hell? Calvinism/reformed view is heavily focused on God's sovereignty - God gets what He wants, therefore if people go to hell, that is what God wants. That is what the reformed view teaches. It teaches that God chose some to be saved, while leaving the rest for hell, so clearly God did not want to save the others who were left for hell. I've never heard a reformed teacher say that God elects all, but some volunteer to hell. That really sounds like Arminian (not reformed).
If this is your view of Arminianism, then you apparently don't know what the Arminian view is either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
To be blunt, I really think you are confused - you claim to hold reformed views but then explain them as the classical Arminian position.
Explain how my view differs from that of Calvin and Luther. If you cannot, then stop making baseless assertions that you either can't or are unwilling to back up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Ok, what I am getting from you is that your belief is like the "BOTH are invited to lunch, but only one accepts" analogy. If that is your belief, fine with me, but that is not what I understand reformed/Calvinist view to be.
Then you would agree that your explanation of the way you think predestination works amounts to a false premise?

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Do you truly believe that all are elected, but some just "volunteer" to be in hell? Personally I don't think scripture teaches that (obviously because I believe in universal salvation), but I also don't think Calvinism teaches this either.
Basically, yes. Basically, this is reformed theology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
I've read plenty of articles by John Piper, Arthur Pink etc. They all assert that only few are elected, and the rest are "passed over" for election, and thus end up in hell for their sins. That is what I understand Calvinism to teach. That doesn't fit your analogy.
As stated, I'm unfamiliar with their teaching. If by "passed over" they refer to those choosing to remain reprobates, I would agree with this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Have you read "The Sovereignty of God" by Arthur Pink? Specifically this chapter:
5. The Sovereignty of God in Reprobation

In it Pink boldly states that "God created them [the non-elect] unto damnation". That is predestination to hell. That is what the reformed position teaches. Perhaps you would call Pink a "hyper-Calvinist".
If that's his position, yes, he would most definitely fall in with the hyper-Calvinist view. As stated earlier in this thread, it would be illogical to assert that it's possible for Calvin to teach hyper-Calvinism and, to my knowledge, Luther never taught equal ultimacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
So that is why I say your position is illogical - if you are claiming to be reformed. I recommend you read the full text of "The Sovereignty of God", because Pink does cover it well.

Be well Tiget, I'm not sure how much farther we will progress since your "reformed" view does not seem to match the classical reformed view that is taught. That's where my OP was targeted.
You're not answering the question. Why is my position illogical?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2009, 08:55 PM
 
6,221 posts, read 6,418,833 times
Reputation: 682
Quote:
If this is your view of Arminianism, then you apparently don't know what the Arminian view is either.
For the record, no I don't believe what you stated is Arminianism, but it sure is alot closer to Arminianism than to Calvinism as you are claiming.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2009, 09:30 PM
 
6,221 posts, read 6,418,833 times
Reputation: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
I haven't read or listened to Pink, Piper or Edwards. For the purpose of our discussion, what they teach or say is of absolutely NO consequence. Perhaps they all hold to equal ultimacy. So what? Neither Calvin or Luther held to equal ultimacy. Therefore, while they could claim to be Calvinists - they may all actually be hyper-Calvinists.
Quote:
Explain how my view differs from that of Calvin and Luther. If you cannot, then stop making baseless assertions that you either can't or are unwilling to back up.
Quote:
Then you would agree that your explanation of the way you think predestination works amounts to a false premise?
You have got to be kidding me here. Are you serious? Your accusations of "baseless assertions" are completely ridiculous and bordering on arrogance or ignorance - you don't know what you are talking about. Either that or you are just trolling.

Arthur Pink and Edwards are both pillars of the reformed movement - their writings are built on the work of Calvin. Its laughable that you suggest their teachings are of NO consequence. They teach the same thing as Calvin! NONE of them teach that ALL are elected yet some "volunteer" to go to hell, as you suggest.

They all teach the basic premise in my OP (which you vehemently claimed as "misrepresenting Calvinism"), which is this:

God predestines some to be saved and the rest are predestined to be damned.

That is Calvinism in a nutshell!

Don't believe me? Try actually reading some reformed Authors. READ what Calvin wrote himself! I google'd for some of John Calvin's writings, and the first thing I found was this: Institutes of the Christian Religion.

One of the chapters is entitled:

CHAPTER 21. - OF THE ETERNAL ELECTION, BY WHICH GOD HAS PREDESTINATED SOME TO SALVATION, AND OTHERS TO DESTRUCTION.

There you go. Calvin taught that God predestined some to salvation and the rest to hell. That is the reformed/Calvinist position.



Quote:
Quote:
Do you truly believe that all are elected, but some just "volunteer" to be in hell? Personally I don't think scripture teaches that (obviously because I believe in universal salvation), but I also don't think Calvinism teaches this either.
Basically, yes. Basically, this is reformed theology.
No, no, no, it is not reformed/Calvinist theology at all.

Reformed theology says that God elects some, and doesn't elect others.

Are you familiar with T.U.L.I.P? The L stands for LIMITED ATONEMENT. That means Christ did not die for the non-elect. That means God predestines the non-elect to hell. That is what Calvinism teaches.

Continuing this conversation is pointless unless you want to acknowledge and study what the real reformed/Calvinist position is. Read Arthur Pink's Sovereignty of God. Read some of Calvin's own writings. That is what the OP is about. You inane version of a "pseudo reformed view" is irrelevant to the OP because my OP is about the REAL reformed movement that people like Calvin, Piper, and Pink teach.

I am left to conclude you simply want to disagree with the OP while ignoring what Calvin and other Calvinists actually said. You are either very confused or very foolish. Sheesh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2009, 10:02 PM
 
2,526 posts, read 2,318,353 times
Reputation: 327
Why read what others write when you can have for free (or a few dollars) a printed copy of the Bible to read from?

Rom 3:4 let it not be! and let God become true, and every man false, according as it hath been written, `That Thou mayest be declared righteous in Thy words, and mayest overcome in Thy being judged.'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2009, 08:03 PM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,399,335 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
You have got to be kidding me...
Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to all these assertions (term applied loosely here) tonight.

You still haven't answered my question with regard to my alternative to your "predestination to hell" view of Calvinism.

Is it logical or not? If not, why not?

You've opened this thread for the express purpose of slamming (your misinformed view of) Calvinism. Basically, your entire thread amounts to an ad hominem against (your view of) Calvin, Calvinists and Calvinism.

What if I were to make it my task to seek out the absolute most ridiculous radical views of 'URism' and open a thread presenting these radical views as typifying the main stream of 'URism?'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2009, 08:56 PM
 
6,221 posts, read 6,418,833 times
Reputation: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to all these assertions (term applied loosely here) tonight.

You still haven't answered my question with regard to my alternative to your "predestination to hell" view of Calvinism.

Is it logical or not? If not, why not?
You are welcome to have your own alternative view, but you are completely mistaken in calling it Calvinism. Please READ some of the links I posted about Calvinism in the previous posts.

Furthermore your "all elected, people volunteer to hell" model is not scriptural either. Open a new thread if you want to discuss it.

Quote:
You've opened this thread for the express purpose of slamming (your misinformed view of) Calvinism. Basically, your entire thread amounts to an ad hominem against (your view of) Calvin, Calvinists and Calvinism.
There you go saying MY view is misinformed again! LOL Why don't you actually read some of the writers in the reformed/Calvinist movement. Let me give you a couple quotes:

John Calvin: "By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death" ...
"We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction" (Institutes of the Christian Religion | Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

Calvin himself says God predestines people to hell. Other reformed leaders like Arthur Pink, Jon Edwards, etc. all follow Calvin on this.


Quote:
What if I were to make it my task to seek out the absolute most ridiculous radical views of 'URism' and open a thread presenting these radical views as typifying the main stream of 'URism?'
That has already happened many times, and the false beliefs are always refuted logically and scripturally. Check the many UR threads in this forum if you are interested.

You need to research Calvinism yourself before you accuse people of misrepresenting it. There's no point in continuing this as you are unwilling to acknowledge what Calvin himself has said. I'm not doing your homework for you.

Be well Tigetmax.

Last edited by legoman; 11-04-2009 at 09:05 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2009, 09:15 PM
 
3 posts, read 2,970 times
Reputation: 10
Funny how folks are so quick to redefine the Calvinist position in order to tear it apart................
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2009, 09:23 PM
 
6,221 posts, read 6,418,833 times
Reputation: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by HamtramckGrace View Post
Funny how folks are so quick to redefine the Calvinist position in order to tear it apart................
Hi HamtramckGrace,

I take it you are a Calvinist?

Would you agree that Calvin taught God predestines some to salvation and the rest to eternal damnation?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2009, 03:00 AM
 
3 posts, read 3,203 times
Reputation: 10
Default Here's something you might consider :)

We know that the Bible says that Christ was slain before the foundations of the Earth. We know that not even the will of man or man's understanding of things can be more powerful than God's. (Or we may as well be God) well I think we all know how that would turn out which is why we aren't God.

Consider if you will..... There were two trees in the midst of the Garden. One of those trees was the tree of life (Jesus). The other was the tree of the Knowledge of good and evil. God told man that he could eat of every tree in the Garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Now I find it a bit strange don't you that Adam didn't notice that of all the trees that he was able to partake of how God had separated a particular good tree from all the rest and yet placed it right next to the forbidden one. Now at this point some might naturally think Adam had a choice to pick from either tree. However, here lies the paradox.... had Adam been able to truly choose of his own so called free will then he would have partaken of the Tree of Life (Jesus) but it wasn't the appointed time then and Adam would have in a sense become like God and or eventually been accredited for having saved mankind in man's eye's. And then we wouldn't have the Son of God as our Saviour. And the Name of Jesus was to be the name above all names from the foundations of the earth.

Jesus was the second Adam. He came came to do what the first Adam failed and was never designed to do. And that was to do the will of the father. Whether the so called conventional free will of man exists or not why would one want to be subject to it. Jesus didn't do his own so called free will. But he did only the will of the Father. Having a free will is a not issue if you want to do the will of the father. Not my will but his be done...

To be truly free is to be in a place where one's will is free to do the will of the Father. That then if you can see would be True "Free" will. In order to be free to do that one must first have been given Faith which is a gift from God. And without that Gift from God a person will not even begin to realize or call on the name of Jesus.

Jesus said we must be born again. And that we were dead in our trespasses. Well a dead person doesn't breath, think, reason etc. a dead man has no free will he has nothing he is dead. However, because "Jesus" is the power of the resurrection and we are not we have hope. Hopefully we are born again and became new creatures in him as Jesus said we would become if we were born again.

God with his free will manifests his love/grace to us by giving us the gift of faith to believe in his only begotten Son. After that you will know them by they're fruit. Jesus would not have worn a bracelet with WWJD or WWID if he had worn a bracelet saying anything it would have been (Do the will of our/your father who is Heaven)

Jesus said there is "None" good but the father. So you see God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son and it pleased God to crush his own Son to accomplish the ultimate act of love.

Yes they told Adam he could have eaten of the tree of life before the fall but is very clear that it wasn't God's will that Adam do so because he states later in the next chapter that if they didn't kick Adam out of the Garden that Adam would have after his disobedience then partaken of the tree of a life and lived forever. There had to be death by Adam for us to understand and have life through Christ. Adam was designed to be A DAM to cut us off from God so we could be reconciled to the father through Christ and then truly understand the Grace and love of God and live forever like him.

If you forward to Ephesians Chapter 5 you may understand that this was all so that the Lord would be the one who would lay his life down for his bride so that he would present "Her" to "Himself" spotless and without wrinkle.

The woman is referred to as the weaker vessel throughout scripture. The woman is an analogy of the church/bride of Christ. She could not save herself so because he loved her so much he freely gave himself for her.

After she receives from God the revelation/gift of Faith in Jesus (Tree of Life) she is then able to partake of/understands what her lover has done for her. That which she could not have done on her own because she was dead in sin. Now if one is truly saved you will know them by they're fruit. Fruit of the Holy Spirit. They will be in the world but not of it. A truly saved person will not act like the world. Will not watch things on TV that God would disapprove of or live the lifestyle of the world.

Be a bondservant of the enemy your father the devil or a bondservant of the Father in Heaven through Christ. You cannot serve two masters. But perhaps if God loved you enough to save you from yourself and your depraved state you may someday finds yourself so humbled and happy that he first loved you before you could have loved him and realize that this age old argument has left a field of division and broken bones. The bible said that not one bone of the body of Christ would be broken......hundreds of years later when he was crucified not one bone was broken. (Inspite of Roman customs)

We are supposed to be bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh. So in a spiritual sense we as a body (his body) are not supposed to be broken, arguing etc. So I would encourage us all to consider that we aren't supposed to be broken. Be careful with passing judgement. Be careful when being critical. Suffer the little ones to come unto him and don't forget we should all be walking in fear and trembling for if it wasn't for the Grace of God we would have no Jesus and no hope.

"In Love as best as I currently know how. May the Lord keep you and reveal his love upon you forever" T
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top