Is "Calvinism" Biblical?

[twin1954]

You are the one who keeps referring to the "sovereignty" of God, but try to ignore the fact that God was "sovereign" before the fall.

What are you talking about? Of course God was sovereign before the Fall. But, I know what you are trying to do, He is not the Author of sin. He certainly purposed the Fall but He in no way made Adam to sin.

If you think God was not "sovereign" before the fall, please show us the scripture to back up your claim.

None needed.

Does your doctrine stand or fall on using the word "

sovereignty", when faced with opposition?

The Bible is full of the sovereignty of God. But my doctrine stands or falls on the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Can you show us the words “

Open Theism" in the Bible?

.

Do you even know what Open Theism is?

 

[StillGods]

.

 

[StillGods]

I wrote a series of posts that offer scriptural support for "Calvinism." Five of the thirteen posts have been added to the blog, the rest are scheduled to be added over the next two weeks.

I hope you find them useful.

IS CALVINISM BIBLICAL – Feileadh Mor

Yours in The Lord,

jm

is Calvinism Biblical? no I dont think so.

since spending a while in a Calvinist church I could never quite buy into it.
calvinism was the first place I heard God hates people.

that in itself was unBiblical and shows a lack of understanding about who God is.

after that Calvinism just never had my respect, it has always been weird. twisting of scripture to try and make it fit a Calvinistic worldview is where all the energy of calvinists seems to go.

stepping out of calvinism must be such a relief.

 

[BABerean2]

Of course God was sovereign before the Fall. But, I know what you are trying to do, He is not the Author of sin. He certainly purposed the Fall but He in no way made Adam to sin.

Some of your fellow Calvinists would disagree with you.
They claim God is the author of sin.

.

 

[twin1954]

Some of your fellow Calvinists would disagree with you.
They claim God is the author of sin.

.

That would Hyper-Calvinists. As is true of any hyper group they are way off. I came out of Hyper-Calvinism.

Using hypers to condemn a whole system is not only dishonest but using a lie to try to discredit truth. You should be better than that.

Do you know what Open Theism is? You didn’t answer the question. I should have known you wouldn’t. You have evaded every question you can’t answer throughout this thread.

 

[BABerean2]

That would Hyper-Calvinists. As is true of any hyper group they are way off. I came out of Hyper-Calvinism.

Using hypers to condemn a whole system is not only dishonest but using a lie to try to discredit truth. You should be better than that.

Do you know what Open Theism is? You didn’t answer the question. I should have known you wouldn’t. You have evaded every question you can’t answer throughout this thread.

Open Theism denies the fact that God stands outside of time and space, and therefore knows all future, and past events at the same time.
It is a denial of God's foreknowledge, and is therefore unscriptural.

Some Calvinists attempt to deny, or modify God's foreknowledge in order to make their doctrine work, by making comments about God " not looking down through the corridors of time..."

Rom_8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Rom 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
Rom 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Rom 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Rom 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

The link below contains a definition of Open Theism, for others here who may be accused.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/o-theism/


When a fruit is rotten to the core, attempts to trim that fruit are in vain.
Some have attempted to fix modern "Dispensational" Theology in this manner.
You cannot fix a machine that never worked in the beginning.

Attempts to fix "Calvinism" are also doomed to failure, for the same reason.


.

 

[twin1954]

Open Theism denies the fact that God stands outside of time and space, and therefore knows all future, and past events at the same time.
It is a denial of God's foreknowledge, and is therefore unscriptural.

Some Calvinists attempt to deny, or modify God's foreknowledge in order to make their doctrine work, by making comments about God " not looking down through the corridors of time..."

Rom_8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Rom 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
Rom 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Rom 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Rom 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

The link below contains a definition of Open Theism, for others here who may be accused.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/o-theism/


When a fruit is rotten to the core, attempts to trim that fruit are in vain.
Some have attempted to fix modern "Dispensational" Theology in this manner.
You cannot fix a machine that never worked in the beginning.

Attempts to fix "Calvinism" are also doomed to failure, for the same reason.


.

Notice that Romans 8:29 does not say for what He did foreknow. It says whom. The word foreknow, foreknowledge or foreordained is always in connection to a person never a what. But free will works religionists always connect it to a what which is not Scriptural.

God foreknows people, He foreordained things. Moreover the word foresee is a totally different word in both the English and the Greek. And they have a different meaning than foreknow.

In order to continue to hold your position on foreknowledge you must not only ignore truth but deny the Scriptures.

Calvinism is the most consistent and logical understanding of the whole of Scripture. That is why we can have an actual systematic theology. Free will proponents cannot because their whole theology is a jumble of proof texts and inconsistencies.

This is for the readers. Notice how our friend does not answer any posts that explain and refutes his oft repeated montra. He will not answer the fact that the passage he put foreword doesn’t say what he wants it to say. It is a pattern with him and every other free willer I have ever debated. They must ignore, put forth red herrings, and build straw men in order to even begin to debate against Calvinism.

Now I don’t say these things in order to tear down our friend or to use an Ad Hominem. I simply am pointing out what you can see in his posts if you care to look for yourself.

 

[BABerean2]

This is for the readers. Notice how our friend does not answer any posts that explain and refutes his oft repeated montra. He will not answer the fact that the passage he put foreword doesn’t say what he wants it to say. It is a pattern with him and every other free willer I have ever debated. They must ignore, put forth red herrings, and build straw men in order to even begin to debate against Calvinism.

Now I don’t say these things in order to tear down our friend or to use an Ad Hominem. I simply am pointing out what you can see in his posts if you care to look for yourself.

If you think I did not answer "any posts" I will let the readers here decide that point.
If you believe I did not thoroughly explain "Open Theism", I can add more information if needed.

There is one thing that many "Calvinists" have in common.
They are good at finding something wrong with those who oppose Augustine's excuses (Calvinism) for getting infants into the Church.

Take a look at the debate below to see examples of the nasty disposition often displayed by those who call themselves "Calvinists".

Some claim only "Calvinists" are true Christians, thereby turning the doctrine into a cult.

.

 

[StillGods]

Notice that Romans 8:29 does not say for what He did foreknow. It says whom. The word foreknow, foreknowledge or foreordained is always in connection to a person never a what. But free will works religionists always connect it to a what which is not Scriptural.

God foreknows people, He foreordained things. Moreover the word foresee is a totally different word in both the English and the Greek. And they have a different meaning than foreknow.

In order to continue to hold your position on foreknowledge you must not only ignore truth but deny the Scriptures.

Calvinism is the most consistent and logical understanding of the whole of Scripture. That is why we can have an actual systematic theology. Free will proponents cannot because their whole theology is a jumble of proof texts and inconsistencies.

This is for the readers. Notice how our friend does not answer any posts that explain and refutes his oft repeated montra. He will not answer the fact that the passage he put foreword doesn’t say what he wants it to say. It is a pattern with him and every other free willer I have ever debated. They must ignore, put forth red herrings, and build straw men in order to even begin to debate against Calvinism.

Now I don’t say these things in order to tear down our friend or to use an Ad Hominem. I simply am pointing out what you can see in his posts if you care to look for yourself.

I think he's answered everything..
just saying..
you sidestep a lot of stuff yourself..
anyway..

 

[twin1954]

If you think I did not answer "any posts" I will let the readers here decide that point.
If you believe I did not thoroughly explain "Open Theism", I can add more information if needed.

There is one thing that many "Calvinists" have in common.
They are good at finding something wrong with those who oppose Augustine's excuses (Calvinism) for getting infants into the Church.

Take a look at the debate below to see examples of the nasty disposition often displayed by those who call themselves "Calvinists".

Some claim only "Calvinists" are true Christians, thereby turning the doctrine into a cult.

.

Ang you didn’t answer what I said about the passage you quoted. Like I said it is a pattern.

 

[BABerean2]

Ang you didn’t answer what I said about the passage you quoted. Like I said it is a pattern.

1 Timothy 4:10

(CJB) (indeed, it is for this that we toil and strive): we have our hope set on a living God who is the deliverer of all humanity, especially of those who trust.

(ESV) For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

(Geneva) For therefore we labour and are rebuked, because we trust in the liuing God, which is the Sauiour of all men, specially of those that beleeue.

(Greek NT TR) εις τουτο γαρ και κοπιωμεν και ονειδιζομεθα οτι ηλπικαμεν επι θεω ζωντι ος εστιν σωτηρ παντων ανθρωπων μαλιστα πιστων

(GW) Certainly, we work hard and struggle to live a godly life, because we place our confidence in the living God. He is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

(LITV-TSP) for to this we also labor and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is deliverer of all men, especially of believers.

(KJV) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

(KJV+) ForG1063 thereforeG1519 G5124 we bothG2532 labourG2872 andG2532 suffer reproach,G3679 becauseG3754 we trustG1679 inG1909 the livingG2198 God,G2316 whoG3739 isG2076 the SaviourG4990 of allG3956 men,G444 speciallyG3122 of those that believe.G4103

(NKJV) For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

(YLT) for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of all men—especially of those believing.

.

 

[twin1954]

1 Timothy 4:10

(CJB) (indeed, it is for this that we toil and strive): we have our hope set on a living God who is the deliverer of all humanity, especially of those who trust.

(ESV) For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

(Geneva) For therefore we labour and are rebuked, because we trust in the liuing God, which is the Sauiour of all men, specially of those that beleeue.

(Greek NT TR) εις τουτο γαρ και κοπιωμεν και ονειδιζομεθα οτι ηλπικαμεν επι θεω ζωντι ος εστιν σωτηρ παντων ανθρωπων μαλιστα πιστων

(GW) Certainly, we work hard and struggle to live a godly life, because we place our confidence in the living God. He is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

(LITV-TSP) for to this we also labor and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is deliverer of all men, especially of believers.

(KJV) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

(KJV+) ForG1063 thereforeG1519 G5124 we bothG2532 labourG2872 andG2532 suffer reproach,G3679 becauseG3754 we trustG1679 inG1909 the livingG2198 God,G2316 whoG3739 isG2076 the SaviourG4990 of allG3956 men,G444 speciallyG3122 of those that believe.G4103

(NKJV) For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

(YLT) for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of all men—especially of those believing.

.

And you still have not answered the passage from Rom. 9. The passage you have given now is without context. Here let me give you the context:

1 Timothy 4:8-10 (KJV) 8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. 9 This [is] a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. 10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

The context is very clear that the word is Preserver. He gives life and breath to all creatures. Notice how Paul sets the meaning in verse 8 when he speaks about the promise of life that now is. It is profitable for unbelievers to be honest and have integrity in this life.

Words can have different meanings though it is the same word; one can mean the number or a person, end can mean the termination or the purpose of a thing. Here instead of meaning the deliverer it means the preserver. The context sets the meaning.

To just throw out a passage as a proof text as you have is intellectually dishonest and can only mean that you have a very weak argument. Or apparently no argument at all.

 

[BABerean2]

And you still have not answered the passage from Rom. 9.

Gen_25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.


Gen_36:1 Now these are the generations of Esau, who is Edom.


Gen_36:8 Thus dwelt Esau in mount Seir: Esau is Edom.


Gen_36:19 These are the sons of Esau, who is Edom, and these are their dukes.


Gen_36:43 Duke Magdiel, duke Iram: these be the dukes of Edom, according to their habitations in the land of their possession: he is Esau the father of the Edomites.


Oba_1:8 Shall I not in that day, saith the LORD, even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of Esau?

.

 

[twin1954]

Gen_25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.


Gen_36:1 Now these are the generations of Esau, who is Edom.


Gen_36:8 Thus dwelt Esau in mount Seir: Esau is Edom.


Gen_36:19 These are the sons of Esau, who is Edom, and these are their dukes.


Gen_36:43 Duke Magdiel, duke Iram: these be the dukes of Edom, according to their habitations in the land of their possession: he is Esau the father of the Edomites.


Oba_1:8 Shall I not in that day, saith the LORD, even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of Esau?

.

More evasion and misdirection. What has the Edomites to do with the passage in Rom. Or the passage in 1Tim.? You are not helping your argument at all and only proving my observation of your tactics. Either answer directly what I have posted concerning both passages or give up your pointless posts and false theology.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

I've demonstrated all five points of Calvinism, just from the four Gospels:
Jesus is the Reason for Calvinism

 

[BABerean2]

I've demonstrated all five points of Calvinism, just from the four Gospels:
Jesus is the Reason for Calvinism

Did the Early Church Fathers teach "Calvinism"?

Read the recent book "The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism" by Ken Wilson, if you want the history of the doctrine.

Ken Wilson talks below about the beliefs of the Early Church Fathers.

.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

If saving faith is entirely a gift of the Holy Spirit, irrespective of our free-willed efforts to believe or disbelieve, as Augustine, Luther and Calvin taught, then those who deny it are blaspheming the Holy Spirit, committing the unpardonable sin.

Anti-Calvinists should be sure, then, that the Bible rejects irresistible (enabling, efficacious) grace before they reject it too.

The Holy Spirit will work in the lives of the elect so that they inevitably will come to faith in Christ. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit never fails to bring to salvation those sinners whom He personally calls to Christ (John 6:37-40)...

Another misconception concerning this doctrine is that it teaches the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted at all. Yet, again, that is not what the doctrine teaches because that is not what the Bible teaches. God’s grace can be resisted, and the Holy Spirit’s influence can be resisted even by one of the elect. However, what the doctrine does correctly recognize is that the Holy Spirit can overcome all such resistance and that He will draw the elect with an irresistible grace that makes them want to come to God and helps them to understand the gospel so they can and will believe it.
Irresistible Grace - is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Don Maurer]

Did the Early Church Fathers teach "Calvinism"?

Read the recent book "The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism" by Ken Wilson, if you want the history of the doctrine.

Ken Wilson talks below about the beliefs of the Early Church Fathers.

.

I listened to the first 15 minutes of the video. At about 14:45, there was a denial of "total depravity." The philosopher claims that "total depravity" was a myth invented by the Manichaeans. A lot of assertions were made and in the first 15 minutes no support was given for the assertions. It was very uninteresting.

 

[BABerean2]

It was very uninteresting.

If you are a "Calvinist", I can understand why you would have that viewpoint.

Read the book "The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism" by Ken Wilson, if you want to know the truth about why Augustine invented the doctrine. Augustine was trying to explain how infants could become the "elect" through water baptism. Since the child had not come to faith, it must be based on the will of another. It could have nothing to do with the will of the child.

.

 

[Don Maurer]

Yes, I am not interested unless you can post something better than what you did so far.