Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!
Skala,
Really?
Oh, I get it perfectly. I'm not sure you do. In fact, in labeling yourself a Calvinist -- you do label yourself a Calvinist, right? -- you adopt a term that is used by some people who do not actually understand what Calvin taught. And that's aside from the fact that he was one of the most disreputable and "jihadist" types of Christian ever to hold the office of pastor.
What doctrines? The ones you believe he taught, or the actual doctrines he taught? Because you probably don't realize that the Calvinists of today don't agree with what Calvin taught. But that's for another thread.
I'll call whatever name by which you wish to be addressed. But I won't agree with TULIP as you interpret it, though I do accept a great deal of what TULIP says, nor will I agree that Calvin taught what you believe he taught.
That you lifted the verses out of context, fail to relate them to corollary verses elsewhere in the Bible, and don't seem to understand the context overall. But again, that's for another thread. This thread is entitled "Calvinism vs. Arminianism" and I fall into neither category.
There are countless books on hermeneutics, but Bill is correct in that it is an essential, vital rule to proper biblical interpretation. In this brief paper on how to properly study the Bible, it is rule six, found on page 19 (page 20 if you use the pdf generator's index).
A person either accepts that election is unconditional, or he does not. etc.
I'm well aware of that, and I find it incredulous that one would self-identify with any teaching without actually having read the teaching, or know anything of the teacher.
The different being, Paul repented on the road to Damascus and became a follower of Christ. While claiming Christ, Calvin was a murdering hater of opponents, even when they were Christians, and particularly, it seems, when they stood against questionable reformed doctrine.
So as long as he's preaching truth, you've no problem with what he does? That's a very dangerous precedent to set in one's personal life.
Any doctrine of men is open to interpretation, criticism, and debate. It is questionable that TULIP can be supported from the Bible, which means it is not a biblical doctrine. The Synod of Dort may have "affirmed" it -- though I know they did not call it "TULIP" -- that doesn't make it biblical. It makes endorse by a council of men who may or may not judge rightly.
Fine. I believe in Christ, the Living Word. I'm not saying you don't, but as th1bill said, the best interpretation of Scripture is from Scripture itself.
There certainly are a lot of trees killed in the name of defending or vilifying it, for a doctrine for which "no interpretation exists." That's arrogance beyond belief.
True. But the issue of whether God is Triune in nature, Three in One, is emphatically, Scripturally perfected. TULIP, Calivinism, Reformed theology, whatever name one chooses to attach to it, does have enormous room for debate, given the various passages that can be shown to contradict the doctrines so named.
And technically, that would be correct, though obviously, that would be a bit difficult to undertake. However, where verse A says one thing, and verse B seems to contradict it, it becomes incumbent upon the reader to determine why there is no contradiction, and find the harmony of the two. Few Calvinists are willing to do that. I pray you are one.Great! I'd be interested in hearing the parts you agree with and the parts you disagree with. Maybe we could talk about them sometime?[./quote]I would also be interested in that conversation. Not sure others would be, but we'll see.You realize, I assume, that the TULIP acronym wasn't even published until 1932, by Lorraine Boettner? So referring to Reformed fathers believing in TULIP is inaccurate. TULIP is actually an oversimplification of Calvinist/Reformed theology, and fails to encompass all that they actually believed, the caveats they included in their writings that tend to counter many of today's Calvinist beliefs.I'm not sure that's an accurate statement, given that the only early church fathers to write on any of the tenets of famed doctrines was Augustine, when he wrote on predestination in the early fifth century.That seems to indicate an unwillingness to believe what I may post, but we'll see. Otherwise you'd expect each person to quote the entire Bible from Gen 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 each time they wanted to quote a Bible verse, because if they simply quoted the Bible verse by itself, you'd accuse them of quoting out of context!
I wouldn't discount it being important because it is #6 instead of #1. It is an extremely important, vital rule to follow. In fact, not following it leads to gross error and bad theology.
Now you are picking a fight and that is not Christian and if you keep it up I will just ignore you. There is no rule on the web that demands an answer. If you are, as you began with, so much smarter than me, I do not need to instruct you in the first rule of Hermeneutics and you, refusing both of the standard positions on the Bible you already, should, know there are passages we will not understand until we are taught in the Glorified Body.
Hello brother,
