Hyper Calvinism as defined by a Calvinist

How so since Election, Predestination, Salvation by Grace, all in adam are under sin, no one can come unless the father draws him, I give them Eternal Life and no one can take them from My hands are all found in the bible ?

This is the Bible long before calvin existed.
That is your Calvinistic delusion. It is not true, at least not the Calvinistic version of it. Election is there, but not the Calvinistic version. Predestination is there, but not the Calvinistic version. Salvation by grace is there, but not the Calvinistic version. All are under sin is there, but not the Calvinistic version. Etc.
 
You like to think that you are not a Calvinist, but you have borrowed a third of your theology from them. That is why you can't defeat Calvinism properly. Deep down you are still agreeing with them half the time.
He's an Evangelical...
 
How so since Election, Predestination, Salvation by Grace, all in adam are under sin, no one can come unless the father draws him, I give them Eternal Life and no one can take them from My hands are all found in the bible ?

This is the Bible long before calvin existed.
Exactly.

Problem is he continues to base his truths on unsubstantiated claims.

He's never going to listen to reason. Just make a declaration, add an exclamation point, and it magically becomes truth.
 
You're here to defend Arminianism? Arminius said Calvin was the greatest Bible teacher; almost to the point of being Inspired by God...

Thanks for the defense...
So you are telling me that there are no disagreements between Calvinism and Arminianism? That would be an ignorant statement if there ever was one.
 
That is your Calvinistic delusion. It is not true, at least not the Calvinistic version of it. Election is there, but not the Calvinistic version. Predestination is there, but not the Calvinistic version. Salvation by grace is there, but not the Calvinistic version. All are under sin is there, but not the Calvinistic version. Etc.
The Gospel is there, but not the Calvinistic version?

Why do I need the Gospel when you will Baptize the Dead?
 
So you are telling me that there are no disagreements between Calvinism and Arminianism? That would be an ignorant statement if there ever was one.
There is no disagreement between an Arminian or a Calvinist that Arminius did call Calvin the greatest Bible Teacher, almost to the point of Inspiration by God...
 
I am pretty sure the Arminians find more in common with the Calvinist than you
What do you mean by "you" ("me")? If you are referring to my own personal religious convictions, that is quite possible. But I am not not here to discuss my own personal religious convictions with anyone. There is a separate forum for that, if people are interested in discussing that subject. I am here exclusively to discuss Calvinism vs. Arminianism, and I think that the Armenians here for the most part would agree with my biblical criticisms of Calvinism.
 
All Calvinism is ultimately hyper!

I see... So Mormons think they can define what "Calvinism" is.

I guess if THAT is the standard, then Calvinists get to define what Mormonism is, RIGHT?

Romans 2 says what it says. That is clear and obvious to anyone who reads it without preconceived baggage. The only way to "misrepresent" it is to make it say something other than what it actually says.

This is typical Mormonism.
They DEMAND that a particular passage be interpreted in only ONE precise way, they think THEY are the ones who correctly understand it, and anyone who dares disagree with their OPINION is "making it say something other than what it actually says".
 
I never said any such a thing. All men are ultimately saved by means of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Without the Atonement, no one would be saved, period. But salvation through the Atonement is not unconditional. Repentance and keeping God's commandments are still an integral part of it. That is the message that Romans 2 is trying to give.

That is simply false.
And you have failed to actually QUOTE and WALK THROUGH Rom. 2 to try to demonstrate that.

First of all, your misinterpretation of Rom. 2 is in direct CONTRADICTION to the rest of Scripture, especially:

Eph. 2:8 ... And this is not your own doing ...
Eph. 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
2 Tim. 1:9 who saved us ... not because of our works
Tit. 3:5 he saved us, not because of works ...
Rom. 4:5 And to the one who does not work ... his faith is counted as righteousness,
Rom. 4:6 ... the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
Rom. 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works;

I've quoted these to Mormons literally hundreds of times, and they constantly RUN AWAY from them.

Secondly, IF men were capable of perfectly keeping the law, then they would attain the righteousness that comes from the Law. But the fact of the matter, IF YOU WOULD CONTINUE READING THROUGH TO Romans 3:19-20 (which Mormons never do), is that they CANNOT do so:

Rom. 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

It's very telling that while Mormons like to quote Rom. 2, they rip it out of its context, and REFUSE to continue reading to Rom. 3:19-20, and Rom. 4:1-6. Paul didn't write individual "verses", he wrote a "letter", he wrote an ARGUMENT, and it is to disrespect both Paul and God to rip a couple of verses out of its context.


Finally, Rom. 2 is NOT intended to teach what "man can do", or what "man needs to do". It is teaching that God is JUST, and that GOD will deal with every man accordingly, and not unjustly.
 
The Gospel is there, but not the Calvinistic version?

Why do I need the Gospel when you will Baptize the Dead?
LOL! Your only defense is to drag Mormonism into it! It shows that you are getting desperate! Well, I have got bad news for you. It won't work! Take it to the Mormonism forum.
 
I don't need your systematic theology to tell me what is in the Bible.

You clearly don't even know what "systematic theology" is.

I reckon I am the best theologian round here at the moment,

<Chuckle>

I'm sure you're the most humble here as well, right?

ROTFLOL!

because I derive my theology directly from the Bible!

No, you get your theology from Joseph Smith and from SLC!

Where do you get "polygamy is a virtue" from the Bible?
Where do you get "marriage continues after death" from the Bible?
Where do you get "eternal progression from man unto godhood" from the Bible?
Where do you get "Christians must wear holy undergarments" from the Bible?
Where do you get "immature unmarried teenagers can become deacons and elders" from the Bible?
Where do you get "Men can be Melchizedek priests" from the Bible?
Where do you get "Gentiles can become Levitical priests" from the Bible?

Jesus in his debates with the Pharisees always quoted scripture. He never quoted the Talmud! I like to follow his example.

Where have you seen anyone here quoting from the Talmud?!
 
There is no disagreement between an Arminian or a Calvinist that Arminius did call Calvin the greatest Bible Teacher, almost to the point of Inspiration by God...
There are serious disappointments between their theology, which is what I am interested in.
 
I am here to expose the theological errors and heretical doctrines of Calvinism, and where applicable, also to defend Arminianism. I am not an Arminian; but if I had to choose between the two, I would choose Arminianism any day.

So why do you claim it's okay to attack Calvinism here (even though Calvinism has its own forum), but you claim it's NOT okay to criticize Mormonism here, since "Mormonism has its own forum)?
Double standards much?
 
LOL! Your only defense is to drag Mormonism into it! It shows that you are getting desperate! Well, I have got bad news for you. It won't work! Take it to the Mormonism forum.
I'm happy to talk about Mormonism here. Who needs the Gospel when Mormons Baptize both the Dead Anne Frank, and Dead Nazis? If Nazis don't need the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I don't need the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Is the Baptism of the Dead 'Good News' for me?
 
Back
Top