Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

D-Stan · 04-11-2012, 12:36 AM

Yes, I feel the same way as you. Which is why I am not a calvinist (or a pagan).
[/quote]

I'm glad you agree with me. I do not know what your intentions were, but I think that associating Calvinists with pagans is out of place(if that is in fact what you were doing). The majority of them are just trying to figure out what the Bible is saying, and how to be faithful to it.

NotUnderLaw · 04-11-2012, 04:45 PM

No, I wasn't. Someone above said that there were equal amount pagans and calvinists. I was saying I wasn't either Smile

No, I don't think Calvinists are pagans.

D-Stan · 04-11-2012, 04:54 PM

Good deal

Shoes · 04-12-2012, 09:05 AM

redbeardiam Wrote:
Shoes Wrote:@D-Stan: do not ever start a thread questioning Calvinism. C-ism is sacred, and must be believed and not questioned
Hey, there are at least as many of you pagans on here as there are us calvinists.

Whoa, Whoa! who you calling 'Pagan?' haha i guess if the 'Shoe' fits.

I guess i been here long enough [as you have] to know that a Calvinism debate will attact the same people, who will say the same things, in the same order. No bad, not good, it just is.

"As the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so will Greg and Don debate Calvinism. And Redbeard and captain solo will chime in along with Elisha Craig, adding to the Calvinism debate." Shoes 6:66 & 67

**redbeardiam** · 04-12-2012, 09:13 AM

(04-12-2012 09:05 AM)Shoes Wrote:
redbeardiam Wrote:Hey, there are at least as many of you pagans on here as there are us calvinists.

Whoa, Whoa! who you calling 'Pagan?' haha i guess if the 'Shoe' fits.

I guess i been here long enough [as you have] to know that a Calvinism debate will attact the same people, who will say the same things, in the same order. No bad, not good, it just is.

Precisely! Which is why I tried to avoid saying anything substantive on the matter... why get sucked in again? Big Grin

Quote:"As the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so will Greg and Don debate Calvinism. And Redbeard and captain solo will chime in along with Elisha Craig, adding to the Calvinism debate." Shoes 6:66 & 67

But it's so much fun to antagonize Greg about Calvinism, especially when you can work it into something completely unrelated, like the Kardashians.

Also, who is this Elisha Craig? Does he have a double portion of the power of Elijah Craig? Does that make him like 188 proof?

Shoes · 04-12-2012, 09:45 AM

damn. i need to proof my posts better. i need to proof my thoughts better.

and do we need someone 2x stonger than Elijah Craig? yikes! that would be an uber scathing/ sarcastic/ hysterical poster

Elijah Craig · (This post was last modified: 04-12-2012 05:38 PM by Elijah Craig.)

(04-12-2012 09:13 AM)redbeardiam Wrote: Also, who is this Elisha Craig? Does he have a double portion of the power of Elijah Craig? Does that make him like 188 proof?

I think it makes me aged twice as long. Same bite... just with stronger flavor.

Poomp · 04-13-2012, 11:55 AM

(04-10-2012 11:30 AM)D-Stan Wrote: The doctrine of God's revealed and hidden will is as follows: God's revealed will is that he desires none to perish and wants all to be saved. His hidden will, though, is that His glory is to be furthered and for the sake of His glory not all will be saved. This is a doctrine I have seen promoted mainly by Calvinists. Though, I think it may help them explain a couple of passages, I really don't feel that such a doctrine is helpful. Maybe I am not being fair, but here is what the doctrine sounds like to me: God wants something, but doesn't get what He wants because He ultimately wants something else. Thus, God causes Himself not to get what He wants...which is in fact what He wants??

Sorry if I sound rude here. The doctrine just sounds absurd, and I believe it would be better to say "I don't know" than to say all that other stuff. Does anyone else feel the same way? Does anyone else feel differently?

I actually registered here just to respond to this, because it is an idea that is so often misunderstood, but really helped me to make sense of some verses that are in tension.

Basically, the idea is that God can honestly desire (or will) one thing, but because He values something else more highly, that is not what actually happens. A verse that fairly explicitly lays this out is Lamentations 3:33, "For He does not afflict willingly or grieve the sons of men." So although God is indeed afflicting (see the wider context), He is not doing so "willingly" (or "from the heart"). In other words, He has one will (to not afflict), but He values something else more highly, so He violates that will.

This same concept pops up in ordinary life all the time. I could honestly say that I don't want to spank my son, I don't "will" to do so, but sometimes I violate that will because of a higher value. We often desire one thing, but a higher value supersedes it.

The basic dilemma that this view is trying to make sense of is the fact that some verses like 1 Timothy 2:3-4 ("... God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved...") speak of God's desire for all to be saved, yet it is quite clear from Scripture that this is not what happens. Note that this is not a dilemma just for Calvinists, this is a dilemma for everyone, and ultimately almost everyone answers in that same way, that God values something else more than He desires universal salvation (Calvinists typically say His own glory, Arminians typically say the type of love that requires free will).

Elijah Craig · (This post was last modified: 04-13-2012 12:08 PM by Elijah Craig.)

(04-13-2012 11:55 AM)Poomp Wrote: This same concept pops up in ordinary life all the time. I could honestly say that I don't want to spank my son, I don't "will" to do so, but sometimes I violate that will because of a higher value. We often desire one thing, but a higher value supersedes it.

Yeah, I think if one looks at it through a "real life" lens it makes more sense. To think that a mind can't have motivations that produce apparent conflicts is an impoverished view of personality. And completely at odds with our minute-by-minute experience.

I want another coffee but I don't want to be up all night. I want a BMW but I don't want my monthly expenses to go up by $600/mo. I want a girlfriend but I don't want a headache.

greg · (This post was last modified: 04-13-2012 12:34 PM by greg.)

Welcome back Greg to your favorite (maybe) topic. Don't know how far I'll get into it this time, ya'll have already heard my best stuff, and most of you don't think it was that good. Big Grin

I'll throw out a couple of statements to see if anyone wants to dialogue and then decide if I want to jump in, may just want to sit back and listen. I don't come around as much anymore.

1) Ever notice how no one, and I mean no one, that opposes calvinism, even knows what calvinism teaches or espouses? No matter what, we simply don't know what we're talking about. But then if you slide up quietly behind a group of calvinists and listen, none of them knows either! They argue about it just like the rest of us uneducated idiots.

2) I have never really been happy/satisfied with the answers I have recd from calvinists when I tell them I don't like or support/follow man-made theology, which certainly calvinism is. The argument is made by the calvinists (or some calvinists) that Calvin "did' follow the scripture, and now they are just following him, or that he just popularized this way of belief. I probably didn't say that right see #1 above. (for the record my beliefs are "all" from scripture, I have followed no man. I respect my own opinion much more than I respect Calvin's or any other man, this statement seems to make so much sense to me, but not to alot of calvinists)

So let's remember. What is the Gospel? It is the Power of God unto salvation. To whom? (glad you asked) To everyone that believes! and that friends is mighty good news!