Calvinism- False Doctrines of the "Pope" of Geneva

http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htm ^ | Bible Life Ministries

[A.J.Armitage]

A.J.Armitage asked for a name, so I gave him one.

I also asked for quotes.

[A.J.Armitage]

Are you trying to tell me that a statement such as "The Gospel is Calvinism and Calvinism is the Gospel" does not equate the two? If so, you need a very basic class in logic.

Equal to and the same as are different things.

Or do you think a man who says "Jane is my wife" is like a man who says "Jane is as good as my wife."

[dsc]

"I don't want what you personally think is an ironclad, ect argument. I want Scripture."

Sorry, but you are being utterly unreasonable.

God has revealed that He is a loving Father. If you think an infinitely loving Father would demand the impossible of His children, then we have no basis for discussion.

If you cannot comprehend that an infinitely loving father would not demand the impossible of his children without a specific citation in the scripture (And then God spake, saying, "Verily, an infinitely loving father wouldst not demand the impossible of His children..."), well, in that case, we're back to utterly unreasonable.

"Yet all I get is your human babblings."

The problem there is in the receiver, not in the transmitter.

And with that, I don't think I care to continue this discussion.

[Gamecock]

###If you cannot comprehend that an infinitely loving father ###

And yet we know that God s some people...

[Gamecock]

So why is the term predestined found in scripture and free will isn't?

BTW, your analysis of the passages from Romans I provided is clearly the most bizzare twisting of scripture I have ever seen. Worse than many s that are out there.

[connectthedots]

Equal to and the same as are different things.

I used the word 'equate', which is the proper word to use in this case. Why are you introducing the phrase 'the same as' when I made no reference to it? You skills in logic are sorely lacking.

[A.J.Armitage]

So when I asked what backed up your assumption that God wouldn't demand the impossible, and you cited revelation, you didn't really mean it.

By continually demanding revelation, I'm arguing on your own terms, and you still fail.

BTW, you might want to ask why some men in Scripture are called sons of Belial.

[A.J.Armitage]

From #157: "Contrary to what many Calvinists would have you believe, Calvinism is not equal to either the Bible or the Gospel."

Now, all Calvinists would have you believe that what is now called Calvinism is taught by the Bible, and is part of the Gospel (i.e., "is the same as": you're remarkably arrogant for your notion I should only use phrases you use), but your claim above is that we think it's "equal to" the Bible and the Gospel is something different.

[connectthedots]

If you could draft a coherent sentence, I would be able to respond.

[Cvengr]

Is Jesus Christ Son of the Eternal God or the Eternal Son of God?

I don't find these two statements to be mutually exclusive. One emphasizes the eternal nature of the Son and one the eternal nature of God. As they are one, the reference seems identical.

Is there a finer theological point you wish to emphasize?

[lockeliberty]

I don't find these two statements to be mutually exclusive. One emphasizes the eternal nature of the Son and one the eternal nature of God. As they are one, the reference seems identical. Is there a finer theological point you wish to emphasize?

No, for most can see the distinction. For you, however, it appears your reading of that indicates one of the following:

1. You continue to support my theory that in most things you perform eisegetical interpretations to support your own conclusions. In this case it is clear that Servetus was a non-Trintiarian heretic who even in his final words refused to grant Christ diety on the same level as the Father.

2. You are a non-Trinitarian heretic.

3. You are playing a little game in which you know better.

[A.J.Armitage]

If you had enough reading comprehension to understand a few clauses, it would be perfectly coherent.

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen to your post!

[fortheDeclaration]

"Inflammatory wording is used throughout the article." How do you describe burning people at the stake without using inflammatory wording? The question in my mind is, are the basic facts correct?

Note the Calvinist reaction to the article.

It is cultish

They cannot deal with the facts, so they try to denounce it as 'anti-Calvinistic' propaganda.

The real issue isn't Servetus but the teachings of Calvin which do go against the character of God.