The Heresies of the Religion of Calvinism and how Satan has used it to infiltrate the Church

[logos1560]

the pressure Calvinism always has on Protestant culture is undeniable

Yet non-Calvinist KJV-only advocates such as you seem to attempt to deny any pressure of Calvinism on the majority of the Church of England makers of the KJV who were Calvinists. Why would you attempt to deny what you claim is undeniable?

Under the heading "questionable concepts carried over in the King James Version" (p. 74) in his book Calvinistic Paths Retraced, Samuel Fisk maintained that dogmatic interests such as Calvinism and prelacy did have an effect in some cases on the translation decisions in the KJV.

 

[tmjbog]

Yet non-Calvinist KJV-only advocates such as you seem to attempt to deny any pressure of Calvinism on the majority of the Church of England makers of the KJV who were Calvinists. Why would you attempt to deny what you claim is undeniable?

Under the heading "questionable concepts carried over in the King James Version" (p. 74) in his book Calvinistic Paths Retraced, Samuel Fisk maintained that dogmatic interests such as Calvinism and prelacy did have an effect in some cases on the translation decisions in the KJV.

I think I've been trained well in enough in the Ways of the Ruckmanite-I'll take this question. Calvinistic beliefs only prove modern translations incorrect; with the KJV it proves how God can work even through damaged vessels.

 

[UGC]

Yet non-Calvinist KJV-only advocates such as you seem to attempt to deny any pressure of Calvinism on the majority of the Church of England makers of the KJV who were Calvinists.

Precisely the opposite.

Go back and actually read this time, you talk more than you think.

 

[logos1560]

you talk more than you think.

You describe you yourself. It is clear that you do not think soundly and scripturally concerning human, non-scriptural KJV-only teaching.

 

[Ransom]

UGC just loves his red herrings. Anything to avoid discussing anything substantial.

So when I was on the forum yesterday, my roommate wandered by and asked what I was up to. The convo drifted from one topic to another, as they tend to do, and we ended up watching (most of) the video in the OP.

Repeated comment from roommate: "Haven't we heard this part already?" We hadn't, but Thompson's presentation is ponderous and repetitive. He goes on for over an hour and a half to state a point he could make in about five minutes.

In a nutshell, he uses 1 Thessalonians 4:3 as a proof-text that supposedly refutes Calvinism: "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication." He contrasts it with chapter 3 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession:

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.
So according to Thompson, the Bible says God's will is for George the Christian abstain from sexual immorality. The LBCF says that if George does commit immorality, that is also God's will. Since this makes God the author of sin, the LBCF is incoherent, and Calvinists are guilty of "cognitive dissonance."

Furthermore, any talk by Calvinists about primary and secondary causes, or God's "prescripttive" vs. "decretive" will, is doubletalk. The definition of God's will is that implied by 1 Thess. 4:3.

This is the lynchpin of Thompson's argument. It took him 95 minutes to say (and 10 for me to summarize, including the time needed to drink coffee while typing). And thereby is Calvinism refuted.

Well, I'm convinced! LOL!

 

[Ransom]

For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality. (1 Thess. 4:3)​

Reading this verse, can we agree on the following?

1. God desires that his people abstain from sexual immorality.
2. The definition of "God's will" that this verse implies is along the lines of, "divinely revealed moral precepts that God desires or expects people to obey: for example, point 1."
3. A person is capable of ignoring or disobeying those precepts.

This raises one further question: When Calvinists speak of "God's will" in any sense other than a divinely revealed moral precept that God desires or expects people to obey (for example, by citing LBCF.3, or talking about God's "decretive" vs. "prescriptive" will), is Thompson correct to dismiss this as cognitive dissonance or post-hoc rationalization?

Reposted for UGC, who apparently is too busy poking Logos in the eye to discuss the substance of his own posts.

 

[UGC]

Reposted for UGC, who apparently is too busy poking Logos in the eye to discuss the substance of his own posts.

This was addressed in the video. I'm not going to repeat things if people don't have patience to hear out the other side's perspective.

I'm not about one-way conversations where one side is trying to smear and lie about the other, I'm interested in both sides coming together to compare information with the goal of finding the truth.

his red herrings. Anything to avoid discussing anything substantial.

There have been no red herrings, and your 2 sentence post is far less substantial than my previous one.

 

[tmjbog]

...because Calvinism is designed to appeal to simpleton apes easily riled up by the invigorating absolutist notions...

So Calvinists are simpleton apes. Since the majority of the KJV translators were (as you call them) "simpleton apes" I would imagine you have just provided a bit more justification why one should avoid the KJV.

 

[UGC]

So Calvinists are simpleton apes.

I said the system of Calvinism appeals to simpleton apes in the context you cherry-picked it away from where I broke down its inherent systematic nature and how it pressures Christians who don't hold to it.

You drew from this and created your own "therefore" that all Calvinists are apes, and "therefore" that some of the KJV translators (not all of them were Calvinists, but you twisted this fact as well to fit your own smear campaign) are apes. You people need to study logic if you're going to debate these issues.

There is a difference between small talk where statements have a flexible meaning or can even be entirely euphemistic, and analysis, where what you say is precisely what is meant, without adding or inserting additional information around it.

 

[tmjbog]

I said the system of Calvinism appeals to simpleton apes in the context you cherry-picked it away from where I broke down its inherent systematic nature.

You actually said "Calvinism is designed to appeal to simpleton apes". So if that is who it's designed to appeal to it would be logical to conclude that that is who for the most part would accept the doctrines. You are implying that smarter people would not accept it.

 

[Ransom]

I'm not going to . . .
I'm not about . . .

And when your opinions are challenged . . . you're not there to defend them.

Well, that's fine. If you can't be bothered to defend your views, I won't be bothered to regard them as important, relevant, or useful.

Consider you, your stupid and ignorant views on Calvinism, your stupid and ignorant friend Kevin, and his stupid and ignorant video, properly ignored from here on.

 

[Ransom]

Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit"--yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that." As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. (Jas. 2:13-16)​

In this passage, James chides his readers for evil boasting, because they say they will do "this or that" but do not acknowledge what "the Lord wills."

1) Is what "the Lord wills" in this passage a moral precept to be obeyed?

2) Could people intending to travel and make profit ignore or disobey what "the Lord wills" in this passage, and carry out their plans regardless?

 

[Ransom]

"Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created." (Rev. 4:11)​

1) Is God's will in this passage a moral precept to be obeyed?

2) Could the "all things" that are created God's will ignore or disobey this will? That is, could they refuse to exist or be created?

 

[UGC]

So if that is who it's designed to appeal to it would be logical to conclude that that is who for the most part would accept the doctrines.

Notice the wiggle room in an amateur's analysis.

Yes, Satan designed Calvinism to appeal to stupid men (though not all Calvinists are stupid men, some were keenly indoctrinated by that all-powerful force in their lives: pop culture). It was designed in the pits of hell to appeal to stupid men with a simpleton's desire of the flesh to champion insane absolutist dogmas of scripturally unsound concepts such as "God elects the majority of the world to eternal damnation against their will, and others he elects to heaven against their will" (what system could make an ape feel more "special" and "empowered" by a God who gives neither them nor anyone else another choice? These men are the retards of Christianity who go around policing others to enforce their imaginary robot-controlling tyrant of a God found nowhere in scripture). Notice how this aspect of Satan's designed system of Calvinism appeals to the pride of man, founded on the same root principle Satan used to appeal to both Eve and the now fallen angels: "you're a special little snowflake", in Calvinism so special that God created you just to love you forever, such "special" value given in direct comparison to all the others he didn't pick for the dodgeball team who he created just to burn alive forever.

The Calvinist can't read John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
God loved the world and died for the sins of the entire world, so that whosoever in that world believes on the finished work of the cross should not perish. Nowhere in John 3:16 can the Satanic TULIP flower be found, except perhaps lining the graves of some who are currently in hell that thought they were special and had to persevere in works to be finally saved. Works salvationist heretics. Calvinism is an evil system. I don't care who believed it in the past, it is a system that doesn't match scripture unless you twist scripture or ignore other scriptures to make it work. Period.

 

[Ransom]

And so, in summary, the lynchpin of Kevin Thompson's argument against Calvinism fails. By biblical definition, God's will does not merely mean those moral precepts he expects to be obeyed. It also means the things he decrees, which therefore come to pass.

Chapter 3 of the LBCF is both true and biblical. Furthermore, the traditional distinction between God's prescriptive will (his moral precepts) and his decretive will (those things he causes to happen) is also true and biblical.

And, therefore, Thompson, whom UGC promoted on this forum as refuting the "heresies of the religion of Calvinism," is a liar and a false teacher. So much for him.

 

[UGC]

the lynchpin of Kevin Thompson's argument

Unlike the 5 lynchpins of Calvinism, Thompson uses a variety of scripture in its proper context without ignoring other scriptures to make his assertions work.

John Calvin was an anti-Semitic simpleton celebrity, and a kindergarten student could debunk his little french TULIP flower.

 

[Ransom]

Unlike the 5 lynchpins of Calvinism, Thompson blah blah blah

This was addressed already.

 

[Ransom]

John Calvin was an anti-Semitic simpleton celebrity, and a kindergarten student could debunk his little french TULIP flower.

Well, you certainly don't appear capable. Maybe you could put the kindergarten student on instead?

 

[UGC]

Maybe you could put the kindergarten student on instead?

Sure. Here's the kid's response:





Now, here's a kindergartner influenced by a demon who disagrees, having attended New Calvin New Version New Megachurch's New 2020 VBS program:


"Nothing was removed. We work to the end. Because we are special, we work. Heil Calvin."

 

[tmjbog]

Notice the wiggle room in an amateur's analysis.

Yes, Satan designed Calvinism to appeal to stupid men (though not all Calvinists are stupid men, some were keenly indoctrinated by that all-powerful force in their lives: pop culture).

So the majority of those who translated the KJV were following a satanic doctrine. I hope the NIV board or one of the others are giving you a stipend of some sort. You do more to push people away from the KJV then any anit-KJVO person I've heard.