Why Do Calvinists Think They Have Superior Theology?

ALAYMAN said:
You are on a roll, I asked you how that passage regarding God’s sovereignty dealt specifically with man’s will.
Click to expand...

Well.. since it talks about all things existing because God created and sustains all things (Sovereignty) and that man's mind is hostile (mans will)... you need to not only reread your own links. You need to read the Bible.
 
The OP should have been titled, "Watch IFBs sit in Theology 101 and go bonkers."

You show them a verse that talks about original sin affecting the mind and they insist there is nothing in that passage addressing man's will.
 
FSSL said:
The OP should have been titled, "Watch IFBs sit in Theology 101 and go bonkers."

You show them a verse that talks about original sin affecting the mind and they insist there is nothing in that passage addressing man's will.
Click to expand...
Lol, you are skillful at twisting words, which, often times is a fitting description for what happens in Calvinist conversations. Nobody has said that God doesn’t have sovereignty, and I am most certainly not saying that man’s will is not affected by original sin. That is a lie on your part or a misunderstanding. We are discussing the extent of God’s sovereign , and the extent of the corruption on man’s will, known as total depravity by you tulip sniffers, lol.
 
ALAYMAN said:
We are discussing the extent of God’s sovereign , and the extent of the corruption on man’s will, known as total depravity by you tulip sniffers, lol.
Click to expand...

Which you missed in Colossians 1. Why do words like "all" and "hostile" elude you?
 
Here's a decent primer for my non-calvinist friends who are reading this thread, or lurking, on one proper way to frame your theological beliefs so as not to give legitimacy to Calvinist claims of semi-pelegianism. Of course there will always be a range of semantic meanings/definitions that some people will still quibble over, and many Calvinist's will call anybody that forwards ANY concept of synergistic cooperation in the process of salvation (even if such cooperation is advocated for post-regeneration, as this is an in-house Calvinist argument) a semi-pelegian, but it's at least helpful to be moderately informed at what concepts are in dispute.
 
Last edited:
AverageJoe said:
I love how Calvinists like to take a thing like dead (physically) and apply it to the spirit.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer my question.

AverageJoe said:
Oh, by the way, why in the world would I want you to answer for me? I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself.
Click to expand...
You needed me to define "free will" yesterday.
 
ALAYMAN said:
Here's a decent primer for my non-calvinist friends who are reading this thread, or lurking, on one proper way to frame your theological beliefs so as not to give legitimacy to Calvinist claims of semi-pelegianism. Of course there will always be a range of semantic meanings/definitions that some people will still quibble over, and many Calvinist's will call anybody that forwards ANY concept of synergistic cooperation in the process of salvation (even if such cooperation is advocated for post-regeneration, as this is an in-house Calvinist argument) a semi-pelegian, but it's at least helpful to be moderately informed at what concepts are in dispute.
Click to expand...
Alayman... do you mind starting a new thread with this? It would be a good extended discussion
 
Rockson said:
I think you need to step back and reassess your position. So you have the decedents of Adam and Eve born after the fall and you say they were free to choose evil but not the good......and born in that state you claim they are WITHOUT EXCUSE.
Click to expand...

Correct.

There are four states of man before and after the fall:

  • Able not to sin, and able to sin. This is the state of unfallen Adam and Eve.
  • Not able not to sin. This is the state of fallen Adam and Eve and all their descendants.
  • Able not to sin. This is the state of regenerate man.
  • Not able to sin. This is the state of glorified man.

This is standard Christian teaching. Speaking of excuses, what's yours for not understanding it?

As for being "without excuse," that's a pretty familiar phrase, isn't it? I wonder where I've seen that before?

what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Rom. 1:19-21)​

Fallen man knows who God is. Therefore, he is without excuse for not giving God the honour he is due. He is not ignorant, but disobedient. That is to say, he is reprobate. The futile thinking and dark heart (21) are the results of that reprobation, not something he becomes.

It was their parents Adam and Eve which did, so how can you say they would not have an excuse?
Click to expand...

Because Scripture says they do not have an excuse.

The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. Ezek 18:20

Why won't the son bear the guilt of the father?
Click to expand...

Ezekiel 18 refutes the proverb, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge" (2), which is to say, the sons are guilty of the sins of the father. God reminds them that even disregarding the sins of the father, they are still guilty of their own.

"This proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel" (3). It is an excuse. God takes it away. They have none.

Obviously for one reason....IT would not be just. It would not be right and it would not be fair.
Click to expand...

According to the doctrine of original sin, the guilt of Adam is imputed to all his descendants. Do you disagree with this?
 
Last edited:
FSSL said:
The OP should have been titled, "Watch IFBs sit in Theology 101 and go bonkers."

You show them a verse that talks about original sin affecting the mind and they insist there is nothing in that passage addressing man's will.
Click to expand...
I'm not IFB, and I can say that! LOL
 
Ransom said:
You didn't answer my question.


You needed me to define "free will" yesterday.
Click to expand...
No, I actually didn't....and if you read the post again, you'll see you're prevaricating as much as the owner of this site. Y'all kin? ;) I did answer your question.
 
FSSL said:
Alayman... do you mind starting a new thread with this? It would be a good extended discussion
Click to expand...

Sure, but not sure how much I'll participate, these Cal/Arm discussions wear me out 😁
 
FSSL said:
"Yet pre-falllen nature aside..."

Its not an aside. It IS the reason we are born as hostiles to God. There is no freewill that continues.

Another example of how fundies today lack theology. We now have one denying original sin (or at least the implications of it).
Click to expand...
You do twist people's words.....

If you read the whole of my post in which Ransom responded to in agreement on the point that man's choice (free will) and God's sovereignty can exist at the same place and the same time.

Do you agree that a scriptural precedent was set that man can have a choice AND God can still be sovereign at the same time?
 
I didn't twist words. I quoted exactly what you said. I took the germaine part of your sentence which showed the problem. Being dismissive about the pre-fallen nature of man, and assuming that that still carries over, ignores the problem of sin. Man no longer has the ability to choose God, unless God, miraculously intervenes. That is not what was true in the garden.

I do believe man has a will, and a choice. When he is born that will and choice always is exactly what his nature dictates. He is hostile and an enemy towards God. He rejects God. Not until God regenerates this individual and gives him faith to believe will that choice ever include submission to God.
 
FSSL said:
I didn't twist words. I quoted exactly what you said. I took the germaine part of your sentence which showed the problem. Being dismissive about the pre-fallen nature of man, and assuming that that still carries over, ignores the problem of sin. Man no longer has the ability to choose God, unless God, miraculously intervenes. That is not what was true in the garden.

I do believe man has a will, and a choice. When he is born that will and choice always is exactly what his nature dictates. He is hostile and an enemy towards God. He rejects God. Not until God regenerates this individual and gives him faith to believe will that choice ever include submission to God.
Click to expand...
You had my putting this aside as a denial of original sin. No denial, I just wanted to address something specific and apart from this aspect and I am in agreement with your answer.
 
FSSL said:
... and it is often used as a derogative term to stifle conversation.

John Gill was accused of being a Hyper Calvinist... YET, in his days, his ministry was the largest, fastest growing ministry.
Click to expand...

On what basis would you say that the charges against Gill were false?
 
FSSL said:
God never gave up one iota of His Sovereignty. Paul says all things exist because of Him.

Your definition of Sovereignty is foreign to Scripture. It assumes God is only in full control in the future. Therefore, your view of God denies His Sovereignty when Scripture never does.
Click to expand...
I never insinuated that God gave up His Sovereignty.
God invented free will. It was His idea.
That's my w.v.
I see God as perfectly Sovereign.
It isn't my w.v. that insists that men sin according to God's will.
 
ALAYMAN said:
On what basis would you say that the charges against Gill were false?
Click to expand...
Calvinists who do not shsre the gospel with others are identified as hypercalvinists, right?

Example 1: John Gill had the largest congregation, growing due to the spread of the gospel in his ministry. So much so, he had to build even a bigger church. Thousands came to know Jesus through his ministry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top