A Response to “5 Myths About Calvinism”

By Dr. Leighton Flowers

Calvinistic scholar, Dr. Greg Forester, just released an article titled “Five Myths about Calvinism” through Crossway and I would like to provide a critique here. I’ve listed Forester’s myths followed by my responses below each one:

Myth #1: We don’t have free will

Is this a myth about Calvinism? Calvinists affirm “compatibilistic free will,” but they deny we have “libertarian free will” which is what most people think of when they talk about “free will” in general (i.e. the ability to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action, the power of contraying choice, self-determination. For instance, “The person who rejected Christ and remained lost could and should have willingly accepted Christ so as to be saved.”)

Compatibilistic Calvinists have redefined “free will” to mean “acting in accordance with one’s desire,” but it should be noted that those desires on Calvinism are determined by Divine decree, which are factors beyond the agent’s control (i.e. a fallen man cannot desire to accept the gospel appeal due to an inborn nature inherited from Adam, so he rejects Christ because that’s “his desire” and since it’s his desire it is “compatibilistically free” not “libertarianly free.”) If most people understood this is what Calvinists mean by “free will,” would they agree this is a myth?

Myth #2: We are saved against our will

As noted in the first point, on Compatibilistic Calvinism our wills are determined to act based upon factors outside the agent’s control. God, by divine decree, decides man’s nature and circumstances to be such that they will always choose that which God has decided they will choose. <read a Compatibilist’s explanation here>

On Calvinism, there is no such thing as what the human really wants apart from God’s desire in the matter (i.e., God’s desire as to what the human agent will desire). In the compatibilist scheme, human desire is wholly derived from and wholly bound to the divine desire. God’s decree encompasses everything, even the desires that underlie human choices.

This is a critical point because it undercuts the plausibility of the compatibilist’s argument that desire can be considered the basis for human freedom. When you define freedom in terms of ‘doing what one wants to do,’ it initially appears plausible only because it subtly evokes a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his choices.

But once we recognize (as we must within the larger deterministic framework encompassing compatibilism) that those very desires of the agent are equally part of the environment that God causally determined, then the line between environment and agent becomes blurred if not completely lost. The human agent no longer can be seen as owning his own choices, for the desires determining those choices are in no significant sense independent of God’s decree. <for more on this point READ THIS>

Myth #3: We are total depraved

The author is simply explaining why Calvinists don’t mean by this phrase that mankind is “as bad as they could be.” Calvinists affirm that even lost people can do relatively good things. I take no issue with this point.

But, Calvinists do teach that people are born as completely disabled to see, hear, understand and turn to Christ “as they can be.” They affirm what is called “Total Inability,” which means that fallen people cannot respond positively even to God’s own inspired appeals to be reconciled from the fall.

I don’t find this Calvinistic doctrine taught within the scriptures, do you?

Myth #4: God does not love the lost

Many Calvinistic brethren, when discussing the sincerity of God’s love for all people, seem to distance themselves from the inevitable conclusions drawn by the implications of their own systematic. While attempting to maintain some semblance of divine love for those unconditionally rejected by God in eternity past, they appeal to God’s common provisions such as rain and sunshine as a type of “love.” But can such provisions be deemed as genuinely loving given the Scripture’s own definition of love found in 1 Corinthians 13?

It should be noted that some “higher” forms of Calvinism do not even attempt to defend the idea that God sincerely loves everyone. In a work titled, The Sovereignty of God, by A. W. Pink, he wrote, “God loves whom He chooses. He does not love everybody.” He further argued that the word “world” in John 3:16 (“For God so loved the world…“) “refers to the world of believers (God’s elect), in contradistinction from ‘the world of the ungodly.’”

The issue comes down to how one defines the characteristic of love. According to Paul, “love does not seek its own,” and thus it is best described as “self-sacrificial” rather than “self-serving” (1 Cor. 13:5). As Jesus taught, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” It seems safe to say that love at its very root is self-sacrificial. Anything less than that should not be called “love.” One may refer to “kindness” or “care” in consideration of some common provisions for humanity, but unless it reaches the level of self-sacrifice it does not seem to meet the biblical definition of true love.

Given that biblical definition of love as “self-sacrifice,” let us consider Christ’s command to love our enemies. Is this an expectation Christ himself is unwilling to fulfill? In other words, is He being hypocritical in this command? Of course not. The very reason He told His followers to love their enemies is “in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven…” (Matt. 5:45).

The meaning is undeniable. We are to self-sacrificially love our enemies because God loves all His enemies in that way perfectly. He loves both “the righteous and the unrighteous” in exactly the same way we are told to love our enemies. The greatest commandment instructs us to “love our neighbor as ourselves” (Lev. 19:18; Matt. 22:37-38). “And who is our neighbor?” (Lk. 10:29). The pagan Samaritans, who were detested as enemies of God.

In short, Jesus is teaching us to self-sacrificially love everyone, even our worst enemies, because that reflects the very nature of God Himself. Is that what Calvinists consistently affirm? It does not appear so.

Myth #5: Calvinism is primarily concerned with the sovereignty of God and predestination

Granted, John Calvin as a theologian certainly taught on a wide variety of doctrines, but his teaching on predestination and election were the most controversial and thus what he has become most known for throughout church history.

<See the quotes from John Piper and John Calvin HERE for examples of their most difficult and controversial doctrinal statements.>

I am not suggesting a “Calvinist” must agree with John Piper or even John Calvin on every theological point in order to be considered a “Calvinist.” But if you are going to proudly promote this label shouldn’t you at least affirm the basic theological claims over the issues that made Calvinism such a heated topic in the church?  The major reason we even know of John Calvin and “Calvinism” is because of these self-described “dreadful” doctrines concerning predestination, election, free will, sovereignty, etc.  If you cannot affirm his statements on at least those issues, then may I suggest you stop promoting the label “Calvinist?”

In conclusion, one must ask why these doctrines have been so controversial within the church if indeed mankind’s beliefs are always in accordance with what God has decreed for them to believe? Has God decreed/determined His church to be divided over these doctrines, or are our differences truly a result of free, yet fallible, human wills? Just something to consider.

419 thoughts on “A Response to “5 Myths About Calvinism”

  1. Reading in John 4 today with the family reading time.

    45 When he arrived in Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him. They had seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, for they also had been there.
    ———

    [Why did they welcome Him? Because they had seen what He did (not cuz He gave them faith).]

    46 Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine. And there was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum. 47 When this man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death.

    48 “Unless you people see signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.”
    ———

    [Why does Jesus say they will believe? Because they see signs and wonders. Why doesnt Jesus EVER say, “you will never believe, because I have not given you faith.”? Nah… He pins it on their seeing the signs.]

    49 The royal official said, “Sir, come down before my child dies.”

    50 “Go,” Jesus replied, “your son will live.”

    The man took Jesus at his word and departed.
    ————

    [The man took Jesus at His word. Believed Him.]

    51 While he was still on the way, his servants met him with the news that his boy was living. 52 When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, “Yesterday, at one in the afternoon, the fever left him.”

    53 Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live.” So he and his whole household believed.

    54 This was the second sign Jesus performed after coming from Judea to Galilee.

    ———–

    [The Scripture is making every effort here to show the connection to Jesus’ miracles (“the second sign”) and people believing. But somehow Calvinists tell us it is some kind of special-dose, faith-giving. But we dont ever see that. We just see Christ saying…. you need signs and I will give them to you.]

    1. FOH, the “Pelagian” posted this one:

      “48 “Unless you people see signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.”
      ———

      “[Why does Jesus say they will believe? Because they see signs and wonders. Why doesnt Jesus EVER say, “you will never believe, because I have not given you faith.”? Nah… He pins it on their seeing the signs.]”

      ————- Here’s My Response —————-

      1. The kind of faith that FOH, the “Pelagian” is cuddling here is defective. One that is dependent by sight of signs and wonders

      2. True and genuine Biblical Faith believes for things that are not seen. This is the one commended by Jesus Christ

      3. Jesus Christ said: “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will never believe” – this is the quote of FOH to prove the defectiveness of his native faith.

      4. This means that Man’s native faith is defective and is injected with doubts just like the faith that was condemned by Jesus Christ in His engagement with: Peter when he was getting drowned in the sea.

      5. In addition, look at Jesus’ engagement with the doubting Thomas after the resurrection. Jesus Christ never commended Thomas for activating his native faith. Jesus Christ then declared that : Those people who believes in Him without seeing Him are the ones that are Blessed.

      6. FOH, the “Pelagian” have not seen here in his post that the use of those signs and wonders are the means by which God instills faith in man, but he denies this and still claims it as his own.

      7. It is a fact in Scriptures that Man owns nothing when we were born in this world. Even the life of FOH, the “Pelagian” is not his own. The Scripture says that: “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof”.

      1. jtleosala
        1. The kind of faith that FOH, the “Pelagian” is cuddling here is defective. One that is dependent by sight of signs and wonders

        br.d
        Actually this is the case for Calvinism – as they look at their own psyches and behavior patterns for “signs” to ascertain whether they are elect or not.

        jtleosala
        2. True and genuine Biblical Faith believes for things that are not seen. This is the one commended by Jesus Christ

        br.d
        True and genuine Biblical Faith begins with scripture and lets scripture say what it says – nothing more – nothing less
        Calvinism begins with the philosophies of Calvin – that is their beginning CANNON.
        They USE scripture versed to affirm their beginning CANNON

        jtleosala
        3. Jesus Christ said: “……quote here – this is the quote of FOH to prove the defectiveness of his native faith.

        br.d
        Here the Calvinist shows that his brain has been reduced to a tiny box of false dichotomies – which he cannot think outside of.

        jtleosala
        4. This means that Man’s NATIVE FAITH is defective and is injected with doubts just like the faith that was condemned by Jesus Christ in His engagement with: Peter when he was getting drowned in the sea.

        br.d
        Here we see the philosophical term “NATIVE FAITH”
        This is part of the Calvinist CANNON
        He will look in scripture for verses he can use to affirm it.
        This follows the pattern of eisegesis

        jtleosala
        5. In addition, doubting Thomas ….activating his NATIVE FAITH….etc.
        Here we see again the process of startging with a conclusing and USING scripture to affirm it.
        This follows the pattern of eisegesis

        jtleosala
        6. FOH, the “Pelagian” have not seen here in his post that the use of those signs and wonders are the means by which God instills faith in man, but he denies this and still claims it as his own.

        br.d
        Notice here how the Calvinist is SATURATED with holier-than-though accusations.
        This is a strategy they are taught
        They define all terms.
        They define the parameters of the battle field.

        This strategy allows then to SETUP people to be manipulated by false dichotomies.
        This is not a Godly practice – it is seductive.

        jtleosala
        7. It is a fact in Scriptures that Man owns nothing when we were born in this world. Even the life of FOH, the “Pelagian” is not his own. The Scripture says that: “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof”.

        br.d
        Here again we see another Straw-man tactic.
        These are not signs of a Godliness
        These are signs of a manipulator.

      2. br.d,

        You have once again come to the aid of a poor Polynesian.

        John 20:30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
        ————

        Jesus performed many miracles and many were written down “that you may believe.” Ironically, I keep showing the Bible saying this and others just keep denying the Bible.

        Of course faith is “confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” (Heb 11:1) We have faith for all the rest we dont see!! That does not negate the very words of Christ and John saying that some of the signs and miracles were given “that you may believe.”

        That verse could have easily been written “But faith is given that you may believe…” But nah, it is isn’t (never is). The miracles are given (not the faith) so that we can have faith and believe. That is why Acts 17 tells us “As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures.” Because the Scriptures are given to us so “we might believe” and so we might “reason with others.” There is no hint of a forced-on-you “given” faith.

        By the way….. the next phrase in Heb 11 says…. “This is what the ancients were commended for.”

        Commended for what? Commended for having been given faith? That sounds pretty silly.

        You give your son a brand new Bible and then say “I commend you for having that Bible.” Once again the Calvinistic interpretation of things just renders most of the Bible meaningless.

      3. FOH
        You give your son a brand new Bible and then say “I commend you for having that Bible.” Once again the Calvinistic interpretation of things just renders most of the Bible meaningless.

        br.d
        Dr. Alvin Plantinga agrees with the principle here – where he states “One does not praise a robot for throwing the empty soda can into the correct recycle bin – because that is what the robot is programmed to do”.

        Jesus also agrees with this principle – where he states “One does not praise his slave/servant for doing the very thing he is commanded to do”.

        But Calvin disagrees with this principle.
        Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse each person will have – and then praises or blames each person for having the very neurological impulses he RENDERS-CERTAIN they have.

        We let the SOT101 reader decide whether or not that *IMAGE* – is in fact a graven image.

      4. br.d writes, “Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse each person will have – and then praises or blames each person for having the very neurological impulses he RENDERS-CERTAIN they have.”

        This is what the Westminster Confession of Faith affirms, “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;”

        William Craig says, “Actually, I have no problem with certain classic statements of the Reformed view. For example, the Westminster Confession (Sect. III) declares that

        God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

        …The Confession affirms God’s preordination of everything that comes to pass as well as the liberty and contingency of the creaturely will, so that God is not the author of sin.”

      5. br.d
        Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse each person will have – and then praises or blames each person for having the very neurological impulses he RENDERS-CERTAIN they have.”

        rhutchin
        This is what the Westminster Confession of Faith affirms, “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;”

        br.d
        This is a great example of how Calvinist historically and today struggle with Theological Determinism.
        This highlights the very high degree of EQUIVOCATION that is strategically crafted into Calvinist language.
        Dr. William Lane Craig can see within the WCs (obviously highly crafted wording) that which he can agree with.

        What this shows is the love-hate relationship Calvinist historically have had with Theological Determinism.
        Dr. Craig explains that ancient reformed believers – (he sights François Turrettini) were not ABSOLUTE determinists because they saw a preponderance of scripture which is clearly IN-deterministic.

        But then along came the heavy determinists like Edwards – and Calvinism moved into ABSOLUTE – full-bore Determinism.
        Dr. Craig states concerning this “Thus Calvinists have abolished the mystery and for them god determines everything without exception”.

        So the Calvinist is left with full bore determinism – and this STILL TODAY forces him to halt between two opinions:

        How you want argue that Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world can FIRST-CONCEIVE and then RENDER-CERTAIN every neurological impulse you will ever have – and not be the author of them – is something I leave you to struggle with.

        But I know what Calvin’s answer to the dilemma is:
        – quote “Go about your office AS-IF nothing is determined in any part”.

        The only way you can maintain a sense of biblical alignment and personal normalcy is to deploy Calvin’s FIX.
        You embrace [A] = TRUE and [A] = FALSE at the same time.

        Good luck with that. :-]

      6. FOH, the “Pelagian” posted this one:

        “By the way….. the next phrase in Heb 11 says…. “This is what the ancients were commended for.”
        “Commended for what? Commended for having been given faith? That sounds pretty silly.”

        ———- Here’s what we can get from his statement————

        1. FOH, the “Pelagian” is still in the state of deep struggle in promoting his “native faith” of the fallen man — this does not make sense with God.

        2. The “Pelagian’s eyes has been blinded. He can’t see in his quote the real reasons that made God commended those heroes of faith in Hebrews 11.

        3. God did commend them because they are using or activating the faith that was given to them by God.

        4. God cannot commend them if the one they are activating is their “native faith” that is a product of the natural man. It is just like the “fig leaves righteousness” that Adam and Eve have made for themselves for coverings. God has never been pleased for what they did. God needs to provide them a kind of clothing that was taken from the sheep’s skin before they were expelled from the garden. They did not resist the offer. They removed those fig leaves and right away they put on them the clothing made by God for them.

        5. FOH, the Pelagian is really of different kind of human being, According to him he is a “Polynesian” but actually he is not yet very confident to call himself as “Pelagian”. Well… time will come that he will learn for himself to personally type here his identity preference as a “Pelagian”. Here he still prefers using his man-made faith.

        Br D and his god, the “neurological impulse man” will again come to the rescue of FOH. Let’s see what he will post here.

      7. jtleosala
        1. FOH, the “Pelagian” is still in the state of deep struggle in promoting his “NATIVE FAITH” of the fallen man — this does not make sense with God.

        br.d
        Here again we see the accusation tactic – designed to manipulate
        And the philosophical term NATIVE FAITH – which originates from Calvin whom the Calvinist blindly assumes as CANNON
        This strategy of accusation is designed to manipulate – and is not godliness – but is a spirit of manipulation.

        jtleosala
        2. The “Pelagian’s eyes has been blinded. He can’t see in his quote the real reasons that made God commended those heroes of faith in Hebrews 11.

        br.d
        Here we see the Calvinist brain has been reduced to a tiny world of false dichotomies.
        Who in their right mind would want this condition!

        jtleosala
        3. God did commend them because they are using or activating the faith that was given to them by God.

        br.d
        Here we see a good example of Calvinism’s CLOAKED LANGUAGE.
        What is meant here is – Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN each persons neurological impulses and then commends them for having the very things he RENDERS-CERTAIN they have.

        But we see double-mindedness here also because the Calvinist statement presupposes the opposite.
        Calvin’s god DOES and DOES NOT – RENDER-CERTAIN ALL THINGS – at the same time.
        Thus Calvinist is reduced to double-mindedness

        jtleosala
        4. God cannot commend them if the one they are activating is their “NATIVE FAITH” that is a product of the natural man.

        br.d
        Here again we see double-mindedness.
        In Theological Determinism there is no such thing as – “a product of the natural man”
        Everything without exception is FIRST-CONCEIVED – and then RENDERED-CERTAIN at the foundation of the world before man exists. Calvin’s god’s foreknowledge of *ALL* things ORIGINATES solely within himself.

        jtleosala
        5. FOH, the Pelagian…prefers using his man-made faith…(personal attack and accusation continued) .

        br.d
        Same old – same old – the broken record of approximately three manipulation tactics
        Calling people names – pigeonholing people – all with the hopes of manipulating.
        Jesus turned to his disciples and said: “Ye know not what spirit you are of”

        jtleosala
        Br D and his god, the “neurological impulse man” will again come to the rescue of FOH. Let’s see what he will post here.

        br.d
        You call me “neurological impulse man” – while it is *YOUR* doctrine and not mine.
        Which you apparently refuse to OWN.
        But why?
        Because the Calvinist must APPEAR to align himself with scripture – forcing him to halt between two opinions.
        Either Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse you have – or he doesn’t

        Elijah said to the people “How long will you halt between two opinions”

        Thus we see how double-minded Calvinists are.
        Who in their right mind would want the Calvinists’ crippled mental condition! :-]

      8. br,d,

        You can explain this all you want, but I am afraid our friend does not notice what he is doing.

        I am just reading through the Scriptures and noting all the places that Calvinism comes into conflict with them.

        The answer is some slur against me using all kinds of words and terms that do not come from the Bible but from web sites and theology books. That’s fine. I can take it.

      9. No problem and I understand FOH.

        But for me – these are good opportunities to highlight for SOT101 readers what spirit Calvinists operate in.

        JT’s posts are actually God’s way of allowing SOT101 readers to see how Calvinism reduces a person into viciousness, double-mindedness. And rhutchin’s posts allow the SOT101 reader to see how one can be trained to use dishonest language games.

        The Calvinists are here to reveal – by example – what Calvinism does to a person.

        For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed.
        And nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the light. John 8:17

        So its all good!! :-]

      10. FOH, the “Pelagian” have posted this one:

        “I am just reading through the Scriptures and noting all the places that Calvinism comes into conflict with them.”

        —————- Here’s my Response ——————-

        Those verses posted by FOH, the “Pelagian” were meant to shoot us down, but it will not work especially if it is coated with all sorts of disguise to back up the shaky and feeble beliefs of FOH such as: Conditional Salvation ; Using man’s native faith to access Salvation ; Man as the one who has the ultimate choice of Salvation …. all of these are defective and had already fallen from the doctrine of the Grace of God. All we can do with those teachings cuddled by FOH, the “Pelagian” can just be added to those listings of the “Myths of Accusations” that backfires to the launching pad of origin.

      11. jtleosala
        Those verses posted by FOH, the “Pelagian” were meant to shoot us down,…..

        br.d
        Bible verses that are meant to -quote “shoot us down”.
        What does that tell you!

        Where scripture is NOT DETERMINISTIC – is equated to “Shooting us down”.
        It should be apparent when one associates ones self NOT WITH SCRIPTURE – but with a man-made federation.

        jtleosala
        Using man’s NATIVE FAITH to access Salvation ; Man as the one who has the ultimate choice of Salvation

        br.d
        Again we see this unbiblical term NATIVE FAITH – where does that come from?
        Certainly not from scripture.

        We are destroying SPECULATIONS and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. 2 Corinthians 10:5

        jtleosala
        the doctrine of the Grace of God.

        br.d
        Here we see the Calvinist CANONIZES John Calvin’s doctrines – and makes equal to scripture.
        Calling them the “doctrine of grace of god” .

        jtleosala
        All we can do with those teachings cuddled by FOH, the “Pelagian” can just be added to those listings of the “Myths of Accusations” that backfires to the launching pad of origin.

        br.d
        This says nothing about the massive quantities of double-think “cuddled” by Calvinists – I wonder why!
        Perhaps Calvin’s god has launched double-think in his pad of origin. :-]

      12. Br D and his god, the “Neurological Impulse man” posted this one:

        “For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed.”
        “And nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the light. John 8:17”

        ————- Here’s my findings as I have analyzed his post ————–

        Here is the correct content of John 8:17 “It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true”

        The readers here can compare if the one he posted is compatible with the one I reflected here. It seems that the “Neurological Impulse Man” has his own version of Scriptures in his library. He is using again a wrong bullet to shoot us down. It just backfired on him in his suicidal attempt.

      13. br.d
        My mistake – it is Luke 8:17

        “For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed.”
        “And nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the light.

        I guess I deserve to be thrown into the fire of Moloch by Calvin’s god for this one ! :-]

      14. FOH writes, “John 20:30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
        ————
        Jesus performed many miracles and many were written down “that you may believe.” Ironically, I keep showing the Bible saying this and others just keep denying the Bible.”

        Jesus also said–

        “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father.” (John 6)

        “If God were your Father, you would love Me; for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” (John 8)

        “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand.” (John 10)

        “I said to you, that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.” (John 6)

        So, FOH, put it all together for us and tells us what it all means.

      15. rhutchin
        So, FOH, put it all together for us and tells us what it all means.

        br.d
        The answer is simple – and has been “put together” a thousand times.
        The Non-Calvnist does not read scripture looking for it to affirm CALVIN’S PRESUPPOSITIONS.

        So you’ve been taught to search for Calvin’s TULIPs withing scripture.
        And you have 40+ verses that can be *USED* as proof texts.
        And you also have Calvin’s special GNOSIS – which allows you to un-encrypt the SECRET meanings within the text.
        That’s all well and good for you.

        It should be obvious FOH is posting whole blocks or scripture in its own context.
        Thus scripture has the ability – all by itself – to reveal how IN-deterministic the preponderance of its language is.

        It is understood – the Calvinists struggle is halting between two opinions.
        Either Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse the Calvinist will ever have or he does NOT.
        It is understood the Calvinist is taught to embrace both [A] and [NOT A] at the same time.

        Why would any sound thinking Christian want to embrace Calvinism’s double-minded condition. :-]

      16. br.d,

        I think you are accurately assessing the situation.

        I am simply doing what I have done for years, and what led me out of Calvinism in the first place. I am reading through the Bible each year. I noticed things every day that were direct contradictions of my (learned-from-someone) Calvinism. I just got tired of filtering everything through the philosophy that I had been taught.

        When I read now, I post blocks of Scripture in context.

        Usually JTL comes out with some scripted…. “The Polynesian is incorrect again!” or, “he’s cuddling a native.”

        Usually RH comes out with…… ready…. wait for it…… John 6:44.

        So, Rule #1, besmirch and malign the person reading Scripture, and rail at him for quoting different, in-context Scripture every day.

        Rule #2, filter all the Bible through your select 40-verses which are of course interpreted according to a presupposed position.

        Rule #3, rinse and repeat above 2 rules.

      17. Right on FOH!

        Rule #3, rinse and repeat above 2 rules.

        We can definitely see the “rinse and repeat” is what they are -quote “cuddling”.

        I still think God gave Calvinism to man-kind as a form of double-minded entertainment!! :-]

      18. FOH writes, “Usually RH comes out with…… ready…. wait for it…… John 6:44.”

        Actually it is 6:65 and then 6:44. I do this because you have no response to those verses not to mention the many verses that support what Christ said in John 6. You, apparently, have not figured out what to do with these verses so you just excise John 6 from your Bible (probably inspired to do so by Thomas Jefferson).

      19. FOH
        “Usually RH comes out with…… ready…. wait for it…… John 6:44.”

        rhutchin
        Actually it is 6:65 and then 6:44. I do this because you have no response to those verses

        br.d
        Ho -humm!
        When Eve isn’t interested in the Calvinist crouching over her shoulder in the garden – trying to tell her what God said – his only conclusion is she doesn’t have any response. :-]

      20. FOH, the Polynesian Pelagian, wrote, “Usually RH comes out with…… ready…. wait for it…… John 6:44.”
        rhutchin responded, “Actually it is 6:65 and then 6:44. I do this because you have no response to those verses”
        br.d, not being able to provide anything substantive, writes, “Ho -humm!
        When Eve isn’t interested in the Calvinist crouching over her shoulder in the garden – trying to tell her what God said – his only conclusion is she doesn’t have any response. :-]”

        Even br.d with his active imagination could not make this stuff up – WAIT!!! He does make this stuff up! I think it is his way of injecting humor into the discussion.

        Actually, Eve does not seem to have had much of a response – but still more than FOH and br.d have been able to advance.

      21. rhutchin
        Actually, Eve does not seem to have had much of a response – but still more than FOH and br.d have been able to advance.

        br.d
        Eve took scriptures advise and decided not to listen to voice that always wants to tell her what God means by what he says. :-]

      22. br.d writes, “The answer is simple – and has been “put together” a thousand times.”

        Yet, br.d could not offer even a cursory explanation. I think he made this up.

      23. br.d
        “The answer is simple – and has been “put together” a thousand times.”

        rhutchin
        Yet, br.d could not offer even a cursory explanation. I think he made this up.

        br.d
        Its not what the Calvinist knows that gets him in trouble.
        Its what he knows for sure – that just ain’t so! :-]

      24. br.d wrote, “The answer is simple – and has been “put together” a thousand times.”
        rhutchin responded, “Yet, br.d could not offer even a cursory explanation. I think he made this up.
        br.d then said, “Its not what the Calvinist knows that gets him in trouble. Its what he knows for sure – that just ain’t so! :-]”

        Given a second opportunity to offer just a cursory explanation – given that such “has been “put together” a thousand times,” we see br.d unable to do so. I am even more convinced that he made it up – I don’t think there is even one decent explanation much less a thousand (even allowing for hyperbole on br.d’s part).

      25. br.d
        “The answer is simple – and has been “put together” a thousand times.”
        rhutchin responded, “Yet, br.d could not offer even a cursory explanation. I think he made this up.
        br.d then said, “Its not what the Calvinist knows that gets him in trouble. Its what he knows for sure – that just ain’t so! :-]”

        rhutchin
        Given a second opportunity to offer just a cursory explanation – given that such “has been “put together” a thousand times,” we see br.d unable to do so. I am even more convinced that he made it up – I don’t think there is even one decent explanation much less a thousand (even allowing for hyperbole on br.d’s part).

        br.d
        I gave you the answer which you didn’t want to hear.
        I expected you wouldn’t
        So I’m not surprised you would keep complaining you didn’t get on because that is the pattern.
        Its a waste of my time going over the same territory over and over again under the pretense it wasn’t explained the first time.

        Hmmmm
        It must be Calvin’s god has rendered-certain you do that repeatedly!
        Could it be he’s pocking around under the hood again – having some fun in there? :-]

      26. br.d
        “The answer is simple – and has been “put together” a thousand times.”
        rhutchin responded, “Yet, br.d could not offer even a cursory explanation. I think he made this up.
        br.d then said, “Its not what the Calvinist knows that gets him in trouble. Its what he knows for sure – that just ain’t so! :-]”
        rhutchin, “Given a second opportunity to offer just a cursory explanation – given that such “has been “put together” a thousand times,” we see br.d unable to do so. I am even more convinced that he made it up – I don’t think there is even one decent explanation much less a thousand (even allowing for hyperbole on br.d’s part).
        br.d, “I gave you the answer which you didn’t want to hear.”

        The answer was a non answer. br.d made it up and now cannot undo what he said.

      27. rhutchin
        The answer was a non answer. br.d made it up and now cannot undo what he said.

        br.d
        Yawn!!

      28. br.d writes, “Yawn!!”

        This amounts to a confirmation by br.d. br.d made it up and now cannot undo what he said. br.d keeps putting his foot in his mouth and can’t seem to take it out.

      29. rhutchin
        This amounts to a confirmation by br.d. br.d made it up and now cannot undo what he said. br.d keeps putting his foot in his mouth and can’t seem to take it out.

        br.d
        You remind me of the little boy kicking and screaming on the floor.
        He is sure if he keeps on repeating and repeating and repeating the same behavior – he will get something out of it. :-]

      30. br.d writes, ‘You remind me of the little boy kicking and screaming on the floor.”

        Yet, we see br.d kicking and screaming on the floor refusing to face up to that which he has said.

      31. br.d
        ‘You remind me of the little boy kicking and screaming on the floor. – he thinks if he repeats and repeats and repeats that behavior – he’ll get what he want’s.

        rhutchin
        Yet, we see br.d kicking and screaming on the floor refusing to face up to that which he has said.

        br.d
        As always – I am happy let SOT101 readers come to their own conclusions :-]

      32. jtleosala wrote, “1. The kind of faith that FOH, the “Pelagian” is cuddling here is defective. One that is dependent by sight of signs and wonders.”
        br.d responded, “Actually this is the case for Calvinism – as they look at their own psyches and behavior patterns for “signs” to ascertain whether they are elect or not.”

        JTL addressed the content of the verse. It said, “Unless you people see signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.”” and JTL concluded that a faith based on the seeing of signs and wonders is a defective faith. br.d writes a confused response as he is prone to do – probably because he could not logically disagree with JTL.

      33. rhutchin
        JTL addressed the content of the verse. It said, “Unless you people see signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.”” and JTL concluded that a faith based on the seeing of signs and wonders is a defective faith. br.d writes a confused response as he is prone to do – probably because he could not logically disagree with JTL.

        br.d
        You apparently didn’t get it.
        JT referenced how signs are used – criticized by Jesus – and I highlighted the very same phenomenon is found in Calvinism.
        The reading “signs” (of their psyche and behavior) is a Calvinist practice – trying to ascertain whether they are “elect” or not.

        If you don’t see the parallel – no problemo – life goes on. :-]

      34. br.d writes, “I highlighted the very same phenomenon is found in Calvinism.”

        Except that you made this up. JTL sticks with the truth and does not make stuff up.

      35. br.d
        “I highlighted the very same phenomenon is found in Calvinism.”

        rhutchin
        Except that you made this up. JTL sticks with the truth and does not make stuff up.

        br.d
        Yeh right! You keep on telling yourself that – and everything will be just fine. :-]

      36. br.d writes, “You keep on telling yourself that – and everything will be just fine.’

        Which I can do as long as you avoid substance and make it up as you go.

      37. br.d
        “You keep on telling yourself that – and everything will be just fine.’

        rhutchin
        Which I can do as long as you avoid substance and make it up as you go.

        br.d
        No LOGICAL response necessary here. :-]

      38. br.d writes, “No LOGICAL response necessary here”

        That has been a continuing problem for you. Probably helps to explain why you just make up stuff.

      39. jtleosala wrote, “2. True and genuine Biblical Faith believes for things that are not seen. This is the one commended by Jesus Christ’
        br.d responded, “True and genuine Biblical Faith begins with scripture and lets scripture say what it says – nothing more – nothing less.”

        So, br.d agrees with JTL’s assessment. This is because JTL refers to Hebrews 11, where “faith is…the conviction of things not seen.” We see that JTL does exaclty that which br.d says is to be done.

        But then, br.d writes, “Calvinism begins with the philosophies of Calvin – that is their beginning CANNON. They USE scripture versed to affirm their beginning CANNON.”

        I could not see a reason for this comment. It is not true based on JTL’s use of Scripture. the comment is not true and not justified.

      40. rhutchin
        But then, br.d writes, “Calvinism begins with the philosophies of Calvin – that is their beginning CANNON. They USE scripture versed to affirm their beginning CANNON.”

        I could not see a reason for this comment. It is not true based on JTL’s use of Scripture. the comment is not true and not justified.

        br.d
        You point out one incident and don’t see all the rest.

        And as I’ve said before – it means nothing to me that you don’t see something.
        There are many truths I simply don’t expect you to see – consistent with a dedication to Calvinism.
        You know how it goes – see no evil – hear no evil – and all that.

      41. br.d writes, “You point out one incident and don’t see all the rest.”

        It was up front. Why expect any better in the rest since you basically say the same stuff over and over?

      42. br.d
        “You point out one incident and don’t see all the rest.”

        rhutchin
        It was up front. Why expect any better in the rest since you basically say the same stuff over and over?

        br.d
        Anyone else would have noticed my statement was a general statement.
        But for some reason you didn’t.
        Your complaining about it is a waste of my time.

      43. br.d writes, “Anyone else would have noticed my statement was a general statement.”

        If you can’t get the general themes correct, why would anyone think you can get the specifics correct? You can’t.

      44. br.d]
        Anyone else would have noticed my statement was a general statement.”

        rhutchin
        If you can’t get the general themes correct, why would anyone think you can get the specifics correct? You can’t.

        br.d
        And of course you would say that – so what else is new – move along – move along! :-]

      45. br.d writes, “And of course you would say that – so what else is new – move along – move along!”

        Of course, I would. Yet, we see no denial from you. Interesting.

      46. br.d
        “And of course you would say that – so what else is new – move along – move along!”

        rhutchin
        Of course, I would. Yet, we see no denial from you. Interesting.

        br.d
        Yawn!!!!

      47. br.d writes, “Yawn!!!!”

        Still not a denial. br.d made a false claim and is still unable to deny it – so, why not just retract it and be done with it.

      48. br.d writes, “Yawn!!!!”

        rhutchin
        Still not a denial. br.d made a false claim and is still unable to deny it – so, why not just retract it and be done with it.

        br.d
        You appear to be highly exercised about this issue.
        Well then – this might be a good opportunity for you to exercise a little logical thinking.

        Why don’t you present an argument showing how my claim is false.
        Then I’ll have the opportunity to analyze its validity.

        I suggest you present it in the form of a syllogism – then we can use the rules of syllogisms to validate it.

        In the mean time – I have not need to retract something that I know to be true. :-]

      49. br.d writes, “You appear to be highly exercised about this issue….
        Why don’t you present an argument showing how my claim is false.”

        1. br.d presented a claim.
        2. br.d has been unable unable to substantiate the claim and has refused the opportunity to do so.
        Therefore, br.d made an unsubstantiated claim (i.e., he made it up).

        But, we find br.d still huffing and puffing.

      50. br.d
        “You appear to be highly exercised about this issue….
        Why don’t you present an argument showing how my claim is false.”

        rhutchin
        1. br.d presented a claim.
        2. br.d has been unable unable to substantiate the claim and has refused the opportunity to do so.
        Therefore, br.d made an unsubstantiated claim (i.e., he made it up).

        But, we find br.d still huffing and puffing.

        br.d
        Well – its not unusual to fail in one’s first attempt.
        But the syllogism is supposed to show how br.d’s claim is false.
        So presenting the false claim in its particulars is how that is done.

        Please be advised also – any premise in order to be accepted – must be accepted as true.
        That is part of what makes syllogisms so powerful.

        Your premisses here are not – but rather they stand as unsubstantiated claims.
        So they fail as well.

        The first error is not understanding the fundamentals
        The second error is a technical one.

        Do you want to give it another try?

      51. BrD and his god, the Meurological Impulse Man posted this one:

        br.d
        Hmmmmm – “mediatrix” I think the Calvinist gets this word from Catholicism
        A “mediatrix” is a woman
        Perhaps there is a little “mediatrix” in every Calvinist?
        And that would makes sense – as John Calvin was called a Catholic with a small ‘c’

        ———— Here’s My Response ————

        Your pseudo Name here could suggest you either be a female, male or both or even LGBT. If you are a woman, Man or both or even LGBT then, “mediatrix” is an accurate title for you..

        Your naming the Calvinists as a catholic is only according to you which you can never prove. Even the RC pope will spit on your face for such claim. You say you love the pope, then why don’t you go to him and promise him the “traditionalist defective gospel”.

        You need to prepare for your mass tomorrow. FOH, the “Pelagian” will again enter your confession room to cleanse himself.

      52. jtleosala
        Your pseudo Name here could suggest you either be a female, male or both or even LGBT. If you are a woman, Man or both or even LGBT then, “mediatrix” is an accurate title for you..

        br.d
        Does anyone notice how vitriolic – and how everything is personal with this poster?

        jtleosala
        Your naming the Calvinists as a catholic is only according to you which you can never prove. Even the RC pope will spit on your face for such claim. You say you love the pope, then why don’t you go to him and promise him the “traditionalist defective gospel”.

        br.d
        Firstly, is well documented from letters from Calvin to the Catholic church that he wrote to them telling them where they might find Protestants who disagreed with Calvin’s doctrines – and asking the Catholic church to murder them.

        Secondly, N.T. write – whom I’m sure you will call dirty names – stated that Calvin is considered a Catholic with a small ‘c’

        Thirdly, everyone knows Calvin got his doctrine from the ‘Augustine’ who is classified in academia as the -quote “Latin Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church”

        A thinking person can connect all of those dots.
        So what does that say about the Calvinist who can’t?

        jtleosala
        You need to prepare for your mass tomorrow. FOH, the “Pelagian” will again enter your confession room to cleanse himself.

        br.d
        Another reference to Catholicism – and therefore another dot to connect. :-]

        But again – any discerning Christian can recognize such posts as a manifestation of childish distemper.

        You might want to be careful JT – SOT101 managers are caring people
        And they don’t like banning people – but they will if forced to.

      53. As a last note – I have never seen a non-Calvinist get banned.
        But I have seen the other.
        And I think that track record speaks for itself.

      54. br.d writes, ‘Your premisses here are not – but rather they stand as unsubstantiated claims.
        So they fail as well.”

        Let’s look at it.

        “1. br.d presented a claim.”

        Here we see that br.d made a claim and that claim was challenged. So, this premise is correct.

        “2. br.d has been unable unable to substantiate the claim and has refused the opportunity to do so.”

        Having made a claim, br.d had the responsibility to show that his claim was true. He was challenged to do so but has refused to do so. So, this premise is correct.

        “Therefore, br.d made an unsubstantiated claim (i.e., he made it up).”

        br.d made a claim and refused to substantiate by any means – it stands as an unsubstantiated claim. We can correctly say that br.d made it up; he invented a claim that was not true.

        The facts speak for themselves – br.d made a claim and br.d cannot show his claim to be true.

      55. Your not getting this.
        You made the assertion that I made a claim that was false

        I asked you if you could show how my claim was false.
        Your syllogism totally misses that as a fundamental.

        Additionally the premises MUST be premises that the recipient (that would be me) WOULD ACCEPT.
        That is the power of the syllogism.

        Here is an example:
        1) Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) RENDERS-CERTAIN all things that come to pass in the course of time
        2) In the course of time – it comes to pass that rhutchin has neurological impulses

        CONCLUSION:
        Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) RENDERS-CERTAIN *ALL* of the neurological impulses rhutchin will have.

        Now if you reject (1) you reject a fundamental tenet of Calvinism.
        If you reject (2) you reject a fundamental truth about yourself.
        Therefore if you reject the conclusion – you do so as a logical failure.

        You may remember the last time I presented a similar syllogism – you couldn’t reject the conclusion.
        So you simply wrote your own syllogism and said “There – I’ll go with that one”
        So its apparent you’re doing the very thing you would accuse of me.

        Again another example of false attribution with Calvinists.

        You’ve now had two strikes.
        So you have one more swing. :-]

      56. br.d writes, ‘You made the assertion that I made a claim that was false”

        No, I made the assertion that you made a claim that you could not support and I then concluded that it was false for lack of support. You now refuse to provide any support for your claim when it seems that you could easily provide such support if it existed. That support does not seem to exist.

        Then, “Additionally the premises MUST be premises that the recipient (that would be me) WOULD ACCEPT.
        That is the power of the syllogism.”

        This is wrong. The premises must be true without regard to your acceptance of that truth. In this case, there are two premises that are true: (1) br.d made a claim; and (2) br.d provided no support for his claim. My conclusion was that an unsupported claim is a false claim and I am convinced of this by your continuing resistance to providing support for your claim and instead trying to deflect in other directions.

        You made a claim. You need only add that the claim is valid because…. to escape your predicament. Why is that so difficult – is it because you actually made a false claim? Seems so to me. Else why spend so much time and effort , with many words, about everything else but the basis for your claim.

      57. Here is my post to you – which you responded to with your first and second attempts.

        br.d
        December 8, 2018 at 7:49 am
        You appear to be highly exercised about this issue.
        Well then – this might be a good opportunity for you to exercise a little logical thinking.

        Why don’t you present an argument showing how my claim is false.
        Then I’ll have the opportunity to analyze its validity.

        I suggest you present it in the form of a syllogism – then we can use the rules of syllogisms to validate it.

        In the mean time – I have not need to retract something that I know to be true.

      58. br.d writes, ‘In the mean time – I have not need to retract something that I know to be true.”

        For context, FOH wrote, “I am simply doing what I have done for years, and what led me out of Calvinism in the first place. I am reading through the Bible each year. I noticed things every day that were direct contradictions of my (learned-from-someone) Calvinism. I just got tired of filtering everything through the philosophy that I had been taught.
        Then, “Usually RH comes out with…… ready…. wait for it…… John 6:44.”
        rhutchin responded, “Actually it is 6:65 and then 6:44. I do this because you have no response to those verses”
        br.d then said, “The answer is simple – and has been “put together” a thousand times.”

        If that statement is true, one refuse to provide even one example in support? Given that you actually know it to be true.

      59. rhutchin
        If that statement is true, one refuse to provide even one example in support? Given that you actually know it to be true.

        br.d
        This is simply a your strategy of asking something over and over and over and over – under the pretense that something hasn’t been explained. As if you sit in the seat of Moses presiding over everyone – asserting they meet your demands.
        I’ve been here with you probably 101 times – and its a total waste of SOT101 space.

        And you say I’m huffing and puffing!
        There’s that false attribution showing itself again! :-]

      60. br.d writes, “This is simply a your strategy of asking something over and over and over and over – under the pretense that something hasn’t been explained.”

        You have not, and perhaps, cannot explain it.

      61. rhutchin
        This is wrong. The premises must be true without regard to your acceptance of that truth.

        br.d
        BTW: you still not getting this
        All the recipient has to do is reject the premise based on the assertion that it is false.
        Your assertion that the premise is true – is nothing more than a claim.

        At this point – I ‘m giving up on you over this.
        Logic is not you’re ball of wax.

      62. br.d writes, ‘Your assertion that the premise is true – is nothing more than a claim.”

        The premises are true because they state the facts: (1) you made a claim, and (2) you provided no support for your claim. You are just floundering around and you seem to know it.

      63. br.d
        You obviously still think your the presiding your domain – expecting everyone to meet your demands.

        I’ll bide my time and carefully watch your post.
        Eventually – as yo always do – you’ll provide the example your demanding of me – all by yourself.
        Then I won’t have to spend 1000 posts back and forth with you doing your endless routine. :-]

      64. br.d writes, “Eventually – as yo always do – you’ll provide the example your demanding of me – all by yourself.”

        The routine is simple. If br.d makes a claim, anyone, including me, can challenge that claim. If br.d makes a claim, the burden is on him to support that claim. We see br.d showing us, through a number of posts, that br.d makes claims for which he has no support. He keeps reminding us that this is the case.

      65. rhutchin
        The routine is simple. If br.d makes a claim, anyone, including me, can challenge that claim.

        br.d
        rhutchin – everyone here already is aware of that pretense – you don’t -quote “challenge claims”.

        The routine is to pretend one didn’t get a satisfactory answer – and keep on endlessly demanding one – posturing as the arbitrator of what is a “satisfactory answer”. That’s why Brian will go back and forth with you until he realizes your going in circles – and finally gives you the last word. He knows at that point – that’s all your really looking for.

        Don’t you remember?
        This is what we call your “dancing boxer” routine.
        And it sometimes manifests as your “kindergarten bully” routine.

        Ether way – wisdom shows you will eventually provide a post that exemplifies the very thing you endlessly demand from others.
        Biding my time and waiting for you to do that saves SOT101 readers from a flood of endless “you didn’t explain it!’ posts.

      66. br.d “The routine is to pretend one didn’t get a satisfactory answer – and keep on endlessly demanding one – posturing as the arbitrator of what is a “satisfactory answer”.”

        In this case, br.d made a claim that he cannot support – thus, no satisfactory answer.

      67. Br D and his god , the Neurological Impulse Man have posted this one:

        “br.d”
        AH this is about br.d using the term “Calvin’s god”
        “The Calvinist asserts this as a bad sign while he calls others “Pelagians”, “logic man” , and “neurological impulse man”.
        ————- Here’s My Response ————–

        Br D was the first one who keeps on naming that: “Calvin’s god” in most of his post here. As a consequence he also got naming of multiple pseudo names. I have expressed here in the previous thread that we have just the same God that we serve and honor in our lives, but still he continued with this behavior.

      68. jtleosala
        Br D and his god , the Neurological Impulse Man have posted this one:

        “br.d”
        AH this is about br.d using the term “Calvin’s god”
        “The Calvinist asserts this as a bad sign while he calls others “Pelagians”, “logic man” , and “neurological impulse man”.
        ————- Here’s My Response ————–

        Br D was the first one who keeps on naming that: “Calvin’s god” in most of his post here. As a consequence he also got naming of multiple pseudo names. I have expressed here in the previous thread that we have just the same God that we serve and honor in our lives, but still he continued with this behavior.

        br.d
        This is a very interesting conversation – and one which I don’t think the Calvinist will do well in.

        I have no problem with a Calvinist saying “br.d and his god” – I actually find that very comforting.
        I’m happy for any Calvinist who want’s to post that as much as he wishes.

        I see it as a much more precise use of language.
        To say ‘br.d’s god is xyz” is a very accurate way of cutting through the fog and getting right to the point.
        One knows one is talking about “br.d’s god” :-]

        Since I find that language much more precise – I won’t be stopping it anytime soon.

        But that is not the same thing as the common Calvinist practice of pointing the finger at people and using expressions of contempt.
        Almost everyone knows Its a common practice for a Calvinist to call someone a pejorative name like “pelagian”, “heritic” etc.

        I understand Calvinists use that practice because weak minded people can be pigeon-holed and manipulated by it
        I understand that is something Calvinists are taught to do.
        And since I believe manipulation is a sin – I consider that one of the sin’s which Calvinists don’t call a sin.

        Additionally Calvinists (as can be clearly exhibited in posts here) are much closer to vicious – and sometimes borderline perverse.
        That is why no Non-Calvinists have ever been banned here – while that is not the case for Calvinists.
        And I happen to know there are other online forums where Calvinist have the same reputation.

        I think SOT101 readers can tell the difference between a Calvinist post and another
        Simply by the degree of aggression, pompousness, puffery, holier than thou – and other forms of posturing.

        And we can see all that on one single day! :-]

  2. Daily reading gets me to Hosea 4-5.

    4:1 Hear the word of the Lord, O people of Israel!
    The Lord has brought charges against you, saying:
    “There is no faithfulness, no kindness,
    no knowledge of God in your land.
    2 You make vows and break them;
    you kill and steal and commit adultery.
    There is violence everywhere—
    one murder after another.
    3 That is why your land is in mourning,
    and everyone is wasting away.
    Even the wild animals, the birds of the sky,
    and the fish of the sea are disappearing.
    ——-

    This kind of statement can be seen hundreds and hundreds of time in the Word. God is saying to His CHOSEN people (the ones He rescued time and time again…. the ones He chose) that they are not being obedient despite Him sending prophets.

    Then He says …. “That is why your land is in mourning…” Not because He wants that or planned that or ordained it before they were born. He never tells them that!

    How silly that would sound to them. “Your land is wasting away, through no fault of your own; I just wanted to do that.”

    To make doubly sure to His people, the watching nations, and to us readers…..why this is happening…. He then goes on to say:

    4 “Don’t point your finger at someone else
    and try to pass the blame!
    My complaint, you priests,
    is with you.
    —————

    Don’t come along later you Reformed theologians and “blame” (or give credit to) God for these things. That blame and responsibility belong to the chosen people.

    There is no way to get even the smallest idea that any of this was planned by God. You have to take that idea from Reformed theology and force it on to the text.

    1. FOH have made this post:

      ” 4 “Don’t point your finger at someone else
      and try to pass the blame!
      My complaint, you priests,
      is with you.”
      —————

      Don’t come along later you Reformed theologians and “blame” (or give credit to) God for these things. That blame and responsibility belong to the chosen people.

      There is no way to get even the smallest idea that any of this was planned by God. You have to take that idea from Reformed theology and force it on to the text.

      . That blame and responsibility belong to the chosen people.

      There is no way to get even the smallest idea that any of this was planned by God. You have to take that idea from Reformed theology and force it on to the text.

      That blame and responsibility belong to the chosen people.”

      —————— Here’s My Response —————–

      Genesis 50:20 “But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive”. (This verse about the story of Joseph in Egypt has something to reveal regarding the following):

      1. Man has the capacity to exercise his own freedom. Joseph’s brothers have done evil things against their brother Joseph without God’s intervention. God choose for Himself to let it happen. Calvinists have been accused of having “double speak” due to the doctrine of Predestination that according to our critics finds in conflict.

      However, based on Gen. 50:20, It can never be denied that both of these (Man’s freedom and God’s Decrees are all true and are both biblical that, i.e:

      a. Man possess freedom for him to exercise.
      b. God has already predestined things before time.
      c. God’s overall decree can only be properly/clearly understood by man by the time it has already come to pass.

      2. God’s absolute Freedom, Omniscience and Omnipotence are not affected nor lessened by the use of Man’s Freedom or future actions.

      3. God can make use man’s evil actions to the fulfilment of What has been decreed by God that will come to pass.

      Genesis 3:23 -24 Therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

      1. Gen. 3:23-24 clearly teaches that man is culpable of his actions using his freedom. They decided for themselves to eat the forbidden fruit. God has decided not to interfere during the act temptation.

      2. Therefore, Man is held accountable in his disobedience by ejecting them out of the Garden of Eden.

      3. It would be impossible for God to become ignorant of Adam and Eve’s future actions and decisions otherwise He would not be God.

      4. He allowed this thing to happen to the fulfilment of His eternal plan about Christ’s going to the Cross of Calvary for the atonement of Sins

      FOH argues in his post that the Reformed theologians are blaming or giving credit to God for these things. (referring to his quoted verses in Hosea 4:1-4)

      a. As a Calvinist, I don’t argue with FOH’s claim in that Hosea 4 passage that according to him : “that blame and responsibility belong to the chosen people”. I even supported his claim with another scripture passage in Genesis 3:23-24. The ejection of Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden.

      b. Regarding FOH’s second statement, i.e. : ( “There is no way to get even the smallest idea that any of this was planned by God. You have to take that idea from Reformed theology and force it on to the text.”)

      I disagree and contend with FOH’s statement. Why? Because this statement of FOH undermines God’s immutable attributes of : Omniscience , Omnipotence and Sovereignty. FOH’s view makes man more powerful than God the creator. It portrays God as impotent and just serve as a helpless spectator of what man is doing.

      My arguments here can be clearly understood by my beliefs in the following:

      1. I believe in the “Permissive will of God” – which refers to the things that happens which is contradictory with God’s commands. It is the permission of God for sin to occur. (but He is not the author of Sin) e.g.: Jeremiah 19:5 “They have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to baal, which I did not command or speak nor did it come to My mind”.

      2. I believe in the “Preceptive will of God” – This is the will of God for Man. Example: The command of Christ to love your neighbor as you love yourself.

      3. I believe in the “Decretive Will of God” – This refers to God’s sovereign Eternal Decree that we may or may not know depending on whether or not God reveals to us in His words. It is God’s direct will where He causes it to happen and will surely come to pass. e.g:

      3.1 The case of Joseph in Egypt. Gen. 50:20
      3.2 He causes the Universe to exist
      3.3 The incarnation and crucifixion of Christ.
      3.4 The Predestination of the elect before the foundation of the world -Eph. 1:4-5 ; II Thess. 2:13 ; 2 Tim. 1:9 ; Rev. 17:8 ; 13:8

      1. JTL writes, ” It can never be denied that both of these (Man’s freedom and God’s Decrees are all true and are both biblical ”

        God and His creation operate freely and concurrently with both God and man freely choosing the actions they want. Where there is a conflict between man’s will and God’s will, God’s will prevails.. We have an example in the account of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis 50 – the brothers could not kill Joseph as they first willed to do but could sell him to slave traders as God was willing for them to do.

        Then, “I believe in the ‘Permissive will of God'”

        When Calvinist use the word, “permissive,” they don’t mean that God is uninvolved or disinterested. God is sovereign and, as sovereign, He rules and overrules all His creation in all things. Nothing happens without God knowing it and nothing happens except God consider it and decree that it should happen. By “permitting” acts of people, God decrees that He will not intervene to stop that which man sets out to do and God rules in this manner because the actions of people are part of His plan and accomplish His purposes with Joseph and his brothers being an example.

      2. Calvinist JTL writes, ” It can never be denied that both of these (Man’s freedom and God’s Decrees are all true and are both biblical ”

        Calvinist rhutchin
        God and His creation operate freely and concurrently with both God and man freely choosing the actions they want……etc

        JTL
        Then, “I believe in the ‘Permissive will of God’”

        rhutchin
        When Calvinist use the word, “permissive,” they don’t mean that God is uninvolved or disinterested. God is sovereign and, as sovereign, He rules and overrules all His creation in all things. Nothing happens without God knowing it and nothing happens except God consider it and decree

        br.d
        It is always CRITICAL to understand – Calvinists use **TALKING-POINTS** in just about every public facing forum.

        TALKING-POINTS by design – are used to **HIDE** more information – than they provide.
        That is the nature of TALKING-POINTS.
        TALKING-POINTS are designed to paint a certain cosmetic picture – while hiding uncomplimentary truths behind a mask.

        And that is CERTAINLY the nature of Calvinist statements – regarding creaturely freedom and divine permission.

        When a Calvinist uses the word PERMIT or PERMISSION in regard to Calvin’s god – what he means is CAUSE or CAUSED.
        As shown by this Calvinist’s statement below:

        rhutchin
        November 20, 2018 at 6:46 pm
        You make a distinction between “cause” and :permit” but there is no real distinction.

        br.d
        The Calvinist knows recipients will interpret a distinction between “permit” and “cause”
        Because such a distinction is consistent within the English language commonly used for these terms.
        To say the Calvinist is HAPPY to ALLOW recipients to be misled – is putting it mildly!
        The language actually relies on its ability to mislead

        All SOT101 readers should not want to be deceived by semantic strategies

        CONCLUSION:
        Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse the creature will ever have – from cradle to grave.
        That is the underlying truth regarding creaturely freedom in Calvinism.
        The creature is NOT FREE to have any neurological impulse other than what is RENDERED-CERTAIN.

        “Permission” is exactly the same deal
        Calvin’s god’ permits **ONLY** what he has RENDERS-CERTAIN!
        Nothing more – nothing less.

        Never allow yourself to be deceived by Calvinist TALKING-POINTS.

        As always:
        Understanding a Calvinist is fairly simple:
        A Calvinist is a determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting double-speak talking points. :-]

      3. br.d writes, “When a Calvinist uses the word PERMIT or PERMISSION in regard to Calvin’s god – what he means is CAUSE or CAUSED.”

        We see this illustrated in the example of Joseph and his brothers. Whether we say that God caused or permitted Joseph to be sold, we understand that Joseph’s brothers acted voluntarily and in accord with their desires first seeking to kill Joseph (which God would not allow_ and then selling Joseph to the slave traders (which agreed with God’s will). God is the “cause” not because He compelled Joseph’s brothers to act as they did but because He decreed that they act as they did when it was within His power to stop them.

      4. br.d
        “When a Calvinist uses the word PERMIT or PERMISSION in regard to Calvin’s god – what he means is CAUSE or CAUSED.”

        rhutchin
        November 20, 2018 at 6:46 pm
        You make a distinction between “cause” and :permit” but there is no real distinction.

        rhutchin
        We see this illustrated in the example of Joseph and his brothers. Whether we say that God caused or permitted Joseph to be sold,

        br.d
        Your previous statement provides the REAL clarification.
        When a Calvinist says god “permitted” Joseph’s brothers to …etc – what he means is Calvin’s god CAUSED Joseph’s brothers to etc.

        rhutchin
        we understand that Joseph’s brothers acted voluntarily and in accord with their desires

        br.d
        This is deceptive language because it seeks to hide the fact that Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN all desires before man exists.
        Josephs brothers will not have one single neurological impulse – that has not been RENDERED-CERTAIN before they were born.

        rhutchin
        God is the “cause” not because He compelled Joseph’s brothers to act as they did but because He decreed that they act as they did

        br,d
        BING!
        This is where Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse man will ever have.
        Calvinist want to call that freedom.

        A Robot should be very familiar with that kind of freedom! :-]

      5. br.d writes, “When a Calvinist says god “permitted” Joseph’s brothers to …etc – what he means is Calvin’s god CAUSED Joseph’s brothers to etc.”

        God is the cause because He rules and overrules His creation. God did not tempt Joseph’s brothers as James tells us. People are free creatures acting in concert with their desires with those desires reflecting their corrupt nature. The will of the person is subordinate to God’s will, so that any conflict between God’s will and man’s will is always resolved in favor of God’s will.

      6. br.d
        “When a Calvinist says god “permitted” Joseph’s brothers to …etc – what he means is Calvin’s god CAUSED Joseph’s brothers to etc.”

        rhutchin
        God is the cause because He rules and overrules His creation.

        br.d
        This is deceptive language because it tries to MASQUERADE IN-determinism – which is mutually excluded by Theological Determinism.

        Jesus without fail – speaks the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
        This fact alone differentiates Calvinism from Christianity.

        Saying Calvin’s god “overrules” his creation – when he in fact RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse they will ever have is obviously the language of obfuscation..

        rhutchin
        God did not tempt Joseph’s brothers

        br.d
        This is an irrelevant red-herring.
        Since Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse – he certainly doesn’t have to tempt anyone.

        A robot doesn’t have to be tempted to do what it is programmed to do. :-]

        rhutchin
        The will of the person is subordinate to God’s will, so that any conflict between God’s will and man’s will is always resolved in favor of God’s will.

        br.d
        This is VERY deceptive language.
        We already know Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse the creature will ever have.
        Obviously the creature’s will is “subordinate”

        But the INFERENCE that there could be a “conflict between God’s will and man’s will” is simply deceptive language designed to HIDE the fact that man’s every neurological impulse is RENDERS-CERTAIN before he is born.

        As always – understanding Calvinism is fairly simple:
        A Calvinist is a determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting double-speak talking points. :-]

      7. br.d writes, “The creature is NOT FREE to have any neurological impulse other than what is RENDERED-CERTAIN.”

        Some of those neurological impulses are the basis for the thoughts of the person as he imagines all that he can do so long as God does not prohibit him. thus, Joseph’s brothers sought to kill Joseph to satisfy their jealousy but God would not allow them, so they sought to sell Joseph to the slave traders and would have sought some other outlet for their jealousy had God prohibited that sale. God created man with a brain that is continuously generating neurological impulses – many without the involvement of the person such as those that keep the body functioning – but many that reflect the surroundings of the person how the person reacts to those surroundings and are the consciousness of the person. God maintains the body and its brain to provide for this and should god remove His hand from the person, that person would then die.

      8. jtleosala

        1. Man has the capacity to exercise his own freedom. ….etc

        br.d
        Calvin’s god does *NOT* give FREEDOM beyond what he (at the foundation of the world before the creature exists) RENDERS-CERTAIN.

        R. C. Sproul
        -quote
        “If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, God is not God”.

        Paul Helm
        -quote “Not only is every atom and molecule, EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE are kept in being by God, but EVERY TWIST AND TURN OF EACH OF THESE IS UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF GOD.

        jtleosala
        God has already predestined things before time.

        br.d
        BING!
        This is where (at the foundation of the world before the creature exists) every neurological impulse he will have is RENDERED-CERTAIN

        jtleosala
        2. God’s absolute Freedom, Omniscience and Omnipotence are not affected nor lessened by the use of Man’s Freedom or future actions.

        br.d
        Obviously! Since as Paul Helm’s states “EVERY TWIST AND TURN OF EACH OF THESE IS UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF GOD”

        jtleosala
        3. God can make use man’s evil actions to the fulfillment of What has been decreed by God that will come to pass.

        br.d
        This is deceptive language – because it MASQUERADES IN-determinism – which does not exist in Theological Determinism.

        jtleosala
        2. Therefore, Man is held accountable in his disobedience by ejecting them out of the Garden of Eden.

        br.d
        This again is the same deceptive language – MASQUERADING as IN-determinism
        Calvin’s god holds man accountable for the very things Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN man be/do before man exists
        Nothing more – nothing less.

        jtleosala
        3. It would be impossible for God to become ignorant of Adam and Eve’s future actions and decisions otherwise He would not be God.

        br.d
        Obviously! Since as Paul Helm’s states “EVERY TWIST AND TURN OF EACH OF THESE IS UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF GOD”

        jtleosala
        4. He allowed this thing to happen to the fulfillment of His eternal plan about Christ’s going to the Cross of Calvary for the atonement of Sins

        br.d
        Again this is deceptive language.
        When a Calvinist uses the word “allow” or “permit” in regard to Calvin’s god – he means CAUSE or CAUSED.

        jtleosala
        FOH’s view makes man more powerful than God the creator. It portrays God as impotent and just serve as a helpless spectator of what man is doing.

        br.d
        This is a TOTALLY silly straw-man argument – a child should be able to see through it.

        jtleosala
        I believe in the “Permissive will of God” – which refers to the things that happens which is contradictory with God’s commands.

        br.d
        Again this is deceptive language.
        It must be remembered that Calvin’s god has an EXPRESSED will – (i.e. his commands) and a SECRET will
        He RENDERS-CERTAIN Adam eat the fruit. (that is his SECRET will)
        He then commands Adam not to. (That is his EXPRESSED will)
        Its just that simple.

        jtleosala
        2. I believe in the “Preceptive will of God” – This is the will of God for Man. Example: The command of Christ to love your neighbor as you love yourself.

        br.d
        See my answer above concerning the EXPRESSED will vs. the SECRET will of Calvin’s god.

        jtleosala
        3. I believe in the “Decretive Will of God”

        br.d
        BING!
        This is where (at the foundation of the world before the creature exists) every neurological impulse he will have is RENDERED-CERTAIN

      9. br. d,

        I dont open all this back-and-forth…. but I opened this one.

        You can never win a die-hard Determinist-Calvinist-Fatalist-Qadr over. Their presupposed, imposed definition of “God” and “omniscience” and “omnipotence” renders them certain (pun intended!) to speak like this.

        They use learned terms like “Permissive will of God” “Preceptive will of God” and “Decretive Will of God.”

        These are all just ideas that have been formed by man and his preferred interpretation of the Scripture. Notice that they dont say “Scripture says….” They just say “I believe in the XYZ will of God.” And that is their right! They have the right to their opinion.

        They also know in their heart that what man does matters. They will confess that unregenerate men are free to act (always choosing sin before regeneration —JTL disagrees with RH on this; JTL says some people can do some good things; of course RH says unsaved man is an all-sin, all-the-time, God-hater). And they say that others will “freely” (irresistibly) choose Christ after regeneration. (and freely choose to continue sinning even after they are dead to sin).

        But… we all know….

        How much time we spend with our family matters.
        How much time we help our kids with their homework matters.
        How faithful we are to our wives (with real women or visual sites) matters…. and helps or hurts our marriage.

        What we do matters.

        Simply put… as we have stated hundreds of times….. Their 3 wills of God means that God “precepts” or commands (will of command or “preceptive will”) Christians not to be unfaithful to our wives… but if they are unfaithful…. oh well, that was His Decretive will anyway!

        As I have stated before, a Reformed pastor friend was quite baffled by this when in his office a crying wife sat next to her unfaithful husband. The pastor listened as she poured her heart out about the infidelity of her husband that she had just learned about. Terrible stuff.

        The husband was indeed sad, but turned and asked his Reformed pastor….. “My unfaithfulness was God’s decretive — will of decree — that you preached to us about, right? I mean it was His will by decree that I sin, right?”

        My reformed pastor friend had no answer that made any sense to the wife or the husband.

        “Yes it was” —strikes pain and unsettling in the crying wife (“Go do what you want!”)

        “No it wasn’t” — says to the husband that “God does not decree everything.” (Man does things that God did not will)

        In fact…. a Calvinist cannot stand before his child (who is just about to sin) and say “Do not do that. It is not the will of God.”

        Because whatever sin that child commits de facto IS the decreed will of God!

      10. FOH
        The husband was indeed sad, but turned and asked his Reformed pastor….. “My unfaithfulness was God’s decretive — will of decree — that you preached to us about, right? I mean it was His will by decree that I sin, right?”

        br.d
        Great post FOH!

        This dates back way before Calvinism.
        There are court cases both in Rome and Greece where men killed their wives and claimed a THEOS decreed they do so – and since the decree is infallible – they could not have done otherwise.

        In court rooms filled with those who embraced that religion – those husbands went free.
        In court rooms filled with those who did not embrace that religion – those husbands were sentenced for murder.

        It all boils down to the religion of Theological Determinism :-]
        Hence Calvin’s institutes of “the religion”

  3. Daily reading gets me to 2 John.

    8 Watch out that you do not lose what we have worked so hard to achieve. Be diligent so that you receive your full reward. 9 Anyone who wanders away from this teaching has no relationship with God. But anyone who remains in the teaching of Christ has a relationship with both the Father and the Son.
    ——–

    What is it that they are going to lose?

    What is it that John has worked so hard to achieve?

    If you are diligent you will received a full reward?

    Someone can wander away from this teaching? And that person then has no relationship with God — because they wandered away?

    But if you remain in the teaching—- you have a relationship with God?

    Sounds just like what today’s reading said in Hosea. They wandered away.

    Sounds just like the Chosen people in Egypt….. when the angle of death came by…. they had to stay in the house (remain).

  4. Daily reading takes me to Psalm 125

    4 O Lord, do good to those who are good,
    whose hearts are in tune with you.
    5 But banish those who turn to crooked ways, O Lord.
    Take them away with those who do evil.
    ———–

    Sounds just like Hosea and 2 John! God wants us to do good…. and He rewards that.

    But if a person “turns to crooked ways” he will get banished.

    Wow…. the Scripture really reinforces the Scripture!

  5. FOH, the “Pelagian” posted this one:

    “FROMOVERHERE”
    “DECEMBER 6, 2018 AT 8:31 PM”
    “Daily reading takes me to Psalm 125”

    “4 O Lord, do good to those who are good,
    whose hearts are in tune with you.
    5 But banish those who turn to crooked ways, O Lord.
    Take them away with those who do evil.”
    ———–

    “Sounds just like Hosea and 2 John! God wants us to do good…. and He rewards that.

    But if a person “turns to crooked ways” he will get banished.”

    “Wow…. the Scripture really reinforces the Scripture!”

    ———— Here’s My Response ————-

    1. FOH, the “Pelagian is wrong again. He is saying in his post that it was the Prophet Hosea as the “persona” in the cited verse in Psalm 125:4-5. Here again he needs to prove that assertion. This is his assignment.

    2. FOH, the “Pelagian” is here again assuming that these verses can back up the “native righteousness” of the fallen man that he keeps on pushing here, but to his dismay it will never work.

    3. There is a slim assurance for God to give a reward in verse 5. It is unhealthy for the righteous (saved persons) to intercede using/activating the faith that was entrusted to them by God in saying imprecatory prayers. On the contrary FOH, the Pelagian claims it as the “native faith” of the fallen man — just the same… it won’t work.

    4. The verses cited are just an imprecatory prayer of the Writer/Speaker in that verse. It is not actually compatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ in the NT concerning the command of loving neighbor as you love yourself including your enemies. How can God be pleased to that petition and for FOH to become excited in obtaining a positive answer from God?

    1. jtleosala
      1. FOH, the “Pelagian is wrong again.

      br.d
      Someone simply quotes a scripture and he is -quote “wrong”!
      Obviously there is more than SOLA SCRIPTURA going on with Calvinism. :-]

      jtleosala
      He is saying in his post that it WAS the Prophet Hosea as the “persona” in the cited verse in Psalm 125:4-5.

      br.d
      FALSE
      The wording in the post specifically stated: “SOUNDS LIKE Hosea and 2 John! ”
      Why would anyone twist words?
      Perhaps this is what Calvinists do to scripture?

      jtleosala
      2. FOH, the “Pelagian” is here again assuming that these verses can back up the “native righteousness” of the fallen man

      br.d
      FALSE
      NATIVE RIGHTEOUSNESS – is something made up as a fabricated straw-man
      Why don’t you take your straw man you -quote “cuddle” so much – and go out on the town dancing tonight
      I think the two of you will have a great time together! :-]

      jtleosala
      3. There is a slim assurance for God to give a reward in verse 5.

      br.d
      We don’t need a priest mediator between man and scripture telling us what every word means.
      That is a Catholic/Calvinist practice
      Let the text say what it says – don’t read scripture searching for man-made TULIPs in it – and you’ll be much better off.

      jtleosala
      It is unhealthy for the righteous (saved persons) to intercede using/activating the faith that was entrusted to them by God in saying imprecatory prayers.

      br.d
      This is misguided.
      It assumes the author of the text is asking God to harm or curse someone – when that is not EXPLICITLY stated in the text.

      Psalm 94:23 reads:
      He will repay them for their sins and destroy them for their wickedness; the LORD our God will destroy them.

      Anyone who believes the author of the text is Holy Spirit Inspired – can conclude the Holy Spirit is not going to Inspire the author to pray something that is -quote “unhealthy” before God. To conclude otherwise is to question the inspiration of the text.

      Thus scripture – and Sola Scriptura is made void by man’s tradition of interpretation.
      Now what does that say about Calvinism’s handling of scripture!

      jtleosala
      4. The verses cited are just an imprecatory prayer of the Writer/Speaker in that verse.

      br.d
      See answer above

      jtleosala
      It is not actually compatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ …..etc

      br,d
      Firstly – this statement totally misconstrues the reason for posting the text.
      The reason for posting the text is to let scripture itself show how IN-deterministic the vast majority of it is.
      But the Calvinist doesn’t like that aspect of scripture – if it interferes with his philosophy.
      So he looks for a way to marginalize the efficacy of scripture when it doesn’t -quote “work for him”.

      All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
      2 Timothy 3:16

  6. Br D and his god, the “Neurological Impulse Man” posted the verse below:

    “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
    2 Timothy 3:16”
    ———— Here’s My Response ————–

    Anyone can claim for himself that verse as scaffold of BR D’s pet so called “traditional beliefs”, i.e:

    1.His resistance to the the bible verses supporting the TULIP makes himself silly. He is being haunted in his nightmares due to his boiling anger against God’s Teachings in Scripture on: The Total Depravity of Man, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and the Perseverance of the Saints.

    2. He is caressing a defective gospel that : Man is not totally evil even if the Bible declares it to be; That God loves all human being even if the majority of them will go to hell. That God does not give faith to the fallen man, even if the Bible says so. That God’s omniscience is not absolute because God is ignorant of man’;s future actions and decisions. According to him, God will know those future actions of men only by the time it happened already. He is against Determinism and the limited freedom of man even if the Bible teaches both of these. He calls it as illogical, in-determinism, etc.

    Perhaps he can include his defective gospel to those lists of “Myths of the Traditionalists” here.

    1. jtleosala
      Anyone can claim for himself that verse as scaffold of BR D’s pet so called “traditional beliefs”, i.e:

      br.d
      False attribution is a highly repeated fallacy with Calvinists.
      Its fun to watch them point 1 finger of accusation at someone
      Totally IGNORANT that God has them pointing 4 fingers back at themselves.

      The iniquities of man ensnare him – he is held fast in the cords of his own sin. Proverbs 5:22

      jtleosala
      1.His resistance to the the bible verses supporting the TULIP makes himself silly.

      br.d
      Why should anyone search in scripture looking for T, U, L, I, P tea-leaves within it?
      God does not teach man to read scripture that way.
      Men read palms and tea-leaves that way – so I leave that to the Calvinists as their method of choice.

      jtleosala
      He is being haunted in his nightmares due to his boiling anger against God’s Teachings in Scripture on

      br.d
      See my statement above about Calvinism’s continuously repeated fallacy of false attribution.
      How can any sound minded person not find this humerus!! :-]

      jtleosala
      The Total Depravity of Man, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and the Perseverance of the Saints.

      br.d
      ALL doctrines which have their origin in Augustine – carried forward by Calvin.
      Thank you for listing them.

      jtleosala
      2. He is caressing a defective gospel that : Man is not totally evil even if the Bible declares it to be;

      br.d
      AS-IF the Calvinist does not “caress” his own defective teachings?
      And then seeing himself more than he ought – he goes about huffing and puffing – like a wizard of oz machine.
      Any discerning Christian can identify that as nothing more than a blind Pharisee

      jtleosala
      He is against Determinism and the limited freedom of man even if the Bible teaches both of these. He calls it as illogical, in-determinism, etc.

      br.d
      Actually the Calvinist is both fore and against determinism – for it is quite clear that he embraces double-think on this point.

      A: Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIVES and then RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse he will ever have
      B: (A) above is FALSE
      C: Both (A) and (B) above are both TRUE and FALSE at the same time.

      (C) is what the Calvinist embraces and continuously argues for.

      jtleosala
      Perhaps he can include his defective gospel to those lists of “Myths of the Traditionalists” here.

      br.d
      Perhaps a Calvinist can show how his double-mindless does not express itself as double-speak?
      But I won’t hold my breath. :-]

      1. br.d writes, “False attribution is a highly repeated fallacy with Calvinists.
        Its fun to watch them point 1 finger of accusation at someone
        Totally IGNORANT that God has them pointing 4 fingers back at themselves.

        The iniquities of man ensnare him – he is held fast in the cords of his own sin. Proverbs 5:22”

        Reading Proverbs 5 in context, we have–

        21 For the ways of a man are before the eyes of the LORD, And He watches all his paths.
        22 His own iniquities will capture the wicked, And he will be held with the cords of his sin.
        23 He will die for lack of instruction, And in the greatness of his folly he will go astray.

        Then we see br.d say, “False attribution is a highly repeated fallacy with Calvinists.” What does he mean by this? We do not know because br.d is unable to explain himself – br.d is not an instructor of the Scriptures for he himself has not been instructed in the Scriptures but takes the Scriptures to mean whatever he wants them to mean. Consequently, we find br.d making false statements as above because he makes them without knowledge and seems only intent on confusing people even as he is confused.

        We see this in other things br.d says–

        1. “Why should anyone search in scripture looking for T, U, L, I, P tea-leaves within it? God does not teach man to read scripture that way..”

        Here God gives us the example of the Bereans telling us that, “they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.” So, God does tell us to read and search the Scriptures to see if such things as T, U, L, I, P are so.

        2. “ALL doctrines which have their origin in Augustine – carried forward by Calvin.”

        Here a false statement derived from the br.d’s fertile imagination. The doctrines espoused by Augustine and later Calvin find their origin in the Scriptures. br.d is unable to argue against the Scriptures so he invents a lie. and is held by the cords of his lie and unable to escape.

        3. “Actually the Calvinist is both fore and against determinism – for it is quite clear that he embraces double-think on this point.”

        Again a statement from br.d’s imagination. What he means is lost because of br.d’s inability to explain what he means. This can be seen is his distorted logic he then uses. He essentially rephrases the Westminster Confession that says, “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;” in (A) and then in (B) falsely says that Calvinists reject this. Why does he do this? Is it because br.d cannot argue against Calvinist doctrine? Seems so.

        $. “Perhaps a Calvinist can show how his double-mindless does not express itself as double-speak?”

        There is no double-mindedness here. br.d simply made it up. If his claim were correct, surely he could explain it – but he can’t.

      2. rhutchin
        br.d writes, “False attribution is a highly repeated fallacy with Calvinists.
        Its fun to watch them point 1 finger of accusation at someone
        Totally IGNORANT that God has them pointing 4 fingers back at themselves.

        The iniquities of man ensnare him – he is held fast in the cords of his own sin. Proverbs 5:22”

        Reading Proverbs 5 in context, we have–

        21 For the ways of a man are before the eyes of the LORD, And He watches all his paths.
        22 His own iniquities will capture the wicked, And he will be held with the cords of his sin.
        23 He will die for lack of instruction, And in the greatness of his folly he will go astray.

        br.d
        Thank you for quoting the rest of the text – that was nice of you.
        Does the rest of the text therefore make that one verse mean something other than what it clearly means?
        Somehow I don’t think so. :-]

        rhutchin
        1. “Why should anyone search in scripture looking for T, U, L, I, P tea-leaves within it? God does not teach man to read scripture that way..”

        Here God gives us the example of the Bereans telling us that, “they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.” So, God does tell us to read and search the Scriptures to see if such things as T, U, L, I, P are so.

        br.d
        This is an interesting argument – because Paul did instruct the Bereans and they did search the scripture looking for those things Paul sighted.

        But the observation of people reading scripture like they would read tea leaves is not a new warning from scholars.
        And everyone should understand the difference between letting scripture simply say what it says – and someone sitting down over your shoulder and teaching you what every word means – which we know is obviously the practice in Calvinism.

        How many non-Calvinist scholars have made the statement that Calvinism doesn’t pass the “desert Island” test.
        Give a person stranded on a desert Island a bible – and he WONT see the TULIP in it.
        How many Calvinists have as their testimony that before they were Calvinists they were Arminians.
        They had to be TAUGHT a new way of reading scripture.
        I think a Calvinist arguing against all of that evidence is a losing battle.

        On top of that to say “to see if such things as T, U, L, I, P are so” is a HUGE stretch! :-]

        rhutchin
        A false statement derived from the br.d’s fertile imagination. The doctrines espoused by Augustine and later Calvin find their origin in the Scriptures

        br.d
        This is of course an argument made by Calvinists – and one can understand why.
        The Catholics have their “Apostolic Succession” in which they argue their Popes have their origin in Peter
        The Calvinist have their “Augustine got his doctrines from scripture alone” etc…etc.

        But academia has proven both claims to be false.

        Neoplatonism and Christianity – online encyclopedia
        -quote:
        Neoplatonism was a major influence on Christian theology throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages in the West. This was due to St. Augustine of Hippo.

        Augustine, Manichaeism and the Good – Kum-lun E.Lee
        -quote
        [Augustine] draws on the Manichees for insights of experience of personal evil, borrowing from them the double notion of ‘wickedness’ and ‘mortality,’ although he has substantially transformed these simplistic ideas into an elaborate theory that eventually does away with dualism.

        rhutchin
        br.d states: Actually the Calvinist is both fore and against determinism – for it is quite clear that he embraces double-think on this point.”
        Again a statement from br.d’s imagination.

        John Calvin
        -quote
        “Go about your office As-THOUGHT nothing is determined in any part”

        rhutchin
        May 27, 2018 at 8:19 am
        Everything that happens is exactly what God wants, and renders certain, such that NO ALTERNATIVE CAN HAPPEN.

        jtleosala
        September 26, 2018 at 7:06 pm
        Actually there are ALTERNATIVES for man at the moment.

        br.d
        We know – in the course of time – he makes -quote “active decisions” to prevent or not prevent the very things he (at foundation of the world) made UNPREVENTABLE. He also makes active decisions to restrain or not restrain what he has already make UNSUSTAINABLE.

        I think anyone can read Calvinists posts here and come to a solid recognition that Calvinists constantly exhibit a love-hate relationship with Theological Determinism. They argue [A] = TRUE one minute and [A] = FALSE then next. That can easily be observed simply by reading Calvinist posts here. No need for me to show that as double-speak. :-]

        rhutchin
        He essentially rephrases the Westminster Confession that says,…..etc

        br.d
        Yes I know “phrasing” is what its all about for Calvinists.
        Calvinist arguments are more then not highly reliant upon semantic subtleties

        How many times have we heard a Calvinist say “We don’t say it that way”
        Of course they don’t
        They like to cloak all of the dark aspects of the theology in euphemistic and eulogistic language.
        The WC presented here is a good example.
        And I provide Dr. William Lane Craig’s response
        I wasn’t surprised it wouldn’t be liked – because Dr. Craig doesn’t cloak things in euphemistic – eulogistic language.

        rhutchin
        falsely says that Calvinists reject this. Why does he do this?

        br.d
        Silly!
        Why would a Calvinist reject the WC?
        What the Calvinist rejects is speaking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth – when he speaks.

        Dr. Jerry Walls
        -quote
        “If Calvinists didn’t rely so heavily upon misleading rhetoric – Calvinism would lose all credibility in two years”

        Dr. William Lane Craig – paraphrased from a number of comments:
        “Sadly but consistently – Calvinists fail to enunciate the radical distinctions inherent in their belief system”

        rhutchin
        There is no double-mindedness here. br.d simply made it up

        br.d
        Let the SOT101 reader review Calvinist posts here and see if they don’t come to this conclusion on their own.
        Consistently Calvinists provide all of the evidence one needs all by themselves.
        Its just a matter of time – and their own inclinations.

        Now that’s a win-win situation for me! :-]

      3. I made a typo here:
        This statement should read

        We know – in the course of time – he makes -quote “active decisions” to prevent or not prevent the very things he (at foundation of the world) made UNPREVENTABLE. He also makes active decisions to restrain or not restrain what he has already make UNRESTRAINABLE.

  7. The readers of SOT 101.Com will now discover that Br D and his god, the “Neurological Impulse Man” already wears multiple hats, i.e.:

    1. “and his god” – this was his first hat. He got this due to his never ending naming of “Calvin’s god” in most of his post here.

    2. “Neurological Impulse Man” – This is his 2nd hat. He got this from his circular reasoning with Rhutchin…. Of course he will never win with Rhutchin.

    3. Priest of FOH, “The Pelagian” – this is his 3rd hat. He got this from FOH’s decision not to directly engage with me. As a Priest, he is the perpetual mediatrix of FOH’s opponent in this blog site. He sees to it that he is to the rescue all the time.

    For sure there will be more hats will be worn by him depending on his behavior.

    I think, if ever FOH, the “Pelagian” will commit sins he will immediately go to Fr. Br D to confess and be able to cleanse himself…. My goodness…

    1. jtleosala
      The readers of SOT 101.Com will now discover that Br D and his god, the “Neurological Impulse Man” already wears multiple hats, i.e.:

      br.d
      Well! This is inventive! The wearing of hats – lets see how this plays out.

      jtleosala
      1. “and his god” – this was his first hat. He got this due to his never ending naming of “Calvin’s god” in most of his post here.

      br.d
      AH this is about br.d using the term “Calvin’s god”
      The Calvinist asserts this as a bad sign while he calls others “Pelagians”, “logic man” , and “neurological impulse man”.

      Can anyone spell the word “Hypocrite”? :-]

      jtleosala
      2. “Neurological Impulse Man” – This is his 2nd hat. He got this from his circular reasoning with Rhutchin…. Of course he will never win with Rhutchin.

      br.d
      Here we have the term “circular reasoning”
      Now I wonder where a Calvinist would get such a term?
      If not from reading br.d’s posts where arguments are analyzed and identified as such.

      Unwittingly – the Calvinist has paid br.d and his discipline to rational reasoning a compliment. :-]

      jtleosala
      3. Priest of FOH, “The Pelagian” – this is his 3rd hat. He got this from FOH’s decision not to directly engage with me. As a Priest, he is the perpetual mediatrix of FOH’s opponent in this blog site. He sees to it that he is to the rescue all the time.

      br.d
      Hmmmmm – “mediatrix” I think the Calvinist gets this word from Catholicism
      A “mediatrix” is a woman
      Perhaps there is a little “mediatrix” in every Calvinist?
      And that would makes sense – as John Calvin was called a Catholic with a small ‘c’

      jtleosala
      For sure there will be more hats will be worn by him depending on his behavior.

      br.d
      Well if the premise is true – then the conclusion might be valid.

      jtleosala
      I think, if ever FOH, the “Pelagian” will commit sins he will immediately go to Fr. Br D to confess and be able to cleanse himself…. My goodness…

      br.d
      More Catholicism – very interesting!

      Now how will any discerning Christian not easily recognize all of these railings as childish distemper?

      1. br.d writes, “A “mediatrix” is a woman”

        rhutchin
        JTL seems to think that you are a woman. Are you?

        br.d
        Interesting! – Somehow I don’t think you realize what that post reveals. :-]

      2. br.d writes, ‘Interesting! – Somehow I don’t think you realize what that post reveals.”

        I just addressed a part not revealed.

      3. br.d writes, ‘Interesting! – Somehow I don’t think you realize what that post reveals.”

        rhutchin
        I just addressed a part not revealed.

        br.d
        I’de say you revealed something alright. :-]

      4. br.d writes, “I’de say you revealed something alright.”

        Yeah – that br.d ddoesn’t know if he is a man or a woman. LOL!! Just a little comic relief from br.d.

      5. br.d writes, “I’de say you revealed something alright.”

        rhutchin
        Yeah – that br.d ddoesn’t know if he is a man or a woman. LOL!!
        Just a little comic relief from br.d.

        br.d
        Comic relief can be very good – I appreciate it often.

        But on top of that I’ll leave it to the Lord to decide what is JUST. :-]

    1. Thank you FOH!
      A very interesting article from Dr. Olson – and a concern that Non-Calvnists have concerning Calvinist language strategies – that I have heard a number of times before.

      Dr. Olson states:
      “So what do Calvinists say? Well, one in particular says that God genuinely grieves over each sinner who fails to repent and necessarily ends up in hell.”

      Now that is interesting – because John Calvin – in his commentary on Genesis 6:6 where the text states it “repented” God that he mad man – argues against the plain reading of this text with the following arguments

      “For since we cannot comprehend him as he is, it is necessary that, for our sakes he should, in a certain sense, transform himself……. The same reasoning, and remark, applies to what follows, that God was affected with GRIEF. Certainly God is not sorrowful or sad; but remains forever like himself in his celestial and happy repose….” (Genesis 6 commentary)

      So on this verse Calvin first argues – the THEO ‘transforms himself”. This assertion strikes me as coming a little to dangerously close to Paul’s warning concerning Lucifer who “transforms himself”.

      But in any case – Calvin continues to then argue there is no such thing as GREIF with the THEOS – but rather “forever happy repose”.

      Now – that a follower of John Calvin would deny Calvin’s own arguments and assert the opposite – should not be anything new or a surprise to anyone – since doing this happens to be a consistent characteristic of Calvinist arguments.

      A second point to take note of on this topic – is the fact that in Calvinism’s embrace Theological Determinism and compatibilistic free-will, there is absolutely nothing limiting Calvin’s god from RENDERING-CERTAIN that every creature without exception IRRESISTIBLY chooses Christ – being granted the gift offered in the Gospel. According to Calvin – he simply chooses not to –quote “for his good pleasure”.

      A third note concerns Calvinism’s reputation for misleading language:
      When a religious group develops its own “private interpretations” for words and terms that otherwise have well established meanings within the English language – Cult Experts (like Dr. Steven Hassan for example) call this “Insider Language”.

      Certain words and terms, generally found within scripture, are interpreted by most people using the commonly established interpretation for these words within the English language. But members of specific religious groups develop their own “private interpretations” for specific words and terms.

      When a group member uses one of these words, other members “insiders” automatically understand the meaning being applied – while “outsiders” are unaware of an applied meaning that deviates from the commonly established meaning of the word or term.

      Calvinists have their own “private interpretations” for words such as “permit”, “all”, “world”, and “love”. These terms often have EQUIVOCAL meanings. In other words – they have qualified meanings – which can often result in them meaning the exact opposite of their commonly established meaning. Calvinists can use these words in statements in such a way as to make the statement APPEAR to give the commonly established meaning for the word – when in fact something else is meant.

      When a Calvinist uses one of these terms in a statement – other Calvinists (as “insiders”) automatically know what is meant – because they have been taught the new meaning and how and when it is attributed to that word. But the “outsider” is unaware – and assumes the commonly established meaning is what is meant – and thereby is misled.

      The key to identifying when a word or term has been given a “private” interpretation – is when you observe it being used in a statement where the meaning applied is other than the commonly understood meaning – and where the communicator gives absolutely no indication of applying a qualified meaning.

      We understand from this – the communicator is smart enough to know the “outsider” is being misled – and the communicator is either do so strategically – or otherwise doesn’t care.

      The young man who takes a girl up to lovers-lane and tells her he “loves” her in order to mislead her into getting what he wants – while he retains a “private interpretation” of the word “love” is obviously a manifestation of a dishonest use of language.

      When a Calvinist tells a potential recruit “yes god loves you” – while retaining his own “private interpretation” for the word “love” he is following the same language mode as the young boy at lovers lane.

  8. br.d
    Interesting! – Somehow I don’t think you realize what that post reveals. :-]

    br.d
    I’de say you revealed something alright. :-]

    ———- Here’s My Response to this mystery ———–

    The “persona” is assuming that someone does not have any idea about that post
    Hymnnn… “a mediatrix is a woman”, he said to himself
    Therefore, I am now saying you revealed something alright.

    1. jtleosala
      ———- Here’s My Response to this mystery ———–

      The “persona” is assuming that someone does not have any idea about that post
      Hymnnn… “a mediatrix is a woman”, HE SAID TO HIMSELF
      Therefore, I am now saying you revealed something alright.

      br.d
      FALSE
      It should be obvious br.d didn’t say that to himself – that is twisted logic.
      Its should be totally obvious – he said it in response to JT – who was obviously the vessel through which it sprang.

      The silver-lining here – is that it exemplifies how twisted Calvinists can be.

      Insight for the critical thinking SOT101 reader:
      One of Calvinism’s perennial and most often repeated fallacies – is the fallacy of false attribution.
      Learn to look for it – and you’ll see it as a consistent strategy in Calvinist statements. :-]

  9. Br D, the “Neurological Impulse Man” posted this one :

    “When a Calvinist tells a potential recruit “yes god loves you” – while retaining his own “private interpretation” for the word “love” he is following the same language mode as the young boy at lovers lane.”

    ———- Here’s My Response ————
    I deny the accusation saying : “yes god loves you” in our evangelism campaign. That is true among our antagonists critics because they believe in universal salvation. Perhaps, I can tell that dictum maybe among our church members who are already believers in Christ. It is just one of the tactics that is hurld on us to demean and humiliate.

    There is no need for us to say attractive words in order to keep on wooing people to respond positively to the gospel offer, why? Because we believe that God has the ultimate choice in the Salvation offered to the elect. We don’t have any power to save people because we understand that Salvation is the complete work of God. Man has no whatsoever share in it, but FOH, the Pelagian denies this. He argues with his “native faith” of the fallen man and negate God’s gift of faith to the sinner by the time man is regenerated (made alive) by God.

    Jesus Christ said that: to be born again (regenerated, made alive) is a necessity, never an option. If FOH, the Pelagian is spiritually dead in his sins, then who made him alive, if he is totally depraved to his sins?

    Br D, “the neurological impulse man” does not recognize all of the Bible verses supporting the Biblical doctrines of the TULIP. These Bible verses makes him silly and he is being haunted with nightmares in his bed seeing visions of himself dating same sex lovers sipping Tea Leaf at the lovers lane. According to him he can visualize the acronym TULIP at the bottom of the glass with corresponding numbers. He is really becoming weird now with his vision.

    1. jtleosala
      Br D, the “Neurological Impulse Man” posted this one :

      “A boy may tell a girl he “loves” her – while retaining his own “private interpretation” of the word “love” – in order to get what he wants.”

      “When a Calvinist tells a potential recruit “yes god loves you” – while retaining his own “private interpretation” for the word “love” he is following the same language mode as the young boy at lovers lane – who

      ———- Here’s My Response ————
      I deny the accusation saying : “yes god loves you” in our evangelism campaign. That is true among our antagonists critics because they believe in universal salvation. Perhaps, I can tell that dictum maybe among our church members who are already believers in Christ. It is just one of the tactics that is hurld on us to demean and humiliate.

      br.d
      So let me get this straight – you deny that any Calvinist would ever tell unbelievers “god loves you”?

      1. jtleosala
        December 10, 2018 at 5:46 pm
        I deny the accusation saying : “yes god loves you” IN OUR evangelism campaign.

        br.d
        So let me get this straight – you deny that any Calvinist would ever tell unbelievers “god loves you”?

        jtleosala
        I speak on my own as a Calvinist and in behalf of our church not to the entire Calvinists.

        br.d
        Oh! I see – when you say “IN OUR” evangelism campaign – you are not representing Calvinists per se – you are only denying this as a practice in one specific Calvinist group – the church in which you are a member.
        Is that correct?

      2. Our church holds on to the tenets of the Biblical doctrine of the TULIP and of course Myself as their ordained Pastor for more than 20 years now. Our church has been pioneered by the Presbyterians long before I became the resident Minister. My ordination comes from the Southern Baptist way back in 1996. Is this alright for you Br D ?

      3. br.d
        Oh! I see – when you say “IN OUR” evangelism campaign – you are not representing Calvinists per se – you are only denying this as a practice in one specific Calvinist group – the church in which you are a member.
        Is that correct?

        Our church holds on to the tenets of the Biblical doctrine of the TULIP and of course Myself as their ordained Pastor for more than 20 years now. Our church has been pioneered by the Presbyterians long before I became the resident Minister. My ordination comes from the Southern Baptist way back in 1996. Is this alright for you Br D ?

        br.d
        So when you say “IN OUR” evangelism campaign – you are not representing Calvinists per se – you are only denying this as a practice of your church group.

        Is that correct?

      4. Of course we claim that we are Calvinists because of our adherence to its teachings. Br D knows that there are varieties of Calvinism. In our evangelism campaign, we choose to refrain from saying “God loves all people”, simply because we don’t believe on that.

        And you… Br D are you telling God loves all people? that Christ offered HIS life to all humanity? What is your answer? Yes or No?

      5. br.d
        Oh! I see – when you say “IN OUR” evangelism campaign – you are not representing Calvinists per se – you are only denying this as a practice in one specific Calvinist group – the church in which you are a member.
        Is that correct?

        jtleosala
        Our church holds on to the tenets of the Biblical doctrine of the TULIP and of course Myself as their ordained Pastor for more than 20 years now. Our church has been pioneered by the Presbyterians long before I became the resident Minister. My ordination comes from the Southern Baptist way back in 1996. Is this alright for you Br D ?

        br.d
        So when you say “IN OUR” evangelism campaign – you are not representing Calvinists per se – you are only denying this as a practice of your church group.

        Is that correct?

        jtleosala
        Of course we claim that we are Calvinists because of our adherence to its teachings. Br D knows that there are varieties of Calvinism. In our evangelism campaign, we choose to refrain from saying “God loves all people”, simply because we don’t believe on that.

        And you… Br D are you telling God loves all people? that Christ offered HIS life to all humanity? What is your answer? Yes or No?

        br.d
        So when you say “IN OUR” evangelism campaign – you are not representing Calvinists per se – you are only denying this as a practice of your church group.

        Is that correct?

      6. The “Neurological Impulse man” is trying to punch me with your premise but it won’t work. Your premise is wrong.
        It should be this one:

        1. In our evangelism Campaign, we are representing the Calvinists.
        2. Our Church holds on to the tenets of Faith of the Calvinists.
        3. Our church don’t believe in Universal Salvation, the opposite of Br D’s dictum : “God loves all People”
        4. I and My church are Calvinists.

      7. br.d
        Oh! I see – when you say “IN OUR” evangelism campaign – you are not representing Calvinists per se – you are only denying this as a practice in one specific Calvinist group – the church in which you are a member.
        Is that correct?

        jtleosala
        Our church holds on to the tenets of the Biblical doctrine of the TULIP and of course Myself as their ordained Pastor for more than 20 years now. Our church has been pioneered by the Presbyterians long before I became the resident Minister. My ordination comes from the Southern Baptist way back in 1996. Is this alright for you Br D ?

        br.d
        So when you say “IN OUR” evangelism campaign – you are not representing Calvinists per se – you are only denying this as a practice of your church group.

        Is that correct?

        jtleosala
        Of course we claim that we are Calvinists because of our adherence to its teachings. Br D knows that there are varieties of Calvinism. In our evangelism campaign, we choose to refrain from saying “God loves all people”, simply because we don’t believe on that.

        And you… Br D are you telling God loves all people? that Christ offered HIS life to all humanity? What is your answer? Yes or No?

        br.d
        OH! I see – before you said “we deny that” – but now you are saying “we choose to refrain” from telling the unbeliever “god loves you”.

        Which one is it – you “deny” it as a practice or you just simply “choose to refrain” from it as a practice?
        Its not clear which one you mean as an honest representation?

        jtleosala
        The “Neurological Impulse man” is trying to punch me with your premise but it won’t work. Your premise is wrong.
        It should be this one:…..etc

        br.d
        Punched with a premise is pretty strong language – when I’m simply trying to ascertain what you are ACTUALLY presenting.

        Before – you used very strong language – you clearly said “we deny” we tell unbelievers “god loves you”.
        But then later when asked for clarity – your language then changed to “we choose to refrain” from telling the unbeliever “god loves you”.

        I simply want to know which one it is – you “deny” or you “choose to refrain”?

      8. br.d
        Oh! I see – when you say “IN OUR” evangelism campaign – you are not representing Calvinists per se – you are only denying this as a practice in one specific Calvinist group – the church in which you are a member.
        Is that correct?

        jtleosala
        Our church holds on to the tenets of the Biblical doctrine of the TULIP and of course Myself as their ordained Pastor for more than 20 years now. Our church has been pioneered by the Presbyterians long before I became the resident Minister. My ordination comes from the Southern Baptist way back in 1996. Is this alright for you Br D ?

        br.d
        So when you say “IN OUR” evangelism campaign – you are not representing Calvinists per se – you are only denying this as a practice of your church group.

        Is that correct?

        jtleosala
        Of course we claim that we are Calvinists because of our adherence to its teachings. Br D knows that there are varieties of Calvinism. In our evangelism campaign, we choose to refrain from saying “God loves all people”, simply because we don’t believe on that.

        And you… Br D are you telling God loves all people? that Christ offered HIS life to all humanity? What is your answer? Yes or No?

        br.d
        OH! I see – before you said “we deny that” – but now you are saying “we choose to refrain” from telling the unbeliever “god loves you”.

        Which one is it – you “deny” it as a practice or you just simply “choose to refrain” from it as a practice?
        Its not clear which one you mean as an honest representation?

      9. Which one is it – you “deny” it as a practice or you just simply “choose to refrain” from it as a practice?
        Its not clear which one you mean as an honest representation?
        ———– Here;s My Response ————
        I deny it … that practice of the Universalist to tell people “God loves the entire humanity”. There might be some other Calvinists who will dare to say “God Loves You”, but I think they are referring this term to the elect not to the entire humanity on earth. I stated “choose to refrain from the practice of saying “God Loves you” simply to avoid confusions. The “Neurological Impulse Man” will never succeed in his offensive attempt.

      10. br.d
        Which one is it – you “deny” it as a practice or you just simply “choose to refrain” from it as a practice?
        Its not clear which one you mean as an honest representation?

        jtleosala
        I deny it … that practice of the Universalist to tell people “God loves the entire humanity”. There might be some other Calvinists who will dare to say “God Loves You”, but I think they are referring this term to the elect not to the entire humanity on earth. I stated “choose to refrain from the practice of saying “God Loves you” simply to avoid confusions. The “Neurological Impulse Man” will never succeed in his offensive attempt.

        br.d
        Ok – and I thank you for being honest.

        So – here is where we are so far.
        You deny telling “god loves you” to an unbeliever because -quote “Our church holds on to the tenets of the Biblical doctrine of the TULIP”

        However you are willing to acknowledge
        -quote “There might be some other Calvinists who will dare to say “God Loves You”, but I think they are referring this term to the elect not to the entire humanity on earth”

        Now I should think you know that the phrase “god loves you” for a Calvinist – has a QUALIFIED MEANING.
        That qualification is – that it is LIMITED to the elect and to ONLY to the elect.

        So then:
        When a Calvinist tells an unbeliever “God loves you”
        When that Calvinist holds a QUALIFIED MEANING for the words “god loves you”
        And that Calvinist does not REVEAL to the unbeliever that he has a QUALIFIED MEANING which is completely different than what the unbeliever interprets from those words. And that unbeliever is thereby misled.

        In your position as a pastor would you not say that is dishonest use of language?

      11. Br D, the Neurological Impulse man posted this one:

        “Now I should think you know that the phrase “god loves you” for a Calvinist – has a QUALIFIED MEANING.”
        “That qualification is – that it is LIMITED to the elect and to ONLY to the elect.”

        “So then:
        When a Calvinist tells an unbeliever “God loves you”
        When that Calvinist holds a QUALIFIED MEANING for the words “god loves you”
        And that Calvinist does not REVEAL to the unbeliever that he has a QUALIFIED MEANING which is completely different than what the unbeliever interprets from those words. And that unbeliever is thereby misled.

        In your position as a pastor would you not say that is dishonest use of language?”

        ————- Here’s My Response below this line —————-

        God’s love is limited only to the elect because Jesus Christ declared this in John 10:11, 15 that: “He offered his life for the sheep”. Isn’t this a valid proof of God’s Love? ___ to whom? ___. The answer that was identified by Jesus Himself are the Sheep. And who are the sheep? – The answer is : The elect Israel and the Gentile believers whose names have been written in the book of Life before the foundation of the world according to Rev. 17:8 and Rev. 13:8.

        My answer to that very personal question of the “Neurological Impulse Man” is : “NO”. It’s not a dishonest language because it was not drawn or invented by Myself. It was based on Christ’s declaration in John 10:11, 15

      12. br.d
        So – here is where we are so far.
        You deny telling “god loves you” to an unbeliever because -quote “Our church holds on to the tenets of the Biblical doctrine of the TULIP”

        However you are willing to acknowledge
        -quote “There might be some other Calvinists who will dare to say “God Loves You”, but I think they are referring this term to the elect not to the entire humanity on earth”

        Now I should think you know that the phrase “god loves you” for a Calvinist – has a QUALIFIED MEANING.
        That qualification is – that it is LIMITED to the elect and to ONLY to the elect.

        So then:
        When a Calvinist tells an unbeliever “God loves you”
        When that Calvinist holds a QUALIFIED MEANING for the words “god loves you”
        And that Calvinist does not REVEAL to the unbeliever that he has a QUALIFIED MEANING which is completely different than what the unbeliever interprets from those words. And that unbeliever is thereby misled.

        In your position as a pastor would you not say that is dishonest use of language?

        jtleosala
        My answer….is : “NO”.
        It’s not a dishonest language because it was not drawn or invented by Myself.
        It was based on Christ’s declaration in John 10:11, 15

        br.d
        Perhaps you did not read my question?
        The most critical part was the following:
        “AND THE UNBELIEVER IS THEREBY MISLED”

        Your answer to this question is -quote: “NO because it was not drawn or invented by Myself. ”

        So here is what I believe you are saying
        A Calvinist knows Christ’s declaration in John 10:11, 15 – and that means “god loves you” is LIMITED to the ELECT and only the ELECT.

        And yet that Calvinist does not REVEAL that to the unbeliever.
        “AND THE UNBELIEVER IS THEREBY MISLED”

        What you are saying is that as a Calvinist pastor you obviously know the unbeliever is being misled by that language.
        And as a Calvinist pastor you do not say that is a dishonest use of language.

        Is that correct?

      13. Br D, the Neurological Impulse Man have posted this one and My Response is the one enclosed in the parenthesis:

        So here is what I believe you are saying
        A Calvinist knows Christ’s declaration in John 10:11, 15 – and that means “god loves you” is LIMITED to the ELECT and only the ELECT.

        (It’s so obvious. I believe in the doctrine of Limited Atonement.)
        (1. God loves the elect. 2. Christ lay down his Life to the sheep – elect Israel and Gentile believers. 3. The elect are saved by Christ)

        —————ooo———————

        And yet that Calvinist does not REVEAL that to the unbeliever.
        “AND THE UNBELIEVER IS THEREBY MISLED”

        (Non-Elect were not misled because the legitimate offer of the gospel was not intended for them. The clue is that they will not prosper. Do you remember the other types of soil who were sown by the same seeds? They were not deceived because there was no legitimate offer of the gospel that was originally intended for them by God. God has decided already not to write their names in the book of life before the foundation of the world according to Rev. 17:8 and Rev. 13:8)
        ————-ooo————————
        What you are saying is that as a Calvinist pastor you obviously know the unbeliever is being misled by that language.
        And as a Calvinist pastor you do not say that is a dishonest use of language.

        (That’s why I don’t say that dictum: “God loves you” in our evangelism campaign. For me, It is not a dishonest language to preach John 10: 11, 15)

      14. br.d
        So then:
        When a Calvinist tells an unbeliever “God loves you”
        When that Calvinist holds a QUALIFIED MEANING for the words “god loves you”
        And that Calvinist does not REVEAL to the unbeliever that he has a QUALIFIED MEANING which is completely different than what the unbeliever interprets from those words.
        AND THAT UNBELIEVER IS THEREBY MISLED.

        In your position as a pastor would you not say that is dishonest use of language?

        jtleosala
        My answer….is : “NO”.
        It’s not a dishonest language because it was not drawn or invented by Myself.
        It was based on Christ’s declaration in John 10:11, 15

        br.d
        And yet that Calvinist does not REVEAL that to the unbeliever.
        “AND THE UNBELIEVER IS THEREBY MISLED”

        jtleosala
        Non-Elect were not misled because the legitimate offer of the gospel was not intended for them.

        jtleosala
        That’s why I don’t say that dictum: “God loves you” in our evangelism campaign.
        For me, It is not a dishonest language to preach John 10: 11, 15)

        br.d
        OK – I think we’ve ended this discussion and I’ve been able to glean some very beneficial evidence.
        But I must let you know that SOT101 is a public web-site and a lot of people come here to read posts.

        As a Calvinist pastor you have been specifically asked whether misleading people is dishonest or not.
        All of your answers as a Calvinist pastor are permanently here now – posted in this thread – for all to read.

        I ask SOT101 readers to review this thread in its entirety.
        I ask SOT101 readers to observe from the testimony of a Calvinist pastor – that Calvinists have justifications for being dishonest.
        Obviously Calvinists will deny that – that is what justifications are all about.

        That is why I ask the SOT101 reader to review this thread in its entirety.
        Let the SOT101 reader discern for him/her self

        Thank you JT for participating in this discussion.

      15. Br D, the Neurological Impulse man posted this one :

        “So then:
        When a Calvinist tells an unbeliever “God loves you”
        When that Calvinist holds a QUALIFIED MEANING for the words “god loves you”
        And that Calvinist does not REVEAL to the unbeliever that he has a QUALIFIED MEANING which is completely different than what the unbeliever interprets from those words. And that unbeliever is thereby misled.”

        ———- Here’s My answer below this line ———–

        I have already manifested that We don’t tell the unbelievers “God Loves you” in our evangelism campaign. This is to:
        1. avoid confusions to the non-elect.
        2. avoid offering a false promise to the non-elect

        Sinners are both the elect and non-elect. Both are Spiritually dead so … how can they understand spiritual things?… except when they are regenerated first by God and be given the faith for them to trust Christ’s atoning work offered to them.

      16. br.d
        “So then:
        When a Calvinist tells an unbeliever “God loves you”
        When that Calvinist holds a QUALIFIED MEANING for the words “god loves you”
        And that Calvinist does not REVEAL to the unbeliever that he has a QUALIFIED MEANING which is completely different than what the unbeliever interprets from those words.

        AND THAT UNBELIEVER IS THEREBY MISLED

        In your position as a pastor would you not say that is dishonest use of language?

        jtleosala
        I have already manifested that WE don’t tell the unbelievers “God Loves you” in our evangelism campaign.

        br.d
        It should be clear this point in the discussion has nothing to do with what you our your congregation do.
        The question has to do with what your position is concerning honesty – as a Calvinist pastor.

        You stated “Other Calvinists may DARE to tell unbelievers “god loves you” …..etc.

        I was then very careful to present you with a situation in which a Calvinist uses language with an unbeliever – and the unbeliever IS THEREBY MISLED.

        You must have read that part – AND THAT UNBELIEVER IS THEREBY MISLED

        So I think as a Calvinist pastor you don’t hold misleading people with that type of language – as a dishonest use of language. That appears to be what you’ve stated so far.

Leave a Reply