Why Do Calvinists Think They Have Superior Theology?

That's a good question, Huk...What ABOUT sin?
I just thought it was bizarre for someone to say “My salvation was not based on anything I had done or was doing at the time.”

I’m no theologian, but I thought John 3:16 and Romans 3:23 are pretty clear about why we sinners need salvation.
 
I just thought it was bizarre for someone to say “My salvation was not based on anything I had done or was doing at the time.”

I’m no theologian, but I thought John 3:16 and Romans 3:23 are pretty clear about why we sinners need salvation.
His statement deals with his claim that he has performed no action/deed/work that merits salvation. I am sure he would readily admit that his sin and sinful state was all his own responsibility and that such a contribution to the salvation equation on his part created an absolute need for salvation, a need that couldn’t be satisfied by doing something on his own. It’s standard Calvinist reasoning regarding what is called the “ordo salutis” (order of salvation) in which the believer is regenerated by God’s first uninfluenced initiative.
 
His statement deals with his claim that he has performed no action/deed/work that merits salvation. I am sure he would readily admit that his sin and sinful state was all his own responsibility and that such a contribution to the salvation equation on his part created an absolute need for salvation, a need that couldn’t be satisfied by doing something on his own. It’s standard Calvinist reasoning regarding what is called the “ordo salutis” (order of salvation) in which the believer is regenerated by God’s first uninfluenced initiative.
If that’s what he meant, I stand corrected.
 
How about a little something called sin??
Well, that little something called "Sin" is what necessitated my salvation now isn't it? Yes, that was my contribution! I sinned against a holy God which necessitated Christ's death and resurrection to effect my salvation! :cool:
 
Fact of the matter is, on June 21, 1981, I cried out to God and and received the simple message of the Gospel that saved my soul. My salvation was not based on anything I had done or was doing at the time.
Hold it now. What do you mean that you received the simple message. What did you do in order to receive?

 
Actually no. It just happened with no act on my part.
Sorry Ekklesian but that's error. If you're saved you heard the gospel and chose to believe and accept what God said Jesus did on the cross and you confessed the Lordship of Jesus over your life. Eternal Life was then imparted to your spirit

Romans 10:9,10 "....that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Salvation follows AFTER you do something. 1) believe unto righteousness and 2) confess the Lordship of Christ and doing those two things are UNTO----->Salvation. Salvation follows the doing of those two things. May seem unimportant the order of these things but no....very important.
 
Hold it now. What do you mean that you received the simple message. What did you do in order to receive?
I also found some concerning and odd gaps in his testimony, but I was told I was misreading what he wrote.
 
Sorry Ekklesian but that's error. If you're saved you heard the gospel and chose to believe and accept what God said Jesus did on the cross and you confessed the Lordship of Jesus over your life. Eternal Life was then imparted to your spirit

Romans 10:9,10 "....that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Salvation follows AFTER you do something. 1) believe unto righteousness and 2) confess the Lordship of Christ and doing those two things are UNTO----->Salvation. Salvation follows the doing of those two things. May seem unimportant the order of these things but no....very important.
What do you mean that confession of the Lordship of Christ is necessary for salvation?
 
Sorry Ekklesian but that's error. If you're saved you heard the gospel and chose to believe and accept what God said Jesus did on the cross and you confessed the Lordship of Jesus over your life. Eternal Life was then imparted to your spirit

Romans 10:9,10 "....that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Salvation follows AFTER you do something. 1) believe unto righteousness and 2) confess the Lordship of Christ and doing those two things are UNTO----->Salvation. Salvation follows the doing of those two things. May seem unimportant the order of these things but no....very important.
So you are affirming a "Synergistic" view of salvation?
 
Acts 16:31 - Believed on the Lord Jesus Christ
So you believed, meaning in the simplest terms, you did do something. And in that scheme of things, do you think that your "belief"/faith was supplied by yourself, or God?
 
Well, one side believes God is sovereign.
Nope Non Calvinists believe God is sovereign and no offence but they have the proper understanding of what that means.

The other side believes God conforms to man’s decisions.
Non Calvinists believe God has allowed MAN to choose without his will being forced by some ordaining process. That is God's sovereign right to allow this. No Calvinist can stand up to God and say he can't do what he sovereignly wants to do.
 
Hmm…. If God looks down the tunnel of time to determine His plan, not only is God dependent on man’s future choice, he is learning and then conforms his plan to man’s future decision.
Actually, I am not the one who came up with the word “conform.” It comes from those who believe that God looked down that tunnel. You call it “bloviations,” I’m just tracing the trail (“quoting”) theologians.
Went right to it. Thanks!
This is the exact line of demarcation for me: the definitions of "Time" and "Eternity".
Calvinism is intellectually stimulating, but never satisfying.
The Creator made Time for Man, to limit us, so that we, knowing we have a limited number of days, might apply our hearts unto wisdom.
He, on the other hand, IS the beginning and end. He is there at Creation, and with us in the New Jerusalem.
"Omnipresent" describes this, but inadequately for most to grasp, apparently. Not a Scriptural term, but proof that men once understood "He that dwells in eternity" is ever present in that eternity.
Omniscience- He knows all of Time at once...every second of it, til He eliminates it again.... "foreknowledge" by definition, to those of us stuck in Time.

You've seen me post it before, but:
God is The Sovereign.
But He, willing to demonstrate His glory, love, mercy, all that He is...does not yet enforce that Sovereignty fully.

As the Elect, we are fully under His Sovereignty, by position. But we are still able to transgress His expressed Will and Law. The same corruption that damns us all in the first place, only leaves when we shed this mortal coil.
He will not impute iniquity against His own. But in this lifetime, earthly judgement comes.

At the end, He will restore all things to being under His Sovereignty, and will have no need to enforce it.
This is the "restoration of all things" (IMO).
 
Hey prophet! Been a long time!

God always enacts His Sovereignty... FULLY "And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
 
Last edited:
So, prophet and others do not like the argument that "God looks doen the tunnel of time" because that undermines his omniscience.

However, they are comfortable saying that God gives up part of his omnipotence. This stillnundermines God. Scripture never presents God in that way.

Either God is Sovereign over all or not at all.
 
So, prophet and others do not like the argument that "God looks doen the tunnel of time" because that undermines his omniscience.

However, they are comfortable saying that God gives up part of his omnipotence. This stillnundermines God. Scripture never presents God in that way.

Either God is Sovereign over all or not at all.
Nobody is undermining God's omniscience or sovereignty...that's YOUR twisted interpretation of what they believe. UGH! Go figure people dislike CLavinism....(Cliff Clavin on Cheers!)
 
Back
Top