you are mistaken. calvinists are quite convinced of the ability of believers to fall away. looks like you need to read your doctrine a little harder. just in case you missed that.
how long exactly have you been a calvinist that you haven't read the book on it?This message has been edited by brennakimi, 01-05-2006 12:51 PM

Brenna, reread your own Message 42Chapter XVII
Of the Perseverance of the Saints
I. They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.[1]

state of grace being salvation. they cannot lose their salvation though they turn away. the idea is that god has a 'life-grip' on them.no really. how old are you and how long have you been a christian and what type of church do you go to and how long have you studied thick doctrine?i'm really genuinely curious.

Brenna I didn't miss any of it. You don't know what it means. Falling into grievous sins, incurring God's displeasure, grieving the Holy Spirit, being deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, having their hearts hardened, scandalizing others etc. are all meant to describe a backslidden condition but not loss of salvation. Otherwise statements I and II would make no sense. The idea, and Calvin is famous for it, is that if you are truly saved you cannot lose it although you may fall into sin even to this terrible a degree, and bring temporal judgments on yourself, that is punishments in this world, not the next.

Weren't you taught to treat your elders with respect?First you contradict my true statement that a Calvinist would say she couldn't lose her salvation, and you rudely inform me that I must not know anything about Calvinism. I correct you and you continue the bizarre rudeness. You are a rude little girl, about twelve emotionally I'd say. Grow up.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-05-2006 01:25 PM

Off Topic attack on another member marked out.

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 01-05-2006 12:35 PM

that would be what i said.but what i'm suggesting is that loss of faith does not equate loss of salvation.

If that is what you are saying then why did you so rudely contradict my first statement?

why would a calvinist say she wasn't saved? a calvinist would say she it is possible for one to be saved and then sin. so why do you demans she wasn't saved?i was taught to treat those worthy of respect with respect. you play word games and lie about what you said. that is not deserving of respect. further, you call me names when you know nothing about me. this also suggests you are not worthy of respect. there are lots of religious people i respect. you are not one of them.

Off Topic Personal Attack on another member marked out.

i'm not being rude, i'm simply asking you a few direct questions.
how old are you.
how long have you been a christian.
what type of church do you go to.
how long have you deeply studied calvinist doctrine.i cannot continue a discussion with you until i understand how you think. this is the specific necessity of the third question. the other three are just what i've been wondering for a long time... they will, no doubt, assist me in better dealing with you, though.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 01-05-2006 12:40 PM

I'm sorry I answered your first rude remark. I will never answer you again.

In my opinion, Faith is correct about what most Calvinists would say. It is simple logic. According to the theology, once saved, always saved. That only leaves three possibilities:

she is still saved, even though an atheist;

the theology is wrong;

she was never saved.

​

Most Calvinists would be reluctant to say that an atheist could nevertheless be saved, and would be reluctant to say that the theology is wrong. That leaves only the last option.

​

It is, of course, a use of the No True Scotsman evasion. The story (referenced in the OP) begins with a comment about the possibility of "No True Scotsman" being used.

​

(edit: fix typo)

​

This message has been edited by nwr, 01-05-2006 01:26 PM

Thank you. A Calvinist will make allowances for a believer's falling into even very gross sin without losing salvation, but not for actual doctrinal apostacy and atheism. That's the clue to a Calvinist that she was never saved.By the way, most applications of the No True Scotsman fallacy are fallacious and this is one instance of that. Liking sugar on your porridge is a ridiculous comparison with apostasy.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-05-2006 03:34 PM

Am I psychic? I had this outcome pegged from post #2.

I didn't call it a fallacy (although Wikipedia does), I called it an evasion. You probably don't like "evasion" any better. I don't think it is properly a fallacy, but let's not go off-topic in that direction.There is a bit of a problem, I think, that Calvinist theology on the issue deals with backsliding, but it doesn't adequately deal with what happened this "amazing story". This sort of "deconversion" would have been pretty rare in Calvin's time, but is more common today.

Well I don't see anything evasive about the Calvinist position either. I agree. But what is your point? "Doesn't adequately deal
with" it? Does Arminian theology deal with it any better in your opinion? Or, what do you think went on in this story yourself?

WOW.So a little passive aggressive? If you truly didnt want it read you wouldn't send it.AdminsI have asked before I will ask again. Why is Faith given the leeway to insult at her leisure? Her and Randman can insult and go off-topic any time they want. Others make a small peep and they get a warning. I rarely post anymore, because if I post anything that is against Faith or Rands blind faith I get accused of many things and I get called names. Then when I respond I get a warning.This message has been edited by Theodoric, 01-05-2006 04:22 PM

---

Barb's Site
Exposing the radical right with facts