The Calvinism Debate: Phil Fernandes vs Chris Comis - "Opening Statements" part 1 of 4

[pedophiliaphobe]

observation part.2:

...This is not explicitly Calvinistic fault at all....

But ideas like "eternal security", predestination, and God's total control/responsibility for our actions is NOT (in my opinion) very motivating to live virtuous life.

As a note, without Christians demonstrating virtuous life, atheists/non-believers will not be persuaded (oops, I forgot, persuasion is out of the question for Calvinists). Again, this is a point stressed out by early Christians like Chrysostem...

[pedophiliaphobe]

observation part.1:

lately, I am trying to read/listen audio of early christian authors.

While, they are surely not in agreement on everything, generally speaking I like them more than Calvinist teachings.

Primary reason being explicit and constant attention to personal strive for virtuous character.

Contrast it to contemporary tendency to write excuses... excuses... excuses.

"noone's perfect", "there's no perfect church"... etc...etc.

This is not explicitly Calvinistic fault at all.

[pedophiliaphobe]

I like Fernandes, and was listening to many of his FREE (!!!) audios.

I am not a Calvinist at all. I am Christian, and I try to keep myself from associations with particular person's names in Christendom.

As said John Crhysostem in once, it is usually heretics who are called after some leader: Arians, Sibellians, etc. etc.

Not that I am saying that Calvinists are heretics. I'm just saying that there's no explicit reason to be Calvinist, and even less reason to be called Calvinist.

[pedophiliaphobe]

Mr. Comis,

with all due respect listen to yourself!

"accepted Calvin into my heart"

:D

"as I wake up every morning, I count fingers on my hand to remind me of five points. Then I count fingers on the other hand just to remind me again"

-- this reminds me of how Muslims have 99 beads corresponding to the 99 names of alah....

in other words, weird. what else can I say!

[DougCameraMan]

Arminians think that God would be unfair if he "arbitrarily" choose some for salvation while passing by others. They have this idea that if God saves some that he must save all, and if he doesn't then they place the blame on failure to make "the right decision". Scripture says that the elect are not chosen based on any good works, on their faith, or such. But it doesn't say that God had no reason for choosing who he chose! His choice was based on his own good pleasure and only he knows why.

[ArthurCorp1]

Is that a pack of cigarettes on the left in the green on the table? Perhaps Menthols?

[atdcross1]

Mr. Comis's presentation is an attempt to ignore the doctrinal inconsistencies Calvinism poses when aligned with both the Bible and commom sense. Note, rather than the classical "Unconditional Election", he posits, "Unmerited Calling"; rather than "Limited Atonement", he suggests "Demerited Atonement". Of course, as a faithful Calvinist to "doublethink", to assert two contradictory statements, e.g. the atonement was limited and unlimited. Comis is trying to redefine classical Calvinism.

[klneedham1]

Chosen to be in Christ from eternity past and being in Christ from eternity past are two different things, I believe. The Holy Spirit give faith in time. All are lost in sin from birth; but praise God, the lost can be found.

[groundhog0339]

Dr. Fernandes only holds to 3 points of Calvinism while Chris Comis is a 5 point Calvinist.

[cbat36]

@groundhog0339 he is a two point, Fernandez is a good guy but I dont believe in any points Eternal security is not calvinism

[davidpeddicord]

A calvinist believes he was "in Christ" in eternity past. This is heresy.

[christianthinker]

@davidpeddicord David, only double predestinarian Calvinists believe that nonsense. Not all 5 Pointers do believe in double predestination. Besides predestination is more on the sanctification spectrum than the salvation spectrum. Cheers!

[christianthinker]

The doctrines of grace were around long before Calvin. The problem is not many Calvinists know how to explain them to non Calvinists in a way that would make the non Calvinist look like a confused Calvinist.

[davidpeddicord]

So is this a moderate calvinist debating a hyper calvinist?