David Lamb
Well-Known Member
[Deleted by poster]
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Fallacy Vol 2
- Thread starter Alive in Christ
- Start date
Reply to Webdog,
I do not believe Calvinism is based on scripture. I believe it is based on what men have added to scripture. I am a minimalist, which means I try to stick with what scripture and logical necessity requires and then not go beyond that. I ask questions like "what is the least that the author could be saying" because to make less of it actually takes away from scripture. In other words, the opposite of what the men who created Calvinism did, which was to take verses out of context and claim vast extrapolations. This behavior is what has divided the body of Christ, hindering the ministry of Christ.
I assume by "immutable" you mean I think my view is true. Yes, I do. But I could be wrong. I am willing for you or anyone else to cite scripture and contextually present an understanding that indicates my view is in error.
For example Iconoclast pointed out I was using "chosen out of this world" out of context, and he was right and I had been wrong, and I changed my position, i.e. stopped using that verse to support election during our lifetime.
But the vast majority of efforts, such as calling my post theological excrement, fall a tad short of presenting biblical truth.
I do not believe Calvinism is based on scripture. I believe it is based on what men have added to scripture. I am a minimalist, which means I try to stick with what scripture and logical necessity requires and then not go beyond that. I ask questions like "what is the least that the author could be saying" because to make less of it actually takes away from scripture. In other words, the opposite of what the men who created Calvinism did, which was to take verses out of context and claim vast extrapolations. This behavior is what has divided the body of Christ, hindering the ministry of Christ.
I assume by "immutable" you mean I think my view is true. Yes, I do. But I could be wrong. I am willing for you or anyone else to cite scripture and contextually present an understanding that indicates my view is in error.
For example Iconoclast pointed out I was using "chosen out of this world" out of context, and he was right and I had been wrong, and I changed my position, i.e. stopped using that verse to support election during our lifetime.
But the vast majority of efforts, such as calling my post theological excrement, fall a tad short of presenting biblical truth.
Reply to Rippon,
1) Calvinists like to use vague terms like "depravity" which means one thing, the dictionary definition, but is code for another thing, "total spiritual inability." So they introduce confusion into the defense of their false doctrines. I believe in the "limited spiritual ability" of natural fallen unregenerate men. In our fallen, natural, men of the flesh, state, we can understand the milk of the gospel and respond to it in a way God could choose to credit as righteousness. This view is biblical, 2 Corinthians 2:14-3:3 and Romans 4:4-5.
2) I believe in conditional election, where God chooses those whose faith in Christ He has credited as righteousness and places them spiritually in Christ, where they undergo the circumcision of Christ and arise in Christ a new creation, born again from above by the power of God. This view is biblical, James 2:5, 1 Corinthians 1:26-30, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Peter 2:9-10, Colossians 2:11, and 2 Corinthians 5:17.
3) Again Calvinists try to shape the discussion using their terminology and ascribing it to others. I believe in "General Reconciliation" which is what was accomplished on the cross, where Christ became the propitiation or means of salvation for all mankind. But this did not result in anyone "receiving" that reconciliation. That is why we have the ministry of reconciliation, where we beg the lost to be reconciled to God. Only those who "receive" the reconciliation by being spiritually placed in Christ and undergoing the circumcision of Christ are reconciled. When scripture says God is reconciling the world [mankind] to Himself, He is doing it one lost person at a time by placing them in Christ based on crediting their faith in Christ as righteousness. This view is biblical, 1 John 2:2, 2 Corinthians 5:17-21.
4) And finally, we have yet another vague term with multiple meanings tossed into the mix. "Calling" - what does that mean. (1) To be called, i.e. to be exposed to the gospel of Christ? What if the person has so hardened his or her heart they cannot understand the gospel, like the first soil of Matthew 13? (2) To respond to the gospel and put our faith in Christ? What about the second and third soils of Matthew 13, were they not called, yet did not respond such that God would chose to credit their faith? (3) To be "the called" then is to (a) be exposed to the gospel, (b) to not only understand it but to "learn" from it, and follow its requirement to love God with all our heart and hold nothing back, (c) for God to credit our heart-felt, whole hearted faith as righteousness, and (d) transfer us out of the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son. Then we have been "called" out of darkness into His marvelous light, 1 Peter 2:9.
1) Calvinists like to use vague terms like "depravity" which means one thing, the dictionary definition, but is code for another thing, "total spiritual inability." So they introduce confusion into the defense of their false doctrines. I believe in the "limited spiritual ability" of natural fallen unregenerate men. In our fallen, natural, men of the flesh, state, we can understand the milk of the gospel and respond to it in a way God could choose to credit as righteousness. This view is biblical, 2 Corinthians 2:14-3:3 and Romans 4:4-5.
2) I believe in conditional election, where God chooses those whose faith in Christ He has credited as righteousness and places them spiritually in Christ, where they undergo the circumcision of Christ and arise in Christ a new creation, born again from above by the power of God. This view is biblical, James 2:5, 1 Corinthians 1:26-30, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Peter 2:9-10, Colossians 2:11, and 2 Corinthians 5:17.
3) Again Calvinists try to shape the discussion using their terminology and ascribing it to others. I believe in "General Reconciliation" which is what was accomplished on the cross, where Christ became the propitiation or means of salvation for all mankind. But this did not result in anyone "receiving" that reconciliation. That is why we have the ministry of reconciliation, where we beg the lost to be reconciled to God. Only those who "receive" the reconciliation by being spiritually placed in Christ and undergoing the circumcision of Christ are reconciled. When scripture says God is reconciling the world [mankind] to Himself, He is doing it one lost person at a time by placing them in Christ based on crediting their faith in Christ as righteousness. This view is biblical, 1 John 2:2, 2 Corinthians 5:17-21.
4) And finally, we have yet another vague term with multiple meanings tossed into the mix. "Calling" - what does that mean. (1) To be called, i.e. to be exposed to the gospel of Christ? What if the person has so hardened his or her heart they cannot understand the gospel, like the first soil of Matthew 13? (2) To respond to the gospel and put our faith in Christ? What about the second and third soils of Matthew 13, were they not called, yet did not respond such that God would chose to credit their faith? (3) To be "the called" then is to (a) be exposed to the gospel, (b) to not only understand it but to "learn" from it, and follow its requirement to love God with all our heart and hold nothing back, (c) for God to credit our heart-felt, whole hearted faith as righteousness, and (d) transfer us out of the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son. Then we have been "called" out of darkness into His marvelous light, 1 Peter 2:9.
How can one add to something not based on?
...yet every believer states this, but does not do it in actuality. Jacob I loved, Esau I hated. The "minimalist" view on this passage is what the calvinists claim...you just take it at face value. Do you agree?
I wouldn't say it "hinders" the ministry of Christ. Both camps believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone. You are taking a hyper-non-cal view, one I will not support.
No...not think...by immutable I mean you ARE correct.
I've already stated as a non-cal, non-arm I agree with much of what you post. Your error comes in your hyper leaning disdain for calvinism and calvinists.
So your view is not immutable?
Agreed completely...and on the flipside it is essentially doing the same thing by calling their doctrine "fiction".
Hi Martin, here is the post I said was spot on, that I completely agreed with.
"I agree completely with Van's post #15. What does vs. 6 say?
Psa 14:6 Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge.
What is a refuge? By definition a refuge is a shelter people run to or seek to be protected from danger.
There is a difference between a "wicked" person, or a "fool" from an average sinner. All persons are sinners, but not all are wicked. Read the Psalms and you will see this over and over again.
Psa 10:4 The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.
Psa 10:14 Thou hast seen it; for thou beholdest mischief and spite, to requite it with thy hand: the poor committeth himself unto thee; thou art the helper of the fatherless.
Psa 10:17 LORD, thou hast heard the desire of the humble: thou wilt prepare their heart, thou wilt cause thine ear to hear:
The scriptures clearly distinguish between wicked men who are proud and never seek God, and the poor who are humble and seek God for help. Failing to see this distinction causes error."
Based on this, you quoted the "enbolded" last part and asked the question:
Where is the poor and humble man in those verses? referring to Romans 3:10-19 presented in an abridged fashion. The answer is we are all under sin, the poor, the humble, the proud, and the wicked fools.
What Calvinism does is take a truth, we are all sinners unable to earn salvation, and add to it that we are unable to seek salvation through faith in Christ. They nullify verses like "seek ye first the kingdom of God" saying Christ is telling us what we ought to do, but not suggesting we are able to strive to do it. Pure twaddle.
"I agree completely with Van's post #15. What does vs. 6 say?
Psa 14:6 Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge.
What is a refuge? By definition a refuge is a shelter people run to or seek to be protected from danger.
There is a difference between a "wicked" person, or a "fool" from an average sinner. All persons are sinners, but not all are wicked. Read the Psalms and you will see this over and over again.
Psa 10:4 The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.
Psa 10:14 Thou hast seen it; for thou beholdest mischief and spite, to requite it with thy hand: the poor committeth himself unto thee; thou art the helper of the fatherless.
Psa 10:17 LORD, thou hast heard the desire of the humble: thou wilt prepare their heart, thou wilt cause thine ear to hear:
The scriptures clearly distinguish between wicked men who are proud and never seek God, and the poor who are humble and seek God for help. Failing to see this distinction causes error."
Based on this, you quoted the "enbolded" last part and asked the question:
Where is the poor and humble man in those verses? referring to Romans 3:10-19 presented in an abridged fashion. The answer is we are all under sin, the poor, the humble, the proud, and the wicked fools.
What Calvinism does is take a truth, we are all sinners unable to earn salvation, and add to it that we are unable to seek salvation through faith in Christ. They nullify verses like "seek ye first the kingdom of God" saying Christ is telling us what we ought to do, but not suggesting we are able to strive to do it. Pure twaddle.
Reply to Webdog,
1) If scripture says someone handed a bucket to another to draw water, and I say what this means is someone handed a bucket with a huge hole in it to another to help in not draw water, my understanding is not based on what scripture says, it is based on what scripture does not say. Thus when you nullify and reverse the meaning of scripture, your view is not actually based on scripture.
2) Every believer does not state or accept this!! The doctrines that divide are all based on unwarranted extrapolations of the text.
3) No, the Calvinists do not take "Jacob I loved and Esau I hated" at face value. They take this completely out of context to support unconditional election for salvation. I take it your point is that some scriptures use hyperbole or figures of speech or figurative language, and I understand those scriptures in that light. As I have said, if the straightforward sense makes sense and does not create conflicts with other passages, then I accept the straightforward sense.
4) I did not say you took the "low" road nor ascribe a loaded label like "hyper-non cal" to you. I address content.
5) I make no accommodation with false teachers or false teaching. I will discuss any view or passage or understanding without attacking the qualifications or character of the poster holding a differing view.
How can one add to something not based on?
...yet every believer states this, but does not do it in actuality. Jacob I loved, Esau I hated. The "minimalist" view on this passage is what the calvinists claim...you just take it at face value. Do you agree?
I wouldn't say it "hinders" the ministry of Christ. Both camps believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone. You are taking a hyper-non-cal view, one I will not support.
No...not think...by immutable I mean you ARE correct.
I've already stated as a non-cal, non-arm I agree with much of what you post. Your error comes in your hyper leaning disdain for calvinism and calvinists.
So your view is not immutable?
Agreed completely...and on the flipside it is essentially doing the same thing by calling their doctrine "fiction".
1) If scripture says someone handed a bucket to another to draw water, and I say what this means is someone handed a bucket with a huge hole in it to another to help in not draw water, my understanding is not based on what scripture says, it is based on what scripture does not say. Thus when you nullify and reverse the meaning of scripture, your view is not actually based on scripture.
2) Every believer does not state or accept this!! The doctrines that divide are all based on unwarranted extrapolations of the text.
3) No, the Calvinists do not take "Jacob I loved and Esau I hated" at face value. They take this completely out of context to support unconditional election for salvation. I take it your point is that some scriptures use hyperbole or figures of speech or figurative language, and I understand those scriptures in that light. As I have said, if the straightforward sense makes sense and does not create conflicts with other passages, then I accept the straightforward sense.
4) I did not say you took the "low" road nor ascribe a loaded label like "hyper-non cal" to you. I address content.
5) I make no accommodation with false teachers or false teaching. I will discuss any view or passage or understanding without attacking the qualifications or character of the poster holding a differing view.
Van states
I believe the TULI are unbiblical works of fiction. They are false doctrine. And they hinder the ministry of Christ. I will discuss any point, any verse, any biblically based argument and demonstrate to my satisfaction there is no support whatsoever for any of these doctrines. None, zip, nada. I use words as defined in the dictionary, and the dictionary says "fiction" means a work of the imagination that does not represent actuality. That is what I believe the TULI are.
So Van, in your own way, aren't you questioning the salvation of anyone who is a Calvinist/Anyone who believes in the Doctrines of Grace?
I believe the TULI are unbiblical works of fiction. They are false doctrine. And they hinder the ministry of Christ. I will discuss any point, any verse, any biblically based argument and demonstrate to my satisfaction there is no support whatsoever for any of these doctrines. None, zip, nada. I use words as defined in the dictionary, and the dictionary says "fiction" means a work of the imagination that does not represent actuality. That is what I believe the TULI are.
So Van, in your own way, aren't you questioning the salvation of anyone who is a Calvinist/Anyone who believes in the Doctrines of Grace?
If this is true, why did I, as a raised from childhood free-willer come to the doctrine of grace by reading just Scripture? I didn't even know that there was a term or a group of people following this. At first I thought I might be alone in this belief - until I started doing some outside study.
How? I still witness. We still as a church are following the great commission. We still seek to see souls saved. How can it hinder the ministry of Christ?
Come on, EWF, what are you doing interrupting their nice little conversation about how nasty the Calvinists are? Shame on you! Leave them be. They're much happier on their own. :smilewinkgrin:
Steve
Steve
I would say you have a faulty view of Scripture, not that your understanding is not based on it.
Accept what...the minimalist view? The key is context, not minimalism or maximalism (if there is such a thing)
Agreed.
I address content as well, nor did I ascribe the low road to you. I was being facetious to our DoG brothers. The fact is you are leaning past center on the opposite spectrum
False teachers and false teaching biblically refer to the unsaved. I hope you are not going down that road. Although we are quite frequently referred to as "self salvationists" and state we serve "another god" and are sovereign over God by the opposition, I have never questioned the salvation of a non-arm (since there are so many brands of calvinism on this very board).
Did your recent epiphany about "the doctrine of grace" occur after your dozen-year stint in the Presbyterian church? Or before?
Well Jerome, I dont want to answer for Ann but if she went to a PCUSA church in the NE portion of the country then chances are that they never mentioned doctrine
It was actually after I left the Presbyterian Church. If you are saying that I learned about it in the Presbyterian Church, I can honestly say that I never heard this teaching before even in the PC! It was still man's choice all through the years I was there.
LOL - Didn't get to your post. This is exactly it. A PCUSA on Long Island.
Thank you for clarifying, Annsni. Somehow I was under the impression that yours was atypical for PCUSA:
As was EW's?:
As was EW's?:
I did not say they taught it LOL only that they followed it. I doubt today that its ever mentioned. That was also a 20 year span. (Into apostasy)
I actually just went to see our old PC's website and it's not there! Interesting. But I know many people left that church because while it was Biblical, there was not a lot of life there and having seen the young people's response to the gospel, we decided to not raise our children there. There were some other reasons but that was one of them.
Reply to Webdog,
You seem to be going down the road of questioning my behavior rather than the content of my posts. First you said everyone is a minimalist and now you say you are not a minimalist. Me thinks thou protest too much.
All the "leaning in the wrong direction" is based on you attributing meanings to words that are not real. You equated theological excrement with fiction. That does not pass the smell test.
A false teacher could be saved or unsaved, the test is do they love the Lord and do they walk the talk. When Jesus says "depart from Me, I never knew you" to some professing Christians, He will also greet some misguided with "welcome home, faithful servant."
To say I hate Calvinism is correct, but you also slandered me when you said I hate Calvinists. It is time to part company, I have no interest in defending myself from one false charge after another.
I would say you have a faulty view of Scripture, not that your understanding is not based on it.
Accept what...the minimalist view? The key is context, not minimalism or maximalism (if there is such a thing)
Agreed.
I address content as well, nor did I ascribe the low road to you. I was being facetious to our DoG brothers. The fact is you are leaning past center on the opposite spectrum
False teachers and false teaching biblically refer to the unsaved. I hope you are not going down that road. Although we are quite frequently referred to as "self salvationists" and state we serve "another god" and are sovereign over God by the opposition, I have never questioned the salvation of a non-arm (since there are so many brands of calvinism on this very board).
You seem to be going down the road of questioning my behavior rather than the content of my posts. First you said everyone is a minimalist and now you say you are not a minimalist. Me thinks thou protest too much.
All the "leaning in the wrong direction" is based on you attributing meanings to words that are not real. You equated theological excrement with fiction. That does not pass the smell test.
A false teacher could be saved or unsaved, the test is do they love the Lord and do they walk the talk. When Jesus says "depart from Me, I never knew you" to some professing Christians, He will also greet some misguided with "welcome home, faithful servant."
To say I hate Calvinism is correct, but you also slandered me when you said I hate Calvinists. It is time to part company, I have no interest in defending myself from one false charge after another.
:thumbs::thumbs:.....Although there is a problem with your analysis.....many reasonable people do and have agreed with it......go figure.
Reply to EWF,
Yet another attack on my character, rather than addressing my position. That is all they have, folks, just disparagement. I have never met a Calvinist, except EWF, who would posit that salvation is based on holding the correct doctrine. As I have posted dozens of times, salvation is all of God, He saves us, we do not save ourselves with "the right doctrine" except the part about trusting in Christ with all our heart, holding nothing back.
Yet another attack on my character, rather than addressing my position. That is all they have, folks, just disparagement. I have never met a Calvinist, except EWF, who would posit that salvation is based on holding the correct doctrine. As I have posted dozens of times, salvation is all of God, He saves us, we do not save ourselves with "the right doctrine" except the part about trusting in Christ with all our heart, holding nothing back.