Hardly. I'm sure they would know how to use the quote feature properly. You have had every one of your questions answered (regardless of what your side kick says). You don't like the answers.
probably because they were NOT biblical based answers!
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!
Hardly. I'm sure they would know how to use the quote feature properly. You have had every one of your questions answered (regardless of what your side kick says). You don't like the answers.
Garbage. Everything I believe is based on the Bible. How dare you make such a foolish accusation!probably because they were NOT biblical based answers!
probably because they were NOT biblical based answers!
I wouldn't bet on it.You're correct again.
Stop feeding him and he'll go away. :thumbsup:
Garbage. Everything I believe is based on the Bible. How dare you make such a foolish accusation!
In all honesty I feel sorry for the people who sit under you if you interact with them the way you do on here.Lighten up, Francis.
He doesn't believe in your proof-text theology. Your useage of Bible here is off-track and eisegetical.
You must understand simply using the Bible doesn't mean "Biblical", correct? Therefore, you are being UNbiblical here.
Isaiah 1:18 is a classic for you. Misinterpreted, misapplied, ripped out of context.
I'm happy that the people I teach and interact with understand context and don't have the practice that other groups use, and that is to rip verses out of context and tenaciously hold onto them to back up their fallacies.
In all honesty I feel sorry for the people who sit under you if you interact with them the way you do on here.
In all honesty I feel sorry for the people who sit under you if you interact with them the way you do on here.
Of course you would see my theology as proof texting and applaud JesusFan's ignorant comments. Blind leading the blind.
Should have never taken you off ignore. :wavey:
After all the years of reading and being involved in the Cal/non Cal debates, here's what I have learned.....
No one can sufficiently explain how man's will and God's sovereignty can co-exist, yet they do. I don't understand how this is possible, but with God all things are possible.
This argument has gone on for centuries and it's not likely to be solved this side of heaven. I think we would all be better off if we spent our time telling others of the love of Christ and stopped all the in-fighting. Maybe we could even love one another and by unified in our love for God.
JMHO for what it's worth, which ain't much. :laugh:
Do you think this subject is one that should divide a church? Do you consider the non-cal view to be a "false teaching"? As far as I can tell from the NT, the false teachings had nothing to do with Calvinism or Arminianism or anything of the sort.Amy,
Your appeal is very much appreciated. Unity is a wonderful thing within the church. Unfortunately division has existed in the church since the beginning. Look at the writings of Paul, Peter, James, and John. In almost every epistle false or erroneous teaching is addressed. Truth can never be sacrificed in the name of unity. Our Baptist forebearers died over the issue of baptism; that's how important they thought it was.
Now, what should be avoided are petty arguments just for the sake of argument. There are those who just like to hear themselves. Some are just contrary by nature and enjoy sowing discord. We would see more unity in the church if the disconcerted among us would simply remain quiet.
Do you think this subject is one that should divide a church? Do you consider the non-cal view to be a "false teaching"? As far as I can tell from the NT, the false teachings had nothing to do with Calvinism or Arminianism or anything of the sort.
Do you think this subject is one that should divide a church? Do you consider the non-cal view to be a "false teaching"? As far as I can tell from the NT, the false teachings had nothing to do with Calvinism or Arminianism or anything of the sort.
Amy, I give you credit for asking the tough questions.
Is this subject one that should divide the church? No. Does it? Yes. Why? Because the issue at stake is the very nature of the Gospel.
Do I consider the non-Calvinist view to be a false teaching? Wow. You're really going to make me answer this question, aren't you?
Okay, yes, I think the non-Calvinist view is a false teaching. HOWEVER, the mainline Arminian view, that disagrees mostly with the Calvinist view of election, is not heresy. A person is not prevented from becoming a Christian or will lose their salvation because they disagree with the Calvinist view of election.
Heresy is a false teaching that perverts the Gospel. Those who believe in heresy place themselves in serious peril. If the Gospel is perverted what else is there that can save them? While I think the non-Calvinist position on election is in error (i.e. a false teaching), I don't believe it rises to the level of rank heresy that condemns a person to hell.
Thanks for being nice.
But I think you should be careful about calling the non-cal position a false teaching. I understand what you mean, but when the bible refers to false teachings, it is referring to those teachings that in actuality do pervert the gospel. One such teaching was that the resurrection had taken place, another was the Gnostic belief that God could not have come in a human body, and another was regarding circumcision and Judaizing the Christians. There were more, but I think you understand what I'm saying.
I understand that you think my position is in error, and I can accept our disagreement, but we do not teach what the bible refers to as "false teachings".
I hope you understand my meaning.
I don't have the time nor energy to read this entire debate, but I do have this to add:
Calvin was correct. God, in His omnipotence, knew who would be saved and who would not. However, how can we assume, with a loving God, that He someone 'elect' these people?
There is not Biblical proof for this assumption. So we must discard it.
However, there is something we've overlooked:
God exists outside of time. He created it. He is not limited by it. "A day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years a day." We find more proof of this in Job, and by the necessity of the word God; God cannot be limited by what He has created.
Therefore, to God, we are already in Heaven with Him because our earthly lives are no more, BUT, they are because, to us, we are still in existence. Does this make sense?
I hope it does. But before there was time, God created everything, and because He exists outside of time, it has all already happened, and we are already in Heaven.
Calvin assumed that God was somehow limited by time; that was his flaw, and sometimes ours as Baptists: We try to somehow limit God. But we serve an all powerful God, one great beyond our imagination! Calvinism doesn't work, however, because he assumed that the 'elect' were chosen, when in fact, God already knows who has chosen Him and His free gift, not the other way around.
I sincerely hope this makes sense and ends the debate.[/QUOTE]
Micah,
Welcome to the BB. But I notice here that your sincere hope is error and does not end the debate. God does not have to learn anything or react to what we do.
You express some wrong ideas that we could discuss as you have more time available.....it has not already happened yet...and for believers , their citizenship is in heaven....but their decaying bodies are still here on earth.
Calvinism works just fine,and hopefully you will see how in the days ahead:thumbsup:
I don't have the time nor energy to read this entire debate, but I do have this to add:
Calvin was correct. God, in His omnipotence, knew who would be saved and who would not. However, how can we assume, with a loving God, that He someone 'elect' these people?
There is not Biblical proof for this assumption. So we must discard it.
However, there is something we've overlooked:
God exists outside of time. He created it. He is not limited by it. "A day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years a day." We find more proof of this in Job, and by the necessity of the word God; God cannot be limited by what He has created.
Therefore, to God, we are already in Heaven with Him because our earthly lives are no more, BUT, they are because, to us, we are still in existence. Does this make sense?
I hope it does. But before there was time, God created everything, and because He exists outside of time, it has all already happened, and we are already in Heaven.
Calvin assumed that God was somehow limited by time; that was his flaw, and sometimes ours as Baptists: We try to somehow limit God. But we serve an all powerful God, one great beyond our imagination! Calvinism doesn't work, however, because he assumed that the 'elect' were chosen, when in fact, God already knows who has chosen Him and His free gift, not the other way around.
I sincerely hope this makes sense and ends the debate.[/QUOTE]
Micah,
Welcome to the BB. But I notice here that your sincere hope is error and does not end the debate. God does not have to learn anything or react to what we do.
You express some wrong ideas that we could discuss as you have more time available.....it has not already happened yet...and for believers , their citizenship is in heaven....but their decaying bodies are still here on earth.
Calvinism works just fine,and hopefully you will see how in the days ahead:thumbsup:
Well, my argument holds several of the *true* tenants Calvinism attempted to uphold, namely that God is all-powerful and all knowing.
Therefore, to Him, all has already taken place. You can accept this as true, correct?
Because He exists outside of time, which He created and does not bind Him.
The 'Elect' idea is preposterous. We cannot be expected to live by Calvin's code of moral ethic behavior. However, because our Savior died for us, and we wish to grow closer with Him and like Him, we will follow HIS laws and commandments to the best of our ability. It has nothing to do with proving something.