Do Calvinist use “Philosophy” or Not?

[Benjamin]

Benjamin, I find you "begging the question" with your survey questions. There is only one conclusion that someone answering your questions can take -- philosophy is bad.

Well, that's exactly what I been hearing on this board as a offense from Calvinist. I'm not begging a question, I'm laying out the arguments I've been hearing on this board to see how many would really like to hold to the ideas as they have been being presented, that they would never use philosophy, it serves no purpose in discussion and that Calvinism is not built upon it.

Let's get real Calvinist. Check all that apply, or quit using them in your arguments!

 

[Benjamin]

Example:

"You can keep your philosophy,,,your ideas of what the gospel is, and your presentation.....I will keep the historic understanding of the faith once delivered to the saints ,as expressed in the historic confessions of the church."


What is the, historic understanding of the faith once delivered to the saints ,as expressed in the historic confessions of the church." based on?


Calvinism is inflexible because it comes from the enlightened understandings of church fathers. ???

Calvinism was God given to the Saints as expressed in the “confession” w/out philosophical input. ???

Originally Posted by Iconoclast
No QF.....it is God given...these men saw it ,and wrote about it in a way that reconciles all the scriptures together.....not just one side of the sword.....

God wants us to study and understand all the truth,or he would not have given it in 66 seperate writings.....of course men are to develop it.

All systems that have been "developed ."are not equal.

Exactly what makes the Calvinist system NOT equal??? That: "it is God given...these men saw it" ??? Please explain the percieved superiority here if it is not based on the "philosophy" of these men.

Calvinism was God given to the Saints as expressed in the “confession” w/out philosophical input. ???

 

[glfredrick]

Well, that's exactly what I been hearing on this board as a offense from Calvinist. I'm not begging a question, I'm laying out the arguments I've been hearing on this board to see how many would really like to hold to the ideas as they have been being presented, that they would never use philosophy, it serves no purpose in discussion and that Calvinism is not built upon it.

Let's get real Calvinist. Check all that apply, or quit using them in your arguments!

Look... You have listed a number of statements and asked people to choose one as best representing their position. Yet, the very proposition that you make in asking these particular statements is false because NONE of the statements accurately represents the actual state of affairs of the Calvinist.

You can continue in your effort to make some sort of point, but I expect that the point you are actually making is not the one you thought that you would make. Rather, it merely makes you look very partisan in your argument and worse, guilty of a number of intentional fallacies, from begging the question to red herring to straw man.

 

[Benjamin]

Glf, It represents the actual state of some of the Calvinist here as I see them. I welcome you to define those "intentional fallacies" because I have merely asked for others to state their views on philosophy being used in the Calvinist system and have stated what I am hearing them say. Friend, that is the practical way to avoid such fallacies in debate that you accuse me of.

Seems you are using Ad Hominem fallacy to state your opinion without even stating your view.

 

[glfredrick]

Glf, It represents the actual state of some of the Calvinist here as I see them. I welcome you to define those "intentional fallacies" because I have merely asked for others to state their views on philosophy being used in the Calvinist system and have stated what I am hearing them say. Friend, that is the practical way to avoid such fallacies in debate that you accuse me of.

Seems you are using Ad Hominem fallacy to state your opinion without even stating your view.

No, you have not "merely asked for others to state their views on philosophy being used in the Calvinist system..." You have NARROWLY DEFINED the results that you wish to discover by the statements that you have offered, hence the fallacy.

To be as fair as you think you are being, you would have needed to include a statement or two with the potential that SCRIPTURE leads the Calvinist, who then may also (as all do!) use philosophy to frame arguments.

In suggesting that the sole root of Calvinism is philosophical, you err -- and now, intentionally so.

 

[preacher4truth]

Glf, It represents the actual state of some of the Calvinist here as I see them. I welcome you to define those "intentional fallacies" because I have merely asked for others to state their views on philosophy being used in the Calvinist system and have stated what I am hearing them say. Friend, that is the practical way to avoid such fallacies in debate that you accuse me of.

Seems you are using Ad Hominem fallacy to state your opinion without even stating your view.

Not even close. You're now attempting to act as if your poll options were accurate representations, rather than options that beg the question. This follows suit with your OP, and you know it.

You and another non-cal/arminian make thread after thread based upon faulty premise after faulty premise as an relentless and incessant assailment upon Calvinist brothers. There is an obsession that is seen in this endeavor. These threads miss the mark as often as they are posted. Many have told you of these things.

Your fixed set of poll options shows you need to do so in order for you to feel correct about your obviously errant theology. You do this so that you feel that you've "won." Why? Well, obviously if you were honest about the whole thing, you'd have to swallow a ton of pride and admit you've lost.

My answer is the only option that would be correct. All others are nonsense, begging the question, and loaded in a sense.

In addition to the above, your theology has disregarded the omnis of God, exalted man and reason unduly, and embrace an erroneously and false representation of lost man.

The most interesting thing is you continue to do so totally oblivious to these glaring facts.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So...Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Owen, Watson, Bunyan, Whitfield, Spurgeon, LLoyd-Jones, MacArthur... You're saying their REAL problem was that they just didn't have a "widespread understanding of the whole Bible"? Something their Arminian counterparts did happen to have?

You may want to try that wonderful feature called "Ignore" ..... I love it!:love2:

 

[preacher4truth]

You may want to try that wonderful feature called "Ignore" ..... I love it!:love2:

Yes, I agree it is time as well. He's earned it. :thumbsup: :wavey:

 

[preachinjesus]

Benjamin, I find you "begging the question" with your survey questions. There is only one conclusion that someone answering your questions can take -- philosophy is bad.

This is exactly what I was thinking.

We ALL use philosophy, which is the "seeking of wisdom" -- something the very Scriptures tell us to do. But what canot happen is the elevation of a philosophical argument ABOVE the distinct and specific revelation of God in the Text.

True, though one might say that, historically, "philosophy is the handmaiden of theology."

Truth is that all theological/philosophical (yes, I conflate the two terms a bit) systems (like Calvinism) have a predominating motif/foundation through which they interpret and understand their claims and propositions. It is okay for this to happen because it is natural and necessary.

The simple truth is that we all use some framework, or lens, to interpret/understand reality.

 

[marke]

That's your prerogative, I just don't know if it's accurate to say that those men who DO agree with large portions of calvinism simply need more bible study to "widen" their understanding of scripture.

I will exercise my perogative, then, to also point out the fact that wisdom comes from God and no amount of study will ever open the eyes of anyone not meeting the conditions of humility, subjection, purity, etc. The biggest stumblingblock to Bible scholors, I think, is not realizing the depth of their ignorance, sin, and inability to understand truth apart from revelation from God. I believe people easily get off on the wrong idea and get stuck there if they are not careful, causing a sort of permanent loss of vision in that area.

I had been saved for nearly 30 years when I was put through some serious trials by the marvelous grace of God, and was forced, at that time, to beg God for help about many things at once. One thing that was of serious importance to me was a doctrine issue which split the church I had been a member of for all but about the first 3 years of my Christian life. I was forced to question my own understanding about that doctrine and other things and discovered I did not know how to "lean not unto my own understanding". (Prov 3:5-7). How does a person put his own understanding on the altar to have it tested by fire? How can we give up what we think if it is wrong so that the Lord may give us what is right, especially since we cannot ever believe we are wrong about what we think is right?

The Lord showed me, after many months of what was to me a period of agony, how that is done. Job and his 3 friends beat one another over the head with their stout, unyielding view of the 'truth' (they were all leaning unto their own understanding, and were proud of their 'right understanding' which wasn't even right. Elihu, however, was the one who actually was right, but he didn't come through like a human bushhog and mow everyone down with his views. Instead, he waited until the end, and spoke with love and humility, showing Job the respect due to an old man, and telling of his desire to see Job justified in the end.

There is one major 'key' I believe, that the Lord showed me about Elihu which revealed to me what it meant to lean not unto our own understanding. The English word 'argument' and its derivatives is found in the Bible only in the Book of Job, as far as I know. Job is a Book about arguing the Bible, among other things, which is ironic, since there was no written word of God at the time, as far as I know. Job and his friends were stiff in their arguments with no room for reception of the contrary arguments of their friends.

Elihu, on the other hand did not slap his interpretation down on the table and rebuke the others if they did not automatically agree with what he was saying. Instead, Elihu used the word "opinion" to effectively present his views to the others with the invitation for them to correct him if he was wrong. But he was not wrong, and the Lord picked up right behind Elihu in Chapter 38 with the same reasonings that Elihu begin to introduce in Chapter 32. It was in chapter 32 where we find Elihu referring to his presentation of the truth of God as his own 'opinions.' This was totally different from the approach of the rest of the men. Elihu used the word "opinion" 3 times in Chapter 32 in this manner, and the word is found nowhere else in the entire Bible.

 

[Benjamin]

No, you have not "merely asked for others to state their views on philosophy being used in the Calvinist system..." You have NARROWLY DEFINED the results that you wish to discover by the statements that you have offered, hence the fallacy.

To be as fair as you think you are being, you would have needed to include a statement or two with the potential that SCRIPTURE leads the Calvinist, who then may also (as all do!) use philosophy to frame arguments.

In suggesting that the sole root of Calvinism is philosophical, you err -- and now, intentionally so.

This is ridiculous and hypocritical that my opponent would resort to a personal attack (Ad Hominem fallacy) of saying I “intentionally” left out scripture when the premise is about the use of “philosophy” to develop the system of Calvinism while he accuses me of strawman, red herring, and begging the question fallacies.

Strawman? Can there be a strawman when one asks his opponents to select an option or explain what they disagree with? No

Red herring? I have not distracted from the origin point that part of Calvinism is based on philosophy and clarified that point in post #6. Therefore my opponent has built a strawman fallacy with his Ad Hominem claim. Further, my opponent distracts from the premise with his own red herring while committing the perfectionist fallacy (where if the premise isn’t perfect to include all aspects of a subject then that would justify throwing out the whole premise)

Begging the Question? How could I be asking my audience to except a premise that is as controversial the conclusion when I haven’t yet begun to form a conclusion as I am clearly still asking for the opponents to deny or confirm that philosophy is part of their Calvinistic system?

Further, I have given examples and asked for explanation of how the Calvinist system is superior (being that all theological systems are built on the philosophies of men). Again, I have not received an answer, but only a smokescreen full of fallacious personal accusations against my intent by someone who is clearly revealing his philosophical shortcomings of determining and defining philosophical fallacies and doing so in a hypocritical way.

 

[Benjamin]

Double post

 

[Benjamin]

Not even close. You're now attempting to act as if your poll options were accurate representations, rather than options that beg the question. This follows suit with your OP, and you know it.

You and another non-cal/arminian make thread after thread based upon faulty premise after faulty premise as an relentless and incessant assailment upon Calvinist brothers. There is an obsession that is seen in this endeavor. These threads miss the mark as often as they are posted. Many have told you of these things.

“You, you, you, Wah, wah , wah, you are picking on my brothers and others have told you this so it must be true.”

I do think you believe any premise against your “superior” system to be “faulty” but you have yet to explain “philosophically” how that is. Whining is not a philosophical form of debate.

Your fixed set of poll options shows you need to do so in order for you to feel correct about your obviously errant theology. You do this so that you feel that you've "won." Why? Well, obviously if you were honest about the whole thing, you'd have to swallow a ton of pride and admit you've lost.

I asked Calvinist to confirm or deny with explanation whether or not philosophy is part of their system. You talk about who has won, or lost, and pride, and feelings, and name calling on theology, needs, motives, but this too is not a ligitimate form of philosophical debate.

My answer is the only option that would be correct. All others are nonsense, begging the question, and loaded in a sense.

:laugh: Saying only your answer is correct and all others is nonsense is a good example of begging the question but I didn’t give that example, you just did.

P.S. quit trying to feed off Gif's accusations, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

In addition to the above, your theology has disregarded the omnis of God, exalted man and reason unduly, and embrace an erroneously and false representation of lost man.

This has nothing to do with the premise. Do you know what you just did is called???

The most interesting thing is you continue to do so totally oblivious to these glaring facts.

What facts??? I haven’t seen you engage in anything but whining, trying to change divert the subject and focusing on me. But I do find it interesting how you go about debate.

 

[Iconoclast]

Example:

"You can keep your philosophy,,,your ideas of what the gospel is, and your presentation.....I will keep the historic understanding of the faith once delivered to the saints ,as expressed in the historic confessions of the church."


What is the, historic understanding of the faith once delivered to the saints ,as expressed in the historic confessions of the church." based on?


Calvinism is inflexible because it comes from the enlightened understandings of church fathers. ???

Calvinism was God given to the Saints as expressed in the “confession” w/out philosophical input. ???




Exactly what makes the Calvinist system NOT equal??? That: "it is God given...these men saw it" ??? Please explain the percieved superiority here if it is not based on the "philosophy" of these men.

Calvinism was God given to the Saints as expressed in the “confession” w/out philosophical input. ???

Some see it this way.....

The address of the Apostle Paul to the philosophical council at Athens
(Acts 17:16–34), the first recorded intellectual confrontation between biblical
Christianity and Greek philosophy, was an apologetic [defense of the faith] in
terms of a Christian Theistic World–and–Life View. See Question 136. It is
the locus classicus of apologetics in Scripture (Cf. Rom. 1:18–25; 1 Cor.
10:3–5; Phil. 1:7, 17; 1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 3). His words were the most profound
ever uttered in that ancient center of pagan philosophy. To adequately
comprehend this statement, it must be noted that this address was the
culmination of several weeks of daily preaching Christ in the agora, which
explains the necessary doctrinal background of his final defense, and why he
need not specifically name our Lord (Acts 17:16–18).His theme was the nature and character of God (Acts 17:22–24), his
intimate relation with and his sovereign rule over all creation (Acts 17:24–25),
the unity of the human race (Acts 17:26), the rise and fall of succeeding
civilizations (Acts 17:26), the nature of man as God’s image–bearer (Acts
17:26–28), his fallen condition (Acts 17:27, 30), the willful ignorance and
culpability of idolatry (Acts 17:28), and impending judgment based upon the
resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 17:30–31). Although he quoted no
Scripture, every statement was a declaration which was firmly grounded in
Divine revelation. The Apostle’s apologetic was thoroughly presuppositional.
Quest. 122: How does the believer’s world–and–life view differ
from that of the unbeliever?
Ans: The believer’s world–and–life view is God–given, scriptural,
and therefore self–consistent and transcendent, in contrast to
236
that of the unbeliever, which is self–appropriated, unscriptural,
and therefore inconsistent and inadequate.
Prov. 14:12. There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the
end thereof are the ways of death.
Matt. 4:4. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live
by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of
God.
2 Tim. 3:16–17. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly
furnished unto all good works.
See also: Gen. 1:1; Psa. 139:1–18; Prov. 16:25; Acts 17:22–31; Rom.
11:33–36; Rev. 4:11.
COMMENTARY
Individuals usually develop or choose their own philosophy of life or
world–view. It may be through religious teaching, speculative philosophical
education, or empirically through the process of science or life experiences.Many are quite unaware of their world–view and its implications until they
are forced to come to terms with both it and themselves. Most approaches to
life and meaning in our day are existential [wholly subjective] or postmodern
[relativistic, pluralistic and meaningless in objective communication], and so
are fragmented [lacking a coherent unity], and therefore inadequate or
contradictory and often entirely subjective or irrational. This results from the
lack of any metaphysical basis, absolutes or adequate religious foundation for
morality and ethics. Such people are adrift on a sea of contingency and
uncertainty. These learn little or nothing from the past, live only for the
present, and have at the most an irrational hope for the future.The believer, by contrast, is given his world–and–life view from God in
the Scriptures. The Bible is to form his pou sto [lit: “[a place] where I may
stand”] or point–of–reference. The Scriptures are to him, through the work of
the Holy Spirit in regeneration (Jn. 3:3, 5), conversion (1 Thess. 2:13) and
illumination (1 Jn. 2:20, 27), the very Word of God. By virtue of his new
spiritual state of grace, he is given a new point–of–reference, and so a set of
scriptural absolutes, a new morality, ethic, meaning and purpose for the
present, and hope for the future (Matt. 4:4; 2 Tim. 3:16–17). His world–and–
life view is then inclusive and harmonious, and both self–consistent and
transcendent [prophetically reaches into the future] (1 Thess. 4:13–18; 2 Pet.
3:7–14; 1 Jn. 3:1–3). This is the ideal. His Christian experience is fitted to
bring him more and more into conformity with it. The key, then, to such
conformity and consistency is faith––faith in the triune, self–disclosing God
of Scripture, and thus faith in his infallible Word. It is all of Scripture
[consistently interpreted] for all of life.

taken from:
http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/a-baptist-catechism-with-commentary/18626506

used by permission.

Exactly what makes the Calvinist system NOT equal??? That: "it is God given...these men saw it" ??? Please explain the percieved superiority here if it is not based on the "philosophy" of these men.

Calvinism was God given to the Saints as expressed in the “confession” w/out philosophical input. ???

The reformed confessions and cathechisms.....state a doctrine,give a very tight and concise explantion of the doctrine, and the verses that teach the doctrine.

where do you see philosophy rather thanscripture as the basis here?
http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc03.html

 

[Benjamin]

Look what the cat drug in!

Now, if you’re trying to say the Calvinist system is entirely God given and therefore inerrant rather than a system derived through the philosophy of men and therefore superior to all other theologies then you shouldn’t be opposed to checking the last 5 options. Don’t be shy Iconoclast, check away. I’m waiting for a Calvinist to confirm they have this belief and you are definitely one of my best candidates. If not, please do tell me why you are opposed to any phikosophical debate and why you would consider it carnal and how the system of Calvinism is any different? And please do use your own words.

 

[Benjamin]

So far we have 3 people who confess to believe that Calvinism has "nothing to do with philosophy"; it is built strictly on scriptural language.

But I have to ask how does one go about "building" a theology (Calvinism) from the scriptural language? Or is scriptural language and the theological principles of Calvinism the same thing? Is Calvinism God breathed?

 

[Benjamin]

where do you see philosophy rather thanscripture as the basis here?
http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc03.html

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

1. The above unquestionably firstly declares determinism.

2. Then rightly declares God is not the author of sin.

3. The author(s) also seem to understand the theological fatality “if” violence is done to the will of the creature.

BUT:

4. Then offer their argument of compatibility by resting on the flawed philosophy of creaturely will having liberty because of possessing second cause ability. Therein they have they failed in their argument that both determinism ("unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass") and no violence has been done to freewill ("nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures") are compatible. They have not only offered violence toward freewill but make an empty claim to have established creaturely “second causes” as the way of getting around the problem with their view of determinism that it is not doing damage to the will of the creature.

Free will should be defined as volition and this sustains the meaning that a creature has the ability to consciously choose; one can not do both, have this ability and not have this ability in any logical sense. If creaturely response is determined by causal means to have an irresistible effect on the creature then creaturely volition logically becomes void.

To claim the creature only has the liberty of freedom of the will through secondary cause does not “establish” the free ability of the creature to consciously choose, on the contrary it establishes a pre-determinate (first) cause which restricts the creatures ability to freely and of his own will to consciously choose.


The confession is not scripture. It is purely based on philosophical theory about scripture. Listing a bunch of scriptures at the bottom does not mean that the authors of the “confession” have not based their statement above with flawed reasoning from within their own philosophy. Their words are not scripture or the equivalent, they are a philosophical expression of what they believe the scriptures suggest, no more, no less.

 

[Iconoclast]

So far we have 3 people who confess to believe that Calvinism has "nothing to do with philosophy"; it is built strictly on scriptural language.

But I have to ask how does one go about "building" a theology (Calvinism) from the scriptural language? Or is scriptural language and the theological principles of Calvinism the same thing? Is Calvinism God breathed?

Well...
why don't you use the 1689 confession as i asked you to do...and show how it is not derived from scriptures that they offered?
Did you read the quote from the catechism? The last paragraph offered.
We are to be scripturally based persons.....to think God's thoughts after Him.
As I have posted several times.....we deal in scripture, scripture meaning,scripture systematized,scripture read, scripture believed.

But I have to ask how does one go about "building" a theology (Calvinism) from the scriptural language?

My language,just for you my friend....i will use green letters today...so you do not get spooked by my cultic ways....

After Gen 1:1...and all that means...
We have to look first off at the cross.
Something pretty bad must have happened to need the cross.

To go from creation to Gen 1:31......to the fall,sin and death...is radical.
Moses was not there......so.....we are 100% dependant upon God to tell us what life is about, what spiritual life and death is about, and How God our creator,sustainer, redeemer, and judge.....deals with His creation, that he alone can give meaning to. Human philosophy tells us squat,about any of it.

Only Divine revelation can explain our situation. What does Divine revelation tell us? In Adam all die......In Christ all live.

What language does God use to describe our reality?
Life,sin, death,alienation,wickedness, evil, seed,promise, covenant, covenant mercy,loyal love,I will be their God, they shall be my people, Israel,calling,election, predestination,oath, blood sacrifice,type,shadow, heaven ,hell, repentance,redemption, atonement,grace the gift of God,coming to Jesus, believers, My sheep, those given of the Father,the church, the new jerusalem,In Christ......justified,sanctified,glorified.......saints,servants,godliness, holiness, new man,
What word has been used to describe those who believe and study these truths of God?
calvinism,and calvinists
How do we know this?
They have written confessions of faith ,using the scripture,the word of God written...to explain as clearly as they could all the revelation of God given to the church by God given pastors and teachers..using the scripture They do not shrink back from declaring all areas of scripture...not just the happy promise verses but also those verses that deal with sin,death and judgement.
Don't all christians do this???

No.....some pick and choose what parts they agree with,.....then some replace the scripture with human , carnal reasoning, philosophy,speculation...
debate rules, and techniques.... formulas..if x==this,and why does this..then

Well...isn't questioning and debating....good?

It can be ...if the heart motive is correct. it can be wicked and ungodly however when God,and His revelation are questioned with a view to attempt{in vain] to bring him down to a human level as in psalm 50;
[QUOTE21These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.

22Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.

23Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I shew the salvation of God.
][/QUOTE]

I have cautioned non cals...not to say...you would never worship a God who is the same as the one described by calvinists...or to ascribe evil, or sin unto him. Some questions offered here are evil,and vile.

Well Benjamin......maybe you can check now....and see ....if with my big fat hands and poor typing skills.....maybe I mis-spelled a word[phikosophy]....or when you request I "put it in my own words".......are you looking to come to truth from scripture? Or are you looking for a "gotcha".....that is a word or phrase that I used that you can seize and try to put me down-[some how, when you do this ,it is not an ad hominem attack] but when a cal does..it is. This then gives you an excuse not to deal with the scripture.

No one is saying that men do not use reason,or reasoning to think out and see what the teaching is. The objection from this side, that you describe as whinning..is when at all costs you and others resist the scripture as a complete unit,a double edged sword.....then hide behind;

a couple of verses , out of context. 2pet3:9 as an example..thinking they negate the massive amount of correctly used verses....

or worse still... a complete abandoning of scripture ...which should be our source......for subjective ideas.....philosophy outside of scripture...that you can go on and on about...with endless questions, about the wording,and phrases......I see that kind of approach that you do described here:

3As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

4Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

 

[quantumfaith]

Well...
why don't you use the 1689 confession as i asked you to do...and show how it is not derived from scriptures that they offered?
Did you read the quote from the catechism? The last paragraph offered.
We are to be scripturally based persons.....to think God's thoughts after Him.
As I have posted several times.....we deal in scripture, scripture meaning,scripture systematized,scripture read, scripture believed.



My language,just for you my friend....i will use green letters today...so you do not get spooked by my cultic ways....

After Gen 1:1...and all that means...
We have to look first off at the cross.
Something pretty bad must have happened to need the cross.

To go from creation to Gen 1:31......to the fall,sin and death...is radical.
Moses was not there......so.....we are 100% dependant upon God to tell us what life is about, what spiritual life and death is about, and How God our creator,sustainer, redeemer, and judge.....deals with His creation, that he alone can give meaning to. Human philosophy tells us squat,about any of it.

Only Divine revelation can explain our situation. What does Divine revelation tell us? In Adam all die......In Christ all live.

What language does God use to describe our reality?
Life,sin, death,alienation,wickedness, evil, seed,promise, covenant, covenant mercy,loyal love,I will be their God, they shall be my people, Israel,calling,election, predestination,oath, blood sacrifice,type,shadow, heaven ,hell, repentance,redemption, atonement,grace the gift of God,coming to Jesus, believers, My sheep, those given of the Father,the church, the new jerusalem,In Christ......justified,sanctified,glorified.......saints,servants,godliness, holiness, new man,
What word has been used to describe those who believe and study these truths of God?
calvinism,and calvinists
How do we know this?
They have written confessions of faith ,using the scripture,the word of God written...to explain as clearly as they could all the revelation of God given to the church by God given pastors and teachers..using the scripture They do not shrink back from declaring all areas of scripture...not just the happy promise verses but also those verses that deal with sin,death and judgement.
Don't all christians do this???


Are you saying that ONLY calvinists have written and prepared defining and declaratory statements regarding our christian faith ( I certainly hope not)

No.....some pick and choose what parts they agree with,.....then some replace the scripture with human , carnal reasoning, philosophy,speculation...
debate rules, and techniques.... formulas..if x==this,and why does this..then

Well...isn't questioning and debating....good?

It can be ...if the heart motive is correct. it can be wicked and ungodly however when God,and His revelation are questioned with a view to attempt{in vain] to bring him down to a human level as in psalm 50;

You are correct on the heart (motive) thing, but YOU cannot know anothers heart just like I cannot KNOW yours. All we have is our human abilities to understand God (intellectually), trying to understand God the best ways that we can in no way indicates an attempt to bring God to our level.

[QUOTE21These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.

22Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.

23Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I shew the salvation of God.
]

I have cautioned non cals...not to say...you would never worship a God who is the same as the one described by calvinists...or to ascribe evil, or sin unto him. Some questions offered here are evil,and vile.

ICON, I do not think such a charge happens often, and I think you know it is one of a visceral reaction to the heated exchanges that happen here "occasionally".

Well Benjamin......maybe you can check now....and see ....if with my big fat hands and poor typing skills.....maybe I mis-spelled a word[phikosophy]....or when you request I "put it in my own words".......are you looking to come to truth from scripture? Or are you looking for a "gotcha".....that is a word or phrase that I used that you can seize and try to put me down-[some how, when you do this ,it is not an ad hominem attack] but when a cal does..it is. This then gives you an excuse not to deal with the scripture.

No one is saying that men do not use reason,or reasoning to think out and see what the teaching is. The objection from this side, that you describe as whinning..is when at all costs you and others resist the scripture as a complete unit,a double edged sword.....then hide behind;

This is just such a charge that brings out the reactions. The implication again being, me and those in my camp are the only ones who truly understand and revere scripture properly.

a couple of verses , out of context. 2pet3:9 as an example..thinking they negate the massive amount of correctly used verses....

or worse still... a complete abandoning of scripture ...which should be our source......for subjective ideas.....philosophy outside of scripture...that you can go on and on about...with endless questions, about the wording,and phrases......I see that kind of approach that you do described here:
[/QUOTE]

 

[preacher4truth]

Well...
why don't you use the 1689 confession as i asked you to do...and show how it is not derived from scriptures that they offered?
Did you read the quote from the catechism? The last paragraph offered.
We are to be scripturally based persons.....to think God's thoughts after Him.
As I have posted several times.....we deal in scripture, scripture meaning,scripture systematized,scripture read, scripture believed.



My language,just for you my friend....i will use green letters today...so you do not get spooked by my cultic ways....

After Gen 1:1...and all that means...
We have to look first off at the cross.
Something pretty bad must have happened to need the cross.

To go from creation to Gen 1:31......to the fall,sin and death...is radical.
Moses was not there......so.....we are 100% dependant upon God to tell us what life is about, what spiritual life and death is about, and How God our creator,sustainer, redeemer, and judge.....deals with His creation, that he alone can give meaning to. Human philosophy tells us squat,about any of it.

Only Divine revelation can explain our situation. What does Divine revelation tell us? In Adam all die......In Christ all live.

What language does God use to describe our reality?
Life,sin, death,alienation,wickedness, evil, seed,promise, covenant, covenant mercy,loyal love,I will be their God, they shall be my people, Israel,calling,election, predestination,oath, blood sacrifice,type,shadow, heaven ,hell, repentance,redemption, atonement,grace the gift of God,coming to Jesus, believers, My sheep, those given of the Father,the church, the new jerusalem,In Christ......justified,sanctified,glorified.......saints,servants,godliness, holiness, new man,
What word has been used to describe those who believe and study these truths of God?
calvinism,and calvinists
How do we know this?
They have written confessions of faith ,using the scripture,the word of God written...to explain as clearly as they could all the revelation of God given to the church by God given pastors and teachers..using the scripture They do not shrink back from declaring all areas of scripture...not just the happy promise verses but also those verses that deal with sin,death and judgement.
Don't all christians do this???

No.....some pick and choose what parts they agree with,.....then some replace the scripture with human , carnal reasoning, philosophy,speculation...
debate rules, and techniques.... formulas..if x==this,and why does this..then

Well...isn't questioning and debating....good?

It can be ...if the heart motive is correct. it can be wicked and ungodly however when God,and His revelation are questioned with a view to attempt{in vain] to bring him down to a human level as in psalm 50;
[QUOTE21These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.

22Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.

23Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I shew the salvation of God.
]

I have cautioned non cals...not to say...you would never worship a God who is the same as the one described by calvinists...or to ascribe evil, or sin unto him. Some questions offered here are evil,and vile.

Well Benjamin......maybe you can check now....and see ....if with my big fat hands and poor typing skills.....maybe I mis-spelled a word[phikosophy]....or when you request I "put it in my own words".......are you looking to come to truth from scripture? Or are you looking for a "gotcha".....that is a word or phrase that I used that you can seize and try to put me down-[some how, when you do this ,it is not an ad hominem attack] but when a cal does..it is. This then gives you an excuse not to deal with the scripture.

No one is saying that men do not use reason,or reasoning to think out and see what the teaching is. The objection from this side, that you describe as whinning..is when at all costs you and others resist the scripture as a complete unit,a double edged sword.....then hide behind;

a couple of verses , out of context. 2pet3:9 as an example..thinking they negate the massive amount of correctly used verses....

or worse still... a complete abandoning of scripture ...which should be our source......for subjective ideas.....philosophy outside of scripture...that you can go on and on about...with endless questions, about the wording,and phrases......I see that kind of approach that you do described here:



I think I'll use red, to make this like the colors of Christmas. :laugh:

Great respopnse. You are correct in your "gotcha" assessment. Non-cals will look for any loophole, even a typo in order to cast aside all else that is said that affirms they are incorrect. It is a needed out, and one they look for instead of enduring the facts presented from the Scriptures.

One has to see plainly that what is presented after this purposed dismissal of Scriptural proofs is nothing more than philosophical reasonings, better yet, it is basing ones beliefs on their own logic. "Seems right? Must be right. Seems unfair? Can't be of God." The problem with this philosophy lies within its failure to weigh those thoughts against the truth of God's Word.