Do Calvinist use “Philosophy” or Not?

[Iconoclast]

Quantum,

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

My point is that when all view points are examined,calvinism makes the most well rounded and scripturally based arguments.The language I used in the post...the biblical language.....all of it...is found all the time in calvinism,ie, election, covenant, decree, predestination,foreknowledge....

Others who do not agree.....subtract or re-define the terms ,changing and watering down the teaching......
QF....how often does your church not only mention ,but teach these things?
I recall our friend Robert Snow proudly declaring something about his pastor has not taught or mentioned calvinism or its teaching in 40 years!
QF.....let me ask you...honestly.....does your pastor deal with eph1, or romans 8-9 jn 10...directly.....or does he avoid it,talk around it?
then claim it's all a mystery...both sides are somehow true...we have to agree to disagree,etc:thumbsup:

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.

when you hear us say- an attempt to bring God down- what is meant is that we see God high and lifted up as Isa 6 describes........you will not see calvinists even suggesting the possibility that God is the author of sin, or somehow is unfair, or that we would ask those questions that the apostle Paul answers in Romans 9......We start with Isa6, or the view of rev 4-5 ..the lamb on the throne...and never diminish that view.....we start with the scripturally revealed view....we believe it as it is revealed....we do not soften it......behold the goodness,and severity of God.
Romans 11:22
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
A recent example is Benjamin saying the "message" we need to give is God is only love,goodness, and truth........and that those of us that would present both sides of the coin...are somehow looking to jump at the chance to declare God's judgement. It is being faithful to the other persons soul.

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

We do not agree on these things...but I would NEVER say...if I was wrong in my understanding ...and you were 100% correct...that I could not worship God as you see Him,....that would be to deny HIM.

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.

Let me suggest..this is already a reaction.....when we are accused of teaching error....we go to scripture...we seek to interact with the verses...

Look at post 37.....when asked to examine the confession-and the scriptures offered- what is given instead is terms and definitions which we do not agree on the subjective definitions and language used....compatablism,determinism,causitive, will.........yet no scripture whatsoever...the scriptures offered in the confession are ignored completely
I for one reject those terms as used...so there is no response to those terms which mis-represent the issue as the scripture speaks of these things.

This is what I tried to convey to you the other day.....To have a bible...then explain away the words used....election ,foreknowledge, predestination......is not to have the bible at all

Hath God said you shall surely die? you shall not surely die,but God does know..... [this is no longer to have the word of God]

 

[glfredrick]

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 philosophical 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, you make a claim to base your interpretation of your own preferred theological system purely on the Scriptures, but then you come along with very philosophical questions. Pot meet kettle...

In truth, ALL discussions of ANYTHING are of a certainty based on some form of philosophical logic. All includes your own efforts, your cited post above, which has not one line of Scripture, but merely probes via logic and propositional statement.

We admit this. But that is far removed from begging the question that the entire system called (in your case, pejoratively) "Calvinism" is BASED in philosophy instead of driven by Scripture.

You have picked up on a term and are seeking to make some headway in exploring the nature of that term (philosophy) and by your line of reasoning, you seem to be implying that there is something wrong with philosophy. If you were making a metaphor we could rightly say that you are mixing metaphors. In this case, using philosophical language, you are neither coherent nor does your proposition make because it is fundamentally flawed.

Now, back to the discussion of Calvinism. Do you realize that ANY view of soteriology that can be expressed propositionally (as in a theological statement) MUST be argued in philosophical terms? All are based in a discussion of the ordo salutis and make attempt to discern (from Scripture) the order of God's decrees for salvation. That you do not grasp that fact is evident from your posts, but that is okay, we can explore the doctrines and the ramifications thereof.

So, before you simply come shooting from the hip in an area that you plainly do not understand, why not first do some background reading on the order of God's decrees then get back to us with another thread where this can be discussed in some rational manner. And, yes, YOU DO have an ordo salutis that you hold. You probably cannot articulate it, hence your confusion, but ALL soteriological expressions fit somewhere within that purview of theology. It is impossible to hold a soteriological position without it, and it is obvious that you do hold a position, so figure out where you stand then get off this "you are making this stuff up" kick.

 

[Iconoclast]

Benjamin, you make a claim to base your interpretation of your own preferred theological system purely on the Scriptures, but then you come along with very philosophical questions. Pot meet kettle...

In truth, ALL discussions of ANYTHING are of a certainty based on some form of philosophical logic. All includes your own efforts, your cited post above, which has not one line of Scripture, but merely probes via logic and propositional statement.

We admit this. But that is far removed from begging the question that the entire system called (in your case, pejoratively) "Calvinism" is BASED in philosophy instead of driven by Scripture.

You have picked up on a term and are seeking to make some headway in exploring the nature of that term (philosophy) and by your line of reasoning, you seem to be implying that there is something wrong with philosophy. If you were making a metaphor we could rightly say that you are mixing metaphors. In this case, using philosophical language, you are neither coherent nor does your proposition make because it is fundamentally flawed.

Now, back to the discussion of Calvinism. Do you realize that ANY view of soteriology that can be expressed propositionally (as in a theological statement) MUST be argued in philosophical terms? All are based in a discussion of the ordo salutis and make attempt to discern (from Scripture) the order of God's decrees for salvation. That you do not grasp that fact is evident from your posts, but that is okay, we can explore the doctrines and the ramifications thereof.

So, before you simply come shooting from the hip in an area that you plainly do not understand, why not first do some background reading on the order of God's decrees then get back to us with another thread where this can be discussed in some rational manner. And, yes, YOU DO have an ordo salutis that you hold. You probably cannot articulate it, hence your confusion, but ALL soteriological expressions fit somewhere within that purview of theology. It is impossible to hold a soteriological position without it, and it is obvious that you do hold a position, so figure out where you stand then get off this "you are making this stuff up" kick.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[marke]

Do you realize that you have offered a "philosophical" answer and not a Scriptural exegesis to this issue? :laugh:

I really favor Biblical exegesis because I believe the power of God is in the word of God more than in our exogeses of the word of God. But I didn't really see a clear opening here to begin an indepth exegesis of a particular tenet of Calvinism. I am willing, however, to fully support the opinions I hold with the scriptures which gave me those opinions. This, then, I guess, is another philosophical explanation of my thinking about the way I do and think what I do and think.

 

[Benjamin]

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.

Look at you two “colorful” personalities trying to distract from the premise with multiple personal attacks and off subject issues, soo out of character for sure. I’ll address this one personal conflict because Iconoclast, first, I don’t want you to feel personally put down, I will stop teasing you about your typo. It was meant as what is called a “rhetorical horse laugh” not to hurt your feelers or to cause a distraction. I apologize, thought you would have a bit thicker skin.

Little, to practically none of either of your posts addresses the premise or answers any of the questions put forth. But I suppose that is to be expected from a couple of Calvinist who wish to proudly declare themselves as having no part of philosophy. I know you two only want to senselessly argue without reasoning and goals that philosophy would help establish, but I will humor you this time while I use your off topic issues and try to draw the discussion back to the premise.

While you discount philosophy you make the claim that non-cals will only use a couple of verses out of context, resist the scripture as a complete unit, or as a double edged sword and claim we will hide behind those couple of scriptures and philosophy about them. You are offering up an argument, a claim that that is how non-cals operate. Yet, I remember a debate not long ago about man seeking God where I offered a multitude of scriptures showing that man seeks God to Iconoclast and P4T’s reasoning about how one verse saying men do not seek God and you both continued to claim there could be no other explanation while you attempted to hold on to that man had no such ability to seek God. The best response I got to those scriptires after repeatedly pointing to them along with the reasoning was, "All I see is a bunch of scripture and words"...obviously a refusal to engage in rational debate about the scriptures! ( a reminder here boys, seeking God is not the subject here, but philosophy so don’t take this as an invitation to go off on a smokescreen and avoid the argument at hand, please) Well, I could offer up the same argument and say you were only using one verse out of context, resisting the scripture as a complete unit, or as a double edged sword and hiding behind that one scripture and only “philosophizing” about it. Of course to do that would be to discount the value of rational argument and that would be very ignorant of me.

The point is you will deny using philosophy and claim you are only using scripture when it actuality what you are doing is relying on holding to a philosophical system of others over your own reasoning. I know you use philosophy, what I resent is that when you do not want to reason you conveniently start putting philosophy down and claim that you only hold to scripture and we only want to use philosophy. It is simply mistaken and immature to suggest such a thing. It is an intellectually dishonest claim to make and merely used as an excuse to not engage in reasoning so that you can continue to loudly beat your drums. Worse yet it is vice for you even though you will go as far as to hold to the philosophy of other men rather than use your own God given ability to reason.

Iconoclast often won’t even use his own words or reason and will turn to the alternative to either use the words and reason of other men which hold to your particular system to support your theology, which is far from being led by the scripture. Or otherwise you will cop out with claiming you or they have the scriptural insight and the only possible interpretation while banking on the “authoritative” figures you use which are not here to reason and continue refusing to rationally reason through established guidelines designed to draw out the truth in arguments (called “philosophy’). Yet, if asked about the reasoning behind your interpretation you turn back to the philosophical system of Calvinism as if the measurement by which scripture must be interpreted and the words of men such as those who wrote the confession as being superiorly authoritative. “This then gives you an excuse not to deal with the scripture.” Nothing more.

Without recognition of philosophical principles all discussions with you two become circular, illogical and meaningless arguments. You two seem to take pride if the fact you can not be proven wrong in your own minds because you can avoid rational discussion all day long while continuing to beat your Calvinist drums. This is a Christian debate board and should not be treated as a place that is not interested in drawing out the truth through guided principles of philosophical reasoning but only for childishly beating ones drum so loudly that all other rational discussion is interfered with.

 

[Benjamin]

We admit this. But that is far removed from begging the question that the entire system called (in your case, pejoratively) "Calvinism" is BASED in philosophy instead of driven by Scripture.

Your "peanut gallery" admits nothing to the sort!

You have picked up on a term and are seeking to make some headway in exploring the nature of that term (philosophy)

You have come on here totally missing the point and began making personal accusations which were addressed and philosphically discounted, now you have managed to avoid that discussion which showed your ignorance in the principles. You now come back with another smokescreen against me while clearly showing you've missed the forementioned points and instead of addressing those already thoroughly refuted start anew claiming I'm hoping to have made some "headway" through philosophy is some term I just up on. What a childish, in your face about philosphy comeback you have made!

Now, back to the discussion of Calvinism. Do you realize that ANY view of soteriology that can be expressed propositionally (as in a theological statement) MUST be argued in philosophical terms?

What on God's green earth do you think I have been saying?!? Get a clue!

So, before you simply come shooting from the hip in an area that you plainly do not understand,

Once again, after avoidance of my point for point rebutal of your prior smokescreen argument you present a perfect example of attempting drawing the discussion into an Ad Hominem which actually discribes what you have done here to a tee. What a hypocritical and ignorant thing to say!

 

[preacher4truth]

Ad hominem?

You mean things like "hypocritical and ignorant" leveled upon another?

 

[Benjamin]

Look at post 37.....when asked to examine the confession-and the scriptures offered- what is given instead is terms and definitions which we do not agree on the subjective definitions and language used....compatablism,determinism,causitive, will.........yet no scripture whatsoever...the scriptures offered in the confession are ignored completely
I for one reject those terms as used...so there is no response to those terms which mis-represent the issue as the scripture speaks of these things.

Incredible, you ask others to address the reasoning of the confession and present how any philosophy is in it, which is clearly exposed with their terms like "second causes" and their arguments to have "established" a way not to do violence to the creatures will by reasoning. Then expect someone else to address all aspects of how they "might" have come to their reasoning through the scriptures they presented at the bottom of their argument "without" using terms and definitions.

IOW's you want no part of philosphical terms and definitions unless they are given by the authority of the authors of the confession. Again, how is the confession's confession superior in scriptural language rather than a philosphical expression. Your options are still available for you to check Icon whenever you're ready to man-up.

 

[Benjamin]

Ad hominem?

You mean things like "hypocritical and ignorant" leveled upon another?

Leveled at the issue he raised, my man. There is a post (#33) waiting for you which you should examine closely and take note of and learn from before you start trying to use philosphical terms. It was merely geared to expose the methods that you continually use rather than directly engage in the premise. But glad to see you jumping in there with some attempts to at least begin to recognize the differences.

 

[Iconoclast]

Benjamin,
Thank you for your response. I have already posted to Skan the other day why I personally reject the subjective world of philosophy, carnal logic and reasoning....I will try and answer your last post as best I can....although with my hard head I find it difficult to entertain phikosphy .

Benjamin....some people like to speculate....I even will speculate to an extent...but not when it diminishes scripture. I say right up front philosophy is not where I go for truth.
1.Calvinism has nothing to do with philosophy; it is built strictly on scriptural language.

While reasoning and coming to an understanding is scriptural....The commands and teaching of scripture stand alone and are given by God to be understood by His church....that is why He gave us His word.
2Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
I think calvinism is that truth unfolded.....evidently...you do not, or perhaps like some...you pick and choose parts of it......rejecting some of it's teaching for your own sincere reasons.
Now if I speculate why you reject parts of it...you will say I am attacking you .....so it is a no win situation......When I answer you honestly....like the 13 or 14 point answer on evangelism a few months ago....you cannot deal with it,so you pick out one out of the 14 points and try to impute evil motives to me.
If we met in person with open bibles I do not think you would do this. Here on a message board it happens the wrong way sometime.


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

Calvinism comes from understanding scripture correctly.....I have not read many church fathers....I have read the scriptures however.
What you might call inflexible is the fact that the united teaching of the DoG does frustrate those who do not grasp it...as it answers all objections, and it stands together as a unit.
I believe all believers were in principle calvinists...before calvin was even born.....As the truth of God is in scripture we should not be surprised the some church fathers read and saw the same truths.


Most Non-Calvinist use philosophy, but true Calvinists should have no part of that concept.

Again..scripture renews our mind....our mind does not add to scripture,We do not question the scriptures to death.


Calvinism was God given to the Saints as expressed in the “confession” w/out philosophical input.
To use philosophy is to heretically import ideas into the historic faith.

The scriptures are God given...when the saints studied the scripture they saw what we call calvinism. All scripture correctly understood is called calvinism.

 

[Tom Butler]

I with I could remember who said, "When we kneel to pray, we are all Calvinists."

 

[quantumfaith]

I with I could remember who said, "When we kneel to pray, we are all Calvinists."

When we kneel to pray, we all acknowledge the glory, majesty, mercy and sovereignty of God.

 

[Rippon]

I with I could remember who said, "When we kneel to pray, we are all Calvinists."

Spurgeon,Warfield,Bavnick and Herman Hoeksema among others.

 

[Jerome]

"I can seldom perceive much difference between them and ourselves, but no doubt they do view more than we do some particular parts of truth; we, on the other hand, pay a higher regard to another part of truth. Now these various constitutions of Christians affect in some degree their prayers, and when they are blended they give a peculiar harmony of sweetness to the incense." —Charles Spurgeon, "Golden Vials Full Of Odours"

 

[marke]

The Bible alone clearly states that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Eze. 18:32), "For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn YOURSELVES, and live ye." God doesn't want sinners to die in their sins, but He will not make them turn because that is their responsibility.

If it hadn't been for the need to test man's response to His offer of salvation, God would never have allowed sin to be a part of His plan of redemption, since sin grieves Him in His heart. Gen. 6:6 says, "And it repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart."

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin,
Thank you for your response. I have already posted to Skan the other day why I personally reject the subjective world of philosophy, carnal logic and reasoning....

I then suggest you start with rejecting the 1689 LBC.

Benjamin....some people like to speculate....I even will speculate to an extent...but not when it diminishes scripture. I say right up front philosophy is not where I go for truth.

Yet, you repeatedly point to the philosophical expressions of the confession to be an accurate interpretation of the scriptures.

1.Calvinism has nothing to do with philosophy; it is built strictly on scriptural language.

While reasoning and coming to an understanding is scriptural....The commands and teaching of scripture stand alone and are given by God to be understood by His church....that is why He gave us His word.

And you say this while believing the words of the confession “are the words of His church” and therefore accurately and divinely understood. I get it, I mean I could see how you might imagine that the confession basically makes the same claim you are presenting here in #7.

2Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

I sincerely believe you are biased in your thinking and your belief is that any departure from Calvinist philosophy or the "divine" 1689 LBC is doing this.

I think calvinism is that truth unfolded.....evidently...you do not, or perhaps like some...you pick and choose parts of it......rejecting some of it's teaching for your own sincere reasons.

And I believe you think that truth it has been unfolded by the 1689 LBC. Like I said, I get it. I formed my options on your expressed belief.

Now if I speculate why you reject parts of it...you will say I am attacking you .....so it is a no win situation......When I answer you honestly....like the 13 or 14 point answer on evangelism a few months ago....you cannot deal with it,so you pick out one out of the 14 points and try to impute evil motives to me.

I think you seriously slipped up and proved exactly where your view of pre-selection election leads on that one point and got caught in your motives and imputed that evil upon yourself, but I will not go back there at this time because that is not subject.

If we met in person with open bibles I do not think you would do this. Here on a message board it happens the wrong way sometime.

I don’t know if you are referring to what I said about you ever interjecting the view of pre-selection election in my efforts to witness to a seeker, but if so, or it came down to it, in person, it would be much easier to pin your doctrine down for what it is and I guarantee you would not like what I truly think it is. Just sayin.

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

Calvinism comes from understanding scripture correctly.....

Saying such and proving it with rational reasoning are two different things, all I hear you doing with that statement is beating a drum.

.....I have not read many church fathers....I have read the scriptures however.

Countless times you have posted the 1689 LBC to support your argument about the meaning of the scriptures you read. I get it.

What you might call inflexible is the fact that the united teaching of the DoG does frustrate those who do not grasp it...as it answers all objections, and it stands together as a unit.

Again you refer to the 1689 LBC and yet I have clearly shown you can not answer my objections to it and why, because it is not an authority and it is only a philosophical expression making an argument which is listing scriptures at the bottom and the authors are not here to answer my objections to their faulty interpretations that they claim establish determinism and second causes.

I believe all believers were in principle calvinists...before calvin was even born.....As the truth of God is in scripture we should not be surprised the some church fathers read and saw the same truths.

The first time I heard Calvinism it was soon after my first time on the internet and I instantly knew something was wrong with the way the scriptures were being presented. This came from someone on live chat who was contradicting my every effort to evangelize to a seeker by throwing scriptures out right and left which he said proved this person may not have been elected to God’s salvation or loved which left the alternative that his father was the devil. It turned out this guy was role playing as a Christian and was in reality a Wiccan Warlock doing some recruiting on his own and using Calvinistic dogma was the way he went about it. He was liar of the worst kind and he worked for his father. There was no truth in the way he used the scriptures. Needless to say as a believer I never, ever believed the principles of Calvinism.

Most Non-Calvinist use philosophy, but true Calvinists should have no part of that concept.

Again..scripture renews our mind....our mind does not add to scripture,We do not question the scriptures to death.

You might note that my favorite verse was Rom 12:2 when I signed up here. And you appear once again to be putting the philosophical views of Calvinism as equal to scripture. We are told to beware of being spoiled by philosophy and vain deceit and this applies to Calvinism as well as any other philosophy. These words are written on my heart. Never are we told not to question the Calvinist system to death; it is not scripture.

Calvinism was God given to the Saints as expressed in the “confession” w/out philosophical input.
To use philosophy is to heretically import ideas into the historic faith.

The scriptures are God given...when the saints studied the scripture they saw what we call calvinism.

Those saints you refer to were wrong and if they were actually comparing their doctrines to be equal with scripture they were REALLY WRONG, but I think that comparison is your imagination running away with you.

All scripture correctly understood is called calvinism.

There is it is! Your conclusion says it all and I believe if you were being intellectually honest you would simply check the last 5 options I presented without hesitation. Regardless, you make my point. You know as well as I where you get that impression from. It is from your view that the confession divinely declares such as truth and is thus inerrant, but that confession is manmade. This is your way to make a statement which reveals the truth that you regard the scripture and your interpretation of the Confessional view regarding Calvinism as equal. Very sad that such a view that heretical is allowed to be expressed here.

 

[Iconoclast]

I then suggest you start with rejecting the 1689 LBC.

It is a solid document, you have not refuted it at all
Yet, you repeatedly point to the philosophical expressions of the confession to be an accurate interpretation of the scriptures.

you have not shown this anywhere in any post...you just repeat this

And you say this while believing the words of the confession “are the words of His church” and therefore accurately and divinely understood. I get it, I mean I could see how you might imagine that the confession basically makes the same claim you are presenting here in #7.
divinely revealed truths...1cor2...comparing spiritual things with spiritual[not carnal logic and philosophy]

I really believe you are biased in your thinking that any departure from Calvinist philosophy is doing this but yet not the "divine" 1689 LBC.
If calvinism teaches truth, departures from it are error....see I use logic sometimes

And I believe you think that truth it has been unfolded by the 1689 LBC. Like I said, I get it. I formed my options on your belief.
yes...you have posted error in response to truth.The quotes I provided you cannot even begin to understand much less refute...so you speak against them
I think you seriously slipped up and proved exactly where your view of pre-selection election leads on that one point and got caught in your motives and imputed that evil upon yourself, but I will not go back there at this time because that is not subject.
no slip up...you just cannot grasp it....emotionally...so you reject it....

I don’t know if you are referring to what I said about you ever interjecting the view of pre-selection election in my efforts to witness to a seeker, but if so, or it came down to it, in person, it would be much easier to pin your doctrine down for what it is and I guarantee you would not like what I truly think it is. Just sayin.
You cannot receive the teaching unless God allows you too.
Saying such and proving it with rational reasoning are two different things, all I hear you doing with that statement is beating a drum.
because you do not understand...sorry I cannot help you

Countless times you have posted the 1689 LBC to support your argument about the meaning of the scriptures you read. I get it.
yes...you cannot disprove it,as a matter of fact you cannot improve upon it

Again you refer to the 1689 LBC and yet I have clearly shown you can not answer my objections to it and why, because it is not an authority and it is only a philosophical expression making an argument which is listing scriptures at the bottom and the authors are not here to answer my objections to their faulty interpretations that they claim establish determinism and second causes.

you have not even begun to prove this

The first time I heard Calvinism it was soon after my first time on the internet and I instantly knew something was wrong with the way the scriptures were being presented. This came from someone on live chat who was contradicting my every effort to evangelize to a seeker by throwing scriptures out right and left which he said proved this person may not have been elected to God’s salvation or loved which left the alternative that his father was the devil. It turned out this guy was role playing as a Christian and was in reality a Wiccan Warlock doing some recruiting on his own and using Calvinistic dogma was the way he went about it. He was liar of the worst kind and he worked for his father. There was no truth in the way he used the scriptures. Needless to say as a believer I never, ever believed the principles of Calvinism.



You might note that my favorite verse was Rom 12:2 when I signed up here. And you appear once again to be putting the philosophical views of Calvinism as equal to scripture. We are told to beware of being spoiled by philosophy and vain deceit and this applies to Calvinism as well as any other philosophy. These words are written on my heart. Never are we told not to question the Calvinist system to death; it is not scripture.




Those saints you refer to were wrong and if they were actually comparing their doctrines to be equal with scripture they were REALLY WRONG, but I think that comparison is your imagination running away with you.
or...it is your denial of God's truth

There is it is! Your conclusion says it all and I believe if you were being intellectually honest you would simply check the last 5 options I presented without hesitation. Regardless, you make my point. You know as well as I where you get that impression from. It is from your view that the confession divinely declares such as truth and is thus inerrant, but that confession is manmade. This is your way to make a statement which reveals the truth that you regard the scripture and your interpretation of the Confessional view regarding Calvinism as equal. Very sad that such a view that heretical is allowed to expressed here.

Well Benjamin....
I would be worried if you agreed with me. You think you learned about calvinism, from a wiccan High Priest???interesting....
You have to try and put words in my mouth to try and win the day[in your mind at least] here;

It is from your view that the confession divinely declares such as truth and is thus inerrant, but that confession is manmade. This is your way to make a statement which reveals the truth that you regard the scripture and your interpretation of the Confessional view regarding Calvinism as equal

That is not what I said...why lie?
well if that makes you feel better enjoy yourself
The scripture speaks of another Jesus.another gospel. I think you have made it clear ...that is the one you worship. We clearly do not worship the same one.
I am okay with the Jesus who has died for me,and saved me by His covenant death. You can worship your own jesus who is different then the one claimed by the confessing church historically..... instead of learning about Him from scripture...we can use philosophy,and logic ....good luck to you:thumbsup:

Very sad that such a view that heretical is allowed to expressed here.[/B] [/FONT][/SIZE]

[/QUOTE]

Yes...one of us holds a heretical view.....and I know who it is:thumbs:

 

[Jerome]

Quite a revealing statement straight from the ARBCA (Reformed Baptist) denomination's website:

It is always understood that Scripture must be the final authority over the conscience on this issue. However, the member churches of ARBCA have already confessed that the LBC is a faithful summary of what Scripture teaches and that subscription to it is the basis for our unity as an association of churches. Detailed issues of exegesis can be addressed in messages delivered at our convention or in suggested reading. This is why this position paper deals more with the exposition and application of the LBC to this issue rather than a lengthy exegesis of Scripture.

Report of the ARBCA Ad Hoc Committee on Revelatory Gifts, unanimously adopted at the General Assembly on March 8, 2000

 

[Benjamin]

Quite a revealing statement straight from the ARBCA (Reformed Baptist) denomination's website:



Report of the ARBCA Ad Hoc Committee on Revelatory Gifts, unanimously adopted at the General Assembly on March 8, 2000

Indeed. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

Quite a revealing statement straight from the ARBCA (Reformed Baptist) denomination's website:



Report of the ARBCA Ad Hoc Committee on Revelatory Gifts, unanimously adopted at the General Assembly on March 8, 2000

indeed
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs: