Excellent article. It's rather long, so I'll post the link = Playing the Pharisee Card.
-
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!
The Pharisee Card
- Thread starter Herald
- Start date
So, we're all supposed to become Lutherans? This fellow thinks he is teaching the truth and anybody who opposes him is playing the Pharisee card?
The gospel of Christ hangs between two thieves, Legalism on the one side and Lawlessness on the other. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their legalist interpretation of God's word, making it to no effect. While not everyone "called" a Pharisee might not qualify, on the other hand modern day Pharisees do exist, claiming the traditions of men have authority of God's Word. Would it not be accurate to consider that all those pushing Calvinism are pushing the traditions of men over and against the teachings of scripture? Notice that Calvinism is presented as the "pure doctrine" and modern deviations are "fads."
Rather than explore the merits of labeling the other guy a Pharisee or Heretic, we should work together seeking the actual teachings of scripture.
Rather than explore the merits of labeling the other guy a Pharisee or Heretic, we should work together seeking the actual teachings of scripture.
Van,
Allow me to share with you a real glimpse into my world. I'm an elder in a local church. Except for my forays into forums such as this, my time is spent loving my family and shepherding a local flock of believers. Arminian and/or semi-Pelagian churches occupy zero concern of mine. It's not that I don't care about the universal church, it's just that my responsibilities are clearly delineated. Along with those fellow elders who are my co-laborers I am to preach the Word, protect the flock from error, and train others to do the work of ministry. I encourage those under my charge to carry their faith into the public square: work, school, family, friends, etc. Part of that encouragement is to prepare them for the inevitable criticisms they will face; both for being a Christian, and also for their specific doctrinal beliefs. It's a sad thing to admit but many of the criticisms we face as Christians come from other Christians. We expect the world to attack and criticize, but we're sometimes caught off guard when other Christians do the same. I encourage my flock to hold fast the faithful word which is accordance with sound teaching (Titus 1:9). That is why I found the article I linked to be so helpful.
Allow me to share with you a real glimpse into my world. I'm an elder in a local church. Except for my forays into forums such as this, my time is spent loving my family and shepherding a local flock of believers. Arminian and/or semi-Pelagian churches occupy zero concern of mine. It's not that I don't care about the universal church, it's just that my responsibilities are clearly delineated. Along with those fellow elders who are my co-laborers I am to preach the Word, protect the flock from error, and train others to do the work of ministry. I encourage those under my charge to carry their faith into the public square: work, school, family, friends, etc. Part of that encouragement is to prepare them for the inevitable criticisms they will face; both for being a Christian, and also for their specific doctrinal beliefs. It's a sad thing to admit but many of the criticisms we face as Christians come from other Christians. We expect the world to attack and criticize, but we're sometimes caught off guard when other Christians do the same. I encourage my flock to hold fast the faithful word which is accordance with sound teaching (Titus 1:9). That is why I found the article I linked to be so helpful.
Yes....they say and do not.
good point:thumbsup:
Well thought out article...it can be expanded and applied, but he has done a really good job with it.:wavey::thumbsup: i saved this article until i can print it out.....this is a good discussion starter among believers.
While true, Arminianism also is a tradition of men, the point is moot for two wrongs do not make a right.
We should stick with sound doctrine, that would be doctrine presented in the Word of God, not the assertions of men.
Lots of times, defenders of the President say his opponents are racists, playing the race card to deflect criticism and shift discussion to the character and qualifications of his opponents. Pharisees turned the doctrines of God into the doctrines of men, and then schemed against those shining light on this truth.
Not when they dodge all efforts to discuss specifics, they are just saying my mind is made up, do not confuse me with facts.
This is not about my character or yours, it is about what the Bible teaches. And the bible clearly teaches the opposite of Calvinism. I ask again, why did God need to harden hearts in Roman 11, if the doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability is true?
Or how does God choose us through faith in the truth for salvation if we have already been chosen unconditionally?
Calvinism cannot be defended biblically.
Who is "they"? Are you suggesting that there is not one, on either side of the debate, who hasn't studied the issue and is convinced by the Word of God?
Van said:
Agreed.
Van said:
According to you. Making a statement doesn't mean it's true. I respect your opinion. In your mind you believe the doctrines of grace are not biblical. There are many good Christian people who have labored over the Word of God on the issue and come to a different conclusion.
Van said:
Actually it can, and has been since the time of Augustine. You may disagree with the biblical case made for the doctrines of grace, but that doesn't mean a biblical case can't be made for it.
Hi Herald, saying it can and attempting to do it are two very different things. What boggles your mind is the idea that all these brilliant theologians, who could read and understand all three original languages, could have been wrong and no one noticed for 400 years.
It is simply inconceivable that all those folks, Augustine, Calvin, etc could have missed the boat, but no one seems able to make the case given what the bible actually says.
Ever notice when I try to talk about Total Spiritual Inability, verses are posted supposedly supporting some other point of the Tulip? The reason is what I say is dismissed, it cannot be true, because of all the support from the other points. And no Calvinist is equipped to question all four points, because they have invested too much into them.
I keep trying, but nobody will engage, except to offer absurdity. One Calvinist defended 2 Thessalonians 2:13 by saying sanctification does not mean setting aside. When words must be redefined to avoid admitting the straight up meaning of scripture, a red flag should drop in the minds of Calvinists, but to date, it has not.
It is simply inconceivable that all those folks, Augustine, Calvin, etc could have missed the boat, but no one seems able to make the case given what the bible actually says.
Ever notice when I try to talk about Total Spiritual Inability, verses are posted supposedly supporting some other point of the Tulip? The reason is what I say is dismissed, it cannot be true, because of all the support from the other points. And no Calvinist is equipped to question all four points, because they have invested too much into them.
I keep trying, but nobody will engage, except to offer absurdity. One Calvinist defended 2 Thessalonians 2:13 by saying sanctification does not mean setting aside. When words must be redefined to avoid admitting the straight up meaning of scripture, a red flag should drop in the minds of Calvinists, but to date, it has not.
Van,
That's because you've set yourself up as both judge and jury as to what is biblical truth. For some reason you aren't willing to admit that those who disagree with you have done serious bible study and arrived at their position honestly and with full conviction that they are accurately interpreting scripture. You're going to be hard-pressed to find a more convinced believer in the DoG on this board, yet I am not willing to make a blanket statement that my opponents have not studied the bible.
Hi Herald, did not notice you simply found fault with me and did not address scripture. It simply does not matter whether any Calvinist thinks he has done serious bible study, when 100% of them cannot answer even a simple question like why did God need to harden hearts if the T of the tulip is true.
The fact is Calvinism cannot be defended scripturally, not the T, not the U, not the L and not the I.
Jesus taught that 3 of the 4 soils could receive the gospel, so the T is fiction.
Paul taught we are chosen though faith in the truth, so the U is fiction.
John taught Christ is the propitiation for the whole world, so the L is fiction.
And Jesus taught in Matthew 23, that men entering heaven could be blocked, so the I is fiction.
Pointing to supposed flaws in my character simply evades the truth of scripture.
The fact is Calvinism cannot be defended scripturally, not the T, not the U, not the L and not the I.
Jesus taught that 3 of the 4 soils could receive the gospel, so the T is fiction.
Paul taught we are chosen though faith in the truth, so the U is fiction.
John taught Christ is the propitiation for the whole world, so the L is fiction.
And Jesus taught in Matthew 23, that men entering heaven could be blocked, so the I is fiction.
Pointing to supposed flaws in my character simply evades the truth of scripture.
I do not believe you started the thread to debate Calvinism's false doctrines either, but rather to nullify the observation of Pharisee like behavior, linking them to the bogus race card rebuttals.
The issue has not been debated, it has been evaded just as you have evaded it here.
The issue has not been debated, it has been evaded just as you have evaded it here.
Well, since you admit that the OP has nothing to do with the doctrines of grace (what you term "Calvinism"), why did you bring it up in your first response in this thread?
And you're accusing me of evading the topic of the doctrines of grace? You're confusing evasion with discretion; discretion that allows me to avoid discussion with a contentious person.
Folks, Herald has once again slandered me as a contentious person, rather than presented any defense for the false doctrines of Calvinism. Instead we get the usual shuck and jive, its not Calvinism, its the Doctrines of Grace, its not evasion, its discretion. On and on they go, dancing away from truth with shuck and jive.
See TULI of the Tulip thread