Liberal Christianity vs. Seeker Friendly Christanity

[Yeshua1]

Using a logical fallacy is argument by deception. Thus person attack are a form of deception practiced by Calvinists. Deflecting and side-stepping are also forms of deception.

Yet another deflection. Rather than cite even one scripture that provides evidence is support of Calvinism, you point to the judgment of history.

So rather than clearly indicate my point is well taken, you point to some Calvinists who do not use this verse to support "irresistible grace." No mention is made of the numerous Calvinists that do.

Another deflection. The lost are condemned already at conception, and are by nature children of wrath. They do choose death when they sin, and everybody sins, cementing their condemnation, piling up wrath for themselves. But what about those who choose life. You did not mention that according to Calvinism all the lost are unable to choose life unless enabled by irresistible grace. Instead you refer to the drawing of God as code for irresistible grace. More deception.

And the five pointers will claim the 4 pointer are not "real" Calvinists. But again, you agree with me, yet phrase it as a disagreement. Deception.

I am not a mind reader, I must go by what they do. They misrepresent my position, they use logical fallacies, such as it must be true because great men of God believed it, and so forth. Deception.

When they resort to logical fallacies, such as personal attacks, it demonstrates they have no support from scripture. Two wrongs do not make a right. Why change the subject from the lack of supporting evidence in scripture for Calvinism to my behavior except to deflect and deceive.

There is only 2 basis to have salavtion rest upon the ultimate sense though...

Either its the Will of God, or the will of man...

We choose to stand upon Will of God, but you are to stand on free will of man!

 

[Alive in Christ]

From the OP...

Liberal Christianity vs. Seeker Friendly Christanity



Is there not a difference?

There is a differance of course, but I personaly would not choose to be part of either one of them. If I where to be in a situation where it HAD to be one or the other, I would choose the Seeker over the Liberal.

(dumb me, sticking with the OP!) :laugh:

 

[Yeshua1]

From the OP...



There is a differance of course, but I personaly would not choose to be part of either one of them. If I where to be in a situation where it HAD to be one or the other, I would choose the Seeker over the Liberal.

(dumb me, sticking with the OP!) :laugh:

can there ven be liberal christianity/ as i define it to refer to denying the Cross, Jesus resurrection, Bible as word of God etc!

That would better be known as heretical

 

[Alive in Christ]

can there ven be liberal christianity/ as i define it to refer to denying the Cross, Jesus resurrection, Bible as word of God

.

Yeah, I certainly do consider the ultra liberal groups to be in full blown apostacy.

May God have mercy.

 

[quantumfaith]

I didn't catch that.

One of my many weaknesses is that I am not observant.

However, though I would not put that on my advertisement, GLBT are welcome to come to my church.

They cannot join without repentance, but they are welcome.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Same here, repentance is required and without it not allowed to "serve" in most areas of service of our church.

 

[Van]

Pitchback

There is only 2 basis to have salavtion rest upon the ultimate sense though...

Either its the Will of God, or the will of man...

We choose to stand upon Will of God, but you are to stand on free will of man!

Misrepresenting my view is the stock and trade of the deceivers. I say now and have said numerous times in the past, salvation does not depend upon the man that wills but upon God, Romans 9:16. It is God who either credits our faith as righteousness or not, Romans 4:4-5. In our fallen state, we can understand and respond to the milk of the gospel, 1 Corinthians 3:1-3.

Salvation depends solely on God, and not upon the man-made doctrines of Calvinism.

 

[Van]

Liberals tear down God's word, denying its very essence, such as homosexual behavior is wrong. Beware those who redefine the meaning of words to nullify or reverse the meaning of scripture. A conservative would say a word meaning before does not mean after, and a word meaning after does not mean before. A conservative would say a word meaning choice does not mean non-choice, but a liberal would.

 

[Revmitchell]

There is only 2 basis to have salavtion rest upon the ultimate sense though...

Either its the Will of God, or the will of man...

We choose to stand upon Will of God, but you are to stand on free will of man!

I have to agree with van here. This is a typical false argument of Calvisnists. Te idea is that if man has any part to play in coming to God then it is completely not based on the will of God but only the will of man. This is false and in fact very childish. It tears down any intelligent conversation or discussion. And is only used by those who want to end discussion and just want to be right.

The fact is if God has, in His sovereign will, set up the salvation process in such a way that he opens mens' hearts and leaves it to them to come to Him then it is still all God's will. Calvinists set up a false definition of the sovereignty of God not found in scripture.

Maybe Calvinists can use a little more integrity in their discussions so that they can be more reasonable and intelligent.

 

[Revmitchell]

And it is completely absurd to suggest that Calvinists are liberals. It is a fact that they are not. Employing methods to place others in the worst possible light in order to demean their position lacks integrity as well.

 

[Van]

Pitchback

And it is completely absurd to suggest that Calvinists are liberals. It is a fact that they are not. Employing methods to place others in the worst possible light in order to demean their position lacks integrity as well.

In the modern sense, Calvinists are not liberals, but in the Classic sense they are. They interpret scripture liberally and unsoundly. So just a political liberals "interpret" the Constitution to nullify its freedoms, Calvinists interpret scripture to nullify election through faith in the truth.

 

[Alive in Christ]

This was posted...

In the modern sense, Calvinists are not liberals, but in the Classic sense they are. They interpret scripture liberally and unsoundly. So just as political liberals "interpret" the Constitution to nullify its freedoms, Calvinists interpret scripture to nullify election through faith in the truth.

Agreed.

 

[Revmitchell]

In the modern sense, Calvinists are not liberals, but in the Classic sense they are. They interpret scripture liberally and unsoundly. So just a political liberals "interpret" the Constitution to nullify its freedoms, Calvinists interpret scripture to nullify election through faith in the truth.

Hogwash, just because the interpret it differently than you does not make them liberal in any sense of the word. Your comparison is weak at best. I am not sure if you are just trying to demonize them or you really do not know what a liberal is.

 

[Van]

If we boil down Revmitchell's rebuttal, we get hogwash, weak, demonize, and ignorant. No content, just yet another personal attack.

Anytime someone says scripture does not mean what it says, they are liberals making a liberal interpretation of the text, usually referring to a liberal translation. Liberal in the classic sense = Not strict or literal; loose or approximate.

 

[Revmitchell]

If we boil down Revmitchell's rebuttal, we get hogwash, weak, demonize, and ignorant. No content, just yet another personal attack.

And you can boil down something so far that you intentionally take out the content. Like you just did. Rather dishonest.

 

[Yeshua1]

If we boil down Revmitchell's rebuttal, we get hogwash, weak, demonize, and ignorant. No content, just yet another personal attack.

Anytime someone says scripture does not mean what it says, they are liberals making a liberal interpretation of the text, usually referring to a liberal translation. Liberal in the classic sense = Not strict or literal; loose or approximate.

You really think that men like calvin played fast and loose with the scriptures? that spurgeon/owens/edwards/Hodgh/etc were all commited to trying to make a defective theology?

feel free to keep on calling them those who misunderstood the bible, but would stack ANY of their knowledge of God and His bible up to yours!

 

[Van]

You really think that men like calvin played fast and loose with the scriptures? that spurgeon/owens/edwards/Hodgh/etc were all commited to trying to make a defective theology?

feel free to keep on calling them those who misunderstood the bible, but would stack ANY of their knowledge of God and His bible up to yours!

No, they were not trying to make a defective theology, but they succeeded. When someone says choice means non-choice, that is defective. When someone says regeneration outside of being spiritually in Christ that is defective. When someone denies we are chosen through faith in the truth that is defective.

How about John 1:12-13. Does it say we believe before we are given the right to become children of God? Thus all these defective claims that regeneration occurs before we trust in Christ are liberal interpretations, playing fast and loose with scripture.

 

[Alive in Christ]

It just amazes me how calvinists can not see the rediculousness of thier theology.

Its almost as if they have been put under a "spell" of some sort. Like being brainwashed.

I was once a calvinist. But thier came a time when I"stepped back" so to speak, and came to grips with...just... exactally what...I...was...believing... and ADVOCATING!!

It was over at that point.

 

[Van]

I have a similar story, AIC. I was raised in a Calvinist church but the doctrine was left vague. Once I started trying to defend it, I was confronted with non-Calvinists who pointed to scripture after scripture that did not mesh with Calvinism. The more I studied, the more I found Calvinism to be poured into scripture via extrapolation.

And as I have often said, it boggles the mind how others when confronted with the same scriptures, simply deny they mean what they say, and fire back with stuff like I am dishonest and mean spirited. Thus they would rather use logical fallacies, or sidestep and deflect, rather than leave Calvinism on the dust bin of history.

 

[Revmitchell]

It just amazes me how calvinists[sic] can not see the rediculousness[sic] of thier[sic] theology.

If you are going to tear someone else down it is best that you check your spelling and grammar while you are doing it.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Rev Mitchell posted...

If you are going to tear someone else down it is best that you check your spelling and grammar while you are doing it.

Oh great. :BangHead:

The spelling police are out again. :laugh::laugh::

Brother, we are not writing resumes here. Trust me...I can do much worse then the misspelling you pointed out.


When desperate..ignore content and criticize spelling :thumbs: