Featured Liberal Christianity vs. Seeker Friendly Christanity

My concern with him is his intentional characterization of Calvinists. I despise some of the doctrines but that does not add up to liberalism or an evil.

 

It's not an attack. It is trying to help you see something about yourself that many people on here see but you cannot see yourself.

Like the old saying, "No one can smell their own stink" - we need other people's noses to help us know that we stink.

 

Iconoclast says no one else on the planet "sees" what I see. This of course is absurdly false and misleading.

Let me quote from another on the "planet."

Calvinism is defended by changing the subject to the character and qualifications of the opponent, misrepresenting the opponents position, and absurd claims of omniscience such as knowing the minds of everyone else on the planet.

There is no actual support for Calvinism in scripture, including Ephesians 1:4 and 2 Timothy 1:9.

 

New Low

I have been attacked as closed minded because I defend scripture against all liberal interpretations that make scripture to no effect. I have been called arrogant, ignorant, and now I do not know I stink.

Notice how these gentlemen simply attack the person rather than discuss the views being expressed. It is a tactic used by those wishing to hide the truth by changing the subject.

One of the many false and liberal claims of Calvinism is that individuals were given to Christ before times eternal, i.e. before time began.

2 Timothy 1:9 reads: who [God] has saved us [Paul and other believers] and called us with a holy calling [the ministry of reconciliation as ambassadors of Christ] not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity.

1) What was granted? God's gracious purpose.

2) When did God grant His purpose and grace? Before time began, before the foundation of the world was laid. When God formulated His redemption plan and chose His Redeemer, His Son, He granted to everyone subsequently saved His purpose and grace.

3) When did we as individuals receive what was granted? When God spiritually placed us "in Christ."

Thus this verse does not say individuals were given to Christ before time began, it says those in Christ have received the purpose and grace granted before time began when they were placed in Christ and not before.

The Calvinist interpretation of this verse is loose, and mistaken, thus a liberal interpretation.


All they do is make one false charge after another, but at the end of the day, they have nothing of content to say.

 

uh...let me help you out here. Your characterization of Calvinists as liberal and whatever else you are calling them is an attack that you are personally leveling. It is your attacks that people are responding to.

You have been pretty slick in dressing up your attacks on Calvinists in scripture but at the end of the day that is all your posts are. Attacks.

 

More Attacks

Now I am slick. Calvinism rests on loose and errant approximations of scripture, hence on liberal interpretations of scripture.

The attack is on the mistaken doctrine of Calvinism, not the acolytes of the mistaken doctrine, they have been deceived.

That is why I address doctrine, such as the false claim individuals were placed in Christ before time began.

Have you said anything on that topic? I must have missed it.

 

It's not just Calvinism, Van. You have been reproached by several on here for your oddball (if not outright wrong) interpretations of the Scriptures, of the translation of Greek and Hebrew words, and the like and every time (or at least every time that I have seen) you are reproached, you respond by calling the posts "devoid of content", "attacks", etc.

You just cannot accept the fact that you might, indeed, be wrong and someone else might be right. THAT'S what everyone here sees that you do not.

We're trying to be helpful, not hurtful.

 

More attacks devoid of content

1) No interpretations of scripture are contained in the post, yet the false charge is leveled that I refer to posts containing content as devoid of content. Twaddle

2) Next, I am charged with not being able to accept I am wrong. However, several times I have been wrong and posted that I was wrong and mistaken. So yet another over the top false charge.

Folks, all these posters do is make false charges, but they do not address the topic. If they wanted to discuss the topic, they could post something on topic.

I have been attacked as closed minded because I defend scripture against all liberal interpretations that make scripture to no effect. I have been called arrogant, ignorant, and now I do not know I stink.

Notice how these gentlemen simply attack the person rather than discuss the views being expressed. It is a tactic used by those wishing to hide the truth by changing the subject.

One of the many false and liberal claims of Calvinism is that individuals were given to Christ before times eternal, i.e. before time began.

2 Timothy 1:9 reads: who [God] has saved us [Paul and other believers] and called us with a holy calling [the ministry of reconciliation as ambassadors of Christ] not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity.

1) What was granted? God's gracious purpose.

2) When did God grant His purpose and grace? Before time began, before the foundation of the world was laid. When God formulated His redemption plan and chose His Redeemer, His Son, He granted to everyone subsequently saved His purpose and grace.

3) When did we as individuals receive what was granted? When God spiritually placed us "in Christ."

Thus this verse does not say individuals were given to Christ before time began, it says those in Christ have received the purpose and grace granted before time began when they were placed in Christ and not before.

The Calvinist interpretation of this verse is loose, and mistaken, thus a liberal interpretation.

All they do is make one false charge after another, but at the end of the day, they have nothing of content to say.

 

Here are some "odd-ball" interpretations:

Choice means choice, not non-choice.

From means from and not before.

Regeneration means being again originated, born again in Christ, not irresistible grace enabling faith before being placed in Christ.

The Calvinist interpretation of these words as meaning the opposite of what they mean is loose and errant and therefore a liberal approximation.

 

It does not matter how many times you attack Calvinists. It still isn't true.

 

Agreed abuntantly

 

actually, we tend to view the scriptures different then van does, as we valuesovereign Will of god, and do honestly think our salvation is due to Him choosing to save us, not us chosing to allow God to save us!

 

Yeshua1...

You posted...

Yes, and that is very unfortunate, as you are holding to an excedingly flaud, and even heretical, theological system. (calvinism)

The true gosple does indeed call for all men to personaly "choose" Christ by recieving Him at His invitatation.

According to the scriptures, every man who has ever lived recieves saving Light, and has oportunity. The gosple is presented, and men chose, or reject.

God does not automatically declare millions as being saved before they are born, while declaring millions of others as being destined for hell before they were born..ad Calvinism teaches.

 

You need to quit misrepresenting this view.

 

Thanks for agreeing that Calvinism is not true. Calvinism is based on loose, errant and liberal interpretations of scripture.

 

Would the more correct position be that God provided for the salvation of all in the death of jesus for their sins, but he allows us all the opportunity to freely reject or accept that? Up to us to stay lost and condemned?

 

Everything except the last sentence would be the correct position.

 

Spurgeon/Edwards/Hodgh/berkhof/Grudem/owens/Calvin been called many things over the yeras, doubt ANY were because they were "fast and losse' with the scriptures!

 

wonder if van could give the proper calvinist position?

 

Probably not. But he does not represent all non cals. His characterization is only meant to tear the opposing view down. It has nothing to do with debate. He just wants to be right and have everyone capitulate to him.