Featured Hunt vs White

He is a ZIONIST, and a 'double dose' one at that. His agenda is to promote the idea of the necessity for Christians to unconditionally embrace the Zionist cause. His real beef with Reformed Theology is what he perceives as the 'Replacement' part of it. It's very important to him for the Jew to have the preeminence. Period.

 

And all the support that comes from that for the 'chosen'!

 

My statement was meant to be more tongue-in-cheek, but it probably back-fired.
Here is what I was thinking about.
When I look at my library, especially the older commentaries: Barnes, Matthew Henry, Jamiesson, Faucett, and Brown, and the widely available ones, I find that almost all of them are either Presbyterian, Anglican or even Catholic. The Baptist commentaries that are available are Calvinistic such as John Gill.
When studying church history, especially Baptist history, non-Cal sources are difficult to find. The Albigenses are a good example. About the Albigenses, lest any cry out: heretics!, they were under a broad umbrella just like the Baptists of today are. Under that umbrella there were some that were Baptist-like and could have "carried the Baptist name," so to speak. When Innocent III went on a Crusade to fight against the Muslims, on the way he wiped out these peace loving people, an entire sect of believers, so that we have no (or very little) original source material remaining to this day.
In that light, they were the evangelists, being persecuted by Catholics (and sometimes others), while others could peacefully write books.
Andrew Fuller was a Calvinist as was William Carey. I would never underestimate their work. I am only considering the paucity of non-Cal information throughout history.

 

And many Calvinists deny TULIP but are still Calvinists?? Right!
Get an education!
If you are unwilling to do your homework look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism

No, But I refuse to be put into one of your man-made boxes. The Bible is my final authority, and that is that.

Why do you find it repulsive when I speak the truth concerning the truth of my observations on the board.

Baptist churches existed long before the Reformation--ever since the time of the apostles. God has always had his own, and has never left himself without a witness. That witness has never been in the RCC

No, I know the truth about Spurgeon. I use him often. He is not what the Calvinist thinks he is. Pitiful.

 

DHK...please explain your last comment about CHS. Thanks.

 

Hyles type huh? LOL
You have a lot to learn about what I think about Hyles and Schaap.

http://dorightchristians.wordpress....-or-fiction-linda-murphys-open-letter-to-fbc/

http://dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/jack-schaap-sentenced-to-12-years/

http://dorightchristians.wordpress....ing-memorandum-a-deceiver-from-the-beginning/

And it is clear that some people have no clue what a "Zionist" is. There are ideological Zionists of which as a Christian that believes that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, I certainly am not. There are political Zionists which are divided just as America is divided by Republicans and Demagogues, and there are cultural Zionists who simply want to have a state to live in without getting bombed all the time.

KYRedneck sides with the Muslim terrorists who wish to Israel wiped off the map, and has often posted anti Semitic information from conspiracy theory sites which have even included sources from the Aryan Nations. KY is the Gentile in Romans 11 that brags about being grafted in, jealous that a Jew is a Christian, because he thinks that true Jews are really White people, and that Jesus was really a White man.

There are many Christians throughout the centuries that have held the exact same view as I do regarding the nation of Israel, that held to such views LONG BEFORE the Zionist movement even began, and long before Israel began to reoccupy our land. But what clearly shows KY's racism is that the only person on this forum that he calls a Zionist is a Jew, he doesn't use that term against anyone else who has shared the exact same Biblical views of Israel.

 

Really? Yours is a ridiculous response and shameful accusation.

 

I asked him point-blank several times if he and one other thought Jesus was really a white man, and he NEVER ANSWERED IT, which I expected considering the sources where he quoted many of his anti Semitic articles. And it is no more "shameful" than him calling me a Zionist which you conveniently ignored.

You know good and well there are a large part of forum members that hold the exact same views about Israel that I do, and yet I as a Jew am the only one that he calls a "Zionist" and you remain silent. But, Calvin was a Jew hater to so no surprise there.

 

What I find absolutely hilarious is that you have continually stayed on point about Calvinists running to the creeds to which they adamantly deny, and the very first thing Icon does in response to you IS POST FROM A CREED:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Oh but it's "full of Scripture". No, there's a difference between accurately quoting scripture to prove a Biblical point, and explaining how the Scripture reference supports your point, as opposed to drafting a blanket statement that has a plethora of citations which may or may not support the paragraph.

I showed in this thread where the Westminster Confession has a glaring contradiction in it. So in addition to the Confessions offering inaccurate and false Biblical support for their 5Lip (more accurate then 2Lip because it talks out of 5 different sides of the mouth at once), it doesn't even agree with ITSELF.

 

Though a great preacher, in some ways he seems to be a conflicted person.
In some of his sermons it seems that Calvinism shines through.
However in many more the great truths of free will, whosoever will may come, are preached. It is those doctrines that the Calvinist hates, and that Spurgeon often preached. One cannot deny election. It is in the Bible. But unlike that Calvinists of today it is unlikely that he was a hard determinist.

 

Yes you have said that, but you don't practice it.

This is all the evidence I need. I am not going to answer the rest of your post so as not to take up space. But you did what you say you didn't do. You have quoted The 1689 Confession of Faith as your authority, not the Scriptures. It is the Confession that is your final authority, not the Scriptures. You just demonstrated that.

Let me give you a personal example and hopefully you will understand.
I was Catholic for twenty years. Even as a Catholic we held the Bible in high esteem, as the Word of God, as inspired of God. However the Bible could not be interpreted except through the eyes of the Catechism. The Catechism interprets the Bible in the RCC. It is the Catechism that teaches the New Birth is baptismal regeneration, for example. (water of John 3:5 means baptism). The Catechism of the RCC also is backed up with many Scripture references. Thus the Catechism is the authority, and not the Bible. It is a private interpretation of the Bible.

You operate the same way. Your confession becomes your private interpretation of the Bible, something that the Bible itself forbids. "For the Scriptures are of no private interpretation." It is not the Bible that is your final authority, but your Confession. It is the Confession (that quotes Scripture and interprets Scripture) that you go to.
That is exactly what the RCC does.

Not until someone took the Bible without the Catechism and explained to me what salvation was from the Bible, did I get saved. Then the Bible was the final authority.

 

DHK,

(Just wondering) but from what I have read thus far of you, you seem like a quick witted, smart, educated person. You seem to be able to pick through the (for lack of better wording) crud and see thing for what they are. So, I am just wondering ( perhaps you where still very young 1yr-20yr old, however, what kept you in the Catholic church for so long? Not, to take you or this thread off topic and if you would rather answer in a pm or not at all, I understand. ( I don't care how you answer ) Was just interested.

Then again, I was a hardcore charismatic before being baptist but I blame it on pure ignorance and lack of being educated. I guess we all have our reasons.

 

Then you misunderstand what he means by 'free will'. God frees our will for salvation, otherwise we are under the spirit of bondage (Romans 8) and enslaved to sin, those who are lost are then not free (John 8) as you claim, until the Son makes us free. Nothing is further from the truth. Man is not free in his will.

The 'whole head is sick', every part of man, and this 'whole head' being sick is not physical, but spiritual sickness and bondage, Isaiah 1:5ff.

Free will teaches man can come at any time on his own volition. This is a grave theological error and grants man the glory. Scriptural truth gives God all the glory.

Therefore you do greatly err DHK.

 

No, I don't err; you just disagree with my theology. That's all.
I'll prove it to you.
When you get to heaven, you can ask the Lord! :smilewinkgrin:

 

So now you accuse Icon as one who doesn't practice what? I see him practicing quite a bit and Scriptural in all his refutations of everything you say. What is this accusation of yours that he doesn't practice it?

What a reprehensible accusation DHK. There is no need for this sort of attack upon his character. :type:

 

Answer the Scriptures given you DHK without your arbitrary 'argument'. Man is not free, in his will, or in any way without Christ.

Now go refute the evidence of Scripture which is against your reason. :thumbsup:

 

The RCC does not preach the gospel. I never heard the gospel preached in all the years I was in the Catholic Church. The first time I did hear the gospel was in a dormitory of a university, and then I got saved. Soon after that I left the Catholic Church.
Furthermore, I was raised in a devout Catholic family. There was no opportunity, and a child would never go against his parents.

 

He is no different from RC Sproul, Sinclair Ferguson & John Piper, ML-J and some of the early Puritans like John Preston & Samuel Rutherford.

All will state that we do not offer Christ on the basis of the person who hears the offer is Elect---but we offer Christ exclusively on the basis that He is able to save them who come to Him

 

What is reprehensible is that you accused DHK of maligning Icon's character when it is clear that he was attacking his view on authority. DHK didn't say the he NEVER uses the Bible, but that when the debate reaches it's conclusion that Icon (as do all Calvinists) relies on the Creeds as the FINAL authority.

ALL Calvinists (and ALL here doesn't mean SOME) in one way or another rely on either the Canons of Dort, Confessions, or Calvin's Institutes as their FINAL authority when it comes to doctrine, because all Calvinist interpretation is based on them.

What is reprehensible is that when Icon responded to DHK, the very FIRST THING HE DID WAS POSTED FROM A CREED. Icon could have attempted to refute DHK by simply saying " I believe the Bible as MY final authority" but NO, what did he do in defense of DHK's accusation that he relies on the Creeds to define his doctrine? HE QUOTED FROM THE CREED.

Right in front of your face, and it is "reprehensible" that that flew right over your head.