Featured A Passage In Which Many Calvinists Struggle

So should you...you need to go bye bye

 

Your post is rediculous. No one on this forum derived thier view of scripture from studying the occult and to inferr it as you do is simply outrageous and insultive.

If this is the only way you can win the argument you are in bad shape.

Election before the foundation of the world is clearly taught in scripture. The issue between us is a matter of interpetation of scrpture and to infer that anyone on this forum had occultic influence in coming to that interpetation of scripture is simply dishonest and a very low and demeaning attack that is uncalled for.

I will debate you scripture for scripture on this subject any day of the week. My testimony is exactly opposite of yours. I hated Calvinism with a passion and spewed the very same nonsense you are spewing. No one hated it as much as I did and there are plenty of witnesses to affirm that fact. However, my wife and I were studying through the book of the gospel of John and in spite of my hatred the Lord just kept revealing it on nearly every page in the gospel of John. I turned to my wife and said I can fight men but how can I fight God. From that point forward he started opening my blind Arminian eyes to the truth of His Word.

So I can empathize with your hatred but you are simply wrong and I know from experience that the only One that can open your eyes is God but He does it by use of the scriptures and I am more than happy to take it up with you scripture by scripture. However, to bring the occult in to this BIBLE study is absurd and you know it.

I came to my position through study of God's Word and God's Word ALONE without any occultic background, experience or contact.

 

If they could deal with the Bibical facts in a contextual based manner they would not stoop to such foolish and childish accusations. Don't follow them in this kind of foolishness. Just stick to the Biblical context. Their problem is obvious, their view cannot be sustained if basic rules of Biblical interpetation are applied and sustained in this discussion.

It has been my personal experience that when they are cornered by old fashion contextual based interpretation they either flee to name calling, outlandish insinuations or philosophical arguments. That is clearly the case here.

 

I know you would say that you were regenerated so you could know the truth. One thing for sure you couldn't see what isn't there. There is no such doctrine. Calvinist all claim they were saved by grace alone but scripture states the truth. Grace comes through faith and faith comes from hearing the words of God. No faith, no grace, period. It's that simple.
MB

 

Many Calvinist makes this claim and everyone of them has shown that they have wavered in there faith. That they have been thrown off course unable to be stead fast in there own hearts. Eph 4:14 Then they believe there stories of finding the truth should convince us of there foolishness.

Just to let you know I for one do not believe in men such as your self...
MB

 

But who is responsible for the faith? Is it the carnal man, dead in his sin? Or is faith a work God does in us upon regeneration?

 

No offense, but if you're going to call me a fool, maybe you'd have more credibility if you knew the difference between "there" and their.

 

You are speaking igornantly! First, you do not know my particular experience and have no right to judge it. Second, if we applied your logic equally across the board then no one could possibly change from error to truth as such a process is condemned by your logic. Third, I never said anything about being "wavered in" my faith. I have never doubted my own salvation experience. I have never waivered in my doctrinal position unless there was clear evidence to demonstrate that I was in error and God provided the clear evidence directly to me through the scriptures and neither you or anyone else is qualified to judge that experience. Your conclusion condemns Archer as much as me as he gave the same kind of testimony but in reverse. Finally, I will be most happy to defend my position from scripture alone - period! So you are speaking foolishly.

 

You are a joke to all rational thought. You are spouting nonsense on a level even old skypair didn't dip down into.

Most true Christians before the Protestant Reformation were within the Roman Catholic communion. They are various points widely diverged from official RC doctrines,but they would have acknowledged that they were indeed Roman Catholic.

 

I understood what you said and it is rediculous! My position came from the study of the scriptures period! The problem is that you cannot defend you point from the scriptures and so you have to find some nonsensical source to attribute divine election to.

Your logic is simply not to to facts. For your logic to be factual, then no one could come to the position of divine election without some source of Budhist influence and that is simply not true.

Instead of slinging mud and false accusations why not enter into the Biblical debate? I suggest that it is your position that cannot be Biblically defended IF the Bible is final authority and the context is the final definition of any given text.

Reading Jesus Christ and Paul is sufficient to overthrow your unbiblical position and they lived long before Augustine or Calvin. I studied neither, nor was I influeced by Buhhists. Your theory is rediculous. Drop the mud slinging and enter the Biblical arena to debate on the basis of contextual data.

I NEVER based my position on any personal experience so your point is invalid! I simply related how in studying the gospel of John to refute some tenets of Calvinism I was confronted with Biblical evidence that refuted my position instead. Ridicule all you like, but it does not change the fact that my experience is BIBLICAL based rather then emotional based.

You cannot possibly have an earned doctorates as no one with an earned doctrine would stoop to such rediculous arguments. I never made any such argument based upon experience. I told you plainly that it was through studying the scriptures, the gospel of John that I came to my position not by some etheral emotional vision or experience.

I am not a Calvinist, I am not a Protestant, I am not a Catholic, I am a historical Baptist and historical Baptists preceded the Reformation and the Roman Catholic church. Whatever Calvin learned, or Augustine learned, they learned from Baptists.

 

I left out one word by accident. I intended to say 'whatever TRUTH Calvin learned he learned from Baptists. The Anabaptists had great influence on the Reformers. The reformers had lots of error from their Roman Catholic background which came from babylonian roots. However your rediculous notion that divine election originated with pagans is so silly and unfounded and can be easily disproven as many have come to divine unconditional election by study of scripture alone without any pagan influence or reading of either Augustine or Calvin.

 

James the problem is that this historical investigation in to Calvin and Augustine's system of doctrine does no account for those who came to the same conclusion but never read either Calvin or Augustine but only read the Scripture and came to the same position by simply study of the scriptures alone. That is my experience. I never read Calvin or Augustine. I was reading the gospel of John as a very anti-Calvinistic person. The only Calvinism I was ever exposed to were those who simply presented scriptures to defend their position. Not one presented Calvin's writings or Augustine's writings or presented any philosophical arguments. They presented plain scriptures. No one could be more anti-Calvin than I was and I have many witnesses to prove that. I was the leader of the opposition in college.

So you can tell us all about Calvin and Augustine, explain their backgrouond influence, their methodologies, philosophical reasonings and writings and it means nothing as that has no bearing on how I or many came to embrace what Augustine and Calvin popularly systemized.

James, look at my response. My responses are only scripture. I have never responded by quoting Augustine or Calvin. I defend my position from the scriptures alone. Your arguments do not account for that kind of response.