Featured Sovereign Grace as it should be!

Oh...yea...I almost forgot...the "agenda" Roflmao Laugh

You and SG still paranoid about the "agenda" Laugh ..... back to needing a "have you been drinking" button.

 

So far the only blood spilled was that of Baptists in Boston by the Puritans. Remember Obadiah Holmes??

 

You told me that "logical orders" are not temporal and are not chronological. You said that the "logical order" of salvation is that men are regenerated because men cannot believe when they are dead. If we are going back to my argument that "logical orders" are by necessity chronological then let's talk about regeneration again.Laugh

Internet Theologian has the passage....again, let's not get ahead of ourselves until he has had a chance to look it up.

 

Don't play coy, IT...spell it out. What is this agenda you speak of? Can you articulate exactly what you are trying to accuse me of or are you just broad brushing some accusation to fill in later?

I don't mind when people call others out on issues. This is a debate forum. But some here have a nasty and ungodly habit of making vague accusations without substance. I don't expect IT to respond as insofar as his claims goes he's lost as last years Easter egg. I do not have an agenda, much less an "anti-Cal" agenda. His is a foolish claim.

 

Really I'm just trying to see if IT has the integrity to defend his statement. I do not care much about "logical orders", but I do view election as God electing out of fallen man (not "in time" but in effect....God choosing a people out of a fallen race). I know we are not talking temporal here. And this was only one example I offered (it just happened to be the one IT claimed was revealed by God but that I have missed).

When I was in the Army we used to say "put up or shut up." Mostly this was when we were playing cards. It's calling one's bluff. Internet Theologian has made some wild claims about an "agenda", about me being "anti-Sovereign Grace", etc. But he has yet offered one single proof of his allegations. That's called gossip...and yes, it is a sin.

 

I liked that one, but now I feel like we ran into each other at Target wearing the same dress..... LaughRoflmao

 

Now, the way Baptists were treated by Puritan New England, that came real close to a jihad.

 

No one is playing semantic games, brother Icon. Calvinism is a systematic theology. It is man's study of God. Calvinism is a study of what God has revealed to man of Himself and of redemption. But it is a systematic theology and there are areas where human reasoning us used to not only to connect the dots, to answer questions that are not necessarily answered directly, and to interpret Scripture. It is this with all Christian theologies.

I love studying theology, and I hold a Calvinistic view. I like reading how doctrines developed, the discussions and debates surrounding issues, and commentaries regarding various positions. I believe it is important to know why some Calvinists have concluded simply that Christ did not die for anyone but the elect, other's that Christ died for all and election is based on divine decree from that point, and yet others who believe that Christ died for all but not in the same way or for the same purpose. My understanding is particular redemption as summarized in the quote I provided by Edward Polhill. But these people do not hold understandings out of ignorance or confusion. They simply disagree on interpretation and reasoning out of Scripture.

The same goes for non-Calvinistic positions. John Wesley did not lack understanding. He actually brought out truths that were not of primary focus to other views. I believe he was mistaken on many points, but he was not void of understanding. Robert Picirilli actually discusses Calvinism fairly well for a "Reformation Arminian" (there are a couple of places where I think he misses the mark on Calvinism). But it is not a matter of confusion or misunderstanding. It is the human element, the potential for error in systematic theology....all systematic theology to include Calvinism. People can understand each other yet still disagree. What is valuable in discussion is not necessarily agreement but understanding.

I know that you are not so foolish or paranoid to assume I have an agenda against Calvinists. My view is Calvinistic. But I also know that we disagree on issues. I would like for our disagreement to be one of understanding, not of ignorance of where we disagree. That has been my purpose in many of our discussions.

I wish that you could grasp the depth of scholarship and study, the issues and debates, the circumstances and presuppositions, that have colored various theologies. I wish that you understood the impact the Reformation had on the development of the doctrine we hold so dear. It is not necessarily that a doctrine is wrong, but that it is a product of both scripture and extra-biblical sources. Until you can see that, it is impossible for you to truly evaluate the doctrine you hold. Does that mean Calvinism is wrong? Of course not. But it does not mean it is right either. It is just as legitimate a theology as many non-Calvinist theologies because what is different is human reasoning, not Scripture.