Featured Rewriting the Tulip

Perhaps in your style of polite society but not those that I associate with. We would consider that style of language rather questionable especially on a Christian site.

 

You sound just like one of those Pharisee’s that Christ warns us about… IE, those who stand in judgement of other’s, not only when someone speaks but in someone’s beliefs. Have you noticed that about yourself and how offensive you are to other people? You know what, I don’t think you do because if you understood your proclivity to being offensive, then you would consider other ways to communicate or else keep your mouth shut. But since you are on this holy mission to correct peoples beliefs, then continue by all means, be content in yourself and your boorish character, it’s of little concern to anyone who rises above the stupidity.

 

The fact that people do not like me pointing out their theological errors really does not bother me. If you think I am being offensive because I do that then I will just have to continue being offensive.

It is strange that when calvinists/reformed/PB's say something that is fine but do not correct one of them and point out their error because that would be judgemental.

If the calvinists/reformed/PB's want to hold to those questionable views that is their choice. I do not expect to change any of their minds but I do point out their biblical errors so that others are aware of them and can avoid falling for that man-made philosophy.

But you do not have to read any of my posts if they upset you so much.

Now you have a good day.

 

Yes, you’re right right Silv, vulgarity should have no place on a Christian board, just as dishonesty in misrepresenting what others have said as you routinely do.

 

Disagreeing with what someone has posted is not being dishonest. You hold to the calvinist/reformed/PB philosophy that I say is biblically wrong. If I were to agree with that view than that would be a dishonest statement.

By the logic you seem to be expressing then most posts on this board are being dishonesty in misrepresenting what others have said.

 

Continuously claiming folks believe something theologically that they have repeatedly told you they do not believe is, in fact, dishonest and very offensive.

Since you continue to make these false claims about others beliefs, it is clear you are being intentionally offensive.

And before you say, once again, “where have I misstated what you believe”, go find the 47 other times that question has been answered.

Go away. You are simply contrary to serious discussion of any issue.

peace to you

 

No, you criticize the mote that's in your brother`s eye but the beam that's is your own eye is okay. So the logic is that you're a hypocrite.

...and most posts on this board are not made by ranting nut jobs.

[edit]

...and most posters on this board are not ranting nut jobs.

 

Oh I have no intention of not reading your posts and not communicating with you…quite the contrary, I look forward to crossing commentary’s with you in order to correct your atrocious opinions. Just know this, you are not the purveyor of truth when it comes to someone's belief system, you are just a sounding board for Pelegian viewpoints, nothing more nothing less. What you are doing here in actuality is alienating yourself from others who are grappling to understand Christs mission for them just as we all do if we are striving. Now you have a choice… to communicate with fellow Christian’s by listening and if need be correcting (gently) or you can bash them over the head with your found truth only to appear arrogant and self righteous… with the end result is alienation. And I have been warning you for a while now that you are driving wedges between yourself and the brethren by your constant criticisms.

 

Brother, let me ask you… why antagonize this fellow for his prospective, as self righteous as they may be? It is he who is posturing himself into a corner where nobody will dialog with him. As Christians, is it not our mission to seek to understand rather than offend? Now I’ve always been a believer in using the IGNORE feature if necessary… but not before someone becomes intolerable, but that’s your choice.

 

OK…so what is “Primitive Baptist philosophy” that you find erronious?

 

You may call yourself reformed or PB or whatever but the reality is that if you hold to the DoG/TULIP you fall into the calvinist Philosophy.

Your misunderstanding of scripture is what I have and will continue to point out.

Truth is truth, if you find that offensive then you should look at the philosophy you are trying to uphold. Look at the pagan roots of the view you claim is biblical.

 

When have I ever called you a ranting nut job KY?

 

I think we can allow that some that say they were saved but now aren't could still be saved, but in a period of rebellion. It's probably more true than not they were never saved, but, I see it as possible for a believer to get angry with God over a traumatic event. For example, I spoke with an "atheist" who was "once saved," but declared he had rejected his salvation. The reason? His eight-year-old son had died, and he blamed God for allowing that to happen.

People can attend a fellowship for years and remain babes. It is not surprising when, during a time of crisis—they act like one.

Believers are not exempt from emotion, and sometimes those emotions can result in such a declaration, I believe. Thus, it behooves us to tread carefully when we deal with such. Who knows but that we may bring offense to another child of God who needs restoration, rather than rebuke (not that restoration cannot be accomplished by rebuke, lol). The welfare of the lost and those in need of restoration should be a basic characteristic. I struggle with this in relationships in my life sometimes, and at times fail miserably. I need to be slower to anger as I am commanded.


God bless.

 

For those that hold to the DoG/TULIP Pelagian viewpoints are anything that does not align with their DoG/TULIP philosophy.

Pointing people back to scripture seems to be the wedge. My theology did not come from some man made philosophy but from the bible.

The bible is the standard we are to adhere to so if it upsets someone when I point them back to scripture then that would only be because they do not like what the bible says. So their argument is with the bible not me, but I make an easier target.

 

I don't know that I would agree with that. If it is a matter of quoting Scripture, one could take that position (I would understand it from a KJVonlyist), but usually a substitute for words like that are found. And if one says they are offended by it, that should be taken into consideration.

At least, that's how I see things done in "polite society."

There's a reason why newer translations usually don't include some of these words.


God bless.

 

TULIP, These tenets assert that humans are inherently sinful, that God chooses who will be saved without considering any merit or action on their part, that Christ’s sacrifice was specifically for those chosen by God, that God’s grace cannot be resisted, and that those elected by God will persevere until the end.

That man, contrary to scripture, does nothing in regard to his salvation. Only God saves but He only saves those that first believe in Him.

PB sites are not clear on where you stand on determinism.

 

This is true: man is born into a state of separation from God, and even worse, he has not the righteousness by which he could be deemed sinless.

And that distinction might be worth considering: That man is inherently sinful does not equate to "He can do no good," and I think that is the extreme that is forced when trying to reject man's sinful condition.

Even when we are made one with Him, we are still sinful. I've yet to meet the person that lives without sin in its entirety. The only Sinless One is Christ. We are righteous in Him, based on His righteousness, never ours.

What merit or action have you now, in the past, or in the future to offer to Christ that you might bring His Work to a point in which it can save you?

I'll be honest, this is surprising to me, that one might think they contribute to the Work of Christ.

Ultimately that is true. You shouldn't let it bother you that there are those who go to extremes in doctrine, and you should be careful you don't fall into that trap. This happens usually because someone has adopted a system and are unwilling to allow for error in that system.

R.C. Sproul embraced TULIP, but thought the "P" should be changed to Preservation. Because he acknowledged the implication of error in perseverance.

It cannot be, if that is God's intent. He allows men to reject His grace, but there are times when He does not. Jonah is a good example. Peter as well. And let's not forget Paul. Paul did not set out on the road to Damascus with the intention of becoming a believer.

It's just a fact. If you have embraced the doctrine of the L.O.S.T. (Loss of Salvation Teachers) I would be glad to discuss it with you.

Going back to Sproul (and I am at odds with some of his views, but the man was a great teacher, and worth giving a listen to), he attributed the persevering to God and His grace.

I don't think that accurately represents the view of many who embrace TULIP. Many believe that men must first be regenerate in order to believe. I myself take the position that the event of salvation in one's life works in this order: God intervenes in the life of the unbeliever (who cannot understand the spiritual things of God, thus cannot benefit from the only thing that can save him on an eternal basis—the Gospel) through the Ministry of the Holy Ghost, Who reveals to that unbeliever the truth of the Gospel. Apart from this ministry the natural man cannot believe, because he cannot understand truth in reality. The next step is reactionary: the unbeliever—believes. Belief and faith go hand in hand. Both are results of God's convicting ministry (John 16:7-8). My favorite analogy for this is, if I threw a bucket of icewater on you on a hundred degree day, your knowledge that it was cold would be a result of my actions. So too, with the Comforter's ministry, belief is not optional. The unbeliever knows he is a sinner, that Christ is righteous, that Hell is real and that he is headed for it.

And it is at this point that man can exercise that inherent ability he does have: he can reject the truth.

Hebrews 10:26-29
King James Version

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


2 Peter 2:20-22
King James Version

20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.


Both passages show a willful rejection of the truth they have received. Hebrews compares the truth revealed to those under the (Covenant of) Law with those who have received the truth of Christ as delivered them by the Spirit. And it will be worse judgment for those rejecting truth than for those who rejected the Law.

The bottom line being, no man is born with an ability to understand the spiritual things of God, and at the peak of that mountain is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One might have an intellectual understanding, but they will not know the truth as described in Scripture. A man can know that pregnancy is painful, but he cannot know as a woman does.

I am not trying to offend, just trying to help. I would suggest, based at the animosity being displayed, that discussion is not at this time profitable for you. You might want to step back a bit. I'd also point out that we are going to find those on the forums who get their kicks antagonizing others. They have no real intention of learning more about Christ, or of teaching others about Him. They simply get their jollies upsetting other people. If we cannot interact with others without getting upset ourselves, we have only ourselves to blame. And when our doctrine is sound, we find there is no need to get upset.

Doctrinal debate is a great way for us to learn, because it is good for us to have our views challenged. Everyone can learn something from everyone. The question is, do we want to learn, or simply defend a system, or our personal views. There's enough of that going around already, which explains why brothers and sisters in Christ are at each others' throats. How are we going to change the world like that?


God bless.

 

Everyone alive is eligible for salvation. Coming to Jesus in belief and obedience is the key.

 

You've certainly accused me of being a follower of philosophy when I aim to be a strict Biblicist, all the while you're the one that habitually rails against God on this board.

 

Does that strict biblicist view contain the DoG/TULIP?

According to some of your posts you do so in fact you are not a strict biblicist as you hold to a philosophy that is extra biblical.