6 Myths of the Non-Cal Position

[convicted1]

Brother Willis,

Yes, we all know about Joseph Smith and false visitations by satan disguised as an angel of light.

Good.

This is why we must try the spirits, to see if they be of God.

Good again.

If one comes to you and says I had a dream and an angel appeared to me and said Jesus Christ is the Son of God and was crucified for my sins, and I should place my trust and faith in Him as my God and Saviour, would you call him a liar??

I am not in the business of judging anyone's eternal salvation, that is betwixt them in God. TBS, anything any of us state as a biblical fact, has to have the bible to support those claims. Salvation comes from the preaching of the gospel. I can not find any support for the notion of God sending an angel or even His Son to preach to us via dreams. If there's one verse that you can support with proper exegesis and hermeneutics, show me where they're at.

For all of Calvinism's bragging about God's sovereignty and providence it sure hates to see Him exercise it....

God is sovereign, but He doesn't violate His word, either. Salvation comes via preaching, not dreams.

 

[convicted1]

ok if your entire objection is based on the notion that God no longer uses dreams or visions to communicate to us then you have a long row to hoe.

Steaver laid that claim out and I have supported my beliefs with scriptures.

Your insistence fails for two reasons:

1. No where in scripture does it say that dreams or visions will cease at the close of scripture.

2. The information discussed in the dreams and visions with regard to salvation is not new info that would add to scripture. The information discussed here is only that which is already found in scripture.

Show me where the preaching of the gospel, which brings salvation, comes via dreams.

So your comparison to Joseph Smith fails. Maybe you should step back from your computer and gain your composure before posting any further on this subject.

You've posted ZERO scriptures in every post that I can think of. If you have, please accept my apology. Now, if you disagree with steaver, then why are you busting my chops and not his? You're just like him, one who loves nothing more than to sow discord on here...

 

[convicted1]

Mitch, here are all your posts in this thread....

You have dared to oppose calvinism and now you must be destroyed.

Well I have not read it all but your last post (attack) in him was uncalled for and over the top not to mention just flat out wrong.

And let me guess why that bothers you. It in fact is in direct contradiction to the calvinist view of election. You guys need to think that God leaves some people groups having never heard the gospel. That way you can hold on to your errant definition of election.

Since what he said contradicts that you felt it was necessary to attack him.

There ya go again with the over the top comparison. You cant just disagree and quote scripture. You have to make excessive comparisons. This is why the discourse with cals is so difficult.

It is to be sure



Uh no im not. I am most likely the most disagreable with cals. Not so much because of your doctrine but because of just exactly what you have been doing.

I agree





This is where you lose it. Just not necessary. I still think you do this because it attacks your pet doctrine.

He did not say they were saved by them.

Uh that person is not Steaver. Anyway your use of the word "by" is inappropriate. Everyone gets save "by" the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Neither Steaver nor ITL believes otherwise.

Let it be noted your accusation against them is inaccurate.

You seem to misunderstand the use of the term "mystic". In fact conservative theologians refer to both Paul and John as mystics because of their direct revelation of God. To refer to someone as a mystic may not mean what you think it does.

ok if your entire objection is based on the notion that God no longer uses dreams or visions to communicate to us then you have a long row to hoe.

Your insistence fails for two reasons:

1. No where in scripture does it say that dreams or visions will cease at the close of scripture.

2. The information discussed in the dreams and visions with regard to salvation is not new info that would add to scripture. The information discussed here is only that which is already found in scripture.


So your comparison to Joseph Smith fails. Maybe you should step back from your computer and gain your composure before posting any further on this subject.

In all of these posts you've made on here in 9 + pages, you had one post that sorta touched on a bible verse or two. All you did was bust my chops. You stated you disagreed with them, yet only came at me. You have shown your true colors on here. All you love to do is sow discord on here....sayanara....

 

[Revmitchell]

Steaver laid that claim out and I have supported my beliefs with scriptures.

Simply posting scripture does not mean they apply the way you are trying to apply them. You have not made the case that your application of the scripture you posted is correct. You assume and want everyone to believe your assumption. You need to make your case further.

Show me where the preaching of the gospel, which brings salvation, comes via dreams.

I never made the claim that it does. I have no need to defend it.

You've posted ZERO scriptures in every post that I can think of.

This statement is used as a tool, by many, to win debates and shut down arguments. It however, like in this case, is not a genuine concern. It really only shows that you have little to nothing else. The reason this true is because I have not been arguing the merits of his claim.

If you have, please accept my apology. Now, if you disagree with steaver, then why are you busting my chops and not his?

Just because I disagree with someone does not mean I need to "bust his chops". I believe you have made some reasonable arguments. I do not agree with them but never the less they are reasonable. The problem with your posts is the extreme nature in which you take your criticism of his posts. You seem angry about his position. Puzzling why.

You're just like him, one who loves nothing more than to sow discord on here...

Neither he nor I have posted anything to so discord. That seems to be a common theme among cals on this board lately. Again, it is a feeble attempt to shut down argument and win a debate. Such claims only show your argument is weak.

In the end none of the scripture you have posted has supported your position.

Here is my position on the matter:

1. I am not willing to dismiss the idea that God has sent someone or a people group a dream or vision.

2. For that dream or vision to be credible and of God it would have to be telling the receiver that which is already in scripture. It cannot be new or contrary to what we already know in scripture.

3. I have a question about the passage Romans 10 9-17 because it is not clear that the messenger delivering the gospel in that passage has to be of men or could it also be a God sent angel with a dream or vision. Anyone who says that passage has to mean men only is just not being honest. Such an idea is not clear in that passage.

4. I do not have an agenda to defend a pet doctrine, poorly defined like election. Therefore I can look at what Steaver and Ann said and see it objectively.

5. Steaver has not claimed anything that would add to scripture or give any new or contrary info. Therefore, any comparison to cults such as Mormonism etc where the founders added to scripture are failed comparisons to what Steaver and Ann have said.


Now:

Act 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
Act 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
Act 2:19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
Act 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Now, everything in this passage is summed up in vs. 21. All of those things will happen for one reason. That reason is not to develop the cannon of scripture. Those things will be done so that men will be saved. The time frame in this passage is the last days. That time frame is not until the cannon is closed. That time frame is all of the last days.

We, my friend, are in the last days. It is still the last days. It will continue to be the last days until the Lord Jesus returns literally and physically to the earth.

I have no idea if what Steaver or Ann has said is true. What I do know is that there has been no case made on this board in any recent time that shows it is not.

 

[Revmitchell]

All you love to do is sow discord on here....sayanara....

Show me where any one of those posts are "discord". Again, Discord and debate are not the same thing. I have engaged in the later. you have not show that anything I have said is actual discord. You want to assume that it is for the purpose of demonizing someone you cannot make a decent argument against.

What I see is you claiming I have sown discord but you have not actually dealt with my arguments.

This seems to be a recent tactic of many cals on this board. When you lose your weak argument accuse.

 

[steaver]

Simply posting scripture does not mean they apply the way you are trying to apply them. You have not made the case that your application of the scripture you posted is correct. You assume and want everyone to believe your assumption. You need to make your case further.




I never made the claim that it does. I have no need to defend it.









This statement is used as a tool, by many, to win debates and shut down arguments. It however, like in this case, is not a genuine concern. It really only shows that you have little to nothing else. The reason this true is because I have not been arguing the merits of his claim.



Just because I disagree with someone does not mean I need to "bust his chops". I believe you have made some reasonable arguments. I do not agree with them but never the less they are reasonable. The problem with your posts is the extreme nature in which you take your criticism of his posts. You seem angry about his position. Puzzling why.




Neither he nor I have posted anything to so discord. That seems to be a common theme among cals on this board lately. Again, it is a feeble attempt to shut down argument and win a debate. Such claims only show your argument is weak.

In the end none of the scripture you have posted has supported your position.

Here is my position on the matter:

1. I am not willing to dismiss the idea that God has sent someone or a people group a dream or vision.

2. For that dream or vision to be credible and of God it would have to be telling the receiver that which is already in scripture. It cannot be new or contrary to what we already know in scripture.

3. I have a question about the passage Romans 10 9-17 because it is not clear that the messenger delivering the gospel in that passage has to be of men or could it also be a God sent angel with a dream or vision. Anyone who says that passage has to mean men only is just not being honest. Such an idea is not clear in that passage.

4. I do not have an agenda to defend a pet doctrine, poorly defined like election. Therefore I can look at what Steaver and Ann said and see it objectively.

5. Steaver has not claimed anything that would add to scripture or give any new or contrary info. Therefore, any comparison to cults such as Mormonism etc where the founders added to scripture are failed comparisons to what Steaver and Ann have said.


Now:



Now, everything in this passage is summed up in vs. 21. All of those things will happen for one reason. That reason is not to develop the cannon of scripture. Those things will be done so that men will be saved. The time frame in this passage is the last days. That time frame is not until the cannon is closed. That time frame is all of the last days.

We, my friend, are in the last days. It is still the last days. It will continue to be the last days until the Lord Jesus returns literally and physically to the earth.

I have no idea if what Steaver or Ann has said is true. What I do know is that there has been no case made on this board in any recent time that shows it is not.

Very nicely articulated!!! No new revelations adding to scripture. Only confirmations of what has already been given by the apostles and OT prophets. For the life of me I cannot understand why a Calvinist of all people would make God anything less than God. He is not going against His Word, He is preaching it!!