So should you...you need to go bye bye
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A Passage In Which Many Calvinists Struggle
- Thread starter DrJamesAch
- Start date
- Status
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
DrJamesAch
New Member
The only thing "rediculous" is how you arrived at your conclusion as to what I actually said. I did not say that the Calvinists studied to the occult to get their views, I said that the SOURCE of those views themselves are derived from other occult sources.
If a person studies backward writing by John Q Genius, and the source of John Q's information is based on Crowley, I do not have to state that said person read Crowley in order to maintain that the source of John Q's book was derived from Crowley's writings.
Your arguments is a major category fallacy.
And again, I did not critique the doctrine of election which I believe in. What I critiqued was the SOURCE of CALVIN'S view of election which has it's source in the occultic views of Augustine. That is documented historical fact, and if you had bothered to follow the bread crumbs from Calvin, to Augustine, to the Manicheans, to Buddhism, you would have seen that it's a correct historical observation instead of offering a mere summary dismissal.
And yet you have all thread to do this, and instead, offered a testimony in support of your claim to debating scripture with scripture.
Furthermore, in comparing your testimony with mine, you fell into the exact same fallacy that Ann fell into which was my purpose in showing mine in the first place. But, the difference in my statement from hers, is that I explained why relying on testimony and experience does not validate one's biblical position or theology, and then you responded by not only failing to see that argument, but by repeating the fallacy.
Joseph Smith said the same thing when translating golden plates. Mohammed said the same thing when "Gabriel" and the ginns gave him a message under a tree. And for that matter, so did Luther. One can be deceived without having to read the exact source because as Paul says, in the latter days some will give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils.
Calvinists don't seem to get that there really was a Bible believing church before the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers we ex-Catholics and even though they found many flaws, much of their presuppositions were shaped by the Roman Catholic Church. Thus Protestants/Reformers (as is noted in ALL contemporary history books) see Christendom with 2 options-Protestant or Catholic, and then after the Reformation, Calvinist or Arminian, synergism or monergism, supralapsarianism or infralapsarianism, etc.
The modern church has replaced the Bible with traditions, overused theology terminology, creeds, catechisms that ALL lead back to the Roman Catholic Church in one way or the other. Is it error to point out the foundations of Calvinist beliefs? No more error than the Calvinist rejecting the RCC which has its foundations in Babylonian paganism. Thus it is extremely hypocritical to reject my explication of the history and foundations of Calvinism when any honest Calvinist that has rejected the RCC has done the same thing to expose the origins of the Roman Catholic Church. The only difference is is that most Calvinist never thought to question the origins of their own theology.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's interesting. OP says that the Doctrine of Grace is not in Scripture but comes from outside sources. I state that I came to the Doctrine of Grace through Scripture and not outside sources. Then I'm put into the same category as cultists. So is it only Scripture or not?
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.
DrJamesAch
New Member
If "MOST" "true" Christians were within the Roman Catholic communion, and "indeed acknowledged that they were Roman Catholic" then to whom was the Edict of Milan directed at and why it would it have even been issued if all the early believers were in agreement with the Catholic church?
Don't hurt yourself trying to answer that, and by all means, don't chip your tooth while kissing the pope's ring.
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.
DrJamesAch
New Member
The highlighted part at the bottom of your response summarizes my entire point about your fallacies.
First of all, when one is debating facts of HISTORY, you can not point a Bible verse that says "Hezekiah 3:20 says that Augustine derived his theory of election from the Manicheans". Again, a category fallacy on your part.
However, you used the EXACT SAME LOGIC at the end of your post of which you said mine was unbiblical. For example, where's the Biblical support that shows that whatever Calvin and Augustine learned, they learned from Baptists? In order to prove your point, you did the exact same thing that you claimed I did was wrong.
Now on to your ignorant assumption that Calvin learned his theology from Baptists. Calvin quoted Augustine over 400 times in his Institutes. Show me ANYWHERE in Calvin's writings where Calvin quoted a BAPTIST to support his theology? Show me anywhere that Augustine quoted a BAPTIST to support his theology.
If you admit that Baptists preceded the Protestant Reformation, but that Calvin or Luther adopted all of their views from Baptists, THEN CALVIN OR LUTHER WOULD HAVE BEEN A BAPTIST INSTEAD OF LABELED A PROTESTANT and there would be NO SUCH THING as a PROTESTANT reformation.
.
DrJamesAch
New Member
Moved to another post http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2009401#post2009401
Last edited by a moderator:
DrJamesAch
New Member
double posted. ooooooooooooops
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.
DrJamesAch
New Member
"Augustine’s anti-Pelagian writings set forth this doctrine of grace more clearly in some points, such as the terms ” election,” ” predestination,” ” the gift of perseverance,” and also more logically; but space forbids us to show this here, as the part taken in this controversy by Augustine is so fully detailed elsewhere." The Manichaean contribution to the success of Augustine's conception of predestination is both undeniable and indispensable - See more at: http://www.dissertation.com/book.php?method=isbn&book=1581120176#sthash.3lh8OBba.dpuf
Manichaeism (/ˈmænɨkiːɪzəm/;[1] in Modern Persia was a major gnostic religion, originating in Sassanid-era Babylonia.....Mani believed that the teachings of Buddha, Zoroaster, and Jesus were incomplete, and that his revelations were for the entire world, calling his teachings the "Religion of Light
"Augustine's development of the idea of predestination reveals the Manichaean concept of the Good at work in three ways: on the framework of that development, in the implication of determinism, and on the context of the doctrine - See more at: http://www.dissertation.com/book.php?method=isbn&book=1581120176#sthash.3lh8OBba.dpuf"
"
Aurelius Augustinus (354 - 430) is often simply referred to as St. Augustine or Augustine Bishop of Hippo (the ancient name of the modern city of Annaba in Algeria). He is the pre-eminent "Doctor of the Church" according to Roman Catholicism, and is considered by Evangelical Protestants to be in the tradition of the Apostle Paul as the theological fountainhead of the Reformation teaching on salvation and grace."
"The Development of the Doctrine of Predestination among the Reformed (continued): the Controversy in regard to Infra- and Supralapsarianism:
"Augustine remains a central figure, both within Christianity and in the history of Western thought. As he himself was much influenced by Platonism and Neoplatonism, particularly by Plotinus"
Augustine's responses[Total Depravity.] He dwelt at length on the Corruption of man's nature and the consequent lack of freedom of the will to choose God, exercise faith, or generally perform any act that moves towards restoration to God. To be sure, the freedom of the will to act is not in question, and man still makes his choices. However, his choices are all determined now by his corrupt nature, and in himself he has no ability to choose God.
Augustine made some helpful comparisons here. He showed that Adam was in a state of Able to sin and Able not to sin, but by his sin he rendered himself and his descendants Not able not to sin. After death the redeemed saints are finally confirmed in a state which Adam did not enjoy, namely Not able to sin.
[Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace.] As a result of the above, the necessity of the doctrine of the free grace of God becomes apparent (not only from the above logic, but from Scripture itself). God must save freely and sovereignly, since we are unable to choose him. God's grace grants everything, so election cannot be based on foreseen future merits. Even faith itself is the gift of God to his elect. Grace and predestination cannot be separated.
"A man's free-will, indeed, avails for nothing except to sin, if he knows not the way of truth; and even after his duty and his proper aim shall begin to become known to him, unless he also take delight in and feel a love for it, he neither does his duty, nor sets about it, nor lives rightly. Now, in order that such a course may engage our affections, God's 'love is shed abroad in our hearts,' not through the free-will that arises from ourselves, but 'through the Holy Ghost, which is given to us.' (Rom 5:5)" (On the Spirit and the Letter, 3.5)
I could do this all day. You have to be BLIND not to see the corrupt tree from which Calvinism came.
DrJamesAch
New Member
Here's another one:
Augustine and Philosophy
Phillip Caryed. P. Cary, J. Doody, and K. Paffenroth Eastern University(Lexington Books, 2010) 79-102.
Augustinian Compatibilism and the Doctrine of Election
Augustine and Philosophy
Phillip Caryed. P. Cary, J. Doody, and K. Paffenroth Eastern University(Lexington Books, 2010) 79-102.
Augustinian Compatibilism and the Doctrine of Election
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status