A Passage In Which Many Calvinists Struggle

[DrJamesAch]

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.

In order to be anti-Calvinist, so much that you lead the opposition, you would have had to have had to studied Calvinism. So to say you came to your Biblical conclusions on your own having never read Calvin and yet were "leading the opposition" against Calvinism in college, I find your experience very difficult to believe, ESPECIALLY in college where academia is king. I can't believe you lead the opposition of a college campus where college students didn't call you out on not having any knowledge of Calvin.

And again, you are using your experience to validate the veracity of your claims. There is no denying where the origins of Calvinism came from, so it makes no difference what your experience was, the objective facts that oppose your subjective experience are that evidence has just been posted in detail about the connection of the doctrines of Calvin linked to Augustine, which is linked to the Manicheans, which were linked to Gnosticism and Buddhism. I don't care how bad the ticks off the Calvinists on here, and how many go crying to the admin to get rid of me, the facts are in the books.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

Weather or not he know'd, shouldn't be da problem ...Ain't dat right. :laugh:

 

[The Biblicist]

In order to be anti-Calvinist, so much that you lead the opposition, you would have had to have had to studied Calvinism.

So you begin by calling me a liar. I told you that those who opposed me did it strictly on a Biblical basis. I told you that my conversion to unconditonal election was strictly and only due to reading the gospel of John.

If we must begin this discussion on the assumption that I am a liar then pray tell how can any reasonable discusion pursue as no one can trust a liar about anything. I guess we have to drop the discussion as it will be futile to discuss anything with that foundation.

So to say you came to your Biblical conclusions on your own having never read Calvin and yet were "leading the opposition" against Calvinism in college, I find your experience very difficult to believe, ESPECIALLY in college where academia is king. I can't believe you lead the opposition of a college campus where college students didn't call you out on not having any knowledge of Calvin.

The college I attended was a fully accredited institution but was "Landmark" and thus repudiated Calvin and Lutheran as Reformed Roman Catholics creating new daughters of Mother Rome and thus harlot denominations. They based their theology strictly upon the scriptures. Do you find that hard to beleive?

As for myself, the Lord taught me very early in my Christian life, long before I went to college or seminary how to study the Bible and seek the truth. I worked in a plywood factory and I had 15 minute breaks every two hours. On the two hour breaks I would read the little new testament I carried in my pocked. I would read through a book every day trying to understand it. I would read it again the next day but attempt to summarized the primary subject of each chapter. I would read it again the next day and then try to understand the developmental thoughts that led up to the subject. I would read it again and try to understand the development secondary divisions and then again and again to understand finally each verse in its developmental context. I did this with every book of the New Testament and many in the Old Testament before going to college. Hence, my mind was grounded in a contextual based framework and any scripture I heard I automatically placed it in that contextual based framework. That has been my method and thinking ever since that time to the present. When I was exposed to unconditional election the first time it was negatively by my father who hated it. His hatred of it skewed my own objectivity because I listened more to his philosophical reasonings than the scripture. When I was subjected to it in college by students and faculty that philosophical bias and family pride skewed my thinking. I knew that the gospel of John was the most evangelical book in the bible and written for that very purpose. My wife and I always read the scriptures and prayed before going to bed and we were starting the gospel of John. I decided that I would intentionally go back to my objective method in direct relationship to the scriptures the opposition used in regard to unconditional election as I had never approached it with that veiw in mind. As we went through the gospel of John it seemed like the Holy Spirit exploded the doctrine into my view on every page. By the time we had finished reading John 17 I had been so overwhelmed by this personal study in direct intentional relationship with unconditional election that I finally turned to my wife and told her, I can fight fellow students, I can fight the professors but I cannot fight God, this teaching is virtually on every page of the gospel of John.

The most difficult aspect for me to accept that the other side presented was definite atonement in connection with the love of God. It took some years of intense study of scripture before I was able to accept that position because that was the primary bias that fueled my intense opposition to their views.

Since that time I have several thousand volumes in my personal library most of which are reference works and classics. However, I have never read Calvin's Institutes yet and never read Augustine's confessions although I am aquainted with both. I detest the name "Calvinism" or any other such epitaph. My handle "The Biblicist" expresses my approach and how I would prefer to be addressed and regarded. I never argue on the basis of philosophy or the writings of men but purely and only from the perspective of God's Word considered in its immediate and overall context. So you will never find me responding to you with anything other than scripture from its contextual placement.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So you begin by calling me a liar. I told you that those who opposed me did it strictly on a Biblical basis. I told you that my conversion to unconditonal election was strictly and only due to reading the gospel of John.

If we must begin this discussion on the assumption that I am a liar then pray tell how can any reasonable discusion pursue as no one can trust a liar about anything. I guess we have to drop the discussion as it will be futile to discuss anything with that foundation.




The college I attended was a fully accredited institution but was "Landmark" and thus repudiated Calvin and Lutheran as Reformed Roman Catholics creating new daughters of Mother Rome and thus harlot denominations. They based their theology strictly upon the scriptures. Do you find that hard to beleive?

As for myself, the Lord taught me very early in my Christian life, long before I went to college or seminary how to study the Bible and seek the truth. I worked in a plywood factory and I had 15 minute breaks every two hours. On the two hour breaks I would read the little new testament I carried in my pocked. I would read through a book every day trying to understand it. I would read it again the next day but attempt to summarized the primary subject of each chapter. I would read it again the next day and then try to understand the developmental thoughts that led up to the subject. I would read it again and try to understand the development secondary divisions and then again and again to understand finally each verse in its developmental context. I did this with every book of the New Testament and many in the Old Testament before going to college. Hence, my mind was grounded in a contextual based framework and any scripture I heard I automatically placed it in that contextual based framework. That has been my method and thinking ever since that time to the present. When I was exposed to unconditional election the first time it was negatively by my father who hated it. His hatred of it skewed my own objectivity because I listened more to his philosophical reasonings than the scripture. When I was subjected to it in college by students and faculty that philosophical bias and family pride skewed my thinking. I knew that the gospel of John was the most evangelical book in the bible and written for that very purpose. My wife and I always read the scriptures and prayed before going to bed and we were starting the gospel of John. I decided that I would intentionally go back to my objective method in direct relationship to the scriptures the opposition used in regard to unconditional election as I had never approached it with that veiw in mind. As we went through the gospel of John it seemed like the Holy Spirit exploded the doctrine into my view on every page. By the time we had finished reading John 17 I had been so overwhelmed by this personal study in direct intentional relationship with unconditional election that I finally turned to my wife and told her, I can fight fellow students, I can fight the professors but I cannot fight God, this teaching is virtually on every page of the gospel of John.

The most difficult aspect for me to accept that the other side presented was definite atonement in connection with the love of God. It took some years of intense study of scripture before I was able to accept that position because that was the primary bias that fueled my intense opposition to their views.

Since that time I have several thousand volumes in my personal library most of which are reference works and classics. However, I have never read Calvin's Institutes yet and never read Augustine's confessions although I am aquainted with both. I detest the name "Calvinism" or any other such epitaph. My handle "The Biblicist" expresses my approach and how I would prefer to be addressed and regarded. I never argue on the basis of philosophy or the writings of men but purely and only from the perspective of God's Word considered in its immediate and overall context. So you will never find me responding to with anything other than scripture from its contextual placement.

Yea...dosen't help to be disingenuous Mark. :love2::tonofbricks:

Now, you still going to attempt to be friendly? :BangHead:

 

[The Biblicist]

Yea...dosen't help to be disingenuous Mark. :love2::tonofbricks:

Now, you still going to attempt to be friendly? :BangHead:

Contrary to popular opinion about me, I don't like to get into heated fights. It is only when the other side demonstrates no objectivity and intent to divert or create confusion that frustration sets in and the debate gets heated from my perspective. I don't like it though.

As long as James is reasonable and objective, I can be as well.

 

[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?

God is responsible for our faith because He gave the scriptures that they would be preached. God works on every mans heart to bring us to Salvation.
Faith comes by hearing. You want to call faith a gift but, the gift is Salvation because, of faith. Faith cometh by hearing and every mothers son can hear. Scripture says blindness is upon the Jews not the Gentiles.

All men are drawn to Christ and He said it would be so and it is. Jn 12:32.
Man is saved by grace through faith Eph 2:8. You cannot have grace with out faith for it to come through. Regeneration cannot be had with out surrender our rebellion repentence and confession of Christ. Rom. 10:1-4.

Man believes and is there by chosen to be saved by the faith of Christ.Gal. 2:16
Like it or not I can support what I believe with scripture.
MB

 

[agedman]

Man believes and is there by chosen to be saved by the faith of Christ. Col. 2:16
Like it or not I can support what I believe with scripture.
MB

You referenced Colossians 2:16 "Let know one disqualify you..."

I'm wondering if you meant some other verse?

 

[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.

The truth is that you had more truth as an Arminian than you do as a Calvinist. You have allowed your self to be deceived which caused you to waver in your faith. You need to strengthen your faith. You can do that by listening to the gospel. As a Calvinist you will continue to waver.
MB

 

[Rippon]

The college I attended was a fully accredited institution but was "Landmark" and thus repudiated Calvin and Lutheran as Reformed Roman Catholics creating new daughters of Mother Rome and thus harlot denominations. They based their theology strictly upon the scriptures. Do you find that hard to beleive?

Yes,because the above is absolute bunk and has no relevance to the Scripture.

Since that time I have several thousand volumes in my personal library most of which are reference works and classics. However, I have never read Calvin's Institutes yet and never read Augustine's confessions although I am aquainted with both.

Augustine's Cofessions shouldn't bother you. It is not a systematic tome!

Since you have several thousand volumes in your library you can't find room for Calvin's Institutes which are probably referenced in a few thousand of your books -- assuming they are not shallow works by-and-large

 

[MB]

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.

There is a difference between foolishness and a fool. Although a fool is nothing more than a sinner and of course you don't sin.

 

[MB]

You referenced Colossians 2:16 "Let know one disqualify you..."

I'm wondering if you meant some other verse?

True I did Gal 2:16.
MB

 

[The Biblicist]

The truth is that you had more truth as an Arminian than you do as a Calvinist. You have allowed your self to be deceived which caused you to waver in your faith. You need to strengthen your faith. You can do that by listening to the gospel. As a Calvinist you will continue to waver.
MB

I can appreciate your ferver of faith or strong convictions. But please do not attribute to me things that are not true about my own experience. I know my own experience better than you. In regard to my convictions, this is the forum to challenge them and you are free to do so and you will find I will respond appropriately with scripture and scripture only.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

In order to be anti-Calvinist, so much that you lead the opposition, you would have had to have had to studied Calvinism. So to say you came to your Biblical conclusions on your own having never read Calvin and yet were "leading the opposition" against Calvinism in college, I find your experience very difficult to believe, ESPECIALLY in college where academia is king. I can't believe you lead the opposition of a college campus where college students didn't call you out on not having any knowledge of Calvin.

And again, you are using your experience to validate the veracity of your claims. There is no denying where the origins of Calvinism came from, so it makes no difference what your experience was, the objective facts that oppose your subjective experience are that evidence has just been posted in detail about the connection of the doctrines of Calvin linked to Augustine, which is linked to the Manicheans, which were linked to Gnosticism and Buddhism. I don't care how bad the ticks off the Calvinists on here, and how many go crying to the admin to get rid of me, the facts are in the books.

So in other words, your really not a Non-Calvinist are you? I believe you have revealed your a Anti-Calvinist -- Actively hostile to anything Calvinistic. Am I correct?

 

[agedman]

I don't care how bad the ticks off the Calvinists on here, and how many go crying to the admin to get rid of me, the facts are in the books.

James, you may or may not be suspended from the board - obviously you know that your posts often have crossed over the rules stated for posting on the board.

It is also obvious that you actually desire to be removed perhaps so you can boast all the more about how unfairly the moderators are and the ungodly character of the BB.

I for one raised the flag at the post that indicated calvinistic thinkers were of satanic influence. That is questioning one's salvation - not allowed.

I didn't raise the flag over the inappropriate posts made about the family situation of White but that two violated appropriate behavior if not the board than the actual principles clearly laid out in Scriptures.

YOUR books may just lead to YOUR conclusions, but frankly the character assassinations and the lack of graciousness in your posts make a lie of any real truth you might impart, which is really sad.

It isn't like some of us haven't encouraged you to make adjustments in attitude and temper your statements.

Whether you remain or go is not in my hands.

If you do go, do not think you have won or that you can pronounce some sort of condemnation upon the BB.

If you do stay and continue with the same attitude, then expect fewer and fewer to take you seriously and to take the time to read what you write.

Perhaps you will see these past few weeks as a learning experience and deliver what you consider the truth in a more appropriate way.

I certainly would hope.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

James, you may or may not be suspended from the board - obviously you know that your posts often have crossed over the rules stated for posting on the board.

It is also obvious that you actually desire to be removed perhaps so you can boast all the more about how unfairly the moderators are and the ungodly character of the BB.

I for one raised the flag at the post that indicated calvinistic thinkers were of satanic influence. That is questioning one's salvation - not allowed.

I didn't raise the flag over the inappropriate posts made about the family situation of White but that two violated appropriate behavior if not the board than the actual principles clearly laid out in Scriptures.

YOUR books may just lead to YOUR conclusions, but frankly the character assassinations and the lack of graciousness in your posts make a lie of any real truth you might impart, which is really sad.

It isn't like some of us haven't encouraged you to make adjustments in attitude and temper your statements.

Whether you remain or go is not in my hands.

If you do go, do not think you have won or that you can pronounce some sort of condemnation upon the BB.

If you do stay and continue with the same attitude, then expect fewer and fewer to take you seriously and to take the time to read what you write.

Perhaps you will see these past few weeks as a learning experience and deliver what you consider the truth in a more appropriate way.

I certainly would hope.

:laugh: You just got "the talk" Also, make sure you eat all your vegetables & wash your hands before you come to the table.

you also might want to check out "The Calvinist Cafe" & give my regards to Guy & Steve. Tell them I sent you...:laugh: You will have fun there....hmmm, or is it Their or is it They're. :BangHead::thumbs:

 

[JohnDeereFan]

God is responsible for our faith because He gave the scriptures that they would be preached. God works on every mans heart to bring us to Salvation.
Faith comes by hearing. You want to call faith a gift but, the gift is Salvation because, of faith. Faith cometh by hearing and every mothers son can hear. Scripture says blindness is upon the Jews not the Gentiles.

All men are drawn to Christ and He said it would be so and it is. Jn 12:32.
Man is saved by grace through faith Eph 2:8. You cannot have grace with out faith for it to come through. Regeneration cannot be had with out surrender our rebellion repentence and confession of Christ. Rom. 10:1-4.

Man believes and is there by chosen to be saved by the faith of Christ.Gal. 2:16
Like it or not I can support what I believe with scripture.
MB

So, faith is of the carnal, spiritually dead man, not God?

How does the carnal man, who is spiritually dead and at emnity with God have faith?

 

[Dr. Bob]

"Salvation: If it's going to be, it's up to me."

Now THAT is the mindset of fallen carnal man who doesn't have saving faith but they are so deceived in their heart that they think they DID do something good.

 

[DrJamesAch]

So in other words, your really not a Non-Calvinist are you? I believe you have revealed your a Anti-Calvinist -- Actively hostile to anything Calvinistic. Am I correct?

An Anti-Calvinist is still a NON-Calvinist. Yet I am not COMPLETELY Anti-Calvinist although there isn't very much I have in agreement with Calvinist theology. But I would say I am much more honest about my position against Calvinism than the Calvinists on here are about their position against Non Calvinists or Arminians. I don't sugar-coat my views on it and have no problem with marking doctrines that cause division and offenses contrary to the doctrine that was delivered to the saints.

If Paul warned those in Romans to mark those that cause division, then obviously they had to know what those doctrines were, and those doctrines had to have survived by the constant separation of the churches from the errors Paul warned of. Calvinism has absolutely no historical support in the early church, and the so-called "doctrines of grace" that were developed by Augustine did not surface until several hundred years after the accepted doctrines of the early church were established. Calvinism was NOT the "doctrine which ye have learned" of the early church (Rom 16:17) and therefore I am opposed to it for historical reasons as well as Biblical reasons in my view that it attacks the nature of God.

 

[DrJamesAch]

"Salvation: If it's going to be, it's up to me."

Now THAT is the mindset of fallen carnal man who doesn't have saving faith but they are so deceived in their heart that they think they DID do something good.

Where do you get "good" out of any statement that affirms a person freely chose to believe in Christ?

Even if you oppose synergism, the fact that you are aware that the definition of synergism in a nut shell defines cooperation WITH God shows that the accusation of the free willers got saved "all by ourself" is a dishonest accusation at worst (although I'm sure you define "cooperation" as a work instead of seeing the 2 different sides of man's choice to repent, and God's part in doing the actual saving).

No honest free willer defines salvation as the process of freely believing in Christ by a libertarian choice. We admit and often declare the salvation is WHOLLY the work of God. The fact that Calvinists themselves hold that "God determines the MEANS as well as the end" is an admission by Calvinists that the MEANS are considered a part of salvation, and yet they criticize the libertarian for claiming that the means are man-oriented. Do you see the contradiction in that accusation?

 

[The Biblicist]

Where do you get "good" out of any statement that affirms a person freely chose to believe in Christ?

Even if you oppose synergism, the fact that you are aware that the definition of synergism in a nut shell defines cooperation WITH God shows that the accusation of the free willers got saved "all by ourself" is a dishonest accusation at worst (although I'm sure you define "cooperation" as a work instead of seeing the 2 different sides of man's choice to repent, and God's part in doing the actual saving).

No honest free willer defines salvation as the process of freely believing in Christ by a libertarian choice. We admit and often declare the salvation is WHOLLY the work of God. The fact that Calvinists themselves hold that "God determines the MEANS as well as the end" is an admission by Calvinists that the MEANS are considered a part of salvation, and yet they criticize the libertarian for claiming that the means are man-oriented. Do you see the contradiction in that accusation?

There is no cooperation between the unregenate nature and God before or after conversion (Rom. 7:18; 8:6; Phlip. 2:13). There is no snyergism between good and evil. There is nothing "good" within unregenerate man that can or will cooperate with God "indeed neither indeed CAN be." "Can" speaks of ability not permission and surely not cooperation. In regard to spiritual things the unregenerated man is "dead" spiritually as much in spiritual things as a physical dead man is in physical things. Not half-dead spiritually, not in a coma, but dead - completely separated from God spiritually. God does not rehabiliate the heart of man but REPLACES it with a "new" believing heart and it is with that heart man believeth unto righteousness.