Your ideas Brother Bill... Your Billology... your Billdoctrine... your Billbelief... from your Billbible... And they have been in the past and still are UnBillievable 
... Brother Glen
... Brother Glen 
-
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!
Absolutely amazing!!!
- Thread starter William C
- Start date
I'm 'advocating' Arminianism. What exactly do you expect when you come Calvinism/Arminianism board???? The problem is that most of you don't even have anykind of understanding of why Arminians believe what they do. You're all so used to debating Arminians who have been raised in the typical doctrine free baptist churches that you wouldn't know true Arminianism if it bit you on the nose. You disagree with a doctrine that you haven't even began to understand.
I can't blame you to harshly, I did it to for many years.
Your mixing two seprate subjects. Being chosen to preach is different than being chosen for salvation. These are two totally different subjects that you lump together in order to dismiss my claims as being "absurd."
If your going to address my arguements, please at least try to represent them correctly!
Did God choose you to be an apostle? Did he choose you to speak and write divinely inspired words? Did he choose you to perform many great signs and wonders?
There is a difference. Please learn it.
Yes, believers have been predestined to be adopted as Children of God. God chose for all those who believe to become holy and without blame. So?
I have a couple of questions for you:
As believers, have we been adopted already or is that something that we have been predestined for in our future?
Does the bible say we are predestined to believe? Or does it say what believers are predestined to become?
So you say. It's all in the perspective brother. You need a new one.
MUMBO JUMBO.Originally posted by tyndale1946:
Your ideas Brother Bill... Your Billology... your Billdoctrine... your Billbelief... from your Billbible... And they have been in the past and still are UnBillievable
This tread is off topic and should be deleted.
It amazes me that I can come to an Arminian/Calvinism debate board and debate in favor of Arminianism with age old arguments and be written off as being a creator of a new theology???
That just goes to prove that ignorance is bliss.
Old arguments--as old as Pelagius. New theology? No newer than Rome. Ignorance--aha, thou temptest me bro... thou must be ecstatic...Originally posted by Brother Bill:
It amazes me that I can come to an Arminian/Calvinism debate board and debate in favor of Arminianism with age old arguments and be written off as being a creator of a new theology???
That just goes to prove that ignorance is bliss.
And I am not confused on my tenses. Perfect tense indicates an action in time past which has reached a culmination and its effects still continue. Present tense indicates continuity. "Historical presents" are not discernable (as the basic tenses are) by the spelling of the Greek verb, but are an interpretation. IN this case, "no one can come," "can" refers to ability, "no one is able to come," and it is in the present tense, indicating that this is a continuous state. And, I've never seen a translator interpret this passage as an historical present.
And oh, what tortured logic in John 6. Whatever tends to Calvinism is explained away, whatever doesn't is OK. Bill, Bill, what are we going to do with you?
[ July 02, 2003, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Major B ]
Brother Bill... You are free to post until you fly off the handle and break the rules... You can say anything you want to as long as it is decent and in order... Now as far as the Arminian position I would like a head count of all the Arminians on here who embrace your doctrine... Maybe only you... Maybe a few... Maybe them all!... I don't know... Maybe they will tell us... All I can say is that I will monitor the posts... So say on Brother Bill... I'm watching and reading ALL posts... Not just yours!... Brother Glen
I wasn't arguing that this was an historical present, I was just quoting the various uses of the present tense verbs.
I don't have a problem saying that their condition is a "continuous state." I don't see how that supports your view. The question is why are they unable. You say its because they were born that way and the scripture clearly says because they were hardened (John 12:37-41). But hey if you want to disagree with John that is between you and him.
I could say the same of you from my perspective brother, but I don't want to waist time with the MUMBO JUMBO.
Personally it doesn't matter a hill of beans what the other 'arminians' on this post believe. It matters what the scritpure says. I've received many emails from fellow arminians on this board who have shown support for my posts. Why shouldn't they? Most of what I've written was expounded by Jacobus Arminius or other Arminian scholars.Originally posted by tyndale1946:
Brother Bill... You are free to post until you fly off the handle and break the rules... You can say anything you want to as long as it is decent and in order... Now as far as the Arminian position I would like a head count of all the Arminians on here who embrace your doctrine... Maybe only you... Maybe a few... Maybe them all!... I don't know... Maybe they will tell us... All I can say is that I will monitor the posts... So say on Brother Bill... I'm watching and reading ALL posts... Not just yours!... Brother Glen
My question is, why don't you all know that? If you are so adamantly apposed to Arminian doctrine, why is it that you are so unfimiliar with it? You should at least know the doctrine of the one who you oppose so diligently.
I was at WKU's library today and saw a book on Jacobus Arminius and thought about checking it out, but instead I checked out the two next to it on the History of Primitive Baptists in Georgia and Mississippi. I did check out a biography on Spurgeon, I figured this would satisfy ol' Arminius' ghost at least, but wait, you don't believe in MUMBO JUMBO do ya? Well, neither do I, that is why I didn't even touch the one on Mary Eddy Baker and the Christian Science Church .
I was disappointed to see there was no history of Primitives in Kentucky, looks like it is time for somebody to write one, IMHO.
Not even any books on John Taylor that are circulating, oh well, looks like my Saturdays are booked for a while.
God Bless All on the BB
Bro. Dallas Eaton
At least it is air conditioned
.I was disappointed to see there was no history of Primitives in Kentucky, looks like it is time for somebody to write one, IMHO.
Not even any books on John Taylor that are circulating, oh well, looks like my Saturdays are booked for a while.
God Bless All on the BB
Bro. Dallas Eaton
At least it is air conditioned
Yes, Arminius resurrected the teachings of Pelagius, John Cassian, Pighius, Erasmus, and other catholics.
You assume we haven't read any of this stuff, but some of us have. I have also read some Mennonite stuff, which is just as incorrect, but better argued usually.
Brother Dallas... Just off topic for a minute... You might want to check the PB Library in Carthage with Elder Webb he may have a history of the PB's in Old Kentucky... Worth a try!... We are all here to help!... Brother Glen
Btw... It probably will not be free but will be an addition to your vast library!... You do have a vast library don't you?
Btw... It probably will not be free but will be an addition to your vast library!... You do have a vast library don't you?
I THINK OF THE GARDEN, AND THE INSTRUCTION TO NOT EAT THE CERTAIN FRUIT OR SURELY DIE..... AND I THINK THAT IN ACTUALITY, SATAN'S REPLY MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
" You will not surely die. What you need is a basic understanding of the historical context of the day in which those statements were made. Just a little hermenuetics might help you interpret those texts more accurately. Just one bite and you will see that I am right."
" You will not surely die. What you need is a basic understanding of the historical context of the day in which those statements were made. Just a little hermenuetics might help you interpret those texts more accurately. Just one bite and you will see that I am right."
I for one basicaly agree, but I don't focus on the apostles as being the only ones chosen at the time. But the basic idea is that God/Christ was starting out with certain people first (such as the apostles), while Israel was being hardened. This is in the overall context, and it is not saying that salvation would never be offered to the rest of the people.
It is certainly true that Arminians have not addressed this part of scripture enough, and that is why Bill's doctrine seems so strange (and Calvinists assumed the passage was totally unanswered by the other side)
No. Pelagius denied that man was even really fallen, if I understood correctly. Calvinists may claim this is the corollary of Arminius' teaching, but to be truuthful, it is not the same, anymore than the caricatures Calvinists object to, such as fatalism.
Erasmus seemed to make a lot of good points, though I don't really know his full position (was he as Pelagian as the rest of Catholicism had become)
Augustine was the chief of Catholic authorities, so that guilt by association means nothing.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Well - I am not sure which of Bill's views you are referencing - but certainly I too am Arminian in that I believe that God so Loved the World - and that God draws all mankind to Himself.
I also agree that "hardening" takes place. In the case of the lost it is hardening by their choice to turn from the Holy Spirit that "Convicts the World of sin and righteousness and judgment".
I differ with Bill in that I accept the "disposition" in mankind that is in line with total depravity - but I agree with him that hardening takes place -- i.e. they enter into a WORSE condition in terms of their turning from the Spirit of God.
I am not sure what "other views" you may be referencing here.
In Christ,
Bob
Thanks Eric for you post.
I agree with this. And as I explained I don't believe that the apostles were the only ones chosen for salvation, I do believe they were the only ones chosen for apostleship in the manner that they were chosen.
I also believe that during the time of Christ ministry here on earth there were only certain Jews chosen to recieve His teachings. The gospel was clearly being hidden from the rest in parables as Jesus explains. And the Gentiles had not yet been grafted in. Therefore, Jesus' focus here on earth was first to accomplish redemption/propitiation and to train the God given apostles for their divine work as messengers to the world.
No Calvinist on this board has once told us why Jesus would need to HIDE the gospel from TOTALLY DEPRAVED (spiritiually blind and deaf) people???
Christ's "hiding it from the wise and learned and revealing it to little children" is not supporting Calvinistic thought, for why would you hide something from a blind man? Instead, it is supporting the idea of the temporarary judicial hardening of Israel, a concept that seems quite foreign to most of the Calvinist on this board.
Now now Bill ... you are playing loose with the facts again. I did give you a reason why. So whether or not you agree with my reason, it is simply untrue to say that "No Calvinist on this board" has given you a reason.
Now now Bill ... you are playing loose with the facts again. I did give you a reason why. So whether or not you agree with my reason, it is simply untrue to say that "No Calvinist on this board" has given you a reason.
</font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry Larry. I must have either missed that or forgotten it. Can you point that out to me or just briefly remind me as to your answer once again. Thanks.
You thanked me for it. I don't think you gave it much thought however. The hardening could be a prevention of false acceptance of the Messiah for political reasons rather than spiritual ones. Some tried to set him up as an earthly king at that time. Had the nation not been hardened, they would have accepted him as a political leader, not a spiritual one. Because of their depravity, they would never have accepted him as a spiritual leader.
If I thank you for that without any rebuttal then you are right, I must not have given it much thought.
First, I asked; why did God hide the gospel in parables from blind people?
Is this supposed to be an answer to that question?
This is a nice try but it most certainly doesn't hold any water. When hardening is spoken of in scripture nothing is ever said about Jesus' acceptance as a political leader. In fact, the scripture specifically refers to men's spiritual ability: BELIEF, UNDERSTANDING, SEEING, and HEARING so that they MAY TURN AND BE HEALED. How is that political? Is God keeping them from having political sight or sound? Is belief now political? Are they politically healed? That makes no sense whatsoever!
And how exactly would a nation accept a man as their political leader who claimed to be the son of God without actually believing that he was the son of God? Could they think to themselves, well he blasphemes God but he still makes a great political leader for us? People don't knowingly accept someone as a their leader if they believe he is a liar about his true identity, especially if that idenity is a deity. So to say that it is necessary for God to harden people for political reasons is absurd; as if the Jewish leaders of that day might have accepted someone as their leader claiming to be God's Son while not truely believing this to be the case. This is silly.
This is obviously something you haven't put a lot of thought into yourself.