Being upfront

[Iconoclast]

Everyone could stay forever silent, and that wouldn't change the background or historical facts of Calvin and his system or Augustine and his system.

The truths known as calvinism are revealed in scripture.Augustine and Calvin, lived before us and saw them before we were born.
Many of us have seen them in scripture before we knew of Calvin or Augustine

Those who seek to oppose these truths pick on the people and avoid the teaching because they cannot really begin to refute it as it is God given truth..


You are getting bad information on this ungodly talebearing site that you posted from in the catholic thread.....

caution, several 9th commandment violations listed here;


http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/paul_fool_washer.htm


here is an example of this persons twisted ideas-

John Calvin (1509-1564) was a scumbag heretic, an unsaved reprobate, a brutal tyrant, and a sick-minded freak. Calvin was a member of the occult, demonstrated in the hand-sign given in the painting to the right. Calvin taught Baptismal Regeneration and sacraments, just like the heretic Martin Luther (loser).

Paul Washer was recently invited by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron unto THE WAY OF THE MASTER show for an interview. It ought to be called THE WAY OF APOSTASY! These heretics are all connected. Birds of a feather flock together.

Paul Washer, as do Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, John Macarthur, and others, wrongly define repentance as a continuing change of life, i.e., a process. However, a changed life is the result, i.e., the fruit, of genuine repentance; and not repentance itself. If repentance is a process, than so is salvation. They are wrong! Biblical repentance is NOT something that continues; but rather, occurs once at the time of salvation. It is "a change of mind" (Greek: metanoia). A changed life is the fruit of genuine repentance; not a part of saving-faith, nor a requirement to seal one's salvation.

FIRST, Paul Washer corrupts the Biblical meaning of Hebrews 12:14 as does John MacArthur. Hebrews 12:14 and 15 state: "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled." The correct interpretation of Hebrews 12:14 is that our testimony affects those around us. Without holiness in our personal lives, other men won't see the Lord. Thus, we become a root of bitterness to those around us. Ignorance of the Scripture is a dangerous thing, and Mr. Washer is woefully ignorant of Hebrews 12:14, turning the grace of God into a lie. Paul Washer incorrectly teaches that a sinner cannot be saved without pursuing personal holiness.

 

[Iconoclast]

Originally Posted by Crabtownboy View Post
They should be taught by WHOM?

You have convinced me that Calvinist is a mistaken theology. And in my additional readings I am becoming convinced that parts of Calvinism is Gnostic in origin.

Blessings.

Divine truth is revealed or concealed by God.No one is going to convince you of anything one way or another, It is God that makes the difference.

 

[Herald]

Everyone could stay forever silent, and that wouldn't change the background or historical facts of Calvin and his system or Augustine and his system.

No. Ignorant speculators should remain silent because, when they speak, their ignorance becomes apparent to all. There is not one responsible theologian (the operative word is "responsible") who believes Augustine or Calvin were Gnostics or had gnostic tendencies.

Please stop parading your ignorance as though it is a badge of honor.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

No. Ignorant speculators should remain silent because, when they speak, their ignorance becomes apparent to all. There is not one responsible theologian (the operative word is "responsible") who believes Augustine or Calvin were Gnostics or had gnostic tendencies.

And by responsible, you mean only Calvinist theologians, right? :laugh:

Please stop parading your ignorance as though it is a badge of honor.

Please stop parading your insults as though it increases your knowledge, intelligence, and manners.

Ignorance is one charge that you cannot accurately make against me. I have the educational background to prove it. You are nothing more than a clanging cymbal.

I know the truth hurts your pride and gnaws at your flesh, but learn to live with it.

 

[Iconoclast]

No. Ignorant speculators should remain silent because, when they speak, their ignorance becomes apparent to all. There is not one responsible theologian (the operative word is "responsible") who believes Augustine or Calvin were Gnostics or had gnostic tendencies.

Please stop parading your ignorance as though it is a badge of honor.

:thumbs::applause::applause::thumbs:

 

[saturneptune]

Paul Washer spoke at our church once. He will never be back.

 

[Iconoclast]

Paul Washer spoke at our church once. He will never be back.

What did he speak on? do you have a copy of the message, or a website

 

[Mexdeaf]

Divine truth is revealed or concealed by God.No one is going to convince you of anything one way or another, It is God that makes the difference.

Amen.:thumbsup:

 

[Herald]

Please stop parading your insults as though it increases your knowledge, intelligence, and manners.

Ignorance is one charge that you cannot accurately make against me. I have the educational background to prove it. You are nothing more than a clanging cymbal.

I know the truth hurts your pride and gnaws at your flesh, but learn to live with it.

I have zero tolerance for those who pass themselves off as experts when they nothing of the sort. If you are interested in serious debate, then be about it. Otherwise stop embarrassing yourself. Your crass and baseless attempt to attach Calvinism to Gnosticism is so overboard that I probably should have ignored it, but then I remember the lurkers out there who hardly post. It is people like you who fill their heads with garbage.

You did not make the initial charge of Gnosticism, but you have advanced it. Therefore, prove it; or should I expect links to agenda-driven websites and fringe theologians?

 

[Herald]

Paul Washer spoke at our church once. He will never be back.

He certainly is not for everyone.

Paul Washer, in my very humble opinion, provides a tremendous service to the Church. He preaches a very blunt form of repentance. It is not a message that can be preached week in and week out. Washer delivers body blows. A church that has effective preaching will have body blows, arms around the shoulder, nudging in the ribs, pats on the head, kicks in the fanny, wiping away of tears, et. al.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

He certainly is not for everyone.

Paul Washer, in my very humble opinion, provides a tremendous service to the Church. He preaches a very blunt form of repentance. It is not a message that can be preached week in and week out. Washer delivers body blows. A church that has effective preaching will have body blows, arms around the shoulder, nudging in the ribs, pats on the head, kicks in the fanny, wiping away of tears, et. al.

I love the guy.....I listened to a sermon this AM & he is my cup of tea......strong, radical & sincere. I have no use puffs in my life & I find most pastors are of the puff ilk. Paul is refreshing & he represents my stance on Christianity. He walks the walk! :thumbs:

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I have zero tolerance for those who pass themselves off as experts when they nothing of the sort. If you are interested in serious debate, then be about it. Otherwise stop embarrassing yourself. Your crass and baseless attempt to attach Calvinism to Gnosticism is so overboard that I probably should have ignored it, but then I remember the lurkers out there who hardly post. It is people like you who fill their heads with garbage.

You did not make the initial charge of Gnosticism, but you have advanced it. Therefore, prove it; or should I expect links to agenda-driven websites and fringe theologians?

Careful, your historical and theological IQ is showing, and it is quite deficient.

I want to see you deny the following irrefutable facts; these are proven and accepted by all scholars and church historians. Augustine had a Manichaest and Neoplatonic past which influenced him even after his conversion. His views on the flesh and sex are just one evidence of this. His theological views significantly and predominantly influenced the Roman Catholic Church and Magisterial Protestantism, especially and particularly Calvinism and Reformed theology. The Eastern Church never embraced Augustinian theology because his views were not taught in the early church or New Testament.

This is all a matter of record, well-documented and easily proven. Some sources have been given.

If any want to independently and objectively confirm these facts, a little research will do it. Don't take my word or anyone else's for that.

I ask that any who doubt the truth and seek to confirm it, please do as I suggest. Do not listen to those who resort to pettiness, false charges, and initiation of personal attacks and insults because their little erroneous pet doctrines and world views have been challenged and they have no factual answers with which to reply, thus they have to resort to getting down and putting their mouths in the mud while they spew their venom. That is not debate. But uncomfortable facts have a way of turning some people into less than loving "brethren".

 

[saturneptune]

What did he speak on? do you have a copy of the message, or a website

He gave a sermon trying to convince the entire congregation they were lost. Many walked out of the service dejected, depressed, and wondering about their faith. As I said, he will not be back, and the pastor who brought him to our church is gone. By the way, speakers like Paul Washer have nothing to do with the sovereignty-free will debate. He has more to do with edification vs pure meanness.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Careful, your historical and theological IQ is showing, and it is quite deficient.

I want to see you deny the following irrefutable facts; these are proven and accepted by all scholars and church historians. Augustine had a Manichaest and Neoplatonic past which influenced him even after his conversion. His views on the flesh and sex are just one evidence of this. His theological views significantly and predominantly influenced the Roman Catholic Church and Magisterial Protestantism, especially and particularly Calvinism and Reformed theology. The Eastern Church never embraced Augustinian theology because his views were not taught in the early church or New Testament.

This is all a matter of record, well-documented and easily proven. Some sources have been given.

If any want to independently and objectively confirm these facts, a little research will do it. Don't take my word or anyone else's for that.

I ask that any who doubt the truth and seek to confirm it, please do as I suggest. Do not listen to those who resort to pettiness, false charges, and initiation of personal attacks and insults because their little erroneous pet doctrines and world views have been challenged and they have no factual answers with which to reply, thus they have to resort to getting down and putting their mouths in the mud while they spew their venom. That is not debate. But uncomfortable facts have a way of turning some people into less than loving "brethren".

And this twaddle links Calvinism and Gnosticism exactly how?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Careful, your historical and theological IQ is showing, and it is quite deficient.

I want to see you deny the following irrefutable facts; these are proven and accepted by all scholars and church historians. Augustine had a Manichaest and Neoplatonic past which influenced him even after his conversion. His views on the flesh and sex are just one evidence of this. His theological views significantly and predominantly influenced the Roman Catholic Church and Magisterial Protestantism, especially and particularly Calvinism and Reformed theology. The Eastern Church never embraced Augustinian theology because his views were not taught in the early church or New Testament.

This is all a matter of record, well-documented and easily proven. Some sources have been given.

If any want to independently and objectively confirm these facts, a little research will do it. Don't take my word or anyone else's for that.

I ask that any who doubt the truth and seek to confirm it, please do as I suggest. Do not listen to those who resort to pettiness, false charges, and initiation of personal attacks and insults because their little erroneous pet doctrines and world views have been challenged and they have no factual answers with which to reply, thus they have to resort to getting down and putting their mouths in the mud while they spew their venom. That is not debate. But uncomfortable facts have a way of turning some people into less than loving "brethren".

OK tom, give me some of your views of what represents gnostic churches are today & how & why they are gnostic? I want to see if you & I are anywhere close to being on the same wavelength. Thanks.

 

[saturneptune]

He certainly is not for everyone.

Paul Washer, in my very humble opinion, provides a tremendous service to the Church. He preaches a very blunt form of repentance. It is not a message that can be preached week in and week out. Washer delivers body blows. A church that has effective preaching will have body blows, arms around the shoulder, nudging in the ribs, pats on the head, kicks in the fanny, wiping away of tears, et. al.

Understand I am very much in the sovereignty camp. To me, Paul Washer is poison to a local congregation. Each local church is autonomous and can make their own decision, but this church has made theirs.

Herald, I do not mean these comments to reflect how I feel about your posts in any way. Your posts are very enlightining.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

And this twaddle links Calvinism and Gnosticism exactly how?

And you think your insult deserves an answer?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And you think your insult deserves an answer?

So now Tom, you can add thin skin to your resume.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

OK tom, give me some of your views of what represents gnostic churches are today & how & why they are gnostic? I want to see if you & I are anywhere close to being on the same wavelength. Thanks.

Okay, I appreciate your attempt at serious and respectful discussion, and I'll be happy to reply.

There is in many quarters a tendency to separate the physical and spiritual because the physical is considered to be base, temporary, whereas the spirit is considered to be eternal. This devalues the body. The spirit is considered "higher" than the body. This is a main tenet of Gnosticism, and it reflects the dualism of Manichaesm which Augustine was influenced by. This lead to a distrust of the flesh and made sex dirty. This false dualism and wrong view of the flesh/body and sex is the foundation of the RCC views on Mary -- it is essential for these views that Mary must have remained a virgin all her life so she could remain free of sin, the cause of sin in this view being the flesh.

Puritanism was Reformed in theology; it had this same perverted view of the flesh and the body. Everyone who has studied Reformed theology knows this. It didn't lead to the extreme views of Mary that the RCC developed, but it manifested in different ways. It developed an ascetical code of behavior, for instance, condemning all kinds of harmless amusements and such.

As I said, Roman Catholic and Protestant theology, especially Reformed theology, are strongly influenced by Augustine, including those influences from his past that carried over into his post-conversion life.

As you and anyone can see, I have not confined this influence to Calvinism; I have stated repeatedly that a large segment of Western Christianity is Augustinian.

To me, I am not attacking by saying this. I am simply stating a historical and theological fact. Can anyone deny that in Western Christianity there is an unbiblical dualism of body and soul?

This dualism is just one area where Augustine's Manichaesm and Neoplatonism, and, by extension, Gnosticism, has had an unhealthy and unbiblical effect on much of Christendom.

People think that some liberal theologians' disbelief in the bodily resurrection is a result of liberalism itself. It is not; it is a result of this dualist devaluing of the body which makes it easy to discard this cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith.

Now I fully expect to be attacked for this, but I think my best recourse is to ignore such, if I can.

 

[Mexdeaf]

And you think your insult deserves an answer?

That wasn't an insult, it was an honest question. What you presented was a somewhat convoluted history lesson which had absolutely nothing to do with TULIP, Calvinism or soteriology.