Brethren Represented Inaccurately/Accurately Here?

[preacher4truth]

In another thread:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1712732#post1712732

...Calvinists/Reformeds/DoG brethren were falsely (I believe) misrepresented in a quotation (used by quantumfaith) to do so.

Here it is here:

There are several problems with the belief that regeneration precedes faith:

1) It does not theologically comprehend the nature of justification.
2) It does not theologically comprehend the correlation between regeneration and sanctification.
3) It is not sufficiently “cross-centered” or “Christocentric”.
4) It actually downplays the seriousness and nature of man’s deadness in sin.
5) It does not seriously consider the necessity and implications of union with Jesus Christ with regards to all spiritual blessings.

The link to this fallacious misrepresentation is here:

http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/29

I responded to the above with this:

1) Cals have a solid grasp on the nature of justification, and reckon as do Scriptures, that it is faith, and the gift of faith that makes this possible. Romans 4; Romans 12; 2 Peter 1.

2) Cals certainly do comprehend the correlation between regeneration/sanctification. 1 Peter 1:1ff are used and given as exposition of this truth, also Romans 8.

3) Not cross-centered or Christocentric? More misrepresentation and a personal attack upon these brethren. If anything, we are accused of giving too much glory to God and discounting the role of man. It is instead moreso than less cross/Christ centered. Whomever wrote this should be ashamed.

4) Cals discount the seriousness of spiritual death? Another stretch and completely fallacious. This would be the non-cals who do so, not the calvinists. Even our resident arminian would acknowledge this. We affirm man spiritually dead and thus incapable.

5) Number 5 is also out of wack. Cals affirm union with Christ to the extent that we realize and preach that ALL gifts come from Him and only Him. Romans 12, James 1:17. This is a well known fact.

Obviously whomever wrote the 5 points above doesn't know much about Calvinists/Calvinism and has completely misrepresented them, and this comes across as a personal attack and slam.

I don't believe any truthful arminian or non-cal would agree the quote from said site that quantumfaith provided is a truthful representation of these brethren, which includes myself.

I believe it to be an uninformed, inaccurate and unfortunate presentation of the brethren themselves by venue of what saids doctrine.

What do you all think?

1) If you think it is a misrepresentation, please provide answers and proof.

2) If you think the cal/reformed/DoG brothers are rightly presented, then provide answers proof.

- Peace!

 

[JesusFan]

In another thread:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1712732#post1712732

...Calvinists/Reformeds/DoG brethren were falsely (I believe) misrepresented in a quotation (used by quantumfaith) to do so.

Here it is here:



The link to this fallacious misrepresentation is here:

http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/29

I responded to the above with this:



I don't believe any truthful arminian or non-cal would agree the quote from said site that quantumfaith provided is a truthful representation of these brethren, which includes myself.

I believe it to be an uninformed, inaccurate and unfortunate presentation of the brethren themselves by venue of what saids doctrine.

What do you all think?

1) If you think it is a misrepresentation, please provide answers and proof.

2) If you think the cal/reformed/DoG brothers are rightly presented, then provide answers proof.

- Peace!

Aren't we though suppossed to be ONLY ones here to "misrepresent" whatArms and non cals believe?

 

[preacher4truth]

Aren't we though suppossed to be ONLY ones here to "misrepresent" whatArms and non cals believe?

Isn't that off topic?

Not talking about ONLY ones representing arms/noncals, I specifically asked if the above is accurate or inaccurate, not if "we" are the only ones to misrep them.

Maybe start another thread with that as the OP instead of derailing this one?

 

[Tom Bryant]

I don't think it is representative.

But I remember a preacher who told me at my ordination: "Never defend yourself. You friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe it."

I know he was talking about personal attacks and to let other people defend your life and ministry, but I think it can apply to our debates on Cal/non-Cal. Everyone gets misrepresented in internet arguments/debates.

 

[preacher4truth]

I don't think it is representative.

But I remember a preacher who told me at my ordination: "Never defend yourself. You friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe it."

I know he was talking about personal attacks and to let other people defend your life and ministry, but I think it can apply to our debates on Cal/non-Cal. Everyone gets misrepresented in internet arguments/debates.

I agree with your pastor in that specific situation. Good point. We've all had, (well maybe) somone within a congregation have something nasty to say, sometimes right before the message, or in their departure from church. Best thing is to not even answer, and preach away!

But to the citation: I couldn't believe the inaccuracy there at all. Totally off-base.

- Peace!

 

[JesusFan]

Isn't that off topic?

Not talking about ONLY ones representing arms/noncals, I specifically asked if the above is accurate or inaccurate, not if "we" are the only ones to misrep them.

Maybe start another thread with that as the OP instead of derailing this one?

I was using that as irony, in the sense that those here who might accuse us of misrepresenting them as regarding Soverignty, sin natures, grace, free will etc

tend to do same thing to those holding to the DoG!

 

[humblethinker]

P4T, I don't quite understand the claim you are making. Who is misrepresenting whom? Are you saying that Quantum is misrepresenting the website that was linked to? Are you saying that Quantum is misrepresenting other non-calvinists on this BB? Are you saying that the website that was linked to is misrepresenting non-cals on this BB? I'm not making any accusations, I think I just missed what you were trying to communicate.

 

[preacher4truth]

P4T, I don't quite understand the claim you are making. Who is misrepresenting whom? Are you saying that Quantum is misrepresenting the website that was linked to? Are you saying that Quantum is misrepresenting other non-calvinists on this BB? Are you saying that the website that was linked to is misrepresenting non-cals on this BB? I'm not making any accusations, I think I just missed what you were trying to communicate.

I was quite clear.

I plainly make representation of a quote qaf used, that misrepresents Calvinists/DoG/Reformed brethren.

Note:

..Calvinists/Reformeds/DoG brethren were falsely (I believe) misrepresented in a quotation (used by quantumfaith) to do so.

There's what I stated. That's pretty plain in my mind. Don't know what you're missing here?

Then I gave the link to the site that he used to misrepresent Calvinists/Dog/Reformed brethren.

In doing so, he has misrepresented us, along with the site also, which he used to back up his erroneously deficient assessment.

Now that you understand, does the quote he used represent or misrepresent Calvinists/DoG/Reformed brethren?

 

[JesusFan]

I was quite clear.

I plainly make representation of a quote qaf used, that misrepresents Calvinists/DoG/Reformed brethren.

Note:



There's what I stated. That's pretty plain in my mind. Don't know what you're missing here?

Then I gave the link to the site that he used to misrepresent Calvinists/Dog/Reformed brethren.

In doing so, he has misrepresented us, along with the site also, which he used to back up his erroneously deficient assessment.

Now that you understand, does the quote he used represent or misrepresent Calvinists/DoG/Reformed brethren?

maybe it accurately relects what he THINKS those holding to DoG adhere to?

 

[preacher4truth]

maybe it accurately relects what he THINKS those holding to DoG adhere to?

Which proves him incorrect.