Calvinism... THE SEQUEL!

[Pastor Larry]

I disagree.

We are saved through the Word made flesh.

How is this disagreement? I believe that. But the fact is that we know about the Word made flesh through the Word written. That's why hte word of God is necesssary for salvation.

 

[tragic_pizza]

How is this disagreement? I believe that. But the fact is that we know about the Word made flesh through the Word written. That's why hte word of God is necesssary for salvation.

Faith in the risen Christ is necessary for salvation. Many instances in Acts demonstrate that Paul needed no Scripture to bring people to that faith.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Summary...your opinion.

Actually, it’s the truth and those who know the truth recognize it.

You admit you do not frequent the C/A threads much. As far as a "long time" goes...a little over a year is a "long time"?

I don’t frequent them much anymore. Remember, I was the moderator of the CvA forum for its entire existence. And I have interacted with you probably since the time you started posting on this topic.

This statment shows your previous one to be less than honest.

How so?

BTW...the C/A forum hasn't been around in over a year. Please don't pretend you STILL read the C/A threads if you don't.

I didn’t pretend I still read them. I said I read them in the CvA forum.

Certainly you know English well enough to know that “read” is past tense, particularly in the context of the CvA forum which hasn’t been around in a while.

Blanketing me with "you don't know anything" is just that.

I don’t think I have ever said “you don’t know anything.” If you think I have, then please give a link to it. Otherwise apologize for your false accusation.

What I have said is that about this topic, you don’t know what you are talking about. And that is not character assassination. It is the truth.

Here is a classic Pastor Larry "twist" that you do so often. Memory about what? Let's see what it was I responded to in the first place...PL: "It is hard to remember a person on this board (and I have been here a long time) who has argued so vehemently against Calvinism with such a gross misunderstanding of it."
What was my response? "I have only been here less than two years, so your memory is incorrect."
So in the six years you have been here, your memory of my posts...what the subject matter of my posts... as well as the many who speak out against calvinism is incorrect...not that "you don't remember me".

Where’s the twist? In the six years I have been here, I cannot remember a person who has argued so vehemently against Calvinism with such a gross misunderstanding of it. You take the cake in that regard. Most people who argue against it have a little understanding or don’t keep arguing about it. I am not sure what was hard to understand about that.

I guess it's in the eye of the beholder...huh?

Nope, not at all. You have not shown anything false about Calvinism yet.

On the contrary, you have never shown where the doctrine of calvinism to be true. Pulling Scripture out of context and eisegesis proves nothing.

Name one Scripture I have pulled out of context or any eisegesis I have done. That will be a short thread. I haven’t.

...and you have been told just as many times that you don't represent the non cal position accurately, and you need to learn what you are speaking out against. You simply won't listen.

I have been all ears for a long time to find out what I have misrepresented about the arminian position. Please tell me. Let’s see if you are correct.

I expect the same spitting match, accusatory blanket responses from you..."you don't know anything"..."I know more than you"..."please learn something"..."you don't listen"..."you don't know what you are talking about"...yada-yada...

If you don’t spit, there won’t be any spitting match. I don’t get involved in that. The truth is that on this topic, I do know more than you do, both about my position and about what arminianism teaches. I have begged you to learn. I have never asked you to agree with me. I have asked you to address what Calvinism actually believes rather than what you make up about it.

Please learn, Webdog. This is not personal for me. I don’t really care what you believe. I do care that you talk about things wrongly, misrepresent many godly men who hold the position that I hold. It is a serious issue. And it is time for you to start learning

 

[Pastor Larry]

Faith in the risen Christ is necessary for salvation. Many instances in Acts demonstrate that Paul needed no Scripture to bring people to that faith.

But there is no place in Acts where Paul did not need the message of Christ to come to faith. He may not have precisely quoted Scripture, but his message was the message of Scripture. Today, the message of Christ is found in Scripture, no place else. As Scripture says, it is the Scriptures which are able to make us wise unto salvation. Without the Scripture, we would not know what to believe.

 

[tragic_pizza]

But there is no place in Acts where Paul did not need the message of Christ to come to faith. Today, the message of Christ is found in Scripture, no place else. As Scripture says, it is the Scriptures which are able to make us wise unto salvation. Without the Scripture, we would not know what to believe.

So you're saying that if I had never heard of God or Christianity, I could read a Bible and become a Christian?

Really?

Highly unlikely.

The message of Christ is found in Scripture, but it is related by Christians and quickened by the witness of the Holy Spirit.

If every Bible on Earth disappeared, Christianity would still thrive.

We are, you see, more than written words.

 

[Pastor Larry]

So you're saying that if I had never heard of God or Christianity, I could read a Bible and become a Christian?

Really?

Yes

Highly unlikely.

Why? Is the word of God not able to bring life as 1 Peter 1 says? (That's a question, not an attack.) It seems to me that the truth of Scripture means that the Scriptures are what gives us the message of salvation.

The message of Christ is found in Scripture, but it is related by Christians and quickened by the witness of the Holy Spirit.

Not always. But this just verifies my point that with the Scripture Christians would have notthing to relate.

[qutoe]If every Bible on Earth disappeared, Christianity would still thrive.[/quote]How? What would Christians believe? Why do you think God had his word written down rather than passed along orally? I think it was so that it would be preserved for all generations.

We are, you see, more than written words.

But we are not perfect. The Scripture is.

 

[tragic_pizza]

The Scripture is not perfect, sorry.

Infallible in matters of spiritual truth and doctrine, yes, but not perfect.

 

[Pastor Larry]

That's a pretty stunning statement. The Bible claims that is inspired by a God who cannot lie. That makes it perfect. It cannot be broken (John 10:35). It seems to me that either the Bible is inerrant and infallible or God lied. I prefer the first.

Your position is not the position of orthodoxy.

 

[tragic_pizza]

That's a pretty stunning statement. The Bible claims that is inspired by a God who cannot lie. That makes it perfect. It cannot be broken (John 10:35). It seems to me that either the Bible is inerrant and infallible or God lied. I prefer the first.

Your position is not the position of orthodoxy.

It's not the position of Fundamentalist orthodoxy, no.

Most other scholars understand that the Bible was written by people who were products of their time: prescientific, not neccesarily tied to geographic minutae, recording oral traditions, etc. This does not diminish the importance or reliability of Scripture; merely makes it less of an idol.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It's not the position of Fundamentalist orthodoxy, no.

Yes it is. Read the work of Warfield, Machen, and others.

Most other scholars understand that the Bible was written by people who were products of their time: prescientific, not neccesarily tied to geographic minutae, recording oral traditions, etc. This does not diminish the importance or reliability of Scripture; merely makes it less of an idol.

Prescientific, not tied to geographical minutae, recording oral tradition, etc. does not make it imperfect. God inspired it. That means that what they wrote was divinely superintended by God, and therefore is perfect. When they wrote about a topic, they wrote correctly. "Products of their time"? The Bible describes itself as the products of God's breath.

You say it doesn't deminish the reliability of it. How so? How can it be reliable when it isn't correct? And how do you determine what is correct in it and what is not?

 

[tragic_pizza]

You say it doesn't deminish the reliability of it. How so? How can it be reliable when it isn't correct? And how do you determine what is correct in it and what is not?

The Bible is a collection of theological works, not of primarily historical works. Scientifically? Well, for one example, the writer of Genesis thought the sky was blue because it was a canopy of water. Chronologically, the Biblical earth is six or seven thousand years old, and no more.

Viewed theologically, I don't need for history to prove the existence of the Ibaru slaves in Egypt. I don't need for someone to find Noah's Ark. I don't need to argue against an earth which is millions, if not billions, of years old.

Love God, without reservation, and through that love reach out to others, holding nothing back. Rely upon God, Who saves without fail. Trust in God, and in the salvation of Jesus Christ, and proclaim that salvation to the world. Be honest with God, even when honesty isn't pretty, and be honest with others, even at pain of death. Draw close to God, and delight in God's ways. Abide in God, and rejoice in Eternity. These are just a few of the solidly infallible, perfect, utterly reliable truths of Scripture.

Larry what if the scholars who claim a JEDP redaction of the Penteteuch are right? What if the Synoptics weren't begun until around 70AD, and what if the Synoptics grew from a "Q" documetn, or even the Gospel of Thomas? What if Paul didn't write many of the Epistles accredited to him, and what if the Apostle John never really wrote anything himself?

Personally, except for that first, I think none of these things. I'm probably among the most historically conservative people you'll ever speak to concerning the development of New Testament canon. Yet even if irrefutible evidence emerged that all of these things were true, my faith would be firm, because that faith is based upon the Word of God made flesh, and informed by the inspired, written Word of God.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The Bible is a collection of theological works, not of primarily historical works.

Actually, the largest portion of Scripture is historical in nature. It is no doubt given to teach us about God, but it is historical.

Scientifically? Well, for one example, the writer of Genesis thought the sky was blue because it was a canopy of water.

We still talk of "blue skies." We don't know that Moses thought it was because of a canopy of water, however.

Chronologically, the Biblical earth is six or seven thousand years old, and no more.

Chronologically, the Bible gives the age of the earth at about 8-12 thousand years. It could be as much as 50-60 thousand with no biblical problems. It is well known that the genealogies in Scripture are not always direct lines. They sometimes skip generations.

Viewed theologically, I don't need for history to prove the existence of the Ibaru slaves in Egypt. I don't need for someone to find Noah's Ark.

Neither do I. This is irrelevant.

I don't need to argue against an earth which is millions, if not billions, of years old.

There's no proof that the earth is more than 10-12 thousand years old. Anything more than that is theory. Millions and billions are out of the question scientifically speaking.

These are just a few of the solidly infallible, perfect, utterly reliable truths of Scripture.

How do you know these are reliable when the rest of it isn't? Isn't is true that you are picking and choosing what to believe when God makes no distinction between what you believe and what you don't?

Larry what if the scholars who claim a JEDP redaction of the Penteteuch are right?

On the one hand, if they are right, then Jesus lied and there is no salvation.

What if the Synoptics weren't begun until around 70AD,

This is hardly controversial. The Bible doesn't give us a date for the writing of the synoptics. Men like Carson, Moo, and Morris, and Hiebert, among others have done excellent work in this area.

and what if the Synoptics grew from a "Q" documetn, or even the Gospel of Thomas?

The Q document is a possibility. Orthodox scholars have believed that. It doesn't contradict Scripture. The Gospel of Thomas was widely rejected from the early church

What if Paul didn't write many of the Epistles accredited to him

Then God lied, because he said Paul wrote them. Besides, why wouldn't Paul have written them? When you think about it, there is no believing reason to doubt Paul's authorship of any of those books.

and what if the Apostle John never really wrote anything himself?

Then God lied, because he said John wrote them. And there is no believing reason to doubt.

Yet even if irrefutible evidence emerged that all of these things were true, my faith would be firm, because that faith is based upon the Word of God made flesh, and informed by the inspired, written Word of God.

But you would not know about hte Word of God made flesh were it not for the inspired, written word of God that your faith is informed by (and should be based on). If things in the Bible started showing up as untrue, then we would have no reason to believe part of it over another part. We would not be able to distinguish.

Remember, God makes no distinction between theological truth and any other kind of truth. It is all the same to him, and he inspired it. He was its source. Therefore, it is perfect.

 

[tragic_pizza]

OK, well, I hope none of your studies ever shake your truth, then.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Study has led me to the truth. I think the issue here, and on other threads, is about authority. It seems to me that you have set up your own mind as the authority and anything that fits it is good, and that which doesn't fit it is bad.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Study has led me to the truth. I think the issue here, and on other threads, is about authority. It seems to me that you have set up your own mind as the authority and anything that fits it is good, and that which doesn't fit it is bad.

That's because you disagree with me.

 

[Pastor Larry]

No, it's becuase you disagree with what Scripture says. It has nothign to do with me. I am not that important.

 

[tragic_pizza]

No, it's becuase you disagree with what Scripture says. It has nothign to do with me. I am not that important.

Yet you are important enough to decide that I am against Scripture.

Fascinating.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It doesn't take a lot of importance to see that when Scripture says one thing and TP says another, they disagree.

In fact, that's probably easier than figuring out what "under any circumstances" means.

 

[tragic_pizza]

It doesn't take a lot of importance to see that when Scripture says one thing and TP says another, they disagree.

So you say.

 

[webdog]

Please learn, Webdog. This is not personal for me. I don’t really care what you believe. I do care that you talk about things wrongly, misrepresent many godly men who hold the position that I hold. It is a serious issue. And it is time for you to start learning

Likewise, pastor, unless you have it all figured out. You have also misrepresented many godly people who do not hold to the same doctrine as you. I see you are even taking the superior biblical high ground with a fellow calvinist. Humility does wonders if you allow (unless you were predestined not to be humble)...