• 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!

Calvinists Please Explain Something for Me...

preacher4truth

Active Member
Stating the truth is not arrogance.

Yup. Exactly. This guy loves to broad brush, sow discord, and take assumption and opportunity when Calvinists make a statement that they are 'arrogant'. Nothing short of slander and practice of hatred toward brothers. His intent is malicious and to be antagonistic. Something is amiss apparently in his walk as this is his typical MO. He doesn't realize his own problems and how he comes across himself. Seems to be quite an angry man.

This whole discussion is based on a false premise—that a good tree can bring forth corrupt fruit. That is the noncalvinist's definition of freedom.

Nailed. Several on here resemble that false teaching.

It is impossible for God to lie. That is freedom.

Agreed.
 

DrJamesAch

New Member
Stating the truth is not arrogance.

This whole discussion is based on a false premise—that a good tree can bring forth corrupt fruit. That is the noncalvinist's definition of freedom.

It is impossible for God to lie. That is freedom.
And what kind of tree was John Calvin:thumbsup:
 

HeirofSalvation

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
He never lied about what he was writing,making believe it came from him when it was someone else:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Has anyone apologized for falsely accusing Dr. J. of "blashpemy" as I have twice demonstrated is a false accusation? Or are we still "piling-on" with this "plagiarism" thing.

Personally, I would rather "plagiarized" a non-published and informal forum post then to have falsely accused a brother of blasphemy. But, that's just me.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
But he falsely accused someone of "blasphemy" as you are doing. And then had him murdered.

You were asked for what your understanding of the word blasphemy was.
Several have seen it as i do.Your definition seems a bit light....

To ridicule God,his word,and his people is to take God's name in vain.

he is unrepentant and his posts are not credible unless and until he repents.

In the post that i hijacked the thread with, because i saw his name active[green light]....I showed how he lied yet again after this has all taken place.
I can post what i call......MY THOUGHTS on this and then cut and paste this from A Baptist Catechism with Commentary...by W.R.Downing....but then i would be lying:thumbsup:
There are many ways in which God’s name can be taken in vain: in
thought, word, or deed. Blasphemy, profanity, swearing and cursing are the
four major explicit means of violating this Commandment. Lightness or
frivolity concerning God’s name is also forbidden, as is hypocrisy in religious
profession.
Demeaning God’s Word is also necessarily included in this
prohibition, as is invoking his name in prayer when praying in either self–will
or in a manner inconsistent with his nature and character (Matt. 6:9). See
Question 101.
There are several common ways in which God’s name is taken in vain:
first, blasphemy, railing or reviling is willful, injurious speech against the
majesty of God (Matt. 12:24–32; Rom. 2:21–24).
Second, profanity, which presupposes God’s name. Profanity specifically
refers to the irreverent use of God’s name or religious objects. The term
derives from pro, “before,” and fanum, “temple, shrine, sanctuary,” and thus
before [or outside] the temple [abode of the “god”] and hence “common,
secular, outside the realm of God.” God, however, is the God of all created
reality, omnipresent, immense and immanent. There is nothing apart from
him, nothing secular, common or profane. Thus, to profane anything
associated with God is to take his name in vain (Matt. 5:33–37).

Third, swearing an oath. Swearing may refer to coarse language in
general, but it refers specifically to an oath which invokes or refers to the
name of God or some religious object as a means of enforcing one’s veracity
or determination. Swearing an oath may be either righteous and legitimate or
sinful, i.e., taking God’s name in vain (1 Sam. 14:44; 1 Kgs. 17:1; Matt. 5:33–
37). A Christian is to be taken at his word, and therefore is not to swear by
anything or anyone (Matt. 5:33–37).
Fourth, cursing, which may refer to coarse language in general, but it
technically refers to calling down the wrath or judgment of God upon an
enemy or evil–doer. Cursing may be either legitimate or sinful (Lev. 24:11;
Numb. 23:8; Dt. 27:15–25; Josh. 6:26; 1 Sam. 17:43; 2 Kgs. 2:23–24; 2 Tim.
4:14).
Cursing is the most useless and senseless of sins. Unlike idolatry, it is
transparently irreligious and immediately reveals the hypocrite. Unlike
murder, there is not even the possible momentary satisfaction of revenge.
Unlike lying or stealing, it brings not even temporary advantage. Unlike
immorality, it brings no momentary pleasure whatsoever, nor does it satisfy
any lust. Unlike covetousness, which is necessarily thoughtful, it is irrational
and unthinking. Why, then, is cursing so prevalent? Mankind, created in the
image of God, has the gift of speech to praise God and communicate with one
another. Blasphemy, cursing or swearing is the awful expression of depraved
sinners who are spiritually impotent to create, and can only articulate the
frustration of their perverted “god–complex” by vocalizing their hatred and
disdain for both God and man in wicked and destructive terms. Words
become weapons, oaths become frustrated incantations and cursing becomes a
99
perverted theology of self–destruction. The very gift of speech, meant to
declare God’s truth and make society coherent, rather profanes God’s name,
perverts the truth and fragments society (Rom. 3:13–14).

A civil or religious oath is an acknowledgement that God is the all–
encompassing, living reality, that he is morally self–consistent, immanent and
will infallibly bring men into judgment. It further acknowledges his Lordship
and rule over all human and religious government, and the validity and
priority of his Law. Thus, oaths are to be taken seriously and perjury is a
serious offence to both God and man. A civil oath without God’s Law–order
is, however, meaningless, as witnessed daily in the modern civil courts.
Is it lawful to take a civil or religious oath? Some maintain that all such
oaths—a political oath of office, testifying under oath in legal matters,
religious oaths or vows—are forbidden by our Lord (Matt. 5:33–37). The
oaths forbidden by the Lord were either needless or distorted personal oaths.
Something religious was invoked to give them force. The believer, our Lord
taught, ought to be taken at his word [“Yes” or “No”] without such oaths.
Further, it must be noted that Scripture records proper oaths in a positive way.
A vow or oath is a serious matter and is not to be taken lightly (Eccl. 5:1–6).
God blesses the person who gives an oath and remains faithful to his word,
despite personal loss (Psa. 15:4). Many biblical personalities gave their oaths
under suitable circumstances: e.g., Abraham and Eliezer (Gen. 24:2–9), Jacob
(Gen. 28:18–22; 31:44–55) and Ruth (Ruth 1:17). Paul called upon God to be
his witness (Rom. 1:9; 9:1; 2 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8), an angel takes an
oath (Rev. 10:5–6), our Lord himself testified under oath (Matt. 26:59–64)
and God himself gave his oath to strengthen his promise (Isa. 45:22–23; Heb.
6:13–18). Do we take God’s name in vain by lip or by life?
Quest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Give me a couple of examples. I won't dismiss them, but show you how desire was the factor in the final decision.

Recently I was told by my doctor that I needed to lose weight to control my high blood pressure. I started denying myself foods that I love, that I desire! I would eat less at all meals. I made some difficult choices. Cut out hi-calorie snacks. Eat more fruit and vegetables. No desserts. This is not in my nature. All of my life I've been able to eat robust meals, second helpings, desserts, etc. and not get overweight.

My blood pressure was borderline, 140/90. I was 6'3" and weighed 230 lbs when I started this eating plan. I am now 205 lbs. (what I weighed in college.) My blood pressure is now 119/81, just about perfect. Have I noticed any change in the way I feel? No. Did I want to deny myself treats and snacks? No.

So tell me how my greatest desire was to quit my eating patterns developed over 50 years just so I could make numbers on an electronic box get to a level another person deemed acceptable?
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Really? How many admit that Calvin's "theology" is a rip-off from Augustine! Calvin was the biggest plagiarist in history.:tonofbricks:

no....he was using "guile" like you and the apostle Paul...:thumbsup:
he wanted to catch you....and even if he did'nt he could just lie and say he did:thumbsup:

Ach,
Unless you repent none of us will take you seriously.You seem to have something to offer,even if by way of opposition .That is okay and if you are sincere, you will get sincere responses. To just attack and carry on..is to set yourself up for more disdain because if you cannot demonstrate that your yes is yes and your no means no....why would anyone take time to interact with you???
Many of us have posted wrong ideas ,and been challenged....many still do. You are being spoken to by people of all different backrounds, not just the cals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DrJamesAch

New Member
Has anyone apologized for falsely accusing Dr. J. of "blashpemy" as I have twice demonstrated is a false accusation? Or are we still "piling-on" with this "plagiarism" thing.

Personally, I would rather "plagiarized" a non-published and informal forum post then to have falsely accused a brother of blasphemy. But, that's just me.



Paul did the same thing to catch other believers. 2 Cor 12:16. Nathan did the same thing to catch King David. 2 Sam 12:1-15. Police officers use this tactic on a regular basis in interrogations. Only self-righteous Pharisees use it to condemn someone because they got busted in claiming tenets of my argument to be false that they had previously admitted were true when I worded them differently and copied it from a Calvinist website word for word. They were so caught up in what P4T had Googled, that while they were arguing about it failed to notice that I did it again. Even as of now, you would think they would be using it against me that I did it TWICE in one thread, it's not like I haven't made it obvious by contrasting the difference in what I did with PT4 and Iconoclast, and yet they haven't even noticed THAT. LOL

With craftiness, I proved that they were willing to contradict their own statements and Calvinist teachings just to win a debate. What they are really mad at is the fact that they got outwitted and fell for the trap.:tonofbricks:

Not once have I ever called any of them a liar because I feel that they misstated my beliefs or those of Non Cals. Yet they call everyone that opposes the life of John Calvin a liar, and anyone that they feel has misunderstood Calvinism. If a person has misunderstood someone else's position, it's not a lie if that person truly believes that what they have described as their understanding of Calvinist beliefs. Yet the Cals on here repeatedly accuse the Non Cals of lying, and are never apologetic about it-typical Pharisaical hypocrisy.

But here, if you all want an apology, I'm sorry that I used craftiness to catch you at being deceitful. I'll never do it again since I already proved that you were willing to win a debate simply for the sake of trying to be right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DrJamesAch

New Member
Iconoclast and the others who got caught
Paul did the same thing to catch other believers. 2 Cor 12:16. Nathan did the same thing to catch King David. 2 Sam 12:1-15. Police officers use this tactic on a regular basis in interrogations. Only self-righteous Pharisees use it to condemn someone because they got busted in claiming tenets of my argument to be false that they had previously admitted were true when I worded them differently and copied it from a Calvinist website word for word. They were so caught up in what P4T had Googled, that while they were arguing about it failed to notice that I did it again. Even as of now, you would think they would be using it against me that I did it TWICE in one thread, it's not like I haven't made it obvious by contrasting the difference in what I did with PT4 and Iconoclast, and yet they haven't even noticed THAT. LOL

With craftiness, I proved that they were willing to contradict their own statements and Calvinist teachings just to win a debate. What they are really mad at is the fact that they got outwitted and fell for the trap.:tonofbricks:

Not once have I ever called any of them a liar because I feel that they misstated my beliefs or those of Non Cals. Yet they call everyone that opposes the life of John Calvin a liar, and anyone that they feel has misunderstood Calvinism. If a person has misunderstood someone else's position, it's not a lie if that person truly believes that what they have described as their understanding of Calvinist beliefs. Yet the Cals on here repeatedly accuse the Non Cals of lying, and are never apologetic about it-typical Pharisaical hypocrisy.

But here, if you all want an apology, I'm sorry that I used craftiness to catch you at being deceitful. I'll never do it again since I already proved that you were willing to win a debate simply for the sake of trying to be right.

One thing I'll have to retract about the last statement. I will retract calling you deceitful because I can not absolutely PROVE that you knew what I posted was Calvinist doctrine. Which means in order for me to retract that, you have to admit that you don't know your own theology as well as you think you do; enough to recognize when someone posts a position word for word from a Calvinist website (Reformed at that).
 

HeirofSalvation

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You were asked for what your understanding of the word blasphemy was.
Several have seen it as i do.Your definition seems a bit light....

To ridicule God,his word,and his people is to take God's name in vain.

he is unrepentant and his posts are not credible unless and until he repents.

In the post that i hijacked the thread with, because i saw his name active[green light]....I showed how he lied yet again after this has all taken place.
I can post what i call......MY THOUGHTS on this and then cut and paste this from A Baptist Catechism with Commentary...by W.R.Downing....but then i would be lying:thumbsup:

Great....now please show the place where Dr. James "blasphemed" and (for the sake of his fair trial) post where I explained in GREAT DETAIL where your accusation of "blasphemy" was a false accusation.......

Obfuscate about his "plagiarism" all you want................FINE I'll concede that he "plagiarized" when you defend yourself against what I now accuse YOU OF.

Bearing false witness as falsely accusing an innocent man of "BLASPHEMY"....what the precise definition is is irrelevent ICON.....the point is, that he never SAID what you would claim he said.

I explained this in detail TWICE and None of you has responded to my CLEAR explanation of what Dr. J. was obviously doing. You refuse to respond to my explanation of a "reductio ad absurdum" and yet want to debate a definition of "blasphemy"

Here's the deal...........You may choose ANY definition of blasphemy YOU WANT!!! Whatever YOUR definition of blasphemy is......it is correct. Now, please respond to how I explained that your accusation of Dr. J. is either
1.) mistaken: I left that avenue open to you so that you can save face by merely saying:
"My apologies, I didn't understand that that was what Dr. J. was doing.....I thought that he was stating that his belief."
2.) A blatant LIE

I explained in detailed form how Dr. J. has NOT blasphemed. YOU Iconoclast, have accused him of "blasphemy"..........now furnish the quote, and I will AGAIN furnish the explanation that he was NOT blaspheming.

You falsely accuse the brethren of Blaspemy....Talk about needing to repent....
 

HeirofSalvation

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Unless you repent none of us will take you seriously.You seem to have something to offer,even if by way of opposition .That is okay and if you are sincere, you will get sincere responses. To just attack and carry on..is to set yourself up for more disdain because if you cannot demonstrate that your yes is yes and your no means no....why would anyone take time to interact with you???

You Have falsely accused a man of "blasphemy"........unless and until you either defend your sin of bearing false witness in accusation or repent of it........than you are not to be taken seriously EITHER.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You Have falsely accused a man of "blasphemy"........unless and until you either defend your sin of bearing false witness in accusation or repent of it........than you are not to be taken seriously EITHER.

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Do your own home work my friend, go back and see where several of us started speaking about it spread over several threads.
If i have time i will search it out for you...must work now....

i just answered him again, but the connection was cut off...i amn ot sure i can get it to come back...must check my history...but do have to get back to work.

Did you read what I posted Hos? on taking God's name in vain?
 

preacher4truth

Active Member
no....he was using "guile" like you and the apostle Paul...:thumbsup:
he wanted to catch you....and even if he did'nt he could just lie and say he did:thumbsup:

Ach,
Unless you repent none of us will take you seriously
.You seem to have something to offer,even if by way of opposition .That is okay and if you are sincere, you will get sincere responses. To just attack and carry on..is to set yourself up for more disdain because if you cannot demonstrate that your yes is yes and your no means no....why would anyone take time to interact with you???
Many of us have posted wrong ideas ,and been challenged....many still do. You are being spoken to by people of all different backrounds, not just the cals.

Exactly. Then to top off his lie he starts another lie in a thread to attempt to justify it through another lie.

The old saying is true: You lie once you'll have to lie again to cover it up and this is exactly what he's done and what he continues to do. What does Revelation say about lying and liars?

- Blessings
 
Top