Continuation of Why Y'all Aint Calvinists thread

I agree that this is a problem with some/many, and it is understandable as well. How can someone not be zealous for something that has so changed his life?

However, we ALL need to do the very difficult work of pushing back against, not our theological opponent's arguments, but our own. The reason for this is that our greatest strengths are often our greatest weaknesses, if left unchecked or without counterbalance.

 

Again, you are a rare breed. Most non-Cal Evangelicals are synergists. I agree that you are not.

 

I personally cannot understand the need to read any works by people like Barth, Kierkegaard, Wright, or Bultmann, who have the core Doctrines of the Bible wrong. There are so many people of "sound mind" that we can refer to and use, being Biblically based, than to have the time or need for those who are basically unorthodox. Like a couple of "pastors" that I knew, who for some strange reason not only read the evil books by Dan Brown, but also recommended them. The majority of Christians these days hardly read their Bible, so why ever would a pastor suggest to read such thrash that mocks and blasphemes the God of the Bible, and indeed His Word. The same goes for The Shack, another work from the devil, and "christian" book stores even sell this stuff!

 

you say, "I don't think that we can consider one lexicon as an authority over another", but surely this cannot be right? The Greek lexicon by Dr Joseph Thayer can be very useful and is much used around the world. However, Thayer was a Unitarian who rejected the Holy Trinity, Deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, so when it comes to dealing with words that refer to ether of these, Thayer makes sure that his "theology" gets in. Likewise the Greek grammar of Dr George Winer, which again is very useful, by like Thayer, Winer was also a Unitarian, and this shows in his inaccurate comments on verses like Titus 2:13. All things are never equal!

 

But his "theology" which he claims to be from Scripture, is on a vital Doctrine, and very wrong and misleading.

 

Ah... Now we see your true colors.

The logical fallacy of the ad hominem.

The Archangel

 

Without those scriptures - I might not have known that Calvinism fails the sola-scriptura test of the Bible

interesting

 

That's the first clue that they have a problem - when they conclude that the doctrine taught by Calvin is wrong and yet want to be identified as "Calvinist"...

 

I rather like N.T. Wright's conclusions on the final judgment and hell.

Heaven and Hell in the Scriptures

 

so you think that Wright is right on Justification?

 

There has to be a balance between doctrine (talk) and one's life (walk).

It's the fruit of the Spirit (being led of the Spirit) and that fruit is Love.

Ya, fruit inspector, I know.

1 Corinthians 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

Admittedly, sometimes love's correction hurts.

Revelation 3:19 Those whom I love, I reprove and chasten; so be zealous and repent.

Proverbs 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

 

I believe it is a mistake to say that Calvies do not understand scripture. Nor are they illiterate. That is a broad claim and really implies that there is no part of scripture in which they get correct. That is not a fair assessment. I believe they apply some passages of scripture, namely in the gospels and the book of Romans incorrectly, but I also believe they understand scripture.

To make the claim that one does not understand scripture is to apply the whole from Genesis to Revelation. It implies that one does not understand its purpose or underlying message. This would be true of lost people but not of Christians. We should likely be more careful and succinct when making these accusations.

 

Millennia before today's date the metaphor (or whatever it is) based upon historical fact clearly shows the dilemma of believing Christendom:

Judges 12
5 And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, Let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay;
6 Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand.

And it doesn't matter in what camp one resides - just substitute "Gileadites" and "Ephraimites" with the appropriate labels and we have the 21st century dilemma of the fragmentation of Christianity which I believe Jesus predicted in Matthew 13.

And yes there have been religious wars in which Christians "slew" each other over similar matters.

Thank goodness its only verbal assault here at the BB