Did a C or A say this?

[atpollard]

These are not in a "camp", and they are not threatened by competing ideas.

… except Calvinism.

There are many good Calvinists, although perhaps not on this board.

… I can just FEEL the love dripping from that “back hand” compliment. [here is my other cheek]

 

[Iconoclast]

Since when did you think that discussing the bible was a competition? Is that how you see a bible discussion?

Good question SH....I will be working through the thread now and do not want to skip over some of the questions.
It is not a competition, but there are several who oppose the truth of God, and need to be offered correction, and in some cases exposed as opposing themselves and being used to draw people after themselves.....you know the type.....everyone else is wrong, they have matured beyond the truths that the whole confessing church holds to, no theologian can possibly match what they pronounce. We are warned in scripture about such persons;
3jn.9;

 

[canadyjd]

You calvinists just can not stand the idea that God is really sovereign. You have to throw your calvinist philosophy into just about everything you say. You really have to just learn to trust the text of the bible. You have raised the writing of calvin, edwards, owen, piper etc above the bible.

You limit context to just the verses that you like but for me context is the bible.

I discussed the context of the passage and used other passages in John to support that context while directly addressing the question.

You responded with Insults.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

I can just FEEL the love dripping from that “back hand” compliment. [here is my other cheek]

I kinda liked that one myself.

I know there are good Calvinists here. But there are also bad ones.

I am referring to the little camp we have had for quite awhile here. We used to call them the "puppy squad". This did not mean all Calvinists here but the ones who troll these threads (a lot of zeal, but little knowledge).

I was wrong to imply they represented the majority. They don't.

 

[AustinC]

So your admitting you do not know what I believe?

thank you

Indeed, and I am guessing you are as clueless as me.

 

[canadyjd]

HIGH CALVINISTS IN ACTION: CALVINISM AND THE CITY, MANCHESTER AND LONDON, 1810–1860 - The Gospel Coalition

https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/49fm5u/high_calvinists_and_low_calvinists/

sometimes the comments are helpful.

Thank you. It looks like a good read.

peace to you

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

One thing I have observed on this forum, @Reynolds , is that a sect of Calvinists ban together and argue as a group

.

It might seem that way to you, because what happens is you find a way to attack Calvinist views, and people speaking down to them with subtle insults. Calvinists question you about it, and you go into denial mode.
Other Calvinists see the attack against the doctrine, and the insults as the day goes on. They respond to your false ideas, and insults.
What do you think they will do? Bake you some cookies?

If one member of the group makes an error the rest try to hide it

.
Not really...when you lurk trying to catch a wrong word, or expression, most of us know the Cal will quickly point out your motive and explain what they were trying to say.
We are not a "group" as you say....but we are like minded having been instructed in truth for years.
Some might be newer and might still be exploring and learning.
in fact most of us will confess openly that we are still learning.

Some might share how others phrase things, but we have liberty to post what we want.
I saw an example on this thread when I took a coffee break earlier.

If one member opposes one of in their camp they attack. And ultimately they never really get to the heart of the issue.

Non cals are on the attack most of the time. There are some Cals that post very aggressively also...that is what happens on message boards.

At the same time there are Calvinists on this forum who carefully consider Scripture, who can look at opposing views for what they are rather than the characterization they want them to be. But they rarely get caught up in the debates here (they know it is a debate that cannot be won or lost).

Many have changed views over the years having not heard the truth actually presented. People who have posted evidence of opposing these truths, who now embrace them. Not bogus statements of....I used to believe this or that, and give no evidence of it anywhere,lol.

 

[canadyjd]

Explain this:

Mt 19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

There can be no doubt that the apostles to whom he was speaking in Matt 19 were Jews, and there is no doubt they were also the foundation of the church of Jesus Christ because the scriptures says this at a later date in Ephesians.

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

The context says the "ye" is referencing gentiles and is what the Ephesian congregation was made up of. The point is that while Jews and gentiles are one in Christ they are distinct in Christ as well. However the worldwide church as it is being built over the centuries is in view here and there are distinctively Jews and gentiles in it. It has a Jewish foundation.

In Ephesians, which you quoted, the Apostle Paul very methodically proclaims the two groups (Jew and Gentile) have been made into one new man by the cross of Christ.

There is no doubt Paul was stating, and literally did state on occasion, that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile.

That Jesus would make those promises to the disciples doesn’t change that fact. It reflected their positions as Apostles, not as Jews.

peace to you

 

[Iconoclast]

Reynolds,

I have noticed that as well. One reason I respect Calvinists such as J.M. and D James Kennedy, is because they are/were so confident in their Calvinism that they do not rabidly defend it. Both readily admit that not all Scripture supports Calvinism , some supports Arminianism.
So many on here twist some passages to death to try to prove that it supports Calvinism, when it does not. (The opposite is true as well)

You do not see them interacting with openly hostile attacks as on message boards

 

[JonC]

especially when whatever I come up with will surely be mocked anyway.

Indeed, and I am guessing you are as clueless as me.

Yes...Very rarely does he offer substance. many here just attack as if that speaks to the issues.

I answered quickly by phone to encourage my brothers and warn others, I am on my laptop now.I will expose what is happening some more being you delight in it.

Yes again...24/7...anyone who reads these posts will see it.

Yes you are correct.He is a calvinist troll looking to cause strife and contention and mislead the naive.

Can you find one that is not?

 

[Reformed1689]

You calvinists jump up and down saying you forgot context then you turn around and say wait you have to understand a verse the way I do without the context. FYI my context is the bible, what is yours? When I say Christ Jesus came to save all you go no He did not see this verse dosn't say that. Get your head out of the mindset of calvinism.

Calvinism is just one big group think. You have given up the ability to think on your own. I have been on a number of boards and you get the same canned answers from the calvinists there. You guys must have a tip sheet you all read from. Sad really.

Cut the ad hominem and false representations. I do not use one verse for my points

 

[Iconoclast]

You will notice this happens on pretty much every christian chat forum.. The last chat room I was heavily involved in had a bunch of people banned because of the calvinist debate. Sadly, the chatroon has yet to recover..

Several Cals have been banned from several boards...
One board puts Calvinists that post on
"coffee break" which means you cannot post for a few days...while you are on coffee break they PM you trying to recant what you posted. A former administrator on BB was harshly treated.

 

[Reformed1689]

You calvinists just can not stand the idea that God is really sovereign.

Clearly you are just trolling now or are incredibly ignorant. Which is it?

 

[Reformed1689]

From what I have seen it is primarily the Calvinists who mock those with whom they disagree.

Read your own posts.

 

[Iconoclast]

Cut the ad hominem and false representations. I do not use one verse for my points

Yes...Very rarely does he offer substance. many here just attack as if that speaks to the issues.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

@Reynolds , @Silverhair , and @Eternally Grateful are absolutely correct about the Calvinistic sect and their MO on this board. Here is undeniable proof:

Here JonC tries to egg on the attacking Non cals, lol.

[QUOTE]Not addressing the disputes but attacking other Christians who dare to question their theology.[/QUOTE]

No..defending against the attacks first, then if any substance is there we can discuss that.

 

[JonC]

We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death.

 

[Iconoclast]

I think one of the biggest problems I have seen is everyone trying to put people under these two groups. Your either calvinist or arminian. There is no inbetween. So then no one can discuss because we are trying to put someone in a group they do not belong to..

the labels or groups define things quickly. After you post a hundred times or more, what you hold as doctrine becomes clear.
some do not like the labels because they cannot defend their ideas yet. others have tried and failed to defend a position, so the default is to attack and call names, arrogant and rude are the two front runners.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Since the debate here has devolved into sand throwing, I'm closing this thread.