Division is GOOD!

[Thomas Helwys]

And then when I got into the debate boards and began taking the side of OSAS I was called a Calvinist. So then I had to go find out what a Calvinist was :laugh:

Turns out, I found out through much debate boards that there are five types of Calvinist, well six counting the hyper-Calvinist, who knows, maybe there are more idk, I am called a one pointer Calvinist, I only hold the P in TULIP. :tongue3:

You could be an Arminian then.

Well, wait, not quite. Arminianism also believes in total depravity. So, Arminians are really two-point Calvinists.

 

[The Biblicist]

In different places I have addressed the issues regarding John 6, and you are lying like a cheap WalMart rug if you say I haven't. If I don't answer you directly but instead answer the same issue in response to someone else, it's because I try not to lie down with dogs.

I have placed multiple threads on John 6 and you have not ONCE responded with any kind of expositional or exegetical based response - NOT ONCE!

The record is there for all to check and I dare anyone to produce one single post from you that contains any EXEGETICAL or EXPOSITIONAL based response. All that can be found is historical or philosophical generalities.

BTW if you had any substantial evidence you would be repeating it at least ONE TIME and no one can find even ONE TIME you have done so with any of my threads and there are many.

 

[Yeshua1]

The trouble for you is that your doctrine was invented by a 16th century state churchist persecutor and murderer and was unknown before then. And you have the gall to choose "Biblicist" as your screen name.

Actually, OSAS taught by jesus and paul, didn't know they both lived in 16th century?

 

[BobRyan]

In different places I have addressed the issues regarding John 6, and you are lying like a cheap WalMart rug if you say I haven't. If I don't answer you directly but instead answer the same issue in response to someone else, it's because I try not to lie down with dogs.

All of your presentations argue that since every square is a rectangle - we should imagine that something has stated that every rectangle is a square - thus when you find the fact that all those who come to Christ were first drawn - you then insist that we "imagine" that the text also said "all those drawn WILL come to Christ" when in fact - no such text exists in all of scripture.

By contrast we DO have "I will DRAW ALL unto Me" John 12:32 after we have "God so loved the WORLD - yes really!"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Yeshua1]

All of your presentations argue that since every square is a rectangle - we should imagine that something has stated that every rectangle is a square - thus when you find the fact that all those who come to Christ were first drawn - you then insist that we "imagine" that the text also said "all those drawn WILL come to Christ" when in fact - no such text exists in all of scripture.

By contrast we DO have "I will DRAW ALL unto Me" John 12:32 after we have "God so loved the WORLD - yes really!"

in Christ,

Bob

Again, you MUST define the term World and All as the Bible does, and both cases, its restrictive to be defined as those whom he intended to die for, the elect!

 

[BobRyan]

By contrast we DO have "I will DRAW ALL unto Me" John 12:32 after we have "God so loved the WORLD - yes really!"

Again, you MUST define the term World and All as the Bible does, !

Indeed I must - which means I get to pay attention to all the Bible texts that Calvinists must avoid.

For example the two statements above by JOHN - start with this statement -

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

====

Nothing AT ALL in that starting context for the Gospel of John saying "God selects out who should be allowed to believe and ignores the rest so if the world does not know HIM - it is because God did not care to enlighten them".

To insert such Calvinist eisegetical content is to bend-and-wrench the context for the Gospel of John - beyond all recognition.

And this is pretty obvious to almost all that read John 1.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

By contrast we DO have "I will DRAW ALL unto Me" John 12:32 after we have "God so loved the WORLD - yes really!"

Yes we do have "Judas went out and hanged himself" and "go thou and do likewise" and "whatsover thou does, do quickly." Your position is developed exactly this way - jerked out of context. Any doctrine in the world is possible by your method of hermeneutics.

Indeed I must - which means I get to pay attention to all the Bible texts that Calvinists must avoid.

For example the two statements above by JOHN - start with this statement -

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

What did Jesus say was the "light" of men? "in him was LIFE and LIFE was the LIGHT of men." This is the "LIGHT" that Christ gives to all men - PHYSICAL LIFE. This has nothing to do with drawing all men to him. Unless, you believe in universal salvation that all men are given eternal LIFE as they come in the world, "in him was LIFE and LIFE was the LIGHT of men."

====

 

[Yeshua1]

By contrast we DO have "I will DRAW ALL unto Me" John 12:32 after we have "God so loved the WORLD - yes really!"



Indeed I must - which means I get to pay attention to all the Bible texts that Calvinists must avoid.

For example the two statements above by JOHN - start with this statement -

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

====

Nothing AT ALL in that starting context for the Gospel of John saying "God selects out who should be allowed to believe and ignores the rest so if the world does not know HIM - it is because God did not care to enlighten them".

To insert such Calvinist eisegetical content is to bend-and-wrench the context for the Gospel of John - beyond all recognition.

And this is pretty obvious to almost all that read John 1.

in Christ,

Bob

Did the prophetess hold to such doctrines as you are espousing here?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

actually, osas taught by jesus and paul, didn't know they both lived in 16th century?

lol!!!!!!!

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I have placed multiple threads on John 6 and you have not ONCE responded with any kind of expositional or exegetical based response - NOT ONCE!

The record is there for all to check and I dare anyone to produce one single post from you that contains any EXEGETICAL or EXPOSITIONAL based response. All that can be found is historical or philosophical generalities.

BTW if you had any substantial evidence you would be repeating it at least ONE TIME and no one can find even ONE TIME you have done so with any of my threads and there are many.

Dream on, fabricate on.........

 

[Thomas Helwys]

All of your presentations argue that since every square is a rectangle - we should imagine that something has stated that every rectangle is a square - thus when you find the fact that all those who come to Christ were first drawn - you then insist that we "imagine" that the text also said "all those drawn WILL come to Christ" when in fact - no such text exists in all of scripture.

By contrast we DO have "I will DRAW ALL unto Me" John 12:32 after we have "God so loved the WORLD - yes really!"

in Christ,

Bob

Didn't you mean to address this to Biblicist and not to me??

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Yes we do have "Judas went out and hanged himself" and "go thou and do likewise" and "whatsover thou does, do quickly." Your position is developed exactly this way - jerked out of context. Any doctrine in the world is possible by your method of hermeneutics.






What did Jesus say was the "light" of men? "in him was LIFE and LIFE was the LIGHT of men." This is the "LIGHT" that Christ gives to all men - PHYSICAL LIFE. This has nothing to do with drawing all men to him. Unless, you believe in universal salvation that all men are given eternal LIFE as they come in the world, "in him was LIFE and LIFE was the LIGHT of men."

====

Utterly ridiculous and completely untenable. And you have the nerve to accuse the RCs of confusing the physical and spiritual and being unable to distinguish between the two. The way you twist scripture, you should consider joining the circus as a contortionist. You'd draw big crowds with your unique talent.

 

[The Biblicist]

Utterly ridiculous and completely untenable. And you have the nerve to accuse the RCs of confusing the physical and spiritual and being unable to distinguish between the two. The way you twist scripture, you should consider joining the circus as a contortionist. You'd draw big crowds with your unique talent.

John was the one who defined "light" to be "life" in this context not I. Take it up with him.

However, when you stoop to make personal attacks then we know your position cannot be defended reasonably or rationally and that is the flag of surrender!

 

[Thomas Helwys]

John was the one who defined "light" to be "life" in this context not I. Take it up with him.

However, when you stoop to make personal attacks then we know your position cannot be defended reasonably or rationally and that is the flag of surrender!

Then you surrendered a long time ago. It is you who initiates personal attacks, liar. I respond to them.

Again, your interpretation is untenable. Jesus is clearly talking about the spirit, not the flesh. You've shown one more flaw that you have in common with your Pharisee ancestors.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I have placed multiple threads on John 6 and you have not ONCE responded with any kind of expositional or exegetical based response - NOT ONCE!

The record is there for all to check and I dare anyone to produce one single post from you that contains any EXEGETICAL or EXPOSITIONAL based response. All that can be found is historical or philosophical generalities.

BTW if you had any substantial evidence you would be repeating it at least ONE TIME and no one can find even ONE TIME you have done so with any of my threads and there are many.

This thread, post #29, shows you to be the liar you are:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=86591&highlight=John&page=3

This is just one place of many that I have addressed this topic.