Do you recognise the differences between reformed/calvinist/Hyper?

[saturneptune]

No Calvinist do not believe in free will. If you think that Calvinism teaches free will or that a sinner can willingly and freely come to Christ, it is you who do not understand Calvinism.
However,the fact that you used an older sermon by Charles Spurgeon where he preached against free will proves that you previously understood Spurgeon's Calvinism as being against free will until I showed you a later sermon (and there are more) where he capitulated, and now you are equivocating on your former argument.

And notice you said "We will take the bible, Spurgeon, the reformers and puritans" and that's the difference between us: I take no man but Jesus Christ. I read many of these authors years ago, and I occasionally read a book, but rarely do I spend time outside of the Bible alone.

I don't care what one knows about Spurgeon, Calvin, Finney, "downgrade controversy", you don't need to prove what you know about what someone else believes, tell me BIBLE, and what YOU believe about the Bible, but if what you believe is based on another man's teaching, and the interpretation is wrong, then I will use the Bible, and the Bible alone to refute it. You won't see me pulling out quotes from some man to prove my points or support my opinions about the BIBLE.

I would like to respond, but refuse to use the name Calvinism. I will refer to that doctrine as DOGS (doctrines of grace and sovereignty) if you do not mind.

On the doctrine of total depravity, I think this is clearly taught in the Bible by the following verses (Gen. 6:5; Job 15:14-16; Psa. 130:3; 143:2; Prov. 20:9; Eccl. 7:20; Isa. 64:6; Jer. 13:23; John 3:19; 8:34, 44; Rom. 3:9-12; 6:20; 8:8; 2 Tim. 2:25-26; Tit. 3:3; 1 John 5:19; Jam. 3:8; 1 John 1:8 Romans Chapters 1, 2, and 3 directly and indirectly speak of the state of man since the fall.

Sometimes common sense must be used. When those of us who believe in DOGS say man does not have the will to choose, we are saying that man, in his natural, carnal fallen state, cannot and will not turn to God without a touch from the Lord. Some call it regeneration, some call it conviction by the Holy Spirit, will without that intervention from the eternal, we do not have a chance.

In everyday life as we go to work, church, in the community, we make many decisions daily. This is free will in a sense, but not the ability to choose to leave our fallen state and enter the Kingdom of God. We make free will decisions within the mindset of our fallen state. Most decisions are not good and evil decisions. If I decide to get a Coke instead of a Pepsi, that is example of a free will decision man can make. We also make decisions daily that do, in a sense, reflect good and evil. I chose not to burn down a church today, beat my wife, or shoot my mother-in-law. There is a basic level of human decency within us all, some more than others. We also have a form of conscience. We also have a fear of the law. There are some very kind, decent lost people, and some of them act better than Christians at times.

The point is, our conscience, our sense of decency, falls short of God's perfect standard. Even though I did not shoot my mother-in-law, I sure had lots of thoughts about her. (this is hypothetical) God replaces our inner being with His Spirit, and we have no desire for that without "Him choosing us, we did not choose Him." As many have pointed out on this board, every man on earth has committed adultry according to the standards in Matthew 5 and that goes for almost all being guilty of murder. Also, if we break one law, we have broken them all.

This is the depth of Christ's forgive. It goes from the physical down down to the deepest motive and thought.

Your posts seem to point to a very good understanding of Scripture. I can tell you, disagree or not, Icon is a sincere Christian and believes strongly in his principles. He spends much time with his nose in Scripture. We have developed a very cordial relationship.

What I would like to do if you do not mind is have a few exchanges on total depravity, then move to the second point of the five, as a free for all of DOGS sometimes produces much confusion.

Welcome to BB, if I did not say it before.

Another point I would like to make, and it may have been better made under another post, but take the sin of gay marriage. To me, this is not a life changing event at the moment I became a Christian. It would be disguisting to me as a lost or saved person. It has no worldly appeal to me whatsoever. Each of us has different weaknesses. That is sure not mine. Christ has made me a new creature in many other areas.

 

[Iconoclast]

Ach

No Calvinist do not believe in free will.

Of course not as it does not exist.I do not speak for all calvinists.Free will is a false carnal philosophical idea.
men make choices
men have a self will
the will is bound by the nature

If you think that Calvinism teaches free will

I do not as I have just stated

or that a sinner can willingly and freely come to Christ, it is you who do not understand Calvinism.

Any sinner who is saved...indeed...comes to Christ most freely,and most willingly once enabled by the Spirit of God at regeneration.

3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.



4._____ When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.
( Colossians 1:13; John 8:36; Philippians 2:13; Romans 7:15, 18, 19, 21, 23 )

5._____ This will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only.
( Ephesians 4:13 )

However,the fact that you used an older sermon by Charles Spurgeon where he preached against free will proves that you previously understood Spurgeon's Calvinism as being against free will

Those who oppose the DoG try to re-write history in order to try and claim Spurgeon as one of them, however this is a complete falsehood.

until I showed you a later sermon (and there are more) where he capitulated, and now you are equivocating on your former argument.

This is not so....
http://www.spurgeon.org/downgrd.htm

And notice you said "We will take the bible, Spurgeon, the reformers and puritans" and that's the difference between us: I take no man but Jesus Christ. I read many of these authors years ago, and I occasionally read a book, but rarely do I spend time outside of the Bible alone.

Listen...this sounds great until one stops to realize that all these "men" ,teachers who God has given to the church ....also had the bible.
i do not despise God's gift to the church.

I don't care what one knows about Spurgeon, Calvin, Finney, "downgrade controversy", you don't need to prove what you know about what someone else believes, tell me BIBLE, and what YOU believe about the Bible,

Friend...it was you who dragged Spurgeon in here...not me...i have constantly asking you to go scriptural.

but if what you believe is based on another man's teaching, and the interpretation is wrong, then I will use the Bible, and the Bible alone to refute it. You won't see me pulling out quotes from some man to prove my points or support my opinions about the BIBLE.

Again lets re-read the thread....

 

[Iconoclast]

ACH,

then I will use the Bible, and the Bible alone to refute it.

I just looked over the whole thread.....here is what I see:
I posted 6x before you entered the thread...

you enter in post #84 you offered O scripture
.........................#107....................0 scripture
............................#112...................O scripture
.............................#119...................0 scripture
.............................#138....................0 scripture
.............................#140.....................0 scripture...except prov 26 an off topic attempt to insult
..............................#143...................0scripture
..............................#148......................0scripture
..............................#149.....................0 scripture
...............................#154....................0 scripture

Do you post scripture with an invisible font???? Do you see what I am saying?

I asked you before 3x to answer romans 8:29-30......earlier I asked Rm to answer about Hebrews 10:14......you are welcome to try to answer that ...or the confession of faith....I will respond whenever you feel up to it.

 

[Iconoclast]

The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."—C. H. Spurgeon

T IS A GREAT THING to begin the Christian life by believing good solid doctrine. Some people have received twenty different "gospels" in as many years; how many more they will accept before they get to their journey's end, it would be difficult to predict. I thank God that He early taught me the gospel, and I have been so perfectly satisfied with it, that I do not want to know any other. Constant change of creed is sure loss. If a tree has to be taken up two or three times a year, you will not need to build a very large loft in which to store the apples. When people are always shifting their doctrinal principles, they are not likely to bring forth much fruit to the glory of God. It is good for young believers to begin with a firm hold upon those great fundamental doctrines which the Lord has taught in His Word. Why, if I believed what some preach about the temporary, trumpery salvation which only lasts for a time, I would scarcely be at all grateful for it; but when I know that those whom God saves He saves with an everlasting salvation, when I know that He gives to them an everlasting righteousness, when I know that He settles them on an everlasting foundation of everlasting love, and that He will bring them to His everlasting kingdom, oh, then I do wonder, and I am astonished that such a blessing as this should ever have been given to me!

"Pause, my soul! adore, and wonder!
Ask, 'Oh, why such love to me?'
Grace hath put me in the number
Of the Saviour's family:
Hallelujah!
Thanks, eternal thanks, to Thee!"

I suppose there are some persons whose minds naturally incline towards the doctrine of free-will. I can only say that mine inclines as naturally towards the doctrines of sovereign grace. Sometimes, when I see some of the worst characters in the street, I feel as if my heart must burst forth in tears of gratitude that God has never let me act as they have done! I have thought, if God had left me alone, and had not touched me by His grace, what a great sinner I should have been! I should have run to the utmost lengths of sin, dived into the very depths of evil, nor should I have stopped at any vice or folly, if God had not restrained me. I feel that I should have been a very king of sinners, if God had let me alone. I cannot understand the reason why I am saved, except upon the ground that God would have it so. I cannot, if I look ever so earnestly, discover any kind of reason in myself why I should be a partaker of Divine grace. If I am not at this moment without Christ, it is only because Christ Jesus would have His will with me, and that will was that I should be with Him where He is, and should share His glory. I can put the crown nowhere but upon the head of Him whose mighty grace has saved me from going down into the pit. Looking back on my past life, I can see that the dawning of it all was of God; of God effectively. I took no torch with which to light the sun, but the sun enlightened me. I did not commence my spiritual life—no, I rather kicked, and struggled against the things of the Spirit: when He drew me, for a time I did not run after Him: there was a natural hatred in my soul of everything holy and good. Wooings were lost upon me—warnings were cast to the wind—thunders were despised; and as for the whispers of His love, they were rejected as being less than nothing and vanity. But, sure I am, I can say now, speaking on behalf of myself, "He only is my salvation." It was He who turned my heart, and brought me down on my knees before Him. I can in very deed, say with Doddridge and Toplady—

"Grace taught my soul to pray,
And made my eyes o'erflow;"

and coming to this moment, I can add—

"'Tis grace has kept me to this day,
And will not let me go."

Well can I remember the manner in which I learned the doctrines of grace in a single instant. Born, as all of us are by nature, an Arminian, I still believed the old things I had heard continually from the pulpit, and did not see the grace of God. When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this. I can recall the very day and hour when first I received those truths in my own soul—when they were, as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot iron, and I can recollect how I felt that I had grown on a sudden from a babe into a man—that I had made progress in Scriptural knowledge, through having found, once for all, the clue to the truth of God. One week-night, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher's sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment—I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, "I ascribe my change wholly to God."

 

[Rippon]

Geisler maintains that he is a "moderate Calvinist," as outlined in his book Chosen But Free (1999).

"Geisler maintains" huh?

Here are some quotes from The Potter's Freedom by James White regarding Geisler's theology:

"Dr. Geisler 1) denies Calvin's doctrine of God's sovereignty and decrees;2)denies Calvin's doctrine of the total depravity of man and his enslavement to sin;3)denies Calvin's belief that God's electing grace is given without any condition whatsoever to a particular people (the elect);and 4)denies,vociferously,Calvin's doctrine of the grace of God that brings new life to dead sinners. One could even argue that Dr. Geisler disagrees with Calvin's doctrine of atonement and the very foundation of Calvin's doctrine of perseverance as well. If that is true,why should Dr. Geisler wish to be called any kind of Calvinist at all?I honestly do not understand the desire to take a theological moniker that does not in the slightest represent one's fundamental beliefs.' (page 20)

"Geisler's presentation here is thoroughly Arminian and cannot,in any fashion,be described as Calvinistic,moderate or otherwise." (p.94)

 

[kyredneck]

ACH,


I just looked over the whole thread.....here is what I see:
I posted 6x before you entered the thread...

you enter in post #84 you offered O scripture
.........................#107....................0 scripture
............................#112...................O scripture
.............................#119...................0 scripture
.............................#138....................0 scripture
.............................#140.....................0 scripture...except prov 26 an off topic attempt to insult
..............................#143...................0scripture
..............................#148......................0scripture
..............................#149.....................0 scripture
...............................#154....................0 scripture

Do you post scripture with an invisible font???? Do you see what I am saying?

I asked you before 3x to answer romans 8:29-30......earlier I asked Rm to answer about Hebrews 10:14......you are welcome to try to answer that ...or the confession of faith....I will respond whenever you feel up to it.

A Calvinist slayer with no scripture? How can this be? Surely not.

 

[DrJamesAch]

ACH,


I just looked over the whole thread.....here is what I see:
I posted 6x before you entered the thread...

you enter in post #84 you offered O scripture
.........................#107....................0 scripture
............................#112...................O scripture
.............................#119...................0 scripture
.............................#138....................0 scripture
.............................#140.....................0 scripture...except prov 26 an off topic attempt to insult
..............................#143...................0scripture
..............................#148......................0scripture
..............................#149.....................0 scripture
...............................#154....................0 scripture

Do you post scripture with an invisible font???? Do you see what I am saying?

I asked you before 3x to answer romans 8:29-30......earlier I asked Rm to answer about Hebrews 10:14......you are welcome to try to answer that ...or the confession of faith....I will respond whenever you feel up to it.

To address your petty straw man argument:

Post 107 was a response to a question about an opinion as to what I thought a partial Calvinist was. I was not aware there was a Bible verse that defines a partial Calvinist. Perhaps it's in Hezekiah chapter 1, if you find it let me know.

Post 112, same subject following 107.

Post 119, explanation about your pejorative and condescending tactics. Again, not a debate about a Biblical subject where a Bible verse was necessary.

Post 138, again following post 119 about your attitude, not about a Biblical debate.

Post 140 Acts 8:37 and evidence for its validity but again, also in response to Rippon's question about what I thought was partial Calvinism and what Spurgeons errors were. Perhaps the Bible verses for what Spurgeon believed are found in 2 James chapter 1. As with Calvin, when you find them let me know.

When a verse was addressed, I addressed the verse (Acts 8:37).

Post 143. A short comment asking you to prove that I did not respond to you, and did not use Scripture when I did. I was not aware that telling someone that wrote an inaccurate comment required a Bible verse.

Post 148 was a response about a Spurgeon sermon showing where he capitulated. Again, show me the Bible verse I could have used to prove that Spurgeon changed his mind.

Post 149, I did not answer because I told you what my conditions were. You made a blanket statement that state "YOU ANSWERED NOTHING". That is an absolute that you did not back up with any facts, and the fact that you are now posting threads that show I did respond to you prove your assertion is bogus, and yet you defended it anyway.

Furthermore, you are asking me to read an entire 30 chapters of statements in a confession, and respond in a few minutes. Your request to "answer Romans 8:29" is vague because you are not establishing what it is that you want answered about the verse. So here's you answer about Romans 8:29, it's after Romans chapter 7 and before Romans chapter 9. Now if you want a better answer then you need to be more specific as to why you think that verse supports your point of view.

Post 154, Again the subject is about a person outside of the Bible where a verse is not necessary. The debate is about another persons belief system as stated by them, not addressing a specific verse.

MY TURN

Now using your same logic, lets look at all the posts you made with no Bible verses in them, and they we can settle that you don't use the Bible.

Post #15.No Bible Verse
Post #37 .No Bible Verse
Post #46 .No Bible Verse
Post #91 .No Bible Verse
Post #123 .No Bible Verse
Post #142 .No Bible Verse
Post #145 .No Bible Verse
Post#147 .No Bible Verse
Post #152 .No Bible Verse
Post #155 .No Bible Verse
Post #164 Still quoting Spurgeon. .No Bible Verse

Since one of mine had a BIble verse, you just didn't give me credit for it, and then you missed on that did, that's your 11 No Bible Verse posts, to my 7.

So next time you make an attempt to be so petty, make sure you take the beam out of your own posts first. This silliness proves why I had good reason not to respond to your arguments.

I'm posting this now, but will be adding the other posts I referred to that you did not respond to.

 

[DrJamesAch]

To address your petty straw man argument:

Post 107 was a response to a question about an opinion as to what I thought a partial Calvinist was. I was not aware there was a Bible verse that defines a partial Calvinist. Perhaps it's in Hezekiah chapter 1, if you find it let me know.

Post 112, same subject following 107.

Post 119, explanation about your pejorative and condescending tactics. Again, not a debate about a Biblical subject where a Bible verse was necessary.

Post 138, again following post 119 about your attitude, not about a Biblical debate.

Post 140 Acts 8:37 and evidence for its validity but again, also in response to Rippon's question about what I thought was partial Calvinism and what Spurgeons errors were. Perhaps the Bible verses for what Spurgeon believed are found in 2 James chapter 1. As with Calvin, when you find them let me know.

When a verse was addressed, I addressed the verse (Acts 8:37).

Post 143. A short comment asking you to prove that I did not respond to you, and did not use Scripture when I did. I was not aware that telling someone that wrote an inaccurate comment required a Bible verse.

Post 148 was a response about a Spurgeon sermon showing where he capitulated. Again, show me the Bible verse I could have used to prove that Spurgeon changed his mind.

Post 149, I did not answer because I told you what my conditions were. You made a blanket statement that state "YOU ANSWERED NOTHING". That is an absolute that you did not back up with any facts, and the fact that you are now posting threads that show I did respond to you prove your assertion is bogus, and yet you defended it anyway.

Furthermore, you are asking me to read an entire 30 chapters of statements in a confession, and respond in a few minutes. Your request to "answer Romans 8:29" is vague because you are not establishing what it is that you want answered about the verse. So here's you answer about Romans 8:29, it's after Romans chapter 7 and before Romans chapter 9. Now if you want a better answer then you need to be more specific as to why you think that verse supports your point of view.

Post 154, Again the subject is about a person outside of the Bible where a verse is not necessary. The debate is about another persons belief system as stated by them, not addressing a specific verse.

MY TURN

Now using your same logic, lets look at all the posts you made with no Bible verses in them, and they we can settle that you don't use the Bible.

Post #15.No Bible Verse
Post #37 .No Bible Verse
Post #46 .No Bible Verse
Post #91 .No Bible Verse
Post #123 .No Bible Verse
Post #142 .No Bible Verse
Post #145 .No Bible Verse
Post#147 .No Bible Verse
Post #152 .No Bible Verse
Post #155 .No Bible Verse
Post #164 Still quoting Spurgeon. .No Bible Verse

Since one of mine had a BIble verse, you just didn't give me credit for it, and then you missed on that did, that's your 11 No Bible Verse posts, to my 7.

So next time you make an attempt to be so petty, make sure you take the beam out of your own posts first. This silliness proves why I had good reason not to respond to your arguments.

I'm posting this now, but will be adding the other posts I referred to that you did not respond to.

PART 2

From This Thread, each response I gave with Scripture as well as the arguments you did not respond to.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=86145

Post #53

Post #57 Failed to respond to argument on Matthew 23:39, Genesis 3:9, Romans 1:17, and John 17:12. Instead, you bypassed it on post #60 and posted quotes from the Baptist Confession instead of using your own knowledge of the Bible to answer the verses.

In post 62, I even told you I would wait because you even admitted that you had not offered a response.

Post #63 you did not answer the question about would not God have ordained our belief systems as well. Your response missed the question entirely. Nor did you answer the argument about assurance of salvation being irresistable.

In Post #68, you were asked to provide Scripture and verse for your statement that Jesus said we are bound and not free. You failed to answer that question but instead, offered John 8:32, which says the truth sets us free, it doesn't say we are bound and in using Romans 6, your quote that those who commit sin are the servants of sin. But that fails to answer the question of being bound in the sense that you said JESUS quoted it to prove that our wills are bound to prevent us from the ability to choose Christ.

Post #75 you said backsliding always meant apostasy into perdition and did not answer the question, and then avoided the statement I made that justification and sanctification are not the same thing.

In post #105, I listed all 5 points of Calvinism and partial arguments as to why I disagree with all 5.

In post #113, you again accused me of not responding to Romans 5 which I explained to you that I did, but even then, I responded to it a second time in post #108 and you still denied that you got a response to it.

Instead of responding to my analysis of the verse, you said that Calvinists do not claim that salvation is not offered to all men, and stated as proof that Calvinists preach the gospel to all men. Calvinist preaching to all men, and believing that the gospel is available to all men are not the same thing. Calvinism clearly teaches that salvation is only offered to the elect. That is the very core of Limited Atonement.

Post #114 you simply said my last 3 posts "were horrible" and didn't respond at all, just offered a pejorative jab.

Your next 5-7 posts or so were repastes of the same arguments that I already answered about Romans 5 and you offered nothing new to the argument but repetitions of the same argument.

In this thread, you accused me of "slandering" James White on the thread at issue now without giving a reason, which I did, post #151

NOW THIS ONE'S FUNNY

You have consistently accused me of not using the Bible, but in post#189 in response to Winman you said:

"But Winman...it is ACH that offered you biblical teaching here on this thread.
He calmly walked you through your verses....read it again

CONCLUSION

Part 1 and 2 are why I chose not to engage with you. You misrepresented my statements, failed to response to a slew of Biblical arguments,accused of me things that I have proven you were wrong about, and have been consistently condescending, and even used a straw man argument that actually bit you in the rear since you did the exact same thing with 4 more missing "Bible Posts" than I had.

So don't panic if you don't get responses from me about your questions anymore.

I rest my case.

PS, and don't complain that I didn't put a quick link on all of the post #. I had to look up everyone of yours, so you can do the same.

 

[Yeshua1]

To address your petty straw man argument:

Post 107 was a response to a question about an opinion as to what I thought a partial Calvinist was. I was not aware there was a Bible verse that defines a partial Calvinist. Perhaps it's in Hezekiah chapter 1, if you find it let me know.

Post 112, same subject following 107.

Post 119, explanation about your pejorative and condescending tactics. Again, not a debate about a Biblical subject where a Bible verse was necessary.

Post 138, again following post 119 about your attitude, not about a Biblical debate.

Post 140 Acts 8:37 and evidence for its validity but again, also in response to Rippon's question about what I thought was partial Calvinism and what Spurgeons errors were. Perhaps the Bible verses for what Spurgeon believed are found in 2 James chapter 1. As with Calvin, when you find them let me know.

When a verse was addressed, I addressed the verse (Acts 8:37).

Post 143. A short comment asking you to prove that I did not respond to you, and did not use Scripture when I did. I was not aware that telling someone that wrote an inaccurate comment required a Bible verse.

Post 148 was a response about a Spurgeon sermon showing where he capitulated. Again, show me the Bible verse I could have used to prove that Spurgeon changed his mind.

Post 149, I did not answer because I told you what my conditions were. You made a blanket statement that state "YOU ANSWERED NOTHING". That is an absolute that you did not back up with any facts, and the fact that you are now posting threads that show I did respond to you prove your assertion is bogus, and yet you defended it anyway.

Furthermore, you are asking me to read an entire 30 chapters of statements in a confession, and respond in a few minutes. Your request to "answer Romans 8:29" is vague because you are not establishing what it is that you want answered about the verse. So here's you answer about Romans 8:29, it's after Romans chapter 7 and before Romans chapter 9. Now if you want a better answer then you need to be more specific as to why you think that verse supports your point of view.

Post 154, Again the subject is about a person outside of the Bible where a verse is not necessary. The debate is about another persons belief system as stated by them, not addressing a specific verse.

MY TURN

Now using your same logic, lets look at all the posts you made with no Bible verses in them, and they we can settle that you don't use the Bible.

Post #15.No Bible Verse
Post #37 .No Bible Verse
Post #46 .No Bible Verse
Post #91 .No Bible Verse
Post #123 .No Bible Verse
Post #142 .No Bible Verse
Post #145 .No Bible Verse
Post#147 .No Bible Verse
Post #152 .No Bible Verse
Post #155 .No Bible Verse
Post #164 Still quoting Spurgeon. .No Bible Verse

Since one of mine had a BIble verse, you just didn't give me credit for it, and then you missed on that did, that's your 11 No Bible Verse posts, to my 7.

So next time you make an attempt to be so petty, make sure you take the beam out of your own posts first. This silliness proves why I had good reason not to respond to your arguments.

I'm posting this now, but will be adding the other posts I referred to that you did not respond to.

Do you hold that we have real free will still, same as Adam had then?

 

[Iconoclast]

ACH,

Well...let's take a look at the thread that was "closed" as in you can no longer post on it.

From This Thread, each response I gave with Scripture as well as the arguments you did not respond to.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=86145

You posted in # 20....using two verses......I responded in 38-39 using 15 verses

in post 53......you ignore the verses in this way......Peter writes the verses,and yet you say this:

Without even needing to address every point you made,
To answer the question needs to deal with these verses....
The question is how can a believer have assurance of faith?

your argument just confirmed my original statement.

My argument was quoting Scripture directly dealing with calling and election,and assurance.
You avoid this by trying to say it is "my argument" when in reality it is a biblical command and no argument at all.

Every example that you offered

These "examples" I offered are the biblical commands given for this very purpose.They can not just be dismissed.....in dealing with "assurance" which is subjective.

was a performance based evidence that you are of the elect, and if it is performance based, you can not claim that your salvation is based upon faith in Christ alone, and your position ends up being synonymous with Arminianism.

You display two errors here.You confuse my quoting scripture saying it is my argument, and now you are switching from a christian having and enjoying assurance of salvation to speaking about....salvation in Christ alone....which is objective. That is not what was being discussed at all.
So you avoid the topic,then switch to justification and try to claim falsely that Cals are inconsistent which is far from the truth.

salvation by faith in Christ alone....is not the same as assurance of such a salvation.So your attempt to conflate the issues fail, so later I ask you to deal with it and you never do.

Should works follow salvation? Of course (Eph 2:10, James 2:23-24) but the difference is the Calvinist model's proof of election DEPENDS on it

any christians assurance depends on it...it is linked in scripture.

How many works are necessary to verify that you are truly one of the elect?

It is not how many works, but if they were wrought in us by God.

And that logic does not escape the argument that an Arminian would use to prove you may not have ever been saved in the first place.

Arminianism is a failed theological system...logic and carnal philosophy are all the arminian has to resist the scriptural truth.
you then say this:

And if God is not electing based on His foreknowledge of who freely chooses to receive Christ

1] this is not the biblical use of the term foreknowledge

2]no one freely chooses Christ of their own will

3] your idea would suggest that our fully omniscient God would react to man,learning what man would do,then in some way "electing those who in effect "elected" God...which is obviously backwards.

but because election demands salvation even against the will, then that means that not everyone are sinners, only some are sinners.

you want me to respond to several completely wrong premises and unbiblical assumptions,as I told you I did but that post got cut -off.....I am doing it here.

When Romans 5:18-19 is argued in the Calvinistic sense that only SOME were made righteous (the elect) then that means only SOME were under condemnation and judgment only came upon SOME unto that condemnation. You can't cherry pick the verse and say that many means all were sinners in the first half of the verse, and then say that many means only the elect in the last half of the verse.

Here you make the classic blunder that all Arminians make.There is no easy or polite way to say it....you have no understanding of this verse, federal headship, or imputation that is taught here in Romans 5. This has been addressed and will be addressed several times more, but it is a thread all by itself.


see pt2....

 

[Iconoclast]

Part 2......

Post #57 Failed to respond to argument on Matthew 23:39, Genesis 3:9, Romans 1:17, and John 17:12. Instead, you bypassed it on post #60 and posted quotes from the Baptist Confession instead of using your own knowledge of the Bible to answer the verses.

Because I used the confession of faith....which is loaded with scripture....why do you call this into question at all??? I do not really type so to speak[i am slower than a turtle in molassas]....to cut and paste the verses that I would offer you anyway saves time. Are you interested in the truth of God....or just trying to see if you can "catch me on something"?

In post 62, I even told you I would wait because you even admitted that you had not offered a response.

Post #63 you did not answer the question about would not God have ordained our belief systems as well. Your response missed the question entirely. Nor did you answer the argument about assurance of salvation being irresistable.

I did not answer this because it frankly does not make sense.

What do you mean...assurance of salvation being irresistable???

salvation is irresistable......assurance is not......so what can I answer to this fragmented thought?

You mentioned that I used the confession of faith in post 60.....why not take the small section of it that I quoted and respond showing all us Cals how we have it so wrong,but you have it correct///here I will post it for you again:

From the 1689 confession of faith;
Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Song of Solomon 1:4 )

2._____ This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )

3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

4._____ Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.
( Matthew 22:14; Matthew 13:20, 21; Hebrews 6:4, 5; John 6:44, 45, 65; 1 John 2:24, 25; Acts 4:12; John 4:22; John 17:3 )

 

[Iconoclast]

pt3

In Post #68, you were asked to provide Scripture and verse for your statement that Jesus said we are bound and not free. You failed to answer that question but instead, offered John 8:32, which says the truth sets us free, it doesn't say we are bound

Sure it does....that is exactly what it says....
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
The word servant is willing bondslave of sin....that was Jesus answer to these Jews who said they were not in BONDAGE.
Do I have to read the whole passage for you?

and in using Romans 6, your quote that those who commit sin are the servants of sin. But that fails to answer the question of being bound in the sense that you said JESUS quoted it to prove that our wills are bound to prevent us from the ability to choose Christ.

Wrong...that is a direct biblical response to the question.That you do not grasp it,does not mean it fails to answer the question.

Post #75 you said backsliding always meant apostasy into perdition and did not answer the question, and then avoided the statement I made that justification and sanctification are not the same thing.

My answer in post 75 stands as it answers to your incorrect and unbiblical use of the term backslider, as it relates to your wrong premise which i have already addressed.

here:

Quote:
A Calvinist can not claim that because what happens if you backslide? Since your proof of election is based on performance, then if you backslide, there goes your assurance
In the bible backsliding is apostasy...it is used 17 times in 3 ot books...it is always rebellion and apostasy to perdition.

What I believe you mean is when we sin...do we lose some degree of assurance...of course we do.I am not saying some small sin....but if we take sin lightly and our lives can be described as the same as the unsaved ...day after day....there is no grounds for any biblical assurance.

Quote:
And once again, you continue to make an argument based upon sanctification to prove your assurance of justification
The scripture links the two as part of the whole. They can be spoken of separately but they are linked for most regular christians.....no fruit...no root.

In post #105, I listed all 5 points of Calvinism and partial arguments as to why I disagree with all 5.

In post #113, you again accused me of not responding to Romans 5 which I explained to you that I did, but even then, I responded to it a second time in post #108 and you still denied that you got a response to it.

Instead of responding to my analysis of the verse,

I did directly respond in post 113:

Nice try, trying to avoid the answer...but you did not respond to this:


Quote:
When Romans 5:18-19 is argued in the Calvinistic sense that only SOME were made righteous (the elect) then that means only SOME were under condemnation and judgment only came upon SOME unto that condemnation. You can't cherry pick the verse and say that many means all were sinners in the first half of the verse, and then say that many means only the elect in the last half of the verse
If you understand it biblically that is exactly what it says.....

ALL mankind was in Adam by physical birth

All in Christ started dead in Adam by physical birth....but By new birth, or rather being born from above they are In Christ..

Not all mankind are described as ......ALL In Christ

ALL In ADAM...does not equal ALL In Christ.......

if you deny this ...you are denying the basis of the gospel.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive

Now back to Romans 5:18

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

Now here is the obvious interpretation which Calvinism rejects: ALL MEN are sinners because of the offense of one, Adam. However, the free gift came by one man and is offered to ALL MEN.

The Calvinist argues that salvation is not offered to ALL MEN, but only to some, and those some are the elect. But if "ALL MEN" means only SOME MEN are offered the free gift, then it logically and grammatically follows that only SOME MEN were made sinners.

The grammatical structure in English and Greek are the same for both halves of the verse, and it is grammatical and hermeneutic suicide to interpret the plain meaning of that verse any way other than the plain meaning of that verse.

No Calvinist says this.....The gospel is preached to all men everywhere.

Your failure to answer this is clear.[/COLOR

you said that Calvinists do not claim that salvation is not offered to all men, and stated as proof that Calvinists preach the gospel to all men. Calvinist preaching to all men, and believing that the gospel is available to all men are not the same thing. Calvinism clearly teaches that salvation is only offered to the elect. That is the very core of Limited Atonement.

Salvation is preached and offered to all men.....all calvinists say AND TEACH this.
For you to say otherwise shows any Cal reading your post, that you do not know what you are talking about in your zeal to oppose the truth.

The "core " of particular redemption is the Covenant of Redemption. The fact of it does not affect the free offer of the gospel. At any given point in time all men could be the elect, or no man could be elect of God.That is His concern.We preach to all men everywhere as they are responsible to repent and believe the gospel.

NOW THIS ONE'S FUNNY

You have consistently accused me of not using the Bible, but in post#189 in response to Winman you said:

"But Winman...it is ACH that offered you biblical teaching here on this thread.
He calmly walked you through your verses....read it again

You did offer some scripture to Winman out of mercy to Winmans novelties...we have all tried to help, but he claims he does not need it.Although you two tried to huddle together as kindred spirits, even you could not take his errant posts.


CONCLUSION

Part 1 and 2 are why I chose not to engage with you

.

No...we both know that is not true.

You misrepresented my statements

,

I do not need to...quoting them works just fine as they are wrong.

failed to response to a slew of Biblical arguments,

if I see them I respond....

accused of me things that I have proven you were wrong about, and have been consistently condescending,

That is your specialty.....read your posts,read what you said that we have said to you,which we have not...then look at your barage of snide comments....

and even used a straw man argument that actually bit you in the rear since you did the exact same thing with 4 more missing "Bible Posts" than I had.

My argument was no strawman.....in that thread you offered no scripture...when you did not respond to the scripture offered...I di not offer anymore to you,still waiting for you to answer romans 8....29-30......yes i see it is between chapter 7and 9......what do you think it means,and I am sure you cannot explain it without using an unbiblical use of foreknowledge as i have addressed to you.

So don't panic if you don't get responses from me about your questions anymore.

I rest my case.

You have no case that anyone can see.You will not respond, because you cannot without looking foolish.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Part 2......

Because I used the confession of faith....which is loaded with scripture....why do you call this into question at all??? I do not really type so to speak[i am slower than a turtle in molassas]....to cut and paste the verses that I would offer you anyway saves time. Are you interested in the truth of God....or just trying to see if you can "catch me on something"?

1. You cut and pasted SOMEONE ELSES dogma which does not address the specific arguments that I listed. Those verses list only serve to compliment what the author of that confession stated toward its particular dogma, not a rebuttal to a particular issue in contention. That was a red herring tactic.

2. You have a lot of nerve accusing someone of trying to "catch you" on something when you listed 9 threads that you claimed I offered no scripture on (2 of which were wrong) and then did the same thing with 4 more posts than I had without Scripture. I'm not surprised that there was no response to that.

I did not answer this because it frankly does not make sense.

The question was simple: If God preordains everything and forces our salvation according to irresistible grace, and His sovereignty dictates our actions and choices, then is would logically follow that whatever you believe is preordained for you to believe in. If belief is thus preordained, then why are there Calvinists who disagree with each other? And, if belief is preordained, then that makes God the author of heresy.

What do you mean...assurance of salvation being irresistable???

salvation is irresistable......assurance is not......so what can I answer to this fragmented thought?

1. You stated that salvation and assurance go hand in hand. If that is true, then that means assurance of salvation is preordained and the believer would automatically be sure of his/her salvation without ever having to question it or examine himself (2 Cor 13:5).

2. If assurance is subjective, then you can't really call it assurance. If something is admitted to be subjective, then you can't know for sure whether it's true or not which is in direct conflict with 1 John 5:13.

You mentioned that I used the confession of faith in post 60.....why not take the small section of it that I quoted and respond showing all us Cals how we have it so wrong,but you have it correct///here I will post it for you again:

1. I try to stick with the issue that are presently being debated instead of diving into rabbit trails. The statements you posted did not define which of the points of Calvinism were being represented, nor how the verses listed supported their statements, nor how the statements or the verses listed were relevant to the post.

You posting a confession is like the president being asked "Did you order the soldiers to stand down instead of helping out the Embassy", and the president responds, "I couldn't have because policy prohibits me from doing that". Stating the policy only states the policy, it doesn't answer the question. The policy may dictate the actions and may have limited relevancy, but quoting the policy itself does not address the specific issue set forth.

 

[Yeshua1]

Part 2......




1. You cut and pasted SOMEONE ELSES dogma which does not address the specific arguments that I listed. Those verses list only serve to compliment what the author of that confession stated toward its particular dogma, not a rebuttal to a particular issue in contention. That was a red herring tactic.

2. You have a lot of nerve accusing someone of trying to "catch you" on something when you listed 9 threads that you claimed I offered no scripture on (2 of which were wrong) and then did the same thing with 4 more posts than I had without Scripture. I'm not surprised that there was no response to that.




The question was simple: If God preordains everything and forces our salvation according to irresistible grace, and His sovereignty dictates our actions and choices, then is would logically follow that whatever you believe is preordained for you to believe in. If belief is thus preordained, then why are there Calvinists who disagree with each other? And, if belief is preordained, then that makes God the author of heresy.

God does not 'force' us to become saved, he provodes the means for us to get saved, we still come to jesus and receive Him thru faith! NONE come to jesus against their will!

And the Holy spirit is working with fallible persons with the truths of God, for IF even paul himself saw thru a glass darkly, how much more so would we who are not Apostles see the scriptures through!

1. You stated that salvation and assurance go hand in hand. If that is true, then that means assurance of salvation is preordained and the believer would automatically be sure of his/her salvation without ever having to question it or examine himself (2 Cor 13:5).

2 seperate things here, as the lord asks us to examine ourselves to see ifwe are really been saved, have evidence/fruit of that, once really saved, than we have assurnce as per John!

2. If assurance is subjective, then you can't really call it assurance. If something is admitted to be subjective, then you can't know for sure whether it's true or not which is in direct conflict with 1 John 5:13.

see above post!

1. I try to stick with the issue that are presently being debated instead of diving into rabbit trails. The statements you posted did not define which of the points of Calvinism were being represented, nor how the verses listed supported their statements, nor how the statements or the verses listed were relevant to the post.

You posting a confession is like the president being asked "Did you order the soldiers to stand down instead of helping out the Embassy", and the president responds, "I couldn't have because policy prohibits me from doing that". Stating the policy only states the policy, it doesn't answer the question. The policy may dictate the actions and may have limited relevancy, but quoting the policy itself does not address the specific issue set forth.

Just take the biggest objection to TULIP, and addressing that with icon and others here!

 

[jonathanD]

As I said in post #107:

1. "The Calvinists are content with defending the definitions of their beliefs, but they are not content with examining the logical conclusions of those beliefs when they are boiled down to their lowest common denominators."

2. Neither Van, myself, nor others who oppose Calvinism are attempting to make a historical debate that our oppositions are what Calvin defined when we are making arguments against the conclusions of Calvinism. What we are arguing against is the RESULTS of what they produce.

3. We are not accusing Calvinism of calling the item on their menu a hamburger, we are saying that the product tastes like dog food, and is not healthy for consumption because it is inherently poisonous.

I hope that you don't mind me numbering your posts...it helps me to organize my thoughts.

1. That's a fine intention, but it's not what you've done with your words. Van says that those who don't support double predestination are not Calvinists. That's not true. In a later post, you say that those who "meet sinners where they are" are not Calvinists. That's also not true. It would be more accurate to say that, in your view, they are not consistent Calvinists. The doctrine is plain. The "results" that you refer to are more fuzzy. If someone claims they affirm the doctrine, they are, for all intents and purposes, Calvinists.

2. I think that is a semantic game. The flock of antinomian hyper-calvinists is a very small one. When we point out Calvinists who do evangelize and preach the Gospel, you claim they aren't real Calvinists. Essentially, you're arguing against a hypothetical person who comes to all the same logical conclusions that you do. That's fine, but I don't think it actually says anything about real evangelical reformed baptists (SBC or otherwise) and conservative presbyterians in the Church (universal) today.

3. It's not that you're saying my McD's serves dog food. It's that your saying my McD's is actually a Nathan's Famous.

Look, I believe in the 5-points because I think they are conveyed in Scripture. I also believe in robust evangelism and preaching the Gospel....because I think it is a clear command of Scripture. That may not make logical sense to you, but much of the faith is counterintuitive...like a loving Father sacrificing his infinitely valuable Son for the sake of those who hate Him.

It's a fine thing to evaluate results, but you must remember that Calvinists don't just believe that God appoints ends, but that he also appoints means. I preach the Gospel because I'm commanded to. Repent, for the day of the Lord is at hand....that's the means that the Father has appointed to gather the elect (a group that only he knows).

 

[Yeshua1]

I hope that you don't mind me numbering your posts...it helps me to organize my thoughts.

1. That's a fine intention, but it's not what you've done with your words. Van says that those who don't support double predestination are not Calvinists. That's not true. In a later post, you say that those who "meet sinners where they are" are not Calvinists. That's also not true. It would be more accurate to say that, in your view, they are not consistent Calvinists. The doctrine is plain. The "results" that you refer to are more fuzzy. If someone claims they affirm the doctrine, they are, for all intents and purposes, Calvinists.

2. I think that is a semantic game. The flock of antinomian hyper-calvinists is a very small one. When we point out Calvinists who do evangelize and preach the Gospel, you claim they aren't real Calvinists. Essentially, you're arguing against a hypothetical person who comes to all the same logical conclusions that you do. That's fine, but I don't think it actually says anything about real evangelical reformed baptists (SBC or otherwise) and conservative presbyterians in the Church (universal) today.

3. It's not that you're saying my McD's serves dog food. It's that your saying my McD's is actually a Nathan's Famous.

Look, I believe in the 5-points because I think they are conveyed in Scripture. I also believe in robust evangelism and preaching the Gospel....because I think it is a clear command of Scripture. That may not make logical sense to you, but much of the faith is counterintuitive...like a loving Father sacrificing his infinitely valuable Son for the sake of those who hate Him.

It's a fine thing to evaluate results, but you must remember that Calvinists don't just believe that God appoints ends, but that he also appoints means. I preach the Gospel because I'm commanded to. Repent, for the day of the Lord is at hand....that's the means that the Father has appointed to gather the elect (a group that only he knows).

I keep detecting in the protestings of our brothers here against calvinism a thread that implies that IF God does it the way we are ascribing that he does to save sinners, its both "Not fair", and also "violates our free will!"

Also amusing when the "Dr"ikes to assert his biblical knowledge, for isn't that the common complaint leveled against cals, that we act as superior, having extra knowledge?

 

[DrJamesAch]

I keep detecting in the protestings of our brothers here against calvinism a thread that implies that IF God does it the way we are ascribing that he does to save sinners, its both "Not fair", and also "violates our free will!"

Also amusing when the "Dr"ikes to assert his biblical knowledge, for isn't that the common complaint leveled against cals, that we act as superior, having extra knowledge?

So when I don't use "Biblical knowledge" I get criticized for not using Scripture, but when I do use it, I get accused of "acting superior".

Gotcha:thumbsup:

 

[DrJamesAch]

I hope that you don't mind me numbering your posts...it helps me to organize my thoughts..

1. That's a fine intention, but it's not what you've done with your words. Van says that those who don't support double predestination are not Calvinists. That's not true. In a later post, you say that those who "meet sinners where they are" are not Calvinists. That's also not true. It would be more accurate to say that, in your view, they are not consistent Calvinists. The doctrine is plain. The "results" that you refer to are more fuzzy. If someone claims they affirm the doctrine, they are, for all intents and purposes, Calvinists.

I'm not really arguing for Van's point on that particular comment of his. It was a supplemental comment added to a partial section of his post. It was more of a paranthetical statement. Not saying I agree or disagree, I'd have to go back and read his argument, but my statement was not intended toward that particular argument.

What my argument is is that for example: Calvinists hold that God works ALL THINGS after the counsel of his own will, and interprets this verse to conclude God controls all events (such as tornadoes, for example). The conclusion and result of that statement is that God would be the author of sin and heresy. What the Calvinists on here have done is argue that we said you said God was the author of sin, but that's not the issue. The argument was that God being the author of sin is the RESULT of this stated belief, not that you or anyone else claimed or defined that as your axiom or premise.

2. I think that is a semantic game. The flock of antinomian hyper-calvinists is a very small one. When we point out Calvinists who do evangelize and preach the Gospel, you claim they aren't real Calvinists. Essentially, you're arguing against a hypothetical person who comes to all the same logical conclusions that you do. That's fine, but I don't think it actually says anything about real evangelical reformed baptists (SBC or otherwise) and conservative presbyterians in the Church (universal) today.

See response to #1. This is not just semantics if you wish to interpret the Bible correctly. Not only does the premise need to be correct but so does the outcome and results of the belief posited. What was argued is that there are many Calvinist doctrines where the initial premise may sound legitimate on its face, but then the result yields a contradiction with Scripture or is completely illogical in a Biblical sense.

3. It's not that you're saying my McD's serves dog food. It's that your saying my McD's is actually a Nathan's Famous.

Don't know what a "Nathan's Famous" is.

Look, I believe in the 5-points because I think they are conveyed in Scripture. I also believe in robust evangelism and preaching the Gospel....because I think it is a clear command of Scripture. That may not make logical sense to you, but much of the faith is counterintuitive...like a loving Father sacrificing his infinitely valuable Son for the sake of those who hate Him.

It's a fine thing to evaluate results, but you must remember that Calvinists don't just believe that God appoints ends, but that he also appoints means. I preach the Gospel because I'm commanded to. Repent, for the day of the Lord is at hand....that's the means that the Father has appointed to gather the elect (a group that only he knows)

If you believe that, and disagree with me that is fine. I believe Calvinism is dangerous, but I can agree to disagree with you without treating you like you're stupid because you disagree with me. Now there are some that I treat differently because I don't like bullies who condescend to others in a harsh and bitter tone merely because they disagree.

But you do realize that when you preach repentance, you are asking someone to make a free will decision to change their mind and turn to Christ! Freely coming to Christ is the means in which God chooses to have mercy on sinners.

But when you say "THE elect" there are several different elect in the Bible. Israel was called God's elect (Isa 45:4) and they rejected him. Matt 23:38-39, Isaiah 1:2.

"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye" Acts 7:51

 

[Yeshua1]

So when I don't use "Biblical knowledge" I get criticized for not using Scripture, but when I do use it, I get accused of "acting superior".

Gotcha:thumbsup:

Not upset with you, just find it interesting that when you argue for your points by asserting your educational prowness, that is what many accuse cals of doing!

 

[DrJamesAch]

Not upset with you, just find it interesting that when you argue for your points by asserting your educational prowness, that is what many accuse cals of doing!

I only did that with one person, and I explained why I did it. Because he is a bully to everyone that disagrees with him. If you read my statement on the introductions section at the top of the forum, you will see what I think about my "degrees". Jesus didn't have a degree (John 7:15), so I don't look down on others simply because they haven't had any formal education. As I stated in my introduction/welcome I have met some brilliant believers who put me to shame that had no formal training whatsoever.

That's not to say there are not benefits to formal training, but it certainly is not and should not be a measuring stick to evaluate another man's understanding of the Bible.