Do you think God bluffs?

[Amy.G]

Post 82 has been reported for breaking BB rules #3 AND #4.

I have also reported it.

 

[Luke2427]

If that's the case, then you need to go back to school and learn to write clearly and more importantly, respectfully, so people won't ignore your posts out of hand. You know, I think you are the only person in my years on the BB that I've reported twice. And I haven't reported more times than I have fingers. That hopefully, along with DHK is saying, will give you a clue.

Whatever...

 

[Amy.G]

But you... your running out of time to learn, aren't you Winman?

You are still, by your own admission an infant theologically. You said you just started looking into Calvinism 2-3 years ago. So you are still VERY wet behind the ears, aren't you.

You are a whipper snapper intellectually concerning these matters but in an old man's body.

You are probably not going to be around long enough to learn what many who are far younger than you have known for years, are you?

Reported this post as well.

 

[saturneptune]

Baptists in history have never believed the VAST majority of this weird mess that Winman adheres to. Most of the early Baptists were Calvinists, just for the record.

And you can fight for his belief if you wish- you can fight for heresy if you wish- but that doesn't change the quality of his belief. Frankly, your willingness to fight for it is meaningless.

You don't have to be an Arminian or a Calvinist- but if you want to be credible at all among thinking people then you will not just pull your beliefs out of the air and interpret passages of Scripture, like you do (the Job passages for example), in a way that NO CHRISTIAN OF ANY REPUTATION IN HISTORY WOULD EVEN CONSIDER TO BE POSSIBLY ACCURATE.

This is the problem with Independent Baptists, imo. They tend to not care what the Church has historically believed. They tend to not care if no one in the history of the church has ever seen a passage the way they do.

This is probably why you wish to defend Winman. Aren't you both of this vein?

I am a strong believer in God's sovereignty, and do not agree with much of what Winman says, but you are way out of line. DHK is exactly right.

Your whole post seems to focus on the way things were way back when men were men, women were women, kids walked to school barefooted in the snow and took a bean sandwich to school. Everyone was ten feet closer to God. I got news for you. Time past does not always equate to spiritual maturity. For example, in our church minutes decades ago, members were disfellowshiped for investing in the stock market, dancing with their wives, and one that said someone had a bad attitude. This was obviously an immature congregation, as they took action for unBiblical reasons, and engineered a repentance that was not needed. Or how about a Board of Deacons from the 50s that thought it was within their power and authority to run the church. Equating time with spiritual doctrine has no validity.

It amazes me you would exclude an entire group of Baptists as not meeting your standards. I do not believe these other posters are pulling beliefs out of the air. Your opinion of what the Bible says does not make it so.

I grew up in Gulfport, MS. Tell me you are not really from Mississippi.

 

[Luke2427]

I am a strong believer in God's sovereignty, and do not agree with much of what Winman says, but you are way out of line. DHK is exactly right.

Your whole post seems to focus on the way things were way back when men were men, women were women, kids walked to school barefooted in the snow and took a bean sandwich to school. Everyone was ten feet closer to God. I got news for you. Time past does not always equate to spiritual maturity. For example, in our church minutes decades ago, members were disfellowshiped for investing in the stock market, dancing with their wives, and one that said someone had a bad attitude. This was obviously an immature congregation, as they took action for unBiblical reasons, and engineered a repentance that was not needed. Or how about a Board of Deacons from the 50s that thought it was within their power and authority to run the church. Equating time with spiritual doctrine has no validity.

It amazes me you would exclude an entire group of Baptists as not meeting your standards. I do not believe these other posters are pulling beliefs out of the air. Your opinion of what the Bible says does not make it so.

I grew up in Gulfport, MS. Tell me you are not really from Mississippi.

I ahve no idea what you are talking about in this post. you obviously came late to the party and have no idea what I am saying.

I am not talking about some silly "old days" mess.

I am talking about orthodoxy and the need to be able to trace your beliefs in a steady train of orthodoxy.

So I have no idea where you got this other stuff.

 

[Winman]

But you... your running out of time to learn, aren't you Winman?

You are still, by your own admission an infant theologically. You said you just started looking into Calvinism 2-3 years ago. So you are still VERY wet behind the ears, aren't you.

You are a whipper snapper intellectually concerning these matters but in an old man's body.

You are probably not going to be around long enough to learn what many who are far younger than you have known for years, are you?

I didn't have to look at Calvinsim long to see it is total error and very unscriptural. It is you that does not know scripture well enough to understand that. Instead of reading the scriptures for what they say, you have allowed yourself to be indoctrinated by others. You follow the teachings of a brilliant, but 27 year old Calvin. He was a novice when he wrote the institutes, and clearly did not understand the scriptures. The record of his life shows him to be a tyrant who imprisoned, tortured, and executed people who disagreed with him, hardly the actions of a true born-again Christian.

Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

 

[menageriekeeper]

It was a breakdown in theology that led to Arminianism among Baptists.

Was it a breakdown in theology that led Luther to post his 95 Theses on the door of All Saint's Church? (I know more than you think I know) Or was the theology of the RC broken from the beginning?

All of them were Catholic

You should go over to the history forum and tell the Landmarkers that, but in the meantime why don't you explain to me where and how the Greek Orthodox Church got started (think AD 1000 or so; or are you going to argue that they aren't followers of Christ?) Everyone was not Catholic in the early days or even in the later days as Luther was developing his theses. They may have played lip service in order to live without persecution, but they all didn't believe as the RC told them.

Soul liberty is a good thing Luke.

 

[Luke2427]

I didn't have to look at Calvinsim long to see it is total error and very unscriptural. It is you that does not know scripture well enough to understand that. Instead of reading the scriptures for what they say, you have allowed yourself to be indoctrinated by others. You follow the teachings of a brilliant, but 27 year old Calvin. He was a novice when he wrote the institutes, and clearly did not understand the scriptures. The record of his life shows him to be a tyrant who imprisoned, tortured, and executed people who disagreed with him, hardly the actions of a true born-again Christian.

Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Every time you post you reveal your lack of education and understanding on these matters which are too great for you.

You have NO IDEA the context of Calvin's actions in Geneva. I'll tell you this: he executed FAR less than Moses did.

And he was no novice at 27. He was a genius.

And I believed in the DoG a long time before I picked up The Institutes.

And you are the novice having JUST come to this matter.

All seminarians in their twenties are more mature in these matters than you. Every one of them.

Humility would enable you to bow to the far superior wisdom that people far younger than you possess.

But that's the obstacle, isn't it?

 

[menageriekeeper]

I am talking about orthodoxy and the need to be able to trace your beliefs in a steady train of orthodoxy.

Why would I (or anyone) need to do this? Is the Bible itself not sufficient unto salvation? Think about what you are saying, Luke! You are saying that following in line behind the stream of history is somehow more important than following what God Himself is saying to us. What if Luther had simply fallen in line? Would there have been a Calvin? What if Calvin had fallen in line? Would you now be joining an RC church?

 

[Luke2427]

Was it a breakdown in theology that led Luther to post his 95 Theses on the door of All Saint's Church? (I know more than you think I know) Or was the theology of the RC broken from the beginning?

See. You do not know what you are talking about. It was NOT broken from the beginning. But you didn't know this, did you.

You thought Catholicism has ALWAYS been bad, didn't you?

You did not know that for hundreds of years the Catholic Church was the ONLY church and it was perfectly theolgically sound.

Martin Luther's 95 theses primarily addressed indulgences which was a relatively NEW practice.

The more one who is not educated on these matters speaks the more they reveal that, regardless of their physical age, they are novices on these matters.

You should go over to the history forum and tell the Landmarkers that, but in the meantime why don't you explain to me where and how the Greek Orthodox Church got started (think AD 1000 or so; or are you going to argue that they aren't followers of Christ?)

Further proof that you do not know what you are talking about.

The Greek Orthodox church has very little to do with Historical Christian Orthodoxy.

Look up orthodoxy in the Theopedia.

Everyone was not Catholic in the early days or even in the later days as Luther was developing his theses. They may have played lip service in order to live without persecution, but they all didn't believe as the RC told them.

You still do not know what "catholic" means, do you?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Time for a vacation for a member. I am recommending such action.

And closing this thread.

 

[DHK]

S
You did not know that for hundreds of years the Catholic Church was the ONLY church and it was perfectly theolgically sound.

You are so far off the mark here. You really should start a thread in the Baptist History forum on this subject and see how far you get. You might learn a few things.