The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Timtoolman,
You wrote:
I have several problems with what you have written.
You said: I want is one to think outside the box of the teachings of calvin
The Problem: Most Calvinists, have not dedicated themselves to Calvin’s teachings, they have dedicated themselves to Scripture. Calvin was essentially Augustinian in his theology and Augustine was essentially Pauline. Neither Calvin nor Augustine were infallible. However, they both do make some very important and very good observations on Scripture.
So, the issue is, as it has always been, Scriptural.
You also said: . Let others tell you what is on thier heart and what thier thinking is. NOt you or your calvinist strawman Try really listening
The Problem: Telling others what is on one’s hear is important, but the leanings of one’s heart are not infallible. If you sincerely believe a heresy like Open Theism, it doesn’t matter how sincerely you believe it, you’ll still be wrong and out of step with Scripture. (Open Theism is just an example; I’m not accusing you of believing this heresy and I’m not saying that Arminianism is a heresy either!).
You also said: And stop trying to "spiritually" one up those they are debating.
The problem: I’ll admit, I’m not sure what you mean by this. However, it would seem to me (not from our discussion, but from other Calvinist/Arminian discussions) this statement may refer to me and some of my Calvinist friends citing Scripture in Greek or Hebrew to show what the author’s original intent was. This is not spiritual one-ups-man-ship; this is true Biblical exegesis and should never be apologized for.
There are three equally bad issues at work here:
1. People who have had training in the languages can, and sometimes do, hold that knowledge over people who do not read Greek or Hebrew. It is wrong to do so. Just because someone has had more or better training does not make that person “Better.” Many Calvinists need to learn this lesson.
2. People who have not had formal training (not that it is necessary, but it does help) can and do resent someone with formal training instructing them in the finer points. Now, this can be helped by a proper presentation, but people still resent being “instructed.”
3. People on both sides of the Calvinist/Arminian debate must always test their presuppositions against Scripture. Many people do not do this (a good example of this is seen on the death of infants. People make many claims that simply are not supported, or discussed, for that matter, in Scripture). Often times people are more committed to “What their heart says” and less committed to what the Bible says.
So, that is a long, LONG way to say that your presuppositions are still showing. Until you (or anyone else) are first willing to listen and evaluate you cannot discuss—that goes for everyone, myself included.. At this point, I’m not convinced you are ready and willing to listen before you discuss.
Blessings,
The Archangel
You wrote:
I have several problems with what you have written.
You said: I want is one to think outside the box of the teachings of calvin
The Problem: Most Calvinists, have not dedicated themselves to Calvin’s teachings, they have dedicated themselves to Scripture. Calvin was essentially Augustinian in his theology and Augustine was essentially Pauline. Neither Calvin nor Augustine were infallible. However, they both do make some very important and very good observations on Scripture.
So, the issue is, as it has always been, Scriptural.
You also said: . Let others tell you what is on thier heart and what thier thinking is. NOt you or your calvinist strawman Try really listening
The Problem: Telling others what is on one’s hear is important, but the leanings of one’s heart are not infallible. If you sincerely believe a heresy like Open Theism, it doesn’t matter how sincerely you believe it, you’ll still be wrong and out of step with Scripture. (Open Theism is just an example; I’m not accusing you of believing this heresy and I’m not saying that Arminianism is a heresy either!).
You also said: And stop trying to "spiritually" one up those they are debating.
The problem: I’ll admit, I’m not sure what you mean by this. However, it would seem to me (not from our discussion, but from other Calvinist/Arminian discussions) this statement may refer to me and some of my Calvinist friends citing Scripture in Greek or Hebrew to show what the author’s original intent was. This is not spiritual one-ups-man-ship; this is true Biblical exegesis and should never be apologized for.
There are three equally bad issues at work here:
1. People who have had training in the languages can, and sometimes do, hold that knowledge over people who do not read Greek or Hebrew. It is wrong to do so. Just because someone has had more or better training does not make that person “Better.” Many Calvinists need to learn this lesson.
2. People who have not had formal training (not that it is necessary, but it does help) can and do resent someone with formal training instructing them in the finer points. Now, this can be helped by a proper presentation, but people still resent being “instructed.”
3. People on both sides of the Calvinist/Arminian debate must always test their presuppositions against Scripture. Many people do not do this (a good example of this is seen on the death of infants. People make many claims that simply are not supported, or discussed, for that matter, in Scripture). Often times people are more committed to “What their heart says” and less committed to what the Bible says.
So, that is a long, LONG way to say that your presuppositions are still showing. Until you (or anyone else) are first willing to listen and evaluate you cannot discuss—that goes for everyone, myself included.. At this point, I’m not convinced you are ready and willing to listen before you discuss.
Blessings,
The Archangel
raying: