Featured Easier?

You're being lazy bro. I love ya, but you know as well as I do that there are countless nuanced takes in every camp. How about I label you with the Hyperists or some other sect of the reformed tradition and dismiss you as a heretic? This has become your MO Guy and its just the lazy way out of actually having to think and deal with the actual arguments. You are better than that.

Once again, you make UNFOUNDED accusations without quoting my actual words and forming a real argument. Quote my words and then make a case. These broad brushed accusations serve only to inflame and you can do better.

 

Well, first, you would have to demonstrate that I was indeed one of them. You cannot do that, as I have made it clear over and again that I am not.

You, on the other hand have made it clear that you ARE part of the NPP, only you suggest that it isn't "new" and that you hold to some earlier formation of the same doctrine. That means that you are either misinformed or worse -- intentionally disingenuous.

And, note, the last time you challenged me on this issue I came out and pinned your doctrines so that you agreed that I was correct, albeit teh ever-present claim that it is not a "new perspective" (though that IS the current label for the same old perspective that you have adopted). I don't have to fight that fight over again. It is in the record of the board unless you have went back and erased your post.

Let's see... So far, you have claimed that I have failed to substantiate myself several times... First about Arminius reverting to Trent (I won that point), Second that you are not a theological liberal (I won that point), and now that you do not hold to the NPP (I won that point). Seems that I am indeed substantiating my claims in regard to your doctrines and further that you are here on this board to lead people astray from the biblical positions with heterodox views -- and worse -- intentionally. I can no longer believe that you do not actually know what you are doing and doing so out of innocence. Your tactics are too polished for that claim.

The part that saddens me the most is that the board made a person who basically stands against the core doctrines of what it means to be a "Baptist" and made him a moderator. i.e., a stance against Christian liberalism, a stance against human effort in the salvific process, and a stance for justification by faith alone. Wonder which other Baptist doctrines you stand against? We have yet to push you in some other directions...

 

Guy,

I've never even studied the NPP scholars. I first heard about it here a few weeks ago. Even one of the major proponents of the view (NT Wright) said he disagreed with most of those who are now being given that label. I know that because Quantum quoted his article.

As I told you before, the little I read from Wright and online about NPP, it seems that the jest of this approach is to interpret Paul's words from their original context rather than from the Western reformed bent as influenced by Luther, Calvin etc. There is nothing NEW about that. That is just good hermeneutics. Now, there are many different scholars coming up with all kinds of different views of what they think Paul means, just like there are many different Reformed nuances of what Paul taught on a variety of issues.

So, to label someone a being a proponent of NPP is equal to calling them a non-Calvinist. It doesn't define anything. It's like saying, "You don't read Paul's words from a Reformed perspective." But, the only problem is that there are dozens of scholars who aren't reformed that I would disagree with on their interpretations too. There are many who might write under the label of NPP that I would strongly oppose, so why would I accept that label?

This is just an effort on your part to attach a label with negative connotations so you can attack and dismiss. Again, it is the lazy man's method of debate and I'm challenging you to do better. How do you feel when people who think Calvinism is an anti-evangelistic cult call you a Calvinist and dismiss you without even listening to your actual views? That is exactly what you are doing to me. Practice the golden rule.

 

Again, before you can attack ME and the version of Calvinism that I hold, you would have to be able to prove that I hold something akin to the strawman stereotype that you and others so often portray. Good luck with that, for I have posted often about what hold as true according to the Scriptures.

You, on the other hand, have indeed posted heterodox views on several topics that anyone here can read. You often try to backpedal once caught, but you have written what you have written and you loose further credibility every time you expose more of what you truly believe.

I'll not back off from exposing you... You are other than what you purport to be and are in the same camp as wolves among the sheep in my book.

 

GL,

I do not believe this for a moment, and I am rather surprised that you would write such. Making a charge of "false teaching" with the implication of intent is way beneath you.
PS, I am not playing the "I got your back" Skan game.

 

And I could make the same claim of my views. I have explained to you numerous times that I don't accept the NPP label because I don't agree with what many of them appear to claim, but I also admitted I don't even know what all of the different 'scholars' of this view believe. I've even shown you that one of the major proponents (NT Wright) admits to disagreeing which most who write under this label.

Now, can you find quotes from these scholars with which I agree? Sure. I could find quotes that you would agree with too, but does that make us the same? If I find a bunch of quotes that you share in common with a hyperist, does that make you hyper?

Then quote it and make your case. You keep doing this Guy and I'm not going to let you get away with it. Use your quote feature and then make an argument about what I've actually written. That is called DEBATE. You should try it sometime and stop taking the lazy way out.

And now you've stepped over into questioning my salvation which is clearly a violation. You are a better person than this Guy. I know you are.

 

Indeed, I am. So I shall further refrain from debating someone who's main tactic is to agree, then use agreement as a wedge to drive forward hetrodox doctrine.

 

Agree? I fundamentally disagree with you on the matter of how you interpret Paul's teachings. Just as Hershel Hobbs, the chairman of the committee charged with writing the BFM, fundamentally disagreed with Reformed Calvinists of his day. We can debate that. We aren't, but we could. Instead you are labeling me a heretic and dismissing me...and I'm also DISAGREEING with you about doing that.

So, what am I agreeing with you about? And how am I using that as a wedge? And what specifically have I said is heterodox doctrine (heresy)?

See, there you go again, not quoting me and making unfounded accusations, characterizations and dismissals. I have to believe you are a better person than what you are portraying yourself to be here, bro. Please stop being like this.

 

This thread demonstrates how effective Calvinists are at changing the subject of threads.

Winman wanted to point out that it being harder or impossible for a person with such and such attributes, rich in the eyes of the world, or rich in his own estimation or whatever, goes against the idea of God choosing people unconditionally.

Various efforts at deflection were made, such as a rich man must pass through more tribulations in order to enter heaven, but what scripture indicates is everyone will benefit from going through tribulation to enter heaven. And this is referring to our post salvation life in service of Christ, not our pre-salvation road to coming to trust fully and completely in Christ.

The Calvinists did add to the bible study by pointing out the Jewish cultural view that those who were rich in material wealth had been blessed by God, and so the dismay of the disciples upon learning that it is impossible for the rich [in their own eyes] to enter heaven. The example of the praying folks, one being proud of his righteousness, the other being ashamed of his wretchedness made that point well.

In summary, the usual charges were made, i.e. you are taking the verse out of context, and you do not understand Calvinism, etc were made by the usual suspects who seem intent on turning this workshop for adult bible study into a playpen for fleshly babes in Christ.

Bottom line: The fact that God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble flys in the face of Calvinism which maintains God gives grace unconditionally.