Featured Emotional or Exegetical?

Winman,
In my humble opinion the older you get the more cynical you get. You are totally, and in my humble opinion, distorting what Mexdeaf is saying. You say:

That is a total distortion of what Mexdeaf said. He said nothing, absolutely nothing, about the salvation of "non-cals".

In my humble opinion you are sadly mistaken Winman and again in my humble opinion the following post by you

is a cruel, cold hearted, most unjust, and judgmental indictment of your brothers in Jesus Christ.

 

Mex...you are a nice poster...and I generally love your irenic posting, but, I am sorry, you are either NOT REALLY the Calvinist that you think you are, or your emotively passionate post here is somewhat dis-ingenuous in that it reeks of Arminianism not Calvinism. Your post is simply not at all in line with Calvinism.

 

Let us never deceive ourselves....your opinions are no more "humble" than mine are, or Winman's. You lie to yourself, as do I.

 

First, the last thing a truly humble person can say is that they are humble. The moment you say you are humble, you no longer are.

I do not believe I distorted what Mexdeaf said at all. He said that the more he came to understand the holiness of God, the more "sense" the Doctrines of Grace made to him. Nothing wrong with this statement at all, that is what he believes. But then he said he weeps for those who do not see this. He implies that only his view of the Doctrines of Grace is correct, and that those who do not share his view are in such serious error as he needs to weep for them.

You don't get it, every time you say you are humble, you are exactly the opposite of what humble means. You are getting less humble by the minute.

People have been accusing Calvinism and their view of God as being cruel and unloving for centuries.

Here are just a few examples I found with a simple search;

source- http://greater-emmanuel.org/Hope4You/calvanism_armeniasim.html

Now, I do not agree with this fellow's theological views, I am just showing that many believe Calvinists to be cruel and unloving. To be fair, the same author says that Arminians tend to be proud and self-righteous.

Here is another statement I found.

Again, I do not know who this person is, but in his signature he calls himself Fr. (father), so he might be a Catholic priest, but I am not sure.

But the point is, many people naturally object to the idea that God would choose to pass over billions of people and send them to hell, not because they are sinners, because their damnation was already determined before they were born, but because God had ordained they would be sinners when they were born.

Many object to the idea that a man should be born condemned because of the sin of Adam, through no fault or choice of their own. This seems utterly unjust to any man. No man would object to being condemned for their own sins which they knowingly and willingly chose to do, but to be condemned simply because you were born seems completely unjust.

So, I am not the first person to make this charge against Calvinism. And Luke in his OP says that his own "depraved sense of justice" revolts against this doctrine. I would say that Luke's original idea of justice was not depraved whatsoever, but his current view of justice is.

You attempt to turn this around on me, but the cat is already out of the bag.

 

That IS a distortion of what I was trying to say.

When you "get it", you get it. Until then, well, you don't.

God bless.

 

C.S. Lewis

C. S. Lewis (Screwtape Letters)

.-- D. L. Moody

C.S. Lewis

 

This is Pelagian heresy. I'm not saying you believe this, because you have not stated that you do. So, I am not calling you a heretic.

However, those who reject the condemnation of Adam being upon us are Pelagians. And, if you should happen to agree with what you wrote...well.........

What is more, you have gone out of your way to lambaste those who read the words of theologians and scholars and agree with Calvinism and, in almost the very same breath, you quote people of questionable letters and reputation who wrongly and with libel label Calvinists as "uncaring and unloving," giving your hearty agreement.

So, whilst you are not yet proven to be a heretic, you have indefatigably proven yourself to be a hypocrite.

The Archangel

The Archangel

 

You have correctly identified the root cause of His being contrary to the teaches of grace , by most of the believing church.
Works and grace based theology are not compatible.That is why in ev ery thread,in virtually every post he will oppose himself ....even to the point of abuses all manner of scripture to cut and paste his philosophy over the work of any teacher from history.
This sad objection suggests that these teachers did not read from scripture at all....but only those who oppose them...they read from scripture and know truth.
In another thread Diamond lady posted wrongly concerning heb 10:10...was offered some correction....but rejected it....saying...
MY BIBLE SAYS.....
Others gave a hearty 4 thumbs up to her error...because she was putting forth a non cal point of view...rather than seeking the truth.
Many will say-My bible says_ when what they are really stating is that all bibles say the same thing....but my mistaken understanding is ....THIS.

He suggested earlier that as a little boy he read scripture and understood all of his theology at that time.....I have not seen many little boys who could grasp these issues early on.

So in every thread he will offer scriptures...he believes they prove his position, but in fact any close look exposes that they are not used correctly.

There is a difference between coming to truth and just seeking to oppose truth.:thumbsup::type::thumbsup:

 

Here is my bet.......You have never read one word from Pelagius himself...You posses, in your library, not one word, nor book, nor commentary that Pelagius himself actually wrote. You have never read one whit what Pelagius said in his own words, and from his own mouth.....Until you can demonstrate thus, you are an accuser of the brethren, as Calvinists generally are.

We refuse to be slaves to your nomenclature....You are not (as Calvinists) gods...and we no more allow you to define words as you see fit "willy-nilly".... I know without a doubt one thing...You have used the word "Pelagian" hundreds of times....and you posses no literature, none whatsoever, that was written by him, nor have you read it. Cat's out of the bag....Pelagius's writings have been recently discovered and actually translated into English...I have no doubt that neither R.C. Sproul, nor James White, nor John MacArthur, nor You have EVER read one sentence he personally wrote. You are utterly ignorant about what Pelagius believed or taught, as you have never, not even once in your life read one WORD of his actual writings from him himself. Unfortunately....Actual knowledge is available...and we non-calvinists are starting to learn where to get it. Thus we are no longer that ignorant and vaccuous slaves to the meaning of "Pelagian" that you have fallaciously decided to give to it. We can read now. We have the man's works in our own tounge...You Calvinists need to begin to work upon a different line of attack, because it will not be long, ere, WE (non-Cals) are the ONLY ones who actually KNOW ANYTHING about what "Pelagius" thought. And we will, and are, no longer the slaves to your personal interpretations that you demand we be; like a Papist, you seek to keep all the world in darkness and ignorance.

You have no idea what Pelagius believed, and it is basically historically provable that your Master, Calvin had never read one word from Pelagius, as his ACTUAL writings were undiscovered in Almighty Calvin's time. Throw around that term all you want, it is meaningless. We are not your slaves "Archangel"....and will never be. Who cares whether you call Winman a "heretic" or NOT??? It's meaningless to us. You don't even KNOW what a "Pelagian" is....so who cares what YOU think a "HERETIC" is....your words are now vaccuous and devoid of meaning.

Play with words...call people "heretics"...Call them "Pelagians"....you know the meaning of neither word.

John Gill is ignorant of Pelagius's writings
Calvin was ignorant of Pelagius's writings
R.C. Sproul is ignorant of Pelagius's writings
James White is ignorant of Pelagius's writings
Archangel is ignorant of Pelagius's writings
Spurgeon is ignorant of Pelagius's writings

Call me a "Pelagian" there "Archangel".....it means NOTHING...as you are ignorant of what Pelagius ever taught...Call Winman a "Pelagian"....appeal to your over-Lords....(who have no idea what the man thought)...call us all kinds of names you want. We don't care...and we actually KNOW better...That when Archangel, apparently throws around words like "Pelagian" and "heretic"....he obviously now speaks in utter ignorance, having no idea what the true meaning of either word is.

 

You hit the nail on the head HoS, this is exactly what they do. They try to intimidate new or unlearned believers to accept their doctrine. If this believer dares question the doctrine, they are told they are being rebellious and questioning God himself. They are told that the church fathers always believed as they do, even when it seems illogical and offends their conscience and God-given sense of justice. When they are confronted with scripture that refutes Calvinism, like the Catholics they are told they cannot understand scripture.

Eventually, most cave in to the pressure and accept the doctrine without questioning it. A new convert is made and the man can no longer think logically.

 

Please stop bearing false witness. No one pressured me into my beliefs, I have never pressured anyone into believing, and I can still think quite logically, thank you.

 

I have an astounding library, thank you very much. I have words, etc. that Pelagius wrote. As I'm sure you're aware, the majority of Pelagius' work is only found today in the quotations of his opponents. There are some things that survive, but they are few and far between. His works are not, therefore, as accessible as you'd like to think or portray. But, being as you have made the accusation, here is Pelagius own words:

-Adam’s sin was injurious to none but himself, and not to the human race, [1]

-infants at their birth are in the same state in which Adam was before the transgression [2]

In all of my reading--from the Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers to every work of church history I have read (and they are legion)--I have never read any statement or intimation that refutes Pelagius' denial of what is understood as "original sin."

Pelagius and his writings and his "theology" are a simple fact of history. The fragments we have--and it is sad, in fact, that we don't have more--speak for themselves and confirm the accusations of his opponents.

I think you, likely, misread what I wrote and then launched into this bitter excessive without any real knowledge or understanding. In other words, you're merely shadow boxing here. As I've said, I have read, at least, one word that Pelagius wrote.

Now, let me guess....you're going to say Augustine was engaged in some large and deliberate conspiracy to discredit Pelagius and that none of his writings are suspect at best. Give me a break.

The fact remains that the denial of "Original Sin" is, in fact, a heresy of the first order. No orthodox Christian denies this. Certainly some so-called Christians do deny Original Sin (and I'm not only mentioning the Calvinist's understanding). Those that do are simply unorthodox and heretical.

Things you say you know:

"You have used the word "Pelagian" hundreds of times." Really?! Well then, cite them all (oh wait...you can't).

"You posses no literature, none whatsoever, that was written by him, nor have you read it." Flatly wrong, as demonstrated.

Are we then to assume you are the only one who is not ignorant of Pelagius' writings? Calvin, for one, was not ignorant. He confronts Pelagian thought on more than a few occasions in his Institutes.

What is clear from your post, on the other hand, is that you have no clue and no basis for what you have written. You obviously don't know me, which you would actually need to do in order to make the attacks you have made here.

What is more, you accuse me of having Calvin be my "Master." Now be careful here, friend. I am not a "Calvinist" because of John Calvin. I am a Calvinist because I have read the scriptures--in the original languages I might add--and I have seen the "Calvinist" soteriology plain as day. But, to accuse me of having Calvin be my master is to say that I worship him rather than Christ--and that I will not have.

By the way, I've never read Calvin. He is in my library, but I'd rather read and study scripture.

Also, your bitter rant and personal tone against me--which demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to "discuss" matters--only demonstrates your lack of intellect and lack of character. It is plainly obvious here that you have broken the scriptural entreaty to "treat others the way you wish to be treated" and for that you must seek forgiveness.

The Archangel




[1] Augustine of Hippo, "A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin", trans. Peter Holmes In , in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume V: Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 242-43.

[2] Ibid., 243.

 

When you say you weep for those who have not come to see the "sense" of the Doctrines of Grace as you have, it is a subtle accusation that these persons are in serious error.

When others say it is so "sad" to see those who deny the Doctrines of Grace, or that they are "praying" for non-Cals to come to a knowledge of the truth, these are also subtle accusations that those who disagree with them are in serious error.

Truth is, Calvinists use this false form of argument so often that they probably are not aware of it. Pay attention and you will frequently see these types of remarks from Calvinists.

You just got caught, and now you can't go back.

 

You may think what you wish of me and my words, as erroneous as it may be. I think no less of you and forgive you for your false assumptions.

God bless.

 

I don't think ill of you, I am simply pointing out a false form of argument very common to Calvinists. If you pay attention you will see these types of remarks over and over again. I think that most Calvinists are unaware of this false form of argument, and they were unaware of it when it was used against them to bring them into conformity with Calvinism.

 

OH, and by the way, this entire errant and libelous rant is an example of "Emotional" as there is nothing truthful, exegetical, nor anything of substance in what you've written.

The Archangel

 

It's good to see mexdeaf, Dr. Bob, Archangel, Iconoclast on the right track. It is truth that arminianism and semi pelagians are in grave error, yet those who teach it can be 'good' (as far as good or nice gets a person) guys.

At the same time it is pure disconsolation to see the others who yet to this day remain in error.

 

I'd dare say neither you nor myself are in the least bit surprised.

 

And what exactly is the "false form of argument"?