Frustration over debate about Calvinism

[Allan]

From your thread called:"Hyper-Calvinism and it's(sic) beliefs" there was a post of yours numbered #128 on 4/27/08.

You had said:"But again, this isn't about me,it now boils down to you and those who actually know Calvinism and what views constitute an H-C (of which you have already agreed you fall squarely into) are the ones at odds here."

So much for the nonsense you charge me with.

LOL.. You have no problem with TWISTING things out of context. Yes I said that but in the manner you are trying that statement. I was restating what YOU had previously shown concerning your own views. I was recalling but a reveiw of your own views in which you compared yourself to one of those lists regarding the HC views in question. And from that comparison you stated you stand at approximately 45% or so within that Hyper-Cal realm.

Therefore the statement was not my opinion about you, but was a recalling of your own admittance of similar views with those which are held in the HC view.

It is apparent that you still have not taken your great intellect and knowledge and straightened out your brethren on this issue, to which they both agree illistrate the same unbiblical view of HC tendencies, with one being more concise than the other.

Also it wasn't my logic, both authors agreed and stated they were saying the same things. THEY said it, not me. One was more concise than the other but still, according the authors, saying the same things. Don't whine about to me Rip, get them straightened out and you can feel better :thumbs:

"... honest theological discussion should refrain from labeling legitimate variations within orthodox Calvinism as 'Hyper-Calvinism'." Take his advice.

Yes, Mormons state the same thing with respet to their theological stance in comparison with Christianity. Just because a person or group hold a particular theological position and want it to be valid, will not make it valid.

Also those who hold to a difference of a specific position do not get to determine whether they're view is ligitimate or not, this is determined by the historical view of that position and is qualified as such by those who understand it. If it is slightly different but maintaining the same idea it can be said to be a variation if it goes further into something not considered previously as understood by the primary position it is called not a variation but an aberration.

What is notable is that those who hold such 'aberrations' of historic views (no matter the position) usaully try to ligitamize their position by saying things like - "... honest theological discussion should refrain from labeling legitimate variations within orthodox (you can place whatever view you want here) as 'Hyper-(??)ism". I'm not saying James is a Hyper anything, just noting this what is typically their argument when trying to ligitamizing their point of view.

Beyond this I'm leaving the conversation because it is and has always been a pointless one with you.

 

[Me4Him]

If it were not for God's election of some to salvation no one would be saved. I quote John Dagg once again:

“Every proposed method of salvation that leaves the issue dependent on human volition is defective. It has always been found that men will not come to Christ for life. The Gospel is preached to every creature; but all, with one consent, ask to be excused. The will of man must be changed; and this change the will cannot itself effect. Divine grace must here interpose. Unless God works in the sinner to will and to do, salvation is impossible.”

How do you explain the many different religions around the world, all believing/worshipping some type of god??

It's seems to me if man can, on his own, chose to believe/worship one god he can chose to believe/worship any god.

And isn't the message of Jesus to believe/worship the one "TRUE GOD"???

De 32:2 My doctrine shall drop as the rain,

14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst;

Man must "BELIEVE" in God before salvation is possible,

Grace doesn't arrive except after Faith.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it (grace) is the gift of God:



One of the big problems with most doctrine, the "evidence" of their truth isn't manifested here in the "real world".

 

[Me4Him]

Amy, the difference is that humans are already sentenced to death, both spiritual and bodily. Whilst the blood of Jesus is sufficient for all, it is efficient for the elect of God. it passes by the remainder to their OWN damnation, not elected by God to damnation. This is the difference.

Cheers,

Jim

Imagine a court of law, God is the Judge, Jesus is the defense attorney.

Judge, Defendant #1, how do you plead, Guilty or innocent??

Defendant #1, innocent your honor, my defense attorney has already paid the "fine" for my sins.

Judge, Since your fine has been paid, the law can't condemn you, you're free to go.

Judge, Defendant #2, how do you plead, guilty of innocent??

defendant #2, Guilty your honor, but I didn't know the defense attorney could pay my fine or I would have allowed him to pay it for me.

Defense attorney, (Jesus), "WHAT"???, your honor, I paid the fine for the sins of the whole world that the whole world might be innocent,

and now you're telling me this court has deliberately withheld this offer of a "paid fine" from certain people???

Is this court aware it is a serious violation of the law to show a "respect of persons" where the law is concerned????



Jim, do you really believe God is going to show so much "DISREPECT" for Jesus dying for the sins of the whole world that he is not going to "TRY" to save the whole world???

Jesus, being God in the flesh, is of one mind, one accord,

whatever Jesus accomplished in his mission, paying for the sin of the whole world,

was the "Intent" of God.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is ............ not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

[Jarthur001]

My post initially 'addressed' to luggae:Hasn't worked so far in 10+ pages, as to the 'arguments' bit, has it, Jarthur001? But you are certainly welcome to keep on tryin'! :tongue3:

Anyway, I'm back to offer this same above response above to Winman to whom I now also offer -



Ed

I see my plan worked.

 

[Jarthur001]

We have no choice...but then we really have a choice. It appears you don't even know calvinism.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::saint:

 

[Jarthur001]

So, the vast majority are not.



Sorry you're wrong, but then again you already know that.
And we appreciate you being so nice to us. Thank you :thumbs:

Why would you say this?

 

[Allan]

Why would you say this?

Why not, it's true. What part are you questioning?? :type:

 

[Rippon]

LOL.. You have no problem with TWISTING things out of context. Yes I said that ...

You are the one twisting and squirming. Yes indeed you said it. I did not make it up as you falsely said. You can't get away with :"I said it, but I didn't mean it the way it came across."

I was restating what YOU had previously shown concerning your own views.

I am not, nor have I ever squarely been in the Hyper-Calvinistic camp. You are the one who has falsely said those things about me. Own up to it.

... to which they both agree illistrate (sic)the same unbiblical view of HC tendencies, with one being more concise than the other.

The lists are as different as night and day and no amount of patching them together as if they dovetail nicely with another can change that fact.

Also it wasn't my logic,

You've got that right. You are quite deficient in that department.

One was more concise than the other but still, according the authors, saying the same things.

Two different things are not the same. Again, according to the 16 items on the Monergism.com site I scored a big fat zero with reference to Hyper-Calvinism. According to the essays by Ellis and Maxwell I am certainly no Hyper-Calvinist -- nor do I tend toward H-C. Other authors have written on the subject aside from Phil Johnson. I would not line up with any hyper-Calvinistic tendencies.

Don't whine about to me Rip...

I will ask you to please drop any reference to me and my alleged Hyper-Calvinistic tendencies. You would be lying if you continue to do so. Besides, your Arminianism is just as equidistant from Calvinism as is real Hyper-Calvinism. Real Calvinism is biblical. Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism are sub-biblical.

What is notable is that those who hold such 'aberrations' of historic views (no matter the position) usaully (sic)try to ligitamize (sic)their position by saying things like - "... honest theological discussion should refrain from labeling legitimate variations within orthodoxy (you can place whatever view you want here) as 'Hyper-(??)ism". I'm not saying James is a Hyper anything, just noting this what is typically their argument when trying to ligitamizing (sic)their point of view.

You're just running off at the mouth here. You don't know what you're talking about -- but you don't care. You have no idea about James Ellis but you don't mind bad-mouthing him. What he said is reasonable -- but logic is distasteful to you.

Beyond this I'm leaving the conversation because it is and has always been a pointless one with you.

You are the one bearing false witness against me -- and have been doing so for quite some time.

 

[Allan]

Ok, one last time..

Yes indeed you said it. I did not make it up as you falsely said. You can't get away with :"I said it, but I didn't mean it the way it came across."

See, you're STILL twisting what was said into something else.
I did not state nor implied "I didn't mean it the way it came across".
I meant what I said and said just this"Yes I said that but [not] in the manner you are trying [make] that statement "

I am not, nor have I ever squarely been in the Hyper-Calvinistic camp. You are the one who has falsely said those things about me. Own up to it.

According to your own statements about your beliefs when you compared that list of Hyper views, you stated that 45% or so line up with that views that are noted are Hyper on that list.

The lists are as different as night and day and no amount of patching them together as if they dovetail nicely with another can change that fact.

Your problem, not mine. Both authors agreed that both their lists were saying the same things and both authors are well known and respected Calvinists who (through various mediums) defend the Reformed position and it's beliefs. They said it, not me. So deal with them on the issue, I mearly gave an account of what is considered by other Calvinists a couple of listings as to what views fall under the Hyper views and even other Cals on the BB voiced their agreements as well (with the exception of JD who shares your views)

You've got that right. You are quite deficient in that department.

That is fine and you might even be right, but deal with those who are far more familar with Calvinism than you are and who logic exceeds yours. It was their lists and their statements that say they both as saying the same things.

Real Calvinism is biblical. Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism are sub-biblical.

Yes, men do have such opinions on it.

You're just running off at the mouth here. You don't know what you're talking about -- but you don't care. You have no idea about James Ellis but you don't mind bad-mouthing him. What he said is reasonable -- but logic is distasteful to you.

Again with the twisting. Is it really that hard for you. I stated I was not stating anything about Ellis being hyper nor was I bad mouthing him.

Oh well.. enjoy.

 

[TCGreek]

So what new nuance of Calvinism is there to debate?

 

[BaptistBob]

So what new nuance of Calvinism is there to debate?

None. It has been put to rest. R.I.P.

 

[Allan]

So what new nuance of Calvinism is there to debate?

Well brother, since you have been away all sorts of new things have come into play... oh wait.. no, nothing new - it is still the same old arguments by the same old people to same old tune. And here we though we could put the debate away after all these centuries in a couple of posts and threads. :smilewinkgrin:

It is like the TV soap-opera, you can watch it, quit, and come back 6 months later and still know exactly what is going on cause it doesn't change

So have you come to any type of conclusion concerning regeneration preceding faith issue? Last we talked about it, you had stated you were leaning toward Millard Ericksons view that it does not (which does not negate the effectual calling and such).

 

[Crabtownboy]

Calvinism and Armenianism are both supported in the Bible ... thus both are correct and both are incorrectly understood if they are set against each other. Read, think, pray and find the truth that both are in balance and correct.

Have a blessed day.

 

[BaptistBob]

Calvinism and Armenianism are both supported in the Bible ... thus both are correct and both are incorrectly understood if they are set against each other. Read, think, pray and find the truth that both are in balance and correct.

Have a blessed day.

That's debatable, but at least Armenians have their own country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians

Let the Calvinists try to top that!

 

[Allan]

That's debatable, but at least Armenians have their own country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians

Let the Calvinists try to top that!

You have set yourself up for a good one, and if I were a Calvinist I would say this:

True, you have your place in this world but I have a country not yet seen with human eyes but by faith. And yet it is coming soon with my King to put down those worldly kingdoms and set His everlasting one. :laugh:

 

[Me4Him]

Calvinism and Armenianism are both supported in the Bible ... thus both are correct and both are incorrectly understood if they are set against each other. Read, think, pray and find the truth that both are in balance and correct.

Have a blessed day.

Both sides have their good/bad points, one reason I don't consider myself to be "EITHER", but try to walk that "narrow path" between them without stepping off on either side. :thumbs:

Jesus was "God in the flesh" and "HIS PURPOSE" in coming to the earth was to die for the sins of the whole world that the whole world "MIGHT BE" saved,

The doctrine of "predestination" denies this was ever God's intentions, and pits Jesus and God against each other as if they were two separate individuals with different purposes.

Predestination, being God's will, contradict scripture, "Foreknowledge" doesn't.

 

[annsni]

Both sides have their good/bad points, one reason I don't consider myself to be "EITHER", but try to walk that "narrow path" between them without stepping off on either side. :thumbs:

Jesus was "God in the flesh" and "HIS PURPOSE" in coming to the earth was to die for the sins of the whole world that the whole world "MIGHT BE" saved,

The doctrine of "predestination" denies this was ever God's intentions, and pits Jesus and God against each other as if they were two separate individuals with different purposes.

Predestination, being God's will, contradict scripture, "Foreknowledge" doesn't.

Yet predestination is clearly a Biblical teaching.

 

[webdog]

A lot of so-called "Calvinistic" views come from anti- or non-calvinistic thinkers. Those theologies do not even resemble what we believe or teach.

One example is double predestination. Since we believe all the elect will be saved and they are predestined as such, then automatically the non-elect are "predestined" to hell.........Not so, in Calvinism, they are passed by to their own fate.

Cheers,

Jim

This goes squarely AGAINST Acts 17 and numerous other Scripture.

 

[BaptistBob]

You have set yourself up for a good one, and if I were a Calvinist I would say this:

True, you have your place in this world but I have a country not yet seen with human eyes but by faith. And yet it is coming soon with my King to put down those worldly kingdoms and set His everlasting one. :laugh:

We'll all be non-Calvinists in heaven.

But this reminds me of a Joke told by Billy Graham (which I will probably get wrong) about a guy being shown all around heaven. After walking around for a while and seeing the sights, St. Peter and the man come upon a biulding with thick walls and a small window. The man peeks in and sees people in there and asks, "Who are those people?" St. Peter replies, "They're the Baptists. They think they're the only ones here." :laugh:

 

[BaptistBob]

Yet predestination is clearly a Biblical teaching.

It sure is. It just depends upon how you use the terminology.