Harambe the Gorilla: A Serious Theological Lesson

[Van]

Has any of the acolytes answered the question? Nope.
But has any of them answered the question, does God transfer an individual into Christ based on crediting their faith as righteousness. Romans 4.

Have various change of subject efforts been posted? Yes

They cannot defend their skewed view of scripture.

No productive discussion is possible with those who ask questions endlessly, but cannot make a clear statement in answer to a simple question.

 

[Van]

Here is a typical claim: "..you have seen Van offer Mt 23 over and over, when it has been shown to be error" but no place is referenced or quoted where it was shown that Jesus did not teach men were entering the kingdom of heaven until blocked by false teachers. This verse Matthew 23:13 demonstrates both Total Spiritual Inability and Irresistible Grace are mistaken doctrines.

 

[Iconoclast]

I already addressed that and it fits your denial to a tee:

Nah, Icon, you and he’d merely belly up to the trough and claim to be pigging out while in reality you'd be merely chewing on your decomposing garbage strawman arguments that you find so appetizing through your peculiar odd brand of delusional phikosophy that it WAS my lunch.

Now, off to a more important type of exercise.

at least I like your emoticons...lol

 

[Iconoclast]

Has any of the acolytes answered the question? Nope.
But has any of them answered the question, does God transfer an individual into Christ based on crediting their faith as righteousness. Romans 4.

Have various change of subject efforts been posted? Yes

They cannot defend their skewed view of scripture.

No productive discussion is possible with those who ask questions endlessly, but cannot make a clear statement in answer to a simple question.

your heretical statements that would reduce God to a respector of persons have been answered over and over....God does not "transfer "individuals based on anything they do.

 

[Iconoclast]

I agree we are to reject views we find defective. That is why I cherish the doctrines I hold. But to count the difference as merely a rejection of scripture is error, plain and simple. You and I agree on many issues here, but this will never be one of them. I see some, not necessarily you so much, as elevating themselves in the place of God. Having dealt with a few of these "calvinists" over the years, you will be hard pressed to change my mind.

I am not seeing anyone elevate themselves in the place of God. there are people posting here who have the text explained to them in greek and english who flat out reject it because they are unable to welcome it.

 

[Van]

your heretical statements that would reduce God to a respector of persons have been answered over and over....God does not "transfer "individuals based on anything they do.

Here is a typical response. No scripture, just the disparagement (heretical statements) and the denial of scripture, But it is an answer to the question, and demonstrates why all the other acolytes have continued to refuse to answer it.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 teaches individuals are chosen for salvation by being set apart in Christ through faith in the truth. God transfers them from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son, Colossians 1:13.

 

[TCassidy]

As to Romans 4. I wrote a Master's Thesis on Romans Chapter 4. It is just under 400 pages long. Would you like me to post the entire thing or would you rather post the specific verses you believe will stump those of us who believe in Particular Redemption?

Still waiting for Van.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Still waiting for Van.

*****Jeopardy music*****

 

[JonC]

I am not seeing anyone elevate themselves in the place of God. there are people posting here who have the text explained to them in greek and english who flat out reject it because they are unable to welcome it.

I agree there are people who will and have rejected these explanations. Some may indeed have simply rejected scripture in the process while others may have merely disagreed with your explanation. I don't think it is fair to determine all instances where someone disagrees with us is a rejection of scrioture.

And there are people like this on either side of the isle. We have seen the claim that Calvinism is a denial of scripture by others. These claimed (regardless of camp) are simply wrong.

 

[Iconoclast]

"JonC

I agree there are people who will and have rejected these explanations.

ok....

Some may indeed have simply rejected scripture in the process while others may have merely disagreed with your explanation.
I don't think it is fair to determine all instances where someone disagrees with us is a rejection of scrioture.

you have repeated this charge and yet when I ask you for a few examples of this very thing you have not produced one.

 

[JonC]

"JonC



ok....



you have repeated this charge and yet when I ask you for a few examples of this very thing you have not produced one.

That, brother, is untrue, however you may not have been involved in those threads. One example was the claim that a denial of Jesus being estranged from God's presence was a denial of scripture. Many Calvinists were quoted (Gill, Owen, Packer, against-Spurgeon and Sproul for). Only a minority believed the disagreement amounted to a denial of scripture.

Another example is foreknoowledge. Some have insisted the Calvinistic understanding denied scripture that describes God acting in response to man.

In discussing the atonement, some have charged those who hold my view as denying John 3:16 as I believe Christ came to redeem only the elect. Others have accused those men of denying Scripture that states Jesus died for His sheep.

There are four examples. I am actually surprised these are new to you, but at least we can lay aside they do not exist. Scripture does not bow to our interpretations. Calvinism is much larger than many would have it defined.

 

[Iconoclast]

That, brother, is untrue, however you may not have been involved in those threads. One example was the claim that a denial of Jesus being estranged from God's presence was a denial of scripture. Many Calvinists were quoted (Gill, Owen, Packer, against-Spurgeon and Sproul for). Only a minority believed the disagreement amounted to a denial of scripture.

Another example is foreknowledge. Some have insisted the Calvinistic understanding denied scripture that describes God acting in response to man.

In discussing the atonement, some have charged those who hold my view as denying John 3:16 as I believe Christ came to redeem only the elect. Others have accused those men of denying Scripture that states Jesus died for His sheep.

There are four examples. I am actually surprised these are new to you, but at least we can lay aside they do not exist. But you, friend, do not get to define Reformed faith or Christianity. Scripture does not bow to your interpretation. Calvinism is much larger than you would have it defined. You gave the right to defend your understanding but not the right to accuse those who disagree as rejecting scripture when they are simply rejecting your positions

I did not ask you what "some say"......YOU SAID THREE TIMES THAT......I DID IT.........IT IS CLEAR I DID NO SUCH THING.
That which is already defined in theology stands before you or I was on the scene....it is you who depart from confessional standards..
Not me

 

[tyndale1946]

That, brother, is untrue, however you may not have been involved in those threads. One example was the claim that a denial of Jesus being estranged from God's presence was a denial of scripture. Many Calvinists were quoted (Gill, Owen, Packer, against-Spurgeon and Sproul for). Only a minority believed the disagreement amounted to a denial of scripture.

Another example is foreknoowledge. Some have insisted the Calvinistic understanding denied scripture that describes God acting in response to man.

In discussing the atonement, some have charged those who hold my view as denying John 3:16 as I believe Christ came to redeem only the elect. Others have accused those men of denying Scripture that states Jesus died for His sheep.

There are four examples. I am actually surprised these are new to you, but at least we can lay aside they do not exist. Scripture does not bow to our interpretations. Calvinism is much larger than many would have it defined.

I just want to make an observation... In my over 14 years off and on this board I have never seen a Non-Cal turn into a Cal or a Cal revert back to a Non-Cal... I know that all Cals were at one time Non-Cals... I know at one time I was and there is not one Cal on here that was born one... What separates the two is their perspective of God... Brother Glen

 

[JonC]

I did not ask you what "some say"......YOU SAID THREE TIMES THAT......I DID IT.........IT IS CLEAR I DID NO SUCH THING.
That which is already defined in theology stands before you or I was on the scene....it is you who depart from confessional standards..
Not me

I never said that you did, Icon. I am not sure exactly this departure from orthodoxy you are accusing me of. Where do you believe I have departed from "confessional standards"?

 

[InTheLight]

I just want to make an observation... In my over 14 years off and on this board I have never seen a Non-Cal turn into a Cal or a Cal revert back to a Non-Cal... I know that all Cals were at one time Non-Cals... I know at one time I was and there is not one Cal on here that was born one... What separates the two is their perspective of God... Brother Glen

Skandelon was a Calvinist and became non-Cal.

I just praise the Lord that he predestined me to be a non-Cal!

 

[JonC]

I just want to make an observation... In my over 14 years off and on this board I have never seen a Non-Cal turn into a Cal or a Cal revert back to a Non-Cal... I know that all Cals were at one time Non-Cals... I know at one time I was and there is not one Cal on here that was born one... What separates the two is their perspective of God... Brother Glen

I have known Calvinists who became persuaded Calvinism was error.

I believe it to be correct insofar as we typically define Calvinism (the 5 points) But far too many seem to stand more on what they reject them what they affirm.

 

[JonC]

Again, Icon, where does my belief depart from "confessional standards"?

(I am calling on you to back up your statement).

 

[TCassidy]

I had a friend who was a staunch Particular, Reformed, Baptist.

He later stopped believing in Particular Redemption and became a General Baptist, Free Will Baptist, believing in a General Atonement.

Later still he stopped being a Baptist altogether and joined an Episcopalian church.

And even later still he told everybody he was now an atheist and that God does not exist.

And last, but certainly not least, he blew his brains out with a shotgun.

Changing or not changing your mind is not definitive of anything except your own confusion.

 

[Iconoclast]

Before you call on me to do anything.......3x you said I equated my opinion and those who disagreed with it......with rejecting scripture......I asked you to show it.......you cannot because I never did it so do not twist it .....reread our exchanges in order and unless I am totally misreading it....that is what happened.

You posit yourself as describing real Calvinism, and I said to you that I have not departed from the confessional standards, meaning on the 5 pts I fully subscribe to them.....you have posted that you are Calvinistic.....meaning you agree in part but not totally...... I agree totally.
You are now saying you agree in total with the accepted confessions? ???

 

[Iconoclast]

Skandelon was a Calvinist and became non-Cal.

I just praise the Lord that he predestined me to be a non-Cal!

Skan was never a Cal.....he was among them but never grasped it.....we know because we questioned him on it.
A Cal could post Cal answers ....he could not. He further was exposed when he failed to show up at the Romans 9 debate with any exegesis at all.
There are many who have gone from partial to full Cal on here.
I never was afflicted with those false ideas...

Learned of them after God had already gotten a hold of me.