Hunt vs White

[Rippon]

I am not a Calvinist. Neither am I an Arminian.

Take a deep breath ---you are certainly an Arminian.

He said, are you a Protestant than? I said, "No, I am a Christian...

You are also a Protestant Christian who has lost some of your moorings.

I quote from Spurgeon often, many times.
I rarely use Reformed sources.

You Arminians are a hoot. What an oxymoron to say on the one hand that you quote from Spurgeon often and then in the very next breath to say you rarely use Reformed sources.

 

[agedman]

It is funny that you have continued to point out how the Calvinists rely on the creeds and Reformed "Theologians" and notice how all of your Biblical arguments are continually ignored and every Calvinist is trying to force the debate to defining Spurgeon's beliefs.

Predicting Calvinist tactics is easier than making toast.

DHK, because you are called to witness, I would truly like your response.

DHK, Did I ignore your arguments?

Did I not point out specifically were I disagreed with Spurgeon, and why?

Did I try to define Spurgeon's beliefs?

I call for your own documentation of what I have posted (as some would claim I am calvinistic in thinking) and refute DrJamesAch's post here.

And James, please learn not to paint with such a large brush that your zeal pushes you to over play your view(s).

 

[Benjamin]

Maybe it was because you were yelling STOP!!! most of the time and acting very childish.

You really can’t take a “hint” can you?! I was simply, tongue in cheek, trying to see if some direct moderation might deter the Calvinists here from going off topic and derailing the thread – the thread they’d been asking for. Of note, I partake of a philosophical theology board where the moderators actually DO interact to keep things ON TOPIC and enforce it, and the members are respectful of those debate ethics…imagine that!!! No, Rip, it was the Calvinists acting childish in their efforts to derail the thread, just like they’re doing in this one – currently trying to defend their whole system in a thread meant to discuss Hunt vs White debate tactics. If things aren’t going in favor of the Calvinist agenda they ALWAYS resort to these childish smokescreen tactics. I was merely talking to them in the “tone” that an incorrigible child “might” begin to understand. I was mocking their childish behaviors. If dealing with those kinds of tactics is demeaning "Agedman" - so be it. Many people could see what I was doing and why, but it is of no surprise that you and your ilk ignored it except for to whine about it and to begin tattling ("he said booboo - really loud!" :laugh because you getting your bratty spoiled little typical ways.

 

[Rippon]

Me and my ilk,huh? Btw,I didn't even participate in that thread you linked to.

 

[agedman]

You really can’t take a “hint” can you?! I was simply, tongue in cheek, trying to see if some direct moderation might deter the Calvinists here from going off topic and derailing the thread – the thread they’d been asking for. Of note, I partake of a philosophical theology board where the moderators actually DO interact to keep things ON TOPIC and enforce it, and the members are respectful of those debate ethics…imagine that!!! No, Rip, it was the Calvinists acting childish in their efforts to derail the thread, just like they’re doing in this one – currently trying to defend their whole system in a thread meant to discuss Hunt vs White debate tactics. If things aren’t going in favor of the Calvinist agenda they ALWAYS resort to these childish smokescreen tactics. I was merely talking to them in the “tone” that an incorrigible child “might” begin to understand. I was mocking their childish behaviors. If dealing with those kinds of tactics is demeaning "Agedman" - so be it. Many people could see what I was doing and why, but it is of no surprise that you and your ilk ignored it except for to whine about it because you getting your spoiled little typical ways.

Benjamin,

Are you really so certain that Calvinists are the ONLY ones who "always resort to these childish tactics."

It seems the very post you are making is pointing you out as a culprit of what you are critical. You attempt to state you are "tongue in check" in seeing if the mods are going to act according to YOUR desires. Isn't it rather silly and presumptuous of you to assume such a warrant?

You admit you are "demeaning" another poster on the BB, and isn't that against the very rules you desire to be enforced so we all stay on topic?

Though admittedly I have missed a number of threads during my absence, I have seen NOTHING of substance from you in ANY post on the BB that was not couched in demeaning and derogatory terms toward those in whom you disagree.

If I am wrong and you have posted meaningful work on Scripture, then please do so on this thread.

If you can't post substance and have to rely of discussions of the BB "debate tactics" or demeaning the posts of others, then I suggest you stay on the other forum you prefer and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

If you actually have substance and have the ability to post Scriptural support for your view, then there isn't a person on the BB that I have seen who wouldn't engage you.

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

Frankly, like I admitted, I do not hold what perhaps Calvinistic thinkers such as Spurgeon (and others) might on the "manipulated will." Rather, I am very consistent with there being NO free will / choice until Christ has given such to that person that they may express what has already taken place in their heart.

You're not being a very good Calvinist! There is also a conflict in your reasoning here. You state that you do not believe in free will or choice, but then claim it is given by "what has ALREADY taken place in their heart". If it has 'already' taken place in their heart, then the ability to freely choose Christ was there before faith was given to him. You're getting warmer!

Unfortunately, many assign MAN as having faith, rather than Faith being instilled in a person that they may express (confess). I find humankind has no such faith ability, nor does the Scriptures indicate that such ability without the direct and purposed work of God already having taken place in the person having been done.

Abraham has been used often as the model of faith. But notice that Abraham had faith FIRST and then demonstrated his faith by offering Isaac. Romans 4 says that first, Abraham believed, and THEN his faith was counted as righteousness. Romans 4:1-3, Hebrews 11:8-10. There's not one single verse in Genesis when this event was first described that says God GAVE faith to Abraham. God never even told Abraham that he would raise Isaac from the dead if Abraham would have followed through. Abraham simply believed that God would (Gen 22:8).

To assume based on Calvinist presupposition that Abraham "must have" been "given faith" is to read Calvinist theology into something that the Bible NEVER says happened.

Man cannot be "involved in the process" other than as reflex response on what has already taken place - which is the proper rendering of Romans.

This is a complete contradiction in Calvinist theology. Calvinist deny that man's faith is a reaction to God, but then assert that the man who preaches the word by which the sinner hears is merely reactionary. If the preachers preaching of the gospel, which is how the sinner hears the word, is merely reactionary, then why can't the sinners faith in God be reactionary to the hearing of the gospel?

Faith can not simply be a "reflex reaction" to what has "already taken place" because the Bible describes that faith as the vehicle by which the person is saved. You are putting the regeneration of the sinner before he has placed his faith in Christ. Faith is not a result of regeneration, regeneration occurs as a result of faith in Christ. There's not one verse in the Bible that demonstrates faith comes AFTER salvation.

See here again, we can disagree, because I do not find "cooperate salvation election" as viable in the Scriptures. All salvation is individual and is by the clear choice of God. Jesus said,

"43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me."​

You may contend to your heart's content over cooperate salvation, but frankly I have never found such to be the evidence in Scriptures. There is ONE exception. That is when God directly states to ISRAEL (that is the political and spiritual Israel in which the church is united under the millennial rule) shall be saved. There is only one bride of Christ, and there is the only cooperate election / salvation Scriptures indicate - it takes place in the millennium.

Look at how the very beginning of Romans 9 starts:

"3. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

Paul is not describing grafted in Gentiles according to promise, he is describing his brethren, Israelites, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH.

Did Christ come through the Gentiles?? "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen" 9:5. This shows that Paul is putting Israel as a nation in context.

Paul then makes the argument that " Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called." What is the contrast here? Is Paul referring to believers who were grafted in at this moment? NO. He is making a distinction between HAGAR and ISAAC because Hagar's children were also of the seed of Abraham, but just because Hagar's posterity came through Abraham, does not automatically give Hagar's children the rights to the Abrahamic promises because "IN ISAAC shall thy seed be called".

Paul sets the boundaries of the context right from the beginning of the chapter that this is referring to corporate Israel.

Using the parable of the sower, the seed falls in all places, but ONLY the good earth seed grows and is harvested. Just who do you think is in charge of the dirt? Man? NO!!!! It is the farmer (God) who decides the roadway, the place to pile up stones, what will remain uncultivated and shallow, and what is prepared soil.

You are making a distinction between a parable that describes the reception of INDIVIDUAL responses to the gospel, and Paul's description of corporate Israel. That parable does not apply to the context of Romans 9. And even in this parable, you are ignoring the fact that "some plant some sow God gives the increase" 1 Cor 3:6. Men preach, and men has to respond by faith, and then God does the salvation work.

The parable of the seed and sower is descriptive of mans REACTIONS to the gospel, not the PROCESS of salvation. There is nothing in this parable that is equating mans will to a seed. That is why this is a PARABLE because it is symbolism a certain reaction, it is not intended to convey the process in which God saves a person which is why the parable offers 4 different types of RESPONSES because the parable is emphasizing the RESPONSE and the TYPE of ground that produces faith, NOT THE PROCESS.

But again, this parable is completely non sequitur to the issue in Romans 9.

Start what you will, but I can state that if you contend you are right on your "very short explanation," you will be found to have faulty reasoning. Just as I have indicated, above.

You can not invoke Calvinist presupposition to force Romans 9 to relate to individual salvation when the context is clear that that is not what Paul is talking about. Not only from what I have shown already, but Paul continues in Romans 10:1 "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." If you believe that Israel is the church, you have a problem with the next few verses: is Paul saying that the CHURCH is "going about to establish their own righteousness"? v2-3. If Romans 9-11 was about individuals, or the church, then NONE OF THEM ARE SAVED which begs the question: then how could they be called THE CHURCH or even a Christian ?

In Romans 11:28, Paul makes a clear distinction between Israel and the Gentile believers:

"As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes."

Now Calvinists believe that the ELECT are all saved by the gospel. But notice here Paul shows a difference between GOSPEL and ELECT-the 2 are not the same in this passage. The GOSPEL are those saved-Gentiles AND Jews-during the present economy, but because the Jews have been temporarily blinded, they are now CORPORATELY "enemies" of the gospel. However, there will be a REMNANT of believing Jews and THAT REMNANT IS THE ELECT referred to in Romans 11, and you see this elect showing up beginning in Revelation chapter 7:4-8, after those under the GOSPEL (the church) are removed.

" And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins." Rom 11:26-27

BTW, you consider the new creation given "after salvation" and I consider it ALL salvation. I don't component out salvation into parcels of this has to be done followed by this, as some have attempted to chart. But that is for another thread

I removed part of the quote for sake of space, and because....
I am not contending with the 2 natures that fight each other. That much is obvious from Galations 5:16, and Romans 7:14-23. What I am contending with is the comment you made that appears to hold that the believers salvation is MAINTAINED by his struggle with the old nature and conquering it through the Holy Spirit. You still have not clarified that issue.

Salvation is complete, and is yet a process at the same time, the process ending in glorification and the redemption of our bodies. The fact that it is yet a process is signified by Paul saying that we are WAITING for it in Romans 8:23-25.

However, the redemption is a done-deal for those who are saved. The process that remains unto glorification is wholly God's. From redemption to glorification, a believer can do nothing to add to salvation or detract from it. "Having BEGUN in the Spirit, are ye now MADE PERFECT by the flesh? Gal 3:3.

But you did not clarify your statement, so I will not list all the reasons I believe in eternal security.

 

[Benjamin]

Btw,I didn't even participate in that thread you linked to.

But you obviously certainly missed the point being made...didn't cha?!

 

[Rippon]

[FONT=&quot]It was not the Calvinism that is preached today. [/FONT]

False.

[FONT=&quot]It was not the gospel that Spurgeon preached.[/FONT]

False.

[FONT=&quot]Spurgeon preached free will--that man had a choice to make.[/FONT]

He cried forth against the notion of free will. He called it an idol.

[FONT=&quot]He agreed with Whitefield, not a Calvinist.[/FONT]

Of course Whitefield was a Calvinist. Obviosly to be a mod here you don't have to know Church History. But man,to say that Whitefield was a Calvinist is absurd. Spurgeon looked to g.W. as a mentor and they were compared with one another in Spurgeon's day.

[FONT=&quot]His message was not Calvinistic in nature. The terminology has changed since then and is misunderstood by today's Calvinists. [/FONT]

You apparently know squat about Calvinism. It is so laughable I feel like adding a funny-face. But it's sad too --so I won't.

 

[Benjamin]

If you actually have substance and have the ability to post Scriptural support for your view,...

:laugh: That exact fallacious claim and smokescreen tactic dealt with in that thread! You guys are a riot... :laugh:

P.S. *HINT* this thread isn't about proof-texting your entire system, the topic was about tactics in the Hunt VS White debate!!! Get it?! :laugh:

 

[agedman]

You're not being a very good Calvinist! There is also a conflict in your reasoning here. You state that you do not believe in free will or choice, but then claim it is given by "what has ALREADY taken place in their heart". If it has 'already' taken place in their heart, then the ability to freely choose Christ was there before faith was given to him. You're getting warmer!

I think it best to separate the response in multiple posts.

Perhaps, you view "faith" as man generated ability to accept Christ as savior. I do not.

I view "faith" as imparted to those whom the Father has appointed as His own and in which Christ will save. (All that the Father gives me WILL come to me..."

Perhaps, you view faith as man having some innate ability to freely accept or reject salvation.

I view faith as imparted by God into a person in which they cannot help but proclaim salvation.

Perhaps, you view faith as man initiated that causes salvation to be imparted.

I view faith as already active in the heart (as Paul states) and expressed with the confession from the mouth.

So it isn't a matter of who has "free..." and who doesn't.

It is salvation is either completely ALL of God through Christ, or there is some man work involved.

In my view, there is no room for man at all in any facet of salvation.

Man's expression of salvation is merely reactionary to what God had accomplished already in that person.

Abraham has been used often as the model of faith. But notice that Abraham had faith FIRST and then demonstrated his faith by offering Isaac. Romans 4 says that first, Abraham believed, and THEN his faith was counted as righteousness. Romans 4:1-3, Hebrews 11:8-10. There's not one single verse in Genesis when this event was first described that says God GAVE faith to Abraham. God never even told Abraham that he would raise Isaac from the dead if Abraham would have followed through. Abraham simply believed that God would (Gen 22:8).

To assume based on Calvinist presupposition that Abraham "must have" been "given faith" is to read Calvinist theology into something that the Bible NEVER says happened.

When Abraham "believed" what caused the belief to be activated in him?

What counsel, from within, took place that his expression of faith (acting out or works demonstrating faith as James would state) could even happen?

You are showing how one responds to the faith of God, who is faithful even with humankind faith is frail.

But the text you draw from does not support your view of which comes first. Long before Issac was, God was already dealing with Abraham. He left his home, he had the promise of a son, he had victory over family enemies that could have destroyed him - but God preserved.

If you wait until after Isaac to proclaim Abraham's salvation, I do think that is a bit frail for supporting your view.

This is a complete contradiction in Calvinist theology. Calvinist deny that man's faith is a reaction to God, but then assert that the man who preaches the word by which the sinner hears is merely reactionary. If the preachers preaching of the gospel, which is how the sinner hears the word, is merely reactionary, then why can't the sinners faith in God be reactionary to the hearing of the gospel?

Faith can not simply be a "reflex reaction" to what has "already taken place" because the Bible describes that faith as the vehicle by which the person is saved. You are putting the regeneration of the sinner before he has placed his faith in Christ. Faith is not a result of regeneration, regeneration occurs as a result of faith in Christ. There's not one verse in the Bible that demonstrates faith comes BEFORE salvation.

Awww, I thought you were considering me a Calvinistic thinker!

Actually, there are some areas of good in most theological views, but I admit I do tend to embrace a modified calvinistic view. Which as you can see allows me to be a critical thinker of the writings from all that I read no matter who the author.

But more to your point of my "reflex reaction." The Scriptures teach that ALL issues of life (and speech come from the heart). So what is in the heart will be expressed in the living and speaking. Therefore, it follows that given ALL salvation is of God and relies at no point upon man's word, work or sacrifice, then the "act" of one expressing belief is reflecting what has already taken place in the heart.

In that, faith does not come after, but is the "vehicle" (using your term) of God in which the believer is carried and in which the believer can proclaim trust.

Now, it is most important to note that because the transformation of conversion is not the same in all, that during the awakening and seed germination time, a person may consider that this new found ability has actually come from them self, not knowing it was implanted by God to cause the expression as a reflex from the heart. However, this passage, "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God," is preceded by, " However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?”

Why did they not heed? According to the parable of the sower, the ground wasn't prepared.

In brief, because salvation is ALL of God and not at any point relying upon human intervention or "participation," I place regeneration at the very point of conception. As I have posted before on this topic, it is as a baby developing in the womb.

God awakens (implants the seed of "generation") and the new creation begins. It may be immediate birth proclaimed, or it may be after a long time of "kicking against the pricks" that proclamation is announced, but there is not a healthy baby born that does not announce to the world they are free of the constraints of the womb. Just as believers will proclaim salvation as a result of being born (again).

Now that is a greatly simplified version of a much longer discussion, and it may show how my view is not particularly consistent with that of any side, but I do contend it is more biblical than what most "schemes" offer in terms of this has to happen before this. I consider most of the "schemes" of the past come from the "scientific method" or reasoning which looks for cause and effect rather than outside influenced purpose driven Grace.

This is what is demonstrated by the experience of the thief on the Cross. He didn't ask forgiveness, he didn't accept Jesus as savior in the modern sense, and he didn't invite Christ into his heart as some modern expressions.

Rather, he stated a request. A request that was reflective of what had already taken place in the heart.

How do we know it was reflective and reflexive of what had already taken place. The contrast in attitude between this man and the other thief who mocked and scorned while even condemned and dying. The reflex reaction, and then the reflective request.

Such comes from the heart of the believer.




I will disconnect your post at this point for space time time sake.

 

[agedman]

:laugh: That exact fallacious claim and smokescreen tactic dealt with in that thread! You guys are a riot... :laugh:

P.S. *HINT* this thread isn't about proof-texting your entire system, the topic was about tactics in the Hunt VS White debate!!! Get it?! :laugh:

I have no problem with the OP opening the discussion.

BUT as is the history of this board, the thread will wander off topic, sometime to return, sometimes to explore another area of interest.

That YOU don't like that is obvious.

That YOU demean and scorn other posters is also obvious.

If you have no pleasure in the BB other than to mock, and enjoy the other forum, then you have no obligation to stick around.

But, don't presume to display the attitude that your posts seem to carry and expect no push back.

You got some understanding of Scripture to refute the "proof-texting" that you claim is going on?

Perhaps you are most comfortable shooting spit wads of disapproval and never engaging in true edification of believers.

 

[preacher4truth]

I have no problem with the OP opening the discussion.

BUT as is the history of this board, the thread will wander off topic, sometime to return, sometimes to explore another area of interest.

That YOU don't like that is obvious.

That YOU demean and scorn other posters is also obvious.

If you have no pleasure in the BB other than to mock, and enjoy the other forum, then you have no obligation to stick around.

But, don't presume to display the attitude that your posts seem to carry and expect no push back.

You got some understanding of Scripture to refute the "proof-texting" that you claim is going on?

Perhaps you are most comfortable shooting spit wads of disapproval and never engaging in true edification of believers.

Unfortunately your assessment of Benjamin matches his record.

 

[DHK]

DHK,

You do not know what you are saying, you are trying, but remain incorrect.

'We are all born Arminians. It is grace that turns us into Calvinists.' -George Whitefield

Your allegations that todays Calvinists don't preach the Gospel and don't have 'true Calvinism' is an erroneous broad brushed conclusion.

- Blessings

I am honest enough to quote a person when making an allegation against him. You are not. Quote me if I said such a thing.
The fact is that I have many Calvinistic friends who do preach the gospel.
What is false is the statement: Calvinism is the gospel.
--That statement is as false as false can be.
But that doesn't mean a Calvinist cannot preach the gospel.

 

[Winman]

To assume based on Calvinist presupposition that Abraham "must have" been "given faith" is to read Calvinist theology into something that the Bible NEVER says happened.

If faith is a gift, then why did Jesus "marvel" at the faith of the centurion?

Luk 7:9 When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

Why would Jesus marvel at the centurion's great faith if that faith was given to him? Did Jesus forget that great faith was given to this man? And why did Jesus say he had not "found" such great faith, no, not in Israel?

And if man can only have faith if God gives it to him, why did Jesus marvel at his countrymen's unbelief?

Mar 6:6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

Why did Jesus marvel at these person's unbelief? Did Jesus forget that the natural man is unable to believe? How could Jesus expect a natural man to believe if faith must be given by God?

So, scripture does not support this inability to believe that Calvinism teaches.

 

[preacher4truth]

I am honest enough to quote a person when making an allegation against him. You are not. Quote me if I said such a thing.
The fact is that I have many Calvinistic friends who do preach the gospel.
What is false is the statement: Calvinism is the gospel.
--That statement is as false as false can be.
But that doesn't mean a Calvinist cannot preach the gospel.

You've alleged in this thread that Calvinists use other sources than Scripture as their final appeal for authority. Your accusations are unfounded.

Furthermore your allegation that Whitefield wasn't a Calvinist is so far off par that it is ridiculous. This comment shows you know nothing of him. Go see the quote I offered from him which disproves you in such a way that for 'some reason' you've avoided to comment on it.

And you say you're honest enough? If you are then admit you weren't in this instance since you imply owning up is your forte. So prove your own claim to being honest.

Thanks also for throwing in your remark that I am not honest. That was nice and objective. Offer proof for your 'reprehensible' allegation. Nevertheless I'll accept that as a compliment coming from you and await your 'proof'.

Did I say Calvinism is the Gospel? No. Did Spurgeon? Yes. And you use him as the basis for your rebuttal? It looks as if you don't know him either.

As to quoting you, in this you say that Calvinists deny Sola Scriptura as their final authority and in so doing you condemn members, mods and admins in your broad brush nonsense. Nothing is further from the truth. But here you are anyway:

I have found that in debating the Catholics in the Other Christian Religions Forum, that they hate the doctrine of sola scriptura or that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. When it comes down to the nitty gritty their appeal inevitably ends up to their Tradition or to the ECF.

In my debates with Calvinists, I find it ironic that they also, in the final analysis, disregard the Reformer's belief in sola scriptura. Their final appeal is to the Reformers themselves, or those that are like-minded (Calvin, Spurgeon, etc.), or invariably the old standby--the ECF. They also have strayed from sola scriptura.

If our standard was the Bible alone, then I don't believe the Calvinist could successfully win a debate here. The appeal to creeds, catechisms, the ECF, is quite amazing.

There was not TULIP at the time of Calvin, and it is doubtful that he himself believed in it.
Calvin probably wrote in French. He, after all, was an influential French theologian.

The English of that day probably looked more like this:

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wycliffe%27s_Bible#Versions[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]It usually was written with a fancy flair to it, making it even more difficult to read.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But, again, Calvin wrote in French. That makes Tulip a non-entity.
[/FONT]

You've also stated these same Calvinists don't preach the same Gospel as former Cals. Your indictment is implied by such a statement that they don't preach the Gospel. I won't waste my time finding this quote, but you've in fact made this allegation as well.

 

[Benjamin]

I have no problem with the OP opening the discussion.

BUT as is the history of this board, the thread will wander off topic, sometime to return, sometimes to explore another area of interest.

That YOU don't like that is obvious.

That YOU demean and scorn other posters is also obvious.

If you have no pleasure in the BB other than to mock, and enjoy the other forum, then you have no obligation to stick around.

But, don't presume to display the attitude that your posts seem to carry and expect no push back.

You got some understanding of Scripture to refute the "proof-texting" that you claim is going on?

Perhaps you are most comfortable shooting spit wads of disapproval and never engaging in true edification of believers.

You like your fallacious smokescreen tactics of meaningless unproductive argument and don't understand why or how the philosophical principles are designed to draw out the truth in an ethical and logical way in an argument. You intend to keep debating (arguing) in such ignorance, whatever it takes to fulfill your agenda. If you can't sway the topic that isn't going your way with one of your other stereotypical fallacious tactics (MO's clearly pointed to in this thread) there is always the ole stand-by of trying to change the topic by turning it into personal slug-fest, eh?

You're right, I have no interest in chasing all those fallacious rabbit trails that keep claims and issues clouded so no conclusion can ever be truthfully drawn out in a specific topic. You boys think you're onto great debate methods with these tactics but you are really just arguing like school girls on the street and revel in these unethical and ignorant goals.

But I waste my time trying to explain the basics of ethical philosophical debate principles to your likes, your motives and agendas here are clear, you have made that plain above and throughout your intentional derailing of this thread topic.

You don't even see the fallacy in claiming that somehow it is appropriate to wonder off topic because that is what you suppose is the history of the board! BTW, I've been here much longer than you and there was time when the moderators used to ask people to stay on topic, I even remember some getting reprimanded for not doing so. The poor example you present of what is "acceptable" debate ethics that you glory in and frivolously and in pride engage in, has merely been a detriment to this board that has gotten worse over time.

You want edification? I hear you speaking like a bratty spoiled child saying you can do what you want and have argument your way...that is all.

 

[DHK]

When Charles Spurgeon identifies himself as a Calvinist, and when he states "Calvinism is the gospel", it strains credulity to come to a different conclusion. Unless, of course, you believe Spurgeon was a liar.

Words change meaning. You fail to admit that. You also fail to realize that Calvinism has many flavors.
If Spurgeon was a Calvinist (a big "if"), then tell me, did he have the same beliefs as John Gill, another Baptist, but one whom we know was a Calvinist?
No he did not. Their beliefs were at polar opposites. I am guessing that Spurgeon would have steered clear of Gill, except to use his work as reference work, such as I would. But they would never agree.

The KJV was translated in 1611, but the edition that we use, with all of its corrections and emendations, was printed in 1769. That is the one we use. Spurgeon was born in 1834, and died in 1892. From 1769 to the mid-1800's the change in the English language would have been little compared to the change from the mid-1800's to now.
But look in your Bible.
The word "conversation" has changed from behavior to "speaking."
The word "let" has changed from "restrain" to "permit". (1Thes.2:7)

Our English language is in a constant state of flux. Again, "Calvinism" does not mean the same today is did back then. There is no way that Spurgeon and Gill would have agreed. Gill was the Calvinist, not Spurgeon.

I have not participated in this thread except to correct your misunderstanding of Charles Spurgeon's soteriology.

At least I know I have a friend that is looking out for my welfare.

You accuse me of having blinders on when it is you who is either woefully ignorant or intentionally dishonest about Spurgeon's theology.

I read his books. I quote from him. It is doubtful that I am ignorant of his theology. I certainly don't take little quips like "Calvinism is the gospel" out of the context in which it used, and misuse it, making it mean something other than Spurgeon himself intended it to mean.

Next thing you'll be doing is trying to convince us that Spurgeon was a Hindu.

No, not I. But in my search for the sermon in which he used that quote I found a Wesleyan website that started out be demeaning the character of Spurgeon by first emphasizing that he smoked cigars (which is true).
Then, somehow through various sermons they put together various quotes alleging that one can lose their salvation. (Spurgeon's belief)
Then, they "proved" that Spurgeon really didn't believe the Bible at all.
--The devil does his best to attack the Lord's servants from all sides.

 

[agedman]

James, I had to shorten some of your posts so the BB would reject this post. I trust your memory on what you posted earlier.

Look at how the very beginning of Romans 9 starts:

"3. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, ... and the promises;

Paul is not describing grafted in Gentiles according to promise, he is describing his brethren, Israelites, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH.

Agreed

Did Christ come through the Gentiles?? "Whose are the fathers, .... Amen" 9:5. This shows that Paul is putting Israel as a nation in context.

Actually it is merely showing that Christ was of the linage of Jew. Paul is not "putting Israel as a nation in context."

Paul is reinforcing the concept that the promised messiah would be a Jew.

Paul then makes the argument that " Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, ... "IN ISAAC shall thy seed be called".

Paul sets the boundaries of the context right from the beginning of the chapter that this is referring to corporate Israel.

Now you were doing good until you brought up "corporate Israel."

Paul is demonstrating the boundaries God established through election and selection. No "corporate Israel" needs to even be considered in this section. To attempt to do so would be to miss-align the Scriptures were there is not even any evidence it is warranted.

You are making a distinction between a parable that describes the reception of INDIVIDUAL responses to the gospel, and Paul's description of corporate Israel. ... then God does the salvation work.

Men preach - no doubt.

But, James, WHO prepares the dirt?

Really, is it man who prepares their own heart (soil)?

Is it some preacher who by manner or persuasion, perhaps a tickling of the ears?

Is it not the responsibility of the owner of the dirt to prepare the dirt and select what purpose each is to play. The road, the stony ground, the thorns, the prepared soil, are all determined by the owner of the dirt.

That according to Scriptures is God. Just as you pointed out - "God gives the increase."

The parable of the seed and sower is descriptive of mans REACTIONS to the gospel, not the PROCESS of salvation. There is nothing in this parable that is equating mans will to a seed. ...and the TYPE of ground that produces faith, NOT THE PROCESS.

Did I equate man's will to the seed?

I don't think I did.

You are correct, just as I indicated above that the parable emphasis is upon "responses." THAT what my point.

BUT it is NOT what ground produces faith. Not at all!!!!!

The ground is there for the seed (word of God) to germinate, grow, and produce to harvest. There is no application of faith especially any man generated faith even implied in this parable.

Either God is in total control over who, when, how, and which person is saved or the parable of the sower has no meaning other than the believer should be evangelizing (spreading seed) all the time (which they should anyway).

You can not invoke Calvinist presupposition to force Romans 9 to relate to individual salvation... called THE CHURCH or even a Christian ?

Some (covenant thinking) consider that in this age Israel and the church are the same. That God has no covenant with the political / spiritual Israel for it was broken when Christ was rejected as Messiah. Generally speaking this thinking goes along with those who are a-millennial in view.

Now, I do not hold that view, but contend that there will at the point of the millennial reign when Christ appears, the Israeli folks hearts will see that the Messiah is in fact Jesus and there will be a blending of "the church" and Israel. That there is a single Bride of Christ that He will present to His Father.

Romans 11 bears this thinking out by stating:

"What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; 8 just as it is written,

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes to see not and ears to hear not,
Down to this very day.”​

9 And David says,

“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
And a stumbling block and a retribution to them.
10 “Let their eyes be darkened to see not,
And bend their backs forever.”​

And later in that same chapter:

"25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
27 “This is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”​

I would think we are agreed at this point that it is at this time (millennium) a "corporate church" is formed of all saved - those grafted and those natural born.

But to assign such to this age - just doesn't fit.

In Romans 11:28, Paul makes a clear distinction between Israel and the Gentile believers:

"As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes."

James, IFF you are proclaiming that Paul is reaching back and reinforcing the opening of this theme on Israel, and how they will NOT be forsaken for they are "beloved for the father's sake," and that he is NOT make a distinction between Israel and the Gentile believers other than to make certain the Gentile believers do not miss the point that God will eventually in His timing gather Israel, too, and that until then Israel and the church have very little in common, we can agree.

Any other rendering of this part is unsupported.

Now Calvinists believe that the ELECT are all saved by the gospel. But notice here Paul shows a difference between GOSPEL and ELECT-the 2 are not the same in this passage. The GOSPEL are those saved-Gentiles AND Jews-during the present economy, but because the Jews have been temporarily blinded, they are now CORPORATELY "enemies" of the gospel. However, there will be a REMNANT of believing Jews and THAT REMNANT IS THE ELECT referred to in Romans 11, and you see this elect showing up beginning in Revelation chapter 7:4-8, after those under the GOSPEL (the church) are removed.

" And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins." Rom 11:26-27

I find nothing of significance in this section in which I have not taught as sound.

However, do not place the total calvinistic thinking in the a-millennial camp. There are many who do hold a millennial view and do long for the Lord's return before the great day of wrath.

I think it is also important to note that not just calvinistic thinking folks were a-millennial, but from inception the larger part of the SBC were also a-mill. I was openly rebuked from the pulpit by a dean of theology from a nearby SB college because he thought I taught heresy discussing with the adult choir the pre-mill view. He was as Armenian as they come.

I removed part of the quote for sake of space, and because....
I am not contending with the 2 natures that fight each other. That much is obvious from Galations 5:16, and Romans 7:14-23. What I am contending with is the comment you made that appears to hold that the believers salvation is MAINTAINED by his struggle with the old nature and conquering it through the Holy Spirit. You still have not clarified that issue.

I don't know that I even implied that salvation is maintained other than by The Father.

In fact, I have stressed that the complete, the whole, from the foundation to the capstone rests completely upon God.

Salvation is complete, and is yet a process at the same time, the process ending in glorification and the redemption of our bodies. The fact that it is yet a process is signified by Paul saying that we are WAITING for it in Romans 8:23-25.

However, the redemption is a done-deal for those who are saved. The process that remains unto glorification is wholly God's. From redemption to glorification, a believer can do nothing to add to salvation or detract from it. "Having BEGUN in the Spirit, are ye now MADE PERFECT by the flesh? Gal 3:3.

But you did not clarify your statement, so I will not list all the reasons I believe in eternal security.

Ah, not to change subject (for we are still in agreement) BUT, your statement shows even more how those who teach "progressive sanctification" are not using correct terms.

ALL of salvation is complete as you state from "redemption to glorification."

The believer is not "more or less sanctified" by process or progress.

What the believer IS is to be careful what they build upon the foundation (Paul) and to ascend the steps (Peter) being fit for service and show their faith by their works (James).

I have to say, James, I am surprised at the agreement we have on Romans.

I wonder what else we can agree upon.

 

[agedman]

If faith is a gift, then why did Jesus "marvel" at the faith of the centurion?

Luk 7:9 When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

Why would Jesus marvel at the centurion's great faith if that faith was given to him? Did Jesus forget that great faith was given to this man? And why did Jesus say he had not "found" such great faith, no, not in Israel?

And if man can only have faith if God gives it to him, why did Jesus marvel at his countrymen's unbelief?

Mar 6:6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

Why did Jesus marvel at these person's unbelief? Did Jesus forget that the natural man is unable to believe? How could Jesus expect a natural man to believe if faith must be given by God?

So, scripture does not support this inability to believe that Calvinism teaches.

Winman, do not use "marvel" as if it is something unknown that causes astonishment.

Rather, insert the word "admire" in the case of the centurion. Christ was being very complimentary.

In the later place "ponder, or wonder" used in the same sense that Mary would ponder these things in her heart.

Jesus no doubt would ponder and wonder as any human, yet possessing full understanding as God.

In a true sense, Our Lord would turn various scenarios and folks reactions over in His thinking and often would use teaching moments latter with the disciples extracting from their own observations some truth that He desired to teach.

 

[DHK]

You've alleged in this thread that Calvinists use other sources than Scripture as their final appeal for authority. Your accusations are unfounded.

I gave you a sample (and could give many more), where a poster appealed to creeds and catechisms, rather than the Word of God. You don't get that do you? When will you be honest enough to admit that when one appeals to a creed, they are not appealing to the Word. Not much longer after that, ironically, you made an appeal to Spurgeon. He became your authority rather than the Word of God. You defeated your own argument. Go and read your own post. Why did you appeal to Spurgeon and not the Word of God? I rest my case.

Furthermore your allegation that Whitefield wasn't a Calvinist is so far off par that it is ridiculous. This comment shows you know nothing of him. Go see the quote I offered from him which disproves you in such a way that for 'some reason' you've avoided to comment on it.

I offered you a quote from Spurgeon who quoted Whitefield which seems to give his stance. If you don't like it, there is nothing I can do about it.

'We are all born Arminians. It is grace that turns us into Calvinists.' -George Whitefield

It is evident you don't like what he said.

And you say you're honest enough? If you are then admit you weren't in this instance since you imply owning up is your forte. So prove your own claim to being honest.

Notice that I am quoting you. There is nothing in this post that I am not accurately answering to. I quote you word for word. That is how I answer a post. You didn't quote me; you misquoted me. That is being dishonest.

Thanks also for throwing in your remark that I am not honest. That was nice and objective. Offer proof for your 'reprehensible' allegation. Nevertheless I'll accept that as a compliment coming from you and await your 'proof'.

It is dishonest to misrepresent another poster by not quoting him, and misrepresenting what he has said.

Did I say Calvinism is the Gospel? No. Did Spurgeon? Yes. And you use him as the basis for your rebuttal? It looks as if you don't know him either.

Seeing that he died about sixty years before my time I can truthfully say that I didn't know him. In that you are correct.

As to quoting you, in this you say that Calvinists deny Sola Scriptura as their final authority and in so doing you condemn members, mods and admins in your broad brush nonsense. Nothing is further from the truth. But here you are anyway:

I have never used a creed or a catechism for my authority; neither any of the ECF, but I know those who have.
This thread is off topic a bit. It is interesting to note: Who has the better "Biblical" defense, White or Hunt? Who sticks to the Scripture more, White or Hunt? Who appeals to the Scripture as their authority more, White or Hunt?

You've also stated these same Calvinists don't preach the same Gospel as former Cals. Your indictment is implied by such a statement that they don't preach the Gospel. I won't waste my time finding this quote, but you've in fact made this allegation as well.

You can't find it because I didn't say it. You don't seem to understand the English language well.
Two things:
1. Over a period of time words change meaning. The word "Calvinism" does not mean the same as it did 100 or more years ago.
2. Within Calvinism itself there are so many sects there are too many to count. Calvinism is almost undefinable. MacArthur is a dispensational Calvinist. Do you agree with him? Or perhaps you agree more with John Gill?