Hunt vs White

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Benjamin
To address the above shallow question begging-strawman perspective on Divine Sovereignty:

Yes, God is Sovereign, “Providentially Sovereign” over His creatures, He is not “Deterministically Sovereign”. God saves in grace according to His genuine Righteous Judgment, which is His True Way (Deut 32:4) of which is conditional upon a response of faith (Rom 4:5). A theology of “Deterministic” Sovereignty being necessarily backed up by the declaration that there is no genuine volition for His creatures to respond excludes any logical means of true or righteous judgment in the matter. God is Providentially Sovereign over the matter of salvation, in this matter He has provided the means that all should come to faith in love of the truth. He has revealed this truth to all; therefore there will be no excuse for any man because of not having the volitional ability based on that they truly do have the means to respond to His influences which they truly will be judged upon, (Rom 1:17-20).

To suggest man has no volition and reasoning abilities whatsoever is hyper-deterministic neo-Calvinism and to merely deny the nature man was divinely created to have, it is to deny the whole of scripture for a boxed-in deterministic philosophical system, which in effect makes the Good News meaningless but to a specially pre-selected few and renders His judgment to be empty and pointless. A system proclaiming deterministic sovereignty sadly denies the true gospel message a believer SHOULD be presenting in the world:

(Rom 10:9) If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Note: You is used 4 times in this verse. You'll be surprised by how much "you" there is in a book that supposedly says that we do nothing.

Here is the true and meaningful, loving message of light, from our God of Love, that an unspoiled believer (Col 2:8) should be concerning himself with and presenting to the world, rather than a message of darkness – doctrines of no real hope and total inability, of course, unless they were lucky enough to be one of the specially pre-selected:

(Joh 1:9) That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

(1Jn 1:5) This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Very sad that some get so caught up in this “intellectually stimulating” neo-Calvinist Determinist dogma that they neglect the True Nature of God and would discount His Loving plan of redemption from the foundation of the world from being genuinely offered to ALL His creatures to being a secretly disingenuous offer that is really only given through the luck of the draw to the pre-selected few!

It is clear that it is the neo-Calvinists/Determinists that needs to rethink their theology and put these fascinations with philosophical creedal instruction and their so-called “irrefutable truths” behind.

Excellent response, Bro. Benjamin! :thumbs: Amen!:godisgood:

Well, thank you!

It seems to have pushed a few buttons, but that others might not appreciate my understanding and expression of God's attributes and the TRUE Gospel message and will attack with everything in their arsenal is to be expected.

Yes...God is Good!

 

[agedman]

When you throw a rock into a dark alley with a pack of dogs, the one that barks is the one that got hit.

This comment was specifically related to Calvinists. If you are not a Calvinist, then don't bark.

But doesn't it just as well fit other views, too?

Why limit it to Calvinistic thinkers?

Like I indicated in an earlier post on this thread, it seems to me that when there are claims made by one side against another, then it should be based upon Scripture, and not some biased opinion.

For instance: Romans 3:

9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10 as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one;
11 There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood,
16 Destruction and misery are in their paths,
17 And the path of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.​

To read this set of verses can only lead one to conclude that the heathen have absolutely no interest in seeking God (stated in vs 11).

Yet I have heard believers who have said such things as:
"Every person has a void in their life that only God can fill"
"Put your faith and trust in Christ"
"Accept the Lord"
"God stands at the door and knocks waiting for you to open it"
"Give your heart to God"
"Ask the Lord into your heart and life"
"Invite Christ into your life"
And even a very popular song:

"Time after time I was searching for peace in some void
I was trying to blame all my ills on this world I was in
Surface relationships used me till I was done in
But all the while someone was begging to free me from sin

Chorus
He was there all the time
He was there all the time
Waiting patiently in line
He was there all the time

Never again will I search for a fake rainbows end
Now that I’ve found the answer my life is just starting to rhyme
Sharing each new day with Him is a breath of fresh life
Oh what I've missed He's been waiting right here all the time
(chorus)"​

(and the list could go on)

Are not each of these in opposition to the teaching of Scriptures?

Could it not be stated that many have unwittingly copied these kinds of sayings, sung the songs, considered them good, and yet they are actually not Scriptural?

Now, because those kinds of phrases stem (in my opinion) primarily from the Arminian view, could I not conclusively say that all "non-cals" hold to easy believe-ism?

Or how about the "Lordship salvation" group? Are there not certain items in which one could lay at their feet and make a similar statement as you have?

It is easy to pigeon hole and label - which I consider that your post did without regard to the actual historical accuracy of the bias.

 

[agedman]

Well, thank you!

It seems to have pushed a few buttons, but that others might not appreciate my understanding and expression of God's attributes and the TRUE Gospel message and will attack with everything in their arsenal is to be expected.

Yes...God is Good!

Now you are actually insinuating some type of martyr complex.

Wow!

Benjamin,

God offers mercy for free to Israel in Isaiah 55:

55 “Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters;
And you who have no money come, buy and eat.
Come, buy wine and milk
Without money and without cost.
2 “Why do you spend money for what is not bread,
And your wages for what does not satisfy?
Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good,
And delight yourself in abundance.
3 “Incline your ear and come to Me.
Listen, that you may live;
And I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
According to the faithful mercies shown to David.
4 “Behold, I have made him a witness to the peoples,
A leader and commander for the peoples.
5 “Behold, you will call a nation you do not know,
And a nation which knows you not will run to you,
Because of the Lord your God, even the Holy One of Israel;
For He has glorified you.”

6 Seek the Lord while He may be found;
Call upon Him while He is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake his way
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
And let him return to the Lord,
And He will have compassion on him,
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.
8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
10 “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
And do not return there without watering the earth
And making it bear and sprout,
And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
11 So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.
12 “For you will go out with joy
And be led forth with peace;
The mountains and the hills will break forth into shouts of joy before you,
And all the trees of the field will clap their hands.
13 “Instead of the thorn bush the cypress will come up,
And instead of the nettle the myrtle will come up,
And it will be a memorial to the Lord,
For an everlasting sign which will not be cut off.”​

This text was given specifically to Israel. It is a misapplication for one to suggest it applies other than by example of how God desires fellowship from believers as He desired from the people called by His name.

So, if the very people who are called by HIS name are shown to have so little comprehension of and thoughts comparable to God, what makes you think that the heathen have any ability or even desire innate in them to accept or reject Christ.

You have spent long posts proclaiming denigration toward those who hold some "determinist" view.

Perhaps you didn't know that ALL biblical views hold that without the direct and purposed work of God, a person cannot be saved. Doing so is having agreement (if only in part) to the heathen being depraved and incapacitated. There are those of us who find the Scriptures teach this incapacity and depravity is total.

Perhaps you didn't know that "limited atonement" is held by ALL (even extreme Arminians) views in some measure. ONLY those who do not hold to literal hell and eternal second death completely reject "limited atonement."

Perhaps you didn't know that BOTH Non-cal and the Cals consider that God saves people without regard to any specialty that person has or is deprived. Such is unconditional election.

Perhaps you didn't know that BOTH the non-cal and the Cals (IF they are Baptist) hold to the Perseverance/ preservation (once saved always saved) of the saints.

If there is any argument over TULIP it resides primarily in one area.

That is the area of irresistible grace.

Now I have GREATLY simplified the basic arguments of both sides to show how they agree, yet some would disagree with others because some area is not held to the degree they may or may not hold.


I trust that when you again post, you will organize your thoughts, gather supporting Scripture, and actually show something that is worthy of your intellect.

Given your track record................. I really do encourage you to at least make an attempt.

 

[Winman]

NO Winman.

Do you not see the "was" - what "was" the light given to all humankind?

John didn't use "was" meaning it happened in his past, but that it happened from the time of immediately after Eden.

Now, you ARE correct in stating that "the light was Jesus Christ," for He is the Word, and because the commandments of God are the Word, then He is the light given to ALL humankind - which is the commandments of God written upon ALL humankind's heart.


Verse 13 does not "simply explain" but places exact meaning to the previous verses.

However, let's look carefully at YOUR own statements in the last paragraph you wrote.

You state, "Now, you read verse 13 NEXT. This simply explains that being born again is a work of God, not something man can inherit, or not something man can work."
​

I would agree, but do YOU not hold that a person must have a certain prayer, or confession, or accept, or receive by opening their heart, exercise their human faith, or some other human volition in order for the work of God to take place? Is it not that those very things are MAN generated work?

Man responds to God by accepting and receiving Jesus. But if God had not enlightened and convicted that man through the preaching of his Word, NO MAN could possibly be saved. You cannot believe on Jesus unless you have heard of him, so God gets the credit.

If a doctor examines me and finds I have a fatal heart problem, and tells me I need an immediate operation, if I believe the doctor and allow him to operate, do I go around bragging that I saved myself? NONSENSE, nobody would do that, all persons would give credit to the doctor who saved him.

Salvation is either all of God, without humankind interference other than that of responding and reacting to what God has accomplished in the heart, or it is activated by some humankind work.

God "activates" salvation, if he had not convinced me I was lost, I would not have believed on him to be saved. I have already gone over Romans 10:14 which explains HOW a man believes, and it says only that a man must HEAR the word of God. Paul does not say one word here (or anywhere in all of scripture) that a man must be supernaturally regenerated to have the ability to hear or believe, that is your MAN-MADE doctrine. It is not found in scripture ANYWHERE.

In fact, Jesus himself showed the spiritually dead have the ability to hear his words, and that if they hear his words they will be made alive.

Jhn 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Did Jesus say the dead must be made alive to hear? NO, Jesus said "the dead shall hear" and then he shows that being made alive FOLLOWS hearing when he says, "and they that hear shall live".

Calvinists create a doctrine that is not shown anywhere in scripture, and completely ignore that Jesus said the spiritually dead have the ability to hear and believe his words.

It cannot be both. If there is ANY human work it is not God salvation.

God did save YOU didn't he? You are so desperate to leave man out of the equation, perhaps you have left yourself out completely??

God saved YOU = Two persons involved. You can't take yourself out of the picture, or you are not saved.

You further state, "No, if you are born again, God must perform this work, you cannot do it even if you will it. But this is only done for those who believe on Jesus."​

Do you not see that you cannot hold on to "God must perform this work (salvation), you cannot do it EVEN IF YOU WILL IT," and then put human work by expressing that it is "only done for those who believe on Jesus."

Everybody wills to be saved, but God only saves those who believe on Jesus.

It really isn't possible to hold to both schemes.

Either you have to be one who discounts what John is stating in this opening account in favor of human interaction that must take place for salvation to conclude, or submit that all of salvation from the preparation of the heart by God to receive the Word, to the final glorification in the New Heavens is totally of God.

Again, are you sure YOU are saved? Don't you have to be in there someplace?

 

[preacher4truth]

Once a pastor offers his interpretation of the Word of God he has become a secondary source. If "Pastor Joe" is teaching on 1 Corinthians 1:10, he is only authoritative up to the point where he offers an interpretation of the verse. The only thing he should do is read the passage and then dismiss the congregation in prayer. But that prayer had better be verbatim from scripture or it will also be secondary. After all, we need to avoid teachings of men.

Those against the 'teachings of men' are in here giving us their teachings.

I know of no Baptist who teaches the things they teach which are in fact against truth.

 

[kyredneck]

I asked him point-blank several times if he and one other thought Jesus was really a white man, and he NEVER ANSWERED IT.....

You're actually so arrogant to think everything you post merits comment? Most of what you post is either hateful chutzpah, lies, or irrelevant rabbit hole garbage.

I see you use that accusation a lot, 'YOU NEVER ANSWERED ME', you even carry it over from other boards. Get used to it, you post garbage and get no reply, that's me, kyredneck, not answering.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I mean, if the shoe (Determinism) fits…

Round and round with you guys. ...Actually you’ve asked me this before:

Yes I remember now & I corrected you as have others, however it appears to have gone in one ear and right out the other.:smilewinkgrin:

The strict determinist willingly sacrifices the truths that God is Only Good and no evil can come from Him to support his man-made doctrine at the expense of reaching a fatalistic theological view that God creatures do not have volition/abilities to choose apart from that which has been pre-determined for them before creation; thereby they attribute all things, including evil, to a deterministic creator whose character and attributes are not separated from evil and sin.


Here’s another response to your question:
A Determinist – one whose soteriological view must necessarily, logically and systematically hinge on all human actions leading to salvation as being strictly determined, such as needed to support all points of the TULIP, this view is usually expressed by dogmatic rambling phrases that God must be Sovereign to be in control.

Determinist Predestination – a view which consists of a belief that a pre-determined divine act upon a person is the sole cause of that person’s salvific outcome; therefore, it involves an unavoidable conclusion being cast upon a person who has been pre-destined by divine determination and this logically necessitates any and all the results, thereby it negates any true creaturely volition, real responsibility to respond, and logically denies true judgment or any possibility for the outcome to happen any other way. IOW’s a person’s destiny was determined for them before they existed based on absolutely nothing more than a whim of God, such as God went – “Eenie-meenie-miney-moe (He predestinated all whom He foreknew). this one stays but that one’s got to go!” And then it happened.

And finally, a little simple basic logic and a question for you at the end:

(A) According to “Calvinist/Determinist/DOG- with pre-selected G”) – let’s not play fallacious ambiguous semantic games here to avoid coming to a simple conclusion about your doctrinal position, “whatever” you want to CALL your doctrine EWF - for God to be sovereign He must have predestined everything, true?[/B]

No.... false. Why are you making this so difficult? Predestination is only concerned with the destiny of the elect. Read Romans 8:29; Ephesians 1:3-6; Ephesians 1:11-12.

Now, did you notice something common to all the verses? Predestination is always about PEOPLE not EVENTS. Notice the words "we" "us" "whom" and "brethren." God did not predestine all things that transpire .... but He predestined all whom He foreknew.

(B)
1) Necessarily God has fore determined everything that will happen
2) God has determined X
3) Therefore it is necessary that X will happen

God does not predestine everything we do, especially even the sin that we commit. That would make us mindless robots and would make God the author of sin. Even a staunch Calvinist (which I am not) would not agree to that & it has been documented in both Westminster (Presbyterian) & 1689 Confessions of Faith (Baptist). Once again, Predestination is only concerned with the destiny of the elect.

 

[DrJamesAch]

You're actually so arrogant to think everything you post merits comment? Most of what you post is either hateful chutzpah, lies, or irrelevant rabbit hole garbage.

I see you use that accusation a lot, 'YOU NEVER ANSWERED ME', you even carry it over from other boards. Get used to it, you post garbage and get no reply, that's me, kyredneck, not answering.

And yet you answered.
I know where you got your information which is why your beliefs are predictable. That's why you don't answer.

 

[Iconoclast]

To suggest man has no volition and reasoning abilities whatsoever is hyper-deterministic neo-Calvinism and to merely deny the nature man was divinely created to have, it is to deny the whole of scripture for a boxed-in deterministic philosophical system, which in effect makes the Good News meaningless but to a specially pre-selected few and renders His judgment to be empty and pointless. A system proclaiming deterministic sovereignty sadly denies the true gospel message a believer SHOULD be presenting in the world:

You believe this without a doubt.It is not accurate or faithful to the biblical revelation however. You are not really grasping the reality of the fall as well as ACH,and Winman.
You must be able to answer to all the verses,not the same 6 or 7 you offer over and over,

 

[Winman]

You believe this without a doubt.It is not accurate or faithful to the biblical revelation however. You are not really grasping the reality of the fall as well as ACH,and Winman.
You must be able to answer to all the verses,not the same 6 or 7 you offer over and over,

Now this is funny. I offer 6 or 7 verses that support man is not born with a sin nature?

You cannot provide one single verse that says man is born with a sin nature!

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

This scripture says God made man upright, and the word "they" shows it is speaking of all men, not just Adam.

Now, if you really believed scripture, you would take this verse into account, but you ignore it, as you ignore any scripture that refutes your creeds.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

God himself forbid any son to be charged with his father's sins or vice versa, yet you believe God is a HYPOCRITE that breaks his own laws.

Jesus condemned hypocrites.

You cannot show even one verse that says all men are born sinners. I challenge you to show it.

 

[DHK]

Once a pastor offers his interpretation of the Word of God he has become a secondary source. If "Pastor Joe" is teaching on 1 Corinthians 1:10, he is only authoritative up to the point where he offers an interpretation of the verse. The only thing he should do is read the passage and then dismiss the congregation in prayer. But that prayer had better be verbatim from scripture or it will also be secondary. After all, we need to avoid teachings of men.

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Please understand carefully this verse. It applies mostly to religious organizations. When the Catholic Church imposes their interpretation upon its people, interpreting the Bible only through the Catechism, it is a private interpretation.

When the SDA imposes their interpretation upon their people using the writings of Ellen G. White as their authority to interpret the Bible it becomes a private interpretation.

The J.W.'s and Mormons likewise have another authority by which their Bible is interpreted, and therefore have a private interpretation.

If the Calvinist must stick to a handful of "authoritative books" (catechism or creed, Calvin's Institutes, Canons and Dorts, and ECF), then they have done the same as the RCC and many cults. They sift everything through a set authority by which all must be interpreted and the Bible is not their final authority as they claim.

OTOH, it is imperative that Pastor Joe, practice sola scriptura in its truest sense. I use as few commentaries and sources as possible, using them only when absolutely necessary. Let me give you an example in a recent sermon.
If I needed further amplification on any one word I would use something like a Lexicon or something similar.
If I needed further understanding on a phrase, I would go to a good exegetical commentary.
In a recent sermon the historical context became very important. It involved the judgment of Israel in 70 A.D. I googled "Fall of Jerusalem" and found a very good description, a good summary by Josephus that I could use.

For the most part I spend my time in the Word and in prayer. I have a library of over 2,000 books and another 1,000 on my computer. But my personal study comes more from my Bible than from any other book.
When I stand before my people I must answer to God for what I am about to preach to them.
Everyone of us are priests before God. It is called the priesthood of the believer. Along with that is soul liberty as well and then the responsibility of obeying the command "Study to show yourself approved unto God..."

Jesus said to Peter: Feed my sheep.
Paul said to the Ephesian elders: Feed the flock of God.

Paul's testimony to those same Ephesians elders was:
Acts 20:20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,
Acts 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

He had declared unto them the whole counsel of God (not the Institutes of Calvin).
If we have neglected our personal study in the Word, we have failed in our obedience to our Master.
If we must run our sermons through Calvin we are nothing more than a slave to a man, rather than a servant of God.

 

[preacher4truth]

DHK,

2 Peter 1:20 isn't speaking of personal interpretations of a passage, it is saying that the Word of God didn't come from man. See the next verse for this pesky little thing called 'context'. It's not a proof text for what you are trying to make it mean.

If we applied your reason you're doing the exact same thing you blame on SDA, RCC &c because you yourself are giving a new meaning and private interpretation to the passage -- taking it completely out of context.

- Blessings

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

God offers mercy for free to Israel in Isaiah 55:

6 Seek the Lord while He may be found;
Call upon Him while He is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake his way
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
And let him return to the Lord,
And He will have compassion on him,
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.


This text was given specifically to Israel. It is a misapplication for one to suggest it applies other than by example of how God desires fellowship from believers as He desired from the people called by His name.

So, if the very people who are called by HIS name are shown to have so little comprehension of and thoughts comparable to God, what makes you think that the heathen have any ability or even desire innate in them to accept or reject Christ.

Notice the boldened parts of Isaiah that you missed. LET the UNRIGHTEOUS forsake his way. That is free will repentance that does not involved any act of God predeterming, predestinating, electing, or regenerating a man prior to being saved or to GET saved. And it says to the unrighteous SEEK the Lord while He may be found. Yet Calvinists misinterpret Romans 3 and hold that a dead man can not seek the Lord. The passage you just quoted proves Calvinism wrong.

You have spent long posts proclaiming denigration toward those who hold some "determinist" view.

Apparently, you do not really know what Calvinism teaches regarding the tenets that you contending are in agreement with Non Cals.

Perhaps you didn't know that ALL biblical views hold that without the direct and purposed work of God, a person cannot be saved. Doing so is having agreement (if only in part) to the heathen being depraved and incapacitated. There are those of us who find the Scriptures teach this incapacity and depravity is total.

Calvinist view of total depravity is not the same. Calvinists hold that spiritual death is the same as physical death, that if a man be spiritually dead, God must wake him up first and give him faith to believe the gospel. According to Calvinism, a dead man must be regenerated first before he can even hear or perceive the gospel and thus Calvinism reverses the order of salvation. John 1:12 shows that those who received power to become the sons of God FIRST received Him and THEN were given the power; not the other way around. Cornelius, and unsaved Roman Centurian, sought the Lord FIRST, and THEN was saved. Calvinism adds "well who GAVE him faith?" NOBODY, Calvinism ADDS their presupposition as the final authority on this to force the Bible to mean SOMETHING IT DOESN'T SAY.

Perhaps you didn't know that "limited atonement" is held by ALL (even extreme Arminians) views in some measure. ONLY those who do not hold to literal hell and eternal second death completely reject "limited atonement."

Not true. Arminians specifically reject Limited Atonement which was a response to the Arminian tenet of Unlimited Atonement. Non Cals who are not Arminian that I know of reject this as well. Calvinism adds their own definition of "all" to John 3:16 and their own definition of "whosoever". "Whosoever" does not mean the same thing in Calvinism as it does in other theological camps.

The only thing that Cals and Non Cals agree on is that not everyone will be saved, but Limited Atonement for the Calvinist is that atonement is offered ONLY to the elect and to satisfy a contradiction in their theology regarding the universal OFFER of salvation to ALL, they ADD a theological term called the "EFFECTUAL" call as opposed to the "GENERAL" call to salvation, a concept which is found NOWHERE in the Bible. Is a man-made definition that presupposes a private interpretation creating 2 different types of calls.

Perhaps you didn't know that BOTH the non-cal and the Cals (IF they are Baptist) hold to the Perseverance/ preservation (once saved always saved) of the saints.

There are some Arminian Baptists that do not believe once saved-always saved (eternal security).
Nevertheless, the Calvinist hold that if man doesn't endure to the end, he was never saved in the first place, and thus the evidence of the assurance of salvation in Calvinism is works. Calvinism only CLAIMS in THEORY that God alone preserves the believer to the end, but in PRACTICE Calvinism uses works as the barometer to judge a persons salvation.

If there is any argument over TULIP it resides primarily in one area.

That is the area of irresistible grace.

All 5 tenets of TULIP are hinged upon the other. If one falls, they all fall because they are all connected.

Now I have GREATLY simplified the basic arguments of both sides to show how they agree, yet some would disagree with others because some area is not held to the degree they may or may not hold.

You have not really simplified the arguments of both sides, you have misrepresented BOTH sides. You may have declared what YOU personally believe having mixed together your own version of different beliefs, but you have not accurately defined the traditional positions of both sides, nor have you considered the implications and results of the beliefs of both sides.

There are implications and results within Calvinism that they will not admit to (like God being the author of sin, rape, molestation, etc..if He determines all things that He foreknows) because Calvinism refuses to address the logical implications and outcome of their beliefs. They defend the man-made definitions of each tenet, and then when cornered on one subject, switch gears to argue a different tenet while leaving any previous objections unanswered. A Calvinist will CLAIM that they never said "God causes sin" and that is because they are programmed to defend their definitions and ignore the outcome of what their beliefs yield to when you boil them down to their lowest common denominator.

Calvinism refuses to admit that there is no historical support for their belief system before Augustine, and rarely do they even give Augustine the credit for Calvin's beliefs. Instead, they quip "Calvinism is the gospel, Jesus was Calvinist, Calvinism was taught by Paul" even though there is no evidence that any of the disciples of John, Paul, Peter, taught these doctrines which are not found in the early church until Augustine.

Calvinism plain and simple is based on nothing more that theological speculation and man made philosophical presuppositions.

 

[DrJamesAch]

DHK,

2 Peter 1:20 isn't speaking of personal interpretations of a passage, it is saying that the Word of God didn't come from man. See the next verse for this pesky little thing called 'context'. It's not a proof text for what you are trying to make it mean.

If we applied your reason you're doing the exact same thing you blame on SDA, RCC &c because you yourself are giving a new meaning and private interpretation to the passage -- taking it completely out of context.

- Blessings

Now consider the implications of your interpretation. DHK used this verse to show that the Bible is not made of private intepretation. It is not out of context. The next verse does not contradict what he relied on from verse 20, but CLARIFIES it.

You did not say anything to prove from YOUR interpretation of this verse that the Bible was NOT made by private interpretation, and since that is the premise from which DHK derived his comment, by implication are you claiming that the Bible IS made from private interpretation?

 

[DHK]

DHK,

2 Peter 1:20 isn't speaking of personal interpretations of a passage, it is saying that the Word of God didn't come from man. See the next verse for this pesky little thing called 'context'. It's not a proof text for what you are trying to make it mean.

If we applied your reason you're doing the exact same thing you blame on SDA, RCC &c because you yourself are giving a new meaning and private interpretation to the passage -- taking it completely out of context.

- Blessings

If you want me to do a verse-by-verse exposition of the entire chapter, I can do that. But that still won't change the meaning of verse 20, which I properly gave to you.
The reason I gave you examples in my post of the RCC, SDA, J.W.'s and Mormons, is precisely for the reason that you said--it is not a personal interpretation, but a private one.
Just as the Bible is not the private interpretation of the RCC; neither is it the private interpretation of Calvin. The typical Calvinist has proved over and over again that the Bible must be interpreted through another authority. You have forsaken sola scriptura and have gone to your creeds, confessions, Institutes, and a certain prized set of Calvinistic authorities which you rely on. They are your authority. That is not sola scriptura. You have forsaken that very important Baptist distinctive--the Bible being our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. It isn't is it? It is now Calvin.

 

[Rippon]

Why do you find it repulsive when I speak the truth concerning the truth of my observations on the board.

You make many "observations" which are false and you know that. I said your following comment was repulsive:"The TRR has their catechism and papal bulls. You have Calvin and your Reformers. I have my Bible. I find it quite refreshing that way."

You plainly think (or at least take the energy of your keystrokes) that Calvinists do not abide by the authority of the Scriptures. That is not only repulsive,but absurd and sinful on your part.

Baptist churches existed long before the Reformation--ever since the time of the apostles.

No,you are wrong. You don't have the perspective of Church History behind you. You look at things without clarity. The term "Baptists" is a relatively new one. Sure I believe that in some form or another many assemblies of believers shared some distinctive beliefs of modern-day Baptists. But you are stretching things too far with your assertions.

God has always had his own, and has never left himself without a witness.

Agreed;as long as you don't think that His only witnesses have been Baptists!

That witness has never been in the RCC

There have been multitudes of famous (and not so famous) Roman Catholics throughout the centuries who have been legitimate believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

No, I know the truth about Spurgeon. I use him often. He is not what the Calvinist thinks he is. Pitiful.

Here is where I said that you deny the obvious. You try to make Spurgeon into your image DHK. He is inded a Reformed source. To say otherwise is silly of you.

 

[preacher4truth]

If you want me to do a verse-by-verse exposition of the entire chapter, I can do that.

I'll pass, I'll stick with truthful exposition. Start with the facts I gave you for the true exposition of the passage you've misinterpreted.

But that still won't change the meaning of verse 20, which I properly gave to you.

Yes, you changed the meaning to fit into your own 'private interpretation'.

The reason I gave you examples in my post of the RCC, SDA, J.W.'s and Mormons, is precisely for the reason that you said--it is not a personal interpretation, but a private one.
Just as the Bible is not the private interpretation of the RCC; neither is it the private interpretation of Calvin. The typical Calvinist has proved over and over again that the Bible must be interpreted through another authority. You have forsaken sola scriptura and have gone to your creeds, confessions, Institutes, and a certain prized set of Calvinistic authorities which you rely on. They are your authority. That is not sola scriptura. You have forsaken that very important Baptist distinctive--the Bible being our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. It isn't is it? It is now Calvin.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

No Calvinist teaches what you are saying. None teach that interpretation must come from some other authority. Your staw man arguments are ridiculous.

Then you get out of control with your accusations telling me what and whom I rely upon and you're clueless still, and then you denigrate further saying Scripture is not my authority. Scripture is my authority which is one reason why it is so easy to dismantle your theories and point out your innumerable errors of interpretation.

By the way, I've never read Calvin. But from what I hear and see in excerpts he had his act together theologically. Perhaps someday I will read him.

 

[DrJamesAch]

I'll pass, I'll stick with truthful exposition. Start with the facts I gave you for the true exposition of the passage you've misinterpreted.



Yes, you changed the meaning to fit into your own 'private interpretation'.



:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

No Calvinist teaches what you are saying. None teach that interpretation must come from some other authority. Your staw man arguments are ridiculous.

Then you get out of control with your accusations telling me what and whom I rely upon and you're clueless still, and then you denigrate further saying Scripture is not my authority. Scripture is my authority which is one reason why it is so easy to dismantle your theories and point out your innumerable errors of interpretation.

By the way, I've never read Calvin. But from what I hear and see in excerpts he had his act together theologically. Perhaps someday I will read him.

How can you positively affirm that anyone is misrepresenting ANY Calvinist when you ADMIT that even you haven't even read Calvin?

So if you yourself have not even read Calvin, then you have no idea whether anyone has misread, misinterpreted, or mischaracterized Calvinism at all. For all you know, every statement that non Calvinists have made about Calvin could be right. Without having read him, you can't prove otherwise.

And if Calvin "had his act together theologically" then I take it you agree with his amilleniallism, baby sprinkling, and murdering of heretics?

 

[DHK]

You make many "observations" which are false and you know that.

NO, I don't know that. My observations are just that--my observations. I don't deliberately post anything that is false. Why would I do that? Now you are making false accusations. Is that any way to hold a debate?

I said your following comment was repulsive:"The TRR has their catechism and papal bulls. You have Calvin and your Reformers. I have my Bible. I find it quite refreshing that way."

I don't really care if you find it repulsive. If the truth hurts so be it. What is your point?

You plainly think (or at least take the energy of your keystrokes) that Calvinists do not abide by the authority of the Scriptures. That is not only repulsive,but absurd and sinful on your part.

If it is the truth it is not sinful. You have done nothing to refute it, or prove me wrong. The very fact that you are calling me sinful is sinful in and of itself. Do you know how to post in a spirit of grace and charity?

No,you are wrong. You don't have the perspective of Church History behind you. You look at things without clarity. The term "Baptists" is a relatively new one. Sure I believe that in some form or another many assemblies of believers shared some distinctive beliefs of modern-day Baptists. But you are stretching things too far with your assertions.

You are right. I studied little church history, except on my own. But what I did study was "Baptist History," a much more worthy endeavor. And I don't apologize for spending valuable time in studying the history of our spiritual forefathers.
If you want to disagree with me you are free to do so. I am sure you have the permission of Hu jintao, the current president of China. He won't stop you. Neither will Obama. But it won't make you right either.
The fact is that there have been those, since the times of the apostles that have remained true to God and His Word in every generation. God has never left himself without a witness. Those that have remained true to him, many of them, if not most, have in large part had distinctives which are similar to Baptists of today.

There have been multitudes of famous (and not so famous) Roman Catholics throughout the centuries who have been legitimate believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Multitudes, eh? When Luther saw the truth of the gospel, not because of the RCC, but in spite of the RCC, he tried to reform it. Failing in his mission he became a Protestant, and ended up Protesting--both against its corruption and its doctrine.
One cannot believe the doctrine of the RCC and be saved at the same time. The doctrine of salvation and the doctrine of the RCC on salvation are at polar opposites. One might as well agree to being a "Christian Hindu" as to agree to being a "Christian Catholic." No such thing. When Hindus get saved they leave Hinduism; Muslims leave Islam; and a Catholic will leave Catholicism.

Here is where I said that you deny the obvious. You try to make Spurgeon into your image DHK. He is inded a Reformed source. To say otherwise is silly of you.

That is a hilarious statement. I disagree with much of Spurgeon says, and I also agree with much of what he says. Read with a critical mind. Are you not able to do that? It is your statement that is silly here. I would never dare to make any man "after my image." That is the most absurd statement I have ever heard.

 

[DHK]

No Calvinist teaches what you are saying. None teach that interpretation must come from some other authority.

One doesn't have to teach it. They just have to practice it, as they do, and as is plainly demonstrated on this very thread. Over and over again appeals are made to catechisms, creeds, men like Spurgeon, Calvin, etc.
Why isn't the appeal made directly to the Word of God?
Why?
Because for the most part many have given up on sola scriptura.