I challenge any evangelical to prove to me that Christians can be responsible for folks burning in h

[Iconoclast]

Doesnt mean its derived from proper interpretation of scripture.

Of course it is, which is why you and the other critics cannot begin to show any other valid teaching to offer correction.

 

[Iconoclast]

Jerome,

example of how Charles Spurgeon ended a sermon:

And every time you give a partial quote, you never give the start of the sermon where He makes it abundantly clear the Salvation is all of the Lord.

 

[Reynolds]

Of course it is, which is why you and the other critics cannot begin to show any other valid teaching to offer correction.

Sure we can and have.
I do not see Calvinism as proper interpretation of Scripture. You do not See Arminianism as a proper interpretation of Scripture. The debatehas gone on for hundreds of years before us. It will not be solved with us. If either side could prove their position, the debate would have ended hundreds of years ago.

 

[Iconoclast]

Reformed

I cannot accuse you of ignorance because your comments are made with the full knowledge you are misrepresenting the man

.

This is a specialty of the non cals on here.

You are taking a comment by Paul Washer that is part of a larger context. I stand by everything I have said about him (Washer) and the sinners prayer.

Paul Washer has seen what many others have seen over the years.

I too can play the YouTube video clip, but then I am playing your game which I refuse to do. I do not know if I need to say that the sinners prayer has sent more people to hell than anything on the face of the earth. In the end, unbelief is what sends people to hell. That said, the rote sinners prayer is a deceitful exercise for the reasons I gave in my previous post. I will never tell another living soul that praying a prayer will save them. I will them that they need to repent of their sins and place their faith in Christ and Christ alone.

Well said.

 

[Iconoclast]

Sure we can and have.
I do not see Calvinism as proper interpretation of Scripture. You do not See Arminianism as a proper interpretation of Scripture. The debatehas gone on for hundreds of years before us. It will not be solved with us. If either side could prove their position, the debate would have ended hundreds of years ago.

No one on here has come close to refuting anything. Names are called, false witness given, but no biblical refutation.
There is no real debate. There is truth and those who do not hold the truth yet.

If you feel you have refuted anything substantial can you direct us to such a post?

 

[Reynolds]

No one on here has come close to refuting anything. Names are called, false witness given, but no biblical refutation.
There is no real debate. There is truth and those who do not hold the truth yet.

If thats how you see it.

 

[Iconoclast]

If thats how you see it.

Well Reynolds...how I see it does not matter...what does scripture say is what matters. Again, can you direct us to these scriptural refutations?
Where are they found?
Why not show the best scriptural refutations that you, RM, MB, ITL, and any others have offered.

 

[Reynolds]

Well Reynolds...how I see it does not matter...what does scripture say is what matters. Again, can you direct us to these scriptural refutations?
Where are they found?
Why not show the best scriptural refutations that you, RM, MB, ITL, and any others have offered.

Have I really attempted to refute Calvinism? You read verses and come up with different meanings than I do. John 3:16 refutes Calvinism, you alter the plain meaning of the verse to fit your theology. As I said, the debate has raged for hundreds of years. If the scripture existed to prove either position without a doubt, there would be no debate.
What I continually argue is that the New Calvinists seemingly value Calvin over the commands of Christ. You are on a mission to spread Calvinism. Your evangelism takes a huge back seat to your love of Calvinism. You see the world and you see every topic through the lens of Calvin. The thread about Adrian Rogers is prime evidence of that

 

[Iconoclast]

Have I really attempted to refute Calvinism? As I said, the debate has raged for hundreds of years. If the scripture existed to prove either position without a doubt, there would be no debate.
What I continually argue is that the New Calvinists seemingly value Calvin over the commands of Christ. You are on a mission to spread Calvinism. Your evangelism takes a huge back seat to your love of Calvinism.

I have heard you and others offer such critiques. This is an unfounded fabrication. If you think there is error, show it.
Speaking of "spreading Calvinism "as opposed to christian doctrine betrays a lack of knowledge of what is implied and understood by the term.
Biblical Calvinism is the work of the truine God in bringing the whole man to the Whole Christ.

 

[Reynolds]

I have heard you and others offer such critiques. This is an unfounded fabrication. If you think there is error, show it.
Speaking of "spreading Calvinism "as opposed to christian doctrine betrays a lack of knowledge of what is implied and understood by the term.
Biblical Calvinism is the work of the truine God in bringing the whole man to the Whole Christ.

We have discussed John 3:16 at length.
I know what is implied and understood by Calvinism. From your behavior on here, it seems you much prefer to attempt to advance Calvinism than to present the Gospel to the lost.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Reynolds,

Have I really attempted to refute Calvinism?

There have been times when you offered your position with some biblical support, and you did a good job with what you offered.
In my opinion, it was at best a good start, but not really sustained.
Let me give an example of what I am saying.
Biblicist posted here for years and offered a ton of scripture.
Can you show anywhere where you answered him , line by line? Can you show where any of the others took him on and sustained a biblical interaction? I do not recall any such posts. He shredded JonC....

You read verses and come up with different meanings than I do. John 3:16 refutes Calvinism,

Not even close to refuting Calvinism at all. Do you deny it says "everyone believing"?
Now if you think I am missing how it refutes Calvinism, show it scripturally, lets take a look.

you alter the plain meaning of the verse to fit your theology.

Show anywhere that you think I have done this?

As I said, the debate has raged for hundreds of years. If the scripture existed to prove either position without a doubt, there would be no debate.

That is your position which I do not share.

What I continually argue is that the New Calvinists seemingly value Calvin over the commands of Christ.

This is a complete fabrication.

You are on a mission to spread Calvinism[/QUOTE].

These opinionated statements are without support,

Your evangelism takes a huge back seat to your love of Calvinism. You see the world and you see every topic through the lens of Calvin. The thread about Adrian Rogers is prime evidence of that

Whatever good Adrian Rogers did, it was not his false teaching opposing Calvinistic truth.

 

[Iconoclast]

We have discussed John 3:16 at length.
I know what is implied and understood by Calvinism. From your behavior on here, it seems you much prefer to attempt to advance Calvinism than to present the Gospel to the lost.

That is a weak excuse on your part. What do you think Jn3:16 teaches.
You cannot judge my behavior on here as my comments are often edited and deleted.
In fact I can assure you I speak to more people on a daily basis about the gospel, just by the nature of my job than you do.
When you make such a weak comment it proves what I say on a regular basis on here.
The fact that so many on here offer shallow attacks against Calvinistic truths

Makes Calvinists react to set the record straight. Of course it is going to come across a certain way.

 

[Reynolds]

That is a weak excuse on your part. What do you think Jn3:16 teaches.
You cannot judge my behavior on here as my comments are often edited and deleted.
In fact I can assure you I speak to more people on a daily basis about the gospel, just by the nature of my job than you do.
When you make such a weak comment it proves what I say on a regular basis on here.
The fact that so many on here offer shallow attacks against Calvinistic truths

Makes Calvinists react to set the record straight. Of course it is going to come across a certain way.

John 3:16 F"God so loved the World...."
Not part of the world. Not an elect few. Not some from all parts of the world. "The World."

What I believe:
The Five Arminian Articles (1610)
Date: 1610
Author: Jan Uytenbogaert et. al.
John Calvin, 10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564.
The Five articles of Remonstrance refers to the document drawn up in 1610 by the followers of Jacobus
Arminius (1560-1609). A "remonstrance" is literally "an expression of opposition or protest," which in
this case was a protest against the Calvinist doctrine of predestination contained in the Belgic Confession.
Consequently, those followers of Arminius who drafted this protest were given the name "Remonstrants."
This document was condemned as heresy by the reformed churches at the Synod of Dort, 1618-1619.
http://www.theopedia.com/five-articles-of-remonstrance
The Belgic Confession, written in 1561, owes its origin to the need for a clear and comprehensive statement of
Reformed faith during the time of the Spanish inquisition in the Lowlands. Guido de Brès, its primary author, was
pleading for understanding and toleration from King Philip II of Spain who was determined to root out all
Protestant factions in his jurisdiction. Hence, this confession takes pains to point out the continuity of Reformed
belief with that of the ancient Christian creeds, as well as to differentiate it from Catholic belief (on the one hand),
and from Anabaptist teachings (on the other).
Belgic Confession
http://www.esvbible.org/resources/c...article-the-five-arminian-articles-1610/#1121
After the death of Jacobus Arminius in 1610, a number of his followers published their objections to The
Belgic Confession and the teaching of John Calvin and his followers regarding the doctrine of
predestination. In The Five Arminian Articles, also known as the Five Articles of Remonstrance, they
affirmed a conditional election upon the basis of foreseen faith, along with a universal atonement, the
possibility of resisting grace, and the possibility of lapsing from grace. Their teaching was condemned at
the Synod of Dort in 1618-1619.
Article 1
That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world,
hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through
Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall
persevering this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand,
to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from
Christ, according to the word of the gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting
life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but wrath of God abideth on him,” and according
to other passages of Scripture also.
Article 2
That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that
he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no
one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer according to the word of the Gospel of
John 3:16: “God so love the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the
propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
Article 3
That man has not saving grace himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of
apostasy and sin, can of and by himself, neither thing, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as
saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ through his Holy
Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly
understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5: “Without
me ye can do nothing.”
Article 4
That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent,
that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awaking, following and co-operative
grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds
or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But as respects the
mode of the operation of this grace it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that
they have resisted the Holy Ghost (Acts 7:51), and elsewhere in many places.
Article 5
That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-
giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to
win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and
that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only
they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that
they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the
Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are
capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ (Heb 3:6, 14; 2
Pet 1:10; Jude 3; 1 Tim 1:19; Heb 11:13), of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away
from the holy doctrine which was delivered to them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming void of
grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach
it with full persuasion of our minds.
These Articles, thus set forth and taught, the Remonstrants deem agreeable to the Word of God, tending
to edification, and, as regards this argument, sufficient for salvation, so that it is not necessary of edifying
to rise higher or to descend deeper.




Philip Schaff and David S. Schaff, eds. The Creeds of Christendom (1931; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker,
1996), 3:545–49. This translation is in the public domain. This document constitute part of the background
to which the Synod of Dort responded.

 

[Iconoclast]

John 3:16 F"God so loved the World...."
Not part of the world. Not an elect few. Not some from all parts of the world. "The World."

What I believe:
The Five Arminian Articles (1610)
Date: 1610
Author: Jan Uytenbogaert et. al.
John Calvin, 10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564.
The Five articles of Remonstrance refers to the document drawn up in 1610 by the followers of Jacobus
Arminius (1560-1609). A "remonstrance" is literally "an expression of opposition or protest," which in
this case was a protest against the Calvinist doctrine of predestination contained in the Belgic Confession.
Consequently, those followers of Arminius who drafted this protest were given the name "Remonstrants."
This document was condemned as heresy by the reformed churches at the Synod of Dort, 1618-1619.
http://www.theopedia.com/five-articles-of-remonstrance
The Belgic Confession, written in 1561, owes its origin to the need for a clear and comprehensive statement of
Reformed faith during the time of the Spanish inquisition in the Lowlands. Guido de Brès, its primary author, was
pleading for understanding and toleration from King Philip II of Spain who was determined to root out all
Protestant factions in his jurisdiction. Hence, this confession takes pains to point out the continuity of Reformed
belief with that of the ancient Christian creeds, as well as to differentiate it from Catholic belief (on the one hand),
and from Anabaptist teachings (on the other).
Belgic Confession
http://www.esvbible.org/resources/c...article-the-five-arminian-articles-1610/#1121
After the death of Jacobus Arminius in 1610, a number of his followers published their objections to The
Belgic Confession and the teaching of John Calvin and his followers regarding the doctrine of
predestination. In The Five Arminian Articles, also known as the Five Articles of Remonstrance, they
affirmed a conditional election upon the basis of foreseen faith, along with a universal atonement, the
possibility of resisting grace, and the possibility of lapsing from grace. Their teaching was condemned at
the Synod of Dort in 1618-1619.
Article 1
That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world,
hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through
Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall
persevering this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand,
to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from
Christ, according to the word of the gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting
life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but wrath of God abideth on him,” and according
to other passages of Scripture also.
Article 2
That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that
he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no
one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer according to the word of the Gospel of
John 3:16: “God so love the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the
propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
Article 3
That man has not saving grace himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of
apostasy and sin, can of and by himself, neither thing, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as
saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ through his Holy
Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly
understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5: “Without
me ye can do nothing.”
Article 4
That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent,
that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awaking, following and co-operative
grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds
or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But as respects the
mode of the operation of this grace it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that
they have resisted the Holy Ghost (Acts 7:51), and elsewhere in many places.
Article 5
That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-
giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to
win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and
that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only
they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that
they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the
Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are
capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ (Heb 3:6, 14; 2
Pet 1:10; Jude 3; 1 Tim 1:19; Heb 11:13), of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away
from the holy doctrine which was delivered to them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming void of
grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach
it with full persuasion of our minds.
These Articles, thus set forth and taught, the Remonstrants deem agreeable to the Word of God, tending
to edification, and, as regards this argument, sufficient for salvation, so that it is not necessary of edifying
to rise higher or to descend deeper.




Philip Schaff and David S. Schaff, eds. The Creeds of Christendom (1931; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker,
1996), 3:545–49. This translation is in the public domain. This document constitute part of the background
to which the Synod of Dort responded.

Reynolds....
Thank you for offering support for your view. Time does not allow it now as I must go back to work, but I will work through it, seeing where we can agree, and offering on those portions that I believe would need to be re-examined. Fair enough?

 

[timtofly]

Can any one show in Scripture a problem with this statement?

The Holy Spirit seals every human from conception to death.

Ephesians 4:30 makes that claim.
"And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption."

 

[Yeshua1]

Can any one show in Scripture a problem with this statement?

The Holy Spirit seals every human from conception to death.

Ephesians 4:30 makes that claim.
"And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption."

Once one has received Jesus as Lord is the starting point!

 

[timtofly]

Once one has received Jesus as Lord is the starting point!

No verse? The day of redemption is salvation. We are no longer sealed after salvation?

 

[Reynolds]

Reynolds....
Thank you for offering support for your view. Time does not allow it now as I must go back to work, but I will work through it, seeing where we can agree, and offering on those portions that I believe would need to be re-examined. Fair enough?

Fair enough

 

[Yeshua1]

No verse? The day of redemption is salvation. We are no longer sealed after salvation?

Sealed by Holy Spirit right when we are saved

 

[Particular]

Doesnt mean its derived from proper interpretation of scripture.

True. This is where iron sharpens iron. We sit down together and we work through God's word together.
We wrestle with the passages and seek the context rather than prooftexting to fit our agenda.
On this I hope we both agree.