If it's new it ain't true

[Luke2427]

Actually universalism can be traced back to Origen, whereas Calvinism can only be traced back to Augustine.

It's older than Christianity for that matter- so what?

That universalism has always been a fringe belief that popped up sporadically in heretical sects here and there in Church History establishes that it has never been part of the Historic Christian Faith.

The DoG most assuredly has.

 

[Skandelon]

You called Universalism "new" and that is what I was correcting. There are old errors too. Universalism and Calvinism are two such examples.

 

[quantumfaith]

I think what the Spirit does is illumine us concerning the Words of Christ.

I don't think he is saying new things, but guiding us through the Scriptures.

I think it is potentially dangerous to say, "God spoke to me yesterday and told me to do..."

He brings to our remembrance the things Christ has said in his Word. He can increase our hunger for the Word.

He clears our minds and opens our eyes so that we can understand it and study it properly.

But I do not think he is saying new words today- not to individuals or to movements, etc...

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
Another Shocker.

 

[The Biblicist]

I took the time to read through this thread from beginning to end. I do believe that the man of God needs only the scriptures to be THROUGHLY (thoroughly) furnished in regard to doctrine, instruction, correction and reproof for sufficieny in all good works.

There are three problems with secular Church History:

1. It is not inspired and therefore subject to the limitations and bias of the historian

2. Incomplete and thus lacking in full perspective (which often means distortion)

3. Often inaccurate due to bias, intential misrepresentation, intential revision of history

Is history valuable? Yes, but with many limitations.

I do believe the best commentary on the scriptuers is the scriptures and the best interpreter of the scriptures is the Holy Spirit.

The Great Commission is an age long commission requiring organic succession between discipler and disciple. For example, for the greater part of history between the first century and the present, one must actually "go" to those whom he presents the gospel. For example, it is impossible to administer baptism without organic contact between the administrator and the candiate for baptism. For example, it is impossible to teach others to obey all things Christ commanded without organically assemblying together with them over a period of time.

Another fact of the Great Commission is that it was given only to those who had previously experienced this organic hands on process being spelled out. For example, Jesus said, "whatsoever I HAVE commanded you." The blind cannot lead the blind nor did Jesus commission the ungosplized to gospelize themselves nor could the untaught teach others what they have not been taught.

There are three categories of people found in the Great commission as given in Matthew 28:19-20. There are those being commissioned identified as "ye." There are those they are sent unto "all nations." There are those out of all nations that receive the gospel unto which they are to administer baptism and teach how to observer all things "them."

The Great Commission was never given to "all nations."

The Great commission was never given to "them"

The Great commission was only given to "ye" or previous baptized believers who had been taught how to observe all things as Christ commanded. The very meaning of "make disciples" denies they are to inovate they own doctrine and practice but are to be "followers" of anothers.

Christ never authorized or commissioned anyone to go preach "another gospel" as any other is accursed (Gal. 1:8-9; 2 Cor. 11:4).

Christ never authorized or commissioned anyone to administer another kind of baptism than what he himself submitted to and administered to others.

Christ never authorized or commissioned anyone to teach others to observe another faith and practice as that is what the New Testament defines as apostasy or departure from the faith once delivered.

The Bible does not give direct authority from God to the reader to administer the great Commission. If that were true, the "all nations" or "them" could equally adminsiter it as "ye."

No one is authorized to make disciples for Christ but the "ye" who has already been discipled in the SAME gospel, SAME baptism and SAME faith and practice as commissioned by Christ as that is the only possible way a person can be discipled in the "all things" that Christ commanded and be his disciple or be a follower of him in the gospel OF Christ and the baptism OF Christ and the doctrine and practice OF Christ.

Neither did Christ authorize anyone to depart from this commission as given or to make disciples according to their own idea.

Matthew identify the contextual great commission "ye" or "you" as "disciples" (v. 17). Only "disciples" can make "disciples" and disciples are characterized by these three distinctives - the same Gospel of Christ, the same baptism of Christ and the same faith and order of Christ.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Well, universalim is "new" because it has popped up in recent times as a belief that holds merit. (sorta like Calvinisn. ) It's history isn't the point. The point is there are scriptures that support it, weak though they may be.

Mormonism is "NEW" because it adds a whole new scripture to what we already have and that new stuff contradicts what we know to be true.

Truely, there is nothing new under the sun. False ideas have always been out there. That is why we can't hold history up as the test for truth. We must compare everything to scripture to see if it holds merit or not.

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin,

The problem with the verses you are quoting is that I am rejecting the traditions of men as well. I am embracing traditions of God.

Calvinism is full of philosophies, built on philosophy, with many aspects which are new and leading to heretical conclusions, all these designed to hold to a particular systematic theology that claims one's theology must be interpreted through a set of traditional guidelines (TULIP). Many go as far to call Calvinism the Gospel; and you sound no different when you claim these manmade traditions are of God?

If you are the only one to espouse a doctrine despite our 2000 year history, do you think you are more likely to be in error or church history?

And I’m supposed to answer this “Strawman”…

Traditions of man are traditions added to the Bible, but what I am advocating is the opposite.

Clearly, you are in fact fanatically advocating following the traditions of the Calvinist methods you believe should be embraced for proper interpretation of the scriptures when I clearly see the scriptures plainly rebuking your doctrines. The scriptural warnings stand precisely.

I am advocating that theology has been faihtfully espoused throughout history and we would be foolish to not embrace it.

Yout claim amounts to that "your" theology is correct then amounts to the fallacy of begging the question… “I am right in advocating this doctrine so you would be foolish not to believe it.” Some philosophical principles you blowing my way.

BTW, do you realize that your interpretation of those verses is a "tradition of man?" Rather, you should embrace the Biblical understanding that extra Biblical ideas should be rejected but that the Bible is clear and people throughout history have held to true Biblical doctrine.

Calvinism IS extra Biblical ideas of man in how to interpret and understand scripture and I do reject them, so your point is mute? Other than that you make my point; I will not interpret those verses to satisfy "your" traditions... :sleep:

Finally, the Eph verse is exactly why I advocate what I advocate. If "winds of doctrine" come and go, then the only way to keep from it is to ensure Godly and Biblical men throughout history have held to that doctrine. If I hold to a doctrine that has never been espoused, then it probably is a wind of doctrine.

And there you are being just as cunning and crafty as you can be while attempting to support your doctrine and go about to philosophize (blow air) that I or others should hold to your doctrines but the only reasoning you have given is because your doctrines are what???....”The traditions you follow.” In whole you are simply arguing (philosophizing, and not doing a very good job at that) against the clear meaning of the passages I presented in order to support your philosophical traditions, but God wrote those passages on my heart to keep me from false doctrines and dangerous practices of interpretations like the ones the followers of Calvinist traditions espouse. I will heed the warnings and I’m in good hands concerning the origins and methods of my interpretations TYVM. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Winman]

JW's are almost as good at prooftexting as WINMAN IS!!!!

Sure took you a long time to get around to what you wanted to say.

I don't know if you have ever noticed Luke, but presenting scripture to refute false doctrine is the exact technique Jesus used.

I don't have any new views, my views are very orthodox except perhaps my view on Original Sin which has been debated throughout church history. It was Augustine who first argued OS from scripture, that is an historical fact. None of the early church fathers argued it from scripture for over 400 years. It was NEW. And what came from this doctrine? Infant baptism, the Immaculate Conception, Mary worship, and Total Depravity that led to Calvinism. The vast majority of early church fathers believed man had free will and could choose for or against God, do even a little study and see. I have quoted early church fathers on this issue in the past.

You are oblivious to the fact that you are guilty of what you accuse others of.

 

[preacher4truth]

You called Universalism "new" and that is what I was correcting. There are old errors too. Universalism and Calvinism are two such examples.

That would be a negative. It's Universalism and Arminianism that are synonymously error and are the best examples here of such.

 

[Don]

That would be a negative. It's Universalism and Arminianism that are synonymously error and are the best examples here of such.

"All" arminianism is error? Or were you just funnin' because of Skan's equating calvinism to universalism?

 

[preacher4truth]

"All" arminianism is error? Or were you just funnin' because of Skan's equating calvinism to universalism?

Let me ask you a question and you answer first, OK?

Is all Calvinism error? Yes or no?

Not that I'm disagreeing with it, but where'd you get the word "all" from? Certainly not from me. :thumbsup:

 

[seekingthetruth]

Let me ask you a question and you answer first, OK?

Is all Calvinism error? Yes or no?

Not that I'm disagreeing with it, but where'd you get the word "all" from? Certainly not from me. :thumbsup:

That is a tough question because I agree in part with both and i disagree in part with both.

I agree with DoG on eternal security.

I agree with Arminians on election and atonement.

Man, am ever mixed up!!!!:jesus:

I have no theological identity.

John

 

[preacher4truth]

That is a tough question because I agree in part with both and i disagree in part with both.

I agree with DoG on eternal security.

I agree with Arminians on election and atonement.

Man, am ever mixed up!!!!:jesus:

I have no theological identity.

John

Yes, you are mixed up, most non-cal's are!!!! :laugh:

No theological identity? What? Uh? :laugh:

Hang around, you'll get straightened out. You'll probably be wearing one of these soon:

http://skreened.com/edwards


And you'll be reading from this daily:

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2010/06/puritan_hard_drive_video_intro.php

- Peace

 

[quantumfaith]

Yes, you are mixed up, most non-cal's are!!!! :laugh:

No theological identity? What? Uh? :laugh:

Hang around, you'll get straightened out. You'll probably be wearing one of these soon:

http://skreened.com/edwards


And you'll be reading from this daily:

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2010/06/puritan_hard_drive_video_intro.php

- Peace

I wouldn't count on it.

 

[Don]

Let me ask you a question and you answer first, OK?

Is all Calvinism error? Yes or no?

Not that I'm disagreeing with it, but where'd you get the word "all" from? Certainly not from me. :thumbsup:

Got it from your use of "arminianism" without any qualifiers; which is why I put the word "all" in quotes and asked if you meant "all."

Nope, don't believe "all" calvinism is in error. Now, would you clarify whether you meant aspects of arminianism, or all of arminianism; and what you meant by "not that I'm disagreeing with it" (which was obviously a reference to "all")? Or was I correct that you were just messin' with someone?

 

[Iconoclast]

Ok, then did ALL of the Jews go to heaven?



No...many died in unbelief as covenant breakers read psalm 78

Wasn't the "chosen" the nation of isreal?

John...there were believers before Israel was a nation, from Adam -to Abraham...Then God did focus on Israel as a nation

6For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

7The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

8But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

9Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

10And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.

If the chosen were individauls then why did they have to obey so many laws to find favor with God to get into heaven?

Those Israelites who were saved , the remnant from among the apostate nation were also saved by God's grace,and Christ' s blood....there is only one way to heaven...
the law had many purposes, but mainly during the OT theocracy..it was a schoolmaster to lead them to Christ...
Gal 3:16-29....




It seems to me that the children of Isreal were given a choice to worship God or the golden calf.

No.....they were to worship God only as per the ten commandments...calf worship, idolatry are sin.


If they were "chosen" as individuals then how were they able to make the choice to worship the calf in the first place?


John...in the OT when Israel was chosen as a nation...only some of them were saved.....In the same way...in the NT...the gospel goes worldwide, yet not every person is saved.

6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

But mostly, tell me if the Jews were "Chosen" as individauls and not as a nation, then is every dead Jew now in heaven?

.....read Hebrews 3-4 very slowly ...

10Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.

11So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)

12Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

13But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

14For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

1Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. 3For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

[/COLOR]John (I have left the cult, thanks Brother Don)

Hello John,
take some time and read and re-read these portions of scripture....read the whole chapter....you must get this...to get anything else related to it.:type::thumbsup:

 

[Luke2427]

Well, universalim is "new" because it has popped up in recent times as a belief that holds merit. (sorta like Calvinisn. ) It's history isn't the point. The point is there are scriptures that support it, weak though they may be.

Mormonism is "NEW" because it adds a whole new scripture to what we already have and that new stuff contradicts what we know to be true.

Truely, there is nothing new under the sun. False ideas have always been out there. That is why we can't hold history up as the test for truth. We must compare everything to scripture to see if it holds merit or not.

The DoG are not new. Everyone knows you can trace them back at least as far as Augustine. Many recognize you can trace them back to the NT.

 

[Luke2427]

Calvinism is full of philosophies, built on philosophy, with many aspects which are new and leading to heretical conclusions, all these designed to hold to a particular systematic theology that claims one's theology must be interpreted through a set of traditional guidelines (TULIP). Many go as far to call Calvinism the Gospel; and you sound no different when you claim these manmade traditions are of God?

Wrong.




But since you offered no support for these claims, I'll offer no support for you being wrong here.

Clearly, you are in fact fanatically advocating following the traditions of the Calvinist methods you believe should be embraced for proper interpretation of the scriptures when I clearly see the scriptures plainly rebuking your doctrines. The scriptural warnings stand precisely.

Yea, but you have already indicated you have no real hermeneutic so it really doesn't matter what you think the Scriptures say.

Without a good hermeneutic you are going to be wrong most of the time any way.

What you think you clearly see is meaningless because you don't know how to see.

I would support that claim, but since you don't support any of yours, I don't feel any obligation.

Calvinism IS extra Biblical ideas of man in how to interpret and understand scripture and I do reject them, so your point is mute? Other than that you make my point; I will not interpret those verses to satisfy "your" traditions... :sleep:

Another unwarranted claim.

Do you think your statements have any worth whatsoever just because you say them???

Without substantiation you are wasting our time and your own.

 

[Luke2427]

Sure took you a long time to get around to what you wanted to say.

I don't know if you have ever noticed Luke, but presenting scripture to refute false doctrine is the exact technique Jesus used.

Yes. And it is what Satan did in that same instance, if you recall.

If you don't know how to properly interpret Scripture, then your presenting of Scripture is meaningless.

Since you think God speaks to you and you don't need any help from any other Christian in history to understand the Bible- you don't know the first thing about Scripture. And all of us know it. I am just the only one bold or mean enough to be willing to tell you.

Your copying and pasting of thousands of Scriptures is therefore utterly meaningless.

As I said, David Koresh loved to do the same. Satan loves to do it. But who cares? Their hermeneutic is flawed- it is based on an unspeakable arrogance that ignores the need of the Historic Christian Faith- just like yours.

 

[Rippon]

Calvinism is full of philosophies, built on philosophy, with many aspects which are new and leading to heretical conclusions,

How do you define the word heresy? Is it damnable? Be careful about throwing around the H word with reckless abandon Ben.

all these designed to hold to a particular systematic theology that claims one's theology must be interpreted through a set of traditional guidelines (TULIP).

Don't you know by now that TULIP is a very condensed summary of the Calvinistic rejoinder to the Remonstrants? Calvinism proper is a very comprehensive theology (not philosophy --since it is Bible-based). It goes considerably beyond TULIP.

And before 1908, I believe it was,no Calvinist ever referenced that acronym before in proclamation of their Calvinistic theology.

Yout [sic]claim amounts to that "your" theology is correct then amounts to the fallacy of begging the question… “I am right in advocating this doctrine so you would be foolish not to believe it.” Some philosophical principles you blowing my way.




Calvinism IS extra Biblical ideas of man in how to interpret and understand scripture and I do reject them, so your point is mute[the word is moot]? Other than that you make my point; I will not interpret those verses to satisfy "your" traditions... :sleep:

The above is puzzling. You will not interpret some passages to satisfy the traditions of another believer? You don't understand passages the way Calvinists do. How can answering his questions with your interpretation of passages be following anyone's tradition? It is a Christian tradition to explain verses --that's why we have preacher/commentaries and the like.

 

[DHK]

s:
Did your churches not split from SBC or the Northern Baptists?

Neither.

The church where you were saved, was it not an IFB church and did it not split off from one of the major protestant denominations?

I was saved on the campus of a secular university.

If not, was it not started by someone who is from a church that split off of a Protestant denomination?

No!
Where do you get this successionism from? It is ingrained in your thinking. It reminds me of a pastor of a church who would not allow me to preach in his church because he said I was not baptized by a Baptist who was baptized by a Baptist who was baptized by a Baptist, etc. Somewhere down the line the link had been broken and I was disqualified. I was baptized by an IFB pastor.

Any person with a good knowledge of the Word of God can go out and start a church. We, for a good many years, had a Bible Institute associated with our church. A number of men have graduated from that Institute in the past and gone out and established churches. Where are their roots going to be. They can go no further than this church that I am presently in. That is it. We are independent. It is fruitless to try to trace us to some protestant connection. You can't do it.

And there have been churches just like ours all throughout history. The Lord knows them that are his.