John Piper

[Van]

Hi Rippon, you continue to slander me, one post after another. Now I am boasting. Did you admit you slandered me about visiting a reformed church or had read Reformed Salvation tracts? Nope.

Now you claim I am boasting I have shown limited atonement is mistaken doctrine. I posted the verses, they are easy to read. Christ became the propitiation for the elect only? Nope. For the whole world.
Christ paid the ransom for all.

Anyone can change the meaning of a verse by inserting words. Jesus paid the ransom for all [the elect] is not how it reads. Stick with scripture as written. The whole world means, drum roll please, the whole world, not selected parts of the world.

 

[evangelist6589]

Hi Rippon, you continue to slander me, one post after another. Now I am boasting. Did you admit you slandered me about visiting a reformed church or had read Reformed Salvation tracts? Nope.

Now you claim I am boasting I have shown limited atonement is mistaken doctrine. I posted the verses, they are easy to read. Christ became the propitiation for the elect only? Nope. For the whole world.
Christ paid the ransom for all.

Anyone can change the meaning of a verse by inserting words. Jesus paid the ransom for all [the elect] is not how it reads. Stick with scripture as written. The whole world means, drum roll please, the whole world, not selected parts of the world.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 John 2:2 (NIV)
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth

1 Timothy 4:10
For therefore we both labour and sufer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

 

[Oldtimer]

Hi Rippon, you continue to slander me, one post after another.

Van, a for whatever it's worth to you.

FWIW, when I started visiting this board, I didn't have a clue that some of the issues, under discussion, even existed. Have a long list of items to study, as time permits. This one is a good example. Over the years I'd heard vague references to Calvin and his opinions. Thus, another item on my to-study list.

"As time permits" is because study means:

(A) Proverbs 2:3-6 combined with 1 Tim 2:15 (KJB)

(B) looking at BOTH sides of the topic of study with anything relating to God's Holy word. To pray for HIS guidance and that HIS truth will prevail. Of the studies taken so far, the results have either been a stronger conviction on what I thought I knew or a complete reversal of same.

Specifically for this topic of Calvin. The representation by SOME of those supporting his opinion is driving me, with ever increasing resolve, to support the opposing viewpoint. The "attitude" of some supporters of Calvin's views seem to be far removed from what Jesus taught us.

Matthew 5 KJB
1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.​

So, far, in fact, their "attitude" and disrespect shown to others is revealing another truth to this layman. One that's maybe best expressed with the following scripture.

Matthew 7:20 KJB Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

What kind of fruit is, adopting Calvinism, being produced to glorify God, our Lord and Saviour?

 

[Van]

Thanks

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 John 2:2 (NIV)
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth

1 Timothy 4:10
For therefore we both labour and sufer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Yes, the number of verses that teach Christ died for all mankind is extensive.

 

[Van]

Thanks, Oldtimer, you are spot on. Study scripture and grow more Christ-like.

 

[Rippon]

Hi Rippon, you continue to slander me, one post after another.

That was not my intent.

Now I am boasting.

Well,better stop that.

Did you admit you slandered me about visiting a reformed church or had read Reformed Salvation tracts? Nope.

Just getting around to this thread. I have been occupoied on matters not related to the BB and when on the BB other threads have gotten my time.

Okay,you went to a single Reformed church for which you made a blanket statement.

I have shown limited atonement is mistaken doctrine. I posted the verses, they are easy to read. Christ became the propitiation for the elect only? Nope. For the whole world.
Christ paid the ransom for all.

Well then,hooray! Every single individual who has,is, and shall live will end up in heaven! Sorry buddy,that's not going to cut it. You need to cut the Scriptures straightly.

The whole world means, drum roll please, the whole world, not selected parts of the world.

And the "whole world" came out to see John the Baptist too! See,"whole world"! You really need to study the Scriptures and stop slandering Calvinism as you so frequently do.

Here's a sample of typical Van slander: "Calvinism relies on misrepresentation of Scripture,using unsound hermeneutics,and slicing and dicing it to alter and even reverse its meaning."

But you do the above so often that it is almost pointless to quote your slander after a while.

 

[The Archangel]

Usually, I refrain from responding to any of Van's inane and ignorant ramblings.... But, this has to be commented upon.

Van claims to have been slandered...which hasn't actually happened.

Hi Rippon, you continue to slander me, one post after another. Now I am boasting. Did you admit you slandered me about visiting a reformed church or had read Reformed Salvation tracts? Nope.

First, slander is a category of defamation and, by definition, slander happens verbally. When defamation happens in print, such as in a forum such as this, it is called libel.

Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical. [1]
​

Libel is further defined: "to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others." [2]

To prove libel in a court of law, "the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication." [3]

What you have written here is, without a doubt, libel:

Returning to topic, John Piper is not a person to trust. He distorts scripture, presents a deceptive gospel, and does not believe Christ died for all men. Not a well to drink from, more of a wandering star.

Of the four elements required to prove libel, you have committed the following:

1. Conveyed a defamatory message. Saying that Piper is "not a person to trust," that "he distorts scripture", and he "presents a deceptive gospel" is an untruth. What you've done here is defame Piper simply because you disagree with him. You've offered your opinion as universal truth, and you've written against him as a person [ad hominem], not his theology--and in doing so, have defamed him.

2. The material was published. Your writing was unquestionably published here in this forum

3. Piper could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material. It's obvious that John Piper is the person to whom you are referring.

4. Piper suffered some injury to his reputation as a result of the communication. While it's obvious that this is your intent in your posting--as you have yet to reference Piper's voluminous writings on evangelism; as you have super-imposed your understanding of scripture and theology (whether it be flawed or not) over his as the indefatigable standard of truth; as you have called into question his character as a means to the end of discrediting his theology; and you obviously have had no true interaction with his material--no one would take you seriously enough to claim that you can harm Dr. Piper's (and it is Dr. Piper) reputation.

Seriously, he's an author of international acclaim who has sold countless millions of books (and, by the way, he does not take one thin dime of royalties) whereas there are very, very few who have read or taken seriously anything you've written.

Your comments about Dr. Piper are quite sad, because they demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about. A wise man once said: "It is better to let the world think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." With every passing letter you type about Piper in this thread, you are demonstrating and proving your foolishness.

The Archangel



[1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander (accessed 5/18/13)

[2] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel (accessed 5/18/13)

[3] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander (accessed 5/18/13)

 

[Rippon]

Seriously, he's an author of international acclaim who has sold countless millions of books (and, by the way, he does not take one thin dime of royalties) whereas there are very, very few who have read or taken seriously anything you've written.

Your comments about Dr. Piper are quite sad, because they demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about. A wise man once said: "It is better to let the world think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." With every passing letter you type about Piper in this thread, you are demonstrating and proving your foolishness.

The Archangel

I agree with the above entirely. Thanks AA.

 

[webdog]

Usually, I refrain from responding to any of Van's inane and ignorant ramblings.... But, this has to be commented upon.

Van claims to have been slandered...which hasn't actually happened.



First, slander is a category of defamation and, by definition, slander happens verbally. When defamation happens in print, such as in a forum such as this, it is called libel.

Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical. [1]
​

Libel is further defined: "to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others." [2]

To prove libel in a court of law, "the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication." [3]

What you have written here is, without a doubt, libel:



Of the four elements required to prove libel, you have committed the following:

1. Conveyed a defamatory message. Saying that Piper is "not a person to trust," that "he distorts scripture", and he "presents a deceptive gospel" is an untruth. What you've done here is defame Piper simply because you disagree with him. You've offered your opinion as universal truth, and you've written against him as a person [ad hominem], not his theology--and in doing so, have defamed him.

2. The material was published. Your writing was unquestionably published here in this forum

3. Piper could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material. It's obvious that John Piper is the person to whom you are referring.

4. Piper suffered some injury to his reputation as a result of the communication. While it's obvious that this is your intent in your posting--as you have yet to reference Piper's voluminous writings on evangelism; as you have super-imposed your understanding of scripture and theology (whether it be flawed or not) over his as the indefatigable standard of truth; as you have called into question his character as a means to the end of discrediting his theology; and you obviously have had no true interaction with his material--no one would take you seriously enough to claim that you can harm Dr. Piper's (and it is Dr. Piper) reputation.

Seriously, he's an author of international acclaim who has sold countless millions of books (and, by the way, he does not take one thin dime of royalties) whereas there are very, very few who have read or taken seriously anything you've written.

Your comments about Dr. Piper are quite sad, because they demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about. A wise man once said: "It is better to let the world think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." With every passing letter you type about Piper in this thread, you are demonstrating and proving your foolishness.

The Archangel



[1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander (accessed 5/18/13)

[2] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel (accessed 5/18/13)

[3] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander (accessed 5/18/13)

So now our opinions constitute libel. Unbelievable. Van should go after you using such logic as his opinion on Piper is shared by many, not to mention Piper's soteriology has never been proven to be absolute truth. Given this fact, there has been no libel committed. Show where Van even hinted his opinion was to be taken as 'universal truth' or retract this foolishness and go back under the rock from where you came from.

 

[webdog]

I agree with the above entirely. Thanks AA.

...then Van should go after you for libel as well.

 

[Van]

Well then,hooray! Every single individual who has,is, and shall live will end up in heaven! Sorry buddy,that's not going to cut it. You need to cut the Scriptures straightly.

First Rippon slanders me, then misrepresents my view. Just because Christ died for everyone, does not equate with everyone receives that reconciliation. Strike two.

John uses "world" to refer to fallen mankind or the corrupt system of fallen mankind. Your effort to redefine "world" to mean this here and that there represents exactly the kind of shoddy bible study that Calvinism is built upon.

Here's a sample of typical Van slander: "Calvinism relies on misrepresentation of Scripture,using unsound hermeneutics,and slicing and dicing it to alter and even reverse its meaning."

This represents the Calvinist trick of charging others with whatever malfeasance they are engaged in. Here we have "world" being (1) misrepresented, (2) applying unsound hermeneutics, and (3) slicing and dicing 1 John 2:2 to reverse its clear meaning. QED

 

[Iconoclast]

Usually, I refrain from responding to any of Van's inane and ignorant ramblings.... But, this has to be commented upon.

Van claims to have been slandered...which hasn't actually happened.



First, slander is a category of defamation and, by definition, slander happens verbally. When defamation happens in print, such as in a forum such as this, it is called libel.

Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical. [1]
​

Libel is further defined: "to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others." [2]

To prove libel in a court of law, "the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication." [3]

What you have written here is, without a doubt, libel:



Of the four elements required to prove libel, you have committed the following:

1. Conveyed a defamatory message. Saying that Piper is "not a person to trust," that "he distorts scripture", and he "presents a deceptive gospel" is an untruth. What you've done here is defame Piper simply because you disagree with him. You've offered your opinion as universal truth, and you've written against him as a person [ad hominem], not his theology--and in doing so, have defamed him.

2. The material was published. Your writing was unquestionably published here in this forum

3. Piper could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material. It's obvious that John Piper is the person to whom you are referring.

4. Piper suffered some injury to his reputation as a result of the communication. While it's obvious that this is your intent in your posting--as you have yet to reference Piper's voluminous writings on evangelism; as you have super-imposed your understanding of scripture and theology (whether it be flawed or not) over his as the indefatigable standard of truth; as you have called into question his character as a means to the end of discrediting his theology; and you obviously have had no true interaction with his material--no one would take you seriously enough to claim that you can harm Dr. Piper's (and it is Dr. Piper) reputation.

Seriously, he's an author of international acclaim who has sold countless millions of books (and, by the way, he does not take one thin dime of royalties) whereas there are very, very few who have read or taken seriously anything you've written.

Your comments about Dr. Piper are quite sad, because they demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about. A wise man once said: "It is better to let the world think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." With every passing letter you type about Piper in this thread, you are demonstrating and proving your foolishness.

The Archangel



[1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander (accessed 5/18/13)

[2] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel (accessed 5/18/13)

[3] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander (accessed 5/18/13)

Thanks for exposing Van and his tactics once again.I remember about a year ago you took the time to expose Van's false greek ideas,and he was unable and unwilling to welcome those corrections .

He is no novice.What he does he intentional does.What he does is explained well in your post...quite sadly:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Van]

One of the Calvinists claims to know how I was using "slander." However, I use the term as used in the bible. See 1 Peter 2:12 and 1 Peter 3:16 for example. Liberals love to redefine the meaning of words according to their agenda and pour their meanings into the words of others.

 

[Iconoclast]

evangelist6589;1984518]

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Could you explain what you think this verse teaches?

Can you explain how everyone this verse speaks of is going to be saved as it clear God is not willing that any perish?

 

[Van]

Another trick used by Calvinist, is to claim some great truth was demonstrated in the unreferenced past. LOL Archangel claimed Daniel Wallace agreed with his translation of 2 Thessalonians 2:13, but Dr. Wallace's translation in the NET agrees with the view I presented. So the assertion of falsehood once more. LOL

 

[Van]

evangelist6589;1984518]

Could you explain what you think this verse teaches?

Can you explain how everyone this verse speaks of is going to be saved as it clear God is not willing that any perish?

One of the tricks used by Calvinists is to change the subject, here we have the implication those who disagree with Calvinism are teaching Universalism. They make this false charge to change the subject from whatever the topic is to the behavior of their opponents. LOL

BTW, God does desire that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. But Calvinists believe God compels those to be saved by irresistible grace, thus if you apply their mistaken doctrine to this verse, they are the ones that would be teaching Universalism. However, they deny that God desires all men to be saved, because they push the mistaken doctrine of limited atonement.

 

[Iconoclast]

Van

First Rippon slanders me, then misrepresents my view.

this here and that there represents exactly the kind of shoddy bible study that Calvinism is built upon.

This represents the Calvinist trick of charging others with whatever malfeasance they are engaged in.

zophar wanted to answer you:


2 Should not the multitude of words be answered? and should a man full of talk be justified?

3 Should thy lies make men hold their peace? and when thou mockest, shall no man make thee ashamed?

4 For thou hast said, My doctrine is pure, and I am clean in thine eyes.

5 But oh that God would speak, and open his lips against thee;

 

[evangelist6589]

One of the tricks used by Calvinists is to change the subject, here we have the implication those who disagree with Calvinism are teaching Universalism. They make this false charge to change the subject from whatever the topic is to the behavior of their opponents. LOL

BTW, God does desire that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. But Calvinists believe God compels those to be saved by irresistible grace, thus if you apply their mistaken doctrine to this verse, they are the ones that would be teaching Universalism. However, they deny that God desires all men to be saved, because they push the mistaken doctrine of limited atonement.

God brings the converts plain and simple. However there many be some level of human responsibility involved but God brings the converts plain and simple. This side of eternity we will not understand.

 

[Iconoclast]

evangelist6589

you used this verse...can you explain what you think it teaches?
evangelist6589;1984518]
Quote:
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Could you explain what you think this verse teaches?

Can you explain how everyone this verse speaks of is going to be saved as it clear God is not willing that any perish?

When Jesus was on the cross, how did this verse help people in South America?

Did they perish?

Were they saved?

You say God is not willing that any perish...so what exactly happened at that time....? How does this take place?

 

[Van]

Lets discuss

God brings the converts plain and simple. However there many be some level of human responsibility involved but God brings the converts plain and simple. This side of eternity we will not understand.

Why are we ambassadors of Christ? Why do we have the ministry of reconciliation. Why should we beg others to be reconciled to God. Why did Jesus send out disciples. Why are we command to make disciples, teaching them all that Jesus commanded.

While it is true that God makes converts, i.e. He converts a man of flesh into a new creation, born anew from above, He works through believers to plant, cultivate, and water before He causes the increase.