Keep Calvinist leanings secret?

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by PappaBear:
Actually, I think it to be very arrogant that you think you "know" what is in my head or heart.

I think it is arrogant for you to pretend you know a lot of stuff too. But that is not stopping you or changing your tactics, is it??

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I didn’t know whether or not he had read it.

Then you are ignoring the obvious.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, I am acting on good principle, as I showed you. Notice Ignzaio's quote below where he is incensed that I haven't read Calvin. You see, people don't read everything they quote. I am sure you do it as well. Virtually every academic work has secondary citations where someone quotes something from a non-original source. Therefore, they have not read what they are quoted. You are so determined to try to be right you can't see the obvious.

Your vain attempt at showing him a non-Cal.

Vain??? He admitted it.

Duh ... Turns out ole' Larry was right all along and the pappa just failed because he didn't know what he was talking about.

You're probably just the kind to believe this was a real capitulation to your superior intelect and debating skills? Hahaha!

No, but I recognize sarcasm. It's fine. I don't really care. I like sarcasm. There was nothing to respond to. You would have called it a personal attack anyway. I guess I just took away some ammo from you by not responding.

Yes, he disavowed arguing against Calvinism in this thread and you pursued it anyway. That is a personal attack from a mistaken belief in superiority.

YOu misunderstand the thread. I was not arguing for Calvinism. I was arguing against his omitting clear statements from the article. This trhead was not about Calvinism pro or con but about how it should be taught and whether an article should be taken in its entirety or with certain paragraphs being ignored because they contradict the view.

You didn't bring it up? Wasn't it just you who said "If he isn’t a Calvinist (which he isn’t), then it wasn’t a personal attack."?? Larry, were you talking about knowing what he believes that he is not a Calvinist, or knowing what he believes about something else?

Did you forget that I was responding to you who brought it up?? I can't believe you are saying some of this stuff here. YOu started the conversation about whether or not I was right to call him a Calvinist. I respond to your comments and you accuse me of bringing it up. I certainly don't understand your logic at all.

Actually, I am fairly confident in my lack of confusion regarding the article, which I have read in its entirety.

Then you should disabuse yourself of the notion that the article is an encouragement to hide what one actually believes. That cannot in any way be sustained from this article.

I am also confident in your lack of understanding of it and intentional confusion of the issues.

You are completely wrong. I know very well what the issues are. I have repeatedly tried to get you to focus on them.

What I am not so confident in, based on our past experiences, is whether or not you have read the article yet.

I quoted it numerous times. I have read it numerous times. That is why I know that you are overlooking those parts that contradict you.

It is this that blinds you from being a balanced "moderator."

If you notice the thread at the top of this forum you know that theology plays no part in the moderating role. It is, in your words, irrelevant. I am very balanced in moderating.

Well, chum, for my part it is the Cal who has to depart from the scriptures ...

Whatever ...

It is the Cal who consistently in debate must say "but reason tells us..." and spews a lot of man-centered logic to shore up their unscriptural doctrine.

Notice the thread that Lorelei started where her contentions are based solely on logic based on her definitions. She cannot conceive of a God who doesn't act like she thinks God should. (I am not tearing her down here.) The arminian says that God can't truly offer salvation to someone who can't accept. That is a logical argument, not a biblical one. The Calvinists are the biblical ones on that issue.

It is dishonest NOT to be upfront about where you intend on taking these people to and what you believe.

I agree, as did this author, which you would know if you read the article fairly.

Can those who you have been indoctrinated by you be defined as "Calvinists" even though they may not understand the term to call themselves that? Are you turning out Calvinist students, or are you turning out Arminians, whether you label them as such or not?

Most people would consider them Calvinists or Bible-believers. They got there because they have been shown it from the text. I am trying to turn out students of Scripture.

And it doesn't occur to you as a BAPTIST that believes in the Priesthood of the Believer and congregational church leadership that they may not believe their doctrine is false and may not want to be "reformed"??

They may not, and they are welcome to vote this man out. When someone talks about the five points of Calvinism, you know what he is talking about if you are listening. This church had no reason to be deceived. The man advocates preaching it clearly.

Do you not believe that Catholics believe their doctrine is right?? Should we try to convert them??

Even as a Calvinist, you don't think that God could establish this man as a pastor in that church even if he was up front and aboveboard about his heretical Calvinist beliefs if that was God's will?

This author recommended being upfront about what you believe. He said to teach and preach it. So this author agrees with this point (except for the oxymoronic "heretical Calvinist beliefs").

You believe that then end (converting the church to Calvinism) justifies the means?

The means are teaching/preachign the doctrines of grace, as this author said. So yes, I believe the ends justifies the means. Those are biblical means.

But we are not talking within the context of Muslims, but of going to a church.

We were talking about the usefulness of labels.

The point was, the "labels" you used were outdated and did not compute.

Not if you are in current theology. Those labels are used very much.

Think about your statement for a moment.

I did and you got the point.

I don't want them to tell me that in that bottle is ascorbic acid, starch cellulose, a little bit of Stearic Acid and some silicon dioxide! I want somebody who would know beyond doubt that "THIS IS VITAMIN C"! And if the bottle is unlabeled, I dead sure don't want some Brazilian just walking up from nowhere saying, "I think this is probably Vitamin C, but we'll find out soon as you take some." IOW ... how does he know?

YOu prove my point. You are not interested in the labels. You are interested in the substance. A bottle with "Vitamin C" may be labelled wrong. But knowing the substance is what is important. Which is what I said from the beginning. It is why labels are not always helpful.

In this case, if someone knows to teach particular redemption, perseverance of the saints, etc. then he is a Calvinist whether he runs like a scared jackrabbit from the term or not.

Which shows that your understanding of this article is wrong. He is not saying to hide your calvinism. He is saying to preach these doctrine from the pulpit.

The article didn't say that it would inflame someone who had been taught wrongly.

"Many that do will become inflamed against you" ... Sounds a lot like the article says they would be inflamed. May I can't read this line though.

But I do think that case can be made that Calvinists think of themselves as possessing something of a god-like status. But I also know that in that case they are deceived and wrong.

The same case can be made about arminians. Just look at your arrogance towards me. Why do you think you know everything and I konw nothing??? Isn't that arrogance on your part?? Of course it is.

One of the evidences of Christ's deity was that he could read the hearts of men. Are you laying claim to being deity?

Nope, and nothing I said would lead you to that conclusion.

I have seen them wrench and tear the scriptures, wresting them out of context, citing prooftexts but fleeing from actual exegesis, denying plain statements of scripture by foolish attempts of setting up contradictions by citing a different verse from another passage. Yes, I am sadly familiar with Calvinist tactics.

Then you need to actually study because I have studied CAlvinism from the Scriptures and know that this is not the method used to support it. I would love to indulge in actual exegesis with you. The last attempt ended very poorly when you failed to "exegete."

And that is why I would recommend that anyone with that kind of idea should not be a "moderator" of any kind regarding the issue because it would be impossible for them to be impartial regarding the issue.

Let me remind you again that theology plays no role in moderating at all. I am impartial as a moderator, not as a theologian. Trust me, this was tried before and every single attempt to show bias came up empty. It won't work this time because I moderate less now that I used to.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ignazio_er:
Larry, you ask why I'm not posting on this thread any more.

Did I ask this?? I don't remember that. I think I simply said that you were no longer posting here and I didn't know why. So, unless you have evidence to the contrary, you are wrong. I do not remember asking you why you weren't posting here.

Larry, had I not read a few of your threads it might surprise me to see you at once try to claim the high road by whining about the awesome responsibility of keeping private messages private, while at the same time in many place revealing that in the private messages I say I am not a Calvinist. What a load of self righteous hypocrisy. Well, I free from your bondage!

Didn't know I had enough power to keep you in bondage. I underestimated my own abilities

But while you are here, would you mind showing us a place where I said something about private messages???

And while you are here, would you mind telling us why you revealed the contents of my private message in the thread you started about James Gruet, both here and in its proper history forum???

Something doesn't make sense here: You complain that I revealed the contents of your PMs to me (which information was not in question; it was already known). But you, prior to that, reveal the contents of my PM to you. You are inconsistent. I think the words you used were "self-righteous hypocrisy." You complain that I did what you had already done. Why be inconsistent?? Why not be straightforward and tell people that you were complaining about something you had done.

Here are the posts in question, which were initiated by Larry after he DELETED my thread about James Gruet.

I deleted your thread because it was in the wrong forum. You started a thread about history in a theology forum. I encouraged you to start the thread in the appropriate forum, which you did.

I will edit your account of the PMs to reflect what was truly said. Then people will be able to see your lowhanded tactics.

Here are the private threads Larry has crying about

Would you mind showing us where i cried about anything??? If you don't show us that, then retract this and issue an apology for being dishonest.

Pastor Larry (what he actually said was): YOur topic on history has been removed from the CvA forum due to the long standing policy of being a theology forum rather than a history forum. In the CvA forum we are dedicated to discussing theology, not what a particular man may or may not have done.

Please feel free to restart your topic in an appropriate thread where history is discussed so that we can keep this forum on topics of legitimate concern to the debate about soteriology.

Thanks,

AS you can see, this is greatly different than what Ignazio-er said when he put: Nanee Nanne Boo Boo! I deleted your topic about James Gruet. Restart it in history if you want! In this forum, soteriology is the only legitimate topic.

Pastor Larry (his actual words): I find all I need about the founder of my religion in Scripture. The reason why such topics are not allowed in the CvA forum is that the forum is not about Calvin or Arminius. Those are topics reserved for history or all other discussions. This forum is about theology. I am not a follower of Calvin in the least little bit. I have never read anything by him, save a page or two out of one of his commentaries for a study I did in seminary.

Please do not mistakenly think that the doctrines of grace rise or fall on who Calvin was or what he did.

Please help to keep the forum devoted to the theology of soteriology.

Again, as you can see, quite different than Ignazio-ers account of it when he said, Calvin didn't found my religion. In fact I know almost nothing about him, and I am bragging to you of never reading more than a page or two from his commentaries in my whole life. The fact that I never read any of his work thereby proves I am not a blind follower of his.

Needless to say I was a little tweaked, so I tweaked him back. In the process I discovered that Larry, the Great Calvinist, HAS NEVER READ CALVIN. He wouldn't know Calvin's work if it fell from the sky and smacked him in the head.

You shoulnd't have been tweaked. You posted something in the wrong place and I gently reminded you, inviting you to post it in an appropriate place.

As for reading Calvin, you are way behind the times here. I admitted that well over a year ago. And you, like everyone else, has failed to show why it makes a difference. I am not a follower of Calvin. He is no hero of mine. Why should I read him??

And now you know why I started the thread about who actually read Calvin and why Larry will not respond to it.

What do you want me to say over there? You asked "Anyone actuall read John Calvin" (and had the gall to post my PM without my permission). I am flattered that you said I was prominent. Most people don't accord me that kind of honor.

By my quick count, five different people responded. That means several thousand didn't respond. And you seem to pick on me for not responding to a thread I had nothing to contribute to. What's your point??

People who have been here for a while know I haven't read Calvin and they know why. That is old news.

Bottom line here again, participation in this forum needs to be on theological issues, not your personal issues. Please participate on that note.

 

[Kiffin]

MajorB said,

I have never talked to a member of a pulpit committee who had any clue what a calvinist was. I've had them call me and ask, and after I explained, they still did not get it. Once when I candidated, I explained to the committee that I was a Calvinist, and they were very silent. Finally, one fellow said, "well, does that mean yer agin closed communion with wine, or does that mean you're fer it?"

Excellent point. Most pulpit committee's seem to be more worried about what you going to do to bring in young people? How much money is it going to cost to pay him? Does he want to be full time or Bi-vocational? and Theology seems to be way down on the priority list of so many. Sadly, the average lay person does not have the same interest in theology that we on this board do.

 

[Ignazio_er]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
But while you are here, would you mind showing us a place where I said something about private messages???

In the post at the top of the third page in this thread, where you said

Those other posts include things that are private communications which I am not at liberty to reveal here.

Will you publicly rebuke yourself for revealing a confidential communication?


threads it might surprise me to see you at once try to claim the high road by whining about the awesome responsibility of keeping private messages private, while at the same time in many place revealing that in the private messages I say I am not a Calvinist. What a load of self righteous hypocrisy. Well, I free from your bondage![/QUOTE][/qb]Didn't know I had enough power to keep you in bondage. I underestimated my own abilities


And while you are here, would you mind telling us why you revealed the contents of my private message in the thread you started about James Gruet, both here and in its proper history forum???

Something doesn't make sense here: You complain that I revealed the contents of your PMs to me. But you, prior to that, reveal the contents of my PM to you.

Actually Larry, you revealed first, no matter how you try to deny it. I'm beginning to understand that you have trouble remember what you wrote 10 minutes ago. I'll try to keep your special needs in mind in the future.


You are inconsistent. I think the words you used were "self-righteous hypocrisy." You complain that I did what you had already done. Why be inconsistent?? Why not be straightforward and tell people that you were complaining about something you had done.

In fact I know almost nothing about [Calvin], and I am bragging to you of never reading more than a page or two from his commentaries in my whole life.

Ummm, I imagine you meant this to be a slam on me. I'm laughing with you here Larry, not at you, ROFL

Bottom line here again, participation in this forum needs to be on theological issues, not your personal issues.

I'm the kettle, you're the pot.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ignazio_er:
Those other posts include things that are private communications which I am not at liberty to reveal here.

[I didn't reveal the private communications. You are the one who made that public. I wouldn't have quoted it at all. And you used the word "whining" for some strange reason. There was nothing whining about what I said. You tried to enflame the emotions with that word. But you were wrong.

Will you publicly rebuke yourself for revealing a confidential communication?

I didn't. You revealed them. You made it very clear in the public posting area that you are not a Calvinist. There was nothing secret about that.

]Actually Larry, you revealed first, no matter how you try to deny it. I'm beginning to understand that you have trouble remember what you wrote 10 minutes ago. I'll try to keep your special needs in mind in the future.

let's look shall we?? Your post was December 29, 6:18 PM (I have a copy on my computer). The very first reference I made to it when I revealed nothing of where it came from was Dec 30, 8:11 pm. So the truth is that you are once again dishonest. You posted it first by more than 24 hours.

You see, when you start this stuff, you forget that I make sure of what I post before I post it. I am not slack in my research or writing for the most part. I do make mistakes from time to time, but if I got out on a limb about something, you may be assured that I can prove it. Which I just did, showing that you are dead wrong.

In fact I know almost nothing about [Calvin], and I am bragging to you of never reading more than a page or two from his commentaries in my whole life.

[/QUOTE]Who is this a quote from?? I didn't say that. Do you want me to prove it or do you want to change it??

[qb]Ummm, I imagine you meant this to be a slam on me. I'm laughing with you here Larry, not at you, ROFL

I didn't mean it to be a slam on you. I don't even know what you are talking about. And I am not laughing.

If you want to continue posting, post on theology. Do not make stuff up to try to defend what you have done. Keep your posts on theology from here on out.

 

[Ignazio_er]

I suggest searching the thread and rereading your own posts.

[ January 02, 2004, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Ignazio_er ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Which shows that you have no real answer to support you. You have been caught in dishonesty and misrepresentation. Your only reply is "go read your own posts." I have numerous times. How do you think I knew you weren't telling the truth. If you cannot be more careful in handling the clear truth, then you need to find somewhere else to post.

We can debate Calvinism vs Arminianism and have a debate about which is the truth. But when you distort my words and make it appear that I said somethign I didn't, and then take your words and attribute them to me, that is dishonest. When you accuse me of starting something, when the time stamps on the post clearly show the opposite to be true, then you are dishonest. You need to have a serious discussion with yourself about your methods.

This discussion is closed.