Line Between Heresy and Difference of Opinion

[Iconoclast]

But it is evident that you cannot refute it. I can give you links to Dave Hunt too. Will you listen to them? I am not interested in your audio sermons. The Bible clearly says that these believers were carnal. Why do you deny the truth?

DHK,

I can refute it and have.

I am not interested in your audio sermons.

These audio sermons and the article present a clear and irrefutable case against this false teaching.....in other words the truth of the issue.

if you are not interested in the truth here what can i say to you???

The words and tenses used solve the issue ....he says they were acting out of character......they were acting ...as if they were...natural men.

You avoid the sermons and article because you cannot answer them.

I can give you links to Dave Hunt too. Will you listen to them?

yes I would listen or read them DHK...and then I will refute his error openly.
This will not be a problem. You can post publically Hunt or anyone else and I will read and respond biblically. be my guest.....but then.....will you do the same with these links:laugh::wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

I am certain to be "corrected" but from the passage in Genesis 4, here is what I personally glean.

I see this as God providing an initial teaching on the concept that sin is to only be dealt with in God's eyes through the shedding of blood. Cain felt the all to familiar human emotion of rejection.

Hello QF,

Here is the issue QF....

Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.



that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

 

[DHK]

DHK,

I can refute it and have.

You can't "refute" the Word of God, Icon. You either believe or you don't.
Here it is.
1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
--Brethren...I speak unto as carnal.
They were carnal; carnal Christians. There is nothing to refute. You either believe it or you don't.

You avoid a simple "refutation" because you can't. It is called disbelief.

yes I would listen or read them DHK...and then I will refute his error openly.
This will not be a problem. You can post publically Hunt or anyone else and I will read and respond biblically. be my guest.....but then.....will you do the same with these links:laugh::wavey:

One thing I would have you do. You stated without any reference whatsoever that Dave Hunt believes "Calvinists are not saved." Either retract the statement or document it. You can't post such statements like that without documentation.

 

[quantumfaith]

Hello QF,

Here is the issue QF....

Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.



that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

Explain please "if thou doest well, thou shalt thou not be accepted"? If thous not doest well, sin lieth at the door? Could he have made a choice against his nature?

 

[DHK]

Dave Hunt believes Calvinists are not saved.

This is slander and needs to be retracted. If not another moderator should step in and deal with it. It is not a good testimony for the board. Here is what Dave Hunt has said (one of many quotes you can find on his website) concerning Calvinism:

Why should Calvinism be such a complex and apparently esoteric subject that it would require years to comprehend? Such an attitude could very well intimidate many into accepting this belief simply because such a vast array of highly respected theologians and evangelical leaders espouse it. Surely the great majority of Calvinists are ordinary Christians. On what basis, then, without the expertise and intense study that I apparently lacked, were they able to understand and accept it?

http://www.thebereancall.org/content/who-can-understand-gospel

Icon, I wait for a retraction of your statement.

 

[thomas15]

Earth to Icon....

Stop digging.

 

[Van]

Hi DHK, Calvinism relies on a defense using misrepresentation of the views of others. It cannot stand on its own.

You asked me to support my views about the "scrubbing" of doctrinal statements to specify "past, present and future." If I would make these kind of arguments, which can be found all over the internet, you might give me an infraction for arguing an unorthodox view. Are you saying on this forum, we can discuss the topic of inherit omniscience?
If the answer is yes, make sure Skandelon and C4K and Dr. Bob are on on board. Are we Baptists or dictatorial elitists?

 

[TCGreek]

I'm a pretty strict definer of heresy. Too many times we encounter accusations and definitions of heresy that don't fit a proper understanding of it.

Heresy is a clear violation of foundational theological belief(s.)

An example of some heresies:
- denial of Jesus' humanity and divinity
- denial of the Trinitarian nature of the Godhead
- denial of resurrection of Jesus

Some things that aren't heresy (but are commonly cited as such around here)
- differences over Calvinist or Arminian (this is a debate that usually lacks nuance anyways)
- use of progressive methodology for worship or church polity
- women pastors/elders/deacons
- not singing all the verses of Just As I Am
- not being Republican
- viewing the King James as the only inspired version of the Bible
- a view of the atonement of Jesus as anything but penal substitutionary

Heresy has always been concerned with grievous actions and beliefs. When we wield its use too freely, we are stepping towards dangerous territory.

I second this list.

 

[Iconoclast]

This is slander and needs to be retracted. If not another moderator should step in and deal with it. It is not a good testimony for the board. Here is what Dave Hunt has said (one of many quotes you can find on his website) concerning Calvinism:

http://www.thebereancall.org/content/who-can-understand-gospel

Icon, I wait for a retraction of your statement.

The only slander here is from you toward me. far from a retraction DHK I have here your hero...posting this comment which i posted earlier...

take note....it is from your same source beareancall....so before you call for moderators, or mommy to help you ...read it for yourself-

http://www.thebereancall.org/content/september-2005-q-and-a-2
Notice the last paragraph of his answer:thumbs::wavey:

Now..there is your documentation..so stop crying.:laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

QUOTE]You can't "refute" the Word of God, Icon. You either believe or you don't. [/QUOTE]

Correct DHK...that is why I offered you three sources...i could offer hundreds which actually teach what the passage says.
I do believe the word of God.That is why i know what you posted and believed to be a falsehood.

Here it is.
1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
--Brethren...I speak unto as carnal.

I explained this before and you were unable to accept it DHK...lets see if time has made you wiser:thumbs:

They were carnal; carnal Christians.

There are only two kinds of men DHK..carnal/spiritual....

Christians...have the Spirit and have been made new creatures in Christ

are you following along?

Paul addresses sin in this church. One sin was sectarianism...picking one minister over another....

Paul rebukes them...he wants to speak to them as Spiritual brothers...instead of the natural unsaved men from 2:14 who cannot receive the truth of God.

Pay attention DHK...hint and explanation: in the text itself

And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal,

1]He calls them brethren- christians , spiritual men-
2] and yet says .....he cannot speak to them AS SPIRITUAL......get it.

They are Spiritual Brothers-saved....but they are acting out of character by committing this sin......
How do we know that.....because he says instead of speaking to them

AS UNTO CARNAL.... he does not say they are carnal christians as if there was such a thing,,, he says they as carnal....as the unsaved....

the sources I provided for you show from the greek words used from chapter 2 and 3 that is exactly what Paul is teaching...

For you to dismiss the teaching is on you. So no...I would never suggest anyone can refute God's word as you post. I just refute your posting of error concerning it:thumbs:

There is nothing to refute.

Your false statements are being refuted.the text is clear.

If I say a persons skin is very rough....as leather.....that does not mean the skin is leather. paul does the same thing here.

The carnal christian heresy is a product of the notes in the scofield bible, which the article references directly...before you hysterically cry about that also. If you read the article or listened to sound teaching on it , it would spare you from this diversion that you are employing.

I will not lose any sleep over you believing or not believing the truth here.

Let me ask you something DHK...do you believe as christians we should seek truth in doctrine,and more important to be truthful and not mis-represent others even in a forum such as this????

Your concern for how this forum appears to others should be reflected in how you post also.

I offered to read any link by your man , Hunt or any other who opposes truth...so bring it on if you can.

So instead of waiting for me to recant...I am waiting for you to offer your articles ,sermons or whatever.

You either believe it or you don't.

You avoid a simple "refutation" because you can't. It is called disbelief.

Do not lie my friend ..DHK...I offered you an answer maybe a year ago...you know it.....do not make me dig it out of the archives..That would be embarassing for you.

I have to go back to work now....nice to visit with you:wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

Explain please "if thou doest well, thou shalt thou not be accepted"? If thous not doest well, sin lieth at the door? Could he have made a choice against his nature?

QF,

Man is responsible before God to make the right choice in every part of life.
Man is fully responsible. A sinner is bound by his nature.
When a sinner acts with contrary choice..does what we would say is the right thing...that is the common grace of God at work, restraining sin in this world.
Abel obeyed God ,and we have no indication that Abel provoked Cain.

His brother had a hidden agenda against him that was boiling up and results in his murdering his brother. he had the opportunity to do well and be accepted,and yet he sinned against his brother.
He had the word of God and instruction not to do this...and yet he sinned.

When someone twists someones words to make a case against them, there is a hidden turmoil that is boiling away.....when they get the chance, they unleash it like we see in this account.....sin lieth at the door.

 

[Iconoclast]

Earth to Icon....

Stop digging.

Hello Thomas,

I would prefer to move forward, but am being pulled back. Truth is important in a public forum, and in private life. An examination of this thread will reveal the sequence of events as they have unfolded.
Sometimes these issues of truth have to be hashed out, before progress can take place.

 

[saturneptune]

This is slander and needs to be retracted. If not another moderator should step in and deal with it. It is not a good testimony for the board. Here is what Dave Hunt has said (one of many quotes you can find on his website) concerning Calvinism:

http://www.thebereancall.org/content/who-can-understand-gospel

Icon, I wait for a retraction of your statement.

I started this thread, and appreciate DHK steering it back to its original intent. What is the line between opinion and heresy? This was never meant to be a rant by an out of control poster.

 

[DHK]

The only slander here is from you toward me. far from a retraction DHK I have here your hero...posting this comment which i posted earlier...

take note....it is from your same source beareancall....so before you call for moderators, or mommy to help you ...read it for yourself-

http://www.thebereancall.org/content/september-2005-q-and-a-2
Notice the last paragraph of his answer:thumbs::wavey:

Now..there is your documentation..so stop crying.:laugh:

You mean this quote where he says that most of you Calvinists are Christians???

Could someone who believes this false gospel of Calvinism be truly saved? Fortunately, many Calvinists (you among them) were saved before becoming Calvinists. They now malign God by saying that He is pleased to damn multitudes though He could save all—and that He predestines multitudes to the Lake of Fire before they are even born. But having believed the gospel before becoming Calvinists, they “shall not come into condemnation, but [have] passed from death unto life” (Jn:5:24). Those who only know the false gospel of Calvinism are not saved, while those who are saved and ought to know better but teach these heresies will be judged for doing so.

What is he referring to when he refers to "this false gospel of Calvinism"?
Go back and check. He is right. No one can be saved through any other gospel but that which Paul preached (Gal.1:8), and that isn't Calvinism. If he does he is accursed. Calvinism is not the gospel; it is a system of theology. One doesn't get saved by embracing Calvinism.
Most are saved before embracing Calvinism. Is that not correct?
My wife was born into the Presbyterian church. Her baptism did not save her. That is Calvinism. Is that what you preach? Take Calvinism all the way. It ends up at Presbyterianism. That is what Calvin was--the founder of the Presbyterian Church.

Salvation if by grace through faith and that not of yourself.
Hunt believes that; I believe that, and to my knowledge you also believe the same.
That being the case what has he said that is wrong?

Your slander is wrong.

 

[saturneptune]

Having been a member of a PCA church for 25 years, there was never a debate on God's sovereignty, predestination, or election. My original reasoning for joining a Baptist church 35 years ago was baptism, local church autonomy, and hierarchies. In local church life, there is a difference of opinion on God's sovereignty, but it is not a constant debate or source of discussion. It has never affected church unity.

The constant threads on this subject are two man made positions, Calvinism and Arminianism. Then there is another way to look at the subject, the Bible. There are some on this board that have freed themselves from the two position arguing that has produced nothing. There is always a way that seems right to man (both sides), that leads to destruction.

The purpose of this thread is to get some to realize the seriousness of words like heretic, heresy, idolitry, and idol worship. KJVO and Calvin threads seem to lead the way to the loose use of these words.

The issue of Mr. Hunt and the carnal Christian have been totally misrepresented by one poster. When called on it by a spiritually mature poster, the person refuses to listen. The truth is obvious. It is obvious there is no in depth theological thinking. This person does the five point Calvinist position no favors.

There is a time for debate, sometimes sharp, and a time for edifying posts. However, a poster that never gives an encouraging word or uplifting message is out of control.

When someone constantly says to several posters "you are not interested in the truth" or "you believe in false doctrine" or you are arrogant, then, as indirect as it may seem, you might as well call the unsaved, lost, or a heretic. This is the exact thing this thread is trying to stop.

 

[DHK]

Correct DHK...that is why I offered you three sources...i could offer hundreds which actually teach what the passage says.
I do believe the word of God.That is why i know what you posted and believed to be a falsehood.

Please understand the Scripture:

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
The word "answer" or "defense" is not the Greek word for "audio sermon."
Peter's intention was that you prepare your heart with the Word of God and give a defense with the Word.

I explained this before and you were unable to accept it DHK...lets see if time has made you wiser:thumbs:

I accept a Biblical view.

There are only two kinds of men DHK..carnal/spiritual....

That is not true. It is an artificial dichotomy imposed by you (and perhaps others) that the Bible does not teach.
First the two kinds of people in the world are the lost and the saved.
But among the saved there are many type of Christians: carnal and otherwise. Sometimes you make carnal posts. So do others. To eliminate carnality from the Christian life is to eliminate various stages of spiritual growth and/or the entire process of sanctification. This is what Paul was teaching them. They were still babes in Christ. They hadn't grown in the Lord. They were not yet able to eat meat.

Every Christian grows at different rates. It is a lifelong process called sanctification. What did Paul say in the beginning of the chapter?

1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
--Who were these people in chapter three?
1. Brethren.
2. the sanctified in Christ Jesus.
3. called to be saints.

Verse seven says that they had all the spiritual gifts available to them. No unsaved person has that access. They were Christians, carnal, but Christians. They had been sanctified initially at salvation--that is initially set apart for God and from the world. But sanctification is a process as well. And they had not grown as Paul said they should have grown. Therefore they were carnal.

Christians...have the Spirit and have been made new creatures in Christ
are you following along?

Not every Christian is a "supersaint." Some are carnal, worldly, etc.
We all grow at different rates. Sanctification is a process. You don't reach the plateau of Christianity the day you are saved. That "Lordship Salvation" philosophy is the next thing to heresy if it isn't.

Paul addresses sin in this church. One sin was sectarianism...picking one minister over another....

They were all sins of carnality--sins of the flesh.

Paul rebukes them...he wants to speak to them as Spiritual brothers...instead of the natural unsaved men from 2:14 who cannot receive the truth of God.

1Cor.2:14 is set in contrast to the two previous verses (12,13). We have the Spirit indwelling us in contrast to the unsaved which does not and therefore cannot understand spiritual things. You are not looking at this in the right context. Furthermore, saved individuals who live like the unsaved may be carnal Christians. Do people know that you are a Christian all the time wherever you go?

1]He calls them brethren- christians , spiritual men-
2] and yet says .....he cannot speak to them AS SPIRITUAL......get it.

That is right. He speaks to them as carnal for they were carnal.

They are Spiritual Brothers-saved....but they are acting out of character by committing this sin......
How do we know that.....because he says instead of speaking to them

AS UNTO CARNAL.... he does not say they are carnal christians as if there was such a thing,,, he says they as carnal....as the unsaved....

And therefore they are carnal Christians; backslidden Christians if you will. They are acting somewhat like the unsaved. They have not grown. They are still on milk. Sanctification is a process.

If I say a persons skin is very rough....as leather.....that does not mean the skin is leather. paul does the same thing here.

You don't read carefully enough or far enough into the text. The first verse uses the expression "as carnal." Read verse 3:

1 Corinthians 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

It is plain that he calls them carnal Christians. YOU ARE CARNAL.
It is not as carnal here, but rather they are carnal. It can't get any plainer.

The carnal christian heresy is a product of the notes in the scofield bible, which the article references directly...before you hysterically cry about that also. If you read the article or listened to sound teaching on it , it would spare you from this diversion that you are employing.

I don't use the Scofield Bible.
This thread is about heresy. Paul doesn't preach heresy. To deny what Paul is teaching would be sad. But to call what Paul teaches heresy, would be even worse.

Let me ask you something DHK...do you believe as christians we should seek truth in doctrine,and more important to be truthful and not mis-represent others even in a forum such as this????

I was saved when I was 20, having never heard the gospel before that time. If Lordship salvation was true, then I, as an ignorant and Biblically illiterate Christian should have gone to the mission field right away. There were many things in my life that the Lord had to change. I did not become a mature 20 year old Christian in one day. It is a process called sanctification. If you deny the fact that there are carnal Christians you might as well deny that a process called sanctification exists. You start denying one part of the Bible and you just don't stop. In this one example all three doctrines:
"carnal christian philosophy"
Lordship salvation
and the doctrine of sanctification itself
are either attacked or redefined as heresy.

I offered to read any link by your man , Hunt or any other who opposes truth...so bring it on if you can.

So instead of waiting for me to recant...I am waiting for you to offer your articles ,sermons or whatever.

I have already given you a couple of quotes.

Do not lie my friend ..DHK...I offered you an answer maybe a year ago...you know it.....do not make me dig it out of the archives..That would be embarassing for you.

I have to go back to work now....nice to visit with you:wavey:

I don't live in the past; I live in the present. I suggest you do the same.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

QUOTE]You mean this quote where he says that most of you Calvinists are Christians???[/QUOTE]

No.....this one-

Those who only know the false gospel of Calvinism are not saved,

What is he referring to when he refers to "this false gospel of Calvinism"?
Go back and check. He is right. No one can be saved through any other gospel but that which Paul preached (Gal.1:8), and that isn't Calvinism.

Paul preached every point of Calvinism throughout his writings.He speaks of the gospel being the power of God unto salvation.He speaks of the gospel as according to the scriptures.....all the scriptures and the truths of God's covenant love for his elect. This is known as Calvinism.There is no other gospel.

15 And I make known to you, brethren, the good news that I proclaimed to you, which also ye did receive, in which also ye have stood,

2 through which also ye are being saved, in what words I proclaimed good news to you, if ye hold fast, except ye did believe in vain,

3 for I delivered to you first, what also I did receive, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Writings,

4 and that he was buried, and that he hath risen on the third day, according to the Writings,

Paul links the historic facts of the gospel...to the writings...the scriptures...all of them.

. Calvinism is not the gospel; it is a system of theology. One doesn't get saved by embracing Calvinism

.

While it is a system of theology.....it is the good news of scripture.It is the teaching Jesus gave. When we are drawn to Jesus by the Spirit...they get Him and His doctrine....we call it calvinism. It is simply the teaching of scripture.

Most are saved before embracing Calvinism. Is that not correct?

Most are saved before embracing any part of theology in great detail.
Sinners are saved by God.....many times knowing very little of theological positions historically held .
I am glad that God saves sinners however he saves them.
To suggest that someone has to be schooled in every facet of theology of any kind is foolish. Sinners are saved by God when he quickens them.

My wife was born into the Presbyterian church. Her baptism did not save her. That is Calvinism. Is that what you preach

?

Now you repeat Hunt's error. Biblical Presbyterians do not hold to baptismal regeneration. That is a false idea held by baptists who do not understand the Padeo view, but make a caricature out of it...so they do not have to deal with it honestly.

Take Calvinism all the way. It ends up at Presbyterianism. That is what Calvin was--the founder of the Presbyterian Church.

In speaking of calvinism we are 9 times out of ten speaking of the 5 points...not Calvins total theology....so i am not going to quibble about words.

Salvation if by grace through faith and that not of yourself.
Hunt believes that; I believe that, and to my knowledge you also believe the same.

I have seen you acknowledge that we all believe this. Hunt having said what he did in 2005...got ripped everywhere for his false comments.
If he has amended them...that would be progress.

That being the case what has he said that is wrong?

Your slander is wrong.

It is not slander to quote what he said directly......

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Please understand the Scripture:
[/COLOR]
1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
The word "answer" or "defense" is not the Greek word for "audio sermon."
Peter's intention was that you prepare your heart with the Word of God and give a defense with the Word.

I accept a Biblical view.

I know what the verse means DHK. If we were face to face....I can make such a defense. That being said.....if we were in the first century and the Apostle Paul was in town, or Peter...i would be foolish to ignore them or their wisdom to come to scriptural truth.
For you to resist or despise audio sermons,commentaries, or any teaching that offers correction is exceedingly foolish.
The reason you do not look at these sources is that it would force you to give up these false ideas you express,and yet you tell me to seek truth?

You say you accept a biblical view, and yet when i offer you teaching from men who teach the greek and hebrew....you do not welcome it. This does not add up.:thumbs:

I said:
There are only two kinds of men DHK..carnal/spiritual....

That is not true. It is an artificial dichotomy imposed by you (and perhaps others) that the Bible does not teach.

Of course it is true. I will quote from one of the links you do not want to read;

In Romans 8:1-9 there is a division stated, but it is not between carnal and spiritual Christians. It is a division between those who walk after the flesh (the unregenerate) and those who walk after the Spirit (they that are Christ's). There is no third category.

First the two kinds of people in the world are the lost and the saved.

Correct...just as the link says.and as I said also.

But among the saved there are many type of Christians: carnal and otherwise.

No...this is the beginning of your false reasoning. here again from the article you do not want to consider;
Again, in Galatians 5:17-24 we have only two classes or categories -- those that do the works of the flesh and those that are led by the Spirit. There is no third or fourth class or group.
My purpose, then, in these pages is to contend that the division of Christians into two groups or classes is unbiblical. I want also to show the dangerous implications and present-day results of this teaching.

Sometimes you make carnal posts. So do others. To eliminate carnality from the Christian life is to eliminate various stages of spiritual growth and/or the entire process of sanctification. This is what Paul was teaching them. They were still babes in Christ. They hadn't grown in the Lord. They were not yet able to eat meat.
Every Christian grows at different rates. It is a lifelong process called sanctification.

No one denies sanctification, In fact the correct biblical teaching of sanctification eliminates the false idea of so called carnal chrisitans completely.



--

Who were these people in chapter three?
1. Brethren.
2. the sanctified in Christ Jesus.
3. called to be saints.

Verse seven says that they had all the spiritual gifts available to them. No unsaved person has that access. They were Christians

,

No one says they were not christians....if a person can be categorized as carnal.....they are not christians but carnal in the heart.

carnal, but Christians.

no....

They had been sanctified initially at salvation--that is initially set apart for God and from the world. But sanctification is a process as well. And they had not grown as Paul said they should have grown

.

Yes...that is why Paul was rebuking them.

Therefore they were carnal.

wrong conclusion on your part.

Not every Christian is a "supersaint."

Super saint??? no....Saints yes...spiritual ...yes

Some are carnal, worldly, etc

.

No...not one Paul is clear here and in romans 8......carnal or spiritual but not both at the same time.

We all grow at different rates. Sanctification is a process. You don't reach the plateau of Christianity the day you are saved

.

Correct... we can agree here.

That "Lordship Salvation" philosophy is the next thing to heresy if it isn't.

Anyone who is a christian knows Jesus as Lord.....
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

they do NOT make Him Lord.....He is Lord.

They were all sins of carnality--sins of the flesh.

Furthermore, saved individuals who live like the unsaved may be carnal Christians.

No...they are carnal in the heart.Saved individuals do not practice sin,living like the unsaved.
15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

And therefore they are carnal Christians; backslidden Christians if you will

.

A backslider is an apostate biblically.....that is another thread.

They are acting somewhat like the unsaved. They have not grown. They are still on milk. Sanctification is a process.

Paul rebuked them for it. the "audio sermons you do not want to listen to, make it clear opening up the greek words and tenses....

If you deny the fact that there are carnal Christians you might as well deny that a process called sanctification exists.

There are only spiritual christians biblically. new creatures in Christ.

You start denying one part of the Bible and you just don't stop.

Well then...stop denying this passage and romans 8

 

[DHK]

DHK

You mean this quote where he says that most of you Calvinists are Christians???

No.....this one-
Those who only know the false gospel of Calvinism are not saved,

I agree with the statement. One is not saved by believing in a false gospel. I thought you would agree with that as well. Whether it is the false gospel of easy-believism, or Calvinism or Arminianism, or whatever it is, one cannot be saved via a false gospel. That is not a difficult concept to grasp.
Calvinism is not the gospel.
If it is then for 1500 years the gospel was denied to all who believed. Not even the Apostles were saved, because they didn't have Calvin to believe.
The Bible speaks of the gospel of Christ, not the gospel of Calvin.
I agree. Those who believe the false gospel of Calvinism are not saved. The gospel of Christ saves; not the gospel of Calvin, Spurgeon, MacArthur, Icon, or any other man. It is the gospel of Christ and only of Christ.
Icon: Do you preach the gospel of Christ or the gospel of Icon?
Think it through!

Paul preached every point of Calvinism throughout his writings.He speaks of the gospel being the power of God unto salvation.He speaks of the gospel as according to the scriptures.....all the scriptures and the truths of God's covenant love for his elect. This is known as Calvinism.There is no other gospel.

In this "neo-Calvinism" that most on this board are advocating you are not even agreeing with Calvin much less Christ or Paul.
1. Calvin himself did not follow or believe the tenets of TULIP.
In fact Calvin didn't even speak English. That acronym came into usage well after Calvin died. Some of them he didn't believe.
2. Paul could not preach that which he did not know. Calvin got many of his ideas from Augustine, but not even Augustine was alive during the time of Paul. If Calvin got his ideas from Augustine, and he did, why don't you believe in Purgatory and baptismal regeneration as well?
3. Even in today's Calvinism, Icon, if you really were a Calvinist you would forsake your Baptist heritage and go and join a Presbyterian church. That is the origin of Calvinism and that is its logical end. Why are you there sitting on the fence in the middle of nowhere. Choose one or the other.

Paul did not preach Calvinism and neither did any other Biblical writer. Calvin preached Calvinism, and his followers did as well. Let's use common sense here.

Paul links the historic facts of the gospel...to the writings...the scriptures...all of them.

You quoted 1Cor.15:1-4.
That has nothing to do with that which is commonly called Calvinism today.
Nothing of TULIP is mentioned in 1Cor.15:1-4. Your defense is lacking.

While it is a system of theology.....it is the good news of scripture.It is the teaching Jesus gave. When we are drawn to Jesus by the Spirit...they get Him and His doctrine....we call it calvinism. It is simply the teaching of scripture.

Be truthful. God elects some to heaven and damns others to hell is not the gospel, and is not the teaching of Christ. It is the outcome of determinism. And it is hardly good news.

Most are saved before embracing any part of theology in great detail.
Sinners are saved by God.....many times knowing very little of theological positions historically held .
I am glad that God saves sinners however he saves them.
To suggest that someone has to be schooled in every facet of theology of any kind is foolish. Sinners are saved by God when he quickens them.

Then you have no reason to call "a system of theology" like Calvinism, "the gospel. You have just contradicted yourself. In fact you have just agreed with Hunt. Those who call Calvinism the gospel and believe in it as such are not saved. It is not the gospel; it is a system of theology. People are saved before they know much of theological positions as you just admitted.

Now you repeat Hunt's error. Biblical Presbyterians do not hold to baptismal regeneration. That is a false idea held by baptists who do not understand the Padeo view, but make a caricature out of it...so they do not have to deal with it honestly.

You are right; they don't. They believe in infant baptism as taking the place of circumcision. It brings them into the "covenant," or so they believe. The same question remains:
Why not join a Presbyterian Church? That is the be all and end all of Calvinism.

In speaking of calvinism we are 9 times out of ten speaking of the 5 points...not Calvins total theology....so i am not going to quibble about words.

Yes I know. Those same points that Calvin himself could not express the same way you do. He didn't even speak English. How ironic! He didn't believe in TULIP, per se!

It is not slander to quote what he said directly......

Surely the great majority of Calvinists are ordinary Christians. On what basis, then, without the expertise and intense study that I apparently lacked, were they able to understand and accept it?
http://www.thebereancall.org/content/who-can-understand-gospel

No you denied what he said (as in the above) and slandered him instead.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK,

You and others are hung up on Calvin.We are not discussing him.

Calvinism is the overall teaching. You have stated your view,We do not agree on much.If someone is not teaching what is known as calvinism they have a defective gospel.Thankfully God is sovereign and will save All that The Father gives to the Son, despite weak teaching that abounds.
The other errors discussed lead to heresy that the Op was getting at. You have still avoided the links as I knew you would. If you want to offer things from your man dave hunt, start a new thread and have at it.

Ps.... I would go to many a biblical Presbyterian church who hold to scripture, than many false and compromising baptist churches who turn from the historic faith. Some who compromise truth to say they get along with tares do no favor to the Cause of God and truth.
I am a baptist however,who holds the biblical teaching that is described as Calvinism. the Ot saints were ...calvinists...before calvin was born.That is what you do not grasp .