My thoughts on Calvinism.

[Brother Bob]

Strange you are the only one who has a problem with my posting. Are you an American or from Iraq?

 

[tragic_pizza]

Strange you are the only one who has a problem with my posting. Are you an American or from Iraq?

What a very odd thing to ask.

I think that this is not the place for personal attacks and conflict. Please contact me via PM.

 

[Brother Bob]

Not a personal attack, I don't think you are from this Country if you can't understand me. I don't wish to contact you by pm.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Not a personal attack, I don't think you are from this Country if you can't understand me. I don't wish to contact you by pm.

Then stop the silliness.

 

[BobRyan]

I see no reason to comment further. Your accusations are, at least from the Reformed understanding of theology, baseless straw men.

If one were to pretend that the verse in Revelation to which you cite were referencing salvation (which it is not), one would note (as I have repeatedly) that Christ knocks. We don't knock on Christ's door, as many Evangelicals would apparently insist.

If you could bring yourself to actually quote the text and the reference - you would see your blunder clearly.

Simply repeating your own mantra of what you 'wish were true' or "wish were helpful to you in the case of Rev 3" is not helping your case at all.

you remain stuck in that hole - and yet you keep digging! What do you think you are accomplishing by that? Why not respond with substance instead?

In Rev 3 Christ states that HE is on the OUTSIDE knocking and the lost sinner is ALONE and on the INSIDE. Arminians ALWAYS argue that Christ DRAWS ALL mankind - Christ is the light that coming into the world ENLIGHTENS EVERY man - Christ is on the outside KNOCKING on the door.

Calvinism blindly asserts that the sinner alone on the inside IS NOT EVER going to open the door because they can not! Calvinism (and by that I mean BOTH 4 and 5 point Calvinism) asserts that Christ must "bust down the door" and "do it all Himself".

By contrast - Christ argues that HE HAS provided for THEM to OPEN the DOOR while HE is STILL on the OUTSIDE.

This seems to frustrate you to the point that you flee the chapter, the discussion and the point -- no matter how silly it makes your argument appear to be.

How sad.

You also referencel 4 and 5 point Calvinism AS IF it were not in use any more.

How blind. Wake up - smell the roses - have some tea - rise to the occassion and respond with substance.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by Brother Bob
Not a personal attack, I don't think you are from this Country if you can't understand me. I don't wish to contact you by pm.
Then stop the silliness.

I am having trouble how you would know silliness, I thought it would be natural to you.

 

[webdog]

Context seems to be the salient phrase here. Look it up.

Better yet, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and show how they were taken out of context instead of stooping to childish attacks? You stated they were taken from context. The burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders.

 

[webdog]

Love the qouting of verses with no context to back it up. Classic Brother Bob debate tactics. He is the Founder of Burger King Theology... Have it your way.

If the verses are God's words, it's more like "have it God's way". Try it sometimes. It works a lot better than "have it Spurgeon's way", "have it Piper's way" or "have it Calvin's way".

 

[tragic_pizza]

Better yet, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and show how they were taken out of context instead of stooping to childish attacks? You stated they were taken from context. The burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders.

The only verse I am claiming context about is the Revelation 3 verse. As to the rest, I claim nothing, but was correcting the direction of your diatribe.

 

[tragic_pizza]

If you could bring yourself to actually quote the text and the reference - you would see your blunder clearly.

Simply repeating your own mantra of what you 'wish were true' or "wish were helpful to you in the case of Rev 3" is not helping your case at all.

OK, let's look:

Revelation 3:14-22

"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this: 15'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot.
16'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.
17'Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,
18I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.
19'Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.
20'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.
21'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
22'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'"

Let's see, now. My claims: First, I said Christ knocks. Looks like Scripture backs it up. I said the verse pertains not to those outside the faith but to Christians. Looks like Scripture backs that one up, too.

you remain stuck in that hole - and yet you keep digging! What do you think you are accomplishing by that? Why not respond with substance instead?

what hole and what are you babbling about?

In Rev 3 Christ states that HE is on the OUTSIDE knocking and the lost sinner is ALONE and on the INSIDE. Arminians ALWAYS argue that Christ DRAWS ALL mankind - Christ is the light that coming into the world ENLIGHTENS EVERY man - Christ is on the outside KNOCKING on the door.

Calvinism blindly asserts that the sinner alone on the inside IS NOT EVER going to open the door because they can not! Calvinism (and by that I mean BOTH 4 and 5 point Calvinism) asserts that Christ must "bust down the door" and "do it all Himself".

Calvinism, however many points, says nothing of the like.

You obviously haven't a historically accurate knowledge of Calvinism from Calvin's perspective. I've repeatedly asserted the mainline Reformed theological position in re knocking and answering. I'll repeat it again if you like, but it gets a bit tedious after awhile, don'chaknow.

By contrast - Christ argues that HE HAS provided for THEM to OPEN the DOOR while HE is STILL on the OUTSIDE.

This seems to frustrate you to the point that you flee the chapter, the discussion and the point -- no matter how silly it makes your argument appear to be.

How sad.

More odd, misdirected blather. What on earth are you talking about?

You also referencel 4 and 5 point Calvinism AS IF it were not in use any more.

No, I reference the Reformed understanding of classic Calvinist theology. Pity you can't get past your comfortable little labels to see the elephant in the room, isn't it?

How blind. Wake up - smell the roses - have some tea - rise to the occassion and respond with substance.

In Christ,

Bob

You really shouldn't claim to be "in Christ" when you blather about so inanely. Calling people "blind" and insisting they speak of oranges when they've been talking abut apples all along is hardly Christlike.

 

[tragic_pizza]

I am having trouble how you would know silliness, I thought it would be natural to you.

If not, I can look to your posts as a reference, can't I?

 

[webdog]

The only verse I am claiming context about is the Revelation 3 verse. As to the rest, I claim nothing, but was correcting the direction of your diatribe.

OK, Rev. 3 it is. Please show how it's out of context.

 

[tragic_pizza]

OK, Rev. 3 it is. Please show how it's out of context.

I did, see my reply last page. Christ is speaking to a church, thus to apply "standing at the door and knocking" to unchurched is out of its context.

 

[Brother Bob]

If not, I can look to your posts as a reference, can't I?

No, I would rather you stay silly and no one will pay much attention to you.

 

[webdog]

I did, see my reply last page. Christ is speaking to a church, thus to apply "standing at the door and knocking" to unchurched is out of its context.

Incorrect. Christ is speaking to the angel of the Church, a Church that was gnostic at that. This was a church in name only, as it must have evolved from a true church. Christ is never outside of a true church, nor is He ever outside a true believer, so your argument is moot. Verse 18 cannot be any clearer that Christ was offering salvation ("buy from me"), the spiritual counterparts to their earthly wealth. They thought they had it all figured out, and were content on being wealthy. They thought Christ was a created being. Doesn't sound like true Christians, nor a true church to me. If they were neither hot (from the hot streams flowing into the city used for medicinal purposes) nor cold (refreshing stream that also flowed into Laodicea), they were lukewarm (the murky disgustion water as a result of the two water sources coming together, unfit for drinking). This is context.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Hmmmmmm...

"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this: 15'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot.
16'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.
17'Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,
18I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.
19'Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.
20'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.
21'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
22'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'"

OK, having established (again) the text, let';s discuss, shall we?

Incorrect. Christ is speaking to the angel of the Church, a Church that was gnostic at that.

Christ spoke to the "angel" of all the seven churches of Asia, thus Laodicea was being treated no differently than the rest. We are, in fact, not told in the Scriptures that Laodicea is a Gnostic congregation; I'd like to see your support for this statement.

This was a church in name only, as it must have evolved from a true church. Christ is never outside of a true church, nor is He ever outside a true believer, so your argument is moot.

Ah, the old "true church" argument again. I'd like to see a Scriptural defense of this statement as well.

Verse 18 cannot be any clearer that Christ was offering salvation ("buy from me"), the spiritual counterparts to their earthly wealth. They thought they had it all figured out, and were content on being wealthy.

This far we are on the same page; I'm betting that you and I are defining "salvation" differently, though, and I'm betting you wouldn't dare compare the sins of Laodicea with those of your own church today. Once somthing is dismissed as "Gnostic and not the True Chruch" we no longer have to examine it, you see.

But I digress.

They thought Christ was a created being.

Prove it.

Doesn't sound like true Christians, nor a true church to me. If they were neither hot (from the hot streams flowing into the city used for medicinal purposes) nor cold (refreshing stream that also flowed into Laodicea), they were lukewarm (the murky disgustion water as a result of the two water sources coming together, unfit for drinking). This is context.[/quote]Cite your source.

 

[webdog]

We are, in fact, not told in the Scriptures that Laodicea is a Gnostic congregation; I'd like to see your support for this statement.

Does this look familiar?

Rev 3:14"And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation.

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

This heresy was not only in the church at Laodicia, but Colosse as well. All one has to do is look up the heretical teaching of gnosticism in the first century to see this plainly.

Christ spoke to the "angel" of all the seven churches of Asia, thus Laodicea was being treated no differently than the rest.

Angel simply means messenger. To state that since it was addressed to the "angel" of Laodicea, it means it was a biblical church is an argument from silence. Go back and read all seven churches and state that each church that "overcomes" is overcoming the same thing, and rewarded the same.

Cite your source.

I'll get back with you on this, as I will have to look through my notes. In the mean time I would suggest looking up the history of Heirapolis and it's hot springs, Colosse's mountain streams, (both near Laodicea) and Laodicea's faulty aquaduct system.

 

[tragic_pizza]

e are, in fact, not told in the Scriptures that Laodicea is a Gnostic congregation; I'd like to see your support for this statement.

Does this look familiar?

Rev 3:14"And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation.

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

This heresy was not only in the church at Laodicia, but Colosse as well. All one has to do is look up the heretical teaching of gnosticism in the first century to see this plainly.

Hm.

Let me make sure I'm following your argument.

You're saying that the evidence of Laodicea being a Gnostic church is a sett of decontextualized verses written to the church at Colosse.

Hm.

Forgive me if I don't see the evidentiary value.

Christ spoke to the "angel" of all the seven churches of Asia, thus Laodicea was being treated no differently than the rest.

Angel simply means messenger. To state that since it was addressed to the "angel" of Laodicea, it means it was a biblical church is an argument from silence. Go back and read all seven churches and state that each church that "overcomes" is overcoming the same thing, and rewarded the same.

I would do so if that is what I had said. Your statement was that Christ wouldn't speak directly to Laodicea because of its sin; I was showing that Christ spoke to all churches through the angel of that church.

 

[webdog]

Let me make sure I'm following your argument.

You're saying that the evidence of Laodicea being a Gnostic church is a sett of decontextualized verses written to the church at Colosse.

Hm.

Forgive me if I don't see the evidentiary value.

Rev 3:14"And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation.

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Study the highlighted phrases, who they were addressed to, and why they were stated and hopefully you will begin to understand.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Rev 3:14"And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation.

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Study the highlighted phrases, who they were addressed to, and why they were stated and hopefully you will begin to understand.

So your argument is not just two verses written at different times, by different individuals, to different churches, but a fragment thereof?

Don't talk down to me, boy. Make your point or concede you have none.