Ordo Salutis

[DHK]

"I have given you plenty of Scripture earlier in this thread."

You deny the thrust of the verses.The Scripture is right.You are in rebellion to the Word.

I don't deny the Bible; only your interpretation thereof.
To say that I am in rebellion to the Word is a personal attack and should be edited. You know nothing of my personal walk with Christ, neither do you have a sole claim to interpretation of Scripture. Shall the board bow down to you as "Pope Rippon"?

The sad thing is Rippon, is that I give you Scripture, and it goes unrefuted. Time after time you are unable to refute the Scripture I have given you. Perhaps that better answers your own accusation of "rebellion to the word of God." Practice what you preach.

"This is not true. I am neither an Arminian nor a Calvinist, and never have been. One does not have to be one or the other, contrary to your thinking."

Real Christians fall into the Calvinist and Arminian camps.Some professing Christians Christians are semi-Pelagian.Your beliefs square-up with Arminianism.

Perhaps you don't know what a real Christian is.
A real Christian is one who follows the Bible and not a man. I do not follow Calvin, and neither do I follow Jacob Arminius. I follow the Bible. You are quite naive to say that I must follow either system. You are just plain wrong on that point. I suggest you go back and study the Word more.

"Where have I said that you serve a different God?"

Well,one such time (of the several) was post #82 of yours on the thread "God Got The Memo" wherein you said that I am "worshipping the wrong God."

No I did not. That is a misrepresentation of what I said, just as you did then. Let me quote the entire quote:

Whenever you put words in another's mouth that he didn't say, then I will assume they are your own beliefs. Does God stand idly by? I didn't say that. So is that what you believe? That is not my God. I remember Elijah mocking the prophets of Baal, saying that their God was idle or sleeping. Maybe you are worshiping the wrong God??

The word "maybe" and the word "is" are not the same thing. I did not say you ARE worshiping another god, did I?
Furthermore, you were doing the same thing back then, that you are doing now. Things haven't changed--"a misrepresentation of what I said." "putting words in another's mouth." That is fairly typical of you, isn't it?
It was also a comparison. A comparison of two different Gods.
It was a comparison of two different theologies; two different ideologies.
But you wouldn't see past that would you? You were blind to only one thing--a perceived accusation.

"Then prove the analogy wrong."

Your analogies are worthless.When you start saying stupid things like God must give faith to dogs so they'll obey their masters -- in order to dismiss the biblical doctrine of God giving faith to His people -- you have stepped into nonsense.It seems Sp has become your mentor in the faith.

This is a great way to refute a person isn't it?
Just say that my statements are worthless and be done with. You are such a great debater Rippon. God doesn't give faith to the unbeliever. You have not refuted that statement yet. He gives as much faith to the unbeliever as he gives to my dog--none. And the only response you can come up with is "worthless." What a pitiful rebuttal.

"What man classifies as negative attributes? Yes. Justice, Judgment, etc. Those that are offsetting to love, mercy and kindness."

None of God's attributes are negative.How then would you classify His Holiness?

You can classify them any way you want to. I am not going to argue with you about it. The average person doesn't classify them the same way you do, and that is their right, their soul liberty to do so. God's holiness is often contrasted to God's love. If you want a picture of so-called "negative" attributes (negative is not a very good word), examine the attributes of Allah--all 99 of them. Love is not one of them. What makes Allah such a cruel God, in contrast to Jehovah or Christ?

"Please don't give me that Islamic drivel again."

Are you having an identity crisis?I am the one telling you not to dredge up your Islamic drivel again.I'll be real happy for you never to mention it again.It's sinful on your part.

The Bible teaches us to examine ourselves.
Comparisons and contrasts are often good.
1Cor.10 Paul writes about the Israelites, and a series of events that happened to them. Then he says: "These are written for examples for our admonition."
Jesus spoke in parables.
What are you afraid of? That your faith might be weak when compared to another religion? Now who is having the identity crisis? 'Oh my, I am scared I am too much like a Muslim! Please don't say those sinful things again.' Such nonsense on your part. Isn't your faith any stronger than that?

 

[Rippon]

I don't deny the Bible; only your interpretation thereof.
To say that I am in rebellion to the Word is a personal attack and should be edited. You know nothing of my personal walk with Christ, neither do you have a sole claim to interpretation of Scripture. Shall the board bow down to you as "Pope Rippon"?

I didn't mean to infer that you are in opposition to the entirety of God's Word.Specifically you oppose or are in rebellion to the verses which I furnished earlier which clearly state that faith is given to the elect by God.
____________________________________________________________

Perhaps you don't know what a real Christian is.

And just when you were trying to make it abundantly clear that you were not doubting my salvation.
____________________________________________________________
A real Christian is one who follows the Bible and not a man. I do not follow Calvin, and neither do I follow Jacob Arminius. I follow the Bible.

It's quite tiresome to respond to such remarks which I have dealt with many times before.You deliberately say untruths on a regular basis.

I do not follow John Calvin.I follow the Bible.You do not follow Jacob Arminius.
__________________________________________________________


The word "maybe" and the word "is" are not the same thing. I did not say you ARE worshiping another god, did I?
Furthermore, you were doing the same thing back then, that you are doing now. Things haven't changed--"a misrepresentation of what I said." "putting words in another's mouth." That is fairly typical of you, isn't it?
It was also a comparison. A comparison of two different Gods.
It was a comparison of two different theologies; two different ideologies.
But you wouldn't see past that would you? You were blind to only one thing--a perceived accusation.

Your nuanced fine distinctions aside -- just eliminate all such references such as "Maybe you worship (serve) another God." altogether.
_____________________________________________________________

Just say that my statements are worthless and be done with. You are such a great debater Rippon. God doesn't give faith to the unbeliever. You have not refuted that statement yet. He gives as much faith to the unbeliever as he gives to my dog--none. And the only response you can come up with is "worthless." What a pitiful rebuttal.

Your illustrations are for the dogs.

What do you want me to say?Oh what remarkable analogies the man makes! What truths he illustrates with such great precision and applicability!

No.Your analogies are not fit for biblical consumption.
_____________________________________________________________

examine the attributes of Allah--all 99 of them. Love is not one of them. What makes Allah such a cruel God, in contrast to Jehovah or Christ?

I thought you promised not to bring up your "Islamic drivel".
______________________________________________________________

What are you afraid of? That your faith might be weak when compared to another religion? Now who is having the identity crisis? 'Oh my, I am scared I am too much like a Muslim! Please don't say those sinful things again.' Such nonsense on your part. Isn't your faith any stronger than that?

Please try to evidence at least a minimum level of maturity.

 

[DHK]

"I don't deny the Bible; only your interpretation thereof.
To say that I am in rebellion to the Word is a personal attack and should be edited. You know nothing of my personal walk with Christ, neither do you have a sole claim to interpretation of Scripture. Shall the board bow down to you as "Pope Rippon"? "

I didn't mean to infer that you are in opposition to the entirety of God's Word.Specifically you oppose or are in rebellion to the verses which I furnished earlier which clearly state that faith is given to the elect by God.

To say that I am in rebellion to the Word of God (whatever part you suggest) is not your business. You are not God. You don't know me, Mr. Pope Rippon. I suggest you look at your own relationship with Christ before you judge another person's salvation or relationship with God. Your judgmental attitude it totally unwarranted.

"Perhaps you don't know what a real Christian is."

And just when you were trying to make it abundantly clear that you were not doubting my salvation.

I didn't question your salvation at all.
I question your understanding of the doctrine of soteriology which seems to be woefully lacking. What is a Christian? It goes right to the heart of the matter of what it means to be born again, and has nothing to do with the election/arminian debates that swirl around here.

"A real Christian is one who follows the Bible and not a man. I do not follow Calvin, and neither do I follow Jacob Arminius. I follow the Bible."

It's quite tiresome to respond to such remarks which I have dealt with many times before.You deliberately say untruths on a regular basis.{/quote]
What untruth have I said here. As you slander me here, you have done to Revmitchell on another thread when he stated the same thing. He stated that he is neither Calvinist nor Arminian. You refuse to accept that statement. You infer that we are both liars. Shame on you. You can't accept that a person doesn't have to be boxed into one of two people's ideological systems. It is really too bad that your focus is so narrow. I believe an apology is warranted. If you refuse to accept our position it leads one to conclude two things:
1. You have a very arrogant and proud spirit.
2. You lack knowledge in the doctrine of soteriology.

I do not follow John Calvin.I follow the Bible.You do not follow Jacob Arminius.

The difference is: You openly state that you are a Calvinist.
Then you slander us by stating that we are Arminians when we affirm that we are not.
Thus your statement above is totally meaningless.

"The word "maybe" and the word "is" are not the same thing. I did not say you ARE worshiping another god, did I?
Furthermore, you were doing the same thing back then, that you are doing now. Things haven't changed--"a misrepresentation of what I said." "putting words in another's mouth." That is fairly typical of you, isn't it?
It was also a comparison. A comparison of two different Gods.
It was a comparison of two different theologies; two different ideologies.
But you wouldn't see past that would you? You were blind to only one thing--a perceived accusation."

Your nuanced fine distinctions aside -- just eliminate all such references such as "Maybe you worship (serve) another God." altogether.

A misrepresentation is a misrepresentation--done by you--whether back in the beginning of September or done now in October. You haven't stopped acting the same as you do. Practice what you preach.

"Just say that my statements are worthless and be done with. You are such a great debater Rippon. God doesn't give faith to the unbeliever. You have not refuted that statement yet. He gives as much faith to the unbeliever as he gives to my dog--none. And the only response you can come up with is "worthless." What a pitiful rebuttal."

Your illustrations are for the dogs.

What do you want me to say?Oh what remarkable analogies the man makes! What truths he illustrates with such great precision and applicability!

No.Your analogies are not fit for biblical consumption.

It is too bad that you can only come up with ugly rhetoric rather than answering the actual issue put before you whether in illustrative form or in actual Scripture. Whatever method I use, I don't get a suitable Biblical answer. Again it shows your deficiency in the doctrine of soteriology.

"examine the attributes of Allah--all 99 of them. Love is not one of them. What makes Allah such a cruel God, in contrast to Jehovah or Christ?"

I thought you promised not to bring up your "Islamic drivel".

I don't believe that I made any such promise to you.
I ask again: Is your faith so weak that you are afraid to have it compared to another religion?

"What are you afraid of? That your faith might be weak when compared to another religion? Now who is having the identity crisis? 'Oh my, I am scared I am too much like a Muslim! Please don't say those sinful things again.' Such nonsense on your part. Isn't your faith any stronger than that?"

Please try to evidence at least a minimum level of maturity.

Is this all you can come up with.
You are insecure aren't you.
You don't like your faith compared to another religion.
I used to do this with the RCC all the time. They claimed their baptism was a sacrament that gave grace. Through it they were born again and attained salvation. They were not different than the Hindus, who by plunging into the "holy waters" of the Ganges River, believed that their sins were washed away. The concept is the same. Water washes away sin--baptismal regeneration. Both Hinduism and the RCC in this respect are the same.

But I make such comparisons with you and you are more offended than the RCC. Again, I ask: Is your faith so weak that it cannot come under the scrutiny of a comparison with another religion? And the fact that you have no answer is really pitiful!

 

[Rippon]

The difference is: You openly state that you are a Calvinist.
Then you slander us by stating that we are Arminians when we affirm that we are not.

Norm Geisler claims he is a moderate Calvinist yet he is an Arminian through and through.I'm sorry but you and Mr. Mitchell are Arminians whether you agree or not.Both of your views line up more in that camp.
_______________________________________________________________


A misrepresentation is a misrepresentation
[/quote]

That's right.You regularly misrepresent my views on the BB by saying that God in my view is a cruel tyrant;a puppet Master. When you constantly say that we are nothing but robots in my view.When you say that my God is not personal and loving.That Calvinism = Islam.And on and on and on.You don't stop.

All of that junk is misrepresentation.You specialize in that kind of stuff.It makes no difference to you when I (and many others) say your characterizations are totally untrue.
______________________________________________________________

It is too bad that you can only come up with ugly rhetoric rather than answering the actual issue put before you whether in illustrative form or in actual Scripture.
[/quote]

"Ugly rhetoric"? Examine the content of your posts.

Your illustrations are insulting.Why dignify them?
_________________________________________________________

I ask again: Is your faith so weak that you are afraid to have it compared to another religion?
[/quote]

You regularly compare my faith to Islam.Lately you've tossed in Roman Catholicism.

I resent it when you compare my faith with Islam.There is no comparison and you know it.You just like to fan the flames.

But let's see.You are a former RC.Have you renounced every vestige of Roman Catholicism?

The following is Canon V of the Council Of Trent.

"If anyone shall affirm,that since the fall of man,man's free will is lost and extinguished;or,that it is a thing titular,yea a name,without a thing,and a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church;let such an one be accursed!"

 

[DHK]

Norm Geisler claims he is a moderate Calvinist yet he is an Arminian through and through.I'm sorry but you and Mr. Mitchell are Arminians whether you agree or not.Both of your views line up more in that camp.

Here is what your statement says to me:
1. You don't know what Calvinism really is.
I say that because I trust Geisler a whole lot more than I do you. If he says that he is a moderate Calvinist and you misalign him as an Arminiam, whose word should I take? Certainly not yours.
2. Though we testify that we are not Arminians you revel in slander and tell us that we are. That is real Christianity isn't it? But now you are doing the same to Geisler, so I suppose I should just keep on expecting the same.

"A misrepresentation is a misrepresentation"

That's right.You regularly misrepresent my views on the BB by saying that God in my view is a cruel tyrant;a puppet Master. When you constantly say that we are nothing but robots in my view.When you say that my God is not personal and loving.That Calvinism = Islam.And on and on and on.You don't stop.

Here's the difference. I have showed you where you have deliberately misrepresented me--"quoted" things that I did not say. That is not ethical.
What I have done is simply drawn some comparisons that have hurt your feelings. Look at what you have just written, and the emotionally packed language that you just used. You are hurting because I made a comparison with Islam. I didn't misrepresent you at all. I only drew some comparisons. If you can't take the heat then get out of the fire. Otherwise give an intelligent answer and defend your position with Scripture.

All of that junk is misrepresentation.You specialize in that kind of stuff.It makes no difference to you when I (and many others) say your characterizations are totally untrue.

Can you keep your emotions in check?
Your answers: "junk," "stuff," "untrue"....
Why not try something more intelligent and less emotional?

"It is too bad that you can only come up with ugly rhetoric rather than answering the actual issue put before you whether in illustrative form or in actual Scripture."

"Ugly rhetoric"? Examine the content of your posts.

Your illustrations are insulting.Why dignify them?

Your continual avoidance of my posts only demonstrates your inability to give any intellectual or reasonable response. Again you typical emotional response to the above is none other than "insulting." That is typical "Ripponish."

"I ask again: Is your faith so weak that you are afraid to have it compared to another religion?"

You regularly compare my faith to Islam.Lately you've tossed in Roman Catholicism.

I resent it when you compare my faith with Islam.There is no comparison and you know it.You just like to fan the flames.

I didn't compare your faith to Roman Catholicism. That is a mark that you didn't read my post very well. I don't compel you to answer. If you don't like the heat then get out of the fire.
The Bible says:
"But sanctify the Lord in your heart and be ready to give an answer to every man that asks a reason of the hope that is in you..."
Apparently you are not ready.

But let's see.You are a former RC.Have you renounced every vestige of Roman Catholicism?

The following is Canon V of the Council Of Trent.

"If anyone shall affirm,that since the fall of man,man's free will is lost and extinguished;or,that it is a thing titular,yea a name,without a thing,and a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church;let such an one be accursed!"

I will let you answer that for yourself.
You no doubt have a closer affinity to Catholicism than I do, since Calvin took most of his ideas from "St. Augustine," hero of Catholics everywhere.

Here is an interesting quote for you to meditate on:

Calvin said, “Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I would do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings” (John Calvin—“The Eternal Predestination of God”).

 

[Rippon]

1. You don't know what Calvinism really is.
I say that because I trust Geisler a whole lot more than I do you. If he says that he is a moderate Calvinist and you misalign him as an Arminiam, whose word should I take? Certainly not yours.
2. Though we testify that we are not Arminians you revel in slander and tell us that we are. That is real Christianity isn't it? But now you are doing the same to Geisler, so I suppose I should just keep on expecting the same.

Listen,Geisler is indeed an Arminian regardless of his denials and your denials.I have appreciated some of his writings but his theology is Arminian to the core.Robert Culver,R.C.Sproul and James White among others agree.It makes you unhappy,but so be it.
____________________________________________________________

What I have done is simply drawn some comparisons that have hurt your feelings.
[/quote]

My feelings?You were simply spouting off your usual litany of nonsense.Your "comparisons" or analogies are Skypairish in nature.
_______________________________________________________________


Can you keep your emotions in check?
Your answers: "junk," "stuff," "untrue"....
Why not try something more intelligent and less emotional?
[/quote]

Why should I waste my time responding to things we have gone over and over before?You never learn,but keep doing the same ole' thing.

The words "stuff","junk" and "untrue" are effective.BTW,what's emotional about any of them,especially "untrue"?
_____________________________________________________



I didn't compare your faith to Roman Catholicism.
[/quote]

No?I suppose that's why you called me "Pope" twice in two posts?
___________________________________________________________
You no doubt have a closer affinity to Catholicism than I do...
[/quote]

See,you can't help contradicting yourself.

 

[Rippon]

Speaking of Augustine...

DHK: I really don't think that Roman Catholics get the exclusive right to appreciate his books and teachings.

In Robert Reymond's Systematic :

Augustine (354-430),bishop of Hippo,the father of orthodox theology,wrote many books,chief among them being the above.[ The City of God,Confessions,On the Trinity).Both Rome and Protestnatism claim him as their own,but for different reasons: the former for his ecclesiology and sacerdotal tendencies,the latter for his doctrines of election,sin,and grace.(p.1133)

Warfield seems quite justified in observing that the Protestant Reformation,especially on the Reformed side,was the revolt of Augustine's doctrine of grace against his doctrine of the church...(p.468)

Prominent Baptist theologian Robert Duncan Culver,in his great Systematic cites Augustine 64 times.

It's so easy to dump on that man of God by ill-informed people who link him only with the Catholic Church and tend to dismiss him with a wave of their hand.Baptists especially have done this a lot.It's really not fair.

As I have said countless times in the past :No Calvinists here follows John Calvin.Most have read little of his works.The reading of Augustine's writings by Calvinists is far less.

I have read his Confessions,a bit of his City of God,some sermons etc.However,most of what I've read comes from quotes of his in other books of mine.

Have you read much of his material?

 

[DHK]

Have you read much of his material?

Yeah, I read the ungodly garbage that he had written on purgatory.

 

[Rippon]

But let's see.You are a former RC.Have you renounced every vestige of Roman Catholicism?

The following is Canon V of the Council Of Trent.

"If anyone shall affirm,that since the fall of man,man's free will is lost and extinguished;or,that it is a thing titular,yea a name,without a thing,and a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church;let such an one be accursed!"

Well,do you agree with this anathema or not?

 

[Rippon]

Yeah, I read the ungodly garbage that he had written on purgatory.

So you admit your ignorance in that you haven't read most of his literature.

 

[DHK]

Well,do you agree with this anathema or not?

Regardless of what one believes, The RCC has no right to curse anyone.

 

[Rippon]

Regardless of what one believes, The RCC has no right to curse anyone.

No,this indeed regarding the substance of that Canon #5.Forget the anathema for a moment.Do you agree with the essence of that statement?

 

[DHK]

No,this indeed regarding the substance of that Canon #5.Forget the anathema for a moment.Do you agree with the essence of that statement?

Do I agree with this statement:

since the fall of man, man's free will is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing titular, yea a name, without a thing, and a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church;

No. Man's free will is not lost. He has a choice. Without that choice man cannot be saved; he would be unable to "believe" on the Lord Jesus Christ; unable to "call" upon his name; unable to "put his faith" in Christ, etc. Those phrases all indicate that man must of his own free will make a choice.

 

[Rippon]

Do I agree with this statement:

No. Man's free will is not lost. He has a choice. Without that choice man cannot be saved; he would be unable to "believe" on the Lord Jesus Christ; unable to "call" upon his name; unable to "put his faith" in Christ, etc. Those phrases all indicate that man must of his own free will make a choice.

Well,you have not left behind every vestige of the RCC.And you have been no friend of the Reformation had you lived in the 16th century.

Folks willingly died because they denied free will back then. You are in greater agreement with Erasmas than Martin Luther.

 

[TCGreek]

I'm enjoying you guys. :thumbs:

 

[DHK]

Well,you have not left behind every vestige of the RCC.And you have been no friend of the Reformation had you lived in the 16th century.

Folks willingly died because they denied free will back then. You are in greater agreement with Erasmas than Martin Luther.

Do I really care? People of all persuasions died for their faith at one time or another. Ask Bloody Mary? She didn't care if you were a "free-willer" or Calvinist. Off with your head anyway.
And Martin Luther? He was a great persecutor of Baptists as well.
So what!

 

[Rippon]

Do I really care? People of all persuasions died for their faith at one time or another. Ask Bloody Mary? She didn't care if you were a "free-willer" or Calvinist. Off with your head anyway.
And Martin Luther? He was a great persecutor of Baptists as well.
So what!

Baptists didn't exist then.Are you confusing them with Anabaptists?

Any persecution of anyone is wrong.Anything Luther or Zwingli did in that respect was sinful.You do know though that some of the Anabaptists were violent radicals like the Muntzers,don't you?Many were anti-Trinitarian.Some were peaceful and unjustly attacked.

But getting back to what you said earlier.If you agree with Canon 5 of the Council of Trent -- you are in league with Rome in that respect.But you have lots of company.Most Evangelicals would agree with that proposition (and some others) of Roman Catholicism.

To be on sound biblical footing you need to be where Martin Luther stood -- not Desiderius Erasmus.Martin Luther had many faults and failings;but he was on solid scriptural ground on this subject.

 

[DHK]

Baptists didn't exist then.Are you confusing them with Anabaptists?

Any persecution of anyone is wrong.Anything Luther or Zwingli did in that respect was sinful.You do know though that some of the Anabaptists were violent radicals like the Muntzers,don't you?Many were anti-Trinitarian.Some were peaceful and unjustly attacked.

Anybody that baptized "again" was called an "anabaptist." However there was an official group of "Anabaptists" that had beliefs similar to the Baptists of today. Don't blame the events of the political uprisings on the Baptists (or anabaptists as you like to refer to them). It can be directly attributed to Luther if you study your history thoroughly enough. Certainly there were those that were "anabaptist" in name that were there, but not the Anabaptists that were typically known for not even taking up arms. These were others, stirred up by Luther to revolt.

But getting back to what you said earlier.If you agree with Canon 5 of the Council of Trent -- you are in league with Rome in that respect.But you have lots of company.Most Evangelicals would agree with that proposition (and some others) of Roman Catholicism.

I don't agree with the RCC. I made that clear.
BTW, If you agree with evangelism, with the Great Commisson, with going to door to door in any way, shape or form, then, according to your logic, that makes you a Jehovah's Witness. Welcome to the guilty by association club.

To be on sound biblical footing you need to be where Martin Luther stood -- not Desiderius Erasmus.Martin Luther had many faults and failings;but he was on solid scriptural ground on this subject.

Erasmus was a well-educated scholar who by the time of his death had more in common with the Baptists than he did with the Catholics or the Lutheran. I would gladly be associated with Erasmus. I am not a Lutheran. I do not believe in his Reformed theology. When he left the RCC, he took many of their Catholic practices with him. I do not associate myself with Lutheranism. What makes you think that I do?

 

[Rippon]

Erasmus was a well-educated scholar who by the time of his death had more in common with the Baptists than he did with the Catholics or the Lutheran. I would gladly be associated with Erasmus. I am not a Lutheran. I do not believe in his Reformed theology. When he left the RCC, he took many of their Catholic practices with him. I do not associate myself with Lutheranism. What makes you think that I do?

Erasmus had more in common with Baptists than he did with the Catholics or Lutherans?! How did you come up with that kind of surprising revisionist history?

Erasmus believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.He belived in retaining the Apocrypha.He was a loyal son of the Mother Church.You know you don't get to make up history on the fly.

Back in college I read "In Praise Of Folly" by Erasmus.It was quite clever and radical at the time of its release speaking of the abuses of the RCC.But he stayed within the fold of that communion.There is no evidence that he had more of a baptistic view than a Roman Catholic view.That's quite silly actually.

You said you are not a Lutheran.You know of course that a typical Lutheran of today is far removed from the beliefs of a Lutheran of Martin Luther's day.

Luther's "Bondage of the Will" was very Calvinistic;before Calvin had even become a Christian.However,I wouldn't describe Lutheranism in Luther's age as Reformed.

I didn't suggest that you are Lutheran.What makes you say that?

I am not Lutheran.But I certainly agree with much of Luther's "Bondage of the Will".I agree with the contents of a number of his commentaries.Does that make me Lutheran?

If you ever rid yourself of your prejudices you would agree with many things that John Owen and other Puritans wrote.By that I mean that you are so adament that anything Calvinistic is wrong you won't even open a page from the works of these men.Reading Matthew Henry is about as close as you've come.

 

[DHK]

Erasmus had more in common with Baptists than he did with the Catholics or Lutherans?! How did you come up with that kind of surprising revisionist history?

Here is some information about Erasmus that I gleaned for you:

" [FONT=&quot]Desiderius Erasmus was the Renaissance humanist who first published the Received text in 1516...[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Catholic enemies of both Erasmus and Luther charged that “Erasmus is the father of Luther.”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2[/FONT][FONT=&quot] These charges were based upon the fact that Luther was influenced in no small measure by Erasmus's publication of his Greek NT in 1516. [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]In that year, there was no Reformation nor were there yet any official Protestants.
... [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Desiderius Erasmus grew up in 15th century central Europe. Apart from the Waldenses in the valleys of the Alps and other remote separatist groups, there were very few other forms of Christianity than the Roman Catholic Church in that part of the world. (Even Wycliffe and Tyndale had been nominal Catholics.)[/FONT]... [FONT=&quot]There were no Protestant churches in central Europe or England at this time. Therefore to charge Erasmus with being a Catholic is somewhat of a hollow charge. Though he was a clergyman in the Catholic Church, there is no record that he ever presided over any parish. [/FONT]... [FONT=&quot]He was more or less an "independent Catholic." In his day, he was considered the foremost scholar of classical Greek and Latin literature. The course of his travels took him from Holland to France, England, and Switzerland.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Over the years, Erasmus became intimately acquainted with biblical manuscripts available throughout Europe, particularly of the NT. Because the Word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, it is evident as Erasmus began to search the Scriptures, they had a profound effect upon his life. By the time of his death, the theology of Erasmus had shifted closer to that of the Anabaptists than that of Rome. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]...The more Erasmus became involved in this study and editing of the NT, the more his theology and convictions began to change. He came to reject the typical Roman Catholic interpretation of Mat.16:18 establishing papal primacy. He began to vehemently attack the abuses and scandals of the Roman Catholic clergy, particularly as they violated their vows of celibacy. He even attacked celibacy as fallacious. [/FONT]...
[FONT=&quot]Perhaps more than anything else, Erasmus began to advocate baptism by immersion after conversion. Though this was called an Anabaptist heresy by the Catholics and Protestants, it was simply Bible teaching. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Erasmus is a fascinating character in the lineage of the Received Text of the NT. His Greek NT, without doubt, was the catalyst which sparked the Reformation. He was a Catholic at the beginning of the Reformation. However, as he continued to search the Scriptures, he increasingly became less and less Catholic in his position. By the time he died in 1536, he had virtually become Anabaptist in his theology. [/FONT](From David Sorenson's, "Touch Not the Unclean Thing," Chapter 10)