-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Progressive Dispensationalism
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
PD looks at the OT promises through the NT writers, not the other way around.
The Slanderous Calvinists just keep revealing their malice, posting one fiction after another. But it is true I habitually demonize the mistaken doctrines of Calvinism, such as TULI.
Folks, pay no attention to these Calvinists (Amillennialists probably) who would rather misrepresent Progressive Dispensationalism, then discuss it, being too busy hurling slanderous statements to undercut a proponent.
Right about those of us who hold to the Doctrines of Grace, yet also uphold PD/ or even Classic dispy?
The Slanderous Calvinists just keep revealing their malice, posting one fiction after another. But it is true I habitually demonize the mistaken doctrines of Calvinism, such as TULI.
It is interesting that you are allowed to slander what calvinists really teach and believe, yet whenever any of us bring to task your erronous beliefs, we get labeled as being hard hearted/slanderous/not smart etc!
Next, yet another misrepresentation. I do not say you are slanderous because you address my "erronous" beliefs, I label you as slanderous because you misrepresent my beliefs.
Did you see this slander, "Van will never admit he is wrong." I am wrong lots of times, and admit it freely. But this charge is repeated and repeated ad nauseum.
I present Calvinism as published, rather than the denials of its doctrines post on this forum. That is not slander.
1) If Total Spiritual Inability were true, the Paul could not be zealous for God unless altered by Irresistible Grace. But since he still rejected Jesus, the revelatory grace he experienced was not irresistible.
2) If Unconditional Election were true, then we would not be chosen for salvation through faith in the truth. So Calvinism says 2 Thessalonians 2:13 does not mean what it says.
3) If Christ did not die as a ransom for all, then the false prophet would not have been bought with the blood of the Master. So Calvinism says 2 Peter 2:1 does not mean what it says.
4) If the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace were true, then men could not have been entering heaven, yet be blocked by false teachers. So Calvinism says Matthew 23:13 does not mean what it says.
1) If Total Spiritual Inability were true, the Paul could not be zealous for God unless altered by Irresistible Grace. But since he still rejected Jesus, the revelatory grace he experienced was not irresistible.
2) If Unconditional Election were true, then we would not be chosen for salvation through faith in the truth. So Calvinism says 2 Thessalonians 2:13 does not mean what it says.
3) If Christ did not die as a ransom for all, then the false prophet would not have been bought with the blood of the Master. So Calvinism says 2 Peter 2:1 does not mean what it says.
4) If the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace were true, then men could not have been entering heaven, yet be blocked by false teachers. So Calvinism says Matthew 23:13 does not mean what it says.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Don't feel alone, Yeshua. That's anyone who dares disagree with him, not just Calvinist/Reformed.
Hi RL, I was responding to a Calvinist slander in this thread. Why not direct your criticism toward that poster?
Yes, I agree that the other two look at the NT through the lens of the OT promises.
My post # 88 was in response to post #86.
Yes, I agree that the other two look at the NT through the lens of the OT promises.
My post # 88 was in response to post #86.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi RL, I was responding to a Calvinist slander in this thread. Why not direct your criticism toward that poster?
Yes, I agree that the other two look at the NT through the lens of the OT promises.
My post # 88 was in response to post #86.
I am aware of what you were responding to. While I wouldn't necessarily agree with the way they said what they said. I don't really disagree either, and I certainly don't disagree with the content of their criticism. You repeatedly misrepresented me personally in the Arm/Cal debate section last week/earlier this week.
You've been pretty even keeled in this discussion of PD. Wish you would do the same regarding Calvinism.
Primarily I said what I did because you launched into an anti-Calvinist rant there, not just responding to criticism. Bit of a difference between the two.
Slander, no matter how oft posted by Calvinists, does not gain creditability if repeated by various Calvinists, or the same Calvinist numerous times.
For example, Rippon claimed I never admitted to being wrong. But I admitted it was my malfeasance to ask Greektim to man up. But what is interesting is that you, nor any other Calvinist, who knows this charge is bogus, admitted it. No, you reinforced it. And so it goes, behold the fruit of Calvinism.
For example, Rippon claimed I never admitted to being wrong. But I admitted it was my malfeasance to ask Greektim to man up. But what is interesting is that you, nor any other Calvinist, who knows this charge is bogus, admitted it. No, you reinforced it. And so it goes, behold the fruit of Calvinism.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi RL, why more ad homenims, addressing my behavior, rather than the topic. Again, no Calvinist will post ," I thought this thread was about PD" addressing you.
Hypocrisy on display.
1) I did not misrepresent you. No quote will be forthcoming.
2) Calvinism is mistaken doctrine, as I have demonstrated from scripture many times, including post #88. I provide even keeled, i.e. contextual, evidence from scripture for every claim I make concerning Calvinism's mistaken doctrines.
Hypocrisy on display.
1) I did not misrepresent you. No quote will be forthcoming.
2) Calvinism is mistaken doctrine, as I have demonstrated from scripture many times, including post #88. I provide even keeled, i.e. contextual, evidence from scripture for every claim I make concerning Calvinism's mistaken doctrines.
Seriously dude??
I was trying to be nice to you. I said I didn't necessarily agree with the way it was stated. I simply offered my own thoughts, from my own interaction with you. I have not said you never admit you are wrong. I simply stated you misrepresented me in your apparent crusade against Calvinism. I was agreeing with Rippon's statement that you "habitually demonize Calvinists and engages in deliberate distortion."
Calm down. The Calvies aren't out to get you.
No one here has tried to "get you", its just that many of us think that you have made up what you think calvinists believe in, and yet attack those misunderstandings all the time!
And the question of PD does seem to rile you up with there is ANY suggestion /hint that how PD views eschatology does seem to be diverting towards more of a Covenant view!