Saved from what ?

[DrJamesAch]

But isn't any creed, confession, catcheism, articles of faith, etc., a list of beliefs that any denomination believes to be the truth? We, in the ORB's, have what we call "The Articles of Faith", and it is by these which we are governed by. These are our beliefs as to what we believe the Word of God means. Now, some of it would be in accord with the LBCF, but some wouldn't. So, if one doesn't agree with our AoF, would they be considered rubbish, too?

I know that confessions, creeds, catcheism, articles of faith, etc., are founded on the Word, but some people would consider one solid and the other rubbish, and so on. Any of these needs to be founded correctly on the Word. Just because any of them puts a list of verses to support that portion of a creed and/or confession, doesn't mean that what they believe is what is being espoused by the Word.

You have some good points there.

One thing to note is there is nothing wrong with churches that have a "statement of faith" but these churches do not rely on these as the final authority. It must be realized that these confessions were the result of groups getting together to resolve conflicts between Calvin, Arminius and other doctrines prevalent that they did not agree with, and by their agreement they determined that such were the appropriate beliefs of all Christendom. It isn't just a general statement given by a local church, it is considered a universal authority parallel to the Bible, and is often quoted over the Bible to resolve conflicts. All you have to do is follow some of their debates and you will see this carried out over and over again.

They treat those creeds the same way that the Catholic church treats the Council of Nicea, Council of Trent, etc...(Apostle's Creed, Anesthesian Creed, Nicene Creed) Notice how similar they are with the Catholic church (hence "REFORMED"). Have a disagreement, gather a synod or council, write a creed.

There are classic signs that help identify a cult-like mentality. The 3 main ones are created by man, rigorous defense of the man who created them, and an additional publication that parallels the religious text.

*Mormons: Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon
*Jehovah's Witnesses: Charles T. Russell, Joseph Rutherford, Studies in the Scriptures
*Islam: Mohammed: Hadith interpret Quran
*Mary Baker Eddy: Christian Science: Christian Monitor parallels Bible
Calvinism: John Calvin: Institutes and later those who didn't want to be identified with a baby sprinkling murderer called it "Reformed Theology" "Sovereign Grace" and adopted several confessions (Belgium, Philadelphia, Westminster, etc..) which constitute the official belief systems that they hold the rest of the world accountable to.

These are the traits of a cult, not Bible believing Christianity.

 

[Iconoclast]

And your repeated errors of taking verses out of context, applying man-made theology to passages, and never really getting to the bottom of anyone's argument or accurately stating what they said or believe is why you think everyone else that disagrees with Calvinism is wrong. We can argue in those circles all day long. I think you are employing private interpretation because you rely on the doctrines of men and creeds like a Muslim relies on the Hadith to interpret the Quran, like a Mormon uses the Book of Mormon to interpret the Bible and how a Jehovah's Witness uses the "Studies in the Scriptures" and the Awake publications to interpret the New World Translation. It's a classic hallmark trait of a cult.

And where is the scriptural support for adopting man-made creeds to "prevent error"? Paul's prescription for error was, "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11

I can't count how many times I have seen you attempt to refute someone's Biblical exegesis with a quote from the Baptist Confession. You might as well quote the dictionary and Wikipedia because they have some Bible verses printed in them, too. The fact that you nor any of the Calvinists here can hold a discussion without relying on a creed or confession or the interpretations of doctrines developed by a murdering, baby sprinkling sociopath who in turn ripped off a Catholic heretic (Augustine) should be enough for any Bible believer with common sense to treat Calvinism like the plague that it is, and inoculate themselves with Scripture.

If you would pay attention and take notice i offer scriptures first most times.Then i show that what i offer does not stand alone but has been held confessionally in Church history.

Calivinism is the truth of scripture.you calling names and accusing followers of being cult like will not make your false novelties any closer to truth.
Every post of yours is getting trashed by several posters on here, from different backrounds.

I notice you cannot refute any of the links posted...so you just broad brush them so again you lose credibility. You never answer to them as your attempted answer would be exposed as foolish.
When you are biblically answered you hide like a turtle in a shell like a few others in here.

and never really getting to the bottom of anyone's argument or accurately stating what they said or believe is why you think everyone else that disagrees with Calvinism is wrong.

your posts are being dismantled step by step...you are in denial friend:thumbsup:

And your repeated errors of taking verses out of context, applying man-made theology to passages

Nothing is out of context...you just have no grasp of the context so it seems that way to you.

 

[Iconoclast]

convicted1

But isn't any creed, confession, catcheism, articles of faith, etc., a list of beliefs that any denomination believes to be the truth? We, in the ORB's, have what we call "The Articles of Faith", and it is by these which we are governed by. These are our beliefs as to what we believe the Word of God means. Now, some of it would be in accord with the LBCF, but some wouldn't. So, if one doesn't agree with our AoF, would they be considered rubbish, too?

Willis...any of these tools are helpful only in so far as they stay true to scripture.the RC church has tools of their error.

Ach 's creed is himself and some anti-caL Jihad websites....do not let him fool you:type:

I know that confessions, creeds, catcheism, articles of faith, etc., are founded on the Word, but some people would consider one solid and the other rubbish, and so on.

Correct Willis....that is why we discuss and refine.Ach complains and whines about them...but notice he cannot refute any of them:laugh:

Any of these needs to be founded correctly on the Word. Just because any of them puts a list of verses to support that portion of a creed and/or confession, doesn't mean that what they believe is what is being espoused by the Word.

yes..exactly:thumbsup:

 

[DrJamesAch]

If you would pay attention and take notice i offer scriptures first most times.Then i show that what i offer does not stand alone but has been held confessionally in Church history.

Calivinism is the truth of scripture.you calling names and accusing followers of being cult like will not make your false novelties any closer to truth.
Every post of yours is getting trashed by several posters on here, from different backrounds.

I notice you cannot refute any of the links posted...so you just broad brush them so again you lose credibility. You never answer to them as your attempted answer would be exposed as foolish.
When you are biblically answered you hide like a turtle in a shell like a few others in here.




your posts are being dismantled step by step...you are in denial friend:thumbsup:



Nothing is out of context...you just have no grasp of the context so it seems that way to you.

Again, nothing but rhetorical hogwash.

Did you answer the objection about Ephesians 2:8? Nope, You can't.

You attempted to prove that God unconditionally elected Israel by quoting Deuteronomy 7, and I conclusively proved that your argument was bogus because you left out the verse that proved it included God's promise to Abraham, and God's promise to Abraham did not occur until Abraham offered Isaac upon the alter, and when Abraham travel away from his homeland. I gave you several verses that proved this and you didn't address any of them, but summarily wrote them off and simply repeated your original post.

You attempted to bootstrap the covenants with unconditional election and the covenants were conditional. Then you try to lesson the blow that was delivered to your ego by attempting to admit to the conditional covenants, but fail to admit that you were attempting to justify unconditional election based on a conditional covenant. That slight of hand don't fool me, and you got caught again stepping all over the Bible to support the doctrines of a murdering baby sprinkling heretic.

The only thing other posters have trashed is my country. (We'll get to Calvin's racism some other time).

 

[Iconoclast]

Ach

Again, nothing but rhetorical hogwash.

Only because you cannot grasp it.so to you it is!

Did you answer the objection about Ephesians 2:8? Nope, You can't.

As salvation is the gift of God..repentance and faith are part of that gift..it is not even an issue....Salvation is NEVER said to be because of faith,
It is always by, or through faith....always..so you have no point here:thumbsup:

You attempted to prove that God unconditionally elected Israel by quoting Deuteronomy 7, and I conclusively proved that your argument was bogus

You proved nothing but that you stand by your error..hebrews 6 makes it abundantly clear as well as deut 7....I will stand by my post and easy refutation of your error,as you try in vain with this bluster to make an "end run" around the truth:laugh:

because you left out the verse that proved it included God's promise to Abraham, and God's promise to Abraham did not occur until Abraham offered Isaac upon the alter, and when Abraham travel away from his homeland. I gave you several verses that proved this and you didn't address any of them, but summarily wrote them off and simply repeated your original post.

None of this changes what God has revealed at all.I have one full time job already...correcting your errors could be a second job for me,as everytime you post is more error and slander...

You attempted to bootstrap the covenants with unconditional election and the covenants were conditional

.

This was shown false but you resist truth.

Then you try to lesson the blow that was delivered to your ego by attempting to admit to the conditional covenants

,


:laugh: Not quite ACH...you are not offering anything to challenge the scriptural testimony of these things,Your falsehood and novelties cannot and do not stand even though you are trying to play the victim....

but fail to admit that you were attempting to justify unconditional election based on a conditional covenant. That slight of hand don't fool me, and you got caught again stepping all over the Bible to support the doctrines of a murdering baby sprinkling heretic.

The only thing other posters have trashed is my country. (We'll get to Calvin's racism some other time).

Ah yes,,,the old calvin scapegoat to try and cover the scene of the scriptural crime...your posts..lol...no one is buying what you are selling Ach....wait ,i take that back...you might have some loyal team,anti-cal jihad members who like anything that pretends to attack the truth....haha...

 

[DrJamesAch]

Since this seems to be so hard for you to understand I'll make it real simple:

1. Calvinists believe that faith is a work-FACT
2. Ephesians 2:8 says "for by grace are ye saved, through faith"
3. If faith is a work, then Ephesians 2:8 would read "by grace are ye saved through WORKS"

If Calvinism is applied consistently to its definition of faith, then salvation is through works, since Calvinism consider faith a work.

You would think that is so cut and dry a caveman could get it.

Now on to Deuteronomy 7.

First, lets look at what "condition" means. For all the kindergarten Calvinists, we'll use this thing called a dictionary.

CONDITION: 6. Terms of a contract or covenant; stipulation; that is, that which is set, fixed, established or proposed. What are the conditions of the treaty?

7. A clause in a bond, or other contract containing terms or a stipulation that it is to be performed, and in case of failure, the penalty of the bond is to be incurred.

Now lets define "covenant"

[L, to come; a coming together; a meeting or agreement of minds.]
1. A mutual consent or agreement of two or more persons, to do or to forbear some act or thing; a contract; stipulation. A covenant is created by deed in writing, sealed and executed; or it may be implied in the contract.

Simple enough? Any first WEEK law student with a 90 IQ knows this.

Now that we've defined condition and covenant, how does that apply to Abraham. Now you admitted that Hebrews 3 showed Israel failed because of unbelief. Common sense tells you if they failed from unbelief, then belief was a requirement, i.e. a condition (go back and re-read the definition of "condition" if you still don't get it).

The very definition of a covenant is a mutual agreement that is based on conditions.

What was the major covenant that Deut 7 is referring to? Genesis 26:3-4:

" Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed"

Now why did God do this? Genesis 26:5:

Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Now on to Moses:

"And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel." Exodus 34:27

AND NOW FOR THE FINALE!

"And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments."

And back to Deuteronomy 7, the verses you skipped to interpolate your Calvinistic private interpretation. Lets see what the text says that PROVES these covenants are all conditional.

Deuteronomy 7:

9 Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

Keep His commandments: CONDITIONAL

10 And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.

11 Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them.

12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:


Anyone that can't read that these covenants were conditional is blind. Like I said, trying to base an unconditional election on clearly conditional covenants is nothing but man-made eisegetical nonsense.

 

[kyredneck]

There is nothing racist about this. Reference the remarks you have made about our culture. That is really not the point. The point is, you started on this board misrepresenting yourself both in education level and theological knowledge. You were caught lying and involved in plagarism several times. You came to this board with a chip on your shoulder. I cannot figure out against what groups, perhaps Calvinists in general.
Call me a racist if you please, but Kyredneck said nothing out of the way to you. You have been asked to leave by several posters, and I join the chorus.

Cheese with your whine?? Perhaps you could hire a fiddler (on the roof).

His real gripe with 'Reformed Theology' is the 'Replacement' part of it. He's OK with the dispies, their theology extols and exalts Jews after the flesh. Reformed Theology does not put the physical Jew on the pedestal as Dispensationalism does, and that's his real beef with Calvinism. His aim is to ever promulgate that notion of the Jew's superiority on account of their special holy DNA. Them Jews, they be better than us, and we better kowtow and serve them now or God is gonna get us.

 

[Robert Snow]

His real gripe with 'Reformed Theology' is the 'Replacement' part of it. He's OK with the dispies, their theology extols and exalts Jews after the flesh. Reformed Theology does not put the physical Jew on the pedestal as Dispensationalism does, and that's his real beef with Calvinism. His aim is to ever promulgate that notion of the Jew's superiority on account of their special holy DNA. Them Jews, they be better than us, and we better kowtow and serve them now or God is gonna get us.

All this may be well and good, but it is evident that you have a problem with anyone who believes in Dispensationalism. In fact, you have been accused of anti-semitic comments here before. I'm not saying it's true, just that you do seem to have a problem with anyone who holds to this eschatology. You especially seem to have trouble with anyone who supports Israel.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

WOW folks.......we seriously have some priority issues around here:
Posters have been busy crying about "racism", who is or is not from Kentucky....Whether Dr. J has a degree or whether SN is a "Calvinist" or a "DoG" er: Meanwhile, the thread began with these CLEAR statements that one is NOT REQUIRED to have knowledge of the gospel in order to be Eternally Saved:

Many on this board insist that in order for a person to be eternally saved that person must know and believe in Christ and obey the gospel.

For the record, I stand for neither knowledge of, and obedience to, the gospel nor good works and the law in regards to eternal salvation.

Knowledge of and obedience to the gospel is clearly commanded by the Bible, without a doubt, but NOT UNTO ETERNAL SALVATION.....

And from an earlier thread:

Anybody who insists that faith is A MUST for eternal salvation has fallen from grace, and a deep examination of that insistence, and doctrine, if you will, (and I say this with all due respects to you, my friend) should reveal that eternal salvation is limited in scope (only to those who has knowledge) and in beginning (began AFTER gospel preaching) contrary to what the Bible says that the righteous (the elect) in Christ come from ALL nations, and kindred, and people, and tongues.

This is a thread started to suggest a completely different gospel unto Eternal Salvation from an Eternal Hell. And we've been bickering about THOSE non-issues?

Folks.......this OP denies that one must believe in and call upon the name of Jesus Christ in order to gain Eternal Salvation...............And basically.......this bothers nobody. We skip immediately to cannibalising one another while this is taught. Is there so much hatred between "Calvinists" and "Arminians/nonCals" that we skate right past this thread? Incredible. Anyone care to RE-READ the OP?

 

[kyredneck]

All this may be well and good, but it is evident that you have a problem with anyone who believes in Dispensationalism….

…which has morphed into:

"...Christian Zionism is essentially Christian support for Zionism. Zionism is a political system based on ethnic exclusivity giving Jews preferential political rights which are denied to Palestinians. The United Nations has defined Zionism as a form of racism and apartheid. Nevertheless, in the words of Grace Halsell the essential message of the Christian Zionist is this: “every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us.”

Dispensationalism represents a 180 degree turn around to the very first heresy of the early Church.

In fact, you have been accused of anti-semitic comments here before.

Yeah, it’s really easy to get that tag around here, maybe you’ve accused me before.

I'm not saying it's true, just that you do seem to have a problem with anyone who holds to this eschatology. You especially seem to have trouble with anyone who supports Israel.

Used to be eschatology was a 'benign' or 'non-essential' branch of theology. With the advent of the dispensationalists during the 19th century and their heretical teaching that the Church must be unconditionally subservient to Israel after the flesh, eschatology can no longer be considered as 'benign', and Dispensationalism has actually become a theo-political system, the extreme dangers of it should be obvious to all with objective minds.

The Significance of the Christian Zionist Movement:

"Estimates as to the size of the movement as a whole vary considerably. While critics like Crowley claim, ‘At least one out of every 10 Americans is a devotee’, that is between ‘25 to 30 million’, Christian Zionists such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell claim weekly access to 100 million sympathetic Americans. What ever the true figure, all are agreed, that number that is growing in size and influence. They are led by 80,000 fundamentalist pastors and clergy, their views disseminated by 1,000 local Christian radio stations as well as 100 Christian TV stations. Doug Kreiger lists over 250 pro-Israeli organisations founded in the 1980s alone...."

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party

 

[salzer mtn]

All this time I thought kyredneck was a woman.

 

[kyredneck]

How do you know I'm not?

 

[HisWitness]

Don't start it???? You and KY are both two-faced lying hypocrites that BOTH started with the racial slurs, racist jokes, and defaming my character based upon being Jewish (among whatever other fantasies you've concocted), and then you have the gutless nerve to say *I* started it? Don't be a coward fella. Don't act like a pansy Muslim terrorist throwing bombs into our land and then complain when you get fired back on.

what about when God himself destroyed the city and temple in Jerusalem in ad 70 like he proclaimed in his earthly ministry he would do in Judgement against the Jews for rejecting him ??

maybe God is trying to get the jews attention still by the bombs but they keep on rejecting ??

 

[Iconoclast]

Ach

A biblical covenant is not to be taken from a law book definition,,,,lol.

All your boasting about using scripture and you abandon it to fit your man centered scheme......no thanks....

 

[preacher4truth]

I was not caught lying about anything. What I did was a deliberate attempt to catch someone else that was purposely disagreeing with my posts so I used craftiness to catch them doing which is perfectly in line with 2 Cor 12:16. It worked.

You still carry on this way?

Oh yeah, you were caught alright.

Only a complete buffoon would believe your alleged application of 2 Cor. 12:16 and believe you didn't deliberately lie when attempting to act like you were writing out your personal beliefs on Calvinism. The thing is you've ran into some pretty smart people here 'doc' and I busted you for plagiarizing ... and it was a quite a while afterward that you drummed up the nonsense you're still trying to pass off. You never offered this lame excuse immediately after being caught, and this untruth you are offering is nothing more than a bunch of baloney. It shows how you will in mind go to any length to cover up.

So now you're using in vain God's Word in an attempt to cover up your lies that several caught you in? You show absolutely no remorse for your actions whatsoever.

It truly shows you for who you are that you'd go this far to defend a lie with yet another. You should man up and apologize publicly for what you've done. Almost no one here believes you except for one who came along to defend you but he's just as guilty for doing so.

:wavey:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Brethren...I saw through this guy the 1st post, as I am sure most of you have..

Well we have this thing called IGNORE. I'm putting the err...good Doctor on it with other notables like Van. Highly recommend it.:thumbs:

 

[DrJamesAch]

WOW folks.......we seriously have some priority issues around here:
Posters have been busy crying about "racism", who is or is not from Kentucky....Whether Dr. J has a degree or whether SN is a "Calvinist" or a "DoG" er: Meanwhile, the thread began with these CLEAR statements that one is NOT REQUIRED to have knowledge of the gospel in order to be Eternally Saved:

And from an earlier thread:

This is a thread started to suggest a completely different gospel unto Eternal Salvation from an Eternal Hell. And we've been bickering about THOSE non-issues?

Folks.......this OP denies that one must believe in and call upon the name of Jesus Christ in order to gain Eternal Salvation...............And basically.......this bothers nobody. We skip immediately to cannibalising one another while this is taught. Is there so much hatred between "Calvinists" and "Arminians/nonCals" that we skate right past this thread? Incredible. Anyone care to RE-READ the OP?

I wouldn't say it bothers nobody. Read post 2 and 6. I tried.:thumbs:

Calvie's are so willing to vilifying any non Calvinist they will ignore blatantly false doctrine (not that that is anything new). Even some Calvie's on the other thread said it was wrong UNTIL A NON CALVINIST gave him grief about it on THIS thread, then they all started changing their tune and AGREEING with a false gospel.

I am convinced that if a Calvinist came out and said there is no God, if a Non Calvinist attacked the error the rest of the Calvie's would find a way to defend it.

 

[saturneptune]

I am convinced that if a Calvinist came out and said there is no God, if a Non Calvinist attacked the error the rest of the Calvie's would find a way to defend it.

And when God passed out the brains, you thought they said rain, and hid under a bucket.

 

[DrJamesAch]

And when God passed out the brains, you thought they said rain, and hid under a bucket.

I have lost all confidence in you becoming a successful comedian. Of all the possible brain jokes, you picked that one?:tonofbricks:

 

[Amy.G]

What I did was a deliberate attempt to catch someone else that was purposely disagreeing with my posts so I used craftiness to catch them doing which is perfectly in line with 2 Cor 12:16.

Here is what the Bible says about craftiness.

Luke 20:23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

2 Corinthians 4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

Ephesians 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

That's what you did, "lie in wait to deceive".

2 Cor. 12:16 is not a good verse to back your "craftiness". In that verse Paul is being sarcastic. He did not deceive the church in Corinth. You should know that..... DR.

BTW, it's against the board rules to post the writings of another without citing the author.