Should We then Teach/Preach Christ And let God "handle" How He saves Them?

[Skandelon]

Again, how do you even draw such broad conclusions? As a moderator your supposed to be fair & impartial.....or am I wrong in my assumption?

Moderators are allowed to debate their perspectives right along side everyone else. We are just given the charge to follow and enforce the guidelines set by the board. I am not violating any rules, but if you believe I am please feel free to report my post to an Admin and he will take the appropriate action if necessary.

 

[Skandelon]

I dont think he is saying that. How can you draw that conclusion?

I didn't say that is what he was saying...please go back and read my post slower and more carefully. If you still don't see my point, then let me know.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Moderators are allowed to debate their perspectives right along side everyone else. We are just given the charge to follow and enforce the guidelines set by the board. I am not violating any rules, but if you believe I am please feel free to report my post to an Admin and he will take the appropriate action if necessary.

Scan....here is what you need to know about me .... I dont rat people out. If I have a problem with you, I will let you know.

 

[Skandelon]

Scan....here is what you need to know about me .... I dont rat people out. If I have a problem with you, I will let you know.

That is the biblical model after all!

But, if I abuse my power, delete all your posts and don't listen to your cry's of injustice, I just want you to know the proper protocol for handling me.

 

[Aaron]

Good thing God sent the apostles Augustine (and later Calvin) to complete the revelation of scripture for us. I guess before they came along during those first 5 centuries when all those martyrs where being killed for preaching Christ and him crucified they could have just kept quite because they weren't preaching the "real" gospel anyway.

[Edited - Personal attacks are against BB policy]

Augustine and Calvin (and don't forget Luther) were simply expounding upon Paul. I would call it Christianity or the Gospel, but these days that isn't specific enough, and no one has coined the term Paulism.

So Calvinism it is. :love2:

 

[Skandelon]

Augustine and Calvin (and don't forget Luther) were simply expounding upon Paul.

Question beg much?

I would call it Christianity or the Gospel, but these days that isn't specific enough, and no one has coined the term Paulism.

Actually it's called "Pauline Theology," and it begs the question to presume it's equated to your brand of Calvinism.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Question beg much?

Actually it's called "Pauline Theology," and it begs the question to presume it's equated to your brand of Calvinism.

Actually Martyn Lloyd Jones had identified the brand of Calvinism I subscribe to as Pauline. Would you like to see the quote?

Also since you mentioned it, Id be interested in knowing the brand of Calvinism you subscribed to & how it differs from Aaron's (since your also aware of what "Brand" Aaron subscribes to). If that embarrasses anyone then feel free to illustrate my own. Then part 2 can be identifying & qualifying your own individual brand of Arminism as I'm curious to find out. Could you lay that out for us I wonder?

 

[Aaron]

Question beg much?

Did you flunk your debate classes? It would only be question-begging if I were submitting assertions of Calvin and Luther or Augustine to that effect as evidence. For example:

Calvin was merely expounding upon Paul.

How do you know?
Calvin said so.​

It may interest you to know, that I became a Calvinist through a systematic study of the Scriptures. I hadn't read a word of Calvin till much later.

Calvinism is the Gospel. Anything else is not.

Actually it's called "Pauline Theology,"

*sigh* You don't think I know that? You boast of your rhetorical expertise and the use of tongue-in-cheek escapes you?

. . .and it begs the question to presume it's equated to your brand of Calvinism

See correction above.

And for the record, there was no personal attack. Your sarcasm was a welcome respite from the feigned civility and formality of your moderator persona. I told you I would return to the debate when you would be yourself. Looks like I have to wait a while longer.

 

[Aaron]

. . . (since your also aware of what "Brand" Aaron subscribes to). . .

He may be begging the question! :laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I think we would all agree with this sentiment, but our discussion is in regard to our differing perspectives and interpretations of what we read "straight from the bible." Either God has preselected a particular number of people He will certainly save, or He has made salvation possible for all mankind desiring all to repent and believe, but making them responsible to freely accept or reject His gift. It really has little to do with the men whose names are attached to the various beliefs.

I would say that here you nailed it. My ancestors though never had pretensions of a blended church. As far as I know the real concern there was what type of baptism to conduct & they, I believe allowed for both Paedo & Credo baptism, which may have undermined the longevity of the whole movement....from a theology prospect they were always Calvinistic. If your a believer in Doctrines of Grace, you have a systematic theology that really is forgiving to a believer & one tends not to dwell on the loss of those God does not choose...thats between them & God & HE is Sovereign. Most Welsh/English/Scottish & Cornish miners didn't have unions & were just thankful for jobs. They did not ask the owners of the Mines if they were being fair. John L Lewis & the development of unions in America had to have changed the perspective on Religion more than Finney or Dallas Theological Seminary ever could have.

As for the practicing Calvinist / Believer in DoG. The Ancestors were correct. If you want complete autonomy in your chosen faith, then you need to have your own particular church. Else wise you set yourself up for criticism & discord.

 

[Skandelon]

Actually Martyn Lloyd Jones had identified the brand of Calvinism I subscribe to as Pauline.

Of course he does, he is a Calvinist after all. So?

Also since you mentioned it, Id be interested in knowing the brand of Calvinism you subscribed to & how it differs from Aaron's (since your also aware of what "Brand" Aaron subscribes to). If that embarrasses anyone then feel free to illustrate my own. Then part 2 can be identifying & qualifying your own individual brand of Arminism as I'm curious to find out. Could you lay that out for us I wonder?

Sounds like a very long homework assignment, so no thank you. You can gather a lot of this info by simply searching through our previous posts though, if indeed you are really interested in finding an answer to this question (which doesn't relate to the topic of the OP or the point I was making regarding Aaron's beliefs.)

 

[Skandelon]

Did you flunk your debate classes? It would only be question-begging if I were submitting assertions of Calvin and Luther or Augustine to that effect as evidence.

No, in school I was a master debater. The assertion to which I was referring was the one in which you presumed Paul to be teaching Calvinistic doctrine; which begs the question up for debate. If that wasn't what you were meaning to assert, fine; but, why then why point out that Calvin and the rest interpreted Paul calvinistically? Isn't that kind of a given?

It may interest you to know, that I became a Calvinist through a systematic study of the Scriptures. I hadn't read a word of Calvin till much later.

As is the case with most modern day "Calvinists," and may be the reason for the more hard deterministic views of many today.

Calvinism is the Gospel. Anything else is not.

So, do you believe that someone who only hears the "basics" of the story regarding Christ and him being crucified and never learns of the doctrines related to predestination, particular atonement, total depravity, unconditional election can't really be saved? I'm asking what are the implications of such a view in light of the many Christians who not only reject Calvinistic soteriology but the millions who never even knew of it.

*sigh* You don't think I know that? You boast of your rhetorical expertise and the use of tongue-in-cheek escapes you?

Maybe it is you who missed the tongue-in-cheek reply? And besides my joke above, when have I boasted of my rhetorical expertise?

And for the record, there was no personal attack

You may not consider condescending accusations of being fake and hiding behind a facade as a personal attack, but I do, and I believe most other civil and reasonable believers would agree.

Your sarcasm was a welcome respite from the feigned civility and formality of your moderator persona.

What you called "feigned civility" the rest of Christendom calls "lovingkindness" and "brotherly respect." I'm not faking my kindness toward you Aaron, regardless of what you think you perceive. I sincerely care about you. You are my brother in the Lord. We both love the same savior and are heir of the same Father. I actually picture us in heaven one day laughing about this very discussion (in my mind I'll be laughing a bit more because you'll have just been proven to be in error, but still laughing nonetheless ) I'm just kidding with you, btw.

I think you may take this disagreement too seriously. As I've told you before, my brother and best friends are reformed and having been a member of Reformed churches, I have many friends of the Calvinistic belief. We get along fine. I love them dearly. We laugh and joke and debate vigorously. They have never accused me of pretending like I really love them. So, maybe the medium of an online debate forum doesn't allow you to judge correctly, I don't know? But these personal attacks have to stop regardless of what you think you know about me.

Granted, once given the charge of being a moderator I have a certain responsibility which is more "formal" in nature, but that hasn't in any way changed the way I engage people in the discussion over doctrine. I have always attempted to avoid personal attacks and stick to the topics of discussion. I'm still doing that today.

I told you I would return to the debate when you would be yourself. Looks like I have to wait a while longer.

What is not myself Aaron? What specifically has changed? I have always corrected you when I believe you to be in error and have done so without personal attacks. So, what has changed? I have always attempted to follow the rules, the only difference now is that I get to help remind others to do the same.

 

[Aaron]

No, in school I was a master debater. The assertion to which I was referring was the one in which you presumed Paul to be teaching Calvinistic doctrine; which begs the question up for debate. If that wasn't what you were meaning to assert, fine; but, why then why point out that Calvin and the rest interpreted Paul calvinistically? Isn't that kind of a given?

"Master" my Aunt Emma's corset cover. See correction above.

As for your insistence upon your own integrity: whatever. It pretty much speaks for itself.

See ya! :type:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Of course he does, he is a Calvinist after all. So?


Sounds like a very long homework assignment, so no thank you. You can gather a lot of this info by simply searching through our previous posts though, if indeed you are really interested in finding an answer to this question (which doesn't relate to the topic of the OP or the point I was making regarding Aaron's beliefs.)

This may sound odd but sometimes not answering a question gives the person asking the question the answer.

Thank you

 

[Skandelon]

This may sound odd but sometimes not answering a question gives the person asking the question the answer.

You are exactly right...that does sound odd. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

As for your insistence upon your own integrity: whatever. It pretty much speaks for itself.

Yes it does, so you can't stop speculating then, right? :saint:

 

[humblethinker]

I dont think he is saying that. How can you draw that conclusion?

Sounds Luke you missed the part right before the part you are objecting to:

skan said: "... and would be tantamount to me saying something absurd like, "A Non-Cal...​

.

This totally changes the meaning as I'm sure you would agree.