Slowly moving my wife towards Reformed Theology from IFB theology

[quantumfaith]

This thread has gotten completely OT.

Perhaps it started off track?

 

[exscentric]

Perhaps it started off track?

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[HungryInherit]

Translation:

I need advice about how to subtly and manipulatively influence my wife's convictions......

God's grace is not, and never was truly sufficient to causally determine one's convictions.

I, believe subtle tactics must be used in order to shape her view one way or the other.
Your Theology is ragingly inconsistent.
You fight God's will at every turn.

If God's grace is sufficient to teach her all things in his own time than he will, and he won't need your manipulation to do it.

But, you don't do that.

Calvinists rarely do.

You lambast the "manipulation" of "altar-calls" and "Finney-ism" (or whatever the preferred zeitgeist is at the time) and then seek advice from fellow determinists about precisely how many verses of "Just as I am" are needed to manipulate your own wife into believing as you do while not seeming overly pushy.

Let God be Sovereign and stop trying to "help" him, and it may be just fine. (If your Theology was sound)...But you ask your own determinist brethren to help you manipulate her convictions in defiance of all you theoretically believe to be true, and they are MORE THAN HAPPY to oblige...

The hypocrisy and inconsistency is manifestly obvious.

B.T.W:
Just reading your posts, it sounds to me that she owns no less than every pair of pants in your presumptively Theologically sound family. Johny Mac may not have done you as good a turn as you think.

I married a die-hard Presby.....Calvinist Determinist who had the shorter Catechism memorized from age ten:

My tactic was simple:
I handed her books, I told her to search the Scriptures for herself and didn't hear excuses about her being too slothful or lazy to read books.........(an excuse which apparently flies in your wife's case).
She converted from a lifetime of determinism and Calvinism to Bible-Believing synergism quickly enough. By your own admission, you don't even rightly influence which Church your family attends, what they learn etc....

You have to "sneak-off" just to attend a Church of your preference?
That dog won't hunt dude.

You may think that you comprehend God's Sovereignty above all Arminians and what-not, but I can assure you of this:

You are no more the "Sovereign" in your own home than the man in the moon.

Maybe someone other than Piper or Mac can help you figure out how that's done.

:applause:

 

[preacher4truth]

And the opening post *wasn't* an anti-arminian attack?

Your use of the word "attack" might be a tad harsh, when you consider what Evan wrote in his opening post (i.e., combining "arminian teachings" with the words "anti-biblical").

Of course it wasn't an attack arminian teachings are in fact anti-biblical. It's no different than the threads of Van and others who hold to dissident theology who call the same against my brothers in the reformed camp. I haven't seen you mewling over those threads in the same manner. :thumbsup:

 

[Don]

Of course it wasn't an attack arminian teachings are in fact anti-biblical. It's no different than the threads of Van and others who hold to dissident theology who call the same against my brothers in the reformed camp. I haven't seen you mewling over those threads in the same manner. :thumbsup:

Because I usually don't bother reading Van's posts. He's made up his mnd and refuses to budge; attempting to discuss with him only provides more venue for him to espouse his views.

I should probably do the same with Evan.

 

[Salty]

Scripture does not mandate an altar call - but unless you can show me the Scripture that prohibits an altar call - then you are wrong in saying it is unbiblical.

Did I miss your answer to this or.....

 

[preacher4truth]

Because I usually don't bother reading Van's posts.

Yet you have read them and haven't mewled about his attacks on others as you've done here. My point.

He's made up his mnd and refuses to budge; attempting to discuss with him only provides more venue for him to espouse his views.

Why should he budge? His arminian slant has led him to where he is theologically.

I should probably do the same with Evan.

I've not known you to be so timid and easily offended. John is outspoken, but he's not in error.

 

[evangelist6589]

No it hasn't. You said you were trying to move your wife toward Reformed theology, and I am pointing out the serious errors in your theology.

As I said earlier one can't debate or reason with you. You are not looking for a debate, but a platform to air your opinions. But if you are serious about debating with Reformed then I suggest you read some books. Many Reformed have read your books, yet you can't read ours.

The Gospel Call & True Conversion by Paul Washer
The Gospel According to Jesus by John MacArthur
Slave by John MacArthur
Desiring God by John Piper

 

[Rippon]

Are you certain? Perhaps he has, and this is the conclusion he has come to?

He's a young man who is a student at Massillon Baptist College. It's KJVO as he is. It is certainly anti-Calvinistc in its doctrinal stance.

It is a given that he has bought into his theological mindset without much serious reading. Reading the works of noted Calvinists through the centuries and how they interact with the biblical text is something that is off his radar.

 

[Winman]

As I said earlier one can't debate or reason with you. You are not looking for a debate, but a platform to air your opinions. But if you are serious about debating with Reformed then I suggest you read some books. Many Reformed have read your books, yet you can't read ours.

The Gospel Call & True Conversion by Paul Washer
The Gospel According to Jesus by John MacArthur
Slave by John MacArthur
Desiring God by John Piper

My books? Which are those?

I suggest you put those Reformed books away and read the Bible, you are learning pure error.

 

[Aaron]

Perhaps it started off track?

No doubt about it. With such a disparity in views, one wonders why they married in the first place—well, we KNOW why Christian men will marry women who don't share their basic doctrines—but why did she marry him?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I agree with you, however how can I respect teachers in the IFB movement whom do not preach on SIN, and repentance, but instead preach a "God has a wonderful plan for your life" hook and sinker message at the Christmas service? The pastor did not mention sin, repentance, the Holiness of God, hell, judgment, or anything of the sort. Just a "God has a wonderful plan for your life" and then the alter call which led people to a prayer, but what did they repent from?? Why did they come to Christ? They came to better their life, not because they knew they were doomed to spend eternal judgment apartment from God. I cannot respect such sermons in such churches.

That sickens me too....I just walk away from those places. Have you been following Paul Washer.....he will set you straight.

 

[evangelist6589]

That sickens me too....I just walk away from those places. Have you been following Paul Washer.....he will set you straight.

On page 88 of the book I mentioned earlier by him.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Be cautious people. Winman is teaching some serious error in this post. First he is teaching the Ransom to Satan Atonement view which states that God had to pay Satan to purchase man's freedom, and second he is teaching a dualism between God and Satan which is false. Satan is a being and not God, and he cannot equally battle God. He only does what God allows him, and has no power other than what God has allowed him.

Nobody pays attention to him anyway. NO WORRIES!

 

[Winman]

Nobody pays attention to him anyway. NO WORRIES!

Well, it is certain that evangelist6589 was not paying attention to me, I never said anything about God paying Satan a ransom for our atonement. I don't know where he got that, but he certainly did not get that from me. I would challenge anyone here to show where I said such a thing.

He also accused me of teaching a "dualism" between God and Satan, again, something I never mentioned. Again, I would like anyone to show where I said or implied such a thing.

So, he might have been paying attention to Paul Washer or one of his Reformed teachers (I don't know), but he certainly was not paying attention to me. I simply said that Satan is not God's servant, he is God's enemy and adversary, and I showed scripture in Revelation 12 where there is "war" between Satan and God.

 

[evangelist6589]

Nobody pays attention to him anyway. NO WORRIES!

My wife is having surgery today and I got the day off. I am bringing a JI Packer & Paul Washer, book to read while I wait, along with my Bible. However I am also bringing a book from a Dallas Seminary pastor whom is not Reformed but can teach much in the topic of sufferings, trials, hardships, etc.. The claim that I cannot learn from Non Reformed is a false one. However I get most of my meat and vegetables from them.

 

[Don]

Yet you have read them and haven't mewled about his attacks on others as you've done here. My point.

Au contraire, mein freund. I haven't read anything by Van in months. I debated with Van in the past; once I saw that he refused to see any position other than his own, I deemed it a waste of time. The same reason I don't respond to anything about Skandelon or Winman.

Why should he budge? His arminian slant has led him to where he is theologically.

My arminian slant has led me to where I am (although as I've admitted in the past, I'm a borderline calvinist); but I prefer to try to be intellectually honest and examine viewpoints rather than simply disregard them.

I've not known you to be so timid and easily offended. John is outspoken, but he's not in error.

Timid? :tongue3: You obviously haven't read some of my posts to Evangelist in the past.

Easily offended? Nah; I just prefer not to wallow in the negativity and constant bickering that is the calvinist-vs.-arminian "debate".

 

[InTheLight]

Anti-cal attack #1.

Anti-cal attack #2.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Not at all. I was merely pointing out that Evan made two conflicting statements. Kind of like this:

"The sky was an azure blue."
"The sky was a leaden gray."

Now, this is an attack on someone's theology:

Your view sounds hyper-synergistic, which is why it will be widely accepted by those who have problems in their understanding of soteriology, repentance, faith and the Gospel.

 

[InTheLight]

At the time in my IFB days no Reformed could change me as the only the HS did that. In the same way no one can change my wife as its a job of the HS. Do you not believe this?

Yes, I believe that. However, you said two different, conflicting things.

 

[Winman]

My wife is having surgery today and I got the day off. I am bringing a JI Packer & Paul Washer, book to read while I wait, along with my Bible. However I am also bringing a book from a Dallas Seminary pastor whom is not Reformed but can teach much in the topic of sufferings, trials, hardships, etc.. The claim that I cannot learn from Non Reformed is a false one. However I get most of my meat and vegetables from them.

Who claimed that you could not learn from a Non Reformed book or teacher? Show where anyone said that.