Sovereign Grace as it should be!

[JonC]

Yep, you've missed it and much more in your anti Sovereign Grace agenda. It must be maddening to be on such a perpetual and futile path.

Oh...yea...I almost forgot...the "agenda" Roflmao Laugh

You and SG still paranoid about the "agenda" Laugh ..... back to needing a "have you been drinking" button.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

So far the only blood spilled was that of Baptists in Boston by the Puritans. Remember Obadiah Holmes??

I agree, but am aware that murder starts with hatred, which starts with disdain.

 

[Internet Theologian]

So far the only blood spilled was that of Baptists in Boston by the Puritans. Remember Obadiah Holmes??

No, I do not recall this at the moment.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Oh...yea...I almost forgot...the "agenda" Roflmao Laugh

You and SG still paranoid about the "agenda" Laugh ..... back to needing a "have you been drinking" button.

[false accusation - edited]

 

[JonC]

How does two things happening at the exact same time not happen at the same time?

You told me that "logical orders" are not temporal and are not chronological. You said that the "logical order" of salvation is that men are regenerated because men cannot believe when they are dead. If we are going back to my argument that "logical orders" are by necessity chronological then let's talk about regeneration again.Laugh

Internet Theologian has the passage....again, let's not get ahead of ourselves until he has had a chance to look it up.

 

[TCassidy]

Obadiah Holmes

Whipped so badly by the "Puritans" he almost died. His primary antagonist, Samuel Newman, should have known better having been similarly treated in England for being a "nonconformist."

But Holmes didn't let it stop him. He pastored the Baptist church at Newport, founded by John Clarke, for over 30 years.

 

[JonC]

The agenda is in plain sight, and well known, but the pretense on your part? Oh, the DRAMA it creates!

Don't play coy, IT...spell it out. What is this agenda you speak of? Can you articulate exactly what you are trying to accuse me of or are you just broad brushing some accusation to fill in later?

I don't mind when people call others out on issues. This is a debate forum. But some here have a nasty and ungodly habit of making vague accusations without substance. I don't expect IT to respond as insofar as his claims goes he's lost as last years Easter egg. I do not have an agenda, much less an "anti-Cal" agenda. His is a foolish claim.

 

[TCassidy]

If we are going back to my argument that "logical orders" are by necessity chronological then let's talk about regeneration again.

Our regeneration takes place in time. And even then, it is impossible to separate one from the other (regeneration and faith). To say that faith comes first, and is responsible for regeneration, is a grave error. All are the simultaneous result of the application of the Grace of God to the life of the sinner, completely lacking in any spiritual or moral merit.

 

[JonC]

Our regeneration takes place in time. And even then, it is impossible to separate one from the other (regeneration and faith). To say that faith comes first, and is responsible for regeneration, is a grave error. All are the simultaneous result of the application of the Grace of God to the life of the sinner, completely lacking in any spiritual or moral merit.

Really I'm just trying to see if IT has the integrity to defend his statement. I do not care much about "logical orders", but I do view election as God electing out of fallen man (not "in time" but in effect....God choosing a people out of a fallen race). I know we are not talking temporal here. And this was only one example I offered (it just happened to be the one IT claimed was revealed by God but that I have missed).

When I was in the Army we used to say "put up or shut up." Mostly this was when we were playing cards. It's calling one's bluff. Internet Theologian has made some wild claims about an "agenda", about me being "anti-Sovereign Grace", etc. But he has yet offered one single proof of his allegations. That's called gossip...and yes, it is a sin.

 

[TCassidy]

I see more of the 'I don't understand it at all, but let me go ahead and try to explain it anyhow' going on more than the above of late.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, “It isn't so much that they are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

 

[Internet Theologian]

Our regeneration takes place in time. And even then, it is impossible to separate one from the other (regeneration and faith). To say that faith comes first, and is responsible for regeneration, is a grave error. All are the simultaneous result of the application of the Grace of God to the life of the sinner, completely lacking in any spiritual or moral merit.

I agree that believing in faith as being responsible for regeneration is a grave error. At one time I held that belief. Thank God for the things learned since that time. .

 

[TCassidy]

I agree that believing in faith as being responsible for regeneration is a grave error.

1 down, 4 to go.

Oh, wait, never mind. !!!!!

 

[Internet Theologian]

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, “It isn't so much that they are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

Great.

How about this retort, when complimented on one's vast knowledge ('You're so smart'!); 'It's not that I'm so smart it's just that you're so _____'

 

[TCassidy]

Great.

How about this retort, when complimented on one's vast knowledge ('You're so smart'!); 'It's not that I'm so smart it's just that you're so _____'

It's all relative. I know. I have some really dumb relatives!

It runs in the family. Oh. Wait! Pretend I didn't say that!

 

[Internet Theologian]

It's all relative. I know. I have some really dumb relatives!

It runs in the family. Oh. Wait! Pretend I didn't say that!

Yeah, I know!

We got into a spat the other day. Then we went on a drive and passed this donkey farm, so she sees them and says to me 'Relatives of yours'? and laughs.

I said 'Yep. In-laws'.

Still sleeping on the couch. Laugh

 

[JonC]

View attachment 560

I liked that one, but now I feel like we ran into each other at Target wearing the same dress..... LaughRoflmao

 

[Iconoclast]

[QUOTE="JonC δοῦλος,

Calvinism is not revealed truth.

I am not playing semantic games. The teaching of what is understood as Calvinism, when scripturally defined is nothing less than revealed truth.The fall, unconditional election,limited atonement, irresistable grace, and the perserverance of the saints are all truths that are revealed.
You do not believe so....thats fine....I do.

It is an understanding, a theology (a study) of revealed truth. When you can't see the difference you run the risk of elevating theology to the level of divine revelation.

You can see what you want..
I see Divine revelation defining theology for man.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Now, the way Baptists were treated by Puritan New England, that came real close to a jihad.

Whipped so badly by the "Puritans" he almost died. His primary antagonist, Samuel Newman, should have known better having been similarly treated in England for being a "nonconformist."

But Holmes didn't let it stop him. He pastored the Baptist church at Newport, founded by John Clarke, for over 30 years.

 

[JonC]

[QUOTE="JonC δοῦλος,

I am not playing semantic games. The teaching of what is understood as Calvinism, when scripturally defined is nothing less than revealed truth.The fall, unconditional election,limited atonement, irresistable grace, and the perserverance of the saints are all truths that are revealed.
You do not believe so....thats fine....I do.

You can see what you want..
I see Divine revelation defining theology for man.

No one is playing semantic games, brother Icon. Calvinism is a systematic theology. It is man's study of God. Calvinism is a study of what God has revealed to man of Himself and of redemption. But it is a systematic theology and there are areas where human reasoning us used to not only to connect the dots, to answer questions that are not necessarily answered directly, and to interpret Scripture. It is this with all Christian theologies.

I love studying theology, and I hold a Calvinistic view. I like reading how doctrines developed, the discussions and debates surrounding issues, and commentaries regarding various positions. I believe it is important to know why some Calvinists have concluded simply that Christ did not die for anyone but the elect, other's that Christ died for all and election is based on divine decree from that point, and yet others who believe that Christ died for all but not in the same way or for the same purpose. My understanding is particular redemption as summarized in the quote I provided by Edward Polhill. But these people do not hold understandings out of ignorance or confusion. They simply disagree on interpretation and reasoning out of Scripture.

The same goes for non-Calvinistic positions. John Wesley did not lack understanding. He actually brought out truths that were not of primary focus to other views. I believe he was mistaken on many points, but he was not void of understanding. Robert Picirilli actually discusses Calvinism fairly well for a "Reformation Arminian" (there are a couple of places where I think he misses the mark on Calvinism). But it is not a matter of confusion or misunderstanding. It is the human element, the potential for error in systematic theology....all systematic theology to include Calvinism. People can understand each other yet still disagree. What is valuable in discussion is not necessarily agreement but understanding.

I know that you are not so foolish or paranoid to assume I have an agenda against Calvinists. My view is Calvinistic. But I also know that we disagree on issues. I would like for our disagreement to be one of understanding, not of ignorance of where we disagree. That has been my purpose in many of our discussions.

I wish that you could grasp the depth of scholarship and study, the issues and debates, the circumstances and presuppositions, that have colored various theologies. I wish that you understood the impact the Reformation had on the development of the doctrine we hold so dear. It is not necessarily that a doctrine is wrong, but that it is a product of both scripture and extra-biblical sources. Until you can see that, it is impossible for you to truly evaluate the doctrine you hold. Does that mean Calvinism is wrong? Of course not. But it does not mean it is right either. It is just as legitimate a theology as many non-Calvinist theologies because what is different is human reasoning, not Scripture.

 

[TCassidy]

wearing the same dress.

Uh, well, you may wear a dress when you go to Target, but which restroom do you use?