Stop misrepresenting my view!

[seekingthetruth]

Just let me say that ANYTHING a regular Christian posts is deemed 'uneducated', 'ignorant', ans even 'heretic', by the Calvinists on this board.

If Calvinism is so obvious, then why did it take 1500 years for man to figure it out? God was pretty precise about salvation in the Bible, and the need for the sacrifice of the blood of Jesus....but He never said directly that He was only going to save a few that are predestined, and the rest of us are screwed. (He did say that only a few would accept salvation, but He never said He would only accept a few) You guys 'determined' that by 'systematic theology', which means nothing more than applying man's logic to God's Word. News flash here!!!!.....man's logic is the most flawed concept in the universe. You can't apply man's logic to God's Word.

You guys made that up by over studying the Bible, and by a need to feel special. That's right, DoG gives priveledge to certain people with the assumed special preference over everybody else ever created. You believe that God 'sanctioned' your salvation before the beginning of time while simply creating others He intended to send to Hell. This doctrine is very arrogant and selfish.

I know, I know, you are going to say that I don't understand DoG...but I submit to you that it is not my understanding that is lacking, it is instead your acceptance of the fallicay of it that is lacking.

Luke2427 made it clear that anyone that doesn't accept the DoG is ignorant. He said that if we are not Bible scholars that can spend many years figuring it out for ourselves, then we should believe in "historic theology", and "historic this and that"

That is a bunch of bull.

My biggest problem with you Calvinists is that you seem to be more concerned with converting us regular Christians to Calvinism, than you are converting lost souls to Christ.

Take your "gospel" to the lost, and leave us regular Christians alone.

We are already going to heaven

John

 

[glfredrick]

In regards to DHK's post:


I think this is an excellent idea. I for one would like to know what Calvin actually believed instead of the modern day TULIP. It may turn out that we're all Calvinists. .........:tongue3:

Perhaps indeed.

And, actually, Calvin mostly ratified a view that was held by many (not most, not all, not just a few) in the church (generic) over most of her history.

Calvin himself argued for a position most like what is now called "infralapsarian" and saw a place for the free moral agency of human beings. What he rejected was that the free moral agency of human beings could somehow influence God's decrees, God's will, or God's election.

Calvin was not "hyper" and if one actually reads his works, especially his commentaries they will find that he is the most reasonable, informed, thoughtful, and logical of Bible scholars. He ACTUALLY sought to bring forth the truth of the Word of God and did so in an era when turning TO the Scriptures often meant a death sentence from the entrenched Roman Catholic Church.

But, of course, it is much more entertaining to cast Calvin in the roll of some evil henchman, a Catholic at heart, who sought only to enslave God's people... :BangHead:

Talk about mis-representing... :tear:

 

[glfredrick]

I think some do so pretty fairly, yes, but most don't which I have pointed out a few times.

I think Calvin (and Spurgeon) took a more biblical approach to doctrine. Meaning that what ever verse they were handling they attempted to remain true to the original intent of that text, not to some system of thought. This leads to quotes that seem to contradict each other. This is why Arminians quote Spurgeon almost as much as Calvinists do, and why many can make a strong case for Calvin's denial of Limited atonement. Some seem to out Calvin John Calvin in favor of a logical/philosophical system that I think would make Calvin cringe if he were alive today.

Which brings up a point that I have argued before, and was largely ignored.

"Calvinism" is not necesarily the teachings of Calvin. Calvinism is more the teachings of those who came after Calvin, and who formulated the TULIP (Calvin DID NOT write that!) in opposition to the Remonstrants who offered the 5 Articles to counteract the teachings of Calvin that had come to be known as "Calvinism" after Calvin's own time.

The Remonstrants, arguing SOME of what Jacob Arminius presented have one large issue they need to deal with -- the Council of Trent -- which found the Roman Catholic Church arguing, for the most part, the SAME THINGS that the Remonstrants did. There is no coincidence between the timing of Trent and the timing of Arminius' response to Calvin, whom he knew well as a student, but was obviously swayed by the Catholic reasoning. The two match too well to be otherwise and many have seen the tie-ins.

But there is a larger problem in that many here argue something OTHER than Calvinism in one of its forms or Arminianism in one of its forms, and that is that some here disavow of ANY system of doctrine, and their responses to common issues are all over the map theologically. I'm not trying to be perjorative here at all, just stating a fact that is easily verified by reading posts -- some are far left of Arminius some far right of Calvin -- and sometimes at the same time depending on which doctrine is being discussed.

 

[DaChaser1]

Just let me say that ANYTHING a regular Christian posts is deemed 'uneducated', 'ignorant', ans even 'heretic', by the Calvinists on this board.

If Calvinism is so obvious, then why did it take 1500 years for man to figure it out? God was pretty precise about salvation in the Bible, and the need for the sacrifice of the blood of Jesus....but He never said directly that He was only going to save a few that are predestined, and the rest of us are screwed. (He did say that only a few would accept salvation, but He never said He would only accept a few) You guys 'determined' that by 'systematic theology', which means nothing more than applying man's logic to God's Word. News flash here!!!!.....man's logic is the most flawed concept in the universe. You can't apply man's logic to God's Word.

You guys made that up by over studying the Bible, and by a need to feel special. That's right, DoG gives priveledge to certain people with the assumed special preference over everybody else ever created. You believe that God 'sanctioned' your salvation before the beginning of time while simply creating others He intended to send to Hell. This doctrine is very arrogant and selfish.

I know, I know, you are going to say that I don't understand DoG...but I submit to you that it is not my understanding that is lacking, it is instead your acceptance of the fallicay of it that is lacking.

Luke2427 made it clear that anyone that doesn't accept the DoG is ignorant. He said that if we are not Bible scholars that can spend many years figuring it out for ourselves, then we should believe in "historic theology", and "historic this and that"

That is a bunch of bull.

My biggest problem with you Calvinists is that you seem to be more concerned with converting us regular Christians to Calvinism, than you are converting lost souls to Christ.

Take your "gospel" to the lost, and leave us regular Christians alone.

We are already going to heaven

John

Don't know, why did it take over 1000 years for calvin/Luthor and the reformers rediscover the true Gospel of Grace in the midst of the RCC false Gospel/doctrines?

isn't it interesting that what reformed the christian church as regarding Sotierology was what you call a heresy, calvinism!

 

[DaChaser1]

Which brings up a point that I have argued before, and was largely ignored.

"Calvinism" is not necesarily the teachings of Calvin. Calvinism is more the teachings of those who came after Calvin, and who formulated the TULIP (Calvin DID NOT write that!) in opposition to the Remonstrants who offered the 5 Articles to counteract the teachings of Calvin that had come to be known as "Calvinism" after Calvin's own time.

The Remonstrants, arguing SOME of what Jacob Arminius presented have one large issue they need to deal with -- the Council of Trent -- which found the Roman Catholic Church arguing, for the most part, the SAME THINGS that the Remonstrants did. There is no coincidence between the timing of Trent and the timing of Arminius' response to Calvin, whom he knew well as a student, but was obviously swayed by the Catholic reasoning. The two match too well to be otherwise and many have seen the tie-ins.

But there is a larger problem in that many here argue something OTHER than Calvinism in one of its forms or Arminianism in one of its forms, and that is that some here disavow of ANY system of doctrine, and their responses to common issues are all over the map theologically. I'm not trying to be perjorative here at all, just stating a fact that is easily verified by reading posts -- some are far left of Arminius some far right of Calvin -- and sometimes at the same time depending on which doctrine is being discussed.

Also have to take into account that there is what is called calvinism as just regards to Sotierology, DoG, which many non reformed here would hold to, and the calvinism of the reformed, the entire package of it!

Sometimes these 2 groups get intermingled here by Non cals!

 

[quantumfaith]

glfredrick, I think it is a bit sleazy to post PM's in a public forum without asking first, but since I have nothing there to hide I will let it go... and copy private my response here as well:

Only if you insisted on calling them heretics, which was unnecessary regardless of whether you name them or not.

We can both agree that Winman might lean more that direction than me, but even he denied believing those two essential points of Pelagianism which have been deemed heretical. His choice of words may be confusing and even 'incorrect' (I don't know because I don't read his very LONG posts very often), but you have to take him on his word and seek to understand his intent. You do that by dealing with his actual quotes in their actual context, that was my point. Just pulling uncredited quotes out of context and labeling them heretical is not fair by anyone's standard. I was attempting to show you that with my jest where I quote unnamed Calvinists and draw obviously heretical conclusions.

Ok, well I would have known that if you had just quoted them in their context....

And yes he can get snarky too...we can all fall into that if we let it get to that point.

Really? Do you really think he believe men are born good? I don't think that is what he is saying...but again I don't want to be put in the place of defending his views because I don't agree with some of this terminology. It's kind of the same with you and Luke. You took issue with some choice of words he would use but in essence agreed with him. No one wants to defend someone various nuanced views, but I don't see anything YET that rises to the level of pelagianism...

Are you talking about my jest post where I quote unnamed Calvinists? Those weren't meant to be your quotes. Those were general made up statements taken out of context to make a point that anyone can take a quote out of context and draw false conclusions about the authors intent. That is all.

I did not such thing. Show me where I attributed those quotes to you.

You misunderstood the point of that post and have taken it way too personally.


Of course you don't. I know you are not a hyperist. THAT WAS THE POINT.

I was showing you what Winman must be feeling by being accused of something he doesn't believe.


Again, not the point. The point is that you can make any statement mean something not intended. Not all supras are hyper, are they? See my point now?

No more so than you did to those you quoted and labeled heretics. At least I didn't really quote any actual person so there is no offended party in my post, there is in yours. The only reason you are offended is because you presumed I was quoting you or putting words in your mouth when I never even mentioned you in that post. I was making a point as explained above. If it offended you then maybe you shouldn't do those things to others.


No one has contacted me about that post except you. I think they will see the irony of you reporting a post meant to point out your original error.

As Nathan said to David, "You are that man..." That was the intent of that post, to show what YOU were doing to Winman and others by taking a quote out of context and drawing unintended heretical conclusions.

I give a HEARTY AMEN to your point that PM's should not be posted in the public forum without the consent of the parties. I too have been the subject of thus, and "cautious" now to keep things public as I know some do not have the personal etiquette to keep PM discussions in PM.

 

[preacher4truth]

Just let me say that ANYTHING a regular Christian posts is deemed 'uneducated', 'ignorant', ans even 'heretic', by the Calvinists on this board.

Can you show and prove the plurality of "calvinists" who have done this? In time I could show you, as well as several others a plurality of non-cals who do this towards reformed brothers.

If Calvinism is so obvious, then why did it take 1500 years for man to figure it out? God was pretty precise about salvation in the Bible, and the need for the sacrifice of the blood of Jesus....but He never said directly that He was only going to save a few that are predestined, and the rest of us are screwed. (He did say that only a few would accept salvation, but He never said He would only accept a few) You guys 'determined' that by 'systematic theology', which means nothing more than applying man's logic to God's Word. News flash here!!!!.....man's logic is the most flawed concept in the universe. You can't apply man's logic to God's Word.

Please show us where and at what point in history that all of Scripture and the revelation of Scripture was understood clearly and presented concisely and perfectly. Please also show where one has taught He will only accept a few presented by Calvinists in the way you've described above. Most "Calvinists" I know share and believe that a vast multitude will be saved. By the way, you use logic to interpret Scripture as well as any honest believer would admit.

You guys made that up by over studying the Bible, and by a need to feel special. That's right, DoG gives priveledge to certain people with the assumed special preference over everybody else ever created. You believe that God 'sanctioned' your salvation before the beginning of time while simply creating others He intended to send to Hell. This doctrine is very arrogant and selfish.

God does the choosing. The Scriptures are clear on this. He chooses according to nothing we've done. Did God create others knowing He would send them to hell?

I know, I know, you are going to say that I don't understand DoG...but I submit to you that it is not my understanding that is lacking, it is instead your acceptance of the fallicay of it that is lacking.

If you say so. Doesn't this come across as brash and arrogant, the same thing you've accused others of?

Luke2427 made it clear that anyone that doesn't accept the DoG is ignorant. He said that if we are not Bible scholars that can spend many years figuring it out for ourselves, then we should believe in "historic theology", and "historic this and that"

That is a bunch of bull.

Is it healthy, Christian (Christlike) to hold a grudge toward someone, as you still do toward Luke2427? What do the Scriptures say about these things? And, where exactly are you failing to keep them in regards to this scenario?

You're coming across as having a higher view of soteriology and Scripture moreso than another camp, why are you holding to grudges while condemning others Scriptural viewpoints? If you're right, and we are all wrong, why are you seemingly always angry and holding past grudges? Lead the way brother, you have the true view of Scripture! Lead by example, be like Christ!

My biggest problem with you Calvinists is that you seem to be more concerned with converting us regular Christians to Calvinism, than you are converting lost souls to Christ.

Take your "gospel" to the lost, and leave us regular Christians alone.

We are already going to heaven

John

I would agree with your contention, there is a campaign to win others to "Calvinism." I would qualify that a little with they have a zeal for knowledge, and a passion for the glory of God, and desire others to see God in His Sovereignty and glory.

I noticed you put it "gospel." Are you saying we are preaching a false Gospel?

Do you take your "gospel" to the lost? How can you succeed with so much penned up anger and these grudges you are holding?

- Peace

 

[OldRegular]

Joard.

If Calvinism is so obvious, then why did it take 1500 years for man to figure it out?

For the simple reason that as Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox communions became dominant in the "Christian" World they taught a works based Salvation. I would also note that Augustine [ 354 – 430 AD] was perhaps a forerunner of Calvin:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/histor...istorical-theology-the-theology-of-augustine/

Augustine’s theology is summarized as follows: his theory of knowledge revolved around two ideas: whether knowledge was possible and if it is possible, how was it acquired? He rested in the innate qualities of the mind that were given to men by God. God is the eternal, transcendent, infinite and perfect being. He is the supreme light by which all knowledge takes place. The Triune God is the creator of all that exists. God made the universe out of nothing. This presupposes the relationship that exists between God and time. God created time because only God is eternal. Evil exists in the world because God ordained it, and it is a corruption of the relationship men have with God. It is not a “thing” but a relationship, or rather a corruption of nature. Evil springs from free will which is bound to the nature it occupies. In fallen men the will is evil and only does evil. When men are regenerated, they have the capacity to choose good or evil. The will was corrupted as a result of original sin which envelops all humanity in a mass of damnation, unless otherwise rescued by Christ. That which saves men is called grace, and this grace is extended because of God’s predestination. Grace is irresistible since predestination is the act of the divine will. After one is saved by grace, merit then occupies a principle place where men must strive to be holy. This holiness, though, is a work of God. This divine grace comes to men in and through Jesus Christ, but in the context of the communion of the church. The visible church comprises local meeting houses of the membership of those that have professed faith in Christ and their children; all those people who are part of the church and are alive today. The invisible church are all the elect from all time. His ideas surrounding the sacrament of baptism are vague and confused at times, though against the Donatists he made the point that baptism is not affected by the one administering it. If it is done in the name of the Trinity, and the formula is correct (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) then it should be considered a valid baptism by ordained men.

 

[OldRegular]

You guys made that up by over studying the Bible, and by a need to feel special. That's right, DoG gives priveledge to certain people with the assumed special preference over everybody else ever created.

A very sad and false characterization of those who believe in the Doctrine of Grace. Those of us who are saved are completely humbled, and perhaps awed, by understanding that God chose us to Salvation in Jesus Christ without any merit on our part.

 

[kyredneck]

Which brings up a point that I have argued before, and was largely ignored.

"Calvinism" is not necesarily the teachings of Calvin......

Zactly:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1792353#post1792353

 

[glfredrick]

I give a HEARTY AMEN to your point that PM's should not be posted in the public forum without the consent of the parties. I too have been the subject of thus, and "cautious" now to keep things public as I know some do not have the personal etiquette to keep PM discussions in PM.

I am getting weary of being constantly on the receiving end around here...

I will have to ask forgiveness, but nothing was exposed that was THAT senstive, as my own remarks are included in the conversation.

 

[DaChaser1]

I am getting weary of being constantly on the receiving end around here...

I will have to ask forgiveness, but nothing was exposed that was THAT senstive, as my own remarks are included in the conversation.

Why is so hard for some of us her to actually list a formal statement of beliefs, as concerning their own bibical/systematic theology?

 

[quantumfaith]

I am getting weary of being constantly on the receiving end around here...

I will have to ask forgiveness, but nothing was exposed that was THAT senstive, as my own remarks are included in the conversation.

I Personally was not referencing you myself, but I was in agreement with the principle. So far I have "stayed out" of this fray.

 

[glfredrick]

I Personally was not referencing you myself, but I was in agreement with the principle. So far I have "stayed out" of this fray.

Indeed... You had the decency to ask. I appreciate that.

 

[preacher4truth]

I am getting weary of being constantly on the receiving end around here...

I will have to ask forgiveness, but nothing was exposed that was THAT senstive, as my own remarks are included in the conversation.

You're in the right and nothing you've done is wrong. Asking forgiveness adds to your credibility in my book, and is Christ-like. I can't however say the same for anothers agenda, I have to, and will be honest and forthcoming.

"Some" fellers are a little bitter about their past indiscretions, and are still holding a grudge. When some thought they'd get a little snide and show their true selves privately, only to be exposed for it it publicly, they felt rather shameful and embarrassed for their actions.

Darkness always hates light and never wants to be exposed. Hey, if you have something rude to say, heavens sakes, don't feel bad when a man sees it and exposes it, instead recognize that God saw it, and then be ashamed. Or, do we not believe that God saw these things first, not feeling shameful for "secret" behavior before Him? WOW!

I see nothing in your dialogue glfredrick that represents any of that, but see what you shared as helpful and insightful, adding to the discussion. Your disposition in it is Christian. Thanks for that.

- Peace

 

[quantumfaith]

Indeed... You had the decency to ask. I appreciate that.

I personally think it wise to simply leave PM in PM. And be "cautious" with who you PM not in a "hiding" sense, but in the sense of having a sense of trust and respect, much like people who come to you for pastoral care and counseling.

 

[webdog]

Why is so hard for some of us her to actually list a formal statement of beliefs, as concerning their own bibical/systematic theology?

Why is it so hard for you to answer a question posed to you 2 days ago while being constantly reminded about it? You make the argument I somehow contributed to my salvation, what this thread is dealing with...answer the question.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Can you show and prove the plurality of "calvinists" who have done this? In time I could show you, as well as several others a plurality of non-cals who do this towards reformed brothers.



Please show us where and at what point in history that all of Scripture and the revelation of Scripture was understood clearly and presented concisely and perfectly. Please also show where one has taught He will only accept a few presented by Calvinists in the way you've described above. Most "Calvinists" I know share and believe that a vast multitude will be saved. By the way, you use logic to interpret Scripture as well as any honest believer would admit.



God does the choosing. The Scriptures are clear on this. He chooses according to nothing we've done. Did God create others knowing He would send them to hell?




If you say so. Doesn't this come across as brash and arrogant, the same thing you've accused others of?



Is it healthy, Christian (Christlike) to hold a grudge toward someone, as you still do toward Luke2427? What do the Scriptures say about these things? And, where exactly are you failing to keep them in regards to this scenario?

You're coming across as having a higher view of soteriology and Scripture moreso than another camp, why are you holding to grudges while condemning others Scriptural viewpoints? If you're right, and we are all wrong, why are you seemingly always angry and holding past grudges? Lead the way brother, you have the true view of Scripture! Lead by example, be like Christ!



I would agree with your contention, there is a campaign to win others to "Calvinism." I would qualify that a little with they have a zeal for knowledge, and a passion for the glory of God, and desire others to see God in His Sovereignty and glory.

I noticed you put it "gospel." Are you saying we are preaching a false Gospel?

Do you take your "gospel" to the lost? How can you succeed with so much penned up anger and these grudges you are holding?

- Peace

Preacher, i have to admit that you are one of the few calvinists on the BB that considers us all brothers in Christ, and doesnt call us regular christians ignorant. You do in fact discuss the issue in a civil manner. However, your christian attitude towards regular Christians is not the norm here on the BB. Most Cals here are very argumentitive and uppity, and consider us regular christians as bottom feeders.

And you are right, i do have a grudge against Cals because of the way Cals treat us regular Christians here on the BB. I dont have a grudge in my personal life because i don't associate or worship with any Cals, and therefore are not exposed to them. My only problem with Cals is here on the BB. Luke is the main one that casts an "idiot" stone at me, but he is not the only one.

I am simply amazed that Baptists are Calvinists. I am aware of one Calvinist Baptist Church in Broken Arrow, OK, but after attending there once, I refused to go back, and, I assumed that a reformed Baptist Church was a freak, once in a lifetime, heretic place, and that I would never see one again.

Well, I still havent seen one, but on here i am astonished at how many there seem to be.

I am hoping that the BB is just a place where Calvinists like to gather....like homos at a gay bar.....and that it is still not the norm.

And yes, I would not have such a grudge if the Cals would not call me ignorant, uneducated and heretic. I am a normal human, I push back when people push me. You will never win me over by pushing and calling me ignorant.

Again, get your people to preach to the lost, and leave us regular, born again Christians alone.

John

PS, when you teach that the gospel is only available to special, predestined, priviledged people, and that others have no chance of salvation....that is contrary to even the simplest of Bible doctrine (John 3:16)...then yes it is a false gospel.

 

[preacher4truth]

Preacher, i have to admit that you are one of the few calvinists on the BB that considers us all brothers in Christ, and doesnt call us regular christians ignorant. You do in fact discuss the issue in a civil manner. However, your christian attitude towards regular Christians is not the norm here on the BB. Most Cals here are very argumentitive and uppity, and consider us regular christians as bottom feeders.

And you are right, i do have a grudge against Cals because of the way Cals treat us regular Christians here on the BB. I dont have a grudge in my personal life because i don't associate or worship with any Cals, and therefore are not exposed to them. My only problem with Cals is here on the BB. Luke is the main one that casts an "idiot" stone at me, but he is not the only one.

I am simply amazed that Baptists are Calvinists. I am aware of one Calvinist Baptist Church in Broken Arrow, OK, but after attending there once, I refused to go back, and, I assumed that a reformed Baptist Church was a freak, once in a lifetime...and that I would never see one again.

Well, I still havent seen one, but on here i am astonished at how many there seem to be...


...And yes, I would not have such a grudge if the Cals would not call me ignorant, uneducated and heretic. I am a normal human, I push back when people push me. You will never win me over by pushing and calling me ignorant.

Again, get your people to preach to the lost, and leave us regular, born again Christians alone.

John

PS, when you teach that the gospel is only available to special, predestined, priviledged people, and that others have no chance of salvation....that is contrary to even the simplest of Bible doctrine (John 3:16)...then yes it is a false gospel.

Hey brother, all we do, as faithful and unprofitable slaves is preach the Gospel, and His will be saved. We do not know who they are, we just preach. 2 Timothy 2:8-10.

- Peace

 

[DaChaser1]

Preacher, i have to admit that you are one of the few calvinists on the BB that considers us all brothers in Christ, and doesnt call us regular christians ignorant. You do in fact discuss the issue in a civil manner. However, your christian attitude towards regular Christians is not the norm here on the BB. Most Cals here are very argumentitive and uppity, and consider us regular christians as bottom feeders.

And you are right, i do have a grudge against Cals because of the way Cals treat us regular Christians here on the BB. I dont have a grudge in my personal life because i don't associate or worship with any Cals, and therefore are not exposed to them. My only problem with Cals is here on the BB. Luke is the main one that casts an "idiot" stone at me, but he is not the only one.

I am simply amazed that Baptists are Calvinists. I am aware of one Calvinist Baptist Church in Broken Arrow, OK, but after attending there once, I refused to go back, and, I assumed that a reformed Baptist Church was a freak, once in a lifetime, heretic place, and that I would never see one again.

Well, I still havent seen one, but on here i am astonished at how many there seem to be.

I am hoping that the BB is just a place where Calvinists like to gather....like homos at a gay bar.....and that it is still not the norm.

And yes, I would not have such a grudge if the Cals would not call me ignorant, uneducated and heretic. I am a normal human, I push back when people push me. You will never win me over by pushing and calling me ignorant.

Again, get your people to preach to the lost, and leave us regular, born again Christians alone.

John

PS, when you teach that the gospel is only available to special, predestined, priviledged people, and that others have no chance of salvation....that is contrary to even the simplest of Bible doctrine (John 3:16)...then yes it is a false gospel.

I was not that surprised, due tio the simple fact that Baptists on a whole tend to be "people of the Book", more so than many other Christian groups!