Stop misrepresenting my view!

[glfredrick]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you just recently say you are tired of those around here misrepresenting others...yet you do so here? Where did he even HINT at calvinists being "heretical or heterodox"? Like was recently said to you, "thou dost protest too much".

First, it is not your battle, so butt out.

Second, I asked in the form of a question, and did not make a statement. That would indicate that I was waiting a response from the poster to clarify the statement.

 

[webdog]

IF that is true, then they are incorrect. I find it hard to believe Winman or Webdog believe we aren't born in a state of separation from God, but I'm sure you wouldn't mind linking to a post where they make that claim....or would you?
Love to... Will it stir up another flap like before?

I am shocked that you cannot find them writing such things. They do OFTEN.

I won't speak for anyone but myself, but I believe man is born in a state of separation in regards to the flesh not spirit. We are by nature (sin nature) at enmity with God, but we become sinners (aptly defined as one who sins) when we do just that...sin, in the same manner Adam, Eve and every other human sans Christ has. I take James 1:15, Ezekiel 18:20, Romans 7:9, Ephesians 2:1 among many other as being literal unlike most Augustinians who take a handful of non literal Psalms or other vague passages dealing with death as being created dead sinners literally.

 

[webdog]

First, it is not your battle, so butt out.

Second, I asked in the form of a question, and did not make a statement. That would indicate that I was waiting a response from the poster to clarify the statement.

First, this is a public forum, so if you do not like others commenting on your error, don't let the good Lord hit ya where He split ya.

Second, your "form of a question" is implied as being a statement. This is what's referred to as a non sequitur. YOU just came out in recent days stating this very line of questioning happens too much around here...and you do just that. Hypocrite.

 

[glfredrick]

I won't speak for anyone but myself, but I believe man is born in a state of separation in regards to the flesh not spirit. We are by nature (sin nature) at enmity with God, but we become sinners (aptly defined as one who sins) when we do just that...sin, in the same manner Adam, Eve and every other human sans Christ has. I take James 1:15, Ezekiel 18:20, Romans 7:9, Ephesians 2:1 among many other as being literal unlike most Augustinians who take a handful of non literal Psalms or other vague passages dealing with death as being created dead sinners literally.

So, let's clarify... Would you say that newborn infants are in a state of innocence until the point at which they actually commit some known sin?

 

[glfredrick]

First, this is a public forum, so if you do not like others commenting on your error, don't let the good Lord hit ya where He split ya.

Second, your "form of a question" is implied as being a statement. This is what's referred to as a non sequitur. YOU just came out in recent days stating this very line of questioning happens too much around here...and you do just that. Hypocrite.

Fine, contribute in your own special way. You do often and it is noted by all...

And, I actually DID ask my question AS A QUESTION. I was looking for an answer. I asked you a question above and hope that you will give an answer. If I did not wish to ask a question, I am fully capable of writing a statement as I just have.

 

[webdog]

So, let's clarify... Would you say that newborn infants are in a state of innocence until the point at which they actually commit some known sin?

I've clarified this ad nauseum, no they are not "innocent" (as Abimilech was not truly innocent in taking Abraham's wife as his own), they are as we are when we stand before the Lord today...not guilty. Unlike the calvinist understanding of the atonement where Christ died ONLY for the elect, I see it much broader to include the defeat over sin, death and the curse universally. True innocence dies in the fall and will be restored when we shed this flesh.

 

[webdog]

Fine, contribute in your own special way. You do often and it is noted by all...

And, I actually DID ask my question AS A QUESTION. I was looking for an answer. I asked you a question above and hope that you will give an answer. If I did not wish to ask a question, I am fully capable of writing a statement as I just have.

True questions are posed when there is a desire to learn. Your question does not directly stem from anything that was said, hence your alleged "question" is nothing more than the desire to stir up mud. Sorry, not buying the sincerity in your "question".

 

[glfredrick]

I've clarified this ad nauseum, no they are not "innocent" (as Abimilech was not truly innocent in taking Abraham's wife as his own), they are as we are when we stand before the Lord today...not guilty. Unlike the calvinist understanding of the atonement where Christ died ONLY for the elect, I see it much broader to include the defeat over sin, death and the curse universally. True innocence dies in the fall and will be restored when we shed this flesh.

I fail to see a difference...

Not innocent, so there is some sin nature implicit and imputed in even newborn infants, yet "not guilty." Could you explain further how that works and where it says so in Scripture?

 

[glfredrick]

True questions are posed when there is a desire to learn. Your question does not directly stem from anything that was said, hence your alleged "question" is nothing more than the desire to stir up mud. Sorry, not buying the sincerity in your "question".

Oh, I have a GREAT desire to learn, but what I desire to learn may not be precisely what the other individual attempts to teach.

 

[Skandelon]

Okay, I will conceed the point that non-cals see Calvinism as false. Does that also mean that they see Calvinists as heretical? If their belief is false then one might also know that they are heterodox and heretical.

I'll let you make the call... You seem to be leaning in that direction. :wavey:

What have I ever said that you lead you to this conclusion? Was it when I talked about my brother and my best friend being Calvinistic and how I loved them, worshipped with them and went on mission with them? Was it when I defended Calvin as a theological genius? Was it when I corrected non-Cals here for implying Cals may not be as evangelistic? Was it when I provided quotes from Calvin, MacArthur and Piper showing that many classic and modern day Cals do support the concept that God really loves all mankind and desires for them to be saved? Was it my response to Aaron and other Cals a while back (where they accused our gospel of being a false gospel and Calvinism being the only true gospel) and I responded by showing our essential elements of unity and that there was no need for this type of rhetoric?

I'm just wondering what I've done to earn this accusation Fredrick?

I'll respond to your other points in the next post. I want this one to stand alone.

 

[webdog]

I fail to see a difference...

Then that's on you. Sin is a conscious violation of God's law.

Not innocent, so there is some sin nature implicit and imputed in even newborn infants, yet "not guilty." Could you explain further how that works and where it says so in Scripture?

Did already with my paraphrase of Ephesians 2:3 and the host of other Scriptures I posted that states implicitly when we die spiritually.

 

[glfredrick]

What have I ever said that you lead you to this conclusion? Was it when I talked about my brother and my best friend being Calvinistic and how I loved them, worshipped with them and went on mission with them? Was it when I defended Calvin as a theological genius? Was it when I corrected non-Cals here for implying Cals may not be as evangelistic? Was it when I provided quotes from Calvin, MacArthur and Piper showing that many classic and modern day Cals do support the concept that God really loves all mankind and desires for them to be saved? Was it my response to Aaron and other Cals a while back (where they accused our gospel of being a false gospel and Calvinism being the only true gospel) and I responded by showing our essential elements of unity and that there was no need for this type of rhetoric?

I'm just wondering what I've done to earn this accusation Fredrick?

I'll respond to your other points in the next post. I want this one to stand alone.

I am working to draw you out in clarification on some points. When it is expedient and you think you can slide in a slight againt Calvinists, you do. When called on that slight you quickly remind us of your great love for Calvinists and for Calvin.

So, which is it? Be consistent and truthful here and stop your Calvinist hunting if you actually have that great love that you now profess.

 

[glfredrick]

Then that's on you. Sin is a conscious violation of God's law.

Did already with my paraphrase of Ephesians 2:3 and the host of other Scriptures I posted that states implicitly when we die spiritually.

I am still confused as to your actual stance. How is one not innocent but also not guilty at the same time?

 

[webdog]

I am still confused as to your actual stance. How is one not innocent but also not guilty at the same time?

How can you be confused on such a trivial stance that is primary to our faith? Are you in any way innocent? Did Christ's blood cover you making you judicially not guilty in front of the Father? You fail to see the difference

 

[glfredrick]

How can you be confused on such a trivial stance that is primary to our faith? Are you in any way innocent? Did Christ's blood cover you making you judicially not guilty in front of the Father? You fail to see the difference

I see lots of differences. I am asking you to clarify your own.

Are you saying that Christ's blood was "universal" to make infants "not guilty" even before they can make their own profession of faith?

 

[webdog]

I see lots of differences. I am asking you to clarify your own.

Are you saying that Christ's blood was "universal" to make infants "not guilty" even before they can make their own profession of faith?

If we were in a court of law my attorney would object "asked and answered". Christ's blood defeated sin, death and the curse. They are not guilty of violating God's law (James 1:15 deals with WHEN and HOW one dies spiritually in such a clear manner I don't understand how anyone can hold to Augutine's error).

 

[Skandelon]

So, let me make sure I understand you. Are you arguing that God is NOT sovereign and Lord over ALL (things, people, time, etc.)?

No, I'm arguing that it begs the question to assume divine sovereignty must be defined as Calvinistic determinism defines it. That is the point up for debate after all.

I personally believe He is SO VERY SOVEREIGN that He is able to accomplish His ultimate purposes and plans without having to 'play both sides of the chess board,' so to speak.

Now you truly argue from a very human-logic perspective

Well, one human-logic perspective deserves another.

instead of arguing the Scriptures that say otherwise.

Do you mean like when God, not just Satan, actually said, " "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." Yet, you used that same phrase when quoted by Satan to imply that he was using Arminianism to deceive people.

Funny how that works once one divorces a sovereign view of God from the actions of man.

My thoughts exactly. Now, if we could only agree on a definition of divine sovereignty.

The Scriptures show us, pointedly, that God does indeed "love some" and "hate some."

And the scriptures show how we are to love God and hate our parents, but in the same manner we also know we are told to love and honor our parents. Contradiction? No more so than all the verses which speak of God's love for all people and the proof texts you are referring to regarding His 'hatred.'

Again, let me make sure I understand what you are saying here... God's sovereignty is something that would cause MORE HARM than allowing man's libertarian free will to rule man's destiny?

That was not my argument. My argument was that your view, IF WRONG, is more damaging that my view, IF WRONG.

Okay, but I'm not sure that you are helping your case... You seem to be getting farther and farther away from the God of the Bible with every word you write. Are you angry at God because of some issue or incident in your life or something? Seems that you lack a fundamental trust in God to be, well, God -- in control, knowing all, making PERFECT judgments, enacting those judgments so as to fulfill His divine will, etc.

Does this question begging and ad hominem rhetoric really help? It only serves to inflame and is not helpful to our discussion.

Since Hobbs there have been other expressions of the BF&M and besides that is not pertinent, for it is not the standard of belief of most here, especially you, it seems, or is that what you are now claiming as your published doctrine? That would be odd, for you have argued most forcefully in other directions. Hobbs was not an Arminian (and neither are you, but you do like the label).

Ok, where to start on this one? First, please show me what is in the baptist faith in message that I have contradicted. And then show me where I've said I "like" the label? I've used it in the same manner many here use the label Calvinist...its just a simplified defining term to point out a key soterilogical difference.

I would STILL like to see a positive expression of yours and everyone else's doctrines here. Most are afraid to post them and I have to wonder why... Perhaps they realize that what they truly hold in their hearts does not match up with Scripture, but then why hold them -- are we not "people of the Book" and seeking the truth of God at every turn, even if that means "repentance" of one's doctrinal views?

When you publish your first systematic theology then you can talk, otherwise you've done no more or less than I've done throughout the history on this board. I've made plenty of positive affirmations of my beliefs on various doctrines, scriptures and views. You'd have to be blind to miss them...in fact I just presented a thread on Romans 9 yesterday, which wasn't the first time.

Love to... Will it stir up another flap like before? :laugh:

Only if you quote them out of context, fail to link or credit their quotes and then called them heretical. If you want to officially report a rule violation (like heresy) you need to push the red report button and not attempt to do it publicly.

 

[glfredrick]

If we were in a court of law my attorney would object "asked and answered". Christ's blood defeated sin, death and the curse. They are not guilty of violating God's law (James 1:15 deals with WHEN and HOW one dies spiritually in such a clear manner I don't understand how anyone can hold to Augutine's error).

I am asking you very plainly to state very plainly if Christ's blood is shed for all infants so that if they die before they sin "intentionally" that they go to heaven becasue of the blood of Christ shed for them.

I will ask a followup question, "Are you saying that Augustine is "heretical and heterodox" and that we dare not follow his teaching, or are you just saying that he made a few errors in doctrine here and there? I'm asking because SO MANY people in the church (generic) down through the ages have found Augustines teaching to be well within the bounds of Scripture.

 

[webdog]

I am asking you very plainly to state very plainly if Christ's blood is shed for all infants so that if they die before they sin "intentionally" that they go to heaven becasue of the blood of Christ shed for them.

Yes, I believe all infants are covered.

I will ask a followup question, "Are you saying that Augustine is "heretical and heterodox" and that we dare not follow his teaching, or are you just saying that he made a few errors in doctrine here and there? I'm asking because SO MANY people in the church (generic) down through the ages have found Augustines teaching to be well within the bounds of Scripture.

No, he is not a heretic and I never hinted at that...like the majority of modern day believers, I believe he is wrong on the oxymoron known as being created "dead".

 

[glfredrick]

Yes, I believe all infants are covered.
No, he is not a heretic and I never hinted at that...like the majority of modern day believers, I believe he is wrong on the oxymoron known as being created "dead".

Thank you.