preacher4truth
Active Member
James was a Calvinist as well. He agreed that works were evidence of salvation -- James 2:1ff. Too bad winman and others weren't there to line him out when Holy writ was penned.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Thanks for being objective
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
- Status
The Matthew 7 post needed to be closed because Winman hijacked it. But… the manner in which he attached Calvinists (works based salvation, false doctrine) is no different from Calvinistic attacks against his position. I have seen both sides call the other a false doctrine, faith by works, etc (although I only recall Calvinism being called a doctrine of Satan - and that was years ago).
It would be interesting to have a legitimate debate over each aspect of the issue - although I do not think it possible here.
It would be interesting to have a legitimate debate over each aspect of the issue - although I do not think it possible here.
preacher4truth
Active Member
You're broad brushing here. Show where Calvinists have done this and have literally 'attacked' and use quotes similar to his attacks. Many parrot Calvinists as attacking and stereotype when there is no clear and immediate evidence. If it isn't clear and evident presently leave it out of the equation.
Winman has been confronted for his present attacks, and you're drawing from some cosmic timeline and stereotype in your own mind, and using that to malign my brothers and myself here, and it's unnecessary. Be objective and not subjective for a change.
It would? Which aspects exactly? :thumbs:
Hijacked? I answered you. I showed how those persons in Matthew 7, the Pharisee in Luke 18, and the rich young ruler in Matthew 19 all claimed their works as their assurance they were saved, yet none were.
The reason I brought up Calvinism, is because it necessarily teaches the same thing, and I quoted R.C. Sproul quoting John Calvin as evidence that what I said was true. And they agreed perfectly with my position.
John Calvin said a pure life (good works) is the PROOF and EVIDENCE of a person's election, and that it not only proved to others you were saved, but it proved to the believer he was saved. It said to WORK that you might have assurance of salvation.
This is teaching that WORKS are the basis of faith. You cannot have faith you are saved unless you have WORKS to prove your faith.
Now, you may not like that, but that is what Calvin taught. And it relates directly to the subject of those whose confidence is built on works, such as those persons in Matthew 7, the Pharisee in Luke 18, and the rich young ruler in Matthew 19. All boasted of their works.
Now how in the world did I misrepresent Calvinism? I quoted Calvinists.
I will have to look up the posts, but I'll try and get back with you.
Any of the doctrines which differ. I'd probably find the atonement aspect most interesting because for me that was/is the most difficult.
preacher4truth
Active Member
Sure. Go dig up some mud and drag it in here. Certainly it isn't comparable to winmans nonsense, but go do it anyhow. I want to see how fragile you are when anti-Calvinism is rebuked and rebutted. I'm certain it's petty nit-picking. Any that call their salvation into question?
Ya think Sherlock? Which ones other than below?
It's limited. It is only for the elect. We do not know why, but it is a fact and I trust God in it.
And truth be known, this so-called “debate” thread merely begins with the objective to instigate personal attacks, nothing more.
Ok...then I will not continue looking. I thought that you wanted me to dig up some mud because you doubted that some Cal's considered non-Cals to hold a works based salvation and false doctrine. You can use the search feature if you desire. (But yes, there are some that indicate non-Cals think they are saved based on their own work).
I would bet those non-Cals that believe you must work to be saved would call themselves Arminians and believe that salvation can be lost. They believe you must maintain a certain degree of holiness, (although they NEVER say how much) to maintain your salvation.
Non-Cals object to being called Arminians because we do not believe we can lose salvation. Therefore, our salvation cannot be based on works.
I did not work to get saved, and my works do not keep me saved.
Wow...now I do sympathize with Winman. I don't even disagree with P4T in doctrine (that I know of), but perhaps Winman is on to something in regards to the hostility exhibited by Calvinists.
I am not trying to malign you or anyone else - although you seem to be doing a good job yourself.
You are seeing the light brother. Keep going.
You are one Calvinist I ENJOY talking to, because you are fair minded and intelligent, and I believe you sincerely want to know the truth.
Last edited by a moderator:
preacher4truth
Active Member
I'm still waiting proof. You brought it up and said you would bring it and the burden of proof is on you so don't play that burden back on me.
Now if you are using BobRyan and EV6 as your proof then you're reaching as both of them, one an SDA and one an OSAS works false teacher are to the extreme left.
I don't know about the intelligent part, but I do try to be fair minded anyway :smilewinkgrin:
Last edited by a moderator:
preacher4truth
Active Member
You use pretense and have no proof. Where are your quotes minus your politicking here?
Sure you are, and certainly and obviously you HAVE tried and it means nothing to me other than to note this attempt. Although unfounded to date you attempt to draw a distinction on both camps as being the same in their attack and yet have offered no proof on the Calvinist side. Simply because I ask for proof and challenge you, you malign me and play the solicitor of favor toward the other camp.
I've asked you for objective evidence and to date all you have is politicking and diversion tactics.
You've claimed my Calvinist brothers do the same, I've asked for proof (and recent proof) and all you've done is to make a feeble attempt to malign me and in so doing have miserably failed as it is ALL purely subjective on your part.
Yes, and I appreciate it very much. You are a good example for everyone here, including me. I tend to lose my cool at times.
Ahhhh....I was trying to ignore you. I stopped looking when you made the post that it would be mud slinging. Otherwise I'd mention things like calling non-Cal's "co-saviors," haters of the truth with no capacity for truth.
I have no idea what your point is here - I doubt anyone would disagree (except you) that people have been uncivil in both camps. I didn't mean you...well...maybe until now.
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I think that is a good point.
The Arminian position really has no way to argue for OSAS since we believe in Free Will as the model that God has chosen for Creation.
in Christ,
Bob
Protestant
Well-Known Member
I was shocked and amazed to read of the malicious and unfounded charges against you.
I implore my Calvinist brethren to take into consideration the infallible truth that Brother Winman was one of only two babies -- in all of history -- born sinless. The other, of course, was Jesus Christ.
This alone mandates we treat him with the utmost respect his holy dignity deserves.
With his sinless divine nature more or less intact it is nigh impossible that he can mislead, miss quote or misinterpret Holy Writ.
So, Winman, I implore you to keep fighting the good fight.....!
So what if you are the lone member of this board who holds to your many bizarre, zany and eccentric doctrines?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Protestant - I find the logic in your post to be illusive. Do you care to explain how it is that WinMan would need to have been "born sinless" if he were going to speak to the doctrine of assurance within the Calvinist model, or even express a thought on the subject regarding the way it appears to function?
I don't see how that conclusion "you must have been born sinless like Christ" is a conclusion based on the facts at hand.
in Christ,
Bob
I don't see how that conclusion "you must have been born sinless like Christ" is a conclusion based on the facts at hand.
in Christ,
Bob
I also believe in free will, but the difference is that I believe we are born again of "incorruptible seed". We are originally born of corruptible seed and can fall in unbelief.
But the new man cannot fall away in unbelief, because his seed remains in him, and he cannot sin.
1 Jhn 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Now, this verse cannot possibly men that a born again Christian can never commit sin, because it is obvious that all Christians do commit sin.
But the born again Christian cannot fall away forever in unbelief, because the Holy Spirit remains in him forever. Our spirit has been joined to the Holy Spirit and is now ONE spirit. We now partake of the divine nature.
This is the difference between me and you.
- Status