The five points of Calvinism and Eternal Security.

[Revmitchell]

Yea just as I thought

 

[Reynolds]

Yea just as I thought

Another 1 liner.
If you will commit to a meaningful dialogue, I am game. I simply refuse to spend time typing simply to have you reply with your typical 1 liners and snide remarks. You start 50 threads a day about news article and drive by threads with one liners. Are you a newsbot?
If you truly wish to discuss it, tell me the points of your soteriology and we will start from there.

 

[JonC]

I would disagree on the milk vs meat. What you believe about God, Grace, and Salvation, determines what you believe on just about everything else. It is the core.

That was the point (Paul's point). The "milk" is the first things that should strengthen the child until ready for meat. Some never get past the milk stage.

 

[Reformed1689]

That was the point (Paul's point). The "milk" is the first things that should strengthen the child until ready for meat. Some never get past the milk stage.

I'm not talking about first things. Those doctrines are deep meat that must be chewed on and understood. They are of utmost importance.

 

[Reynolds]

Break it down for us in detail. How is this so?

Are you proud of Hankins?
Basically he said the same things over and over. Reynolds summary of Hankins: Calvinists are mean. Calvinists think my theology is deficient. Calvinists always beat up on us in debates. They have a lot of books and they read them. We don't want to read books. We really don't know what we believe. I have a Doctorite from South Western, but I really never thought much about Soteriology. Calvinists are mean. They think I am deficient in my theology. They like studying theology too much. We are all reformed but we are not Calvinists. Did I mention Calvinists intimidate us? Intimidate us real bad. We really don't know what we believe, but we are not Calvinists. Calvinists shaped our doctrine, bit we are not Calvinists. I have no idea what we are so I made up the dumb name "traditionalists" to use. (Even Though Calvinism is the old traditional baptist doctrine, Hankins tried to grab the name.) Be nice. Quit using your books. Books seem to scare us so don't quote out of them to us. Just go witness more and quit worrying about theology.

It was truly pathetic.

 

[JonC]

I'm not talking about first things. Those doctrines are deep meat that must be chewed on and understood. They are of utmost importance.

While interesting to consider, there is nothing "deep" about Calvinism or Arminianism. Both are very simplistic and basic.

The "deep" things of Scripture are those things that transform (not that explain...or try to explain...but that actually transform).

 

[Iconoclast]

I get it you can't. Big talk for someone who doesn't really know doctrine.

In reality, Reynolds has expressed more doctrine in the past two months than you have posted in several years, so why would you make such a rude, arrogant post?

 

[Iconoclast]

I'm not talking about first things. Those doctrines are deep meat that must be chewed on and understood. They are of utmost importance.

Some who do not grasp the full implications of Calvinism never seem to get a handle on how a proper understanding of the teaching brings the whole man to the Whole Christ. Those who recoil from the teaching never explored the implications and viewed those teachings in such a positive light.

 

[JonC]

Some who do not grasp the full implications of Calvinism never seem to get a handle on how a proper understanding of the teaching brings the whole man to the Whole Christ. Those who recoil from the teaching never explored the implications and viewed those teachings in such a positive light.

I disagree. It is not difficult at all to understand the implications of Calvinism. Calvinism (or, as many prefer, the "doctrines of grace") build simply upon itself.

Anyone who does not understand Calvinism simply has not taken the time to do so.

While soteriological positions are far reaching they are not what Scripture itself refers to as the "meat" of the Word (they are, in fact, what each camp claims Paul did deliver).

 

[Iconoclast]

I disagree. It is not difficult at all to understand the implications of Calvinism. Calvinism (or, as many prefer, the "doctrines of grace") build simply upon itself.

Anyone who does not understand Calvinism simply has not taken the time to do so.

While soteriological positions are far reaching they are not what Scripture itself refers to as the "meat" of the Word (they are, in fact, what each camp claims Paul did deliver).

I also disagree with you as I do not think you grasp what God has called us to. The doctrine lays out the structure, and the verses used to point to the implications of the teaching are meat.
Peter says so in 2 pet3:15-16

 

[Iconoclast]

While interesting to consider, there is nothing "deep" about Calvinism or Arminianism. Both are very simplistic and basic.

The "deep" things of Scripture are those things that transform (not that explain...or try to explain...but that actually transform).

In the youtube video Eric Hankins does not have a grasp on it at all. Reynolds spoke about it.
In many churches as Reynolds points out, sometimes the majority do not even know enough to know what is an issue and what is not.

 

[Reformed1689]

I disagree. It is not difficult at all to understand the implications of Calvinism. Calvinism (or, as many prefer, the "doctrines of grace") build simply upon itself.

Anyone who does not understand Calvinism simply has not taken the time to do so.

While soteriological positions are far reaching they are not what Scripture itself refers to as the "meat" of the Word (they are, in fact, what each camp claims Paul did deliver).

What do you think is more important?

 

[JonC]

I also disagree with you as I do not think you grasp what God has called us to. The doctrine lays out the structure, and the verses used to point to the implications of the teaching are meat.
Peter says so in 2 pet3:15-16

This is an interesting (and odd) idea since you and I actually agree on "the doctrine" being discussed here. My point is merely that this is not what Paul was referring to as the "meat" (1 Cor.).

I am not sure why you think that those who reject the 5 points are ignorant of the 5 points (that seems a silly idea). @Reynolds could just as accurately say you and I affirm the 5 points in error because we do not grasp Reformation Arminianism. @Revmitchell could just as accurately say you reject corporate election because you fail to comprehend the concept and would rather rest comfortably in the ignorance you know rather than embrace the teachings that challenge you.

 

[JonC]

What do you think is more important?

It is not an issue of importance. Paul presents the "milk" as basic things. The readiness for "meat" is not related to knowledge but a Christlikeness. The "milk" and "meat" is in 1 Corinthians.

I'd say the power of the gospel to transform a life is more important than ones soteriological leanings (not how we believe God chose men but Christ Himself).

 

[JonC]

In the youtube video Eric Hankins does not have a grasp on it at all. Reynolds spoke about it.
In many churches as Reynolds points out, sometimes the majority do not even know enough to know what is an issue and what is not.

What on earth are you talking about ???

Both of those fellas in the video belong to SBC churches. Get with the program, Iconoclast .

 

[Iconoclast]

This is an interesting (and odd) idea since you and I actually agree on "the doctrine" being discussed here. My point is merely that this is not what Paul was referring to as the "meat" (1 Cor.).

I am not sure why you think that those who reject the 5 points are ignorant of the 5 points (that seems a silly idea). @Reynolds could just as accurately say you and I affirm the 5 points in error because we do not grasp Reformation Arminianism. @Revmitchell could just as accurately say you reject corporate election because you fail to comprehend the concept and would rather rest comfortably in the ignorance you know rather than embrace the teachings that challenge you.

Everyone has an opinion for sure. RM has shown nothing since I have been here. On one thread he actually offered scripture back and forth, it was going well but then he shut down and put me on ignore when he could not respond
And has apparently left me there.
That is his choice.
You error when you think Ihave not considered other positions.
RM gets all his ideas from Leightins podcasts. I know because I have heard several of them.
You suggest I rest in ignorance. You are welcome to think so. I know and have some ideas about you also .I do not think you have ever had a grasp of what I and others hold, but you and
I are not the subject of the OP.

 

[Iconoclast]

What on earth are you talking about ???

Both of those fellas in the video belong to SBC churches. Get with the program, Iconoclast .

I know who they are JonC..
I have read Hankins document, and heard him attempt to explain himself.
I listen to Dr. Mohlers briefing fairly often.
Why do you always suppose that you alone know things we do not.
I am "with the program".
You can read and listen and come your ideas, and we will come up with ours!

 

[JonC]

Everyone has an opinion for sure. RM has shown nothing since I have been here. On one thread he actually offered scripture back and forth, it was going well but then he shut down and put me on ignore when he could not respond
And has apparently left me there.
That is his choice.
You error when you think Ihave not considered other positions.
RM gets all his ideas from Leightins podcasts. I know because I have heard several of them.
You suggest I rest in ignorance. You are welcome to think so. I know and have some ideas about you also .I do not think you have ever had a grasp of what I and others hold, but you and
I are not the subject of the OP.

Hold up. I am not suggesting anything about you being ignorant. I am saying simply declaring the other person does not understand because they disagree is a silly argument.

I actually agree with the 5 points. Where we may tend to disagree on this topic is that I also believe in "double predestination". So from my perspective you may be the weaker on this doctrine.

You would do better to ask before making assumptions.

 

[JonC]

I know who they are JonC..
I have read Hankins document, and heard him attempt to explain himself.
I listen to Dr. Mohlers briefing fairly often.
Why do you always suppose that you alone know things we do not.
I am "with the program".
You can read and listen and come your ideas, and we will come up with ours!

I don't suppose I alone know about the SBC. I simply question your discernment.

For clarification, you seem to believe a pastor from Alabama better represents Southern Baptist doctrine than does a Southern Baptist seminary president over a seminary governed by the SBC and accountable to the SBC churches as a whole.

That is why I question your discernment here. (Another reason is you have yet seemed to grasp I affirm unconditional election and it makes me think of you as "campish" rathet than doctrinally minded).

 

[Reynolds]

Hold up. I am not suggesting anything about you being ignorant. I am saying simply declaring the other person does not understand because they disagree is a silly argument.

I actually agree with the 5 points. Where we may tend to disagree on this topic is that I also believe in "double predestination". So from my perspective you may be the weaker on this doctrine.

You would do better to ask before making assumptions.

I applaud you for being logically consistent and holding to "double predestination".