"The calvinism you suggest is like a greased pig."Jarthur001 said:Name calling with no proof always falls on those that have no proof to give.
Using the accepted rules of English grammar did you notice what the subject of the sentence was?
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!
"The calvinism you suggest is like a greased pig."Jarthur001 said:Name calling with no proof always falls on those that have no proof to give.
Jarthur001 said:bogus claims by those who do not understand what it is.
What books have I read by Calvin?gb93433 said:What books have you read by Calvin?
yes.....and the name calling is nothing but name calling unless you can prove "Calvinism is a greased pig".gb93433 said:"The calvinism you suggest is like a greased pig."
Using the accepted rules of English grammar did you notice what the subject of the sentence was?
I saw no indication that anyone or Pastor Larry was offended by the idiomatic expression that has been used for many many years.Jarthur001 said:yes.....and the name calling is nothing but name calling unless you can prove "Calvinism is a greased pig".
This is but poor debate. It's like me saying... NON-CALVINIST DOCTRINE IS LIKE A DUMB DONKEY.
Look at what I wrote again. Look at the word like.Jarthur001 said:yes.....and the name calling is nothing but name calling unless you can prove "Calvinism is a greased pig".
This is but poor debate. It's like me saying... NON-CALVINIST DOCTRINE IS LIKE A DUMB DONKEY.
What's the point with no proof????
gb93433 said:I have far more respect for Calvin than many "calvinists" who have never read any of his works and really do not know what his theology was yet claim to be calvinists. It shows the real statre(sic) of the church today when it will accept things people say and promote and yet do not verify their words.
Many "calvinists" differ among themselves in their soteriology yet claim to be calvinists. Calvinism is like a slippery pig with so many views. Because of that it is difficult for anyone to get a handle on what they really believe as calvinists.
If you had read Calvin's Institutes you would know that even Calvin himself realized that if his theology were taken too far it would lead into trouble. I have far more respect for Calvin because of his humility than many calvinists who make claims, Calvin never represented.
I am wondering why so many who claim to be calvinists have not read Calvin's works. How can anyone know what he stood for if they have not read any of his works?
gb93433 said:Look at what I wrote again. Look at the word like.
Calvin was not a greased pig nor was his theology. However, it is amazing how many call themselves "calvinists" yet have never read any of his works. How can anyone call themselves a Christian and claim to adhere to Christ's theology and not know who He is and what He stood for?
I have far more respect for Calvin than many "calvinists" who have never read any of his works and really do not know what his theology was yet claim to be calvinists. It shows the real statre of the church today when it will accept things people say and promote and yet do not verify their words. It is like a person being wrongly accused by someone and the jury accepts the accusers words as fact.
Many "calvinists" differ among themselves in their soteriology yet claim to be calvinists. Calvinism is like a slippery pig with so many views. Because of that it is difficult for anyone to get a handle on what they really believe as calvinists.
If you had read Calvin's Institutes you would know that even Calvin himself realized that if his theology were taken too far it would lead into trouble. I have far more respect for Calvin because of his humility than many calvinists who make claims, Calvin never represented.
I am wondering why so many who claim to be calvinists have not read Calvin's works. How can anyone know what he stood for if they have not read any of his works?
I wasn't offended. I think it is silly and misguided. Calvinism is not "like" a greased pig. It is pretty clear and easy to understand. You seem content to continually miss the point however.I saw no indication that anyone or Pastor Larry was offended by the idiomatic expression that has been used for many many years.
Then perhaps you give me your point because I have met and read about many who call themselves calvinists and are all over the page on so many subjects which includes soteriology.Pastor Larry said:I wasn't offended. I think it is silly and misguided. Calvinism is not "like" a greased pig. It is pretty clear and easy to understand. You seem content to continually miss the point however.
I have given my point many many times, including in this very thread. The point is that on soteriology, Calvinism agrees on some main key points, such as man's complete sinfulness and God's electing grace. It does not, and never has, agreed on every little detail of those.Then perhaps you give me your point because I have met and read about many who call themselves calvinists and are all over the page on so many subjects which includes soteriology.
Then I said...........“... My aim in this appendix is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God's will for "all men to be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion. A corresponding aim is to show that unconditional election therefore does not contradict biblical expressions of God's compassion for all people and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world.”
Then you asked..........“Here we have a Calvinist, that in light of 1Timothy 2:4, seems to be open to the possibility that he is wrong.”
--------------------------------------------------“Where does he say Calvinism is wrong?”
--------------------------------------------------“God's will for "all men to be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion.”
He has to accept the free will of man. The Bible teaches that man is free to act according to his nature. Calvinism fully affirms that.“Can a person be a Calvinist and accept the free will of man?”
Chapter and verse?Pastor Larry said:He has to accept the free will of man. The Bible teaches that man is free to act according to his nature. Calvinism fully affirms that.
All over, but how about this for starters: Ephesians 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.Chapter and verse?
webdog said:Chapter and verse?
How would you explain the two natures? They are still at battle in the Christian.Pastor Larry said:All over, but how about this for starters: Ephesians 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
Notice how living after the lusts of the flesh is the product of being a child of wrath by nature.
Do you think man is forced into living after the lusts of his flesh? Or is it his free will?
An unbeliever is an old man with an old nature. A believer is a new man (the old man has died) with two natures that war against each other. So while the unbeliever with an old nature can do nothing of a new nature, the believer with both natures can either sin or obey God.How would you explain the two natures? They are still at battle in the Christian.