The value of books

[evangelist6589]

Regardless Winman, P4T is right, and anyone that's been around here for a while knows that you've prided yourself in not reading the writings of men, not even owning them, now you're telling us you've been buying and reading them all along and trying to give us the impression that you are in actuality well read with the writings of men.

What to believe?

[message snipped]

 

[RLBosley]

Man, the spin machine is running in overtime here. :laugh:

But he says something very interesting at the end of that video. He says the Calvinists have done a terrific job of getting their view "out there". They have written hundreds, if not thousands of books, have numerous websites, etc...

The Calvinists are always selling Calvinism, even to their own. God to keep folks on a short leash you know. :thumbsup:

Arminians or non-Cals have been asleep. We have just assumed folks would read the Bible and agree with us, because the Bible really does agree with us. But that has not been the case. The Calvinists have out-performed the non-Cals dramatically in getting their message out.

You've said this, or similar, before and I showed you that you are painfully wrong. There are just as many, if not more, Arminian/non-cal books in any Christian bookstore you go into today. The non-cal presence on the internet is, from my experience, VASTLY greater than the Calvinist. And no the Cals have not out-performed the non-cals in getting the message out in churches either, only about 30% of American churches are decidedly reformed, and only about 10% of Southern Baptist pastors are Calvies.

In short - You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

But that is changing. Lots of folks are coming out against Calvinism now, as they have done in the past when Calvinism reared it ugly head. It will take a few years, but it will be subdued as it has been many times in the past. Yes, it will rise up again in a few decades, history always repeats itself. Right now, things are good for Calvinism, but I really think it has peaked and is on it's way out again.

At least for now.

This generation, the millennials and whatever is after them, are sick of the shallow, man-centered, atheological church culture that the non-cals created during the last century. Reformed theology is growing because it is the direct opposite, it's deep, God-centered, and theologically rigorous. The Calvinist resurgence is, I believe, a direct byproduct of the Conservative resurgence, at least in the SBC. As my pastor said recently, once you decide the Bible really is the innerrant, infallible word of God then you actually have to deal with election, predestination and the like instead of ignoring it.

Could we see a decline again in Calvinism. Almost certainly. Like we are seeing a decline in Arminianism now. It's a pendulum.

 

[Van]

The theological fiction of Calvinism is said by one of its acolytes to reflect conservative rather than liberal influence. ROFLOL

Liberals claim to be conservative. Judge them by their fruits.

Would a conservative translator translate "from" as before? Nope but a liberal would saying words always really mean what Calvinism dictates.

Would a conservative say when scripture says we are chosen through faith in the truth, scripture does not mean what it says? Nope, but a liberal would say scripture does not mean what it says, it means the opposite of what it says, i.e. chosen NOT through faith in the truth.

Would a conservative turn nouns into verbs, propositions into verbs, and so forth to nudge scripture toward Calvinism? Nope, but a liberal would.

Would a conservative reject "word for word translation philosophy verses, in favor of thought for thought rewrites biased by Calvinism? Nope, but a liberal would.

 

[RLBosley]

The theological fiction of Calvinism is said by one of its acolytes to reflect conservative rather than liberal influence. ROFLOL

Careful there. Don't want you to hurt yourself rolling on the floor. I think they make padded rooms for your ilk so that you don't hurt yourselves.

Liberals claim to be conservative. Judge them by their fruits.

Yes, but judge by the genuine fruit, not the imaginings of a anti-calvinist crusader.

Would a conservative translator translate "from" as before? Nope but a liberal would saying words always really mean what Calvinism dictates.

Actually a conservative would say that words have meaning and need to be understood in their context, not by arbitrary definition. It seems to me that the liberals are those who demand words mean whatever they decide.

Would a conservative say when scripture says we are chosen through faith in the truth, scripture does not mean what it says? Nope, but a liberal would say scripture does not mean what it says, it means the opposite of what it says, i.e. chosen NOT through faith in the truth.

You inability to comprehend 2 Thess 2:13 does not make those who disagree liberal. Calvinists are pretty consistent in affirming what scripture actually says, such as "no one can come to Me unless it is granted to him by the Father."

Would a conservative turn nouns into verbs, propositions into verbs, and so forth to nudge scripture toward Calvinism? Nope, but a liberal would.

I am not a Greek scholar. I don't do translation work. But even I know, and can see, that there will almost NEVER be a perfect one to one translation of nouns into nouns, verbs into verbs, etc in any translation. Especially from an ancient Greek to modern English. Get a grip buddy.

Would a conservative reject "word for word translation philosophy verses, in favor of thought for thought rewrites biased by Calvinism? Nope, but a liberal would.

Calvinists pretty consistently, from my experience, prefer more formal translations. It's typically the the non-cal, people who prefer the extremely dynamic and paraphrase versions.


But of course, you don't actually care about any of the above. Can't let honesty get in the way of rhetoric.

 

[Van]

Hi RLBosely, I almost hurt myself rolling when you denied Rippon advocates for the NIV, the TNIV and so forth. Note how many Calvinists love the "from" means before ESV, NIV and NLT.

And to say 2 Thessalonians 2:13 does not mean what it says is not a liberal view is simply twaddle. Chosen...for salvation...through...faith in the truth. Choose those ... rich in faith... and heirs to the kingdom promised to those that love God.

Calvinists are liberals in the theological sense. Conservatives stick with what God actually inspired such as "no charge can be brought against God's elect" which precludes being elect when we were by nature children of wrath.

 

[Yeshua1]

The theological fiction of Calvinism is said by one of its acolytes to reflect conservative rather than liberal influence. ROFLOL

Liberals claim to be conservative. Judge them by their fruits.

Would a conservative translator translate "from" as before? Nope but a liberal would saying words always really mean what Calvinism dictates.

Would a conservative say when scripture says we are chosen through faith in the truth, scripture does not mean what it says? Nope, but a liberal would say scripture does not mean what it says, it means the opposite of what it says, i.e. chosen NOT through faith in the truth.

Would a conservative turn nouns into verbs, propositions into verbs, and so forth to nudge scripture toward Calvinism? Nope, but a liberal would.

Would a conservative reject "word for word translation philosophy verses, in favor of thought for thought rewrites biased by Calvinism? Nope, but a liberal would.

So all of the Scholars who were either reformed/calvinist on the Niv/Esv/Nlt translations were all liberal scholars?

Didn't they have to reaffirm a belief in the verbal plenary views of the scriptures though?

 

[Rippon]

Hi RLBosely, I almost hurt myself rolling when you denied Rippon advocates for the NIV, the TNIV and so forth.

And those two translations are not extremely dynamic or paraphrases. They are middle-of-the-road versions that blend between formal and functional.

 

[RLBosley]

As I suspected. Can't let things like honesty or good argumentation get in the way of rhetoric.

Hi RLBosely, I almost hurt myself rolling when you denied Rippon advocates for the NIV, the TNIV and so forth.

And I'm sure you have a source pointing out where I said that, right?

Note how many Calvinists love the "from" means before ESV, NIV and NLT.

Also note how many Calvinists don't read those versions, and how many Calvinists there were centuries before those existed.

And to say 2 Thessalonians 2:13 does not mean what it says is not a liberal view is simply twaddle. Chosen...for salvation...through...faith in the truth. Choose those ... rich in faith... and heirs to the kingdom promised to those that love God.

2 Thess 2:13 means exactly what it says. It's also entirely consistent with Calvinism. Your misunderstanding is the problem.

Conservatives stick with what God actually inspired such as "no charge can be brought against God's elect" which precludes being elect when we were by nature children of wrath.

Yes, conservatives actually stick with what God's word says... thus the need to actually understand and deal with "election", "chosen", "predestined" etc., instead of ignoring.

 

[RLBosley]

And those two translations are not extremely dynamic or paraphrases. They are middle-of-the-road versions that blend between formal and functional.

Of course not. And he knows that.

But again, he can't be honest and actual deal with what is said. Must be how he reads his Bible too.

 

[Van]

Here is what RLBosely said:

Calvinists pretty consistently, from my experience, prefer more formal translations. It's typically the the non-cal, people who prefer the extremely dynamic and paraphrase versions.

Here is how I characterized that statement:

Hi RLBosely, I almost hurt myself rolling when you denied Rippon advocates for the NIV, the TNIV and so forth. Note how many Calvinists love the "from" means before ESV, NIV and NLT.

Then Rippon validated my statement with:

And those two translations are not extremely dynamic or paraphrases. They are middle-of-the-road versions that blend between formal and functional.

Finally, here is your disavowal of your claim Calvinists do not push Calvinistically biased thought for thought versions:

And I'm sure you have a source pointing out where I said that, right?

You have got to love them, folks, liberals who say they are conservative, and charge others with dishonesty.

 

[Yeshua1]

Here is what RLBosely said:


Here is how I characterized that statement:



Then Rippon validated my statement with:


Finally, here is your disavowal of your claim Calvinists do not push Calvinistically biased thought for thought versions:



You have got to love them, folks, liberals who say they are conservative, and charge others with dishonesty.

John Calvin and Martin Luthor were both liberals?

 

[Van]

So you think John Calvin and Martin Luther were liberals?

Again and again, Yeshua1 ignores what was said, and asks some off the wall question, like a saboteur of truth.

 

[Van]

Here is what RLBosely said:

Calvinists pretty consistently, from my experience, prefer more formal translations. It's typically the the non-cal, people who prefer the extremely dynamic and paraphrase versions.

Here is how I characterized that statement:

Hi RLBosely, I almost hurt myself rolling when you denied Rippon advocates for the NIV, the TNIV and so forth. Note how many Calvinists love the "from" means before ESV, NIV and NLT.

Then Rippon validated my statement with:

And those two translations are not extremely dynamic or paraphrases. They are middle-of-the-road versions that blend between formal and functional.

Finally, here is your disavowal of your claim Calvinists do not push Calvinistically biased thought for thought versions:

And I'm sure you have a source pointing out where I said that, right?

You have got to love them, folks, liberals who say they are conservative, and charge others with dishonesty.

 

[Rippon]

Van, honesty is not in your repertoire. You habitually twist, distort, misrepresent and slander with nearly every post you make in any forum you participate in. It is not even second-nature with you -- it comes so naturally whenever you decide to type a keystroke. Have you any idea how much muck you produce on the BB --day in and day out? Many others have declined to engage you because of your inveterate ways.

Then Rippon validated my statement with:

I validated nothing you said. Your statement is invalid.

 

[Winman]

You've stated you know what Calvinists believe, yet you don't read their materials? How can this be possible?

I have been reading Calvinist articles and debating with Calvinists here for five years. I understand Calvinism quite well, in fact, I understand it far better than you, because if you truly understood it, you would reject it.

I know that is begging the question, but it is true nevertheless.

I was right where you're at now. I thought I had Calvinism down pat, knew what it entailed, &c. Boy was I wrong.

No, you ALWAYS thought faith was a gift, and that was your Achilles heel. You always believed Total Inability. And anyone who truly believes Total Inability will eventually become a Calvinist, it is the logical progression.

I do believe in a type of inability, I do not believe any man is born with the knowledge of the true God or the gospel of Christ. And of course, you cannot believe what you do not know, so men are born unable to believe. This is scriptural, this is what Paul taught.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

There is not other scripture that so directly addresses the question of HOW a man believes on Jesus. This scripture is directly addressing ABILITY. Does Paul ask how a man can believe unless he has been regenerated? NOPE, and this is a tremendous OMISSION if Calvinism is true. How could Paul fail to mention the most important doctrine of all? Calvinism is FOUNDED on Total Inability and the doctrine that man must be regenerated to believe. Yet Paul completely forgets or neglects to mention it here, or ANYWHERE in scripture.

Amazing, you believe something that is not taught in scripture anywhere. Your whole doctrine is built on NOTHING. Sad, but true.

No, Paul simply asks how man can believe in Jesus unless he has heard of him, because this is what man lacks, KNOWLEDGE. Man must hear of Jesus to believe in him, and a preacher must be sent so that men can hear. Once a man hears the Word of God, he is enabled to either believe it, or reject it.

So, this is the only inability in scripture, the inability to believe what you have never heard.

You, Wes, have the wrong picture of what Calvinism is. You have erected this picture of an ugly ogre wielding a ginormous club, with his knuckles dragging the ground. That's not the picture.

Oh, that is not how I picture Calvinism at all. Calvinism is very slick, very sophisticated, and this is one of it's major draws. It appeals especially to people who "wannabe" intellectuals. People think if they understand Calvinism, this makes them much wiser that others, just like Eve thought that forbidden fruit would make her wise. Some things never change.

Calvinism is logical and consistent within itself, but it is completely illogical and inconsistent with scripture.

The picture of true Calvinism is one of God not forbidding anyone from approaching Him. They are all willfully fleeing from Him, with no desire to come to Him. In His mercy, love, and kindness, He reaches out and draws those He chooses to, to be saved. Without Him doing this, none of us would have been saved.

If men can only come to God and believe in Jesus if God regenerates them, then he indeed forbids the non-elect from coming or believing. If he wanted them to come and believe he would regenerate them. He doesn't, so obviously he doesn't want them to come or believe.

It doesn't matter that they are not willing, the elect weren't willing either.

Calvinism believes God is like a person who discovers two persons who have purposely taken an overdose of drugs to kill themselves. He decides to save one, and lets the other die.

Let's say you came across two persons who had purposely taken an overdose of drugs to kill themselves. Are you responsible to call a medic to try and save them?

Or is it perfectly OK to let one or both of them die Willis? Or should you try to save them?

That will be a test to see how much of your conscience still remains, or if it is completely seared.

 

[Rippon]

Once a man hears the Word of God, he is enabled to either believe it,

And how is he thus enabled? That's right:"This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them." (Jn. 6:65)

Calvinism believes God is like a person who discovers two persons who have purposely taken an overdose of drugs to kill themselves. He decides to save one, and lets the other die.

Let's say you came across two persons who had purposely taken an overdose of drugs to kill themselves. Are you responsible to call a medic to try and save them?

Or is it perfectly OK to let one or both of them die Willis? Or should you try to save them?

God is under no obligation to save anyone. That He has chosen to save any is a display of His grace. God is not sinning to leave some with their sin and to rescue those of His choosing. That's His prerogative. He's God. He gets to do what He wants to do without consulting you in the matter. "The audacity!" you say. "God is unfair you insist. But what does the Word of God state?

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." (Ro. 9:14)

Deal with the truth winman.

 

[Winman]

And how is he thus enabled? That's right:"This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them." (Jn. 6:65)

Yes, but it doesn't say man has to be "zapped" to have the ability to believe, he just needs to hear the word of God. What men lack is knowledge. This is why Jesus said those men who have heard and "learned" from the Father will come to him, those men who have been "taught".

Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Does scripture say every man that has been regenerated comes to Jesus? NO, it says every man who has been TAUGHT, every man that has HEARD and LEARNED comes to Jesus. Those men who diligently listen to the Word of God and learn from it shall come to Jesus.

See, I can show from scripture my view, but you cannot show a single verse that says a man has to be regenerated to believe.

This is believing Calvinism OVER the scriptures. You do this constantly. You ignore what scripture actually says, that men hear and learn, they are taught, and this is why they believe and come to Jesus.

God is under no obligation to save anyone. That He has chosen to save any is a display of His grace. God is not sinning to leave some with their sin and to rescue those of His choosing. That's His prerogative. He's God. He gets to do what He wants to do without consulting you in the matter. "The audacity!" you say. "God is unfair you insist. But what does the Word of God state?

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." (Ro. 9:14)

Deal with the truth winman.

You are wrong, God is love, and his very nature obligates him to try to save men. Of course, being moral, God will not, yes, CANNOT force any man to believe. God is not a criminal that forces himself on people.

 

[Rippon]

God is under no obligation to save anyone. That He has chosen to save any is a display of His grace. God is not sinning to leave some with their sin and to rescue those of His choosing. That's His prerogative. He's God. He gets to do what He wants to do without consulting you in the matter. "The audacity!" you say. "God is unfair you insist. But what does the Word of God state?

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." (Ro. 9:14)

Deal with the truth winman.

To which winman responded with "You are wrong."

That is an amazingly anti-Scriptural stance. It's normal for him to say such things.

 

[Rippon]

God is love,

But that is not His sole attribute. He is also a God of wrath and vengeance you should know.

and his very nature obligates him to try to save men.

The Almighty doesn't try. That is an insult to His perfections.

The Lord is not under any obligation to save anyone. It is not necessary. He chooses whom He desires for His own reasons. He doesn't answer to anyone --least of all you.Everything He does is absolutely pure and just.

Of course, being moral, God will not, yes, CANNOT force any man to believe. God is not a criminal that forces himself on people.

What Calvinist uses that kind of terminology? The Lord specializes in melting hearts --making rocky hearts fleshy. Time to put away your strawman toys.

 

[preacher4truth]

But that is not His sole attribute. He is also a God of wrath and vengeance you should know.

The Almighty doesn't try. That is an insult to His perfections.

The Lord is not under any obligation to save anyone. It is not necessary. He chooses whom He desires for His own reasons. He doesn't answer to anyone --least of all you.Everything He does is absolutely pure and just.

What Calvinist uses that kind of terminology? The Lord specializes in melting hearts --making rocky hearts fleshy. Time to put away your strawman toys.

Excellent and spot on!!! :thumbs: