The Ways of God. Ridiculed or accepted?

[Winman]

Well, if being "highly educated" means being like you, I will pass.

You remind me a a remark I heard a preacher say many years ago about Christians who value their doctrine and orthodoxy above God's love and concern for sinners. You may be as straight as a gun barrel, but your just as empty!

Yes, Luke confirms what I said about many Cals/DoGs mindlessly parroting others.

If he would put down all his reformed writers (who of course all agree) and simply read the scriptures he would easily see there is a massive amount of scripture that clearly disagrees with DoG.

What he calls education I would call indoctrination.

 

[David Lamb]

[snip] One big problem I have with Cals/DoGs here is that they MINDLESSLY PARROT the writings of Reformed writers. I'm sorry, but most of these guys could not think themselves out of a wet paper bag, yet they believe themselves brilliant.

I see from the statistics about the Baptist Board that it now has about 1½ million posts, so obviously I haven't read them all , but I certainly cannot think of any "Cals/DoGs" who have "mindlessly parrotted" the writings of Reformed writers, or "believe themselves brilliant". Perhaps you could give a few examples of the sort of thing you mean.

Personally, I hold to the doctrines of grace because they are what I believe God's Word teaches. I believed those doctrines before I had ever read any Reformed writers.

 

[Winman]

I see from the statistics about the Baptist Board that it now has about 1½ million posts, so obviously I haven't read them all , but I certainly cannot think of any "Cals/DoGs" who have "mindlessly parrotted" the writings of Reformed writers, or "believe themselves brilliant". Perhaps you could give a few examples of the sort of thing you mean.

Personally, I hold to the doctrines of grace because they are what I believe God's Word teaches. I believed those doctrines before I had ever read any Reformed writers.

You have to be kidding, Cals/DoGs commonly copy and paste reformed writers here all the time, they seem unable to answer for themselves.

And I would be willing to bet you were raised in a reformed church or under the teachings of someone reformed. If you read the scriptures on your own, you will never accept a reformed view.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

You won't arrive at reformed theology in this verse, and I can easily show you dozens more that refute your view.

 

[Rippon]

If you read the scriptures on your own, you will never accept a reformed view.

You're telling a pastor,David Lamb,years longer in the faith than yourself that he doesn't have a mind of his own --that he doesn't get his beliefs from the Word of God. You Mr.WM are way off-bounds.

 

[Winman]

He's a grown man, let him speak for himself.

 

[David Lamb]

You have to be kidding, Cals/DoGs commonly copy and paste reformed writers here all the time, they seem unable to answer for themselves.

You may be right, but perhaps you could give me an example. The only sort of situation I have seen anybody copying and pasting quotes from Reformed writers has been when somebody posts something such as: "Even Spurgeon did not believe in election" (that's not from an actual post; just a made-up example to show what I mean). Then someone might reply, including a pasted quote from Spurgeon's writings with the aim of showing that he did believe in election. But that is quite different to the "mindless parrotting" you are talking about.

And I would be willing to bet you were raised in a reformed church or under the teachings of someone reformed. If you read the scriptures on your own, you will never accept a reformed view.

Sorry, you would have lost your bet . I was raised in a church-going family, but sadly, my parents were not believers in the Lord Jesus Christ; they were just "church-goers". And the church we attended was a "high Anglican" one (that is, verging on Roman Catholic). It was not even evangelical, let alone Reformed.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

You won't arrive at reformed theology in this verse, and I can easily show you dozens more that refute your view.

I would agree this far, that just by reading that verse, it is highly unlikely that I would arrive at Reformed theology. But at the same time, that verse in no way contradicts Reformed theology. It is not "everybody" who is invited to come, but "him who thirsts", "him who hears," "whoever desires". What caused you to have the desire to come to the Lord Jesus Christ? I'm sure you will not answer that it was because you are cleverer or better than people who don't have that desire. Jesus said to a group of Jews in John 10.26:

But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.
​

Notice that He doesn't say: "You are not of My sheep, because you do not believe."

 

[David Lamb]

He's a grown man, let him speak for himself.

Yes, I can, and indeed I was typing my previous message when Rippon posted his reply to yours.

But why is it wrong for one member of the board (in this case, Rippon) to write a post that criticises another member's post (in this case, yours)?

And if it is wrong to criticise the posts of others, where does that leave your posts criticising the posts of "Calvinists/DoGs"?

 

[kyredneck]

You have to be kidding, Cals/DoGs commonly copy and paste reformed writers here all the time, they seem unable to answer for themselves.....

Winman, you can be such a blantant, boldfaced hypocrite at times, that it is laughable. Thanks for the entertainment and the belly laugh. ROFL !!

 

[Robert Snow]

You're telling a pastor,David Lamb,years longer in the faith than yourself that he doesn't have a mind of his own --that he doesn't get his beliefs from the Word of God. You Mr.WM are way off-bounds.

I guess then you should be appalled at Luke and Preacher4truth since both me and Winman are much older than they are, yet they continually berate us. Your feigned shock borders on being a lie, since you say nothing to them.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What he calls education I would call indoctrination.

Oh I disagree.....Ive found that most come to the Reformed Faith willingly & are not indoctrinated. Take a poll if you wish.

 

[glfredrick]

Don't tell me how to interpret scripture, I have probably posted hundreds of verses of scripture that easily refute all 5 points of Calvinism and so have many others here. You guys rarely even post scripture to support your views, but some commentary from Calvin, or Piper, or Augustine. These are just men, and are fallible like the rest of us.

I am not teaching anything here, I am simply pointing out that there is much scripture that argues God does not know some things until they happen. I didn't make this stuff up, get out of those writings of men and look in the Bible and you will see them for yourself. Here is another example:

Gen 4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

Your argument is not with me, it is with God's word.

Winman, I posted a thread where I listed a dozen or more VERY specific Scriptures that dealt with God's election. As I recall, you dropped out of the conversation after that post, so lay off the "we don't have Scripture" track. It is beneath you (or perhaps not...).

 

[preacher4truth]

I certainly cannot think of any "Cals/DoGs" who have "mindlessly parrotted" the writings of Reformed writers, or "believe themselves brilliant". Perhaps you could give a few examples of the sort of thing you mean.

He can't do it because it's not there. When losing a battle it turns to accusatory babble, name-calling, rambling, and outright mistruths laid upon those he wages against. Why? Because that is the only ammo he has. and he would rather go accusatory than address the Scriptures given. Ostrich anyone? The fact is, when he is asked to prove these accusations, he knows he cannot, so he ignores them and continues on.

Let's stick to facts:

Winman doesn't believe in omniscience, but that God only knows things when they happen, you know, just like man. That is irreverence to God and is not representative of the God of the Scriptures. Many passages debunk this false teaching, I won't go to them again, he will only twist and/or ignore them and continue going down the road he is on, but I will give one last other: "Remember this, and be assured; Recall it to mind, you transgressors. Remember the former things long past, For I am God and none other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from Ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure." Isaiah 46:8-10 Winman teaches God is not limitless, but limited, finite in understanding, not infinite, and thus, does not know all things, and must instead logically, according to his error, learn as He goes. All prophecies prove God does know all things prior to them taking place in time. This is the Scriptural revelation of God, that He does know all things, therefore the view Winman gives is not from God's Word, and is a shallow proof-texted error.

Winman says the Bible is simple, when we all know it is not simple. To say such a thing reveals much about the person saying it, up to and including ones attitude about God and His abilities, and ones attitude about Gods' Word, what God has said, as a whole. Yet, even Peter, going against Winman, tells us plainly, that is, within the Scriptures his, (Winmans') concept is in error: "and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16


Winman, your teaching is in error. The Lord is all knowing, from beginning to the end. His Word is not simple, as you ascribe it as such, which in itself is irreverent.

Get some sound Bible training Winman, as all of us, including you, need.

 

[webdog]

This is the problem with lay theologians. When you start trying to be a theologian and deal with things that are way above your head you go directly into dangerous, dangerous doctrine.

Luke, it's these kind of statements that usually result in snide remarks. This is not only insulting and rude, but completely uncalled for. You have a habit of slipping this kind of nonsense in good debates and then pretend to be innocent of any wrong doing. Please stop. You have been respectful these past few weeks, why are you blowing it now?

 

[webdog]

Precisely what I was going to say. God is bound by time.

God is "bound" by time?

...and you guys have the nerve to call winman out on "heresy"? Unbelievable...

 

[quantumfaith]

Luke, it's these kind of statements that usually result in snide remarks. This is not only insulting and rude, but completely uncalled for. You have a habit of slipping this kind of nonsense in good debates and then pretend to be innocent of any wrong doing. Please stop. You have been respectful these past few weeks, why are you blowing it now?

I agree so much, statements like this only serve to be inflammatory and convey the message of "my ways are so above yours." Continually "yanking anothers chain" in such manner is simply not the proper thing to do. One can tell another brother that they believe them to be wrong or in error in a much more appropriate manner.

 

[webdog]

I put you in that same category, Robert.

Everything I said to Winman is applicable to you too, imo- perhaps not quite to the same degree, but applicable still.

However, if you will not renounce this ridiculous mess that Winman is spewing which undermines the omniscience of God, I'd say it applies to you to the EXACT same degree.

I see your new years resolution has expired :laugh:

Are you going to call out the unorthodox heresy of God being bound by time...or is this again only a one way street?

 

[Robert Snow]

Luke, it's these kind of statements that usually result in snide remarks. This is not only insulting and rude, but completely uncalled for. You have a habit of slipping this kind of nonsense in good debates and then pretend to be innocent of any wrong doing. Please stop. You have been respectful these past few weeks, why are you blowing it now?

If Luke is any indication of Calvinist fervor, no wonder Calvin murdered those who disagreed with him. Thank God these men, like Luke, don't control the government, or we might all be running for our lives.

I guess this is the logical conclusion to Calvinism. Since the non-elect have no hope of heaven, why not kill them now, no great loss.

 

[webdog]

Winman, you can be such a blantant, boldfaced hypocrite at times, that it is laughable. Thanks for the entertainment and the belly laugh. ROFL !!

If you can produce the gobs of non reformed authors Winman cites, then you might have a point. Can you do it?

 

[webdog]

I agree so much, statements like this only serve to be inflammatory and convey the message of "my ways are so above yours." Continually "yanking anothers chain" in such manner is simply not the proper thing to do. One can tell another brother that they believe them to be wrong or in error in a much more appropriate manner.

The irony is when I respond to such garbage by calling it what it is, I'm the one that is construed as "starting" the inflammatory back and forth, and he will go back and pull random replies of mine to prove that I'm the instigator here on the BB. If it weren't so sad it would be laughable.

 

[Tom Butler]

I am not saying God does not know all things, I believe he does. What I am suggesting is that he might have two perspectives, in one view he sees things as they happen, in the other view he can see all things that will ever take place.

Look, if a person is honest they must admit that God makes statements that suggests he does not know some things until they happen such as Gen 22:12.

You cannot simply ignore scripture you do not like because it disturbs your personal doctrine.

Perhaps we will never understand this, perhaps this is an area of knowledge that we are not allowed to know, but I am not going to disregard scripture because it upsets someone else's "canned" doctrine.

I agree with you that we ought not to ignore scripture. What I want to do is try to explain those passages you've cited in the light of unequivocal scriptures. I think the best explanation is that God was speaking to Adam and Abraham anthropomorphically.

One may conclude that God's question "Adam, where are you," means God doesn't know where Adam is.

One may also conclude that God's statement to Abraham, "Now I know...", means God didn't know until that moment.

But we both agree that scriptures doesn't contradict scripture. Therefore, when the scriptures declare that God knows the beginning and the end, the passages in question must be interpreted in that light.

What is confusing to me is your assertion that God knows all things, but some things God does not know until they happen.

This is perilously close to the open theism error that God knows all things that are knowable. I would be wary of holding to a doctrine based on the scriptures you have cited.

That's why I am glad you have couched it as a theory.