To the Calvinists here: what part of Non cal theology Bothers you the Most?

[saturneptune]

Agreed I am sorry to say.

Despite my sharp differences with Rippon on one subject, I have to agree also. The posts of DJA just do not ring of one who has a Doctorate of Theology.

 

[Herald]

Yes, I am familiar with the "spiritual warfare" of Calvinists, and so was Servetus and many others. Nothing's changed.

Spiritual warfare? I wrote "spiritual welfare"; although Christians are engaged in spiritual warfare (Ephesians 6:12). Our fight is not against the garden variety Arminian that describes the typical Baptist church. Does that disappoint you?

 

[preacher4truth]

Despite my sharp differences with Rippon on one subject, I have to agree also. The posts of DJA just do not ring of one who has a Doctorate of Theology.

Well, part if not most of that has to do with being IFB & KJVOnlyist. Believe me, it goes with the territory. There are many of these that so desire to be called Dr. or have the title at the least so they can be 'somebody'.

It reminds me of the old newspaper 'The Sword of the Lord' and all these 'Dr. this' & 'Dr. That' within its pages. (No, I never subscribed to it, a fella at my church always gave them to me).

Anyhow I can't see this supported in Scripture (the title Dr.) and Jesus condemns such a thing in essence of desiring to be called such titles.

Shameful to say but true, their theological understanding of Scripture is quite weak in most cases. Most of them do the 'text & a tantrum' preaching, quote a verse and rip it out of context, scream, snort, pound the pulpit typically with the phrase 'I'm glad I'm using God's REAL Word..how 'bout you?!!' to garner 'amens!' and that is about as deep as they get -- comparing themselves to everyone else. What a shameful way to treat the Word of God and a shameful way to behave.

- Blessings

 

[Yeshua1]

Wow. I didn't know I was part of a clique or some vast Calvinist or Reformed conspiracy. I thought I was convinced by the testimony of Scripture that the Doctrines of Grace is a more accurate theology than Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism.

It is enough for me that I am responsible, along with my fellow elders, for the spiritual welfare of a local assembly. Of course I have an affinity for those who share my theological distinctives. Does that mean I am unquestionably right? No. I thought I was unquestionably right when I was a card carrying dispensational, Arminian, hyper-fundamentalist, neo-Pharisee. I was humbled when I understood the depth of my error. While I am convinced I am on the right side of the Calvinism issue I am open to correction through the testimony of scripture and plain reason. God, in His providence, has not revealed the need for such a theological change. In fact, the baseless and almost comical refutations against Reformed soteriology, do nothing to affect the status quo.

Okay, I've been above water too long during this post. Back to my hidden bunker to receive more orders from the mother ship.

I must be getting "mixed signals", as now beliver in DoG, but still Dispy, like Dr MacArthur"leaking Dispy!"

maybe the Dr has a cure for that?

 

[Iconoclast]

Whether or not the caricature is correct in to you is not evidence in any way that the person does not understand your position. That is an absurd claim.

I am not certain you read my post correctly.Everytime Ach posts about calvinism...what he describes is not held by any biblical calvinist.He makes it up as he goes.
Some do not like the teaching, but to be credible ....you must address the main teaching as i asked him several times to do ....asking him to respond to the confessions of faith, which he has failed to do.

 

[Winman]

My 2 boys were born with sin natures, and they evidenced them pretty early on!

Boy if there was ever a great argument for an inherited sin nature, this is it! :laugh:

As much as I would love to agree with you, the scriptures say God has made man upright, but "they" (showing this is speaking of ALL men) have sought out many inventions.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

The scriptures say Jesus took on the NATURE of the seed of Abraham and was made like unto his brethren (the Jews) in ALL THINGS. So if the descendants of Abraham were born with a sin nature, then so was Jesus. I refuse to believe this.

Men are born upright, but all men go out in sin and acquire a sin nature through practice. The scriptures show our vain "conversation" or lifestyle was received "by tradition from our fathers"

1 Pet 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

Maybe your sons were not born with a sin nature, they just developed one from imitating you. :tongue3:

 

[DrJamesAch]

OK I will give you your chances to pick me apart. I will write out what I believe TULIP to mean, and you all can tell me how straw man I am. If I am wrong, then I will concede that I do not understand Calvinism and go on my merry way. I will explain this from a Calvinist position, and then if you can not pick apart my description of Calvinism, then you agree that there has been no misrepresentation of Calvinism on my part, but that you simply don't like my conclusions.

Total Deprativty

Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin.

The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."

Calvinism also maintains that because of our fallen nature we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13); God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29); God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48); and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23).

Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).

Limited Atonement:
Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect. Support for this position is drawn from such scriptures as Matt. 26:28 where Jesus died for ‘many'; John 10:11, 15 which say that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, per Matt. 25:32-33); John 17:9 where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world; Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27 which state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and Isaiah 53:12 which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of many (not all).

Irresistible Grace:
When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God. Some of the verses used in support of this teaching are Romans 9:16 where it says that "it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy"; Philippians 2:12-13 where God is said to be the one working salvation in the individual; John 6:28-29 where faith is declared to be the work of God; Acts 13:48 where God appoints people to believe; and John 1:12-13 where being born again is not by man’s will, but by God’s.
“All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out," (John 6:37)

Perseverance of the Saints:
You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ. Some of the verses for this position are John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6 where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of Jesus’ return.

 

[Herald]

I must be getting "mixed signals", as now beliver in DoG, but still Dispy, like Dr MacArthur"leaking Dispy!"

maybe the Dr has a cure for that?

You misread my post. I WAS a dispensationalist at one time. I am no longer one.

 

[preacher4truth]

You've been called on the carpet.

OK I will give you your chances to pick me apart. I will write out what I believe TULIP to mean, and you all can tell me how straw man I am.

Pulling these definitions off the web, plagiarizing them as if they are you 'writing them out' is ridiculous, untrue and is what you've done.

Simply google the first phrase and lo and behold it's from a calvinist site. :thumbsup:

You're so worried about how you appear to others, from the title 'Dr' to plagiarizing and attempting to come across as if this actually came from you.

Guess what? Now you're straw manning your own self.

There. I 'picked you apart' and you earned it.

 

[Yeshua1]

You misread my post. I WAS a dispensationalist at one time. I am no longer one.

you and I had ta similiar background, you went all the way into the Calvinist system, I got stuck mid way in!

 

[DrJamesAch]

Pulling these definitions off the web, plagiarizing them as if they are you 'writing them out' is ridiculous, untrue and is what you've done.

Simply google the first phrase and lo and behold it's from a calvinist site. :thumbsup:

You're so worried about how you appear to others, from the title 'Dr' to plagiarizing and attempting to come across as if this actually came from you.

Guess what? Now you're straw manning your own self.

There. I 'picked you apart' and you earned it.

Funny thing is you had to Google it first which means you weren't sure whether it was my position, or another's. It's a catch 22 argument. Every thing I site about Calvinism is ALWAYS restated from another Calvinistic website except for the conclusions. That is how I know for 100% certainty that I have never misrepresented CalvinISM, you simply don't like the conclusions that I and others come to about Calvinism because it is based solely on a philosophical system, and when you tear down the philosophy, you tear down the walls of Calvinism.

 

[preacher4truth]

Funny thing is you had to Google it first which means you weren't sure whether it was my position, or another's. It's a catch 22 argument. Every thing I site about Calvinism is ALWAYS restated from another Calvinistic website except for the conclusions. That is how I know for 100% certainty that I have never misrepresented CalvinISM, you simply don't like the conclusions that I and others come to about Calvinism because it is based solely on a philosophical system, and when you tear down the philosophy, you tear down the walls of Calvinism.

You're a charlatan. You're deceitful.

You plagiarized and made it out like it was coming from you. What does Scripture call that 'Dr.'?

You will go to no end to deceive others even to the point of deceiving yourself.

BTW, I googled it due to the fact it sounded way too scholarly to have come from your mind from what I've seen on here in your writings.

 

[Winman]

Pulling these definitions off the web, plagiarizing them as if they are you 'writing them out' is ridiculous, untrue and is what you've done.

Simply google the first phrase and lo and behold it's from a calvinist site. :thumbsup:

You're so worried about how you appear to others, from the title 'Dr' to plagiarizing and attempting to come across as if this actually came from you.

Guess what? Now you're straw manning your own self.

There. I 'picked you apart' and you earned it.

Give me a break, even if he has copied and pasted from a Calvinist site, how is that different from someone like Iconoclast who constantly copies and pastes from Calvinist sites?

If you are going to question DrAch's understanding of Calvinism because he copied and pasted, then you should question Iconoclast's as well.

In fact, I have questioned Icon's understanding of Calvinism in the past. In my opinion, he often posts articles and creeds I do not think he really understands. Anybody can parrot someone else's work, that doesn't mean you know anything.

 

[preacher4truth]

Give me a break, even if he has copy and pasted from a Calvinist site, how is that different from someone like Iconoclast who constantly copies and pastes from Calvinist sites?

Baloney. He said he would write out what he believes it means. He plagiarized it and made it like it was from him -- and you rush in to defend it. You're no better than he is, calling evil good.

Congrats, this is your character on display. :thumbsup:

 

[Herald]

you and I had ta similiar background, you went all the way into the Calvinist system, I got stuck mid way in!

I would say I went into the Reformed "system". Calvinism is only one facet of Reformed theology.

 

[DrJamesAch]

You're a charlatan. You're deceitful.

You plagiarized and made it out like it was coming from you. What does Scripture call that 'Dr.'?

You will go to no end to deceive others even to the point of deceiving yourself.

Coming from someone who sides with the Pharisees that Jesus was a winebibber, yeah I gotcha.

The point was is these are the websites I quote from, and yet you failed to agree or disagree with the quotes, mine or not. I deliberately copied it like that to see if you were willing to tear down your own system just for the sake of being right. The fact that you had to Google proves that you were getting ready to do so, but stopped and thought "Hmmmm...this could be a trap, I better Google this first".

You confessed to exactly what I thought you would do. You were getting ready to pounce on these statements until you Googled it and realized it was from your own Calvinist websites.

This is just proof that this is nothing but a game to you.

 

[Winman]

Baloney. He said he would write out what he believes it means. He plagiarized it and made it like it was from him -- and you rush in to defend it. You're no better than he is, calling evil good.

Congrats, this is your character on display. :thumbsup:

I would do the same thing. It is a lot of work to write out what TULIP fully means, and you guys are going to super scrutinize it. I would do the same thing.

You know, this argument that we do not understand Calvinism is just LAME. Some of us have been debating with you fellas for several years. We are not stupid, and you KNOW that. Most of us have a very good grasp on Calvinism.

And truth is, there are many shades of Calvinism, you fellas rarely agree with yourselves. So if we descibe one person's Calvinism perfectly, another says we got it all wrong. You are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

If you ask me, us non-Cals understand Calvinism a whole lot better than you understand non-Cal or Arminian theology.

 

[Herald]

You're a charlatan. You're deceitful.

You plagiarized and made it out like it was coming from you. What does Scripture call that 'Dr.'?

You will go to no end to deceive others even to the point of deceiving yourself.

BTW, I googled it due to the fact it sounded way too scholarly to have come from your mind from what I've seen on here in your writings.

If a self-professed Reformed "Dr." were to pull what this guy did those of us in the Calvinist-Reformed camp would be obligated to call him out on it. I wonder if that is a two-way street.

 

[preacher4truth]

Coming from someone who sides with the Pharisees that Jesus was a winebibber, yeah I gotcha.

The point was is these are the websites I quote from, and yet you failed to agree or disagree with the quotes, mine or not. I deliberately copied it like that to see if you were willing to tear down your own system just for the sake of being right. The fact that you had to Google proves that you were getting ready to do so, but stopped and thought "Hmmmm...this could be a trap, I better Google this first".

You confessed to exactly what I thought you would do. You were getting ready to pounce on these statements until you Googled it and realized it was from your own Calvinist websites.

This is just proof that this is nothing but a game to you.

Yes, you continue to misrepresent me. No biggie, I know what I said, but as your manner is, you have to twist what another says. This also shows your character and who you really are.

Baloney. You said 'I will write out what (you) believe it means.'

Charlatan.

This PROVES you have little to no true understanding of Calvinism, and go to no end and plagiarize another in order to come across as if you have some deep understanding of it.

Your character on display right there and it ain't pretty fella.

 

[preacher4truth]

If a self-professed Reformed "Dr." were to pull what this guy did those of us in the Calvinist-Reformed camp would be obligated to call him out on it. I wonder if that is a two-way street.

Yes. We're getting more than just a glimpse of what the 'Dr.' is made of right here and now.

He should be ashamed but somehow I don't think he can be.

A real man would openly apologize for attempting to deceive others. Pride won't allow it.