Well known Calvinist that have died for the faith

[Allan]

You, then as now miss MY point.

My post by Rhodes SHOWED the QUOTE and THE SOURSE.
Rippons Showed me were to find it in Gill's book.

I never once refer BACK to Rhodes but the SOURSES from which the Quotes originate and give where they can be found.
The best one can deduce from Rippons quotes is that a person supposedly said according Gill such and such with NOT sourse to validate.

I gave YOU each quote you questioned regarding the paraphrased ones, the original quote and it's sourse to VALIDATE the paraphrase. THEN I WENT BACK and ADDED the exact quotes and original sourses.

Each time you see (after that) that list was the revised version. (and you are exagerting greatly - 20 times - when it is more like 6 or so IF I remember right).

The point is, what started out as Rhodes quoting people much like Gill did, the quotes he gave were revamped by me to show the original quotes and their sourses, which Rippon did not. So when you see stuff like this now
Regarding Early Church Fathers and the Reformers who did not hold to the "L":

Clement of Alexandria (150-220): "Christ freely brings...salvation to the whole human race."
Paedagogus, ch. 11;"...and supplying all the antidotes of salvation to those who are diseased. For the greatest and most regal work of God is the salvation of humanity."
Paedagogus, ch. 12

Eusebius (260-340): "It was needful that the Lamb of God should be offered for the other lambs whose nature He assumed, even for the whole human race."
Demonstratio Evangelica, Preface of ch. 10;

Athanasius (293-373): "Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man's account with death and free him from the primal transgression... Thus it happened that two opposite marvels took place at once : the death of all was consummated in the Lord's body ; yet, because the Word was in it, death and corruption were in the same act utterly abolished. Death there had to be, and death for all, so that the due of all might be paid...
Similarly, though He died to ransom all, He did not see corruption. His body rose in perfect soundness, for it was the body of none other than the Life Himself...Moreover, as it was the death of all mankind that the Saviour came to accomplish,"
On the Incarnation of the Word,

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386): "Do not wonder if the whole world was ransomed, for He was not a mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God."
Catacheses, 13:2;

Gregory of Nazianzen (324-389): "The sacrifice of Christ is an imperishable expiation of the whole world."
23 Oratoria 2 in Pasch., i.e., Passover;

Basil (330-379): "But one thing was found that was equivalent to all men....the holy and precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He poured out for us all."
On Ps. 49:7, 8, sec. 4;

Ambrose (340-407): "Christ suffered for all, rose again for all. But if anyone does not believe in Christ, he deprives himself of that general benefit."
Ambrose also said, "Christ came for the salvation of all, and undertook the redemption of all, inasmuch as He brought a remedy by which all might escape, although there are many who...are unwilling to be healed."
On Ps. 118, Sermon 8

Augustine (354-430): Though Augustine is often cited as supporting limited atonement, there are also clear statements in Augustine's writings that are supportive of unlimited atonement. For example: "The Redeemer came and gave the price, shed His blood, and bought the world. Do you ask what He bought? See what He gave, and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is the price: what is of so great worth? What, but the whole world? What, but all nations?"
He also stated, "The blood of Christ was shed for the remission of all sins."
Serm. cxxx, part 2

Cyril of Alexandria (376-444): "The death of one flesh is sufficient for the ransom of the whole human race, for it belonged to the Logos, begotten of God the Father."
Oratorio de Recta Fide, no. 2, sec. 7

Prosper (a friend and disciple of Augustine who died in 463): "As far as relates to the magnitude and virtue of the price, and to the one cause of the human race, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world: but those who pass through this life without the faith of Christ, and the sacrament of regeneration, do not partake of the redemption."
Prosper also said, "The Savior is most rightly said to have been crucified for the redemption of the whole world."
Prospor then said yet again, "Although the blood of Christ be the ransom of the whole world, yet they are excluded from its benefit, who, being delighted with their captivity, are unwilling to be redeemed by it."
Answer to Vincentius
the second and third quotation:
Reply to Capitula Gallorum, no. 9,

Quotations from the Reformers of the 16th Century
Martin Luther (1483-1546): "Christ is not cruel exactor, but a forgiver of the sins of the whole world....He hath given Himself for our sins, and with one oblation hath put away the sins of the whole world....Christ hath taken away the sins, not of certain men only, but also of thee, yea, of the whole world...Not only my sins and thine, but also the sins of the whole world...take hold upon Christ."
Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians;

Philip Melanchton (1497-1560): "It is necessary to know that the Gospel is a universal promise, that is, that reconciliation is offered and promised to all mankind. It is necessary to hold that this promise is universal, in opposition to any dangerous imaginations on predestination, lest we should reason this promise pertains to a few others and ourselves. But we declare that the promise of the Gospel is universal. And to this are brought those universal expressions which are used constantly in the Scriptures."
Melanchthon, Common-places

And other people involved to some degree in the Reformation who held to unlimited atonement include:
Hugh Latimer
Myles Coverdale
Thomas Cranmer
Wolfgang Musculus
Henry Bullinger
Benedict Aretius
Thomas Becon
Jerome Zanchius
David Paraeus
John Calvin.

It is mine Though it's basic outline (people and dates) began with Rhodes.
But these are just some of the leaders.

But again ALL of this was discussed and set straight in THAT thread and each thread after that. The fact is you can not deny the quotes given and that they state Christ died for ALL of Mankind, which does not deny the same Truth that Christ Specifically Redeemed some of ALL.

BUT ... what I was stating FROM THERE that you are contending exactly the opposite of your own position earlier, that "

"I do not deny the doctrines of grace was not talked about from around 120-320ad[/B]"

Which us a complete contradiction to your preset claim of being about to prove such. You can not prove the early church Fathers held to the "L" of present day Calvinism nor did many of the Reformers themselves!
Irresistable grace can not be found in the early Church Fathers nor can its inference or intension.
Your 'Doctrines of Grace' or better name by the Presby "Soveriegn Grace Doctrines" are held together in the 5 pillars which establish the Theology of Calvinism which is shown in TULIP. These 5 constitute the Soveriegn Grace Doctrines and if the Early Church Fathers did not adhere to them ALL they can not fall under your little cloak. Many held some points or 2 or so points but NONE held your 'Calvinism'. That is why BOTH the Cal's and Non-Cals can lain Theological claim to many of the SAME early Church Fathers, and in relation to Unlimited Atonement a good many of the Reformers to.

 

[Jarthur001]

I still see you do not answer my question.

Why would you say this?

WHy James?

its Monday?

I don't believe you "have no answer" but that you are trying very hard not to answer

.
maybe, but then again you could be wrong.

We can add hundreds of thousands that are dying yearly who are not Calvinists nor Calvinistic, going back to Justin Martyre.

I did not ask for non Calvinist, now did I?

But Like I asked why seperate the Cal from the Non-Cal who died for their Lord Jesus Christ? Are they not the same faith?

You have been told the point of the thread in the OP, and by me in a later post and by two other posters. Yet you keep asking. Why Allan? Do you not cross the line you are trying to draw, when you keep posting the same statement over and over? Are not your own post in themselves dividing? But this is a debate thread is it not?

Now will you for the 1st time take my word for it. This thread was to allow others to talk about a subject that was closed down in another thread. It was closed because the OP of the other thread asked it to be closed. Yet what was asked, by a Non Calvinist and even basher there of, was never address. I myself, being of fair mind, took on the task of posting the 1st post so that others could share their ideas on this subject. Also being that this is a debate board, and being also only one side had been addressed, I also took to the task of placing in my post a quote, that you will find is word for word, so that what is called in these debates "the other side" a way in which they too could enjoy the pleasures found in this great thread, by posting their own list and there by being open and fair. To this point there are no post for what is called in these debates "the other side", but I hold out hope till the end, or the next WVU football game comes on, at which I will take on the task too ask this great thread to be closed also. I'm watching the game...sorry.

But as I stated you still you persist in evading my questions and specifically my
question:

I did mis it the 1st time..i told you this. I hope you believe me. There really is no reson for me to lie on this, so i was not evading. Do you believe me?

I will break it down with numbers so you can see them

.
This may help..we shall see.

I would like to know who "we" is too. I never stated 'we' from what I re-read, maybe I missed it?

re-read again...you said it. was that number 1?

You have forgot what I stated about the term 'free-willer'.

No I well remember what you said. This is the reason I said what I said.

Free-will in the usage most Calvinists ascribe it has to do with the Pelaginist Idea of free-will or LIbertarian Will.

Yes...and we have a few Pelaginist on this Board..and they say it with pride.

I ascribe to a more limited version of is called amoung my brethren 'free-will' but I like the term Responsibility of Will.

Yes I know.

Wesley did not preach Libertarian or Pelagin Free-Will.

I never said he did.

So if Wesley preached another Salvation then No one under his preaching was saved.

If you say so. But let it be known, it was not I that said that

He would be a false preacher leading them AWAY from God and not to Him.

To much to cover on this....so I'll skip this one.

H

e CAN NOT be called a brother in Christ, NOR a Child of God if he preached another Gospel because scripture says he is accursed!

I agree.

Now, please stop the merry-go-round and answer my question, Most specifically #4 but if you would be so kind, the other 3 as well.

I did. I asked who is "we"? Are you talking about you and wesley? Are you saying we as in Non Calvinist? Are you saying we as in free-willers and you not a free-willer but a non Calvinst? I ASK AGAIN WHO IS WE????

 

[Jarthur001]

You, then as now miss MY point.

My post by Rhodes SHOWED the QUOTE and THE SOURSE.
Rippons Showed me were to find it in Gill's book.

Point taken

Point was known.

This is the point in which i rest my case.

 

[Jarthur001]

Which us a complete contradiction to your preset claim of being about to prove such. You can not prove the early church Fathers held to the "L" of present day Calvinism nor did many of the Reformers themselves!
Irresistable grace can not be found in the early Church Fathers nor can its inference or intension.
Your 'Doctrines of Grace' or better name by the Presby "Soveriegn Grace Doctrines" are held together in the 5 pillars which establish the Theology of Calvinism which is shown in TULIP. These 5 constitute the Soveriegn Grace Doctrines and if the Early Church Fathers did not adhere to them ALL they can not fall under your little cloak. Many held some points or 2 or so points but NONE held your 'Calvinism'. That is why BOTH the Cal's and Non-Cals can lain Theological claim to many of the SAME early Church Fathers, and in relation to Unlimited Atonement a good many of the Reformers to.

I disagree. Well...not all of it. But it does not contradict anything I have said on this thread. Even WVU football.

 

[Jarthur001]

That is an excellent truth. In this country today, we enjoy such protection and freedom that the worst persecution we are going to suffer is being made fun of or shunned. Isn't that ridiculous compared to some who died for the faith? And yes, maybe someday it will change. God bless our troops for fighting to keep us free and safe.

Jarthur,
Good to see you out and about.

Hey Saturn...good to see you as well.

I trust all is well.

 

[Jarthur001]

Allan,

I just now took over a hour and looked up 3 of these said quotes. Again....its sad to see you mislead like this. Grained there may be a few true ones, but I could care less about some. However..there are some I hold high and have red before...and to be Frank Allan, you either do this and know its wrong, or you need a good set of books to look this up on your own.

Anyone to claim Calvin was not a Calvinist in all points is off his rocker. Those old quotes from John 3 has been shown for years by Calvin bashers in such a way to make others believe John Calvin was not a Calvinist. WHY? If your side needs to mislead like this, what does this say about your side?

Read Calvin in full...not some little clip from Calvin bashers...and then tell me what you think. This is silly that this still lives on in this day when so many could read on their own and know what he said.

Ambrose....which BTW was a big time believer in the doctrines of grace, is taken out of context below. ALL it is clear if you read him...means all of the elect.

I need help on this one. What page did luther say this. "Christ is not cruel exactor, but a forgiver of the sins of the whole world" I do recall looking this one up in the past, but I do not remember what I found. I have this book but cannot find it. I'm not saying its not there.

please tell me where I can get a copy of this work.

'Reply to Capitula Gallorum, no.9'

Clement of Alexandria (150-220): "Christ freely brings...salvation to the whole human race."
Paedagogus, ch. 11;"...and supplying all the antidotes of salvation to those who are diseased. For the greatest and most regal work of God is the salvation of humanity."
Paedagogus, ch. 12

Eusebius (260-340): "It was needful that the Lamb of God should be offered for the other lambs whose nature He assumed, even for the whole human race."
Demonstratio Evangelica, Preface of ch. 10;

Athanasius (293-373): "Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man's account with death and free him from the primal transgression... Thus it happened that two opposite marvels took place at once : the death of all was consummated in the Lord's body ; yet, because the Word was in it, death and corruption were in the same act utterly abolished. Death there had to be, and death for all, so that the due of all might be paid...
Similarly, though He died to ransom all, He did not see corruption. His body rose in perfect soundness, for it was the body of none other than the Life Himself...Moreover, as it was the death of all mankind that the Saviour came to accomplish,"
On the Incarnation of the Word,

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386): "Do not wonder if the whole world was ransomed, for He was not a mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God."
Catacheses, 13:2;

Gregory of Nazianzen (324-389): "The sacrifice of Christ is an imperishable expiation of the whole world."
23 Oratoria 2 in Pasch., i.e., Passover;

Basil (330-379): "But one thing was found that was equivalent to all men....the holy and precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He poured out for us all."
On Ps. 49:7, 8, sec. 4;

Ambrose (340-407): "Christ suffered for all, rose again for all. But if anyone does not believe in Christ, he deprives himself of that general benefit."
Ambrose also said, "Christ came for the salvation of all, and undertook the redemption of all, inasmuch as He brought a remedy by which all might escape, although there are many who...are unwilling to be healed."
On Ps. 118, Sermon 8

Augustine (354-430): Though Augustine is often cited as supporting limited atonement, there are also clear statements in Augustine's writings that are supportive of unlimited atonement. For example: "The Redeemer came and gave the price, shed His blood, and bought the world. Do you ask what He bought? See what He gave, and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is the price: what is of so great worth? What, but the whole world? What, but all nations?"
He also stated, "The blood of Christ was shed for the remission of all sins."
Serm. cxxx, part 2

Cyril of Alexandria (376-444): "The death of one flesh is sufficient for the ransom of the whole human race, for it belonged to the Logos, begotten of God the Father."
Oratorio de Recta Fide, no. 2, sec. 7

Prosper (a friend and disciple of Augustine who died in 463): "As far as relates to the magnitude and virtue of the price, and to the one cause of the human race, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world: but those who pass through this life without the faith of Christ, and the sacrament of regeneration, do not partake of the redemption."
Prosper also said, "The Savior is most rightly said to have been crucified for the redemption of the whole world."
Prospor then said yet again, "Although the blood of Christ be the ransom of the whole world, yet they are excluded from its benefit, who, being delighted with their captivity, are unwilling to be redeemed by it."
Answer to Vincentius
the second and third quotation:
Reply to Capitula Gallorum, no. 9,

Quotations from the Reformers of the 16th Century
Martin Luther (1483-1546): "Christ is not cruel exactor, but a forgiver of the sins of the whole world....He hath given Himself for our sins, and with one oblation hath put away the sins of the whole world....Christ hath taken away the sins, not of certain men only, but also of thee, yea, of the whole world...Not only my sins and thine, but also the sins of the whole world...take hold upon Christ."
Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians;

Philip Melanchton (1497-1560): "It is necessary to know that the Gospel is a universal promise, that is, that reconciliation is offered and promised to all mankind. It is necessary to hold that this promise is universal, in opposition to any dangerous imaginations on predestination, lest we should reason this promise pertains to a few others and ourselves. But we declare that the promise of the Gospel is universal. And to this are brought those universal expressions which are used constantly in the Scriptures."
Melanchthon, Common-places

And other people involved to some degree in the Reformation who held to unlimited atonement include:
Hugh Latimer
Myles Coverdale
Thomas Cranmer
Wolfgang Musculus
Henry Bullinger
Benedict Aretius
Thomas Becon
Jerome Zanchius
David Paraeus
John Calvin.

The above line in bold.

I want Allan to tell us why he feels this is not a lie?

 

[Allan]

Why would you say this?

I think you are being funny in this post about not answering my numbered questions. However, that being said, you STILL haven't answered them. I'll take that back since it has been addressed that this thread is due to Skypairs claim.

Although, your declaration of only knowing of 1 non-Cal who ever died for their faith is no different that Sky's accusation of Calvinists dieing for their faith. However I will state question 1 was answered and 2 only partially (due to only one that you can think of who died for the faith being a non-cal) But will leave it be for now as answered.

That still leaves you with the Specific question of #4 which I haved asked you (4 times now -including this one) to please give an answer to, and #3.
But so we do not mistake it AGAIN:

I'm not 'trying' to nit-pic but what is the purpose of seperating these (Calvinists) killed for Christ and not includes those (non-Calvinsits) killed for Christ.
(3) Are we two seperate beleifs serving two different gods, or are we one faith dieing for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?

I guess if a person believes we preach a different gospel, then I can see why one would seperate those beloved martyrs of God. For if a person believes we preach another gospel, then we have another christ, and thus another god.

(4) -[ and most specifically ] Do you believe we preach another gospel?

You have been told the point of the thread in the OP,

I agree here to a point and as stated above will let it rest for now.

I did mis it the 1st time..i told you this. I hope you believe me. There really is no reson for me to lie on this, so i was not evading. Do you believe me?

I do believe you, what about the other 2 times?

If you say so. But let it be known, it was not I that said that

Then by this I would like to add another question:
Do you believe Wesley preached another gospel?

I did. I asked who is "we"? Are you talking about you and wesley? Are you saying we as in Non Calvinist? Are you saying we as in free-willers and you not a free-willer but a non Calvinst? I ASK AGAIN WHO IS WE????

I'm still not sure about the 'we' part. I am assuming I was refering to the Non-Cals you call Free-willers. Since 'we' (the majority of baptist Non-Cals) are typically lumped together with ALL free-willers I was most likely speaking in general.

 

[Jarthur001]

I'm still not sure about the 'we' part. I am assuming I was refering to the Non-Cals you call Free-willers. Since 'we' (the majority of baptist Non-Cals) are typically lumped together with ALL free-willers I was most likely speaking in general.

ol good grief Allan....If you want a answer...just tell me who is "we" when you asked. :BangHead: :BangHead:

How can I answer if it is another gospel, if you do not tell me who your talking about?????

 

[Jarthur001]

I think you are being funny in this post about not answering my numbered questions.

Allan,

I did say things with a amile, however I was not joking. I answer your short statements, to show how much you jump to a wrong understanding of what I'm talking about.

this I mean...and I find myself doing this in each debate we take up.

SLOW DOWN and listen

When you do slow down...we in most cases have a good debate.

 

[John of Japan]

There is more wisdom in this one post than many pages here on the BB

Amen!:thumbs:

Why thank you!

 

[John of Japan]

I asked if you believe that statement. You said you did. Will you now take it back?

Of course not. I stand by what I said. And I said it clearly. But the way you put it was still sneaky, right after I said that I agreed with the quotes you gave from later church fathers.

You said..."prove the TULIP from the Apostolic Fathers. Take your time, don't hurry, you may be studying awhile. I'll give you a head start. The term "election" only occurs twice in the Apostolic Fathers, and here they are"
I gave you the very words as you asked from the Apostolic Fathers as you asked. I gave you page number chapter and book. I met what you asked. You however did not follow though as you said you would.

Nope. You did not give me ANY quotes from the apostolic fathers. You are not paying attention. Those quotes were from later fathers, not the apostolic fathers. And they did NOT prove Calvinism existed back then. They said nothing about limited atonement or irresistable grace. And you originally accused ME of not knowing what Calvinism was! Extreme irony.

Your OP intimated that there were Calvinists during the time of the Roman persecutions. There were not. Furthermore, your quotes did not prove that ANY church fathers believed in a limited atonement or irresistable election, staples of Calvinist theology.

Funny you grab one quote from the Bible to talk about and skip over the others. The fact that they quote this, and the way in which it is quoted shows what they believed. You fail to see this because you will not allow your pride to be gone.

Baloney. I said very clearly that I could agree with ALL the quotes from church fathers that you listed.

I'm out of here. I don't have time to debate with someone who doesn't pay attention to what I say. And I am again reminded why almost all of the C/A debates are worth avoiding.

 

[Allan]

ol good grief Allan....If you want a answer...just tell me who is "we" when you asked. :BangHead: :BangHead:

How can I answer if it is another gospel, if you do not tell me who your talking about?????

OHHHH!!!!

I appologize. I was looking everywhere BUT THERE in past posts.

"We" the non-calvinists, those who do not hold to the Soveriegn Grace Doctrines.
People like Moody, Sanky (sp?), Ryrie, Wesley, me, Brother Bob, Webdog, ext... and a host of others not in confiormity with Calvinism.

 

[Allan]

Allan,

I did say things with a amile, however I was not joking. I answer your short statements, to show how much you jump to a wrong understanding of what I'm talking about.

this I mean...and I find myself doing this in each debate we take up.

SLOW DOWN and listen

When you do slow down...we in most cases have a good debate.

Actaully, I do appologive here as well and I admit much of the problem IS because I am trying to talk and have only a moment or two that I may give.

That IS my fault in the main, and respectfully appologize to you James.
I was wondering why we were having a hard time when usaully we might disagree and seriously at that but it is mostly a kind of poking fun at.

After going back and re-reading here (now that I have time to sit and just read - I admit much is my fault here and seek your forgiveness. :saint:

 

[Jarthur001]

here you go...

this did not carry over because I read and post at the same time...and you placed this in quotes..and...and..well...it didn't see it till now. Next time leave your numbers out of quotes.

My question James is (1) why single out Calvinists who have died for the faith.

My answer to 1. it was not i that singled out. I just keep it going. It was done by a Calvin basher as a slam to Calvinist. I wanted a chance to show that Calvinist had indeed died for their faith. Therefore I started the thread.

Now...why do you keep asking this?

***********

(2) Are all believers not worthy to be included in those Calvinists who were martyred for the cause of Christ?

My answer. I asked from the OP for a list from the other side. So far NONE. What more can I do?

now I ask you...would you like to show a list of Arminians gone to death in martyrdom?


****************

I'm not 'trying' to nit-pic but what is the purpose of seperating these (Calvinists) killed for Christ and not includes those (non-Calvinsits) killed for Christ

.
Yes you are.

(3) Are we two seperate beleifs serving two different gods, or are we one faith dieing for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?


My answer...Who is we? Ok..in this case maybe I can answer. Yes we have two seperate doctrines. If this were not true, you would not be debating me. There is only one true God and we all worship Him. Or better said..we should be. The Church is one body...Christ be our head.


Now I ask you...So why do you debate calvinist? Why not just let us alone? Are we not all in Christ? Do we serve two gods on One God? What make Calvinst feel they are seperated from the "others"?

************


How did I do? A+????

 

[Jarthur001]

OHHHH!!!!

I appologize. I was looking everywhere BUT THERE in past posts.

"We" the non-calvinists, those who do not hold to the Soveriegn Grace Doctrines.
People like Moody, Sanky (sp?), Ryrie, Wesley, me, Brother Bob, Webdog, ext... and a host of others not in confiormity with Calvinism.

Ryrie is a 3 pointer. and who is sanky?

anyway...

Non Calvinist is so BIG Allan. I think Wesley was a true believer, but this does not mean he did not teach error. Grace is what saves, not works. Moody, I feel was saved, but again this does not mean he was right in his doctrine. Freewillism i have major problems with. I'm not alone on this. Wesley had problems with them as well. People like Finney...Wow..i don't know Allan. I just don't know about him. God knows the heart, but if you read his writings, he did teach another gospel.

I can only express my feelings. I could place a few Calvinist on that list. Yes they say they believe in Christ, but the words the write tells another story. I will let God do His job for it is Him that saves. We all agree with that in some way.

 

[Jarthur001]

Actaully, I do appologive here as well and I admit much of the problem IS because I am trying to talk and have only a moment or two that I may give.

That IS my fault in the main, and respectfully appologize to you James.
I was wondering why we were having a hard time when usaully we might disagree and seriously at that but it is mostly a kind of poking fun at.

After going back and re-reading here (now that I have time to sit and just read - I admit much is my fault here and seek your forgiveness. :saint:

...Allan not needed man...we are cool...
if you feel its needed...i would disagree....but by all means you are forgiven.

Allan,

We do not see eye to eye. However, I feel sure that you love my Lord as much as I do. We have had some "good ones"...or I feel we have. Through little time is given to other subjects, I have found when it is, we nearly 100% of the time agree. I guess that does not mean we are right.

I'M OFF TO BED..

 

[Allan]

Deleted Post.

 

[Allan]

here you go...

this did not carry over because I read and post at the same time...and you placed this in quotes..and...and..well...it didn't see it till now. Next time leave your numbers out of quotes.

My question James is (1) why single out Calvinists who have died for the faith.

My answer to 1. it was not i that singled out. I just keep it going. It was done by a Calvin basher as a slam to Calvinist. I wanted a chance to show that Calvinist had indeed died for their faith. Therefore I started the thread.

Now...why do you keep asking this?

***********

(2) Are all believers not worthy to be included in those Calvinists who were martyred for the cause of Christ?

My answer. I asked from the OP for a list from the other side. So far NONE. What more can I do?

now I ask you...would you like to show a list of Arminians gone to death in martyrdom?


****************
.
Yes you are.

(3) Are we two seperate beleifs serving two different gods, or are we one faith dieing for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?


My answer...Who is we? Ok..in this case maybe I can answer. Yes we have two seperate doctrines. If this were not true, you would not be debating me. There is only one true God and we all worship Him. Or better said..we should be. The Church is one body...Christ be our head.


Now I ask you...So why do you debate calvinist? Why not just let us alone? Are we not all in Christ? Do we serve two gods on One God? What make Calvinst feel they are seperated from the "others"?

************


How did I do? A+????

I don't believe we have two 'seperate doctrines' but the issue is seeing the mechanics of the same doctrines opperating differently.
Both theologies hold to
Man depravity
God's Election
Christ's Atonement
God's Grace
The Keeping of Gods Saints

Our doctrines are the same but the doctrines (mechanics) regarding those main doctrines differ but we come to the exact same conclusions. So we don't have differing doctrines just a different view of how they opporate and even then they are very similar in most instances.

However, why do infra's debate with supra's (regarding those of Calvinism) over their doctrines. Do they hold seperate doctrines of grace?? Are they not all in Christ? Why not just leave each other alone?
They disagree as to the mechanics of their opperation but still hold the same doctrines and debate to try and validate which one has the better argument according TO scripture. It is a way of iron sharpening iron.
Why must the Calvinist make the Non-Cal feel they are seperated from their brothers in CHrist?
It should not be in either case but both Theological camps are guilty of this, yet that does not mean all of each are thus guilty.

Regarding your grade:
I give you a solid "B". Why?

Because you still neglected to answer #4

(4) -[ and most specifically ] Do you believe we preach another gospel?

 

[Jarthur001]

Nope. You did not give me ANY quotes from the apostolic fathers. You are not paying attention. Those quotes were from later fathers, not the apostolic fathers. And they did NOT prove Calvinism existed back then. They said nothing about limited atonement or irresistable grace. And you originally accused ME of not knowing what Calvinism was! Extreme irony.

Sorry John you are wrong. I did answer you and met your bar. Now you will say I tricked you again, but it is clear who is not reading here. You asked for quotes from Apostolic Fathers not apostolic fathers as you just said above. You have now changed the bar. I met your bar that YOU setup. Go read for yourself. You used caps on both words, which proves I read you right. This could very well be taken as a BOOK. And it was. Not as a trick. Not to be snicky. I read your post and I met your bar as I said I would. Sorry your mad.

You said...

And you originally accused ME of not knowing what Calvinism was! Extreme irony.

You have shown this to be true based on your post. You link the doctrine to a man not to a teaching of old. Those that hold to Calvinism do not worship a man called John. Most Calvinist on this board have said they have NEVER read Calvin. The same ideas were around and about before John Calvin. You take it as TRUTH when I said the trinity. And, it is clear to see that this is the case with the trinity. Why will you not believe Calvinist when they say Calvinism was around before John Calvin? Its not like you can not look it up on your own.

How about Dispensationalist? The Dispensationalist group was not around in before 1500s Was the teachings? Yes, I think you can see bits and pieces here and there to say this. Because it was not called Dispensational, does this mean it was not? I would say it is just as the Calvinist. is that Absurd???

The Waldenses were around before and after Calvin, yet you called my idea on this absurd? I gave you links to back my words.

Your OP intimated that there were Calvinists during the time of the Roman persecutions.

My very words as clipped...
"Many who were killed doing the 3 major Roman persecutions cannot be claimed as only free-willers."

Can you say all were free-willers?
I can't

There were not. Furthermore, your quotes did not prove that ANY church fathers believed in a limited atonement or irresistable election, staples of Calvinist theology.

Are you now asking me to prove this? I can. But remember I will show what you just asked, so please don't say I was tricking you.

Baloney. I said very clearly that I could agree with ALL the quotes from church fathers that you listed.

And they proved met you bar.

I'm out of here. I don't have time to debate with someone who doesn't pay attention to what I say. And I am again reminded why almost all of the C/A debates are worth avoiding.

Please do not be mad John.

BTW..did you know William Carey was a Calvinist?

 

[Jarthur001]

Θ*Αλλαν,

Δεν πρόκειται απόψε. Αλλά θα επιθυμούσα να μοιραστώ με σας το
σημείο μου για εκείνα τα παλαιά αποσπάσματα.

Αυτή η θέση θα σας δώσει ένα πλήκτρο στο σημείο μου.

Θα σας μιλήσω wih