Well known Calvinist that have died for the faith

[Allan]

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

Χαιρετισμοί. Ναι καταλαβαίνω το σημείο σας στα αποσπάσματα. Και για αυτόν τον λόγο κάνω ένα νέο άρθρο με μόνο τα ακριβή αποσπάσματα από τους συντάκτες. Αυτός ο τρόπος καμία παράφραση. Εντούτοις ευχαριστίες για τη βοήθειά σας. Εκείνος ο τρόπος εσείς μπορεί να πει ότι truely είναι παραπλανητικός..



Well at least when you got home for the night you didn't have to write me. You have a good evening, morning, or afternoon James.
God bless.

 

[Jarthur001]

It is my feeling that rippton had that person in Gill. Gill is most know for the largest writer of all times with his huge works. It is easy to see why. He out wrote Calvin and Matthew Henry. But this was not what he was best known for in his day. Gill was a language master. It was kinda like "his thing". Every thing he read it is said, he would retain and could recall with ease. It has been said that his personal library was greater than Spurgeon in numbers, but half of them was not English.

Where as your quotes came from a person that had used a translation of Greek to English that was translated by a 3rd party..( I still say was lightfoot..maybe maybe not ), Gill had masted the Greek and Latin and also was the foremost Hebrew scholar of his day. He has been called the Doctor John Lightfoot of the Baptists.

Gill is more Calvinistic then I am. I do not agree with all that he says. However, I must say he was maybe the best language master the church has ever been blessed with, and this includes Jerome and Augustine.

 

[Allan]

It is my feeling that rippton had that person in Gill. Gill is most know for the largest writer of all times with his huge works. It is easy to see why. He out wrote Calvin and Matthew Henry. But this was not what he was best known for in his day. Gill was a language master. It was kinda like "his thing". Every thing he read it is said, he would retain and could recall with ease. It has been said that his personal library was greater than Spurgeon in numbers, but half of them was not English.

Where as your quotes came from a person that had used a translation of Greek to English that was translated by a 3rd party..( I still say was lightfoot..maybe maybe not ), Gill had masted the Greek and Latin and also was the foremost Hebrew scholar of his day. He has been called the Doctor John Lightfoot of the Baptists.

Gill is more Calvinistic then I am. I do not agree with all that he says. However, I must say he was maybe the best language master the church has ever been blessed with, and this includes Jerome and Augustine.

So only Gill can properly translate for us the works of those Calvinists and early church fathers wrote in Greek and Latin.

That is the same thing the JW's state about the Bible Translation they have. They are the only ones who can properly translate the Greek and Hebrew and that is why there are so many versions, but THEY have the true version.

That don't fly with me nor anyone else who with some knowledge of other languages. Gill might have been the foremost of his time (and I don't really doubt it) but to assume he is the best in church history even up through today is something that would have to be proved. But more specifically that he and only he could properly translate other Calvinists. That is far fetched. That is like me saying only the King James Translators were the only ones who could properly translate the scriptures and everyone else at their best is a poor rendition.

Anyway, I do agree Gill was better than me

 

[Jarthur001]

So only Gill can properly translate for us the works of those Calvinists and early church fathers wrote in Greek and Latin.

Not sure I said that. As a matter of fact, I am sure I never said that.

That is the same thing the JW's state about the Bible Translation they have. They are the only ones who can properly translate the Greek and Hebrew and that is why there are so many versions, but THEY have the true version.

ok

That don't fly with me nor anyone else who with some knowledge of other languages.

The JWs? or your satement? Well...both have nothing to do with the subject

Gill might have been the foremost of his time (and I don't really doubt it)

ok

but to assume he is the best in church history even up through today is something that would have to be proved.

Proof? Just trust me on this one.

I have no need to prove, nor could I.

But more specifically that he and only he could properly translate other Calvinists.

Most of the KJV translators were Calvinist. Maybe all of them...not sure. Gill trusted their work. But this has nothing to do with it, so I do not know why we are talking about it.

That is far fetched.

It is. I agree.

That is like me saying only the King James Translators were the only ones who could properly translate the scriptures and everyone else at their best is a poor rendition.

What? My statement, or your translation of my statement?

Anyway, I do agree Gill was better than me

In my broken Greek, you have proven you are better then I. So at least you'er one up on someone.



Maybe next post we can talk about the subject.

 

[TCGreek]

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

From the classics?

 

[Allan]

Not sure I said that. As a matter of fact, I am sure I never said that.


ok


The JWs? or your satement? Well...both have nothing to do with the subject



ok


Proof? Just trust me on this one.

I have no need to prove, nor could I.


Most of the KJV translators were Calvinist. Maybe all of them...not sure. Gill trusted their work. But this has nothing to do with it, so I do not know why we are talking about it.


It is. I agree.


What? My statement, or your translation of my statement?


In my broken Greek, you have proven you are better then I. So at least you'er one up on someone.



Maybe next post we can talk about the subject.

Ah James, I'm just having fun with ya.

Though Gill was scholarly to say the least I don't bank on any man. That is why I don't go to Non-Cal sites if I need to get info I don't have. I go to Reformed, Presby, or Calvinistic Inistitutes for quotes from certain men. Anyhoo, I don't deny Gill his due I just have seen that when people write concerning a belief that goes back to the early Church it is slanted and words and phrases are sometimes colored through their theological glasses to see what is said in accordance to how they understand the phrase. Not in every single case a word or phrase is used but most times I can see this in both the Cal an Non-Cal books. (those they try to establish their doctrine as the early church doctrine)

I have said it before and firmly believe it; both doctrines can be seen and is why it is still seen back in the early church even to the writtings of Paul, Peter, Luke, John, Matthew, James, and Mark (not to mention the OT Saints). That is why I don't believe one doctrine as absolute over the other because both have inconsistancies or arguments based on logical conclusions more than scriptural declaration. So I hold both as having truth in the main. I know you don't but I do. It helps keep me from going to far one way or the other but allowing me to stay in what I believe is a centered relationship on Christ - without taking His soveriegnty to far (ascribing God as the author of sin) and not taking the other to far (believing man as so free he can do what he wills and God must obey).

 

[Jarthur001]

From the classics?

Hardly.



Just a note to Allan

 

[Jarthur001]

Ah James, I'm just having fun with ya.

Though Gill was scholarly to say the least I don't bank on any man. That is why I don't go to Non-Cal sites if I need to get info I don't have. I go to Reformed, Presby, or Calvinistic Inistitutes for quotes from certain men. Anyhoo, I don't deny Gill his due I just have seen that when people write concerning a belief that goes back to the early Church it is slanted and words and phrases are sometimes colored through their theological glasses to see what is said in accordance to how they understand the phrase. Not in every single case a word or phrase is used but most times I can see this in both the Cal an Non-Cal books. (those they try to establish their doctrine as the early church doctrine)

I have said it before and firmly believe it; both doctrines can be seen and is why it is still seen back in the early church even to the writtings of Paul, Peter, Luke, John, Matthew, James, and Mark (not to mention the OT Saints). That is why I don't believe one doctrine as absolute over the other because both have inconsistancies or arguments based on logical conclusions more than scriptural declaration. So I hold both as having truth in the main. I know you don't but I do. It helps keep me from going to far one way or the other but allowing me to stay in what I believe is a centered relationship on Christ - without taking His soveriegnty to far (ascribing God as the author of sin) and not taking the other to far (believing man as so free he can do what he wills and God must obey).

Ok...i have taken this about as far as I wish.

A few ending notes. Those quotes by Rippon oh so long ago, I feel carries more weight then Ron Rhodes the "4 point Calvinist". I never heard of the guy, and I looked at his webpage, and I didn't see any scholar type work there.

I wanted to point that out when you said..

Actaully Rippon doesn't quote ONE of the writters, and I asked again and again where his quotes from Gill could be found (orginal quotes Gill took from) - He gave me Gills pg numbers from Gills book .
The only thing he could give is quoting Gill 'assumedly' quoting them. I on the other hand give excatly where it could be located, where it was found, and then the exact quote of the Early CHurch Father and or Reformer. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...2&postcount=27
Though I like Gill, I will take the original authors word over someone saying some said - anyday.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1089404&postcount=43

and..

I don't care what Gill says they say and nor should anyone else for that matter. I want to see where Gill got his information. I look at what the men in question themselves state in THEIR OWN WRITINGS. For all I know (though I do doubt) is that Gill is quoting what another man was said to be quoting (which could be a quote from another mans supposed quote). I don't want hear say (one man saying what one man said) I want to know where Gill got his information with regard to each statement from each author. You could afford the same courtisy that I gave when I did this all others (including you) to be able to look for themselves at the early church fathers writtings to see for themselves what was actaully stated. I did this approximately 9 posts back. If nothing else it will get people to not only find things for themselves and not take someone elses word for it (that is a sad faith indeed) but that they might research of their own accord and come to their own conclusions in the matter by seeing how others veiwed certain things in the early churches.

It was Gill that read the Greek and made the quotes from it.

so....Rippon did show what you asked oh so long ago. I don't understnd why you keep asking

 

[Jarthur001]

Ah James, I'm just having fun with ya.

Though Gill was scholarly to say the least I don't bank on any man. That is why I don't go to Non-Cal sites if I need to get info I don't have. I go to Reformed, Presby, or Calvinistic Inistitutes for quotes from certain men. Anyhoo, I don't deny Gill his due I just have seen that when people write concerning a belief that goes back to the early Church it is slanted and words and phrases are sometimes colored through their theological glasses to see what is said in accordance to how they understand the phrase. Not in every single case a word or phrase is used but most times I can see this in both the Cal an Non-Cal books. (those they try to establish their doctrine as the early church doctrine)

I have said it before and firmly believe it; both doctrines can be seen and is why it is still seen back in the early church even to the writtings of Paul, Peter, Luke, John, Matthew, James, and Mark (not to mention the OT Saints). That is why I don't believe one doctrine as absolute over the other because both have inconsistancies or arguments based on logical conclusions more than scriptural declaration. So I hold both as having truth in the main. I know you don't but I do. It helps keep me from going to far one way or the other but allowing me to stay in what I believe is a centered relationship on Christ - without taking His soveriegnty to far (ascribing God as the author of sin) and not taking the other to far (believing man as so free he can do what he wills and God must obey).

Ok...i have taken this about as far as I wish.

A few ending notes. Those quotes by Rippon oh so long ago, I feel carries more weight then Ron Rhodes the "4 point Calvinist". I never heard of the guy, and I looked at his webpage, and I didn't see any scholar type work there.

I wanted to point that out when you said..

Actaully Rippon doesn't quote ONE of the writters, and I asked again and again where his quotes from Gill could be found (orginal quotes Gill took from) - He gave me Gills pg numbers from Gills book .
The only thing he could give is quoting Gill 'assumedly' quoting them. I on the other hand give excatly where it could be located, where it was found, and then the exact quote of the Early CHurch Father and or Reformer. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...2&postcount=27
Though I like Gill, I will take the original authors word over someone saying some said - anyday.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1089404&postcount=43

and..

I don't care what Gill says they say and nor should anyone else for that matter. I want to see where Gill got his information. I look at what the men in question themselves state in THEIR OWN WRITINGS. For all I know (though I do doubt) is that Gill is quoting what another man was said to be quoting (which could be a quote from another mans supposed quote). I don't want hear say (one man saying what one man said) I want to know where Gill got his information with regard to each statement from each author. You could afford the same courtisy that I gave when I did this all others (including you) to be able to look for themselves at the early church fathers writtings to see for themselves what was actaully stated. I did this approximately 9 posts back. If nothing else it will get people to not only find things for themselves and not take someone elses word for it (that is a sad faith indeed) but that they might research of their own accord and come to their own conclusions in the matter by seeing how others veiwed certain things in the early churches.

It was Gill that read the Greek and made the quotes from it.

so....Rippon did show what you asked oh so long ago. I don't understnd why you keep asking

 

[Allan]

It was Gill that read the Greek and made the quotes from it.

so....Rippon did show what you asked oh so long ago. I don't understnd why you keep asking

What I asked Rippon for (and kept asking for) was 'where' Gill obtained the quote.
Would you believe me if I said I that while I was reading in the Greek one of the early church Fathers (and gave some name) and that the document stated:
"The Church has since the resurrection Christ and His express proclaimation to the Apostles that Election is based on forseen faith"
Your first question to me would be asking me for the sourse of the quote. That is what I was asking Rippon for.

If he read the Greek, Latin, or Chineese documents, I wanted to know 'what' the Sourse was and approximately where the quote could be located (if it was a work of sections and such).

That was what I was asking for so I could see the CONTEXT of what was being quoted and that is what Rippon did not give. Well he gave Gills Page numbers

 

[Jarthur001]

Allan,

I wanted to say something on this statement here..

I have said it before and firmly believe it; both doctrines can be seen and is why it is still seen back in the early church even to the writtings of Paul, Peter, Luke, John, Matthew, James, and Mark (not to mention the OT Saints). That is why I don't believe one doctrine as absolute over the other because both have inconsistancies or arguments based on logical conclusions more than scriptural declaration. So I hold both as having truth in the main. I know you don't but I do. It helps keep me from going to far one way or the other but allowing me to stay in what I believe is a centered relationship on Christ - without taking His soveriegnty to far (ascribing God as the author of sin) and not taking the other to far (believing man as so free he can do what he wills and God must obey).

In a way you are right, and in yet another way I would disagree. Like I can word the doctrines so that both sides agree. I have done that on the BB before and even Sky and Web agreed. But it is the people that read into the words. This is seen each day on the BB. This is what is done in the passages of the Bible for most read them in a mindset.

Yes I agree that both systems can show support from the Bible. But I also know both system can not be right. You can not have unconditional election and conditional election. You can not have grace resistible and irresistible grace. Man cannot be born spiritual dead and alive at the same time. You cannot have God reign with irresistible power, and sovereign power.

No matter where you line up on these issues at some point the two will cross and you will need to go one way or the other. I once was a 3 pointer because all my teachers and preachers were 3 pointers. At the same time I had not study the remaining points on my own. I resisted those points mainly because of the labels given to them. I did not like the word "limited". When I study it, it was clear I did not have the right understanding of the doctrine. Which lead to asking myself, if those that schooled me had not done the same as I.

My point, after I studied it, I was faced with two paths. I could not take both paths. Christ died for each person ever born, or Christ died for those he saved. You cannot have it both ways. No matter what path you take you will reject the other. The sides do not mix.


This statement..

without taking His soveriegnty to far (ascribing God as the author of sin)

I want to talk about this sometime. I know we have already in the past, But I have new thoughts on this.

 

[Allan]

Yes I agree that both systems can show support from the Bible. But I also know both system can not be right. You can not have unconditional election and conditional election. You can not have grace resistible and irresistible grace. Man cannot be born spiritual dead and alive at the same time. You cannot have God reign with irresistible power, and sovereign power.

And this is why I stated our differences are in line with the mechanics than the doctrine. As you observed above, we both hold to Election, Grace Depravity but how we see scripture depicting their operations is where we usually diverge.

My point, after I studied it, I was faced with two paths. I could not take both paths. Christ died for each person ever born, or Christ died for those he saved. You cannot have it both ways.

As I have stated before, I see scripture declaring BOTH paths. So it isn't that I can't have it both ways but that I can't seperate them.

I want to talk about this sometime. I know we have already in the past, But I have new thoughts on this.

I would be lieing if I said I wasn't curious. We might not agree but I am curious