Well Said - Arminians listen-up!

[MartyF]

I've seen his use of the Bible in many sermons.
To me, he speaks many things that "become" ( are suited to ) sound doctrine.

Even Mormons preach don't drink, don't steal, and don't murder. And that is one of the problems - one shouldn't teach doctrine. One should teach scripture.

I believe everything you posted.

Do you?

Yes.

It appears so...
Now, I encourage you to rely on the Lord to help you put it all together properly, because to me, you're not doing that yet.

Which leads me to a question:
How long have you been a believer, if I may ask?

41 years

Do you understand the context of who this is speaking to and why?

Hint:
It has to do with earthly prosperity and earthly disaster to a people who agreed, of their own will, to obey the Law of Moses.

If you have a point, make it. Stop playing with your food.

Don't be led into some philosophical belief about God loving all men and desiring their salvation, but that he stands back and lets us make the final decision.

Can you name the philosopher I'm following? I can guess at the philosophers you are following. Are they Plotinus and Plato?

Furthermore, examine what you've been taught, like I did, from a fuller reading of the Scriptures over years...
Then when you have done that, I will believe that you have investigated it thoroughly.

The Bible - especially the Old Testament - is meditation literature. One should never stop reading and learning from it.

Until then, all I see out of your hostility

Proof? Examples? Or is simply disagreeing with you considered hostility?

you ignoring the words on the page in many places, and over-emphasizing others without identifying the context...
Exactly as I did for many years.

You may not realize it but you are being condescending.

I believe that Wesley has people like you on "ignore" because you are acting in a caustic and angry manner towards the subject matter, and because you keep posting insulting remarks out of that anger.

Report me then. Otherwise you are just making up ad hominem.

Rather than act graciously, you hop on your "I hate all things "Calvinist" horse and beat people incessantly with your disapproval of anything that even hints at God being sovereign over His creation, and holding men responsible for not seeking to glorify Him in all things...
Even though we will never come to Him of our own accord because of our love for sin.

"Well Said - Arminians listen-up!"

That's how Wesley starts out. Who's trying to pick a fight here? Me? Really? Explain your reasoning on that?

Then Wesley quotes Charles saying that if I don't believe what he believes I'm going to hell? Really? I'm the one not acting graciously? Explain your reasoning about that.

When you begin to treat Wesley as a person, rather than as an enemy to be beaten into submission, I imagine he will take you off his ignore list, as will I.
But the reality of it is, I cannot speak for Wesley...
I can only speak for myself.
So I really do not know why he has chosen to put certain people on ignore.

Defending myself from someone who underhandedly claims that I am going to hell is beating someone into submission? Can you explain your reasoning? Wesley throws a hand grenade over his shoulder at the evil "Arminians" ignoring all the responding "Arminians" and it's the "Arminians" who are not treating him like a person?

Did you think about this before you wrote it?

But I know why I have.

Admittedly, the only reason I even look at your posts half the time, is to see if anything in your behavior has changed.
In the two years I've been here, you haven't appeared to change one bit...

You still post inflammatory remarks designed to hurt people personally, instead of politely disagreeing with them.

What was polite about Wesley telling me I was going to hell?

What is polite about your condescension?

My remarks are designed to clearly demonstrate the errors of others. I am as blatant and straight forward in person as I am online. I'm not perfect and sometimes I misspeak. If you have a specific complaint against me, you should point it out at the time I make it instead of hiding behind vagueness.

Holding grudges is not good.

I will not apologize for not being polite. I will apologize if I am unnecessarily rude.

4 chapters back in Acts of the Apostles 13:48 and several times before that.
See Acts of the Apostles 2:39 and Acts of the Apostles 2:47, for example.

Please allow me to post them for you to consider:

1) Acts of the Apostles 2:39: " For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call."
"This promise is to you, to your children, and to those far away —all who have been called by the Lord our God.” <------ NLT

No cosmic lottery here.

And remember, I went through Luke and Acts for you and you ignored it.

2) Acts of the Apostles 2:47: " praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."
" all the while praising God and enjoying the goodwill of all the people. And each day the Lord added to their fellowship those who were being saved. <---- NLT

No cosmic lottery here.

3) Acts of the Apostles 13:48: " And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."
" When the Gentiles heard this, they were very glad and thanked the Lord for his message; and all who were chosen for eternal life became believers. <----- NLT

No cosmic lottery here.

All that's needed is to believe the words, Marty...
Nothing more.

No propaganda, no sleight of hand...
Just God's words, as they are written.

And none of them mention a cosmic lottery.

One last mention - all of the passages start with a positive response from the people. If you remember, I discussed this with you before.

I'm not aware of any "Calvinist" that says that Christ was "fake-tempted"...
As for the rest, so did I, in 1978.

John Calvin believes in the fake-temptation of Jesus.

Let us both rejoice together for His great grace and mercy that He has extended to us.

Thank you.

 

[Dave G]

Even Mormons preach don't drink, don't steal, and don't murder. And that is one of the problems - one shouldn't teach doctrine. One should teach scripture.

One should teach both, if they are one of God's teachers:

"For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;" ( 1 Timothy 1:10 ).
" If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, [even] the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;" ( 1 Timothy 6:3 )
" For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;" ( 2 Timothy 4:3 ).
" But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:" ( Titus 2:1 ).
" Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." ( Titus 1:9 ).

Sound doctrine is not only important, but should be taught from the Scriptures.

41 years

41 years and you still post outrageous things like the cartoon in #13?
Why?

Did you think about this before you wrote it?

Did you?
Do you not know in advance how it will be received by some, and that someone might find it offensive?
To me, it is offensive.

Also, this makes about the 3rd time I've seen you do this.
I'm beginning to get the idea that you do it just to see if you can get a rise out of people...
Which believers should not do, should they?

Granted, I've done similar things in the past, but I'd like to not do them anymore, because I know such things are offensive.
If I may ask, did you have any second thoughts about posting it?
Did this even enter your mind at any time?

" Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." ( Matthew 7:12 ).

I would hope that it did, and I think it would be wise for all of us to remember this.

If you have a point, make it. Stop playing with your food.

The point was made, I'm sorry that you do not see it.
Also, you may not realize it, but it seems to me that you're being condescending, Marty.

Did that ever occur to you?

Can you name the philosopher I'm following? I can guess at the philosophers you are following. Are they Plotinus and Plato?

No.
I have no use for philosophy, as the Lord calls it "vain" ( Colossians 2:8 ).

I trust His words and His words alone ( Proverbs 3:5-6 ).

 

[Dave G]

You may not realize it but you are being condescending.

You're right, I don't realize it, since that wasn't my intention.

But I once believed as you appear to, and my studies in the Scriptures changed my mind.
I figure if all it took was constant study to gradually change my way of thinking, then I encourage everyone to do as I did... so that their thinking will change as well.

For example, I started out after I first believed on Christ in 1978 as an "Arminian", and became a "Calvinist" over years and years... and I see the Bible stating that there is a such thing as "the transforming of the mind", and He also tells believers that they are dull of hearing in Hebrews.

So, I see that the natural antidote for us as believers being dull of hearing is for all of Christ's sheep to study His word constantly, as Paul told Timothy to do ( 2 Timothy 2:15 ).

One last mention - all of the passages start with a positive response from the people. If you remember, I discussed this with you before.

All of the passages end with God having been the direct cause ( Acts of the Apostles 2:39, Acts of the Apostles 2:47, Acts of the Apostles 13:48 ) for that response.
That's why I underlined and bold-texted the parts that show this, as well as quoting the NLT for comparison.

Do you not see the significance in the parts I've highlighted?

John Calvin believes in the fake-temptation of Jesus.

I wouldn't know.

I don't follow him, nor do I own any books on "Reformed theology".
I've only ever read the chapter in his "institutes" on Predestination and that was after I saw it in the Scriptures from Romans 8:29-30 and Ephesians 1:4-5.


With that said, this will be my last reply in this thread.

I wish you well, sir, and from here on out I will make every effort to keep from replying to your comments, since we differ so much in the way that we see the words on the page.
That difference causes so much friction that I think it's probably best that we ignore each other.


May God bless you greatly, both in your daily life and in your studies of His word.

 

[MartyF]

One should teach both, if they are one of God's teachers:

"For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;" ( 1 Timothy 1:10 ).
" If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, [even] the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;" ( 1 Timothy 6:3 )
" For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;" ( 2 Timothy 4:3 ).
" But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:" ( Titus 2:1 ).
" Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." ( Titus 1:9 ).

Sound doctrine is not only important, but should be taught from the Scriptures.

"For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;" ( 1 Timothy 1:10 ).

Read the chapter - Paul is talking about the law of the Old Testament .

" If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, [even] the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;" ( 1 Timothy 6:3 )

Talking about the teachings of Jesus which are recorded in the Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts which are part of Scripture.

" For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;" ( 2 Timothy 4:3 ).

2 Timothy 4:3 NLT
For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear.

A better translation for you so that you may understand that you. Instead of reading the Bible, people will seek out those who will tell them what they want to hear.

" But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:" ( Titus 2:1 ).

Why do you consistently quote half verses?

At this point, I realize that you may have decided to use an archaic definition for doctrine. Please read the Webster's Dictionary definition for doctrine.

Definition of DOCTRINE

The primary definition is "a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief". The synonym is DOGMA and the example is Catholic Doctrine.

The archaic definition is TEACHING and INSTRUCTION.

Now I'm thinking that you may be using the archaic version. To this I would say, "Of course I believe in teaching and instruction. I think children should be taught to count to ten."

Unfortunately, you scattershot like you usually do instead of carefully selecting a passage that demonstrates what you believe. So, as a result, I'm not sure whether you are using the correct definition.

Select the best verse or sequential verses which support what you believe. Here is the portion of the Bible I am referring to.

Mark 7:6-13 NLT
Jesus replied, “You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you, for he wrote,

‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
[7] Their worship is a farce,
for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.’

[8] For you ignore God’s law and substitute your own tradition.” [9] Then he said, “You skillfully sidestep God’s law in order to hold on to your own tradition. [10] For instance, Moses gave you this law from God: ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and ‘Anyone who speaks disrespectfully of father or mother must be put to death.’ [11] But you say it is all right for people to say to their parents, ‘Sorry, I can’t help you. For I have vowed to give to God what I would have given to you.’ [12] In this way, you let them disregard their needy parents. [13] And so you cancel the word of God in order to hand down your own tradition. And this is only one example among many others.”

If someone wants to teach money management, marriage counseling, history, science, etc.- that is fine. However, attributing one's own counsel to be God's counsel is wrong unless one is God's prophet.

41 years and you still post outrageous things like the cartoon in #13?
Why?

I use what works. And that comic strip works. It very states the Calvinist interpretation of the passage and then shows why the Calvinist interpretation is wrong.

The truth hurts and that is why Calvinists hate it. I have started using it on the forum every time a Calvinist mentions Romans 9 as if their interpretation is the best one.

And yes, for you it seems outrageous. For me, reading the Bible through the lens of classical theism is outrageous. For me, condemning those who do not believe in Greek Philosophy is outrageous.

The point was made, I'm sorry that you do not see it.

If I didn't see it, the point wasn't made unless you weren't really speaking to me.

Also, you may not realize it, but it seems to me that you're being condescending, Marty.

Did that ever occur to you?

But you were playing with your food. You just stated that your point was with another audience. You were playing around and not trying to explain your point to me.

No.
I have no use for philosophy, as the Lord calls it "vain" ( Colossians 2:8 ).

I trust His words and His words alone ( Proverbs 3:5-6 ).

You say that, but your interpretation of scripture is through the lens of Plato.

So, I see that the natural antidote for us as believers being dull of hearing is for all of Christ's sheep to study His word constantly, as Paul told Timothy to do ( 2 Timothy 2:15 ).

That will only work if you take off your Platonic blinders.

All of the passages end with God having been the direct cause ( Acts of the Apostles 2:39, Acts of the Apostles 2:47, Acts of the Apostles 13:48 ) for that response.

No. That's not even close to what the passages say.

That's why I underlined and bold-texted the parts that show this, as well as quoting the NLT for comparison.

Do you not see the significance in the parts I've highlighted?

I know. You need to take off your Platonic blinders. You're looking at what you want the Bible to say to you - not what it is actually saying.

I wouldn't know.

I don't follow him, nor do I own any books on "Reformed theology".
I've only ever read the chapter in his "institutes" on Predestination and that was after I saw it in the Scriptures from Romans 8:29-30 and Ephesians 1:4-5.

You won't be able to move away from Calvinism if you haven't converted to Calvinism yet.

You don't understand your own theology. You need to understand your theology and where it actually came from. The knowledge will help you take off your Platonic blinders.

You had a question about predestination and you unknowingly went to an unrepentant murderer for answers. Even from the grave, he led you astray. I feel sorry for you.

 

[MB]

Dave, MB is on my ignore list. Therefore I cannot respond to his comments. I appreciate you stepping in on my behalf. Our view of scripture are in agreement with few, if any, exceptions.

Take care and stay safe brother.

You want to ignore the truth. I'm still addressing you. Your ignore list does not stop me from addressing you and your false theology.
MB

 

[George Antonios]

In more than one of my previous posts, I have invoked many of these truths expressed in this sermon by Charles Spurgeon.

Free Will—A Slave by C. H. Spurgeon

A Sermon
(No. 52)
Delivered on Sabbath Morning, December 2, 1855, by the
REV. C.H. SPURGEON
At New Park Street Chapel, Southwark.
"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."- Jhn 5:40

This is one of the great guns of the Arminians, mounted upon the top of their walls, and often discharged with terrible noise against the poor Christians called Calvinists. I intend to spike the gun this morning, or, rather, to turn it on the enemy, for it was never theirs; it was never cast at their foundry at all, but was intended to teach the very opposite doctrine to that which they assert. Usually, when the text is taken, the divisions are: First, that man has a will. Secondly, that he is entirely free. Thirdly, that men must make themselves willing to come to Christ, otherwise they will not be saved. Now, we shall have no such divisions; but we will endeavour to take a more calm look at the text; and not, because there happen to be the words "will," or "will not" in it, run away with the conclusion that it teaches the doctrine of free-will. It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense. Freedom cannot belong to will any more than ponderability can belong to electricity. They are altogether different things. Free agency we may believe in, but free-will is simply ridiculous. The will is well known by all to be directed by the understanding, to be moved by motives, to be guided by other parts of the soul, and to be a secondary thing. Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free-will; and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, "If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright." It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free-will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that he gives both; that he is "Alpha and Omega" in the salvation of men.

Help me out here, what part is it where he turns the gun?

 

[George Antonios]

These things are false. They are made-up as slurs.

Here's a better background. It's even done by a Calvinist. I would hope that people would take the time to learn rather than swallow your propaganda.



No you don't. You make the words mean what you want. Your KJV clearly says unicorn and meant unicorn. However, you have decided to redefine unicorn as rhino even though this is clearly not what the writers of the KJV meant, nor what unicorn meant during the 1500s, and is still not what unicorn means today. You do this because you won't give up your belief in the KJV. The same goes for cockatrice.

You make words mean whatever you want them to mean in order to support your point.



Charles used the terms Free Agent which he said he believed in and Free Will which he didn't believe in. Of course, a free agent without free-will is a dichotomy which I wonder how Charles gets around.

Neither occur in the Bible.



You missed it. Allow me to point it out more distinctly for you.



Allow me to make it bigger in case you have problems reading.

Charles Spurgeon said, "Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free-will"

What does the Bible say about this? He denies the God and Savior of the disciples of Jesus to embrace the gods of philosophy and religion, of the Stoics and Pharisees. He doesn't embrace the Bible - he embraces philosophy and religion.



Ok, let's use your paraphrase and counter it with what the Bible says.

John 3:16 NLT
For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

What?! It doesn't say everyone God zaps with grace?!

Romans 10:9 NLT
If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Hey! It doesn't say you will only be saved if God zaps you with grace!

Acts 17:11-12 NLT
And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul’s message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth. [12] As a result, many Jews believed, as did many of the prominent Greek women and men.

What?! Searching scriptures! Where is the Calvinistic Cosmic Lottery Farce?

James 2:19-20 NLT
You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror. [20] How foolish! Can’t you see that faith without good deeds is useless?

John 14:21 NLT
Those who accept my commandments and obey them are the ones who love me. And because they love me, my Father will love them. And I will love them and reveal myself to each of them.”

I don't know what is meant by "free-will" but a Christian obviously has to do and believe in order to be saved. The Bible is very clear about that.



Charles' Philosophical lecture is not in accord with

John 6:26 NLT
Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, you want to be with me because I fed you, not because you understood the miraculous signs.

Charles' Philosophical lecture is not in accord with

Acts 13:48 NLT
When the Gentiles heard this, they were very glad and thanked the Lord for his message; and all who were chosen for eternal life became believers.

Charles' Philosophical lecture is not in accord with

Romans 8:6 NLT
So letting your sinful nature control your mind leads to death. But letting the Spirit control your mind leads to life and peace.

You asked for it . . .

Charles' Philosophical lecture is no in accord with

Ephesians 1:1 NLT
This letter is from Paul, chosen by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus. I am writing to God’s holy people in Ephesus, who are faithful followers of Christ Jesus.

Charles' Philosophical lecture is no in accord with

2 Thessalonians 2:1 NLT
Now, dear brothers and sisters, let us clarify some things about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and how we will be gathered to meet him.

Charles' Philosophical lecture is no in accord with

Psalm 65:1 NLT
What mighty praise, O God, belongs to you in Zion. We will fulfill our vows to you,



As I pointed out, Charles clearly states that he gets his beliefs from Philosophy and Religion.

I agree with your points but I am a non-Calvinist because of the KJB and I won't give it up either, so help me God.

 

[MartyF]

I agree with your points but I am a non-Calvinist because of the KJB and I won't give it up either, so help me God.

I'm not against people using the KJB. I think people should read it with their eyes wide open and understand that they need to be careful with such things as false friends. False friends are English phrases and words which are similar to the current English but meant something different in the 16th century. There are a few translational problems in my opinion but nothing that is truly problematic.

I generally attack KVJO because many of them attack me. I believe the best defense is a good offense. However, I attack anyone who attacks me. John of Japan is not KJVO and neither is MB but both have attacked what they have considered to be the "wrong" translation. Now I could ignore them, but I do so at risk of being formally declared a heretic.

When I first came to this forum, my first post announced that I had started reading the Bible in the NLT. No one mentioned anything to me then but since then numerous people have decided that they would make it their lifelong goal to attack it.

Basically, if someone wants to declare what I'm reading to be heretical writing then I feel the need to defend myself. I will admit that my defense tends to be more confrontational and sometimes sarcastic but that is my style and not meant to be personal.

I don't think I've ever started an anti-Calvinist thread. I haven't started an anti-KJVO thread either. I have started several anti-Islam threads. I believe that the major problems Christianity faces are Islam, hedonism, greed, apathy, atheism, universalism, etc. - not Calvinism or which Bible translation people are using.

In fact, I didn't know that people were still believing in Calvinism until I came to this forum. It was that crazy thing the Presbyterians believed. I had a Presbyterian teacher and when she mentioned what she believed, I laughed and thought she was joking.

For me, I read the Bible and what was more important to me was how God wanted me to behave and what behaviors Jesus consider to be the most important. I never read the Bible and thought it was about the metaphysics of God and Salvation. I never worried about the end-times. I worried about my relationship to Jesus, how to please God, and what I should do in life. This idea of worrying about God's metaphysics or the signs of the end-times never concerned me. I put faith my faith trust in Jesus and he'll take care of the things over which I have no control.

 

[MB]

I'm not against people using the KJB. I think people should read it with their eyes wide open and understand that they need to be careful with such things as false friends. False friends are English phrases and words which are similar to the current English but meant something different in the 16th century. There are a few translational problems in my opinion but nothing that is truly problematic.

I generally attack KVJO because many of them attack me. I believe the best defense is a good offense. However, I attack anyone who attacks me. John of Japan is not KJVO and neither is MB but both have attacked what they have considered to be the "wrong" translation. Now I could ignore them, but I do so at risk of being formally declared a heretic.

When I first came to this forum, my first post announced that I had started reading the Bible in the NLT. No one mentioned anything to me then but since then numerous people have decided that they would make it their lifelong goal to attack it.

Basically, if someone wants to declare what I'm reading to be heretical writing then I feel the need to defend myself. I will admit that my defense tends to be more confrontational and sometimes sarcastic but that is my style and not meant to be personal.

I don't think I've ever started an anti-Calvinist thread. I haven't started an anti-KJVO thread either. I have started several anti-Islam threads. I believe that the major problems Christianity faces are Islam, hedonism, greed, apathy, atheism, universalism, etc. - not Calvinism or which Bible translation people are using.

In fact, I didn't know that people were still believing in Calvinism until I came to this forum. It was that crazy thing the Presbyterians believed. I had a Presbyterian teacher and when she mentioned what she believed, I laughed and thought she was joking.

For me, I read the Bible and what was more important to me was how God wanted me to behave and what behaviors Jesus consider to be the most important. I never read the Bible and thought it was about the metaphysics of God and Salvation. I never worried about the end-times. I worried about my relationship to Jesus, how to please God, and what I should do in life. This idea of worrying about God's metaphysics or the signs of the end-times never concerned me. I put faith my faith trust in Jesus and he'll take care of the things over which I have no control.

I use other translations in trying to figure out where, who ever I'm posting to, is coming from and where they get there information. I do not worship the KJV but I do worship what it teaches and it is my final authority. The KJV is the most accurate version of the Bible. Everything else comes from the Alexandrian text which is not accurate.
MB