Who are the false professors?

[skypair]

Calvin's Institutes are on the way! :laugh:

Ya know -- I oughta read that. See what all the hub-bub is about! :laugh:

Seriously, Calvin did the best he could with what he had to work with. I don't know about him. I try to "know no man after the flesh" including what they write "on behalf of the betterment of mankind." I definitely think he was trying to "institute" secular structure onto society -- something that evangelicals can hardly resist even to this day!

I don't think he had the advantages we have today. He was working with the Vulgate/"vulgar" Bible, right? Concordances -- nonexistent. And commentary besides Catholic -- nonexistent. I mean, what do you expect a spiritual "first grader" to actually come up with???

skypair

 

[Rippon]

Ya know -- I oughta read that. See what all the hub-bub is about! :laugh:

Seriously, Calvin did the best he could with what he had to work with. I don't know about him. I try to "know no man after the flesh" including what they write "on behalf of the betterment of mankind." I definitely think he was trying to "institute" secular structure onto society -- something that evangelicals can hardly resist even to this day!

I don't think he had the advantages we have today. He was working with the Vulgate/"vulgar" Bible, right? Concordances -- nonexistent. And commentary besides Catholic -- nonexistent. I mean, what do you expect a spiritual "first grader" to actually come up with???

skypair

SP : You started out admitting your ignorance about Calvin's Institutes ( and everything else he wrote , I'm sure ) then you still come up with nonsense claims regarding the man .

John Calvin was not the first Reformer , he was of the 2nd generation . He read Bucer , Luther and others . And he did not rely on the Vulgate -- he actually knew Greek and Hebrew .

If Calvin was a spiritual first-grader I want to be the same . You certainly are not the least bit familiar with his writings to make such a stupid assertion .

Closing hint : If you do not know what you are talking about ...don't talk at all .

 

[Amy.G]

I try to "know no man after the flesh" including what they write "on behalf of the betterment of mankind."
skypair

:laugh: You quote Adrian Rogers more than any Calvinist on this board quotes Calvin.

 

[skypair]

SP : You started out admitting your ignorance about Calvin's Institutes ( and everything else he wrote , I'm sure ) then you still come up with nonsense claims regarding the man.

I've read about Calvinism vs. the Bible to see that his works nor Luther's should not have been "canonized" by anyone as y'all have basically done.

John Calvin was not the first Reformer , he was of the 2nd generation . He read Bucer , Luther and others . And he did not rely on the Vulgate -- he actually knew Greek and Hebrew .

I don't aver that he wasn't intelligent. Instead I assert that he was working with "crude instruments." And another thing -- he leaned heavily on Augustine more than on the Holy Spirit of scripture.

But that was the way in those days. The RCC had practically "canonized" the writings of the ECF and the Reform/Calvinist movements took much from earlier men's opinions. Wouldn't you agree?

skypair

 

[reformedbeliever]

I've read about Calvinism vs. the Bible to see that his works nor Luther's should not have been "canonized" by anyone as y'all have basically done.

I don't aver that he wasn't intelligent. Instead I assert that he was working with "crude instruments." And another thing -- he leaned heavily on Augustine more than on the Holy Spirit of scripture.

But that was the way in those days. The RCC had practically "canonized" the writings of the ECF and the Reform/Calvinist movements took much from earlier men's opinions. Wouldn't you agree?

skypair

How would you know what his relationship with Holy Spirit was? What makes you think that Augustine did not lean heavily upon Holy Spirit?

Are you the only one who "heavily" leans upon Holy Spirit sky?

 

[skypair]

:laugh: You quote Adrian Rogers more than any Calvinist on this board quotes Calvin.

I think we all try to add some validation to our positions by "name-dropping," right? One of the points you will have to admit is that men like AR have a whole lot more available in regards to biblical knowledge today that Calvin did. Some of the tenets of Calvinism, if they were asserted for the first time now, would be "shot down" in an instant. Imagine hearing in today's world that the God of love also chooses people to damnation! If that were not part of an "accredited" system of theology, there would be no discussion at all -- it would be "tossed!"

skypair

 

[reformedbeliever]

I think we all try to add some validation to our positions by "name-dropping," right? One of the points you will have to admit is that men like AR have a whole lot more available in regards to biblical knowledge today that Calvin did. Some of the tenets of Calvinism, if they were asserted for the first time now, would be "shot down" in an instant. Imagine hearing in today's world that the God of love also chooses people to damnation! If that were not part of an "accredited" system of theology, there would be no discussion at all -- it would be "tossed!"

skypair

More misrepresentation sky? Was that deliberate? Have you been told before that all of mankind will not come to Christ. They don't want to. If God chooses to change some, you think that is unfair huh?

 

[Amy.G]

I think we all try to add some validation to our positions by "name-dropping," right? One of the points you will have to admit is that men like AR have a whole lot more available in regards to biblical knowledge today that Calvin did. Some of the tenets of Calvinism, if they were asserted for the first time now, would be "shot down" in an instant. Imagine hearing in today's world that the God of love also chooses people to damnation! If that were not part of an "accredited" system of theology, there would be no discussion at all -- it would be "tossed!"

skypair

What you do with AR quotes and teachings is NO different than the Calvinist who quotes Calvin. Both are men, neither is perfect.

FTR, I have never read anything by John Calvin and you won't see me quoting him. If I can't make my point with scripture, then I my point is nothing more than the opinion of man.

Your defense is that it's ok to quote someone as long as they agree with Sky's doctrine.

 

[Rippon]

Your arrogance and presumption no know no bounds SP . You have claimed in the past that you post much more ( actually "speak against" ) about Calvinism than the man John Calvin . But most of the time (in your muddle-headedness ) you lump em' together as if they were virtually synonymous .

You , in your pride , think that your instruments must be very modern and sophisticated in contrast to the crudeness of John Calvin's tools .

Well , I have news for you my flying friend . You are not in the least as familiar as you believe you are with the Bible . John Calvin was leagues ahead of most of us -- "crude instruments" and all . John Gill , Matthew Henry , John Owen and many others of centuries past knew more than you'll ever hope to acquire in a lifetime .

Do you lean more on the sermons of Adrian Rogers than on the Holy Spirit ?! "Why that's an outrageous statement !" you rightly reply . Then don't come up with the junk you affix to John Calvin .

What are the writings of ECF ? To what are you referring ?

The Reformation ( if that's what you meant by the Reformed/Calvinist movement ) was a movement of God which was characterized by a return , or rediscovery ( after a thousand years of shameful neglect by most ) of the Word of God .

Of course some of the tenets of Calvinism would be attacked today -- no surprise there .They certainly are . But the teachings are not "shot down" as you so quaintly put it -- if by that terminology you think Calvinism is of no scriptural merit .

 

[reformedbeliever]

Your arrogance and presumption no know no bounds SP . You have claimed in the past that you post much more ( actually "speak against" ) about Calvinism than the man John Calvin . But most of the time (in your muddle-headedness ) you lump em' together as if they were virtually synonymous .

You , in your pride , think that your instruments must be very modern and sophisticated in contrast to the crudeness of John Calvin's tools .

Well , I have news for you my flying friend . You are not in the least as familiar as you believe you are with the Bible . John Calvin was leagues ahead of most of us -- "crude instruments" and all . John Gill , Matthew Henry , John Owen and many others of centuries past knew more than you'll ever hope to acquire in a lifetime .

Do you lean more on the sermons of Adrian Rogers than on the Holy Spirit ?! "Why that's an outrageous statement !" you rightly reply . Then don't come up with the junk you affix to John Calvin .

What are the writings of ECF ? To what are you referring ?

The Reformation ( if that's what you meant by the Reformed/Calvinist movement ) was a movement of God which was characterized by a return , or rediscovery ( after a thousand years of shameful neglect by most ) of the Word of God .

Of course some of the tenets of Calvinism would be attacked today -- no surprise there .They certainly are . But the teachings are not "shot down" as you so quaintly put it -- if by that terminology you think Calvinism is of no scriptural merit .

Rippon sir....... do me a favor ok? NEVER go away! :applause:

 

[webdog]

Your arrogance and presumption no know no bounds SP . You have claimed in the past that you post much more ( actually "speak against" ) about Calvinism than the man John Calvin . But most of the time (in your muddle-headedness ) you lump em' together as if they were virtually synonymous .

You , in your pride , think that your instruments must be very modern and sophisticated in contrast to the crudeness of John Calvin's tools .

Well , I have news for you my flying friend . You are not in the least as familiar as you believe you are with the Bible . John Calvin was leagues ahead of most of us -- "crude instruments" and all . John Gill , Matthew Henry , John Owen and many others of centuries past knew more than you'll ever hope to acquire in a lifetime .

Do you lean more on the sermons of Adrian Rogers than on the Holy Spirit ?! "Why that's an outrageous statement !" you rightly reply . Then don't come up with the junk you affix to John Calvin .

What are the writings of ECF ? To what are you referring ?

The Reformation ( if that's what you meant by the Reformed/Calvinist movement ) was a movement of God which was characterized by a return , or rediscovery ( after a thousand years of shameful neglect by most ) of the Word of God .

Of course some of the tenets of Calvinism would be attacked today -- no surprise there .They certainly are . But the teachings are not "shot down" as you so quaintly put it -- if by that terminology you think Calvinism is of no scriptural merit .

Who's the arrogant one here?

 

[reformedbeliever]

Who's the arrogant one here?

Come on web.... do you not think sky has needed to be corrected? Seriously.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

I posted it for her.
Her statements did not need to be retracted or apologized for.
She was right and the quotes show her to be.
Amy just happens to be quite gracious.
Perhaps to her detrement.

They were WRONG and did need retracted, her apology was irrelevant to me since it was a general statement I not a personal one. I will help.

Here is her statement:

From what I've read of the non-Lordship posters here, they don't believe there is such a thing as a false profession. If you ever professed Christ, you are saved, even if you stop believing and become anti-God.

Not one bit of documentation where anyone said, "If you ever professed Christ, you are saved".

The statement to which you later claimed to be what you trace the thought from is this one from me:

When a person believes on the Lord Jesus Christ they are saved. Remember, what keeps them saved...The INTEGRITY of Christ, not whether they maintain THEIR FAITH.

These are believers who have not maintained their FAITH and fall away from their faith but are with certainty saved because it isn't the maintenance of their faith that KEEPS them saved but the integrity of Christ.

Again,"For a while believe and...fall away" simply represents a person who falls away from the faith. To fall away from your faith does not mean to lose your salvation because that isn't possible since it is Christ that keeps you saved and not yourself.

The careful and considerate mind will give attention to detail. Amy stated ""If you ever professed Christ, you are saved", I never made such a statement.

I always, always and always state "believe" not profess. One can profess anything, the profess of salvation is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved".

So what did I say? Let's look again:

When a person believes on the Lord Jesus Christ they are saved. Remember, what keeps them saved...The INTEGRITY of Christ, not whether they maintain THEIR FAITH.

Believing and professing are NOT SYNONYMS. Because Amy or anyone else wrongly believes this and treats those words as synonyms it is THEIR error, not mine. I have clearly and repeatedly and without exception NOT used "professed" but "believe". The Bible is clear:

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved".

If a person cannot recognize this critical and dramatic detail that changes the context of statements regarding the topic, they are in over their head and need to head off lesser waters.

However, for a most thorough treatment of The Failure of Perseverance, I have provided an extensive treatment of Luke 8 that has been untouched regarding any hermeneutical/exegetical refutation. A lot of crying and complaining but not hermeneutical/exegetical refutation. Perseverance? Luke 8 says no.

 

[reformedbeliever]

They were WRONG and did need retracted, her apology was irrelevant to me since it was a general statement I not a personal one. I will help.

Here is her statement:



Not one bit of documentation where anyone said, "If you ever professed Christ, you are saved".

The statement to which you later claimed to be what you trace the thought from is this one from me:



The careful and considerate mind will give attention to detail. Amy stated ""If you ever professed Christ, you are saved", I never made such a statement.

I always, always and always state "believe" not profess. One can profess anything, the profess of salvation is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved".

So what did I say? Let's look again:



Believing and professing are NOT SYNONYMS. Because Amy or anyone else wrongly believes this and treats those words as synonyms it is THEIR error, not mine. I have clearly and repeatedly and without exception NOT used "professed" but "believe". The Bible is clear:

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved".

If a person cannot recognize this critical and dramatic detail that changes the context of statements regarding the topic, they are in over their head and need to head off lesser waters.

However, for a most thorough treatment of The Failure of Perseverance, I have provided an extensive treatment of Luke 8 that has been untouched regarding any hermeneutical/exegetical refutation. A lot of crying and complaining but not hermeneutical/exegetical refutation. Perseverance? Luke 8 says no.

Even demons believe. I think your argument is about the same as how many gnats you can stack on the head of a pin. Go back and proof read what you write.... if you want to be that technical.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Even demons believe. I think your argument is about the same as how many gnats you can stack on the head of a pin. Go back and proof read what you write.... if you want to be that technical.

A most elementary doctrine escapes you. Why is this?

Demons aren't GIVEN the promise of the GOSPEL. The promise "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" is for HUMANS ONLY.

Are you really so ignorant of SOTERIOLOGY that you think DEMONS can be saved through Jesus Christ?

My goodness man, that is milk doctrine you are spitting up on yourself.

The truth is you are without refutation and cannot from any exegetical or hermeneutical position, provide an argument.

But fella, you need a refresher Soteriology 101 class before making really fundamental errors like "even demons believe".

Secondly, I established in the lengthy treatment, that "believe" in Luke is absolutely established in the context of salvation. But of course you really didn't read that part and have no argument against it. Really, you are just interested in shooting peas and this silly comment of yours isn't even a pea.

 

[reformedbeliever]

A most elementary doctrine escapes you. Why is this?

Demons aren't GIVEN the promise of the GOSPEL. The promise "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" is for HUMANS ONLY.

Are you really so ignorant of SOTERIOLOGY that you think DEMONS can be saved through Jesus Christ?

My goodness man, that is milk doctrine you are spitting up on yourself.

The truth is you are without refutation and cannot from any exegetical or hermeneutical position, provide an argument.

But fella, you need a refresher Soteriology 101 class before making really fundamental errors like "even demons believe".

Secondly, I established in the lengthy treatment, that "believe" in Luke is absolutely established in the context of salvation. But of course you really didn't read that part and have no argument against it. Really, you are just interested in shooting peas and this silly comment of yours isn't even a pea.

Sir, the point I was making is that there are many who say they believe, or profess belief, but it is not sincere. I think you may have made that argument yourself in these threads.... if not these I know you have argued that point in others. The principle of "even demons believe" stands. James was arguing that faith without works was dead. Belief without works is dead. Profession of faith (belief), without the fruit of the Spirit evident through a life of obedience and works as a result of faith, is about as useless as a demon's belief.... it can not save.
I'll not even comment on the Soteriology 101 comment. Keep your nastiness to yourself.

 

[Amy.G]

Secondly, I established in the lengthy treatment, that "believe" in Luke is absolutely established in the context of salvation.

Then those that "believe for awhile" are only saved for awhile?

 

[reformedbeliever]

Then those that "believe for awhile" are only saved for awhile?

He would make a good Arminian huh?
:laugh:

 

[Isaiah40:28]

I always, always and always state "believe" not profess. One can profess anything, the profess of salvation is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved".
Believing and professing are NOT SYNONYMS. Because Amy or anyone else wrongly believes this and treats those words as synonyms it is THEIR error, not mine. I have clearly and repeatedly and without exception NOT used "professed" but "believe".

Alex,
I find this type of response so useless.
The intent of your position is to give those who profess to believe the application of salvation regardless of what life they live in evidence of it. I find that completely unbiblical.

However, for a most thorough treatment of The Failure of Perseverance, I have provided an extensive treatment of Luke 8 that has been untouched regarding any hermeneutical/exegetical refutation. A lot of crying and complaining but not hermeneutical/exegetical refutation. Perseverance? Luke 8 says no.

You think that everything you post needs to be dealt with in a fashion that you demand.
I read your statements and asked you how your treatment of Luke 8 squares with the Jews "belief" in John 2 and John 8.
I stilll believe your position to be false teaching which brings confusion into the word of God and His people.

 

[webdog]

I find this type of response so useless.
The intent of your position is to give those who profess to believe the application of salvation regardless of what life they live in evidence of it. I find that completely unbiblical.

Even in good ole' righteous Lot's life?

*edited...wrong 3 letter name...