Why the vitriol?

[Brother Bob]

johnp;
Let me get this right now "he was a thief and maybe a murder and was put to death for it, also sid he deserved death, but was already saved". Sorry john, I just don't buy that.

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by rsr:
I am sorry you found it so offensive. I was indeed simply turning nepetreley's argument on its head. He calls it "mocking"; I simply wanted to point out that predestinarians are not immune from pride and that his sweeping opinion that all free-willers want to take some credit for their salvation is just that — an opinion.

You mean you were not once a predestinarian? You lied?

Well, I am shocked that anyone would stoop so low in order to score points against another.

Seriously, if someone writes about what they once believed and another replies by writing about what he imagines he might have believed had he believed something different that what he actually once believed, how can he expect to be taken seriously?

 

[johnp.]

Hello Bob.

Let me get this right now "he was a thief and was put to death for it but was already saved". Sorry john, I just to buy that.

It seems perculiar to imagine a man preaching Christ crucified before he was saved.
We are all thiefs we try to steal God's glory.
1 Cor 1:30 It is because of your choice...
1 Cor 1:30 It is because of Him...

john.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by saturneptune:
The Gospel is important, in fact, all that matters. And how a person becomes saved is what the Bible says, faith and trust in Jesus Christ. It doesnt matter what Calvin thought about it, what Armenius thought about it, what you think Calvin thought about it.

The last time I checked only Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are divine, and worthy of worship, not Calvin and Armenius.

Boy, I can sense the spiritual pride just dripping from this post. As if you, who don't claim to be either a Calvinist or an Arminian are the only one who really cares what the Bible says as opposed to us Calvinists who always have to check the Institutes in order to get our next talking point.

Please get it into your head that most of us are Calvinists because we read the Bible and that is the word used to describe someone who believes in unmerited election. It has nothing to do with what Calvin or Arminius said, especially to us Baptists.

 

[johnp.]

Hello JackRUS.

It's funny you should say that because I was thinking the same thing last night. Satan must love this waste of time.

If your conscience bothers you you must stop. It is however far from a waste of time to build up the Church. We should continue to talk and listen and grow. All these words are having an effect, what we learn here is passed onto others, in particular my Church. Jesus will save His people from their sins. Satan is a loser.

Instead of doing what Christ said and getting the message of the Gospel to the world...

What do you think the internet is? And you don't get stoned.

...we instead debate a fine point on how we got saved instead!

It's life and death. Faith and works is life or death, it's not counting angels.

john.

 

[saturneptune]

Its good to hear that you are one of "us Calvinists." Myself, I am a Christian. One of the many beliefs of a Christian is unmerited election, which is not an original idea of Calvin. Actually, the best place to think of Calvin is the cartoon strip. (with Hobbs). And as far as what matters to "us Baptists", it is my guess I have been one since before you were born.

 

[Brother Bob]

He said as long as I am with you I am the Comforter but I go away and I will pray the Father and He will send you another Comforter. Many many Scripture before He died He said thy faith hath made thee whole or, thy faith hath saved thee so that don't add up either johnp, sorry and He did testify before Christ died I am sure you will admit this won't you?

It's life and death. Faith and works is life or death, it's not counting angels.

your own words

 

[rsr]

Originally posted by whatever:
You mean you were not once a predestinarian? You lied?

Well, I am shocked that anyone would stoop so low in order to score points against another.

Score points? What does that mean? Is someone keeping score? Who's ahead? Any time outs left?

Let's be real. You aren't a discussion board novice; turning an argument on its head is a valid device used to point out flaws in an argument. npetreley posited certain information based upon his own experience, which he then extrapolated to everyone who holds to free will. Anyone paying attention to the two posts would have seen the post for what it was.

Seriously, if someone writes about what they once believed and another replies by writing about what he imagines he might have believed had he believed something different that what he actually once believed, how can he expect to be taken seriously?

Who expects to be taken seriously? I only want posters to consider the "other side," which is something of an odd concept, given that classic Arminians and Calvinists share a good deal of soteriology.

My own beliefs on the matter are immaterial to this discussion and no one can pretend to know what they are.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by saturneptune:
Its good to hear that you are one of "us Calvinists." Myself, I am a Christian. One of the many beliefs of a Christian is unmerited election, which is not an original idea of Calvin. Actually, the best place to think of Calvin is the cartoon strip. (with Hobbs). And as far as what matters to "us Baptists", it is my guess I have been one since before you were born.

Saturneptune, I often agree with what you have said in your posts. I agree with alot you say here as well. I call myself a Calvinist because it is the label that has been given to one who believes in TULIP, as described by the Synod of Dort. I did not select this name.

If I only went around saying "I'm a Christian," that might sound very pious, but it doesn't tell diddly about what I believe. This is why, in church history, we have creeds and doctrinal statements. I call myself a Baptist because I hold to the beliefs of the historic Baptist tradition, which I see to be based on the Bible.

But there are many Christians who do not believe in unmerited election. Many on this board believe the "foreseen faith" view of election. That is far from unmerited election. There are also many people (not on this board) who are Christians that hold to infant baptism. We (and they) call themselves Presbyterian.

We may not like the names and wish we could all just call ourselves Christians, but the only way we would know what that term means that we believe is to go back to being Roman Catholic and not having the Bible in the vernacular. I choose, rather, to have to call myself a Calvinist in addition to calling myself a Baptist in addition to calling myself a Christian.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by rsr:
Let's be real. You aren't a discussion board novice; turning an argument on its head is a valid device used to point out flaws in an argument. npetreley posited certain information based upon his own experience, which he then extrapolated to everyone who holds to free will. Anyone paying attention to the two posts would have seen the post for what it was.

For what it's worth, rsr, I got it and thought you did a good job.

 

[Rippon]

RSR ,is there "another side" to the truth ?

And why would you not want to state your own beliefs on the board ? Are you trying to stay above the fray or something ? Why wouldn't it be a good idea to spell-out what one believes ? In this case the " one " being you .

 

[johnp.]

Hello Bob.

God's grace has saved me Bob, through the faith He gave me. It is my faith, my faith is a work and was worked in me by God. It is because of Him that I am in Christ Jesus, who has become for me Wisdom from God...

The thief spoke as much as he knew at least. He claimed the innocence of Jesus and turned to Him in hope, a thing impossible (Luke 18:26-27) with men as the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Rom 8:7. And since it cannot it will not. The other man was doing what comes naturally.

What do you think was happening with the thieves?

john.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Bob, I don't think that John is saying that the thief was saved before he got hung on the cross. I think that he is saying that by the time it was not the thief's statement (words) that saved him. By the time he made that statement, he was already saved.

 

[johnp.]

He could have been saved at any time from hearing the message to dying Calvi. We can speculate when but we do not need to speculate about the if. When he spoke up for Christ he was already saved.

john.

 

[Brother Bob]

Hi johnp;
One was repenting the other one not.

When he spoke up for Christ he was already saved.

(Then why, if he was already saved did he then turn to Jesus and say "remember me".}


Luke, chapter 23
"40": But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? (First he feared God, which is the beginning of wisdom.)

"41": And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. (Then he confessed with his mouth)

"42": And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. (Then he ask Jesus to forgive him, which Jesus did "ask and ye shall receive, believe with thine heart and confess with thy mouth".) To read this any other way you have to "suppose"


Calvinbaptist;
You have no Scripture at all for that statement and you know it.

 

[epistemaniac]

Originally posted by saturneptune:
The Gospel is important, in fact, all that matters. And how a person becomes saved is what the Bible says, faith and trust in Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter what Calvin thought about it, what Armenius thought about it, what you think Calvin thought about it.

The last time I checked only Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are divine, and worthy of worship, not Calvin and Armenius.

ROFLOL!!! and we come full circle, as the second post in the thread prophetically predicted:

Vitriol encourages more vitriol. It arouses ire when people who believe in election, appropriately called "Calvinists" because of what they believe, are accused of following Calvin, worshiping Calvin, etc.

stating that the gospel is important is not tantamount to saying I worship Calvin

blessings,
Ken

 

[epistemaniac]

Originally posted by JackRUS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by saturneptune:
Doulous is correct, 100%. We have heard every angle of the Calvin vs Armenian nonsense that is possible to man in triplicate. How many ways can you say it? You either believe one, the other, or neither. Who cares? TULIP, Calvin, free-will, on and on and on. I dare say if as much time had been spent spreading the Gospel as has been typed and jaws flapped over as has been on this board about this subject, the entire world would have heard the Gospel a decade ago.

It's funny you should say that because I was thinking the same thing last night. Satan must love this waste of time.

Instead of doing what Christ said and getting the message of the Gospel to the world, we instead debate a fine point on how we got saved instead! </font>[/QUOTE]whether God saves us by grace through faith alone (monergism), or whether we decide to be saved by some mixture of our decision plus our faith through grace (synergism) is not a "fine point", it is what the Reformation was largely about.... if it was important enough to break away from Roman Catholicism, it is important enough to debate today. The Reformers had to battle the Roman Catholics over this issue, sometimes it cost them their very lives, today, we have to battle against the RC and a large part of the "Evangelical" church, and battle we will, Lord willing.

blessings,
Ken

 

[doulous]

Originally posted by JackRUS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by All about Grace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andy T.:
I think what npetreley points out is that when a Calvinist is prideful it is inconsistent with his doctrine, but when a non-Calvinist is prideful it is consistent (whether conscious or not on behalf of the individual) with his doctrine.

Actually this is not entirely true. Many of the Calvinists with whom I interact tend to view life with a "boys club" mentality -- I am in - you are not. This mentality naturally lends itself to pride. Some of the most arrogant Christians of my experience have been Calvinists (as evidenced by the posts in this very thread regarding fleshly non-Calvinists). There is also an innate danger within Calvinism to advance theological dogma into other areas such as methodology. Although my beliefs regarding salvation are extremely God-centered, I am often criticized sharply by Calvinists for methods they deem inappropriate.

And regarding the "pride" of a non-Calvinists who boasts in their own decision, another misconception. Calvinists and non-Calvinists should both recognize salvation was ultimately provided by God through the death of Christ. Even in a non-Calvinistic system God still made the first move. There is no self-pride in that fundamental truth. Pride enters the picture one step removed from this basic truth upon which sides must agree.

You do not have to move beyond the Baptist Board to experience what can be perceived as pride from both Calvinists and non-Calvinists, and yes I'll even throw in myself -- after all I am more right than anyone </font>[/QUOTE]

I have long recognized the.... I'm in the exclusive royal family and you don't even a chance to be! Well, at least the odds are against it...pride of some Calvinists.

You also nailed it when you wrote:

Go to any Calvinistic forum on the web (or just stick around BB). Re-read this very thread. Calvinists have a tendency to display a spirit that suggests they have figured it all out theologically.

And that is a display of pride that I have seem in just about every Calvinist that I have either met or debated. </font>[/QUOTE]Jack, why did you write this? When Me4Him or yourself quote verses to support the free will of man you throw them out there as irrefutable fact. You leave nothing to the imagination. To use your words, "(Arminians) have a tendency to display a spirit that suggests they have figured it all out."

My friend, could it be that both sides are absolutely convinced that their own position is the one is that is the most biblical? I'm taking a leap here but isn't that what you believe? If not then why believe it? If you do believe your position is biblical, then why not represent it as such? Of course we should do so with a right heart attitude. I do not believe in beating someone over the head with what we believe to be the truth.

Now Jack, Calvinist's would claim a long, rich history of biblical research in order to support what they believe. Besides the modern day preachers and theologians (MacArthur, Piper & Sproul) there was Pink, Spurgeon, Edwards, Henry, Gill, Burroughs, Knox, Luther and Calvin. Over a 1000 years before Luther & Calvin there was Augustine of Hippo. But lest we think that the Calvinist have the only claims to the 5th century the Arminians have the modern day heralds of Geisler, Hodges and Ryrie. There was also L.S. Chaffer, John Darby, Erasmus, Arminius and all the way back to Pelagius.

One may say, "I don't follow the books or theories of men. I only follow Christ!" Such a noble statement but we all know that is not true. What we learn should be about Christ but learning from others is not wrong, it is biblical. Paul wrote, 2 Timothy 2:2 2 And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. Teaching takes on many forms. It can be verbal or written. Paul wrote other letters that were not in the bible but were equally didactic. They may not have been scripture but they were a form of teaching. My point? Reading books or following the teachings of others has merit only to the degree to which that teaching is biblically accurate. As a Calvinist I have studied the text(s) and concur with the saints that have gone before me. As one who believes in the free will of man I am sure you have done the same.

Jack, may I tell you that I leave quite a few things to the "imagination." I don't have all my theological ducks in a row. I don't pretend to. There are times when I must say, "I don't know." For both sides it is very tempting to spout off a doctrine when we really don't understand it. That is not a Calvinist/Arminian problem, it is a pride problem within the individual.

I am probably fooling myself if I believe there will peace between both camps. No group eats their young like Christians. It is my hope that this post will be taken in the spirit of Christian love and not twisted beyond its meaning. I'm not looking to fan the flames, only to cause both sides to see that we both feel the same way about our positions. If not, why would we hold to them?

 

[Tom Butler]

If anyone is weary over the 2000-year-old debate over the Biblical way to come into a right relationship to God, they are free to retire from it.

Because we are discussing matters of eternal importance, we cannot do it impassionately. Sometimes that passion crosses the line into vitriol. When it does, two things happen: Other posters will call them on it, or the moderators will step in.

If this is too rough-and-tumble for tender feelings, the group hug categories are further down this board.

In the meantime, I want our discussions to be robust and passionate and arguments strongly articulated.

 

[Andy T.]

That being the case, what difference does it make if Calvinists believe, Andy T., that you were saved all along, just simply became aware of it, or as non-Calvinists, we believe we answered YES when we were called, and it was by the grace of God through faith in His promise that we were saved?

Genesis12, just a quick comment on the above statement - Calvinists don't believe that we are saved "all along" and just simply become aware of it. Maybe some Hyper-C's believe that, but not Biblical Calvinists. Even though our redemption was secured on the cross, that repemption still needs to applied in space and time to the elect, where they pass from death unto life.