Actual Non Cal Doctrine

However you would deny this if this discussion was about 1st Cor 2:14.

Abraham was already a Godly man when he nearly sacrificed his own son. Miraculous when you consider the man was not Spiritually indwelt. Nor was he during his life on earth.

I never liked herring.
Paul said;
Act 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
The bolded and underlined above, is submission. Besides there is nothing in this passage that even suggest that Paul was regenerated the moment he heard the voice of the Lord speaking to Him. Just like all the doctrines of grace scripture just doesn't support it. Neither does this scripture.
Rather than herring, your idea here is just that your idea not scripturally based at all.

Never said it was but, Paul would have had to be a moron if he was murdering Christians with out knowing just what there faith contained and that bit of knowledge could have been what made him submit as he obviously did. Even the name of our Lord is convicting and a most powerful word in it's self.

Actually I don't believe you. I'm able to read just as well as you are. Unlike you, you take scripture and try to mold it to fit your doctrine. I let scripture tell me what to believe.
MB

 

There we have it, you believe God chooses based upon man. Talk about a "respecter of persons." Hmmm. Interesting, and you contradict yourself.



Nothing else needs to be said, there is so much error in what you state here that there is no need to continue.

 

The last time I looked, God chose Abram based upon Gods choosing and nothing more and nothing less. Genesis 12.

Also, Christ saves the "ungodly" not that He chooses the "godly" and saves or chooses to save them on this basis. Romans 5:6.

Yet, we see the teaching of some that He chooses based upon doing something "godly."

Wow.

But of course, this teaching doesn't exist, we're just making it up that it happens on here.

 

the main problem,s with non cal theology as posted here on the BB would be that the full effect of the fall is denied, God is seen as not being "fair" unless He makes it that ALl can have same shot at being saved, and that Mans free will is elevated as being the chief determinite in who gets saved by the Lord!

 

Says the one who defines the views of Calvinists?

Wasn't there a thread that stated Calvinists don't own up to their responsibilities as Arminians do, that you started?

Right here?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthre...ight=addiction

 

You keep trying I'll give you that, I never said Abraham was chosen at all. Like I said once Calvinist only claim to be scripturally based. What they can't find in scripture, they make up. Thankyou for proving that about your self.
MB

 

I think this is my third time to request for you to provide a link or direct quote of the offenders and I'm still waiting...

 

I brought up the point Abram was chosen, and he was as in Genesis 12. He was saved from that point on. Well, even prior to this actually. I know Arms and non-cals such as yourself don't like that "usurp" of Sovereign authority of God to choose whom He wills to choose.

Your reply? That was he was godly.

Here is your quote in response:

Abram was chosen by God before he was "in Christ," not after, and not after the "godliness" you allude to.

We are chosen before we are in Christ, not after. God chose Abram based on God, not that he was godly. Nice try, but your doctrine is teaching that his godliness had something to do with his being chosen.

Thus, what your problem is with is God choosing persons before they are in Christ, which He in fact does according to His purpose and calling. This is proven throughout the Scriptures.

So...

Your teaching then is that we are in Christ, then God chooses us. By your own words above.

That's a works based doctrine, and nothing but fallacious error.

"Hello, I am in Christ now, now choose me?" Nonsense and false. This teaching is seen as one making his way into Christ on effort, or some method, then after that God reacts and chooses us? Who does it look like did the choosing in your theology? That's right, man, not God.

Yep, you've made the first move on man, that he gets in Christ somehow, then God chooses him. So your issue is with God choosing man prior to Christ which is ehat he does, but you have no problem if He does it once in Christ. Well, then you have yourself a serious problem.

Utterly deficient and fallacious teaching coming from your theology.

And people deny LILAC is true. :laugh:

 

Another fine example of, as you say, Prattle.

 

I happen to like lilacs....very fragrant:smilewinkgrin:!

 

I believe we are dealing with this stuff in another thread. I don't want to start multiple places that I have to keep track of. As I have time, I'll post more quotes... Don't worry, there are PLENTY.

 

With all due respect to you, your ministry, and your defense of truth against error, I believe that your time would not be a profitable engagement even if you provide quotes and proofs. The next step for the opposer is simply going to be a red herring, strawman, smokescreen, that your quotes aren't in line with proper debate, or any other form of avoidance to face the truth.

No matter what truths are presented reflecting their position this is the way they will always handle it; ridicule, pejoratives and the above methodologies. Addressing the facts? Not so much.

The one I love to hear "Well back in high school in debate class I learned...and you're not...blah blah blah..." It amazes me these cannot admit to one thing that they teach, and of such LILAC does properly represent, which in itself shows just how deceitful their apologetics are.

But I digress, let them carry on.


- Peace

 

I meant a link to those other threads where the non-Cals are saying all these things. I'm not expecting you to carry that argument here (which you have been by referencing their apparent beliefs.)

You keep referencing these ridiculous anonymous quotes, then making them appear to represent us all and I would just like to see who is saying this stuff. I don't think that is too much to ask.

 

Nope... YOU are making them seem as if they apply to all. I am saying (rather firmly, in fact) that CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS HOLD POSITIONS that you say they do not.

You can search the posts as well as I if you like.

 

A cursory look around on threads would reveal this.

In the past, these proofs have been provided to the one requesting, only to go down the trail of red herrings, strawman, denial, "context" deceit, you name it.

I thought all threads were moderated? So, these things are taught all over on here, and it's not been seen? I have a hard time believing these are simply not seen.

The "calvinists" are certainly monitored very closely, but it looks as if the LILACS need a little care as well. One might tip toe out of the TULIPS and go see what they are teaching. There's plenty to see.

 

1. When did I ever make those ridiculous quotes seem as if they applied to all? That is unfounded.

2. Prove it by actually providing (1) their quote to prove their position and (2) my quote saying they believe otherwise. I simply referred to the tendency of Cals here to falsely label and dismiss us as Pelagian...or put silly words in our mouth like "you believe man's will trumps Gods." I never even dealt with any specific quote from any specific poster because you have yet to provide one...or even a link to the thread.

3. I have better things to do than dig through countless threads to find quotes you deem as heretical. If you want to provide a link, great, otherwise stop with the unfounded accusations.

 

Funny thing how this is true, that these make whatever one says as if it applies to all arms/non-cals and attempt to dismiss it on the basis we have made a broad brush statement, even when it has been clarified that this is not the case. Its simply a copout.

Yet, we have brazen threads started over and over and over to broad brush "Calvinists." Can I name these threads as per the portending request "Prove it!"

Yep, you bet I can.

 

Well...

Some here have denied oroginal sin, that we have a sin nature, that we have one after getting saved, and that we still have inherit free will and faith to be able to 'decide on our own" to be saved by christ!

 

MANY people within the canopy of Christianity deny the notion of "original sin", take for example Eastern Orthodox.

In the Book of Genesis, Chapter 3, Adam and Eve committed a sin, the original sin. The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that no one is guilty for the actual sin they committed but rather everyone inherits the consequences of this act; the foremost of this is physical death in this world. This is the reason why the original fathers of the Church over the centuries have preferred the term ancestral sin. The consequences and penalties of this ancestral act are transferred by means of natural heredity to the entire human race. Since every human is a descendant of Adam then 'no one is free from the implications of this sin' (which is human death) and that the only way to be freed from this is through baptism. While mortality is certainly a result of the Fall, along with this also what is termed "concupiscence" in the writings of St Augustine of Hippo -- this is the "evil impulse" of Judaism, and in Orthodoxy, we might say this is our "disordered passion." It isn't only that we are born in death, or in a state of distance from God, but also that we are born with disordered passion within us. Orthodoxy would not describe the human state as one of "total depravity" (see Cyril Lucaris however).

Do you wish to banish them from the realm of christianity? It is certainly within your right and privilege to disagree with them and even to think them wrong.

 

So, we see in Eastern Orthodoxy both baptismal regeneration and the concept of "original sin" though they name it something other, "ancestral sin."

Not sure how that helps those debating against the position.