Be Careful!

Discussion in 'Calvinism/Arminianism Debate' started by Rippon, Dec 11, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Someone has said that because a mod doesn't take a full-on Calvinistic stance that it offends some here.

    Well that certainly is not the case. It doesn't offend Calvinists that non-Calvinistic views are expressed here. What is offensive is that a mod gets to use Galations 1:8,9 to condemn those with a Calvinistic view of the Scripture. (And 2 Cor. 11:4 by implication.)

    If one reads Galatians 1:8,9 carefully they would conclude that someone has distorted the Gospel so radically that they are under the curse of God --eternally condemned. Do you non-Calvinistic folks think that we are preaching a false Gospel? Dr. Bob is one of the few (mainly the only mod/admin here these days. But Larry and Tom Vols, no longer participating, are full-fledged Calvinists. Are they under the ban of Gal.1:8,9? Was Whitefild, Spurgeon, D-M-L-J, James Boice? Is MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, James White and Mark Dever?

    Seriously now. To place Calvinists under the eternal curse of God is a disgraceful thing to say. It's absolutely false and inflammatory too. Sincere repentance is needed from those who think they can wield that club with impunity.

    It is downright dishonest to claim that that incredibly false charge does not break BB rules.
     
    #1 Rippon, Dec 11, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 11, 2014
  2. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Calvinists certainly think that a non-Calvinistic understanding of the Gospel undermines it. We think a non-Calvinistic view devalues and distorts the Gospel. But we do not think that those Christians who do not hold to a Reformed viewpoint are damned because of their deficiency.

    Isn't it ironic that Calvinists who are regularly called cold and unfeeling show tolerance for those across the aisle? But it is not reciprocated, for the most part. (RM being the major exception).
     
    #2 Rippon, Dec 11, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 11, 2014
  3. steaver

    steaver
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    9,005
    Likes Received:
    82
    Brother Rippon, there are Calvinist on here who believe non-Cals are damned indeed. There are violators in both camps. Those Calvinist who declare TULIP to be "The Gospel" or "Divine Truth" are declaring those who reject the theology are by default believing in "another gospel" or are rejecting the gospel.

    Now non-Calvinists certainly think that a Calvinistic understanding of the Gospel undermines it. We think a Calvinistic view devalues and distorts the Gospel. But we (most of us) do not think that those Christians who do not hold to a non-Calvinistic viewpoint are damned because of their deficiency.
     
    #3 steaver, Dec 12, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 12, 2014
  4. PreachTony

    PreachTony
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,910
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rippon - I certainly hope I haven't given the opinion that one is damned to torment simply for following the Calvinist theology. I do not believe that.

    Now, I think I've made it quite clear that I don't hold to Calvinism. I posted a comment on the "New Calvinism" thread highlighting points of scripture that I believe undermine the basis of TULIP. A Calvinist can similarly use scripture to support their view.

    This is a result of mankind being in sin and not being able to clearly comprehend all facets of the scriptures. As Paul wrote "For now we see through a glass, darkly..." (1 Corinthians 13:12a).

    There is not a member on this board that can condemn anyone to hell anymore than we can seal someone unto the day or redemption. It is the work of the Lord.
     
  5. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    To make false charges also breaks BB rules and falls under the law of God: "Thou shalt not lie."
    If you are going to make such a charge you better have a pretty good quote, not just your opinion, from where such a statement was made. Give the quote or keep quiet and admit you have misspoken and were out of turn in doing so.
     
  6. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    You have a long history of making false statements on the BB. You have said uttterly false things about Calvin, Gill, Spurgeon, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Westcott, Hort and so many more I have lost count. Then your classic thesis about "Presbyterianism is swallowed up in hyper-Calvinism" always produces a chuckle.
    Your most recent :"There is 'The New Calvinism.' And they preach 'another gospel' which Paul had something to say about in Gal. 1:6-8."

    "Those who believe the false gospel of Calvinism are not saved." (1/14/2013)

    "Calvinism is another gospel." (1/14/2013)

    On 3/12/208 you elated :"Let's take one obvious point where I would consider it heretical, and that is 'Irresistable [sic] Grace."

    "Many believe it [Calvinism] is a totally unbiblical system of theology." (12/6/2008)
    ___________________________________________________________
    You were bold enough to claim :"I understand Calvinism maybe better than most." (9/25/2005)

    But then you shifted on 9/11/2008 :"But I will be the first to admit that I am not an expert in Calvinism."

    The last quote is more on the mark. Because on 12/8/2008 you had said that TULIP was Calvin's invention.

    And you admitted on 9/10/2008 :"I have heard Calvinism presented more from the non-Calvinist point of view than from the Calvinist himself."
     
  7. The Archangel

    The Archangel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can you imagine any Calvinist saying "Those who believe in the false gospel of Arminianism are not saved" and not being immediately banned????

    I guess the BB rules apply only to the Calvinists. The non-Calvinists get a free pass...

    The Archangel
     
    #7 The Archangel, Dec 13, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 13, 2014
  8. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Note a few things about Rippon:
    1. He has an archive of quotes that pertain to Calvin that I have said so he can look them up at any time.
    2. He often quotes them out of the context in which they were said.
    3. And note that he quotes from various threads and forums, some being vary antiquated that have nothing to do with this thread. IOW, he keeps track what I have said that he may pull it up at any time.

    Now I challenge you again. Use the quote feature. In the thread in question on this forum, under the topic being discussed, where have I broken the rules. Give an exact quote. Use the quote feature. Otherwise I will simply consider it hearsay, as you have just done.
     
  9. The Archangel

    The Archangel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    One only needs to read this:

    The above quote demonstrates--quite well--that you believe Calvinists to believe in a false gospel and, therefore, to be unsaved.

    Furthermore, it demonstrates that you may be quite adept at applying the BB rules to others yet you are free to break them yourself.

    Unfortunately, the most recent quote, cited above, is making it seem that Rippon is extremely accurate...

    The Archangel
     
  10. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784

    You assume you know what the BB rule is, but you do not. Squire made that clear.
     
  11. The Archangel

    The Archangel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, then, you'd be OK with the Calvinists on the BB saying that all non-Calvinists believe another gospel?

    You'd defend me and others for saying that??? I seriously doubt it.

    The Archangel
     
  12. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    You are playing the part of a hypocrite.
    Rippon is wrong, and so are you. Look at what I said, and then look at your own false allegation. You should know better than anyone. You started the thread. You were the one that posted the link. I only responded to it. Now you have gone overboard and over-reacted and are still responding to something I never said. Sad! Truly sad!

    Note again what I said:
    "There is "The New Calvinism." And they preach 'another gospel,' which Paul had something to say about in Gal.1:6-8."

    Note what you answered:
    "The above quote demonstrates--quite well--that you believe Calvinists to believe in a false gospel and, therefore, to be unsaved."

    I never said a thing about "Calvinism" in general. You started a thread about a movement called "New Calvinism" which I addressed, not "CALVINISM," which you keep accusing me of, and falsely so.
    Why the false allegations?
    I never addressed Calvinism in its totality! I specifically said "new Calvinism."

    Are you a part of this movement? Yes or No.

    If not, then does it apply to you? Am I suggesting you are unsaved?
    Of course not!
    Grow up!!
     
  13. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    What is New calvinism, and what parts of it do you see as being heresy then?
     
  14. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    First, I have watched for years as cals have done nothing different on this board. Icon being the most recent one. Second, I have not defended anyone. I merely suggested you do not understand the posting rules as you assume and neither do you understand what squire has said.
     
  15. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728
    Could you show where I have done as DHK has done?

    Quote exactly what you believe I said that says this....not what you "think" I said:thumbs:
     
  16. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728
    :applause::thumbs::applause: You have backed up your post with the facts of the case....well done. If a poll were taken on DHK...I suspect the poll would reflect this data as many eyewitnesses would come forth:thumbs:
     
  17. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728
    Case closed. You and Rippon have unveiled this clearly. Rippon and others have taken the time to go back and gather these unfortunate posts which the poster thinks were forgotten. Once they are exposed in a fresh way, mysteriously they were "out" of context,lol.....no we have seen this before:thumbs:
     
  18. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Icon, you should know that if one did an extensive search of your posts (as Rippon did with mine) that one could find many posts that are inaccurate and have misrepresented the views of others. Agreed?
    Now look at what Rippon has posted. He has to go back to 2005 and 2008 to find some statement which he thinks is inaccurate or a misrepresentation. Even if true, that is a post or two after nine years of posting here, and he brings it up now!! See the records that he keeps!
    We are not talking about a thread that existed in 2005 nine years ago.

    We are speaking of a thread that was brought to the front just this week. It has relevance to us now, not nine or ten years ago.
    I back up the statement I made.
    Do this for me. Put "New Calvinism" into a search engine like google, and see what you come up with. Then analyze what I said.
    Perhaps you might want to start with the first thing that pops up:
    http://www.newcalvinist.com/
     
    #18 DHK, Dec 13, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 13, 2014
  19. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
  20. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...