Calvinism... THE SEQUEL!

How is this disagreement? I believe that. But the fact is that we know about the Word made flesh through the Word written. That's why hte word of God is necesssary for salvation.

 

Actually, it’s the truth and those who know the truth recognize it.

I don’t frequent them much anymore. Remember, I was the moderator of the CvA forum for its entire existence. And I have interacted with you probably since the time you started posting on this topic.

How so?

I didn’t pretend I still read them. I said I read them in the CvA forum.

Certainly you know English well enough to know that “read” is past tense, particularly in the context of the CvA forum which hasn’t been around in a while.

I don’t think I have ever said “you don’t know anything.” If you think I have, then please give a link to it. Otherwise apologize for your false accusation.

What I have said is that about this topic, you don’t know what you are talking about. And that is not character assassination. It is the truth.

Where’s the twist? In the six years I have been here, I cannot remember a person who has argued so vehemently against Calvinism with such a gross misunderstanding of it. You take the cake in that regard. Most people who argue against it have a little understanding or don’t keep arguing about it. I am not sure what was hard to understand about that.

Nope, not at all. You have not shown anything false about Calvinism yet.

Name one Scripture I have pulled out of context or any eisegesis I have done. That will be a short thread. I haven’t.

I have been all ears for a long time to find out what I have misrepresented about the arminian position. Please tell me. Let’s see if you are correct.

If you don’t spit, there won’t be any spitting match. I don’t get involved in that. The truth is that on this topic, I do know more than you do, both about my position and about what arminianism teaches. I have begged you to learn. I have never asked you to agree with me. I have asked you to address what Calvinism actually believes rather than what you make up about it.

Please learn, Webdog. This is not personal for me. I don’t really care what you believe. I do care that you talk about things wrongly, misrepresent many godly men who hold the position that I hold. It is a serious issue. And it is time for you to start learning

 

But there is no place in Acts where Paul did not need the message of Christ to come to faith. He may not have precisely quoted Scripture, but his message was the message of Scripture. Today, the message of Christ is found in Scripture, no place else. As Scripture says, it is the Scriptures which are able to make us wise unto salvation. Without the Scripture, we would not know what to believe.

 

Yes

Why? Is the word of God not able to bring life as 1 Peter 1 says? (That's a question, not an attack.) It seems to me that the truth of Scripture means that the Scriptures are what gives us the message of salvation.

Not always. But this just verifies my point that with the Scripture Christians would have notthing to relate.

[qutoe]If every Bible on Earth disappeared, Christianity would still thrive.[/quote]How? What would Christians believe? Why do you think God had his word written down rather than passed along orally? I think it was so that it would be preserved for all generations.

But we are not perfect. The Scripture is.

 

That's a pretty stunning statement. The Bible claims that is inspired by a God who cannot lie. That makes it perfect. It cannot be broken (John 10:35). It seems to me that either the Bible is inerrant and infallible or God lied. I prefer the first.

Your position is not the position of orthodoxy.

 

Yes it is. Read the work of Warfield, Machen, and others.

Prescientific, not tied to geographical minutae, recording oral tradition, etc. does not make it imperfect. God inspired it. That means that what they wrote was divinely superintended by God, and therefore is perfect. When they wrote about a topic, they wrote correctly. "Products of their time"? The Bible describes itself as the products of God's breath.

You say it doesn't deminish the reliability of it. How so? How can it be reliable when it isn't correct? And how do you determine what is correct in it and what is not?

 

Actually, the largest portion of Scripture is historical in nature. It is no doubt given to teach us about God, but it is historical.

We still talk of "blue skies." We don't know that Moses thought it was because of a canopy of water, however.

Chronologically, the Bible gives the age of the earth at about 8-12 thousand years. It could be as much as 50-60 thousand with no biblical problems. It is well known that the genealogies in Scripture are not always direct lines. They sometimes skip generations.

Neither do I. This is irrelevant.

There's no proof that the earth is more than 10-12 thousand years old. Anything more than that is theory. Millions and billions are out of the question scientifically speaking.

How do you know these are reliable when the rest of it isn't? Isn't is true that you are picking and choosing what to believe when God makes no distinction between what you believe and what you don't?

On the one hand, if they are right, then Jesus lied and there is no salvation.

This is hardly controversial. The Bible doesn't give us a date for the writing of the synoptics. Men like Carson, Moo, and Morris, and Hiebert, among others have done excellent work in this area.

The Q document is a possibility. Orthodox scholars have believed that. It doesn't contradict Scripture. The Gospel of Thomas was widely rejected from the early church

Then God lied, because he said Paul wrote them. Besides, why wouldn't Paul have written them? When you think about it, there is no believing reason to doubt Paul's authorship of any of those books.

Then God lied, because he said John wrote them. And there is no believing reason to doubt.

But you would not know about hte Word of God made flesh were it not for the inspired, written word of God that your faith is informed by (and should be based on). If things in the Bible started showing up as untrue, then we would have no reason to believe part of it over another part. We would not be able to distinguish.

Remember, God makes no distinction between theological truth and any other kind of truth. It is all the same to him, and he inspired it. He was its source. Therefore, it is perfect.

 

Study has led me to the truth. I think the issue here, and on other threads, is about authority. It seems to me that you have set up your own mind as the authority and anything that fits it is good, and that which doesn't fit it is bad.

 

No, it's becuase you disagree with what Scripture says. It has nothign to do with me. I am not that important.

 

It doesn't take a lot of importance to see that when Scripture says one thing and TP says another, they disagree.

In fact, that's probably easier than figuring out what "under any circumstances" means.

 

Likewise, pastor, unless you have it all figured out. You have also misrepresented many godly people who do not hold to the same doctrine as you. I see you are even taking the superior biblical high ground with a fellow calvinist. Humility does wonders if you allow (unless you were predestined not to be humble)...