Should We then Teach/Preach Christ And let God "handle" How He saves Them?

Moderators are allowed to debate their perspectives right along side everyone else. We are just given the charge to follow and enforce the guidelines set by the board. I am not violating any rules, but if you believe I am please feel free to report my post to an Admin and he will take the appropriate action if necessary.

 

I didn't say that is what he was saying...please go back and read my post slower and more carefully. If you still don't see my point, then let me know.

 

Scan....here is what you need to know about me .... I dont rat people out. If I have a problem with you, I will let you know.

 

That is the biblical model after all!

But, if I abuse my power, delete all your posts and don't listen to your cry's of injustice, I just want you to know the proper protocol for handling me.

 

[Edited - Personal attacks are against BB policy]

Augustine and Calvin (and don't forget Luther) were simply expounding upon Paul. I would call it Christianity or the Gospel, but these days that isn't specific enough, and no one has coined the term Paulism.

So Calvinism it is. :love2:

 

Question beg much?

Actually it's called "Pauline Theology," and it begs the question to presume it's equated to your brand of Calvinism.

 

Actually Martyn Lloyd Jones had identified the brand of Calvinism I subscribe to as Pauline. Would you like to see the quote?

Also since you mentioned it, Id be interested in knowing the brand of Calvinism you subscribed to & how it differs from Aaron's (since your also aware of what "Brand" Aaron subscribes to). If that embarrasses anyone then feel free to illustrate my own. Then part 2 can be identifying & qualifying your own individual brand of Arminism as I'm curious to find out. Could you lay that out for us I wonder?

 

Did you flunk your debate classes? It would only be question-begging if I were submitting assertions of Calvin and Luther or Augustine to that effect as evidence. For example:

Calvin was merely expounding upon Paul.

How do you know?
Calvin said so.​

It may interest you to know, that I became a Calvinist through a systematic study of the Scriptures. I hadn't read a word of Calvin till much later.

Calvinism is the Gospel. Anything else is not.

*sigh* You don't think I know that? You boast of your rhetorical expertise and the use of tongue-in-cheek escapes you?

See correction above.

And for the record, there was no personal attack. Your sarcasm was a welcome respite from the feigned civility and formality of your moderator persona. I told you I would return to the debate when you would be yourself. Looks like I have to wait a while longer.

 

He may be begging the question! :laugh:

 

I would say that here you nailed it. My ancestors though never had pretensions of a blended church. As far as I know the real concern there was what type of baptism to conduct & they, I believe allowed for both Paedo & Credo baptism, which may have undermined the longevity of the whole movement....from a theology prospect they were always Calvinistic. If your a believer in Doctrines of Grace, you have a systematic theology that really is forgiving to a believer & one tends not to dwell on the loss of those God does not choose...thats between them & God & HE is Sovereign. Most Welsh/English/Scottish & Cornish miners didn't have unions & were just thankful for jobs. They did not ask the owners of the Mines if they were being fair. John L Lewis & the development of unions in America had to have changed the perspective on Religion more than Finney or Dallas Theological Seminary ever could have.

As for the practicing Calvinist / Believer in DoG. The Ancestors were correct. If you want complete autonomy in your chosen faith, then you need to have your own particular church. Else wise you set yourself up for criticism & discord.

 

Of course he does, he is a Calvinist after all. So?

Sounds like a very long homework assignment, so no thank you. You can gather a lot of this info by simply searching through our previous posts though, if indeed you are really interested in finding an answer to this question (which doesn't relate to the topic of the OP or the point I was making regarding Aaron's beliefs.)

 

No, in school I was a master debater. The assertion to which I was referring was the one in which you presumed Paul to be teaching Calvinistic doctrine; which begs the question up for debate. If that wasn't what you were meaning to assert, fine; but, why then why point out that Calvin and the rest interpreted Paul calvinistically? Isn't that kind of a given?

As is the case with most modern day "Calvinists," and may be the reason for the more hard deterministic views of many today.

So, do you believe that someone who only hears the "basics" of the story regarding Christ and him being crucified and never learns of the doctrines related to predestination, particular atonement, total depravity, unconditional election can't really be saved? I'm asking what are the implications of such a view in light of the many Christians who not only reject Calvinistic soteriology but the millions who never even knew of it.

Maybe it is you who missed the tongue-in-cheek reply? And besides my joke above, when have I boasted of my rhetorical expertise?

You may not consider condescending accusations of being fake and hiding behind a facade as a personal attack, but I do, and I believe most other civil and reasonable believers would agree.

What you called "feigned civility" the rest of Christendom calls "lovingkindness" and "brotherly respect." I'm not faking my kindness toward you Aaron, regardless of what you think you perceive. I sincerely care about you. You are my brother in the Lord. We both love the same savior and are heir of the same Father. I actually picture us in heaven one day laughing about this very discussion (in my mind I'll be laughing a bit more because you'll have just been proven to be in error, but still laughing nonetheless ) I'm just kidding with you, btw.

I think you may take this disagreement too seriously. As I've told you before, my brother and best friends are reformed and having been a member of Reformed churches, I have many friends of the Calvinistic belief. We get along fine. I love them dearly. We laugh and joke and debate vigorously. They have never accused me of pretending like I really love them. So, maybe the medium of an online debate forum doesn't allow you to judge correctly, I don't know? But these personal attacks have to stop regardless of what you think you know about me.

Granted, once given the charge of being a moderator I have a certain responsibility which is more "formal" in nature, but that hasn't in any way changed the way I engage people in the discussion over doctrine. I have always attempted to avoid personal attacks and stick to the topics of discussion. I'm still doing that today.

What is not myself Aaron? What specifically has changed? I have always corrected you when I believe you to be in error and have done so without personal attacks. So, what has changed? I have always attempted to follow the rules, the only difference now is that I get to help remind others to do the same.

 

"Master" my Aunt Emma's corset cover. See correction above.

As for your insistence upon your own integrity: whatever. It pretty much speaks for itself.

See ya! :type:

 

This may sound odd but sometimes not answering a question gives the person asking the question the answer.

Thank you

 

You are exactly right...that does sound odd. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Yes it does, so you can't stop speculating then, right? :saint:

 

Sounds Luke you missed the part right before the part you are objecting to:

skan said: "... and would be tantamount to me saying something absurd like, "A Non-Cal... ​

.

This totally changes the meaning as I'm sure you would agree.