Featured The conflicted Calvinist

So, let me get this straight.

You see in these passages a God who chooses to save whole NATIONS and chooses for hundreds of generations NOT to bring salvation to other WHOLE NATIONS and you think that means that God would NEVER elect individuals and pass over other individuals?

Does that make sense to you?

The God who lets entire nations perish for hundreds of generations would never pass over a single individual?????

 

HeirofSalvation

Hello HOS.

Let's discuss him.He does indeed make things up, just look at how he abuses scripture after scripture.DHK tried to reason with him concerning his false ideas on ECCL7:29. He remains unteachable.
Sometimes he cuts and pastes from false sites....but he says he just says what he feels he sees in scripture.
I do not think he comprehends well when he reads.One thing I notice is he seems to want to be disruptive.

He fought for what he believed in his time.I do not pick fights with dead saints.Some of what he believed I also believe.However,

Anyone who denies the Covenant nature of the Atonement,and believes you can fall from grace does not understand salvation properly.I like that he tried to make a biblical confession of faith as he and others served under difficult circumstances.

Personally....I believe the Apostles were the first Reformed Baptists as the early church was already struggling to stay in the truth.I believe Jesus teaching, with the apostolic writing our the first confession of faith.Eph2:20

God brought reformation to His church because the church was floundering and infected with arminian error.The reformers not only reformed from the RC church....but had to bring reformation to anabaptist errors...see John Knox against anabaptist errors.

You can allege what you want but the view I hold of the CHURCH is bible based , not based on the historical record. My contention would be that many were not actually in the church...but God is their Judge.

Correct...:thumbs:some were in despite their error,by God's mercy.:wavey:

:thumbs:

.

This is correct in a sense-All authority has been given to Jesus..MT28
He is building His church.I am a living stone in that church.I have come to the heavenly Zion and Jerusalem.

I am a Reformed Baptist in that I will go for scriptural truth wherever it is found.I have more in common with confessional Presbyterians than non confessional baptists.That is true.Ignorance parading as "baptist" does not appeal to me.
The Presbyterian model is biblical but mistaken in a couple of areas.That is another separate discussion.

Many of his posts are novelties, many are blasphemous statements.I do not believe the Spirit of God has believers declare such statements about the Godhead.

Cals respond to the posted links...non cals cannot biblically respond, so they ignore the links.

He has done so several times....he gives a list every couple of months where he lists names he is called...just ask him...he will list them for you,,,in fact he has done so recently...look at his recent posts.

Look up his posts...it is not false,but accurate.:thumbs:

 

Evidently you and Willis do not understand rom9:thumbsup:

It is not a contrast of jew/gentile....but rather jew/jew rom9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

 

This proves my point.

People erroneously mix terms.

Regeneration leads to salvation. It is essential to salvation. But it is no more ITSELF salvation than a cup of water is hydration.

A cup of water makes hydration POSSIBLE. Without it hydration is impossible. But the cup of water ITSELF is not to be confused with hydration.

I may even speak poetically of this cup of water by saying, "I hold in my hand my own quenched thirst." But I say it, hopefully, in the presence of people intelligent enough to know that it is not ACTUALLY quenched thirst. It is that which makes quenched thirst possible.

Regeneration is NOT, NOT, NOT a synonym for salvation.

It is poor hermeneutics that leads one to mix terms that have their own meaning as if they all mean the same thing.

 

Listen, what I showed was the corporate election view. God, in the OT days, chose Israel as a whole, yet only a subset was saved. Now, those who were saved, did so because they chose to believe what God was telling them to do through Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, et al. The lamb or goat(an OT type of Christ) sacrificed in Exodus 12, was for Israel as a whole entity(corporate election), yet many of them perished due to unbelief. In Leviticus 16, Aaron laid both his hands on a live male goat(another type of OT Christ), confessed all of Israel's sins upon the male goat, and then the goat was led out into the wilderness by the hands of a fit man(Lev. 16:20-21). Again, here's another showing of corporate election.


In Hebrews 3, the writer stated that those who died and didn't enter into the rest for the children of God, did so, not for the lack of an atonement, but a lack of belief. So it shows you that the lamb/goat atonement in Exodus and the confession over a male goat(scapegoat) in Leviticus 16, was larger than the # of those who actually received it. The atonement was for all of Israel, but only those who believed, received it. The same rings true today. Jesus' atonement was for every single person who ever lived, or are living now, and those who come along later, and it left no one out. But, only those who chose/choose to believe, will reap the benefits of His atoning work.

 

Oh we understand it quite well, I am afraid. We just don't need the likes of Calvin, Beza, MacArthur, Piper, Spurgeon, et al to lead us by the hand.

It is not a contrast of Jew/Gentile, but an allegory of both. It isn't an either/or, but and.

Two wonderful verses, Brother. I love them. You've ripped them to shreds, but I still love'em. Isaac was of God's promise to Abraham. Then Isac had a son named Jacob. Later, God changed Jacob's name to Israel. Sound familiar? OT Israel was a type of the NT church. The promises are for the church, which is correct. But one must be in the Church to get the promises. When we are placed in the Church(the Lord's body), we then reap the benefits/promises.

The predestination/election view you take has man at the center of it. Read Isaiah 42, and then John 15, and you'll see that election revolves around Christ being predestinated/elected to accomplish God's will. When we are saved, and placed in Him, we then are grafted into His election/predestination, and not before. Your view is the view which actually elevates man's status before God, and not ours.

 

Willis,

Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

I would say this was before....before creation!

so were we Willis=8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

 

Hos,

You do not get any more individual then twins in a womb-

1 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

 

Hallelujah, I agree with this 100%!! :godisgood::jesus::godisgood::jesus:

 

I do not accept this premise at all. He does not "abuse" Scripture after Scripture. While I think he is sometimes mistaken on some exegesis (we all are sometimes) he doesn't "abuse" Scripture in the least. If so, I have rarely if ever seen a Calvinist demonstrate so. Sure, I've seen many a Calvinist argue with him, but not always convincingly so. Truth be told, sometimes, what you perceive to be a Calvinist "setting the record straight" or "correcting" Winman, I often see as an argument where Win quite frankly wipes the floor with his opposition.

You would do well to listen to DHK correct your regular mis-use of the word "Church"....It would help you overcome your mistaken notions about "The Historic Faith" and the history of the "Church" .

And I might just as quickly state that you do the same thing. You are the consummate copy/paster....sometimes your references are good, sometimes I would call them mistaken.

That is what he does....there's nothing wrong with that. He's supposed to do that. We all do that, or should at least.

Generally speaking, while I disagree with him sometimes, I think he has perfectly good reading comprehension. Sometimes he may be mistaken but sometimes, I think your reading comprehension is mistaken too. His reading comprehension is at least no worse than the average poster on this board.

No more or less than many here do.

You know what I honestly believe? I think Winman wipes the floor with Calvinists around here quite often and frankly there is no adequate rejoinder or Scriptural refutation of his arguments and therefore, I think some of the Calvies around here (in large part) despise his posting because he often gets the upper-hand. I think that is why he catches more crap around here than many others do. He is continually posting Scripture, and usually not "abusing" it at all. Frankly, I rarely see a Calvinist take on his Scriptural arguments....they simply ignore any Scriptural argument he makes (because they can't refute it) or derisively dismiss it with a wave of the hand, and merely assert that he "abuses" Scripture. Often, this is coupled with their own separate arguments for their own P.O.V....but, rarely do they actually (satisfactorilly at least) actually engage the Scriptures he posts at all.
He fought for what he believed in his time.I do not pick fights with dead saints.Some of what he believed I also believe.However,

Yeah.........you really DO need DHK to re-teach you how the Scriptures define the word "CHURCH".........You "abuse" that word, like you accuse Winman of "abusing" Scripture.

Then don't appeal to what you believe to be the historical record to support your Theology. After all, it's a fallacious form of argument anyway, so why do it?

Yes it is.

I hope you really are confident in that allegation. "Blasphemy" is quite the charge...I hope this is not an idle word. Use it carefully.

Be careful with how you phrase these kinds of statements. They can carry implications.

I also patently reject this baldly asserted and un-supported premise.

Fine.....however you see it is fine with me.

 

Icon.........I wasn't talking about the twins in the womb. And actually, if you re-read your statement:

You might, in fact find the ironic humor in it that I did. Read your statement again slowly.