Does 'Non-Calvinisitic' theology really exalt the view of man?

Even though that verse is often mis-used in that way...it shows the mind set of those who are using it like that. They are usually sincere and trying to come to a theological view that they are comfortable with emotionally or philosophically.
It is better to study the scriptures as written ,to who they were written to,and prayerfully adjust our attitudes and emotions to God's word.
In the long run everything that God has declared is so,and everything happens according to His purpose ,not mine.

For example...on end times I am between post/amill.....if I am wrong and Historic premill is correct....that is going to happen whether or not I "feel" it is correct,or if I "like " my little prophecy chart.
Do you know what I am saying? It is like Peter telling Jesus ,he should not go to the cross....He was flat out rebuked!

 

Yes. I know what you are saying. :thumbsup:

To me, this specific misapplication of the Scripture I've stated (Isaiah 1:18) shows dependence upon, and an unscriptural elevation of mans own reason. Although perhaps sincere, for whatever that is worth (nothing in essence to me) the interpretation is completely erroneous, to which you and I agree.

Nothing within the context of said passage even slightly suggests what another is trying to make it say.

More proof-texting error.

 

[

[/QUOTE]


Most Christiand do NOT hold to the biblical truths that ALL of sinned in the Fall of Adam, as God reckoned ALL of us being now "In Adam"

That we born with sin natures estranged and at 'war" with God?

majority would NOT hold to those truths you say?

 

How is it mis-used? Why do you guys twist things that are as plain as the nose on your face? What other meaning besides "let us reason together" can you contrive from such a simple statement?

Unbelievable...

 

You are not familiar with the Orthodox church?

 

Even after repeatedly being told the same thing over and over again he STILL spews such garbage.

 

Webdog.....it is very believable...let's take a look;

 

It's simple: contextual analysis, authorial intent, setting, meaning, not a proof-text to mean we are called to reason with God over matters, as is being said here, which destroys the intended meaning and its true context.

Thanks Iconoclast.

 

Here are two..Barnes and Gill..who say it better

 

I do not know that much about then,except they denied the Popes authority.
It seems to me that already there was much error in both these branches.
Webdog.....what document or confession did they put forth...that offers this other idea you speak of about sin and the fall???

When I think of the true church ...I mostly look past both these groups as having gone down a fleshly path.....I hope there are and have been a remnant in them by God's mercy. i cannot think of ever hearing of the gospel going forth in these branches and i travel all over. Maybe in Europe...Greece,or Russia....maybe there is a believing remnant????maybe not.

 

Here is what the Eastern Orthodox Church says regarding original sin from Wiki

The Eastern Orthodox Church always disagreed with Augustine, arguing that his interpretation came from a flawed Latin Text.

The EOC has always believed that men sin and are lost by choice.

Now, the EOC has plenty of error, I certainly do not agree with much of their doctrine. But concerning Romans 5:12 from which Augustine almost exclusively developed his doctrine of Original Sin, the GOC having the Greek text always disagreed with Augustine's Latin text and his interpretation of it.

 

Here is more from EOC site

Augustine's theory of original sin is the foundation of Calvinism, but his doctrine spread to others as well.

Augustine's theory was founded on a flawed Latin text of Romans 5:12 that said IN WHOM all have sinned. Even Greek scholars who agree with OS have said this is error, and the verse should not be properly translated as such.

From Barnes Notes (a Calvinist)

 

Why is it seen as being"garbage?"

Don't you hold that man is NOT born into Sin, does not have inherited Sin, becomes sinner when we start sinning?

And that we are the ones that have the 'free will" to allow/permit God to be able to save us by accepting jesus voluntarily?

 

Winman,
thanks for posting that info on the EO.I see how this error has been around since the beginning. Romans 3:23 all sinned at one point in time.

we also commit our own sins all by ourselves also.

 

The error entered with Augustine and continues to this day.

 

Because what I bolded is.

Yes...irrelevant to what you said.

For the last time...WE DO NOT PERMIT GOD TO DO ANYTHING. I cannot say it much clearer than that, so stop repeating this continually.

 

Though a bad comparison to to begin with, this is just some more of the the question Paul dealt with in Romans 9. You prove Paul to be a prophet. He predicted that you would ask "Why doth He yet find fault, for who hath resisted His will?" And you ask that over and over and over, because you cannot accept Paul's answer.

Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?

Why don't you just accept the fact that your view of justice is skewed and carnal, and that God's justice is right?

 

Webdog
Do you like the statement that Winman posted from the EO site??
You think they were correct...and Augustine went off course???