If it's new it ain't true

You called Universalism "new" and that is what I was correcting. There are old errors too. Universalism and Calvinism are two such examples.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
Another Shocker.

 

I took the time to read through this thread from beginning to end. I do believe that the man of God needs only the scriptures to be THROUGHLY (thoroughly) furnished in regard to doctrine, instruction, correction and reproof for sufficieny in all good works.

There are three problems with secular Church History:

1. It is not inspired and therefore subject to the limitations and bias of the historian

2. Incomplete and thus lacking in full perspective (which often means distortion)

3. Often inaccurate due to bias, intential misrepresentation, intential revision of history

Is history valuable? Yes, but with many limitations.

I do believe the best commentary on the scriptuers is the scriptures and the best interpreter of the scriptures is the Holy Spirit.

The Great Commission is an age long commission requiring organic succession between discipler and disciple. For example, for the greater part of history between the first century and the present, one must actually "go" to those whom he presents the gospel. For example, it is impossible to administer baptism without organic contact between the administrator and the candiate for baptism. For example, it is impossible to teach others to obey all things Christ commanded without organically assemblying together with them over a period of time.

Another fact of the Great Commission is that it was given only to those who had previously experienced this organic hands on process being spelled out. For example, Jesus said, "whatsoever I HAVE commanded you." The blind cannot lead the blind nor did Jesus commission the ungosplized to gospelize themselves nor could the untaught teach others what they have not been taught.

There are three categories of people found in the Great commission as given in Matthew 28:19-20. There are those being commissioned identified as "ye." There are those they are sent unto "all nations." There are those out of all nations that receive the gospel unto which they are to administer baptism and teach how to observer all things "them."

The Great Commission was never given to "all nations."

The Great commission was never given to "them"

The Great commission was only given to "ye" or previous baptized believers who had been taught how to observe all things as Christ commanded. The very meaning of "make disciples" denies they are to inovate they own doctrine and practice but are to be "followers" of anothers.

Christ never authorized or commissioned anyone to go preach "another gospel" as any other is accursed (Gal. 1:8-9; 2 Cor. 11:4).

Christ never authorized or commissioned anyone to administer another kind of baptism than what he himself submitted to and administered to others.

Christ never authorized or commissioned anyone to teach others to observe another faith and practice as that is what the New Testament defines as apostasy or departure from the faith once delivered.

The Bible does not give direct authority from God to the reader to administer the great Commission. If that were true, the "all nations" or "them" could equally adminsiter it as "ye."

No one is authorized to make disciples for Christ but the "ye" who has already been discipled in the SAME gospel, SAME baptism and SAME faith and practice as commissioned by Christ as that is the only possible way a person can be discipled in the "all things" that Christ commanded and be his disciple or be a follower of him in the gospel OF Christ and the baptism OF Christ and the doctrine and practice OF Christ.

Neither did Christ authorize anyone to depart from this commission as given or to make disciples according to their own idea.

Matthew identify the contextual great commission "ye" or "you" as "disciples" (v. 17). Only "disciples" can make "disciples" and disciples are characterized by these three distinctives - the same Gospel of Christ, the same baptism of Christ and the same faith and order of Christ.

 

Well, universalim is "new" because it has popped up in recent times as a belief that holds merit. (sorta like Calvinisn. ) It's history isn't the point. The point is there are scriptures that support it, weak though they may be.

Mormonism is "NEW" because it adds a whole new scripture to what we already have and that new stuff contradicts what we know to be true.

Truely, there is nothing new under the sun. False ideas have always been out there. That is why we can't hold history up as the test for truth. We must compare everything to scripture to see if it holds merit or not.

 

Calvinism is full of philosophies, built on philosophy, with many aspects which are new and leading to heretical conclusions, all these designed to hold to a particular systematic theology that claims one's theology must be interpreted through a set of traditional guidelines (TULIP). Many go as far to call Calvinism the Gospel; and you sound no different when you claim these manmade traditions are of God?

And I’m supposed to answer this “Strawman”…

Clearly, you are in fact fanatically advocating following the traditions of the Calvinist methods you believe should be embraced for proper interpretation of the scriptures when I clearly see the scriptures plainly rebuking your doctrines. The scriptural warnings stand precisely.

Yout claim amounts to that "your" theology is correct then amounts to the fallacy of begging the question… “I am right in advocating this doctrine so you would be foolish not to believe it.” Some philosophical principles you blowing my way.

Calvinism IS extra Biblical ideas of man in how to interpret and understand scripture and I do reject them, so your point is mute? Other than that you make my point; I will not interpret those verses to satisfy "your" traditions... :sleep:

And there you are being just as cunning and crafty as you can be while attempting to support your doctrine and go about to philosophize (blow air) that I or others should hold to your doctrines but the only reasoning you have given is because your doctrines are what???....”The traditions you follow.” In whole you are simply arguing (philosophizing, and not doing a very good job at that) against the clear meaning of the passages I presented in order to support your philosophical traditions, but God wrote those passages on my heart to keep me from false doctrines and dangerous practices of interpretations like the ones the followers of Calvinist traditions espouse. I will heed the warnings and I’m in good hands concerning the origins and methods of my interpretations TYVM. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Sure took you a long time to get around to what you wanted to say.

I don't know if you have ever noticed Luke, but presenting scripture to refute false doctrine is the exact technique Jesus used.

I don't have any new views, my views are very orthodox except perhaps my view on Original Sin which has been debated throughout church history. It was Augustine who first argued OS from scripture, that is an historical fact. None of the early church fathers argued it from scripture for over 400 years. It was NEW. And what came from this doctrine? Infant baptism, the Immaculate Conception, Mary worship, and Total Depravity that led to Calvinism. The vast majority of early church fathers believed man had free will and could choose for or against God, do even a little study and see. I have quoted early church fathers on this issue in the past.

You are oblivious to the fact that you are guilty of what you accuse others of.

 

That would be a negative. It's Universalism and Arminianism that are synonymously error and are the best examples here of such.

 

"All" arminianism is error? Or were you just funnin' because of Skan's equating calvinism to universalism?

 

Let me ask you a question and you answer first, OK?

Is all Calvinism error? Yes or no?

Not that I'm disagreeing with it, but where'd you get the word "all" from? Certainly not from me. :thumbsup:

 

That is a tough question because I agree in part with both and i disagree in part with both.

I agree with DoG on eternal security.

I agree with Arminians on election and atonement.

Man, am ever mixed up!!!!:jesus:

I have no theological identity.

John

 

Yes, you are mixed up, most non-cal's are!!!! :laugh:

No theological identity? What? Uh? :laugh:

Hang around, you'll get straightened out. You'll probably be wearing one of these soon:

http://skreened.com/edwards


And you'll be reading from this daily:

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2010/06/puritan_hard_drive_video_intro.php

- Peace

 

I wouldn't count on it.

 

Got it from your use of "arminianism" without any qualifiers; which is why I put the word "all" in quotes and asked if you meant "all."

Nope, don't believe "all" calvinism is in error. Now, would you clarify whether you meant aspects of arminianism, or all of arminianism; and what you meant by "not that I'm disagreeing with it" (which was obviously a reference to "all")? Or was I correct that you were just messin' with someone?

 

Hello John,
take some time and read and re-read these portions of scripture....read the whole chapter....you must get this...to get anything else related to it.:type::thumbsup:

 

How do you define the word heresy? Is it damnable? Be careful about throwing around the H word with reckless abandon Ben.

Don't you know by now that TULIP is a very condensed summary of the Calvinistic rejoinder to the Remonstrants? Calvinism proper is a very comprehensive theology (not philosophy --since it is Bible-based). It goes considerably beyond TULIP.

And before 1908, I believe it was,no Calvinist ever referenced that acronym before in proclamation of their Calvinistic theology.

The above is puzzling. You will not interpret some passages to satisfy the traditions of another believer? You don't understand passages the way Calvinists do. How can answering his questions with your interpretation of passages be following anyone's tradition? It is a Christian tradition to explain verses --that's why we have preacher/commentaries and the like.

 

Neither.

I was saved on the campus of a secular university.

No!
Where do you get this successionism from? It is ingrained in your thinking. It reminds me of a pastor of a church who would not allow me to preach in his church because he said I was not baptized by a Baptist who was baptized by a Baptist who was baptized by a Baptist, etc. Somewhere down the line the link had been broken and I was disqualified. I was baptized by an IFB pastor.

Any person with a good knowledge of the Word of God can go out and start a church. We, for a good many years, had a Bible Institute associated with our church. A number of men have graduated from that Institute in the past and gone out and established churches. Where are their roots going to be. They can go no further than this church that I am presently in. That is it. We are independent. It is fruitless to try to trace us to some protestant connection. You can't do it.

And there have been churches just like ours all throughout history. The Lord knows them that are his.