Man's hope lies in FAITH!

If Paul had always been one of Christ’s disciples, wicked and froward men might extenuate the weight of the testimony which he giveth of his Master. If he should have showed himself to be easy to be entreated, and gentle at the first, we should see nothing but that which is proper to man. But when as a deadly enemy to Christ, rebellious against the gospel, puffed up with the confidence which he reposed in his wisdom, inflamed with hatred of the true faith, blinded with hypocrisy, wholly set upon the overthrowing of the truth, [he] is suddenly changed into a new man, after an unwonted manner, and of a wolf is not only turned into a sheep, but doth also take to himself a shepherd’s nature, it is as if Christ should bring forth with his hand some angel sent from heaven. For we do not now see that Saul of Tarsus, but a new man framed by the Spirit of God; so that he speaketh by his mouth now, as it were from heaven.

 

That the Scripture cannot be broken means, that the doctrine of Scripture is inviolable.

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. - 2 Peter 1:20 NIV

 

God wills to gather all, that all who do not come may be inexcusable.

There is an emphatic contrast between God’s willing and their not willing.

God stretched forth his hands continually by his word, invited to himself, and ceased not to allure by every sort of kindness; for these are the two ways which he adopts to call men, as he thus proves his goodwill towards them.

However, he chiefly complains of the contempt shown to his truth; which is the more abominable, as the more remarkable is the manner by which God manifests his paternal solicitude in inviting men by his word to himself.

 

I was wondering when someone would finally notice.

Every thing I've written in this thread from the very first post is a direct quote from John Calvin.

It was just a joke but meant to prove a point, which is that we (on both sides of this debate) are not very objective in dealing with each other or with scripture itself.

Now, before you all jump all over me. I freely admit that I took his quotes out of context and that his intent was not as it may appeared in the context of our discussion, but that was part of the point I wanted to prove. You can make anyone (even scripture) say whatever you want it to say when you pluck it from its context and use it as a means to support your own views. Though Calvin is probably less "Calvinistic" than some of you (in that he appears to be less dogmatic on the idea of limited atonement), I KNOW that he is in more agreement with you than with me.

I also acknowledge that you could have plucked quotes from Arminius or Wesley and probably fooled most of us, thus proving the same point I was attempting to show, which is:

1. Learn to be objective and less disagreeable just because someone "in the other camp" is posting.

2. Learn not to pull quotes out of context to support your view when clearly the author of that quote is not intending to address the point to which you are attempting to find support.

Thanks! :smilewinkgrin:

 

Is that what you and Andy were "figuring" when you labelled Calvin's words as "man-centered?" :applause:

Because we all know any rebellion against your doctrine's namesake is equivalent to rebellion with God.

And instead of objectively dealing with my posts you attack before even considering the intent of the author thus missing the "truth" you so valiantly attempt to defend.

Thank you.

Another good lesson learned. :saint:

 

Well, actually the quote of the OP stands on its own merits and meaning, not any specific context. The fact you found it "man centered" is more a reflection of your and Andy's view of my views regardless of what I actually say, which proved the point I was attempting to make.

First, I did give credit to Calvin in due course and never intended to take credit for his words, so that's not plagiarizing. I already told you my intent. You can choose to believe me or not.

Second, you are taking yourself and this demonstration of how "context and objectivity is important in a discussion" way too seriously. My tricky demonstration revealed something about you publicly and it embarrassed you so now you are lashing out at me, I understand.

Third, there is no "fallacy" in this exercise. Many debaters quote from the opponents sources to discredit their findings or support their own views, some even while keeping the source hidden until the rebuttal. If there are any real fallacies you would like to address you will need to point them out specifically and I will address them in turn, otherwise this is an empty accusation.

(An example of this was when Bush supporters secretly quoted Hillary Clinton about the dangers of WMDs and Hussein in Iraq in order to show how Democrats would attack the quote before they knew who actually said it. This was done to show the double standard and the lack of objectivity of the Democrats in considering the CONTEXT of Bush's decision to go to war. You may think it deceptive, but it was effective in proving that point in the discussion. Which is more deceptive though? The Republican who secretly quoted Hillary and allowed the Democrats to rebut the words? OR The Democrats lack of objectivity and purposeful neglect of the historical context of that decision? You decide.)

 

That is exactly the point I meant to prove Andy. When we take our presuppositions to the scripture we read into them what we want to see. You read Calvin's words as if I was the one writing them so you understood them to be supportive if MY doctrine, not yours. In the same way, you read Paul's words with the belief that he supports your views which slants how you understand his intent. I admitted that can be done on both sides of this debate and its a warning meant for all. If it offends, sorry, but it still proved that point.

Correct. That is wrong. I agree, which is why I did it with Calvin so as to show the ability of it being done with Scripture. I also objectively admitted it could be done from the other perspective as well, a point you both seem to ignore in order to attack the means rather than appreciate the lesson.

1. You two can't take a joke?
2. You two can't learn anything from anyone who doesn't agree with your soteriology?

Are those the points you mean?