Featured My personal search for answers

And your proof that this accusation applies to ANYONE on this forum??????

 

Preacher4Truth needs to repent and apologize to this man for his inflammatory post accusing this man of something he did not say, and the rest of you fell for it following right after P4T accusations when a simple reading of his statement clearly shows he did not say Calvinists worship angels.

 

Read his explanation! I for one do not respect John Calvin much less esteem him. You will NEVER find me quoting Calvin. I don't esteem Hyles either. So his assertion had no basis for me or for most on this forum.

 

If you will not ask a question, I will ask you one. in your OP your wrote:

"Now although the Bible does say that EVERYONE will be drawn(John 12:32),..."

What in the context makes you interpret the "all" as "EVERYONE", which I suppose you mean every individual bar none. Such words are used often in the NT without such unrestricted meaning. What in the context of John 12:32 makes you think it means "EVERYONE" without exception. I mean specifically in that context, not your reading into it.

 

Here's a thought, you didn't have to respond to the post if you're not a Calvinist! He was obviously directing his OP TOWARDS CALVINISTS.

This is why I have argued over and over again that there is no difference between Reformed, DoG, Sovereign Gracers, etc.. then from CALVINISM. Every time someone mentions Calvinism, all of the above come rushing to attack the thread. Well if you're not really a Calvinist, then don't respond to threads about Calvinism!

 

Although not directed at me, I'd like to respond: Calvinism and Arminianism are different sides of the same Reformed coin, invented more than 1500 years after Christ. If you'd like to see other perspectives on God, man, sin, salvation, atonement, etc., I'd recommend a study of the early church.

 

No Calvinist worships Calvin any more than you worship the evangelist you quoted. See? :wavey:

 

Most congregations follow and agree with the teachings of their pastor. If they didn't they would find another church.
You are a Calvinist. Inherent in that meaning is a follower of Calvin.
Why don't you baptize infants?

 

I'm a Reformed Baptist, I only entertain yours and others label of 'Calvinist'.

 

This is an issue with me, also.

It is the same issue with all the non-cals being referred to as Arminianst.

Often the label itself can be used as demeaning and hurtful, especially when it doesn't really apply to the view of that believer.

 

Fair enough. :thumbs:

 

I purposefully have not read any of the responses to this thread because I do not want to my response to be influenced by what others have said.

You start your thread with deceit. You begin by saying that your thread is not intended to be anti-Calvinist and then proceed to be, well, anti-Calvinist. It is not that anti-Calvinist threads are new on this board. They are created all the time. But have enough integrity to label your thread for what it is: an anti-Calvinist polemic.

You make an absolutely ridiculous statement when you say, "every Calvinist that I have brought this up to, claims to also be a Biblicist, but they can’t be: Because they lift up Calvinism as their paradigm. The only thing a Biblicist lifts up, is God’s Word." To start with, what does the term "Biblicist" mean? It is one of those words that sounds noble and well intentioned but in actuality means nothing. Anyone can claim to be a Biblicist because there is no standard definition of the term. A Mormon can claim to be a Biblicist. The fact is that you approach the Bible with a set of presuppositions that makes your claim to a Biblicist a falsehood.

Calvinism is based on an interpretation of the Bible through a set of hermeneutical principles. It is not Calvinism that is lifted up, it is the Bible's teaching on God's sovereignty. Calvinism is just a term used to describe specific conclusions that derive from the study of the Bible. I am not a Calvinist because I first believed Calvinism. I am a Calvinist because I believe it accurately interprets the Bible. End of story.

So much for your personal search for answers.

 

Well, DHK is not stupid. He knows what a Baptist means when he calls himself a Calvinist. It is identifying with the doctrines of grace, not Calvin's view of ecclesiology. But it is one of those little zingers that is thrown in when there is nothing else of value to say.

 

It does have value.
Agedman expressed it well:

 

Calvinist was originally coined as a pejorative but was adopted by Reformed believers , almost affectionately. It didn't bother the framers of the 1689 LBC, Spurgeon, or John Dagg. Piper, Mohler, and Waldron are comfortable with it. Why? Because it aptly describes the DoG. Even opponents of Calvinism, who are honest, know Baptist Calvinists don't believe all of what Calvin or even Augustine taught.

 

P.S. Do you really get bent out of shape about labels, even if you personally choose to avoid them? Shouldn't we have thick enough skin to just let some things slide?

 

You just finished saying that Calvinists adopted the name "Calvinists" affectionately. So why would you get "bent out of shape" about it. When you call a non-Cal an Arminian, as if everyone outside of the Calvinist camp must be an Arminian (you guys ought to know better), you are demeaning and as good as making false accusations. I don't know of any here that are completely Arminian in their theology. I am neither Calvinistic nor Arminian and I don't like to be associated with either camp. I will simply say I am "non-Cal," as many others do.
Many of the Calvinists on the board seem to think that they must label all non-Cals as Arminians as if they have no other choice. To that I reply, they are very shallow in their thinking.