My thoughts on Calvinism.

Strange you are the only one who has a problem with my posting. Are you an American or from Iraq?

 

What a very odd thing to ask.

I think that this is not the place for personal attacks and conflict. Please contact me via PM.

 

Not a personal attack, I don't think you are from this Country if you can't understand me. I don't wish to contact you by pm.

 

Then stop the silliness.

 

If you could bring yourself to actually quote the text and the reference - you would see your blunder clearly.

Simply repeating your own mantra of what you 'wish were true' or "wish were helpful to you in the case of Rev 3" is not helping your case at all.

you remain stuck in that hole - and yet you keep digging! What do you think you are accomplishing by that? Why not respond with substance instead?

In Rev 3 Christ states that HE is on the OUTSIDE knocking and the lost sinner is ALONE and on the INSIDE. Arminians ALWAYS argue that Christ DRAWS ALL mankind - Christ is the light that coming into the world ENLIGHTENS EVERY man - Christ is on the outside KNOCKING on the door.

Calvinism blindly asserts that the sinner alone on the inside IS NOT EVER going to open the door because they can not! Calvinism (and by that I mean BOTH 4 and 5 point Calvinism) asserts that Christ must "bust down the door" and "do it all Himself".

By contrast - Christ argues that HE HAS provided for THEM to OPEN the DOOR while HE is STILL on the OUTSIDE.

This seems to frustrate you to the point that you flee the chapter, the discussion and the point -- no matter how silly it makes your argument appear to be.

How sad.

You also referencel 4 and 5 point Calvinism AS IF it were not in use any more.

How blind. Wake up - smell the roses - have some tea - rise to the occassion and respond with substance.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am having trouble how you would know silliness, I thought it would be natural to you.

 

Better yet, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and show how they were taken out of context instead of stooping to childish attacks? You stated they were taken from context. The burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders.

 

If the verses are God's words, it's more like "have it God's way". Try it sometimes. It works a lot better than "have it Spurgeon's way", "have it Piper's way" or "have it Calvin's way".

 

The only verse I am claiming context about is the Revelation 3 verse. As to the rest, I claim nothing, but was correcting the direction of your diatribe.

 

OK, let's look:

Revelation 3:14-22

Let's see, now. My claims: First, I said Christ knocks. Looks like Scripture backs it up. I said the verse pertains not to those outside the faith but to Christians. Looks like Scripture backs that one up, too.

what hole and what are you babbling about?

Calvinism, however many points, says nothing of the like.

You obviously haven't a historically accurate knowledge of Calvinism from Calvin's perspective. I've repeatedly asserted the mainline Reformed theological position in re knocking and answering. I'll repeat it again if you like, but it gets a bit tedious after awhile, don'chaknow.

More odd, misdirected blather. What on earth are you talking about?

No, I reference the Reformed understanding of classic Calvinist theology. Pity you can't get past your comfortable little labels to see the elephant in the room, isn't it?

You really shouldn't claim to be "in Christ" when you blather about so inanely. Calling people "blind" and insisting they speak of oranges when they've been talking abut apples all along is hardly Christlike.

 

If not, I can look to your posts as a reference, can't I?

 

OK, Rev. 3 it is. Please show how it's out of context.

 

I did, see my reply last page. Christ is speaking to a church, thus to apply "standing at the door and knocking" to unchurched is out of its context.

 

No, I would rather you stay silly and no one will pay much attention to you.

 

Incorrect. Christ is speaking to the angel of the Church, a Church that was gnostic at that. This was a church in name only, as it must have evolved from a true church. Christ is never outside of a true church, nor is He ever outside a true believer, so your argument is moot. Verse 18 cannot be any clearer that Christ was offering salvation ("buy from me"), the spiritual counterparts to their earthly wealth. They thought they had it all figured out, and were content on being wealthy. They thought Christ was a created being. Doesn't sound like true Christians, nor a true church to me. If they were neither hot (from the hot streams flowing into the city used for medicinal purposes) nor cold (refreshing stream that also flowed into Laodicea), they were lukewarm (the murky disgustion water as a result of the two water sources coming together, unfit for drinking). This is context.

 

Hmmmmmm...

OK, having established (again) the text, let';s discuss, shall we?

Christ spoke to the "angel" of all the seven churches of Asia, thus Laodicea was being treated no differently than the rest. We are, in fact, not told in the Scriptures that Laodicea is a Gnostic congregation; I'd like to see your support for this statement.

Ah, the old "true church" argument again. I'd like to see a Scriptural defense of this statement as well.

This far we are on the same page; I'm betting that you and I are defining "salvation" differently, though, and I'm betting you wouldn't dare compare the sins of Laodicea with those of your own church today. Once somthing is dismissed as "Gnostic and not the True Chruch" we no longer have to examine it, you see.

But I digress.

Prove it.

Doesn't sound like true Christians, nor a true church to me. If they were neither hot (from the hot streams flowing into the city used for medicinal purposes) nor cold (refreshing stream that also flowed into Laodicea), they were lukewarm (the murky disgustion water as a result of the two water sources coming together, unfit for drinking). This is context.[/quote]Cite your source.

 

Does this look familiar?

This heresy was not only in the church at Laodicia, but Colosse as well. All one has to do is look up the heretical teaching of gnosticism in the first century to see this plainly.

Angel simply means messenger. To state that since it was addressed to the "angel" of Laodicea, it means it was a biblical church is an argument from silence. Go back and read all seven churches and state that each church that "overcomes" is overcoming the same thing, and rewarded the same.

I'll get back with you on this, as I will have to look through my notes. In the mean time I would suggest looking up the history of Heirapolis and it's hot springs, Colosse's mountain streams, (both near Laodicea) and Laodicea's faulty aquaduct system.

 

Hm.

Let me make sure I'm following your argument.

You're saying that the evidence of Laodicea being a Gnostic church is a sett of decontextualized verses written to the church at Colosse.

Hm.

Forgive me if I don't see the evidentiary value.

I would do so if that is what I had said. Your statement was that Christ wouldn't speak directly to Laodicea because of its sin; I was showing that Christ spoke to all churches through the angel of that church.

 

Rev 3:14"And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation.

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Study the highlighted phrases, who they were addressed to, and why they were stated and hopefully you will begin to understand.

 

So your argument is not just two verses written at different times, by different individuals, to different churches, but a fragment thereof?

Don't talk down to me, boy. Make your point or concede you have none.