Ordo Salutis

I don't deny the Bible; only your interpretation thereof.
To say that I am in rebellion to the Word is a personal attack and should be edited. You know nothing of my personal walk with Christ, neither do you have a sole claim to interpretation of Scripture. Shall the board bow down to you as "Pope Rippon"? :rolleyes:

The sad thing is Rippon, is that I give you Scripture, and it goes unrefuted. Time after time you are unable to refute the Scripture I have given you. Perhaps that better answers your own accusation of "rebellion to the word of God." Practice what you preach.

Perhaps you don't know what a real Christian is.
A real Christian is one who follows the Bible and not a man. I do not follow Calvin, and neither do I follow Jacob Arminius. I follow the Bible. You are quite naive to say that I must follow either system. You are just plain wrong on that point. I suggest you go back and study the Word more.

No I did not. That is a misrepresentation of what I said, just as you did then. Let me quote the entire quote:

The word "maybe" and the word "is" are not the same thing. I did not say you ARE worshiping another god, did I?
Furthermore, you were doing the same thing back then, that you are doing now. Things haven't changed--"a misrepresentation of what I said." "putting words in another's mouth." That is fairly typical of you, isn't it?
It was also a comparison. A comparison of two different Gods.
It was a comparison of two different theologies; two different ideologies.
But you wouldn't see past that would you? You were blind to only one thing--a perceived accusation.

This is a great way to refute a person isn't it?
Just say that my statements are worthless and be done with. You are such a great debater Rippon. God doesn't give faith to the unbeliever. You have not refuted that statement yet. He gives as much faith to the unbeliever as he gives to my dog--none. And the only response you can come up with is "worthless." What a pitiful rebuttal.

You can classify them any way you want to. I am not going to argue with you about it. The average person doesn't classify them the same way you do, and that is their right, their soul liberty to do so. God's holiness is often contrasted to God's love. If you want a picture of so-called "negative" attributes (negative is not a very good word), examine the attributes of Allah--all 99 of them. Love is not one of them. What makes Allah such a cruel God, in contrast to Jehovah or Christ?

The Bible teaches us to examine ourselves.
Comparisons and contrasts are often good.
1Cor.10 Paul writes about the Israelites, and a series of events that happened to them. Then he says: "These are written for examples for our admonition."
Jesus spoke in parables.
What are you afraid of? That your faith might be weak when compared to another religion? Now who is having the identity crisis? 'Oh my, I am scared I am too much like a Muslim! Please don't say those sinful things again.' Such nonsense on your part. Isn't your faith any stronger than that?

 

Norm Geisler claims he is a moderate Calvinist yet he is an Arminian through and through.I'm sorry but you and Mr. Mitchell are Arminians whether you agree or not.Both of your views line up more in that camp.
_______________________________________________________________


A misrepresentation is a misrepresentation
[/quote]

That's right.You regularly misrepresent my views on the BB by saying that God in my view is a cruel tyrant;a puppet Master. When you constantly say that we are nothing but robots in my view.When you say that my God is not personal and loving.That Calvinism = Islam.And on and on and on.You don't stop.

All of that junk is misrepresentation.You specialize in that kind of stuff.It makes no difference to you when I (and many others) say your characterizations are totally untrue.
______________________________________________________________

It is too bad that you can only come up with ugly rhetoric rather than answering the actual issue put before you whether in illustrative form or in actual Scripture.
[/quote]

"Ugly rhetoric"? Examine the content of your posts.

Your illustrations are insulting.Why dignify them?
_________________________________________________________

I ask again: Is your faith so weak that you are afraid to have it compared to another religion?
[/quote]

You regularly compare my faith to Islam.Lately you've tossed in Roman Catholicism.

I resent it when you compare my faith with Islam.There is no comparison and you know it.You just like to fan the flames.

But let's see.You are a former RC.Have you renounced every vestige of Roman Catholicism?

The following is Canon V of the Council Of Trent.

"If anyone shall affirm,that since the fall of man,man's free will is lost and extinguished;or,that it is a thing titular,yea a name,without a thing,and a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church;let such an one be accursed!"

 

Here is what your statement says to me:
1. You don't know what Calvinism really is.
I say that because I trust Geisler a whole lot more than I do you. If he says that he is a moderate Calvinist and you misalign him as an Arminiam, whose word should I take? Certainly not yours.
2. Though we testify that we are not Arminians you revel in slander and tell us that we are. That is real Christianity isn't it? But now you are doing the same to Geisler, so I suppose I should just keep on expecting the same.

Here's the difference. I have showed you where you have deliberately misrepresented me--"quoted" things that I did not say. That is not ethical.
What I have done is simply drawn some comparisons that have hurt your feelings. Look at what you have just written, and the emotionally packed language that you just used. You are hurting because I made a comparison with Islam. I didn't misrepresent you at all. I only drew some comparisons. If you can't take the heat then get out of the fire. Otherwise give an intelligent answer and defend your position with Scripture.

Can you keep your emotions in check?
Your answers: "junk," "stuff," "untrue"....
Why not try something more intelligent and less emotional?

Your continual avoidance of my posts only demonstrates your inability to give any intellectual or reasonable response. Again you typical emotional response to the above is none other than "insulting." That is typical "Ripponish."

I didn't compare your faith to Roman Catholicism. That is a mark that you didn't read my post very well. I don't compel you to answer. If you don't like the heat then get out of the fire.
The Bible says:
"But sanctify the Lord in your heart and be ready to give an answer to every man that asks a reason of the hope that is in you..."
Apparently you are not ready.

I will let you answer that for yourself.
You no doubt have a closer affinity to Catholicism than I do, since Calvin took most of his ideas from "St. Augustine," hero of Catholics everywhere.

Here is an interesting quote for you to meditate on:

 

Listen,Geisler is indeed an Arminian regardless of his denials and your denials.I have appreciated some of his writings but his theology is Arminian to the core.Robert Culver,R.C.Sproul and James White among others agree.It makes you unhappy,but so be it.
____________________________________________________________

What I have done is simply drawn some comparisons that have hurt your feelings.
[/quote]

My feelings?You were simply spouting off your usual litany of nonsense.Your "comparisons" or analogies are Skypairish in nature.
_______________________________________________________________


Can you keep your emotions in check?
Your answers: "junk," "stuff," "untrue"....
Why not try something more intelligent and less emotional?
[/quote]

Why should I waste my time responding to things we have gone over and over before?You never learn,but keep doing the same ole' thing.

The words "stuff","junk" and "untrue" are effective.BTW,what's emotional about any of them,especially "untrue"?
_____________________________________________________



I didn't compare your faith to Roman Catholicism.
[/quote]

No?I suppose that's why you called me "Pope" twice in two posts?
___________________________________________________________
You no doubt have a closer affinity to Catholicism than I do...
[/quote]

See,you can't help contradicting yourself.

 

Speaking of Augustine...

DHK: I really don't think that Roman Catholics get the exclusive right to appreciate his books and teachings.

In Robert Reymond's Systematic :

Augustine (354-430),bishop of Hippo,the father of orthodox theology,wrote many books,chief among them being the above.[ The City of God,Confessions,On the Trinity).Both Rome and Protestnatism claim him as their own,but for different reasons: the former for his ecclesiology and sacerdotal tendencies,the latter for his doctrines of election,sin,and grace.(p.1133)

Warfield seems quite justified in observing that the Protestant Reformation,especially on the Reformed side,was the revolt of Augustine's doctrine of grace against his doctrine of the church...(p.468)

Prominent Baptist theologian Robert Duncan Culver,in his great Systematic cites Augustine 64 times.

It's so easy to dump on that man of God by ill-informed people who link him only with the Catholic Church and tend to dismiss him with a wave of their hand.Baptists especially have done this a lot.It's really not fair.

As I have said countless times in the past :No Calvinists here follows John Calvin.Most have read little of his works.The reading of Augustine's writings by Calvinists is far less.

I have read his Confessions,a bit of his City of God,some sermons etc.However,most of what I've read comes from quotes of his in other books of mine.

Have you read much of his material?

 

Yeah, I read the ungodly garbage that he had written on purgatory. :rolleyes:

 

Well,do you agree with this anathema or not?

 

So you admit your ignorance in that you haven't read most of his literature.

 

Regardless of what one believes, The RCC has no right to curse anyone.

 

No,this indeed regarding the substance of that Canon #5.Forget the anathema for a moment.Do you agree with the essence of that statement?

 

Do I agree with this statement:

No. Man's free will is not lost. He has a choice. Without that choice man cannot be saved; he would be unable to "believe" on the Lord Jesus Christ; unable to "call" upon his name; unable to "put his faith" in Christ, etc. Those phrases all indicate that man must of his own free will make a choice.

 

Well,you have not left behind every vestige of the RCC.And you have been no friend of the Reformation had you lived in the 16th century.

Folks willingly died because they denied free will back then. You are in greater agreement with Erasmas than Martin Luther.

 

I'm enjoying you guys. :thumbs:

 

Do I really care? People of all persuasions died for their faith at one time or another. Ask Bloody Mary? She didn't care if you were a "free-willer" or Calvinist. Off with your head anyway.
And Martin Luther? He was a great persecutor of Baptists as well.
So what!

 

Baptists didn't exist then.Are you confusing them with Anabaptists?

Any persecution of anyone is wrong.Anything Luther or Zwingli did in that respect was sinful.You do know though that some of the Anabaptists were violent radicals like the Muntzers,don't you?Many were anti-Trinitarian.Some were peaceful and unjustly attacked.

But getting back to what you said earlier.If you agree with Canon 5 of the Council of Trent -- you are in league with Rome in that respect.But you have lots of company.Most Evangelicals would agree with that proposition (and some others) of Roman Catholicism.

To be on sound biblical footing you need to be where Martin Luther stood -- not Desiderius Erasmus.Martin Luther had many faults and failings;but he was on solid scriptural ground on this subject.

 

Anybody that baptized "again" was called an "anabaptist." However there was an official group of "Anabaptists" that had beliefs similar to the Baptists of today. Don't blame the events of the political uprisings on the Baptists (or anabaptists as you like to refer to them). It can be directly attributed to Luther if you study your history thoroughly enough. Certainly there were those that were "anabaptist" in name that were there, but not the Anabaptists that were typically known for not even taking up arms. These were others, stirred up by Luther to revolt.

I don't agree with the RCC. I made that clear.
BTW, If you agree with evangelism, with the Great Commisson, with going to door to door in any way, shape or form, then, according to your logic, that makes you a Jehovah's Witness. Welcome to the guilty by association club.

Erasmus was a well-educated scholar who by the time of his death had more in common with the Baptists than he did with the Catholics or the Lutheran. I would gladly be associated with Erasmus. I am not a Lutheran. I do not believe in his Reformed theology. When he left the RCC, he took many of their Catholic practices with him. I do not associate myself with Lutheranism. What makes you think that I do?

 

Erasmus had more in common with Baptists than he did with the Catholics or Lutherans?! How did you come up with that kind of surprising revisionist history?

Erasmus believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.He belived in retaining the Apocrypha.He was a loyal son of the Mother Church.You know you don't get to make up history on the fly.

Back in college I read "In Praise Of Folly" by Erasmus.It was quite clever and radical at the time of its release speaking of the abuses of the RCC.But he stayed within the fold of that communion.There is no evidence that he had more of a baptistic view than a Roman Catholic view.That's quite silly actually.

You said you are not a Lutheran.You know of course that a typical Lutheran of today is far removed from the beliefs of a Lutheran of Martin Luther's day.

Luther's "Bondage of the Will" was very Calvinistic;before Calvin had even become a Christian.However,I wouldn't describe Lutheranism in Luther's age as Reformed.

I didn't suggest that you are Lutheran.What makes you say that?

I am not Lutheran.But I certainly agree with much of Luther's "Bondage of the Will".I agree with the contents of a number of his commentaries.Does that make me Lutheran?

If you ever rid yourself of your prejudices you would agree with many things that John Owen and other Puritans wrote.By that I mean that you are so adament that anything Calvinistic is wrong you won't even open a page from the works of these men.Reading Matthew Henry is about as close as you've come.

 

Here is some information about Erasmus that I gleaned for you: