Strong's

First of all, that is a logical fallacy. Just because a majority believe does not make it true.

Second, it is highly unlikely that this has been the predominant view. The writings from the early church fathers before Augustine do not support the Calvinism you speak of, and the writings between Augustine and Calvin (or perhaps Luther) do not support it as well. Even today, Calvinism is not the predominant view.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Calvinism has not been as wide spread as perhaps you have been led to believe.

 

First of all, that is a logical fallacy. Just because a majority believe does not make it true.</font>[/QUOTE]Wasn't my point. My point was that for someone to come along and claim there is no biblical support for it and that it is all made up and twisted doctrine flies in teh face of almost 2000 years of exegetes. It has been held in various forms for all of Christianity and that shows that there is a great measure of support that can be mustered in its favor.

I think there would be a great deal of information that would refute your assertion here. It has been held in some form for all of this time. Calvin's name got attached to it because he is the one who systematized and correlated some of these truths that had been held previously.

Among orthodox Christianity, I certainly think it is. Now if you include the whole religious spectrum, I will grant that you are right. But I confine my view to orthodox (i.e., biblical, not denominational "Orthodox) Christianity. There are very few academic arminians for obvious reasons.

You haven't burst my bubble. I don't think you have given any evidence that you are right and I am wrong. Your assertions don't carry a lot of weight without support, as I realize mine don't either. That is why in the end, it doesn't really matter. My bigger issue was to point out the obvious fact that those who pretend that Calvinism has no biblical support are simply ignorant of history and theology. One may disagree without stooping to that level. I will say that arminians have some support (I have before). But I do not think that it is strong support because the context is so often slaughtered or the corresponding passages are not correlated. That is far different from saying what was said about Calvinism.

[ June 16, 2003, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Bill,

Can't you just PM the moderator or the webmaster? Shouldn't this issue you have be hashed out in private?

 

Then the challenge is to support this using early church fathers before Augustine.

Let us see it, then.

And what counts as Orthodox? Protestant? What about the Greek Orthodox Church? Catholics? Methodists? Charismatic? If we take all of these as orthodox, then Calvinists make up a very small percentage of Christianity.

But as someone who made the initial statement, it is up to you to support them. The burden of proof is upon you. Remember, one cannot prove a negative, but they can refute a positive.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism have their biblical support. As a whole, taking the OT and NE together, Calvinism as a system is unable to stand.

And interestingly enough, that is what Arminians say about Calvinists - the context is so often slaughtered or the corresponding passages are not correlated. It works both ways. Don't pretend that it doesn't.

 

Brother Glen, anyone could "see" I was only joking with russell55. I WAS NOT "ATTACKING" ANYONE. The use of the graemlin, ( ), is supposed to indicate this.

I apologize publickly to those who are offended by my jest in trying to lighten up the matter for future discussion. Some insist I give them ample opportunity to present scripture and then my having same opportunity to reply. I'll do my best to restrain my self from any further "jesting", but it will be hard to do considering the circumstances. ( I'm sorry, I was just having too much fun and suddenly took myself seriously and had to laugh!)

I also would like to take this time to allow you and others the chance to reconsider how you use authority to quell differing views on the subject.

Without revealing my sources, I have received a few PMs concerning questioning the calvinists in this forum and also warned by the same about being ready for this type of censure. I only feel anyone needs to be aware of this so they too can be forewarned.
_______________________

Moderator's Note: There has never been once instance of authority being used to quell differing views. All of the evidence you need is presented in the threads where theology of all types is allowed to stand. The only problem here are some malcontent complainers who feel unjustly abused because certain people from their side are the most egregious offenderso of the standards. People are dealt with according to the posting demeanor, not according to their theology. This has been substantiated many times and never been proven wrong.

Consider your own posts. They are very arminian in nature and not one of them has been edited. You have not been warned about your theology. The only warning has come in regard to your demeanor. Everyone plays on an equal field here. You are not the exception. You will be given no slack for your demeanor, simply because your views differ from the moderators. You will be held to the same standard everyone else is. If you have additional questions on the moderating stance, you can read the thread at the top of the forum and address your questions in private to the moderators.

[ June 16, 2003, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

ITNAC... I too apologize to you!... If it was in jest I have no problem with that... In fact many times I use... IMHO!... Or to each his own!... I have my belief and that is it my belief... Now if others want to believe as I do fine... If not fine!... We are ALL free to believe as we want and if a brother wants to debate his position fine and if I or others don't want to believe it that is fine too!... To many times we are trying to get the other brother or sister to see it as we see it and if they don't we get mad!... Why?... We all serve the same God and his son Jesus Christ don't we?... Arminians/Calvinists!... OH BROTHER!... Brother Glen

 

Pastor Larry,

If you are going to participate in the discussion, you too must abide by the established rules. Deleting one's posts simply because they are calling you on your statements is wrong! It is nothing more than censorship.

The one's post may or may not have been out of bounds, that is not the issue. But if you are a participant in the discussion, YOUR deletion of one's posts is just as rude as that one who posts out of bounds comments.

By the way, you cannot prove me wrong on this because the evidence has been deleted!

 

Pastor Larry,

If you are going to participate in the discussion, you too must abide by the established rules. Deleting one's posts simply because they are calling you on your statements is wrong! It is nothing more than censorship.

The one's post may or may not have been out of bounds, that is not the issue. But if you are a participant in the discussion, YOUR deletion of one's posts is just as rude as that one who posts out of bounds comments.

By the way, you cannot prove me wrong on this because the evidence has been deleted! </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you Yelsew!

If you can comment on others demeanor and then delete us for commenting on your demeanor what recourse do we have? Are you not human? Do you not also make mistakes Larry? Who is going to call you on it when you do? I might get deleted but I will call you on it.

 

The post was deleted because it violated the rules of the board. I abide by the same rules and each of you know it. You have almost 6000 posts of evidence. Yet none of you that have made this charge have ever come up with even one violation of the rules by me. That is a telling indictment of the foolishness of your claims.

The ironic thing Bill, is that you are the only one who has been edited here. ITNAC was never edited. He was only encouraged to take a different approach because of how he came across. If you note the words I used, I talked about his appearance, not what he actually was. That was a little detail you conveniently overlooked in your haste to whine. No one else participated in a clear violation that resulted in editing. As I told you privately, you are fairly represented. You are not being edited for your theology but for your conduct. And when you conduct changes, you will stop being edited.

When a post is deleted, the evidence is generally saved. So the evidence will refute you and show that the post was edited, not for theology, but because it violated the standards.

Censorship is a cheap argument and a meaningless one. When you signed up, you agreed to abide by the rules and to be censored when you chose not to. That remains in effect. If you choose not to abide by the rules, then you can withdraw your participation. This is a private board and your participation is at the pleasure of the webmaster.

Now get over it and move on. Everyone is held to the same standards and you two are not the exception. While complaining about moderating is grounds for deletion of post, I will make an exception so that you will have no basis on which to whine. This thread is closed. Those whose wish to continue the topic of this thread can open another one. Those who wish to complain about things can start their own forum. If you have further comments, you are welcome to send me a PM.