The Ways of God. Ridiculed or accepted?

Yes, Luke confirms what I said about many Cals/DoGs mindlessly parroting others.

If he would put down all his reformed writers (who of course all agree) and simply read the scriptures he would easily see there is a massive amount of scripture that clearly disagrees with DoG.

What he calls education I would call indoctrination.

 

I see from the statistics about the Baptist Board that it now has about 1½ million posts, so obviously I haven't read them all , but I certainly cannot think of any "Cals/DoGs" who have "mindlessly parrotted" the writings of Reformed writers, or "believe themselves brilliant". Perhaps you could give a few examples of the sort of thing you mean.

Personally, I hold to the doctrines of grace because they are what I believe God's Word teaches. I believed those doctrines before I had ever read any Reformed writers.

 

You have to be kidding, Cals/DoGs commonly copy and paste reformed writers here all the time, they seem unable to answer for themselves.

And I would be willing to bet you were raised in a reformed church or under the teachings of someone reformed. If you read the scriptures on your own, you will never accept a reformed view.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

You won't arrive at reformed theology in this verse, and I can easily show you dozens more that refute your view.

 

You're telling a pastor,David Lamb,years longer in the faith than yourself that he doesn't have a mind of his own --that he doesn't get his beliefs from the Word of God. You Mr.WM are way off-bounds.

 

He's a grown man, let him speak for himself.

 

You may be right, but perhaps you could give me an example. The only sort of situation I have seen anybody copying and pasting quotes from Reformed writers has been when somebody posts something such as: "Even Spurgeon did not believe in election" (that's not from an actual post; just a made-up example to show what I mean). Then someone might reply, including a pasted quote from Spurgeon's writings with the aim of showing that he did believe in election. But that is quite different to the "mindless parrotting" you are talking about.

Sorry, you would have lost your bet . I was raised in a church-going family, but sadly, my parents were not believers in the Lord Jesus Christ; they were just "church-goers". And the church we attended was a "high Anglican" one (that is, verging on Roman Catholic). It was not even evangelical, let alone Reformed.

I would agree this far, that just by reading that verse, it is highly unlikely that I would arrive at Reformed theology. But at the same time, that verse in no way contradicts Reformed theology. It is not "everybody" who is invited to come, but "him who thirsts", "him who hears," "whoever desires". What caused you to have the desire to come to the Lord Jesus Christ? I'm sure you will not answer that it was because you are cleverer or better than people who don't have that desire. Jesus said to a group of Jews in John 10.26:

But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.
​

Notice that He doesn't say: "You are not of My sheep, because you do not believe."

 

Yes, I can, and indeed I was typing my previous message when Rippon posted his reply to yours.

But why is it wrong for one member of the board (in this case, Rippon) to write a post that criticises another member's post (in this case, yours)?

And if it is wrong to criticise the posts of others, where does that leave your posts criticising the posts of "Calvinists/DoGs"?

 

Winman, you can be such a blantant, boldfaced hypocrite at times, that it is laughable. Thanks for the entertainment and the belly laugh. ROFL !!

 

I guess then you should be appalled at Luke and Preacher4truth since both me and Winman are much older than they are, yet they continually berate us. Your feigned shock borders on being a lie, since you say nothing to them.

 

Oh I disagree.....Ive found that most come to the Reformed Faith willingly & are not indoctrinated. Take a poll if you wish.

 

Winman, I posted a thread where I listed a dozen or more VERY specific Scriptures that dealt with God's election. As I recall, you dropped out of the conversation after that post, so lay off the "we don't have Scripture" track. It is beneath you (or perhaps not...).

 

Luke, it's these kind of statements that usually result in snide remarks. This is not only insulting and rude, but completely uncalled for. You have a habit of slipping this kind of nonsense in good debates and then pretend to be innocent of any wrong doing. Please stop. You have been respectful these past few weeks, why are you blowing it now?

 

God is "bound" by time?

...and you guys have the nerve to call winman out on "heresy"? Unbelievable...

 

I agree so much, statements like this only serve to be inflammatory and convey the message of "my ways are so above yours." Continually "yanking anothers chain" in such manner is simply not the proper thing to do. One can tell another brother that they believe them to be wrong or in error in a much more appropriate manner.

 

I see your new years resolution has expired :laugh:

Are you going to call out the unorthodox heresy of God being bound by time...or is this again only a one way street?

 

If Luke is any indication of Calvinist fervor, no wonder Calvin murdered those who disagreed with him. Thank God these men, like Luke, don't control the government, or we might all be running for our lives.

I guess this is the logical conclusion to Calvinism. Since the non-elect have no hope of heaven, why not kill them now, no great loss.

 

If you can produce the gobs of non reformed authors Winman cites, then you might have a point. Can you do it?

 

The irony is when I respond to such garbage by calling it what it is, I'm the one that is construed as "starting" the inflammatory back and forth, and he will go back and pull random replies of mine to prove that I'm the instigator here on the BB. If it weren't so sad it would be laughable.

 

I agree with you that we ought not to ignore scripture. What I want to do is try to explain those passages you've cited in the light of unequivocal scriptures. I think the best explanation is that God was speaking to Adam and Abraham anthropomorphically.

One may conclude that God's question "Adam, where are you," means God doesn't know where Adam is.

One may also conclude that God's statement to Abraham, "Now I know...", means God didn't know until that moment.

But we both agree that scriptures doesn't contradict scripture. Therefore, when the scriptures declare that God knows the beginning and the end, the passages in question must be interpreted in that light.

What is confusing to me is your assertion that God knows all things, but some things God does not know until they happen.

This is perilously close to the open theism error that God knows all things that are knowable. I would be wary of holding to a doctrine based on the scriptures you have cited.

That's why I am glad you have couched it as a theory.