Featured To the Calvinists here: what part of Non cal theology Bothers you the Most?

The Spirit of God is eternally existent, so of course He was there; that wasn't the argument. The Holy Spirit indwelling and working in man was not the same in the OT as it is in the NT, the scriptures I cited make that clear.

And Hebrews 13:8 shows that God's nature never changes, not that God has not chosen different plans throughout history on how He deals with His creation and mankind.

 

There is no "non-cal" theology.

Show me the book where it has been systematized.

Geisler calls his theology "moderate Calvinism."

Others call their theology Arminianism.

Where is the "non-cal systematic theology" work?

There IS NO "non-cal" theology.

A better name for it would be "non-theology."

 

Dr. James is correct....You SERIOUSLY have no idea what a Straw-man is.....If anything, what you are complaining about sounds more like a "red-Herring" (it isn't really) than a "straw-man"....But, you still have no clue what a Straw-man is. I say that because it is beyond irritating to read people consistently mis-use that term.

 

I agree with kyredneck.

THE biggest problem with any "non-cal" is the "I."

I would also add to the list any view that supports "free will/free choice" outside of God's direct and purposed intervention.

There is nothing "free" relating to what it cost God to bring salvation.

There is no "free" in the "will" or "choice" to be found in the unregenerate, sin loving, hell destined heathen that would allow that person to seek, hear, or even consider God.

 

It's the biggest problem with Calvinist Polemic usually as well. It permits Calvinists to sit in judgemental haughtiness and assumed pietism in that THEY ALONE are the ones who are truly "humble", and that their Calvinistic views mean that they are the ones who "truly" glorify God.

They can pray in the square and thank God that they are not as that "Publican" (read Arminian) over there who is full of a self-important "I"....but, thanks be to God.....by his grace alone.........We Calvinists are not a part of such a lack of humility. We Calvies aren't guilty of a Theology which exalts the "I".....our Theology is "humble"....

That's not the intention, perhaps, and Calvies don't perceive it often....but, many Arms or non-Cals here can back me up (possibly some honest Cals too) that often.....That supposed humility often REEKS of self-righteousness. Lot's of Calvies who glory in the humility of their Theology are whited sepluchres who stink of arrogance and decay when they look down on those who disagree with them. Their Theology (in their minds anyway) is more humble than that of the Arminian, and boy, are they proud of it. And often they enjoy reminding everyone (and themselves) how pietist it is.

 

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

What a smudge on Paul's character. Paul never consented to nor murdered anyone after his salvation, he didn't sprinkle babies, and his eschatology was far different than Calvin's non-eschatology. Calvin wouldn't know a prophetical passage if it bit his ear off-probably the reason he never wrote a commentary on Revelation.

Furthermore, you don't find any of the Calvinistic non-sense in any of the early churches until Augustine several hundred years later. So it's really a misnomer to call Calvinism-Calvinism. It should actually be called Augustinianism.

It just baffles me how that any so-called Christians can credit an unsaved man for the heretical doctrines he produced and then claim they came from the Spirit of God.

 

I said I would tell you about Calvin's New Testament Greek text.According to T.H.L. Parker in his book :John Calvin :A Biography,he says :"But it is probable that his basic Greek text was that of de Colines. This,as the historians of the printed Greek New Testament tell us,was a most interesting text. Based on Erasmus [3rd edition of 1522]and the Complutensian,many of its readings [at least 52]nevertheless came from manuscripts and did not appear in any other sixteenth-century printed Greek Testament.It was therefore to a limited degree independent of the dominant Protestant text which Erasmus formed and handled on to Robert Estienne [his stepson] and Beza and which became the Texus receptus,...Many of the readings in de Colines would now be accepted without question as genuine. By using this text,then,Calvin's commentaries are also based upon a rather sounder text than any other contemporary Greek Testament would have provided." (pages 75,76)

The Comma Johanneum,1 John 5:7-8, was not included in de Colines.

 

That certainly doesn't help your argument that John Calvin never used the TR!
Furthermore, the author shows certainty that Calvin used the Beza and Erasmus Texts, but says "probably" when it came to de Colines.

And if you note in the comment I responded that it wasn't just Calvin but also all the Reformers. Duh? One of the nicknames given to the KJV was the "Reformation Bible" because it was also the text that even the Reformers used.

No attempt at butchering or revising history will change the fact that the very people you defend all believed the KJV was the Bible and that the texts underlying the Westcott and Hort versions, or the Doauy Rheims (Catholic) Bible were not (the same ones that now underlie the NIV)

Furthermore, your premise was also that those same people would reject the KJV today, and yet you didn't submit any quotes from Calvin that he criticized the TR. Surely such an "intelligent" scholar such as Calvin would have had more to say about the TR if you were correct about your assumptions of the scholars opinions.

 

So CALVINism is not based on John Calvin? Gotcha

And yes, I say he was an unsaved heretic because he wholeheartedly believed that murder was a legitimate form of discipline for violating not only OT laws, but even local Geneva ordinances.

"Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." 1 John 3:15

 

Says the "expert" on all theology.

 

Although I tend to get the gist of what you are saying, I will add this.

Lot's of people want to claim they have 'no theology'. Typically this is worn as a badge of honor and with an implied super spirituality.

Then comes the 'I follow no man' -and/or- 'I only read the Bible and nothing more' fallacies &c. These statements denounce and ignore the validity of Gods NT structure according to Eph. 4:11. In this passage to 'follow' one and his teachings is not altogether wrong, it is actually needful for edification and growth.

No one in orthodox Christianity (or few perhaps) who has a favorite theological camp, preacher or theologian whom they listen to is wrong for doing so. It simply doesn't equate to the emotional statement and knee jerk reaction 'You are following a man, I follow Christ!' no matter how badly those who say this want it to stick.

The above 'I follow Christ and no man' is no different than Paul's rebuke of the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 1:12ff where similar statements are made. Even the group claiming 'I follow Christ' was incorrect because the follow up question is 'Is Christ divided?' and that is exactly what they were doing and they were rebuked and reproved for this remark. None of the groups were correct.

Nonetheless whenever one who says 'I have no theology' begins to speak of Jesus, the Word, God &c they are announcing their 'theology' so thus they do have one. We can see strains of differing camps in what they say and believe.

- Blessings

 

I'd say he's offered much more Scripture and solid teaching than I've ever seen you offer on this board and I respect him for that. He has a pretty solid grip on the whole counsel of God.

As a matter of fact, I've not seen you quote much if any Scripture or offer any sound doctrine to date. Why not give it a whirl instead of your 'usual'?

- Blessings

 

You haven't been around long enough to know what my usual is. And his statement was devoid of any scripture as is yours. It was also ignorant.

 

And you continue your usual. Look above my previous post for Scripture. :thumbsup:

A person doesn't need to be around long to figure out who you are.

Again, try giving something other than your 'usual' a whirl. It'll do your walk and soul some good.

- Blessings

 

The "WHOLE counsel of God" also includes prophecy, and yet all the Calvinists don't want to deal with Calvin's amillenialism, or baptismal regeneration or his murderous heart.

 

Ya think? No one deals with the entire counsel of God in one thread so your point is moot.

Not all Calvinists are amil, including this one. BTW, I'm Reformed Baptist.

Murderous heart? Jesus spoke of this in the Sermon on the Mount. Anger and hatred for another is synonymous. We've all been there. You've had one yourself.

Also check 1 John.

- Blessings