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

Reading a book by a particular theologian or even having a favorite author is not the same as revering a man as if he is above reproach and to be worshiped. The over-emphasized reverence toward John Calvin is man worship. Everytime there's a debate in here about DoG, the arguments are ALWAYS based on John Calvin's teachings, and when John Calvin is attacked, the Calvie's lose their mind.

I have the same issue with others in my own denomination with Jack Hyles. Man worship.

Your claim that having a man teach is "needful" to the exclusion of a person who chooses not to base their theology off of any particular man is hogwash.

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." 1 John 2:26

Your analysis of 1 Cor 1:12 is WAY off. Those who claimed to follow Christ were not wrong because Paul himself said he followed Christ in 1 Cor 11:1. Paul wasn't emphasizing that they were wrong for who they claimed to follow, because each one of the persons named were godly people, but because of the DIVISION it caused that prevented them from all having one mind in Christ. 1 Cor 1:10, Phil 2:2-5.

Had they "followed" those particular groups and had the same mind in Christ without the division, or elevated any one man to the point of worship, there would not have been any problems. Paul makes this interpretation obvious when he said "Be ye followers of me even as I also am of Christ".

 

Padeobaptists....Do not believe in baptismal regeneration, neither do confessional baptists.You are demonstrating you have little or no knowledge of the historic facts, or what the churches have held to.
Do not shoot me...i am just one of the messengers sent to you to point out your departure from truth.

 

If "no one deals with the entire counsel of God in one thread" then what was the point of affirming that Luke2427 teaches "the whole counsel of God"? If my point was moot, then so was that comment you made to RevMitchell. He may give short statements in one place, but give longer Bible exegesis in another, so whatever you claim as a moot point equally applies to your comment.

Reformed Baptist is nothing more than reforming Calvinism. It's still Calvinism any way you shake it.

I may disagree with you on a forum, but exchange of words doesn't mean I hate you. I don't. There is no doctrinal error or disagreement so egregious that would cause me to hate another person because we don't see eye to eye.

And the reference to Matthew 5 is "without cause". But also when you look at the tense used in both Matt 5 and 1 John 3:15 (present perfect participle) it is a continuing relentless anger and the kind of anger that wishes malicious intent on its subject. This is why Calvin was a murderer because he not only had a murderous heart, he expressed it, said he would do it again, was unapologetic and unrepentant about it.

 

Have to correct you once again (as usual):

Calvin believed in baptismal regeneration. Calvin's Strasbourg catechism, said, "How do you know yourself to be a son of God in fact as well as in name?" The answer is "Because I am baptized in the name of God the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Don't burn me at the stake or sever my head John.

 

Ach

This would be a valid objection if anyone was quoting from the Institutes, or his sermons....but no one has.In fact several have told you plainly they have not even read his works!

.

This is always a good caution for everyone.

this would be another thread.

 

. Just because they don't always give the book, reference or page number doesn't mean that they are not quoting Calvin. I have seen you post scripture verses with out siting the chapter or book, but I still knew it was from the Bible.

There are many Calvinists or even any religion for that fact that have gleaned their information and followed teachings without ever reading the original author. How many have studied apologetics without ever actually having read the Book of Moron, or the New World Translation or the Quran or the Satanic "Bible"?

 

Thank you for trying to correct me and offer help,that is a positive sign:applause: However,as when you muffed up the 1689 confession of faith...you did not read my statement correctly.
I did not mention...calvin.... I mentioned padeo's....look at the 3 forms of unity, they do not believe in baptismal regeneration.....

so your correction is no correction at all. I am glad you were trying though.So when I try to help you also,eventually we might get to where we can agree on somethings...although it looks like some rough seas ahead:smilewinkgrin:

 

Okay.....but let me say it like this.I read about predestination and believed what i read before I knew anything about calvin, pelagius,augustine, or anyone else...i read it in the bible and believed it, in a simple straight forward way.
In fact it was only when i was being approached by mormons at work that I began to understand that I was completely ignorant of everything except that Jesus had gotten a hold of me.

Kingdom of the cults was recommended to me from a friend who was away at bible college,so that was my first out of bible study book to read,as satan was seeking to take the seed of the word as the fowls of the air...

What i am saying is this....many read the same bible and see what these other persons saw...just they lived before us,and saw it before we were born.
God has revealed it to millions..it is not a secret:thumbsup:

 

ACh,

Now this is one of your best thoughts that I have seen you post.In an emergency situation....you can glean some info second hand, much like an untrained person can apply a tourniquet at a car accident as a temporary fix.
But there is no substitute for searching it out and knowing why you believe what you believe. Sometimes when you disciple someone they become over dependant on the teacher.this is a valid concern.

 

There's no muffling of the Confession you offered. It's just poor grammatical structure. I even made it clear that I didn't think the confessional actually SAID that but that it APPEARS to say that, and even the verses that it uses are the same as those who support baptismal regeneration.

My point was that it was not CLEAR that it did not give a renunciation of baptismal degeneration as most other Baptists did. And hence the dangers of relying on creeds for ones doctrinal positions. If you got that I believe that 1689 Confession teaches baptismal regeneration you missed to point entirely.

And what's a "Padeo" baptism. Is that a baptism on a back porch when the sun is out? I've studied pedobaptism and paedobaptism, but "padeo" is a new on for me.

Why rely on 3 different forms that have to be read together just to figure it out, which still don't explicitly exclude any form of infant baptism? To me it seems they were just scared to be explicit about it because it may have drawn scrutiny from pope smurf and got someones head chopped off. (although I'll admit that is somewhat semantical, but given the time period this was written in, it should have been bold).

There are also reformed theologians who believe that the early baptists under this confession taught baptismal regeneration (Rich Lusk). So I'm not the only one who sees it.

Now I don't know too many Baptists that DO believe in BR. It's one of the core doctrine that has historically separated Baptists from the RCC (and got us killed). That is one of the reasons it baffles me that anyone would follow Calvin or any of the fruit of Calvin's teachings. "Reformed" Theology is reformed Calvinism. And that's sad because Baptists existed long before the Reformation when these teachings (Calvin's) didn't exist among Baptists.

 

that is how i mis-spell words when I am burning out with only two hours sleep in the past 24..lol sorry to inflict that on you.I am heading to the west coast, by tues morning..only 2000 miles to go ..lol

ok... I might have missed your point as so far, I am viewing you as more of a hostile, than a fellowservant....lets try to disagree without being ridiculous.,lol

 

I was hoping you were right, I would get rebaptized in a heart beat if they were being done on "pa[d]io"s:thumbs::laugh:

It's almost 2:30 in the morning here, I need to sleep too.

 

Some of the anabaptists had believers baptism correct, but were full of errors....
When the reformers reformed from the roman church, they saw them as enemies also.

While I am a baptist, the reformers had more doctrinal teaching correct, except they view baptism as if we were ot saints, rather than Nt saints.

That is why you have particular or reformed baptists, who have a Covenant theology, but not in lock step with the reformers....

 

ACH......let's see if we can make progress...scripturally. Do not attack, I would rather not do that....i find it boring.I would rather we ..challenge each other in the scripture....I think you would want that also, thanks for offering spelling correction..i will sleep soon

 

What was the point in affirming it? Look at how you're behaving, you should be ashamed of your self seriously. Now why would a brother compliment another? Wow, I wonder why...hmmmmm.

When Luke2427 speaks, he generally has a good grasp on the counsel of God concerning the issue at hand. But no, you have to step in and it has to mean inclusion of eschatology, and other doctrines, or the compliment isn't valid.

In that you are acting totally ridiculous. Anything to find fault and argue from you, even to the point of stealing someones credit and compliment.

Why are you taking issue with a compliment from one brother to another? You need to take a serious look into your own heart over that. This is shallow behavior for you as a believer and it is in fact quite infantile behavior.

I've yet to see any exegesis from Rev. I've searched him prior to his coming back in many threads and he carries himself the same then as he does now. He offers little to nothing edifying, nor with Scripture &c so guess what? I'll give honor to whom it is due, and respect to whom it is due. He has offered nothing and it is what it is.

Yet I find it interesting that you want to take credit from Luke2427 and mock it, then give credit to Rev and make pretense he offers exegesis. Said behavior of yours is juvenile at best. Offer some solid consistent proof he uses Scripture and exegesis on a consistent basis.

Thanks.

Not quite the same. Keep in mind I used to share your theology. I was never KJVO but quite frankly there is little to no scholarship among said ranks.

Somehow I don't believe your statement above.

I've never stated that you hate me. You brought that thought in on your own. Biblically we should be more concerned with ourselves than at pointing the finger over and over at anothers sin which is what you do. Practice mercy as per Sermon on the Mount and look at it in that view and you wouldn't be slamming another believer over and over. Take a look at your own faults as well and again -- practice mercy.

So tell me some just cause to hate a brother, OK? I'll await your answer. Funny thing, I don't hear anyone slamming Moses for murder. :thumbs:

Also, it doesn't matter if it is 'continuing' when it is once in the heart it exposes our sin nature and sin and we are guilty then and there. If you have a fleeting lustful thought do you not ask for forgiveness if it goes away? Yours is then a ridiculous argument.

There is no cause to hate a brother. Ever. Think about it. To do so exposes out hearts that we are not as grateful as we should be for our own forgiveness -- not unlike the one forgiven went out to strangle another who owed him little as per Mt. 18. It also tells us we are walking in darkness as per 1 John.

Yes, we get it, you don't like Calvin. I couldn't care less really, I've not read him. What is interesting is that you have this 'present participle' anger/hatred for the man as you go on and on and on and on about it. Get over yourself, you're as much a sinner and who knows perhaps even worse inwardly. I find that those who truly walk with God find themselves in such a state. I'm not seeing solid evidence you feel that way. It's quite the contrary with you thus far.

- Blessings to His

 

You were belittling someone else and then did the exact same thing, your comment was logical absurdity. I didn't criticize you for complementing someone, I criticized you for being a hypocrite.

Again, another pot/kettle comment. You picked on how short of a sentence Rev wrote that didn't contain a verse, and then you got mad when someone pointed out your pettiness. Boo hoo:tear:

One of the reasons half the people on these forums don't want to talk to Calvinists is because of how arrogant, rude, obnoxious, condescending virtually everyone that is of the Calvinist ilk are. I was cordial with you until your first response to me using vitriolic rhetoric, and that is the only time that I respond to your nonsense to give back what you dished out, and now you don't like it. I can't count how many private emails I have thanking me for standing up to you bullies, even ones that have expressed they don't agree with all my views are sick of you holier-than- thou Calvinists.

.

I've seen otherwise, you must not have looked very hard. And why would he want to or anyone else for that matter. Everyone that comes on here that disagrees with Calvinism you all send a lynch party after them. Nobody wants talk to any of you because you act like punks.

Another example here of your consistent contradictions. You "somehow don't believe" when I said I don't hate you, and then "I've never stated that you hate me". Make up your mind:BangHead:

Moses didn't make it a habit and lifestyle of killing people either, and Paul never killed anyone after his conversion. I'll comment on the "just cause" issue below.

Yes it does matter in "continuing" study 1 John 3-5 and research what it means "he that is born of God doth sinneth not" and Romans 6:1 "shall we CONTINUE in sin that grace may abound? God forbid."

Again, complete failure on your part to get what I said. You quoted Matt 5 out of context, and I quoted it, corrected you IN context where it said "without cause". Here, I'll do it again:

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Matt 5:22

Someone sounds angry, even changed the colors to a green font! You could have just admitted that you interpreted 1 Cor 1:12 wrong and called it a day.


And yup, I'm just a sinner saved by grace, no better than anyone else, and even if you disagree with me, I still love you, but won't let you get away with bullying other believers. God has given me a unique ability to make people pull their hair out and destroy their keyboards, and I use it freely when defending other believers who may not have studied the Bible as much as others have on here. If you can't take it, don't dish it out to everyone you don't agree with.

 

If you don't ask, knock, or seek, you won't receive, have the door opened, or find anything.

 

Yea, but the real question is, "What is the moving force behind the asking, knocking and seeking some people do, and why is it not driving those who dont ask, knock and seek to do so?"

 

Where is the verse that says there is a "moving force" behind the asking, knocking, and seeking? Why is it that all Calvinistic approaches need to add to the word of God, and then attempt to back it by proof-texting it with other misinterpreted verses taken out of context?

The "moving force" behind the asking is FREE WILL.

"Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour." Matthew 15:28

There was certainly a moving INFLUENCE (Jesus), but a moving INFLUENCE is not a moving FORCE, as in forced against her "as thou wilt".

Seeking and knocking in Matthew 7:7-8 are voluntary, free will acts. Any force imposed moots the definition of voluntary.

Calvinist always say "It's not force, God is helping them seek" or God is "moving" them to knock. It's voluntary, but yet they can't do it voluntarily unless there is a "moving force". Go Figure.

 

If it isn't Calvinism, it isn't the Gospel. The grand error in any noncalvinistic system is the idea that one is elected on the basis of a certain quality or action.

All the noncalvinists will cry out against that, but I hear the same cry from Mormons and Catholics.