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".
To the Calvinists here: what part of Non cal theology Bothers you the Most?
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Yeshua1, May 22, 2013.
Page 5 of 17
-
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Do not shoot me...i am just one of the messengers sent to you to point out your departure from truth. -
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. -
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. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Ach
This is always a good caution for everyone.
-
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"? -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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: -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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: -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
ACh,
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. -
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. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
It's almost 2:30 in the morning here, I need to sleep too. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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.... -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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.
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 -
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.
:rolleyes:
"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
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. -
-
-
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. -
All the noncalvinists will cry out against that, but I hear the same cry from Mormons and Catholics.
Page 5 of 17