Jump to content
Online Baptist

New Argument Against Calvinism


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Firstly, those who believe in the scriptural doctrine of predestination, that I have met do not consider themselves as special.  They understand that all believers, even you are the elect.

 

Secondly they are not proud, but humble that God has chosen them.

I've known hundreds of Calvinists, and not ONE humble one in the bunch.

Secondly, the SCRIPTURAL doctrine of predestination states that I am predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ because I "FIRST BELIEVED."  The Calvinists problem is that he cannot separate soveriegnty, forknowledge, and omniscience from PREDETERMINATION, which, of course, is not SCRIPTURAL at all.  God inhabits eternity, I inhabit the dispensation of time...God chose me in eternity because I FIRST (he was there all the time...omnipresent across the time-space continuim) chose him.  This is, of course, completely explained in the first 14 verses of Eph. 1...the passage where the calvinists JERKS a verse or two out of context to create his false doctrine.  God repeats "after that I FIRST believed" for a reason...I am supposed to pay attention to repetition!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 234
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

IN a nutshell, this is the basics of Calvinism: TULIP   Total Depravity: that man is so depraved and dead in sin  that he can not even hear the voice or respond to the gospel without God regeneratin

Let's try something different for a moment: Let's look at our agreements on the issue, and see where we go from there.   As I understand, we agree that:   1: Except a man be born again, he cannot

The Word is clear on predestination and God's elect. He knew us in the womb, He knew/knows all born of water and all born of the Spirit before He carved the universe.   We don't understand it fully

Posted Images

I've known hundreds of Calvinists, and not ONE humble one in the bunch.

Secondly, the SCRIPTURAL doctrine of predestination states that I am predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ because I "FIRST BELIEVED."  The Calvinists problem is that he cannot separate soveriegnty, forknowledge, and omniscience from PREDETERMINATION, which, of course, is not SCRIPTURAL at all.  God inhabits eternity, I inhabit the dispensation of time...God chose me in eternity because I FIRST (he was there all the time...omnipresent across the time-space continuim) chose him.  This is, of course, completely explained in the first 14 verses of Eph. 1...the passage where the calvinists JERKS a verse or two out of context to create his false doctrine.  God repeats "after that I FIRST believed" for a reason...I am supposed to pay attention to repetition!

 

You're right. I'm not humble. I'm pride filled and sinful. That's why I needed a Savior.

 

But, prideful as I am, I can still appreciate the irony of you telling me that I'm "prideful" for believing that there is absolutely nothing I can do to merit salvation, while turning around and telling us how God saved you because you sought Him first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You're right. I'm not humble. I'm pride filled and sinful. That's why I needed a Savior.

 

But, prideful as I am, I can still appreciate the irony of you telling me that I'm "prideful" for believing that there is absolutely nothing I can do to merit salvation, while turning around and telling us how God saved you because you sought Him first.

 

You are correct nothing you can do will merit salvation except to call upon the name of the Lord!

 

Romans 10:13  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
 
Isaiah 12:3-4  Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.  (4)  And in that day shall ye say, Praise the LORD, call upon his name, declare his doings among the people, make mention that his name is exalted.
 
Acts 2:21  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

So then, you do believe you did something to merit your salvation. Thanks for clarifying.

 

Romans 6:23  For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

No, I simply accepted the free gift that God offered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Romans 6:23  For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

No, I simply accepted the free gift that God offered.

 

It's not free if you had to do something to earn it.

 

By your own admission, you believe you merited your own salvation.

 

A dead man cannot dial 911.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Salvation is "the gift of God" (Romans 6:23).  How could a gift be received without the ability to choose?  The ability to say no - which is all Calvinism grants to the totally depraved - is meaningless without the accompanying ability to say yes,

 

Furthermore, how could accepting a gift provide a basis for boasting?  If the gift is offered to all freely for the taking, those who receive the gift have no basis whatsoever for giving any credit to themselves.  All has been provided in Christ, it is His work, to Him is all the glory, and it is absurd to suggest that the hopeless sinner who has been rescued without the merit or effort of his part, but simply receiving God's grace, could thereby boast of anything.  If man had no ability to say no, or yes to the free gift, would be more absurd, it would in effect show no love on God's part or our part.  If man was made to choose God, with no choice would make us nothing more than robots, following God with no love at all.

 

1 Timothy 2:4  Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
 
2 Peter 3:9  The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

So then, you do believe you did something to merit your salvation. Thanks for clarifying.

This can only be viewed this way if you create a straw man out of faith defining it as a work, and then claiming that when a Non Calvinist says they are saved through faith, they saved themselves because faith is a work, and works don't save. The problem is not in the model that God ordained for salvation (faith as the means by which one trusts in Christ alone) but in how Calvinism defines freedom and faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

It's not free if you had to do something to earn it.

 

By your own admission, you believe you merited your own salvation.

 

A dead man cannot dial 911.

Again, having faith in Christ is not claiming to have earned anything. You are interjecting "merit" into another persons faith. Romans 11:6 clearly shows that faith and work are not the same thing.

 

Your definition of "dead" is DEAD wrong. Death means SEPARATION, not ANNIHILATION in Eph 2.  When Adam was dead in sin, he heard God's voice when God called out to him "Adam where are you", and not only did Adam hear it, he responded to it, and YET HE WAS DEAD IN HIS SIN. Genesis 3:9

 

Also, the Rich Man in Luke 16. Would you agree that being in HELL is considered to be the ultimate definition of being dead in your sin? And yet the Rich Man was still able to communicate with Abraham.

Edited by Dr James Ach
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Whosoever means whosoever.

Yes, but note that "whosoever" is in a "world" context, so who or what is the world?

 

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

 

12:19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.

 

1. The world, as the human race in general, as distinct from (or including) the Jews?

2. The physical planet into which Jesus was sent?

3. The world of potential believers, aka the elect, who would populate the NH&NE?

4. The unbelieving world who preferred darkness to light?

5. The crowds from Jerusalem & district that welcomed King Jesus as he rode into Jerusalem?

 

John uses "world" (kosmos) in 79 times in 58 verses, with different meanings dependant on the context.

 

Did he take away the sin of the Pharisees? Were they, as children of the devil, eternally loved by God?

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

 

8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

 

23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

 

44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

 

Jesus saves the "whosoever believeth" NOT the whosoever does not believe. They are condemned - already!

 

We do not know who is who - we preach the Gospel of repentance to lost sinners.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yes, but note that "whosoever" is in a "world" context, so who or what is the world?

 

Defining who the world is, is as simple as defining whosoever.  I guess you can so that whosoever and the world are closely related.  This is classic Calvinism you have to change the definition of simple words to make your heresy work.  Isn't it much easier to read the true and simple meaning as you know God intended them to be?

 

John 1:9  That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Edited by The Ohio Patriot
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, having faith in Christ is not claiming to have earned anything. You are interjecting "merit" into another persons faith. Romans 11:6 clearly shows that faith and work are not the same thing.

 

Your definition of "dead" is DEAD wrong. Death means SEPARATION, not ANNIHILATION in Eph 2.  When Adam was dead in sin, he heard God's voice when God called out to him "Adam where are you", and not only did Adam hear it, he responded to it, and YET HE WAS DEAD IN HIS SIN. Genesis 3:9

 

Also, the Rich Man in Luke 16. Would you agree that being in HELL is considered to be the ultimate definition of being dead in your sin? And yet the Rich Man was still able to communicate with Abraham.

 As much as I disagree, I would still embrace you as a brother in Christ. Reading your posts, I don't have much confidence you would reciprocate.

Edited by Auburn88
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Yes, but note that "whosoever" is in a "world" context, so who or what is the world?

 

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

 

12:19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.

 

1. The world, as the human race in general, as distinct from (or including) the Jews?

2. The physical planet into which Jesus was sent?

3. The world of potential believers, aka the elect, who would populate the NH&NE?

4. The unbelieving world who preferred darkness to light?

5. The crowds from Jerusalem & district that welcomed King Jesus as he rode into Jerusalem?

 

John uses "world" (kosmos) in 79 times in 58 verses, with different meanings dependant on the context.

 

Did he take away the sin of the Pharisees? Were they, as children of the devil, eternally loved by God?

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

 

8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

 

23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

 

44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

 

Jesus saves the "whosoever believeth" NOT the whosoever does not believe. They are condemned - already!

 

We do not know who is who - we preach the Gospel of repentance to lost sinners.

You begin with one premise and ended up with a different one. The issue that raised John 3:16 was to whom is salvation OFFERED, and John 3:16 says that FOR -BECAUSE God love THE WORLD (everyone) that He gave his only begotten Son and now that the audience has been established, whosoever out of that audience that believes is saved.

 

It is clear that the usage of kosmos here is regarding people not a land mass. The Bible never uses "whosoever" to refer to a tree. So when "whosoever" is used with "world" it is clear that is in reference to people. Furthermore, unless you think Jesus died for the trees and acorns, the obvious and plain meaning of the text is that Jesus died for humans, and the offer is extended to all.

You finished by changing the dynamic of the issue to "whosoever believeth not"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

You seem to be very hung up on the word "whosoever".

 

The issue isn't who "whosoever" refers to, but whether or not "whosoever" calls by their own power or by God's power. 

Unless you are going to add something new to the issue instead of just repeating the same mantra, it's kind of pointless for you to engage. I don't agree with Covenanter on a wide variety of issues, but I at least give him an "A" for effort in trying to give some kind of defense to his position.

 

If you believe that someone thought they could be saved by their own power, please point to the post and quote, and explain why  believe that is true of them, and if that's really what they said, give a Biblical explanation as to why the person's position is wrong. That's how dialogue works.

Edited by Dr James Ach
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you are going to add something new to the issue instead of just repeating the same mantra, it's kind of pointless for you to engage. I don't agree with Covenanter on a wide variety of issues, but I at least give him an "A" for effort in trying to give some kind of defense to his position.

 

If you believe that someone thought they could be saved by their own power, please point to the post and quote, and explain why  believe that is true of them, and if that's really what they said, give a Biblical explanation as to why the person's position is wrong. That's how dialogue works.

 

In order for dialogue to work, both parties must be respectful of one another. Clearly, you're not willing to do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

You seem to be very hung up on the word "whosoever".

 

The issue isn't who "whosoever" refers to, but whether or not "whosoever" calls by their own power or by God's power. 

And you are missing the answer, which is, Jesus 'draws all men', He 'Lighteth every man', He was given by the Father for 'the world', that He is the 'Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world' . The point being, He was sent to ALL the world, which is that which is opposite the Spirit, the people, those of the ways of this world, to die for ALL sin, to light ALL men, the draw ALL men. In this, then, lies the responsibility for men to respond and receive.  "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:11-14)

You like Greek-here's some for you:

 

Received: "paralambanō"

 

1) to take to, to take with one's self, to join to one's self

a) an associate, a companion

B) metaph.

1) to accept or acknowledge one to be such as he professes to be

2) not to reject, not to withhold obedience

 

This all clearly implies a receiving by choice, not force. The Lord does not commit spiritual rape by forcing salation upon anyone: if this was His method, His 'elect', the Jews, would have surely received Him.    As well, each other translation of this Greek word imples something done by choice.

 

It is true that it is only by the grace, the undeserved merit or favor of God, and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the sin of the world that we have any hope of salvation-thus, it is by His will, not our own that we are saved. We would have no hope of salvation if He had not done the work. This is what it means in the above verse, "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."  But we still have the responsibility to 'receive' Him, to respond to the gift offered.    The drowning man has nothing to boast of for willingly submitting to the lifeguard to swims out to him and pulls him to shore-no work has been done by him, save to humbly submit and allow himself to be saved. Yet would that lifeguard have known he was drowiing  if he has not called out and acknowledged his plight? So, the Lord responds to our cries when we call upon the name of the Lord to be saved.

 

Quote by Auburn88: "You seem to be very hung up on the word "whosoever".

 

The issue isn't who "whosoever" refers to, but whether or not "whosoever" calls by their own power or by God's power."

 

If Jesus lights all men, if He draws all men, then you can rightly say that those who respond are doing so because of that drawing and lighting. But if ALL are drawn and called, as the Bible says is the case, then those "whosoever" are indeed, those who have responded by choice, and those who reject, reject by choice. But we respond to or reject a lighting and drawing which are common to all men. Well, and women, of course-you know what I mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites


And you are missing the answer, which is, Jesus 'draws all men', He 'Lighteth every man', He was given by the Father for 'the world', that He is the 'Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world' . The point being, He was sent to ALL the world, which is that which is opposite the Spirit, the people, those of the ways of this world, to die for ALL sin, to light ALL men, the draw ALL men. In this, then, lies the responsibility for men to respond and receive.  "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:11-14)

You like Greek-here's some for you:

 

Received: "paralambanō"

 

1) to take to, to take with one's self, to join to one's self

a) an associate, a companion

B) metaph.

1) to accept or acknowledge one to be such as he professes to be

2) not to reject, not to withhold obedience

 

This all clearly implies a receiving by choice, not force. The Lord does not commit spiritual rape by forcing salation upon anyone: if this was His method, His 'elect', the Jews, would have surely received Him.    As well, each other translation of this Greek word imples something done by choice.

 

It is true that it is only by the grace, the undeserved merit or favor of God, and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the sin of the world that we have any hope of salvation-thus, it is by His will, not our own that we are saved. We would have no hope of salvation if He had not done the work. This is what it means in the above verse, "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."  But we still have the responsibility to 'receive' Him, to respond to the gift offered.    The drowning man has nothing to boast of for willingly submitting to the lifeguard to swims out to him and pulls him to shore-no work has been done by him, save to humbly submit and allow himself to be saved. Yet would that lifeguard have known he was drowiing  if he has not called out and acknowledged his plight? So, the Lord responds to our cries when we call upon the name of the Lord to be saved.

 

Quote by Auburn88: "You seem to be very hung up on the word "whosoever".

 

The issue isn't who "whosoever" refers to, but whether or not "whosoever" calls by their own power or by God's power."

 

If Jesus lights all men, if He draws all men, then you can rightly say that those who respond are doing so because of that drawing and lighting. But if ALL are drawn and called, as the Bible says is the case, then those "whosoever" are indeed, those who have responded by choice, and those who reject, reject by choice. But we respond to or reject a lighting and drawing which are common to all men. Well, and women, of course-you know what I mean.

 

Don't bother. I had this crazy idea we could talk about this like brothers in Christ but you guys just want to make it personal.

 

I'm not really into that. I'm going to go ahead and drop out of this thread so that I don't interfere with your hatred of us heathen Calvinists.

Edited by Auburn88
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

In order for dialogue to work, both parties must be respectful of one another. Clearly, you're not willing to do that.

This was a post that I generated. I have had no interaction with you whatsoever until this post. You spoke to me first, and the first thing that you said about me was "this guys sounds like a Catholic" 

 

If there has been any disrespect, you set the tone my friend, and have been condescending to everyone else every since, without supporting your arguments. Asking you to provide something to the debate based on Scripture is not being disrespectful. It is being respectful to everyone else that has engaged in this dialogue whose opinions you have summarily written off without supporting your statements.

 

Edited by Dr James Ach
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Don't bother. I had this crazy idea we could talk about this like brothers in Christ but you guys just want to make it personal.

 

I'm not really into that.

You came to Baptist forum, and before you knew anything about me, before we had any type of conversation whatsoever, your very first words to me were, "Funny, except for a few key words here and there, the OP sounds just like the Catholics who keep telling me how awful Protestantism is."

 

Even when I responded you again, I was cordial, and explained the TULIP system, and history about Baptists , Protestants, and the RCC, and you continued to condescend to everyone else. 

 

That "brotherly love" only gets you so far when you draw first blood and then act like the victim. 

Edited by Dr James Ach
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Don't bother. I had this crazy idea we could talk about this like brothers in Christ but you guys just want to make it personal.

 

I'm not really into that.

How is this personal? Granted, I meant the Greek comment more toward Covenanter than you, so that was my error, but how is this being made personal, other than dealing biblicaly with your beliefs, which many here, myself included, see as in error. Perhaps you have become a bit thin-skinned because of that? Certainly no personal attack is meant, even by that comment-merely an observation. Gird yourself up like a man-we're dealing with issues of eternity, not playing hide-and-seek. If any disagreement is going to make you see it as a personal attack, perhaps you need to find a new hobby?

 

I say this the same as I would tell anyone in my church-we go into a group like this expecting disagreements from time to time-it doesn't mean anyne here doesn't like each other, or is disrespecting each other: Covenanter and I have had some sharp differences here and in another post, yet we are brethren and I have never felt attacked, and I pray he feels the same.  Sure, sometimes it can get a little personal-how can it not, since it is dealing with beliefs we hold dear. But with veeeeery few exception, I have never seen anything I would take as a direct, personal attack. What are we, the FFF? I think not.

 

Stay with us, fight the good fight of faith, quit ye like men!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I say this the same as I would tell anyone in my church-we go into a group like this expecting disagreements from time to time-it doesn't mean anyne here doesn't like each other, or is disrespecting each other: Covenanter and I have had some sharp differences here and in another post, yet we are brethren and I have never felt attacked, and I pray he feels the same.  Sure, sometimes it can get a little personal-how can it not, since it is dealing with beliefs we hold dear. But with veeeeery few exception, I have never seen anything I would take as a direct, personal attack. What are we, the FFF? I think not.

 

Stay with us, fight the good fight of faith, quit ye like men!

 

You can mock me all you like, but if you can't express your disagreement respectfully, then you have no argument. So far, all I've seen is ad homs and straw men and blatant dishonesty about what we believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

You can mock me all you like, but if you can't express your disagreement respectfully, then you have no argument. So far, all I've seen is ad homs and straw men and blatant dishonesty about what we believe.

I am tempted to call 'troll' on you, sir. When one considers the biblical arguments we have given you, and your absolute lack of argument back, other than to play the vicitm and say we mock you, what else can we do?  If you WANT disrepect, keep up your attitude and I am sure you'll find it, since thus far, it is all you have given here..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am tempted to call 'troll' on you, sir. When one considers the biblical arguments we have given you, and your absolute lack of argument back, other than to play the vicitm and say we mock you, what else can we do?  If you WANT disrepect, keep up your attitude and I am sure you'll find it, since thus far, it is all you have given here..

 

So, basically, your response is more name calling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I am tempted to call 'troll' on you, sir. When one considers the biblical arguments we have given you, and your absolute lack of argument back, other than to play the vicitm and say we mock you, what else can we do?  If you WANT disrepect, keep up your attitude and I am sure you'll find it, since thus far, it is all you have given here..

I have a sneaking feeling that there are a few doing this on purpose that came from the Baptist Board forum because there are some of us on this forum that riled up the Calvies over there. When this guy basically called me a Catholic on his first post ever to me, that was a hint right there, and I followed some of the threads and saw where some of the newbs were debating with you and Dave about Calvinism on a MOVIE thread LOL, so yeah, this is not just a coincidence. You called it on troll.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

I have a sneaking feeling that there are a few doing this on purpose that came from the Baptist Board forum because there are some of us on this forum that riled up the Calvies over there. When this guy basically called me a Catholic on his first post ever to me, that was a hint right there, and I followed some of the threads and saw where some of the newbs were debating with you and Dave about Calvinism on a MOVIE thread LOL, so yeah, this is not just a coincidence. You called it on troll.

Perhaps a desire to have ammunition to go back and say, "look how poorly those Arminianists treated me!" or some such.

 

Honestly, I hope that's not the case. I hope he's just having a bad day and is feeling a bit irritable-we've all been there. Sadly, I suspect that's not the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I've known hundreds of Calvinists, and not ONE humble one in the bunch.

Secondly, the SCRIPTURAL doctrine of predestination states that I am predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ because I "FIRST BELIEVED."  The Calvinists problem is that he cannot separate soveriegnty, forknowledge, and omniscience from PREDETERMINATION, which, of course, is not SCRIPTURAL at all.  God inhabits eternity, I inhabit the dispensation of time...God chose me in eternity because I FIRST (he was there all the time...omnipresent across the time-space continuim) chose him.  This is, of course, completely explained in the first 14 verses of Eph. 1...the passage where the calvinists JERKS a verse or two out of context to create his false doctrine.  God repeats "after that I FIRST believed" for a reason...I am supposed to pay attention to repetition!

 

Below is a quote place in our bulletin for next Sunday, & from what I have seen in my past its quite true. When you try to show those who hold to the TULIP doctrine where they're wrong, it seems many of the do get angry.

 

"When a man is wrong and want admit it, he always gets angry."
 
And I must admit I have been guilty of this too having to eat crow because I was in error with someone pointing it out & did not like for it to be pointed out. But after eating my crow & admitting I was in error to all concerned yet more especially to my Lord, them getting on the proper course I felt much better.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

 

Below is a quote place in our bulletin for next Sunday, & from what I have seen in my past its quite true. When you try to show those who hold to the TULIP doctrine where they're wrong, it seems many of the do get angry.

 

"When a man is wrong and want admit it, he always gets angry."
 
And I must admit I have been guilty of this too having to eat crow because I was in error with someone pointing it out & did not like for it to be pointed out. But after eating my crow & admitting I was in error to all concerned yet more especially to my Lord, them getting on the proper course I felt much better.

 

Me too. But read my comment on Dave's thread here 

 

After enduring some of the non sense on the "Baptist" Board, I'd take disagreements with Jerry anyday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Below is a quote place in our bulletin for next Sunday, & from what I have seen in my past its quite true. When you try to show those who hold to the TULIP doctrine where they're wrong, it seems many of the do get angry.

 

"When a man is wrong and want admit it, he always gets angry."
 
And I must admit I have been guilty of this too having to eat crow because I was in error with someone pointing it out & did not like for it to be pointed out. But after eating my crow & admitting I was in error to all concerned yet more especially to my Lord, them getting on the proper course I felt much better.

 

 

To clarify, I'm not angry because you've disagreed with me. I face disagreement all the time. I live in a world where my religious views are routinely mocked and marginalized, where my politcal views are mocked and marginalized by the sam people who expect me to pay them money, where our decision to homeschool makes people question our parenting judgement, etc.

 

If mere disagreements made me angry, I'd have surely died from a stroke from the high blood pressure by now.

 

I'm not angry that we disagree. I'm offended that the Arminians here are expressing their disagreements in such a hostile, dishonest, and, frankly, obnoxious way.

 

It's funny, but every couple of weeks, I'm called before a board of pastors, elders, and teachers with more than 200 years of ministry experience between them to give an account of everything I've taught or preached during that time. If anybody would have the right to look down their noses at me, it's them. And yet, none of them have greeted me by making accusations against my character, or by calling me a heretic or a troll.

 

No, they're all very respectful and polite and, as a result, we find our discussions to be very edifying and enjoyable.

 

Where you all would say, "You haven't told us what you believe about X or how you arrived at that conclusion, we're going to go ahead and label you a heretic", they would say something along the lines of "Mike, I noticed that on such and such a date, you said "________'. Tell me about that. How did you arrive at that? How do you believe that jibes with ________". Or maybe, "I'm a little concerned about something you said. Verse so and so says ______ and historically, the  Church has interpreted that to mean ________. Have you considered that you might be wrong for this reason".

 

Nary an ad hom, straw man, or name calling in the bunch. Maybe I just set my expectations a little high here. Maybe I just assumed that because we are brothers in Christ (and this is before I knew you considered us heretics, of course) that I could expect a little better from you guys. Now, of course, "Dr" James Ach and UkuleleMike will respond with their tu quoques, but it is what it is. You guys clearly don't think much of us and I clearly overestimated you.  

 

So there we are.

 

So, no, I'm not angry that you disagree. I'm not really angry at all. More than anything, I think I'm hurt and disappointed that a bunch of Christians are behaving so much like the world.

Edited by Auburn88
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

Below is a quote place in our bulletin for next Sunday, & from what I have seen in my past its quite true. When you try to show those who hold to the TULIP doctrine where they're wrong, it seems many of the do get angry.

 

"When a man is wrong and want admit it, he always gets angry."
 
And I must admit I have been guilty of this too having to eat crow because I was in error with someone pointing it out & did not like for it to be pointed out. But after eating my crow & admitting I was in error to all concerned yet more especially to my Lord, them getting on the proper course I felt much better.

 

I don't care what anyone says, but Calvinism is false, and it is not necessary to defend why, simply refer the arguer to read the Bible without any denominational bias or in the light of men's books they have read. The doctrine of salvation is one of the simplest doctrines in the Bible!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...