Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Shadowfeathers

Errors of Calvanism

Recommended Posts

1

“EORRORS OF CALVANISM”

 

  • Doctrine originated by a man – Did not begin with John Calvin, (1509 – 1564)

  • It began with “Augustine” - (354-429)

  • It flourished under Calvin who greatly showed his influence in Catholicism, the Presbyterian church and the Church of Christ, as with others.

  • Calvanism claims that the Bible itself is the true source of this religious system.

  • His background was Roman Catholicism, from which his doctrine was greatly influenced, rather than from the Bible.

 

2

Five points of Calvanism

  • Came about actually 50 years after the death of Calvin.

  • These five points were first set forth in order as an expression of opposition to the five points of Arminianism.

  • Calvanism hangs deeply on the doctrine of “Election” - meaning; God choses some to be saved, and others to be lost, and also the doctrine of “Sovereignty” - but does not reveal the reason why.

  • Calvanism has been summed up by the acrostic T-U-L-I-P.

 

3

T-U-L-I-P

  • T – Total depravity

  • U – Unconditional election

  • L – Limited atonement

  • I – Irresistible grace

  • P – perseverance of the saints

 

4

“Amenian doctrine”

  • 1 – Conditional election and reprobation, in opposition to the absolute predestination taught by Calvin.

  • 2 – Universal redemption, or that the atonement was made by Christ for all mankind, though none but believers can be partakers of the benefit.

  • 3 – That man, in order to exercise true faith, must be regenerated and renewed by the operation of the Holy Spirit which is the gift of God.

  • 4 – That man may resist divine grace.

  • 5 – That man may relapse from a state of grace – in opposition to Calvin's doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.

  • Wesleyans of Great Britain and Methodists of America are Armenian.

 

5

The Contrasts

Armenian = A, Calvanism = C

Depravity: A – Man is depraved, lost, guilty, but has been helped so that he can believe if he will.

Depravity: C – Man is totally depraved. He is dead. Depravity indicates inability.

Man's will is not free, but enslaved by sin.

 

I am a Biblicist, not Calvanist or Arminian. I believe the Bible as Authority, Not John Calvin or Jacobus Arminus.

 

6

Election

  • A – God elected those whom He foresaw would believe.

  • C – God's election rested solely in His own sovereign will. It is not based on anything foreseen in man.

  • Redemption

  • A – Christ died to provide salvation for all. Those who believe will be saved.

  • C – Christ died to provide salvation for all and to secure and guarantee salvation for the elect. Faith is necessary to salvation, and faith is certain since the means as well as the end are secured. This is known as particular redemption and sometimes called limited atonement (a poor term).

 

7

Obedience

  • A – Man can obey the gospel call or disobey and reject. God's grace is not invincible, but can be and often is rejected and thwarted by man.

  • C – Man can obey the gospel called or disobey, but God makes certain that the inward call to the elect is willingly obeyed. God's plan of election is invincible and will not be thwarted.

  • Security

  • A – Believers can lose their salvation. (Armenius was uncertain about this.)

  • C – True believers (elect) are eternally secure.

 

8

Questions of Mystery!

  • How can God be sovereign and how can man be responsible?

  • How can there be responsibility without ability?

  • How can limits be placed on an infinite sacrifice?

  • Great preachers have strongly emphasized both divine sovereignty and human responsibility.

  • You might be surprised that C. H. Spurgeon leaned toward Calvanism, although he strongly disagreed with the doctrine of limited atonement.

 

9

TOTALLY DEPRAVITY

  • The phrases of Calvanism appear nowhere in the scriptures – Gen. To Rev.

  • Depravity equals inability. Man, being dead, does not have to ability to believe, or call on God for salvation.

  • This necessitates both Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace.

  • From the canons of Dort declare: “Therefore all men. . .without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit. . .are neither able nor willing to return to God. . .nor to dispose themselves to reformation.

  • This statement is an expression of human opinion without biblical support.

  • Question: How is it that a person is unwilling to do what he is unable to do?

 

 

10

The Bible teaches that man is morally corrupt (Jer. 17:9. Rom. 3:10-18).

That he is dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1).

That he is spiritually blind (1 Cor. 2:14).

But is does not teach that man cannot respond to the Gospel.

Just the opposite, the Bible teaches that Christ gives light to every man, (Jn. 1:9)

He draws all men to himself (Jn 12:32),

He convicts men through the Holy Spirit (Jn 16:8).

God calls men to salvation through the gospel, (2 Thes. 2:14),

And He has ordained that the gospel be preached to every creature (Mk. 16:15).

 

11

Unconditional Election

  • They teach that some are elected by God to go to heaven, and others are elected by God to go to hell.

  • They use Jn 6:37 - “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”

  • But vs 40 explains vs 37. It is God's will that every one that believes on Christ will be saved.

  • The ones that the Father gives to the Son are those who believe on Him.

 

12

They use Jn. 6:44

  • “No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

  • A threefold problem: 1 – Christ said He would draw all men to Himself (Jn. 12:32, 1:9)

  • 2 – The Bible says God desires all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-4, 2 Pet. 3:9), those who are rejected are those who reject the truth and do not believe. (2 Thes. 2:10, 12)

  • 3 – God draws men through the gospel (2 Thes. 2:14, and the gospel is to preached to every man. (Mk. 16:15)

 

13

They use Acts 13:48

  • “And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord; and as man as were ordained to eternal life believed.”

  • But verse 46 explains: “Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.”

  • It was because they did not believe, not because they were not chosen.

  • Calvanism confuses such words as: Election, Predestination, and foreordained.

  • It is man who “elects” to believe. It is God who predestines all who do believe, to eternal life. It is God who, in His foreknowledge, knows who will believe, and thus foreordains them to eternal life. (Jn. 3:16)

  • Belief is the key word: (1 Pet. 2:6, Jn. 11:25, Jn. 6:47, Mk. 16:16, Jn. 3:36, Jn. 3:15-18).

  • Call is another key word: (Rom. 10:13)

 

 

 

14

Limited Atonement

  • God loves all men (Jn. 3:16)

  • God desires all men to be saved (2 Pet. 3:9)

  • God has commanded that the gospel be preached to every person (Mk. 16:15)

  • Jesus was a ransom for all men (1 Tim. 2:6)

  • Jesus tasted death for all men (Heb. 2:9)

  • Jesus provided propitiation for all men (1 Jn. 2:2)

  • Jesus bought even unsaved false teachers (2 Pet. 2:1)

  • The iniquity of all men was laid on Jesus (Isa. 53:6)

  • If the first part of Isa. 53:6 is universal, the second part can not be limited.

 

15

Irresistible Grace

 

  • It is clear that God extends Grace to all men, but it is man who rejected that Grace.

 

 

  • The world before the flood: (Gen. 6:3)

 

 

 

 

16

Perseverance of the Saints

  • This, of course, means that one has to persevere in order to stay saved. It is a denial of “eternal security”.

  • A denial of eternal security, means that salvation depends on man to hold out, rather upon God who gives it. In other words: Eternal does not mean eternal, etc. and grace is not grace.

  • Eph. 2: 8-9 – We are saved through faith (believing), by the grace of God – not of ourselves.

  • Faith comes before salvation, (man responds to the conviction of the Holy Spirit, by grace).

  • Faith comes through hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.

 

17

A Summary

  • If God elects only certain ones to be saved and others to be lost; if one cannot resist the Grace of God, if there is a limit on the atonement made by Christ; there would be no need for Missionaries, no need for the church, no need for preaching the gospel, no need for the great commission, no need for visitation programs, no need for soul-winning, no need for repenting, no need for study the word, no need for printing and handing out tracts, no need for believing.

  • And God would be lying when he says: “Whosoever will may come”. And, “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

  • Most Calvanist are probably saved, but just confused on the Scriptures.

 

 

 

Edited by Shadowfeathers
I copy paste lesson came from my Pastor just to share with y'all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shadowfeathers said:

1

“EORRORS OF CALVANISM”

 

  • Doctrine originated by a man – Did not begin with John Calvin, (1509 – 1564)

  • It began with “Augustine” - (354-429)

  • It flourished under Calvin who greatly showed his influence in Catholicism, the Presbyterian church and the Church of Christ, as with others.

  • Calvanism claims that the Bible itself is the true source of this religious system.

  • His background was Roman Catholicism, from which his doctrine was greatly influenced, rather than from the Bible.

Quick response to the first five points, which I assume are a summary of the rest of it:

1 & 2. Saying the doctrine originated by a man just begs the question. Ultimately we're asking whether its true and Biblical, right? If it is then by definition it's from God. If it isn't, then by definition it's from man (or you could argue Satan but for the purposes of discussion there's no difference). So saying the doctrine is man-made is a conclusion, not an argument.

3. This is just attacking the person, or a guilt by association argument--think boffins call it an 'ad hominem'. The doctrine is either wrong because of its contents or it isn't, and therefore we should be able to judge whether it's Biblical without any necessary reference to who wrote it out. If we want to assume it's wrong because of the credentials of who wrote it, do we start doing that for other things too, e.g. warn against the KJV because of its association with Angicanism?

4 & 5. If the doctrine isn't from the Bible then that's what needs to be shown by comparing it with the Bible. Saying where otherwise it has come from is another--possibly interesting--question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎5‎/‎2015‎ ‎5‎:‎20‎:‎06‎, Alimantado said:

Quick response to the first five points, which I assume are a summary of the rest of it:

1 & 2. Saying the doctrine originated by a man just begs the question. Ultimately we're asking whether its true and Biblical, right? If it is then by definition it's from God. If it isn't, then by definition it's from man (or you could argue Satan but for the purposes of discussion there's no difference). So saying the doctrine is man-made is a conclusion, not an argument.

3. This is just attacking the person, or a guilt by association argument--think boffins call it an 'ad hominem'. The doctrine is either wrong because of its contents or it isn't, and therefore we should be able to judge whether it's Biblical without any necessary reference to who wrote it out. If we want to assume it's wrong because of the credentials of who wrote it, do we start doing that for other things too, e.g. warn against the KJV because of its association with Angicanism?

4 & 5. If the doctrine isn't from the Bible then that's what needs to be shown by comparing it with the Bible. Saying where otherwise it has come from is another--possibly interesting--question.

Actually, I think an ad hominem attack would be like "Calvinism is wrong because Calvin is a jerk who eats worms." In other words, a personal attack that has nothing to do with the issues at hand. However, when dealing with Calvin's theological leanings and manner toward those who disagreed with him, I would say they are quite relevant.

Calvin may have left the RCC, but he acted like a pope, himself-he allowed no disagreement with him, and would imprison, torture, banish and kill those who disagreed with him, or even for lesser things, like being silly. Some kid stuck a bean in some Easter cake, (I don't remember the entire story off the top of my head), and Calvin had him put in prison for a few days. Calvin showed no sign of a Christian spirit of kindness and love-he ruled with an iron fist. So really, when dealing with associations and character, you CAN make some proper associations, and it should not be considered an ad hominem attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

Actually, I think an ad hominem attack would be like "Calvinism is wrong because Calvin is a jerk who eats worms." In other words, a personal attack that has nothing to do with the issues at hand. However, when dealing with Calvin's theological leanings and manner toward those who disagreed with him, I would say they are quite relevant.

Calvin may have left the RCC, but he acted like a pope, himself-he allowed no disagreement with him, and would imprison, torture, banish and kill those who disagreed with him, or even for lesser things, like being silly. Some kid stuck a bean in some Easter cake, (I don't remember the entire story off the top of my head), and Calvin had him put in prison for a few days. Calvin showed no sign of a Christian spirit of kindness and love-he ruled with an iron fist. So really, when dealing with associations and character, you CAN make some proper associations, and it should not be considered an ad hominem attack.

Well, while I'm no fan of strict dictionary definitions, for a term as technical as ad hominem I guess we should come up with one. Here's what my Oxford dictionary says: an argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

I think that definition fits what's going on above. If Calvinism is wrong then it's wrong because it's untrue in of itself, not because of what Calvin was like or what he did or didn't do. The acid test is: if you came across the doctrine but didn't know the author, you would still be able to see that it's in error. Therefore the life of Calvin is irrelevant to whether Calvinism is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alimantado said:

Well, while I'm no fan of strict dictionary definitions, for a term as technical as ad hominem I guess we should come up with one. Here's what my Oxford dictionary says: an argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

I think that definition fits what's going on above. If Calvinism is wrong then it's wrong because it's untrue in of itself, not because of what Calvin was like or what he did or didn't do. The acid test is: if you came across the doctrine but didn't know the author, you would still be able to see that it's in error. Therefore the life of Calvin is irrelevant to whether Calvinism is true.

Well, you are misinterpreting your own Oxford dictionary. The majority of the OP's argument is against the position with anecdotal comments about the source reinforcing the argument against the position. In issues of God and His Truth, the source must be Spiritually evaluated. I John 4 is pretty clear on trying the spirits to see whether they be of God. Allot of spirits out there sound real close but this ain't a game of horseshoes.

Satan comes you tonight with his new ideas about God, I would hope you would consider the source before you dove into the new religion. If a woman pastor writes a book about how to run a church, I would hope you would consider the source before you bought the book, etc....

 

Edited by wretched

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wretched said:

Well, you are misinterpreting your own Oxford dictionary. The majority of the OP's argument is against the position with anecdotal comments about the source reinforcing the argument against the position. In issues of God and His Truth, the source must be Spiritually evaluated. I John 4 is pretty clear on trying the spirits to see whether they be of God. Allot of spirits out there sound real close but this ain't a game of horseshoes.

Satan comes you tonight with his new ideas about God, I would hope you would consider the source before you dove into the new religion. If a woman pastor writes a book about how to run a church, I would hope you would consider the source before you bought the book, etc....

 

On your point about evaluating the source: I actually agree with you. If deciding whether to read the book/argument/doctine at all, it is worth considering the source--you can save yourself time by not considering sources that are discredited. It's also worth it if you know you're gonna have to take the source's word for things you can't individually fact-check yourself, such as a journalist reporting on an event (not the case when we have scripture that we can compare a given doctrine to).

So that's fine, but it isn't what I was addressing. The OP purports to be addressing the "errors" of "Calvinism", and what I take from that is that the OP has read the doctrine and wants to tell us what's wrong with it. Not the source, not the author, but the doctrine.

Now you say I misrepresented. I was very clear about what I did do. I said I had read the first five bullet points and I was addressing those. I didn't claim to have read the rest of the article and I didn't claim to be commenting on it--I was clear that I wasn't.

So, do you still want to claim that I misrepresented the content of those first five points? If so, why don't you quote my original post--the one where I explain my position--and rebut my actual arguments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brethren,

The study on "The Errors of Calvinism," is an excellent article from beginning to ending in every area. The side-tracking of the issue on Calvin, ad horminem itself is, in my estimation, a futile effort to detract, side-tract, and cause a reader to doubt the veracity of the message of the article. The section on Calvin is only a brief, a very brief, background sketch that is instructive in itself.

8 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

Actually, I think an ad hominem attack would be like "Calvinism is wrong because Calvin is a jerk who eats worms." In other words, a personal attack that has nothing to do with the issues at hand. However, when dealing with Calvin's theological leanings and manner toward those who disagreed with him, I would say they are quite relevant.

Calvin may have left the RCC, but he acted like a pope, himself-he allowed no disagreement with him, and would imprison, torture, banish and kill those who disagreed with him, or even for lesser things, like being silly. Some kid stuck a bean in some Easter cake, (I don't remember the entire story off the top of my head), and Calvin had him put in prison for a few days. Calvin showed no sign of a Christian spirit of kindness and love-he ruled with an iron fist. So really, when dealing with associations and character, you CAN make some proper associations, and it should not be considered an ad hominem attack.

Also, the expression of the character of Calvin by Ukellemike, is excellent. Calvin was a Protestant Pope. Calvin had no grace or other Christian vitues in his life. Anybody who followes Calvin, or his works, is following a deluded individual who taught heretical doctrines, anti-semitic, had a filthy mouth (used curse words and had a demeaning vocabulary), and will be held accountable for blood on his hands. John Calvin was the instigatior of the death of Michael Servetus (another heretic). Here is a link: http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/michael-servetus.htm John Calvin has the blood of men on his hands.

Again, I want  to publicly commend Shadowfeathers sharing the excellent article on, "The Errors of Calvinism," by her pastor. It my estimation not one word of the article, "The Errors of Calvinism," should be changed or altered. In fact, I would suggest that all of the brethren copy the article, use it in church teaching services and promote it among the brethren.

Alan

Edited by Alan
grammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Alan said:

The study on "The Errors of Calvinism," is an excellent article from beginning to ending in every area. The side-tracking of the issue on Calvin, ad horminem itself is, in my estimation, a futile effort to detract, side-tract, and cause a reader to doubt the veracity of the message of the article. The section on Calvin is only a brief, a very brief, background sketch that is instructive in itself.

Alan, I see in your comment above that you've made an assertion about my motives. You say I've attempted to "detract" from the article by introducing a side issue, as if I'm trying to bury the article and discourage the author.

What I did was begin at the beginning and give the author (or the OP) some feedback on their opening statements. I took pains to point out that I was doing no more than this, that I hadn't read all the article, and that I'd assumed the first five points were a summary of the rest--the reason being that articles do often begin by introducing the content that is to follow.

My motive was to give constructive feedback to the author/OP, and looking back over my original response I still think this intent is apparent from the tone and content.

Shadowfeathers could have responded with something like: "Please read on because the opening points don't actually cover the scope of the article. Since you thought they did, I might move them further down and put an introduction at the top, so thanks for the feedback!" Or something similar, which is what I would have done. I say this not to criticise Shadowfeathers--who has been polite throughout--but only to point out that an adversarial response to my words wasn't necessary.

It seems to be the mode of the forum these days: I try to give some constructive feedback and Alan paints it as if I'm doing a hatchet job to discourage and confound. And for the avoidance of doubt I think Calvinism/reformed doctrine is untrue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alimantado said:

 And for the avoidance of doubt I think Calvinism/reformed doctrine is untrue.

I do appreciate your last point very highly. Thank you for letting us know you position.

It seems to me that the lesson needs to be taken as a whole and not as a part. The first section, pertaining to Augustine and Calvin, was more a brief review of the main proponants of Calvinism which was necessary for the entire lesson. The lesson whould be incomplete without the introduction. And, in my opinion, since the doctrine of TULIP is a man-made doctrine, the individuals must be recognized as Paul clearly tells us in Romans 16;17, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

The writer of the article was the pastor of Shadowfeathers. And, he performed his obedience to the command of Paul to the letter and appropriatly. Also, as Ukelemike pointed out that it was relevant in bringing out the character of the individual who promoted this false doctrine. I also feel, whether wrong, or right, that I was appropriate in my response as it did detract from the article itself. Nor, did I mention you in particular but I mentioned the method of detracting from the thrust of the lesson.

Permit me to explain my motives. The method of using one small section of a lesson to throw doubt on the whole lesson is a common practice to detract from the main points. That is a common practice.

Edited by Alan
grammer and added phrase

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After I finished the lastpost this thought came into mind. Maybe, just maybe, this may be a good time, and opportunity, since we have discussed the first point ad nauseam,  to discuss the remainder points of the lesson? It may help any rancor that has developed andmaybe we can move onto more edifying thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Alan said:

I also feel, whether wrong, or right, that I was appropriate in my response as it did detract from the article itself. Nor, did I mention you in particular but I mentioned the method of detracting from the thrust of the lesson.

Firstly I object to it being called a 'detraction', which means to belittle or denigrate. Like I said before, I was trying to provide constructive criticism. You may diagree with the criticism, but that doesn't per se mean I was belittling anyone (and it's obvious from the tone of my post that I was not). And yes you did mention me because you labelled the matter a "futile effort to detract", and so by talking about effort you were talking about motive--my motive, because obviously I was the one who brought the matter up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alan said:

Permit me to explain my motives. The method of using one small section of a lesson to throw doubt on the whole lesson is a common practice to detract from the main points. That is a common practice.

Sorry, I missed this last bit. The problem with accusing me of doing that (and you are accusing me, since you're talking about motive), is that I really clearly said in my first post that it was only a "quick response" to the "first few points". Now, I did say that I assumed those points were a summary of the rest of the article--but that wasn't me trying to cast doubt. On the contrary that was me admitting loud and clear that I hadn't checked, a "correct me if I'm wrong" statement, if you will. Had I wanted to mislead others into not reading the rest, I would've pretended that I had read all of it and was commenting on all of it.

And had you just told me that my assumption is wrong, and moreover my points are invalid because of reasons A,B,C I would've been fine with that--points taken and thanks for the correction. But instead you went further...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Alimantado said:

Well, while I'm no fan of strict dictionary definitions, for a term as technical as ad hominem I guess we should come up with one. Here's what my Oxford dictionary says: an argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

I think that definition fits what's going on above. If Calvinism is wrong then it's wrong because it's untrue in of itself, not because of what Calvin was like or what he did or didn't do. The acid test is: if you came across the doctrine but didn't know the author, you would still be able to see that it's in error. Therefore the life of Calvin is irrelevant to whether Calvinism is true.

I agree on the definition. I guess my point being, in matters of biblical doctrine, we must, as well, consider the character of the person who is putting forth such doctrines, to aid us. Its true that we can know doctrine is false regardless of whether we know who the author is, And really, its best that way, so we can be careful not to be lulled into careless appraisal of doctrine because we know the person and trust them. Case in point, someone showed me a sermon done by Spurgeon, (not on Calvinism), where he called Michael the Archangel, Jesus Christ. Now, while I disagree with Spurgeon on his Calvinist views, (though at least he believed strongly in witnessing), I generally agree in other areas. So that he would make such a statement was jarring, and his stamp of approval, as it were, on a false doctrine, could lure others into such falsehoods.

 In Calvin's case, we know from history that he was a wicked man with no grace, no compassion, no tolerance for anyone who held a belief different from his own-this is not to say that we ignore other doctrines and just get along, but he wasn't willing to really search the scriptures-he had his doctrine, his box for God, and rather than repudiate what he disagreed with, he would use force and torture to make others follow. Not godly. So, his life and character help, because can a man who shows no sign of regeneration, be trusted in ANY of his doctrines? If he has no leading of the Spirit in his daily walk, can we trust him to have it in his understanding of scripture?

That's all I'm saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ukulelemike said:

I agree on the definition. I guess my point being, in matters of biblical doctrine, we must, as well, consider the character of the person who is putting forth such doctrines, to aid us. Its true that we can know doctrine is false regardless of whether we know who the author is, And really, its best that way, so we can be careful not to be lulled into careless appraisal of doctrine because we know the person and trust them. Case in point, someone showed me a sermon done by Spurgeon, (not on Calvinism), where he called Michael the Archangel, Jesus Christ. Now, while I disagree with Spurgeon on his Calvinist views, (though at least he believed strongly in witnessing), I generally agree in other areas. So that he would make such a statement was jarring, and his stamp of approval, as it were, on a false doctrine, could lure others into such falsehoods.

 In Calvin's case, we know from history that he was a wicked man with no grace, no compassion, no tolerance for anyone who held a belief different from his own-this is not to say that we ignore other doctrines and just get along, but he wasn't willing to really search the scriptures-he had his doctrine, his box for God, and rather than repudiate what he disagreed with, he would use force and torture to make others follow. Not godly. So, his life and character help, because can a man who shows no sign of regeneration, be trusted in ANY of his doctrines? If he has no leading of the Spirit in his daily walk, can we trust him to have it in his understanding of scripture?

That's all I'm saying. 

Very good points Mike--what immediately puts us on common ground is your statement that the character of the person can be analysed as well as the doctrines they put forth. I assumed the article wasn't going to do that--a wrong assumption, as Alan and Wretched have pointed out. In hindsight I can see I treated the original post as an article, where you might expect an introduction outlining the scope, instead of a set of sermon notes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Alimantado said:

Firstly I object to it being called a 'detraction', which means to belittle or denigrate. Like I said before, I was trying to provide constructive criticism. You may diagree with the criticism, but that doesn't per se mean I was belittling anyone (and it's obvious from the tone of my post that I was not). And yes you did mention me because you labelled the matter a "futile effort to detract", and so by talking about effort you were talking about motive--my motive, because obviously I was the one who brought the matter up.

Here is, American Heritage Dictionary meaning of, 'detract.' "To take away (from); divert:" And, that was the meaning that I had in my post. 'Detract does not mean to belittle or denigrate, nor did I have that meaning in my post. Nor did I mention you, nor mention anything that belittled you. I really think you misunderstood the meaning and my usage of the word detract. I cannot stop what you think, but, I want to clarify what the word 'detract' means and how I used it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alan said:

Here is, American Heritage Dictionary meaning of, 'detract.' "To take away (from); divert:" And, that was the meaning that I had in my post. 'Detract does not mean to belittle or denigrate, nor did I have that meaning in my post. Nor did I mention you, nor mention anything that belittled you. I really think you misunderstood the meaning and my usage of the word detract. I cannot stop what you think, but, I want to clarify what the word 'detract' means and how I used it.

OED says it means to diminish the worth of, and the top synonym is 'belittle'. You know what you meant by it, of course, but I'm highly skeptical that you only meant the equivalent of 'distract' because of the way you used the term:

"... a futile effort to detract..."

"Permit me to explain my motives. The method of using one small section of a lesson to throw doubt on the whole lesson is a common practice to detract from the main points."

You don't have to say my name to mention me. Arguments and 'methods' don't have motives. People do. By saying things like "futile attempt" and "throw doubt", you are accusing someone of acting improperly, since that's exactly what those phrases mean. And since I'm the one who wrote the post you're talking about, then it's obvious you mean me.

It's equivalent to me making some statement about a certain someone who's username refers to an instrument and has a picture of a goat for their avatar, but when challenged insisting that I wasn't talking about Ukelemike because I hadn't actually said his name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2015‎年‎11‎月‎5‎日‎ ‎上午‎, Shadowfeathers said:

The Contrasts

Armenian = A, Calvanism = C

Depravity: A – Man is depraved, lost, guilty, but has been helped so that he can believe if he will.

Depravity: C – Man is totally depraved. He is dead. Depravity indicates inability.

Man's will is not free, but enslaved by sin.

 

I am a Biblicist, not Calvanist or Arminian. I believe the Bible as Authority, Not John Calvin or Jacobus Arminus.

I really appreciate point # 5, 'The Contrasts."

Especially when it was mentioned, "I am  a biblicast, not Calvinist or Arminian. I believe the Bible as Authority, Not John Calvin or Jacobus Arminus."

This is a good, biblical postion and I agree with it wholeheartedly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Alan said:

I guess we both have our opinions on the matter. As I stated before, let us move on to the other points in this fine lesson.

Whatever you meant by detract, that you accused me of improper conduct with my original post is a fact, not an opinion:

"Permit me to explain my motives. The method of using one small section of a lesson to throw doubt on the whole lesson is a common practice to detract from the main points. That is a common practice."

You're saying my original post was a deliberate smokescreen to stop people from reading the rest of the article. That's completely untrue, but since you don't withrdraw it then that means you stand by it.

For any others reading: I've been very happy to get UkeleMike's response to my response, I consider that exhange a constructive contribution to the OP and I'm looking forward to reading comments on the rest of the OP.

Share this post


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.

Loading...

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...