What are the strong points of the Reformed system

[Fundamental Faith]

On 3/18/2017 at 11:41 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

1. We are to "give a reason for the hope within us". That's not debating, it's not explaining, and it's not answering. It's stating a fact as it relays to what we know to be true in our lives...not theirs.
2.  

can you explain to me then Apollos in Acts 18? shows him confuting the Jews, no mention of anyone being saved....

How abut Paul in chapter 9?.....

On 3/18/2017 at 11:41 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

1.  

Did Paul debate. Yes...it appears so. Am I Paul? No. Did I spend three years in desert isolation like Paul being trained by the Lord? No. 

So either you just deified Paul or you are you are denying responsibility for the Gospel that has been entrusted to the Church....So, what is it?

On 3/18/2017 at 11:41 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

1.  

I can't "prove" there's a God to them any more than they can prove evolution to me. In most cases that I've been involved in with debating atheists, it's one of two things...or it's both. 1. It's an argument, or 2. It's an intellectual exercise.

 

You don't need to prove, they already know.(Acts 1:18)you have to expose their worldview for what it is. that's the prove. That's the Gospel.

 

On 3/18/2017 at 11:41 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

1.  

So now, I do what God's word says for me to do. I give a reason for the hope within me, and I share the gospel...all while being sure to include God's word. I then leave it up to the Holy Spirit to do his part. He will use God's word to convict them of sin, righteousness, and judgment to come.

 

Good, so you agree with Scripture that the Reformers teach. That it is God that gives life, it's not a choice...it's repentance. 2Tim 2:25 in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth

[Bob from England]

Reply to FF: You really need to adopt a more balanced approach, dear brother. God does give life, and He does work in people and so on, but we need to turn to Him.

Throughout the Bible we see this balance of God and man co-operating together, God drawing and man responding.  If God can make people saved without our free will then verses like John 5 v 40 would not make sense.  In this verse Jesus chides people for refusing to come to Him; if God can make them come to Him, then that rebuke would have been redundant. 

[No Nicolaitans]

1 hour ago, Fundamental Faith said:

can you explain to me then Apollos in Acts 18? 

Yes.

How abut Paul in chapter 9?.....

Yes.

So either you just deified Paul or you are you are denying responsibility for the Gospel that has been entrusted to the Church....So, what is it?

I fear you missed the point.

You don't need to prove, they already know.(Acts 1:18)you have to expose their worldview for what it is. that's the prove. That's the Gospel.

No. That's not the gospel. Please see 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

Good, so you agree with Scripture that the Reformers teach.

I clearly stated that the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment to come. 

That it is God that gives life, it's not a choice...it's repentance. 2Tim 2:25 in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth

Repentance for what? Have you read the next verse? 

There. I've answered your questions. Please refrain from any further interrogation of me. Thank you.

[Fundamental Faith]

26 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

There. I've answered your questions. Please refrain from any further interrogation of me. Thank you.

 

26 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

There. I've answered your questions. Please refrain from any further interrogation of me. Thank you.

You have done nothing if the sort. Matter of fact, you admitted you gave up! Why? You gave up on God? Did Jesus lie when he said he would give us words to confound our enemies? Do you believe God is the very foundation of wisdom?

or did the atheist defeat you? Did they confound you with their smooth speech? Or is Proverbs 26:5 a lie?

I'm not interrogating anybody. I just see a lot of assertions being made with no explanation to anything. You didn't explain Paul and Apollos, you just said you weren't them. We are told to contend for the faith, to earnestly contend.

would you be passionate if I went on an anti KJV tirade? I think you would.

[Bob from England]

Appeal to the moderators

I rather think that the tone of Fundamental Faith's posts on this matter are getting too personal, and even ungracious.  I, therefore, submit that, in my view the moderators should intervene.

I do not make these comments lightly, but it seems that an intervention is called for.

[No Nicolaitans]

36 minutes ago, Fundamental Faith said:

 

You have done nothing if the sort. Matter of fact, you admitted you gave up! Why? You gave up on God? Did Jesus lie when he said he would give us words to confound our enemies? Do you believe God is the very foundation of wisdom?

or did the atheist defeat you? Did they confound you with their smooth speech? Or is Proverbs 26:5 a lie?

I'm not interrogating anybody. I just see a lot of assertions being made with no explanation to anything. You didn't explain Paul and Apollos, you just said you weren't them. We are told to contend for the faith, to earnestly contend.

would you be passionate if I went on an anti KJV tirade? I think you would.

Sir, you asked if I could explain Apollos and Paul. I answered your questions.

I didn't "give up"; I had nothing to "give up" from. You're the only one in this conversation that's trying to debate.

Did which atheist defeat me? To whom are you referring? 

Why are we to contend for the faith? Why did Jude write that; what was his reason? Who are we to contend against? 

You are interrogating. In fact, you're also trying to debate me. I no longer debate. As you said, I made assertions. If you don't agree with my assertions, that's okay with me. 

If you want to go on an anti-KJV tirade, you have that prerogative...and no, I won't react passionately.

Again, please refrain from interrogating me any further. This is the second admonition. I won't respond again.

[Fundamental Faith]

I'm not debating, I'm not trying to do anything. 

Im sorry if you took it as such, I just wanted an answer, a detailed answer as to why you wouldn't explain what Apollos and Paul did wouldn't be considered debating and why intellectualism is frowned upon.

i won't engage any further with you.

Edited March 19, 2017 by Fundamental Faith

[Fundamental Faith]

2 hours ago, The real Bob Hutton said:

 

Throughout the Bible we see this balance of God and man co-operating together, God drawing and man responding.  If God can make people saved without our free will then verses like John 5 v 40 would not make sense.  In this verse Jesus chides people for refusing to come to Him; if God can make them come to Him, then that rebuke would have been redundant. 

Not true, because in chapter 6 Christ says that that all He has the Father gave Him, keep reading in chapter 5, Christ explains why those people wouldn't come to Him, because they are not His. Chapter 5 and 6 are in context, one of the strongest points of Calvinism, those are the points that you are looking for in the OP.

[heartstrings]

You know, sir. You conveyed to us that this subject was "troubling" to you. But more and more It looks like you want to push this doctrine for some reason. If that isn't correct forgive me.. About Apollos: Four things jump out at me. This man Apollos was eloquent and knowledgable in the scriptures, but BEFORE he could help anyone else or "mightily convince the Jews" he had had to have the "Way of God more perfectly" "expounded unto him". People here will try to expound the way of God more perfectly to you as well, but you must be willing to listen.

 

⁴ And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

²⁵ This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

²⁶ And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

²⁷ And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:

²⁸ For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

 

[Fundamental Faith]

4 hours ago, heartstrings said:

You know, sir. You conveyed to us that this subject was "troubling" to you. But more and more It looks like you want to push this doctrine for some reason. If that isn't correct forgive me.. About Apollos: Four things jump out at me. This man Apollos was eloquent and knowledgable in the scriptures, but BEFORE he could help anyone else or "mightily convince the Jews" he had had to have the "Way of God more perfectly" "expounded unto him". People here will try to expound the way of God more perfectly to you as well, but you must be willing to listen.

 

I think the people who need to listen are no doing so. Their is more church history that goes all the way back to the early church with Reformed theology than the current state of American Dispensationalism, and it's not just Calvinism. The current culture here on this site has proven in this very thread that scholarly discussion or any form of intellectualism is frowned upon.

Do you  really think that the early church fathers were idiots? I'm not pushing any agenda here. I'm just trying to justify and rationalize what I see in Scripture. I see God having us to use our minds and our intelligence in serving Him, having an answer for anyone who asks us. How can you have an answer or some deep tjoughts if you are eveading a segment of society? These college kids that my son talks to are really on the ball and you better have an answer and be able to compete with their professors or they will just ignore you. 

Im very proud of my son for doing what he does. He has left his mother and I and has established his own way. He hasn't run into the world but has remained faithful. I actually have learned much from him in this way 

[DaveW]

Appealing to "early church fathers" for support is not "Justifying and rationalising what I see in Scripture", it is following the teachings of men.

"early church fathers" were men - not some sort of higher power with greater understanding that men today.

And many of the so called "early church fathers" were plainly wrong in much of what they taught.

Augustine for instance was a mystic who was part of the early CATHOLIC church - hardly a man to follow in theological discussion.

The arguments should be ENTIRELY FROM SCRIPTURE without appealing to what "Early church fathers" taught.

I will not take part in the general discussions of this thread, but I will point out this kind of irrelevant information put forward as "proof" of veracity of the doctrines.

 

I could just as easily show men of old times who disagree with you, but so what? "What saith the Scripture?" is what really matters.

[Orval]

I am still dealing with some issues from last week but as I read the thread I see a couple of things I would like to address. 

First and foremost FF you have not posted what you feel are the strongest two points of Reformed doctrine.  To my eye, (this is merely an observation) you are a Calvinist trying to pass yourself off as an IFB person who wants to listen but what you seem to be looking for is a platform to challenge the brethren and simultaneously present your doctrine, if this is true you are being dishonest from the beginning which should not be the case.  If this is true it is a far cry from simply gathering information.  Secondly as one of the posters mentioned your constant alluding to the ancient writers from an intellectual standpoint will not gain you any advantage in discussion.  This is a common ploy used in debating, striving for points by forcing the opponent  to respond to superfluous quotes of people and books the other side has not read.  This is not a debate and there will be no points given for overwhelming another poster with a myriad of references.   

This should not be a prideful confrontation simply state your points and why you believe they are the strongest points of T.U.L.I.P.  I will attempt to respond to your reasoning and show that it is incorrect.  To do this I will need to know a couple of things about your interpretation method.  Are you allegorical in your interpretation or are you literal?  Do you believe in replacement theology, by replacement theology do you believe that the church and Israel are partakers of the covenant relationship with God? 

I believe in a literal, grammatical, historical, contextual method of interpretation.  I do not believe that the church shares a covenant relationship with the Jews and God though I do believe in a New Covenant.

Lets stay on topic and have a good discussion. 

Its late I am going to bed.

[Bob from England]

I would like to make a further appeal to the moderators to step in and deal with this situation.

It is clear that "Fundamental Faith" is not interested in a reasoned discussion, but is pushing an agenda to the point of being ungracious and confrontational.  In my view this militates against the whole purpose of a discussion forum.

Thank you.

[DaveW]

1 hour ago, The real Bob Hutton said:

I would like to make a further appeal to the moderators to step in and deal with this situation.

It is clear that "Fundamental Faith" is not interested in a reasoned discussion, but is pushing an agenda to the point of being ungracious and confrontational.  In my view this militates against the whole purpose of a discussion forum.

Thank you.

G'day Bob,

A couple of points:

1. You have already made the point - the Mods will have been made aware by your previous post and will be watching things.  This post is not necessary.

2. There is a better way. There is a flag under the heading of each post (if viewing on mobile - can't remember right now how it looks on pc) which is to report a post.  This gives you space to write your reasons for reporting and it is sent to the mod group, so you can be certain that they will see it.

 

The mods here are pretty good, and whilst I personally do not disagree with you, the mods will have had a discussion and I assume at this stage have decided to watch but not act.

Just for your info.

Regards,

Dave

[Orval]

2 hours ago, The real Bob Hutton said:

I would like to make a further appeal to the moderators to step in and deal with this situation.

It is clear that "Fundamental Faith" is not interested in a reasoned discussion, but is pushing an agenda to the point of being ungracious and confrontational.  In my view this militates against the whole purpose of a discussion forum.

Thank you.

Bob, why would you wish to close down this thread?  Open discussion is a practical and reasonable approach to sharpening both our understanding and our personal presentation of truth.  I would caution each of us to not make this discussion a prideful post of contention but a reasonable exchange of thoughts and ideas.  Calvinism i.e. Reformed theology is not going away and though we do not agree with the theology that does not mean we should not understand it and be able to defend our own position.  We should not just close our eyes and call foul because we disagree with one another poster, if the posts are contentious exercise spiritual discernment and walk away fro the post it will die with fuel. 

I am not calling you out on your posts but simply calling you to consider what I believe to be a more excellent way to respond.

 

Thanks for reading

Orval