Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Danny Carlton

Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Danny Carlton last won the day on November 13 2021

Danny Carlton had the most liked content!

About Danny Carlton

  • Birthday 12/29/1962

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    Catoosa, Oklahoma
  • Denomination
    Southern Baptist
  • IFB?

Recent Profile Visitors

3,988 profile views

Danny Carlton's Achievements

  1. You understand that the term "COVID cases" refers to individuals who have tested positive using the notoriously faulty COVID test, which produces an abundance of false positives. In addition, many doctors have been bypassing the test and declaring patients as COVID+ (meaning they get more money from the government) based solely on "hunch" rather than any valid form of medical test. The number, therefore, is completely meaningless. You might as well tell us how many unicorns are grazing on the White House lawn. It's all political theater.
  2. Literal. In fact as I listen to Jews like Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager, Don Feder, etc. I see very much how a group of 144,000 Orthodox Jews, realizing that Christianity was right all along, convert and devote their lives to Evangelizing the earth in the midst of a despotic, anti-Christian regime. And an event like the Rapture could logically be the catalyst for such a mass conversion of Christian-friendly Jews like we see today.
  3. This is a good thing. I can't remember how many times on Facebook I got into a discussion and the other person because rude and hateful, only to delete the entire conversation and suddenly I'm finding friends involved unfriending me. Apparently, they deleted the conversation, then lied about what was said.
  4. I think the crux of the problem in regards to -isms, is that rather than starting with Scripture, then applying Logic, we have people embracing slogans and vague concepts and only then trying to fit Scripture and Logic in, and limiting both to what conforms to the original precept. Whether that -ism is Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism or a blind rejection of anything that labels itself Calvinism. Labels can help us identify important aspects of an original document, but too many -isms place the label as more important than the original document, to the degree that the original is tossed and the labels alone remain.
  5. Again, does this definition actually conform to Calvin's writing? I know lots of people who call themselves Calvinists, that believe a lot of varied things regarding the entire ZTULIP thing. Ultimately there are only three opinions that matter: What do I believe is true (which should conform to scripture), what did Calvin himself teach and ultimately, what does the Bible say. It's dangerous to latch onto a raw concept and defend it while disregarding everything else. That's what (who I call) Hyper-Calvinists do. It seems like what you are doing, too. I started this thread to discuss the scriptural backing for Total Depravity. Calvin's teachings themselves come second to that and are ultimately only important in defining what Calvinism is or is not. Whatever Calvinism actually is, is at best secondary to scripture. The concept of TULIP, to me, is useful only as it is defined by scripture, not by Calvinists, Hyper-Calvinists, Ne-Calvinists, Arminians, or any other group. But isn't saying "Faith comes by hearing" similar to "To make a cake you need flour"? Hearing the gospel is a vital ingredient, but not the only ingredient. I agree that the idea that we contribute absolutely nothing to our salvation is flawed in the face of both Scripture as well as Logic (by what, then, is God basing His decision to choose us on?) I'm not saying you're wrong, just pointing out that that verse is part of the answer, but a part Hyper-Calvinists ignore.
  6. So you can know for sure that what people say about him is actually true. Wouldn't you want people to read your writings in the event someone started calling you a heretic? Since it bears his name, it would be logical that true Calvinism would adhere to what John Calvin wrote, not what other people, using him name, claim it means. We certainly don't let just anyone define Christianity. You can't define it, but it's false. Seems to me you've just defined what you claim can't be defined.
  7. Odd that you say it can be defined in many different ways, then proceed to give a definitive definition. I would say that to claim any particular believe is real Calvinism, you'd need to show where in Calvin's Institutes it teaches exactly that. It sounds like you are basing your definition of Calvinism on one or two people, who may or may not actually be true Calvinists. Again, Calvin's Institutes would be the source to go to to find what is or isn't Calvinism, not what some guy said who claimed to be a Calvinist.
  8. The first problem is using the word "Calvinism" to describe things random people say, without regards to how well they line up with what John Calvin himself taught. Whatever label you want to call yourself, we can always find someone, spouting nonsense, under the same label. It doesn't mean that everyone who uses that label believes the exact same. What you seem to be describing as Calvinism actually sounds like Arminianism, the polar opposite theological belief. The believe that we offer absolutely nothing at all to our salvation is in fact Hyper-Calvinism. And is illogical as I describe in the original post.
  9. I can't fly in and of myself, but I can buy a plane ticket and ride in a plane as it flies. (Flying, in this metaphor, being salvation.) Arminians* (if I understand them correctly) seem to agree up to that point that we don't save ourselves, but we choose to "get on the plane". (And, they would argue, we can choose to get back off.) Calvinists, however, take it further and would say, not only can I not fly, I have no money for the ticket, so it must be purchased by someone else. I agree. Going even further, some Calvinists would say that I'm also incapable of walking and must be carried onto the plane. Even this, I can agree with. Going even further, Calvinists would say that the entire idea of flying was introduced to me by someone else, and I wouldn't have even bothered had I not been made excited about the idea. This too, I have no problem with, and agree completely. With each of these scenarios, there remains an element of personal choice, diminishing as it may be, it's still there. So each of these steps within the Calvinist' scenario presume my choice to get on the airplane (just my inability to fly, afford a ticket, actually walk onto the plane or come up with the idea on my own.) Hyper-Calvinists (as I will call them) take it a step further and say even my choice to get on the plane is made by someone else, so, like a 2-year-old, I'm told I will fly on the airplane, am carried to the plane, and placed in my seat and buckled in. In the end, it seems the concept of Total Depravity very much depends on how absolute you define the term "Total". None of my pets could, on their own, go to the vet. If I go outside, open the car door and say, "In!" My dogs, more than likely, would jump into the car, excited to be going somewhere. My cat (when I had one) would need to be crated, in the house, and carried, hissing and spitting to the car and then we could drive to the vet. Thus the distinction between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. I see what we call Calvinism as emphasizing how small our part in our salvation is, while still acknowledging there is at least a small part we play. I am introduced to the idea of salvation. I am encouraged toward the choice. Once made, I am comforted and strengthened by the Holy Spirit in that choice as I grow. The choice places me within the ability to receive the sanctification purchased on the cross. My part seems very trivial and small, but nonetheless, it is still there, as minuscule as it may be. It becomes tempting, when embracing Calvinism, to try to push it further, but that leads to an illogical conclusion, which in the end makes God into a blindfolded guy reaching into a basket of apples, randomly selecting a few. It robs God (metaphorically) of His choice, since without any consideration of our contribution, it logically must be arbitrary and random. *Being unfamiliar with the arguments Arminians make, I'm only assuming I'm representing them accurately here.
  10. Wow, unbelievable. A. Yes, obviously he's going to run. He has to be careful about announcing it, because as soon as he does there are FEC requirements he's bound by. B. The sooner the better. Trump did an awesome job.
  11. The Media like to create that illusion, but in the end it will be the voters that decide. Unlike the DNC, which brazenly cheats, the GOP still relies on the democratic process.
  12. The GOP are not a monolithic group. There are some good people in the rank-and-file as well as in the leadership. The problem is that it's not dominated by one, single, ideological faction, therefore its decision-making processes are a bit hamstrung. When it comes to any group of people, one allowing disagreement is preferable to one which does not.
  13. The GOP isn't as intolerant of diverse ideas as the Democrats are. There is a wide array of viewpoints within the GOP and even in the leadership. Conservatives are still a strong part.
  14. I set up https://SpurgeonsMorningAndEvening.com a few years ago. It's an autoblog that posts twice a day, and also has an email you can sign up for that sends the devotion twice each day. I was really surprised the domain was available. The site gets about 250 visitors a day and there's about the same number of people signed up for the email.
  • Create New...