Danny Carlton

On 12/3/2022 at 11:58 AM, TheGloryLand said:

I know this might sound like a new negative post, but I’ll tell you what I see, it appears that religion and politics, similar in many ways.Looking at the Republican future parties, they are very weak, so as many Baptist churches, and denominations are looking very weak. Christianity seems to be in the minority now, not everywhere, but in the major big cities. Is this prophecy being fulfilled? Are we getting closer to the end times. Some might say yes, we are getting closer to the end of time, and at the same time, there are others that say, we’re still far away. Where do you stand today?

 

Your observation falls in line with another thread pointing out that too much freedom can be bad. Without real persecution (especially for being  a nominal Christian) makes people weak in their faith.

All you have to do is read the book God's Smugglers to see how the ungodly have been trying to wipe out the Bible for a very long time.

https://www.opendoorsusa.org/about-us/history/brother-andrews-story/

I'm trying to remember how many current events I was familiar with when I was a teen? That would be the late 70s. I remember hearing about stupid things Carter was doing and when Reagan became president the whining by Liberals of everything he did. I paid  ore attention when I was in college, but I believe I was a bit more up on the news than my peers in highschool.

I think that Leftists misusing the new media has now backfired and made the younger generation simply mistrust it all, and ignore any and all "news". While this doesn't make them blindly obedient to Leftists, it does leave them oblivious and politically naïve, which still feeds into the Left's plan, since the less people know, they easier they are to manipulate.

I've been getting a lot of requests from people who run ministry sites for help, or data that will allow them to create their own online Bible on their site. So I decided to make it more readily available. I grabbed the domain https://osBible.org which now redirects to my GitHub repository containing a number of MySQL table downloads as well as a few simple scripts for accessing the data. I'll be adding more scripts as I have time. 

3 hours ago, E Morales said:

Looks like COVID cases are on the rise again, for those non believers. 

 

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.

11 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

I find this quite true...especially on the Southern Baptists forum, especially when it comes to their discussion of Calvinism! I don't block people for the most part, but in the past six months on that forum, I've had to block four from the Arminian position, and at least seven from the Calvinist position. I'm a neutral there, and I try to be fair to both sides...but insults, ad hominem attacks, etc., get people blocked now in that particular forum. Christians should know better. I've found some of the same here in this forum, not necessarily over the subject mentioned above...but we do have our attackers.

What Southern Baptist forum?

On 8/13/2021 at 7:52 AM, PastorMatt said:

I'm coming across more and more people that believe that the 144,000 in Revelation 7 is not a literal number but rather symbolic. Pretty much because John says he "heard"  rather than saw 144,000 and how then mentions a multitude that can't be counted. 

I have more to add, but just want to see what everyone hear thinks first. Is 144,000 a literal or symbolic number?

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.

On 11/11/2021 at 9:21 AM, PastorMatt said:

You have the ability to edit your post, but not delete them. The reasoning for not being able to delete them is because then it is unfair to the those who posted after you. When members were deleting posts, the threads then did not make sense anymore and the context many times changed.

In reality, you are having a conversation. Once one person deletes part of the conversation, it can change the meaning. In that case the whole thread has to be removed and that is not fair to those who took the time to reply. 

I'll go check now to make sure, but we used to allow members to close the threads they started. That way if a person who starts a thread no longer wants that thread to go on, they can close it from future replies. 

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. 

On 11/9/2021 at 3:38 PM, Jerry said:

Yes, certainly. I wasn't focussed on that - but I agree. Man cannot respond to the Gospel until he has first heard or read the Gospel. Then the Holy Spirit uses the Word of God to convict him of his sins and his need for the Saviour, and the person is left with the choice of what to do with Jesus/the Gospel. When someone responds positively and receives the Lord Jesus Christ, trusting Him alone for salvation, then the Holy Spirit regenerates him and he becomes a born again child of God.

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. 

On 11/9/2021 at 1:54 PM, Jerry said:

The following is taken from the Way of Life Encyclopedia (just using or for a basic definition):

Total Depravity: Man is totally corrupt and dead in his sin so that he cannot even respond to the gospel unless God sovereignly enables him, which only happens if he is one of the elect. God not only must enable the dead sinner but must sovereignly regenerate him and give him the gift of faith. In the words of the Westminster Confession Total Depravity is defined as follows: “Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.”

The Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity does not mean merely that the sinner has no righteousness of his own or that his heart is depraved. It means also that his will is in bondage to sin in such a fashion that he is unable to believe the gospel. Further, it means that he must therefore be born again before he can believe. Arthur Pink states this doctrine as follows: “Faith is not the cause of the new birth, but the consequence of it. This ought not to need arguing. ... Faith is a spiritual grace, the fruit of the spiritual nature, and because the unregenerate are spiritually dead--‘dead in trespasses and sins’--then it follows that faith from them is impossible, for a dead man cannot believe anything” (The Sovereignty of God, p. 73).

 

---------

The Bible itself teaches man can respond to the Gospel - receive it or reject it. Of course, the Holy Spirit is doing His work of convicting and testifying of the Lord Jesus Christ, but never forces anyone to be saved apart from their own will and response to the truth.

 

Acts 7:51-53 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

 

Regeneration comes after a person receives the Gospel, after he trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation - and is not the reason for their salvation. That would be putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.

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. 

On 11/9/2021 at 3:14 PM, pastormitchell said:

I agree but what is missing is that faith comes by hearing the word of God. Romans 10:17

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.

On 11/9/2021 at 1:20 PM, Jerry said:

No offense, but why would I want to read a book by a heretic, whose doctrines came straight from Augustine? I can deal with modern day Calvinists - but I have no desire to read a book written by someone who literally supposedly just got saved the within two years of writing his "great" Institutes and coming out of the Catholic church. If he truly did get saved, there is no way he would have any solid understanding of the Bible within his first year or so of being saved. God would have opened his understanding the year before and then he would start building a foundation - instead he wrote these huge theological works, mostly founded on Augustine (who is a father of the Catholic church).

And you're doing the same thing you think I am doing - picking a few people to represent the mainstream of Calvinism. Calvinist doctrine is based on the "five points" of Calvinism. I think it is fair to say that those who don't hold to all five points of Calvinism are only Calvinists in name or do not represent mainstream Calvinism. They may have a brand of Calvinism and may call themselves Calvinists. Spurgeon called himself a Calvinist, but the longer he preached the Bible the more he realized that limited atonement that Calvin taught was not true. I'm sure there are many that only hold to parts of Calvinism but want to be considered Calvinists (and therefore those who refute ANY of them really never know what they are talking about, according to those they debate with).

Calvinism is heresy/false teaching pure and simple. So is Arminianism (not sure if I spelled that right). The truth lies somewhere in the middle and was not taught by either of them or their systems of theology.

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?

On 11/9/2021 at 1:32 PM, Hugh_Flower said:

I did not define Calvinism, the entire TULIP does it for me, Now separating John Calvin and his theology and Calvinism is another topic.

I don’t care to argue semantics - which is what Calvinism does.

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.

On 11/9/2021 at 1:38 PM, Jerry said:

For the sake of the argument, even if those I read or heard (and the same with every other poster here - those they have heard or read) speak about Calvinism do or do not represent mainstream Calvinism or Calvin himself - that doesn't matter. There are so many different views and they all state you can never truly latch on to their exact brand of Calvinism. What matters is Calvinism is a system of false theology, not founded upon the Word of God in any of its primary points. Instead of debating this or that viewpoint, maybe it would be better to show where they differ from the Bible on each primary point.

Total Depravity - yes, man is depraved, but God gives us a will, the Holy Spirit convicts us of our sin and need of the Saviour, and we are able to receive or reject the Saviour and His salvation. This is seen in both instances, for example, in the book of Acts. Calvinism teaches man is unable to respond unless the Holy Spirit regenerates them first, then they are born again (however, regenerate means born again! - so they are born again in order to be born again...).

Third point: Limited Atonement - that is clearly not according to the Bible. The NT even states Jesus died for the world (John 3:16; 2 Corinthians 5:19), for all (1 Timothy 2:6; Isaiah 53:6), for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), died for every man (Hebrews 2:9; 1 Timothy 4:10), died for false teachers (2 Peter 2:1), died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6), etc. - whereas Calvinism teaches Jesus only died for the elect.

All five points of Calvinism can be clearly refuted from the Bible, taking every verse in context, without twisting anything.

And part of Calvinism is the teaching that God elected some for salvation and some for damnation. The Bible does not teach either. It teaches that those who trust Christ for salvation are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, given an inheritance in Christ, given a home in Heaven, given eternal life - not predestined to Heaven or Hell regardless of their personal choice in the matter.

You can't define it, but it's false. Seems to me you've just defined what you claim can't be defined.

1 hour ago, Hugh_Flower said:

Calvinism can be defined in a myriad of ways. The easiest point of contention is the idea that we have no role in our salvation. They say no man can come to God even if prompted by another, a Christian Holy Spirit filled Gospel breathing individual. 
 

This dichotomy that they present is actually an older heresy of Dualism, they deny that the exterior ( of our Soul, and Body ) can be used by the LORD to present himself. They suggest that only when the LORD is dwelling within the individual is then the LORD working the individuals salvation. - and there in lies the issue, they deny the existence of the Holy Spirit outside ones Body.

This is a form of dualism that is covered by re-definition of Biblical language. This doctrine ties into the doctrine of how they define the Sovereignty of the LORD. Which, is not a word ever found in scripture so they have more liberty to define, as it is not a word scripture bound. 

 

 

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. 

20 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Actually, Danny, what you call hyperCalvinism above is mainstream Calvinism - those who believe in all five points of Calvinism. Some choose not to believe in all five points and still call themselves Calvinism - but they represent those outside mainstream Calvinism, not mainstream Calvinism itself.

They teach that you have no choice in your salvation - not only is the gift of salvation of God (which I agree is a free gift offered to mankind because of what Jesus has done for us on the cross), but that your will was basically overridden by God, your faith was given by God, therefore your response itself was dictated or moved by God (ie. you were not given the ability to respond, but that God Himself caused you to respond).

Also, Calvinism teaches a form of works - ie. that you must endure to the end to be saved. Your enduring to the end ensures your salvation. If you don't endure to the end, ultimately you are not saved even if you thought you were for all those years. Whereas the Bible teaches God's preservation of the saints, not the perseverance of the saints (ie. for salvation). (Yes, true believers will cling to Christ - but if they struggle, doubt, or backslide, the Lord is still keeping them in His hand and will still bring them home to Heaven when they die - they are still His children. I am not referring to those who reject the Lord and His Word somewhere down the road after professing to be saved for so long. 1 John 2:19 indicates that those "professors" of salvation were never really saved in the first place - ie. they didn't lose their salvation; they never had it).

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.

2 hours ago, pastormitchell said:

The problem with Calvinism is that it has an unbiblical definition of works. It applies that term to any thought or physical action man does. This is not found in scripture. In fact biblical works is always and only a reference to OT law. 
 

 

The idea that man’s biblical response to Gods offer of salvation based on the sovereign design of God is works does not meet scripture or logic. When someone gives a gift of any kind and the intended receiver of that gift reaches out and receives that gift do we then also credit the receiver as being partially responsible for giving himself the gift? 
 

Yet this is what Calvinism teaches or at least it’s proponents often claim. It’s unbiblical and faulty logic.

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.

    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.

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. 

On 10/4/2021 at 3:39 PM, BrotherTony said:

Their decision making process has been "hamstrung" for quite a while now. Seems like the liberals and moderates in the party have gained more of a foothold than they had even under Bush 41. I believe they'll become even more "hamstrung" than they are now because of the uptick in the liberal side of the party.

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. 

6 hours ago, SureWord said:

The GOP are cowards. Spineless, yellow bellied, flip-flopping, whimpering cowards. 

They may have a wide array of viewpoints but they are too chicken to act upon them other then hand-wringing on Fox News to shill a new book they have coming out.  

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. 

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.

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.

I hope this is in the correct forum.

A friend just finished a romance novel and has labeled it a "Christian romance novel". Most of the main characters are Christian, There is no sex, bad language or adult themes. But it doesn't mention Jesus or present the Gospel. Is it actually a Christian book?

On 9/19/2021 at 6:54 PM, BrotherTony said:

Thankfully I'm neither Republican nor Democrat! My wife and I became moderate (right of center) Independents in the 1980s when GHW Bush became the POTUS. I never did like Bush on the Reagan/Bush ticket, but voted for Reagan both times. We usually end up voting with Republicans, as they are closest to the Scriptural positions we hold to....but, lately, it seems that's not the case. If Trump were to run again, I don't believe we could vote for him...we'd have to do a write-in or vote for the Libertarians in protest. Too many Christians have been giving Trump "Christ-like" status...and that's something we don't support.

So you're judging Trump by some of his followers? 

On 9/19/2021 at 7:08 PM, E Morales said:

Sad to say there is no moderate or in the middle anymore and Trump did what he had to do for his for years. I voted for him but not again, not after his last six months in office. his actions made me change my mind. He did his Duty, but lost control. I think for a Republican to win now, this person will have to support the liberal agenda, if he or she have any hope of winning at all. Right now, I am also a independent voter, but there are many atheists in this party. We are getting to a point where I believe Christians might not even vote anymore. Vote for one of the two evils. Not a good choice 

Could you be more specific about what it was that Trump did that you didn't like?

A check of the actual 1956 Republican platform shows that the claims are false. 

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1956

There is no mention of low-income communities. It does mention supporting states in dealing with economic problems, not the Federal government doing it themselves.

"We shall continue to seek extension and perfection of a sound social security system." does not mean "extension of social security" because SS was very different back then. It hadn't been raided by Congress so it meant preventing it from becoming a political slush fund. Now that it is, any "expension" means continuing its use as a slush fund, and ignoring whether or not it's sound.

The "refugees" they referred to were people escaping communist countries. Democrats today try to hamper them from coming here, and welcome people who would rather feed of America's prosperity than work toward making their home country better.

Extending the minimum wage laws did not mean raising the minimum wage, but making sure all businesses obeyed it. 

The wording for these promised were to make each of these more efficient, not to wildly expand them and throw taxpayer money at problems (making sure there would be enough kick backs for the politicians pushing the added spending)

Claiming this is like the DNC today is like saying a drug addict is the same as gramma picking up some aspirin at the grocery store.

Come Thou Fount or There WIthin My Heart.

I also have a site at https://CountryHymns.com where I have hundreds of hymns, scores, audio and video.

Awesome. Just added it to my phone. I was needing something to add ot the stuff I do when I watch TV at night. Facebook censors the content on their mobile app and page, so I only see a fraction of what's there. This will be very useful.

On 5/25/2021 at 2:31 PM, PastorMatt said:

Yes, its pretty basic, but it works. I actually have to give it a little love as I haven't touched it recently. I'm working on PWAs so soon you should get push notifications from it.

 

BTW, how hard was it to create? I've been wanting to make apps for my ministry sites ( https://dannycarlton.org/#ministry ) but haven't been able to figure out how.