Jump to content
Online Baptist

Alimantado

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    1,888
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Reputation Activity

  1. Strongly Disagree
    Alimantado got a reaction from Scott Lyons in John Calvin Had It All Wrong   
    Hi Dave

    I don't know if that post is a response to me since you don't refer to my post or any of the points I made in it, but in case you are...
     
     
    And I responded directly to this assertion in my post to you.
     
     
    And as far as I can tell you've given two lines of evidence to support this assertion. One is that Calvinists don't don't go into detail about what atonement means when they they write outlines of the five points, and two is that because they do believe in God's choosing them, that belief effectively replaces belief in the blood of Jesus. I responded to both those points in detail in my last post.
     

    From my last post:

    I don't see how these things not being mentioned in outlines of the five points is evidence that Calvinists don't believe in them. You say yourself that atonement is mentioned in the 'Limited atonement' point, so what does that reference to atonement mean if it doesn't mean the work of Jesus on the cross? Outlines of the five points may not go into detail about the atonement, but then there's lots of things they don't go into: one God, the Trinity, creation etc. You go on to say that when Calvinists refer to atonement they only do so to point out that it is 'limited'. However a limited atonement is not the same thing as no atonement.
     
     
    But whenever John or others have pointed out that they know loads of 'reformed' churches that do preach the Gospel, you've always responded with 'well they're not true Calvinists then'. If your definition of a reformed church is one that doesn't preach the Gospel, then you will find that reformed churches don't preach the gospel.
     
    Moreover, when John just now started talking about Christians who called themselves Calvinist, you said, "...stop confusing the system, which teaches a false Gospel, with men who used the name." I agree, we should be able to nail whether or not the system of Calvinism includes atonement as a necessary part of salvation without looking to what folk on the ground believe/do.
     
    As for the point about Calvinism not being at odds with works-based salvation because it doesn't need the blood of Christ, firstly it not needing the blood of Christ is exactly what is being discussed, secondly even it didn't rely on the blood of Christ that wouldn't necessarily make it a works-based system. In fact, if your argument that the Calvinist system of salvation only includes a single component--that of God's choosing them--is true, then your own argument says it isn't works based.
  2. Strongly Disagree
    Alimantado got a reaction from Scott Lyons in John Calvin Had It All Wrong   
    Hi Dave
     
    I don't really follow your argument here. You seem to be saying that Calvinists base their salvation on 'choice of God' instead of the atonement, and that therefore they believe in a different Gospel. You cite as the evidence for this the fact that Jesus' atoning sacrifice on the cross, and His burial and resurrection isn't given in 'most outlines of the five points of Calvin'.
     
    Firstly, I don't see how these things not being mentioned in outlines of the five points is evidence that Calvinists don't believe in them. You say yourself that atonement is mentioned in the 'Limited atonement' point, so what does that reference to atonement mean if it doesn't mean the work of Jesus on the cross? Outlines of the five points may not go into detail about the atonement, but then there's lots of things they don't go into: one God, the Trinity, creation etc. You go on to say that when Calvinists refer to atonement they only do so to point out that it is 'limited'. However a limited atonement is not the same thing as no atonement.
     
    Secondly, I don't understand how Calvinists believing God chose to save them therefore means that they don't believe their salvation is attained through the shed blood of Christ, as if the two are mutually exclusive and one must believe one or the other. Those who believe in free will believe that God made a choice to save them--God didn't have to sacrifice his son on the cross but chose to do so that we might be saved. So if everyone else can base their salvation on both God's choice to save and Jesus' atoning sacrifice for their sins, why does Calvinists believing in one necessarily mean they don't believe in the other?
     
    It appears to me, though I admit I'm not well read on it, that both Calvinists and 'free will' adherents believe that God chose to save and that this salvation is 'done' through the blood of Jesus on the cross. The difference with Calvinists, with respect to these particular beliefs, is that they believe God chose to save just a few, and that the atonement only pays for the sins of a few. If that's so, then a Calvinist still bases his own salvation on the blood of Jesus even if at the same time he believes God chose to save only a few (and is wrong about that belief).
     
    Now if the argument that Calvinists believe in a different Gospel is elsewhere, e.g. an argument that salvation being limited to a few in of itself means that Calvinists believe a different Gospel, then ok but I don't follow the argument that Calvinists don't believe their own salvation is based on the blood of Jesus.
  3. Like
    Alimantado got a reaction from Salyan in Doomed To Be Single?   
    Wasn't saying that all men should be single, GP.


    Nor was I saying that a desire for marriage is necessarily about idolatry. What Guy said was that he felt life was hopeless unless he was married, and it was this thought in particular that I was addressing. Anything can become idolatry, if it replaces God as the main focus of one's life.


    Perhaps he has a desire for marriage because God means him to be married. On the other hand, perhaps God means him to be single but he has a desire for marriage. Surely either could be possible, else we would never desire anything that God does not want for us.



    Sure, and I do sympathise.
  4. LOL
    Alimantado got a reaction from Salyan in Homestead   
    Yes, by you! ;-P
  5. Like
    Alimantado got a reaction from Alan in Activity on Online Baptist   
    I still check in very occasionally. Good to see you again, PastorJ. Was it late 2000s when you were here last? If I recall correctly, back then OB had well over 50 active, daily contributors making something like 100 new posts per day (John81 alone was adding about 10 of those). I remember the 'Current News' and 'Lounge' sections were so busy that new posts would drop off the bottom within a day or so and I used to browse by section and thread because it wasn't realistic to view by recent activity--just too much. On a given thread I'd sometimes have to go back a couple of pages to pick up where I'd left off.
    Now the activity level is a dozen or so regular folk and half-a-dozen posts per day, maybe up to 50 per week. It must, at least, partly be down to general trends in web usage, for mailing lists, forums and chatrooms have declined and disappeared all over. Of course, on OB as it once was, the theological/doctrinal discussions were just a subset of all the activity and the spectrum of members was broader, maybe a bit more like church, with all that brings. I expect some would say that God has blessed this forum by ending its heady days and keeping the wheat, but I do rather miss those busier times. I hope this forum is still a blessing to many, since there are always more reading than writing. And thanks to Matt for keeping it running.
  6. Like
    Alimantado got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in Activity on Online Baptist   
    I still check in very occasionally. Good to see you again, PastorJ. Was it late 2000s when you were here last? If I recall correctly, back then OB had well over 50 active, daily contributors making something like 100 new posts per day (John81 alone was adding about 10 of those). I remember the 'Current News' and 'Lounge' sections were so busy that new posts would drop off the bottom within a day or so and I used to browse by section and thread because it wasn't realistic to view by recent activity--just too much. On a given thread I'd sometimes have to go back a couple of pages to pick up where I'd left off.
    Now the activity level is a dozen or so regular folk and half-a-dozen posts per day, maybe up to 50 per week. It must, at least, partly be down to general trends in web usage, for mailing lists, forums and chatrooms have declined and disappeared all over. Of course, on OB as it once was, the theological/doctrinal discussions were just a subset of all the activity and the spectrum of members was broader, maybe a bit more like church, with all that brings. I expect some would say that God has blessed this forum by ending its heady days and keeping the wheat, but I do rather miss those busier times. I hope this forum is still a blessing to many, since there are always more reading than writing. And thanks to Matt for keeping it running.
  7. Thanks
    Alimantado got a reaction from WellWithMySoul in Activity on Online Baptist   
    I still check in very occasionally. Good to see you again, PastorJ. Was it late 2000s when you were here last? If I recall correctly, back then OB had well over 50 active, daily contributors making something like 100 new posts per day (John81 alone was adding about 10 of those). I remember the 'Current News' and 'Lounge' sections were so busy that new posts would drop off the bottom within a day or so and I used to browse by section and thread because it wasn't realistic to view by recent activity--just too much. On a given thread I'd sometimes have to go back a couple of pages to pick up where I'd left off.
    Now the activity level is a dozen or so regular folk and half-a-dozen posts per day, maybe up to 50 per week. It must, at least, partly be down to general trends in web usage, for mailing lists, forums and chatrooms have declined and disappeared all over. Of course, on OB as it once was, the theological/doctrinal discussions were just a subset of all the activity and the spectrum of members was broader, maybe a bit more like church, with all that brings. I expect some would say that God has blessed this forum by ending its heady days and keeping the wheat, but I do rather miss those busier times. I hope this forum is still a blessing to many, since there are always more reading than writing. And thanks to Matt for keeping it running.
  8. Like
    Alimantado got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in A simple request   
    There are plenty of rules like that here in UK. For example, if you want to drive a car it has to meet structural requirements and be tested annually by authorised garages--you can't just cobble together anything and take it on the roads. If you build a house there are materials you're not allowed to use, like asbestos. If a hospital wants to offer surgery its surgeons have to be qualified--they can't just hire someone who likes scalpels and blood. Want to keep a brown bear at home as a pet? Nope.
    There are rules in UK which I think are over-regulation but I think the gas one is reasonable because of the higher risk of injuring/killing neighbours (compared to electrical and plumbing, for which there aren't equivalent restrictions). Every year there are reports of houses blown up in gas explosions, though from what I recall the last few haven't taken anybody out.
     
     
     
     
     
  9. Like
    Alimantado got a reaction from DaveW in A Church Closes Then Sold Who Gets The Money?   
    Necropost of the year I think! And bonus points for replying to yourself. ;)
  10. LOL
    Alimantado got a reaction from HappyChristian in Requirements for Pastors   
    At least pastors are allowed unruly pets.
  11. LOL
    Alimantado got a reaction from DaveW in Requirements for Pastors   
    At least pastors are allowed unruly pets.
  12. LOL
    Alimantado got a reaction from Salyan in Requirements for Pastors   
    At least pastors are allowed unruly pets.
  13. Like
    Alimantado got a reaction from swathdiver in Question about looking for a local church...   
    Ok, so in other words the Bible gives us the model of how churches ought to be planted by other legitimate NT churches, but if it ends up because of history or necessity that a church hasn't quite followed that model then it doesn't necessarily make it illegitimate and therefore the seeker should concern themselves with what said church is doing now. Is that fair?
    Or should concern themselves 'first and foremost' might be more accurate a summary...
    (just added)
  14. Like
    Alimantado reacted to DaveW in Question about looking for a local church...   
    Wr have a lady at our church currently who many years ago was saved in a congregational church. Then some time later, the pastor there anniunced to the church that he had been doing some serious study and realised that they were not bibical for many reasons - he spent some time talking with a local baptist pastor, and this church decided that about half of them would fo for a special meeting at the Baptist church and get baptised properly, then they began a new church.  The other half stayed at the old Congregational church, having rejected the Pastor's new path.
    By studying his Binle he came to the conclusion that they needed to be baptised with proper authority and sought out someone who he belived had that authority.
    But the reason they "started a new church" was because there were some who would not follow this path, and he did not feel it was right to force them out considering it was his change, not theirs.
    I personally think the argument over the history of it is a pointless argument - the process a church should use today is clear in the Bible: churches are started under proper authority, and that authority rests in the church sending the man.
    There are some who say that you must be able to prove full lineage, but I have never met any man who can do so - it becomes an intellectual argument only, and therefore nigh on useless..... words to no profit, one might say.
  15. Like
    Alimantado reacted to Jordan Kurecki in Question about looking for a local church...   
    Lineage is not what we look at to determine whether or not something is a New Testament Church, but it's doctrines and practices are.
    I had a discussion of this type with a Baptist Brider type years ago, like has been said already, we really can't trace any of our churches back to the time of Christ.
    Are you sure Goforth was speaking about Korea? because he was a missionary in China as far as I know.
  16. Like
    Alimantado reacted to HappyChristian in Question about looking for a local church...   
    I do agree that churches may start out wrong and right themselves. There have been churches that began in the Southern Baptist Convention and then pulled out to become Independent. We know a man who was assistant pastor at a pentecostal church. Both he and the pastor, through study and prayer, realized the error of the teachings and became Baptist (the church did, too). He is now, after pastoring for many years, an evangelist). 
    When people sincerely seek the Lord, He will right errors.
  17. Like
    Alimantado reacted to Salyan in Question about looking for a local church...   
    I agree with the point on churches that start out 'wrong', or adopt wrong practices, can become 'good' again. The past history of a church is less important than where it currently stands (although that history might give some good context - a long-standing sympathy with Reformed doctrine, over-leniency with church membership, etc.)  I disagree with the idea of a pastor needing to have more than one child - but I'll take that to another thread. ;)
    Last night, I was reading the account from Jonathan Goforth on the revival in Korea in the early 1900's. He told of an incident in Korea where a rural man visited a city during the revival, heard the Gospel preaching and obtained a Bible. He took that Bible back to the county with him, and read it to his friends, until about 50 of these rural people believed (the story doesn't say when exactly the first man got saved). They understood from the Scriptures that they should be baptized, and part of a church body, but they weren't sure how to go about it (seeing as there was no missionary, pastor, or even original evangelist). After reading and praying extensively, they came to the conclusion that they should all go home and have a bath, and then meet back and start a church. :D 
    That method of church planting is not one we would plan to follow, and most of our churches would probably rebaptize those folks 'in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit' if they came to their fellowship, but I hardly think God was displeased with the honest attempt of these folk to obey the Scripture they best they knew how.
     
  18. Like
    Alimantado reacted to DaveW in Question about looking for a local church...   
    No no - not a pointless question - a pointless argument.
    And my answer to the question is that the more important thing, rather than the history of the church is where that church is right now.
    A church could have a great history (as far as can be established), but may very possibly be right out in left field doctrinally.
    Another church could have a "Shady past" (if you will), but might now be solid in doctrine.
    The choice is obvious.
  19. Like
    Alimantado got a reaction from DaveW in Starting a church   
    That is why I asked the  question I did earlier. If a church can only be a church when started by another NT church then that suggests--although one might disagree--that you could have a church that's totally sound in belief, teachings and practice but still be illegitimate. So if a person seeking a new church can't tell the difference between a legitimate NT church and an illegitimate one by what a church is doing then does it become necessary when seeking a church to research their origins? And it that's so then how far back?
    DaveW has said he doesn't want that question answered on this thread in case it distracts so here's a new thread for that question.
  20. Like
    Alimantado reacted to swathdiver in Question about looking for a local church...   
    A church can start out wrong and become a New Testament Church.  As a practical matter, the candidate should look at the history and the qualifications of the sending church, but what really matters is if that church today is of the kind that Christ started during his earthly ministry.
    Consider this.  A NT church plants another in a nearby town.  However, the pastor they chose has only one child.  After several years the pastor has multiple children.  So when the new church was planted it did not have a qualified pastor but in time he became qualified and the church is now scriptural.
    A well established NT Church that fell away with regards to music makes repentance and once again honors the Lord with scriptural music.  
    I believe an historical example might be Charles Chiniquy and his flock.  He was a Catholic Priest that saw the error of his ways and brought his entire congregation out of Popery and into what I believe then became a NT Church.
  21. Like
    Alimantado got a reaction from swathdiver in Baptism and church membership?   
    The context of this bit of the discussion is this statement by you, SFIC:
    The teaching you disagree with speaks of an "organised assembly". So would you agree with the teaching if it said this instead:
    "A church is an organized assembly of scripturally baptized believers and non-baptised believers, called out to do the Lord's work according to the New Testament."
  22. LOL
    Alimantado got a reaction from HappyChristian in The Biblical Tithe: Cash or Crops?   
    Gotta say that's a neat way to direct condescending remarks at people and sidestep censure. No if someone told me my opinions were silly/stupid/idiotic or whatever, I'd take that as them calling me silly/stupid/idiotic. Perhaps I shouldn't admit that--now folk know how to get at me. ;-)
  23. Thanks
    Alimantado reacted to TheSword in Christian and Depression   
    In addition to what DaveW said and along the lines of Swathdiver, depression can come in different forms. DaveW covered the emotional form in which events in our lives affect our emotional health. Swath talked about an environmental form in which the things we do to or put in our bodies can have a profound effect. I would like to add a physical or hormonal form in which our bodies fail to function properly. A great example of this is post-partum depression, which my wife has been through a couple times. Sometimes it's not related to any event in our lives other than the fact that in our sin-cursed world, the body breaks down and doesn't always work correctly. Just as our pancreas can stop producing insulin and cause diabetes or your kidney may stop filtering your blood properly and result in kidney failure, your thyroid or pituitary glands can stop producing the right amount of hormones and wreak all kinds of havoc. Whether we like to admit it or not, this fallen vessel we call a body functions or fails without or consent and has a profound impact on how our soul is able to interact with the physical creation.
    There are many potential causes for true depression, and the cause determines the treatment. Sometimes it is steady prayer and engagement with friends, family, or counselors and sometimes it's medication to get your body functioning the way it should. While I believe it can be sinful to keep yourself in a depressed state by focusing on the negatives in life and a refusal to find joy in Christ, true clinical depression is an ailment like any other illness. Making yourself (or someone else) feel bad about it will only make it worse. Acknowledging the problem and seeking the cause to determine the right solution is the first step to recovery.
  24. Thanks
    Alimantado got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Homestead   
    Perhaps Bro Matt should start a crypto-currency: OBCoin.
  25. Thanks
    Alimantado got a reaction from swathdiver in Are There Any Catholics On Here?   
    If you pull that off, you may as well try for Mormon Church membership too, hey even Scientology.
×
×
  • Create New...