The Heresies of the Religion of Calvinism and how Satan has used it to infiltrate the Church

[tmjbog]

Wow, that didn't sound male chauvinist at all.

I'm sure she could karate kick your fat butt back into the 16th century so you could whine about the Dispensationalists with your mentally stunted guru John Calvin.

Her degree in in interior design, seems like a reasonable person to go to with interior design questions.

 

[voicecrying]

Are you aware of what Riplinger's actual expertise is in? What degrees she earned? Which department she taught for at Kent State? The topics of her published textbooks prior to New Age Bible Versions?

Here's a free clue: None of them are in a field related to Bible study.
Here's another: Some of them are in a field related to matching curtains.

Who needs a degree when you are just God's secretary writing down what he tells you?

 

[voicecrying]

Do you know what the Kingdom of God is?

Where does it say works are required for salvation? That was your original claim.

 

[Ransom]

Her degree in in interior design, seems like a reasonable person to go to with interior design questions.

Riplinger's actual credentials aren't important.

Even the KJV translators' credentials aren't important, especially when they explain their work, because the explanation always goes against the KJV-only narrative, which is that the KJV came about by magic.

Only the UGC Wonder Twins' supposed credentials are important, because they say so.

 

[UGC]

Where does it say works are required for salvation? That was your original claim.

When you figure out what the Kingdom of God is, then you'll see it.

I recommend attending a Sunday school class at the Kindergarten level to catch up.

 

[Ransom]

When you figure out what the Kingdom of God is, then you'll see it.

In other words, you're going to keep huffing and puffing, but never actually answer his question.

Fake.

 

[voicecrying]

When you figure out what the Kingdom of God is, then you'll see it.

I recommend attending a Sunday school class at the Kindergarten level to catch up.

If it is a Kindergarten level concept, then your superior intellect and credentials should make it easy for you to explain it and answer my question.

 

[tmjbog]

In other words, you're going to keep huffing and puffing, but never actually answer his question.

Fake.

As fake as Gail Riplinger's doctorate degree.

 

[UGC]

Looks like The 3 Stooges are playing dumb again; these moles apparently don't realize that the same tactic never works twice. No wonder they don't grow.


Gail and others accurately pointed out that works salvation was inserted into the New Versions:


KJV: "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
ESV: "For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." -ESV

The ESV says "the way is hard" to eternal life. An elementary school student could see this is works salvation.
Sorry adults, but unless you're under a demonic stronghold, this is staring you directly in the face.
But of course, people love befriending Satan and this world more than God. Satan goes to church too. He even trolls forums. But let's prove this further:


ESV: "And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God!"
KJV: "But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!"

How we do get into heaven? Through simple trust in the finished work of the cross.
So if you instead trust in riches, it will be hard for you to have a change of mind and trust in Christ instead of all those riches that seem to imply you don't need a savior since you already have the good life.

Of course, the ESV says nothing about trusting anything in that verse.
Anyone who didn't have a KJV would simply read it as it is: "difficult to enter the kingdom of God". The Kingdom of God is the Spiritual Body of Christ.

The ESV says it's difficult to enter the Kingdom of God. This is works Salvation. Why? Because the Bible says eternal life is a Free Gift (Rom. 6:23, 5:15), therefore it is in no way difficult unless you're working or trusting in something else and refusing to change your mind from trusting in that to trusting in Christ alone.

So then. Do you believe it's difficult to enter the Kingdom of God, or that it's a Free Gift and takes no work on our part? (They will never answer this question because they are works salvationist heretics infiltrating a Fundamental Baptist forum thinking everything they're doing is flying under the radar. They think they're hiding behind keyboards but really they're making the entire New Calvinist and New Version movement look bad. That's why I continue to demolish them with truth. With no wasted effort on my end).



"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."


Truth is never muddy or complicated. When God reveals it to you, it's clear. Men just reject it because they hate the truth and love their own traditions.

 

[logos1560]

Gail and others accurately pointed out that works salvation was inserted into the New Versions:

Perhaps this is merely another example of KJV-only double standards. The fact that you may subjectively choose to believe a claim in agreement with your own biased, human KJV-only reasoning does not actually prove the claim to be accurate or true.

KJV-only advocates often will not accept the interpretations that non-KJV-only believers have of verses in the KJV, but they try to apply a different measure/standard as they inconsistently suggest that non-KJV-only believers supposedly have to accept blindly the private, subjective, biased interpretation that KJV-only advocates have of the word of God translated into present-day English.
Bible believers are not commanded or required to accept blindly the private interpretations advocated by KJV-only advocates such as Gail Riplinger.
Do the Scriptures suggest that Gail Riplinger, a woman, is entitled to attempt to usurp authority over adult male believers?

 

[logos1560]

don't realize that the same tactic never works twice. No wonder they don't grow.

Are you describing you yourself since you do not seem to realize that your use of the same non-edifying, carnal tactics over and over does not convince any doctrinally-sound believers of your false allegations?

You have not demonstrated that you learn and grow spiritually as you refuse to apply some clear scriptural truths consistently and justly.

In contradiction to the scriptural truth that the wisdom from God above is without partiality (James 3:16), you continue to show partiality to one exclusive group of biased Church of England priests in 1611.
In contradiction to the scriptural truth that the word of God is not bound (2 Tim. 2:9), KJV-only reasoning attempts to bind the word of God to the imperfect textual criticism decisions and biased translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics in 1611.
In contradiction to the scriptural truth that teaches that words added by men are not the word of God (Prov. 30:6, Deut. 4:2), KJV-only reasoning may suggest that the many, many words added by the Church of England makers of the KJV for which they had no preserved original-language words of Scripture are inspired words of God.
In contradiction to the scriptural truth that opinions and traditions of men are not a doctrine of God (Mark 7:7-9), KJV-only reasoning attempts to assert that KJV-only opinions and traditions of men are a doctrine of God.

 

[UGC]

"Screw the Bible!" -logos666

 

[tmjbog]

"Screw the Bible!" -logos666

I find it fascinating how similar Gail Riplinger is to UGC. Both utilize weak arguments to "prove" their version is the only accurate one and when it can't be supported by the evidence resort to name calling character assassination of their opponents. If instead of arguing their version is the only legit one they would actually read it, they might learn how a Christian ought to live/behave.

 

[logos1560]

UGC, your reusing the same bogus tactic of trying to put words in my mouth that I did not say failed.

 

[Ransom]

UGC, your reusing the same bogus tactic of trying to put words in my mouth that I did not say failed.

Cut the dudes some slack. They haven't got an original thought between them. If they couldn't twist other's words or let YouTube do their thinking for them, they'd have nothing at all to say.

 

[Ransom]

So when I was on the forum yesterday, my roommate wandered by and asked what I was up to. The convo drifted from one topic to another, as they tend to do, and we ended up watching (most of) the video in the OP.

Repeated comment from roommate: "Haven't we heard this part already?" We hadn't, but Thompson's presentation is ponderous and repetitive. He goes on for over an hour and a half to state a point he could make in about five minutes.

In a nutshell, he uses 1 Thessalonians 4:3 as a proof-text that supposedly refutes Calvinism: "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication." He contrasts it with chapter 3 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession:

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.​

So according to Thompson, the Bible says God's will is for George the Christian abstain from sexual immorality. The LBCF says that if George does commit immorality, that is also God's will. Since this makes God the author of sin, the LBCF is incoherent, and Calvinists are guilty of "cognitive dissonance."

Furthermore, any talk by Calvinists about primary and secondary causes, or God's "prescripttive" vs. "decretive" will, is doubletalk. The definition of God's will is that implied by 1 Thess. 4:3.

This is the lynchpin of Thompson's argument. It took him 95 minutes to say (and 10 for me to summarize, including the time needed to drink coffee while typing). And thereby is Calvinism refuted.

Well, I'm convinced! LOL!

 

[Ransom]

For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality. (1 Thess. 4:3)​

Reading this verse, can we agree on the following?

1. God desires that his people abstain from sexual immorality.
2. The definition of "God's will" that this verse implies is along the lines of, "divinely revealed moral precepts that God desires or expects people to obey: for example, point 1."
3. A person is capable of ignoring or disobeying those precepts.

This raises one further question: When Calvinists speak of "God's will" in any sense other than a divinely revealed moral precept that God desires or expects people to obey (for example, by citing LBCF.3, or talking about God's "decretive" vs. "prescriptive" will), is Thompson correct to dismiss this as cognitive dissonance or post-hoc rationalization?

 

[illinoisguy]

If Calvinism is so evil, then why do Ruckmanites demand that we follow the dispensationalist teaching of John Nelson Darby, who was a Calvinist?

From Wikipedia: "Darby defended Calvinist [7] doctrines when they came under attack from within the Church in which he once served. His biographer Goddard [8] states, "Darby indicates his approval of the doctrine of the Anglican Church as expressed in Article XVII of the Thirty-Nine Articles" on the subject of election and predestination. Darby said:

"'For my own part, I soberly think Article XVII to be as wise, perhaps I might say the wisest and best condensed human statement of the view it contains that I am acquainted with. I am fully content to take it in its literal and grammatical sense. I believe that predestination to life is the eternal purpose of God, by which, before the foundations of the world were laid, He firmly decreed, by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and destruction those whom He had chosen in Christ out of the human race, and to bring them, through Christ, as vessels made to honour, to eternal salvation'."

The whole Ruckmanite theology is inconsistent and contradictory. According to Ruckmanite principles, Darby, who produced his own version of the Bible, was a "Bible corrector" and "Alexandrian cultist," and yet Ruckmanites demand that we adopt Darby's dispensational teaching. How can we possibly trust the teaching of a man who according to Ruckman must have been an "Alexandrian cultist?"

 

[UGC]

If Calvinism is so evil, then why do Ruckmanites demand that we follow the dispensationalist teaching of John Nelson Darby

I know of no Ruckmanite who has demanded we follow the outdated system of John Darby, who by the way did not start Dispensationalism nor is he a figurehead of it today except by those who use him to come against Dispensationalism.

“for his views had become more decidedly Calvinistic, and the friends with whom he associated in Dublin were all, I believe without exception, of this school” (George Bellett, Memoir of the Rev. George Bellett . London: J. Masters, 1889, pp. 41–2, cited in Max S. Weremchuk, John Nelson Darby. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1992, p. 237, f.n. 25)

Now watch this: not only was Darby influenced by that notoriously popularized simpleton's template used to interpret the Bible back then (more on that in a moment), but so was Chafer, who by the way learned from Scofield who picked up things from Darby, yet somehow Scofield was less Calvinist in some regards than Chafer who came after him, and yet Ryrie who came after Chafer was less Calvinist in some regards than Chafer. Yet. In 1944, a meeting of prominent Presbyterian/Calvinist leaders was held where they stated Dispensationalism "attacks the very heart of our theology", and they specifically called out Chafer, despite Chafer making a point not to heavily distance himself from the intolerant culture of Calvinism at the time and actually writing in favor of some of it's principles - at times with a stronger hand than Scofield before him and Ryrie after him!

This proves decisively that despite Chafer's adopted similarities with aspects of Calvinism, Calvinists themselves saw such great difference between the two systems that they condemned the Founder and 1st President of Dallas Theological Seminary, along with the entire system of Dispensationalism, seeking to ban it as theological heresy from the entire Presbyterian church! Now you can understand how indoctrinated "confessionists" (confessions are equivalent to training wheels and only serve to rid the finer distinctions in scripture by coagulating them all under a few lazy, contextually distorted umbrellas: like trying to condense all of Superstring Theory or M-Theory into 1 page for the average person to grasp, except you're now doing this with the mind of God), indoctrinated "confessionists" like Ransom were brainwashed into policing Dispensationalism: because the LBCF politically aligned with the Presbyterians leaders in Parliament at the time, and made it their purpose to distance themselves from the Anabaptists and close the gap between them and Presbyterianism. As such, the LBCF is not for authentic Baptists: it's for Presbyterians who don't go by that name. This is why politics and the fear of men who "decide culture" should never sway doctrine: only the Bible can do that.

And it's easy to understand why Chafer was influenced by aspects of Calvinism: the pressure Calvinism always has on Protestant culture is undeniable because Calvinism is designed to appeal to simpleton apes easily riled up by the invigorating absolutist notions they believe they're defending when they adopt its principles: they take hold of a 5-principle template, force God into that tiny box, and then walk around with a supreme confidence settled only in Dunning-Kruger ignorance as if it's their solemn duty to police everyone who doesn't believe God is a one-dimensional tyrant who predestines people to eternal damnation against their will according to that scripturally illiterate moron Calvin and his Kindergarten system that is responsible for making Christian scholarship look like a paradoxical pile of fallacious hokey-doke compared to the Sciences).

In order to understand why Darby defended aspects of Calvinism, we must understand that there was always at last 2 popularized systems among Protestants at any given point in time, who's clashing differences fueled their publicity and their footprint on history (inherent to human nature, these are always the most simplistic systems that any amateur could learn the outline for in a 101 class and go on to spark visible contentions in the public square whereby the champions of these overly simplified systems and their elementary arguments are easily comprehended and gobbled up by the general public who can also quickly absorb information at the 101 level, much less so than if two scientists were standing there debating the number of dimensions M-theory should hold to), and of course, both of these systems were never entirely right or entirely wrong, but even so were constantly changing in and of themselves: i.e Calvin defended Post-millennialism at times along with many others simply because it appeared that Christianity was dominating the society around him, and therefore Post-millennialism seemed more plausible by looking at the people around him: not the Bible. Notice how almost no Calvinists today are Postmillennial like Calvin himself was at times; they are Amillennial at best).

The question we need to ask ourselves is: where were these systems accurate to scripture and where were they off-base, perhaps driven by some contemporary cultural persuasion dominating the conversation that caused all men to fear isolating themselves apart from (as it affects their most primally defended needs for survival: their paycheck, their community identity, their acceptance among the Christian community that is already not accepted by the world's community).

"Wesleyan evangelicals who opposed premillennialism used this apparent connection to Calvinism to discredit it among Methodists and holiness people" (Timothy P. Weber, “Premillennialism and the Branches of Evangelicalism,” in Donald W. Dayton and Robert K Johnston, editors, The Variety of American Evangelicalism [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press]). Meanwhile always look at actions, not words: the committee of 1944 clearly drew a dividing line between the systems of Calvinism and Dispensationalism, despite any cultural and political influence it held over Dispensationalists that made it frightening for them to distance themselves from that ineluctable peabrain John Calvin and his celebrity-like influence on the generally unaware public. He has been remembered and honored by church history much like the world remembers The Beatles, despite one of their most popular songs essentially being an anti-Christian Communist Manifesto, hey man, it's The Beatles! These men were legends.

If everyone in Christendom is honest, no one reads the Bible and believes what it says over first reading what another man tells you it's saying. If a verse plainly says something no celebrity Christian in history has a concurring commentary on because they had to twist it to fit their simplified template of understanding, people will ignore the Bible and follow the man.

"And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." -Mark 7:9

 

[logos1560]

"And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." -Mark 7:9

KJV-only advocates demonstrate that they in effect reject commandments or instructions of God in order to keep their own non-scriptural KJV-only tradition.

KJV-only advocates will follow the opinions of a man whether Peter Ruckman or some other KJV-only teacher instead of what the Scriptures state.