All he knows is the phrase "the holy spirit departed." He cannot tell us why.
It's painfully obvious that he can read words in the Bible, but he cannot tell us the meaning/application/significance of those words.
Last edited:
Did the Holy Spirit abandon Saul?
- Thread starter treasure_unseen
- Start date
All he knows is the phrase "the holy spirit departed." He cannot tell us why.
It's painfully obvious that he can read words in the Bible, but he cannot tell us the meaning/application/significance of those words.
Depart equals depart. Not "permanent in-dwelling with no departure".
You're off topic and worried too much about being nice to people when that will not help them face their problem. That's why everyone has run right over you before UGC got here, and as soon as UGC did, they thought anyone who is a Dispensationalist or uses the KJV over other versions can be easily pushed around. The Bible says to stand. Not to be a wet noodle.
The original argument since the original thread that he created where he was proven wrong after boasting about how well he knows the scriptures, was whether or not the Holy Spirit permanently in-dwelt all believers in the OT without ever departing any of them as is the case in the NT, with no difference before Pentecost to after Pentecost. As we all know, after Pentecost the H.S. seals believers and never departs them. He was proven wrong. He then changed his argument to "depart doesn't mean abandon". Doesn't matter. Your original assertion was completely demolished. But your incredible pride can't even admit being wrong on something tiny like this, so we can all only imagine how many other doctrines you have wrong because you never adjusted your mind to match where it differed from the word of God when learning the word.
Dispensationalism, folks. I do this to show everyone: there is a reason why not everyone agrees on what the Bible clearly and plainly says.
Pride. Just like we're seeing here.
Question for OP who everyone reading with half a brain already knows is wrong, in addition to FFF essentially behaving like Michael Scott from the Office,
You're arguing against Dispensationalism and differences in the Bible, yet you also clearly stated you are not a Covenant Theologian.
I'm curious to know: what is your orthodox system of theology, exactly? Since those are the only 2 verified systems recognized by all major denominations in existence.
You're arguing against Dispensationalism and differences in the Bible, yet you also clearly stated you are not a Covenant Theologian.
I'm curious to know: what is your orthodox system of theology, exactly? Since those are the only 2 verified systems recognized by all major denominations in existence.
Perhaps it is not so hard to understand. You don't know Dispensationalism. Your so-called "Complete Dispensationalism" is incomplete and an odd compilation.
I know, for myself, your ideas of Dispensationalism died off in 2016. I've not read or heard of Dispensationalists requiring a particular Soteriology. You work way too hard to try to define Dispensationalism as contra Calvinism.
I've already identified one Calvinist Dispensationalist... as said before... you know NOTHING of DTS and Ryrie if you continue to assert that Dispensationalism requires a rejection of Calvinism. Your (**cough), RUCKMAN's brand of Dispensationalism may... but no serious study of Dispensationalism asserts a particular Soteriology.
Hm. Perhaps in your own mind. You don't know what it is, because we haven't even taught half of it yet.
But I understand the desire to feel like you know everything and dismiss information before you even consider it or know what it is.
I had it when I was 5.
Then God chastened me and I actually listened. What's sad is God keeps many people in their own delusions well into their adulthood, because they want to be kings in their own mind, so God lets them. The only problem is they don't realize how ridiculous they look to the rest of the world.
Lol.
You use the NIV (far worse than the ESV) and have even defended John MacArthur before.
John MacArthur is who claims to be a "Calvinist Dispensationalist". Not Ryrie.
Ryrie stood against MacArthur's Calvinist Lordship Salvation position.
Ryrie was Free Grace Dispensational.
You need to go back to school.
Here. This will help.
Ryrie defended the Free Grace side. Everyone knows this.
The Calvinists (not just the Covenant Theologians, but "Calvinist Dispensationalists" like MacArthur) are on the Lordship side.
Ryrie defended the Free Grace side. Everyone knows this.
The Calvinists (not just the Covenant Theologians, but "Calvinist Dispensationalists" like MacArthur) are on the Lordship side.
What? Aren't you the owner and head leader of these forums? How far are you willing to go to create your own fringe ideas?
Everyone in the entire world of Christian scholarship knows what I'm saying already.
This has been one of the largest debates in Christendom over the past many decades. How did you miss it?
The Free Grace side rejects Calvinism and Perseverance of the Saints, which Calvin modified from Augustine.
Just like Paul stated in Galatians, Ryrie did not believe a saint has to persevere in holy living as verification of his Salvation, since works cannot be mixed with grace.
Listen to the testimony of someone from DTS himself:
"...I came to First Baptist Church of Dallas, somebody approached me and said, “You are Arminian, aren’t you?” A few months later, somebody came up to me and said, “You are a Calvinist, aren’t you?” Which am I? Which are you? I will never forget the words of Dr. Charles Ryrie, one of my seminary professors. He said, “Don’t ever let yourself be known as a Calvinist or an Arminian–be known as a Biblicist.” I do not feel any compulsion to align myself with any system of theology that tries to explain the inexplicable. The Bible teaches God’s sovereignty, and the Bible teaches our responsibility. Teach the Bible, and you will be balanced. By the way, Paul was neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. He was a Biblicist."
Ryrie's Free Grace position on Salvation:
No. They believe in Eternal Security. They are the only side not deluded by the teachings of some peabrain like Calvin who painted God as worse than Hitler.
The difference is Lordshippers believe "there is no such thing as a carnal Christian" (MacArthur, the leader of this heretical movement's words).
Apparently they didn't read about the Corinthians.
Apparently they didn't read about Paul describing his own struggle between the flesh and the spirit.
Apparently they think your works play a role in your salvation.
Apparently they only read Calvin.
No, it is not. That's what Calvinists teach Calvinists.
Just like Mormons teach Mormons things that people outside their bubble would say, "That's redefining the definition of things."
Eternal Security means even if you slip up and backslide into carnal living, the Holy Spirit is still sealed inside you and you're already a New Creature in Christ, which can't be reversed.
Perseverance of the Saints misinterprets Hebrews and thinks your Salvation is not complete until you work your way to the end, therefore if you slip back into carnal living they claim you were never saved to begin with, which is why they say "there is no such thing as a carnal Christian". It is a principle that blatantly backloads works after justification and immediately places its followers under the curse of the law. Calvin is nothing more than a remembered heretic with a tiny brain.
They are taking instructions for the 7-year Tribulation, which the Body of Christ will not go through.
Hollywood didn't make this up, the Bible did.
Recommend watching the above video.
That's what Arminians teach Calvinist believe about it as well. The 5 points are built logically starting with Total Depravity. If you are predestined, election is unconditional, and grace is irresistible, the conclusion is then perseverance of the saints (eternal security). Most churches knock the first 4 out and try to get eternal security to stand on its. own.
How persuasive! An anecdote! Read his Theology.
He rejects the foreknowledge view of election p 363
He states that election is based only on the sovereignty of God p 360
He states that election assures the salvation of His people p 363
He believes in eternal security
Effectual call p 376
Regeneration p 376
He was a moderate Calvinist.
My pastor doesn’t use the title “Calvinist” either... but is very much so.
Eternal security is a Free Grace doctrine. Not a Calvinist doctrine. The Calvinists have a paradoxical view they'd like to call "Eternal Security", but it is dependent on their works therefore it's not eternal security:
The New Calvinists are even bigger legalists than the IFB, they just do it in a much more dangerous area: Salvation, not clothing or trailer park cults.