help me out ladies and gentlemen.........

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bo
  • Start date Start date
FSSL said:
You cannot kidnap the phrase "Doctrines of Grace" from the Calvinistic thought.

It takes a miraculous grace to regenerate the spiritually dead. That grace cannot be ultimately resisted by those for whom it is destined. That grace keeps one in this life and for eternity.

There is plenty of Grace in Calvinistic theology.

It supplants the Arminian idea that grace is conjured up by a divine spark within humanity or methods of an evangelist.

I'm not kidnapping anything. The Doctrines of Grace stand alone. I'm not kidnapping them for anything. You are. I'm saying they stand alone. You're saying they are contained within Calvinistic thought.

Wake up man. Can't you see what you're doing?
 
praise_yeshua said:
Again. "Doctrines of Grace" has nothing to do with Calvin. Nothing.
IOW "I have no idea what Calvinism/monergistic teaches, but I have always been told it's wrong, so, it's wrong"
You would be better off just saying you don't grasp it rather than making these foolish statements that make you look, foolish.
 
Recovering IFB said:
praise_yeshua said:
Again. "Doctrines of Grace" has nothing to do with Calvin. Nothing.
IOW "I have no idea what Calvinism/monergistic teaches, but I have always been told it's wrong, so, it's wrong"
You would be better off just saying you don't grasp it rather than making these foolish statements that make you look, foolish.

Sure. I've studied it for a long time. I know your little tricks. You can't play them with me. ;)
 
praise_yeshua said:
Recovering IFB said:
praise_yeshua said:
Again. "Doctrines of Grace" has nothing to do with Calvin. Nothing.
IOW "I have no idea what Calvinism/monergistic teaches, but I have always been told it's wrong, so, it's wrong"
You would be better off just saying you don't grasp it rather than making these foolish statements that make you look, foolish.

Sure. I've studied it for a long time. I know your little tricks. You can't play them with me. ;)
Speaking with you about in the past, I have learned this, you don't.
 
Recovering IFB said:
praise_yeshua said:
Recovering IFB said:
praise_yeshua said:
Again. "Doctrines of Grace" has nothing to do with Calvin. Nothing.
IOW "I have no idea what Calvinism/monergistic teaches, but I have always been told it's wrong, so, it's wrong"
You would be better off just saying you don't grasp it rather than making these foolish statements that make you look, foolish.

Sure. I've studied it for a long time. I know your little tricks. You can't play them with me. ;)
Speaking with you about in the past, I have learned this, you don't.

Whatever. Enjoy your delusion. God will settle it one day.
 
John R Rice recognized the Calvinism throughout Spurgeon, so he redacted all of the sermons and published his own version.

An IFB church, up the road from me (a few years back), had a Calvinist cleansing and tossed all of Spurgeon's works from their library.

Your attempts to revise Spurgeon and the Doctrines of Grace are just another futile and absurd understanding of the reality.
 
Charles Spurgeon said:
I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.

A Defense of Calvinism

Yeezy is, as usual, being disingenuous when he says Calvinism has nothing with the doctrines of grace.  He neglects, probably purposefully (since he cannot countenance being seen to be in error), that words have a multitude of related meanings.

Of course Calvinism is properly used of the whole system of John Calvin's theology: not merely his soteriology, but his views on the sacraments, church government, civil government, moral theology, and so forth. But outside of Reformed/Presbyterian circles, many Christians in many denominations affirm Calvin's soteriology, if not his ecclesiology. In fact, with usage, this has arguably become the primary definition of "Calvinism" because of its widespread acceptance, while "Calvinism" meaning "Calvin's whole system of theology" has ironically become the secondary definition. Certainly when Spurgeon said that he must preach "Calvinism," he meant Calvin's doctrines of salvation, which he then lists, and not, for example, Calvin's doctrine of baptism, which Spurgeon as a Baptist would have rejected!

Later in that same sermon, Spurgeon says:

There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer - I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it.

Of course Yeezy would have us believe Spurgeon didn't know what he was.  I submit, rather, that Yeezy doesn't know what Yeezy is: a loudmouthed windbag.
 
FSSL said:
John R Rice recognized the Calvinism throughout Spurgeon, so he redacted all of the sermons and published his own version.

An IFB church, up the road from me (a few years back), had a Calvinist cleansing and tossed all of Spurgeon's works from their library.

Your attempts to revise Spurgeon and the Doctrines of Grace are just another futile and absurd understanding of the reality.

Yeah. John R Rice was the apostle Paul reborn!!!

Who cares what Rice had to say about it. I know you don't care what he had to say.

Again. You're being dishonest in using the term "Doctrines of Grace"....

Calvinism is very little about grace and all about selfishness. You Calvinist love to talk of Calvin more than you ever talk of Christ. Its a good thing Christ knocked you over the head and dragged you "kicking and screaming" to Jehovah.
 
praise_yeshua said:
Again. You're being dishonest in using the term "Doctrines of Grace"....

That's nice. I don't recall anyone electing you the chief of the theology police.
 
Ransom said:
Yeezy is, as usual, being disingenuous when he says Calvinism has nothing with the doctrines of grace.  He neglects, probably purposefully (since he cannot countenance being seen to be in error), that words have a multitude of related meanings.

Of course Calvinism is properly used of the whole system of John Calvin's theology: not merely his soteriology, but his views on the sacraments, church government, civil government, moral theology, and so forth. But outside of Reformed/Presbyterian circles, many Christians in many denominations affirm Calvin's soteriology, if not his ecclesiology. In fact, with usage, this has arguably become the primary definition of "Calvinism" because of its widespread acceptance, while "Calvinism" meaning "Calvin's whole system of theology" has ironically become the secondary definition. Certainly when Spurgeon said that he must preach "Calvinism," he meant Calvin's doctrines of salvation, which he then lists, and not, for example, Calvin's doctrine of baptism, which Spurgeon as a Baptist would have rejected!

Are you really going to engage or is this just a hit and run job?

I referenced Calvinism as a systematic theology. Maybe you would take care to read what I wrote again. I know you embarrassed yourself in dealing with the topic of "allusion"..... but you can do better than this.

I listed a quote in which Spurgeon distanced himself from Calvinism....like any proper minister of the Gospel would. Spurgeon didn't have an "I am of Paul" mentality. I know you self-avowed Calvinist have a hard time understand the danger of such things.... but let me help you with it. The truth isn't about Calvin. Its not wrapped up in Calvin. Calvin didn't reveal it. Calvin didn't foster its acceptance. YET, you "I am of Calvin" sucklers feel obligated to defend his doctrine at any cost. Its pitifully sad just how you hold to it as if your life depends on it....

Well. It kinda does. You love the idea that God dragged you to Himself while abandoning your neighbor to suffer eternally without hope. You're just so "special" that way. Kind. Tenderhearted. So full of empathy and understand for your fellowman. It brings a dry tear to my eye!!!

Of course Yeezy would have us believe Spurgeon didn't know what he was.  I submit, rather, that Yeezy doesn't know what Yeezy is: a loudmouthed windbag.

If you Calvinists are going to complain about "name calling".... then don't throw them around yourself.

Spurgeon played the field..... so to speak. Any rational person would admit this. Generally speaking........ is about as clear as mud. You wouldn't accept a "general speaking" answer in a debate but you'll use such a quote from Spurgeon as evidence?

Typical Calvinist inconsistencies.
 
Ransom said:
praise_yeshua said:
Again. You're being dishonest in using the term "Doctrines of Grace"....

That's nice. I don't recall anyone electing you the chief of the theology police.

Nope. Not part of "enforcement". I have read the Scriptures before.....

Heb 13:8  Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Heb 13:9  Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace.

To which police department do you belong?

 
Again PY is the smartest person in the world and everyone else is a raving idiot.
 
rsc2a said:
Again PY is the smartest person in the world and everyone else is a raving idiot.

Your one liner is growing old. You've even got Ransom throwing it around.

I never said anything about raving idiots. At least you know a thing or two about hyperbole. You need to expand on this new development.
 
Wow.

None of this has ever been discussed before.

I'm going to watch the lint in my belly button.
 
praise_yeshua said:
I referenced Calvinism as a systematic theology.

All by yourself, too. You're so smart. Have a cookie!

oreo-cookie.jpg
 
Bo said:
ok...God blesses us with strengths and abilities......(thinking....tasting....seeing....hearing.....feeling....) how we use them is dictated by our own personal nature....which ( I believe you would agree) is screwed with by satan in an attempt to cause us to sin and stay un-saved....or once we are saved...as an attempt to prevent us from being effective soul winners.

By the way, there is MUCH more to being saved than just being a "soul-winner" (which is a pretty awful term)
 
praise_yeshua said:
Ransom said:
Yeezy is, as usual, being disingenuous when he says Calvinism has nothing with the doctrines of grace.  He neglects, probably purposefully (since he cannot countenance being seen to be in error), that words have a multitude of related meanings.

Of course Calvinism is properly used of the whole system of John Calvin's theology: not merely his soteriology, but his views on the sacraments, church government, civil government, moral theology, and so forth. But outside of Reformed/Presbyterian circles, many Christians in many denominations affirm Calvin's soteriology, if not his ecclesiology. In fact, with usage, this has arguably become the primary definition of "Calvinism" because of its widespread acceptance, while "Calvinism" meaning "Calvin's whole system of theology" has ironically become the secondary definition. Certainly when Spurgeon said that he must preach "Calvinism," he meant Calvin's doctrines of salvation, which he then lists, and not, for example, Calvin's doctrine of baptism, which Spurgeon as a Baptist would have rejected!

Are you really going to engage or is this just a hit and run job?

I referenced Calvinism as a systematic theology. Maybe you would take care to read what I wrote again. I know you embarrassed yourself in dealing with the topic of "allusion"..... but you can do better than this.

I listed a quote in which Spurgeon distanced himself from Calvinism....like any proper minister of the Gospel would. Spurgeon didn't have an "I am of Paul" mentality. I know you self-avowed Calvinist have a hard time understand the danger of such things.... but let me help you with it. The truth isn't about Calvin. Its not wrapped up in Calvin. Calvin didn't reveal it. Calvin didn't foster its acceptance. YET, you "I am of Calvin" sucklers feel obligated to defend his doctrine at any cost. Its pitifully sad just how you hold to it as if your life depends on it....

Well. It kinda does. You love the idea that God dragged you to Himself while abandoning your neighbor to suffer eternally without hope. You're just so "special" that way. Kind. Tenderhearted. So full of empathy and understand for your fellowman. It brings a dry tear to my eye!!!

Of course Yeezy would have us believe Spurgeon didn't know what he was.  I submit, rather, that Yeezy doesn't know what Yeezy is: a loudmouthed windbag.

If you Calvinists are going to complain about "name calling".... then don't throw them around yourself.

Spurgeon played the field..... so to speak. Any rational person would admit this. Generally speaking........ is about as clear as mud. You wouldn't accept a "general speaking" answer in a debate but you'll use such a quote from Spurgeon as evidence?

Typical Calvinist inconsistencies.

The problem is that you cannot understand that Spurgeon's beliefs are more than a label.

You try to tell us that Spurgeon makes a statement about the Calvinist label and interpret that as if he is wishy washy on Calvinistic theology.

You don't know Spurgeon.
 
rsc2a said:
Bo said:
Why would God have made Himself man to offer us a way to salvation if He controlled our minds and made us choose Him?

Ah...the "that's not fair" argument. He does save some.

What sin did God make you decide to do?

He gave me all my desires. As for how I use them...

?Never forget that when we are dealing with any pleasure in its healthy and normal and satisfying form, we are, in a sense, on the Enemy?s ground. I know we have won many a soul through pleasure. All the same, it is His invention, not ours. He made the pleasures: all our research so far has not enabled us to produce one. All we can do is to encourage the humans to take the pleasures which our Enemy has produced, at times, or in ways, or in degrees, which He has forbidden.? - The Screwtape Letters

Do you believe in the elect?

More so than you.

Do you believe that some are destined for Heaven and some are destined for hell?

All are predestined for somewhere. (See next answer.)

Are you a universalist?

I'm a pragmatic "Hell is hot and forever"-ist and a hopeful universalist.


So again, who created Satan?
God...but satan chose to rebel on his own...just like we all choose to go against God on our own.....

satan said in his heart he would be like the most high......it didn't say....God made satan say in his heart....

your evidence holds no water....none...whatsoever.....

the whole idea of the Bible....and Christianity....and Salvation.......

The bible is Gods words letting us know what he expects of us and how we can gain eternal life...

Christianity is a life of truth that follows and accepts the word of God....

Salvation is the way by which we obtain eternal life.....

all are choices that are to be made....he gave us the Bible so we would know righteousness from unrighteousness....so we would know how to choose our words and actions....

and Salvation is the choice to accept that He died on the cross for us.......

without free will and us having our own choices....it would negate the whole bible and reason for giving it to us.....

the idea that we have no control over our own choices and that God forces every choice we make on us is extremely contradictive to the scripture and the reason it was given to us in the first place
 
Got it. God created Satan with all of his reasoning, opportunities, desires, weaknesses, and gifts...

...and none of that contributed to his fall...

...riiiight...
 
rsc2a said:
Got it. God created Satan with all of his reasoning, opportunities, desires, weaknesses, and gifts...

...and none of that contributed to his fall...

...riiiight...

God doesn't give us our desires.....He gives us free will....

which is what His word tells us....and is the only thing that would make any kind of sense being that He made a way for our salvation and made a way for His doctrine and righteousness to be available to us....and the fact that He even made a set of commandments shows that He knew people would CHOOSE to not follow Him...because He does not exercise the power that He could if He so wanted....to manipulate our choices to follow or not follow Him...

the only time I know of....that He WILL do this...is at end time when He will make the lost to believe a lie...
 
Back
Top