Please explain this.

[bbyrd009]

Agreed !

i have several of these arranged in an easier form to read already, getting solid reviews. The names have been stripped out, etc, which is really a hypocritical move to me, the quotes are quotes and could prolly be tracked down pretty easy anyway, but i apparently consented to an implied agreement here, lawyers and whatnot, anyway fwiw everyone here has my permission to quote anything i have ever said here, and my name is Mark Whittington no not that mark whittington the one i have linked plainly to my fb profile ok. Anyway i would repost them here only bc with the names stripped out, they become easier to read i guess, being as how we only like to persecute ppl who dont agree with us i guess. As long as no one is calling us on it anyway right

 

[atpollard]

I believe that Luke 16:10 would teach us that we ought to seek after accuracy and unity even in the non-essentials.

Then join the Padeobaptists in drowning Credobaptists for claiming that it is wrong to baptize an infant since baptism is a sacrament for those who confess a belief in Christ and only for those who confess a belief in Christ. Burn Protestants at the stake for rejecting the One True Church and the Apostolic authority handed down from Christ to the Apostles to the Catholic Church.

You claim there are no non-essentials ... so treat the apostate heretics as they deserve!

Yet, some Calvinists teach it. If you say that they are misrepresenting what Calvinism teaches in teaching it, how am I to know that in saying that, you are not the one who is misrepresenting the doctrine? Because they would say that they have it right.

Ask me to prove a specific Calvinist "teaching", and judge for yourself the credibility of my "witnesses". I suggest you create a new topic for our exchange, or you can just state what you would like proven and I will start a topic. What I want to avoid is just bouncing around and being asked to prove all of Calvinism. I could do so, but I do not want to type and nobody wants to read the "Westminster Confession of Faith". So let's try to stick to one manageable topic.

 

[bbyrd009]

calvinism lol, jesus already
"Westminster Confession of Faith," priceless.
the blind leading the blind right there, bro.

but i gotta ask if someone feels like i am persecuting anyone, why arent they calling me on it? I could trash that festering whore Calvin in two paragraphs lol, and youd have to go run behind your tree again, right, sure wouldnt be replying to it right. hypocrites, lol, man
i know them bc i am them, see, takes one to know one right

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

I'd like to make it clear that it's not that I want to avoid him.
The problem is that we're just repeating the same thing over and over and this doesn't even help those reading along anymore. Most of the time I post for those reading along anyway...there are many.

I agree for the same reasons. It appears to have been a waste of time since JBF appears to have no ability to hear.

Also, his replies are curt and I don't know what he's replying to and I don't have the time to go back up to my post for each question. This takes a lot of time away from the reply,,,,to which I just didn't reply in my last post to him.

Yes, my posts to him took a lot of time.

Also, I'd say that if one wants to really understand the bible, some type of bible study or theology has to be part of one's learning. We can't just read the bible on our own and think we understand everything. There's language to contend with and the different culture and the fact that it was written TWO THOUSAND years ago. Sometimes I think we lose track of how long ago this is!

Yes--we kid ourselves if we think that others have not struggled to understand. Not that they were always right, mind you, but we can gain much by using a historical approach to interpreting Scripture.

What does BE PERFECT mean? Did Jesus really want us to be perfect?

It gives us an ideal as a goal, even though we will never achieve it. It makes us appreciate Our Lord all the more. "Perfect"in the NT meant to be "mature" or "complete" in the faith.

Does He really want us to sell everything and become a disciple?

I think He said that to the "Rich Young Ruler" because He understood that the man's wealth was an impediment to faith for him. Since Jesus remarks on it as the Rich Young Ruler walks away--that is our likely clue. Worldly riches are an impediment to faith for many--but it should be remembered that Abraham was a very wealthy man. In those whose faith is strong, it is not an impediment because all worldly wealth is a gift from God and we should always be cognizant that it could be taken away in a moment.

There's too much to know for us to think we could learn all this on our own.

That is why we have the community of faith.;)

The salvific part of the bible is simple to understand.

Indeed, it is.

 

[GodsGrace]

Then join the Padeobaptists in drowning Credobaptists for claiming that it is wrong to baptize an infant since baptism is a sacrament for those who confess a belief in Christ and only for those who confess a belief in Christ. Burn Protestants at the stake for rejecting the One True Church and the Apostolic authority handed down from Christ to the Apostles to the Catholic Church.

You claim there are no non-essentials ... so treat the apostate heretics as they deserve!


Ask me to prove a specific Calvinist "teaching", and judge for yourself the credibility of my "witnesses". I suggest you create a new topic for our exchange, or you can just state what you would like proven and I will start a topic. What I want to avoid is just bouncing around and being asked to prove all of Calvinism. I could do so, but I do not want to type and nobody wants to read the "Westminster Confession of Faith". So let's try to stick to one manageable topic.

Why would I read the Westminster Confession instead of Calvin's Institutes?

 

[bbyrd009]

these mithraists posing as Christians are going to kill you if you let them, ok.

 

[bbyrd009]

because all worldly wealth is a gift from God

yay, we dont have to leave the world at all now! Huzzah!
look Abraham was rich--because sheep and camels are the same thing as dollars, right, dur, dur--and look how good his nation did, ya, just thrivin huh?

 

[GodsGrace]

I agree for the same reasons. It appears to have been a waste of time since JBF appears to have no ability to hear.

Yes, my posts to him took a lot of time.


Yes--we kid ourselves if we think that others have not struggled to understand. Not that they were always right, mind you, but we can gain much by using a historical approach to interpreting Scripture.

It gives us an ideal as a goal, even though we will never achieve it. It makes us appreciate Our Lord all the more. "Perfect"in the NT meant to be "mature" or "complete" in the faith.
I think He said that to the "Rich Young Ruler" because He understood that the man's wealth was an impediment to faith for him. Since Jesus remarks on it as the Rich Young Ruler walks away--that is our likely clue. Worldly riches are an impediment to faith for many--but it should be remembered that Abraham was a very wealthy man. In those whose faith is strong, it is not an impediment because all worldly wealth is a gift from God and we should always be cognizant that it could be taken away in a moment.

That is why we have the community of faith.;)


Indeed, it is.

Looks to me like we agree on everything except eternal security.
Even on what Perfect means and the Rich Young Ruler.
Interesting that we don't agree on that one doctrine.

However, I must say that your belief in eternal security is palatable to me...OSAS is not.

 

[GodsGrace]

yay, we dont have to leave the world at all now! Huzzah!

Huzzah?
LOL

 

[GodsGrace]

these mithraists posing as Christians are going to kill you if you let them, ok.

What's a mithraist?

 

[bbyrd009]

What's a mithraist?

that is what Roman Centurions are, ppl who believe that they might go up to heaven after they have died, to become immortals, etc. Well mithraism is more female-friendly i guess, its why all of our women are turning into men right in front of us, it is really the Cult of Sol in a new dress. Nowadays they are called "Christians," but i mean a four year old could see the resemblance GG. Wont be fun tho k? But just google "mithraism and..." and youll see where google autocompletes for "Christianity" there, first or second on the drop-down list

 

[bbyrd009]

The amazing name Nazarene: meaning and etymology

down toward the bottom, Constantine etc.
which btw i have nothing against constantine ok, hes just a politician and idc about anything the world has to offer. Mighta done the same thing he did too if my ego drove me to seek office and the respect of other men, i guess

 

[GodsGrace]

that is what Roman Centurions are, ppl who believe that they might go up to heaven after they have died, to become immortals, etc. Well mithraism is more female-friendly i guess, its why all of our women are turning into men right in front of us, it is really the Cult of Sol in a new dress. Nowadays they are called "Christians," but i mean a four year old could see the resemblance GG. Wont be fun tho k? But just google "mithraism and..." and youll see where google autocompletes for "Christianity" there, first or second on the drop-down list

OK will do.
I'd also like to say that our men are turning into women.

 

[bbyrd009]

OK will do.
I'd also like to say that our men are turning into women.

oh, definitely, heck even old Stranger is moaning like a girl now huh lol

dunno how some clown can come on here to a Christian site and complain about the kkk not getting any respect with a straight face without getting laughed off teh planet myself, but there it is, In Living Color huh. Hey pg 88! lol

heil, baby

 

[atpollard]

Why would I read the Westminster Confession instead of Calvin's Institutes?

"Calvinism" is a historic shorthand description for what is properly known as Reformed Soteriology (soteriology = the study of salvation). What is known as Arminianism started out with a publication called the "Remonstrances" which challenged the traditional 'Orthodox' view held by the Reformers (those that split from the Church in Rome and started the Protestant Reformation). The Remonstrances were responded to at the Synod of Dort and the report of the Synod of Dort became the start of what is known as Calvinism. The Reformers did not name themselves 'Calvinists' nor was John Calvin actually the leader of the movement that bears his name. His earlier writings (the Institutes) were influential, but they do not form the foundation in the way that the writings of Luther form the foundation of the Book of Concord for Lutherans.

It was the Lutheran Church that named the followers of the teachings of the Synod of Dort "Calvinists" as an insult and an attack, since they felt that the Synod had gone too far and confused "Law and Grace" (the terms Lutherans use to describe their views on Sotierology). Just as a point of irony, John Calvin was not actually a "5 point Calvinist". This is why critics like to quote Calvin's Institutes to discredit "Calvinism".

So an early source for Reformed teaching is the Heidelberg Catechism (1563). After that comes the defining "Calvinist teaching" with the Synod of Dort (1619). The Baptist Confession of Faith (1644) was written by Particular (Calvinist) Baptists to distinguish the "believer's baptism" from the "infant baptism" practiced by the reformers from the Lutheran and Church of England traditions. Then comes the 'gold standard' for Reformed Theology (including Calvinist Soteriology), the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) written for the Church of England and adopted by the 'Calvinist' branch of the Presbyterian Churches.

So the Institutes will give you insights into the man that inspired Reformed Soteriology (aka. Calvinism), but it is not the actual source of that theology. The Synod of Dort is the first source for "Calvinism" and the Remonstrances is the source for Classic Arminianism. John Wesley is the primary source for "Wesleyan Arminianism" like that practiced by the historic Methodist Church (which is a bit different than Classic Arminianism).

 

[GodsGrace]

The amazing name Nazarene: meaning and etymology

down toward the bottom, Constantine etc.
which btw i have nothing against constantine ok, hes just a politician and idc about anything the world has to offer. Mighta done the same thing he did too if my ego drove me to seek office and the respect of other men, i guess

I'm going to post part of what you linked....
I'd like @Grailhunter @Lady Crosstalk and @justbyfaith
to read this. I've been trying to make the point to JBF that not everything can be learned from JUST reading the bible...this will how him what I mean because I'm not sure he knows.

This will be referring to the yoke of Jesus.
Mathew 11:28

Constantine's ☧ symbol

In 313 emperor Constantine published the Edict of Milan, which allowed people to worship whatever deity they wanted without loss of property rights, and that caused people to confuse Yahwism with a religion and Yahweh and thus Christ with just another god. One particular brand of Yahwism spoke of "Savior", "Lord of Lords" and "Son of God," which mimicked Rome's imperial religion, as well as of immortality and resurrection, which were also phrases used by the Roman cult of Sol Invictus (the Invincible Sun), to which Constantine was devoted. In 310, Constantine had famously marched upon the armies of Maxentius, after he had seen a vision of a symbol coming out of the sun. According to some accounts, the symbol was accompanied by the message, "In Hoc Signo Vinces", meaning "with this symbol you will conquer", and which obviously catered to the sensibilities of a devout follower of Sol Invictus. The symbol was ☧, the interlaced Greek letters Χ (chi) and Ρ (rho).

This symbol would become one of the most recognized Christian symbols, but it wasn't back then. In Constantine's days, this symbol was used by Greek pagan scholars, who wrote it in the margins of texts to mark a passage they found striking (the ancient equivalent of a highlighter marker). ΧΡ is short for χρηστος (chrestos), meaning pleasant or profitable, fit for use. In the New Testament this same word is used to describe usefulness of things or people towards other people. It's also employed to describe the quality of Christ's yoke: for my yoke is chrestos and my load is light (MATTHEW 11:30), which doesn't emphasize the easiness of following Jesus but rather its basis in practical usefulness. Paul appears to hint at the practice of marking useful passages in texts when he says, "Test all things and hold on to the good" (1 THESSALONIANS 5:21; albeit by using the adjective καλος).

source: The amazing name Nazarene: meaning and etymology

 

[Grailhunter]

I'm going to post part of what you linked....
I'd like @Grailhunter @Lady Crosstalk and @justbyfaith
to read this. I've been trying to make the point to JBF that not everything can be learned from JUST reading the bible...this will how him what I mean because I'm not sure he knows.

This will be referring to the yoke of Jesus.
Mathew 11:28

Constantine's ☧ symbol

In 313 emperor Constantine published the Edict of Milan, which allowed people to worship whatever deity they wanted without loss of property rights, and that caused people to confuse Yahwism with a religion and Yahweh and thus Christ with just another god. One particular brand of Yahwism spoke of "Savior", "Lord of Lords" and "Son of God," which mimicked Rome's imperial religion, as well as of immortality and resurrection, which were also phrases used by the Roman cult of Sol Invictus (the Invincible Sun), to which Constantine was devoted. In 310, Constantine had famously marched upon the armies of Maxentius, after he had seen a vision of a symbol coming out of the sun. According to some accounts, the symbol was accompanied by the message, "In Hoc Signo Vinces", meaning "with this symbol you will conquer", and which obviously catered to the sensibilities of a devout follower of Sol Invictus. The symbol was ☧, the interlaced Greek letters Χ (chi) and Ρ (rho).

This symbol would become one of the most recognized Christian symbols, but it wasn't back then. In Constantine's days, this symbol was used by Greek pagan scholars, who wrote it in the margins of texts to mark a passage they found striking (the ancient equivalent of a highlighter marker). ΧΡ is short for χρηστος (chrestos), meaning pleasant or profitable, fit for use. In the New Testament this same word is used to describe usefulness of things or people towards other people. It's also employed to describe the quality of Christ's yoke: for my yoke is chrestos and my load is light (MATTHEW 11:30), which doesn't emphasize the easiness of following Jesus but rather its basis in practical usefulness. Paul appears to hint at the practice of marking useful passages in texts when he says, "Test all things and hold on to the good" (1 THESSALONIANS 5:21; albeit by using the adjective καλος).

source: The amazing name Nazarene: meaning and etymology

I am so sorry guys...this is a good topic for discussion...look it up again and lets have fun with it.

 

[Helen]

men do not have souls to destroy per se wadr, and dont you ever get tired of this circuit-riding to the same, tired towns, where there can never be any resolution, jbf?

Your church has been burned to the ground, bro, the fire is basically even out now, they are abandoned hulks, shadows of their former selves, and you want to argue semantics and procedure? I mean its ok with me ok, i'm getting rich selling marshmallows bro, and all my children are safely in other countries, they will not be saddled with your debt, which is going to come due real soon, ok. There's real assets, still, backing that debt, ok.

only see now we have elected The Liquidator, right, the Bankruptcy King, he is Our Boy now right

see youre right i guess that the truth is never popular, huh, wanna hear the truth from Scripture again? We could even Quote It from your festering, syphilitic KJV if you want, right

Why hold back...why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Why would I read the Westminster Confession instead of Calvin's Institutes?

LOL--the Westminster Confession is a LOT shorter. ;)

 

[GodsGrace]

"Calvinism" is a historic shorthand description for what is properly known as Reformed Soteriology (soteriology = the study of salvation). What is known as Arminianism started out with a publication called the "Remonstrances" which challenged the traditional 'Orthodox' view held by the Reformers (those that split from the Church in Rome and started the Protestant Reformation). The Remonstrances were responded to at the Synod of Dort and the report of the Synod of Dort became the start of what is known as Calvinism. The Reformers did not name themselves 'Calvinists' nor was John Calvin actually the leader of the movement that bears his name. His earlier writings (the Institutes) were influential, but they do not form the foundation in the way that the writings of Luther form the foundation of the Book of Concord for Lutherans.

It was the Lutheran Church that named the followers of the teachings of the Synod of Dort "Calvinists" as an insult and an attack, since they felt that the Synod had gone too far and confused "Law and Grace" (the terms Lutherans use to describe their views on Sotierology). Just as a point of irony, John Calvin was not actually a "5 point Calvinist". This is why critics like to quote Calvin's Institutes to discredit "Calvinism".

So an early source for Reformed teaching is the Heidelberg Catechism (1563). After that comes the defining "Calvinist teaching" with the Synod of Dort (1619). The Baptist Confession of Faith (1644) was written by Particular (Calvinist) Baptists to distinguish the "believer's baptism" from the "infant baptism" practiced by the reformers from the Lutheran and Church of England traditions. Then comes the 'gold standard' for Reformed Theology (including Calvinist Soteriology), the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) written for the Church of England and adopted by the 'Calvinist' branch of the Presbyterian Churches.

So the Institutes will give you insights into the man that inspired Reformed Soteriology (aka. Calvinism), but it is not the actual source of that theology. The Synod of Dort is the first source for "Calvinism" and the Remonstrances is the source for Classic Arminianism. John Wesley is the primary source for "Wesleyan Arminianism" like that practiced by the historic Methodist Church (which is a bit different than Classic Arminianism).

Thanks A.
Lots of info.