John Calvin and Calvinism.

[reformed1689]

You preach double predestination. Which tells man that the vast majority of them are preordained to damnation without remedy.

I preach Scripture, nothing else.

 

[PinSeeker]

PinSeeker: This is pretty much exactly what I just said...
Nope. You said it meant "personal" and it doesn't.

Oh... yes it does:

hypostatic [ hahy-puh-stat-ik ] adjective Theology: pertaining to or constituting a distinct personal being or substance.

Google (and in this case, Dictionary.com) is quite expedient sometimes. :)

I'm glad you agree with me...

No problem... yes, at least in this one particular case concerning the hypostatic union. :)

It does show you can change.

Of course I can change, when warranted. But I have yet to run into anything here that has warranted such.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Who cares what Calvin liked? I mean really. This has NOTHING to do with him. Why can't you get that through your head? And if you think you are getting to me by saying Calvin wouldn't like me because I follow believer's baptism? I got news for you, you need to try something else. Calvin didn't make the doctrines. They come from Scripture. Calvinism is just a label, nothing more. And here we are talking about soteriology, nothing else. So bark up another tree. You are wrong.

Notice everyone.... How a "Calvinist" will fight "tooth and nail" for Calvinism and then when they can't defend it.....

They say "it is just a label"...... Run... baby run......

I don't know the times I've had this happen in my life. Over and over again. Time after time. They claim to be Calvinists (as if Calvinism is a cohesive singular teaching. Its not. Everyone one of them seem to have their own flavor that varies. Anything that varies is UNSTABLE).

Then is "run baby run" when they are proven wrong.

 

[reformed1689]

Notice everyone.... How a "Calvinist" will fight "tooth and nail" for Calvinism and then when they can't defend it.....

They say "it is just a label"...... Run... baby run......

I don't know the times I've had this happen in my life. Over and over again. Time after time. They claim to be Calvinists (as if Calvinism is a cohesive singular teaching. Its not. Everyone one of them seem to have their own flavor that varies. Anything that varies is UNSTABLE).

Then is "run baby run" when they are proven wrong.

I'm not running away from anything. I fully embrace TULIP, though the acronym is flawed. And that is what we are discussing here.

 

[reformed1689]

You made the statement and then denied making it. The onus is upon you.... not me.

No I did not deny saying the word plural, I denied what you claimed I was saying.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Oh... yes it does:

hypostatic [ hahy-puh-stat-ik ] adjective Theology: pertaining to or constituting a distinct personal being or substance.

Google (and in this case, Dictionary.com) is quite expedient sometimes. :)

Hypostatic is a "theological" reference that predates English. Not that you would know this. It takes time and personal effort to know such things. Everyone thinks google has made them smarter than they actually are......

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Hypostatic Union

Pay attention to "hypostasin".

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'm not running away from anything. I fully embrace TULIP, though the acronym is flawed. And that is what we are discussing here.

You're all over the place. You referenced the IBCF as your source of authority...... now you appeal to the "flawed" TULIP acronym

Geesh... A double minded man is what?

 

[praise_yeshua]

No I did not deny saying the word plural, I denied what you claimed I was saying.

You said those chosen "plural" in Eph 2. I'm glad you agree with me.

 

[reformed1689]

You're all over the place. You referenced the IBCF as your source of authority...... now you appeal to the "flawed" TULIP acronym

Geesh... A double minded man is what?

I did not say the DOCTRINES were flawed. I said the ACRONYM was flawed. I use: Radical Depravity, Sovereign Election, Definite Atonement, Irresistible Call, and Preserving Grace. So no, I am not all over the place. NOR did I reference the LBCF as my "source of authority" that is a lie. The Bible is my source of authority. I referenced the LBCF because YOU wanted a reformed confession that said certain things about Christ and claimed it did not exist. So I produced one, then you tried to say the LBCF is not reformed to which is one of the most ridiculous assertions I have EVER heard. You just can't admit you are wrong.

 

[PinSeeker]

You preach double predestination. Which tells man that the vast majority of them are preordained to damnation without remedy.

God has mercy on whom He will have mercy, compassion on whom He will have compassion. God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles.

He predestines only those whom He calls (and ultimately, without fail, glorifies them). The others he gives up to their own selfish desires, and they get exactly what they choose for themselves.

You can call it what you want. It is what it is. The issue that you have is really with Paul, and ultimately God, not with John Calvin or anyone who understands Scripture as he did. Answer back to Paul, as Paul suggested in Romans 9:19, and to God, as Paul suggested in Romans 9:20, and see where that gets you.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[reformed1689]

You said those chosen "plural" in Eph 2. I'm glad you agree with me.

Again, I don't think I said Eph. 2. I said plural, yes, but I don't think I referenced Eph. 2. That is for you to prove. Otherwise you are lying.

 

[reformed1689]

God has mercy on whom He will have mercy, compassion on whom He will have compassion. God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles.

He predestines only those whom He calls (and ultimately, without fail, glorifies them). The others he gives up to their own selfish desires, and they get exactly what they choose for themselves.

You can call it what you want. It is what it is. The issue that you have is really with Paul, and ultimately God, not with John Calvin or anyone who understands Scripture as he did. Answer back to Paul, as Paul suggested in Romans 9:19, and to God, as Paul suggested in Romans 9:20, and see where that gets you.

Grace and peace to you.

Exactly, he wants to put the focus on us, but we aren't the ones who said this. We simply read Scripture for what it actually says.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I did not say the DOCTRINES were flawed. I said the ACRONYM was flawed.

Which is what I said.

I use: Radical Depravity, Sovereign Election, Definite Atonement, Irresistible Call, and Preserving Grace. So no, I am not all over the place.

Another "lone wolf" Calvinist that claims to get it right where everyone else got it wrong. You should have lead with this and not defended all those other "flavors" of Calvinism.

NOR did I reference the LBCF as my "source of authority" that is a lie. The Bible is my source of authority. I referenced the LBCF because YOU wanted a reformed confession that said certain things about Christ and claimed it did not exist. So I produced one, then you tried to say the LBCF is not reformed to which is one of the most ridiculous assertions I have EVER heard. You just can't admit you are wrong.

The Synod of Dort and the Westminster Confession are both clearly Protestant and predate the LBCF by a generation. Baptist are always "late to the claim".....

 

[PinSeeker]

I did not say the DOCTRINES were flawed. I said the ACRONYM was flawed. I use: Radical Depravity, Sovereign Election, Definite Atonement, Irresistible Call, and Preserving Grace.

Eh... they're the same thing, so I disagree that the acronym is flawed. The problem is that the former, TULIP, is easier to misrepresent, and that's probably because the language originally used is about five hundred years old. I like your updating. :)

Grace and peace to you, 1689.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Again, I don't think I said Eph. 2. I said plural, yes, but I don't think I referenced Eph. 2. That is for you to prove. Otherwise you are lying.

No. Otherwise you are forgetful.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Eh... they're the same thing, so I disagree that the acronym is flawed. The problem is that the former, TULIP, is easier to misrepresent, and that's probably because the language originally used is about five hundred years old. I like your updating. :)

Grace and peace to you, 1689.

Who would of "thunk" it... A Calvinist disagreeing with a Calvinist yet BOTH claiming it is still Calvinism.......

Oh the madness.....

 

[reformed1689]

Which is what I said.




Another "lone wolf" Calvinist that claims to get it right where everyone else got it wrong. You should have lead with this and not defended all those other "flavors" of Calvinism.



The Synod of Dort and the Westminster Confession are both clearly Protestant and predate the LBCF by a generation. Baptist are always "late to the claim".....

More ignorance on your part. 1. that is not what you said. 2. I'm not a lone wolf. You realize Ligonier uses the same terms on their teaching series and they would be considered the staple of Calvinism in the United States. As for as Dort and WCF what is your point? Baptists aren't late to anything. We believe the same things with regard to salvation. The LBCF only veers away from the WCF with regard to Baptism and a few other minor areas. You are really grasping here and failing miserably.

 

[reformed1689]

No. Otherwise you are forgetful.

Yet you still can't produce the post...hmm....

 

[reformed1689]

Eh... they're the same thing, so I disagree that the acronym is flawed. The problem is that the former, TULIP, is easier to misrepresent, and that's probably because the language originally used is about five hundred years old. I like your updating. :)

Grace and peace to you, 1689.

That is my point is TULIP gets misrepresented, in that way it is flawed.

 

[reformed1689]

Who would of "thunk" it... A Calvinist disagreeing with a Calvinist yet BOTH claiming it is still Calvinism.......

Oh the madness.....

Um, we didn't disagree on the doctrine. Goodness you really are off base.