- May 28, 2018
- 14,282
- 6,365
- 69
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
FWIW, her statement was offered rather tongue-in-cheek.Such an excuse is usually offered by a person who cannot understand or come to the biblical meaning.
I have seen such a person repeat parts of verses, explain nothing, and say...here it is, I believe it says this....Jesus wept, see I believe it, Jesus wept. Then claim they follow the bible alone.
They never explain anything they cannot.
I know a man who calls Himself Biblicist, and he really is. I can supply some of His teaching and you can see the difference. Let me know if you want to see those posts.
No. She put them in quotes, not implying the doctrines at all to be false. Her point is that the idea of 'literalist' can be taken to ridiculous ends, and, (as I understood her to be pointing at), that you had taken her words, "instead of", as meaning to be a literal translation for ὑπὲρ, (when she had not meant that); then you declared your literalistic tendencies.I may have misunderstood her point (I didn't think she was talking about what I believed).
I understood her to imply that the doctrine of the Trinity and the sovereignty of God is not actually in the text of Scripture (which is obviously incorrect, as evidenced by the passages I implied).
What do you think she meant?
I do not understand what you mean. How does the Trinity and divine sovereignty fit in with her post?No. She put them in quotes, not implying the doctrines at all to be false. Her point is that the idea of 'literalist' can be taken to ridiculous ends, and, (as I understood her to be pointing at), that you had taken her words, "instead of", as meaning to be a literal translation for ὑπὲρ, (when she had not meant that); then you declared your literalistic tendencies.
But maybe I shouldn't speak for her. But FWIW, you might find her to be rather a literalist in common conversation. She doesn't try to hide meaning with clever words. (And no, I'm not saying that you do.)
How does one argue thousands of times on this forum in favor of Calvinist doctrine and yet does not identify as a Calvinist, states he/she never studied Calvinism, and does not support TULIP? Fellow Calvinist ReverendRV who has only posted a few times on this forum called him/her out on that twice.Your lack of knowledge in any one matter does not indicate the lay of the facts in that matter. She has declared her sex more than once, and is hard to pin down as a Calvinist because she does not always use common Calvinistic terminology. She purposely argues Bible, not Calvinism. She purposely tries to use Biblical terminology and now that you see she is Calvinistic in her theology (in spite of her terminology) you want (to put it nicely) to disparage her. This is not helping your argument.
1 Peter 3:18-20 reflects on a special operation that Jesus or the Holy Spirit conducted which is hard at least for me to fathom as Peter is terse and as a result the passage raises innumerable questions. Perhaps other special operations have been conducted by Jesus or the Holy Spirit - perhaps on the behalf of those who did not hear the Gospel. Remember, Paul states that Christ gave himself a ransom for all and God desires all men be saved (1 Timothy 2) - even John MacArthur and John Piper publicly acknowledge that God desires all men be saved (2 Corinthians 10:5). I am not a Universalist.John the key here is understanding the Holy Spirit is in view
1pet.3:18-20
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh,
but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
Jesus does not preach to those in prison after the cross, it is the Spirit whopreached to then in the day of Noah, before they perished.
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Calvin was quite prolific. I sometimes read Bible commentaries even though most are written by Calvinists - as they sometimes identify something I missed from the text or demonstrate how scripture can be interpretted to support their ends. Eat the hay and spit out the sticks.I didn’t know Calvinists had their own book. I stay as far away from commentaries as possible with the exception of the first 3 century writings.
Ha, ha.This thread is not about Calvin, but that being said I think more people have read his writings, than your posts
If Calvinists preachers were more forthcoming on their doctrine, there would be fewer Calvinists. Who is interested in a God that predestines most to hell before they are born? I view that as satanic.Most "Calvinists" have not read much of Calvin.
John is the black posts.I'm having a bit of trouble telling where it is you and where it is John speaking.
That is a caricature of the teaching.Ha, ha.
If Calvinists preachers were more forthcoming on their doctrine, there would be fewer Calvinists. Who is interested in a God that predestines most to hell before they are born? I view that as satanic.
I get what Clare is posting.FWIW, her statement was offered rather tongue-in-cheek.
Like I said. @Clare73 's arguments are Biblical. Being "Calvinist" is irrelevant, and that is how she wants to keep it. She is not arguing to support Calvinism, but is arguing to prove each issue she believes, whether it has anything to do with Calvinism or not. The fact you notice she argues what Calvinists do might tell you something of the biblicity of Calvinism.How does one argue thousands of times on this forum in favor of Calvinist doctrine and yet does not identify as a Calvinist, states he/she never studied Calvinism, and does not support TULIP? Fellow Calvinist ReverendRV who has only posted a few times on this forum called him/her out on that twice.
I noticed you have posted multiple times on just this thread to support him/her - even addressing a fellow Calvinist who was actually supportive. What gives? How does one post thousands of times on Theology threads as a Calvinist while denying to be such, pose as a Paulist (did not know that was a thing), and give thoughtless and dismissive "Au Contraire" responses - all while acting so fragile?
There are no safe spaces on Theology threads.
To me, while I can sympathize with people that do that (because I too tend to think that way concerning many verses), their usual assumption is, "these verses obviously make my point", or, "these verses easily destroy the opposing viewpoint", or, "these verses speak for themselves". And yes it is frustrating. Specially frustrating is the fact that they interpret the frustration as stubborn denial, or weakness of argument.I get what Clare is posting.
My comment was concerning an anti cal, who explains nothing, just posts a verse and says..here it is....then you say what does that verse mean?
He repeats here it is...see, I believe it!
You say...what does the verse mean?
He bore our sin?
He was smitten by God?
He died for our transgression?
He was crushed?
He was made sin for us?
He will not explain becauses it will expose his denial of penal substituion.
So God has failed to save some he fully intended to save? Somehow, something God intended is subject to mere accident.
WHERE do I disagree at all with these: "Two things that have remained constant throughout the scriptures from the first man to the last with One exception, man has constantly disappointed God, and man has constantly disregarded His will"?Two things that have remained constant throughout the scriptures from the first man to the last with One exception, man has constantly disappointed God, and man has constantly disregarded His will. The scriptures are filled to the brim with examples of God not getting what He wanted from man. Your putting your own personal assertion above what the scriptures actually state instead of allowing the scriptures to mold your assertions. If our assertions are contradictory to what the scriptures specifically state then we are wrong.
You are really going out of your way to misunderstand me, I think. GOD HAS DECREED THAT WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS DOES INDEED COME TO PASS. IN FACT, HE IS THE FIRST CAUSE BEHIND ALL THAT. BUT HE DOES NOT SIN IN CAUSING THAT SIN BE. He is not subject to our notions of him being to blame for anything.
She is saying that there are three separate persons in the one God, when she says "God is Trinity," Father, Son and Holy Spirit.I think you missed her point. She wasn't saying that you deny the doctrine of the Trinity etc.
What I oppose in what you wrote here is that you think you know "what God wanted". You don't even know what it is for God to 'want' something. The etymology of "want" involves the notion of lacking. God does not lack for anything. He is not like us.
Then by that logic since I knew my son would disobey me before he was conceived, as all children do, I caused his disobedience by choosing to conceive him? Especially when I’ve been teaching him his whole life not to disobey me?
When sin is the result of free will both the cause and the fault lies in the individual not his ancestors. My great great grandfather didn’t cause me to steal a pack of bubblegum from the grocery store when I was a child nor did Noah, or Adam, or even God for that matter especially since God had already told me not to steal. I knew it was wrong and I was told not to do it and I chose to do it anyway. The cause of the sin derived from me, from my choice by my own free will.
God foreseeing what will take place does not mean that He caused it, it simply means He allowed it because it was an inevitable part of His plan to cultivate a family who would choose to love Him. Just like me knowing that my son would disobey, I didn’t cause his disobedience, it was an inevitable part of my plan to have a family to love. So just like my son’s disobedience was an inevitable part of my plan to have a family, sin was an inevitable part of God’s plan to have a family as well.
But WHY did she say that? That is what I was trying to get across to him.She is saying that there are three separate persons in the one God, when she says "God is Trinity," Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
She is saying that while the NT shows three separate divine agents, it also shows one God (Mark 12:29; 1 Timothy 2:5). That is the gospel Jesus spells out to Nicodemus in John 3:1-21; i.e., the combined action of the Triune God.
She is saying that those who deny the Trinity have to scale down the gospel--and they do.
She is saying they have to make God too small--and they do.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?