What is wrong with Calvinism ?

RickReads said:

I don't feel like addressing that today, I`m already ruffling Baptist feathers.

It`s a big church world though. The Bible says "try the spirits and see if they are of me." 1 John 4:1

Spirit is a Biblical word for church and that verse is an invitation from God Himself to try different churches.

Click to expand...

iwbswiaihl said:

My favorite saying for my expressing my views in opposition to others view sometimes is "Every tub sets on its own bottom"

Click to expand...

rturner76 said:

And sometimes they fall on the floor and convulse. But to each his own.

Click to expand...

RickReads said:

Just as an FYI, Jews including the apostle Paul considered the entire Old Testament to be Torah.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

Where do you find in the NT that "spirit" is a Biblical word for "church" (called-out assembly)?

If you're thinking of Hebrews 12:22-23, that refers to spirits of the OT saints being in the church, as the angels are also in the church there, but so are born-again humans.

By what do you test the "spirits of churches" to measure and judge them?
There is only one measure. . .the word of God written.

So to what are they contrary as specified in the word of God written?

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

But do we need hermeneutics for the answers to those questions?
Hermeneutics gives us neither the right application of the OT to the NT, nor of the NT to the OT.
That is the function of the whole counsel of God, in the light of the NT.

There were great divines centuries before the development of hermeneutics, who dug deep into God's word showing us truths there that are hidden from most of us until they show them. . .all done for centuries without hermeneututics.

Nor do we need hermeneutics for an "objective format" of Scripture, nor to test the spirits by Scripture, for that is the function of Scripture itself, as understood in the light of all Scripture, and which has served well in the absence of man's hermeneutics, recently developed for the study of human literature, which the word of God is not.

Scripture being words written on on paper by men does not make it human literature, subject to hermeneutical analysis as human literature.

Hermeneutics is nothing more than modern man's attempt to establish authority over the meaning of Scripture, superseding the authority established by God over it; i.e., the context of the whole counsel of God.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

The NT refers to the entire OT with several terms: Law; or Law and Prophets; or Law, Prophets and Psalms.

The NT also sometimes refers to the two Feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread as either just Passover or just Unleavened Bread.

Click to expand...

RickReads said:

What accusation do you make now? Fabrication is it?

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

But do we need hermeneutics for the answers to those questions?
1) Hermeneutics gives us neither the right application of the OT to the NT, nor of the NT to the OT. That is the function of the whole counsel of God, in the light of the NT.
2) There were great divines centuries before the development of hermeneutics, who dug deep into God's word showing us truths there that are hidden from most of us until they show them
. . .all done for centuries without hermeneutics.

Click to expand...

3) Nor do we need hermeneutics for an "objective format" of Scripture, nor to test the spirits by Scripture, for that is the function of Scripture itself, as understood in the light of all Scripture, and which has served well in the absence of man's hermeneutics, recently developed for the study of human literature, which the word of God is not.
Scripture being words written on on paper by men does not make it human literature, subject to hermeneutical analysis as human literature.

Hermeneutics is nothing more than modern man's attempt to establish authority over the meaning of Scripture, superseding the authority established by God over it; i.e., the context of the whole counsel of God.

Click to expand...

enoob57 said:

This appears to be without reason so who could apply reason to it... thanks anyway...

Click to expand...

RickReads said:

Just as an FYI, Jews including the apostle Paul considered the entire Old Testament to be Torah.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

That's an oldie.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

The NT refers to the entire OT with several terms: Law; or Law and Prophets; or Law, Prophets and Psalms.
The NT also sometimes refers to the two Feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread as either just Passover or just Unleavened Bread.

Click to expand...

RickReads said:

And the word Torah which is translated Law in the King James refers to the whole.

Click to expand...

You aren't very knowledgeable when it comes to Jewish things

Click to expand...

so you would look less clumsy if you left issues like these alone.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

Is there reason you do not answer the simple question?

Click to expand...

iwbswiaihl said:

Are you thinking of Pilgram Progress, I noticed in there though that he says, every tub sets on its on legs. I had heard someone use it as bottom and liked it, and later discovered it may have been originally from Pilgrams Progress, and I just stopped and tried to find where it was in Pilgrams Progress but run into an ad for a book:
Every Tub Sits on Its Own Bottom: The true story of a very unlikely boy who chose not to accept “reality” as his destiny.
Cooper Jr., Mr. Ardist came out in 2012 ain't that something!

Just noticed you may have responding to RickReads said. if so, sorry about that

Click to expand...

RickReads said:

I don't feel like starting a new conversation. If you have the Reverend ask me I'll tell him where the verse is.

Click to expand...

RickReads said:

I don't feel like starting a new conversation. If you have the Reverend ask me I'll tell him where the verse is.

Click to expand...

ReverendRV said:

Lol, where is it?

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

Okay. . .glad to see that quote. . .it answers my question.

The word is "sits" rather than "sets."

Click to expand...

RickReads said:

1 John 4:1. I did misquote. It says of God instead of, of me

Click to expand...

iwbswiaihl said:

Yes in that book I saw that, but before I saw that I use to say the same thing, and I put a post on an article on fox news sometime and a gentleman came back and said to me, its not sits down, its sets, it sets on its own bottom, not sit, one sits down and not sets down. So I not going to change back because someone else may tell me it sets and not sits down. I'm probably older than you, so respect your elders and let me say, every tub sets on its own bottom, PLEASE, PLEASE LET ME BE RIGHT JUST ONCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Just funning

Click to expand...