ECT An honest Calvinist hymn

[Lon]

system

:idunno: Systematic Theology. We all are either Dispensationalist or Covenant, Arminian or Calvinist. We can't escape categorizing (structuring logically) the way we understand the scriptures. I'm not sure I understand your one-word response (sorry). I'm guessing in the dark here so having a hard time serving your need. Help? Thanks.

-Lon

 

[andyc]

Absolutely absurd conclusion! I would expect nothing less!

Started a thread on it. Enjoy!

 

[Simon Baker]

John says here, if God is answering your prayers, it is a sign you are His (probably a no-brainer, but he, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, was moved to remind us 2 Peter 1:21). Jesus also reminded us that he/she who is not against us, is for us Luke 9:50 Matthew 12:30 and Mark 9:40

I don't really see the Calvinism/Arminian debate as starkly as a few other on TOL and other places, do. In general, we are trying to put together the scriptures in the best way we see them fitting. I think (at least this is my personal philosophy and tack) that we should be talking a lot more than fighting because we 'need' to compare notes as believers. We'll likely continue separating into denominations for awhile BUT I believe a lot of this discussion would be better in-house where we can love and challenge one another to love Him more, in thought and deed. I understand the difference, but I've seen it work well at seminary and in a few churches. Emphasis on important things is key, I think.

God wants us to know: Romans 10:9-13 Acts 2:21 Joel 2:32 Acts 16:30-31




Romans 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans is an incredibly encouraging book for Christians wanting assurance). It was important to John to tell us what he told us, under the leading of the Holy Spirit, so that we might know Christ and in knowing Him, have life in His name. God wants us to be assured. There a few assurances that help when we are in doubt. Ask if you want more. Start an "Assurance of Salvation" thread if such is needed. I'm not sure if you wanted this for yourself, or from just a Calvinist's perspective, but I wanted to be sure I was covering both bases. In Christ,

His blessings.

-Lon

Picking Up On a Point You Make. "In-House", And We Do. Not Enough Yet. I Am Confident We Will Rise Together As Strong Faithful Christians When The Time Is At Hand, Praise GOD ! We Need Every Member Of The True Body Of Christ, Young And Old. Some Of Us Will Not Be Here

 

[musterion]

So is there a tell tale difference, a proof, distinguishing a person who is truly elect and one who is deceived?

Next to "Who does God love?" this is the eternal - and eternally unanswered - question.

 

[musterion]

It is easy to sit in the sunshine
And talk to the man in the shade;
It is easy to float in a well-trimmed boat,
And point out the places to wade.

But once we pass into the shadows,
We murmur and fret and frown,
And, our length from the bank, we shout for a plank,
Or throw up our hands and go down.

It is easy to sit in your carriage,
And counsel the man on foot,
But get down and walk, and you'll change your talk,
As you feel the peg in your boot.

It is easy to tell the toiler
How best he can carry his pack,
But no one can rate a burden's weight
Until it has been on his back.

The up-curled mouth of pleasure,
Can prate of sorrow's worth,
But give it a sip, and a wryer lip,
Was never made on earth.

- Ella Wheeler Wilcox
1896

Persons constructing straw men of the Calvinist's views by claiming we operate from the same presuppositions they do and therefore believe about our beliefs what they believe about our beliefs leaves no hope for honest discussion.

If persons would avail themselves of a scripturally accurate summary of our beliefs, e.g., WCF, with a nice exposition of the same here, much clarity would ensue. Unfortunately some prefer to just parrot others in discussion forums and not dig deeper.

AMR

I'll sum up what you meant in one word:

Calumnies!

 

[musterion]

As for musterion's OP, he's convinced himself that a Calvinist cannot have a personal assurance of Salvation, which is the very thing that sparked the reformation.

Says the charismatic peanut gallery who thinks speaking in "tongues" is proof positive of salvation for anyone, no matter what gospel they've believed.

Run along now, boy.

 

[musterion]

I Am Confident We Will Rise Together As Strong Faithful Christians When The Time Is At Hand, Praise GOD !

Not with so many contradictory gospels just within Protestantism, we won't. Most of us are wrong, or all of us are and someone else is correct, but we can't all be right. Sorry. Sad to say but it's a fact, and one we were told to expect.

 

[Cross Reference]

Says the charismatic peanut gallery who thinks speaking in "tongues" is proof positive of salvation for anyone, no matter what gospel they've believed.

Run along now, boy.

Yer lyin' through yer teeth! But then, that is the way of the wicked.

 

[andyc]

Says the charismatic peanut gallery who thinks speaking in "tongues" is proof positive of salvation for anyone, no matter what gospel they've believed.

Run along now, boy.

So you misrepresented Calvinism, and now you misrepresent charismatic pentecostalism.

 

[Cross Reference]

system

He really intended to use the word, "doctrine". He'd be accurate if he had done so.

 

[musterion]

So you misrepresented Calvinism, and now you misrepresent charismatic pentecostalism.

1. Put your money where your mouth is: show how/where I've misrepresented Calvinism. Don't let the Calvinists do it for you. YOU do it.

2. Hypothetical: You hear a devout Roman Catholic speak in "tongues" that sound absolutely identical to every "tongue" you have ever heard. In a blind test, you could not tell his from anyone else's. Question: Is he saved?

 

[musterion]

Yer lyin' through yer teeth! But then, that is the way of the wicked.

Most of the people on this thread agree that Christ is I AM. You don't. Nor are you a Calvinist. So you have no place in this discussion. Please leave now or be reported for trolling.

 

[Lon]

Not with so many contradictory gospels just within Protestantism, we won't. Most of us are wrong, or all of us are and someone else is correct, but we can't all be right. Sorry. Sad to say but it's a fact, and one we were told to expect.

Two philosophies: Save them all or just save ourselves, and keep the rest at bay.

TOL has a lot of smack, but at the same time, it is fairly incredible that we can all attend the same place. Are there unbelievers? There certainly are. Are there heretics? Obviously. Are there disagreements even among whoever is left? Yep.

You have heard keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. I think TOL is actually a good place in a lot of respects, though I'd have toned down the 'smack' side if I were the site owner, and have created another site like many other sites. Only one pastor gets to preach, and only members in good standing get to teach. Because of that, churches are well protected in my estimation. Sometimes we have to ask some people to leave, but that doesn't happen often.

At any rate, back to the thread: the difference between Calvinists is similar to the difference between Dispensationalists and MAD. We don't tend to label ourselves into factions, so I can see how some of this confusion could be our own fault. A Dispensationalist and MAD are more distinct so strawmen are less common.

-Lon

 

[Cross Reference]

Most of the people on this thread agree that Christ is I AM. You don't. Nor are you a Calvinist. So you have no place in this discussion. Please leave now or be reported for trolling.

More misrepresenting of what others write/say. What does that make you except a liar.

Report me.

 

[Cross Reference]

Two philosophies:

Save them all or just save ourselves, and keep the rest at bay.

TOL has a lot of smack, but at the same time, it is fairly incredible that we can all attend the same place. Are there unbelievers? There certainly are. Are there heretics? Obviously. Are there disagreements even among whoever is left? Yep.

You have heard keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. I think TOL is actually a good place in a lot of respects, though I'd have toned down the 'smack' side if I were the site owner, and have created another site like many other sites. Only one pastor gets to preach, and only members in good standing get to teach. Because of that, churches are well protected in my estimation. Sometimes we have to ask some people to leave, but that doesn't happen often

.

What determines "good standing", denominational bylaws? I think so.

At any rate, back to the thread: the difference between Calvinists is similar to the difference between Dispensationalists and MAD. We don't tend to label ourselves into factions, so I can see how some of this confusion could be our own fault. A Dispensationalist and MAD are more distinct so strawmen are less common.

-Lon

You can't be serious. How many Baptist/Pentecostal denominations are there and what determines their "labels"?

 

[musterion]

First, for what it's worth (nothing, really), I back 100% your recent complaint to the penalty box and your rationale for it. It is a thin gray line the mods have to walk on that, but you already know that already. Which leads me to this...

Two philosophies: Save them all or just save ourselves, and keep the rest at bay.

Third one: Preach Christ and Him crucified. Speak where Scripture speaks, rightly divide it to make sure you're an approved workman and (esp. relevant to this thread) remain silent where God's Word is silent. Leave the rest to God.

TOL has a lot of smack, but at the same time, it is fairly incredible that we can all attend the same place. Are there unbelievers? There certainly are. Are there heretics? Obviously. Are there disagreements even among whoever is left? Yep.

NO!

(kidding)

You have heard keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

I fully understand Sun-Tzu's reasoning but taking his advice requires calculated duplicity, which believers are to eschew. Sorry...pedantic philosophical side-point, ignore it if you want.

I think TOL is actually a good place in a lot of respects, though I'd have toned down the 'smack' side if I were the site owner, and have created another site like many other sites. Only one pastor gets to preach, and only members in good standing get to teach. Because of that, churches are well protected in my estimation. Sometimes we have to ask some people to leave, but that doesn't happen often.

You'd have to ask around but I think they considered it and came to the decision that it would ultimately lead to a stagnated site full of isolated echo chambers with little interaction between them.

No...the Dodge City free-for-all nature of TOL is actually its strength: there are very few lines that must not be crossed but once crossed, the hammer falls and examples are made. Short of that, it's the arena of ideas...at turns respectful or brutal, coarse or gentlemanly (or ladylike). I didn't see that for some time but now I do. TOL is working fine as is and there's really few if any sites like it.

Now, private subforums...quiet getaways hidden from the view of the non-elect (see what I did there?) where like-minded folks can take a break from trolls and ne'er-do-wells...kind of like Sam's Saloon on GUNSMOKE...that is a lovely idea.

At any rate, back to the thread: the difference between Calvinists is similar to the difference between Dispensationalists and MAD. We don't tend to label ourselves into factions, so I can see how some of this confusion could be our own fault. A Dispensationalist and MAD are more distinct so strawmen are less common.

-Lon

I think I can agree with that but you're not going to like where I go with it.

As a hyperdispensationalist (allegedly; the label means zip to me), I find myself to be more consistent with my dispensationalism than the vast majority of Acts 2 dispies, one of which I used to be.

Likewise - and I've said this before but will not stop saying it - I can't help but find the personally loathsome B57 to be THE most consistent Calvinist on TOL. As with Acts 2 dispies ignoring MADs as heretics without actually understanding why we've come to the position we hold, you mainline Calvinists really ought to stop, shut up a minute and LISTEN to WHY a hyper-Calvinist believes as he does. You may come to see that his positions are more internally, logically cohesive and consistent than yours are because, sorry, they are.

I think you know me well enough that I do not say this as an insult: you really would benefit from understanding your own hypers FULLY, but I don't think you do. Any of you. If you do, you never talk about it. Which is very, very odd.

So to that end: you've seen all types of dispies hash it out openly here on TOL, right? Then take a tip from us: learn why your own "hypers" believe what they believe and refute it openly on a thread. Or try to. The rest of us would watch with the keenest interest. You could probably sell tickets. I know I'd pay to watch, and that's no lie.

Think about it.

 

[Cross Reference]

1. Put your money where your mouth is: show how/where I've misrepresented Calvinism. Don't let the Calvinists do it for you. YOU do it.

2. Hypothetical: You hear a devout Roman Catholic speak in "tongues" that sound absolutely identical to every "tongue" you have ever heard. In a blind test, you could not tell his from anyone else's. Question: Is he saved?

Never discuss in hypotheticals. Do you have an actual personal experience? If not, why set one up from willful ignorance with the intent to disprove or, what's worse, mock, which leaves you on dangerous ground.

Everyone should know the name given to the "bane" of Christendom.

 

[Lon]

First, for what it's worth (nothing, really), I back 100% your recent complaint to the penalty box and your rationale for it. It is a thin gray line the mods have to walk on that, but you already know that already. Which leads me to this...

No, I think you make a valid point here about inclusion and exclusion. I certainly must agree with you here, and on quite a few other points to follow. Even when such is not Salvific, such disruption may necessitate certain exclusions. I cannot argue with that either. Both great points :up:

Third one: Preach Christ and Him crucified. Speak where Scripture speaks, rightly divide it to make sure you're an approved workman and (esp. relevant to this thread) remain silent where God's Word is silent. Leave the rest to God.

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I'd hoped with my point #1. If not, I'd change #1 to something close to this.

I fully understand Sun-Tzu's reasoning but taking his advice requires calculated duplicity, which believers are to eschew. Sorry...pedantic philosophical side-point, ignore it if you want.

As I said, I think your first paragraph shows this to play out true. We did have a few cultists in seminary. Though they were welcomed, in the hope that some would be positively influence, several did not have the mind of Christ. Scriptures call us to have discernment between the brother in need of correction and the false teacher and reprobate. I would have agreed on this at any point in thread. I come from the SBC, where we have MAD and Calvinists, in the same church. As long as both can get along, without creating waves, the attendance is fine. The doctrinal statement of the church will likely disallow one or both from teaching Sunday School. It depends on one's gift and placement within the body, we shouldn't encourage pew sitting by any means. Double-Predestination Calvinists and MAD are certainly at the extremes and constraints against mutual membership and fellowship, whereas Calvinism and Dispensationalists often cross paths and belong to the same churches and organizations side-by-side. Even at extremes, unless there is an adamant belief the other isn't a Christian, or worse, such doesn't preclude or disrupt fellowship around other venues (like TOL for instance, though you know it don't come easy (Ringo Starr, but shouldn't it have been "doesn't?").

You'd have to ask around but I think they considered it and came to the decision that it would ultimately lead to a stagnated site full of isolated echo chambers with little interaction between them.

Yes. That's what I was saying, if I had started TOL, I'd not have made it like this and it would have simply been a site like so many others out there. It was a compliment to the necessity and bravery to create a site with a lot of freedom and leeway.

No...the Dodge City free-for-all nature of TOL is actually its strength: there are very few lines that must not be crossed but once crossed, the hammer falls and examples are made. Short of that, it's the arena of ideas...at turns respectful or brutal, coarse or gentlemanly (or ladylike). I didn't see that for some time but now I do. TOL is working fine as is and there's really few if any sites like it.

Are you the Cowboys or the Earps? :think:

Now, private subforums...quiet getaways hidden from the view of the non-elect (see what I did there?) where like-minded folks can take a break from trolls and ne'er-do-wells...kind of like Sam's Saloon on GUNSMOKE...that is a lovely idea.

Yeah, I noticed, but you messed up because you said private. I can see how you missed the elected sense of such (see what I did there?). The Exclusive section here was meant to be like that. I think they got bored, but I try to be extra-nice when attending those.

I think I can agree with that but you're not going to like where I go with it.

As a hyperdispensationalist (allegedly; the label means zip to me), I find myself to be more consistent with my dispensationalism than the vast majority of Acts 2 dispies, one of which I used to be.

Likewise - and I've said this before but will not stop saying it - I can't help but find the personally loathsome B57 to be THE most consistent Calvinist on TOL. As with Acts 2 dispies ignoring MADs as heretics without actually understanding why we've come to the position we hold, you mainline Calvinists really ought to stop, shut up a minute and LISTEN to WHY a hyper-Calvinist believes as he does.

I have and actually appreciate him/them as Calvinists. I'm not sure if Dispensationalists will ever listen to MAD/hyper in a similar fashion. I, with a strong Dispensational background, heard most were off-base (polite for heretical). Listening to MADists on TOL, I get a lot more of what you do and don't believe. So, I guess I'm saying if I take a few moments to stop and listen to you, I certainly stop and listen to B57 and take time to read his posts.

You may come to see that his positions are more internally, logically cohesive and consistent than yours are.

At one time, as a Dispensationalist, I'd have said something similar, so I can appreciate your statement and assessment. Most people do not spend enough time with us asking questions about why and how it makes sense. For me, the best way to understand, was to continue to ask "What does this mean for God?" As opposed to "What does this mean for me?"

I think you know me well enough that I do not say this as an insult - you really would benefit from understanding them FULLY, but I don't think you do.

I didn't take it as one. Do I understand double-predestination Calvinists "FULLY?" No. I do know to date, where I agree and disagree with them. Hilston has in his sig, the difference between God's Decretive and Prescriptive will (Hilston is a MADispensationalist). R.C. Sproul says something similar which most Calvinists espouse. Double-Predestination Calvinists tend to just see God's will, without distinction.
Thus, they aren't 'more' consistent, just more fully disclosed concerning what they believe. Conversely, a discussion of various expressions of God's will, rarely comes up in a Calvin/Arminian discussion.

You've seen all types of dispies hash it out openly here on TOL, right? Then take a tip from us: learn why your own "hypers" believe what they believe and refute it openly on a thread. Or try to. The rest of us would watch with the keenest interest. You could probably sell tickets. I know I'd pay to watch, and that's no lie.

Think about it.

I am not as well-versed as AMR and I have a few Dispensational/Arminian bits clinging as well. AMR has interacted with B57 and others, usually in contest over scripture. Using the search feature might produce a few of those exchanges for your perusal. I don't agree with all of Calvin nor, I don't believe one has to, else I could not be one. I am more on page with Spurgeon and Steven Charnock. I believe, that produces the Calvinist label.

-Lon

 

[andyc]

1. Put your money where your mouth is: show how/where I've misrepresented Calvinism. Don't let the Calvinists do it for you. YOU do it.

From the post you responded to I mentioned that Calvinists have personal assurance of faith. You were denying this in the OP.

2. Hypothetical: You hear a devout Roman Catholic speak in "tongues" that sound absolutely identical to every "tongue" you have ever heard. In a blind test, you could not tell his from anyone else's. Question: Is he saved?

I cannot say if anyone from any denomination is saved, regardless of the fruit they exhibit (Rom 14:4).

 

[musterion]

From the post you responded to I mentioned that Calvinists have personal assurance of faith. You were denying this in the OP.

You don't even understand enough about Calvinism to understand the point I was making, which was not that. You don't know what I meant so you don't know nearly enough to object to anything I said. You are simply a contentious fool who uses any topic as an excuse to oppose a MAD even when you have zero personal stake in the discussion (such as this one).

I cannot say if anyone from any denomination is saved, regardless of the fruit they exhibit (Rom 14:4).

So "tongues" really prove nothing regarding one's salvation? That's an amazing and very honest admission for you to make. This is the first time you've actually impressed me. :thumb: