How the Gospel Works

[Lon]

That's why I found Mr. Nang's candor and bluntness a breath of fresh air...as fresh as air can be coming from the crypt of corrupt Reformed theology, anyway. Too much obfuscation and fog from most of them, and it's always deliberate.

:nono: Not deliberate, necessary. Look, MAD is simple. Dispensationalism general? :nono: Reformed? Easier imho, nowhere near Dispensationalism and I think perhaps even easier than MAD. Just as I am not lazy enough to bin all MAD with the same brush-stroke, try not to paint all of us Reformed that way either. "Candor" then, is your favorite version of 'easier to understand' theology. Well? Don't talk to us that have a theology that isn't simple for you to understand in a one-hour session? :think: A breath of fresh air doesn't require study. There is no obfuscation. I've been very plain where I agree or disagree with Calvin and/or other Calvinists. Okay, I'm a 'different' Calvinist. Either find out what and who "I" am or just talk to people who think like you want them to think so you can bin them. I'm not so lazy concerning MAD, nor do I think MAD stops you from being an effective witness for Christ. Because of 'my' theology, I know you are in His hands. I pray for you so know, beyond doubt, God is doing something with you. Such is my faith and my theological understanding. :e4e:

 

[Eagles Wings]

:nono: Not deliberate, necessary. Look, MAD is simple. Dispensationalism general? :nono: Reformed? Easier imho, nowhere near Dispensationalism and I think perhaps even easier than MAD. Just as I am not lazy enough to bin all MAD with the same brush-stroke, try not to paint all of us Reformed that way either. "Candor" then, is your favorite version of 'easier to understand' theology. Well? Don't talk to us that have a theology that isn't simple for you to understand in a one-hour session? :think: A breath of fresh air doesn't require study. There is no obfuscation. I've been very plain where I agree or disagree with Calvin and/or other Calvinists. Okay, I'm a 'different' Calvinist. Either find out what and who "I" am or just talk to people who think like you want them to think so you can bin them. I'm not so lazy concerning MAD, nor do I think MAD stops you from being an effective witness for Christ. Because of 'my' theology, I know you are in His hands. I pray for you so know, beyond doubt, God is doing something with you. Such is my faith and my theological understanding. :e4e:

I agree with your assessment that the nuances of Reformed doctrine make for a very personal, prayerful understanding of such.

Since several of us participate in Reformed forums, we know how vigorous and passionate a difference in meaning or expression can be debated.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

No one wins where there is no Gospel.

This is going to sound "Evil"... but... ahem ... <(I)> ... You still have a bazillion "Abandonded" threads to utilize. There is no ill in adjusting an Opening Post... and Re-Launching it. Heck... You can even spoiler format the initial OP and Add new Material before it... while providing further insight into the previous material.

I have to say... It's far from 1 - 0 in this matter. You have a veritable library of material to reference and expound in... with "quotation" opportunities... within those libraries to use the very words of OP contributions to add to the very Opening Post.

One of my favorite things is to tie OP's together and utilize supporting material from all sides to bolster its points.

My point?

1 - 1

And...

If that doesn't give you a warm fuzzy and @Evil.Grin.<(I)> ... I'm scratching my head.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

:nono: Not deliberate, necessary. Look, MAD is simple. Dispensationalism general? :nono: Reformed? Easier imho, nowhere near Dispensationalism and I think perhaps even easier than MAD. Just as I am not lazy enough to bin all MAD with the same brush-stroke, try not to paint all of us Reformed that way either. "Candor" then, is your favorite version of 'easier to understand' theology. Well? Don't talk to us that have a theology that isn't simple for you to understand in a one-hour session? :think: A breath of fresh air doesn't require study. There is no obfuscation. I've been very plain where I agree or disagree with Calvin and/or other Calvinists. Okay, I'm a 'different' Calvinist. Either find out what and who "I" am or just talk to people who think like you want them to think so you can bin them. I'm not so lazy concerning MAD, nor do I think MAD stops you from being an effective witness for Christ. Because of 'my' theology, I know you are in His hands. I pray for you so know, beyond doubt, God is doing something with you. Such is my faith and my theological understanding. :e4e:

Hello Lon ...

You said No obfuscation... Excellent!

(1) Did Jesus die for Every Human Being that has ever lived and will live?

(2) Does Human Choice bring Loss of Salvation ... or... Does God's Pre-Creation Will govern "Loss of Salvation"?

(3) What does 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance... mean to you, and what does (ALL) mean within it's context?

(4) Why do you thrust the offering of Universal Redemption in with the category of UNIVERSAL Salvation? (I may read this wrong... but it's in a quote from you to Musty... a few posts back...)

 

[Right Divider]

:nono: Not deliberate, necessary. Look, MAD is simple. Dispensationalism general? :nono: Reformed? Easier imho, nowhere near Dispensationalism and I think perhaps even easier than MAD.

I disagree Lon. There is nothing at all complicated about dispenationalism.

It is simply the recognition that God dispenses different instructions with different responsibilities to people from time to time. Sometimes to different people and somethings to the same people.

Here is an ultra simple example:

Gen 2:15-17 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:15) And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. (2:16) And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: (2:17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

​

Gen 3:22-24 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:22) ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (3:23) Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. (3:24) So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
​

God CHANGED His instructions to Adam.

Should Adam keep the FIRST set of instructions or the NEW instructions?

This sort of thing goes on throughout the Bible.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I disagree Lon. There is nothing at all complicated about dispenationalism.

It is simply the recognition that God dispenses different instructions with different responsibilities to people from time to time. Sometimes to different people and somethings to the same people.

Here is an ultra simple example:

Gen 2:15-17 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:15) And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. (2:16) And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: (2:17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

​

Gen 3:22-24 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:22) ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (3:23) Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. (3:24) So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
​

God CHANGED his instructions to Adam.

Should Adam keep the FIRST set of instructions or the NEW instructions?

This sort of thing goes on throughout the Bible.

I agree! God is not wooden and rigid... but responsive to humanity in an adaptive way that shows initiation and response that is indicative of Relationship and change. God does not change... but God changes His approach... while working towards His perpetual redemptive, Loving goal.

 

[Nang]

HE didn't create people for the purpose of wrath. You claim the scriptures that can be assumed to say such... and I know the scriptures well... but you rip them from their context so harshly that the very paper bursts into flames!

God created all things in heaven and earth, including mankind, to bring glory to His name.

Because of the fall of Adam, God's wrath against sin has been promised, but so has His saving grace.

God is glorified through His acts of Justice and through His acts of Grace.

It is error to deny Him either attribute or purpose.

The final resurrection of man is to either suffer God's condemnation or to find everlasting life. John 5:28-29

God will be glorified in all His judgments. Psalm 115:3; I Chronicles 16:34-36

 

[Nang]

Gen 2:15-17 (AKJV/PCE)[/COLOR][/INDENT]

(2:15) And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. (2:16) And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: (2:17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

​

Gen 3:22-24 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:22) ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (3:23) Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. (3:24) So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
​

God CHANGED His instructions to Adam.

Should Adam keep the FIRST set of instructions or the NEW instructions?

This sort of thing goes on throughout the Bible.

Uh, I think you left out an important event that explains the differentt language . . .

 

[Right Divider]

Uh, I think you left out an important event that explains the differentt language . . .

Thanks so much for pointing out the irrelevant.

The POINT is that God CHANGED His instructions to Adam. What "event" caused that is NOT relevant to the FACT that God CHANGED His instructions to Adam.

You have a really hard time with simple things.

 

[Nang]

Thanks so much for pointing out the irrelevant.

The POINT is that God CHANGED His instructions to Adam. What "event" caused that is NOT relevant to the FACT that God CHANGED His instructions to Adam.

You have a really hard time with simple things.

Irrelevant?

The corruption and fall of the human race is irrelevant?

Nothing about God's will and purposes or the future of the souls of men, can be explained outside of what Adam did in the garden.

 

[Right Divider]

Irrelevant?

The corruption and fall of the human race is irrelevant?

Nothing about God's will and purposes or the future of the souls of men, can be explained outside of what Adam did in the garden.

I really enjoy your complete lack of understanding SIMPLE LOGIC.

Yes, to the POINT that I was making it is completely irrelevant.

 

[Cross Reference]

CR... What is there past eternity with Jesus Christ?

What Higher calling would you like to share with me?

Obviously, I struck a cord with you you never knew was there. So tell me where I am wrong since you wasted no time in telling me I am?

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

The honest story that sheds light on the matter

The honest story that sheds light on the matter

God created all things in heaven and earth, including mankind, to bring glory to His name.

Because of the fall of Adam, God's wrath against sin has been promised, but so has His saving grace.

God is glorified through His acts of Justice and through His acts of Grace.

It is error to deny Him either attribute or purpose.

The final resurrection of man is to either suffer God's condemnation or to find everlasting life. John 5:28-29

God will be glorified in all His judgments. Psalm 115:3; I Chronicles 16:34-36

Nang...

Example 1). The 3 sons...​

A father has 3 sons and raises them to have free will. We'll name them Loving, Hateful and Breeze.

Loving is a sweet boy and he gets along swimmingly... with Breeze and Hateful. Breeze just doesn't really care much and drifts... and Hateful isn't nice to Breeze or Loving.

One day... Father catches Hateful teaching Breeze to be ... Hateful. Father takes note. The following week... father finds Loving with his skull caved in by some blunt object. When He approaches Hateful's room... he hears Hateful telling Breeze; "You weak fool! If you tell father or even try to be like Loving... I'll bash your brains in, too!"

A year goes by and things settle down. One summer day, Father has company over and a beautiful young lady arrives with them and is introduced to the two brothers.

While conversing with the company, a blood curdling scream is heard. Father instinctively jumps up and runs! He arrives to see Breeze slumped over with a knife in his gut... lifeless... and hears horrible commotion coming from the next room. He kicks down the door and sees Hateful holding the young ladies throat and having his way with her. Tears roll down his cheeks and he says; "Hateful, let go of her now." Hateful snaps the girls neck and arises to kill father. Father's eyes blaze out of anger for Hateful's carnage, while tears are simultaneously streaming down his cheeks for what he knows comes next.

Father is so immense and powerful... the next events happen too quickly to describe... but father is sitting on the floor weeping for the dead boy in his arms. He keeps kissing his dead forehead and saying; "I love you boy! Why did you choose the path you chose? I love you boy and will forever miss you."

[MENTION=7292]Nang[/MENTION] ... true justice always carries Love and Love without choice ... is nothing more than this...

[MENTION=7292]Nang[/MENTION]'s version....)​

has father raising the 3 boys to be what they become and father reveals that He wanted Loving to be his Glory of Perfection.... Breeze... who died trying to save the girl... to be His Glory of Mercy... and Hateful to be His Glory of Justice.

Nang's scenario has Father CAUSING... by His will... the depravity of Hateful... and the destruction and carnage that ensued... all to glorify how "good" he is.

The Scripture of the matter)...​

Nang binds all vessel of wrath texts and draws the conclusion I just narrated and described as her version... but she forgets...

Ephesians 2:3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

So.... you see... there is no Divine lottery... we all have the same odds and we all are or were...

"Vessels of Wrath"

Spoiler

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Obviously, I struck a cord with you you never knew was there. So tell me where I am wrong since you wasted no time in telling me I am?

Huh? I've always liked you since I was Nameless.in.grace.... and I'm not out to "tell you you're wrong". Please clarify... as I am scratching my head... in respects to your reply.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I really enjoy your complete lack of understanding SIMPLE LOGIC.

Yes, to the POINT that I was making it is completely irrelevant.

:thumb:

 

[glorydaz]

Everyone knows that. Move on from the issue of salvation to the understanding of the "why of it all".

How 'bout I said Jesus was God's representation of a "normal" man; man as He originally intended man to be?

Oh, well I was responding to Nick's post.

You'll have to bring up what you'd said if you want me to respond. From what you say there, I'd agree.

 

[Lon]

I disagree Lon. There is nothing at all complicated about dispenationalism.


This sort of thing goes on throughout the Bible.

I agree! God changes His approach... while working towards His perpetual redemptive, Loving goal.

Ryrie's for example, is almost 700 pages! :noway:

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Ryrie's for example, is almost 700 pages! :noway:

God continually separates people and sees how they will react to one another. He looks for both to learn mercy and humility.

Examples...

Satan and Humanity
Cain and Able
Ishmael and Isaac
Jacob and Esau
Joseph and his brothers
Israel and Egypt
Israel and all others... aka... Goyum
Believing Jews and Unbelieving Jews
Jews and Gentiles
Saved from the Unsaved

How difficult is that? Who needs a stinking Commentary? :idunno:

 

[Lon]

Hello Lon ...

You said No obfuscation... Excellent!

(1) Did Jesus die for Every Human Being that has ever lived and will live?

Almost all Calvinists will say no BUT I think they will agree with me when I say "Yes" here. I'm not obfuscating, I just think clarification is important. Most Calvinists assume what you mean is this: "Did Jesus die to save every human being that has ever lived." Think about your answer too. I would say you would say 'no, because if that was the purpose, it would have done exactly that and we'd all be universalists.'

No, rather, you and I believe specifically, that He died, and all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Romans 10:13 You are gracious and I think that suffices BUT to cover most objections, forget Calvinism (everybody else) for a second. I'm trying to answer scriptures with scripture expressions. If I CAN'T do that and be a Calvinist, then I can't be a Calvinist either. Let me say that again: If, as a Calvinist, I cannot answer any question you give me with scriptures, but have to resort to a Calvinist statement, then I'm sunk. Hold me and all Calvinists accountable. We 'can' use scriptures to answer all questions. The moment we can't we and any other theology system that cannot, is sunk. Done deal. We all need to be saying "Explain that to me with scriptures." Commentary on them is fine, but we need to be reading scriptures more. So, and it is a net that catches us all, if you disagree, please show me from scriptures. I'd need to see, very specifically, a verse that the Lord Jesus Christ died to save all men without exception if that was your meaning, and thank you. -Lon

(2) Does Human Choice bring Loss of Salvation ... or... Does God's Pre-Creation Will govern "Loss of Salvation"?

Awkward for me and most of us, even MAD. Almost all of us believe we are born sinners. This thread I started has 552 responses!

(3) What does 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance... mean to you, and what does (ALL) mean within it's context?

I think we both see this particular question,nearly the same but perhaps for how 'definite' those being saved are. Romans 11:25 Matthew 13:24-30

(4) Why do you thrust the offering of Universal Redemption in with the category of UNIVERSAL Salvation? (I may read this wrong... but it's in a quote from you to Musty... a few posts back...)

A bit of my perspective (bear with me, a little long but I think necessary): the story of Pharaoh. Exodus 7:3-4 First of all, it looks 'unconscionable' that God would 'harden' Pharaoh's heart on purpose. I've seen a lot of bad theology about this. The passage was always very troubling to me and never matched the God I love. I really had a hard time, until I saw something: Verse 3 "...though I multiply My signs and wonders...."
God could have jumped, immediately to the last plague. Some suggest it was 'for Israel' that ten plagues existed. That when they saw them, their faith would be strengthened.....but it wasn't. Many of them participated with the golden calf, complained about manna, etc. etc.

Surely it 'was' for the faithful remnant, but I believe ten plagues were grace. Why? "I multiply My signs and wonders...." To me, it is the same thing. God foretold, knowing Pharaoh, what His actions would do BUT Paul tells us God's signs and wonders are seen by every man. He causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust.

In a nutshell, God and all His actions, will either draw or repel, including the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is for some, the chief cornerstone, and for others, their stone of stumbling. Same Lord Jesus Christ. While a Calvinist will say God actively causes reprobates, they fail often to explain that love is either accepted or rejected. By simply showing this love, then, God actively causes builders of faith, to trust in Him. Conversely, all men who reject Him, stumble over that very grace. Therefore, when you ask, I do have somewhat the mind of an Arminian in recognition that men are responsible for what they do with the Lord Jesus Christ and their sin condition. That said, there is and should be a lot of crossover of shared beliefs between Calvinists and others, else everybody else is right, and we are not Christians. Any who embrace scriptures may not agree, but we should be expected to agree 'most' of the time, imho. Those who followed Paul and those who followed Apollos? No luxury to not be one body. Why? --> Christ. Paul said "Who is Paul? Who is Apollos?" I'd have liked to have met and chatted with that Apollos fellow. :think:

Thinking is hard. I pray mostly that we become thoughtful believers, weighing all things. You have challenged me to 'think' and I pray my reply has done the same, to the glory and honor of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ. -Lon

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Almost all Calvinists will say no BUT I think they will agree with me when I say "Yes" here. I'm not obfuscating, I just think clarification is important. Most Calvinists assume what you mean is this: "Did Jesus die to save every human being that has ever lived." Think about your answer too. I would say you would say 'no, because if that was the purpose, it would have done exactly that and we'd all be universalists.'

No, rather, you and I believe specifically, that He died, and all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Romans 10:13 You are gracious and I think that suffices BUT to cover most objections, forget Calvinism (everybody else) for a second. I'm trying to answer scriptures with scripture expressions. If I CAN'T do that and be a Calvinist, then I can't be a Calvinist either. Let me say that again: If, as a Calvinist, I cannot answer any question you give me with scriptures, but have to resort to a Calvinist statement, then I'm sunk. Hold me and all Calvinists accountable. We 'can' use scriptures to answer all questions. The moment we can't we and any other theology system that cannot, is sunk. Done deal. We all need to be saying "Explain that to me with scriptures." Commentary on them is fine, but we need to be reading scriptures more. So, and it is a net that catches us all, if you disagree, please show me from scriptures. I'd need to see, very specifically, a verse that the Lord Jesus Christ died to save all men without exception if that was your meaning, and thank you. -Lon


Awkward for me and most of us, even MAD. Almost all of us believe we are born sinners. This thread I started has 552 responses!


I think we both see this particular question,nearly the same but perhaps for how 'definite' those being saved are. Romans 11:25 Matthew 13:24-30


A bit of my perspective (bear with me, a little long but I think necessary): the story of Pharaoh. Exodus 7:3-4 First of all, it looks 'unconscionable' that God would 'harden' Pharaoh's heart on purpose. I've seen a lot of bad theology about this. The passage was always very troubling to me and never matched the God I love. I really had a hard time, until I saw something: Verse 3 "...though I multiply My signs and wonders...."
God could have jumped, immediately to the last plague. Some suggest it was 'for Israel' that ten plagues existed. That when they saw them, their faith would be strengthened.....but it wasn't. Many of them participated with the golden calf, complained about manna, etc. etc.

Surely it 'was' for the faithful remnant, but I believe ten plagues were grace. Why? "I multiply My signs and wonders...." To me, it is the same thing. God foretold, knowing Pharaoh, what His actions would do BUT Paul tells us God's signs and wonders are seen by every man. He causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust.

In a nutshell, God and all His actions, will either draw or repel, including the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is for some, the chief cornerstone, and for others, their stone of stumbling. Same Lord Jesus Christ. While a Calvinist will say God actively causes reprobates, they fail often to explain that love is either accepted or rejected. By simply showing this love, then, God actively causes builders of faith, to trust in Him. Conversely, all men who reject Him, stumble over that very grace. Therefore, when you ask, I do have somewhat the mind of an Arminian in recognition that men are responsible for what they do with the Lord Jesus Christ and their sin condition. That said, there is and should be a lot of crossover of shared beliefs between Calvinists and others, else everybody else is right, and we are not Christians. Any who embrace scriptures may not agree, but we should be expected to agree 'most' of the time, imho. Those who followed Paul and those who followed Apollos? No luxury to not be one body. Why? --> Christ. Paul said "Who is Paul? Who is Apollos?" I'd have liked to have met and chatted with that Apollos fellow. :think:

Thinking is hard. I pray mostly that we become thoughtful believers, weighing all things. You have challenged me to 'think' and I pray my reply has done the same, to the glory and honor of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ. -Lon

Lon...

I hear myself forming replies and I shudder at my terseness. I genuinely know what a powerful witness you are!

Here comes the kicker...

Those questions couldn't be any more simple! And yet... there it is... "Obfuscation"...

- the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
~ Reference... Google search definition

You took 1000 words to answer three straight... clear... obvious questions that 1 of required a simple yes or no... and the other two could have been answered in 4 sentences or less.

Why do you think that is? I may have revealed the possible answer... quote to come... here...

Spoiler

Okay... So.. you acknowledge that God died for All mankind... Even those that will most likely perish in their sins?

I asked if you really believed that God didn't die for those that rejected Him...

You have followed through with... "I don't"

This requires absolutely zero use of vague theological terms like Calvinism and Arminianism...

In fact.. only obfuscation would come of blending seminary terms with this straight forward conversation. I want to specify a matter... I and you are adamantly apposed to ANY and ALL limiting of what Jesus accomplished on the Cross. I and you are bound in brotherhood in compassion for those that are washed in doubt or deceived that God is ANYTHING... but Love.

There... global thinking... "engaged". Posturing... dismissed.

However... to heat this up a bit... I have noted you scuffling with Robert Pate... and honestly... allow me to be direct... Pate rails against "So-Called"... "Hyper-Calvinist Precepts". Most of us in the Open and Dispensational camp distinguish between the two.

I buried my hatchet with "Calvinism"... quite a bit back... but... and I emphasize but... here comes the core concern of the matter...

Calvinism arrogantly reaches to inject extra biblical Precepts... via extra biblical prescription and recorded statements of faith... that threaten the purity of the gospel with scripture... alone. You... do not do this. You encourage the Bible and Spirit approach on a continual basis and have even provided me with one of my favorite lines of communication. "We must let Jesus and the Bible mold us and not attempt to reverse the order of that simple and powerful commitment."

The danger of glamorizing a more biblical "Calvinism"... is... that some that are weak in faith may believe that [MENTION=6223]beloved57[/MENTION] and [MENTION=15399]Nanja[/MENTION] 's brand ... also [MENTION=7292]Nang[/MENTION] 's and Mr. Nang' brand of Calvinism are good.

The sad truth is that Some become fruit inspectors and are prone to squash all biblical dialogue that is speculative... outside the works of "reformed" Commentary, Decree and Declaration.

I keep these cards close to my chest... normally... because I haven't felt it necessary to address... but Calvinism is an aggressively rehashed collection of Papal decree... filtered through the lens of men that resisted the institution of power... but maintained a vast volume of core theological values that were dispensed by the "Universal" "Mother" of "Brick and Mortar".

I consider myself neither Protestant or Catholic... because I believe that Jesus is the FOUNDATION of the Universal... Invisible Body of Believers. I believe that the Holy Spirit works through all modes of "Hyphenated Christians"... and this includes... Calvinists and Catholics... HOWEVER... I resist the idea that any institution of MAN should ever be placed in between myself and our MAKER.

Thus... I "choose" "Open Theology" as my NASCAR Sponsor... and paint it on the side of my Witness Race Car... to convey that God is our God of "Personal and Collective... progressive Revelation" ... and "Perpetual Dialogue" of scriptures... to be... continually free in discussion of scripture... "Through the Lens" of Jesus Christ as my and others... ONLY TEACHER... through His Holy Spirit.... and recognize that while His teachings and HOLY Scriptures are "Inerrant".... we are not.. and thus.. our perception is recognized as PERCEPTION and NOT Canon.

Calvinism is "Closed" theology that stakes the claim that all that is to be studied is FULLY Studied and Revealed. Western Eschatology roots in this very ideal. I don't believe that declaring that Scripture has been neatly interpreted and Conveyed correctly by extra biblical men or women... is ever a GOOD approach.

To be direct... Neither do you! Musty called you out... yesterday ... and identified that you can't straddle the fence of theology. He further articulated a truth... that so called "Hyper Calvinists" tend to be more direct about what they believe. And... if it isn't the gospel dismemberment that is vomited out of the mouth of Hyper-Calvinists... that hangs Calvinism on its own gallows.. it is the Obfuscation of So called "Progressive?" Calvinists that struggle to pound the square peg of Calvinism into the simplistic Jesus Hole of the Nitty Gritty Gospel that over complicate smack that is easy enough for a kid to understand ... and "that" OVERCOMPLICATION ... again... hangs Calvinism on its own gallows.

[MENTION=12969]Sherman[/MENTION] is a fair shooter that looks out for all of us that glorify Jesus and Recognize the supremacy of the Spirits ability to teach us... in conjunction with the God enacted preservation of Scripture... and I mean Scripture that is available to us as a deep tool of study, discussion and application. I dropped Shermans name... because I need to point out that this forum is available to perpetuate fresh discussion of scripture... and to be blunt... Nang... Nanja... Beloved57 and others would be at every corner to disrupt that... by exalting Calvinism as superior to Sola Scripture... in full recognition of what Sola really means... and [MENTION=9508]Robert Pate[/MENTION] prevents that from occurring by perpetually nipping the issue in the bud. Yes.., I know Robert has many abandoned threads... but... Robert serves an important purpose! He challenges the reasoning of men and women that exalt man's teachings above Jesus. It's that simple.

If Robert were to stop... the Hyper Precepts of Calvinism would be plastered on every OP and with charges of blasphemy issued to anyone who dared question the Supremacy of reformed understanding that is Christmas wrapped in the Name of John Calvin. That's not a good thing. You obviously are refreshed by the challenging dialogue that comes from the "Open" discussion of scripture... and thus... ToL is an oasis away from your overly dogmatic counter parts. Can you deny that? Do you "loath" or "enjoy" the challenging look at scripture that this Christ and following in the John 5:39 of the matter... scripture... centric site offers?

Calvinism is a Papacy... it decrees what scripture "actually" "means" and accordingly.., retards OPEN... Dialogue from Acts 11:26 types that want to be searchers and not just... passengers.

Calvinism supposes that understanding Calvinism is understanding God and thus... scripture is not a medium of searching... but a simple matter of the study of Doctrines of men that say what scripture means.

You can Tip Toe around it Lon... but your mind, heart and Soul do not allow you to stifle genuine search... even if it walks off the path of what Calvinism Pre Destines as the "Correct" Supposition.

I say all of this from my heart.. and know your replies are also as such...

So let's get right to it...

Is salvation Available to ALL mankind?

Is rejection of the Gospel a result of God's Will... or Human Choice?

Do you believe that blood will pour so much farther and SAVE so many more than we can even comprehend?

I know you Lon... your answers are Yes... Human Choice... and Yes... But you filter that through the obfuscation of Calvinism and thus... you formulate the Gospel through the Hyperbole of your respect for men that claim the title of a system of belief that you "support"... and yet deviate from on many occasions.

Why do you do this? Love for your human friends and fellow searchers. That's why... but Lon... How many Crucibles... B57's and Nanja's do you want screwing up the gospel?

By endorsing Calvinism... you unknowingly open others up to claiming a Hyper... or as [MENTION=15685]musterion[/MENTION] eluded earlier.... more direct form... of Calvinism.

Either you are attempting to guide those of Calvinism out of their LA misconceptions and Hyper views... or you are seeking to guide others into them. You can say neither... but you and AMR endorse "Calvinism".

Cocaine is medically useful for eye surgery and many other applications... should I now endorse "Cocaine" and hope that no one mistakes what I mean by doing so?

My point? ... I shut my mouth out of Love for you and AMR and focused on those that are deceived as to who Jesus is... and as we have both done together... those who remove the Jesus of the matter in respects to Who He Is.... but... I feel this is appropriate to write at this time... You and AMR remove yourselves from the Global Calvinist consortium and distinguish "Hyper Calvinism" from "Your Understanding" of Calvinism. Do you see where I'm going with this?