In truth, I'm a very simple man, not overly intelligent nor especially intuitive. Undoubtedly, AMR appears to believe he sees beyond his means, therefore, I will graciously humor him.
Spammers wasteland
- Thread starter Delmar
- Start date
- Status
Indeed? What might that be?
I have heard, "Eagle Wings" is a Catholic. So, I will forgive him his indiscretion and consider the source.
Well, at least AMR tried.
Where are all of the Spammers?
I see that PPS (The Lutheran) is still out there using his collection of Harvard style words and phrases to both amaze and astound the less educated among us here on TOL.
Perhaps, Nang has deemed him an honorary Calvinist by now?
It appears as if he's become the darling of the so-called "Elect."
I have little or no respect for the Denominational churches of today. It appears they are slowly but surely becoming "Liberal" adherents.
Nang is, as usual, cranky, grouchy, irritable, arrogant and argumentative. She's very religious, but, oh so unhappy.
Just because one is overtly religious doesn't mean they are a member of the Body of Christ.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
To be historically accurate Jochaim Westphal (1510-1574) was the first theologian to use the term "Calvinist". He was a Lutheran theologian that debated Calvin on the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. A Calvinist, initially, was one who held to Calvin's view of the supper. That would exclude the Lutherans, and the Zwinglians (the general Baptist view). Soon afterwards, Calvinist was used by the Lutherans to refer to Calvin's "bunch" at Geneva, and those who followed, specifically, the views discussed in his Institutes. There are a lot of theological ideas in the Institutes, not just the teachings of Scripture related to the doctrines of grace, e.g., summaries of Scripture on theology proper, the sacraments, church government, the Law of God, etc. The point being, not all 5-pointers are Calvinists qua Calvinists.
These so-called doctrines of grace ended up be summarized in an acrostic, TULIP, by a Pastor in the early 1900s as a nifty memory aid. Not a few think the mnemonic TULIP was something Calvin originated. The doctrines of grace underlying TULIP actually were from a meeting some fifty-four years after the death of Calvin. A synod in Dort was held (1618) to address the position of the followers of the teachings of Arminius. Soon after the death of Arminius his followers organized a Remonstrance (a formal protest), presenting five points to the Church of Holland seeking to have its catechism and the Belgic Confession revised. Those five points of Arminius' followers were:
1. God elects or reproves on the foreseen faith or unbelief.
2. Christ died for all men although only believers are saved.
3. Man is so depraved that divine grace is necessary to bring man unto faith.
4. This grace may be resisted.
5. Whether or not all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere requires further investigation.
The Synod's response to these Remonstrants is easily summarized by the TULIP acrostic.
These doctrines of grace are a useful didactic for understanding the message of God's redemptive work, from Genesis to Revelation:
1. Is humanity basically good or totally depraved? If it is basically good, the concept of Savior is irrelevant; all we need is a guru with a self-improvement plan. (When you study Liberal theology, this is really what they are teaching. An infallible Bible, Virgin Birth, literal resurrection are not really important to their theology.)
2. Is God sovereign? If He is, then His covenant people must have been chosen by unconditional election. If He isn't, then it is really our will which determines providence. (Many people really think, God helps those who help themselves is actually in the Bible.)
3. What happened on the Cross? Did Christ pay the one, all-sufficient price for the sins of the covenant people, or did he merely make redemption a possibility for whomever might choose to accept the offer, or did He pay the price for everyone, regardless of the instrument of faith? The meaning of the celebration of Easter is determined by how we answer this.
4. Do we choose God or does He choose us? If grace is irresistible, then God draws to the Christ all His covenant people, no one will be lost; if it is not, then if we don't "save souls for Jesus" some who might have gone to go to Heaven won't.
5. Can we lose our salvation? If God is not able to equip His covenant people to persevere, then He cannot really offer eternal life. Confident Christians are more fruitful.
A person agreeing with the above five replies given in answer to the Arminian Remonstrants, would today be popularly known as a "Calvinist", even though the historical account of what the word Calvinist means was something much, much more.
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Nor does it mean they are not. Thanks for driving by and tossing that out there. :AMR:
AMR
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Clip-clop. Clip-clop. Clip-clop. Bang. Bang-bang. Clip-clop. Clip-clop. Clip-clop.
Amish drive-by.
Per Grossy.
I'm here to please, you of all people KNOW that.
Did they teach you that in Lutheran Catachism?
Fixed that for you.
We are all still around.
AMR
I was hoping you hadn't packed your bags and headed for the hills.
To be historically accurate Jochaim Westphal (1510-1574) was the first theologian to use the term "Calvinist". He was a Lutheran theologian that debated Calvin on the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. A Calvinist, initially, was one who held to Calvin's view of the supper. That would exclude the Lutherans, and the Zwinglians (the general Baptist view). Soon afterwards, Calvinist was used by the Lutherans to refer to Calvin's "bunch" at Geneva, and those who followed, specifically, the views discussed in his Institutes. There are a lot of theological ideas in the Institutes, not just the teachings of Scripture related to the doctrines of grace, e.g., summaries of Scripture on theology proper, the sacraments, church government, the Law of God, etc. The point being, not all 5-pointers are Calvinists qua Calvinists.
These so-called doctrines of grace ended up be summarized in an acrostic, TULIP, by a Pastor in the early 1900s as a nifty memory aid. Not a few think the mnemonic TULIP was something Calvin originated. The doctrines of grace underlying TULIP actually were from a meeting some fifty-four years after the death of Calvin. A synod in Dort was held (1618) to address the position of the followers of the teachings of Arminius. Soon after the death of Arminius his followers organized a Remonstrance (a formal protest), presenting five points to the Church of Holland seeking to have its catechism and the Belgic Confession revised. Those five points of Arminius' followers were:
1. God elects or reproves on the foreseen faith or unbelief.
2. Christ died for all men although only believers are saved.
3. Man is so depraved that divine grace is necessary to bring man unto faith.
4. This grace may be resisted.
5. Whether or not all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere requires further investigation.
The Synod's response to these Remonstrants is easily summarized by the TULIP acrostic.
These doctrines of grace are a useful didactic for understanding the message of God's redemptive work, from Genesis to Revelation:
1. Is humanity basically good or totally depraved? If it is basically good, the concept of Savior is irrelevant; all we need is a guru with a self-improvement plan. (When you study Liberal theology, this is really what they are teaching. An infallible Bible, Virgin Birth, literal resurrection are not really important to their theology.)
2. Is God sovereign? If He is, then His covenant people must have been chosen by unconditional election. If He isn't, then it is really our will which determines providence. (Many people really think, God helps those who help themselves is actually in the Bible.)
3. What happened on the Cross? Did Christ pay the one, all-sufficient price for the sins of the covenant people, or did he merely make redemption a possibility for whomever might choose to accept the offer, or did He pay the price for everyone, regardless of the instrument of faith? The meaning of the celebration of Easter is determined by how we answer this.
4. Do we choose God or does He choose us? If grace is irresistible, then God draws to the Christ all His covenant people, no one will be lost; if it is not, then if we don't "save souls for Jesus" some who might have gone to go to Heaven won't.
5. Can we lose our salvation? If God is not able to equip His covenant people to persevere, then He cannot really offer eternal life. Confident Christians are more fruitful.
A person agreeing with the above five replies given in answer to the Arminian Remonstrants, would today be popularly known as a "Calvinist", even though the historical account of what the word Calvinist means was something much, much more.
AMR
I must ask for your merciful forgiveness. As I've told you previously, I don't bother to peruse the entirety of elongated posts that appear to represent a "wordy dissertation" of sorts. I barely got through one-half of your first sentence before judging it unworthy to investigate further. However, there is a rather vast audience of observers that may find your post relevant and worth the effort to read on?
Like I admitted to you yesterday, I'm merely a simple man, not highly educated nor overly intuitive. Scholarly words and phrases tend to throw me off my game. If I'm placed in a situation where I must stop and Google the definitions of certain words, it becomes very tedious and tiring at best. I don't wish to become exhausted by such an ordeal. I hope you will keep this in mind when posting to me personally? As you stated, so eloquently the other day: "It's just me and my Bible." I appreciate that observation.
- Status