There is not a 100% "intelligent life" found on this planet called TOL.
Spammers wasteland
- Thread starter Delmar
- Start date
- Status
Eagles Wings
New member
Bump for those interested in a bit of history. Also, check out AMR's blog where you can read his TOL Doctrinal Heresy Watch list.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
Last edited:
musterion
Well-known member
Question.
Will dying in rejection of the saving Gospel put someone in the Lake of Fire?
heir
TOL Subscriber
You have no standing unless it is in Christ having believed Paul's gospel.
The "MAD" gospel is 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV. Why do you call it a "false gospel"?
LMPO :rotfl:
heir
TOL Subscriber
Proof you do not believe it's a done deal.
heir
TOL Subscriber
What sins (Colossians 2:11-13 KJV)?
heir
TOL Subscriber
There are some long time posters here who pervert the gospel of Christ by adding requirements to salvation such as "confessing your sins" and others who will not call it an other gospel. They are deceitful workers (2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV)/haters of the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV, Ephesians 1:13-14 KJV) that is the righteousness of God by the faith of Jesus Christ UNTO ALL and UPON ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE (Romans 3:21-22 KJV)!
Those who call them out, are doing so to save themselves and them that hear them from perverted news and bad doctrine (1 Timothy 4:16 KJV).
This is a war zone. Are you a good soldier of Jesus Christ?
heir
TOL Subscriber
Amen, brother john!
Romans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
(This post is to serve you, rather than for debate, etc.; presuming your confession of faith in Christ is authentic. A Believer will hear this and be subtly corrected.)
And here's the MAD problem in simple summary...
You think sins (hamartiai) are sins (hamartemata). So when others rightly refer to sins (hamartiai), which are from sin (hamartia), you presume they aren't adhering to Paul's Gospel. But it's you arrogant, ignorant MADs who have not understood Hamartiology (Sinology), because you despise anyone who actually knows what scripture says in accurate translation into English.
Then you presume Nang (or whomever; I don't even know for sure) is referring to repeatedly confessing individual acting and resulting actions when they say things like the paragraph you and others keep quoting.
There is a one-time repentance for sins (hamartiai plural articular) unto salvation, which is repentance of sin (hamartia singular articular) as the source (and because Christ was made singular anarthrous hamartia). This repentance as an action comes from repentance (the noun) that is granted by God as faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Then that repentance becomes the condition of one's heart rather than sin being the condition of one's heart.
From that changed heart condition, one can then apply their (one-time) repentance in confession/profession (homoleggeo - which means to speak the same thing in agreement) for any and all sins (hamartiai) that come forth from the old man, because they are a new creation in Christ. This new heart wants to agree with God, both regarding Christ being made sin (singular anarthrous hamartia) AND whatever is from the old man which is cruficied with Christ as one is living this life in the flesh by the faith of the Son of God.
It isn't an inventory listing of indivual acts. Repenting in any continual manner after one repents unto salvtion is confession. Without the repentant condition, one could never agree with God (confess/profess) about all that comes forth from the old man OR about Christ being made every last quality of sin (hamartia singular anarthrous) as sins (plural articular hamartiai).
It's the privilege OF that one-time repentance unto salvation whereby Believers are able to agree with God for the rest of their earthly physical lives to agree with God about every last detail that could ever be considered sin (condition) and speak the same thing together with others and with God.
This is a huge part of what it means for us to "speak the same thing". Even more than doctrine, none of us should be saying something isn't sin (singular articular hamartia) when it's sin. Eg... If homosexuality IS sin (from the lapsed condition of man apart from salvation), then it should never be considered to NOT be sin. All Believers should agree that homosexuality has always been from the fallen condition of sin, and it will always be from the fallen condition of sin. Man cannot change that by legislation or cultural preference.
Repentance is anything and everything we think, say, do, and are AS believers. The noun is granted. The verb comes from the noun itself, just like faith. Then repentance as a verb is the life of same-speaking in confession and profession.
So you MADs have taken an aggressive erroneous position because you don't know the simple applied distinction between nouns and verbs, and what different forms of words mean that aren't easily and immediately represented in English from translation.
You misapply the terms sin/s and repentance, and then attempt to scrutinize everyone else based on your own faulty understanding.
And then you make fun of anyone who knows the simple meanings in translation and interpretation from Greek (or Hebrew) into English; and you refuse to be corrected for your false concepts that you've wrongly applied to English words in ignorance.
Others then misapply the words (or apply them without realizing your misunderstanding of the terms) in a slightly different manner, so it ends up being a battle over semantics that MADs have taken up in complete ignorance as a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge (epignosis).
From there, it's your pride. And it's all based on your ignorance.
It's all because you don't understand some basic comparative linguistics for transaltion. And it's why you embrace all other areas of whatever false doctrines you don't know are wrong for the same reasons.
Nobody spends their lives repenting of individual acts of sin for salvation. Repentance is once unto salvation; and then applied in confession BECAUSE one is saved. And it's not for sins (hamartemata), it's for sins (hamartiai); which you have ignorantly confused by not knowing the difference.
(This post is to serve you, rather than for debate, etc.; presuming your confession of faith in Christ is authentic. A Believer will hear this and be subtly corrected.)
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
You should read my immediate previous post to john w. It's the MAD erroneous battle over semantics that is the problem.
Repentance is ONCE unto salvation. Then as the changed condition of the heart and mind, it is the means of confession/profession of all that does OR does not agree with God's standard in Christ BECAUSE one is saved.
It's not a laundry list of individual acts that everyone keeps repenting from to have salvation if they can somehow remember every item on the list (no one could). Repentance is the one-time changed heart and mind condition that spends the rest of one's life agreeing with God in confession about what is or isn't sin/s for themselves and for all mankind.
It's your false understanding that is a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge (epignosis).
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Repentance includes declaring God's standard in a positive manner by profession; just as it includes declaring God's standard in a negative manner by confession. Profession and confession are translated into English from the same Greek word.
Repentance is ONCE unto salvation, because repentance is the changed condition of heart and mind (and is not something we can do ourselves, but we receive this changed condition when God's grants it as it accompanies faith).
THEN... Repentance is that changed condition of the heart and mind BECAUSE we are saved, and are thus able to know God's standard of what IS and ISN'T sin (the condition) brought forth from within the old man in multiple ways (sins).
This life of repentance is the life of a changed condition. And that will mean profession/confession that is strictly according to God's standard, whether it's what comes out of our old man or out of others.
Repentance is never about a continuous on-going process of repeating a laundry list of many stand-alone individual actions with consequences. It's about being empowered to confess what IS AND ISN'T God's standard, and to speak the same thing in total agreement.
Repentance is ONCE unto salvation, because repentance is the changed condition of heart and mind (and is not something we can do ourselves, but we receive this changed condition when God's grants it as it accompanies faith).
THEN... Repentance is that changed condition of the heart and mind BECAUSE we are saved, and are thus able to know God's standard of what IS and ISN'T sin (the condition) brought forth from within the old man in multiple ways (sins).
This life of repentance is the life of a changed condition. And that will mean profession/confession that is strictly according to God's standard, whether it's what comes out of our old man or out of others.
Repentance is never about a continuous on-going process of repeating a laundry list of many stand-alone individual actions with consequences. It's about being empowered to confess what IS AND ISN'T God's standard, and to speak the same thing in total agreement.
I agree Heir.
To Nang, it IS a false Gospel. To us, it IS the power unto salvation. Therein, lies the difference. Nang depends on John Calvin (The Pope of Geneva) for her eternal life.
Paul states in Romans 2:16 "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." He means it!
Paul WAS the Apostle to the Gentiles. Paul received the "Grace Gospel" from the Ascended Lord Jesus Christ. This Gospel was preached to the Gentiles then. Today it is the ONLY Gospel that saves both Jew and Gentile alike.
Peter taught the Kingdom Gospel to the Jews alone. it included both faith in Christ and works. Paul preached the Grace Gospel to the Gentiles which included Faith alone without works. Therein lies the difference.
It's a simple formula. It's a Spiritual formula. It's God's formula.
Any other teaching is "Another gospel" (small g)
- Status