I thought all along you were a injun heathen.Originally Posted by oyarde
Pfizer Macht Frei!
Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.
Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!
Short Income Tax Video
The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes
The Federalist Papers, No. 15:
Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.
He did that? Ok, you can come along on our canoe trip.He never would've adopted me as his nephew if he was a heathen.
Pfizer Macht Frei!
Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.
Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!
Short Income Tax Video
The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes
The Federalist Papers, No. 15:
Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.
Ok, but we need separate tents.Indeed! He even sends me silver on my birthday.
Pfizer Macht Frei!
Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.
Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!
Short Income Tax Video
The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes
The Federalist Papers, No. 15:
Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.
Fair enough, but the issue is that Sola is railing against a valid biblical objection to immoral behavior as a sign of a church that has lost the gospel, and that is an extremely bad place to be if you are trying to spread the gospel as it has the stench of Free Grace Antinomianism all over it. The whole parable of the Good Samaritan teaches that we are to involve ourselves in matters concerning sectarians for a good outcome, irregardless of whether the gospel is accepted by that person, as is the case with the Sermon on the Mount. Not caring about people being lost is just as bad as it reeks of either a pagan fatalism or hyper-Calvinism, both of which are anti-gospel.
The fact that Sola sees a necessity in repeatedly interjecting arguments from other threads and being disruptive like this helps no one, including the progress of the gospel in the world. It's also part and parcel of my problem with most Baptist groups, a complete and sheer lack of discipline.
Sola might be a hyper-calvinist depending on your definition. I don't think he denies the gospel though. I am really annoyed by that stupid objection to what I said though. Kinda reminds me of his stupid objections to theonomyOh well. Nobody is perfect.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
"Free grace antinomianism"? Who are you talking to? Me?
I'm also not a hyper-Calvinist. Why would I be preaching at all if I was a hyper-Calvinist?
Let's go back to the Seventh Day Adventist thread and define what the Bible teaches about the atonement. That is infinitely more important than some lesbian in a false church.
Last edited by Sola_Fide; 10-07-2015 at 12:14 AM.
Its a stupid terminology argument between you an HU at least. I don't fully understand what TER was trying to say so I'm not gonna comment there.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Because it doesn't happen in the LCMS. Its an ELCA issue....
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
To me, those terms mean something. I'm not an antinomian. Christianity is opposed to antinomianism. The law is perfect, righteous and good. I'm also not a hyper-Calvinist. Hyper-Calvinism denies the prescriptive will of God in preaching the gospel. They just think God will save whoever he wants without preaching. I don't believe that.
Read page 3 and 4 of that thread to see what TER is saying.
The cross is a pagan symbol, courtesy of the pagan Romans.
Satan loves the schisms.
No, that's not true. Satan loves the oneness of the world religion. It is the confederation of world religions that deny the gospel of Jesus that is what he loves.
The gospel, on the other hand, divides. The gospel tears apart, it doesn't bring together:
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.
Silly Sola_Fide post score +1.
Are you arguing with Jesus again?
Luke 12:51-53
Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.
From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.
They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
1. If you're not a Free Grace Antinomian, stop having a conniption every time somebody speaks about obedience to the law, especially when it comes from someone that has already confirmed that they believe in justification by faith alone.
2. If you are not a Hyper-Calvinist, you might want to refrain from talking about not caring about the state of other churches while you basque in your own little ivory tower, and you definitely should stop giving me all this grief about synergistic sanctification since works, by their very nature, require the cooperation of a willing, regenerate believer that has already been justified. The more you yammer, the less Reformed you sound. You're also not preaching, you're accusing, it's not the same thing.
3. No, I've laid out my position, now I'm going to let it sink in for a week or so. I can only repeat myself so many times before I start losing my temper, and the more I hash away at the same topic with zero progress to show for it, the less patience I have.
I think he has hyper-calvinistic and antinomian tendencies but he's not a full blown hyper-calvinist or antinomian. He still believes that obedience to the moral law is important for the Christian and that we need to preach the gospel and call upon people to repent. But, comments like this do convey certain tendencies. He's very much on the Clark/Robbins side of things, and while they have good things to say, they also hate theonomy and common grace and things like that.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Silly Sola_Fide post score +1.
Also, I'm pretty sure Sola just assumes I don't believe in faith alone since I'm a theonomist even though I over and over again say that I do.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
He's a REALLY s-l-o-w learner.
Darn it! I keep thinking I have you guys figured out and I don't.I thought Calvinists were Reformed?
It really depends on who's definition you use. I understand that for an Eastern Orthodox it might seem like a trivial distinction. But its not. The distinction between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism is huge.Darn it! I keep thinking I have you guys figured out and I don't.
John Macarthur believes in what are now known as the "five points" of Calvinism, but he's a dispensationalist and evangelical on the rest of his theology. He believes in two different people's of God (Israel and the church), that Israel is still significant in God's plan as a nation (in a way that no other nation is), in a pre-tributional rapture and a seven year future tribulation, in credobaptism only to the exclusion of infant baptism ("Reformed Baptist" would be a qualifier that would make this one irrelevant), that the moral law as revealed in the Old Testament is no longer binding, that there is no sense in which the "general equity" of the civil law is binding on magistrates (there are differences in how this works and theonomists are stricter on it, but basically, any self-respecting covenantalist would say there is SOMETHING civil magistrates can learn from the law of Moses whereas dispensationalists would just say we're under a completely new law), reject any binding validity of the fourth commandment, and in seven distinct dispensations (seven different periods in which God has worked differently, two of which are future and four of which were past)... there's probably more but I'll leave it at that for now.
A real reformed baptist would disagree with Presbyterians on paedobaptism and church government, but not terribly much else. They would at least generally subscribe to the theological system found in the 1689 London Baptist Confession. Dispensationalism has a different theological system even when they borrow our soteriology.
I hope that helps. Admittedly, not everyone uses terms that way and some people do call MacArthur Reformed. Its a bit of a pet peeve of mine but I wouldn't get too upset if you just decided to call all Calvinists reformed. In HU's case I had a specific reason that I thought it was worth clarifying.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Christian Liberty basically summed up a good explanation of the distinction, and truth be told, I haven't really kept up with MacArthur's positions regarding eschatology, but CL is right that a person who is a Dispensationalist should not be referred to as Reformed. I differ with CL in that I actually don't think it is possible for a Baptist to be Calvinistic since they reject the Covenant Theology that Calvin and the other Reformed and Presbyterian Churches adhere to, which includes infant baptism. I tend to refer to any Baptist that accepts some of Calvin's teachings as Reformed because I view the notion of being Reformed as accepting various tenants of the Protestant Reformation, and not every Reformed Christian is "as reformed" as others, depending on which areas they accept or reject.Darn it! I keep thinking I have you guys figured out and I don't.
My biggest criticism of Baptists is on the matter of church government, as they tend towards congregationalism, which I would argue gives too much power to the head of the church and often results in localized, single-congregation versions of what happened with the Papacy. Presbyterians generally adhere to terms of communion, hence they are in communion with other particular churches and have ascending courts and presbyteries. This has the dual effect of checking authority both from the ground up, and from the top down.
Sola and I agree mostly on soteriology as it pertains to justification, adoption and the monergistic character of God's sovereign grace. The separation is over whether once a person is regenerate (a believer) whether they are capable of freely acting in concert with the Holy Spirit in learning and growing in faith, or if sanctifying works are only done by God through us as if we are fleshy automatons. There is a lot of paranoia over Roman Catholic ideas of works righteousness and Arminian concepts of losing one's salvation creeping into Reformed circles, and I would argue that robbing the WCF's chapter on sanctification of its original meaning in the name of fighting Semi-Pelagian heresy is just as bad as adopting the heresy itself.
A lot of times "Calvinist" is just a shorthand way of saying "believes in the five points of Calvinism." "Monergism" would probably be more accurate though that includes Lutherans too.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us