Aw, thank you, hb.Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34
Sorry, dear.~hugs~
Abrazos!
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
Yeah, John Calvin didn't write the 5 points, they were written at a Dutch Reformed synod more than 50 years after he'd died, revealing that both Phelps' conclave and you either don't comprehend or haven't studied the history in question. The 5 points are a response to the 5 points of Arminianism, adhering to them amounts to a refutation of Arminian theology, but not a comprehensive adherence to Calvinism.
(mod edit)
Nope, it was an affirmation of Westboro as a Calvinist church, something that is easily refuted by a simple perusal of their professed beliefs, the chief one being their assertion of being a Baptist Church. If Phelps had lived in Geneva during the time of Calvin, he would have been roasting alongside Servetus for denying the Reformed Faith, and rightly so I might add.
(mod edit)
Is this meant as an excuse for your open support of lilymc's dishonesty? I guess I don't see the humor in this, maybe because I don't confuse the sacrament of communion with making Welch's beverage company another truckload of money. To each his own, I suppose.Heh. You're "dealing with" people, are you?
Where did I say that John Calvin was the one who wrote the 5 points? You can call it whatever you want, it doesn't matter to me. Talk about missing the point.
(mod edit)
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
Anyway, to get this thread back on track (because my threads ALWAYS go completely off track and no one sticks to the OP), God chooses His elect:
John 6:65
So Jesus added, “Because of this I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has allowed him to come.”
Matthew 11:27
No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son decides to reveal him.
Btw, you might want to get in touch with the people at reformed.org, to correct them for calling TULIP, "The Five Points of Calvinism." Also wikipedia while you're at it.
How dare they refer to those points as the 5 points of Calvinism? Clearly, the people behind reformed.org are stupid and haven't studied church history.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
That was kind of a gey response.Is this meant as an excuse for your open support of lilymc's dishonesty? I guess I don't see the humor in this, maybe because I don't confuse the sacrament of communion with making Welch's beverage company another truckload of money. To each his own, I suppose.Heh. You're "dealing with" people, are you?
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 12-04-2016 at 12:42 AM.
Ha. More proof-texting, S_F? It likely doesn't please God to misrepresent His Word the way you do. You don't even acknowledge the actual context and tenor of scripture, do you? Is there like a list of proof-texts they hand out to you guys to pass around or something?
Let me ask you something. What is it that you think Jesus was discussing in the book? Do you understand what it means to distinguish between one thing and another? Show us your wisdom, S_F.
No, they get off track because everyone disagrees with your silly notion that you're a special snowflake elected by God to come to RPF and decide who is and isn't a Christian. That's why they get off track. You want to project false Gospel in order to functionally divide Christians. And for what, S_F? To pad your doctrinal superiority complex? Please. You're likely gonna burn in Hell, you know. Even though I'm still not decided on actual Hell. But that's beside the point. Let's just say you're toast if'n you don't see the error in your ways. It's a tough situation. I understand. The devil do take a hard grasp on a feller, don't he? Ya gotta armor up, man. This is a choice. Do or do not.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 12-04-2016 at 04:56 AM.
Anyway. For those who don't know what I mean when I call out S_F on his proof-texting, just google Calvinism and proof-texting in the same search. Most people here in this section likely know what it is and why some elect to do it, but I mention it here for the benefit of the casual passer by who might be taken by S_F's efforts to confuse the Gospel and create strategic division among Christians here.
What some (because I don't want to paint all who identify as a Calvinist with a broad brush) do as a matter of theological activism is they pull out scripture, completely remove it from its tenor and context and then proceed to give that scripture a universal meaning that is more fitting to what they want it to mean.
And S_F, observably, is the poster boy for it. At least here anyway.
Now someone did make a very good point around here about the difference between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. And I've not ever seen anyone do that here. I was surprised that someone did, actually. Where's a little sparkly star sticker when you need one, huh? Heh. But do look into that when researching it, too.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 12-04-2016 at 04:45 AM.
To be clear I'm not defending Phelps, but what capital crime has he committed according to Biblical law? To be clear, I am not familiar with the details of his teaching, I know he's a baptist (which is an error but I don't think would qualify as a capital crime), a Hyper-Calvinist (ditto) and extremely abrasive in how he conducts himself (ditto.) Servetus was teaching a different (non-trinitarian) God which certainly warrants "roasting" (I prefer stoning or firing squad) according to Deut 13, but I am not sure what capital crime you see Phelps as being guilty of (not disagreeing necessarily, and I do NOT defend Phelps.)
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
You saying I'm "taking things out of context" is meaningless. You don't even know what the context of anything in the Bible is. You read John chapter 6 and you tell me what the context is.
Also, you saying that I'm "proof texting" like that is some kind of bad thing is ridiculous. That is what a Christian does. He looks to the Bible alone for His doctrine. If he believes anything theologically, it's because the Bible teaches it.
Last edited by Sola_Fide; 12-04-2016 at 03:29 PM.
HU advocates synergism, which is against the Westminster Confession. His misunderstanding of the Westminster Confession was pointed out to him by Reformed Observer. So, why isn't he guilty of a capital crime?To be clear I'm not defending Phelps, but what capital crime has he committed according to Biblical law? To be clear, I am not familiar with the details of his teaching, I know he's a baptist (which is an error but I don't think would qualify as a capital crime), a Hyper-Calvinist (ditto) and extremely abrasive in how he conducts himself (ditto.) Servetus was teaching a different (non-trinitarian) God which certainly warrants "roasting" (I prefer stoning or firing squad
The entire idea of capital punishment for theological beliefs has no warrant from Scripture, or the apostles. It's a holdover from Rome.
Respectfully Sola, I don't really understand how you can say that to Pete. If a put a sign on my car in the yard that says "Free" and you come and pick it up and don't pay anything, how was it not free?
I'm not even picking sides here. I'm just saying your accusation against Pete does not hold water from where I am standing.
Because I'm not contradicting the Westminster Confession, unlike you I have actually studied the thing. Go over the section on Sanctification again, you are the one who is running afoul of the confession, on multiple points, not that you care since you've spent several posts trashing the very concept of subordinate doctrines. Reformed Observer is an admitted sectarian who has rejected the Reformed Faith in favor of baptist errors, his errors are not germane to any conversation regarding the Presbyterian Church, at all, though technically neither are yours since you've likewise rejected the same faith.
Capital Punishment for openly spreading unrepentant heresy is not a holdover from anything, it is rooted in the entire 1st table of the 10 commandments. The fact that God destroyed Israel after they rejected Christ does not give you or anyone else license to excuse the spread of false religion, let alone propagate your own false beliefs. I don't support using it in all cases, primarily because once the practice is brought back, the amount of rampant idolatry and corruption would start to disappear quickly.
Read Knox's defense of the execution of Servetus, one of the reasons cited was the promotion of Anabaptist errors. Phelps is promoting the same errors by openly rejecting and condemning covenant baptism. Furthermore, Phelps' open profiteering by using his inflammatory tactics to manipulate the legal system to enrich himself is open blasphemy combined with racketeering, which would incur severe penalties from a godly magistrate as well if he continued in said actions after lesser penalties were enacted, which he showed every indication that he would.To be clear I'm not defending Phelps, but what capital crime has he committed according to Biblical law? To be clear, I am not familiar with the details of his teaching, I know he's a baptist (which is an error but I don't think would qualify as a capital crime), a Hyper-Calvinist (ditto) and extremely abrasive in how he conducts himself (ditto.) Servetus was teaching a different (non-trinitarian) God which certainly warrants "roasting" (I prefer stoning or firing squad
You cited Phelps stating that Calvin wrote the 5 points and then did not include a correction, which is why I called you on it. Calling it the 5 points of Calvinism is not an error, stating that Calvin himself wrote them and that they are the full extent of the position is an error, one that both Phelps and now you have made. Instead of continuing to feign ignorance and obtuseness, you might try being honest, I know it's kind of a hard thing for American Evangelicals to do given that they think that God forgives them every time they sin regardless of their inward disposition.
Sorry to inform you, but you've made yourself part of the reason why "lying for Jesus" has become a popular saying among enemies of the church on the internet. You may want to consult 2 Samuel 12:14 regarding what can happen when giving God's enemies cause to blaspheme. Just a thought.
The analogy doesn't comport with the Bible. The Bible describes man as being DEAD in sin. The proper picture would be if you had a car in your yard with a free sign, and there was a corpse in the yard next to it. Dead men don't accept anything.
It's important to have a Biblical conception of man before you start painting the picture, or you'll get the entire painting wrong.
More from John 6. GOD chooses His elect:
John 6:43
Jesus answered and said to them, "Do not grumble among yourselves.
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
Well, I try to go with what the Bible says, and it seems Jesus is pretty clear that he would love for sinners to turn to him.
Matthew 23:37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.
If you read the rest of that verse, what Jesus is proclaiming is a judgment against the religious leaders of Israel. They killed the prophets and and prevented the people from knowing God. When you understand other parts of the Bible, you understand that the Jews rejection of God was part of the purposeful plan of God. Read Romans 9 through 11.
There is God's revealed will: Do as I command.
And God's decree: What I've purposed, I will bring about.
These two wills are not the same. The Bible is replete with examples of God decreeing things that are against His revealed will for an ultimately good purpose. The verse in Matthew is an example of one of those things.
It's literally everywhere....literally. And it's not accurate to say they are "conflicting". God decreed countless things that were against His commands, in.order that His purpose would stand in the earth....and that purpose does include glorifying His justice in the judgement of the wicked.
Well for one thing because the synergism accusation isn't actually true, anymore than the accusations against you being a hyper-calvinist are true. But second of all, what the heck does Deuteronomy 13 have to do with Rome? Joel McDurmon makes this same idiotic accusation and its not true. Third of all, I'm not totally convinced that soteriological errors deserve capital punishment in the same way Christological ones (worshipping a god with a different identity) do. I'd say outright pelagianism also deserves it in that Pelagianism essentially says "I am the Lord your God, but I didn't bring you out of Egypt, you brought yourselves out", but once people start granting that the cross did save them its a bit more complicated. I'm inclined to say that the civil magistrate can still punish the spreading of gross errors but "the punishment should fit the crime" so to speak.
Read Knox's defense of the execution of Servetus, one of the reasons cited was the promotion of Anabaptist errors. Phelps is promoting the same errors by openly rejecting and condemning covenant baptism.
I definitely don't want to sound like the anabaptist/modern evangelical "The Reformed were just a bunch of murderers" because I know that's not true, but I really do think this is wrong, assuming anyone was actually killed just for preaching against paedobaptism (which I'm not sure if was actually the case.) You can make a decent case that credobaptists should be denied citizenship from Genesis 17 (which I believe is the standard covenanter position.... I don't claim certainty on this issue however) but to actually execute them for preaching the false doctrine on a non-primary matter I believe is excessive. I can't agree to that because I believe it goes against the OT law as well. The OT law perfectly fits the punishment to the crime. Preaching a false god (as Servetus did) deserves death. I don't think preaching against paedobaptism (though wrong) does.
Furthermore, Phelps' open profiteering by using his inflammatory tactics to manipulate the legal system to enrich himself is open blasphemy combined with racketeering, which would incur severe penalties from a godly magistrate as well if he continued in said actions after lesser penalties were enacted, which he showed every indication that he would.OK fair enough.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
What on earth are you talking about? Post #262? I posted an excerpt from their about page, but that doesn't mean I agree with anything they say, and I am not responsible for what THEY put on their website. For crying out loud.
And that wasn't even the point anyway. The point was that they believe and vigorously preach "the 5 points of Calvinism" (TULIP), and right or wrong, they are known by many as being "hyper-Calvinists." So for you to attack me personally, slander me and act as if they have absolutely nothing to do with any form of calvinism or TULIP is not only wrong, it was over the top, and only reinforces my point about the bad fruit.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
He can't. Not legitimately. Because it isn't. God never once said that Man lost his ability to receive Him as a consequence of Original Sin. God only condemned Man to physical death and thistles and thorns and all of that physical stuff. You'd think it'd be right there in big bold print clearly and concisely just as it was in terms of the thorns and thistles and physical death and whatnot if He did. But it isn't. Nor is it any place else in the Bible either in tenor or in context.
What S_F will do...like he always does...is he'll proof-text. He'll pick one of the standard Calvinist proof-texts from specific scripture, remove its context and tenor and then he'll give it the meaning that he wants and then he'll turn around and tell you that you're wrong and he's right. He's as predictable as any trained circus monkee.
He's becoming laughable, really. I mean everyone knows what he does. Heh. The actual context and tenor of the scriptures that he proof-texts (which he ignores) proves him wrong. Really, it's like talking to the wall with him. It'd be nice if nobody responded to any of his threads anymore and left him to himself. Just quit feeding him. He's a virus. And the more you feed it, the more it grows until it destroys the health of its host. He takes pride in the number of views his threads get and the number of responses he gets. He's mentioned that many, many times. He's prideful in the division that he tries to creat among Christians and the confusion and chaos that he projects onto the board here. Stop responding to his threads and I think it's be better all around in this section and for the community as a whole here. It's a bad element. And largely because of his presence and function here. He'll get tired of talking to himself eventually if people ignore him.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 12-05-2016 at 10:26 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us