Why such errors from Non cals?

[jasonc]

Im not a five pointer ,I don't get that reaction .it's not like I woke up and wanted to be saved Gor broke my will

I have always been branded a re heretic on the Doctrines of Grace, some members here as well.

Although that does not happen much anymore.

In my expereince, pride gets in their way and have no understanding of these besutiful doctrines.

 

[Josheb]

I have always been branded a re heretic on the Doctrines of Grace, some members here as well.

Although that does not happen much anymore.

In my expereince, pride gets in their way and have no understanding of these besutiful doctrines.

Well, are you a heretic?

Based on my experience in other forums I anticipate a small modicum of disagreement and/or resistance to the contents of my posts from mt Calvinist siblings. We usually work it out, but not always. I happen to hold modified annihilationist points of view (like the thoroughly Reform-oriented John Stott, and J. I. Packer) but because that pov is normally associated with cults like the SDA and misguided theologies like Open Theism the mere mention of the premise causes rancor. Despite a well-established history of that perspective within monergism, some of the most notable theologians on our side of the soteriological debate subscribing to that pov, and the ability to make that case from plainly read scripture, it's very divisive. I was banned from the Puritan Board for that specific reason despite my agreeing with all the other doctrines, the entire statement of faith, informing them ahead of time of my beliefs prior to submitting my membership request, and never initiating a single conversation about the topic. Several months in I received an email and that was it ; no more membership in the forum.

Holding a fully-Reformed view of eschatological soteriology is much different than holding a blatantly heretical position, like universalism (which many forums ban entirely). CARM won't permit discussions of Christ's Impeccability, even though Matt Slick and the forum are wholly subscribers to that point of view. Any discussion even remotely touching in the subject in any way that might remotely allow for dissent puts the poster at risk of being banned for life. Different forums, different standards. I'll figure it out.

I'm new here but I enjoy forum discussions for the diversity of thought even though I am fairly decided in my positions. I am well-read and, according to some, very good at forensic analysis and can be exacting at times. It makes for lively debate . I don't take appeals to ridicule (epithets) personally because I know the error lies on the side of those who employ fallacy, not my end. I like to be corrected..... when the case made for my need is impeccably built from well-rendered scripture.

And I'm fairly confident with CFn members here who've traded posts with me in other forums will attest to the above ......

..... so if you're really a heretic then you can rely on me to tell you so, but I'll explain how and why with manners, respect, and a pile of scripture . in hopes we can find agreement, not with each other alone, but with God's word .

 

[Josheb]

Im not a five pointer ,I don't get that reaction .it's not like I woke up and wanted to be saved Gor broke my will

Did you ask Him to do so before He started?

 

[jasonc]

Did you ask Him to do so before He started?

Lol. I wasn't interested

 

[Josheb]

Lol. I wasn't interested

Right! Me, either.

I ask because this reality is often ignored when reading scripture. The simple, repeat, and undeniable fact is that very little scripture is written about non-believers (atheists) but soteriology is fundamentally about how a non-believer becomes a believer. The two are not ontologically identical. The overwhelming vast majority of scripture is written about people already living within a covenant relationship with God (explicitly or implied) and the fact is every single covenant with God is monergistically initiated by God without His ever asking anyone one whether or not they ever wanted to be a part of it . That is the inescapable inherent context for 99% of the Bible.

We were not asked.

That leads some to think the only alternative is that salvation is coerced and that cannot be the case (even though God can do whatever He likes with the already-dead-in-sin sinful trash that was formerly a good and sinless human). It never dawns on them the matter is irrelevant, and what they think is the only alternative is a red herring.

I, for one, am glad God chose me and saved me in spite of myself and am very thankful He did so without asking .

 

[electedbyHim]

Im not a five pointer ,I don't get that reaction .it's not like I woke up and wanted to be saved Gor broke my will

This is how I am understanding it as well.

 

[electedbyHim]

Well, are you a heretic?

Based on my experience in other forums I anticipate a small modicum of disagreement and/or resistance to the contents of my posts from mt Calvinist siblings. We usually work it out, but not always. I happen to hold modified annihilationist points of view (like the thoroughly Reform-oriented John Stott, and J. I. Packer) but because that pov is normally associated with cults like the SDA and misguided theologies like Open Theism the mere mention of the premise causes rancor. Despite a well-established history of that perspective within monergism, some of the most notable theologians on our side of the soteriological debate subscribing to that pov, and the ability to make that case from plainly read scripture, it's very divisive. I was banned from the Puritan Board for that specific reason despite my agreeing with all the other doctrines, the entire statement of faith, informing them ahead of time of my beliefs prior to submitting my membership request, and never initiating a single conversation about the topic. Several months in I received an email and that was it ; no more membership in the forum.

Holding a fully-Reformed view of eschatological soteriology is much different than holding a blatantly heretical position, like universalism (which many forums ban entirely). CARM won't permit discussions of Christ's Impeccability, even though Matt Slick and the forum are wholly subscribers to that point of view. Any discussion even remotely touching in the subject in any way that might remotely allow for dissent puts the poster at risk of being banned for life. Different forums, different standards. I'll figure it out.

I'm new here but I enjoy forum discussions for the diversity of thought even though I am fairly decided in my positions. I am well-read and, according to some, very good at forensic analysis and can be exacting at times. It makes for lively debate . I don't take appeals to ridicule (epithets) personally because I know the error lies on the side of those who employ fallacy, not my end. I like to be corrected..... when the case made for my need is impeccably built from well-rendered scripture.

And I'm fairly confident with CFn members here who've traded posts with me in other forums will attest to the above ......

..... so if you're really a heretic then you can rely on me to tell you so, but I'll explain how and why with manners, respect, and a pile of scripture . in hopes we can find agreement, not with each other alone, but with God's word .

I do not see any heresy in a the Doctrines of Grace.

These doctrines do nothing but give God all the glory and not not humans.

On a side note I am not full fledged Reformed in my beliefs.

I do not conform to the baby baptism or the the Reformed view of Eschatology.

 

[Josheb]

I do not see any heresy in a the Doctrines of Grace.

I did not say there was.

These doctrines do nothing but give God all the glory and not not humans.

Perhaps but that is not the subject of this thread and that has yet to be proven. The fact is there is no such thing as "doctrine of grace" in scripture. That is a man-made term invented out of inference and 1) care should be taken in all such cases and 2) terms need to be defined so everyone understands and is thereby able to discuss the matter with common and agreed upon definitions. That's just as true of Calvinism as any other ~ism.

On a side note I am not full fledged Reformed in my beliefs.

Meh.

Forgive my not having read through the entire thread, ut what's you take on the op? I don't care where a person comes from as long as they make their pov known, make the case for it withc scripture and reason, and avail the view to examination for the sake of collaborative discussion.

I do not conform to the baby baptism

Most Reformed folks don't hold to Calvin's view (which was the point), and lots of Reformed Baptist congregations do not baptize infants.

or the Reformed view of Eschatology.

There is no such thing as "Reformed view of Eschatology." I don't know where that came from but it is a red herring....... and thereby an example of "Why Such Errors from Non-Cals."

Calvin was not categorical about his eschatology but, since he was Augustinian, it's most likely he was Amillennial, but that's not the official eschatology of Reformed Theology (RT). Because Calvin thought the Pope and/or the Papal system was the antichrist (although I read his comments more as political rhetoric than official Christian doctrine) we could say he had Idealist inclinations or sensibilities, believing New Testament is not specifically predictive but simply describes reoccurring patterns of history (somewhat like those of Vern Poythress). But, again, that is not an official Reformed Theology position. Protestants outside of the modern futurism pov can come from any number of theological perspectives and those of RT persuasion may hold to any eschatology. George Eldon Ladd is Reformed in his soteriology and ecclesiology but Historic Premillennial in his eschatology. John MacArthur is Reformed in the same ways but fully Dispensational Premillennial in his eschatology.

You should read more diversely and whoever told you there's such a thing as "Reformed view of Eschatology" should no longer be trusted or relied upon for sound teaching on the topic.


If you're non-Cal, then what's your response to the title and the assertions made in its defense?

 

[electedbyHim]

I did not say there was.

Perhaps but that is not the subject of this thread and that has yet to be proven. The fact is there is no such thing as "doctrine of grace" in scripture. That is a man-made term invented out of inference and 1) care should be taken in all such cases and 2) terms need to be defined so everyone understands and is thereby able to discuss the matter with common and agreed upon definitions. That's just as true of Calvinism as any other ~ism.

Meh.

Forgive my not having read through the entire thread, ut what's you take on the op? I don't care where a person comes from as long as they make their pov known, make the case for it withc scripture and reason, and avail the view to examination for the sake of collaborative discussion.

Most Reformed folks don't hold to Calvin's view (which was the point), and lots of Reformed Baptist congregations do not baptize infants.

There is no such thing as "Reformed view of Eschatology." I don't know where that came from but it is a red herring....... and thereby an example of "Why Such Errors from Non-Cals."

Calvin was not categorical about his eschatology but, since he was Augustinian, it's most likely he was Amillennial, but that's not the official eschatology of Reformed Theology (RT). Because Calvin thought the Pope and/or the Papal system was the antichrist (although I read his comments more as political rhetoric than official Christian doctrine) we could say he had Idealist inclinations or sensibilities, believing New Testament is not specifically predictive but simply describes reoccurring patterns of history (somewhat like those of Vern Poythress). But, again, that is not an official Reformed Theology position. Protestants outside of the modern futurism pov can come from any number of theological perspectives and those of RT persuasion may hold to any eschatology. George Eldon Ladd is Reformed in his soteriology and ecclesiology but Historic Premillennial in his eschatology. John MacArthur is Reformed in the same ways but fully Dispensational Premillennial in his eschatology.

You should read more diversely and whoever told you there's such a thing as "Reformed view of Eschatology" should no longer be trusted or relied upon for sound teaching on the topic.


If you're non-Cal, then what's your response to the title and the assertions made in its defense?

I did not say you said I was heretical. That was just a general response. Not my intention.

Perhaps but that is not the subject of this thread and that has yet to be proven. The fact is there is no such thing as "doctrine of grace" in scripture. That is a man-made term invented out of inference and 1) care should be taken in all such cases and 2) terms need to be defined so everyone understands and is thereby able to discuss the matter with common and agreed upon definitions.

Of course it is not in Scripture, either is TULIP or the Trinity. The Doctrines of Grace are defined on a sticky of the Calvinism forum.

I understood what the Bible taught way before I knew anything about Calvin or Reformed dpctrines.

As for being diverse on eschatology, been there done that. I do not find that is really worth taking a position and debate worthy. I would be closes to John Macarthur's position and like his teachings on the Bible.

Too many Christians are obsessed with the end times, this never caught on with me, I find more enjoyment in studying and applyig His written word and trying to live the life He wants for me, becoming Christ like.

Many on Christian forums know it all and I try to be as humble as possible. Although, when straight out heresey is being taught, I tend to get defensive, Holy hatred if you will.

 

[Josheb]

I did not say you said I was heretical. That was just a general response. Not my intention.

It was a joke (hence the winking emoji)

 

[electedbyHim]

It was a joke (hence the winking emoji)

Got it.