Well, if in fact he is my sockpuppet (lmao I didnt know there was such an idiom) he doesnt seem yet to be complying with the praising me and agree with me component , at least not yet. I'll have to see if I can hack that out of him. Thus it would appear even if he is my sockpuppet, he could not be for he has not fullfilled the requirements of a good sockpuppet. Actually, people in the carnival call this a "Stick" which means that they have someone in the crowd, playing along for the purpose of purchasing the carnies grabbag. (Before you ask NO I have never been a carny, but I think I am married to one.) lmao
u said:
I missed the free “Unconditonal ceremony” involving a “night of total depravity” that you say is held for initiated Calvinists that perform the “trick”.
to which I say: HA ( As Abigail would say) (When she says it it is with such meaning, where she kind of means you shocked her a little and she might have a difference of opinion with you which is forthcoming)
Of course, its my conviction that the "initiated ones" would be sort of secret soceity within the soceity. Left on the sidelines would be "shortermers" and the "unbecoming" who would form the the carpetbag soceity of the "unitiated". One would aslo reasonably expect that the wealthy would be left in the 'carpetbag" component of the soceity. Ie(It takes money to run any organization)
u said:
I need to find some 32nd degree Calvinist I can talk to about this. I WAS ROBBED!!!
uh yeah, You got robbed and that's a "good thing". A friend of mine in a pentacostal church once said to me, " You know how Jesus says destroy this temple and in three days I will re-build it, sometimes I feel like I could go out and destroy my temple in 3 days" His humor stating his own "well not total depravity" but fleshly desires. Of which, your honesty is compelling, for it does exist. My arguement is in that part of the gospel which is missing in Calvanism. To Calvin therefore if it wasnt a necessary component the arguement from my vantage point is if there is no barrier, a free for all is the likely outcome.
Garth: If in fact I am right ( I am sure I am), one would think there would be a historical record of the habits of John Calvin himself. To be sure it would probably be besmerged by some. I was wondering other than Servitus (spell???) if such a record exists? If there is it would add an interesting component to the arguement.
Invisible Dan is also a terrific history buff. Where oh where is the invisible one when you need him?
I missed your SN above and thought it was Garth's (Arghhhh)
I read the Prysbet. website some of the stuff. ho-hum
You know I am really glad cynic that your experience has been good there and not as I described. That must mean the place you attend doesn't practice the Calvinistic way of thinking that I have so stated. Glad to see your faith is in Christ. :)
I missed your SN above and thought it was Garth's (Arghhhh)
Sky,
I’m in a good mood. I'm not upset at your mistaking me for Garth.
The bad news, however, is that making such a mistake is doing something worse to Garth than making a belt and a pair of shorts out of the carcass of his dog. Garth’s uncle, Guido, is possibly heading your way.
Well, if in fact he is my sockpuppet ..... u said:
I missed the free “Unconditonal ceremony” involving a “night of total depravity” that you say is held for initiated Calvinists that perform the “trick”.
Uhh, I didn't say all that. Cynic did.
If in fact I am right ( I am sure I am), one would think there would be a historical record of the habits of John Calvin himself.
I found these real humdingers re: Calvin and his theology in the LookSmart Find Articles link I came across, and it showed how intertwined Calvin's theology was to his life, and his influence in Geneva:
Its (his theology) theme is the majesty of God. There is an unbridgeable chasm between man and his maker. Man is thoroughly corrupt, so base that it is unthinkable that he could lift a finger to participate in his own salvation. God is glorious and magnificent beyond man's highest capacity to comprehend; He is both omnipotent and omniscient, and He has, merely by His knowing, foreordained all things that ever will come to pass. Man is helpless in the face of God's will. He is predestined either to eternal glory or eternal damnation, and he can do nothing, even if he is the best of saints in his fellow's eyes, to alter the intention of God. To suggest that he could would be to imply that the Creator did not fore-know precisely and thus diminish His majesty. To Calvin there could be no greater sacrilege. This doctrine of predestination did not originate with Calvin, but no one ever expressed it more clearly and uncompromisingly. He did not flinch from the terrible consequences of God's omniscience.
To those few whom God has chosen to save, He has granted the precious gift of faith, which is undeserved. All are unworthy of salvation, and most are damned because God's justice demands it. But God is infinitely merciful as well as just, and it is this mercy, freely given, that opens the door to heaven for the elect.
Calvin knew that this doctrine was terrifying, that it seemed to make God hateful and arbitrary, but he submitted that human reason is too feeble to scrutinize or judge the will of God. The Creator's decision on who shall be damned is immutable. No purgatory exists to cleanse man of his sins and prepare him for heaven. Yet Calvin counsels prayer, even though it will not change God's will, because prayer too is decreed and men must worship even though they may be among the damned.
:unsure:
Church and state are both ordained by God. The task of the former is to teach and prescribe faith and morals, while the latter preserves order and enforces the laws set forth by the Church. There is no separation of Church and state. Both must work in harmony to preserve the word of God, and to this end the state is enjoined to use force if necessary to suppress false teachings, such as Catholicism, Anabaptism, or Lutheranism.
:blink:
There are others as well, but those two quoted sections show a jaw dropping view as to a big part of what Calvin was all about. (ie., IMHO, sick!) Also see the various parts of that article that talk about Calvin's strong influence in 'city hall' in setting up laws and 'discipline' in accordance to his theology. Ie., "Thus the whole life of Geneva was placed under a rigid discipline and a single Church from which no deviation was permitted." (also in the article)
Hope this helps answers your question.
Update: Cynic's latest post also helps illustrate the kind of man Calvin was, and the theology that Cynic undyingly believes in, ... and the emptiness thereof. ... I mean, if that's the best he can come back with to successfully dispute the challenges to Calvinism posted earlier, ..... ((snickers)).
Yah! Right!
P.S., Cynic, you're losing it, man. I treat dogs a helluva lot better than that. Apparently you're projecting yourself onto me, ... which makes me wonder how staunch Reformed Church members treat their pets. :unsure:
Don't take me personal cynic, I am sure there are some good Prysbeterian churches out there, as you pointed out, yours in no way partakes in the things I said. This is why I always prefaced everything in Calvin terms, not Prysbeterian. You might also find it amusing that there are some Lutherans (I think they sort of say so) who think the Red Sea parting was a metaphor. I dont go to those places or get worked up about it, making a goofy choice like that is an individual choice, not mine.
Garth:
Thanks I will be reading them. Interesting stuff, appreciated.
Though I haven’t studied Calvin’s own writings to any significant extent, I expect his views on statecraft were somewhat intensely theonomic .
It is noteworthy, however, that, in citing a quote about Calvin’s high view of God along with a quote about Calvin’s view of the role of the state as something indicating that Calvin was “sick!,” Garth displays as much contempt for the biblical notion of God’s sovereignty over his creatures as he does for the church exercising influence over the sword of the state.
Update: Cynic's latest post also helps illustrate the kind of man Calvin was, and the theology that Cynic undyingly believes in, ... and the emptiness thereof. ... I mean, if that's the best he can come back with to successfully dispute the challenges to Calvinism posted earlier, ..... ((snickers)).
Yah! Right!
P.S., Cynic, you're losing it, man. I treat dogs a helluva lot better than that. Apparently you're projecting yourself onto me, ... which makes me wonder how staunch Reformed Church members treat their pets. :unsure:
Garth,
The metaphor was that you would find being mistaken for me worse than finding your dog skinned. It did not involve a suggestion about your treatment of canines, and it reveals nothing about theology or about Calvin.
I have read some, but not enough to comment on Calvin's political views. It would be very fair to say though that Calvin was very political. I also think those views somewhat represent what the man was like.
u said:
Though I haven’t studied Calvin’s own writings to any significant extent, I expect his views on statecraft were somewhat intensely theonomic
to which I say: Cough cough, hack hack, Maybe that is why your church are not practicioners of the stuff I said. Read the stuff cynic cause if you do, you and your church might deposit most of it out in the waste basket where it belongs. ( I am making the assumption that in "having not studied Calvins own writings to any sign. extent", if you read it you may well see my point. )
It is noteworthy, however, that, in citing a quote about Calvin’s high view of God along with a quote about Calvin’s view of the role of the state as something indicating that Calvin was “sick!,” ...
Yes, it is noteworthy, isn't it? Very observant, young grasshopper.
Garth displays as much contempt for the biblical notion of God’s sovereignty over his creatures as he does for the church exercising influence over the sword of the state.
When you have a deity blatantly illustrated such as Calvin portrays? ... Uhh yeah, I would have contempt for such a critter. Kinda like my equal contempt for the deity portrayed by the 9-11 terrorists.
The metaphor was that you would find being mistaken for me worse than finding your dog skinned.
Well then, you are correct. ... I would find it worse.
... and it reveals nothing about theology or about Calvin.
Actually, it portrays a good deal about the applied side of the particular theology of people like Calvin (as Sky4it aptly illustrated earlier), particularly in relation to how cruel he behaved towards others of a different religious view. Ie., it shows about the same type of cruelty as skinning the aforementioned dog. Therefore I wouldn't find it that much of a stretch to believe that Calvin would do such a despicable action towards our 4 legged friend. (I mean, the Bible in the OT does use the term 'dog' often in derogaratory terms.)
I kinda have to wonder if he didn't insist on the city of Geneva setting up and enforcing a 'No pets' regulation, complete with dire consequences for the violators thereof. ... Perhaps a further search of the internet would be more informative. ;)
You mentioned that you are Lutheran. As I understand it, Luther and Lutheranism view a few things differently. I’m not a big fan of Luther or Lutheranism (due to some Christological issues), but Luther probably asserted at least as high a view of God’s sovereignty as Calvin did. Luther wrote his famous The Bondage of the Will in response to the Dutch humanist Erasmus’s Diatribe on Free Will, and even embraced “double predestination,” which Luther accepted as the teaching of Scripture, despite referring to reprobation as “the horrible decree.”
Historical Reformed theology (aka: Calvinism) does not make justification (i.e. being declared righteous) contingent upon obedience, though there are some Reformed folks involved in the Federal Vision movement who possibly do so. Reformed theology (at least the historic Presbyterian version of it) holds that faith alone is the instrument of justification, but that real faith is not a faith which is alone, but a faith that is accompanied by repentance and, ultimately, by sanctification. Another way of saying this perhaps is that although a man is not saved by works, a man is not saved without works. A central point in the Reformed view is Scripture's covenantal promise that God will put his laws into the hearts and minds of his people. It is God who originates and completes the salvation of his people. Those who are saved by God become keepers of his laws and observers of his will because God has worked and continues to work in them to make them that way (see Hebrews 8:10).
P. S.
Up to the point of your previous post, your contempt for Calvin and his (sovereign grace) theology seems to have expressed itself concerning election, predestination, and perseverance. It seems rather odd you seem to be somewhat involving contempt for Calvin’s entangling of church and state in a call for me to reexamine my opinion about Calvin’s theology. An aversion to theonomy (there are some Reformed folks who are possibly more extreme theonomists than Calvin was) is not going to spill over to my views on sovereign grace. There is no necessary connection between Calvin’s views on the role of the state and Calvin’s views on sovereign grace.
And, although I have not studied Calvin’s writings to any significant extent, I figure I know a good bit more about Calvin, about Calvinism(s), about sovereign grace soteriology, and about the underpinnings of theonomic thought than you or Garth do.
Yes, it is noteworthy, isn't it? Very observant, young grasshopper.
When you have a deity blatantly illustrated such as Calvin portrays? ... Uhh yeah, I would have contempt for such a critter. Kinda like my equal contempt for the deity portrayed by the 9-11 terrorists.
Well then, you are correct. ... I would find it worse.
Actually, it portrays a good deal about the applied side of the particular theology of people like Calvin (as Sky4it aptly illustrated earlier), particularly in relation to how cruel he behaved towards others of a different religious view. Ie., it shows about the same type of cruelty as skinning the aforementioned dog. Therefore I wouldn't find it that much of a stretch to believe that Calvin would do such a despicable action towards our 4 legged friend. (I mean, the Bible in the OT does use the term 'dog' often in derogaratory terms.)
I kinda have to wonder if he didn't insist on the city of Geneva setting up and enforcing a 'No pets' regulation, complete with dire consequences for the violators thereof. ... Perhaps a further search of the internet would be more informative. ;)
Ahhh, the wonders of the 'Net. :B)
Garth,
I have debated atheists and heretics here and on IRC, and you are the most unprincipled and shameless fellow I have come across, and I have well-exposed you in the past for lying and chucking blood libel.
YOU PROBABLY KNOW DAMNED WELL WHAT THE TONGUE-IN-CHEEK COMMENT ABOUT THE DOG WAS ABOUT, AND ARE MALEVOLENTLY DISTORTING IT.
And, although I have not studied Calvin’s writings to any significant extent, I figure I know a good bit more about Calvin, about Calvinism(s), about sovereign grace soteriology, and about the underpinnings of theonomic thought than you or Garth do.
... then you should have no trouble giving a successful rebuttal to the valid (and documented) points I or Sky4it raised that challenge Calvin; the man or his theology.
Note I said successful. Ie., infantile ad hominum derisions (as well as tantrum throwing) about heretics or remarks that involve skinning dogs is not going to cut it.
Update again (ie., I didn't think so):
I have debated atheists and heretics here and on IRC, and you are the most unprincipled and shameless fellow I have come across, and I have well-exposed you in the past for lying and chucking blood libel.
YOU PROBABLY KNOW DAMNED WELL WHAT THE TONGUE-IN-CHEEK COMMENT ABOUT THE DOG WAS ABOUT, AND ARE MALEVOLENTLY DISTORTING IT.
P_I_S_S OFF, PUNK!
Hot DAMN, I struck a *nerve*!
Exposed me? ((scoff)) Yeah guy! In yer dreams! ... My treatment of your 'dog' comment isn't what's bothering you, and you know it. What's pi**ing on your world is my info re: Calvin and his malevolent theology and inhuman treatment of heretics. Hell, you yourself carry his attitude regarding them. And just about all the Calvinist apologist sites I come across carry that same attitude; a few of them even saying that it's (more or less) a moral thing for heretics to undergo capital punishment.
Face it pal, more and more of us, Christian and heretic/atheist, are becoming more open about speaking our criticisms on what Calvin has said and done, which is strongly intertwined with his theology (IMNSHO). And here are apologists like you defending the man to a near blind level that TWIfers have defended VPW (reminds anyone of Smikeol? <_< Altho' he had more class.), and act like its a felony for the man and his theology to be scrutinized/challenged (Calvin himself openly forbad anyone in Geneva to criticize him or what he taught. And that's also documented in that LookSmart link I posted.)
Even with my so-called 'blood libel' (HA! That is so hilarious! You sound like a Star Trek convention reject.) and 'polemics', a lot of what I have posted (if not just about all) about Calvin is documented, and all readily available on the net.
Here's a morsel for you to chew on: Since Calvin was directly involved and responsible for Servetus' death (ie., his murder), and since the Bible clearly states that murderers have no inheritance in the Kingdom of God, .......... do the math.
Have a nice day, ... and stay away from skinned dogs.
... then you should have no trouble giving a successful rebuttal to the valid (and documented) points I or Sky4it raised that challenge Calvin; the man or his theology.
Note I said successful. Ie., infantile ad hominum derisions about heretics or remarks that involve skinning dogs is not going to cut it.
What a HYPOCRITE!
By the way, where sky4it's "points " have involved something other than fanciful allegations, I do not remember them constituting something more than assertions based on the dictionary definition of perseverance and the supposed licentious outcome of sovereign grace theology.
Where's my hypocrisy? Whatever ad hominum attacks on John Calvin is deserved. Hell, for all what he's done, _he_ should get the capital punishment. Rather, he died safely in his bed. <_<
Plus, my 'attacks' on you was return fire. What's your excuse.
... Plus, I never made any ad hominum attacks against heretics. ;)
II Peter 2:10 "Wherefore the rather, brethern, give diligence to make your calling and ELECTION sure: for if you do these things, you shall never fall. "
Logic 101: Election cannot not be unconditional if YOU have to make it sure. It says "YOUR" Ie you have to do it. You have to give diligence to make it sure. Therefore, it must be conditional and no other argument will work. ( I suppose some meathead could argue you still could have a unsure election and unsure calling. That's a negative facing a postive. At a minimum therefore election and calling can be cast in doubt probably and reasonably so, because one did not fulfill it.) I mean an unsure election and calling is a doubtful one right?
There is no way the UNcondional crowd can get aroud that one. In fact thats just what it says. Case dismissed. John Calvin is wrong.
Cynic: Predestination is not a doctrinal assertation (as John Calvin asserts) in any Lutheran material I have ever seen. Period. Quote Luther all you want, its not a doctrine format like Calvin anywhere in there theology teachings.
cynic u said:
By the way, where sky4it's "points " have involved something other than fanciful allegations, I do not remember them constituting something more than assertions based on the dictionary definition of perseverance and the supposed licentious outcome of sovereign grace theology.
I don't deny that I used some fanciful methods to illustrate the contraption, but the scriptural truth against Calvins view (and some churches) of Unconditional election is very clear. THE ROPE IS THE ONE ABOVE IN PETER THAT CATEGORICALLY SAYS NO NO NO. Furthermore, I really think I made some teriific statements with the help of the truth that is the gospel. When one has a off the wall theology, there is always a reason. People dont make these arguments for esoteric reasons which cannot be reasonably understood. Thus I respectfully disagree with Calvin's program, I think he was a heretic.
By the way Cynic your arguement on salvation is noted. I must take exception with you on one issue(and possibly more) . (Some of my points focus on "your inheritance in Christ" and the possiblity of losing it which the bible says, thus your inheritance is conditional.) Some might argue salvation and inheritance are two seperate issues. (It depends on if you define your salvation as your inheritance) One scripture in Peter clarifies the salvation issue a little more. I Peter 2:11 Dearly beloved,......., ABSTAIN FROM FLESHLY LUSTS WHICH WAR AGAINST THE SOUL" I can't repeat that better than it is except to say if something can make a war against the soul it CAN DESTROY IT.
Let me show you Mr. Sky4it where I think you are wrong. Please answer my questions first.
Are you saying that I am not sincere? Don't you think Calvin people need Jesus? Maybe Mr. Calvin when he talks about persevere is talking in symbols and thats why you don't understand it?
I am just trying to see what kind of person you are that is all.
Up to the point of your previous post, your contempt for Calvin and his (sovereign grace) theology seems to have expressed itself concerning election, predestination, and perseverance.
U said in another post:
By the way, where sky4it's "points " have involved something other than fanciful allegations, I do not remember them constituting something more than assertions based on the dictionary definition of perseverance and the supposed licentious outcome of sovereign grace theology.
To which I say: I know of no greater place to define a word than a dictionary. I suppose I could take a survey or try to get in on the game show Family Feud. (Well at least we don’t have to deal with a Greek spinster like VPW at least not yet. Lmao)
Calvin ideology is not just about a few concepts. (Still the unconditional election concept is the prism in which things are viewed and the actionable component of Calvinism of which your church is not a part) I said earlier that unconditional election permeates all the doctrine and I will prove it. So lets move on to Calvinistic doctrine of Reprobation to make the point.
But to pass this, and more particularly to touch the eternal, invisible reprobation, which I shall thus hold forth. It is to be passed by in or left out of God’’s election, yet so as considered upright; in which position you have these four things considerable:
same guy in chapter 3 same book: Which serveth yet further to prove that reprobation could not be with respect to this or the other sin, it being only a leaving them, and that before the world, out of that free choice which he was pleased to bless the other with
Article 15 Reprobation Canons of Dordt
weblink:http://www.reformed.org/search/index.html?mainframe=/searchpro/advanced_search.php&g=0 . Where Calvin Says:
And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.
Calvin has numerous other essays in “Institutes” on his doctrine of Reprobation
Calvanists have a clear doctrine of Reprobation. Here’s what they say it is:
1) Bunyan says it is “to be passed by in or left out of God’s election” (Remember when I said Calvinists look at everything through the Unconditional election window?
2) Bunyan has said that “Reprobation could not be with respect to this or the other sin” Ie. (He doubts it’s a sin to be a reprobate? Thats what this turkey just said.)
3) Calvin says (#3 above) “this decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin.” Ie(God makes a decision of reprobation for some ( this is what Calvin just said)
Thus just like bunyan a reprobate and sinner are two different concepts (Arghhhh This makes no sense at all) The definition is wacky when Calvinists apply it to God electing reprobation for some, yet when its a doctine for the unelect there definition changes. (Why? Because the individual person (th unelect) must be deserving. (Thats the truth of Calvinism)
These teachings above are false. Reprobation is discussed at greatest length in II Corinthians Chapter 13. The topic is discussed in connection with sin. II Cor 13:2,“...now I write to them which hereto for have sinned, and all other..... “ The definition of what that sin was, two verses back in II Cor. 12: 21".... I (Paul) bewail the many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the UNCLEANLINESS, and FORNICATION and LASCIVIOUSNESS which they have committed. (Interesting same 3 concepts as in Eph 5:5 its everywhere its everywhere) Furthermore, that was Paul’s definition of what sin was and what it meant to be a reprobate. I Corinthians 13:2, 5-7. Also you don’t have “Christ in you” if you be as reprobates. Roman’s 8:9 says, “ Now if any man have NOT the Spirit of Christ he is none of his.” BTW, these guys in Corinth, they weren’t first time (fornicator, unclean, lasciviousness) offenders, because: the bible states this would be Paul’s third time coming to them and they had the same problem back in I Corinithians. Thus, they were 2 time offenders or more and THAT AFTER RECEIVING CHRIST, a noteworthy distinction in what a reprobate is.
The Calvinists above don’t even have a proper definition of what a reprobate is. They think it means “to be passed by in or left out of God’s election” The disconnect between sin and reprobation is so BIZARRE (in some of the writings) that it is nonsense. Bunyan said that "Reprobation" could not be with respect to this or the other sin. (He just said reprobation is not a sin. That's retarded.) I mean why get saved from Calvin’s definition of Reprobation if at times Calvanists don’t think it’s a sin? The Scriptural definition is simple simon. To be a reprobate is to act out against the concepts as EPH 5:5 and the three capitalized words above, which the bible says is sin and not to do.
I really didn’t need to go into all that though did I? Because II Peter 1:10 = Antidote serum for Calvinism.
Ok horses, so you want to get personal? Gee do I get to ask some questions too? Hey Horses are you a Calvinist? Did you graduate from the JohnCalvinJethroBodineClampett school of higher learning?
u said:
Mr. Sky4it are you saved?
Uh have you read any of my posts? Yes I am. I gave my life to Jesus Christ at the age of 12 when I was at a Hal Lindsey Crusade when he was under Billy Graham’s umbrella. I also rededicated my life to Jesus Christ at the age of 17 while at a Bill Gothard seminar. (No I have never worked under Bill Gothard but I do like his first seminar but don’t know much else about him.)
U said:
Let me show you Mr. Sky4it where I think you are wrong.
That’s your whole world isn’t it. That’s why I think you are a little brighter lightbulb then you let on.
U said:
Are you saying that I am not sincere?
I never said that. I said I would give you the benefit of the doubt until you prove me wrong.
U said:
Don't you think Calvin people need Jesus?
Uh yes of course I do. So does everyone else. What ever gave you the notion to ask such a question?
U said:
Maybe Mr. Calvin when he talks about persevere is talking in symbols and thats why you don't understand it?
Oh so its all symbols eh? Let’s see how this works out. Mr.and Mrs. Robinson lets say they live down the block. Mr. Robinson is out of town. Someone stops in to see Mrs. Robinson. Knock, knock hello Mrs. Robinson. See that thing sticking out between my legs down there its just a symbol. It is however the same symbol that’s going to chase you around the house. YEEEEE Hawwww.
It doesn’t matter anyway horses, symbols are actionable. A stop sign makes one stop. A yield sign makes one yield. Get it. BTW if everyone talked in symbols, writing would be like a hallucination, so cut the crap.
U said:
I am just trying to see what kind of person you are that is all.
Yeah right. Here’s another question. Do you play skeeball 7 days a week? Because your questions indicate you do and score a perfect 100 every time you throw the ball right?
Mr. Sky4it I am not very much a Calvinist. I do like some things about what Mr. Calvins says because he says some things that are good.
I do not know no skeeball. Some things you say are funny. Are you just joking around?
Would you please tell me what the short version is the long version and the long version is the short version is and means?
Sometimes I just think your tone is not so very nice. When I said you are wrong thats all I mean. Do no get upset for I am trying to be helpful. I am glad to hear you are saved.
In other words, you are saved in order to reap the benefits of being saved.
I very much agree. I think that liking the "benefits" as you described, is a reason someone would be protective over it.
I was reading Pink's Soviegn God book last nite, (only the chapter on Salvation). I could post and disagree with some of his statements but that would be nitpicking. ( I think) It's not so much what he says that is bad, its what he doesn't say that I find disturbing. Not any reference to any of the things which are "to do" parts or warnings about NT stuff, while discussing a topic like salvation. It's like reading 1/2 the gospel. Thus his formula seems to be God = Soveriegn = Salavation. Arggggg.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
74
35
21
32
Popular Days
Aug 24
31
Aug 21
23
Aug 22
23
Mar 17
14
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 74 posts
Abigail 35 posts
GarthP2000 21 posts
Watered Garden 32 posts
Popular Days
Aug 24 2007
31 posts
Aug 21 2007
23 posts
Aug 22 2007
23 posts
Mar 17 2009
14 posts
Popular Posts
GarthP2000
And Calvin and his mindset was the 'Honey Wagon'.
Mark Clarke
God doesn't cause the problems, but He does allow them, because He is God and He is in charge. That is comforting to me, because it assures me that nothing is beyond His control. But He doesn't allo
Cynic
My-my! What wild flailings at the doctrine of unconditional election. You have struck only a few “hyper-Calvinists” (e.g. some Primitive Baptists), who reputedly held election to work salvation in s
sky4it
Cynic:
Well, if in fact he is my sockpuppet (lmao I didnt know there was such an idiom) he doesnt seem yet to be complying with the praising me and agree with me component , at least not yet. I'll have to see if I can hack that out of him. Thus it would appear even if he is my sockpuppet, he could not be for he has not fullfilled the requirements of a good sockpuppet. Actually, people in the carnival call this a "Stick" which means that they have someone in the crowd, playing along for the purpose of purchasing the carnies grabbag. (Before you ask NO I have never been a carny, but I think I am married to one.) lmao
u said:
I missed the free “Unconditonal ceremony” involving a “night of total depravity” that you say is held for initiated Calvinists that perform the “trick”.
to which I say: HA ( As Abigail would say) (When she says it it is with such meaning, where she kind of means you shocked her a little and she might have a difference of opinion with you which is forthcoming)
Of course, its my conviction that the "initiated ones" would be sort of secret soceity within the soceity. Left on the sidelines would be "shortermers" and the "unbecoming" who would form the the carpetbag soceity of the "unitiated". One would aslo reasonably expect that the wealthy would be left in the 'carpetbag" component of the soceity. Ie(It takes money to run any organization)
u said:
I need to find some 32nd degree Calvinist I can talk to about this. I WAS ROBBED!!!
uh yeah, You got robbed and that's a "good thing". A friend of mine in a pentacostal church once said to me, " You know how Jesus says destroy this temple and in three days I will re-build it, sometimes I feel like I could go out and destroy my temple in 3 days" His humor stating his own "well not total depravity" but fleshly desires. Of which, your honesty is compelling, for it does exist. My arguement is in that part of the gospel which is missing in Calvanism. To Calvin therefore if it wasnt a necessary component the arguement from my vantage point is if there is no barrier, a free for all is the likely outcome.
Nuff said.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Garth:
Garth: If in fact I am right ( I am sure I am), one would think there would be a historical record of the habits of John Calvin himself. To be sure it would probably be besmerged by some. I was wondering other than Servitus (spell???) if such a record exists? If there is it would add an interesting component to the arguement.
Invisible Dan is also a terrific history buff. Where oh where is the invisible one when you need him?
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
cynic:
I missed your SN above and thought it was Garth's (Arghhhh)
I read the Prysbet. website some of the stuff. ho-hum
You know I am really glad cynic that your experience has been good there and not as I described. That must mean the place you attend doesn't practice the Calvinistic way of thinking that I have so stated. Glad to see your faith is in Christ. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Sky,
I’m in a good mood. I'm not upset at your mistaking me for Garth.
The bad news, however, is that making such a mistake is doing something worse to Garth than making a belt and a pair of shorts out of the carcass of his dog. Garth’s uncle, Guido, is possibly heading your way.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Sky4it,
Uhh, I didn't say all that. Cynic did.Here are a few instances:
Ritchies.net article
LookSmart Find Articles article about John Calvin
I found these real humdingers re: Calvin and his theology in the LookSmart Find Articles link I came across, and it showed how intertwined Calvin's theology was to his life, and his influence in Geneva:
:unsure: :blink:There are others as well, but those two quoted sections show a jaw dropping view as to a big part of what Calvin was all about. (ie., IMHO, sick!) Also see the various parts of that article that talk about Calvin's strong influence in 'city hall' in setting up laws and 'discipline' in accordance to his theology. Ie., "Thus the whole life of Geneva was placed under a rigid discipline and a single Church from which no deviation was permitted." (also in the article)
Hope this helps answers your question.
Update: Cynic's latest post also helps illustrate the kind of man Calvin was, and the theology that Cynic undyingly believes in, ... and the emptiness thereof. ... I mean, if that's the best he can come back with to successfully dispute the challenges to Calvinism posted earlier, ..... ((snickers)).
Yah! Right!
P.S., Cynic, you're losing it, man. I treat dogs a helluva lot better than that. Apparently you're projecting yourself onto me, ... which makes me wonder how staunch Reformed Church members treat their pets. :unsure:
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Cynic:
LMAO. No Garth will be allright.
Don't take me personal cynic, I am sure there are some good Prysbeterian churches out there, as you pointed out, yours in no way partakes in the things I said. This is why I always prefaced everything in Calvin terms, not Prysbeterian. You might also find it amusing that there are some Lutherans (I think they sort of say so) who think the Red Sea parting was a metaphor. I dont go to those places or get worked up about it, making a goofy choice like that is an individual choice, not mine.
Garth:
Thanks I will be reading them. Interesting stuff, appreciated.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Though I haven’t studied Calvin’s own writings to any significant extent, I expect his views on statecraft were somewhat intensely theonomic .
It is noteworthy, however, that, in citing a quote about Calvin’s high view of God along with a quote about Calvin’s view of the role of the state as something indicating that Calvin was “sick!,” Garth displays as much contempt for the biblical notion of God’s sovereignty over his creatures as he does for the church exercising influence over the sword of the state.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Garth,
The metaphor was that you would find being mistaken for me worse than finding your dog skinned. It did not involve a suggestion about your treatment of canines, and it reveals nothing about theology or about Calvin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
cynic:
I have read some, but not enough to comment on Calvin's political views. It would be very fair to say though that Calvin was very political. I also think those views somewhat represent what the man was like.
u said:
Though I haven’t studied Calvin’s own writings to any significant extent, I expect his views on statecraft were somewhat intensely theonomic
to which I say: Cough cough, hack hack, Maybe that is why your church are not practicioners of the stuff I said. Read the stuff cynic cause if you do, you and your church might deposit most of it out in the waste basket where it belongs. ( I am making the assumption that in "having not studied Calvins own writings to any sign. extent", if you read it you may well see my point. )
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Cynic,
Yes, it is noteworthy, isn't it? Very observant, young grasshopper.When you have a deity blatantly illustrated such as Calvin portrays? ... Uhh yeah, I would have contempt for such a critter. Kinda like my equal contempt for the deity portrayed by the 9-11 terrorists.
Well then, you are correct. ... I would find it worse.Actually, it portrays a good deal about the applied side of the particular theology of people like Calvin (as Sky4it aptly illustrated earlier), particularly in relation to how cruel he behaved towards others of a different religious view. Ie., it shows about the same type of cruelty as skinning the aforementioned dog. Therefore I wouldn't find it that much of a stretch to believe that Calvin would do such a despicable action towards our 4 legged friend. (I mean, the Bible in the OT does use the term 'dog' often in derogaratory terms.)
I kinda have to wonder if he didn't insist on the city of Geneva setting up and enforcing a 'No pets' regulation, complete with dire consequences for the violators thereof. ... Perhaps a further search of the internet would be more informative. ;)
Ahhh, the wonders of the 'Net. :B)
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Sky,
You mentioned that you are Lutheran. As I understand it, Luther and Lutheranism view a few things differently. I’m not a big fan of Luther or Lutheranism (due to some Christological issues), but Luther probably asserted at least as high a view of God’s sovereignty as Calvin did. Luther wrote his famous The Bondage of the Will in response to the Dutch humanist Erasmus’s Diatribe on Free Will, and even embraced “double predestination,” which Luther accepted as the teaching of Scripture, despite referring to reprobation as “the horrible decree.”
Historical Reformed theology (aka: Calvinism) does not make justification (i.e. being declared righteous) contingent upon obedience, though there are some Reformed folks involved in the Federal Vision movement who possibly do so. Reformed theology (at least the historic Presbyterian version of it) holds that faith alone is the instrument of justification, but that real faith is not a faith which is alone, but a faith that is accompanied by repentance and, ultimately, by sanctification. Another way of saying this perhaps is that although a man is not saved by works, a man is not saved without works. A central point in the Reformed view is Scripture's covenantal promise that God will put his laws into the hearts and minds of his people. It is God who originates and completes the salvation of his people. Those who are saved by God become keepers of his laws and observers of his will because God has worked and continues to work in them to make them that way (see Hebrews 8:10).
P. S.
Up to the point of your previous post, your contempt for Calvin and his (sovereign grace) theology seems to have expressed itself concerning election, predestination, and perseverance. It seems rather odd you seem to be somewhat involving contempt for Calvin’s entangling of church and state in a call for me to reexamine my opinion about Calvin’s theology. An aversion to theonomy (there are some Reformed folks who are possibly more extreme theonomists than Calvin was) is not going to spill over to my views on sovereign grace. There is no necessary connection between Calvin’s views on the role of the state and Calvin’s views on sovereign grace.
And, although I have not studied Calvin’s writings to any significant extent, I figure I know a good bit more about Calvin, about Calvinism(s), about sovereign grace soteriology, and about the underpinnings of theonomic thought than you or Garth do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Bondage_of_the_Will
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Garth,
I have debated atheists and heretics here and on IRC, and you are the most unprincipled and shameless fellow I have come across, and I have well-exposed you in the past for lying and chucking blood libel.
YOU PROBABLY KNOW DAMNED WELL WHAT THE TONGUE-IN-CHEEK COMMENT ABOUT THE DOG WAS ABOUT, AND ARE MALEVOLENTLY DISTORTING IT.
P_I_S_S OFF, PUNK!
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
What a rabid and blindly raging little hack!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Note I said successful. Ie., infantile ad hominum derisions (as well as tantrum throwing) about heretics or remarks that involve skinning dogs is not going to cut it.
Update again (ie., I didn't think so):
Hot DAMN, I struck a *nerve*!
Exposed me? ((scoff)) Yeah guy! In yer dreams! ... My treatment of your 'dog' comment isn't what's bothering you, and you know it. What's pi**ing on your world is my info re: Calvin and his malevolent theology and inhuman treatment of heretics. Hell, you yourself carry his attitude regarding them. And just about all the Calvinist apologist sites I come across carry that same attitude; a few of them even saying that it's (more or less) a moral thing for heretics to undergo capital punishment.
Face it pal, more and more of us, Christian and heretic/atheist, are becoming more open about speaking our criticisms on what Calvin has said and done, which is strongly intertwined with his theology (IMNSHO). And here are apologists like you defending the man to a near blind level that TWIfers have defended VPW (reminds anyone of Smikeol? <_< Altho' he had more class.), and act like its a felony for the man and his theology to be scrutinized/challenged (Calvin himself openly forbad anyone in Geneva to criticize him or what he taught. And that's also documented in that LookSmart link I posted.)
Even with my so-called 'blood libel' (HA! That is so hilarious! You sound like a Star Trek convention reject.) and 'polemics', a lot of what I have posted (if not just about all) about Calvin is documented, and all readily available on the net.
Here's a morsel for you to chew on: Since Calvin was directly involved and responsible for Servetus' death (ie., his murder), and since the Bible clearly states that murderers have no inheritance in the Kingdom of God, .......... do the math.
Have a nice day, ... and stay away from skinned dogs.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
What a HYPOCRITE!
By the way, where sky4it's "points " have involved something other than fanciful allegations, I do not remember them constituting something more than assertions based on the dictionary definition of perseverance and the supposed licentious outcome of sovereign grace theology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Where's my hypocrisy? Whatever ad hominum attacks on John Calvin is deserved. Hell, for all what he's done, _he_ should get the capital punishment. Rather, he died safely in his bed. <_<
Plus, my 'attacks' on you was return fire. What's your excuse.
... Plus, I never made any ad hominum attacks against heretics. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
II Peter 2:10 "Wherefore the rather, brethern, give diligence to make your calling and ELECTION sure: for if you do these things, you shall never fall. "
Logic 101: Election cannot not be unconditional if YOU have to make it sure. It says "YOUR" Ie you have to do it. You have to give diligence to make it sure. Therefore, it must be conditional and no other argument will work. ( I suppose some meathead could argue you still could have a unsure election and unsure calling. That's a negative facing a postive. At a minimum therefore election and calling can be cast in doubt probably and reasonably so, because one did not fulfill it.) I mean an unsure election and calling is a doubtful one right?
There is no way the UNcondional crowd can get aroud that one. In fact thats just what it says. Case dismissed. John Calvin is wrong.
Cynic: Predestination is not a doctrinal assertation (as John Calvin asserts) in any Lutheran material I have ever seen. Period. Quote Luther all you want, its not a doctrine format like Calvin anywhere in there theology teachings.
cynic u said:
By the way, where sky4it's "points " have involved something other than fanciful allegations, I do not remember them constituting something more than assertions based on the dictionary definition of perseverance and the supposed licentious outcome of sovereign grace theology.
I don't deny that I used some fanciful methods to illustrate the contraption, but the scriptural truth against Calvins view (and some churches) of Unconditional election is very clear. THE ROPE IS THE ONE ABOVE IN PETER THAT CATEGORICALLY SAYS NO NO NO. Furthermore, I really think I made some teriific statements with the help of the truth that is the gospel. When one has a off the wall theology, there is always a reason. People dont make these arguments for esoteric reasons which cannot be reasonably understood. Thus I respectfully disagree with Calvin's program, I think he was a heretic.
By the way Cynic your arguement on salvation is noted. I must take exception with you on one issue(and possibly more) . (Some of my points focus on "your inheritance in Christ" and the possiblity of losing it which the bible says, thus your inheritance is conditional.) Some might argue salvation and inheritance are two seperate issues. (It depends on if you define your salvation as your inheritance) One scripture in Peter clarifies the salvation issue a little more. I Peter 2:11 Dearly beloved,......., ABSTAIN FROM FLESHLY LUSTS WHICH WAR AGAINST THE SOUL" I can't repeat that better than it is except to say if something can make a war against the soul it CAN DESTROY IT.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
horseshead
Mr. Sky4it are you saved?
Let me show you Mr. Sky4it where I think you are wrong. Please answer my questions first.
Are you saying that I am not sincere? Don't you think Calvin people need Jesus? Maybe Mr. Calvin when he talks about persevere is talking in symbols and thats why you don't understand it?
I am just trying to see what kind of person you are that is all.
Thank you for letting me be part of talk here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Cynic ( and others interested)
u said:
Up to the point of your previous post, your contempt for Calvin and his (sovereign grace) theology seems to have expressed itself concerning election, predestination, and perseverance.
U said in another post:
By the way, where sky4it's "points " have involved something other than fanciful allegations, I do not remember them constituting something more than assertions based on the dictionary definition of perseverance and the supposed licentious outcome of sovereign grace theology.
To which I say: I know of no greater place to define a word than a dictionary. I suppose I could take a survey or try to get in on the game show Family Feud. (Well at least we don’t have to deal with a Greek spinster like VPW at least not yet. Lmao)
Calvin ideology is not just about a few concepts. (Still the unconditional election concept is the prism in which things are viewed and the actionable component of Calvinism of which your church is not a part) I said earlier that unconditional election permeates all the doctrine and I will prove it. So lets move on to Calvinistic doctrine of Reprobation to make the point.
What Reprobation Is, By John Bunyan , Chapter 2
Weblink: http://www.reformed.org/search/index.html?...rch.php&g=0
But to pass this, and more particularly to touch the eternal, invisible reprobation, which I shall thus hold forth. It is to be passed by in or left out of God’’s election, yet so as considered upright; in which position you have these four things considerable:
same guy in chapter 3 same book: Which serveth yet further to prove that reprobation could not be with respect to this or the other sin, it being only a leaving them, and that before the world, out of that free choice which he was pleased to bless the other with
Article 15 Reprobation Canons of Dordt
weblink:http://www.reformed.org/search/index.html?mainframe=/searchpro/advanced_search.php&g=0 . Where Calvin Says:
And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.
Calvin has numerous other essays in “Institutes” on his doctrine of Reprobation
Calvanists have a clear doctrine of Reprobation. Here’s what they say it is:
1) Bunyan says it is “to be passed by in or left out of God’s election” (Remember when I said Calvinists look at everything through the Unconditional election window?
2) Bunyan has said that “Reprobation could not be with respect to this or the other sin” Ie. (He doubts it’s a sin to be a reprobate? Thats what this turkey just said.)
3) Calvin says (#3 above) “this decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin.” Ie(God makes a decision of reprobation for some ( this is what Calvin just said)
Thus just like bunyan a reprobate and sinner are two different concepts (Arghhhh This makes no sense at all) The definition is wacky when Calvinists apply it to God electing reprobation for some, yet when its a doctine for the unelect there definition changes. (Why? Because the individual person (th unelect) must be deserving. (Thats the truth of Calvinism)
These teachings above are false. Reprobation is discussed at greatest length in II Corinthians Chapter 13. The topic is discussed in connection with sin. II Cor 13:2,“...now I write to them which hereto for have sinned, and all other..... “ The definition of what that sin was, two verses back in II Cor. 12: 21".... I (Paul) bewail the many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the UNCLEANLINESS, and FORNICATION and LASCIVIOUSNESS which they have committed. (Interesting same 3 concepts as in Eph 5:5 its everywhere its everywhere) Furthermore, that was Paul’s definition of what sin was and what it meant to be a reprobate. I Corinthians 13:2, 5-7. Also you don’t have “Christ in you” if you be as reprobates. Roman’s 8:9 says, “ Now if any man have NOT the Spirit of Christ he is none of his.” BTW, these guys in Corinth, they weren’t first time (fornicator, unclean, lasciviousness) offenders, because: the bible states this would be Paul’s third time coming to them and they had the same problem back in I Corinithians. Thus, they were 2 time offenders or more and THAT AFTER RECEIVING CHRIST, a noteworthy distinction in what a reprobate is.
The Calvinists above don’t even have a proper definition of what a reprobate is. They think it means “to be passed by in or left out of God’s election” The disconnect between sin and reprobation is so BIZARRE (in some of the writings) that it is nonsense. Bunyan said that "Reprobation" could not be with respect to this or the other sin. (He just said reprobation is not a sin. That's retarded.) I mean why get saved from Calvin’s definition of Reprobation if at times Calvanists don’t think it’s a sin? The Scriptural definition is simple simon. To be a reprobate is to act out against the concepts as EPH 5:5 and the three capitalized words above, which the bible says is sin and not to do.
I really didn’t need to go into all that though did I? Because II Peter 1:10 = Antidote serum for Calvinism.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Cynic others see above 2 posts
horses (and only horses)
Ok horses, so you want to get personal? Gee do I get to ask some questions too? Hey Horses are you a Calvinist? Did you graduate from the JohnCalvinJethroBodineClampett school of higher learning?
u said:
Mr. Sky4it are you saved?
Uh have you read any of my posts? Yes I am. I gave my life to Jesus Christ at the age of 12 when I was at a Hal Lindsey Crusade when he was under Billy Graham’s umbrella. I also rededicated my life to Jesus Christ at the age of 17 while at a Bill Gothard seminar. (No I have never worked under Bill Gothard but I do like his first seminar but don’t know much else about him.)
U said:
Let me show you Mr. Sky4it where I think you are wrong.
That’s your whole world isn’t it. That’s why I think you are a little brighter lightbulb then you let on.
U said:
Are you saying that I am not sincere?
I never said that. I said I would give you the benefit of the doubt until you prove me wrong.
U said:
Don't you think Calvin people need Jesus?
Uh yes of course I do. So does everyone else. What ever gave you the notion to ask such a question?
U said:
Maybe Mr. Calvin when he talks about persevere is talking in symbols and thats why you don't understand it?
Oh so its all symbols eh? Let’s see how this works out. Mr.and Mrs. Robinson lets say they live down the block. Mr. Robinson is out of town. Someone stops in to see Mrs. Robinson. Knock, knock hello Mrs. Robinson. See that thing sticking out between my legs down there its just a symbol. It is however the same symbol that’s going to chase you around the house. YEEEEE Hawwww.
It doesn’t matter anyway horses, symbols are actionable. A stop sign makes one stop. A yield sign makes one yield. Get it. BTW if everyone talked in symbols, writing would be like a hallucination, so cut the crap.
U said:
I am just trying to see what kind of person you are that is all.
Yeah right. Here’s another question. Do you play skeeball 7 days a week? Because your questions indicate you do and score a perfect 100 every time you throw the ball right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
horseshead
Mr. Sky4it I am not very much a Calvinist. I do like some things about what Mr. Calvins says because he says some things that are good.
I do not know no skeeball. Some things you say are funny. Are you just joking around?
Would you please tell me what the short version is the long version and the long version is the short version is and means?
Sometimes I just think your tone is not so very nice. When I said you are wrong thats all I mean. Do no get upset for I am trying to be helpful. I am glad to hear you are saved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
All are saved. Save yourselves is a product of being saved.
In other words, you are saved in order to reap the benefits of being saved.
(-saved-such a short word for a big deal.)
Saved I believe is a bit different then being born again.
Which a benefit of being saved is.
And I think sky is being 'nice'.
What do you mean by 'being nice', horsehead?
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
People can only help one along the way.
Or hurt them.....
All these people can be listened to.
But it's what's inside that hears spiritual words.
Words that spark and help.
And also words that teach us a lot of things.
They are in peoples speech when they speak from the heart.
For out of the heart............
That's why I like hearing people's thoughts rather then book quoting.
Though I've quoted my share of what others have said.
Probably will again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
cman:
thanks for the post. :)
u said:
In other words, you are saved in order to reap the benefits of being saved.
I very much agree. I think that liking the "benefits" as you described, is a reason someone would be protective over it.
I was reading Pink's Soviegn God book last nite, (only the chapter on Salvation). I could post and disagree with some of his statements but that would be nitpicking. ( I think) It's not so much what he says that is bad, its what he doesn't say that I find disturbing. Not any reference to any of the things which are "to do" parts or warnings about NT stuff, while discussing a topic like salvation. It's like reading 1/2 the gospel. Thus his formula seems to be God = Soveriegn = Salavation. Arggggg.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.