God_Is_Truth
New member
his attitude almost makes me wonder if he's actually a christian or not.
ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
his attitude almost makes me wonder if he's actually a christian or not.
Rolf Ernst
New member
Knight--in response to your post #640: Clete claims to know Refrormed doctrine. On that pretext, with that pretense, he grossly mischaracterizes it. You think that is not criminally libelous??
LOL.... of course not!
Rolf... are you serious?:nono:
Rolf Ernst
New member
Then what is your definition of libel--isn't it false writing against someone, and not that I would care to press charges--this is free wheeling debate--but isn't libel a criminal offense? Yes, or no, knight.
Rolf.... I am worried about you. I suggest you seek professional help.
You are clearly irrational.
God_Is_Truth
New member
false writing against SOMEONE. not false writing against SOMETHING. there IS a difference. this is not saying that i believe Clete said something false about reformed doctrine though, just a clarification about what libel is.
from www.dictionary.com
9 entries found for libel.
li·bel ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbl)
n.
A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
The act of presenting such material to the public.
The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.
I wasn't going to humor Rolf by actually explaining all this to him.... but since you have, I would also add that Rolf overlooks a monumental element in his criminal accusation against Clete and that is Rolf ASSUMES that Clete's representation of Calvinism is "less correct" than Rolf's own representation of Calvinism. I would sharply disagree with Rolf's assumption.
But more importantly....
If Rolf were correct in his accusation against Clete.... just about every debate that has occurred throughout history has been criminal in one way or another. :kookoo:
BOTH the 'open' veiw and the 'closed' veiw are a misrepresentation of scripture and derived from a carnal minds understanding.wHICH WILL ALWAYS fly to either extreme .
The idea that the church CANNOT "come to a knowledge of the truth" flies in the face of ALL scripture and DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS GOD's promise that "when the Holy SPIRIT has come (listen) HE will LEAD you into ALL truth"
Thus if they who claim to be CHRISTIANS in the BIBLICAL sense (NOT THE WORLDLY SENSE) and seem not to be ABLE to come to a proper understanding and knowldge of the truth BEYOND that of being BORNagain there can be only a few reasons why not.
1)The HOLY SPIRIT has not come.
2) They do not BELEIVE God.
3) They are UNWILLING to be LED by the HOLY SPIRIT and rather "lean on thier own understanding"
4) they ASK NOT or if they ask ask amiss .
5) They have got so embroiled with mans wisdom in the understanding of scripture and listen to every tom dick or harry on the matter that they have lost all sense of Gods presence of the HOLY SPIRIT who first SEALED THEM.
tHE REMEDY is simple.
Become a fool for CHRISTS SAKE.
and "lean not upon your own understanding but trust in "...Him who first QUICKENED THE WORD to your understanding and LED you to the KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH concerning the salvation of the soul.
BELIEVE GOD! in that HE PROMISED that they who believe on HIM shall NOT walk in darkness but walk in the light OF LIFE"
and SEARCH the SCRIPTURES seeking FIRST the kingdomof God and HIS rightousness.
Some have said I am being nieve!?
lol
Not at all I am being RADICAL.
In that I say that if any meen to fullfillGODS WILL for thier life had better start NOW to find out the truth.
For if we are NOT FULLY GROUNDED in the WHOLE truth and not just that little part that at present comforts us then we will NOT be able to stand NOR ARE WE A TRUE WITNESS of HIM who is MORE than our savior BUT IS ALSO our LORD AND KING.
The lions who go about roaring seeking whom to devour always go after the weak and the young.
It is not Gods intention therefore that we stay but BABES in CHRIST BUT BECOME "more than conquerers"
"Who giveth us the victory through our LORD Jesus Christ"
Therefore to say that wer CANNOT come to a progresive TRUE AND RIGHT UNDERSTANDING OF ALL the scriptures according to the MIND OF GOD is not from GOD but from the pit of hell and a work of the devil.
Thus the open and closed veiw of scripture is but a snare of the devil to entrap men into a carnal thinking of scripture where men rely on thier own interlectual capabilities than the SPIRIT of God to quicken thier minds even as he did at the first.
Thus none are transformed by the renewal of thier minds because though the SOUL is saved the MIND is still being used THE SAME WAY as BEFORE! AND NOT SUBJECT to the SPIRIT of God.
But rather men subject the WORD of God to thier own thinking and experince rather than ALLOW GOD by the WORD through the SPIRIT to revolutionise THIER LIVES.
bY THE TRANSFORMATION of thier minds.
The idea that the church CANNOT "come to a knowledge of the truth" flies in the face of ALL scripture and DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS GOD's promise that "when the Holy SPIRIT has come (listen) HE will LEAD you into ALL truth"
Thus if they who claim to be CHRISTIANS in the BIBLICAL sense (NOT THE WORLDLY SENSE) and seem not to be ABLE to come to a proper understanding and knowldge of the truth BEYOND that of being BORNagain there can be only a few reasons why not.
1)The HOLY SPIRIT has not come.
2) They do not BELEIVE God.
3) They are UNWILLING to be LED by the HOLY SPIRIT and rather "lean on thier own understanding"
4) they ASK NOT or if they ask ask amiss .
5) They have got so embroiled with mans wisdom in the understanding of scripture and listen to every tom dick or harry on the matter that they have lost all sense of Gods presence of the HOLY SPIRIT who first SEALED THEM.
tHE REMEDY is simple.
Become a fool for CHRISTS SAKE.
and "lean not upon your own understanding but trust in "...Him who first QUICKENED THE WORD to your understanding and LED you to the KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH concerning the salvation of the soul.
BELIEVE GOD! in that HE PROMISED that they who believe on HIM shall NOT walk in darkness but walk in the light OF LIFE"
and SEARCH the SCRIPTURES seeking FIRST the kingdomof God and HIS rightousness.
Some have said I am being nieve!?
lol
Not at all I am being RADICAL.
In that I say that if any meen to fullfillGODS WILL for thier life had better start NOW to find out the truth.
For if we are NOT FULLY GROUNDED in the WHOLE truth and not just that little part that at present comforts us then we will NOT be able to stand NOR ARE WE A TRUE WITNESS of HIM who is MORE than our savior BUT IS ALSO our LORD AND KING.
The lions who go about roaring seeking whom to devour always go after the weak and the young.
It is not Gods intention therefore that we stay but BABES in CHRIST BUT BECOME "more than conquerers"
"Who giveth us the victory through our LORD Jesus Christ"
Therefore to say that wer CANNOT come to a progresive TRUE AND RIGHT UNDERSTANDING OF ALL the scriptures according to the MIND OF GOD is not from GOD but from the pit of hell and a work of the devil.
Thus the open and closed veiw of scripture is but a snare of the devil to entrap men into a carnal thinking of scripture where men rely on thier own interlectual capabilities than the SPIRIT of God to quicken thier minds even as he did at the first.
Thus none are transformed by the renewal of thier minds because though the SOUL is saved the MIND is still being used THE SAME WAY as BEFORE! AND NOT SUBJECT to the SPIRIT of God.
But rather men subject the WORD of God to thier own thinking and experince rather than ALLOW GOD by the WORD through the SPIRIT to revolutionise THIER LIVES.
bY THE TRANSFORMATION of thier minds.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
gerelduk - ??? You said
geralduk, I have never remotely heard an open theist (or a closed theist for that matter) teach anything other than that we can certainly learn and rightly understand God's word. Do we expect that any will do so perfectly, I think not, but we surely do as you say we should, and lean on God's word to learn of His understanding and ways.
It's not the open and closed view of scripture, the open and closed views are about contingency and uncertainty (in time, especially the future). Just as the trinity must be arrived at by careful bible study and intellectual effort, same with many other views, same with this one.
and
What in the world are you talking about? Are you dreaming, do you know if you are awake right now? How many fingers am I holding up?
geralduk, I have never remotely heard an open theist (or a closed theist for that matter) teach anything other than that we can certainly learn and rightly understand God's word. Do we expect that any will do so perfectly, I think not, but we surely do as you say we should, and lean on God's word to learn of His understanding and ways.
It's not the open and closed view of scripture, the open and closed views are about contingency and uncertainty (in time, especially the future). Just as the trinity must be arrived at by careful bible study and intellectual effort, same with many other views, same with this one.
LOL :chuckle:
Rolf Ernst,
Your irrationality has reached such a fevered pitch that any further discussion with you would be fruitless and mean that your irrationality has spilled off onto me. I will not allow that to happen.
As for your hypocritical personal attacks against me, I will choose to ignore them and allow God His vengeance on the Day of Judgment.
Perhaps in a few weeks when you've calmed down and demonstrated that you've regained control of your mind we can pursue another discussion, until then I intend to ignore you.
It's a pity too. A simple, "I apologize" would have been sufficient to make this whole episode go away.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Your irrationality has reached such a fevered pitch that any further discussion with you would be fruitless and mean that your irrationality has spilled off onto me. I will not allow that to happen.
As for your hypocritical personal attacks against me, I will choose to ignore them and allow God His vengeance on the Day of Judgment.
Perhaps in a few weeks when you've calmed down and demonstrated that you've regained control of your mind we can pursue another discussion, until then I intend to ignore you.
It's a pity too. A simple, "I apologize" would have been sufficient to make this whole episode go away.
Resting in Him,
Clete
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Clete's right, just look at Gerelduk, he thinks that the OV vrs CV both teach that we can not rightly understand God's word, and calls it the open and closed view of scripture. Ignorance and irrationality is spreading, and the closed viewers can not make up their mind to what extent God directs evil/sin, it's a nasty mess.
(Chuckles) But don't you think that such contagious things can only go so far since we have the mind of Christ and all that. Then again, some folks seem to enjoy being "exceptional" and this irrationality has gone on for hundreds of years.
Praise God Clete, judgment day will be a good day. :thumb:
(Chuckles) But don't you think that such contagious things can only go so far since we have the mind of Christ and all that. Then again, some folks seem to enjoy being "exceptional" and this irrationality has gone on for hundreds of years.
Praise God Clete, judgment day will be a good day. :thumb:
Last edited:
Hi Knight,
Jim wrote: "Apparently, the OVers are not really interested in what Calvin taught, not even for the sake of criticizing him."
My goal is to understand my opponent's view as well, if not better, than he does. That's why I ask lots of questions and try to say it back to you guys to see if I got it right.
Jim
Jim wrote: "Apparently, the OVers are not really interested in what Calvin taught, not even for the sake of criticizing him."
It wasn't a criticism. I recognize your approach is not one in which you're trying to understand classic Calvinism. There are times that I'm not as interested in a certain theology as much as I am in a particular individual's view. I merely recognized that this seems to be the prevailing approach amongst the OVers in this corner of the web.
Yeah, but we're not Calvinists. Some here may use the label, but they might be surprised at what Calvin actually wrote and said about some of the things being claimed in this discussion. Maybe there should be a different label. Instead of Calvinism, maybe Z-manism, Rolfism, boogerheadism, Hilstonism.
As I've said many times before, I don't call myself a Calvinist and I don't defend the traditional formulation. But based on what I've read of Calvinism, it is a grave mistake to (a) call something Calvinism that isn't, and (b) to base your understanding of Calvinism on what you read in these posts. Perhaps you don't care. But if that's the case, you can't go around saying you understand Calvinist theology.
My goal is to understand my opponent's view as well, if not better, than he does. That's why I ask lots of questions and try to say it back to you guys to see if I got it right.
If I were in your situation, I would see value in having a firm grasp of what Calvinism actually teaches. It would give you a tremendous edge in your debates because you not only could criticize what the self-styled Calvinists espouse on its own merits, but also show that they don't even understand what they claim to believe. I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job, but for all the times I've read "You Calvinists believe ____(insert on-Calvinist belief here)____," one would think the anti-Calvinists would get tired of having to readjust their conception of Calvinism.
Jim
Z Man,
Your response to me seems very convoluted and contradictory to me. However, I know from past experience with you that you are not as irrational as your post would seem to suggest.
So, in order to give you the benefit of the doubt I'm going to assume that we are somehow talking past one another by saying two different things by using the same words.
The only way I can think of to clear up this muddy water is to define terms and come to a common understanding of what certain things mean when we say them. To that end, I would like for you to answer a couple of questions and then I will in turn answer them myself and then we can perhaps find common linguistic ground upon which to proceed with our discussion.
When you say God is sovereign, what does that mean exactly?
What is justice?
What does it mean for God to have predestined something?
What does it mean to have a free will?
Are the doctrines of predestination (not foreknowledge) and free will mutually exclusive and why?
I may have a few more depending on how this progresses but that's enough for now. Remember, I'm asking what YOU think these things mean not what you think I mean by them.
Also, I don't intend at all to debate you about what these things mean, I'll accept whatever definition you want as your understanding of these terms, if mine is dramatically different then perhaps we'll need to use modified terms to differentiate between the two. The point is that all I'm looking for is to establish a common vernacular so that we can stop running around in circles.
Resting in Him,
Clete
P.S. Jim, I haven't forgotten about you! I'll respond to your post as soon as time permits. Thanks for your patience!
Your response to me seems very convoluted and contradictory to me. However, I know from past experience with you that you are not as irrational as your post would seem to suggest.
So, in order to give you the benefit of the doubt I'm going to assume that we are somehow talking past one another by saying two different things by using the same words.
The only way I can think of to clear up this muddy water is to define terms and come to a common understanding of what certain things mean when we say them. To that end, I would like for you to answer a couple of questions and then I will in turn answer them myself and then we can perhaps find common linguistic ground upon which to proceed with our discussion.
When you say God is sovereign, what does that mean exactly?
What is justice?
What does it mean for God to have predestined something?
What does it mean to have a free will?
Are the doctrines of predestination (not foreknowledge) and free will mutually exclusive and why?
I may have a few more depending on how this progresses but that's enough for now. Remember, I'm asking what YOU think these things mean not what you think I mean by them.
Also, I don't intend at all to debate you about what these things mean, I'll accept whatever definition you want as your understanding of these terms, if mine is dramatically different then perhaps we'll need to use modified terms to differentiate between the two. The point is that all I'm looking for is to establish a common vernacular so that we can stop running around in circles.
Resting in Him,
Clete
P.S. Jim, I haven't forgotten about you! I'll respond to your post as soon as time permits. Thanks for your patience!
Jim... I get what your saying.... but frankly.... I feel your unnecessarily clouding the debate.
How much time do you think we will waste determining who is a Calvinist and who isn't? And who is a Hilstonist? And what in the world is a Hilstonist? etc etc etc.
Yet when all is said and done and no matter what label you choose for yourself...
It will still be impossible for you to explain how God decrees everything that I do..... but doesn't cause me to do anything. :doh:
How much time do you think we will waste determining who is a Calvinist and who isn't? And who is a Hilstonist? And what in the world is a Hilstonist? etc etc etc.
Yet when all is said and done and no matter what label you choose for yourself...
It will still be impossible for you to explain how God decrees everything that I do..... but doesn't cause me to do anything. :doh:
Rolf Ernst
New member
Knight, Clete--Since you are so bold as to charge me with being irrational, be bold enough also to be specific about you charge. WHEREIN is anything I have posted irrational. You both made the charge. Now we can all wait to see if you can put some substance behind them.
As for the two of you, and G.I.T. also, who was rude enough to question my regewnerate nature, I will say this---I weould much rather that someone show such rudeness to me (including your insulting smilie, Knight, than that I should be the one who shows such rudeness to others.
Again, you have charged irrationality--be specific. Point out the evidence of any irrationality. Happy hunting!
As for the two of you, and G.I.T. also, who was rude enough to question my regewnerate nature, I will say this---I weould much rather that someone show such rudeness to me (including your insulting smilie, Knight, than that I should be the one who shows such rudeness to others.
Again, you have charged irrationality--be specific. Point out the evidence of any irrationality. Happy hunting!
Uhhhh...... claiming Clete had criminally offended you was irrational. :kookoo:
No further explanation necessary.
The above post was my 9000th.
God_Is_Truth
New member
there was nothing rude about it. your actions seemed very contrary to someone with a regenerate nature and your posts as of late seemed very anti christian which is why i posted as i did.
Rolf Ernst
New member
G. I. T. and Knight--You say libel is a false written report against someone rather than something, and so Clete commited no libel.
What about his implication that I was guilty of malicious intent to harm him and his family. He demanded that I apologize for doing so. THAT is a public --forum wide--and false charge against me.
What about his implication that I was guilty of malicious intent to harm him and his family. He demanded that I apologize for doing so. THAT is a public --forum wide--and false charge against me.