apothanein kerdos Posted February 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 8, 2007 After decades of study, I have concluded that hyper-Calvinism/hyper-sovereignty is not biblical (TULIP is deductive, not inductive). Arminianism is a free will theism, but overstates exhaustive foreknowledge. Catholicism is problematic, though it is possible to be a Catholic Christian. Open Theism (Pinnock, Sanders, Body, Hasker, Basinger, Pratney, Olson, Rice, etc.) is a mediate position that needs to be considered (though it is usually misunderstood and misrepresented). Open theism is not a biblical alternative Then you are not familiar with the biblical evidence. For example, there are two motifs in Scripture: God settles and controls some of the future, but other aspects He leaves unsettled, by His sovereign choices. Proof texts can be found for both motifs. Calvinism wrongly proof texts the former and extrapolates it to be normative and exhaustive predestination. Meanwhile, it wrongly makes the latter motif figurative, without warrant. Any revelation of God's character (like God changing His mind) that does not fit the deductive view, becomes anthropomorphic, without warrant. The problem with all of these theories is that they ignore the broader context of the passages, Hebrew literary style, God's character, and most importantly, the consequences of their belief. If you want to go into it, open a new thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lazyday Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I would like to say that anyone who believes in the name of Jesus Christ is a Christian. Catholic, Baptist, Calvinist, Lutheran, etc., are all denominations in Christianity. So what you have is Christian denominationalism, fighting against each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishcowboy Posted October 14, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 127 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 3,248 Content Per Day: 0.88 Reputation: 13 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/23/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 14, 2008 Did you know that before Calvin became a Calvinist, he was Lutheran? Calvin fell under the writings of the New Testament translation by Eramus and the writings of Luther. Luther and Calvin contradicted themselves because they claimed to use the Bible only, then went on to write Creeds in ADDITION to the bible. None of the 5 points of Tulip, are taught in the Bible. The "sinners prayer" is NOT in the Bible and won't save you. It is a false doctrine that developed from Calvinism and was first practiced less than 50 years ago. Reformation1517: I would go on to point out..that Trinity, Rapture, Incarnation are also not found in the Bible..yet all are legitimate concepts in theology. Luther and Calvin never met. And though I am big fan of Martin Luther, Calvin has often gotten a bad rap. His famous TULIP is to be sure a flashpoint for discussion, but I suspect that a Calvinist here can explain it better than I. you mean the words Trinity, Rapture, and incarnation....... the concept is there very plain...... just like the concept of Grandfather and Grandmother, those words are not in the Bible either, but the concept is there. mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I could not disagree more about any/all of thiis stuff being so ''plainly there'' its too bad we don't all simply reject everything that came after John' writings on Patmos as merely commentary and speculation. I certainly do. Some theolgians may have good explanations of certain passages...but it is the scriptures that are true and worthy of honor, not the commentary or commentor. Did Luther or Calvin receive more of the Holy Spirit than you? did Luther discover grace by faith or was he 16 centuries late since Paul's words were penned? What they said may have been good for their time but the Word is still fresh and alive today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillingToDie Posted October 27, 2008 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 710 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/01/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/16/1984 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Did you know that before Calvin became a Calvinist, he was Lutheran? Calvin fell under the writings of the New Testament translation by Eramus and the writings of Luther. Luther and Calvin contradicted themselves because they claimed to use the Bible only, then went on to write Creeds in ADDITION to the bible. None of the 5 points of Tulip, are taught in the Bible. The "sinners prayer" is NOT in the Bible and won't save you. It is a false doctrine that developed from Calvinism and was first practiced less than 50 years ago. Actually, as I recall, before he became a theologian, he was a lawyer (which explains a lot). Second, at the beginning of the Reformation, there were no Lutherans. There were only reformers, and the term "Lutheran" didn't arise until after the rise of Calvin's theology and Zwingli. Third, as I recall there is no evidence that Calvin read Luther's work, as Luther wrote in German and Calvin only read French and Latin. And they contradicted themselves because (Calvin at least) wrote a Systematic Theology in his Institutions. Have you ever tried writing a Systematic Theology? It's not easy, I can assure you. Luther's views changed throughout his lifetime, so his earlier work is not reflective of his mature thought. And all those creeds you're talking about? Luther and Calvin didn't write any, those were their followers. And the "Sinner's Prayer" always seemed to me to be a more Arminian construction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricH Posted October 28, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 366 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 10,933 Content Per Day: 1.57 Reputation: 212 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted October 28, 2008 After decades of study, I have concluded that hyper-Calvinism/hyper-sovereignty is not biblical (TULIP is deductive, not inductive). Arminianism is a free will theism, but overstates exhaustive foreknowledge. Catholicism is problematic, though it is possible to be a Catholic Christian. Open Theism (Pinnock, Sanders, Body, Hasker, Basinger, Pratney, Olson, Rice, etc.) is a mediate position that needs to be considered (though it is usually misunderstood and misrepresented). Open Theism is very unscriptural. It also presents a logical fallacy that because it is the middle position, it must be the correct one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalcald Posted October 29, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted October 29, 2008 What is open theism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalcald Posted October 29, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Okay thanks for the info about open theism. I also would find that very problematic scripturally. Christ said that before Abraham was I AM, God exists in the past present and future, God created time itself, He knows everything. I agree with Luther's doctrine as contained in his Catechism and the Book of Concord etc, so I guess I would be a heretic. But I guess that is neither here nor there. With no one authority for scriptural interpretation we can all call each other heretics and it is really pretty meaningless, We all believe that the bible is the infallible and inerrant Word of God, yet disagree on many things, all we can do is cling to our faith, lead lives of obedience and wait for His coming or our death to find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalcald Posted October 29, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Heretics one and all. But if a person does not believe in the Trinity, which is the One God one could be in a bit of trouble as the Arians were, the Athanasian creed was a scriptural treastie against the Arian heresy. But really lets face it we all just believe what we do and are not going to be nudged one way or the other anyway, like I said we should just stick with scripture and our faith that is all we can do, its the reason we have 10,000 different denominations all thinking they are correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis1963 Posted July 19, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 37 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/03/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 19, 2009 The "sinners prayer" is NOT in the Bible and won't save you. It is a false doctrine that developed from Calvinism and was first practiced less than 50 years ago.Your wrong on this one. The sinners prayer is a good display of Arminian theology. You ill never see a mature Calvinist using or promoting such a practice. It is far from Calvinistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts