Well arminianism can fend for themselves. They have their own problems. The objection to believer’s baptism is the same problem the Calvinists have with God’s word when it comes to other doctrines. Literally baptism means immersion. But the Calvinist as has been demonstrated before, so not care about the literal meaning. Just like “all” do not mean “all”; “love does not mean “love”; “whosoever” does not mean “whosoever”… it is also true for them that “immersion” does not mean “immersion.” They need a basis to establish their covenant theology and they can only do so under the basis of paedobaptism. Sola Calvinism is their excuse. The charismatic movement has its own problems. The objection to dispensationalism is the same as believer’s baptism as one can tell. Dispensationalism results from a literal interpretation of the Bible. But you do not have to read long to know that they do not care for a literal interpretation. They prefer spiritualizing everything since it gives them more freedom to invent whatever doctrine that suits their fancy. Sola Calvinism is their excuse.
Mr. J wrote: Do you see what he does? You write much info and many texts and he ignores most of it and has a go at one text.
That's a problem you are going to have to take up with SA. SA does not allow enough room to deal with all the verses.
Besides it does not take a genius to tack a verse at the end of a statement. Now to find a verse that clearly states what you believe... now that will be a first in SA forum history.
Mr. J wrote: Both the Dutch and the Scottish confessions are SUBORDINATE standards, and can be refuted if so proved from Scripture. Over the years many have tried but so far none have succeeded.
Right. Keep dreaming. Ha! You are so funny. And I suppose that the fact that Calvinism has been dead for so many years is irrelevant. Calvinism has no stronghold, but bless God its never been refuted. And you wonder why I state that Calvinim is one big ball of self contradiction.
The dehhvastating truth is that Calvinism is only strong when it is enforced by the state. That is why Calvinism quickly died after the Commonwealth. That's why Calvinism never had a stronghold in the United States. When people are free to think for themselves, Calvinism does not have a chance.
Only if you have no problem with eisogesis which apparently you do not.
with your hermeneutic I can easily make an argument for a political election.
The verses you reffer to speak on election. They say nothing about it being unconditional neither does it make any qualifier that would even hint to any arbitrariness in the choosing.
The unconditional part is the part which you add, and it is the part that shows your utter disrespect to the word of God.
John 3:16 wrote: For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Acts 3 does not even hint to creation. For you to make it mean the creation of a new earth and heaven you will have to equivocate restitution to your fabricated definition.
To be quite honest with you, I agree with you to an extent. The only part that I would disagree is that the restitution of all things necessarily has to exclude the millenium. There is more evidence in Acts 3 that it is reffering to a restoration to a literal theocracy than there is to a new creation. Acts 3 speaks of the former and states nothing of the latter.
BTW, you changed the subject again. Will you mind telling me when you are going to stay on one topic and finish it out?
Mr. J wrote: And the strange thing is, that is one argument Arminians can never win. Not without seriously ignoring, explaining away or downright twisting large parts of the Bible. But I digress - this question was on the rapture. There are currently two other discussions in progress (I use the word discussion loosely) on the Calvin-saint-or-sinner? issue. So let us get back to the Rapture. As an Optimistic Amillenialist (call me a Postie if you will) I scratch my head in amazement wondering where this whole "rapture" issue comes from. The one text that everyone keeps giving me, the one in Thessalonians, says nothing about any secret rapture and must be read back to front to fit Dispensationalist theology. So - where else in the Bible does it talk about a secret rapture?
You mean like cutting and pasting simple declarative statements from the Bible like: "For God so loved the world..."
Funny how the Calvinist believes that God only loves the elect but cannot find a simple declarative statement from Scripture that states that. But they want to try to change one that does like John 3:16.
I guess whoever is doing the twisting is based all on one's perspective.
Mr. J wrote: I suggest strongly that you do your research before posting this vitriolic diatribe. Calvin held no public office in Geneva and had no political influence. Your website gives no substantiated references whatsoever. The reformation was the movement that brought Christianity out of the godless darkness of Rome. There are branches of Christianity which differ on Millenial and baptism viewpoints. None of those things are 100% clearly nailed down in Scripture. Dispensationalism is a very new, man made heresy. The only thing the Bible clearly teaches without variation is the Sovereignty of God in all things - including election and salvation. I believe in covenantal infant baptism and what is called the 5 points of calvinism. Not because Calvin taught them but because the Bible teaches them. You want to disagree, that is fine. But that does not give you the right to slag off at someone who gave his life for the service of the Lord. Shame on you. Your attitude betrays that you may have the wrong kind of spirit.
Unless you believe that every single encyclopedia in the world has conspired to rewrite Calvinist history, there is plenty of evidence that Calvin had much to do with the murder of Servetus.
DJC49 wrote: Do you see what I see? It's plain: Christ will be received [at His Ascension] into heaven UNTIL the times of restitution of ALL THINGS! This time of restitution of ALL THINGS could be nothing less than the creation of the NEW heavens and earth to which Paul addresses in Romans 8:19-22!
Actually you are practicing equivocation again. "Restitution of all things" can easily include the millenium kingdom.
Nevertheless, I was reffering to your understanding of Moses being a type of Jesus. But I doubt you would be so gracious to confer.
DJC49 wrote: Because David's throne and kingdom were a type of Christ's spiritual Throne and Kingdom: THE CHURCH! Christ was NOT ruling over His Church at the time David was in Jerusalem some 1000 years prior to Pentecost.
So I guess you finally agree with JD that the church did not exist until after Jesus' ascension.
I tell you, you are all over the theological board.
Sure. This is one of the easiest types to prove. The antitype is firmly established in Deuteronomy 18:15
Deuteronomy 18:15 wrote: The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
The type is then firmly confirmed in Acts 3:20-23
Acts 3:20-23 wrote: and he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. 22For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that Prophet,shall be destroyed from among the people.
So I guess your post from 2/21/08 10:35 below which you uses to respond to JD's momormism post was a complete waste of virtual space.
DJC49 wrote: What you don't seem to grasp is the fact that the Eternal God is not time-bound as we are. He doesn't plod through time. He sees everything as being *in the present*. We can only dimly imagine His knowing us from all eternity. But that fact is Scriptural:
"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee" (Jer 1:5)
God didn't merely conceptualize us before our historical existence; He didn't merely see down the corridors of time what we would be; rather, He SEES us AS PRESENT from all eternity ... NOW. God has no calendar nor watch! He sees the End from the Beginning. NOW!
We're talkin' GOD'S TIMELESS forknowledge here and not man's weak, beggerly, and time-bound foreknowing as illustrated in Acts 26:5 and 2Peter 3:17.
Maybe you should've dedicated more time in what you claim you were addressing.
It's a wonderful thought to know that maybe you may win the next evangelist that returns England back to God.
Exekiel 22:30 "And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none."
jago wrote: The cure read those passages again. John Calvin is not stating Christ died for all but that as we don't know who his children are we must preach the gospel to everyone urging them to seek salvation. We know from scripture that as we do this God will call his own and they will believe.
I did. It states the same thing.
His first quote from Romans 5:15 he is arguing that "many" encompasses the whole human race. That's a statement that any of today's calvinist would even dare to make.
In his ROmans 5:8 commentary he basically states what I believe and destroys the goalpost strawman of unconditional election or universalism that many of you like to run to.
He clearly states that Jesus death was for them(nonelect) as well as for us(the elect). Though Calvin taught unconditional election, it is quite obvious that he did not go as far as later Calvinists to support limited atonement.
DJC49 wrote: You have an extremely strict definition of "type." Now, I see no valid proof in the NT that Moses was a type of Christ. I consider Moses a type of Christ, do you?
The NT clearly statest that Moses is a type of Jesus. If you like I can easily show you. I encourage you to read an excellent wor by Patric Fairbarn called "Typology." He is a reformed Christian to the fullest extent. If I as a nonreformist can benefit from him, I see no reason why you can not do the same.
John Wesley is wrong unfornutately. But thanks for the info.
DJC49 wrote: He was? Would you care to point me to some Scripture(s) which state this? Oh, maybe you mean this in a spiritual rather than a literal sense. Correct?
Jesus was king in a spiritual sense. That's the whole folly of your position. How can David's throne be a type of Jesus' spiritual rule when he was ruling in the spiritual realm from eternity past? That's not the way typology works. Typology is a prediction using earthly symbols. To support your position is stating that Jesus did not have a spiritual kingdom until after his ressurection. Where was Christ sitting before? On the heavenly floor? Ha!
2/22/08 10:20 PM
