User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 36

Thread: Hypocrisy Of Calvinism Huxters' Talk Of Efficacy

  1. #16
    Over 1000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,015
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 169 Times in 145 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    21741
    Quote Originally Posted by meshak View Post
    don't you mean Calvinism?
    Obviously. And I'm now on record as saying it. I'm not being subtle in stealing 'Clavin' from St. John W. He invented it, and I blatantly plagiarize him, in his honor. I never thought that it wasn't very clear what I mean by 'Clavin:' John "Cliff/Cliffy" Clavin.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Idolater For Your Post:

    glorydaz (November 8th, 2018),meshak (November 8th, 2018)

  3. #17
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    129
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 43 Times in 28 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6459
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    'Clavinism' is to reformed theology, what 'Romanism' or 'papism' is to Catholic theology.

    It's a barb. Turnabout being fair play and all that.
    Exactly how is referring to the Vatican's teachings and practices as "Romanism" to be understood as a barb? People who conscientiously use the term "Romanism", as opposed to the terms "Roman Catholicism" and "Catholicism", are saying, in it, that

    1. the teachings and practices to which they are referring, by it, proceed from the Vatican, in Rome, the city of the Roman(s) (hence, "Roman-ism"), and that

    2. those teachings and practices are not rightly to be called 'catholic' (let alone with a capital C).

    You consider their stating their honest disagreement with a certain manner of using the word, 'catholic', to be a barb? To whom do you consider it to be a barb, and why?

    Since, obviously, the terms "Roman Catholicism" and "Catholicism" are out of the question for them (as these terms are freighted with implication in direct conflict with what they believe), exactly what term would you recommend they use, instead of 'Romanism', whereby they need not pretend to approve of a usage of the word 'catholic' which they honestly do not accept, and whereby they will not be considered as guilty of laying a barb by those who consider the term 'Romanism' to be a barb?
    Last edited by 7djengo7; November 7th, 2018 at 11:17 PM. Reason: changed an instance of "Romanism" to "Roman-ism"

  4. #18
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    129
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 43 Times in 28 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6459
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    Who needs editors.
    With this one, you could plausibly claim that the period instead of a question mark was a deliberate joke. Perhaps it was.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    glorydaz (November 8th, 2018)

  6. #19
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    129
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 43 Times in 28 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6459
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    You're supposed to italicize the 'sic.'
    Supposed? By whom?

  7. #20
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    129
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 43 Times in 28 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6459
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    Now, what are you again? I've asked twice.
    I'm a jazz guitarist, still.

  8. #21
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    129
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 43 Times in 28 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6459
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    They're mistaken.
    You're supposed to italicize the 'sic.'

    Those who presently "subscribe" to reformed theology (which, as you implied, has not yet been "utterly discredited") are not "wonton [sic [sic]] fools", but are "mistaken"? And, how will you come to decide when reformed theology has been "utterly discredited"?

  9. #22
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    23,177
    Thanks
    14,307
    Thanked 36,659 Times in 18,289 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147798
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    Who needs editors.
    They're mistaken.
    You're supposed to italicize the 'sic.'

    Now, what are you again? I've asked twice.
    You fellas are cracking me up tonight. Just what I needed.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    7djengo7 (November 8th, 2018),Idolater (November 8th, 2018)

  11. #23
    Over 1000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,015
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 169 Times in 145 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    21741
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Exactly how is referring to the Vatican's teachings and practices as "Romanism" to be understood as a barb? People who conscientiously use the term "Romanism", as opposed to the terms "Roman Catholicism" and "Catholicism", are saying, in it, that

    1. the teachings and practices to which they are referring, by it, proceed from the Vatican, in Rome, the city of the Roman(s) (hence, "Roman-ism"), and that

    2. those teachings and practices are not rightly to be called 'catholic' (let alone with a capital C).

    You consider their stating their honest disagreement with a certain manner of using the word, 'catholic', to be a barb? To whom do you consider it to be a barb, and why?

    Since, obviously, the terms "Roman Catholicism" and "Catholicism" are out of the question for them (as these terms are freighted with implication in direct conflict with what they believe), exactly what term would you recommend they use, instead of 'Romanism', whereby they need not pretend to approve of a usage of the word 'catholic' which they honestly do not accept, and whereby they will not be considered as guilty of laying a barb by those who consider the term 'Romanism' to be a barb?
    'Catholic' is absolutely not out of the question. Nobody ever uses the word to mean anything other than Catholicism, which Protestants see as 'a denomination' anyway, unless and only unless they are reciting or reading the creeds. Otherwise they use 'whole Church,' to mean the whole Church, and not 'the catholic Church,' which nobody uses, ever.

    Except the Orthodox. Are you Orthodox?

    And, this is either a big deal, or it isn't a big deal, and I can't tell which one you're arguing for. I don't think my barb is a big deal, nor 'papist' or 'popish' or 'Romish.' If others are going to employ these words, then I'll employ words that reflect those words. For me, the official names are preferred, but if people want to sling around mild slurs then let's do that, by all means. Heck, I'm comfortable with all kinds of profanity, but this isn't the discussion board for that.

    And what are you again?
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  12. #24
    Over 1000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,015
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 169 Times in 145 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    21741
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Supposed? By whom?
    idk. 'Them.' Grammar police. Brackets and not parentheses, italicize the 'sic.' 'Form' maybe; is that the word? Or 'style?' idk.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  13. #25
    Over 1000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,015
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 169 Times in 145 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    21741
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    I'm a jazz guitarist, still.
    Is this an answer? You know what I'm asking.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  14. #26
    Over 1000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,015
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 169 Times in 145 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    21741
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Those who presently "subscribe" to reformed theology (which, as you implied, has not yet been "utterly discredited") are not "wonton [sic [sic]] fools", but are "mistaken"?
    Flat earthers weren't always 'wonton [sic [sic] ('[sic ('[sic]')) [sic]] fools.' You have to alternate brackets and parentheses.
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    And, how will you come to decide when reformed theology has been "utterly discredited"?
    It's already been, for me. When was flat earth discredited? What if flat earthers continued believing, even though it's been discredited? Would we think it discredited, if most people went on believing it anyway?
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  15. #27
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,788
    Thanks
    4,471
    Thanked 3,950 Times in 2,263 Posts

    Blog Entries
    148
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147691
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Would it be just that any ELECT person should be punished on earth (in his/her blindness of mind, reprobate sense, strong delusions, hardness of heart, horror of conscience, vile affections, and all the evils that befall the ELECT in their bodies, names, estates, relations, employments, and in death, itself)--would it be just that any ELECT person should be punished in suffering one or more of these things for the sins for which Christ was punished on earth?
    It is wonderful that you have taken up some of the standards to study. It would also help if you could avail yourself of some decent commentaries on the Westminster Standards (WCF, WLC, WSC). They are ancient documents written in the style of their time and the grammar and phraseology particular to that time. This will avoid anachronistically reading error into them based upon your attempt to just "wing it" as in assigning "punishment" where it is not actually intended.

    WLC
    28. What are the punishments of sin in this world?
    A. The punishments of sin in this world, are either inward, as blindness of mind, a reprobate sense, strong delusions, hardness of heart, horror of conscience, and vile affections: or outward, as the curse of God upon the creatures for our sake; and all other evils that befall us in our bodies, names, estates, relations, and employments; together with death itself.

    Scripture proofs supplied for this question that should not be overlooked:

    • Eph. 4:18
    • Rom. 1:28
    • 2 Thess. 2:11
    • Rom. 2:5
    • Isa. 33:14; Gen. 4:13; Matt. 27:4
    • Rom. 1:26
    • Gen. 3:17
    • Deut. 28:15-68

    The whole world of nature is under a curse of God, as we learn from Genesis 3:17-19 as well as other places in Scripture.

    In what sense is the curse upon the world of nature a punishment for sin? In the case of unsaved sinners, the curse upon nature is strictly and simply a punishment for sin. In the case of Christian people, the curse upon nature is not strictly a penalty for sin, for they have been delivered from that by Christ's atonement. Rather, in their case, the curse upon nature is to be regarded as a consequence of sin and a part of God's fatherly chastening or discipline by which he prepares us for the lice eternal.

    In what sense is physical death itself a punishment for sin? Death is called "the wages of sin" (Rom. 6:23). Wages means "that which we have earned'' or "what we deserve." In the case of the unsaved person, death is simply the wages of sin, a judicial penalty. In the case of the Christian, however, Christ has already suffered death as his substitute. The Christian still has to die, of course, but in the case of the Christian, death is no longer a penalty. It remains an enemy, but it is not a Judicial penalty. Rather, to the Christian, death is a change by which God transfers him to the region and the condition of perfect holiness. Thus physical death, to the Christian, is part of God's fatherly discipline. It proceeds not from God's wrath, but from his love in the ease of the Christian.

    The question and answer in the WLC rightly stirs up the Christian, as children so stirred up by their Fathers, such that they do not immediately flee to the fifth petal, perseverance (or OSAS for the non-Calvinist).

    R. Haldane's commentary on Romans is well worth reading. I hope you continue to read and learn from it.

    I also suggest you start with the WSC and this wonderful exposition of the same:
    https://reformed.org/documents/fishe...ndex_fish.html

    AMR
    Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



    Do you confess?
    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  16. #28
    LIFETIME MEMBER meshak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    13,966
    Thanks
    3,944
    Thanked 1,887 Times in 1,518 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    Obviously. And I'm now on record as saying it. I'm not being subtle in stealing 'Clavin' from St. John W. He invented it, and I blatantly plagiarize him, in his honor. I never thought that it wasn't very clear what I mean by 'Clavin:' John "Cliff/Cliffy" Clavin.
    Ok, thank you.

    John W is so good at inventing the words.
    If you want to be true to God and Jesus, abandon any kind of violence at all cost. By advocating any kind of violence, you are misrepresenting Christianity.

  17. #29
    Over 1000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,015
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 169 Times in 145 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    21741
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    ...They are ancient documents...
    Error!

    The 'Didache' is an ancient document. Ignatius's epistles are ancient documents.

    The Westminster standards are from the 1500s.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  18. #30
    Over 1000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,015
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 169 Times in 145 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    21741
    Quote Originally Posted by meshak View Post
    Ok, thank you.
    You're welcome.
    Quote Originally Posted by meshak View Post
    John W is so good at inventing the words.
    He is a Legend, and a Saint.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us