The Slaying of Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

[Samie]

Let me just remind readers of this thread, that perhaps debaters in this thread are in a skirmish because both their belief systems teach that people are born in sin, instead of born in Christ.

And for one to be in Christ both camps teach that one has to first believe. Calvinists teach that God caused the elect to believe, or something to that effect. Arminians teach that man simply exercised his free will to believe, or something to that effect.

But notice:

If a man is born in sin, he is not in Christ. If he is not in Christ, he cannot bear fruit because only those in Christ can bear fruit. If he cannot bear fruit, he cannot have faith because faith is fruit of the Spirit. If he cannot have faith, he cannot believe because faith is needed to believe. If he cannot believe, then he cannot be in Christ as both camps teach.​

It appears from the teaching of both camps that a man not in Christ can never be in Christ. Hence, to end the skirmish, why NOT believe and teach that people are born in Christ? Anyway it is what Christ taught in the parables of the lost sheep, lost coin and lost son.

Before the sheep got lost, it was with its shepherd; before the coin was lost, it was with its owner; before the son went lost, he was with his father. So with us. We begin life not lost. And to be not lost is to be in Christ.

 

[nikolai_42]

First and foremost... thank you for taking so much time to evaluate this OP! I've seen you here and have been excited to hear your opinion. Your answer has not only exceeded my expectations, but it has challenged me to further define core implications of my assertions.

On this, I cannot be diplomatic in my answers to your questions. Your clearly articulated words and questions leave no room for me to be vague. I believe you did this out of respect to me and my OP, as well as towards yourself. I appreciate this.

In the forefront of my mind, I note that you are of the Universal Mother of Paul's efforts in Rome. Let us not debate "On this rock", brother. We both know theology from every angle. I simply say, all buildings of Christian proclamations must nod to your direction for origin, whether they like it or not.

I'm not quite sure what you take of me here. My first inkling is that you think I am Roman Catholic...

I feel that the sins of the Mother church are so re-hashed by Protestants that they are the quintessential body trying to remove the spec, despite their "beam".

And this makes only strengthens that suspicion. If that is the case, I am quite surprised - I'm not sure what would have given you that idea. I am not, nor have I ever been Roman Catholic. But perhaps something I said...(certainly not the William Tyndale avatar!).

I believe you will be displeased with "some of my answers" and thus it becomes difficult for me to respond. However, respond I will, out of respect to your scholarly post! I will take time to answer each of your cited questions, one at a time until I have answered them all.

Displeasure is possible, but if truth is the goal then that is a price to be paid. Having said that, offense is not likely. I can assure you that few things in this context will offend me. I don't know you (I don't think) and you don't know me and virtual anonymity can lead to misjudgments. All that there is to judge here are another's words. And if they are true, then let them stand (come what may).

And... we will continue discussion in this manner as long as you wish.

I only ask you one question at this current moment... Are you a believer in "agreeing to disagree", while maintaining peace through our union of sibling hood through our Lord, God and Savior Jesus?

As above, I take online posting for what it is - a perfect venue for a test of ideas. The absence of context and knowing personally who you are conversing with on a forum means that certain things usually taken for granted are missing - but it also means that it is easier to block out the "who" and focus on the "what". That's part of why I don't take much too personally. That said, I hasten to reiterate that truth spoken in love is the only guiding principle. My reactions shouldn't determine what you say or don't say (and this is an area in which I admittedly do not excel).

I will follow this reply with a smaller requote of the portion of your post that clearly shows a deep resonance in our understanding. In it, we may find much more agreement than my ominous, first few paragraphs imply.

That may be so. Bear in mind that I am not as steeped in the Reformed doctrines as most are here. At least not formally...

 

[Samie]

But we all like sheep have gone astray. Isa 53:6. All have sinned. Rom 3:23.

Therefore, God now commands all men every where to repent (Acts 17:30). The same command he made in the OT (Ezek 18:30). The same command Jesus made when he preached the gospel of the kingdom (Mark 1:14, 15); the same gospel He wanted preached to the world before He comes again (Matt 24:14). Repent or perish, as per our Savior (Luke 13:3, 5).

Repentance is change of mind for that which is good. Instead of doing evil, do good. IOW, overcome evil with good (Rom 12:21). In Him Who is our life (Col 3:4) and strength (Phil 4:13), we have His power to overcome evil with good, for in Him we are more than conquerors (Rom 8:37). Overcomers will Christ NOT blot out from the book of life and will be seated with Him on His throne even as He also overcame and sat down with the Father on His throne (Rev 3:5, 21). All NOT blotted out will be allowed entry to the heavenly portals (Rev 21:27); all blotted out will have their portion in the lake of fire (Rev 20:15).

 

[Brother Ducky]

In direct address to your question...

Calvinism cloaks its absolute assertions with walls of scripture that are "filtered" through the lens of "reformed" theology.

The OP scriptures have been selected to prevent this.

A hidden point I will reveal to you is that points 5 and 6 are check mate, but 1 through 4 load the game to get there faster.

Is this reply too succinct? Shall I explain more, or do you see it?

Note: Every actual Calvinist that has come here has sidestepped the OP and sidestepped its address. In full disclosure, there are some examples here where Calvinists engage, but immediately refer to walls of theological explaination that skirt around an acceptable answer that falls into a yes or no category. Walls of confusion void of yes or no are the best examples. The worst examples are mere conjecture or simple insult and slander.

# I know I asked for it, but if Calvinism is so great, why does it have a pattern of failing the yes/no litmus test?

Hence Matthew 5:37... If the answer is complex and void of a committed yes or no, it is decieptful and unworthy of recognition.

To be a little rough in speech with some substitution... Calvinism relies on the same subterfuge that all Massively embraced doctrines of man rely on.

If you can't dazzle them with your knowledge, baffle them with your bull sish kabob.

Almost all will approach scripture with some form of lens or system. In and of itself, that is a good thing; no need to reinvent. Of course there should be the provision and desire to allow for changes as needed. It seems to me that Reformed folk have our lenses front and center with presuppositions and biases well known and both loved and hated.

I can't think of any Calvinist who would argue against your points 5 and 6. We, of course, believe that God is Love.

How is that checkmate?

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I'm not quite sure what you take of me here. My first inkling is that you think I am Roman Catholic...



And this makes only strengthens that suspicion. If that is the case, I am quite surprised - I'm not sure what would have given you that idea. I am not, nor have I ever been Roman Catholic. But perhaps something I said...(certainly not the William Tyndale avatar!).



Displeasure is possible, but if truth is the goal then that is a price to be paid. Having said that, offense is not likely. I can assure you that few things in this context will offend me. I don't know you (I don't think) and you don't know me and virtual anonymity can lead to misjudgments. All that there is to judge here are another's words. And if they are true, then let them stand (come what may).



As above, I take online posting for what it is - a perfect venue for a test of ideas. The absence of context and knowing personally who you are conversing with on a forum means that certain things usually taken for granted are missing - but it also means that it is easier to block out the "who" and focus on the "what". That's part of why I don't take much too personally. That said, I hasten to reiterate that truth spoken in love is the only guiding principle. My reactions shouldn't determine what you say or don't say (and this is an area in which I admittedly do not excel).



That may be so. Bear in mind that I am not as steeped in the Reformed doctrines as most are here. At least not formally...

Please forgive me for assuming you to be "any" denomination. I see the Love of Christ in your every word! You are clearly a result of sincere biblical search and I see no judgment in your demeanor. If I got anything wrong... re inform me and I'll keep on jumping to conclusions until you've set me straight and I can maintain my assertion that I am a mind reader. (I'm trying to dismiss my mistake with humor)

I had promised brother [MENTION=10]Jerry Shugart[/MENTION] that I was going to focus on one of his threads today. It is on the timelessness of God and it is very interesting. I say this to explain that I placed "most" of my off and on ToL energy into it today. Brother [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] is exegesically extrapolating scripture via lingual analysis here in response to [MENTION=17677]Crucible[/MENTION], who is the only Calvinist on ToL that has waded past the shallow end of this thread.

My other time today was placed on fully understanding what [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] is taking immense time to piece together here.

Why am I telling you all of this? Because your demeanor is thought provoking and your initial post has generated much thought. I will answer your post in full tomorrow and I would enjoy any following discussion that takes place.

There are some fantastic Bible purists peppered all throughout this thread and some interesting back and forth banter with some variations of the OP topic being discussed. All in all, the thread development is coming along at a nice, slow and steady pace.

On your words about discussion, I couldn't agree more.

- Evil.Eye.<(I)>

 

[Crucible]

Is God a promoter of Sin? Absolutely Not

God promotes destruction of sin according to Calvinism, which you somehow mistake for teaching that God promotes sin.

Let's look at what follows after the verse you put up:
For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

See also: Perseverance of the Saints

Thesis 1 debunked

Let no man teach you

Except for the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and otherwise every man who wrote the Bible.

Thesis 2 debunked

Let your yes be yes and your no be no, anything else is from the evil one

Calvinism doesn't beat around the bush, that's precisely why those as yourself do not like it- you want the cake and eat it to, no sacrifice or offense, and autonomy with no conviction.

You fundamentally deny Original Sin, and don't have the theological capacity to know why that is.

Thesis 3 debunked

God shows no favoritism

Sovereign Election is not favoritism.
Before Creation, God conducted His will accordingly by His foreknowledge. God predetermined His elect through a following predetermined plan to purge evil.

This is where you misrepresented Calvinism
And
Where Thesuis 4 is debunked

As for 5 and 6, they are ultimately irrelevant. God's love is shown in purging wickedness and saving an elect where He would have been righteous in either destroying man or never creating in the first place.


So, there you go- find a proper theology to stick to instead of being a dime a dozen 'bible warrior' who are nothing more than denominators thinking they know everything :wave2:

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Almost all will approach scripture with some form of lens or system. In and of itself, that is a good thing; no need to reinvent. Of course there should be the provision and desire to allow for changes as needed. It seems to me that Reformed folk have our lenses front and center with presuppositions and biases well known and both loved and hated.

I can't think of any Calvinist who would argue against your points 5 and 6. We, of course, believe that God is Love.

How is that checkmate?

Let me not hide my shiv with kindness. The blue links in the OP are there to assist in understanding my motive for focusing on this thread. I am actually using Calvinism as a springboard to challenge doctrines of men.

You have cited spiritual flexibility and I am getting the picture that you have "reformed influence", but believe in "actual sola scripture". Not the one that asserts the Westminster confessions of Faith, reformed commentary and Calvin's Institutes.

You speak as if they're more ideas than facts. If I understand correctly...

Please affirm or...

If I'm wrong in my reading of your words, please correct me.

Thanks

- Evil.Eye.<(I)>

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

God promotes destruction of sin according to Calvinism, which you somehow mistake for teaching that God promotes sin.

Let's look at what follows after the verse you put up:
For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

See also: Perseverance of the Saints

Thesis 1 debunked



Except for the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and otherwise every man who wrote the Bible.

Thesis 2 debunked



Calvinism doesn't beat around the bush, that's precisely why those as yourself do not like it- you want the cake and eat it to, no sacrifice or offense, and autonomy with no conviction.

You fundamentally deny Original Sin, and don't have the theological capacity to know why that is.

Thesis 3 debunked



Sovereign Election is not favoritism.
Before Creation, God conducted His will accordingly by His foreknowledge. God predetermined His elect through a following predetermined plan to purge evil.

This is where you misrepresented Calvinism
And
Where Thesuis 4 is debunked

As for 5 and 6, they are ultimately irrelevant. God's love is shown in purging wickedness and saving an elect where He would have been righteous in either destroying man or never creating in the first place.


So, there you go- find a proper theology to stick to instead of being a dime a dozen 'bible warrior' who are nothing more than denominators thinking they know everything :wave2:

Finally!!!

You have addressed the OP! Congratulations!

....... Sincere pause of respect for Crucible........

Now my shiv comes back out.

Okay... you have delivered a counter to the OP and asserted it is paper thin and run by a person incapable of understanding the doctrine of "original sin".

Original sin... or ancestral sin... or propensity result... or, well there's a trillion names for that concept.

"The assertion that man has the propensity to sin and utilizes the Genesis account and Paul's writings that run congruent with the Genesis account to extrapolate a further identity of mans bent towards sin, though... you assert the verse that places the blame on Eve..."

Sure, you can play semantics and @Ask Mr Religion can come in and pick every word I just wrote apart with walls of links and condescending remarks, but... no sir... part of my path is more bathed in reformed dogma than I care to reflect on...

So...

Now we engage in back and forth debate.

Because you have been so kind to address my OP directly, my next post to you will be on one quotation of your point refutation.

Most likely, I will generate this tomorrow.

In the mean time... I'll be kind enough to ensure you receive potential loving post response from some that may have time to "discuss" this with you tonite.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

God promotes destruction of sin according to Calvinism, which you somehow mistake for teaching that God promotes sin.

Let's look at what follows after the verse you put up:
For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

See also: Perseverance of the Saints

Thesis 1 debunked



Except for the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and otherwise every man who wrote the Bible.

Thesis 2 debunked



Calvinism doesn't beat around the bush, that's precisely why those as yourself do not like it- you want the cake and eat it to, no sacrifice or offense, and autonomy with no conviction.

You fundamentally deny Original Sin, and don't have the theological capacity to know why that is.

Thesis 3 debunked



Sovereign Election is not favoritism.
Before Creation, God conducted His will accordingly by His foreknowledge. God predetermined His elect through a following predetermined plan to purge evil.

This is where you misrepresented Calvinism
And
Where Thesuis 4 is debunked

As for 5 and 6, they are ultimately irrelevant. God's love is shown in purging wickedness and saving an elect where He would have been righteous in either destroying man or never creating in the first place.


So, there you go- find a proper theology to stick to instead of being a dime a dozen 'bible warrior' who are nothing more than denominators thinking they know everything :wave2:

[MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION], [MENTION=3698]Tambora[/MENTION], [MENTION=15685]musterion[/MENTION], [MENTION=10]Jerry Shugart[/MENTION], [MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION], [MENTION=15338]Right Divider[/MENTION], [MENTION=9508]Robert Pate[/MENTION], [MENTION=16283]Sonnet[/MENTION], [MENTION=12870]steko[/MENTION], [MENTION=17845]beameup[/MENTION], [MENTION=19425]Aetheryn[/MENTION], [MENTION=10365], [MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION], [MENTION=13925]Grosnick Marowbe[/MENTION] @... anyone you know that is interested in giving the premise of this OP a spin tonight...

Brother [MENTION=17677]Crucible[/MENTION] has been kind enough to submit this OP's first official Calvinist rebuttal.

I'll be back onsite tomorrow, but I would hate to deny [MENTION=17677]Crucible[/MENTION] any possible debate and intellectual discussion.

[MENTION=7209]Ask Mr. Religion[/MENTION],

You are welcome to assist [MENTION=17677]Crucible[/MENTION] in the defense of his submitted counter points.

IF ANYONE ENGAGES IN DEBATE, PLEASE REFRAIN FROM CONDEMNIMG ANYONE TO HELL IN ANY FORM OR FASHION.

 

[daqq]

God promotes destruction of sin according to Calvinism, which you somehow mistake for teaching that God promotes sin.

Let's look at what follows after the verse you put up:
For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

See also: Perseverance of the Saints

Thesis 1 debunked



Except for the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and otherwise every man who wrote the Bible.

Thesis 2 debunked



Calvinism doesn't beat around the bush, that's precisely why those as yourself do not like it- you want the cake and eat it to, no sacrifice or offense, and autonomy with no conviction.

You fundamentally deny Original Sin, and don't have the theological capacity to know why that is.

Thesis 3 debunked



Sovereign Election is not favoritism.
Before Creation, God conducted His will accordingly by His foreknowledge. God predetermined His elect through a following predetermined plan to purge evil.

This is where you misrepresented Calvinism
And
Where Thesuis 4 is debunked

As for 5 and 6, they are ultimately irrelevant. God's love is shown in purging wickedness and saving an elect where He would have been righteous in either destroying man or never creating in the first place.


So, there you go- find a proper theology to stick to instead of being a dime a dozen 'bible warrior' who are nothing more than denominators thinking they know everything :wave2:

Your "original sin" happened the first time you willfully sinned, just as everyone else, and before that day you were innocent. Just because all sin, and all fall short, does not translate into the "original sin" doctrine which most use primarily for theologic purposes.

Deuteronomy 1:39 ASV
39 Moreover your little ones, that ye said should be a prey, and your children, that this day have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

This is yet again the same kind of typology and analogy where the "old man" dies off in the wilderness and the "new man" enters into the promised inheritance. It is not that anyone is "perfect" but that the mind of Messiah, (his Testimony), must be put on while the old man must be cut off and allowed to die off in the wilderness along the way to the promised land. When you cross the Jordan you will see a hill of foreskins: leave the foreskin of your heart there, on the mountain of flesh, as you enter into the Land. :chuckle:

 

[Brother Ducky]

Let me not hide my shiv with kindness. The blue links in the OP are there to assist in understanding my motive for focusing on this thread. I am actually using Calvinism as a springboard to challenge doctrines of men.

You have cited spiritual flexibility and I am getting the picture that you have "reformed influence", but believe in "actual sola scripture". Not the one that asserts the Westminster confessions of Faith, reformed commentary and Calvin's Institutes.

You speak as if they're more ideas than facts. If I understand correctly...

Please affirm or...

If I'm wrong in my reading of your words, please correct me.

Thanks

- Evil.Eye.<(I)>

I have no problems with the use of the Westminster Standards or the Three Forms of Unity. They are not capricious and just the doctrines of men, but rather a summary of scripture.

Given the confessional nature of most Calvinists, it seems to me that to debunk the Reformed system you should look to the confessions and deal with them.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I have no problems with the use of the Westminster Standards or the Three Forms of Unity. They are not capricious and just the doctrines of men, but rather a summary of scripture.

Given the confessional nature of most Calvinists, it seems to me that to debunk the Reformed system you should look to the confessions and deal with them.

Welcome Calvinist,

Would you care to swing at the OP?

[MENTION=17677]Crucible[/MENTION] submitted the first OP rebuttal, you are welcome to as well...

Wait... your assertions in your initial post will do fine.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

God promotes destruction of sin according to Calvinism, which you somehow mistake for teaching that God promotes sin.

1 John 2:27
Except for the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and otherwise every man who wrote the Bible.

Thesis 2 debunked

Let us start here...

What are you asserting here? Are you asserting that extra Canonical writings are as valuable as scripture?

 

[daqq]

Calvinism doesn't beat around the bush, that's precisely why those as yourself do not like it- you want the cake and eat it to, no sacrifice or offense, and autonomy with no conviction.

You fundamentally deny Original Sin, and don't have the theological capacity to know why that is.

Thesis 3 debunked

Your "original sin" happened the first time you willfully sinned, just as everyone else, and before that day you were innocent. Just because all sin, and all fall short, does not translate into the "original sin" doctrine which most use primarily for theologic purposes.

Deuteronomy 1:39 ASV
39 Moreover your little ones, that ye said should be a prey, and your children, that this day have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

This is yet again the same kind of typology and analogy where the "old man" dies off in the wilderness and the "new man" enters into the promised inheritance. It is not that anyone is "perfect" but that the mind of Messiah, (his Testimony), must be put on while the old man must be cut off and allowed to die off in the wilderness along the way to the promised land. When you cross the Jordan you will see a hill of foreskins: leave the foreskin of your heart there, on the mountain of flesh, as you enter into the Land. :chuckle:

Deut 24:16, Jer 31:29-31, (New Covenant Language), Eze 18:1-20, (New Covenant Language).

Deuteronomy 24:16 KJV
16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Jeremiah 31:29-31 KJV
29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.
30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

What is this proverb of which he speaks, "The fathers have eaten the sour grape: the children's teeth are set on edge"? No doubt this concerns a more ancient version of the so-called original sin doctrine which was held among some Israelites because of the creation narrative. The Prophet Jeremiah says it will not stand because, as the Torah clearly states, every one will die for his own sin. Moreover this is the famous Jeremiah passage concerning the New Covenant which is quoted in Hebrews chapter eight. And what does the Prophet Ezekiel say about it?

Exekiel 18:1-4 KJV
1 The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying,
2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

There is therefore no choice but to part oneself asunder and put to death the "old man" nature because the soul that sins shall die. It is therefore just as I said to you previously herein, Crucible, and as I also said, Yeshua teaches these things in his doctrine:

Matthew 10:38-39
38 And the one not taking up his cross and following after me is not worthy of me.
39 The one finding his soul shall apollumi-destroy it: and the one apollumi-destroying his soul for my sake shall find it.

Matthew 16:23-26
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: you are an offense unto me: for you savor not the things that be of Elohim, but those that be of men.
24 Then said Yeshua to his disciples, If anyone will come after me, let him utterly-disown himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his soul shall apollumi-destroy it: and whosoever will apollumi-destroy his soul for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and zemiow-lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Luke 9:23-25
23 And he said to them all, If anyone will come after me, let him utterly-disown himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
24 For whosoever will save his soul shall destroy it: but whosoever will destroy his soul for my sake, the same shall save it.
25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?

Luke 14:26-27
26 If anyone come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, even his own soul also, he cannot be my disciple.
27 And whosoever does not bear his cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.

It is just as Paul likewise teaches throughout: putting to death or mortifying your own "members" which are upon your own land, or mortifying the deeds of the body, that is, cutting off sin from your household-body-temple which is no more your own when you enter into Yeshua faithfulness.

This is the old parable of the orginial sin doctrine:

"Adam ate the sour grape, the children's teeth are set on edge!"

This is what the Father says about it:

"As I live, says Adonai YHWH, you shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Yisrael."

 

[Crucible]

Are you asserting that extra Canonical writings are as valuable as scripture?

The Bible didn't simply fall out of the sky one day, it is a collection of writings throughout many ages by many men. Every new revelation was important, and that doesn't just stop after Revelation. The thing is, because the New Testament is so complete, there is no need for continued written canon.

If it's deduced from Scripture, and is right, then they are by sound reason alone just as valuable. God gives men the gift of theology to understand the Word and edify others.
This whole demonizing of theology you few are doing is inherently a false dilemma. It's just a way to trade formidable insight for an arbitrary standard- anybody can string together a theory based on cherry picked passages, it takes real wisdom to apply the entirety of the Bible to one's ideology.

You few are contending with the entire Reformation, who authorized the canon you read out of in the first place.
Good luck with that.

 

[daqq]

The Bible didn't simply fall out of the sky one day, it is a collection of writings throughout many ages by many men. Every new revelation was important, and that doesn't just stop after Revelation. The thing is, because the New Testament is so complete, there is no need for continued written canon.

If it's deduced from Scripture, and is right, then they are by sound reason alone just as valuable. God gives men the gift of theology to understand the Word and edify others.
This whole demonizing of theology you few are doing is inherently a false dilemma. It's just a way to trade formidable insight for an arbitrary standard- anybody can string together a theory based on cherry picked passages, it takes real wisdom to apply the entirety of the Bible to one's ideology.

You few are contending with the entire Reformation, who authorized the canon you read out of in the first place.
Good luck with that.

Lol, my "canon" includes a whole lot more than yours does and all of mine is in agreement.
The same is not possible with your exclusive privately held doctrines of man.
Making bold unfounded statements only reveals your inadequacy.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

The Bible didn't simply fall out of the sky one day, it is a collection of writings throughout many ages by many men. Every new revelation was important, and that doesn't just stop after Revelation. The thing is, because the New Testament is so complete, there is no need for continued written canon.

If it's deduced from Scripture, and is right, then they are by sound reason alone just as valuable. God gives men the gift of theology to understand the Word and edify others.
This whole demonizing of theology you few are doing is inherently a false dilemma. It's just a way to trade formidable insight for an arbitrary standard- anybody can string together a theory based on cherry picked passages, it takes real wisdom to apply the entirety of the Bible to one's ideology.

You few are contending with the entire Reformation, who authorized the canon you read out of in the first place.
Good luck with that.

Do you believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God and meant to be read with all scripture in mind?

John 5:39 and Matthew 5:37

Note... concession would be wise. I already have what I need in your previous words. So far, you are reasserting the validity of the OP.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Lol, my "canon" includes a whole lot more than yours does and all of mine is in agreement.
The same is not possible with your exclusive privately held doctrines of man.
Making bold unfounded statements only reveals your inadequacy.

# Septuagint Greek
# Maccabees

# Examples correct?
# Early Church, pre-200 AD Period
# Septuagint 300 BC time period origin (Greek)

 

[daqq]

# Septuagint Greek
# Maccabees

# Examples correct?
# Early Church, pre-200 AD Period
# Septuagint 300 BC time period origin (Greek)

Even more but there is no point in bringing any of that into a discussion with those who would not accept any of it as evidence anyways. The point was that he imagines his own mother church giving him his "canon" while in reality it was his mother church who also tried to stamp out part of my canon because it disagreed with a newly forming set of doctrines. Albeit I can still maintain everything I understand to be true from the commonly accepted canon, as shown herein above, and yet he cannot even defend what he believes from the same, which he claims his mother church delivered to us all. Remember this: in the beginning of his mother church no private citizen was even allowed to have a so-called canon in their own possession. Thus his mother church has indeed given him what she has decided he can lay his eyes upon, (and nothing more, lol).

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I don't think that's what John was trying to say.

Then, what does 1 John 2:27 say to you?

Certainly, all those of God should be taught of God (John 6:45, I Thessalonians 4:9),

Agreed and 1 John 2:27 as well in my opinion.

but even with the Holy Spirit working in believers, there are still disputes - still differences that the Lord (for whatever reason) hasn't resolved.

This is not the Lords doing.

Gal. 5:19-21 (CJB)

19 And it is perfectly evident what the old nature does. It expresses itself in sexual immorality, impurity and indecency; 20 involvement with the occult and with drugs; in feuding, fighting, becoming jealous and getting angry; in selfish ambition, factionalism, intrigue 21 and envy; in drunkenness, orgies and things like these. I warn you now as I have warned you before: those who do such things will have no share in the Kingdom of God!

Note that Paul is agreeing with himself through the emboldened and underlined fruits of the flesh. He gave example of this in 1 Cor. 1:13-17.

And for apologetic reasons

Apologia... defense... Paul... Acts 26

True Apologetics destroy extra biblical doctrine.

Scripture is beyond sufficient to bring forth irrefutable guidance. Defense (Apologetics) is why I know most manmade doctrines. The extra biblical doctrines are the blinders that divide and contribute to the very thing in the cited scriptures above.

as well as to eliminate the erroneous reasoning of any supposed teacher, it is necessary to provide a reasoning (and in debate, it is simply a part of the procedure). And that may mean going outside of the canon of scripture. Paul did it on more than one occasion :

*For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
*Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
*One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
*This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Titus 1:10-13

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Acts 17:28.

I agree that Paul is the first (Defense) example. His defense is cannon. I will not generate extra biblical extrapolation, print it and say... here is some assistance. The Holy Spirit and study are sufficient.

You have pseudo set up for admission of extra additions with your assertion (to quell in fighting), from my perspective (please correct me if I'm wrong), but an odd follow up question is next

EDIT : Or do you propose an open canon?

So now I ask... could you please clarify the above quotes intention and inspiration.

Clearly, my stance is Cannon through the Holy Spirit's guidance is beyond sufficient. Can you find anything in my OP that says otherwise? ( Or... please help me understand if I am suggesting otherwise somehow, so I can fix this)

I agree that in witnessing, dialogue and explanations occur. Examples are fair to give as well. But, I believe the human attempt to cram extra biblical conjecture into a theological scripture chain and human explanation is a very slippery slope. If done and then it is addressed as opinion and conjecture, this is fair. But if done in assertion and meticulous thrust, it is tampering with scripture.

How, exactly, are you meaning to insinuate the meaning of "partiality"? Because as I understand Reformed theology (and I admit it isn't to any great depth), the whole doctrine of election specifically precludes partiality. One of God's most visible elections is of Israel was specifically because of their human insignificance :

The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:
*But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 7:7-8

Why would the Lord choose and love such a people? Their father Jacob was a liar and a manipulator - yet God loved him before he was born. Esau, on the other hand, would have been seen as the man's man - the rugged hunter - the one man would have chosen. But God's elections go beyond man's understanding and God chose that which was an abomination in man's eyes. So when the Pharisees claim Abraham for their father, theirs is a partiality that is entirely loathsome to God. It is a racial pride that believes God does exactly what Peter and Paul variously speak against (and the OT speaks against as well (Deut 10:17, 2 Chronicles 19:17). This is not a God who picks a person because of who they are. Neither does election (as I understand it) state He does. Anyone who shows up at heaven's door trying to get in on the coattails of Abraham is in for a rude surprise (Matthew 8:11-12). So the respect of persons men like John Hagee have for those who are Jews - simply because they are Jews - is a twisting of God's promise to bless those that bless Abraham and curse those that curse him (this is going down a different path that need not be done here).

I venture to say that those who take pride in their election or even try to "drop God's name" (the same way the Pharisee's dropped Abraham's name (e.g. John 8:39) are giving evidence of their carnality (at best) and their unregenerate nature (at worst). But that doesn't in any way deny the elections of God. In fact, I would say election is bolstered by that verse (and others like it) you posted. It is not because of who we are or anything we have done...

You have completely disagreed with the Calvinist doctrine of election and reprobation here. Your Spirit led free flowing thought turns your own question towards me into your superb answer.

I count Calvinists siblings in Christ, but the more cunning Calvinists conceal the yes and no's of their doctrines.

It takes extreme effort for them to skirt around the core facts of TULIP, which they embrace at a foundational level.

They deny it, but when they are pressed and tried, it will come out.