Spammers wasteland

Spammers wasteland


  • Total voters
    1
Status
Not open for further replies.

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Tell me how the following sits with you:

Well, fine. I can cut through a lot of basic apologetics then, for you will recognize the doctrinal terminology presented from the Reformed view.

First and foremost, we differ primarily with the RCC because Reformers hold to the Truth that sinners are justified by faith, alone. The RCC system of thought, as your document verifies, is a synergistic system, that declares soteriology contingent upon human co-operation (“good works”).

You are taught that God’s grace does not monergistically save, but only enables and helps the sinner lead a holy life, so that he might be declared saved on the last day. Obedience to God synergistically achieves ultimate salvation, rather than being the result of saving Grace that changes the heart and mind of the sinner upon regeneration.

The recent discussion we have had on this thread, reveals the lengths to which some will take a supposed synergism, which they believe necessary for salvation, to apply even to non-contingent God, robbing Him of His Simplicity, Immutability, Omniscience, etc.

In this regard, Arminians are more like the RCC than Calvinists. Arminians are Synergists, where Calvinists are Monergists. Thus the ongoing conflict between these two Protestant camps.

I will go through the Magistrate declarations, and point out our differences.



303 The witness of Scripture is unanimous that the solicitude of divine providence is concrete and immediate; God cares for all, from the least things to the great events of the world and its history. The sacred books powerfully affirm God's absolute sovereignty over the course of events: "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases." And so it is with Christ, "who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens". As the book of Proverbs states: "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will be established."

This paragraph is agreeable.

304 And so we see the Holy Spirit, the principal author of Sacred Scripture, often attributing actions to God without mentioning any secondary causes.

That is because God is not contingent upon secondary causes. The secondary agency (will) given to man is accountable to submit to God’s primary causes; particularly through moral obedience to His commands. (Decalogue) However, God is not subject, nor accountable, to the same Laws of Creation, for He is Creator. His commands (Word) is mankinds’ final authority.



This is not a "primitive mode of speech", but a profound way of recalling God's primacy and absolute Lordship over history and the world, and so of educating his people to trust in him. The prayer of the Psalms is the great school of this trust.

God’s people are gifted with faith. Faith is knowledge of God’s will, intents, purposes, and promises. Belief is the acting out and manifesting saving faith, but sinners are justified by faith alone, apart from any works of belief. Trust, is resting in this Truth.

Justification comes by faith, alone and so does Sanctification. Works do not factor in at all, other than manifesting the fruits of the Indwelling Holy Spirit in the lives of the regenerate.

There is no synergy in any of this. Calvinism is a Monergistic view in all regards.

This does not rule out obedience, the duties of living according to the moral Law, but rather establishes and validates both. Romans 3:31

Providence and secondary causes
306 God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures' co-operation.

Disagree. God does not need His creatures co-operation. This is Synergism.


This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God's greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of co-operating in the accomplishment of his plan.

It is mans’ duty to submit his will and actions to the sovereign will of God. God’s purpose in bestowing saving grace upon His people, is to bring them into harmony with His will. This was exemplified throughout the life of Jesus Christ. He without fail, did the will of the Father and not his own. Jesus Christ did not co-operate with God; He obeyed all the holy and moral Law. This is how mankind was created to live with God. In willful submission to God’s commands and holy standards. IOW’s man was not created to be God’s buddy; nor was man created to elevate himself through holy works to God’s equal.




307 To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of "subduing" the earth and having dominion over it.

This is not providence; this is Law. These duties came in the form of command/promise. This was the basis of the first Covenant of Creation (Works) which Adam breached in his disobedience.

God thus enables men to be intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors.

Creation was complete before the fall. Justification through faith will result in spiritual good for the believer and goodness shown to one’s fellow man. But it is an effect of faith; not a cause of faith or a synergistic work of any kind.

Though often unconscious collaborators with God's will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers and their sufferings. They then fully become "God's fellow workers" and co-workers for his kingdom.

I object to the words, “collaborators, fellow-workers, and co-workers, all together . . for all the reasons already stated above. Christians are God’s subjects; enabled to serve His righteousness through the power of His Holy Spirit, alone.


308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." Far from diminishing the creature's dignity, this truth enhances it. Drawn from nothingness by God's power, wisdom and goodness, it can do nothing if it is cut off from its origin, for "without a Creator the creature vanishes." Still less can a creature attain its ultimate end without the help of God's grace.

This is a monergistic statement that I can mostly agree with. However, the bolded is not biblical and a little too dramatic I believe, for it opens the door to the possibility of justification (forgiveness) being lost through lack of works, trust, obedience, rituals, etc. none of which God is dependent upon.

The saints will persevere to the end because God has promised to preserve them to the end. It is by this total reliance and rest in God, by faith, that the saints endure all things. To God alone be the glory!
 
Last edited:

Nang

TOL Subscriber
we are told not to defend the precepts of the Reformed Church (or any other particular sect) but "the faith once for all delivered to the saints."

Reformers are Covenantalists, which means we believe God has promised a Savior for His people. O.T. saints were saved by faith in this promise as N.T. saints are saved by faith in the fulfillment of this promise. Reformers proclaim "the faith once for all delivered to the saints." That is the Gospel.


The strong consensus of the Early Church in this matter provides evidence that pre-determinism (whether it is in a Pagan or Christianized form) is not a historical part of the faith.

I disagree. God could and would never have made promises to His people without purpose and pre-determination to do them good. Such is revealed throughout Holy Scripture and is evidenced in saints' faithful worship, since the days of Abel.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
I agree but am asking your forgiveness on the following.

Nang acts like no aged person of ANY belief persuasion that I have ever met in my nearly 50 years on this planet. None of them whine about their (purported) age as an excuse for losing fights that they started, as Nang does. They have too much self-respect and wisdom to even start such fights in the first place. But to then whine about it when they lose? To quote Nang..."bah."

On top of that, a few years back Nang even claimed she's picked on because she's a woman, after once again losing disputes that SHE chose to start with men.

Sorry, it's looks to me like an act, a scam.

But if an independent authority can somehow verify first-hand proof that Nang is indeed the elderly lady she says she is, I might believe it.

Until then, I don't buy it. She just does not act like a self-respecting, mature elderly lady, and with no proof that she is one, I won't believe it.

I think you should be warned about your method of harming the reputation of other members through innuendo.

If you don't know what you are talking about, or who you are talking about, you should not post your silly guesses or suspicions. They tend to stick to the sticky, who like to cause excitement and trouble.

I am 75 years old, have my picture on my profile page (which I have suffered much insult over, because I do have wrinkles and chins), and I have friends here who have gotten to know me personally, who can vouch for my authenticity if I have to call upon them.

But I should not have to. You show either a weakness or an illness, by so often thinking the worst of others. Stop it.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
But if an independent authority can somehow verify first-hand proof that Nang is indeed the elderly lady she says she is, I might believe it.

Until then, I don't buy it. She just does not act like a self-respecting, mature elderly lady, and with no proof that she is one, I won't believe it.
I pray you will take my solemn word for this, Nang is who she claims to be, an elderly lady. I have known her for many years now, never having met her face to face, but have spoken with her on the phone and know a few persons who have met her in person.

Let's not go down the path of seeking FBI level verification. It is the mark of an instructed mind to rest satisfied with the
degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits, and not to seek exactness when only an approximation of the truth is possible.

I really think the rationale that just because an elderly woman seeks and enters into controversy warrants that a younger man can treat her with fulsome disrespect is in any way Scriptural. Rather is it a mark of immaturity and brings scandal upon God by the believer partaking in this behavior. God commands honor be given even to the unhonorable, such as honoring our parents, even when they act dishonorably.

Leviticus 19:32 ”Stand up in the presence of the elderly, and show respect for the aged. Fear your God. I am the LORD."

1 Peter 5:5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

Timothy 5:1-3 Never speak harshly to an older man, but appeal to him respectfully as you would to your own father. Talk to younger men as you would to your own brothers. Treat older women as you would your mother, and treat younger women with all purity as you would your own sisters. Take care of any widow who has no one else to care for her.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Job 32:4 Now Elihu had waited before speaking to Job because they were older than he.

Job 32:6 And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said: “I am young in years, and you are aged; therefore I was timid and afraid to declare my opinion to you.

1 Kings 12:6 Then King Rehoboam consulted the elders who had served his father Solomon during his lifetime. “How would you advise me to answer these people?” he asked.

Job 12:12 Wisdom is with the aged, and understanding in length of days.

Exodus 18:17-19 “This is not good!” Moses’ father-in-law exclaimed. “You’re going to wear yourself out—and the people, too. This job is too heavy a burden for you to handle all by yourself. Now listen to me, and let me give you a word of advice, and may God be with you. You should continue to be the people’s representative before God, bringing their disputes to him.

Proverbs 13:1 A wise son hears his father’s instruction, but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke.

Proverbs 19:20 Listen to advice and accept instruction, that you may gain wisdom in the future.

Proverbs 23:22 Listen to your father who gave you life, and do not despise your mother when she is old.

Matthew 25:40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

Matthew 7:12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

AMR
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
"Old GM" has three distinct problems with Nang. I have no problem with her age. Because I myself am on Social Security and in the winter of my life. So, these are the three problems I have with Nang:

1) She's EXTREMELY cranky, grouchy, and seemingly uncivil to one extent or another.

2) Apparently, she has absolutely NO sense of humor/Wit. JW calls me "Pops" and some would be offended by that. A person who is overly sensitive would be offended by such. I choose to use my "Gift of Wit" to counter what he says, by calling him Sonny. Therefore, there's peace between him and myself. I hold NOTHING against JW. He's quirky, humorous, and a fellow member of the Body of Christ. We also happen to have the same doctrinal views. I'm a Grace Gospel believer and a Dispensationalist and so is he. Nang, on the other hand, has always been in ATTACK MODE with me since I arrived on TOL in late 2011. I noticed right from the beginning, she had NO sense of humor/wit. She has always been unfriendly and angry towards me personally. So, these things stand out when making a CRITIQUE about another poster.

3) Nang is a staunch "Calvinist." She believes that God CHOSE before the foundation of the world who would become a member of the "Elect" and the rest would be condemned to eternal damnation. She also believes that one MUST be "regenerated" before receiving "saving faith." That, in and of itself, is putting the proverbial "Horse before the Cart." She doesn't appear to be a "Hyper-Calvinist" like B57 or Nanja. Those folks are the RADICAL form of Calvinism. They believe "God creates ALL sin." I consider CALVINISM to be somewhat of a CULT belief system that was conceived by men who misinterpreted/misrepresented Scripture and changed the CHARACTER and INTENT of the God of the Bible in order to make Him fit their false doctrines. They do the same thing with Scripture. They do not believe that humanity has ANY free-will yet, free-will is vividly portrayed in the Old/New Testaments. Example: Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"
A perfect description of the free-will of God's "Chosen people." How can one NOT see the frustration in Christ's words over the free-will CHOICE of His people choosing to not worship Him? Yet, Nang and her ilk ask us to believe them (The Calvinists) over the written word of God. They desire us to be as blind as they. To them I say, no thanks!

These are the three problems I have with Nang.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
AMR shares the SAME beliefs as Nang. Although, AMR is far more benevolent than Nang. He and I used to get along fairly well until recently. I see him as a man of dignity, honor, and civility. In a real life situation he and I would get along fabulously, of that I'm certain. He's intelligent and passionate about what he believes. The ONLY problem I have with AMR is, what I consider being, his adherence to the false doctrines /false gospel of Calvinism. He appears somewhat of a Scholarly type of guy, well educated, serious and devoted to his beliefs. Personally, I find him worthy of respect, however, his "belief system" is totally at odds with my own beliefs. I go after Calvinism as if I were an antibody going after a disease. At this point in time, AMR and I are at odds with one another. However, it's not really a personality problem (like I have with Nang) it's more on a difference in doctrinal issues.

PPS, on the other hand, is a far greater problem. He refuses to give a "Testimony of Faith" about how and why he came to being a member of the Body of Christ. I highly doubt he is a "True believer." He's argumentative, arrogant, contemptuous, childish/immature and pretentious. He's not a Grace Gospel adherent. He causes more disruption more than anybody I know of. I consider him to be a "SUPER TROLL." He appears to have a tinge of "anti-female" sentiment. I find him repulsive, impertinent, uncivil, annoying, arrogant and pretentious.
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
I think you should be warned about your method of harming the reputation of other members through innuendo.

If you don't know what you are talking about, or who you are talking about, you should not post your silly guesses or suspicions. They tend to stick to the sticky, who like to cause excitement and trouble.

I am 75 years old, have my picture on my profile page (which I have suffered much insult over, because I do have wrinkles and chins), and I have friends here who have gotten to know me personally, who can vouch for my authenticity if I have to call upon them.

But I should not have to. You show either a weakness or an illness, by so often thinking the worst of others. Stop it.


Earlier today you posted this in post 2187: "Claims are made; rumors abound. Johnnie might be an ex-con, according to talk.

We're you attempting to harm his reputation?
 

musterion

Well-known member
I accept your vouch. However, while we're on the subject we would be remiss to overlook something here.

I really think the rationale that just because an elderly woman seeks and enters into controversy warrants that a younger man can treat her with fulsome disrespect is in any way Scriptural. Rather is it a mark of immaturity and brings scandal upon God by the believer partaking in this behavior. God commands honor be given even to the unhonorable, such as honoring our parents, even when they act dishonorably.

Leviticus 19:32 ”Stand up in the presence of the elderly, and show respect for the aged. Fear your God. I am the LORD."

1 Peter 5:5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

Timothy 5:1-3 Never speak harshly to an older man, but appeal to him respectfully as you would to your own father. Talk to younger men as you would to your own brothers. Treat older women as you would your mother, and treat younger women with all purity as you would your own sisters. Take care of any widow who has no one else to care for her.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Job 32:4 Now Elihu had waited before speaking to Job because they were older than he.

Job 32:6 And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said: “I am young in years, and you are aged; therefore I was timid and afraid to declare my opinion to you.

1 Kings 12:6 Then King Rehoboam consulted the elders who had served his father Solomon during his lifetime. “How would you advise me to answer these people?” he asked.

Job 12:12 Wisdom is with the aged, and understanding in length of days.

Exodus 18:17-19 “This is not good!” Moses’ father-in-law exclaimed. “You’re going to wear yourself out—and the people, too. This job is too heavy a burden for you to handle all by yourself. Now listen to me, and let me give you a word of advice, and may God be with you. You should continue to be the people’s representative before God, bringing their disputes to him.

Proverbs 13:1 A wise son hears his father’s instruction, but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke.

Proverbs 19:20 Listen to advice and accept instruction, that you may gain wisdom in the future.

Proverbs 23:22 Listen to your father who gave you life, and do not despise your mother when she is old.

Matthew 25:40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

Matthew 7:12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

AMR

You left a few very relevant ones out.

Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

You have a pattern, dear sir, of publicly rebuking non-Reformed quite sharply (which is fine) but going relatively kid gloves with PPS and now Nang, who has been banned for just such violations of Pauline behavior.

But hey, it's really none of my business.
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
I accept your vouch. However, while we're on the subject we would be remiss to overlook something here.



You left a few very relevant ones out.





You have a pattern, dear sir, of publicly rebuking non-Reformed quite sharply (which is fine) but going relatively kid gloves with PPS and now Nang, who has been banned for just such violations of Pauline behavior.

But hey, it's really none of my business.

Good post.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Earlier today you posted this in post 2187: "Claims are made; rumors abound. Johnnie might be an ex-con, according to talk.

We're you attempting to harm his reputation?
[/I]

Can anyone harm JohnW's reputation any worse than he has hurt himself?

No . . I think you missed the point of my post . . .which is not unusual for you.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
I accept your vouch. However, while we're on the subject we would be remiss to overlook something here.



You left a few very relevant ones out.





You have a pattern, dear sir, of publicly rebuking non-Reformed quite sharply (which is fine) but going relatively kid gloves with PPS and now Nang, who has been banned for just such violations of Pauline behavior.

But hey, it's really none of my business.


This latest innuendo, pulling out all the verses about women being submissive, applies only to Nang?

1. Why not the other women who regularly mix things up with the fellas on TOL?

2. Why not be specific, and actually cite where and how I have violated the scriptures you list.

3. Why are you considering AMR's answer to be more than a simple voucher that I am an elderly woman? Why pick on him?

4. What is "Pauline" behavior?
 
Last edited:

Nang

TOL Subscriber

The three things I have against AMR: He calls Supralapsarians Hyper-Calvinists and I am a Supralapsarian, but I do not consider my self to be a Hyper.

This has been going on for years, so I guess he is not going to change his mind, ever . . . :juggle:

But at least he vouches for my aged existence. A girl's gotta take what she can get!

;)
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
And this is why I have pulled support from TOL. A vile perverter of the gospel hides behind feminism which is an abomination.

I do not hide behind feminism. If you have pulled support because the mods have not permanently banned me because I am a woman, take the issue up with them . . because I oppose the feminist movement.

It is taking our country down . . .

I only post as a woman, because TOL does not forbid it, and I do not consider TOL to be a church where the scriptures commanding submission apply.

Supposedly, on principle, I will guess you would demand TOL not allow female posters at all? Is this the case? If so, I would agree with you that is the only way to prevent feminists taking advantage of this venue.

But none of that is my call or even my interest.

If this is personal, and I my sole presence is the reason you will not support TOL, then you will need to do a better job of confronting both Knight and myself. This would be the first time I have been clued into such a scenario, supposedly centered upon and involving myself. ???

What I was resisting is the double standard obvious between some posters receiving infractions that others deserve equally . . whether they be male or female.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top