Anti-Calvinists Love to Hate!

[BoyStan]

It seems many on TOL love to hate so called calvinism.
Their intention is to bludgeon calvinists with their arguments.

They cannot resist the temptation t to attack brethren who understand the biblical teaching that supports calvinism.

Many of the anti -Calvinists,'want to be teachers...but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently
affirm'(1Tim1:7).

Continuous bad blood pours from the anti-calvinists darkened understandings of scripture.

Where is their brotherly love ?

 

[Robert Pate]

It seems many on TOL love to hate so called calvinism.
Their intention is to bludgeon calvinists with their arguments.

They cannot resist the temptation t to attack brethren who understand the biblical teaching that supports calvinism.

Many of the anti -Calvinists,'want to be teachers...but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently
affirm'(1Tim1:7).

Continuous bad blood pours from the anti-calvinists darkened understandings of scripture.

Where is their brotherly love ?

What Christians hate is what Calvinism does to God's word and the Gospel. I don't consider Calvinist to be my brother. There is no scripture that says God predestinates people to heaven or to hell. Only in your twisted mind.

 

[Idolater]

It seems many on TOL love to hate so called calvinism.
Their intention is to bludgeon calvinists with their arguments.

They cannot resist the temptation t to attack brethren who understand the biblical teaching that supports calvinism.

Many of the anti -Calvinists,'want to be teachers...but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently
affirm'(1Tim1:7).

Continuous bad blood pours from the anti-calvinists darkened understandings of scripture.

Where is their brotherly love ?

There are a lot of posters who obviously have a personal grudge and ax to grind with Clavinism. I'm not one of those. I was a convinced Clavinist for many years, the theology integrated together the Scripture with my own deep belief in God's sovereignty over all creation, including the free choices men make.

But now I am satisfied that the Catholic bishops teach the entirety of my belief in God's power, and such that the Scripture comports even more with not just itself, and with my conviction that God is omnipotent (and all that this implies), but also with history, including beginning with immediately following the Apostolic era, when the Church on earth was closest to the source of our faith, the Lord Jesus and His hand-picked Apostles.

 

[MennoSota]

There are a lot of posters who obviously have a personal grudge and ax to grind with Clavinism. I'm not one of those. I was a convinced Clavinist for many years, the theology integrated together the Scripture with my own deep belief in God's sovereignty over all creation, including the free choices men make.

But now I am satisfied that the Catholic bishops teach the entirety of my belief in God's power, and such that the Scripture comports even more with not just itself, and with my conviction that God is omnipotent (and all that this implies), but also with history, including beginning with immediately following the Apostolic era, when the Church on earth was closest to the source of our faith, the Lord Jesus and His hand-picked Apostles.

Yes, you have embraced semi-pelagianism like the church at Rome. St Augustine has rolled over in his grave at the abandonment of God's Sovereignty by the church at Rome.
Rome is in desperate need of Reform. 500 years and still no repentance from their heresy. Yet...it appeals to you.
It seems that self, sitting on the throne, has a natural appeal to humans.

 

[Idolater]

Yes, you have embraced semi-pelagianism like the church at Rome.

Rather, I have embraced "divine providence" as the authentic Christian view, on the matter of God's limitless sovereignty over all creation.

St Augustine has rolled over in his grave at the abandonment of God's Sovereignty by the church at Rome.

As I said, 'Rome' did no such thing. And Augustine was a Catholic bishop in full communion with the papacy, Peter's pastorate of the Roman archdiocese.

Rome is in desperate need of Reform. 500 years and still no repentance from their heresy. Yet...it appeals to you.

'Rome's' error was not theological in nature, but political. The Church ought never to have entangled herself with civil authorities, and ought instead to have always, as the bishop Polycarp advised, to have recognized, affirmed, and protected the human right of religious liberty.

It seems that self, sitting on the throne, has a natural appeal to humans.

lol. I have never theologically, deferred and yielded myself to the authority of someone else, like I am now, as theologically Catholic. 'Self?' I don't think so. :nono:

 

[MennoSota]

Rather, I have embraced "divine providence" as the authentic Christian view, on the matter of God's limitless sovereignty over all creation.
As I said, 'Rome' did no such thing. And Augustine was a Catholic bishop in full communion with the papacy, Peter's pastorate of the Roman archdiocese.
'Rome's' error was not theological in nature, but political. The Church ought never to have entangled herself with civil authorities, and ought instead to have always, as the bishop Polycarp advised, to have recognized, affirmed, and protected the human right of religious liberty.
lol. I have never theologically, deferred and yielded myself to the authority of someone else, like I am now, as theologically Catholic. 'Self?' I don't think so. :nono:

So, you have no allegiance to Rome?

Providence is a Reformed staple.

Are you a rogue Romanist?

What I have read from you, you are a semi-pelagian, like the Church at Rome.

 

[Idolater]

So, you have no allegiance to Rome?

I heed the one Church's fully valid and authentic pastors, the Catholic bishops. The genesis and infancy of this Church office, instituted by the Apostles, through the imposition of their own hands, is witnessed in the Scripture, and there is no expiration date given for this office, until the Lord's return.

Providence is a Reformed staple.

The Catholic bishops teach many of the same things that Reformers teach regarding God's unlimited power, using the same scriptures from both the OT and NT. And to my mind, it's tighter and simpler and all-encompassing, with no 'loose ends,' or for that matter, no reason for any confusion or doubt either.

Are you a rogue Romanist?

I am Catholic on the way to full communion, but I am not presently bodily Catholic.

What I have read from you, you are a semi-pelagian, like the Church at Rome.

I am just not a Clavinist. I completely embrace divine providence, which includes all of our free choices.

 

[BoyStan]

What Christians hate is what Calvinism does to God's word and the Gospel. I don't consider Calvinist to be my brother. There is no scripture that says God predestinates people to heaven or to hell. Only in your twisted mind.

Your absolutely right, brother! My mind is twisted around God's truth, God's glory, God's praise, God's sovereignty.
God predestinated people to heaven or hell, according to his own good pleasure, before the creation of the world.

I won't waste my time and energy quoting the many verses that teach this great and glorious divine truth.
You have already convinced yourself that such verses do not exist.

Like a multitude of others you twist God's Word to give glory to man.
You arrogantly deny God's glory.

 

[MennoSota]

I heed the one Church's fully valid and authentic pastors, the Catholic bishops. The genesis and infancy of this Church office, instituted by the Apostles, through the imposition of their own hands, is witnessed in the Scripture, and there is no expiration date given for this office, until the Lord's return.
The Catholic bishops teach many of the same things that Reformers teach regarding God's unlimited power, using the same scriptures from both the OT and NT. And to my mind, it's tighter and simpler and all-encompassing, with no 'loose ends,' or for that matter, no reason for any confusion or doubt either.
I am Catholic on the way to full communion, but I am not presently bodily Catholic.
I am just not a Clavinist. I completely embrace divine providence, which includes all of our free choices.

Catholic is a general term. Do you follow the church at Rome?
The Roman catechism is thousands of convoluted points that most priests cannot agree upon regarding what they mean. The church at Rome has purposely muddied their meaning in order to fudge on issues at will. Add to this that the Roman church has revised and changed this continually over its 1500 year run.

 

[Idolater]

Catholic is a general term. Do you follow the church at Rome?

I am of the Catholic school of theology, as you are of the Reformed school.

The Roman catechism is thousands of convoluted points

I've found nothing but clarity in the texts of the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church.' Which ones are 'convoluted' to you?

that most priests cannot agree upon regarding what they mean.

Do you have a cite for that?

The church at Rome has purposely muddied their meaning in order to fudge on issues at will.

You're still just asserting. Any evidence you'd like to offer?

Add to this that the Roman church has revised and changed this continually over its 1500 year run.

The church of Romans has been around since Acts 2:10 KJV, almost 2000 years now. She is the Church that Jesus founded and built, and that the Apostles administrated on His behalf, and at His command.

 

[MennoSota]

I am of the Catholic school of theology, as you are of the Reformed school.
I've found nothing but clarity in the texts of the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church.' Which ones are 'convoluted' to you?
Do you have a cite for that?
You're still just asserting. Any evidence you'd like to offer?
The church of Romans has been around since Acts 2:10 KJV, almost 2000 years now. She is the Church that Jesus founded and built, and that the Apostles administrated on His behalf, and at His command.

You are avoiding a simple question. Do you follow the church at Rome?

Second, Rome was not in existence as a church in Acts 2. From Jerusalem the Apostles went in all directions. Churches were established and were removed. Churches allowed heresy into their midst and were condemned for such actions. Call for Reform was given by Jesus.
Rome, however, has refused to reform its paganism that it has progressively adopted.
Do you follow the church at Rome? (Your avoidance in saying "yes" tells me you are rogue.)

 

[Idolater]

You are avoiding a simple question. Do you follow the church at Rome?

See my last comment below.

Second, Rome was not in existence as a church in Acts 2.

There were Romans in Jerusalem that day. Acts 2:10 KJV

From Jerusalem the Apostles went in all directions.

And Peter and Paul wound up in Rome. They both died there.

Churches were established and were removed.

Which churches were removed?

Churches allowed heresy into their midst and were condemned for such actions. Call for Reform was given by Jesus.
Rome, however, has refused to reform its paganism that it has progressively adopted.

The Church has never accepted any pagan practices or beliefs that conflict with the Word of God.

Do you follow the church at Rome? (Your avoidance in saying "yes" tells me you are rogue.)

Whatever you think that 'rogue' means, I have told you the truth. I am theologically Catholic, parallel to you being theologically Reformed, and I am Catholic on the way to full communion, meaning that I am not presently in full communion with her.

 

[MennoSota]

See my last comment below.
There were Romans in Jerusalem that day. Acts 2:10 KJV
And Peter and Paul wound up in Rome. They both died there.
Which churches were removed?
The Church has never accepted any pagan practices or beliefs that conflict with the Word of God.
Whatever you think that 'rogue' means, I have told you the truth. I am theologically Catholic, parallel to you being theologically Reformed, and I am Catholic on the way to full communion, meaning that I am not presently in full communion with her.

Rome has added paganism into its worship. The most notable is the praying to the venerated saints, which is an animistic custom of praying to the ancestors. The Dakota and Ojibwe tribes use sage (sweet grass) while Rome has its own incense. The accumulation of relics to go on pilgrimage to see is another pagan/animistic form of worship. Your denial means you either are ignorant of Rome and her history or you are in denial.
Legend has Peter in Rome. Neither of Peters letters nor the book of Acts provide evidence that Peter went to Rome. You are placing your trust in stories not supported by scripture.
Idol, I find it odd that you don't just come out and pledge your allegiance to Rome when you are asked. I also doubt you were ever Reformed. Your lack of knowledge says you have always been a semi-pelagian.

 

[Idolater]

Rome has added paganism into its worship.

Nope. Church 'worship' is Mass. Acts 2:42 KJV, the same then as it is today.

The most notable is the praying to the venerated saints, which is an animistic custom of praying to the ancestors.

The souls of Saints who have died still live, and can hear us.

The Dakota and Ojibwe tribes use sage (sweet grass) while Rome has its own incense.

Incense was offered to the baby Jesus as a gift. You've got a problem with babies now?

The accumulation of relics to go on pilgrimage to see is another pagan/animistic form of worship.

The Church has never allowed, permitted, or approved of anything pagan that conflicts with the Word of God.

Your denial means you either are ignorant of Rome and her history or you are in denial.

Or, I have the correct understanding of the matter, and you're an ignorant bigot, learning all that you "know" about Catholicism, from anti-Catholic sources.

Legend has Peter in Rome.

That's nice. Also, history has him there. He was buried on the Vatican hill in Rome.

Neither of Peters letters nor the book of Acts provide evidence that Peter went to Rome.

He wrote from 'Babylon,' which was code for Rome. He was right to disguise his location, since his life was endangered.

You are placing your trust in stories not supported by scripture.

'Placing trust' is an odd way, to say that I receive reliable historical accounts.

Idol, I find it odd that you don't just come out and pledge your allegiance to Rome when you are asked.

I find your language odd. I've answered you directly, repeatedly just exactly who I am. You either don't understand it, or you're just looking for a fight, and maybe it's both.

I also doubt you were ever Reformed. Your lack of knowledge says you have always been a semi-pelagian.

I have forgotten more about your theology than you'll ever know, and I have a very good memory. If you want to know more about my theological position, or your own, just ask, instead of making ridiculous comments and accusations.

The reason that you doubt I was ever Clavinist is obvious enough, because you're so inured in it that you cannot conceive that someone thoroughly convinced of it would see their way out of it. It's understandable, but there's only one here between us with a mind that is shut up tight and hoodwinked into error, and that'd be, you.

 

[MennoSota]

Nope. Church 'worship' is Mass. Acts 2:42 KJV, the same then as it is today.
The souls of Saints who have died still live, and can hear us.
Incense was offered to the baby Jesus as a gift. You've got a problem with babies now?
The Church has never allowed, permitted, or approved of anything pagan that conflicts with the Word of God.
Or, I have the correct understanding of the matter, and you're an ignorant bigot, learning all that you "know" about Catholicism, from anti-Catholic sources.
That's nice. Also, history has him there. He was buried on the Vatican hill in Rome.
He wrote from 'Babylon,' which was code for Rome. He was right to disguise his location, since his life was endangered.
'Placing trust' is an odd way, to say that I receive reliable historical accounts.
I find your language odd. I've answered you directly, repeatedly just exactly who I am. You either don't understand it, or you're just looking for a fight, and maybe it's both.
I have forgotten more about your theology than you'll ever know, and I have a very good memory. If you want to know more about my theological position, or your own, just ask, instead of making ridiculous comments and accusations.

The reason that you doubt I was ever Clavinist is obvious enough, because you're so inured in it that you cannot conceive that someone thoroughly convinced of it would see their way out of it. It's understandable, but there's only one here between us with a mind that is shut up tight and hoodwinked into error, and that'd be, you.

LOL, self proclaimed theologian who drinks the vatican kool-aid while ignoring history and reality. You are a legend in your own mind.

 

[Idolater]

LOL, self proclaimed theologian who drinks the vatican kool-aid while ignoring history and reality. You are a legend in your own mind.

lol! lain:

 

[7djengo7]

MennoSota wrote:

Legend has Peter in Rome.

You responded:

That's nice. Also, history has him there. He was buried on the Vatican hill in Rome.
He wrote from 'Babylon,' which was code for Rome. He was right to disguise his location, since his life was endangered.

In another post, you wrote:

What does the word 'meaning' mean? I submit that 'meaning' means, first of all, 'denotation,' and that synonyms are two or more different words that denote the same thing(s).

Obviously, by the word 'history', you're denoting the same thing MennoSota is denoting by the word 'legend', and yet, would you really, seriously claim that the two different words, 'history' and 'legend', are synonyms of one another?

 

[Idolater]

MennoSota wrote:



You responded:



In another post, you wrote:



Obviously, by the word 'history', you're denoting the same thing MennoSota is denoting by the word 'legend', and yet, would you really, seriously claim that the two different words, 'history' and 'legend', are synonyms of one another?

No, not in this context, because of the secondary meaning of the word 'meaning.' The secondary meaning is what a word connotes. 'History' and 'legend' connote very different things, while they denote some similar things.