Posted on 02/13/2002 5:30:35 PM PST by CCWoody
He has become one of my favorites..
My heart expects to see that baby someday OP..but when I get to heaven I will be too busy saying Holy Holy , Holy..to look on much but God..
I believe we put too much value on the things of life and not enough on the things of God..I trust him OP..
One of the problems with today's churchgoers is that they have a name that they are alive and are dead. Jesus specifically rebuked the people who think that their study of the Bible amounts to salvation. The Reformers pointed out over and over and over that this is a disastrous mistake.
We have to meet to Christ in the Spirit. A churchgoer can search the Scriptures and think that in them he has life, but if that sinner does not go to Christ in the Spirit, he is just a reprobate who thinks he is saved.
This is what the Reformation was all about. But I frankly fear that ftD doesn't know squat about the faith of the Reformation. (See my previous post, in which I warned that some of today's "Arminian Baptists" have strayed so far from the important truths which were ardently defended by the Reformers and the Anabaptists and the early Baptists that they don't know what justifying faith is. The majority of 18th century Baptists would consider ftD to be an ill-mannered scoffer against the Word of God.)
Of course! I have not denied that God is visible to those who hate Him; that He has never been far from anyone. fortheDeclaration wants to maintain that this verse teaches that God has given all men a desire to seek God [or reject Him] in a saving kind of way; removing the effects of Original Sin I suppose.
It is the foundation of my joy as well. Let us feast in all that He is.
Might I suggest Desiring God by John Piper.
The 'born again' experience is not what Woody is referring to. That is the Holy Spirit giving witness to the human spirit that you are saved. Woody 'experience' is something different.
One of the problems with today's churchgoers is that they have a name that they are alive and are dead. Jesus specifically rebuked the people who think that their study of the Bible amounts to salvation. The Reformers pointed out over and over and over that this is a disastrous mistake.
I think a lot of the Reformers may have been 'dead' themselves. In fact, I am not to sure about Calvin.
We have to meet to Christ in the Spirit. A churchgoer can search the Scriptures and think that in them he has life, but if that sinner does not go to Christ in the Spirit, he is just a reprobate who thinks he is saved.
Pretty long winded tonight Doc, have anything to say?
This is what the Reformation was all about. But I frankly fear that ftD doesn't know squat about the faith of the Reformation.
I know a lot more about the Reformation then you guys wish I did. I know it did not go far enough and kept many of the same apostate corruptions of Roman Catholism.
(See my previous post, in which I warned that some of today's "Arminian Baptists" have strayed so far from the important truths which were ardently defended by the Reformers and the Anabaptists and the early Baptists that they don't know what justifying faith is. The majority of 18th century Baptists would consider ftD to be an ill-mannered scoffer against the Word of God.)
They would? And what would you consider them to be Doc? If you were in Geneva with your idol Calvin you would be helping him light the touches to burn those same anabaptists at the stake for not holding to 'good Reformed theology'
I thought you were not going to be dealing with me any longer, Oh great one!
For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise(2Cor.10:12)
You can run to the 'Greek' all you want, the verse still destroys your 'total depravity' view. Man is groping for God which a corpse is unable to do.
Regarding the Geneva Bible, it left out the particle (perhaps). A little too close to the truth so the translators flinched
The verse states that the Gentiles can 'seek God' which according to your 'Total Depravity' view they cannot.
Of course! I have not denied that God is visible to those who hate Him; that He has never been far from anyone.
Now, how can a 'corpse' see God? Why would they 'seek him' if they hate him?
fortheDeclaration wants to maintain that this verse teaches that God has given all men a desire to seek God [or reject Him] in a saving kind of way; removing the effects of Original Sin I suppose.
See what a liar you are Woody! Did I say one word about desire? I said the ability to seek Him. Now that is what your Calvinism denies is not possible.
Tell me, Rnmomof7, could Larazus 'seek God' when he was physically dead? That was the analogy that you were using just a few posts ago!
It is! Well, as long as you said it must so! I did not know that the Roman Catholics taught salvation by faith and faith alone, How about that! I bet old Luther would be suprised to hear that!
The Reformers and the key Anabaptists ardently opposed your semi-Pelagian position. Even Luther himself specifically declared that this controversy--in which you are siding with the Romanists!--was the pivotal issue of the Reformation.
See what liars you Calvinists are! Now, I am a 'semi-Pelagian' am I? Since Pelagius denied Original Sin (I do not) and since Pelagius believed in works to earn salvation (I do not) what part is the 'semi'?
You need to figure out why Luther said that. You need to make sure you are not like so many of today's proud Baptists--who do not clearly know what justifying faith is.
You know what the funniest part about you clowns is that you guys actually believe you are smart! LOL! I know very well what 'justifying faith' is, it is stated in Acts 16:31, 'believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved...', now you tell me what part of that do you not understand?
As for 'proud Baptists' no Baptist in the world could match the egos, ignorance and downright dishonesty demonstrated by you group of Reformed thugs.
One Calvinist stated that you guys are not representative of the normal Reformed group, I hope so, because I never saw a more clear demonstration of why we need to keep you guys away from political power. Thank God for the 2nd Amendment!
Thats very funny, considering that the Baptists were persecuted by the Reformed groups! Now, it is true you do have Calvinist Baptist (hardshell), but what of it? Baptists are a pretty divise group. No different then the Methodists who were originally in two wings , Wesley and Whitefield.
You are NO BAPTIST. Contrary to the claims of post-modernist Clintonist word-parsing, words mean things, and the word "Baptist" means, among other things, Calvinist. Sovereign Grace. Absolute Predestination.
Mega LOL! A baptist is one that is formost against infant baptism (does your church do infant baptism). Is it against Church and State combination? In fact, I just bought a book on the history of the Baptists today at church. Dr. Roy Wallace lists
General Baptists, Seventh-Day Baptists, Freewill Baptists (the name freewill Baptists came from their teaching that every man has a freedom to believe in Jesus Christ)Primitive Baptists (the primitive Baptists hold to an extreme Calvinistic doctrine. Because of their Calvinistic position, they oppose missionary work, Sunday schools, Theological seminaries and other 'human effot' orgainizations, they have been known as 'hardshell', 'old Baptists') Missionary Baptists (sometimes called 'landmark' these deny the universal church theory) So how did 'brother' Calvin handle the Baptists? Calvin sought by all means at his disposal including the use of civil powers, to persecute, suppress and exterminate the baptists wherever he found them (Jack Hoard, The Baptist, (London, England, Garce Publications, 1986)71, cited in Baptist Church History, by Dr. Roy Wallace, p.111) Although the Anabaptists had hoped for some relief of their persecutions under John Calvin and his Presbyterian Churches, they were sadly mistaken. The Presbyterian Church, following the example of their Roman mother, was soon in the persecuting business(Ibid,p.110-111)
This is what "Baptist" means. Why do you think that Calvinist Baptists were called "OLD SCHOOL Baptists", and Arminians were called "NEW SCHOOL Baptists"?!
Hey, I see the word Baptist in that 'New School'-how about that!
News Flash, FTD, the terminology itself -- "old-school", "new-school" -- ought to give you a hint. You are NOT a Baptist.
Why can I not be, according to your own definition be a 'new light' Baptist? It is still a Baptist. I guess the Presbyterians do not have any different wings in them-right?
You are an immersionist Romanist -- one who believes in Immersion, but affirms the Romanist Gospel. THIS is the Romanist Gospel: Resistible Grace + Free Will. THIS is the Baptist Gospel: Irresistible Grace creates New Will.
Gee, I thought the Catholics had things like sacraments and infant Baptism. Hey, don't you guys do that infant baptism thing? Just like Augustine taught you to do?
You are no "Baptist", but a schismatic Romanist who claims the name of "baptist", and so to the Baptists who are threshing that part of the Lord's vineyard, I will leave you.
And you are 'wise in your own conceits' and know nothing of what you speak! The only 'schismatic Romanist' are those Reformed churches who never really broke away from 'moma'(clinging to their and the father of Romanism, Augustine) and are tripping over themselves to get back under her 'fold' just like many of the Reformed churches are doing, espically in Europe.
As Doc is so fond of saying-You lose!
Look, I don't regard you as regenerate. And I do propose to ignore you from now on. I won't even read your e-mails.
This is about the 3rd time you have promised me that! Strip away your facade of 'intellect' and 'spiritually' and what do you find? A puffed up Pharisee!
Well, you don't!
I propose a new way of dealing with fortheDeclaration. Let's not debate him any more until he manages to define our position in what he is attempting to refute. He has been around for long enough to understand what we believe.
Don't do me any favors! All I have seen from you guys is lies and evasion.
I suggest that we simply explain that he has yet to state our position. It is really an issue of the will in that he does not want to even try. It is a depravity thing, isn't it. BTW, here is what he doesn't understand. Can you see the presentation of Total Depravity in this passage of mine:
Yes, lets take a look shall we?
Christ does not exist to make much about man; to crawl up to him and beg that he should accept Him as Savior lest He invade the citadel of man's free will. Quite the contrary, we exist to make much of and enjoy Him. It is demanded of us. And He has made it so easy. If we would only cast our burdens on Him we would be sustained by Him (Psalm 55:22). If. we would only call upon Him we would be delivered and we would Glorify Him (Psalm 50:15). He takes great delight in the display of His grace upon those who delight in Him:
Although not expressly stated, I have explained that it is in the same sense as this verse: John 5:40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
There it is, you liar! Although not expressly stated!. That is what I was looking for, not what you thought but what you wrote!
And now, what part of the article did I address that to? The last part when you started rambling about 'giants in the land'
In going back over the last thread to find what ftd calls my "lie" I found that he has an amazing ability to mock and mock and mock.
There is a lot to mock!
Just look at his contribution to this thread.
Do you own the thread? You seem pretty concerned about my 'contributions' to it! My contribution is to expose you rascals for the liars that you are!
It seems pretty obvious that he is mocking what he has never experienced. Therefore, he is desperately trying to show that intimate encounters with the Lord are nothing more than trances or something.
I have never gone into a trance, that is true!
We also represent something which he does not like in this regard. We say that the Lord will open up the heavens to show the light of His glory to His chosen ones. We talk about the irresistible vision of that glory shining in our lives and giving us a new taste and desire for His glory. So, he must either accept what we say and examine himself or he must seek to destroy us.
You guys must love to hear yourselves talk 'good words and fair speeches'
It is depravity and a predestination thing. He absolutely hates the idea that he is utterly helpless and at the mercy of the Lord so he searches the scriptures in a vain attempt to show that Romans 3 really doesn't mean all men and really doesn't apply to him. So, with this in mind, let us look at his posting:
No, Romans 3 isn't saying what you are trying to make it say! Scripture must reconicle with scripture, not be ignored, as you guys do with your little proof texts. Every heresy has them you know, the Catholics have theirs, Arminians have theirs, Cambelites theirs, you are no different.
LOL! A bit hypersensitive there aren't you Woody! Still mad because I caught you lying about the 'Greek' on Acts.17:27? - fortheDeclaration To be quite honest I'm really at a loss as to what this lie on my part really is. So, I searched out my For whom did Christ die thread to see what he means:
Your lie was denying that what you wrote did not say what you thought, as you admitted in an earlier post!(or have you forgotten that already-'I did not expressly say'..)
Those verses only prove that man doesn't seek God,(therefore God seeks man). However, it doesn't mean that man can't seek God. That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us.(Acts.17:27)That is 'plain' scripture also. Even so come Lord Jesus 95 posted on 1/20/02 9:02 PM Pacific by fortheDeclaration He really is desperate to make the scriptures say that man really does want to seek God in his Adamic natural state. Just look at his post #85 on this thread which he flatly declares that God breathes a [living] spirit into man when he is born. It really does seem to match quite closely with the Peligan denial of Original Sin.
How is giving life to a baby mean that the baby does not have Original sin. The baby receives human life, but is spiritually dead.
I'll take the Man I met, thank you.... - CCWoody Woody- do you think sounding cryptic makes you sound intelligent? I think you are not a Calvinist but a mystic pretending to be a Calvinist because you think they are 'intellectual'. When push comes to shove it is your 'experiences' that come into play, not scriptures. No doubt but ye are the people and wisdom shall die with you(Job.12:1) 564 posted on 1/22/02 9:12 PM Pacific by fortheDeclaration Notice the clear pattern. He mocks because he has never met the Lord Jesus. Now, here is the "lie:"
No, I mock at you because you can't tell the truth!
Correct, it just says that God has made it possible (hapily) - fortheDeclaration Ya' see, this just makes you look desperate. You must take me for some kind of fool to think that you can say that "haply" means possible and that I don't know any better. It does not. Acts 17:27 does not mean what you want it to mean. It never has and it never ever will. You are so desperate to deny that God is in control that you are just inventing things in the scriptures. ara {ar'-ah} probably from 142 (through the idea of drawing a conclusion); part AV - therefore + 3767 7, so then + 3767 4, now therefore + 3767 1, then + 1065 2, wherefore + 1065 1, haply + 1065 1, not tr 7, misc 7; 51 1) therefore, so then, wherefore 1138 posted on 1/25/02 5:48 PM Pacific by CCWoody Hapily does not mean possible. Ara does not translate to possible. FortheDeclaration maintains that he obtained the below information from Strongs (which is exactly where I pulled mine), but it really doesn't matter. Possible is not even a definition that he has provided. And perhaps does not mean possible. He continues to pit scripture against scripture and make a mockery out of the Word of God.
That is exactly where I got mine from! Moreover, both the NAS and NIV translated the word 'perhaps' and the NKJ translated it 'hope', the word meant exactly what the King James stated it meant-perhaps.
(686)prob from 142(through the idea of drawing a conclusion)a particle denoting an inference more or less decisive (as follows) hapily, what manner( of man), no doubt, perhaps, so be, then, therefore, wherefore. often used in connection with other particles... Now, how do the other versions translate it? The NASB,NIV-perhaps NKJV-hope Now, you can do what the Tyndale and Geneva do, leave out the particle and just translate it 'That they should seek God if they might feel and find him...' but the particle does mean 'perhaps'. However, that is not the real problem with the verse for the Calvinist, the real problem is should seek Him, which shows He has made possible 1191 posted on 1/26/02 1:43 AM Pacific by fortheDeclaration To show just how silly this post of his really is, look at this example: My Caddie is about ready to die permanently. I could not tell you how many times I have had somebody say that I should get a new car. Well, it is rather tough to do when I don't have the cash to go out and buy a new car. I probably should drive my piece of junk to the yard and get a new car, but I simply do not have the cash to make it happen.
I guess the above is suppose to mean something? You going into one of your trances again?
FortheDeclaration's problem is not that he is calling me a liar;
No,because it is true
it is that he simply refuses to examine himself and would rather lash out at us. It is a depravity and a predestination thing, of course. He needs to repent and call upon the name of the Lord.
Now, you see what I mean? You guys are always talking like Arminians! Now, if I were not saved (but I am) how could I repent and believe unless elected? Why do you guys say what you do not believe?
That is all I did say on the matter. As a matter of fact, I gave a scripture that a Calvinist may use to defend the view that all children were the 'elect'. (1Kings.14:13)
Hey, Ortho. I grew up in Cincinnati near the outreach area of "Landmark Baptist Church." My father used to subscribe to a newsletter from a Kentucky baptist church (Ashland Ave. Bapt) that included an offer once upon a time to read a booklet on "baptist history." I believe it was called the "Trail of Blood" and was authored, perhaps, by a guy named Carroll(?).
The premise of the book was that baptists PRECEDED these 1600 groups that you mention and went all the way back to the inception of the church. They used certain distinguishing characteristics to track "independent, baptistic" groups back through history. I've heard this view called "landmarkism" (hence the mention of Landmark Baptist above).
Do you support that theory? Or do you consider the baptists to be classic protestors, arising originally from dissatisfaction with the Catholic Church? Or something else?
It is really funny that I have had two instances since last Friday to consider the heresy of R.B. Thieme.
You don't have a clue what Calvinism teaches with regards to Total Depravity. Until you are able to express our belief, you will be the one "groping around in the dark." In order for this verse to overthrow my position, then this verse must teach that God has given all men a desire to seek Him. If this verse does not teach this, then you aren't even refuting Total Depravity.
I am at face value accepting that you are attempting to refute Total Depravity. I have obviously overestimated your understand and ability in the past. This is not a lie on my part; it is the error of being overly gracious to you. Since you are not saying that this verse teaches that all men have a desire to seek God, then it is you who are lying about our position. You have been told several times on this thread that you need to stop and define our position to show us that you are even qualified to be in a discussion with us. You refuse, instead choosing to lie about our position.
How long will this go while you realize that you cannot even define our position on Total Depravity?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.