No need. My question was succinctly asked.
This is a ch__ch. What's missing?
Posted on 04/20/2006 11:16:00 AM PDT by Gamecock
Doesn't look like I have missed much. Some things never change.
I have been busy, very busy, too busy to spend much time here.
Well as long as you don't say that you have been as busy as a one legged man in a keister kicking contest, you'll be ok.
LOLOL!
Some people are so offended by "total depravity" that they don't get to the other four points. I read that the denizens of the Evil (more into killing babies) Party, at their '04 Convention, refused to sing the "wretch like me" verse of "Amazing Grace" - they had other words as substitutes. LOL if it weren't so sad and silly...
"PetroniusMaximus, you're a tough legalist, aren't you?"
Go on. I'm listening...
The Thesaurus is your friend.
No need. My question was succinctly asked.
This is a ch__ch. What's missing?
Yeah, but I did't get it.
(sorry, being a little dense here)
Fundamentals??? What fundamentals??? That grace is bestowed through the Eucharist? That people make decisions using their free will to trust in the Lord and if they don't its their own fault? That salvation is through the Church? Are those the fundamentals you're talking about?
If you stepped back and looked at this objectively, you'll find Calvinism is consistently the Christian theological position that is attacked on this board. History of these discussions shows the Orthodox, Catholics and many Protestants to be on one side with the Calvinists on the other. The few Calvinists here who defend the position, including myself, are not duplicitous or insincere but trying to point out the significant problems in the synergistic model which most belief structures now subscribe to.
While you might wish to try to straddle the fence, truth of the matter is that you can't with Calvinism unless you want to go off to a corner and shut up. The difference in theology is so profound it sparked some of the greatest debates within the Church/church and lead to the Reformation. Either it's right or it's wrong. While ecumenicalism is sweeping the Christian world, these same people never have and never will look upon Calvinists favorably.
Calvinism isn't an argument that stems from "insecurity". It's an argument that stems from logic and scripture. It would be nice to simply sweep all this under the rug but the synergistic model is simply not true. Sometimes we must count the cost.
Passionately spoken Harley, but I think you continue to miss jude's point.
In some ways.
I have cut back my time considerably, too, due to church obligations.
But, there is far more peace on these threads than in the past, and there's no inability to speak what's on one's heart.
WHAT IS THE POINT?
5 SOLAS!
it's all there in jude's post
Passionate?!? Me?!? Let's not hurdle insults. :O)
If I understand Jude's point, he feels there is a certain level of insecurity in the argument that "Calvinism is the gospel". I don't believe I've ever seen anyone stating there is a certain level of insecurity with Catholics to state Catholicism is the true Church. I'm sure that would be good for about 350+ posts.
While I have disagreements with John Calvin's writings and parts of his doctrine, I find he’s in basic agreement with the teachings of the western church-as it use to be-although many are in denial. There are only the two views; the Orthodox (synergism) and the Reformers (monergism). The rest are confused.
One of us (synergist or monergist) is holding heretical views and the other correct doctrine. It isn’t out of place for a Calvinist to say Calvinism is the gospel. Certainly Calvinists have enough people telling us we’re not preaching the gospel.
Thanks for clarifying that. I'd hate to have to pull out the Book of Church Order on you and charge you with being unfrozen chosen.
(It's a joke ya'll)
Apparently we've never met. I'm Jude24, the friendly neighborhood magesterial Protestant who is comfortable with the whole of Church History (it is, after all, my own history) including Chrystostom, Augustine, and Aquinas, but rejects the claim Rome has to universality. (What about the Orthodox?) And I've been explicit on that point.
There are only the two views; the Orthodox (synergism) and the Reformers (monergism). The rest are confused.
Nothing like setting up a self-serving dichotomy and making that your standard of orthodox doctrine. It's not as though the Calvinists, alleged monergists that they are, believe that humans are completely automata. To some extent we must cooperate in the work of grace just by virtue of being free agents.
One of us (synergist or monergist) is holding heretical views and the other correct doctrine.
And another drive-by false dictotomy. Even granting your synergist/monergist dictomy (which I do not), it is quite posssible - indeed, quite likely that both are wrong. Further, "wrong" does not equate to "heretical." "Heretical" is a term of art referring to a denial of a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. Given the fact that almost every orthodox Christian denomination rejects "monergism," even if they are wrong to do so, clearly it cannot be "heretical." The Catholics, the Orthodox, the Wesleyans, the Pentacostals, some Baptists, the Plymouth Brethren - all these churches reject "monergism." Now, I have varying disagreements with all of these denomination - some quite severe - but I can't call a single one of them "heretical." Nor can you.
Using frantic rhetoric like "heretical" and setting up strawmen false dichotomies destroys the grounds from which you debate. It gives you no credibility outside of your chorus of yes-men, but leads any fair-minded observer to wonder if you really understand what you're talking about or if you're just covering your own insecurities.
(For the moderator's sake: I'm trying to thread a fine line between a correction and a personal attack. Permission for a little leeway.)
Nor let us throw-up to conclusions. :>)
John Calvin wouldn't say it. In fact, I think he'd be rather appalled.
And speaking of Paul, he wouldn't say it either.
Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
I Corinthians 1:12-15
And, while we're at it, you said:
While I have disagreements with John Calvin's writings and parts of his doctrine...
And then you said:
It isn’t out of place for a Calvinist to say Calvinism is the gospel.
So...
If Calvinism IS the gospel, with which parts of the gospel do you have disagreements?
...oops
oh, wait...
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.