Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | EdB | 70199 | ||
Joe I'm sorry I was merely trying to keep the subject on track. That is hard to do at times, especially when asked questions that would lead to another area. My hope is this Calvinism Arminiamism debate will cease. Not just in this thread but every apparition of it, such as inferences, suggestions or hints. I’m sick of hearing Calvinism is right and everything else is wrong. If that were true it would be provable without question and this debate would have ended dare I say hundreds of years ago. EdB |
||||||
2 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 70212 | ||
"I’m sick of hearing Calvinism is right and everything else is wrong." Well, Ed, you think I am as wrong as I think you are, and you have said so on numerous occasions. I do not get all bent out of shape about it or go off on a crusade to tear you down because of it. I defend the Reformed position when misrepresented or criticized not because I feel any need to boost my self-esteem, but because it is what I believe the Bible teaches. It is the same thing when someone comes on here promoting anti-Trinitarian doctrine or WOF teaching or the notion that the Bible is not a sufficient guide for faith and practice. I do not mind the hard questions at all. God put us together in a body -- a community -- so that we could wrestle with His revelation to know Him and obey Him more. The great orthodox creeds of the faith, such as the Nicene Creed, were by and large a product of wrangling and debate among brothers, which I am sure got very intense at times. I do not take it personally that you disagree with me and think I am wrong. What I am concerned about is that in a public forum a system of doctrine held to by many significant men of God dating as far back as Augustine of Hippo, a system that falls well within the bounds of orthodox Christianity, is not misrepresented or maligned. "If that were true it would be provable without question and this debate would have ended dare I say hundreds of years ago." Try telling that to Oneness pentecostals, or to those who believe in infant baptism or that tongues have ceased. You have a position on these as well, and all of these arguments have been going on. :) One of us HAS to be wrong; neither one of us is damnably wrong. I like what James White once said to a Mormon in a public debate (bringing us back on track!). He said that a significant reason so many denominations exist because people pick and choose what parts of the Bible thay are going to believe. I am certain I am guilty of that as well, and believe it or not, my Calvinist confession even backs up the idea of no church being 100 percent right. :) But I am convinced from the Bible that I am right on this one, and until I can be convinced from sacred Scripture that I am not, I am going to hold to this view. I didn't grow up Reformed; I examined it in great detail from both sides before affirming that that is what the Bible teaches. I can evaluate the other point of view because I used to subscribe to that point of view (since it was the one in which I was raised). That is why I bear no animosity toward you whatsoever, Ed, while at the same time I think that you are in error on this one. And it is a big one, even if it is not a salvific one. May God bless you! --Joe! |
||||||
3 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | EdB | 70219 | ||
Joe I guess the difference between us is you said one of us is wrong and the other is right. I believe we are both wrong that all the mysteries of God have not been revealed, that finite man can not define the infinite. You believe that to be untrue and you feel you have scriptures to prove your point, however the counter to your point has an equal number of scriptures to disprove your point. Since neither point is totally provable in the light of the others then I submit both are missing the mark. My fight is not against Calvinism (again I’m sorry for the slur) I defend against the position it is provably correct. If you want to present it in the future as this is my position fine, or this is the Calvinistic position fine. But to state it emphatically as this is the one true position is in effect distorting the truth. Is that so unreasonable? EdB |
||||||