[Video] Why Islam Is The Anti Christ

[moostraks]

If all is predestined, why eat?

If all is predestined, why wake up?

If all is predestined, why pray?

The answer is that our eating, our waking up, and our praying is included in the predestination. God predestines the means as well as the ends.





Yep. You're confused. To be that uninformed about church history and the history of theology while trying to engage in debates about the issue is... really, really bad. You have Google...why not use it?




So not only are you uninformed about the history of theological ideas, you are also uninformed about the history of Calvin in Geneva. But instead of trying to understand the magesterial reformation and the evolution of how Calvinism eventually led to the most free experiment in the history of mankind, you are going to continue in the idea that "Calvin murdered Servetus" when you don't even know anything about anything in regards to that time period.

When you understand the magesterial reformation, and when you understand that the entire world (Romanism and Protestantism) was a fusion of church and state at the time, and when you educate yourself about the events surrounding Servetus and Calvin's role in it (he wasn't even a citizen of Geneva at the time), then we can have a discussion about it.

If you are just googleing "Calvin murdered Servetus" without caring to educate yourself about what really happened and the situation of the time, then I have no respect for what you are saying...sorry. If you want to get into the massacres and slaughters of the millions of innocent people that have occured in the history of Popery, I'd be glad to send you some links.






But what do I have that God has not given me? Nothing. I don't boast about anything but God's grace alone.

I don't boast about my will. I don't boast about self-righteousness or goodness. I don't boast about my choices. I don't boast about my decisions.

I boast only in God's grace because I know my sinful heart and I know God's unyeilding holiness.

Eating, sleeping, and praying are different from what you are doing. If I know the sun is going to rise tomorrow, I would not spend my day trying to talk the sun down. I would find more effective means of spending my time as a servant of God.

I know you really love using the projection of me as the ignorant, bumbling fool. If you repeat a lie often enough do you think you can make it truth? I also know about the doctrines of grace is Calvinism only when it isn't Calvinism argument. What is true is the means by which you defend your doctrines is similar to Calvin's behavior and the majority of Calvinists are not as vile as those who claim what is defined as the "reformed biblical church" viewpoint.

So again, I must make myself worthy of your presence before you can impart your information? I am sure there is some formula for this, yes?

And the excuse for Calvin is he was a man of his time? So there is a sliding scale of who this tolerance is imparted to?

And again with the Roman Catholic bashing? I will tell you again, you may be insulting a number of people out here, but I am not one of them excepting from a standpoint of an outsider offended for them by your pathetic behavior in trying to stir up strife.

This is your Calvin:

"The death penalty against heresy, idolatry, and blasphemy, and the barbarous custom of the torture were retained. Adultery after the second offence, was likewise punished by death.
"These were prohibitive and protective laws intended to prevent and punish irreligion and immorality......Watchmen were appointed to see that people went to church. The members of the Consistory visited every house once a year to examine into the faith and morals of the family. Every unseemly word and act on the street was reported, and the offenders were cited before the Consistory to be either censured or warned, or handed over to the Council for severer punishment." (HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH , Phillip Schaff, Page 490-491, Volume 8)

"A man was banished from the city for three months because, on hearing an ass bray, he said jestingly: "He prays a beautiful psalm."....
"Three men who laughed during the sermon were imprisoned for three days..........
"A girl was beheaded for striking her parents, to vindicate the fifth commandment.....
"A banker was executed for repeated adultery,....." (HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH , Phillip Schaff, Page 491-492, Volume 8)

"During the ravages of the pestilence in 1545 more than twenty men and women were burnt alive for witchcraft, and a wicked conspiracy to spread the horrible disease. From 1542 to 1546 fifty-eight judgments of death and seventy-six decrees of banishments were passed. During the years 1558 and 1559 the cases of various punishments for all sorts of offences amounted to four hundred and fourteen - a very large proportion for a population of 20,000. " (HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH , Phillip Schaff, Page 492-493, Volume 8)

"Calvin himself states:...."A conspiracy of men and women has lately been discovered, who for the space of three years, has spread the plague through the city by what mischievous device I know not. After fifteen women have been burnt, some men have even been punished more severely, some have committed suicide in prison, and while twenty-five are still kept prisoners,- the conspirators do not cease,....(HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH , Phillip Schaff, Page 492, footnote 27 Volume 8)

At no point in time should this behavior be tolerated or was it right.

When someone gives me a very special gift, the sort that only a select few may obtain in my opinion, the proper behavior is not go about claiming my ownership of said gift and then making fun of others and implying that they are not owners of the gift especially when I wasn't even knowledgable about the people in question.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Your justification for your behavior is pathetic. So the fruits of the spirit only apply when your are in the company of good Calvinists? Why do you suppose we are to judge tree by its fruits and are told what the fruits of the Spirit are? You make it a point to be as belittling as possible to the people you address. You are so drunk on your own ego that you think you are valid in the manner you address people with your rude comments.

Paul used the term "fool" to describe his opponents in the book of Romans 1:22. The word "fool" is derived from the Greek word moros. It is translated there as "fools," but of course, it can also be translated as "moron".

Rude comments toward people who reject the Gospel are all throughout Scripture.

It is ridiculous that you make demands of people to address the sections of the Bible you put forth, screaming in all caps, and then refuse to acknowledge anything that opposes your viewpoint until you find it worthy of your attention. Who do you think you are to be so disrespectful of someone who makes an honest response to you? It is despicable behavior indicative of a haughty spirit. You seem to suffer from delusions of grandeur in thinking you should be compared to Paul and Martin Luther.

If you are talking about the responses that I have to what you've typed, then I can only say that whenever I try to apply the logic of what you are saying to a verse, you instantly start talking about my attitude.

And when I keep trying and trying to go back to the verse, your default argument against me is that I have a nasty attitude. Well, I might have an attitude...for sure...but it is also possible that I have a love for the truth and I am well within my bounds to ridicule the devil's schemes with as harsh and condemnatory language as I can muster. I don't think that I am Paul, but Paul did provide an example of how to defend the faith, and if he called people morons, I think I am within the bounds to use the language as well.

It's probably a good thing that you haven't ever read Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will because your modern politically correct standards would be REALLY offended. He was nasty!

All admonishment should be undertaken carefully, to ensure that one doesn't get swept up into feeding our own ego. Your rude comments are extraneous. Is there a reason you felt the need to use the same descriptive for priests except to try and extract a negative reaction through its repetitive use? It is much how you feel the need to go after a person's religion as opposed to putting forth your viewpoint on the discussion at hand and letting the Spirit move. Or how you try to use belittling comments towards people so they come at the conversation in an angry manner. You can whitewash it any way you see fit, but most of us have enough discernment to see what you are doing is puffing yourself up, much like your obsession with seeing predestination in every bowl of corn flakes. My opinion is you are obsessed because it validates a lifestyle in which you think you can be absolved of all inappropriate behavior and be as verbally abusive to others without consequence. I am judging your behavior by your fruits and finding your character is lacking spiritual maturity worthy of teaching.

Jesus verbally abused the Pharisees. Paul verbally abused the Judiazers and the Gnostics. Paul verbally abused Peter in the book of Galatians. In the defense of the gospel, it is not wrong to use abrasive or abusive language. In fact, I will go on record and say that the reason that some people don't get passionate and abrasive in debates about theology is because they don't care about God. You get passionate about things that you care about.

As for 2 Thessalonians-I can lead a horse to water but can't make them drink, so again- if a person embarks on willful disobediance then the consequence of be giving over to sure delusion is perfectly understandable. The concept is those in question have embarked on a path where they have turned their back on the Lord and at some point they are no longer given the opportunity but have sealed their ignorance. The Calvinist viewpoint of this is reading more into the matter than necessary imo.

Let's go back to your thinking here ( I hope you don't immediately say I'm rude for trying to go back to logic and the text here.)

Your position (if I understand it correctly) is that man is a free moral agent and God cannot take man's free will away.

2nd Thessalonians 2 says:

They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

There are 2 things that this verse says:

1. God sends delusions to men so that they will believe lies and will be condemned

and

2. God CHOSE the church in Thessolonica to be saved

How do these 2 things comport with the idea of "free will"?

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Rude comments toward people who reject the Gospel are all throughout Scripture.

Maybe I should start being more rude to Protestants.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Maybe I should start being more rude to Protestants.

What's missing in your presentation is Biblical support for your ideas and logic. If you want to debate imputation vs. infusion in the issue of justification, I'd be happy to engage you on that and let the readers of the board decide who is right.

But I have the feeling you aren't even aware of these concepts, so I haven't really given it much thought.

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

What's missing in your presentation is Biblical support for your ideas and logic. If you want to debate imputation vs. infusion in the issue of justification, I'd be happy to engage you on that and let the readers of the board decide who is right.

But I have the feeling you aren't even aware of these concepts, so I haven't really given it much thought.

I don't think debating you will be of much use. It's foolish to question your infallibility. The Holy Spirit obviously guides you and won't let you err in your personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I don't think debating you will be of much use. It's foolish to question your infallibility. The Holy Spirit obviously guides you and won't let you err in your personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

So do you want to debate sola scriptura or justification? Which one?

Or do you even know what Rome's position on justification is? Or do you even know what justification is? Or do you even know what Scripture alone means in regards to interpretation and infallibility?

There are just too many unanswered questions...

 

[Sola_Fide]

Could you relate this to the point you made earlier when you quoted 2 Corinthians 5:18-19?

I thought the reason you quoted it was because it says "world" and you were accusing Calvinists of not applying what it says to the whole world. But if you yourself don't apply what it says to the whole world, then what was your point?

JumboShrimp,

I'd actually like it if you responded to Erowe1's question here^^^. I think it was a really pertinent question.

Thanks.

EDIT: It was post #90.

 

[moostraks]

Paul used the term "fool" to describe his opponents in the book of Romans 1:22. The word "fool" is derived from the Greek word moros. It is translated there as "fools," but of course, it can also be translated as "moron".

Rude comments toward people who reject the Gospel are all throughout Scripture.





If you are talking about the responses that I have to what you've typed, then I can only say that whenever I try to apply the logic of what you are saying to a verse, you instantly start talking about my attitude.

And when I keep trying and trying to go back to the verse, your default argument against me is that I have a nasty attitude. Well, I might have an attitude...for sure...but it is also possible that I have a love for the truth and I am well within my bounds to ridicule the devil's schemes with as harsh and condemnatory language as I can muster. I don't think that I am Paul, but Paul did provide an example of how to defend the faith, and if he called people morons, I think I am within the bounds to use the language as well.

It's probably a good thing that you haven't ever read Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will because your modern politically correct standards would be REALLY offended. He was nasty!





Jesus verbally abused the Pharisees. Paul verbally abused the Judiazers and the Gnostics. Paul verbally abused Peter in the book of Galatians. In the defense of the gospel, it is not wrong to use abrasive or abusive language. In fact, I will go on record and say that the reason that some people don't get passionate and abrasive in debates about theology is because they don't care about God. You get passionate about things that you care about.





Let's go back to your thinking here ( I hope you don't immediately say I'm rude for trying to go back to logic and the text here.)

Your position (if I understand it correctly) is that man is a free moral agent and God cannot take man's free will away.

2nd Thessalonians 2 says:




There are 2 things that this verse says:

1. God sends delusions to men so that they will believe lies and will be condemned

and

2. God CHOSE the church in Thessolonica to be saved

How do these 2 things comport with the idea of "free will"?

Moros is not moron. Here is a good website to explain the difference for you:http://zondervan.typepad.com/koinonia/2009/01/mounce-21.html

I haven't rejected the Gospel. I have rejected your interpretations. Your doctrines and the Gospel are not synonymous. You are reaching with your reasoning for why you are being so abusive in your speech. This is not how we are told to handle ourselves:

2 Timothy 2:24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

Why do I waste my time and redirect you to acknowledge your behavior? Because I figure it is the easiest way for you to see how the doctrines you cling so tightly to as justification are corrupting your witness through how they manifest themselves in your behavior with others.

I have acknowledged your argument and addressed it each time, but you do not like my answers so it is a wasted effort. You do not even seem to read what it is I am writing.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I know you really love using the projection of me as the ignorant, bumbling fool. If you repeat a lie often enough do you think you can make it truth? I also know about the doctrines of grace is Calvinism only when it isn't Calvinism argument. What is true is the means by which you defend your doctrines is similar to Calvin's behavior and the majority of Calvinists are not as vile as those who claim what is defined as the "reformed biblical church" viewpoint.

So again, I must make myself worthy of your presence before you can impart your information? I am sure there is some formula for this, yes?

And the excuse for Calvin is he was a man of his time? So there is a sliding scale of who this tolerance is imparted to?

And again with the Roman Catholic bashing? I will tell you again, you may be insulting a number of people out here, but I am not one of them excepting from a standpoint of an outsider offended for them by your pathetic behavior in trying to stir up strife.

And this is why people who think they know something about Calvin and Servetus should cover their mouths and humble themselves, because what you have just demonstrated is that you know absolutely nothing. I mean, from what you typed...why am I supposed to respect anything you say?

1. Did you know that Servetus wanted his view of God's nature to be implemented in the state and he called for the execution of John Calvin (and he wanted Calvin's house and property after he was executed)?

2. Did you know that Servetus was wanted for execution by Rome because Rome declared heresy in regards to the Trinity worthy of execution too?

3. Did you know Rome burned Servetus in effigy after he was executed in Geneva?

4. Did you know that Servetus was captured by the Roman inquisition and then escaped and willingly traveled to Geneva because he wanted to die?

5. Did you know that Calvin had NOTHING to do with Servetus' execution, and he begged for a more lenient sentence to be applied?

6. Did you know that John Calvin was not even a citizen of Geneva and did not decide Servetus' fate AT ALL (it was voted unanimously by every Canton in Switzerland)?

7. Did you know that I disagree with the magesterial Reformation? Do you even know what the magesterial Reformation is?

8. Do you know that it is illogical to argue that "Calvin was a bad man, therefore the doctrines of grace are false"? Do you know what that fallacy is called?






Please educate yourself:

 

[acptulsa]

May I ask a question? How did this discussion spill out of the thread which had a completely descriptive thread title, and into a thread which, the more it's bumped the more it makes us look intolerant and exclusive? We are a political movement, here, and we don't help our cause by seeming not to be inclusive.

The other thread title was truth in advertising. We've got a million good reasons not to hijack this silly assed thread any longer.

EDIT: Now that SolaFide has gotten his requisite last word in this thread, can we switch back to the other one please? Thank you in advance for humoring me...

 

[Sola_Fide]

Moros is not moron. Here is a good website to explain the difference for you:http://zondervan.typepad.com/koinonia/2009/01/mounce-21.html

Technically, he's right. It is not appropriate to draw out the roots like that from the Greek, but stand back and understand the point I was making:
Whether Paul is calling you a fool or a moron, he's still calling you a mean name that violates your politically correct standards of politeness.

I haven't rejected the Gospel. I have rejected your interpretations. Your doctrines and the Gospel are not synonymous. You are reaching with your reasoning for why you are being so abusive in your speech. This is not how we are told to handle ourselves:

2 Timothy 2:24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

. You just quoted another verse that completely contradicts "free will". God GRANTS repentance that leads to a knowledge of the truth.

But anyway, anyone who ascribes salvation in any way to the free will of man does not believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, because the gospel declares what God has already perfectly accomplished for His elect. God's grace is free or else it is no longer grace. If God's grace can be demanded or worked for, then Christ died for nothing. The books of Romans and Galatians talk about these issues.

Why do I waste my time and redirect you to acknowledge your behavior? Because I figure it is the easiest way for you to see how the doctrines you cling so tightly to as justification are corrupting your witness through how they manifest themselves in your behavior with others.
I have acknowledged your argument and addressed it each time, but you do not like my answers so it is a wasted effort. You do not even seem to read what it is I am writing.

I don't like your answers because you never specifically answer the questions I ask. But I do understand how hard it is to explain Arminianism when you are confronted with the text of Scripture. I know because I used to do it as well, until logic and consistency drove me to what the Bible really teaches: free and sovereign grace.

 

[moostraks]

May I ask a question? How did this discussion spill out of the thread which had a completely descriptive thread title, and into a thread which, the more it's bumped the more it makes us look intolerant and exclusive? We are a political movement, here, and we don't help our cause by seeming not to be inclusive.

The other thread title was truth in advertising. We've got a million good reasons not to hijack this silly assed thread any longer.

EDIT: Now that SolaFide has gotten his requisite last word in this thread, can we switch back to the other one please? Thank you in advance for humoring me...

In respect for not bumping this vulgar thread title, have taken the discussion per your request to the less vile thread here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...t-Want-Free-Will-quot-by-Martin-Luther/page41



Answer to your question, SF/AB makes everything about his predestination. Sorry this got so far off track.

 

[acptulsa]

Saw that. Guess I should have thanked you all there before someone got tempted to bump this one again...

 

[S.Shorland]

I can't see how there can be a hell yet, 'the pit'.this must come as punishment from Jesus and the Saints as judges after Christ's second coming.