sky4it

horses: Here is a new post that I think is nice and friendly. Anyway, this is kind of where I was going with this thread, and observations about Calvism. Enjoy: The steering wheel in Calvinism, is Calvin’s foray into the foreknowledge of God. Because God possesses this trait, Calvin makes everything unconditional. All of the scriptures are viewed through this prism or microscope. Need some remission of sins? Turn the Calvinistic steering wheel over there to pick it up. Need some reconciliation? Turn the Cavinator mobile over there to pick that up too. Calvinistic thinking doesn’t like things which have people appropriate things by there own choice. (The will has been degraded) In Calvinistic thinking the promises of God become automatic objects picked up when you need them. It is very clear from scripture this is wrong thinking, otherwise why would scripture say, “Let us therefore fear, lest a promise being left us of entering...... Hebrews 4:1" Calvinists argue with the above, saying that the concepts above Christians are entitled too (which they are). The problem is with the point in time in which they are applied. With Calvinists its all the time because you need them for your behavior. The bible clearly indicates otherwise when it says. “ WHEREIN IN TIME PAST, you walked according to the course of this world......... Ephesians 2:2. In a nut shell, I am trying to show you what looks to me like the “black box”. Does anyone see the closed off learning process here? (Hence it’s looks like a cult) horses u may not get this last part since you are new here because many people here where in a different organization years ago: I made the statement that Calvin was more slippery than VPW. VPW claimed some supernatural revelation to get some of his building blocks. Calvin doesn’t do this. Calvin gets there through long philosophical arguments. He makes arguments that look pious but then jumps to statements based upon them, to reach his faulty conclusions. He talks about things like humility, wretched man concepts and such, then jumps to erroneous conclusions. That why I think this guy was so diabolical. (I could show you guys how he does this stuff, but then I have to quote a page of Calvin with the conclusion. I just don’t think anyone want to see all that.)

horses: Welcome to the forum gathering here. I note your point, and will try and be "nice and friendly" Sometimes its a bit problematic for me, I dont see that as always necessary for conversation but since you asked I will try. When my father was a kid, they through him in a ditch and ....ed in his face, (Sorry for bieng blunt) When I was a kid, they beat me up after school because my sister was mentally ill. So I dont remember things ever bieng real nice. Anyway since you asked I will work on it. I am a man, but there is no need to call me MR. I will try another post and see if it meets to your satifaction a little better. Regards

Garth and Sushi: Garth: I didnt even see the name, my mistake tks Sushi: see above post sushi u said: There's another possiblity here. Could it be, he wasn't interested in your particular version of God? Actually, the guy is a pretty good friend of mine. When I talk to him I am not preaching, just interested in how people in that part of the world view Christianity, other faiths and such. I am not someone trying to tell like him what to do. He is an interesting man, having lived on the North Vietnam and China border in the former DMZ. He has some Chinese ancestory in him, so he can explain that part of the world like no one can. For example, I learned from him how Communist leaders treated Tibetan Budists in China under Mao and today. He also taught me how North Vietnamese Communists treat Buddahists and other religions. The stuff I mentioned here was only stuff we crossed after he TAUGHT me some rather fascinating things. As far as your saying he wasn't interested in (my) version of God? I take that as an insult Sushi. The gospel isnt that diffiult to point out. The things I pointed out have stood for years in many Churches as basic stuff, except apparently with John Calvin. As far as this particular person goes? He's my freind, I dont insist he accept anything from me, but he doesn't get insulting if I talk about it either.

Garth: I think you took that first part of my post wrong. I didnt mean to say that for people like you and me historical records make accepting the gospel difficult. What I meant to say is that historical records wether talking about Calvin or the Christian crusades, present reasons for some that want nothing to do with the gospel. Thus, I was trying to reference the point that the Calvin historical record which you talked about, makes for problems greater than people just accepting Calvin. In fact they give reason for others to doubt Christianity all together. Garth u said: Then how would you suggest we reference our views, sky? Scientific material doesn't seem to fly to the religious side of the river either. No I agree 100 percent with you Garth they are great reference points. The only problem is the doctinal reasons for the Christian crusades of those people who held them and Calvinists, have to be undressed in order for people to see the true aspects of the gospel. Sorry I didnt say that better. You also make a great point about science because people of the gospel have to counterpoint athiesm. People of the gospel, have to say so much, to make someone see it. THUS WE NEED LOTS OF MINDS, LIKE YOURS AND MINE AND GUYS LIKE MICHAEL BEHE (a Doctor who is a athiesm refuter)AND MANY MORE :) Which begs a simple point. When people do things in Christs name that is wrong, it gets to be a MESS. Somehow I think thats what God meant by not using his name in vain.

It is interesting, Garth, that the thoughts of those who have no interest in the devine, that they seem to cite historical things to reference there view. (For example, the Christian Crusades are commonly cited by athiests) I talked to a Vietnamese guy just this week, and he cited the same, not because he is an atheist, but to reference the fact he is not very interested in God. By the way Garth, I thank you for your post. I think you are right that the behaviour around any individual who has certain beliefs must be examined. Abigail asked an interesting question at the beginning of this post and that is what is a cult? It is an important question. Garth added the following statement: A side note: Isn't one of the arguments of the anti-cult people use in determining a 'cult' is that they are not tolerant of differing points-of-view, especially when their Leader is openly questioned by dissidents? Doesn't this mean that a cult would be something where those that have the doctrine refuse to be taught or learn something new? (Taught: I dont mean condescendingly from the other party, just simple exchange of information. They will not acccept simple fact, thus won't be taught.) Garth you added "not tolerant" doesn't this mean wont be taught? Wether science or theology shouldnt we always grow in knowledge? Don't cults have a black box ideology thats closed off to others? Even the apostle Paul recognized the fact he could learn from others. It would seem to me that cults typically encompass "black box" doctrines. They are fixed. No new reference points are allowed. Isn't there an "increasing in the knowledge of God" concept that is missing?

Humorous post outfield very humorous: Years ago when the roof fell in on this Assemblies church I was attending, I walked out the door and as a friend of mine was leaving this is what he said, " Well (smirk smirk), we can go start our own place just like that one, all we need is a prophet, priest and King. I want to be King he said, laughing. " He was joking of course.

Garth, Abigail, Cynic & Bramble: Cynic: I'm about six feet so thats about average height which I dont think would make me a little fellow. Unless of course, I lived in Somalia where they are really tall. :) Garth: I appreciate your post and note the points. I read some of the historical stuff. Still, there are others who say that record isnt right. I thought to bring that into the discussion would be an extra large load. I'm more intrigued by how the doctrine is played out today in actual practice. It is, at least with those they call hyper Calvinists an actual practice. After reading some of the Micheal Servetus' stuff, something tell me your right, maybe he was the "elect" and he didnt need the uncondital component to get it going. :) Bramble: see above post u said: Where common sense and an understanding for the need to check those powers seems to abide, I do think many churches are fine places to go for spiritual fulfillment, but sometimes some of their beliefs cause all manner of strife. I 100 percent agree. What I appreciate about Abigail so much, is that if your saying stuff she puts the "common sense litmus test" to what your saying. That type of perspective, I think, keeps us healthy and I very much agree. With respect to your last paragraph about rules and stuff in churches to keep destruction from happening, yeah, thats where its suppose to take us. The Calvinist methodology however is far different. You could have in a Calvinstic church those that practice Calvinism and those that practice the bible from a different view. Ie (Two different groups operating under different principles, one Calvinistic one not.) My view is that the Calvinistic practioners way of thinking is destructive. Abigail: you said: But words that sound harsh often have the opposite effect of that which we are seeking. My problem (if its mine) is that I don't know how to say things that I'm thinking without being direct. When I try to do that Abigail, I end up bieng to verbose and with excessives of adjectives that water down the point. Look at it from the point of how politicans engage arguement. I think some times that the word "diplomatic" its just a word for people who are long winded. Long winded arguements are the kind that cause exederin headaches ( I think)

Bramble: Bramble & others : A couple other things might be helpful, which I did not explain. Calvinism has its strongest foothold in the Presbyterian Church. Still, there may be Presbyterian preachers, who don’t preach the stuff. It’s not at all an only Presbyterian problem. In fact, there may well be Lutherans who are practioners and other denominations who have(and practice) the stuff. It’s INDIVIDUALLY specific, both with its preachers and those that practice it. Undoubtably there are many places where Calvinist books are in the church and haven’t been dusted off for 30 years or more. With respect to you, I would estimate 1 in 10 people or families attending a church, are window shopping people. (I do that too) You wouldn’t see the results of Calvinism, unless you were deeply involved with those that practice it. Here is the other thing. There are people who go to these churches, (you know the ones who are disinterested and there attendance is marginal) who go to these places for years, and are not involved in the practice of it. To them, its boring, because they are not involved with the participants. They are the innocent bystanders. Hope that’s helpful.

Bramble: In fact the contraption is so slick, you may not see any controlling or demanding features at all. It simply depends on who is running the levers on the contraption. It works to circumvent the protocol of Ephesians 5:5 and others which talk about those three things (That’s its major component and what it does today). The contraption does have control and demanding features built into it however. The contraption is so sophisticated that Calvanist’s haven’t even worked all the levers. (I pointed that out a little in the model) They don’t even know themselves what a machine it is and all the stuff it can do. VPW he was almost a bush leaguer compared this guy. Here’s the reason why: I think VPW never wanted to get too big. He wanted to keep the size at a manageable level for himself. (Still he sent people out working to keep them busy and in the org.) Here’s the proof: VPW taught off the wall things like the 4 crucified and other stuff, to insult mainstream and keep the organizational numbers down for control. In addition, the off the wall VPW stuff was a lever in itself, withwhich, people could NOT just move to a similar organization because they were too different. If VPW didnt do it this way he didnt have enough levers to control the organization. See,with VPW, the control feature on his contraption, was stuff mainstream dispised him for, THEREFORE YOU NEEDED VPW. This guy didn’t do that, because he wanted to run the entire show. Ie(Somebody called him the Pope of Geneva)

wrdsandwrks thk lol Abigail: u said: I guess I thought modern Calvinists were Presbyterians...and many of them apple pick their doctrines to suit their own consciences, like most other denomination people seem free to do. Some of this may be true. I think I said early on in the post that Most Calvinists are Presbyterians but not all Presbyterians are Calvinists. This means 2 things: (There may be some Presbyterians churches that have nothing to do with Calvinism and you may have Calvinistic churches unrelated to the Presbyterians at all.) Therefore I only used the doctinal ideology in reference to Calvinists. In addition, there may be some bible believing Presbyterians. :) I need your comment on one thing Abigail. When I was 19 they were having a big Way International symposium downtown Minneapolis. My Lutheran freind and I thought about going. I thought, maybe I should run up to the stage and warn them. If I would have done that would there been an Abigail in the crowd I could have pulled out? I can't get Oaksphere out of my head. 20 years later he's an athiest? If the people over at TWI had any sense of conscience, they would sell the farm, come out and find people like Oaksphere and pay him his due. He and others deserve it. Isnt a person who goes into a Christian ministry suppose to come out with Christ? His story , for me, it never goes away. Its hurts me to see a man like that. I read Calvin, Abgail, and I process this stuff. Its like a gigantic storm cloud moving in to discount the gospel and hurt people. Thus, you see my reaction.

Abigail: u said: Sky, I am curious as to why you have such a beef with these people? Surely not all who follow Calvin think they can just go out and do horrible things? I think its horrible stuff Abigail I really do. The analogy is if VPW was the Kansas City Royals of Major league cults ( A team that hasnt done well in years) these guys are the New York Yankess of Cults. Having said that, I think I will let it go with my model, because you mentioned it. If someone wants me to defend it, I dont think I need to because I think the facts are self-expanatory. So this is it. :)

Having a model which explains the workings of an organization is helpful to explain its workings. A long time ago I equated TWI to the Frankenstein Model, in order to be “nice” and “fair” I will use a little more tactful analogy, which describes the workings of Calvinism. Like all good cults, they even have there acronyms. Calvinism incorporates concepts like savinggrace and irresistablegrace and Sovereignty features. Thus, they become symbolic of the Calvinistic world where living bible principals become reduced to objects. (The word acronyms may be a bit of a stretch, but I have no other word to describe something that is an entirely new concept) Here’s a model ( If anyone is still interested on how the Calvinistic Cult works:) The entire ideology essentially functions like a big semi-trailor truck. It’s the pre-destination or UnconditionlelectionSemiTruck. Inside the truck, it comes complete with the Calvinistic savinggracemobile. The Calvinistic savinggracemobile has a trailor attached to it called the Calvinistic irresistablegracetrailor. Now, because your Totally Depraved or Totally Unable; the UnconditionalelectionSemiTruck comes around the corner, to take care of all your problems. It does so by the following action: The Savinggracemobile comes off the UCSemiTruck. You don’t even make up your own (will) to get in and go for the ride. This is because your will is so degraded by the Cult model, you don’t even have much of one left. Thus, the savinggracemobile, because of it’s part of the UCSemiTruck ideology does it for you because your will is the T in Tulip its Totally Unable. So what the Savinggracemobile does, is run you over, and throw you on the mobile for the ride. The Calvinistic irresistablegrace trailor is also self automating. Since your will is so degraded when the trailor appears? Its simply irresistable. The actual model is complete with lots of levers and buttons and stuff. Levers like operating grace and non-operating grace, that Calvin discussed and knew what they where; based on the writings of other philosophers. There has to be a gaymobile attached somewhere here to the savinggracemobile, because God gives people over to things like that who have ideologies that are heresy driven. The UnconditionalelectionSemiTruck, works perfectly because its all based on Sovereignty features all of which are already predetermined. It’s a self-containing ideological black box. I found a website which is complete with many authors who explain what is wrong with Calvinism. http://lionofjudah.tribulationforces.com/q.../calvinism.html Some of the authors are well known. Noteworthy is the fact, the Calvinistic model has been under assault from others for years. The views there seem to be pretty good stuff.

DotMatrix: In my community, we have two real huge Assembly of God churches. In one of them, there is no such practice. In the other one, I have seen it happen but its very infrequent. I think there are probably great variation in assembly practice accross the board. When I say I didnt think it was harmful, there may be a church where it is, but i havent seen it. I am not condoning the practice. I really dont know much about it. About all I can tell you is that I dont think its Assembly doctinal practice. Someone here mentioned somewhat that some people need emotional expereince , and that perhaps is what that is (for some) I cant rule out the concept from what I have heard from the former Cathyrn Kuhlman days as a realistic experience. From that perspective if someone expresses themselves that way, I just dont see how it harms anyone. I am a Lutheran so I really cant give you advice to the specifics and was just trying to give you my two cents worth.

Thought you might find it interesting that the Pentacostal (Assemblies) Church I attended years ago didnt have a practice of slain in the spirit. personally I think its a harmless behaviour which neither degrades or harms anything about the Gospel. Some charismatic churches have come under attack recently not so much for this practice but for healing practices. I am thinking of Benny Hinn ministries. There was a feature story on TV questioning his healings one time. Benny Hinn, as most of you might know, is a former protege of Cathryn Kuhlman. I have heard her old preaching a few times. I sincerely believe Cathryn had the gift of healing working in her ministry. I cant vouch for Benny because I know little about him. I do kind of like the person, Benny Hinn. I think he is an earnest and sincere man.

One final thought on Calvinism: Calvinists love to quote this passage: John 6:44 which says " No man can come to me, except the father which has sent me draw him...." they use this scripture to float their theory of Unconditional Election. in doing so they forget the other "draw me" features of the Father which say: John 12:32 " If I be lifted up from the earth will draw all 'men' (italics) unto me" In doing so they run completely contrary to the wisdom of God features of righteousness and the salvation passages of Romans 10:6-10. What they do is pull Christ down. I was looking for Calvinist websites to see if I could find posters of there faith, the ones I found have members and they hardly ever post. Thats because they have there black box and dont have any thing new to talk about. It's not a living way, its a dead faith they have. Yep Im sure its a cult.

Abigail: you said: When I can get to the place within myself and when I can find the place outside myself, where I can look at the PEOPLE instead of the organization, where I can find a place with people who don't expect me to conform to the organization. Exactly, my experience in churches hasnt left me anymore disaffected than your either tho Abigail. I think what that says is that most organizations exist to perpetuate the organization. Still, I think one can find a few of Gods people everywhere. I mean, there's here at GS, some real warm hearts, which means people who left TWI, some became real strong people. Identical experience to the one I had where the roof came off at a Assembly of God. u said: I think TWI has left me with a very precise one from the sense that I seem to sense "danger" in all organized religion now. Gee uh no kidding Abigail. (I'm laughing) This thread wouldnt have went two pages without you. Let me tell you why. You always always always :) , make bible slinging verse quoters , and doctrinal slingers put there postion to good hard application. I have never seen anybody do that quite like you. You keep people honest Abigail and that terrific. If people are listening to what you say? It expands the conversation in a terrific way, because it makes someone ask if there is any balance in what someone is saying. And here's the thing Abby, some doctrine, it really is non-sensical, and the fact is you always point some of that out specifically with you, if it makes sense or not. When I was a freshman at a Lutheran College I took 15 credits of biblical Greek for only one reason, I had to think my way through VPW stuff and I thought to figure out all this guys angles. Turns out? I was wrong, I never needed the Greek at all for one reason: VPW and his Greek that was part of the disguise. Earlier in this thread once when I posted Calvin, you said that you need more to understand the context and I was thinking, with Calvin where does one stop and start? Heres the humorour part to me: Earlier today I was reading more Calvin, he was talking about two kinds of grace (I forget I think it was operating and co-operating grace). I am thinking to myself, there probably arent very many people who are going to think in these terms, who want to seperate the two for one reason. Its sick, and here the thing Abigail, that sickness I think its funny but it has to be part of the card trick. There just aint no other stinkin reason for it. We used to have a saying when I worked as a CPA, when you dont know what else to say, baffle em with your ..... That was VPW and that is Calvin. LOL

wrdsandwrks: thks, nice to know I could start a thread of interest. Ditto on the learning from others. cman & anotherdan: great posts, sort of like the good man out of the heart brings good things. It seems to me that all theology/belief systems/ religion produce something. This is true ( I think) wether one is talking about Billy Graham or the Jim Jones Ghiana cult. Its fun to put a measuring stick on stuff and ask, what is this? No?

gregarious, gregious. Yeah, well, everyone don't hold it against me to much, I was just trying to sound philosphical and smart like John Calvin. Also I don't go back much and correct my spelling errors either, I'm just in too much of a mad rush most days. In re-thinking this a little' wrdsandwrks" pointed out and wisely so; that his understanding of a Calvinist soceity is they are very "puritanical". The upshod of the matter is, if it gets people to the target of "conformed into his image" and "holy and without blame before him in love" thats a good thing. For me, if I was working this stuff, I would be out in left field chasing around girls in string bikini's. When I read Calvin, I am left with the impression that, John Calvin doesn't think the work of the Holy Spirit can go on without John Calvin.

cynic: See also above post to you; this addresses when you posted this: you said: Typical of sky4it's posts: Petulant but unsubstantiated accusations. Here are the substantiated links: This one from John Calvin: http://www.reformed.org/books/index.html 5. Different kinds of "will" and of "freedom" in the church fathers In general, they are wont to place under the free will of man only intermediate things, viz., those which pertain not to the kingdom of God, while they refer true righteousness to the special grace of God and spiritual regeneration. The author of the work, "De Vocatione Gentium," (On the Calling of the Gentiles,) wishing to show this, describes the will as threefold, viz., sensitive, animal, and spiritual. The two former, he says, are free to man, but the last is the work of the Holy Spirit. What truth there is in this will be considered in its own place. Our intention at present is only to mention the opinions of others, not to refute them. When writers treat of free will, their inquiry is chiefly directed not to what its power is in relation to civil or external actions, but to the obedience required by the divine law. The latter I admit to be the great question, but I cannot think the former should be altogether neglected; and I hope to be able to give the best reason for so thinking, (sec. 12 to 18.) This one from Auther Pink: http://www.reformed.org/books/pink/index.html these considerations and influences, and if the effect, it must be their servant; and if the will is their servant then it is not Sovereign, and if the will is not Sovereign, we certainly cannot predicate absolute "freedom" of it. Calvin says" directed not to what its power is in relation to civil or external actions, but to the obedience required by the divine law. The latter I admit to be the great question Calvin says he questions the obedience of the will required by devine law. I said Calvin degrades the will, he just did it. Pink also degrades the will. In both authors the subject is VOLUMOUS. It is not, in any other Christian work. Thus, I think I substatiated my claim that Calvinism, degrades the will to avoid scripture. ie the sctripture i cited in Hebrews. I also just did what I did not want to do which is recite lengthy disertations. The thing is Cynic I could go on all day doing this but I shouldnt, I got 15 credits of Biblical Greek, but Calvin is not a Greek dancer like VPW, Calvin is a philosophical dancer like Aristole.

cman & another dan: Terrific posts i enjoyed them. Abigail: Thanks cynic: u said: Scripture (Acts 13:48) indicates the Gentiles of Antioch of Pisidia who believed Paul and Barnabas’s preaching were those who had been ordained to eternal life. Scripture -- unapologetically -- declares (Romans 9 ) that God has mercy on whom he will, that God hardens whom he will, that God has a right within himself to take one person out of humanity for a vessel unto honor and another out of the same humanity for a vessel unto dishonor. There is a general call to faith in the declaration of the Gospel, but it is those whom God has appointed to be recipients of his mercy who receive and respond in faith. You falsely accuse Calvin of pitting election against faith, yet the doctrine of unconditional election holds faith as something brought about (through effectual calling) in those God has appointed to life. It is you, not Calvin, who has pitted election and faith against one other. With to your first paragraph, the creed of a belief system cannot be based upon what God will do for one party and not for another soley based upon God's election: true he hardened himself against Pharoh, but it was based upon his hardness of heart. (Not unsurprisingly Jesus taught that Moses permitted what? Divorce because of the hardness of there hearts. The core parameters for New Testament doctrine which I have recited repeated are: No Whormongers (Fornication and Adultry) and No Covetousness. My previous posts are ripe with bible quotes suporting this. At no place in New Testment writings does God say Election or Predestination circumvent this process. In addition if there are NO parameters what exactly is one getting saved from? In Acts 13:48, I dont know how it is you work the word "ordained" into the election pre-destination model, it does not fit to me. Re-read the Post where I posted Calvin early on in the thread. Calvin places election or predestination ahead of faith. I believe this is the way it is placed in the actual model also at the Calvin website right? No its is not me who pitted the two against each other, in fact, cynic, I never even thought of the two as having any need to be mentioned in unision, until I read Calvin. Again with respect to the topic of unconditional election, I discussed I beleive with Abigail (I think) that if salvation were based soley on that basis alone, how could God be just in front of the Unelect? Hence, one must have parameters that indicate things like "pharohs hardness of heart" Romans 3: 5,6 bring this point PRESCISELY INTO VIEW. "Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) God forbid. For then how shall God judge the world? I have posted volumously already on the subject, and made the only logical conclusion one can come to on New Testment parameters, neccessary for proper thinking. In my last post to wrdsandwrks, I posted the rational why I didnt want add a ton too it. There is not reason to do so . I just start being way too overboard, what I have posted is enough. I am not the first one to broach the subject. There is a book called, Why I am not a Calvanist, and some other material, I could mention but I have already stated my views in lenghy fashion. Besides all that, I kinda think I need to visit with Abigail and Rascal and CO and havent talked to Oakspear in at least 3 years. Also lets face it cynic, doctrinal disertations which are too lengthy are counterproductive. I think I must have made my point many times.

Abigail: wrdswrks, cman see above post you said: Awe Sky, you always have us basement dwellers. I think most people at times wonder about the purpose and meaning of their lives. But, in reading the above paragraph, it also occurs to me, is it the NUMBER of people who remember you that counts or the impact you had on their lives that is the most important? And I am right on board with you on that Abigail, 100 percent. I especially love the part about us "basement dwellers." I have taken that to new extremes in recent years, and continually tell myself that the view from here is better because its a clear shot at whats happening up at the top> LOL As far as number of people go? yeah i agree it is unimportant, quality conversation (like here at GS) vs quantity is better. It makes me think back to my Evangelical/Assemblies days when all the rumbling was about getting big big and bigger. The more people involved the more you are suppose to measure your success? I think too thats rubbish. When many people in all the worlds biggest trumpet is to be a STAR because that is the measurement of success? yeah I think thats wrong. Problem is thats the stuff if you know too many people are always trying to feed to you. I think we become what we eat. Thats why I think the Bible cautions to a limited degree about eating with covetous people, those things they are wanting become infectious. Perhaps that relates somewhat to the covetous issue of this thread, which one can make an arguement if any churches only view of success is the population of its church, thats wrong. There is a problem with that though, not with just churches but in ordinary life, thats what most people are striving for big big and bigger. I think thats why God is God, I mean if somebody had something to say that is that important, God will get that message out. ( Does that mean I have nothing to offer? Ooops I shouldnt have said that)

wrdsandwrks,cman, abigail: Abigail: see next post Cman: Enjoyed your post thanks Wrdsandwrks: you said: Hi Sky, I hear what you're saying here, it's just that in my experience I haven't seen the Calvinistic doctrine play out this way, in other words I haven't heard of any Presbyterians running around saying that you can sleep around... Have you? Your right, I dont have a myopic view of Calvanist or any other organization and what can happen in there bedroom etc al. Its true also of course that any organization can have a breakdown in one place, so finding a breakdown in one Calvinist church may also not be fair. This has happened in a Lutheran Church and other ones in my own community. I certainly hope your right as far as the Puritan concepts rooted deep in these people. It's just I think the doctrine is very symptomatic. I had an opportunity to look over some of Pink's work on the Soveriegnty of God. Nothing there at all changes my mind. I could sit and quote from that book and say why, but after a while it just starts to look a little distasteful, rehasing the same arguement ( Now I suppose I could sum up in a couple of sentences, but I think that would be going to far) I was thinking of a scripture which talks about stating your opinion a couple times. I graped that one once and some proverbs that relate and began some years ago to apply that to ordinary life and business dealings. For example, on just about any topic, if I start rehashing the same argument , I find I just start looking like a brute force and at a minimum, distasteful. Not unlike TWI for most people in this room, I had a 4-5 year journey in an Independent Assembly church where the roof came off and the church collapsed. I see a value in that for people in this room and my own experience for one big reason: We all jumped out of where we were, because we wanted something better. I think that in that, GOD will reward us for a good reason, we were seekers. The thing I like about that wrdsandwrks, is that if people like you and I did and others in this room did that, that shows me one big thing. That seeking God is a criteria for all people in order that they might find. True the journey for both you and I and those in this room has been perilous and costly. The skinny is for me, if people want the truth all they have to do is seek , just seeking God and Jesus who are in heaven gets the job done. Thus, its not my job or responsibility to correct others except out of love and showing what my beliefs are and where my faith is as opportunity allows here at Greasespot. Therefore, I cant get bent over others doctrines and man is that a good feeling.

Rainbow Girl: thank you from the bottom of my heart, and your right, conversation always remains civil here. Where else on the planet can you talk to people of multi- different faiths, have a few athiests too and have everybody get along. thanks

Imagine: I suppose if one ran out of bounds with the TU in the Tulip one would have some guilt then huh? What do the GGG actually mean then, that for whatever the offense there is grace? Because you can't have guilt without offense can you? I think the topic of grace for guilt (if you mean sin produced the guilt) was abundantly discussed by Paul and narrowed to one conclusive point which was: What shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God Forbid. (Romans etc etc) Does God want gratitude from a willing sinner? ( I speak only if you mean sin caused the guilt) Well thats pretty clear in this passage: Hebrews 10:26 "For if we sin willfully after that we have recieved a knowledge of the truth there remainth no more sacrifice for sins" and the punishment for the "willful person" Hebrews 10:29 YOU WANT TO SEE HOW BARBARIC CALVINISTIC THOUGHT IS? They dont like that one, it takes the steering wheel out of there car. So what do they do? They say man doesnt have a free will on the topic. They degrade "the will" to degrade the message of the bible. But it aint just Hebrews Imagine, that gets it right. Ephesians 5:5 "For this you know (well a Calvinist obviously doesn't know because they dont have to do it right? And thats exactly what they want to say on judgement day and the card trick won't work), that NO WHOREMONGER, NOR UNCLEAN PERSON, NOR COVETOUS MAN WHICH IS AN IDOLATER, HATH ANY INHERITANCE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND CHRIST" Same message I quoted from acts with one more amazing fact, whoremongers and idolaters are "unclean" in NT parameters. Its all over in Pauls writings too. Only two places I know where it tells people what God's will is in NT are very specific which are: I Thess. 4:3 "this is the will of God your SANTIFICATION, that you should abstain from FORNICATION, and I Thess 5:18 "In everything give thanks for this is the will of God..." thankfullness is a good antidote for covetousness. So i suppose Imagine this makes me a legalist right? Well , I already addressed that in this thread. There is nothing legalistic about those two New Testament concepts unless someone dont want to do them. I said it once before under this thread. Call this what it is a spade, a spade. This is a fornicators dream doctrine. They might as well put on the negligee's of there hookers or there affair laiden women, on those clothes, the words John Calvin. Somebody's gotta get up pretty early in the morning to fool an alley cat like me. Thats what this stuff is.

wrdsandwrks: It's not like it makes any difference what I think, but its fun discussing the topic with you. Jahovas Witness isnt mainstream, but it has many members and mainstream considers them a cult. Mormonism isnt mainstream, but it has many members and mainstream considers them a cult. To be Mainstream, about all you need is to accept two creeds and the trinity (which I do by the way) and your in. Calvinism is a whole different shoe than Mainstream and it works something like this: Imagine this situation playing out in a courtroom between a judge and a Calvinist: Judge: you understand the charges against you how do you plead? Calvinist : Your honor I plead Total Depravity because I am Totally Unable to help my depravity Judge: Come again? Calvinist: Theres some good news though your honor, sometime ( and I dont know when) my Unconditional Election will kick in and make me just right Judge: you are kidding right? Calvinist: No, your honor The Sovereign Ones Irresistable Grace and Saving Faith do the job for me. Judge: Well in that case, case dismissed. There isnt a judge on the planet that will accept that and yet the Almighty God and Jesus are suppose to at judgement? This isnt a misreprentation of the underpinnings of "the program" either wrdsandwrks, this is the ideological underpinnings. I think its UnAmerican. I respectfully disagree with you, I think it is a Cult.