sky4it

Hi Oakspear: Been a while. Still hanging out with Charles Darwin, man have i got some peanuts for you. Anyway good to see you. I think I am going to stay away from the seed of the serpent stuff, I am still trying to prove that Calvinism is about one ring above Darwin. Anyway, I read the Darwin Descent of Man crap, (at least what was legible) , man what a racist colony Darwin started. OOOOps Anyway good too see yah Oakspear.

Abigail: Thank you, I needed that. You have helped me in more ways than I can explain. I have two friends, (good freinds but I havent spoken to them in a while) both who are Jewish. Sometime, I think you would find those stories interesting. Off topic, but here I go. I here this song on the radio, as I flip between rock, and gospel music on the gospel radio. It's called "Remember me" and I dont know the author. Everytime, or every other time, it brings some tears to my eyes. I read John or Mathew and see a lonely man, who wether weeks or the night before tells his disciples. "Remember Me", and try as I might, I cant get it out of my mind. For me, I identify with that for one reason. I see a man, who thought he would be forgotten. I see man who thought his life may have no purpose. In that, I see myself, because if I died tommorow, the attendance would be marginal, and I wonder what is my purpose? Still, I see a man who before death and wondering if anyone would remember him, loved me. And even if I wanted to, a I cant deny such love for one reason: his reassurance wasnt any greater than mine if he thought they would forget him. In that somehow, i dont fear death or anything related that comes my way. You know Abigail, you really are, too nice too special. Some people are really evil in this world. There are people in this world that are so evil, that they make guys like VPW look like a picnic waitress for them. Some are that bad.

Abigail: Wrdsand wrks: see post above for website u requested. Abigail: And I probably should preface this by saying I have been apart from my wife for over 2 years and have a little problem with Bible toters who waddle into other peoples houses and take off there pants. No, I am not pointing my finger at the Calvinists, at least not yet. Any doctrine thats ok with that, however is a little to big for my stomach. you said:Abigail: I also draw a lot on what I have experienced in life and what others have shared with me about their own experiences. I think if the Bible were the only tool by which we could come to know God (as good a tool as it may be) there would be millions upon millions of people who simply could not ever know God because they never saw the book we call the Bible. Therefore, I have to conclude that there are many paths/tools by which we can come to know Him. And I agree with that Abigail, but thats Biblical too, sort of a paraphrase of Roman 2: 6-16, While one can make the arguement that in our country were the bible is available that point is moot, (and many Christian and other ministries assert it forcefully) one cannot make that arguement in places where its not allowed. Excellent point. With regard to your point about love and how I define it, oh I dunno know, I suppose it would take a cup of coffee and a three hour meal to explain myself. With respect to your view of people and what your concept of love is: So your saying that in all your experience your love has grown. Terrific and thats how its suppose to be , I guess. I just hope mine is doing the same. you said: Yes, I can see where it would be such. I can also see where it could lead one to despair in thinking they were not chosen of the elect and nothing they could do would ever change that and make them pleasing to God. Excellent point and one I never considered. You also touch breifly on the Calvin card trick throughout your entire post which is: If some are elect and some are not and thatis the only basis upon which salvation is derived, (and thats what unconditional election is) how can God be just? But like most people who drop the ball squarely on Gods shoulders, thats what they love, it doesn't have to go any further than that. Thus it entirely negates the cross, you know, put to death the deeds of the flesh etc etc. And even if it doesn't, (because Calvinists clearly have some philosphical counter arguements in reverse) at a minimum it cheapens it. I want your opinion Abigail on one verse of Scripture which in context with Salvation, I have never heard one teaching but I have thought a lot about it over the last 10 years. Its is this verse in Romans 10: 6,7 right before the salvation which says: But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart Who shall ascend into heaven (that is , to bring Christ down) 7) or, who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ from the dead) Two points this speaks to me (and some others but for brevity sake) 1) the wisdom of God's salvation is not herearchial or about who gets to go where, its is instead about having a living salvation, so when you plug scripture with arguements of who goes where you completey miss the boat. 2) "To bring Christ down" part of those statements. Making arguements about who gets in and who doesnt is done for precisly this reason, they want to bring Christ down. They don't trust the fact that God and Jesus are living entities who make decisions based on things out of there control. And thats the P in TULIP. They want it on a shelf where its safe and out of the Almighties control, and really dont want anything to do with the "living it out salvation" which out to be enjoyed and embraced. Notice Abigail that this scripture talks about what the wisdom of Righteousness, faith and Salvation are. That wisdom, is something that everyone in the world thinks about from time to time when people that arent saved ask why? So what I am saying is, those two scriptures are pretty significant and very deep. Whats your take on those two scriptures?

wrdsandwrks: I too enjoyed that CS Lewis quote. Here's the website with the Colson quote http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darkages.html The discussion starts in the fourth paragraph down under the heading New Barbarianism and its roots. My point is simply this: I dont have a problem bieng in my 40's boiling down philosphical debates. Colson makes the arguemnent they are counterproductive to Christian thought. My problem ( and I think its a more experience related one) is how they effect young people. When I was 18, and wanted to know the truth of the Gospel, I felt I might have to consume a virtual library to "get it" The other thing is lets face it, some of this stuff isnt an easy read. At that time I felt like a nut trapped in a shell. The thing that got me out of that was a young Petancostal women, who explained to me (from scripture) that the "letter killeth but the spirit giveth life" Wether you take that to mean the spirit gives the letter life or me personally, (its seems to have application in both) it helped me to disolve libraries as sources of truth. A lot of people, and I think Abigail addressed that point, either dont or cant deal with philosphical debates. It confuses them. On to Calvin: Thats precisely my point with his writings: they are annoyingly, persistently adjective laden to the point of never really being direct about the point. People read that stuff, and think "Sounds pretty smart to me, must be right" And this is where I think the Apostle Paul painstakingly said to avoid philosphical arguements so as not to confuse those who dont or cant get through it. In addition the point, is the philosphical disguise. Thats part of the card trick. LMAO

wrdsandwrks: I am not sure I agree with Spurgeon on the two not being able to converge in the earth on an anvil. Whatever the heck that means, but he does seem to diverge from Calvin on free will and responsiblity. wrdsandwork I hope you had a chance to review my post to you at the end of the previous page.

Double post sorry.

REpost of Spurgeon on Calvin minus the joke, I deleted on this thread in error Arrrrrrrggggggg Anyway the point is Spurgeon wasnt all the way in on the Calvin bandwagon: Charles Spugeon on Calvin I do not think I differ from any of my Hyper-Calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. I do not hold any less than they do, but I hold a little more, and, I think, a little more of the truth revealed in the Scriptures. Not only are there a few cardinal doctrines, by which we can steer our ship North, South, East, or West, but as we study the Word, we shall begin to learn something about the North-west and North-east, and all else that lies between the four cardinal points. The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. For instance, I read in one Book of the Bible, "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Yet I am taught, in another part of the same inspired Word, that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is foreordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.

wrdsandwrks: Yeah, I enjoy it too. I think stuff like this is interesting to people like you and me mainly because we having seen the rather damaging effects of mistaugtology. In reading your philosohical post, yeah its rather interesting, I felt like I was reading something out of Kant or Renae Decartes. This interesting thing is my freind that, Chuck Colson, a man I really respect, argues that guys like Renae Decartes are counterproductive to Christian thought. I personlly dont agree with that tack, because I think DeCarte was a Christian, Colsons points center on having issues which engage simple debate in terms of "self" which creates a rather humanistic viewpoint which is counterproductive. Colson makes a good point, but I certainly don't think its one that is all that harmful, but perhaps harmful from the standpoint most people can't boil philosphy into simpler concepts. Not oddly Calvin's writings are very very philophical as you do well to point out. Where the fireworks really hit the fan in Calvinism with me is in this: Calvinism, in my view, says that God who is Soverign with all his foreknowlegde, must know outcomes hence he is responsible for those outcomes But there is a huge problem with this. They have been warned warned warned and warned again, wether through biblical speak or otherwise that we are not cognitive about. Now, this brings into view another interesting perspective about the grace and kindness of God. God. who knows all things, is very very very very careful, to point out what is tolerable and what is not. This is not without purpose. He does it so that he can say things like in Romans 1, "therefore they are without excuse" In simpler terms, what you have is overgrown kids who refuse to heed proper behavior, and God doesnt want to play Santa Claus with a mop anymore. In more severe terms and according to Jesus, murder or attempted of the Almighty and his Son Jesus is not permitable behavior. Gee those are hard concepts eh? Wrdsandwrks: I think one of the most common mistakes made about God is that because he is kind and good and "nice" so to speak, one can always waffle well on judgement. But this point is addressed abundantly clear in the New and Old Testament. Romans talks about "taking heed lest you also be cut off" and again in Hebrews "How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation. You see there is an endgame with the Almighty no question, and banking behavior that runs rough shod over this stuff, is in fact tempting God. I will be looking reading your other website posts as well . Again thanks

Abigail, another dan & others: Thats what I love about this place. People are a little sharper than the quasi this is what I was taughtology. The rebutals are well thought out, and there is no rancor, spewing or the like from those who have different ops. You guys are superb. ( As a sidebar note, I think former TWI members shortchange themselves, both in what they have learned, and whatsoever the eternal reward might be) You guys are superb. I mean where else on the planet can you get veiws and counterviews from various religions like this? Another Dan, Of course I do not mind if you change the focus to the things you expressed, because that is sort of the end run of Calvinism anyway. (They gotta keep it going) YEAH BABY (One of these days I will share with you my one and only UU experience and it has something to do with those of the Jewish faith) With that said, ANOTHER DAN, I want to address some of the things you said. Since you and some of the UU people typically talk off the page of the Bible, allow me to do the same. I believe that the Bible and everything that is going on here is apocolyptic. Some parables by Jesus which are seldom cited, cite those who were trying to kill the king and the kings son and steal the kingdom. (You guys have read this stuff) Jesus also talked about a place of "outer darkness". The Bible talks about the eternal damnation, eternal judgement, and finally in revelation being tormented in the presence of his holy angels for ever and ever. As such there are eternal "seperation issues" and more importantly different bodies given as a reward. (I Corinthians 16 I beleive) The thing about judgement is, wether its 50 years of seperation or 500, I would rather not face judgement of any kind. The eternal scope of judgement may well be beyond our capacity to know, but cerainly within our capacity to understand why, thus we are accountable for it. This however brings into view the concept of death and what is it? Since there is a resurection of the "just" and "unjust" according to Jesus, he cannot mean eternal lifelessness. ( Although I dont think you can rule that out for padoephiles and such because what exactly is there left to save?) Anyways death, can encompass a loss of some sort of capacity, which I think it does. And thats the danger Dan I really dont believe that God is going to stand around save people and allow them to mount assault after assault against himself. The book of Revelation talks about being hurt of "second death." Now how could someone die here a second time if they hadnt been here one time before? It's my belief that when Jesus descended into hell, he offered the free gift to the devil and his angels who got that one free pass. But if you go into the book of Revelation you find "futuristic" that the devil and his angels are cast back down into the earth. Thus, they had to take another swipe at trying to destroy the Almighty. Now bearing that it mind, eternal judgement seems a little more "just." Seperation from God, or Seperation from access to God, is the judgement for some of these. The Bible concludes this, what is missing of course is the cognitive reason because God is "always good." In being good however there is a fault line, clearly spoken of by Jesus, as "depart from me you workers of iniquity" The question is is it permanent or temporary? In fact its permanent Dan, for one reason, they don't want the plan of God. Its in there pride or genes so to speak, otherwise they wouldnt continue the attack on the Almighty and his son Jesus Christ. Back to Calvin: Calvinists don't want anything to do with this type of topic. They want to simply say to the Almighty on judgement day, well thats "human nature". They want to simply move back in to God's Kingdom, with that circular argument in tow. They are precisely what the book of Jude describes as "for there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained unto this condemnation turning the grace of our God into lascivousness and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. Notice it says unawares. People dont know this is what they are really about. The doctrine is that well disguised. You see they have a hook in the Almighty's nose, and its there out pitch with him. It's a nasty curveball which really spits in the Almighties face, and it will never fly with him and his Son who are in heaven. In a certain sense, it is worse than VPWisms, at least with VPW if you didnt see him coming you got to see him going. From that standpoint it is one of the most gregarious, cultic heresies ever invented. Demonically inspired I beleive. You want to know why more mainstream Christian Churches dont label Calvin a cultist? They kind of like it, but they really dont trust it. They kind of know in there hearts that God requires more than nothing. Calvinism is like a guy who while in bed reaches over a flicks the light on in the morning with his toe, and says Im done, I got my ticket right here. Absolutely nothing is required of them.

Abigail: Man were just moving right along here arent we? I will have to go back and see if we left someone out. Regarding your comments: yeah i read I read yah. u said: And yet, despite all of that, I also firmly believe it does matter what we do with the gift of life as a human being on this planet. Hey isnt that in the proverbs? well it should be. Let me just make one final point about the doctrinal disertations being moot. you know VPW didnt just come out and say, you know, heres my doctrine, I want to be rich and powerful and all you pretty girls make a bee line for my bed post so I can add some notches. Of course if he had, he would have been a tad more honest. Which of course is the reason doctrinal disertations are not simple in the hands of wackos. With respect to Calvin, there is no earthly reason to make that arguement. You dont need a test tube of election to pour your test tube of faith into to make any cognitive arguement that is helpful. I dont know if John Calvin had VPW like issues, but he sure as heck had VPW like symtoms both with his doctrine and as the Pope of Geneva. If I can find a hyper Calvinist with the agenda i think they have I will be sure to post it to yah.

Abigail: this is a reprint of my previous post plus I wanted to add one more thing at the bottom: "Abigail: You make an excellent point, partiularily about how words mean different things to different people. Anyway the text (on free will) I was quoting are positions of John Calvin or basically postulates he says and then he writes to prove. Yeah, Calvin is not just volumous but like an encylopedia so its really hard to know were to start a quote and where to stop it. I'm a Lutheran with some pentacostal/assemblies overtones, so I dont typically rip Protestant stuff. Yet I really dont have much problem with Babtists/Evangelicals/Catholic doctrinal formats. You know Abby, your right it is really difficult to put great big theological arguements in a fry pan and say what does this really mean? But before I bore you to death, let my explain why they intrigue me. I happen to think most theological discussions have an end target and usually play themselves out in the following two places: 1) in peoples check books and how they get there and 2) in peoples underwear. Reading Calvin is like reading philosophy that has no logic. Anyway, he doesnt do the Greek dance but kind of does the Artistle dance with philosphical syntax. If you boil off the big words, its kind a sneeky fun to see what he is really thinking." With that said Abby here let me try: In the middle of the long paragraph I quoted from Calvin is this: wherein he asserts that faith does not depend on election, but that rather election stands in faith The guy Calvin is agruing with asserts to Calvin that "faith does not depend on election but rather election stands in faith." The guy is simply telling Calvin that faith is greater than election and shouldnt be mixed with this concept. You see, Calvin concludes that election of God, God foreknowledge of our salavation , makes faith irrelevant to ones salvation. (which I said makes it a cult but maybe the better word is heresy.) Incidentally people who made arguements like this to Calvin some were burned at the stake. Its unknown wether Calvin himself was involved in these matters, some have argued that he wasnt involved at all.

Abigail: You make an excellent point, partiularily about how words mean different things to different people. Anyway the text (on free will) I was quoting are positions of John Calvin or basically postulates he says and then he writes to prove. Yeah, Calvin is not just volumous but like an encylopedia so its really hard to know were to start a quote and where to stop it. I'm a Lutheran with some pentacostal/assemblies overtones, so I dont typically rip Protestant stuff. Yet I really dont have much problem with Babtists/Evangelicals/Catholic doctrinal formats. You know Abby, your right it is really difficult to put great big theological arguements in a fry pan and say what does this really mean? But before I bore you to death, let my explain why they intrigue me. I happen to think most theological discussions have an end target and usually play themselves out in the following two places: 1) in peoples check books and how they get there and 2) in peoples underwear. Reading Calvin is like reading philosophy that has no logic. Anyway, he doesnt do the Greek dance but kind of does the Artistle dance with philosphical syntax. If you boil off the big words, its kind a sneeky fun to see what he is really thinking.

Evan Your thoughts are always as I remembered well thought out and have contructed balance. I am kind of a technocrat, Evan, and thats probably what fascinated me with way material for a period of about 5 months. I am an Inactive CPA who does "other things" for a living, so I have a rather big curiousity particularily with religious doctrines. Calvin was a guy who never was verbose, but he was philosphical in using excesses of adjectives to describe his argument. (Luther was verbose and very direct as a result) Most people in any church when they hear things like faith, grace, predestination, election simply react like "sounds like good stuff to me" My problem with the doctrine isnt by experience of any kind, but one could envision some rather bizare behavior as a result. Its always sad that to really experience the teaching you have to find some nut case who does something wierd with it. Calvin made some real bizzare statements, such as his commentary on Ephesians 2:8,9 and pretty much says that the Gift of faith, isnt restricted to faith alone. (Thats a card trick not even VPW would have tried) You see Calvin never really believed that salvation comes from faith, rather it comes via predestination or election which is dangerous. I hear you when you say that there is a moderating form of Calvinism. I think who those people are are the ones who don't understand the underlying message ie (sounds like good stuff to me) People call Calvinists who tip there hat to the underlying message hyper-Calvinists or extreme Calvinists. Thats the boot camp that worrries me. The other thing is that "the saving grace of God through faith unto salavation" gets absolutely buried by Calvin in Predestination or Election. What is the purpose of doing this? You see , Calvin is never big on the cross. The bedrock of his theology is predestination and election in a way that negates beleiver interaction. Thats how I read Calvin. +

Abigail: Your comments were refreshing and nicely stated. I also dont like arguing and harranging, was I grumpy in the past or something? Tis true that pitting grace against works against faith is rather morbid conversation. Sort of like walking around with one shoe on and saying why cant i do this? In summation I think what you were saying is that sincerity is a bible believers best friend to which i heartily agree. In answer to your cult question see below. Anotherdan: Thanks for the stuff. I might check out some of the reading material. Maybe I will also check that website, but I personally have only talked about religion mostly on this website for one reason. Ex-Way people are considerably more careful to preface and critique what there views are having been somewhat ravaged in the past. Personally I think this makes there views more well rounded and refined, like Abigail views for instance which are always well thought out and considerate. BTW, I also like Charles Spurgeon. Of course there are many people in different faiths that don't marry the actual doctine. In addition, I agree with what you have to say, expecially the scipture you quoted thanks. Whats a cult? Heck I dunno know exactly how to define one. I suppose it would have to entail something thats destructive to ones self in general and destructive to what is called in the bible "true faith" In order to elaborate more fully why I went the cult signature with Calvin, i suppose I ought to have some good reason. And Abigail you do well to broach the subject. Here is some calving quotation buggery: Calvin Quotes walk therein, lest by winging their flight higher than is lawful, they plunge themselves into a labyrinth deeper than they would wish to find themselves in. But as there is none other gate of the kingdom of heaven than faith in Christ, as contained in the promises of the Gospel openly set before us; so it must be the greatest stupidity not to acknowledge that the eyes of our minds are opened of God Himself, for He chose us unto faith in Christ before we were conceived in the womb. And yet, that the object of this filthy and abandoned one was not only to blot out all knowledge of God's election from the minds of men, but to overturn His power also, is clearly manifest from those mad dreams of his, which ye possess in your public records, written with his own hand; wherein he asserts that faith does not depend on election, but that rather election stands in faith, and that none remain in blindness on account of the in-born corruption of nature, seeing that all men are really enlightened of God; and that we do a great injustice to God when we declare that those are passed by of Him whom He deigns not to illumine by His Spirit. 10. The doctrine of free will is always in danger of robbing God of his honor 7. That man is necessarily, but without compulsion, a sinner establishes no doctrine of free will Back to my comments: Calvin gets into an arguement (in his day) with someone who disputes his doctrine. Calvin says that "faith stands in election" not the other way around as some guy (some of whom were killed during this period for disputing the issue) What Calvin does is walk into the "foreknowledge of God" pick faith out and say faith is devinely appointed by God. Thus he cheapens faith or pits election against faith. He also states rather uncategorically that mans free will doesnt even matter. You dont have a choice in the matter. This isnt someone oogling into the foreknowledge of God trying to understand God's plan of salvation. In Calvins view, election and predestination = faith. By negating mans free will, theres basically no need to make decisions on a daily basis either. If Calvins views on this topic cannot hold water in heaven or earth, otherwise God would not have cast down the angels that sinned. Ie (Calvin would have said this was a part of God's foreknowledge and plan)By the way this isnt some side bar issue Calvinits talk about this is in fact the bedrock of Calvinist ideology. I suppose in examining any doctrine one should ask whats the point? Of course Calvin is the only one I have ever heard who pits election against faith. Whats the point? What is Calvin really saying? Calvin is saying it really doesn't matter what you do. Its a permissive sort of grace which turns grace into lascivousness. Thats what I think this does and what the purpose of it is. Lastly, how does one broach the "foreknowlege of God" with a doctrine? The knowlege of God is of unlimited supply, thus dangerous to make doctrines of it.

The antithesis of Calvinism is a extreme form of what they want to call faith not works. It brings into clear context what works really are. To a Calvinist a work is anything period. Is getting out of bed in the morning a work? Is moving your feet a work? Its sort of like showing up at work in the morning, turning on the lights in the business office and heading home while telling the boss he owes you a check. There isnt a boss on the planet that is going to tell you you have worked. In Calvinism you are not responible to do anything, its Gods job not yours.

oldieman: I did some studing of John Calvin's life but not a lot. There are some oddiities but rather than recite you can easily find on a google search. No the doctrines are not similiar at all. The approach however is very similiar, in that a few handpicked scriptures are used to cement concepts like predestination above everything else. Modern day Calvinists use a concept called TULIP to explain Calvin in a nutshell. I went into it a little further in a thread I started in the Doctrine section of this website. oldiesman: The results of both the way and Calvinists in approach to life I would argue are the same when approaching the topic of sin: IE 1) the Way: Dont worry about it just "renew your mind" 2) In Calvinism the barrier for your dead deeds is even less, because you are totally depraved or totally inable.

Abigail: Its been a while since we talked here. Regarding your comment , I dont think I am that set in my ways, I have always enjoyed your point or counterpoint. You always used to make me think and sharpen me up. I mean, you should at least scribble something. AnotherDan: I guess my point was not to focus on the "once saved always saved thiests" because thats not the part that really bugs me. The reason for the buggery in me, is that it would seem dangerous with all the sexual predators and such to have such a theology. I watched an interesting peice on MSNBC in an interview with Jeffery Dahlmer, who cited evolution as the intellectual dogma for his crimes and stated "If there is no consequence for your actions in the afterlife why care about what you do". My problem with this theology is that it is inconsequencial theology because it places all the responsibility on God, none on the person, thus leaving a wide open field for creepy behavior. Certainly not all Calvints approach life like that. The problem is when you provide that type of opportunity for the deranged type. Some actually seize upon it.

I know a lot of you guys think VP was the most wack ever and yeah he was wack, and I only had about 5 months or less experience with the group The WAY. So since i was never a member, maybe to you my opinion doesnt count that much. But consider this, John Calvin and Calvinism is right up there with VPW for some of the most wack ever. I started a thread under doctrinal about Calvinism, because I would like to read your comments there. VPW and John Calvin would have made great treachous brethern.

Recently I spent some time researching John Calvin and what todays Calvinists actually beleive. In case your wondering, most Calvinists are Presbyterians but not all presbyterians are Calvinists. It is some rather shocking material. It focuses on what Calvinists call the TULIP. The first two concepts are rather gregarious which are 1) (T) Total depravity or Total Inability 2) Uncondional Election ( which conceptually just means predestination) The Calvinists beleieve that they are incapable of doing anything good. (The bible doesnt teach this) You are incapable at birth. But you are predestinated or elected AND ITS GODS JOB TO MAKE IT HAPPEN NOT YOURS. You cant do anything to make yourself any better because you have total inability. (Of course the bible says to WORK out YOUR salvation with fear and trembling. Reading this stuff I think it is probably one of the most dangerous promiscuous doctrines ever invented. You could easily envision people who dont have any moral fortitude doing any thing they want , because the are totally unable. The end result of course is once you have your salvation you can never lose it. This is always a key component to any group that doesnt want the members to feel they need to put some salt in it, and also a common doctrine which is flouted with those who are cults. Real religion or service never needs it because one is secure in God's love. Anyway, its my view this doctrine is worse than that which Catholics disgarded years ago, namely selling indulgences. At least with indulgences you had to pay something for your deeds. This stuff has to be the most cultic doctrine I think I have ever seen. comments?

Wasps flying up ur dress? Reminds me metaphorically when I was 19 having TWIers chase me around with hammer and cylce doctrine. (Except for the flying up the dress part, I'm a guy. Nice southern bell accent by the way, darn I said Way. Tell us another story, you sound like Garrison Keilor.

During the course when the Pharisee's were taunting Jesus, the concept of blasheme came up. The Pharisee's were saying that the miracles of the Holy Spirit (God's Spirit) were done by Belzeebub. In effect the Pharisee's were saying that the Holy Spirits work was demonically done. This was what Jesus called Blaspheme, in essence then Blaspheme is calling something done by God's Holy Spirit in effect calling it unclean or demonic. Enter, VPW and (some of his leaders) who did this: http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/way/11.html. Be sure to read especially the section on LOVE BOMBING. A ministry that talks about "the accuracy and integrity of God's word" engaging in such activity is astonishing. Even the Budahists, Muslims, Hindu's and Athiests, know what the NT says regarding Love Bombing. The questions thus becomes did VPW and his leaders commit "blaspeme against the Holy Spirit"? Remember, by VPW own admission scripture is given by inspiration of God or is God breathed from His Holy Spirit. Thus, TWI and its leaders ( called the words of Holy Spirit) :::::::::::::::::::::::: AN UNCLEAN THING BY THERE ACTIONS, and had to have committed blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. This is especially true of TWI, because of there accuracy and integrity issues of Holy Scripture.

wearword: u said: Are you saying the holy spirit gift seed (image of God) can sin? Thats like asking if a pear is an orange. But since you ask............. It does say in revelation that if any man is unrighteous let him be unrighteous still. A conclusive sort of language that indicates thats the way some want it to be. Obviously in the same book you quoted from it says, If any man say he hath not sinned he is a liar and the truth is not in him. But really what does this have to do with the passages I quoted? Not much.

DrWearword: I must implicitly disagree. The Aposlte Paul was adament on the restricitions at all times when he said: Be not deceived neither fornicator, nor covetous (idolator) nor adulterer, nor UNCLEAN PERSON, hath any inheritance in the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Christ. Furthermore, he said, if any man consent not to wholesome words even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ (something like this I am quoting from memory) let him be anathema (or cursed) The doctrine of Christ is the doctrine of cleanliness, and the law of love KEEPS THESE THINGS. This is apparent in almost every writing by Paul, James, Jude and what the Lord Jesus said himself.

It's been a few years since I posted and I was wondering if Frankenstien (TWI) is still out there with somebody trying to apply electricity and make him walk? Greeting to DMiller, Rascal and Company