sky4it

Cynic others see above 2 posts horses (and only horses) Ok horses, so you want to get personal? Gee do I get to ask some questions too? Hey Horses are you a Calvinist? Did you graduate from the JohnCalvinJethroBodineClampett school of higher learning? u said: Mr. Sky4it are you saved? Uh have you read any of my posts? Yes I am. I gave my life to Jesus Christ at the age of 12 when I was at a Hal Lindsey Crusade when he was under Billy Graham’s umbrella. I also rededicated my life to Jesus Christ at the age of 17 while at a Bill Gothard seminar. (No I have never worked under Bill Gothard but I do like his first seminar but don’t know much else about him.) U said: Let me show you Mr. Sky4it where I think you are wrong. That’s your whole world isn’t it. That’s why I think you are a little brighter lightbulb then you let on. U said: Are you saying that I am not sincere? I never said that. I said I would give you the benefit of the doubt until you prove me wrong. U said: Don't you think Calvin people need Jesus? Uh yes of course I do. So does everyone else. What ever gave you the notion to ask such a question? U said: Maybe Mr. Calvin when he talks about persevere is talking in symbols and thats why you don't understand it? Oh so its all symbols eh? Let’s see how this works out. Mr.and Mrs. Robinson lets say they live down the block. Mr. Robinson is out of town. Someone stops in to see Mrs. Robinson. Knock, knock hello Mrs. Robinson. See that thing sticking out between my legs down there its just a symbol. It is however the same symbol that’s going to chase you around the house. YEEEEE Hawwww. It doesn’t matter anyway horses, symbols are actionable. A stop sign makes one stop. A yield sign makes one yield. Get it. BTW if everyone talked in symbols, writing would be like a hallucination, so cut the crap. U said: I am just trying to see what kind of person you are that is all. Yeah right. Here’s another question. Do you play skeeball 7 days a week? Because your questions indicate you do and score a perfect 100 every time you throw the ball right?

Cynic ( and others interested) u said: Up to the point of your previous post, your contempt for Calvin and his (sovereign grace) theology seems to have expressed itself concerning election, predestination, and perseverance. U said in another post: By the way, where sky4it's "points " have involved something other than fanciful allegations, I do not remember them constituting something more than assertions based on the dictionary definition of perseverance and the supposed licentious outcome of sovereign grace theology. To which I say: I know of no greater place to define a word than a dictionary. I suppose I could take a survey or try to get in on the game show Family Feud. (Well at least we don’t have to deal with a Greek spinster like VPW at least not yet. Lmao) Calvin ideology is not just about a few concepts. (Still the unconditional election concept is the prism in which things are viewed and the actionable component of Calvinism of which your church is not a part) I said earlier that unconditional election permeates all the doctrine and I will prove it. So lets move on to Calvinistic doctrine of Reprobation to make the point. What Reprobation Is, By John Bunyan , Chapter 2 Weblink: http://www.reformed.org/search/index.html?...rch.php&g=0 But to pass this, and more particularly to touch the eternal, invisible reprobation, which I shall thus hold forth. It is to be passed by in or left out of God’’s election, yet so as considered upright; in which position you have these four things considerable: same guy in chapter 3 same book: Which serveth yet further to prove that reprobation could not be with respect to this or the other sin, it being only a leaving them, and that before the world, out of that free choice which he was pleased to bless the other with Article 15 Reprobation Canons of Dordt weblink:http://www.reformed.org/search/index.html?mainframe=/searchpro/advanced_search.php&g=0 . Where Calvin Says: And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger. Calvin has numerous other essays in “Institutes” on his doctrine of Reprobation Calvanists have a clear doctrine of Reprobation. Here’s what they say it is: 1) Bunyan says it is “to be passed by in or left out of God’s election” (Remember when I said Calvinists look at everything through the Unconditional election window? 2) Bunyan has said that “Reprobation could not be with respect to this or the other sin” Ie. (He doubts it’s a sin to be a reprobate? Thats what this turkey just said.) 3) Calvin says (#3 above) “this decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin.” Ie(God makes a decision of reprobation for some ( this is what Calvin just said) Thus just like bunyan a reprobate and sinner are two different concepts (Arghhhh This makes no sense at all) The definition is wacky when Calvinists apply it to God electing reprobation for some, yet when its a doctine for the unelect there definition changes. (Why? Because the individual person (th unelect) must be deserving. (Thats the truth of Calvinism) These teachings above are false. Reprobation is discussed at greatest length in II Corinthians Chapter 13. The topic is discussed in connection with sin. II Cor 13:2,“...now I write to them which hereto for have sinned, and all other..... “ The definition of what that sin was, two verses back in II Cor. 12: 21".... I (Paul) bewail the many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the UNCLEANLINESS, and FORNICATION and LASCIVIOUSNESS which they have committed. (Interesting same 3 concepts as in Eph 5:5 its everywhere its everywhere) Furthermore, that was Paul’s definition of what sin was and what it meant to be a reprobate. I Corinthians 13:2, 5-7. Also you don’t have “Christ in you” if you be as reprobates. Roman’s 8:9 says, “ Now if any man have NOT the Spirit of Christ he is none of his.” BTW, these guys in Corinth, they weren’t first time (fornicator, unclean, lasciviousness) offenders, because: the bible states this would be Paul’s third time coming to them and they had the same problem back in I Corinithians. Thus, they were 2 time offenders or more and THAT AFTER RECEIVING CHRIST, a noteworthy distinction in what a reprobate is. The Calvinists above don’t even have a proper definition of what a reprobate is. They think it means “to be passed by in or left out of God’s election” The disconnect between sin and reprobation is so BIZARRE (in some of the writings) that it is nonsense. Bunyan said that "Reprobation" could not be with respect to this or the other sin. (He just said reprobation is not a sin. That's retarded.) I mean why get saved from Calvin’s definition of Reprobation if at times Calvanists don’t think it’s a sin? The Scriptural definition is simple simon. To be a reprobate is to act out against the concepts as EPH 5:5 and the three capitalized words above, which the bible says is sin and not to do. I really didn’t need to go into all that though did I? Because II Peter 1:10 = Antidote serum for Calvinism.

II Peter 2:10 "Wherefore the rather, brethern, give diligence to make your calling and ELECTION sure: for if you do these things, you shall never fall. " Logic 101: Election cannot not be unconditional if YOU have to make it sure. It says "YOUR" Ie you have to do it. You have to give diligence to make it sure. Therefore, it must be conditional and no other argument will work. ( I suppose some meathead could argue you still could have a unsure election and unsure calling. That's a negative facing a postive. At a minimum therefore election and calling can be cast in doubt probably and reasonably so, because one did not fulfill it.) I mean an unsure election and calling is a doubtful one right? There is no way the UNcondional crowd can get aroud that one. In fact thats just what it says. Case dismissed. John Calvin is wrong. Cynic: Predestination is not a doctrinal assertation (as John Calvin asserts) in any Lutheran material I have ever seen. Period. Quote Luther all you want, its not a doctrine format like Calvin anywhere in there theology teachings. cynic u said: By the way, where sky4it's "points " have involved something other than fanciful allegations, I do not remember them constituting something more than assertions based on the dictionary definition of perseverance and the supposed licentious outcome of sovereign grace theology. I don't deny that I used some fanciful methods to illustrate the contraption, but the scriptural truth against Calvins view (and some churches) of Unconditional election is very clear. THE ROPE IS THE ONE ABOVE IN PETER THAT CATEGORICALLY SAYS NO NO NO. Furthermore, I really think I made some teriific statements with the help of the truth that is the gospel. When one has a off the wall theology, there is always a reason. People dont make these arguments for esoteric reasons which cannot be reasonably understood. Thus I respectfully disagree with Calvin's program, I think he was a heretic. By the way Cynic your arguement on salvation is noted. I must take exception with you on one issue(and possibly more) . (Some of my points focus on "your inheritance in Christ" and the possiblity of losing it which the bible says, thus your inheritance is conditional.) Some might argue salvation and inheritance are two seperate issues. (It depends on if you define your salvation as your inheritance) One scripture in Peter clarifies the salvation issue a little more. I Peter 2:11 Dearly beloved,......., ABSTAIN FROM FLESHLY LUSTS WHICH WAR AGAINST THE SOUL" I can't repeat that better than it is except to say if something can make a war against the soul it CAN DESTROY IT.

cynic: I have read some, but not enough to comment on Calvin's political views. It would be very fair to say though that Calvin was very political. I also think those views somewhat represent what the man was like. u said: Though I haven’t studied Calvin’s own writings to any significant extent, I expect his views on statecraft were somewhat intensely theonomic to which I say: Cough cough, hack hack, Maybe that is why your church are not practicioners of the stuff I said. Read the stuff cynic cause if you do, you and your church might deposit most of it out in the waste basket where it belongs. ( I am making the assumption that in "having not studied Calvins own writings to any sign. extent", if you read it you may well see my point. )

Cynic: LMAO. No Garth will be allright. Don't take me personal cynic, I am sure there are some good Prysbeterian churches out there, as you pointed out, yours in no way partakes in the things I said. This is why I always prefaced everything in Calvin terms, not Prysbeterian. You might also find it amusing that there are some Lutherans (I think they sort of say so) who think the Red Sea parting was a metaphor. I dont go to those places or get worked up about it, making a goofy choice like that is an individual choice, not mine. Garth: Thanks I will be reading them. Interesting stuff, appreciated.

cynic: I missed your SN above and thought it was Garth's (Arghhhh) I read the Prysbet. website some of the stuff. ho-hum You know I am really glad cynic that your experience has been good there and not as I described. That must mean the place you attend doesn't practice the Calvinistic way of thinking that I have so stated. Glad to see your faith is in Christ. :)

Did I say something? sufferingsuckatash

Garth: Garth: If in fact I am right ( I am sure I am), one would think there would be a historical record of the habits of John Calvin himself. To be sure it would probably be besmerged by some. I was wondering other than Servitus (spell???) if such a record exists? If there is it would add an interesting component to the arguement. Invisible Dan is also a terrific history buff. Where oh where is the invisible one when you need him?

Cynic: Well, if in fact he is my sockpuppet (lmao I didnt know there was such an idiom) he doesnt seem yet to be complying with the praising me and agree with me component , at least not yet. I'll have to see if I can hack that out of him. Thus it would appear even if he is my sockpuppet, he could not be for he has not fullfilled the requirements of a good sockpuppet. Actually, people in the carnival call this a "Stick" which means that they have someone in the crowd, playing along for the purpose of purchasing the carnies grabbag. (Before you ask NO I have never been a carny, but I think I am married to one.) lmao u said: I missed the free “Unconditonal ceremony” involving a “night of total depravity” that you say is held for initiated Calvinists that perform the “trick”. to which I say: HA ( As Abigail would say) (When she says it it is with such meaning, where she kind of means you shocked her a little and she might have a difference of opinion with you which is forthcoming) Of course, its my conviction that the "initiated ones" would be sort of secret soceity within the soceity. Left on the sidelines would be "shortermers" and the "unbecoming" who would form the the carpetbag soceity of the "unitiated". One would aslo reasonably expect that the wealthy would be left in the 'carpetbag" component of the soceity. Ie(It takes money to run any organization) u said: I need to find some 32nd degree Calvinist I can talk to about this. I WAS ROBBED!!! uh yeah, You got robbed and that's a "good thing". A friend of mine in a pentacostal church once said to me, " You know how Jesus says destroy this temple and in three days I will re-build it, sometimes I feel like I could go out and destroy my temple in 3 days" His humor stating his own "well not total depravity" but fleshly desires. Of which, your honesty is compelling, for it does exist. My arguement is in that part of the gospel which is missing in Calvanism. To Calvin therefore if it wasnt a necessary component the arguement from my vantage point is if there is no barrier, a free for all is the likely outcome. Nuff said.

Skyrider & Words and works: I saw an interesting post here at GS that said this was not a "Christian website", I think the author's point was that it was that the main focus here was for exTWI people to re-intergrate with society. GS probably is many things to many people. Curiously, from my vantage point, there isnt a place that I know of, where its easier to say how you feel about Christian topics (in my case) or religious topics in general. I think that's because no one feels threatened here at GS with others views, since GS people in general are quick in general to think before they embrace anything. This makes GS people healthy and sharp. Your thoughts?

cman: lmao, yeah well I guess these days I'll talk to whoever wants to control freak or not.

Cman: I think what he means by that is that if I am "not nice and friendly", I will get a "timeout" or told not to post for 3 days so that I can get "refreshed". Wether or not that holds true for other people< I dunno???????? As some Calvinists have the "gift of perseverance", looks like this fellow has the "gift of timeouts".

Another Dan: I kind of had that same question when I read it. Perhaps he was refering to Pilates question not mine. Since I was at odds with some stuff in the Calvin thread, I thought to bring it to attention, simply because I wasnt sure. Thanks for the tip.

yeah ok Mr Horse, Something you don’t know much about, a slick card dealer named VPW used to say, “sincerity is no guarantee for truth” This statement turned out to be false. A person can prove it from the Bible. “Seek and you shall find” Matt: 7:7. If your seeking you have to be looking for something that you don’t have, thus you have to be sincere. (There is no black box ideology in Christianity) In fact, it has to open ended, otherwise you wouldn’t need to seek. Still, there are enough things given bible wise that one can say that about somethings people have to know. Ie (Ignorance is not an excuse for some behavior. (What I loathe about Calvinism is that they try to make that not so) I Corinth 5:5 describes the “unleavened bread of sincerity and truth”In fact, sincerity is a requirement, you have to have it with the truth if you want to get it right. You know how they say the hand is quicker than the eye? Well watch my hand now I am going to move it slow so you can see it. A person can be sincere and be nice and friendly. A person can be sincere and not necessarily be nice and friendly, because sometimes the truth is blunt. But there is a flip side to this. A person can be nice and friendly and not be sincere. (I am not saying that is you) For example, someone can be nice and friendly, and have a knife in the back of there hand to stick it in you. What we call those people are actors. Notice I didn’t say that was you, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are sincere. It’s always easier to give a short statement describing something and be right to the point. This is problematic though. You have to be blunt. That’s the one I like, because people don’t like long winded arguments. Now here’s a little pun fun. The long winded version in fact it is the “short” version. The short winded version if fact it is the “long” version. Don’t ask me three times to explain this or I might have to give you the short version, which is one you don’t like to hear. So anyway here is some long winded stuff, which makes me huff and puff to get there (because that’s the one you want): In book 2 of chapter 5 Section 3 under the subtext: Third absurdity borrowed from the words of Chrysotom Answer in the negative Weblink: http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?...oks/institutes/ In which Calvin says, “ .. Perseverance is the gift of God, which he does not lavish promiscuously on all, but imparts to whom he pleases. This is a summation of Calvin of this topic. This summation is absurd. Perseverance is not a gift of God Right out of the dictionary it means to uphold, CONTINUE, CARRY ON, bear on. People do this by there will. This sounds stupid, but you go to work everyday to CONTINUE or CARRY ON your job. Right? If you told your boss you couldn’t CONTINUE until you got the gift, you would in fact be fired. (You can’t make this stuff up, this is the retards mind). Don’t trust me though, look up the bible concepts themselves. Look up close akin words like endure and strive. These concepts are closely akin to perseverance and Calvin thinks they are a “GIFT” Endure or endured is used quite a few times in the N.T. For brevity, I cite one example, Hebrews 6:15, which describes Abraham as “and so after that he had patiently endured obtained the promise.” It was Abraham who endured, out of his own choice. (This is what your reduced to with Calvin, describing obvious things because Calvinism is so retarded. ) Here’s the dynamics: Imagine if you told a Doctor you can’t CARRY ON at home until you get the gift. He would increase your dose of thorzine. Yet, oddly, this is how BIZZARE Calvin is, its that retarded.

Another Dan: Yeah im sure what you said must be right YID I wasnt trying to argue or ridicule, I was just wanting to know if someone had more on the topic. There are some people at GS who are great with the history aspects of stuff, I was just trying to learn more about a topic i know little of.

you said: I think the case before him didn't make any sense. your probably right wordwolf, that they did that at that time. Still when you think about it, it couldnt have been common practice amongst Romans was it? You would think that some one brought up before someone like that would have to file detailed charges. Maybe they didnt do that back then but I certainly wonder? I thought the word "malefactor" might explain some things if someone knew exactly what that meant to Romans. ?????

As part of my Saturday bible study, the conversation between Jesus and Pilate was lengthy. Upon being delivered by the Jews to Pilate the allegation was that he was a malefactor. It certainly would be interesting to know if some of you history buffs new exactly what this entailed because one would think they wouldn’t simply make a general allegation. Does anyone know? This is what we know about Pilate things he had to know of: 1) He was a Roman and had to have intricate knowledge of Roman Culture. 2) He had some knowledge of Old Testament law. John 18:31 3) Roman culture as described in Romans chap 1 had the following: a) worship of idols of “like to corruptible man and to birds, etc etc. b) interesting that Paul and the (word of God) considered statues of “corruptible man" an idol, however it must of been the worship of them that was considered the actual idolatry. (One would think). (Yet another interesting topic) c) Homosexuality was a part of Roman culture. It also appears that the What is truth question by Pilate may have been a knee jerk reaction to what Jesus has said to him before. Anyway if any of you history buffs could explain exactly what a malefactor was in Roman society perhaps that would explain what the actual charges were that the Jews were trying to make. Anyone know?

When Pontuis Pilate asked Jesus the question "What is truth?" what in fact was pilate thinking that he would ask such a question? Was he making an honest inquiry? What do you think was in his mind when he asked such a question? Perhaps Pilate had heard that Jesus had said at one time, " I am the way the truth and the life" Maybe he had never heard that either. I happen to think Pilate really doubted Jesus and was trying to get to the bottom of him. It makes me think that Pilate wanted to get him to start "fessing up" about things he never did. By condemning him, (I think) Pilate thought he would get his answers. Someone once told me the historical record said Pilate eventually became a Christian. (Wether this is true or not I dont know) Of course, if it is true, it shows the horrible why part of why Jesus died. He did it to prove his point, that he was innocent. (This is why the death of Christ, (I think) is such tough stuff. what do you think?

Oak: Yeah me too only I am chugging on my Jack Daniels. lmao Anyway i will start a thread soon and we will talk, we talked a lot 3 years ago. (Oakspear = Only athiest I ever met who doesnt stand around and mock God, does this mean he has a little faith?) oooops sorry oak fruedian slip there let that one go. tip a few see you on the flip side.

Oakspear: I got a couple questions for you. You prbly dont remember me, but we talked abt three years ago, I have been looking at my Charles Darwin and read some Richard Dawkins(cheez if this guy isnt the nutcracker suit i dunno who is, is this guy bi-polar or have any mental illness you know of? just wondering) I think it would be fun to talk. Anyway we talked abt three years ago and it was fun for me. So where do you want me to start the thread? Doctrine or otherwise here we go? By the way Oak, I heard you got married. Congrats. Why isnt marriage and unmarriage so easy for me? Oh suffering suckatash. Let's go man, I got to bean you. Not Aristole sky4it

Hey Abigail: you dont need to say nuttin" , you've made me feel like royalty., I dont know how to navigate all of Paw's place but ill get it figured out.,, anyway, I didnt mean to run away the other nite but stuff came up, see you Abby on the flip side. BTW Abby I am having a couple of tall cold ones this Friday nite, like they used to say in the old west , "for medicinal purposes."

Yeah well ok, there Mr. Horses. I tell you what, I try work on your dorkiness and you can work on my friendliness and niceness. By dork I simply mean someone unable to adapt to the circumstances or that you’re a tad clumsy in seeing some stuff. I think you need some help with this. So you have that friendliness meter going and I will have my dork meter working and we will to make each other better. You asked me how it sounds? Well I’d like to tell you pal, but we will work on it. I’m still wondering what your going to do with those “timeouts”, I want to see if you can lift one. Look Mr. Horses, when you tell people the truth and what your thinking, if they don’t like what your saying they arent going to think your nice and friendly anyhow. So stick that one in your mouth and chew on it for a while. Need some more Calvin ok I’m here for the show: Calvinism, essentially could work like a computer virus, moving in and taking over an entire church. To do so it would have to take hold on those running the place. The maker of the calvin credo, essentially he designed it for this purpose. The people that walk around with the contraption and the ideology, its so sophisticated they don’t even know how many things it can do. Previously, it was mentioned that Calvinism is a practice. Here is what the practice is like: In a Calvinistic church, you would have two groups of people. One is an uninitiated and the other a initiated Calvinist. An uninitiated Calvinist does not perform the “trick.” They don’t really much understand what the practice is, they are by and large innocent bystanders. The secret club inside the group, is in fact the initiated Calvinist. The initiation ceremony would in all likelihood take place “afterhours”. They are actual practioners of the Unconditonal ceremony because its free. A lonely night of total depravity because one is totally unable is bound to happen for there are no restraints in the Calvin credo. It is by design by Calvin. It’s the way he and the practioners want it to be. By the way, I am saying these things so that people can be pointed to God and Jesus. How does this one work for you Mr. Horses?

Horseshead: (you Mr or Ms) yeah well I tell you pal, I like my pancakes only in the morning with some syrup, just not too much syrup please. Its a little hard to do the Watsui for the Sushi if you can follow. I was kinda wondering about your timeout policy, since I get a little to much spring in legs some days. Is it possible that if I blew it and got a timeout I could earn the timeout back? I dont want to hit to many buttons all in a row and be looking for a way back in after 5 months. I might have to test you too, to see if you can lift those timeouts or not. (Trying real hard) Ok horseshead, I'll run this by you and do my best: Revelation 2:14-16 ... But I have a few things against thee, because thou there them that hold the doctine of Baalim which taught Balac...... to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication... ..... Repent or else I will come unto thee quickly and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. Same doctrine, Old Test, New Test and future. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever. Hebrews 13:8 Past present and future that doctine holds place. The Unconditional component of the Calvin Canard, wants a timeless element for themselves in today and forever. I got a problem with that. Ah yeah here ( I am saying these things to point the Calvin canard to God)( you helped me with this part), but they gotta do the Repent part up there too. there how does that work for you pal?

Garth: U said: Now there are things that people should not be tolerant of; immoral and unethical behavior towards others, unprovoked abuse towards others (the aforementioned persecution of heretics/blasphemers being but one prime example), and the like. But differing religious beliefs (so long as they do not clearly abuse others of their rights and dignities) do not fall within the category of things that people should not be tolerant of. ... Calvin clearly didn't accept that. When I first came to the cafe here, I ran into a guy named (Invisible Dan) I believe who was really an expert on 1st century church history. I thought you would find it interesting that both he and I came to roughly the same conclusions on TWI, yet FROM VASTLY DIFFERENT RESOURCES. My reference point from your points above, are noted. I, personally, have a tendency to wander to the edge because anyone with a bible possessing such traits, looks a tad despotic or at least capable of it. :) One other topic is noteworthy. Some would consider my view extreme. I would like to show you why I don't think it is. (First the website page I recited) Here is a quote from a Calvinistic preacher while preaching about predestination: Perspectives on Predestination By Barry Hofstetter Web Link : www.reformed.org/calvinism/bh_predestination.html Under caption: What its not,(First paragraph under) A Sermon by Barry in which he says, "A famous televangelist was quoted as saying that Calvin had sent more people to hell based on "his" doctrine of predestination than anyone else in the history of the church." This quote is from Calvinistic Barry himself. Obviously from the text of his own mouth, there were those who thought Calvinism in general was very extreme. My simple point is that examining Calvinsim in this thread here, it isnt extreme at all.In fact, one should consisder it mainstream to do so.

horses: I'd like to simply add one thing to what Garth said. I personally am old school. I believe the Bible is the Word of God. As such, the Word of God is the Word of Truth. I also think its a simple message to understand. Still, some people say the same as I do above, and come to vastly different conclussions. So when Garth says, its a healthy thing to discuss differences it really is. Some of the people in here are some of the sharpest minds on the planet, because they are honest with themselves, a key component in my view of the understanding.