finally a "calvinist" comes to terms...

[yxboom]

no disrespect intended. I just wanted to frame this response by GoB.

from here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1207340&postcount=4)

you know the word we humans use to describe a king who exercises unrestricted control...When an earthly king takes to himself the authority that belongs only to God, we call that king evil. But then you turn it around and say that God must act like a good human king.

to which all i could say is

Oh man.

So a human king is evil for being a tyrant because it's only God's place to be one.

you've said volumes more than I could ever. thanks.

[cbro]

no disrespect intended. I just wanted to frame this response by GoB.

from here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1207340&postcount=4)



to which all i could say is "Oh man.

So a human king is evil for being a tyrant because it's only God's place to be one.

you've said volumes more than I could ever. thanks."I hope this fits here.
Main Entry: ty·rant Pronunciation: 'tI-r&nt Function: noun
1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty
2 a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power
Since def 1a is the only one I would use for God and the other ones would be used by those who object to His sovereignty, I would believe a better word could be used. Any ideas for that word?

[Arnold]

So a human king is evil for being a tyrant because it's only God's place to be one.But maybe he's one of the elect... :lol:

[GoBahnsen]

no disrespect intended. I just wanted to frame this response by GoB.

from here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1207340&postcount=4)



to which all i could say isI'm not a Calvinist boom, how many times to I have to say that? I only agree with John Calvin for the most part, but I won't defend him, only the truth he stood for.

I thought my response to you in that post was very good (no boasting mind you :lol: ), and I still stand by it. Thanks for framing it.

[Xavier]

I'm not a Calvinist [...] I only agree with John Calvin for the most part, but I won't defend him, only the truth he stood for.

Calvinism is a system of Christian theology advanced by John Calvin, a Protestant Reformer in the 16th century, and further developed by his followers, associates and admirers. The term also refers to the doctrines and practices of the Reformed churches, of which Calvin was an early leader. Calvinism is perhaps best known for its doctrine of predestination, and its history is associated with some notable experiments in Christian theocracy.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinist

The religious doctrines of John Calvin, emphasizing the omnipotence of God and the salvation of the elect by God's grace alone.

SOURCE: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Calvinist

A rose by any other name... Hrmn?

[cbro]

Calvinism is a system of Christian theology advanced by John Calvin, a Protestant Reformer in the 16th century, and further developed by his followers, associates and admirers. The term also refers to the doctrines and practices of the Reformed churches, of which Calvin was an early leader. Calvinism is perhaps best known for its doctrine of predestination, and its history is associated with some notable experiments in Christian theocracy.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinist

The religious doctrines of John Calvin, emphasizing the omnipotence of God and the salvation of the elect by God's grace alone.

SOURCE: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Calvinist

A rose by any other name... Hrmn?Are you serious or are you harassing GoB?

[yxboom]

Are you serious or are you harassing GoB?
he was pretending that GoB is a Calvinist but really knows better.

[Xavier]

Are you serious or are you harassing GoB?

I wouldn't use such a harsh word... I would say that I'm trying to point out that usage of the term Calvinist doesn't imply that he'll defend the man, Calvin. Any more than usage of the term Arminian implies that one defends the man, Arminius.

They are just the labels we assign to adherents of those men's respective basis soteriological schemes.

[GoBahnsen]

I wouldn't use such a harsh word... I would say that I'm trying to point out that usage of the term Calvinist doesn't imply that he'll defend the man, Calvin. Any more than usage of the term Arminian implies that one defends the man, Arminius.

They are just the labels we assign to adherents of those men's respective basis soteriological schemes. Oh I know my good friends boom and Xavier are above harassing poor ol GoBahnsen.

The problem with calling yourself after a theologian's name, is that people want you to defend the man's works rather than Scripture or at least as much as Scripture, so I dropped the label for that reason.

Call me a Christian if ya like or a heretic if ya must.

[Trout]

Oh I know my good friends boom and Xavier are above harassing poor ol GoBahnsen.

The problem with calling yourself after a theologian's name, is that people want you to defend the man's works rather than Scripture or at least as much as Scripture, so I dropped the label for that reason.

Call me a Christian if ya like or a heretic if ya must.

How bout we just call you a filthy Calvinist?

[cbro]

I wouldn't use such a harsh word... I would say that I'm trying to point out that usage of the term Calvinist doesn't imply that he'll defend the man, Calvin. Any more than usage of the term Arminian implies that one defends the man, Arminius.

They are just the labels we assign to adherents of those men's respective basis soteriological schemes. Should have I said "teasing"? My understanding of GoB, which seems reasonable to me, is that there is an important difference between the labels Calvinist and Calvinism. That difference means that anyone can believe Arminianism or Calvinism without being a Calvinist or an Arminianist.

[GoBahnsen]

How bout we just call you a filthy Calvinist?GoBahnsen steadies his swisher sweet between his teeth and glares at trout with an Eastwood squint...and finally lets out a slow raspy response "why don't you offer me an apology right now, like I know you're going to" Pushing back the side of his pancho, GB sets his hand on his pocket Bible and lets another puff of smoke whisp away into the night air.

[Trout]

GoBahnsen steadies his swisher sweet between his teeth and glares at trout with an Eastwood squint...and finally lets out a slow raspy response "why don't you offer me an apology right now, like I know you're going to" Pushing back the side of his pancho, GB sets his hand on his pocket Bible and lets another puff of smoke whisp away into the night air.

I know what you're thinking, did he pluck 4 petals off the tulip or five . . .Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. You've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky?....Well, do ya punk?

[Xavier]

[...] That difference means that anyone can believe Arminianism or Calvinism without being a Calvinist or an Arminianist.

No, there's no difference.

A believer of Calvinism is a Calvinist. A believer of Arminianism is an Arminian.

That's what that words mean.

[GoBahnsen]

I know what you're thinking, did he pluck 4 petals off the tulip or five . . .Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. You've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky?....Well, do ya punk?Just who you callin a punk? You gotta a lot a nerve mister. It's amazing what a man can do with a good piece of hickory, don't make me show you Trout. Be smart and just apologize, like I know you're going to...

[GoBahnsen]

No, there's no difference.

A believer of Calvinism is a Calvinist. A believer of Arminianism is an Arminian.

That's what that words mean.Fine, I'm not a believer of Calvinism. I'm a believer of Christ's words and His Apostles. So was Calvin.

[Xavier]

Fine, I'm not a believer of Calvinism. I'm a believer of Christ's words and His Apostles. So was Calvin.

Fine, I'm not a believer of Arminianism. I'm a believe of Christ's words and His Apostles. So was Arminius.

By way of logic, that means Calvin was not.

:ahem:

[GoBahnsen]

Fine, I'm not a believer of Arminianism. I'm a believe of Christ's words and His Apostles. So was Arminius.

By way of logic, that means Calvin was not.

:ahem:In your opinion, now why don't you apologize to me like I know you're going to...

[Xavier]

In your opinion, now why don't you apologize to me like I know you're going to...
Yeah... Right after you apologize for calling me a heretic. :smile:

[GoBahnsen]

Would somebody just apologize to me please, so I can go to bed feeling like Clint Eastwood for one stinking day in my life?

[Xavier]

Would somebody just apologize to me please, so I can go to bed feeling like Clint Eastwood for one stinking day in my life?
Oh... Is that the reason? Well then, I'm sorry. :teeth:

[cbro]

No, there's no difference.

A believer of Calvinism is a Calvinist. A believer of Arminianism is an Arminian.

That's what that words mean.John Lennon was right -- there are a lot of "isms." The ones you mention are politically loaded and often used interchangeably, although the meanings are actually quite different. Hopefully, the definitions below explain the differences. However, please note that definitions don't always mimic real-world scenarios.

[GoBahnsen]

Oh... Is that the reason? Well then, I'm sorry. :teeth:Good, then I'm gunna let you live tonight. Trout has already gone to sleep under the chastening of a hickory stick, that's why he suddenly got real quiet, in case anyone wondered where that yellow-belly went off to.

[geebob]

I don't know about this arguement and there are reasons to be cautious in taking this approach. For example, a murderer is someone who intentionally takes some one else's life. So of course That would make God a murderer as he has taken many lives intentionally. Of course we hold that our lives are not our own to take but they are God's to take. But the same observation can be applied to soverignty. The world is not a king's that he can excersize his soverignty in any way he pleases, but it is God's that he may do so.

I just don't see that there is a moral absolute in terms of whether or not God excersizes meticulous soverignty.

But of course we live a world with evil, and if God is exhaustively in control of a world with evil, that would make him evil.


In light of that thought, you could point out that the problem with tyrants is that they don't excersize their soverignty well, and given that God as the calvinist see his soverignty is no different poorly excersizing his soverignty (not that I'm saying that calvinists share that judgement of their view of soverignty) he's no better.