Logos Focus

calvinhabig,

I've heard people say they are Calminian but it just doesn't hold water. I believe that saying that Calvinist push the Sovereignty of God to an extreme is usually a straw-man representation of their true position.

I'm interested in your understanding of the "Calvinist position" in a nutshell.  Can you do that?

In my limited experience what usually comes out is an inconsistent Arminian position.

(Possibly you'd like to do it through PMs so as to not clog up this thread?)

CalvinHabig said:

You forgot those of us in the third category: Calminians

You mean to tell me there is now a name for us? [:D]   Glad to know there is a box I can be sorted into now.!

Ted Hans said:

Hi Matthew,

I am a calvinist.

Could i ask you a question on another topic AV only? A yes or No answer will do, so that i am not seen to be hijacking this thread ,if you do not mind.

Ted

Yes. But I'm not willing to draw anyone's blood over which version they should read. 

JackCaviness said:

Michael Huffman said:

I would like to see how may calvinist users there are versus non-calvinist users.

What is your purpose in asking this question? This topic has promited heated discussions in the past on the newsgroups, and starting the debate again can serve no good purpose. I note that you made a rather strong statement 46 minutes after posting this. If you were only seek to promote a flame war, you have misused this forum. On another thread, I defended off-topic discussions, but trolling for flame wars is pushing the limit a bit far.

Personally, I enjoy, and profit from, writers of all theological persuasions.

Jack

Jack

I completely agree with your post.  There is NO purpose for this type of question at all.

Ted Hans said:

Matthew C Jones said:

Yes. But I'm not willing to draw anyone's blood over which version they should read

Thanks, i appreciate this. AV only - would they have an issue with the NKJV? A "Yes" or "NO" answer will do & then i am done. Or you could recommend a book for me to look up.

Every Blessings,

Ted.

 

Yes, imho, they do.

I have found that when someone identifies themselves as an AV ("KJV") only person, they will have issues with the NKJV as well as any other version. The fundamental difference is not in which version is the best translation but appears to be a faith-based conviction that the 1611 Authorized Version is "God's Word for the English-speaking peoples."   I find it interesting that leaders such as Jerry Falwell, Charles Stanley, Billy Graham have been called everything from errant brothers to heretics by the KJV-only tribe.

I have heard from many sides of this debate. Most want to make personal attacks on each other or ridicule by misrepresenting their opponent's statements. There are colorful personalities on both sides that offer a lot of fuel to the fire. I do find a lot of valid points get raised in spite of the loose canons firing indiscriminately at everything that moves. There does appear to be a change in the language of modern translations that question key Bible doctrines. There does appear to be a flippant attitude that promotes a cafeteria plan of Christian doctrine -- a "whatever floats your boat" mentality.

Disclaimer: Many of my KJV-only friends think I am a poor, misguided soul for my lack of dogma in this arena.. I have a much bigger argument with the cheapening of grace and disrespect of God than I do with what version we read. 

Michael Huffman said:

Unlike our friend Mark, who just left  anything but a civil comment.

Michael

If you feel I have left an uncivil comment, I apologize.  I was simply agreeing with Jack's post.  We seem to have different understandings of the purpose of this forum.  My understanding is that doctrinal discussions can be tolerated and helpful, but this forum is primarily for discussing Libronix and doctrinal discussions can result as we interact with Libronix. However, I think I am finished the debating of the past few days on the purpose of this forum.

Differences of opinion are going to result because of the vast variety of people who use this software and thus are on the forum.  Some keep quiet because of provocative language used by other members claiming their way is the biblical way and all others are false.  And the divisions continue because all (or most) claim to be biblical and based their arguments in the Bible.  People of all persuasions debate.  It is not really fair to say that if a peson is unwilling to engage in the question of calvinism that it means they are not a calvinist.  Many dont debate because they have been through the debate before.  You have stated that you know what you believe and indicate that the only reason you wish to debate is to correct others. Would that be a fair comment?  If not, I again apologize.

I have purposefully not made known my position.   The reason is because I am not on this forum to show others that my understanding of things is correct.  I am on this forum to glean help from others as I use Libronix and to interact with others who use the software.  Perhaps a resource or two on Libronix could help us understand the doctrine that teaches that a person who is truly regenerated can never be lost and another resource could help us to see that it is possible to abuse that doctrine to make people think that they can sin all they want and still get to heaven because they prayed a prayer.  And perhaps as we interact with the software resources themselves, we can carry on discussions that would be beneficial to all and help all draw closer to the truths found in God's Word.  Or perhaps someone has encountered a movement they never heard before as I did in our work in Poland (the modern apostolic movement and the Seventh Day Adventists) and can ask questions on the forum and learn of resources within Libronix that can help a person to understand the movement and make an intelligent decision whether it is of God or not. 

Thus theological debates happen on this forum while interacting with the software, and helping all of us to understand various movements (whether of God or not) better that can help us in our Christian walk.

But I know that it is naive of me to think that will happen.  Human nature is still human nature.  We can send men to the moon, but the issues of human nature have never improved.  It is why we need a Savior and why what you said is correct...it all starts with Christ and ends with Christ and is all for the glory of God.

Matthew C Jones said:

If you keep talking you may have to label your fellow Calvinists as Arminians too.  (Remember "hyper"-adherents view all lesser adherents as non-adherents.) If you believe You persevere   rather than God Preserves   you,  it appears you are working to keep your salvation. 

I tend to view a distinction such as "persevere / preserves" as being logomachia, a fighting over mere words, since I know of no Calvinist who would claim that he is responsible for his remaining in the faith whichever word he might use.  After all, the entire point of the Calvinistic view is that it is God who acts in his salvation, not man.

My apologies all around for any part I played in furthering this little OT dustup. I sincerely did not mean to help move us further OffTopic.  I just (good naturedly) couldn't help but remind our brother that there are all sorts of theological nuances on these forums and using Libronix.  As I was typing & pressing "Post" I kept thinking..."Cal, this whole thing is off topic.  Responding is probably not a good idea."  Whether it was the voice of wisdom or the voice of othe Holy Spirit, I don'tknow, but please accept my apologies for moving us further away from the purpose of fhese posts.  I'm done with this thread.

Blessings on all who claim the name of the Lord.

I believe hyper-calvinism is an abomination and that it's parameters equate to a puppet show.

I believe salvation is a monergistic experience, not synergistic, since God is calling all (invitation).

I believe that a person has to be born again (regenerated) to be saved and to be spiritual. 

I believe that it is divisive to argue 5 points of calvinism.

I believe calvinists are misunderstood and they realize that it is not by works that a man is saved, rather grace and may I say through faith (which is given by God) in the death, burial, and ressurection of our saviour Jesus Christ.

I believe that calvinists have a very high view of God and are not necessarily ego-driven.

I read mostly reformed material myself and I know people who can't stand calvinist doctrine and have almost any argument to refute calvinistic theology.

I appreciate calvinistic views because they are doctrinally focused and conservative, rather than some happy go feel "something thats not the Gospel".....Not to imply that "others" who are not calvinists are not preaching and teaching the Gospel.

I believe there could be an argument for KJV, NASB, and ESV as being calvinist bibles.

I do not believe that a KJV bible is superior to the above mentioned, nor inferior.

I believe God gives gifts and spiritual discernment.

I believe studying Greek in terms of New Testament study is a better way of evaluating what God's word says.

I believe God can speak to anyone through most any bible translation what He wants them to know.

I just wanted to state a set of some of my core beliefs.

Ted Hans said:

Matthew C Jones said:

Yes, imho, they do.

I have found that when someone identifies themselves as an AV ("KJV") only person, they will have issues with the NKJV as well as any other version. The fundamental difference is not in which version is the best translation but appears to be a faith-based conviction that the 1611 Authorized Version is "God's Word for the English-speaking peoples."   I find it interesting that leaders such as Jerry Falwell, Charles Stanley, Billy Graham have been called everything from errant brothers to heretics by the KJV-only tribe.

I have heard from many sides of this debate. Most want to make personal attacks on each other or ridicule by misrepresenting their opponent's statements. There are colorful personalities on both sides that offer a lot of fuel to the fire. I do find a lot of valid points get raised in spite of the loose canons firing indiscriminately at everything that moves. There does appear to be a change in the language of modern translations that question key Bible doctrines. There does appear to be a flippant attitude that promotes a cafeteria plan of Christian doctrine -- a "whatever floats your boat" mentality.

Disclaimer: Many of my KJV-only friends think I am a poor, misguided soul for my lack of dogma in this arena.. I have a much bigger argument with the cheapening of grace and disrespect of God than I do with what version we read. 

 

Thank you very much and every blessings. As promised i am done, no further question.

Ted

Ted,

You have asked this question several times and I believe you deserve a strait answer; the answer Mr. Jones gave is not that.

It is much more fundamental; the AV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek and the modern versions are based on the Critical Text (CT). The TR is the Greek version of the NT that was passed down from generation to generation and preserved even if ones life was dependendent on preserving the Greek Text. The Critical Text is based on Greek Texts that were rejected because they came out of the Arian controversy; if you are Calvin then the TR represents your belief better than the CT which was rejected by the Church Fathers and attempts to produced Greek texts that reflect a more Arian view.

This being the case, your NKJV is not based on the TR; thus, it would not be consider AV.

I hope this helps.

God bless you and keep you,
Ken

Michael Huffman said:

I would like to see how may calvinist users there are versus non-calvinist users.

Michael,

I am not a Calvinist.  Nor would I classify myself as an Arminianist.  Nor would I say I am an Calminian.  I am a devoted follower of Christ that doesn't want to put God in any sort of box when understanding His total sovereignty (which is impossible for man to understand fully) and humanity's free will (let alone understanding my own personal free will and not speaking for everyone on this earth).  It would seem that if you are going to take the scriptures as a whole, you cannot neglect either side of the argument.  Remember also, that both views have been argued completely and Biblically for a very long time (even before Calvin and Arminius).

Now, on a side note.  Logos has recently published many Calvinistic works.  No doubt.  I hope this is not a doctrinal statement from Logos and that they will soon be releasing many Arminian works as well.

all about Christ,

David Buckham