Great Sermon! I had almost given up on hearing any sound preaching again. I am 70 years old and have seen the demise of faithful preaching in my lifetime. Your preaching is fearless just like in days gone by. I will be praying for you, that God will continue to give you boldness and clear thinking to guide you in your calling. Nearly all of the churches in our area have lost their way and are preaching to itching ears. I am so thankful to be able to listen to your sermons; thank you for posting them on sermon audio. I know that you must be making a difference to many people who hear you.
The Antichrist is obviously Dusty Bin . When he lies he speaks his native tongue, he has no substance or anything original at all to say of his own, all he does is accuse believers (i.e. he is a shatan, a diabolous), and argue about words...yea hath anonymous said? Furthermore he's a prolific word-twister, and he's in love with a tradition of man rather than the gospel. Pretty well fits the bill, I'd say. Beyond that he's a sophist like the worst kind of slip-and-fall lawyer. Lusty Hinn you aren't perchance an ambulance chaser are you?
Dusty Bin-- You claimed to have read Calvin's commentaries (you just said his commentaries, as if to say all of them, not "some of" Calvin's commentaries), his Institutes, sermons and tracts. That's a bit different from saying you just read some of his works, and you also seem to pretend to have read Battles and Beveridge on Calvin, not to mention challenging me about Luther, Anselm, and Augustine as if you had read them.
No, I haven't just named authors; I've said what books and parts of books to look at.
"I'm not at your beck and call" you say. Very well, I never said you were. It was YOU who was huffing and puffing about how you were going to call in the next day and never did, and when you finally did show back up, it was just to pick at words, having realized you had no argument.
Your M.O., like I said, is always the same: challenge people with names of people you haven't read, as if you had read them, and when your bluff gets called, you have nothing.
All I have ever argued is that Dort rigidified doctrines, and, unfortunately became something people run with as a summation of Calvinism.
Given all the challenges you make, I would like you to show me I'm wrong about Luther, Calvin, etc. You bring up tons of names but you still won't show how they disagree.
(1) TD is not what a lot of people think it is, but is rather the historic doctrine (going back to Augustine, running through folks like Anselm, coming out in Calvin) that there is no part of us which is not tainted (i.e. uncorrupt). You agree with this.
(2) A lot of people think the Canons of Dort just is Calvinism (i.e. is a summation of the man). You're a retard if you don't agree with this.
(3) The soul of Calvinism is Calvin's pursual of and improvement of an Augustinian method of theology.
(4) All of these things I gave textual references for, and you give NONE WHATSOEVER FOR A SINGE ONE OF THE CLAIMS YOU MAKE
(5) You accused me of not knowing what was talking about with Luther's Bondage (a book you obviously have not read any more than your lie about reading all the tens of thousands of pages of Calvin you claim to have read), and I explained myself on that and you were silent.
(4) You disappeared for awhile, only to reappear to make pathetic pokes at this or that word of mine, hoping in your desperation to find a contradiction, STILL NOT ANSWERING A SINGLE ARGUMENT I EVER MADE
(5) Though anyone reading my posts knows exactly what I say about Dort, you continue to lie like a snake about it.
Yes I've read the original works of these thinkers--as far as Augustine, the Confessions, the Commentary on Genesis, the De Trinitate, and his dialogue on free will. As far as Anselm, the Cur Deus Homo, the three dialogues on Truth, Freedom, and the Devil, the de Concordia, and the de Incarnatione.
You keep trying to ask me what I've read, and what's interesting is that in each case I answer yes and proceed to give examples of what a given thinker says, but YOU give no such examples. You challenged me about Luther's Bondage, and I responded, and you were SILENT. Your M.O., as a I see, is to pretend to know something about thinkers in the Calvinist tradition, to drop names and be pompous, but when someone calls your bluff you have nothing and are silent. Then you simply think of new names to challenge with--other people you also haven't read. It's obvious to anybody reading these posts you're just a phoney and a pretender. Last week you challenged me to argue about some things concerning Calvinism vs. the common understanding of Calvinism, and I answered you, and you fell off the earth along with your overblown accusations. Now you have nothing left but to pick at words like a vulture.
Once again, I brought arguments and you didn't answer, instead choosing to lyingly twist words (although this time I see you don't want to bring up any quptes from me, since you know you're off).
As for "newly" bringing up the likes of erasmus, anselm and other thinkers, you are straight-up lying--I've always been speaking of the augustinian tradition and making use of such thinkers as Annslem et al. And furthermore, I never criticized people for making use of the historic augustinian tradition (NO ONE HAS DONE SO!!!) but for sham citings of present-day commentators, which is all you know.
Tell me, if when I was speaking of Dort partisans and so forth, why did I always use THE PRESENT TENSE? If I was talking about divines at Dort (which you know I wasn't, though you accuse me of doing so because you're a liar and you're beat), why do I speak in the present tense if what I meant was a handful of Dutch Reformed figures from 400 years ago. You're a liar and a sophist plain and simple, and you know it. I raised tons of arguments against you but you won't answer even one of them. Instead just playing with words (the definition of a sophist) and trying to catch me in word contradictions--the same way the devil argues, incidentally.
Amen. What's more, no one wore pants before the Germanic tribes who invented them (both the men and the women of which wore them). When the Romans first encountered this (since they all--men included--wore skirts) they marveled at the strange dress of the Germanic tribes. The Germanic tribes on the other hand, wondered (as many people did) about the strange beardless Romans, since in nearly all cultures men were to be bearded and beardless faces were for women. You're point is right on about it not being about pants as about cross-dressing.
The UCC has a long love-affair with queerness. The UCC offers stipends for gay seminarians and has been for some time. Can you believe that? No stipend for the heterosexual, but if you are a practitioner of this sin, you get a special prize!
Woe to them who call good evil and evil good (or, in this case, homosexuality prize-worthy)
Dusty Bin-- you're sophistically taking me out of context and you know it. You can go back and read my posts on this thread if you want, which you are trying to twist because they're buried pages back and you know you can get away with it and people won't check up on you and your lies. You never substantiated your allegations against me then, and never answered my arguments.
I never said the divines at Dort intended for TULIP to stand for Calvinism (though they DID rigidify those doctrines and did, in essence, allow the Remonstrants to set the agenda by crafting TULIP as a response. I explained that by Dort Calvinism I meant the juvenile understanding many people these days have that the five points are a summation of Calvinism. By Dort partisans I always meant and still mean those people people who ignorantly and staunchly take up TULIP and call themselves 'Calvinists' when they are just partisans who want to associate themselves with something and over-react against free-willers.
Anybody who wants to can go back and read my posts. They'll find you made a bunch of charges you never substantiated, claimed you were going to take me to task, and instead just fell off the earth until now, when you're trying to twist my words.
Have you ever read Luther's Bondage? Luther (however much he argues about words) doesn't seem to realize that he for the most part agrees with the position of Erasmus that the will in the strictest sense is 'free' in that it is in no way extrinsically restrained, yet nonetheless bound through inability, though still blameably so due to being technically free--so, yes, Luther holds the two in a sort of compatibilist tension, as all Augustinians do.
The Augustinian tradition has always held freedom and necessity in tension, and has always seen the two as in some way--see Augustine's dialogue on Free Will, Anselm's Cur Deus Homo (and de concordia), Luther's Bondage, and book I of Calvin's Institutes--all of which hold to a general position of compatibilism between free will and predestination.
Dusty Bin-- "For the lazy who don't want to bother reading the whole, just do a word search on "freewill".
As for Luther... has he ever read Luther's Bondage of the Will .. the clue is in the title !! "
I knew you were a proof texter, and here you are preaching research by proof text as a method.
As for the 'more on Dort Calvinism' do me a favor and read my other rebuttals before you launch another erroneous salvo of accusations.
I'm a Calvinist, but I hereby request a special dispensation not to be terrorized .
As for Calvin, try the guy on for size some time...you might even *gasp* like him . Lots of people call themselves Calvinists, but not everybody is. Just like lots of people call themselves Christians but not everybody is.
Mike from Mex-- Thanks, that's nice of you to say. While I shall not comment or take any side on your your assessment of JD and Yamil, thanks for the compliment.
Furthermore, as you say, "I am sure I'm wrong on some points of theology." That's a really commendable attitude to have, I think. I had a good theology professor who used to say (as many good theology profs do) that truth be told, WE ALL have our personal heresies we aren't even aware of, try though we might to have a right account on all doctrinal questions--we're human and all of us must certainly have things we have a wrong-headed understanding of (the Reformers included). I have every reason to expect that when I meet my Lord I will find I've dreadfully misunderstood this thing or that.
However, praise be to our Lord Jesus Christ that, while He values our dilligent attempts to understand and organize His teachings in our minds to His glory and our transformation into more of His likeness, He does not damn us for being less-than-perfect theologians!
Why stop at not saying they're Muslims? Why stop at exculpating Muslims when we could completely exculpate humanity? We could say they're robots, or maybe aliens. Maybe even illuminati shapeshifters in the employ of GWB. Maybe we could say it was all just a dream.
Yamil-- Quite true, and my allegiance is to the Bible. I will only like a thinker to the extent that I believe he follows and helps to elucidate the doctrines found IN SCRIPTURE, and no more. I like Calvin quite a bit, but no one will ever find a post of mine ripping people up for not being 'Reformed' or 'Calvinistic.' (That's the job of people who love to be partisans and, again, usually haven't read the man and discovered he isn't nearly the partisan they think he is). Like I said earlier Calvin called himself a Lutheran at reading the Augsburg confession.
It is good and indeed important to see various ways in which people have interpreted the Bible, but I never have understood any of them to be anything but interpreters--and indeed I disagree with Calvin and the Reformed tradition in terms of certain points of Covenantal Theology (e.g. pedobaptism).
Dusty Bin-- By the way, where have all of those searing indictments of lying, lunacy, ego trips, and so on you levied against me gone? What about how you were going to call in for proofs and take me to task on all my lies and ignorance? I'll just assume you know you spoke too soon and misinterpreted me.
Although I'm not big on the whole cashless society concern (there are plenty of cashless societies around and always have been, as 33k noted), I must admit I found it a bit odd when I lived in Germany that many sellers/services simply will not accept cash! Most things in Germany are done by direct bank transfer (which is becoming more popular in America, I've noticed) which sort of chains you to a bank (DeutscheBank, in my case).
What I'm a bit more concerned about is not simply the cashless aspect, but cashless + debt. Many of you probably read a year or so ago that the plummetting average rate of savings in America finally became 0%. We are becoming a society whose lives are owned by credit debt, and the less savings one has, inevitably more does the welfare state grow (and with it socialism and government intrusion). This really makes us vulnerable to the gov't. stepping in, and, hance socialism. With socialism comes increased gov't. take-over of the private sector, taxes, reliance on gov't., etc., as in Germany or other socialist countries, and with that, decreased freedom. Obama and Hillary, btw, are flat-out Marxists and would love for this to happen.
JD-- You say "...This would include anonymous and may apply particularly to him."
You've got me utterly and completely wrong, friend. I don't know where you would have gotten that from at all. I am not in any way "infatuated with the reformed writers." I too think it is a HUGE problem that people stop with this Reformation thinker or that one as if a latter-day commentator is the end-all be-all of the Gospel. The irony is, so many people treat various Reformers as if they were the final say, when the the Reformers' mentality themselves was, so to speak "don't look at me--look at the SCRIPTURES." Luther, for instance, hated the idea of a "Lutheran" Church (preferring the name "evangelisch."
Don't presume that just because I like Calvin and think he performed a very useful service to scriptural interpretation and systematic theology that I divinize 'Calvinism' as if it were God's word. I like Calvin BECAUSE I MEASURE HIM AGAINST SCRIPTURE, as I do with any thinker. The amount of time I have studied Calvin (or any thinker) pales in comparison to my concern for the Word of God. I am just a guy who has studied Calvin and I like him a lot. There is nothing wrong with that and IN NO WAY do I think he stands for the gospel. I disagree with him on some thingstoo--he's not inspired.
I don't know if you were just waanting to argue or not, but you apparently didn't read the original post, or the follow-up. Either that or you're just playing word games. I WAS AGREEING WITH YOUR STATEMENTS ABOUT THE WORLD!!! I wasn't talking about Christians, and if you had read the post, you'd see I was talking about how Christians by definition DO NOT BELONG to the world I was describing.
And no that isn't what antinomian means; I think you've been hearing people throw the word around incorrectly or something. An antinomian is by definition "anti" + "nomos"--preceisely the opposite of one who argues the law is necessary.
I'll make the point again. It's very simple, but I don't know whether you'll read it anymore than you read the last ones. The point is this:
All nations are evil, and the world is fallen. If there were any nation which were not fallen and evil, it would not need laws--people would have the law written on their hearts. But so evil are the nations of the world; that they must have laws (and enforce them) because fallen humanity, left to its own devices, is wicked and kills etc. This has nothing to do with Christians or with Antinomianism or Godâ€™s Law as related to Grace. I already clarified that and I donâ€™t why I need to again.