Hebrews 6

[makesends]

makesends said:
Typical.
@Eleanor is giving you a sound bit of advice --a warning. She did not say you are without excuse.

Look again.

Eleanor said:
So. . .the word of God states that you "are without excuse" in denying that "what can be known about God is plain;" i.e.. "his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen". . .(Ro 1:19-20

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Not sure what your objection is there to what I said. If your quote of what she said means to you that she is claiming that you are condemned, then maybe you should put it back into the context of everything else she said. Notice the many uses in that context of the word, "if".

But if you can't do that, maybe, supposing the shoe fits, you should wear it.

It seems you may be claiming she misused Romans 1, but you have only presented an alternative translation, as if it made some kind of real difference.

 

[JIM]

But if you can't do that, maybe, supposing the shoe fits, you should wear it.

I responded to you in kind and got banned for a couple of days for it. I think I will ignore your post here as being totally inappropriate.

 

[makesends]

I responded to you in kind and got banned for a couple of days for it. I think I will ignore your post here as being totally inappropriate.

Fair enough.

 

[Mr GLee]

Which has to do with the "law or salvation."

Maybe it's because I am a Paulist, and it is not my intention to present/defend Calvin.

Do you think Paul would defend the ideas of Calvinism?

 

[makesends]

Do you think Paul would defend the ideas of Calvinism?

Or, maybe, Calvinism defends the ideas of Paul.

 

[makesends]

Mr GLee said:
Do you think Paul would defend the ideas of Calvinism?

Or, maybe, Calvinism defends the ideas of Paul.

@Mr GLee , for whatever it is worth, I think that, universally the Reformed, at least, if not those who claim to adhere to actual Calvinism as such, like to think of themselves as believing, adhering to and living according to Scripture, and not to any particular set of tenets. Whether or not they succeed in that may be another question, but at least, consider that in your question above. Not many of any who believe Sola Scriptura, Calvinist nor Arminian, etc, want to think that they make Scripture fit their theology, but that it be the other way around, their theology to be drawn from Scripture.

It is Scripture that we love. Not Calvin, nor any other person is to be followed in the sense that Jesus Christ is. I don't know of anyone who worships Calvin nor what he taught, nor what modern Calvinism teaches.

My beliefs may be Calvinistic, in tone and basic concepts and tenets, but I am not a Calvinist. It would be more appropriate, even, to call myself a Paulist.

 

[Eleanor]

Do you think Paul would defend the ideas of Calvinism?

Which ideas do you have in mind?

 

[CrowCross]

Do you think Paul would defend the ideas of Calvinism?

Paul presented out the ideas that Calvin came to understand.

 

[Mr GLee]

Which ideas do you have in mind?

There are a few I did not have a particular one in mind. Do you?

 

[Eleanor]

There are a few I did not have a particular one in mind. Do you?

So you think Paul defended some ideas of Calvin?

 

[Arial]

I responded to you in kind and got banned for a couple of days for it. I think I will ignore your post here as being totally inappropriate.

JIM said: "And maybe you should take a hike!" That is not responding in kind and the action taken was the end result of multiple warnings about posting that way that were ignored.

 

[Arial]

Mr GLee said:
Do you think Paul would defend the ideas of Calvinism?

@Mr GLee , for whatever it is worth, I think that, universally the Reformed, at least, if not those who claim to adhere to actual Calvinism as such, like to think of themselves as believing, adhering to and living according to Scripture, and not to any particular set of tenets. Whether or not they succeed in that may be another question, but at least, consider that in your question above. Not many of any who believe Sola Scriptura, Calvinist nor Arminian, etc, want to think that they make Scripture fit their theology, but that it be the other way around, their theology to be drawn from Scripture.

It is Scripture that we love. Not Calvin, nor any other person is to be followed in the sense that Jesus Christ is. I don't know of anyone who worships Calvin nor what he taught, nor what modern Calvinism teaches.

My beliefs may be Calvinistic, in tone and basic concepts and tenets, but I am not a Calvinist. It would be more appropriate, even, to call myself a Paulist.

That is why I dislike and usually avoid the term "Calvinism." It tends to put the focus on a man, (who was not alone in shaping the Reformation teachings that came out of restoring biblical doctrine to the church that the RCC had corrupted). And then those who adhere to the theology and doctrines of the Protestant Reformation are considered to be following a man, not the theology and doctrines.

In fact, the majority of the church agrees with the theology and doctrines in "Calvinism" more properly known as Reformed theology. Even those who oppose "Calvinism" as being heretical.

I think I shall start a thread "What Is Reformed Theology."

 

[Carbon]

So you think Paul defended some ideas of Calvin?

Maybe just a couple.

 

[JIM]

Mr GLee said:
Do you think Paul would defend the ideas of Calvinism?

@Mr GLee , for whatever it is worth, I think that, universally the Reformed, at least, if not those who claim to adhere to actual Calvinism as such, like to think of themselves as believing, adhering to and living according to Scripture, and not to any particular set of tenets. Whether or not they succeed in that may be another question, but at least, consider that in your question above. Not many of any who believe Sola Scriptura, Calvinist nor Arminian, etc, want to think that they make Scripture fit their theology, but that it be the other way around, their theology to be drawn from Scripture.

It is Scripture that we love. Not Calvin, nor any other person is to be followed in the sense that Jesus Christ is. I don't know of anyone who worships Calvin nor what he taught, nor what modern Calvinism teaches.

My beliefs may be Calvinistic, in tone and basic concepts and tenets, but I am not a Calvinist. It would be more appropriate, even, to call myself a Paulist.

Paul condemned anyone calling themselves a "Paulist", an "Apollosist" a Cephasist".

1Co 1:10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." 13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

 

[Mr GLee]

Paul condemned anyone calling themselves a "Paulist", an "Apollosist" a Cephasist".

1Co 1:10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." 13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

What do you think it means "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."?

What is a "Apollosist"?

 

[JIM]

What do you think it means "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."?

I think it means that there were divisions in the church in Corinth that derived from differences, real or supposed, between the various perceptions of the teachings of each of those.

What is a "Apollosist"?

An "Apollosist" was one who, in any supposed differences in the teachings of Apollos and the others, proclaimed allegiance to Apollos.

 

[Mr GLee]

I think it means that there were divisions in the church in Corinth that derived from differences, real or supposed, between the various perceptions of the teachings of each of those.

An "Apollosist" was one who, in any supposed differences in the teachings of Apollos and the others, proclaimed allegiance to Apollos.

Hi Thanks

I would offer.

I would think all believers are apologist those who defend the same Spirit of faith (power) as it is written. it powerful defends us

The beautiful feet of the sent messengers (apostles) they are not the teaching authority. They can preach the Father working in them alone teaches, comforts, guides and last but not least He brings to our memory the previous things he has taught each individual.

John 13:6Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.;Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.


2 Corinthians 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;

Every religion has a written law as oral traditions to defend what they believe.

Study his then the counterfeits can be easier to see.

One is living binding represented by the unseen eternal

 

[Mr GLee]

I think it means that there were divisions in the church in Corinth that derived from differences, real or supposed, between the various perceptions of the teachings of each of those.

An "Apollosist" was one who, in any supposed differences in the teachings of Apollos and the others, proclaimed allegiance to Apollos.

You keep speaking of the teaching of the apostles as if the teaching was of God.

We preach he alone is the one unseen good teaching master as Lord

Our allegiance is with Christ in us. Yoked with him our daily burden can be lighter.

 

[makesends]

Paul condemned anyone calling themselves a "Paulist", an "Apollosist" a Cephasist".

1Co 1:10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." 13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

I didn't say I was a Paulist. I said it would be more appropriate to call myself a Paulist, than a Calvinist. I didn't say that for the purpose of claiming to be a Paulist. I am as aware as you are that one shouldn't identify themselves as followers of Apollos nor anyone but Christ. I said that to make the point that, that what I (we) believe comes from Scripture, much of it as written by Paul. In other words, "Calvin is irrelevant".

Seems to me reasonable for anyone to understand that It had nothing to do with actually calling myself a Paulist. Why would you go off like this? Are you hard up for arguments by which to condemn us?

 

[JIM]

I didn't say I was a Paulist. I said it would be more appropriate to call myself a Paulist, than a Calvinist. I didn't say that for the purpose of claiming to be a Paulist. I am as aware as you are that one shouldn't identify themselves as followers of Apollos nor anyone but Christ. I said that to make the point that, that what I (we) believe comes from Scripture, much of it as written by Paul. In other words, "Calvin is irrelevant".

Seems to me reasonable for anyone to understand that It had nothing to do with actually calling myself a Paulist. Why would you go off like this? Are you hard up for arguments by which to condemn us?

I didn't introduce the idea of being a Paulist. @Eleanor did in post #401.

Maybe it's because I am a Paulist, and it is not my intention to present/defend Calvin.