Friday, April 28, 2006

My Personal opinion on this controversy.

This is something new. Like I said, I don't agree with Calvinism. Calvin was a man who created his theocracy in Geneva where religious dissinters were persecuted. Now, as for the KJV, I believe it's an accurate translation of the Bible. I don't believe that the KJV is superior to the original translations of the NT or OT, but an accurate translation. Now, I don't agree with Francis Bacon. History proves that King James resisted Francis Bacon and later made Bacon to leave his post in the British government. So, James disagreed strongly with Bacon.

As for David Bay, I have nothing but respect for the man. I disagree with his Pre-trib views (The Pre-trib rapture was invented by the Jesuits. The early church uniformly was Post-trib) , which the Bible is blatantly Post-trib as said by Jesus in Matthew 24. I've read David Bay's response and he is sincere about his views. He disagreed with Pastor Ron Riffe's unfair bashing of the KJV. Also, Barbara Aho is an interesting character. For the past 2 or 3 years, she's been on an assault on Jewish people. She may say that she is anti-Semitic, but the truth remains that she denies that all tribes existed in Israel after the Babylonian Captivity. Barbara only believes that the tribe of Judah only remained in Israel even after the Second Temple was built, which was long after the Babylonian Captivity. She's totally wrong for the NT clearly mention some of the Lost Tribes living in Israel during the time of the Roman Empire. For example, Luke 2:36 mentions Asher (one of the supposed Lost Tribes) in the Lord. Jesus is called a Jew in John 4:9 plus Peter in Acts 10:28.

In John 4:19-26, Jesus said that salvation is from the Jews. Therefore, By the time of Christ, the terms "Jew" and "Israel" are 100% interchangeable. Jesus Christ is the King of the Jews (Mt. 27:37) and the King of Israel (the twelve tribes) in Mt. 27:42 and John 12:9-13). Barbara Aho readily exposes evil Jewish people (which I have no problem with), but rarely expose the Jesuits, Opus Dei, Knight of Columbus, and other groups with a majority Gentile membership. All of these groups existed from the Ancient Mysteries from Babylon and Egypt, which were Gentiles. Aho's biggest deception is trying to equate Romanism with Judaism. Aho wrote about this deception in his work "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT CATHOLIC OR JEWISH?"

The truth is that Romanism itself has its influences from Babylonian. True Torah Judaism was supported by God, Moses, and others. All of the rituals during that time were praised of God. Now, many of the ceremonies were oboselete since God doesn't require us to follow all of the old Jewish traditions from the OT, but the chi-rho symbol, confessionals, wafers in mass, Goddess worship, etc. existed not from Jewish people, but from the Gentile Ancient Mysteries. That is a fact. She has never refuted the fact that God's covenant to Abraham in Genesis 12 wasn't replaced. God said it was for Abraham's seed for an everlasting land and for an everlasting covenant. Watch Unto Prayers accepts replacement theology and denies any land covenant to the Jewish people.

They assign Secret societies to Jews like Freemasons, yet 2 Gentiles invented Modern Freemasonry. Watch Unto Prayer uses a lot of truth, but mixes it with anti-Jewish sentiment. They assign any support of Israel or God's covenant with shilling with pro-Kabbalist, evil Zionists, which isn't the case at all. You can still support the good people in Israel and be anti-Kabbala, anti-dual loyality, and anti-apostacy. That's my view. Barbara Aho and Retaking America is right that Cutting Edge should of put a more strong disclaimer that the pro-Bacon guy is 100% wrong on his views on Christianity. Aho is wrong into denying the eternal land covenant given by God to Abraham and his seed. Genesis 12 was never banned or eliminated since the covenant was eternal. The truth is that Romanism itself has its influences from Babylonian. Aho doesn't want people to know that even Paul said that he's a Jew, from the tribe of Benjamin, and God hasn't forsaken his people Israel which he foreknew. Replacement theology is not only praised today by apostate Protestants, British Israelists, and anti-Semites. It's also supported by Roman Catholics.

By TruthSeeker24 (Timothy)


D.R. said...


I don't exactly understand what the controversy is that you have written about, but I do have a Master's degree in Biblical Studies, with an emphasis on Greek (and a passion for textual criticism) from an SBC seminary. That being said, after reading some of that thread you linked to in a later post, I am astonished by the lack of knowledge these guys (and ladies) have regarding textual criticism and the formation of the Bible from the 1st century to today. I am also flabbergasted not only by the one woman's comments on Calvinism (it's apostasy?), but also your short summary at the beginning of your post. If you truly are seeking truth, let me direct you to two resources. One is a link to an article by Tim Challies on Calvin and Geneva (specifically regarding Servetus) and the other is a link to a book by James R. White called the King James Controversy. I hope you will check them both out and let me know what you think.

The Servetus Problem
The King James Only Controversy

May God bless you on your quest for true knowledge.

Timothy said...

The controversy is wierd. It all start when David Bay and company created "America Beginning" about Francis Bacon and the creation of America. That movie talked about how Christian and pagan influence led to the development of the USA. Retaking and Barbara Aho believes that Bay is trying to say that Bacon edited the KJV. The truth of the matter is that there is no evidence that Bacon did that. Also, Manly P. Hall made up that theory. So, it's David Bay vs. Retaking America/Barbara Aho. Aho is wrong in her radical Replacement theology. Aho believes that Bay is trying to bash the KJV and Bay denies it. On Calvinsim, I disagree with you.

Calvin not only made his theocracy in Geneva (which us Baptists didn't want). That's why we Baptists like Leland help create the Bill of Rights to prevent that from happening. Calvin supported false doctrines like amillennium, infant baptism, and limited atonement. I really don't see these concepts in the scriptures. James White is an interesting character and has been refuted by Dave Hunt's book. David Cloud has written an excellent piece on Calvinism at:

Degrees don't necessarily mean your intellectual superior to someone in theology. The original translators didn't have PHds or masters, yet scholars like W.T. Robertson deduce that there 99%+ accuracy among the NT scripts. If you are seeking truth, realize that Calvin made mistake. I don't want to even talk about Servetus that much. Regardless if he was a heretic, no one deserves death for simple religious dissent. I will look at both sides to see if Calvin supported or had involvement in Servetus' death. By looking at your link, you consider Calvin to be innocent. Sorry, I'm thankful to not be a Calvinist. I'm a Baptist.

By TruthSeeker24 (Timothy)

Timothy said...

is the link.

Timothy said...

Dave Hunt's "What Love is This?"

It talks also about Calvin's shocking Catholic connections.

Timothy said...

I am really flabbergasted at your support for a man who support the unscriptural tenets of infant baptism, theocracy, and amillennialism. This is all of what your buddy Calvin supported.

D.R. said...

First off, thanks for explaining the controversy. It sounds quite interesting, but beyond my realm of knowledge in regards to the history of Francis Bacon. I don't think it's something I want to weigh in on.

I am interested to know where you get much of your information on Calvinism. If it's Hunt's book, then clearly you haven't studied past the talking points. Hunt's book is probably the worst presentation of the non-Calvinist view out there. He has found no support among legitimate NT scholars and few theologians have endorsed his views (it's so bad that no Calvinist beyond James White even felt compelled to offer a rebuttal).

In regards to Leland and others, I don't think there were responding specifically to Calvin in writing the Bill of Rights, but rather the Church of England the English Monarchy. Maybe you could provide documented evidence to the contrary. As for Calvin's doctrinal views, Luther said that every man's theology is at least 10% wrong, and as a professor of mine used to say, "I hope it's my eschatology." I tend to hold to a view similar to amillenialism, but more akin to historical premillenialism. Eschatology has been so conditionally interpreted based on church directives and historical context that one's view of it is hardly anything to get ruffled over. As for limited atonement, this is another doctrinal position to which I ascribe and so I reject your dismissal of it. There are many men that I will mention later that held this view and also influenced the history of Baptists well beyond the reach of either you or I. I don't think looking down ones nose at these men because you don't see the Scriptural argument is either respectful of your heritage or helful to your future sanctification.

The fact is Calvinism is very important to Baptist history. See Leo McBeth's The Baptist Heritage for more on this from a non-Calvinist. To say one is a Baptist does not exclude one from being a Calvinist. In fact many great Baptists have been Calvinists including the man whom you site in your comment, A.T. Robertson (not W.T.). If you are a landmarkist then you might be interested to know that PM Mell, JM Carroll and his brother BH Carroll were all Calvinists. The modern missions movement was started by the Reformed Baptist William Carey. Charles Spurgeon, the great Baptist preacher of London called Calvinism "a nickname for the Gospel." WA Criswell, the pastor of FBC Dallas was even a Calvinist. And today Calvinism is held by Baptists like Al Mohler, John Piper, and even Rick Warren.

Now, let me address the issue of scholarship. I pointed out my degree merely to frame my interest in the subject and give background related to it. However, I think formal theological and Biblical training is important because it often excludes the possibility of never being confronted with views in opposition to one's own. Today's Ph.D. candidates are much like scholars of old who had to be aware of the classical books of religion, as well as being extremely knowledgable of the positions of their contemporaries (including those of their opponents). Today, it is nearly impossible to have such as varied education without having had formal training (or at the least being mentored by those who do -- in the case of a Phil Johnson). Dave Hunt is an example of this problem. He readily admits no knowledge of either Greek or Hebrew, though he acts as if he can accurately handle the sophisticated Greek nuances in the text (the Reformers and early Baptists would have looked harshly upon any minister not well-versed in Greek and Hebrew who claimed to have grasped the text well enough to not need them). This is not a snobbish view, but rather an exhortation that understanding Biblical languages are indeed important to proper exegesis. I do know however, that there are many who are much smarter than I and I yield to those. It just happens that the vast majority of those to whom I am convinced of their superiority of handling the text do indeed have formal degrees, indicating not only their dedication to the Word of God and to their calling, but also their humility in understanding their need to be educated by other men smarter and more sanctified than they. But I say all this to say, I did not in any way mean to come across as arrogant with my statment regarding my degree and if that is what was communicated I sincerely apologize. I merely desired as I said before to frame my interest in the discussion and my hope to bring some knowledge of the subject to the table.

Finally, as to your statement regarding support of Calvin, I want to say that first of all the term "Calvinism" was given by the Synod of Dort and not by Calvin himself. This view of God's electing grace can be traced back to even before Augustine, though he is typically casted as the first to publically expouse such a view. Throughout history, however, this tradition was not only hinted at, but used to rebuke Pelagianism again and again in the Catholic church. Men like John Wycliffe and Jon Hus (who were coincidentally important in the development of Bibles coming into the common vernacular), as well as Luther, himself, held to unconditional election (the mark of Calvinism) and possibly even limited (though I prefer the word, "Definite") atonement. So, having said that, let me interject that to associate all those who are convinced of the Scriptural evidence for unconditional election (or even limited atonement) with all of Calvin's actions is like saying all Americans are complicit with slavery because many of the Founding Fathers owned slaves. To didmiss his theological views because of some bad choices that Calvin made (which at that time in history were not considered such heinous acts as they are today) is an ad hominem fallacy. Calvin could have acted wrongly in certain situations and yet still been right in regards to his theology, just as we can still be justified by God's grace and spread His Word despite the fact that we sin daily.

Timothy, I think you have a lot of views conditioned by others like Hunt that haven't been fair to the views of others or to history. Hunt is the quintessential ad hominem fallacitizer (if that's a word). He even goes as far as rejecting Augustine and Calvin on the basis of their connection with Roman Catholicism (as if they had a choice at that time). Tim, we are conditioned by our environment and those by whom we are mentored. Biases are something we have to get past in order to be educated. I wasn't born a Calvinist. I came to this view after an aweful lot of prayer and hours upon hours of study and months of meditation on Scripture. The same was true of Jonathan Edwards and countless other men. Be sure to tune into the debate between Ergun Caner and James R. White which will take place at Liberty University in October. It should be interesting.

Thanks for interacting with me and for taking the time to comment back. I look forward to reading your blog in the future.

Anonymous said...

If you are NOT shockproof, please do not go to Yahoo and type in "Thomas Ice (Bloopers)," "Pretrib Hypocrisy," "LaHaye's Temperament," "Pretrib Rapture Diehards," or "Appendix F: Thou Shalt Not Steal." THE OBSERVER

Timothy said...

The controversy is weird. I get the majority of the Information from Calvinism from Dave Cloud's Way of Life Ministries site. I find his work balanced and fair. As for Dave Hunt, I don't agree with his views on everything. His book about Calvinism is mostly accurate. Calvin embraced many Catholic principles like infant baptism and amillennialism. That is a fact of history. You can accept it or not. As for NT scholars, many NT scholars believe that most of NT is a myth. Truth is isn't evidenced necessarily by the popularity of scholars.

As for Leland, you are just wrong. The Bill of Rights was created by the support of the Baptists. Leland was one of James Madison's allies. Without Baptist support, the Bill of Rights would of never of been created. The British Monarchy has almost nothing to do with the creation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. David L. Brown, Ph.D.'s article called "A Baptist Preacher and The First Amendment" wrote elaborately on the Leland/Madison connection. That is one evidence out of many. Calvin isn't a perfect and at least you concede to that. Yes, no man is perfect, but that doesn't mean that doctrinal errors must not be exposed.

The amillennial view is 100% Papal and has no basis in scripture. The Bible in Revelation perfectly outline a 1,000 year reign of Jesus Christ. All of Eschatology isn't hard to decipher. Limited atonement is no where mentioned in the Holy Scriptures, because the Bible explicity mention that Jesus Christ died for all men (1st John 2:2, 2nd Corinthians 5:15, 2nd peter 3:9, and 1st Timothy 1:15) To assume that Christ died for a select, implies that Christ is not only has Deity, but his sacrifice on the Cross wasn't sufficient to save all sinners worldwide. Your Baptist/Calvinist connection is really half-right. Many Baptists were influenced from Calvinist, but not all Baptists embrace the 5 Point theology of Calvinism. There were Baptists who denied limited atonement. That's my main disagreement with Calvinism.

I'm not looking down on anyone noses. I just cite scriptures to prove my point. I don't follow a man for my theology. I follow Jesus Christ, not Calvin for my total theology. Even intellectual men are capable of making doctrinal errors.

I already realize that many Baptists were influenced from Calvinism. What you need to understand that Baptists existed before Calvinism from Calvin. For example, there were Anabaptists, Waldensians, and other Baptist-like organizations. Today, tons of Baptists reject many of Calvinistic views like David Cloud, Dr. R. G. Lee, and others. Also, Calvinism is never exclusively Baptist at all. Calvin support theocracy and infant baptism, which Baptists abhored. "The Other Side of Calvinism." by Lawrence M. Owens wrote about that not all Baptists were in the Calvin camp. Rick Warren embraces false doctrine, so I reject his pro-dome church doctrine. I really don't need to talk about scholarship on this issue. The reason is that just because people don't possess a PHD, doesn't mean they are capable of interpretating the scripture.

The Greek and Hebrew text are readily avaliable to PHds and non-PHds alike. Also, this is different from the Reformers translations of the Bible. The reason is we have the texts avaliable and the translators had to recieve Greek and Hebrew texts to accurately translate the Bible into English. Showing word translation to expound a doctrinal point is different from making a large translation of a whole Bible.

As for electing grace, I will just say simply that grace is sent by God (yes), but God doesn't wish anyone to perish, but for all to have eternal life. As for you to assign me to Pelagianism. I don't believe in it. Free will has nothing to do with salvation. That's one of things that Calvin got right. Also, I never did assign all of Calvin's acts to all pro-Calvinists at all. That's your error. Also, I never dissmissed his theology, because of his personal life. I seperate personal life and theology.

Your interpretation of Hunt is your view. I think he did a great job in outlining the heresies of Romanism. He does cite a Roman Catholic connection to Calvinism. I view most Calvinists as brothers and sisters of the faith, but some of Calvinism is part of false doctrine.

You trying to justify Calvin/Roman Catholic connection is very flat. First, many Bible believers resisted much of Romanism before Calvinism like Peter Waldo, Vigilantius, Benegarius, and tons of other people. John Wycliffe lived before John Calvin, yet he reject the Eucharist as being the real presence of Christ and condemned the Pope.

Your environment has influence, but it isn't a death sentence. People throughout history have overcome the negatives of their environment to be great, holy human beings. Independent churches existed before ROmanism was invented. Also, there were bible believing Christians before 1517 like Waldensians, Celtic Church, independents, etc. I don't deny that great preachers have been affiliated with Calvinism, but errors still existed. No man is perfect and when these godly men and women go to Heaven, errors will be exposed. James White is an interesting character. He tells some of the truth, yet displays some arrogant.

You have a right to believe in what you want just like I have a right to disagree with you. I wrote this response not in many days, but in minutes. So, I'm in David Cloud's view on Calvinism (plus David J. Stewart's view from Also, I'm not an Arminian. God doesn't care about a degree. I have a bacheolor's degree in History and Political Science. He wants repentance and obedience.

By TruthSeeker24 (Timothy)

P.S. Even this quote from you buddy Charles Spurgeon talked about all men:

“What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. ‘All men,’ say they, -- ‘that is, some men’: as if the Holy Ghost could not have said ‘some men’ if he had meant some men.

‘All men,’ say they; ‘that is, some of all sorts of men’: as if the Lord could not have said ‘All sorts of men’ if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written ‘all men,’ and unquestionably he means all men. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. …

My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God” (quoted from Spurgeon vs. the Hyper-Calvinists by Iain Murray).

D.R. said...

"As for Dave Hunt, I don't agree with his views on everything. His book about Calvinism is mostly accurate."

This one statement is enough for me to know that you are clueless on Calvinism and have formed your views inside of a box you created. Please do some reseach and start thinking for yourself. You think I follow Calvin to the letter, yet it seems obvious that your understanding of history and theology has been passed down to you. You even hint at believing in Baptist successionism. Yikes! Just like every other fundy I meet, you won't learn until you actually meet one of these scholars you continue to put down face to face. Here's a link to a place where you can get some great education from men who are smarter and more Godly than either of us will ever hope to be. I suggest you listen to some of the lectures.

Timothy said...

Once again, you are using intellectualism. See, intellectualism never equates salvation niether true spirituality. I'm very smart, but my intellect is not my god. I hope you don't use intelligence as a god. God require a humble, simple faith to understand his word. Like I said before, you don't need to be a genius to understand God's Word at all. You saying that I'm clueless about Calvinism is your ad hominem attack and deception again. Calvinism accepted limited atonement and other theology. That is a fact. Calvin supported infant baptism and made Geneva his personal theocracy. That is a fact, so I know plenty about Calvinism. Don't be mad that Biblical Christianity existed before Calvinism. Don't be mad that Calvin accept the Papal tenets of infant baptism, amillinnealism, etc. As for church history, you seem to know little of it. For thousands of years, God has always has a remnant of his believers from the apostles, Celtic Church, Waldensians, etc. That is a fact. So, if you want to deny, then deny it and accept Romanist propaganda. Why are using the word "fundy." Bible believing fundamentalists are fighting against evil in this nation like abortion, religious liberty, etc. What is wrong with being a conservative Christian? Nothing. I don't need an education by your embrace of intellectualism. The Bible is sufficient enough for a child to understand. As for Baptist successionism, I don't believe that Baptists are the only Christians or that Baptists existed in the time of Christ. I do believe that non-Catholic Christians did exist for 2,000+ years. That's my belief. The Bible supports this in saying that the church will never perish. Your Founding Fathers comments don't work since much of Bill of Rights had Baptist influence and many of the Founding Fathers opposed slavery. While you live by intellecutalism, I will live by history and the truth. I will respect the history plus legacy of Wycliffe, Tyndale, Waldo, and other Christians.

By TruthSeeker24 (Timothy)

Timothy said...

I'm not clueless of Calvinism since I've cited its doctrine and beliefs. Please don't insult my intelligence.

Timothy said...

P.S. There is nothing with being intellectual. It is something wrong with believing that using intellectualism in a hardcore, condosending way is the sole way in interpretating the Bible.

D.R. said...

Ok, Tim, whatever you say man. Anti-Intellectualism is something that fundys preach, not Evangelicals. I'm an Evangelical and likely more conservative than you are. The fact is that I base my views on Scripture and understand how the Church has interpreted these Scriptures for thousands of years, even as Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli taught their students to do. Don't hijack men like Wycliffe and Tyndale for your fundy purposes. They were actually both CALVINISTS! Yep! They held to unconditional election! So did Jon Huss and many others that you like to trace your non-Catholic history through. They were highly influenced by Augustine, who they didn't see as evil because he baptized babies.

And Tim I do understand Church history, again probably better than you do, but I don't use it to bash men like Calvin and others who helped to rend the Bible from the hands of Catholics that had suppressed it. I celebrate these guys and realize that they were part of a greater family of God that I am a part of. I love my Anglican brethren, my Methodist brethren, and especially my Presbyterian and Baptist brethren. I don't reject them because they believe in a different view of eschatology than I do (Gosh, could you find a more ridiculous thing to withhold fellowship for disagreement in?). Furthermore, I believe that we are all in this struggle to be Christlike together. Go over to my blog and you will see that I am engaged in debate with a guy who thinks homosexuality is wrong. I have debated with Emerging church guys and even non-Christians about Church dogmas. Limited Atonement, amillenialism, and infant baptism are the least of our worries these days. Wake up and smell the coffee and celebrate your brethren before you find yourself in your own club with few other Christians. I, for one, prefer to celebrate my Christian heritage with my fellow CONSERVATIVE Christians who desire to hold hands and walk with me in essential doctrines. Go check out the site to see more about the ecumenical movement that is beginning with Calvinists.

And remember,

Don't Hate, Celebrate!

Timothy said...

Yes, I’m like your other buddies who are intimidated. I’m intimidated by no one but God. Why do you obsess with fundy all of the time? There is nothing wrong with being a fundamentalist or conservative Christianity. A fundamentalist believes in the fundamentals of the Christian faith and that the Bible is accurate and the origin translations were inspired of God as the scriptures teaches. I know you’re an establishment Evangelical. Don’t you guys kick off your day by worshipping Bush and believing that he’s such a strong Christian? I don’t know why most of you Evangelicals love to target big bad me for being a fundamental Christian guy. I know why. It’s because we’re one of the last of the Mohicans that’s preventing your ecumenical agenda. We don’t back down on issues of abortion, homosexuality, Secret Societies, New World Order, and other issues. Do you believe the Church must “interpret” the scriptures for you? Isn’t that Papal? Peter said that the scriptures are given by no private interpretation. In other words, individuals can easily understand God’s Word. I’m not hijacking Wycliffe and Tyndale. Don’t hijack them since they were not Calvinists at all period. Calvinism started with Calvin not Wycliffe. Wycliffe believed in the accuracy of the scriptures, rejected infant baptism, and believed that individuals have a right to read the Bible for themselves. Your slur of fundy show your hostility to people that differ from you. This is typical since many fundamentalists like Cutting Edge Ministries, David J. Stewart, and others have been at the forefront fighting against the evils of this day.

So what if they believe in some of Calvin’s doctrine. I believe in some of Calvin’s doctrines like free will never meriting salvation, etc. That doesn’t mean that they accepted all of Calvin’s precepts. To be a Calvinist, you must accept his main points, not some of them. I realize that Huss and Wycliffe accepted some Calvinist views. Augustine is Augustine. He is right on some issues and wrong on others. Also, news flash, The Waldensians also weren’t Calvinists.

I never said you understood church history. I understand church history myself. You probably don’t understand church history better than me. I’m not even showing all of my intellect here DR. You know this. I’ve debated people smarter than you before. What evidence can you cite that I bash church history? I don’t. I just keep it real and honest. Calvin being a theocratic pro-baby baptizer is fact, not fiction. What do saying historical facts have to do with bashing a man? Nothing. The Bible existed before Calvin and I will give credit when it’s due to Calvin for his Geneva Bible. On the other hand, other men translated the Bible not just Calvin. What evidence can you cite that I reject Methodists and Presbyterians? Nothing. I do believe that most Calvinists are in the body of Christ, but Calvinism has many false doctrines. Also, your further false statement is that I withhold fellowship with those with differing eschatology. I don’t subscribe to that at all.

Furthermore, claiming that I’m clueless about Calvinism then me citing its doctrine isn’t very nice. I’ve seen your blog before. As for homosexuality, the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality and especially gay marriage. Scientists even wrote about the pedophilia link to homosexuality as well like Dr. Paul Cameron, Ph. D. Jesus in Matthew wanted a man to marry a woman. He said that explicitly. I already had woken up. You need to smell the coffee about more issues. I don’t follow the ecumenical movement. Rome controls a lot of it (as written by the great Dr. Cathy Burns). Also, regardless of your claims, ecumenicalism too often compromises people’s essential doctrines for basic acceptance. You talk about few other Christians? The Bible says it is better to be in the minority and not compromise than be accepted by the world. There is nothing wrong with celebrating Christian heritage. Our worry should be evils in the world.

and Remember, I hate evil as Psalms says, but not people individually. I celebrate the truth. As for intellectualism, there is nothing wrong with being intellecutal. It is wrong to use intellectualism as your god or claim that a college graduate can accurately understand the Bible. That's all I'm saying. Plus, many fundamentalists are doctors, scientists, theologians, etc. So your slick cheap shot against fundamentalists shows your ignorance and false statements yet again. You list many false accusations against me like I'm clueless, etc. I'm not even discussing about Servetus.

By TruthSeeker24 (Timothy)

Timothy said...

P.S. I don't hate intellectualism. What I hate is evil and the idea of some people claiming that highly educated people are only those who can understand the Word of God. Some of our greatest leaders in many fields didn't graduate from college at all.

D.R. said...

Tim, man, have you ever thought about doing stand up comedy? You would be great. I can't stop laughing!

Some of my favorite comments:

1. "Yes, I’m like your other buddies who are intimidated." -- what are you even talking about? Really funny start to your comment.

2. "I know you’re an establishment Evangelical. Don’t you guys kick off your day by worshipping Bush and believing that he’s such a strong Christian?" -- Really you should hit the road with this one. Really hilarious! Glad you know me so well! Did you see my post on politics? I guess not.

3. "It’s because we’re one of the last of the Mohicans that’s preventing your ecumenical agenda." -- This was really good. I didn't know you were a Mohican - that's awesome man. And you know what else is awesome, The Last of the Mohican's was the first movie my wife and I watched together (on the night we first met)! Maybe you do know me better than I thought.

4. "We don’t back down on issues of abortion, homosexuality, Secret Societies, New World Order, and other issues." -- Uh, oh, this is why you don't like me much - I was in a fraternity - Lambda Chi Alpha to be exact. Yikes! And you know what? My grandfather was really high up in the FreeMasons. Ouch! I'm screwed. And as for the abortion and homosexuality thing, trust me I probably feel just as strongly about those things as you do.

5. "Do you believe the Church must “interpret” the scriptures for you? Isn’t that Papal?" - I give up! You caught me -- I'm a closet Catholic. My Papal Players card is in my wallet. Go study Reformation history and the idea of Sola Scriptura. It is interesting exactly what the Reformers felt this meant. BTW, if you've never read any Chrysostem, you should check him out -- great stuff.

6. "Calvinism started with Calvin not Wycliffe." Hey that's great stuff. I thought Calvinism started with Paul or even Jesus in John 6. Glad you set me straight there.

7. "Your slur of fundy show your hostility to people that differ from you." -- Now this is really good stuff. You should write this down (oh, wait you did!). Classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. Didn't you fundy guys perfect this? Remember J. Frank Norris -- his boys used to drive over to Southwestern in the back of their trucks trying to pick fights with the Evangelicals. Oh, yeah and then there's that Jerry Falwell guy. I think they should make a comedy recording of all his crazy sayings.

I can't go on. That was just the first paragraph and I am about to pee on myself I am laughing so hard! One more though before I go.

8. "Calvin being a theocratic pro-baby baptizer is fact, not fiction" -- Hey, I'm pro-baby! I'm thinking my wife and I are going to have about 6. And guess what the boys names are going to be? Knox, Wycliffe, and Calvin. Yes! I am officially a heretic, putting those pro-baby folks with a Baptist like Wycliffe. I'm sure he will be turning over in his grave.

Seriously dude, you don't know me, I don't know you, but I think you have a lot of things wrong when it comes to Calvinism and the Reformed faith. You're so Baptist that I'm surprised your not soaking wet all the time from the baptistry. But your biggest flaw is that you take yourself way too seriously! Lighten up man! Go hang out with some rockin' Presby's. They are cool folks. That RC Sproul guy is hilarious. You should download his sermon preached at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary a couple of weeks ago (I know -- a pro-baby guy speaking at a Baptist seminary -- HERESY!). But seriously -- it's good stuff.

And good luck to you man. BTW, are you married? If not, I highly recommend it. Marriage and some kids might mellow you out some.

Timothy said...

There's no need to make a response to you, because you continue to make so many false statements about me that I lost count. I've answered all of your point. Your biggest falsehood is that Calvinism started with Paul. Calvinism in all of its doctrines started with John Calvin not Paul at all. YOur other false statement is to talk about "pro-baby." I made no mention of that, but talked about pro-baby baptism. As for fraternity, I never talked about college fraternities. I talked about Freemasonry with death oath, paganism, and other unscriptural concepts that have been exposed by Ed Decker and preachers for centuries. That's nothing new. My Mohican comment was not to be taken literal and you know it. This has nothing to do with Falwell, but our discussion. In fact Falwell has been funded by the cult extremist Moon, so you Neo-Evangelicals can have Falwell. There's nothing wrong with being a Baptist and I want to be soaking wet after baptism, which is for adults alone. I don't even have to write long to refute your point. My only main mistake is that I don't know all of your politics, so I will see them on your blog. Plus, you know that world leaders have talked about a New World Order for years. I really can't stand abortion on demand. One of the pro-choice crowd's early leaders was Margaret Sanger, who went into a KKK rally in 1926 and had pro-eugenics quotes. I have evidence, sources, and website links to prove that as well.

How many more falsehoods do you have DR?

Timothy said...

With your stereotypes and false statements, there is no need to respond to you on this issue in a big way no more.

Timothy said...

You can laugh all you want, but you never convince me of all of your ideas. It's time to move on.

Timothy said...

I will say that I'm a Baptist, so I can't help myself. ha ha ha ha....