BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
General

I've been censored, i am NOW at peace with it.

A
ArtB Jun 28, 2012

In a discussion among intelligent people, presumably Christians, it should be understood that what ever statement anyone writes, they are stating their opinion.

Everyone who reads a post can either choose to agree, or disagree, or ignore, that opinion. As Christians, we should not have to fear of expressing our mind and heart.

And I was working hard on a very nice amicable response to the man who ultimately condemned my view, when I discovered the thread was killed.

If Apostle Paul was censored, we all would have a lot less to talk about. Not That I'm anything like Paul, certainly not. But why should I be censored on a topic I know well. A topic which I had already demonstrated to be true. A topic I had more to share, as to God's purpose doing it as He did. So my thread is incomplete, and I feel terrible about that.

And somebody said I was a Calvinist, I do not recall ever reading anything Calvin wrote.

The views I did expound was held by Augustine, and before Him by many early Church fathers, Including the Apostle Paul. And I came by it by reading the scriptures in their Greek and Hebrew texts.

And insult added to injury, somebody requested that I be kicked off this site today, for expressing my Christian Views.

I wish to all, God's many blessings.

See you there, or in the air!

Sincerely,

ArtB

sermonindex Jun 28, 2012

Brother,

We simply on this site have had a policy for many years to try and stop when possible discussions on the topic of Calvinism and Armininism. We have not seen them bear fruit but arguing and divisions. This site is not the platform for these things, we try to encourage more practical christianity in holiness, discipleship, prayer, revival, etc.

So our heart is to see brothers from both view points have fellowship on this site on the things of God.

I hope that makes it more clear that it is a heart of love and love for the church that we desire the unity of the brethren.

sermonindex Jun 28, 2012

ArtB,

For what it's worth I know the frustration you are feeling.

Years ago I used to try and get christians to "see" the truth on this subject. However I learned that certain topics just create more division.

For me the two biggies are the once saved always saved or you can lose your salvation.

Also the timing of the return of Christ.

I believe the truth on both of these can be known but I also know that with many the discussion will just go south fast.

So I do not debate them at all.

In private if someone wants to talk about it I will. But if they choose to believe different than me fine. I drop it.

On this I agree with Greg

practical christianity in holiness, discipleship, prayer, revival, etc.


Hope you will rejoin at some point.
God bless,john


sermonindex Jun 28, 2012

The views I did expound were held by...many early Church fathers, Including the Apostle Paul.

I always find this particular argument rather.... interesting, as it's usually those on both sides of the issue that will claim this.

Next it's usually the Holy Spirit who told them their view is correct... just like He told the guys with the opposing viewpoint that they're correct as well.

These reasons are why these topics have been marked by the administrators as a bit of a hot spot, and we've been asked not to bring them up. As usually even by bringing them up, we find some way to throw mud at the other side.

sermonindex Jun 28, 2012

ArtB, Admin Greg is correct and there have been such warnings posted to discourage such discussions and to be frank, those subjects are never edifying at all.

It's not you that he is insulting, nor is it anything that you might have said, the blame is solely on the subject chosen only.

So don't take this to heart, dismiss it and carry on with posting, I like what you have to say on these threads. So don't be discouraged dear brother your apart of this family and we need you to be here.

Thanks

B
Blayne Jun 28, 2012

Hi! ArtB

Yes, I also wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of Member 'Approved' saying:
"... dear brother your apart of this family and we need you to be here."
I'm kinna' new here but I got to like your Posts an' stuff very quickly. I was especially touched by the mentioning of your personal circumstances.
While it's true that I did not always agree with your view of things, it really didn't fizz on me much. After all, I'm sure that what I have Posted here isn't always finding many in agreement either. :)
Wheeze here tuh freely discuss tings an' I want yuh tuh stay an' keep discussin' wit us.
So, please ArtB, like Member 'Approved' has said: "we need you to be here".


==========================
Re: I've been censored, i am NOW at peace with it.\t |
ArtB, Admin Greg is correct and there have been such warnings posted to discourage such discussions and to be frank, those subjects are never edifying at all.

It's not you that he is insulting, nor is it anything that you might have said, the blame is solely on the subject chosen only.

So don't take this to heart, dismiss it and carry on with posting, I like what you have to say on these threads. So don't be discouraged dear brother your apart of this family and we need you to be here.

Thanks


==========================

T
Trekker Jun 28, 2012

I am glad the discussion of that topic is banned. I have never seen it bear good fruit and it only leads to more confusion (for me anyway). Believe what you do and leave it alone. Approved said it best in his post before mine. And Everstosama is correct also in saying that both sides make similar claims.

sermonindex Jun 29, 2012

Aw, come back, Brother Art. Don't you love us anyway? How could you not? :)

I'm a "foreknowledger" but I don't want you to leave neither.

You're wanted and loved here.

Ann

1Jn 5:1-3 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth Him that begat loveth Him also that is begotten of Him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous.

A
ArtB Jun 29, 2012

by EverestoSama on 2012/6/27 19:47:30

[Qoute ArtB]The views I did expound were held by...many early Church fathers, Including the Apostle Paul.

evertosama wrote:

I always find this particular argument rather.... interesting, as it's usually those on both sides of the issue that will claim this.

Some months ago, SermonIndex produced a long list of topics concerning the Eary Church Fathers views. Among them was a considerable list of the Early Church Fathers that accepted Predestination.

If i recall correctly, evertosama, Paul had a lot to say about predestination, and I did quote him on it. I thought that what He wrote, He also meant.

How could all the numerous Bible Prophecies in the OT concerning the Messiah, His life and death, in astonishing detail, and numerous other prophecies of the OT that were very detailed and fulfilled, and many being fulfilled right before our eyes in our time, did not God predestined them to occur.

Such as:

Rachel weeping for her children (the slaughter of the infants in Bethlehem predicted and fulfilled) (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:17,18).

Was God evil to predict and allow these children 2 years and under to be slaughtered. No - of course not. Because God is the author and can and will restore their lifes.

Has not God accomplished all He says He will do. That is Predestination. He determined it will happen well before it happened. It certainly was not a lucky guess.

Ephesians 1:3-5

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the Cosmos, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will."

Do these Biblical words mean anything?

What about the ones that do not get saved? Are they Predestined to being in Hell forever? Is this the problem?

I do not know that. Perhaps they are the spawn of the devil (Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, etc.), and they end up with Satan.

Or, Maybe they get saved in the ages to come. We only know it part. The Revelation of John had merely two more votes than the Revelation of Peter when the books of the Bible were determined in the 4th Cebtury AD. Peter's Revelation indicates that all people eventually get saved. Both of these books are too difficult for me to understand. I simply trust God in all things.

evertosama wrote:

Next it's usually the Holy Spirit who told them their view is correct... just like He told the guys with the opposing viewpoint that they're correct as well.

I never make that claim. My views come from reading the Bible and they are my opinion of what I read. And I could be wrong, I am simply sharing what I believe.

Anyone is free to disagree with, and I respect their views and their right to express them. I tend to write what I believe, and when someone presents their view that differs from mine, I respect that. I believe in freedom of expression as long as it is civil. And if we disagree, we disagree. Thankfully we are saved by the blood covering of Jesus, and not because our knowledged is perfect.
the perfect Paschal Lamb.

I had enough of censorship when I was a Catholic, when I became aware of Catholic Doctrine that simply was not supported by the Bible. We are not saved by their sacraments, repetitious prayers does not please God, we are saved by the Blood atonement of Jesus Christ, our paschal Lamb. Jesus actually did have brothers and sisters, who were born from Mary. etc.

evertosama wrote:

These reasons are why these topics have been marked by the administrators as a bit of a hot spot, and we've been asked not to bring them up. As usually even by bringing them up, we find some way to throw mud at the other side.

If any thing I wrote made you think I was throwing mud at anyone, please bring it to my attention and I will apologize for doing so. By 'mud' I assume you mean sophistical responses.

A
ArtB Jun 29, 2012

by sermonindex on 2012/6/27 17:23:01 wrote:

Brother,

We simply on this site have had a policy for many years to try and stop when possible discussions on the topic of Calvinism and Armininism. We have not seen them bear fruit but arguing and divisions. This site is not the platform for these things, we try to encourage more practical christianity in holiness, discipleship, prayer, revival, etc.

So our heart is to see brothers from both view points have fellowship on this site on the things of God.

I hope that makes it more clear that it is a heart of love and love for the church that we desire the unity of the brethren.

I understand what you are saying and I will follow your advice.

I know very little of Calvin or Arminin. I Have not read their works. I do not know them.

I really can not say anything more except that when that day comes, we will know, even as we have been known, and our joy will be complete.

For now, all we can do is Love, Love, Love, and then love some more.

I thank you Greg for explaing the situation.

A
ArtB Jun 29, 2012

I love you to Ann.

Thanks for your kindness.

It is most appreciated.

sermonindex Jun 29, 2012

If any thing I wrote made you think I was throwing mud at anyone, please bring it to my attention and I will apologize for doing so. By 'mud' I assume you mean sophistical responses.

I wasn't pinpointing anything specific (other than what I'll address shortly), but speaking in more generalities about the usual pattern that I've seen around here.

That said though, when you use the "I just believe what Paul believes" card, you automatically make the presumption, that anyone who does not agree with your personal interpretation of the doctrine of "predestination and election" (those with opposing views very well believe in these as well, just define them differently than yourself) has somehow departed from Apostolic precedent, and is believing something counter Scriptural. By saying this you honestly leave the opposing side no other option than to take it exactly the way it comes across; IE "The Apostle Paul sides with me, and you've gotten your doctrine from somewhere extra-Biblical".

Now there are many times we can say this about many doctrines, especially where the Scripture is quite clear on certain issues, but on this particular issue (which is why the site administrator asks for it not to be brought up) I've seen others (well versed in Greek, Hebrew, and second temple period Judaism) present just as strong a Biblical case (if not stronger) to the opposition of your interpretation, and they could rightly say to you, "I'm just believing what the Apostle Paul wrote."

It's just a little dagger that we use to give our argument that needed bit of "oomph".

"Don't agree with me? Fine. You don't agree with the Bible either."

You see what I'm getting at? Like I said, many times we may be well justified in saying this, but on this issue, I would think it wiser not to.

No harsh feelings, bro. And I do hope you stick around. There are lots of more strait up clearly defined un-Biblical things being toted around and pushed by those with an agenda on this site. It would be a shame to see you go just because of this issue.

PS. I appreciate your humble approach, and even willingness to be wrong. There was a time when I used to believe exactly what you're stating and would have probably said it the exact same way. When I say no harsh feelings, I meant it for sure.

sermonindex Jun 29, 2012

I have to say that sometimes the topic comes in thru the back door. A topic is started about something completely non-related and then "the topic" comes into play during the conversation. It's sometimes very hard to ignore because what you believe about "the topic" effects a lot of other beliefs and thoughts that we have about scripture.

It's kinda like trying to discuss what operates a car or a truck... without ever mentioning the engine or transmission.

Art, people either love predestination or they hate it. There is no middle ground. I'll just leave it at that. So dont be surprised that when it comes up people are gonna get hot over it.

Greg is simply saying he does not want his forum to be about that debate. It's his forum, and thats his choice. And to be quite honest they do allow some liberty in this at times. They dont lock down a thread at the mere mention of predestination or eternal security.

I do notice that more grace and liberty is given to those who are against it... but those who are against would probably say the same thing about those who are for it!

Thats how it goes.

I've been censored over and over again throughout the years. It can be upsetting. But know this beyond a shadow of a doubt: Greg and the other moderators are men of integrity... men of grace... men of God. They are very loving guys and for the most part they have always treated me with respect.

I'm almost to 8,000 posts since 2005. I'm retiring at 8,000.

Krispy

sermonindex Jun 29, 2012

I'm retiring at 8,000.

Why?

T
TMK Jun 29, 2012

Hi Art--

Since i am the one who "flared up" over your topic and got it locked I might as well chime in.

First of all, I apologize.

Second, there is nothing personal.

Third, I have only been posting here a very short time and I have already been censored, but I understand why and I trust Greg's and the other moderator's judgment. It is frustrating because in my case the topic itself is not discouraged (as it is with Calvinism/Arminianis) but only my view on it is discouraged.

It is not possible to prevent posting on every controversial doctrine because quite frankly there are different views on many points of theology.

But there are certain topics like Calvinism/Arminianism where there might be 10,000 posts and at the end no one has changed their mind and no one has truly been edified.

I agree there is quite enough to be getting along with in the Bible that is not controversial.

Like Leonard Ravenhill said: "Most people are bothered by those passages, which they cannot understand; the Scriptures which troubles me the most is the Scripture I do understand.”

sermonindex Jun 29, 2012

Why?

A lot of reasons... and 8,000 seems like a good number.

TMK... from one inflammatory person to another, I have to tell ya (and please understand the spirit in which I say this... I'm not angry!), your comments about those who hold to reformed teaching have sometimes been particularly harsh,insulting and condescending.

I say that knowing full well that I am guilty of doing the same thing at times. Just try pulling it back a little bit, brother.

Krispy

sermonindex Jun 29, 2012

A lot of reasons... and 8,000 seems like a good number.
Oh Stephen, quit this foolish talk, who'll be my iron to sharpen with on here if you leave? LOL

Why not a better number like 144,000? And you don't even have to be a JW.

sermonindex Jun 29, 2012

"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization.

" It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers."

Although it generally refers to religious beliefs that are accepted without evidence, they can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities."...wiki

The Kingdom of God is a spiritual Kingdom, ruled by a Spirit; the Holy Spirit Jahweh. "God is a Spirit, and those who worship Him MUST worship Him in Spirit and in Truth."

"The term "dogmatic theology" became more widely used following the Protestant Reformation and was used to designate the articles of faith that the Church had officially formulated."...wiki

" These creeds or dogmas that came out of the church councils were considered to be authoritative and binding on all Christians because the church officially affirmed them.

One of the purposes of dogmatic theology is so that a church body can formulate and communicate the doctrine that is considered essential to Christianity and which if denied would constitute heresy."...wiki

So, here we see that the individual faith was and is transferred to the organization, and somewhere along the line, heavy personalities developed their own theology, and proclaimed it as Divine, and then, anyone who defied this would be constituted a Heretic.

This is so completely ingrained within the religious psyche of it's followers, often it cannot be challenged, it has become AS the Spirit and the Word of God. It exists today, in many agendas.


Wiki states:
"Ever since Arminius and his followers revolted against Calvinism in the early 17th century, Protestant soteriology has been largely divided between Calvinism and Arminianism.
The extreme of Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism, which insists that signs of election must be sought before evangelization of the unregenerate takes place and that the eternally damned have no obligation to repent and believe,

... and on the extreme of Arminianism is Pelagianism, which rejects the doctrine of original sin on grounds of moral accountability; but the overwhelming majority of Protestant, evangelical pastors and theologians hold to one of these two systems or somewhere in between."wiki

And, we hate everything that opposes our brand for after all, "IS IT NOT HERESY?"

We must hate and reject everything that opposes our dogma, for after all, is it not Heresy? Thus, the rigid confines of our religious icons and TEACHERS BECOMES, AND MUST BECOME OURS! and many our most do not even understand why they feel the way they do....THREATENED....as if their entire faith is being attacked, and must be defended at all costs.

The Word of God in itself is no longer relevant, but only if "interpreted" properly. The intertwining of the thinking into this dogma now becomes ones faith; the tentacles of a systematic theology by a mind heavier than yours defines how you must think, or die trying in it's extremes........

"John Calvin said the same thing of Michael Servetus, a man that dared to disagree with his cherished doctrinal formulations. Seven years before Calvin actually saw to it that Servetus was put to death, he said: “If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight.”

Calvin made good on his threat. Why? Because he had no answers to Michael Servetus’ correction of his false doctrines, and he could not bear to be proven wrong and to lose face. The temporal power he had taken to himself was predicated on being right. He was a very proud man; God resists the proud.
http://www.thepathoftruth.com/falseteachers/johncalvin.htm

Both are simply the ideas of brilliant leaders, as prone to error and sin as you or me. When we adapt them, in limitations as only the Word and solely the word, we then must hate everything we perceive that opposes it. The Pharisees hated Jesus as they weaved their own Right and agreed in the own Justice; "THE TRADITIONS".

CAL/ARM is no more than that; each contains slivers of truth, but without the Spirit endorsing the Word with Love and Power, the letter becomes death.


...Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, “What shall we do? For this Man works many signs. If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.”...
So, they murdered Him.

I'm not speaking for the moderators, but I have an idea that this is why there are limits in addressing this issue; the most dogmatic, and hateful war existing in Protestantism yet today.


T
TMK Jun 29, 2012

Krispy wrote:

"your comments about those who hold to reformed teaching have sometimes been particularly harsh,insulting and condescending."

I thought this was the only thread that I have commented on Calv/Arm... but I will take your word for it. Sorry about that.

sermonindex Jun 29, 2012

Uh oh... If I had you confused with someone else please forgive me!! It's easy to do around here anymore...

Krispy

This discussion is locked.

Archived
1 of 36 posts