My Approach to Calvinism

Cause I don't have gold, silver, and stones nor wood, hay, and stubble to sell you, "little pig." :laugh: I'll get back to you later -- time for GOLF! :applause:

skypair

 

Yes. Doesn't "the sinful world of humanity" include all people, or "the world"? Who among us isn't sinful?

 

Says who? Dr. Rippon?

I am in agreement with my pastor that we are saved by grace through faith. That is agreement on the Truth.

Since I was on the pastor search team, I know who I should or shouldn't associate with regarding the local church. I don't need you telling me what I should not be doing.

 

I prefer, and have found greater peace and fellowship, to live in the tension between both views. I read and fully understand the passages that Calvinists use and the way they interpret them, just as I fully understand the passages that others (whether 1, 2, 3, or 4 pointers) use and the way they interpret them.

Congrats to those who have figured out the mystery of salvation. I'm not one of them, however I still love those who have....and love to work alongside them....so long as they have not given up their responsibility and passion to live and tell the gospel.

 

You express exactly what I think. :thumbs:

 

No, a member, including a pastor, should be in general agreement with the church upon the subject. Otherwise he should not be a part of that body of believers.

Spurgeon, "Ministers Sailing under False Colours"

 

Do mean a local body of believers?The content of a pastor's preaching/teaching is central as to whether a person should remain at an assembly or not.Even if the Confession or Statement of Beliefs line up with your understanding of the Word of God -- the sermons of the preacher are decisive as to remaining or staying.There are a number of Presbyterian Churches for example who give lip service to adhering to the Westminster Standards but have long since abandoned that Creed.The pastor has a lead role (like it or not) in a local body of believers.He sets the course.Aside from any doctrinal works that a local church says they hold to -- if the messages of a particular minister goes against that -- you should leave.

 

Sorry WD if those words of mine have offended you -- but it seems like practical advice for anyone to follow.

 

Everything that is revealed now will be hidden at the Bema and everything that is hidden now (per your "turning a blind eye" to it) will be revealed at the Bema. God says, "You can pay Me now or you can pay Me later."

But you would accept DoG still and not consider the "canker" that its flaws may be causing, (2Tim 2:17)? BTW, Jas 5:3 provides an interesting physical contratemps to 1Cor 3:13, 15.

Bema: "Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. ... If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

Earth: "Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. ... Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire."

Then I guess the "fire" is not close enough --- yet.

Calvinism's definition or the Bible's?

Anything that requires something more than the gospel of Jesus Christ for salvation is against the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Protestants found that to be true of Catholicism once -- that the Catholics were "against" the gospel of Jesus Christ in requiring "works" for salvation.

In the case of Calvinism, the "added somethings" are 1) "election" (Only the "elect" can be saved. Where does the gospel of Jesus Christ say that?) 2) "human inability" (Even the "elect" cannot cause God to give them the salvation offered by the gospel of Jesus Christ.) 3) "regeneration" (A person must be "regenerated" before they can hear, understand, or respond in faith to the gospel of Jesus Christ.)

Teaching these, Calvinism takes the "emerging church" route to evangelism -- find those who have the Spirit already, bring these clearly 'elect' persons to church, and teach them the Bible (sorta). Perhaps the "great exemplar" for y'all is Calvin himself. Raised Catholic, his conversion didn't involve "receiving" salvation (and believer's baptism as a testimony of it) but merely changing to another "stream" of sanctification.

And don't get all "hot and bothered" about my characterization of it. My neighbor is living testimony that the "converts" during his mission trip to Brazil were Catholics converted to Presbies -- sans rebaptism --- sans any demonstration of rebirth.

I haven't done this so maybe you can answer ... if I wanted to join a Reform/Calvinist church, what would I have to tell them to demonstrate that I was saved? I mean, this goes right to the gospel of Jesus Christ, doesn't it? Would I tell them I was "elect?" Certainly I can't say that I "received Christ as Savior" since I had not that ability nor sovereignty over God, right? Certainly my "rebaptism" in a Baptist church would be faint testimony.

I know one thing. Most of them would have me go through "confirmation" classes just like the Catholics would. Maybe then they could ascertain the truth of my salvation(??).

So I guess DoG are like a little Bill Bright tract "4 Spiritual Laws" for you, eh? OK. We'll see.

skypair

 

The minister should leave.
Spurgeon, "Ministers Sailing under False Colours"

 

I agree with Jerome here.
The minister should leave.
A church where the member is expected to pull up his stakes and plant them somewhere else because he/she is at odds with what the pastor believes is a church pastored by a despot at worst, and a dictator, at best.
The doctrines and practices of a church are doctrines and practices that was agreed on by the members to be their interpretation of Scripture, with the minister being called out from among their number.
If in the course of his ministering and study of Scriptures the pastor then preaches something contrary to the body of doctrines that the church believes and is met with opposition then he should leave and let that body of believers alone.
Now, I may be wrong here since this thread has run more than 3 pages and I haven't read all the arguments.
I have applied the same principle to myself when I quit the pastorate of that lovely church in Maryland over the issue of missionism and fellowship and identification with those who support missionism.
I saw where imposing my will on my brethren could lead to a serious breach and break of fellowship long held and possibly a split in the local church.

As to the OP, I am fully convinced that my assurance of heaven and obtaining forgiveness is not based on my theology, and neither is the condemnation of others to hell based on their theology.
My eternal redemption is based on the finished work of Christ, begun in eternity past and completed here in time, before the elect were even born.
I am redeemed because I have a redeemer who chose me in Christ.
And so is every elect child of God.
The unelect are hellbound because they have no Savior, no Redeemer, and therefore will be accountable to God for themselves.

The election of God's people are in the Bible.
Their election of Him is not.

 

My approach to Calvinism is to ignore the title Calvinism since it evokes such bias but to concentrate on the Biblical Doctrines of Grace: the Sovereignty of God in the salvation of His Elect!

 

I am an avowed Calvinist and amillennialist, but was called to a church that was dispensational premill. They knew my views when they called me, but I never went out of my way to preach sermons against dispensationalism or premill. My regular sermons were theologically correct, but my terminology was common street language. We got along very well and they were upset when I informed them I was leaving. So, it can be done, if we try.

The church calls the pastor; the pastor does not call the church. If the two are at odds, the pastor should resign and seek another calling.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Interesting. I bet it's pretty hard for a preacher to not preach the whole counsel of God, eh?

skypair

 

What is the whole counsel of God? I preached the word, and that was clear. I did not compromise the gospel, but I steered clear of some areas that are up for discussion.

For example, there are areas about the second advent of Christ that remain true to all systems. Preach on those things. I never preached on the so-called rapture in detail, but did speak on the fact that Christ would return with the saints and call those who remained on earth so to gather with Him and those saints,,,,a commonality of His second advent. No harm done and the word is still preached. There is enough of the word to preach without purposely seeking out those things which will only cause torment and disruption, and consquently bypass the essentials of leading people to holiness in Christ and living for Him.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I think you have the right attitude about this, Jim. As long as the church and the pastor have an understanding and they can appreciate each other's position, there's no reason this can't work. No compromising is taking place.

 

I didn't mean to be "inquisitorial," Jim. I just had an honest question about the duties of a pastor. But you are quite right -- it's not a salvation issue. I just consider that you are not helping your crowd attain to the "crown of righteousness" that is given to all who love His appearing (which assumes, I believe, that they are so informed as to the nature of it). You know, the church of Philadelphia is warned not to let anyone "take their crown." (Rev 3:11) I believe that amils do this.

skypair