CHURCH PLANT- Can Calvinist and Non Cal, Neo-Pent do it.

[Allan]

It sounds like that is what he is saying. WHich if so, would be a form of weirdo-calvinism.

Ok, not THAT got me laughing :laugh:

 

[Carico]

So it is your contenstion that anyone not Calvinist is unsaved. That is your express wording in the above but I am making sure it is your intent.

I'm sure there are non-Calvinists who don't know scripture but when they finally study the whole bible will come to see that God is who determines our steps as Jeremiah 10:23 and Proverbs 16:9 says.

But those people who have read the bible and still disagree with those verses and the myriad of other verses that tell us that God is in control of the universe including the minds and hearts of men, obviously don't believe God's word. And claiming that one can interpret a verse into the opposite of what it says isn't scriptural any more than claiming that man can add or subtract from any verse in the bible.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I'm sure there are non-Calvinists who don't know scripture but when they finally study the whole bible will come to see that God is who determines our steps as Jeremiah 10:23 and Proverbs 16:9 says.

But those people who have read the bible and still disagree with those verses and the myriad of other verses that tell us that God is in control of the universe including the minds and hearts of men, obviously don't believe God's word. And claiming that one can interpret a verse into the opposite of what it says isn't scriptural any more than claiming that man can add or subtract from any verse in the bible.

Carico, I love ya, but this is unfair and unjust to our brethren.

I am going to respond on a personal level. I was a non-cal yet a truly born-again child of God. I did not become saved when I came to understand the Scirptures where I could get called a Calvinist.

The same is true of Spurgeon. And when I was a "non-cal" I never disagreed with a verse. I just didn't understand it and see it the way they did. But I was equally as commited and devoted to the Bible and loved the Bible as any Calvinist.

Brother, you have gone too far and have become too zealous concerning calvinism...in my opinion. Our arminian and non-cal brothers are just that..our brothers in Christ. Let us love them.

 

[Amy.G]

Brother, you have gone too far and have become too zealous concerning calvinism...in my opinion. Our arminian and non-cal brothers are just that..our brothers in Christ. Let us love them.

:applause:

Thank you.

 

[Darrenss1]

1 Corinthians 11:19. "No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you has God's approval." Differences thus exist between true and false teachers. There can be no unity between true and false teachers because as Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 11:15, false teachers are Satan's servants masquerading as sheep.

I can understand you disagree with Arminian/non Cal position but to call such things serving Satan is just plain delusional. Sorry, you won't get anywhere with that attitude.

Arminians believe that righteousness comes from the self which is called self-righteousness and is the yeast of the Pharisees. As Jesus tells us, the father of the Pharisees is the devil, the father of lies.

Not true. You need to get your facts right first before you make your conclusions.

Darren

 

[Carico]

[Attack on salvation of others snipped. Matter of fact, whole post snipped by Administrator]

WARNING - IF THIS CONTINUES, YOU WILL FIND YOURSELF ON THE OUTSIDE LOOKING IN

 

[Darrenss1]

So then they don't believe that their faith comes from their own free will. Is that correct? If so, then they shouldn't be arguing for free will.

There is a doctrinal distinction to make about how sinners come to believe in Christ. You are confusing free will/freedom of choice/responsibility together with God's work to convict the sinner, bringing them to believe and to repentance. They are not the same thing. An understanding of being a sinner needing a Savior doesn't imply a willingness to do anything about it.

Muslims, pagans and atheists are non-Calvinists. Should we say they are saved because it's against the rules to say they aren't?

They are non christians. You are confusing the whole issue and making Calvinism equal with christianity itself.

Darren

 

[Darrenss1]

Brother, you have gone too far and have become too zealous concerning calvinism...in my opinion. Our arminian and non-cal brothers are just that..our brothers in Christ. Let us love them.

Well said. When we acknowledge that those we disagree with doctrinally are fellow christians that ought to put an end to the non cal = serving Satan expressions and/or unsaved.

I put attitudes like that as personality issues. Many Calvinists that I have spoke to have been graceful and helpful in explaining their theological differences and have not resorted to something that resembles childish schoolyard accusations. When we speak to one another we are bringing either glory or shame to Christ as those whom are supposed to represent Him in the world.

:saint:

Darren

 

[Carico]

God's work to convict the sinner, bringing them to believe and to repentance.

If someone knocks you unconscious, heals you of blindness, you open your eyes (which is an involuntary reflex) and can see, how much credit for your ability to see do you give to your own free will? :laugh: None. That's what the Holy Spirit does to us once we are born again as he did to Paul. :wavey: Paul never said that he freely chose to believe. Ever.

 

[Allan]

That was my point. If you re-read my post I said that those who disagree with Calvinism but haven't studied the whole bible, then when they do study the bible, they'll see that Calvin was right are saved.

This point has abosolutely no merit whatsoever, since you think no one but Calvinists have read, studied, understand, translated, commentaried, and preached on the whole of scripture.

What do you of those Calvinists who understood your view and was even a preacher of it, but in reading the scriptures saw it to not be accurately convey the Word of God and changed their views. Just as there are many Arminians and non-cals who became Calvinists, many Cals left as well.

What is most humourous is that it is the same Holy Spirit leading all of God's children into the Truth, and that no man who is saved can believe anything that God has not put into his heart.

And just so you know, it was due to studying the whole of the scriptures that turned or kept me from going into Reformed theology. There were to many logical assumptions, presuppositions, and to many scriptures that contradicted 'certain' aspects. Now you will hear the same thing from those who left my view and went into Calvinism. Now who is right?? I personally beleive neither is absolutely right but also that neither is abosolutely wrong either. The problem is that ALL theology is dervied from MAN's undertanding of what he sees in scripture. Therefore ALL theology is flawed to some extent.

But those who have studied the whole bible and still disagree with the myriad of verses that talk about God's election and the power of the Holy Spirit, cannot be saved. You obviously belong in the 1st category. :wavey:

Based upon this post, I am just letting you know that you are breaking BB rules as well as scriptural ones when presume God-hood and declare who is saved and who isn't amoungst believers of and in Christ.

 

[Amy.G]

But those who have studied the whole bible and still disagree with the myriad of verses that talk about God's election and the power of the Holy Spirit, cannot be saved. You obviously belong in the 1st category. :wavey:

Well, I have studied the whole of scripture and I am not a Calvinist. You have made a judgment that I "cannot be saved". You are treading on dangerous ground.

Matthew 7
1Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

 

[Carico]

This point has abosolutely no merit whatsoever, since you think no one but Calvinists have read, studied, understand, translated, commentaried, and preached on the whole of scripture.

My statement agrees with scripture: 1 Corinthians 11:19, "No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you has God's approval."

Christ is not divided. So he will not tell one group of people that God changes hearts and minds and another group that people can decide to believe of their own free will because Jesus doesn't contradict himself. So one of them is a false teaching. And scripture clearly tells us that faith is a gift from God so that no one can boast.

Again, Jeremiah would rather have not even been born than to have the calling God gave him. So not only was it not his free choice to speak God's word, he tried to resist God but could not because God's Spirit overpowered him as he tells us in Jeremiah 20:7.

 

[Allan]

If someone knocks you unconscious, heals you of blindness, you open your eyes (which is an involuntary reflex) and can see, how much credit for your ability to see do you give to your own free will? :laugh: None. That's what the Holy Spirit does to us once we are born again as he did to Paul. :wavey: Paul never said that he freely chose to believe. Ever.

Not in those exact words but close enough.
When he states, "Today if you will hear his voice, do not harden not your hearts.." It is apparent that God is dealing with them and they can reject it.

He also, in Rom 10:8, when speaking of believing quote from Deut 30:14-20. This specifically is about choosing to believe. What is most interesting is that in verse 19 it states chooses life, and in verse 20 it states, 'that you may or might' love God, cling to Him, obey Him, and obtain life. Notice that all of this comes 'after' believing, not prior to it.

However just to be clear, Paul never said he didn't freely choose to believe. Ever.

 

[Allan]

My statement agrees with scripture: 1 Corinthians 11:19, "No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you has God's approval."

No, you are horrifically abusing God's word.
But again, you use a text irregardless of context. It seems to be yoru common flaw.

Christ is not divided. So he will not tell one group of people that God changes hearts and minds and another group that people can decide to believe of their own free will because Jesus doesn't contradict himself.

God didn't tell two different groups of people two different things, He told them one thing. And what you have is men taking God's word and interpreting as they understand it. No group is 100% correct and if you think that, then I would suggest you have a great deal more studying to do.

So one of them is a false teaching.

Or it could be that both are partly correct but neither exactly correct on the whole understanding. Maybe both could even be wrong

And scripture clearly tells us that faith is a gift from God so that no one can boast.

For those of us who have studied and can read the Greek and Hebrew can tell you it is not 'clear' as you 'wish' it were. Faith is a gift from God but not in the manner you contend. It is a gift in that no man would believe if God had not intervened but not in the sense that God 'gave' it to man, like giving a child a bike because he never had one.

gain, Jeremiah would rather have not even been born than to have the calling God gave him. So not only was it not his free choice to speak God's word, he tried to resist God but could not because God's Spirit overpowered him as he tells us in Jeremiah 20:7.

Context man, CONTEXT. Do you even know the meaning of the word!

 

[EdSutton]

I'll toss in my own two guineas worth.

'Plant the church' with a good doctrinal standard (regardless of the specifics), and the rest should take care of itself.

You will lose some that way, along the way, but most likely will pick up some others who are glad for a strong stand, as opposed to some 'mealy-mouthed' 'double-speak' that attempts to satisfy the doctrinal vagaries of everyone.

Ed

 

[Tom Butler]

Thanks, Ed for getting us back to the OP. Good advice.

The church planter must, repeat must, take the lead in the church's doctrinal stance. He must bring as much influence to bear as necessary to ensure that the new congregation gets it right as he sees it.

The worst thing one can do is water down doctrine, practice, ecclesiology in order to "attract" people. We already have plenty of churches like that.

 

[Frogman]

So then they don't believe that their faith comes from their own free will. Is that correct? If so, then they shouldn't be arguing for free will.

Muslims, pagans and atheists are non-Calvinists. Should we say they are saved because it's against the rules to say they aren't?

I may be wrong, so someone correct me if I am. However, the last I read of Arminian belief they do not believe in Free-Will. That is a group separate from Arminians...correct?

Arminians believe the person is regenerated under the gospel message, if they accept the truth, the Spirit remains with them, if they do not accept the truth, the Spirit withdraws Himself from them.

This is not free-willism. Free will means a person hears and beliefs under their own free will and choice then they are regenerated.

bro. Dallas Eaton, II

Oh, and btw, we do not know who God has placed in Christ and made accepted in the Beloved before the foundation of the world. There are evidences that we may or may not see, but we cannot see the circumcision of the heart made without hands.

:wavey:

 

[Carico]

I may be wrong, so someone correct me if I am. However, the last I read of Arminian belief they do not believe in Free-Will. That is a group separate from Arminians...correct?

Wrong. You can google Arminian vs. Calvinist beliefs and see the differences.

 

[Frogman]

Thank you for your Remonstrance:

In 1588, Arminius entered a pastorate in Amsterdam, winning distinction as a preacher and pastor. Later he was chosen to succeed Franz Junius as professor of theology in Leyden, where he remained till his death. Dirk Koornhert, a scholarly layman, who wrote against Beza and all strict predestinarians, rejected the notion of predestination, demanding a revision of the Belgic Confession (the Netherlands' own reformed confession, similar to Westminster Confession). Arminius, who was known as a strict Calvinist and an apt scholar, was called to reply to Koornhert and to defend the supralapsarian position. As he studied the problem, Arminius came to doubt the whole doctrine of unconditional predestination and to ascribe to man a freedom which, however congenial to Melanchthon (a disciple of Martin Luther) had no place in pure Calvinism. The essential dispute that Arminius had with Calvinism was regarding the doctrine of predestination. He did not deny predestination altogether, but denied that predestination was unconditional. A bitter controversy sprang up between Arminius and his supralapsarian colleague at the University of Leyden, Franz Gomarus, who was later the leading spokesman for the Calvinists at the Synod of Dort. The conflict between the two men resulted in a schism affecting the whole church of Holland.
One commendable legacy of Arminius was his call for theological perspective. During a period of intolerant dogmatism, when battle lines were drawn over subtle differences in creeds and confessions, Arminius wrote:

"There does not appear any greater evil in the disputes concerning matters of religion, than the persuading ourselves that our salvation or God's glory are lost by every little difference. As for me, I exhort my scholars, not only to distinguish between the true and the false according to Scripture, but also between the essential articles of faith, and the less essential articles, by the same Scripture."
​

Arminian Articles of Remonstrance

After Arminius' death, his views were championed and further developed and systematized by two men, Simon Episcopius, and Jan Uytenbogaert. Under their leadership the followers of Arminius in 1610 set forth their views in five articles called Arminian Articles of Remonstrance, (a remonstrance is a reproof, to remonstrate is to reprove or correct) which gave them the name 'Remonstrants'. In substance the articles teach as follows:

1. God has decreed to save through Jesus Christ those of the fallen and sinful race who through the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in him, but leaves in sin the incorrigible and unbelieving. (In other words predestination is said to be conditioned by God's foreknowledge of who would respond to the gospel)
2. Christ died for all men (not just for the elect), but no one except the believer has remission of sin.
3. Man can neither of himself nor of his free will do anything truly good until he is born again of God, in Christ, through the Holy Spirit. (Though accused of such, Arminius and his followers were not Pelagians.)
4. All good deeds or movements in the regenerate must be ascribed to the grace of God but his grace is not irresistible.
5. Those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith have power given them through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit to persevere in the faith. But it is possible for a believer to fall from grace.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040202...~gvcc/theology_notes/Calvin_and_Arminius.html

I don't think Arminianism is the same as free will ism a person believing free will believes they have an inward power derived from the image of God in man to choose or not choose to believe in Christ, then their choosing is what makes them to be regenerated. Arminians believe in a sense, God foreknew who would believe and predestinated these, the free-will believer believes nothing of predestination whatsoever all men can make themselves a child of God by their free choice. The latter denies the depravity of man in the original sin of Adam; the latter denies the enmity of the carnal mind against God; I don't see Arminius denying any of these things, I think he was wrong, but I don't think he denied depravity. A free-will person does deny the depravity of man in that he/she believes that person retains a 'spark' of the image of God in themselves whereby he/she believes in Christ and then becomes a regenerated child of God.

Read a little closer, ok? I found this link through the Hall of Church History.

But, thanks for forcing me to prove it, it was a good excercise.

May God Bless your efforts and keep you sound in the faith,
bro. Dallas Eaton

 

[Carico]

Wrong as this statement demonstrates:

#

# All good deeds or movements in the regenerate must be ascribed to the grace of God but his grace is not irresistible.

How can one resist God if not by his own free will? He cannot because the Holy Spirit is stronger than any other [power including Satan and the human will as 1 John 4;4 tells us. So you are incorrect, Arminians do believe in the free will of man which is actually secular humanism. They also don't believe Romans 11:29, "For God's gifts and his call are irrevocable" so they don't believe many verses in the bible either. That's because they want to believe that God is at their beck and call, not the other way around. That's actually blasphemy.