Do non-cals have something to be worried about?

[pinoybaptist]

Calvinism, just as any other man made theology can become a works based salvation because one can feel security by doing the works of the theology.

I'm curious. What, in your opinion, are the works of the theology ?
I'm back to being an ape pretending to be wise.m(see avatar)

 

[OldRegular]

There is only one Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This Gospel was preached by all the Apostles, except Judas. The Apostle Paul defines the Gospel of Jesus Christ as:

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

The Apostle Paul states that this same Gospel was preached to Abraham.

Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

I say that anyone who claims there is more than one Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is lying. The Apostle Paul is somewhat more harsh in his assessment of such a person for he says:

Galatians 1:6-9
6. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The Apostle Paul is speaking of some Jewish Christians who were teaching that the Gentiles had to be circumcised [basically had to become Jews first] in order to be Christians. He states unequivocally: If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The only Gospel that Paul preached was the Gospel of Jesus Christ as he defines in Romans 1:16. Anyone who teaches or claims that Scripture teaches there is more than one Gospel, or ever has been more than one Gospel, is guilty of lying and blaspheming. I will defer to the Apostle Paul when he states: Let such a one be accursed.

 

[Amy.G]

Amy

You asked a nonsensical question and I gave a nonsensical answer. That is the reason I did not respond to your second post, especially after that yankee webdog implied that I did question the salvation of those who believe in free will. But he has spoken with a forked tongue before.

I did not ask a nonsensical question. It was the same question as the OP of that thread which had long been derailed. I simply repeated it.
It was a valid question to begin with.
As far as Webdog being a yankee with a forked tongue, I couldn't disagree more. I have known him for years and he is a brother in Christ. You shouldn't be calling a brother insulting names. Is this part of what you learned about the doctrines of grace? I don't see much grace here.

You have the same Revelation from GOD that every other Christian has so it is nonsensical to ask why GOD would leave non-cals in the dark implying that those of us who believe in the Doctrines of Grace have or claim to have some additional Revelation.

It is you (Cals) who seem to feel that God has given you a special revelation. I do not believe this. It has been repeated ad nauseam by Calvinists that God revealed the truths of the Doctrines of Grace to them. So the question of why hasn't God revealed this to non cals is a valid one. Unless you are implying that God has revealed Calvinism to me and I just refuse to believe Him.

Obviously I believe that we do a better job of interpreting Scripture than you who follow Freewillism!

That is quite arrogant.

I don't even know what "freewillism" is.

I have never questioned your salvation and you know it.

By saying that I have something to be worried about is most definitely questioning my salvation, especially in light of the fact that you refused to explain your statement.

Amy, I even sent you a personal note in January. Perhaps you made no effort to read it so I will repeat it below.

I did not give you permission to publically air my private messages.

 

[OldRegular]

I did not give you permission to publically air my private messages.

That was my private message, not yours!

 

[Grasshopper]

BTW - Dr. Bob made this comment before closing the thread:

Not only is this comment false, I am amazed Dr. Bob would put something like this out there without having done any 'proper' research on it.

Maybe Dr. Bob should have snipped himself.

I don't question anyones salvation over this issue, I accept the 5 points because thats where my studies have taken me. If others study has led them to a different conclusion then so be it. We can debate the issue without questioning the salvation of others.

 

[OldRegular]

The simple fact is that you must be born again. That is a calvinist doctrine. You have to be saved the calvinist way (ie, be born again) or you are not saved. However, you don't have to have that full understanding.

Many arminians were in fact born again yet they don't fully realize what has taken place. They are saved because they were born again. They just don't yet understand fully the supernatural side of what took place.

I was in that state for a long time myself.

You are very perceptive for one who looks so young! I would say that I agree with you but if I do then some Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, Arminian, or other Freewillism doctrinaire will say that I am questioning their salvation and try to have me banned.

These folks feel free to slander the Doctrines of Grace but are incensed if someone uses Scripture to question their doctrine. Their free will at work I assume.

I have noted on this Forum that the Scripture supporting the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace is fully consistent with the proof texts of those who hold to Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, Arminian, or other Freewillism doctrine. Those who hold to these doctrines cannot make a counter argument!

 

[Marcia]

You are very perceptive for one who looks so young! I would say that I agree with you but if I do then some Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, Arminian, or other Freewillism doctrinaire will say that I am questioning their salvation and try to have me banned.

These folks feel free to slander the Doctrines of Grace but are incensed if someone uses Scripture to question their doctrine. Their free will at work I assume.

I have noted on this Forum that the Scripture supporting the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace is fully consistent with the proof texts of those who hold to Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, Arminian, or other Freewillism doctrine. Those who hold to these doctrines cannot make a counter argument!

No one is slandering the "Doctrines of Grace" as Cals call it, by disagreeing with Calvinism, in whole or part. Of course, as we have seen on at least one thread, the Cals here do not even agree on many points, and they disagreed with a statement by Calvin. I remember it well.

This reminds me of when Christians are rebuked for saying "I am of Cephas" or "I am of Apollos."

11For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you.
12Now 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."
13Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 1 Cor 1:11-13

 

[Rippon]

No one is slandering the "Doctrines of Grace" as Cals call it, by disagreeing with Calvinism, in whole or part.

For a number of individuals on the BB they go beyond merely disagreeing with Calvinism.

Of course, as we have seen on at least one thread, the Cals here do not even agree on many points, and they disagreed with a statement by Calvin. I remember it well.

This is so tiresome. Of course Calvinists diagree with some statements by John Calvin (even some conservative Presbyterians)-- what's new? And what's the point of declaring the obvious?

 

[kyredneck]

No one is slandering the "Doctrines of Grace" as Cals call it, by disagreeing with Calvinism, in whole or part. Of course, as we have seen on at least one thread, the Cals here do not even agree on many points, and they disagreed with a statement by Calvin. I remember it well.

This reminds me of when Christians are rebuked for saying "I am of Cephas" or "I am of Apollos."

Ahhh Marcia; I give you a C for consistency for your incessant insidious insinuations that 'Cals' are really just followers of a man while you 'non Cals' are followers of Christ...... you're such a clever girl.

 

[olegig]

That's not what I said at all.

Good, I really didn't think so, that's why I said it "sounded" that way.

There are those who accept the tenets of Calvinism who still have doubts. There is only one way for a Calvinist to allay his fears, and that is prayer.
The Holy Spirit is the source of assurance, for everyone who has true assurance.

I agree the knowledge of assurance comes through the Holy Spirit.
And I feel one knows one is saved by the knowledge of the resurrection and the power there of.
Jesus knew God would raise Him from the grave, this was the Faith of Christ and that same faith is given to us when we are saved so now we too know we will be raised from the grave incorruptible.(2Tim 1:12; 1Jn 3:2)

There are those who accept free will who still have doubts. They, too, must pray, but, as I see it, their own doctrine must get in the way. They pray, but not in faith that God is sovereign. Their doctrine tells them that they must do something just right to be born again:
Did I truly repent?
Did I understand baptism?
Did I really fully "give" myself to God?
Did I . . .
Did I . . .
Did I . . .?
It's beyond me that anyone who truly knows his own heart could have any hope that he has truly repented, if indeed it's up to him.
The Calvinist's question is, Did God?
As far as doubts are concerned, I'd much rather be in the Calvinist's position.

Here you seem to be describing the position of those who are depending on some form of works to maintain salvation.
And I agree with you that they will have doubts because they never know when enough is enough.

However I feel you are limiting the scope to the saying that if one is not Calvinist, then one is Arminian.
There are many, many of us who do believe in the totally free gift of salvation completely void of any works who do feel this free gift is offered to ALL men depending only on their belief.

My personal testimony is that I am saved by Grace through the gift of faith. And this salvic faith is the gift of the Faith of Christ, not my own personal faith in Christ.

I'm curious. What, in your opinion, are the works of the theology ?
I'm back to being an ape pretending to be wise.m(see avatar)

Please understand I am speaking in general terms, not pointing to any individuals. We all can be guilty of this.

Anyone of any bent can feel they must be saved for various reasons like:
--I am in the church every time the doors are open...
--I give far more than what I am instructed to give....
--I study more and know more scriptures than others do...
--I know everything there is to know about dispensationalism.....
etc, etc....

Again, I don't mean to be picking on individual Calvinist, but I feel the basics of Calvinism give closer ground to this attitude.
When a theology teaches that one is somewhat different because one is "chosen" then it is easy for one to come to feel they are "special".
From there it is easy to feel that since one does accept the theology, then one must be one of the chosen.
So therefore I must be one of the chosen because I have learned and know all the things of the theology.

There seems to be many who know all the terms, proof texts, and flow of Calvinism.
Did they learn these by just reading the Bible, or did they learn all these by studying the writings of other men?

I have read the Bible quiet a bit and never came to the same conclusions.

There is only one Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This Gospel was preached by all the Apostles, except Judas. The Apostle Paul defines the Gospel of Jesus Christ as:

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

I agree, but the question is whether Peter had been defining the gospel in the same manner.
To prove your position you need to show where Peter preached the mysteries revealed through Paul before Paul even revealed them.

The Apostle Paul states that this same Gospel was preached to Abraham.
Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

IMO the good news message preached to Abraham is pretty plainly in the text, "In thee shall all nations be blessed".
And the text says: "preached before the gospel" not "preached the gospel before".....

Galatians 1:6-9
6. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The Apostle Paul is speaking of some Jewish Christians who were teaching that the Gentiles had to be circumcised [basically had to become Jews first] in order to be Christians. He states unequivocally: If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

I agree with your assessment of the text and the words of Paul; but the question remains where did they get this idea that one must be circumcised?
Did they just pull it out of the sky?
Did they just make it up?
Was it some foreign extra-Biblical theology?
I say No!, for circumcision was indeed what the Jews had been Biblically told to do, it was part of their gospel (good news) message.
They were just misplacing the instructions God gave one group to another group.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Please understand I am speaking in general terms, not pointing to any individuals. We all can be guilty of this.

Anyone of any bent can feel they must be saved for various reasons like:
--I am in the church every time the doors are open...
--I give far more than what I am instructed to give....
--I study more and know more scriptures than others do...
--I know everything there is to know about dispensationalism.....
etc, etc....

Again, I don't mean to be picking on individual Calvinist, but I feel the basics of Calvinism give closer ground to this attitude.

I do not believe any Calvinist here or any adherent to the Doctrine of Grace on this board and in any forum of this board feel they are better than anyone else because they do any of the above.
On the other hand, when I was in the "other side of the fence", so to speak, I do tend to (1) make sure I was in church come rain or shine, (2) I give more than the ten percent so often apoplexically preached by many preachers, especially those in the mountain villages who need their members' support to get by considering they're on "full time" ministry, (3) studied more because I felt it to be a duty rather than a pleasure (4) dispensationalism I didn't care much about, though the baptist fellowship my old church belonged to was a strict one on that and tended to exclude anyone who didn't adhere to dispensationalism.

Why did I do all those ?

Because I felt if I didn't, maybe I wasn't a Christian after all considering how I've been ostracized many a time for failing to quit tobacco, failing to quit occassional alcohol, failing to quit going to the movies, occassionally spouting invectives whenever I am really "kicking it" with anger, failing to put my fists under control, failing to keep my Castillian temper under control, and so on.

I hadda do something, and prove I am different from what I was to meet the "if anyone's in Christ he is a new creature" jazz, right ?

When a theology teaches that one is somewhat different because one is "chosen" then it is easy for one to come to feel they are "special".

And I must say, I resent that.
I know you meant no malice, but still I can't help it.
I resent that.
Because the theology under discussion does not teach, nor make any of its adherents, feel they are under any circumstance special from anyone else.
We are all of us sinners who deserve nothing better than the wrath of God in its fullness and totality.
But I can understand where you're coming from.
That statement reminds me of my Pentecostal Full Gospel sister who thinks Baptists are heretics because many believe in the eternal security of the believer.
She didn't even want me inside her house because I was Baptist, wouldn't shake my hand or give me a hug, because I was Baptist and one who believed in the eternal security of the believer.
Until she understood what eternal security really taught.
Because she failed to show up for Bible study two weeks in a row, since her husband was home from Saudi, and I told her she needs to get saved again, or leave her husband.
Then she understood she really didn't have to do either one.

From there it is easy to feel that since one does accept the theology, then one must be one of the chosen.

Again, friend, you might as well say that since I accept the way of the Ninja, then I must be a Ninja.

So therefore I must be one of the chosen because I have learned and know all the things of the theology.

see above.

There seems to be many who know all the terms, proof texts, and flow of Calvinism.

Nothing unusual. There are many who know the terms, proof texts, and flow of Arminianism, semi-Pelagianism, Pelagianism, dispensationalism, seventh-day adventism, missionism, neo-Arminianism, and a host of other isms.

Did they learn these by just reading the Bible, or did they learn all these by studying the writings of other men? I have read the Bible quiet a bit and never came to the same conclusions.

By both, I suppose.
I read the Bible a lot before I started using references.
Strong's, Bible dictionaries, Bible customs, then I read dispensationalists, arminians.
I went to an Arminian Bible college, started an Arminian mission which became a church.
Then I read more Bible, read it through twice a year.
Read it along with ole Mr Mc'Gee, Charles Stanley, bought tons of books written by a lot of authors.
Started making notes.
Words like elect, what does that mean ?
book of Life, what in tarnation is that ?
whosoever. did that really mean just about anyone ?
You see, I don't buy it when somebody says "I read the Bible and didn't come to the same conclusion".
Romans 8:29-30 should leap out at you.
Terms like "who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect", or "for the sake of the elect" should stand out and pique one's curiosity.

The fact is that these do, but because one's church teaches anti-Calvinism or anti-Doctrine of Grace theology, whether by design or unknowingly, one shoves it away because that's what the pastor said.

The only difference I have, I should think, from my classmates at Bible college is that they say "Amen" to everything the prof says, I don't. He spouted such hateful remarks against John McArthur, he actually drove me to listen to the guy, and he spouted such hateful remarks against the doctrine of election, he actually drove me to look for and buy books written by known electionists like James Montgomery Boice and RC Sproul.

But still, I wouldn't let go of what the pastor teaches, because after all, he is a pastor, isn't he ?
So I ended up with a mix bag of election, whosoever, and whatever.
It was here in the States where I learned more about the Doctrine of Grace, from, may I say it again, countryboy preachers, some of whom admit they never got past the elementary grades, some preaching in that hillbilly singsong kind of preaching.

Won't ever go back to listenin' and taking seriously them high-rollin', high-edjikayshun, fulla big high fallutin' words, Dr this or Dr that preacher.

 

[Revmitchell]

No one is slandering the "Doctrines of Grace" as Cals call it, by disagreeing with Calvinism, in whole or part. Of course, as we have seen on at least one thread, the Cals here do not even agree on many points, and they disagreed with a statement by Calvin. I remember it well.

This reminds me of when Christians are rebuked for saying "I am of Cephas" or "I am of Apollos."

It is arrogance pure and simple. And if you call yourself a Calvinist you are following a man.

 

[kyredneck]

It is arrogance pure and simple. And if you call yourself a Calvinist you are following a man.

.........and I give you a C for consistency also for you loving and Christlike manner and your gentleness and aptness to teach. You're an inspiration to us all.

 

[Winman]

There are those who accept free will who still have doubts. They, too, must pray, but, as I see it, their own doctrine must get in the way. They pray, but not in faith that God is sovereign. Their doctrine tells them that they must do something just right to be born again:
Did I truly repent?
Did I understand baptism?
Did I really fully "give" myself to God?
Did I . . .
Did I . . .
Did I . . .?
It's beyond me that anyone who truly knows his own heart could have any hope that he has truly repented, if indeed it's up to him.
The Calvinist's question is, Did God?
As far as doubts are concerned, I'd much rather be in the Calvinist's position.

You misunderstand faith (many do). You are looking the wrong direction. You are looking at yourself and not Christ. Let me give an analogy that might explain.

You are in a 5 story building that catches fire. You are blocked from any exits and the fire is quickly approaching you. So, you run to the window and call for help.

The fire department arrives and the fireman spread a big net below your window and call for you to jump, promising they will safely catch you.

Now, imagine yourself in this situation and what would be going through your mind. Would you be looking at yourself and asking yourself if you truly believed the firemen's promise (Do I really believe those firemen enough?, If I don't believe enough will the net break?, How do I believe these firemen?) You would not be asking questions about yourself like this at all.

No, you would be looking at the net and the firemen. You would be asking whether the net is big enough and strong enough to catch you, and if the firemen were skilled enough to catch you. You will not be questioning yourself at all.

And now consider this question; if you jump, have your trusted the firemen? Yes, of course you have. Let's say you are terrified when you jump, have you still trusted the firemen? Of course you have. Your feelings have nothing to do with reality. The reality is you jumped, and in jumping you have trusted, you have relied and depended upon the firemen to catch you. You have placed your life in their hands.

And this is how it is with Jesus. Jesus said that whoever comes to him, he will in no way cast out. How do you come to Jesus? Well, you just call out to him in your heart. He knows your every thought, and he knows that you sincerely want him to save you. And he has promised to save everyone who comes to him.

When you ask, did I believe?, or did I repent? you are looking at yourself. If you look at yourself you will always see failure. That is why we need Jesus, we cannot save ourselves.

No, look at Jesus. Is Jesus able to catch your soul when you jump out to him? Of course. Jesus cannot fail.

Don't let strange thoughts trouble you, you know very well if you want Jesus to save you or not. If you want Jesus to save you, just call out to him, cast your soul on him. He will not fail you.

You say a non-Cal cannot have assurance, you are absolutely wrong. I know I am saved because I came to Jesus in my heart and asked him to forgive me, and he has promised me in his Holy Word that he will not cast me out. My assurance is the scriptures themselves. The scriptures say "these things are WRITTEN" so that you might KNOW ye have eternal life.

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

You see, it is the scriptures themselves that give a Christian assurance. As long as the Word of God endures, your salvation is sure.

Do what Jesus said, come to him.

Matt 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Call on Jesus to save you.

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Open the door of your heart and invite Jesus in.

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Look to Jesus.

Isa 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

The Lord told us many ways to understand what believing in him is. It is looking to him, calling upon him, casting ourselves upon him.

You don't just realize you are saved. Believing is something you can know you have done. I know I trusted Christ, because I called out to him, I looked to him, I came to him, I invited him into my heart. And by God's word (and God cannot lie) I know I am saved.

You are looking the wrong direction, look at Jesus.

 

[OldRegular]

I say No!, for circumcision was indeed what the Jews had been Biblically told to do, it was part of their gospel (good news) message.
They were just misplacing the instructions God gave one group to another group.

Circumcision was never a part of the Gospel message. It was a perversion by some of the Jews just like speaking of the Gospel of Paul is a perversion by hyper dispensationalists.

 

[OldRegular]

It is arrogance pure and simple. And if you call yourself a Calvinist you are following a man.

I follow the GOD-man Jesus Christ.

However, I would say that what Calvin believed and taught about the Doctrine of Grace is Biblical; nothing that Darby/Scofield [or Bullinger] taught about dispensationalism is Biblical!

 

[pinoybaptist]

.........and I give you a C for consistency also for you loving and Christlike manner and your gentleness and aptness to teach. You're an inspiration to us all.

He ain' no teacher, and as far as I'm concerned he ain' no rev, either.
he's a politician, and he's a political critic, but he don' fit the bill for a rev.
don' mind him.

 

[Aaron]

It is arrogance pure and simple. And if you call yourself a Calvinist you are following a man.

I consider it a great honor to be labeled a Calvinist.

 

[webdog]

Amy

You asked a nonsensical question and I gave a nonsensical answer. That is the reason I did not respond to your second post, especially after that yankee webdog implied that I did question the salvation of those who believe in free will. But he has spoken with a forked tongue before.

You have the same Revelation from GOD that every other Christian has so it is nonsensical to ask why GOD would leave non-cals in the dark implying that those of us who believe in the Doctrines of Grace have or claim to have some additional Revelation. Obviously I believe that we do a better job of interpreting Scripture than you who follow Freewillism! I have never questioned your salvation and you know it. I have never questioned the salvation of anyone on this Forum. If I had I am sure it would have been called to the attention of the Administrators by those I have offended on this Forum.

My salvation has been questioned several times by a number of people I could name; all very cleverly of course. But that is okay. GOD knows whether HE has chosen me unto salvation. If HE has then I am saved or will be saved. If HE has not then I will suffer what I and all others on this Forum so richly deserve.

[I must admit that I have said, as olegig well knows, the Apostle Paul states that anyone who claims there is more than one gospel is accursed. olegig was of course very gracious in finding the original post for you; just wanted to make sure credit is given where credit is due.]

Amy, I even sent you a personal note in January. Perhaps you made no effort to read it so I will repeat it below.

Amy.G

I don't want to fuss with you over our differences in understanding of GOD's purpose in Salvation. As I have told you before there was a time in my life as a Christian when I rejected the Doctrine of the Sovereign Grace of GOD in Salvation. However, I have always believed that Salvation is a supernatural act of GOD, not the simple assent by someone to the facts about Jesus Christ. As I studied Scripture I became convinced of the truth of what some call Calvinism, though I reject that name since Calvin taught some things I don't believe.

The response by AresMan in post #70 gives some insight into the reason behind the Doctrines of Grace. Of particular merit is his final statement:

"The wonder of God's mercy and grace is not that He doesn't save everyone; it is that He even saves anyone."

Now you are being dishonest. First, I'm not a yankee...I'm an Indians fan...and second I stated simply if you did believe that, you wouldn't post it since you would be banned. What's "nonsensical", my fellow tongue forked friend is you staying silent letting Amy think that is what you meant.

 

[Aaron]

You misunderstand faith (many do). You are looking the wrong direction. You are looking at yourself and not Christ.

You misunderstood my post. My post wasn't about myself, it was about the source of doubts, lack of faith and where each system focuses.

The Arminian asks, Did I? and the Calvinist asks did God?