Must we be calvinists?

[quantumfaith]

Ohhh my, what happened.....did stores & businesses close? Were people put outa work & loose their homes & forced to live on the street? Did it create widows & orphans? Oh the agony, the agony! Bad Calvinist.....Bad Bad Calvinists.....Nazi's & Bolsheviks & disease laden infidels. Certainly Yankee Conspirators! :laugh:

If you are being humorous...OK I accept that. If your intent is to poke, prod and agitate then I suggest you grow up just a bit.

 

[quantumfaith]

Win what? I don't understand this view of Christianity. All Christians are part of the body of Christ. Power struggles that do not involve false doctrine or blatant sin are not from God. If you don't like your Pastor because you think he does a poor job in certain areas, then go volunteer to help in those areas. He will have a heart attack and problem solved. Seriously, though, I learned a long time ago that if God has shown you a true problem, then maybe He wants you to work on it yourself. Who do people think they are to just oust a Pastor because of petty differences that don't involve false teaching? No side wins when this happens. That is wordly thinking. You want to be first? Jesus has the formula: Matthew 20:21-28 (KJV)
21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
24 And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

You want to be first? Put others first and serve them. That isn't popular preaching in this win at all costs generation, but that is what Jesus said.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::applause:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If you are being humorous...OK I accept that. If your intent is to poke, prod and agitate then I suggest you grow up just a bit.

Well tell me....did the Calvinist scum burn down a town or two? All scoundrels you know!

 

[abcgrad94]

Any reasonable Christian on this board or anywhere else has got to be on their last nerve of the continuing third grade temper tantrum between Calvinists and Arminians. There is nothing positive or edifying in any of the threads. Personally, I am sick to the point of throwing up at seminary graduates and other theological genuises declaring their side of the debate as inspired. None of you, either side, has a clue as to the inner mind of the Lord. You cherry pick verses to support your theories. Nothing is accomplished, nothing is learned.

I would urge the Baptist Board Administrators to ban any discussion of the subject, until supposed leaders of the Christian church grow up.

Realizing part of the problem is the life Calvin lead, and we have had threads ad nauseum over this subject, does not mean that those that choose to believe in God's sovereignty are murderers or thugs. It does not mean that those who believe in God's sovereignty agree with infant baptism, or a theocracy. It is a tragedy that such a man was given the name of the doctrine, but that is the way it is. No one on this board is going to change that.

It is quite obvious that both sides are not interested in learning or debating, as things like Calvins name or insults from the other side are being attached to the individual posters. Names like heretic, heresy, false doctrine, supporters of false doctrine are thrown around like baseballs.

The only purpose of these endless threads could be nothing but pure meanness and evil. From the outside, it appears the posts are made by, as said above, third graders that are not being monitered by their parents. Just the type of people we need leading local New Testement churches.

Usually I don't "quote" an entire post this size, but this one bears repeating.

Thank you, SN, for telling it like it is. Like many others on this board, I'm getting sick to death of certain posters taking over this board to bicker about Calvinism. The spirit here lately is such that I have been staying away from BB as it is not edifying or uplifting, or even an atmosphere where one can truly LEARN. It's turned into childish insults and stupidity. This is precisely why BB got rid of the C/A forum in the first place, but now those debates are contaminating the rest of the board.

I think we should either have a private C/A forum and/or ban the posters who continue to spam the board with their elementary behavior.

 

[MB]

So are you saying that if someone asked if you were an arminian, you could truthfully say no because you disagree with arminians on some points...

I meant no insult by my last post to you.
I don't believe man is depraved. It's true we are sinful but depraved is taking man's sinfulness to far. For instance I kept some of those Laws. Being depraved is "2. A. Corrupt; wicked; destitute of holiness or good principles."
Depraved is worse than a sinner. Keeping the Law in part is not destitute of good principles.
I believe in election though it is not forseen but granted when we accept Christ. We are chosen in Him. Not because of foreknowledge.
I did not choose faith. I acquired it from hearing the gospel and I was convinced.
I agree we can resist grace
I disagree we can loose our Salvation.
Everything I believe in is supported by scripture. There is only one point that Arminianism is right about and that is we can resist God. The Bible is full of men who did just that.
Does one point make me Arminian. since I didn't get this belief from Arminians? I don't believe so because many resist God the Jews did and so did I in the beginning of my life. As well as everyone on the planet. It's called rebellion all through the Bible.

but if someone asked me if I were a calvinist, I would be a liar and not to be trusted if I said no, though I disagree with Calvinism on some points?

That depends on how many points. I'm called Arminian and I only agree we can resist God

Or are you saying that BECAUSE calvinists will not let you out of being called arminian, that you will not let those who agree with Calvin on election out of being called calvinist?

No that isn't it at all. I object to being called something that I clearly am not. You on the other hand wish not to be called Calvinist because of Calvin's unchristian behavior. I believe you are at least a four pointer that does make you a Calvinist. I believe being called a reformer is just as bad as being a Calvinist. Maybe worse since the RCC is one of our worst enemies. Reforming the Catholic faith is exactly what reformer means to Christianity..

I understand this, I was merely trying to say that one (me) could think that the individual Election before creation fits scripture better than either the corporate election view, or the view that God elected based on foreseen faith.

Is individual election the only part of Calvinism you believe in? I see where Calvinism as a whole is supported by each of the 5 doctrines and when even one is missing Calvinist become confused.
At any rate your view of election would be rejected by Arminians and by our Church and so would the Arminian view. We are chosen because of our faith not because of foreknowledge or, fate.
The bottom line is that if you went to any Church to apply for a preaching job you would be questioned about what you believe. If what you believe didn't line up with that churches belief you would not be hired.
MB

 

[12strings]

I meant no insult by my last post to you.
I don't believe man is depraved. It's true we are sinful but depraved is taking man's sinfulness to far. For instance I kept some of those Laws. Being depraved is "2. A. Corrupt; wicked; destitute of holiness or good principles."
Depraved is worse than a sinner. Keeping the Law in part is not destitute of good principles.
I believe in election though it is not forseen but granted when we accept Christ. We are chosen in Him. Not because of foreknowledge.
I did not choose faith. I acquired it from hearing the gospel and I was convinced.
I agree we can resist grace
I disagree we can loose our Salvation.
Everything I believe in is supported by scripture. There is only one point that Arminianism is right about and that is we can resist God. The Bible is full of men who did just that.
Does one point make me Arminian. since I didn't get this belief from Arminians? I don't believe so because many resist God the Jews did and so did I in the beginning of my life. As well as everyone on the planet. It's called rebellion all through the Bible.

That depends on how many points. I'm called Arminian and I only agree we can resist God

No that isn't it at all. I object to being called something that I clearly am not. You on the other hand wish not to be called Calvinist because of Calvin's unchristian behavior. I believe you are at least a four pointer that does make you a Calvinist. I believe being called a reformer is just as bad as being a Calvinist. Maybe worse since the RCC is one of our worst enemies. Reforming the Catholic faith is exactly what reformer means to Christianity..


Is individual election the only part of Calvinism you believe in? I see where Calvinism as a whole is supported by each of the 5 doctrines and when even one is missing Calvinist become confused.
At any rate your view of election would be rejected by Arminians and by our Church and so would the Arminian view. We are chosen because of our faith not because of foreknowledge or, fate.
The bottom line is that if you went to any Church to apply for a preaching job you would be questioned about what you believe. If what you believe didn't line up with that churches belief you would not be hired.
MB

Thanks for the clarifications.

I believe the "reformer" issue is a different issue for the historians, though I fail to see how re-instating truth into a church that has lost the truth is a bad thing. Don't forget, the AnaBaptists were reformers too, so at what point can we say, Yes, you came out of the RCC, but you have rejected their errors, so we no longer accuse you of guilt by association?

 

[Iconoclast]

MB,

Hello MB....this was addressed to 12 strings however i would like to interact with this post.

I don't believe man is depraved. It's true we are sinful but depraved is taking man's sinfulness to far.

This needs to be investigated some more. We can agree man is sinful ,but the question is to what extent.

For instance I kept some of those Laws. Being depraved is "2. A. Corrupt; wicked; destitute of holiness or good principles."
Depraved is worse than a sinner. Keeping the Law in part is not destitute of good principles.

MB- any good that a sinner does is by the common grace of God.In other words God restrains wickedness to a large extent daily for the benefit of His sheep.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Men are not as wicked as they can be.The idea of total depravity is more the idea that every area of man is crooked and perverted by sin, his mind emotions, and heart are all under it's power.

I believe in election though it is not forseen but granted when we accept Christ.

Ok. We agree election is biblical.We do not agree as to when.
9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Long before we were even born,God set his love on us, for His Holy reasons..

We are chosen in Him.

Yes.....in the Covenant of redemption between the members of the Godhead.

Not because of foreknowledge.

Biblical foreknowledge speaks of relationship;
whom he did foreknow

I did not choose faith. I acquired it from hearing the gospel and I was convinced.

Correct....Cals agree with you on this.The Spirit gives a new heart so we can freely welcome God's word.

I agree we can resist grace

many resist God's goodness and perish justly for their sins

I disagree we can loose our Salvation.

God does not lose any he SAVES...or we could not rightly say they were saved.

Everything I believe in is supported by scripture.

MB- nobody willingly believes things that are wrong unless they are twisted.Everyone goes with what they know until they know better.

There is only one point that Arminianism is right about and that is we can resist God. The Bible is full of men who did just that.

A biblical arminian will have several areas of truth,or at least parts of truth.They are not consistent .

Does one point make me Arminian.

Most do not want the labels because when the position gets trashed nobody wants to be identified with that label. Sooner or later what a person believes defines them. Everytime you meet a person you do not give them a 200 question checklist and quiz them on it.
As you talk with a person or see what they post ...you get the picture of what they believe.
Someone might come in here and say they are a christian, and yet quote from the book of Nephi,and keep extolling Joseph Smith.....they can say whatever....but the mormon label fits.
Somes cals avoid the label as GT said...not to be deceitful but rather to make sure the label is biblically accurate and not a strawman.

since I didn't get this belief from Arminians? I don't believe so because many resist God the Jews did and so did I in the beginning of my life. As well as everyone on the planet. It's called rebellion all through the Bible.

MB- everyone resists God that is why God effectually calls the sheep.







.

 

[MB]

Thanks for the clarifications.

I believe the "reformer" issue is a different issue for the historians, though I fail to see how re-instating truth into a church that has lost the truth is a bad thing.

You won't like my answer though I have to be honest about this. I do not believe the RCC was ever right about anything. They were Augustinians and there in nothing in it that is truth as far as I'm concerned.

Don't forget, the AnaBaptists were reformers too,

This is another debate I simply disagree.

so at what point can we say, Yes, you came out of the RCC, but you have rejected their errors, so we no longer accuse you of guilt by association?

Of course if you got this information from RCC church history I could give you a million reasons of why I do not believe it. AnaBaptist existed long before the reformation and were persecuted by the Roman church.
I have no trust for anything Catholic they were not the first Church and they did not exist until Constantine. 325 AD
MB

 

[Mexdeaf]

Thinking that I may not be as bad as God says I am is the root of sin. Too many "Christians" treat sin as a disease to be cured rather than the death sentence that it is.



The problem is too many people think and teach that we need a Nyquil God when we need a Resurrecting God!

 

[Old Union Brother]

Thinking that I may not be as bad as God says I am is the root of sin. Too many "Christians" treat sin as a disease to be cured rather than the death sentence that it is.

Outstanding!!! treating sin as a disease is the type of religion that comes out of the council then out of sin mind set!

The problem is too many people think and teach that we need a Nyquil God when we need a Resurrecting God!

Amen!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Outstanding!!! treating sin as a disease is the type of religion that comes out of the council then out of sin mind set!


Amen!

Im glad to know that there are still a few of us that feel this way brothers....I sincerely pray that we can reach some from the younger generations before we pass on. LOL

Well Im sure thats more work for the HS than for us.

 

[saturneptune]

Usually I don't "quote" an entire post this size, but this one bears repeating.

Thank you, SN, for telling it like it is. Like many others on this board, I'm getting sick to death of certain posters taking over this board to bicker about Calvinism. The spirit here lately is such that I have been staying away from BB as it is not edifying or uplifting, or even an atmosphere where one can truly LEARN. It's turned into childish insults and stupidity. This is precisely why BB got rid of the C/A forum in the first place, but now those debates are contaminating the rest of the board.

I think we should either have a private C/A forum and/or ban the posters who continue to spam the board with their elementary behavior.

Thanks for the kind words. There is a very strong third group on this board that is neither Calvinist, Arminian, but Biblical. Thanks for being on the same team.

 

[InTheLight]

Too many "Christians" treat sin as a disease to be cured rather than the death sentence that it is.

Interesting that you mention this as the idea that "sin is a disease that needs to be cured" is one of the phrases used by the Calvinist pastor at the church that I left (described in a post earlier in this thread.)

 

[abcgrad94]

Thanks for the kind words. There is a very strong third group on this board that is neither Calvinist, Arminian, but Biblical. Thanks for being on the same team.

Exactly. Some of us don't feel the need to be marginalized and labeled one way or the other.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Pick Me,Pick Me!!!!

Thanks for the kind words. There is a very strong third group on this board that is neither Calvinist, Arminian, but Biblical. Thanks for being on the same team.

Pick Me.....I definitely want to be on this team too!:thumbsup:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[12strings]

You won't like my answer though I have to be honest about this. I do not believe the RCC was ever right about anything. They were Augustinians and there in nothing in it that is truth as far as I'm concerned.
This is another debate I simply disagree.

I think this is demonstrably a reactionary position that is inaccurate:

RCC believes in:
-Deity of Jesus Christ
-Virgin Birth
-God the Creator
-the Trinity
-immorality of abortion
-The Literal Life, death, & Resurrection of Jesus
-Literal Heaven & Hell
-The value in confessing sins to one another (if distorted)
-And many other things you would agree with.

So I don't see how your statement can be accurate.

Of course if you got this information from RCC church history I could give you a million reasons of why I do not believe it. AnaBaptist existed long before the reformation and were persecuted by the Roman church.
I have no trust for anything Catholic they were not the first Church and they did not exist until Constantine. 325 AD
MB

So you're saying the history of the anabaptist coming out of Zwingli's Church is not accurate, or simply that other groups (hussites, for example) held similar beliefs before the anabaptist name came along?

 

[quantumfaith]

I think this is demonstrably a reactionary position that is inaccurate:

RCC believes in:
-Deity of Jesus Christ
-Virgin Birth
-God the Creator
-the Trinity
-immorality of abortion
-The Literal Life, death, & Resurrection of Jesus
-Literal Heaven & Hell
-The value in confessing sins to one another (if distorted)
-And many other things you would agree with.

So I don't see how your statement can be accurate.




So you're saying the history of the anabaptist coming out of Zwingli's Church is not accurate, or simply that other groups (hussites, for example) held similar beliefs before the anabaptist name came along?

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[thomas15]

Just my humble observation. As mentioned before I tend to lean in the direction of Calvinism. It seems to me though that individual calvinists tend to promote their doctrine with the kind of vigor that the catholics do with theirs.

One thing I've noticed is in trying to get an arminian perspective by reading books written by arminian writers is not quite as easy as finding books on arminianism written by calvinists, which are obviously critical in nature. I've also noticed that regardless of my degree of agreement or disagreement on an issue, calvinists tend to be a little more precise when detailing their doctrine. This is not an admission that I believe that those doctrines are fully biblical, I do not for example believe that covenant theology as I understand it to be biblical.

Roger Olsen is one arminian writer that I have consulted. When he talks about arminian theology plain and simple he makes alot of sense. In my opinion he ruins his work by interjecting personal experiences and what I preceive as a liberal opinion into the mix. So it is not hard to understand why a staunch 5 pointer would reject this man's work. Kim Riddlebarger does the same thing though writing from the calvinistic viewpoint but to his credit doesn't come off as liberal.

Im not sure I'm adding anything useful to this discussion but if you start from post #1 and read the whole thing it is easy to see where opinins line up with doctrine to settle the matter.

 

[webdog]

Outstanding!!! treating sin as a disease is the type of religion that comes out of the council then out of sin mind set!


Amen!

Not understanding what you mean here. I believe sin being spoken of as a disease is not a doctrine but a simile. Sin is like a malignancy, left untreated will kill you.

 

[12strings]

Just my humble observation. As mentioned before I tend to lean in the direction of Calvinism. It seems to me though that individual calvinists tend to promote their doctrine with the kind of vigor that the catholics do with theirs.

One thing I've noticed is in trying to get an arminian perspective by reading books written by arminian writers is not quite as easy as finding books on arminianism written by calvinists, which are obviously critical in nature. I've also noticed that regardless of my degree of agreement or disagreement on an issue, calvinists tend to be a little more precise when detailing their doctrine. This is not an admission that I believe that those doctrines are fully biblical, I do not for example believe that covenant theology as I understand it to be biblical.

Roger Olsen is one arminian writer that I have consulted. When he talks about arminian theology plain and simple he makes alot of sense. In my opinion he ruins his work by interjecting personal experiences and what I preceive as a liberal opinion into the mix. So it is not hard to understand why a staunch 5 pointer would reject this man's work. Kim Riddlebarger does the same thing though writing from the calvinistic viewpoint but to his credit doesn't come off as liberal.

Im not sure I'm adding anything useful to this discussion but if you start from post #1 and read the whole thing it is easy to see where opinins line up with doctrine to settle the matter.

http://evangelicalarminians.org/

Here is a good site with lots of Arminian info. It is being re-worked right now, but much of the material is still there, just a little less organized than it was, and hopefullly will soon be.