Featured Shifting the Blame

You would make your case established from fringe statements in which even the main stream refutes.

That makes for really good balance and strengthens the support of what you are trying to get across.

Isn't that sort of like bait and switch?

You are assuming that because you consider something to be true, then it must be true.

But, historically your "two ways" statement is without foundation.

1st - Most of the greatest mission endeavors of the past 400 years have been by calvinistic thinking folks.

2nd - Most calvinistic preaching doesn't spend time "bashing opponents" other than when there is doctrinal error.

Look carefully at the sermons by Spurgeon. Why are they referenced by BOTH cals and non-cals? He is called by both groups, "the prince of preachers." Absolutely, he attacked without mercy the thinking of those modernists of his day who were not preaching the gospel, but he spent very little time "bashing" those preached Christ as the only salvation.

Look carefully at Issac Watts and John Newton. Why are there sermons and music still used in the modern Baptist non-cal church (those that sing hymns anyway)? They didn't have time to "bash" except against those univeralists and modernists of their day who didn't preach the Gospel of Christ being the only way.

Certainly there are modern calvinists who have "debated" with various non-cal folks and I am not certain it was a wise decision of either party. To that principle, I even question my own involvement on the BB at times. However, I more often am encouraging edification and do hope that the banter of views brings some reader points in which to ponder.

However, BOTH non-cal and cal debates against the world heathen is a worthy endeavor and I applaud those who have skill enough, education enough, and intellect enough to bring the Gospel in even that situation. I find Paul would agree when he would bring the Gospel to the synagogue, the streets, and the palaces.

 

God does not prevent anyone from receiving the gospel, as you stated. God does enable some to receive the gospel or none would receive it. Calvinism, if you want to call it that put's God on the throne as a ruler and a king. Arminius put's God down below the level of man and makes a begger out of God and makes man sovereign. The doctrines of sovereign grace exalts God and abases man. Just because the bible say's for man to repent doesn't mean that man has the ability to repent. God commandeth all men everywhere to repent, not begging them to repent. Free will thinking has God waiting on man, free grace thinking reveals to man he has nothing to offer God but is at Gods mercy for salvation. A sovereign God over all things is the God I will serve, not a god that has no power but what man gives him. Either God is God or he is not.

 

One thing is for sure !!! with Calvinism(not saying I agree with everything about it) at least the Glory goes to YAH in the Salvation of man.

where as the opposite gives Man the Glory.

 

This doesn't even fit with the prior propaganda. I thought Calvin was an Augustine worshipping papist?!

Y'all keep moving the target...it's getting hard to keep up. :tonofbricks:

 

AMEN!

You have stated many mistaken things;many obviously mistaken doctrines flow without letup from your keystrokes.

LOL! The Reformation was known as "After Darkness --Light." And yet you turn things on their head... How typical of you.

How you twist things Chubby Checker.

 

Do you understand the difference between a DEBATE and a SERMON? A FORUM and a CHURCH?

Why do you keep reverting to what Calvinists PREACH in CHURCH as a defense to what is said about a DEBATE in a FORUM?

And why is it that you call what Non Cals do "bashing" but don't apply that same logic to your own arguments? You have started 2 threads with the title "A Passage Many Struggle With" and the entire thread is about the Calvinist understanding the passage, and the Non Calvinist NOT understanding it. So why isn't that considered Non Calvinist or Arminian bashing?

 

good night time story for the kiddis, BUT the truth actually is that God Himself revealed those truths to the Apostles, especially Paul!

Jesu taught the seed of those truths, His Apsotles expanded on them and give them "flesh!"

 

Actually,John Calvin would have been 504 years old yesterday. He started most of his serious theological thinking around 479 years ago.

 

Goodness, this deserves no less than a FACEPALM

 

This was posted...

...and the herese still is still infecting the christian world all these many decades later...:tear:

 

Actually, the calvinist thinking is that God elects some to salvation and leaves the others to enjoy their natural fallen state. That God is under no obligation to offer salvation to anyone, but shows mercy to whom He will. (my own statement of the typical calvinist)

The quote you cited would place God as responsible for sending folks to hell.

That is in violation of John 3 - "...are condemned already..." not will be condemned, not might be condemned, not have the alternative to be condemned or not, but "are condemned already."

Folks, below is a bit on bias that I trust will help all to do some introspection and construct certain internal mechanism(s) that there be no deceitful distortion overtake the believer.

The bias point of view obliges one to grasp at any extreme and assign it in general to all who have that view, further the evil of the bias is compounded by publishing the untruth.

Such is also the case of bias from the other extremist (for instance the bias of the extreme cal toward the non-cal). The bias will demand that,the non-cal cannot faithfully hold to OSAS and eternal punishment for the lost. The bias demands that if Christ truly died for all, then all are saved and that includes all evil satanic forces and the arch evil - Satan, too. The bias will distort the persception seeking evidence in certain modernist teachers and preachers who actually do hold to this herecy and then the bias will be applied generally and compounding the evil by publishing the untruth.

Of course, extremes are never accurate, and are used only with the intent of providing fodder for the over zealous and to ridicule anyone who might hold a view not in agreement.

Bias comes from a lack of maturity, political expediency, desire for popularity, narcissism (expressed as everyone is wrong but me, all views are wrong except my view, and obliges blind loyalty to me of all who are in "my camp"), one sided education, trauma of some personal experience, and the list could go on.

Rarely is the bias God glorifying, and hardly is there any actual edification that is provided because bias refuses to express balance and draw the audience into agreement. Rather, bias generally being self centered and self serving ultimately only compels toward a cult-like following in which the members will rarely if ever challenge the bias nor the propagator of that bias.

Bias abounds in the human nature, and the believer must be ever vigilant to guard their mind.

Scriptures that compel the believer to walk humbly and demand of their conversation a love of the brethren help in this endeavor.

 

Nice post agedman. :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

I prefer to look at it as excising the cancer of easy-believism and Finneyism from the body. Although some may be truly saved through those evangelism methods, many more are mislead to believe that they will go to Heaven because they followed some sort of man-made plan of salvation tract, said a prayer "after" someone, went to the "altar", or raised their hand during an invitation.


("Shuck and jive" comment coming in three... two... one...)

 

Not sure if this is a shuck and jive comment, but i think you are somewhat correct.

I think we have had too much easy believism preached. People begin to react against that. I don't agree with Calvinism, but i do think it can help restore a proper balance to presenting the Gospel.

I don't think the answer is "Come to Calvinism" (that's not meant as a slam) but to come back to a Biblical balance of making disciples. I know you believe that the Biblical balance is calvinism. I don't, but I appreciate how that Calvinism has been used by God to make us re-examine what the Bible says about salvation.

 

well, calvin and others saw the truth of the plan of salvation of God towards lost sinners, so are you disagreeing with also the Apostles themselves?