Featured Should we put much stock in relatively NEW doctrine?

We must keep in mind though, Calvinism as a organized practiced theology is not as old as organized freewill practiced as a theology, and, freewill is still the predominant view held by Christians today. This should say something as well.

 

I read their stuff....seems like they turned into my childhood denomination: the Church of Christ. Can we not go back further than the ancient church fathers? Can we read what Paul and Peter wrote and find Predestination?

Just asking....

 

Jkdbuck76

The early church believed the scriptures as taught.In time false teachers and unsaved persons came , with human, carnal reasoning and philosophy. that was in opposition to these truths.

Peter both explained and warned of this very denial of Paul's writings;

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

We see this On BB everyday as many resist the teaching of election and predestination...they hate the teaching:thumbs:

Oh yes.. they will say they believe it...but what they mean is...let me explain away what the scripture says...and give my own false idea on it ..then believe that,,,instead of the truth.

 

It apparently works pretty good to hack off Calvinists though.

 

Never mind.

 

How do you figure that? It is a moot argument as many doctrines were not special focus of attention until centuries after the New Testament was written. So why even introduce it as a point of debate???

 

Your reaction on this thread alone is example enough.

 

Interesting that the Holy Spirit Himself had Paul write this to us in the doctrine of individual election of the believer in Chrsit, isn't it?

 

i figured that if i set up the pins, you'd knock em over.

 

And.....you were correct.So was Peter....what about Pauls writing was hard to be understood. Over it was grace and law......The church. ....and the doctrines of grace..

 

We must accept that the doctrines of Election/predestination/Sin/etc came to us from God thru divine revealtion/inspiration, so problems happen when we want to try to outthink Him in it!

 

Scripture tells us:

Romans 3:10-18
10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15. Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16. Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17. And the way of peace have they not known:
18. There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Given the above Scripture and the insistence in your quote on the absolute freewill of man does that in itself dictate that the Doctrine of Sovereign Election and Grace is necessary and true?

 

Even IF Skan quoted church fathers on this, none of them were inspired by God, and need to have this theology of free will reconciled with the Fall!

 

I think it boils down to what parts of scripture one decides to embrace and what parts one decides they will ignore.

I have no problem with the passages declaring God's sovereignty. And I have no problem with the passages declaring man's freewill responsibility to make a decision for God. What happens is we humans can see both truths found in the scriptures, but we decide both cannot be true, one must win out over the other. Truth is, both are correct. If one thinks about it, why do we waste so much time with this subject. I like to listen to Ravi Zachariah, and he says the same as I do, both are taught in the scriptures and the two are held in tension one against the other. It is one of those mysteries of God and His marvelous unsearchable ways!!!!

When John MacArthur was challenged with some of the freewill passages found in the scriptures his answer was "I don't know". John decided to dismiss the freewill passages and go with the Calvinism theology. Why? Why not just go with what you can clearly see that both are there? In our limited human understanding we feel only one can be true. God works freewill into His election process, it is a mystery indeed.

 

Think we have to see that there is NO tension in God view concerning his sovereign dealings and our free will, as we will as sinners decide freely to NOT"come to Jesus", and so he honors our desires, and His own will be their free wils come to jesus....

 

Yes, but this the Calvinist would not disagree with, for they would say that all are responsible. The conflict is between predestination and the freewill to choose God in real time so to speak. It's the classic which came first the chicken or the egg, which came first, a decision for Christ or regeneration. I believe the answer is quite simple and is given in the Scripture, it lies in the foreknowledge of God. 1Pt1:2 with one word marries the two making both freewill and election truth.

 

It's quite clear Jesus absolutely disagrees with this declaration given out by Calvinist...

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

This is the exact opposite of what you just posted brother.