Featured Sovereign Grace as it should be!

I hear you and when you came before your congregations you came as Paul came peaching Sovereign Grace!... ThumbsupBrother Glen

1 Corinthians 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

 

The problem stems from the fact that ppl abhor the ideology they are not in the driver's seat. Unless they let 'Jesus take the wheel', then salvation is not offered, but coerced.

 

That's what they believe...they may not think this...but synergism makes God nothing more than the assist Man.

 

Scripture dismantles the false teaching of synergistic salvation. However, I do believe in synergistic sanctification.

I also find it humorous that some continue an agenda to try and disprove Sovereign Grace (Calvinism) but always fall short in their efforts. Laugh

 

We are all learning brother...Orthodox Presby Church is quite well Orthodox in Doctrines of Grace but they also emphasize infant baptism. If you come to New Jersey I will take you to a few....but you will never see a PB church here. They are extinct.

 

De plane boss, de plane!... Sorry TC I couldn't resist it!Whistling... Brother Glen

 

I knew there was a reason I never made it to New Jersey!... Brother Glen

 

"TCassidy

this accounts for 90% of the objections of those who suggest that Calvinists believe all sorts of things....

This is the suggestion of those who do not really grasp the doctrine but find themselves in a Cal church, so they seek to undermine the public proclamation of the teaching.

As it is rediscovered and many study themselves into the position some still resist the truth and seek to supress it.
Others when they do hear it taught and preached can never go backwards on the teaching.

 

This comment does not make sense. God reveals and conceals truth it is not a matter of evidential proving as if it were a science question. people offer teaching to those who do not see it as yet. One can "prove " the teaching by offering the verses necessary for a person to see "truth". God is the one who provides illumination, or does not allow understanding of it.

 

"JonC δοῦλος

Primitive baptists are a separate issue.

This can be said of any topic. keep in mind, not everyone views it through your lens either. You speak as if it {your view} is universally agreed upon. {maybe all of us do at times} to some extent. I will show you what i mean-

.

1]The doctrine is God given, not Calvin given.

2] Calvin saw what he saw and wrote it for us to study...he was one man as any teacher is just that, one man.

3] we are not bound or limited by Calvin
r
4] many "Calvinists" have not read any Calvin firsthand.

5] Critics of the teaching which is biblical truth seek to undermine it by putting calvins writings under a microscope and reading it with modern day understanding. leave it as written, use it as abase and go forward from there.

6]your -for example- is subjective and drifts away from the biblical text,

7]your throwing in ...depending on ones definition of the doctrine is a bogus red herring. I have been in cal churches for over 35 years and apart from a novice no one blinks an eye or questions what is meant when the doctrine is mentioned....nobody. the only people who would do so are those who are unsettled emotionally on an issue.

8] to be unsettled on an issue or a point of doctrine, or a nuance that you think you see is fine. The truth delights to be investigated. It is not a crime, or it does not mean someone is on the edge of apostasy. However, such a person should not project that confused idea on everyone else. They should take all the time they need to wrestle through these things with a view to serving God more effectively. They should not inflict their doubts or questions on others.

This is bogus. This is like when Arminians try and suggest CHS was Arminian in theology when he used and affirmed Keachs catechism and preached the five points over and over.
You repeat this idea -[by their definition of the phrase}.....Cals mostly are in confessional churches that freely and openly confess the doctrine , what it is and what they believe....it is not up for grabs...I have gone into churches all over the country that affirm the teaching and everyone is on the same page.
Your statement while you are free of course to offer it as your view is defective as far as I can tell. i canGo into any of these churches and teach and be received by most everyone without question by anyone there.
I in over37 tears in these churches have never had anyone suggest what you are doing on some of these posts.

Moderate Calvinism is garbage. the teaching stands together. Godly men who struggle with a point, usually the L..... are called Calvinistic Brethren. In other words, they lean heavily that way but are confused on one issue. They are godly men. they affirm clearly the other points, but not all. Calvinism does not get defined by those who cannot see it all.
Your fragmenting of the teaching by suggesting it is all the same is not correct.

This is your subjective contention. It someone tells me they are a Calvinist it says much about what they believe and any subsequent conversation and interaction is guided by it. I am not sure what "calvinists" you are around, but when you post these things it is completely foreign to what i have come to know. You want to know why i sometimes agree or disagree with your posts...well here it is.

On the contrary...most mean exactly the 5 pts.

Many not to you, but to most everyone else, they know exactly what it means and what it does not. When Skandelon tried to pretend that he was "once a Calvinist" every Cal on here and Dr, White saw right through it, by his posting.
He might have been among cals, he might have heard some of it, but never did he articulate accurately the position.

I can claim to be a major league all star hitter and batting champion, but if my knees buckled at the first curve ball that came my way I would be a suspect.

subjective and possibly unbiblical.

Paul was not a regular believer.

This is counter productive completely......what do I mean? When you look at the color green, does it look exactly the same to you as it does to me? How can you know?
yet both of us could identify it on a spectrum.....Calvinism does not encompass a wide range of views. You have the 1644 and the 1677/89.....identical on the 5 pts as well as most reputable other ones.

No Cal says this....

.

another elusive and subjective statement

no actually it should show that your take on it might be off a bit...shocking as that may be....take a poll on the Cals on here.

 

Synergistic sanctification... sounds like an oxymoron. I believe in Gospel-centered sanctification which means sanctification happens the same way as justification, by grace through faith in the work of Christ.

Gal. 2:19--21 pretty much dismantles synergistic sanctification,

Gal 2:19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God.
Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Gal 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Seems pretty one-sided to me. If it were not, then it would "nullify the grace of God".

As Calvin said, "[Scripture] plainly testifies, that right feelings are formed in us by God, and are rendered by him effectual. It testifies also that all our progress and perseverance are from God. Besides, it expressly declares that wisdom, love, patience, are the gifts of God and the Spirit. When, therefore, the Apostle requires these things, he by no means asserts that they are in our power, but only shews what we ought to have and what ought to be done. And so to the godly, when conscious of their own infirmity, they find themselves deficient in their duty, nothing remains for them but to flee to God for aid and help."

For another thread, I suppose.

 

"JonC δοῦλος,

Such a statement is as foolish as saying that a JW "proved" there is no trinity.
John Wesley was without understanding on these things.

.
I do not believe that many of the things Wesley believed were revealed by God. he in his own flesh opposed these truths.
God alone is his judge.

I think it is for sure just that. When you teach a child to tie his shoe and he or she does not get it at first....they need to be shown over and over until they grasp it. Then they have to internalize the instruction and get it down to a system, more or less.
Someone theologically sees a list of verses, must read the verses, understand the words, then have God open their understanding;
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

No it doesnt it falls on;
3 For what saith the scripture?

I believed many of these things before I knew there were theological "positions". Just from reading Ephesians and Romans.

Do you think any truth that comes your way does so without God giving it to you?

Do you believe God conceals and reveals truth?

You are welcome to your opinion. I do not share it .
I see it as Biblical truth revealed by God when scripturally explained and unfolded....period.
Those who oppose it do so for several reasons but that is a whole thread by itself.

Truth stands as objective not subjective. When satan said to Eve ...hath God said? he was suggesting that it is not indeed objective but we can never know for sure, or it is uncertain, or we can just question the clear statements that God makes.
So again you are free to disagree to your hearts content. I do not agree with you at all concerning this.
God reveals truth so that we can know and serve Him to the fullest our our strengths and abilities. I do not think we are left to wander around and wonder about everything and never feel we can go forth confidently , and that the bible is still "dark and mysterious sayings rather than open revealed truth.

 

I hear ya, but I don't think that's the entire story, so I'd have to disagree with that and especially your conclusion that I won't take lightly.

Take a look at your passage used:

And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

I see Grace in this passage, given by God for those converted to live for Him, that is, the Grace to actually live for Him, and Him through us. It reminds me of Ezekiel 36:27 and man is not passive in this.

There is also this passage:

'Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.' Philippians 2:12-13

Seems pretty two sided to me, God in us, us desiring His will, and we actually are doing His will. Now if you think that nullifies the grace of God I don't know what to say to you and I think that to be an unfair premature charge.

 

I think this would make a great thread on its own. I'm just not sure where it would be best.

 

I'd probably pass on that offer but go for it. That being said I don't think simply because Scripture describes the new creature actively doing the will of God working in Him diminishes the grace of God as you've charged, nor does it diminish all Glory unto Him.

I think it actually glorifies Him that we are actively involved, as those who were once dead are now alive doing His will, to which, yes, all glory is His. This all points to Him and glorifies Him and His grace.

 

Oh the irony, that the synergist could say the same thing about salvation and regeneration.