Even the cable companies have fallen prey to Calvinism

It's an objective comparison, Mr. Mitchell, and I find it strange that you cannot see the similarities, but that's not for me to keep hitting you with. I can assure you that was not meant as a personal attack, although it appears that you took it as such. I sincerely meant no disrespect, but it seems I've found a sensitive spot...which I promise not to exploit, and will endeavor to avoid in the future, if there is such a thing for me here.

However, by calling me a "Calvinist", it appears you have no compunction about comparing me with a man who, as far as I know, never departed from infant baptism, did not believe in "Particular Redemption", and was apparently responsible for actions which, in my former occupation, would have been described as, "conduct unbecoming". People have linked me to John Calvin and the events in Geneva and compared my beliefs to a man who supposedly sponsored the death of Michael Servetus...which, if Calvin was saved, he is forgiven for, just like David was with Uriah the Hittite. If not, he will join the ranks of those who have killed people in the name of Christ, and He will be his Judge.

I'm not here to uphold the teachings of John Calvin, sir, I'm here to uphold the doctrines I see and understand from the Bible, and I will grant you the same, if that is agreeable to you.



Now, a question before I drop the subject:

Have you ever run your understanding of doctrine up against the predominant teachings found "out there", just to see who else believes as you do?



I have, and I can tell you that I've gone from being a "5 point Arminian" ( briefly when I was first called at the age of 12 ) to a "4 point Arminian / Traditionalist" for almost 26 years, to a "4 point Calvinist" for about 13 years, to a "5 point Calvinist" for the past couple of years.

I have no problem looking at the doctrines I believe, and then admitting that my understanding of Scripture is a still work in progress. I even make stupid statements that show lack of tact and humility. But I also have no problem recognizing that my understanding has changed drastically over the years, when, in the case of my fellow Baptists that I grew up with, theirs hasn't changed a lick. Either they are deceived and in the majority, or I am deceived and in the minority.

Admittedly, something piques my interest when I see people who are clinging to what I now see as error, when I, apart from them, started seeing things in Scripture that were previously "not there" years before...and all I did was to finally dig into God's word for myself and read it over and over again for the past 15 years.


With respect, I see them as being stuck in their error, when they probably see me as falling into it. I can't do anything about that. I am what I am...If I'm deceived, God will get me out of it. If they are ( and they are saved ) God will show them, eventually.

Point taken.

It seems I've still a lot to learn about interacting with people, and my own sense of correctness. It's called the flesh, and I have no confidence in it. I will work harder to present what I believe objectively, and to treat those who disagree with me, with civility.

God bless you sir.

 

Why do you call someone with the screen name Revmitchell, "Mr. Mitchell"?



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

Because I'm assuming that his last name is Mitchell, and that he is a "reverend". I'm using my real name, and it looked to me as if he was using part of his.

Apologies for my mistake.

New guys make a lot of them.

 

Thank you for the clarification.

 

Let me just say first before commenting...I've read some of your other posts. You do seem to have a good spirit of wanting to show much diplomacy in speech much like 2 Timothy 2: 25 says to be to be gentle in seeking to instruct those of opposing views. Very good! I do think however that you're sincere but sincerely wrong and I'll comment on the verse you've put above. That very verse seems a lot more to support a non Calvinistic view than Calvin's.

It seems to state you were chosen from the beginning by the following method....sanctification of the Spirit and the belief of the truth. So salvation is hinged upon belief of the truth not saying anything about all who didn't believe couldn't have likewise done so. Even sanctification is done by a person willfully feeding on God's word for Jesus said it's his word that sanctifies. John 17:17 You put the word in you and you choose to believe and you're saved.

 

Thank you sir, for the observation and your graciousness.


In that verse I mentioned, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, I see two major points being stated:

1) God choosing the believers at Thessalonica to salvation through two methods ( not as a result of them )... sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. Those are things they were not responsible for, but are worked in them by His power.

Why do I state this?

Because I find quite a bit of reinforcement for the fact that God is the one who chooses and has compassion on someone in Psalm 65:4, Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:14-29.

I also see significant statements being made in places like Acts 13:48, where a person who was ordained to eternal life, believed.
Acts 2:39 where it is punctuated with, "...as many as the Lord our God shall call".
Acts 2:47 where it states that the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
John 10:26 where Christ tells the Jews why they did not believe on Him...because they were not "of" His sheep.

...and many, many others that I'm sure you know.



2) "Whereunto" ( speaking of that salvation is verse 13 ) He ( God ) "called" them by His Gospel...for what purpose?

To the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.


Regards,

Dave.

 

Always, and of that I agree with most wholeheartedly.

I would never state that salvation and belief are not inseparably bound.
I would state that:

1) Scripture does answer the question of why some believe and why some do not. The problem is, it seems that many people don't like or believe the answer. The "Calvinist" believes that salvation is evidenced by belief. The "non-Calvinist" believes that salvation is determined by belief.
The latter is what I listened to for 25 years in Independent Baptist churches, while the former is what I now believe that the Bible teaches:

" But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." ( John 10:26 )

2) Belief of the truth is directly connected to the gift of eternal life. There is no such thing as a person who is saved that will never believe, and no such thing as a believer that is not saved.



However, there are distinctions:

Tares are people who think they believe, but do not.
They do not have the Holy Spirit in them ( Romans 8:5-14 )
They fall away during the tests and trials, and show who their real father is ( Luke 8:10-15 ).
False teachers and tares are people who claim to believe, but in works they deny Him ( Titus 1:16 ), and they have a form of godliness, but deny the power of it...they resist the truth ( 2 Timothy 3:8 ).

There is no such thing as someone who is a believer and is not elect.
People disagree on what exactly the term means, but "elect", "sheep", "lively stone", "children of God", "whosoever believeth" "he that cometh to Me", "disciple", "whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord", "brethren", "beloved", etc. are all terms synonymous with each other. They are interchangeable.

Now here is where I might get into trouble from some of you:

" For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." ( Romans 8:29-30 )

I've seen this called, "the unbreakable chain of salvation", and it cannot be broken because everything it states, each piece that is stated, is inseparably linked to each of the others. I could summarize it many ways, but I chose this:

There is no such thing as someone who is justified by the blood of Christ not being foreknown.
There is no such thing as someone who is justified by the blood of Christ not being predestinated conformed to the image of His Son.
There is no such thing as someone who is justified by the blood of Christ not being called.

The difference in agreement are the terms:

"Foreknown" ( which "Calvinists" get their definition of from Jeremiah 1:5, Psalm 139:15-16, Galatians 1:15, 1 Corinthians 8:3, Isaiah 49:1, while "non-Calvinists" get their definition from...I don't know ).
"Called" ( Which "Calvinists" get their definition, inward, spiritual "calling" from Acts 2:39, the Gospels and the epistles, while "non-Calvinists" get theirs, outward calling through the Gospel, from, I believe, the Gospels and the epistles ).

"Predestinated" gets mixed up and used interchangeably by some "Calvinists", but when I read Scripture, I see the passage above and state that, strictly speaking, those that are foreknown are predestinated to one thing...being conformed to the image of His Son.
In Ephesians 1:5, believers are predestinated by the Father ( see verse 3 ) to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself ( which is according to the good pleasure of His will ) and in Ephesians 1:11, they are predestinated ( to what? see 1:5 ) according to the purpose of Him that works all things after the counsel of His own will.


The others are agreed upon, from what I understand.

Now, we could tak about the term, "chosen" and how its used, but I'm sure you've already been exposed to all that.



May He make His face to shine upon you.

 

it is impossible for a finite creature to ever have full knowledge and understanding on an Infinite Creator.

 

Yes, as we can become mature in our understanding of the scriptures, in that we can know and apply what God wants us to be doing, but does not mean literally know perfectly all things recorded down to us.

 

Calling you Mr. Mitchell when your screen name is Revmitchell seemed to me to be a disrespectful and childish way to address you. Take someone's screen name and alter it slightly to show disapproval. Similar to when people address me as InTheDark when they don't agree with me.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

It would avoid a lot of confusion if people would just stick to using the name next to the post. Rather than people's real first names: even if you know them many do not. I didn't know Revmitchell's first name. Or assuming what someone's real last name is: for all I know Mitchell could be a first name. Please just keep it simple and use the names BB members post with.

 

I've been here since 2010 and I've never seen that.