Not 5-point C? Not Saved!

DPT -- you said doctrines of the Bible are important and should be studied . But then in the next breath you said doctrines don't affect salvation . But if we trust and obey -- for there is no other way ( heard that somewhere ) you need to know and apply what Jesus , the Apostles and Prophets taught .

Doctrines do affect our salvation . We must believe certain propositions about the Person , and work of Christ . And the word salvation also has reference to our walk -- our sanctification , not only to our regeneration .

Doctrine has been marginalized by too many in the Christian world at large . I do not understand that mentality . If one is a redeemed child of the King -- you need to immerse yourself in the doctrines of the Bible .

 

Rippon:

With due respects, I would like to say that doctrines do not have anything to do with one's eternal salvation. Call it soul salvation, if you will.
If doctrines had anything to do with one's being elect unto salvation, then Abraham would come short, and so would Samson, Rahab, Gideon, and most of those named in Hebrews 11.
But, doctrines do affect our time salvation, our walk with the Lord here in time, the way we view Christ and His redemptive work, our, as you put it, sanctification.
And that is the purpose for preaching the gospel, to give gospel instructions, to teach gospel obedience, and to instruct in gospel living.
The gospel does not result in one's eternal salvation.

 

The first yellow flashing light of either arminianism or calvinism:


They are both named after sinners.


HankD

 

Hank, if I asked you to write a short summary of what you believe - a personal statement of faith with Scripture references, we could call that statement "Hankism." And it would be named after a sinner, wouldn't it? Everyone has a system. Otherwise, we would just read the Bible and nothing else, with no explanation. Our pastors would just read verses and then sit down, since they are sinners after all.

 

I don't think I had ever heard of election. But I was aware of eternal security. I was raised in and saved in the Nazarene church (believes you can lose your salvation), so that is the first doctrine I began to question - the P in TULIP. T was next, then U and I, and last L.

 

Dear brother Andy,

You could call it "Hankism" but no one ever has and probably never will, but when a mortal sinful human being comes up with a defined systematic theology which is codified and has his/her writings sold and taught almost on a par with Scripture, something, IMO is definitely wrong whether it be Calvin or even a contemporary writer.

I agree with you in part however, a humble man filled with and gifted by the Spirit is God's way in this age to guide us through the Scriptures.

HankD

 

The first yellow flashing light of the gospels:

All four are named after sinners.

 

Their writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Calvin's were not.

HankD

 

When someone studies Calvin(and I do not have a single volume in my library from him or about him) that someone must always remember that they are studying someone who is somewhat less than infallable and inerrant!!

 

Dear brother Andy,

You could call it "Hankism" but no one ever has and probably never will, but when a mortal sinful human being comes up with a defined systematic theology which is codified and has his/her writings sold and taught almost on a par with Scripture, something, IMO is definitely wrong whether it be Calvin or even a contemporary writer.

I agree with you in part however, a humble man filled with and gifted by the Spirit is God's way in this age to guide us through the Scriptures.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Everyone has a system of intepretation, whether we spend the time to write it down or not. But I agree - no one's interpretation is ever on par with Scripture itself.

 

Deafposttrib... I appreciate the spirit of your post... but... the Scripture itself is clear that doctrines are important... doctrines are what separates Christianity from all other religions... if doctrine is not important, then Christianity isn't important, and you could believe whatever it is you want to believe and be saved... but this is simply not true, Paul was very clear about the importance of doctrines:

Gal 1:6-9 esv I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel (7) not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
(8) But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
(9) As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."

John, too, warned us about believing in false doctrine as he battled the early Gnostic's who denied the real physical body of Jesus....
1Jo 1:1 esv That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life"

and that if Jesus really was physical he would have been evil, since all the physical world is evil...
1Jo 1:5 esv This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

and that the way we live is important... because some taught that since the physical world was evil, it did not matter what we did "in the flesh" as it was inherently evil anyway, thus we could sin with impunity, it did not matter.. our spirits would remain pure...
1Jo 1:6-7 esv If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.
(7) But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin."

some of these same people had doctrines saying that since their spirit's were pure, they had no sin in them...
1Jo 1:8 esv If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."


and on and on it goes... much of the NT was written to specifically combat false doctrines... and if "doctrines don't matter" it seems to make little sense that the writers of the NT would have been so concerned about it and would have written hard passionate words against the false doctrines either trying to worm their way into Christianity itself (Judaism, Gnosticism), or the other false religions flourishing during the time the NT writers penned their works...

blessings,
Ken

 

I should add that while I appreciate the "spirit" of what you were writing, on one hand I do, and another, I don't, because the deemphasis placed on the importance of doctrine is a doctrine that I believe comes from the evil one himself... after all Jesus is important, and thus the doctrine of who Jesus is, is important... do you have the Jesus of Mormonism? brother to Satan? one working his way to godhood like the rest of us ought to be doing? or what about the Jesus of the Jehovah's Witnesses who was Michael the Archangel?? Is that your Jesus? (rhetorical question ) or what about God Himself? Is your God one who doesn't know the future? Is He many or one? Is He triune? the point is that doctrine is important and those who deny the importance of doctrine are often unaware of just how many doctrines they believe... and if they believe the doctrine that there is only one way to the Father, then they do indeed adhere to doctrines as being important, albeit on a somewhat unconscious level...

blessings,
Ken

 

Mr. Manard is quoted in the OP as saying:
"For Arminians like Corner and Geisler, a non-substitutionary atonement is the non-negotiable basis upon which God makes "available" salvation "for all who desire" it."

If he had read Geisler, I would put more thought into the rest of what he says. But if he made a statement like this, he either didn't read Geisler, or intentionally misstated what Geisler taught. Either way, I'll have no more of him.

 

Their writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Calvin's were not.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]RE: Calvin- Says who?

 

Cute!

HankD

 

Their writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Calvin's were not.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]I suppose that should have been your objection then, and not who the systems are named after. If you want to throw out red herrings you should expect prople to point out that they smell.

 

Cute!

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]If you're saying that the Holy Spirit doesn't inspire people other than those who wrote the books in the Bible, then all the preachers should step down now.

 

Ok. Fair enough. I can understand one not agreeing with the concept of a "universal atonement". However, he continues:

If what he says is true, I know of only a handful of people in my personal life who actually are saved and the elect is a much smaller group that commonly accepted. What do you all think? </font>[/QUOTE]I did a search for E.D. Manard and the results seem to indicate that he is now in the other side of the spectrum.
When was this book written ?
He has a new book being touted in the internet titled "Why Election Is Not My Gospel", praised to high heavens by some pastors.
Is this the same E.D. Manard you are talking about ?

 

1) That the Holy Spirit no longer inspires holy men of old to write Scripture is obvious (unless you hold to Mormon doctrine). Believe whatever you wish, but Calvin was not inspired in the same manner as Isaiah or John being neither a prophet or apostle.

I prefer the Rose of Sharon to Calvin's Tulip.

2) Your second premise might have some value to it if it were qualified with "many" preachers (IMO).

HankD