a Plea To christian Unity On this BB!

[Skandelon]

:thumbs:

From the link:

The late lamented Mr. Denham has put, at the foot of his portrait, a most admirable text, "Salvation is of the Lord." That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, "He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord." I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, "God is my rock and my salvation." What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.
​

So you agree with Spurgeon's version of the "Calvinistic gospel," since he is also quoted saying things like:

I Tim. 2:4:

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."" —"Salvation By Knowing the Truth"
:thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

Here's another difference. Only Calvinism allows that those with an errant view of God can still be known of Him. Noncalvinism says you must think the "right" things about God, or at the very least it has to be right enough.

Calvinism brings liberty, Noncalvinism brings the Inquisition.

You are kidding right? Surely you jest. You really meant to end this with some kind of emoticon right? (And to be clear, this was said honestly without even a hint of sarcasm)

 

[JesusFan]

Incorrect. Here is a more accurate comparison:

Calvinism:
Man is completely ruined but even God's work on the cross and sending of the gospel of grace isn't sufficient without a prior work of regeneration.

Non-Calvinism
Man is completely ruined, but God's work on the cross and sending of the gospel of grace gives mankind all they need to respond to his appeal to be reconciled and stand without excuse before God.


Incorrect.

Calvinism:
Man won't and cannot choose good without divine assistance (grace). That divine assistance is irresistible.

Non-Calvinism:
Man won't and cannot choose good without divine assistance (grace). That divine assistance is resistible.


Incorrect on SOOO many levels.

Calvinism:
The Cross is sufficient to save all but only saves those who will believe, which are those God has elected before the foundation of the world.

Non-Calvinism:
The Cross is sufficient to save all, but only saves whosoever will believe.


Incorrect.

Calvinism:
One must believe in order to be saved, but that ability must be granted or enabled through a prior work of regeneration (effectually calling).

Non-Calvinism:
One must believe in order to be saved, but they cannot believe in whom they have not heard, thus the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation, must be proclaimed. The grace of God's Spirit produced, preserved and carries this gospel today giving all who hear all they need to respond to God's appeal to be reconciled.

Incorrect.

Calvinism:
God has chosen the elect

Non-Calvinism:
God first chose Israel to receive his special revelation, but now has made it known to all the world. The gospel thus was sent "first to the Jew and then to the Gentile." The Jews were being hardened/cut off, while the Gentiles were being grafted in. However, God did select a few from the Jews to take this message of redemption to the world and establish his church.



Are the rest of them incorrect misrepresentations too?

Still saying that we Cals and you Arms ARE indded closer in theology then some of the more extreme in our camps would let you know!

thank God that by his grace I and any one else saved was allowed to come to God without having all of our Sotierlogy are straight and proper!

Hopefully you will allow me to say still that in this area Cals have a better view then Arms, but would also still say we both have same jesus and Gospel, just different views in exact details!

 

[preachinjesus]

Here's another difference. Only Calvinism allows that those with an errant view of God can still be known of Him. Noncalvinism says you must think the "right" things about God, or at the very least it has to be right enough.

Calvinism brings liberty, Noncalvinism brings the Inquisition.

Your theological meandering here is simply terrible. The polarization of belief is both unnecessary and wholly ill-informed.

It isn't Reformed views vs. everyone else. There are many options one should consider, many which might help in understanding one's entire worldview. Calvinism represents a view, one which I don't wholly accept, that has some reasonable offerings. It isn't the same thing as the Gospel.

Anytime someone attempts to say a theological system is, then we know they are in error.

 

[JesusFan]

Your theological meandering here is simply terrible. The polarization of belief is both unnecessary and wholly ill-informed.

It isn't Reformed views vs. everyone else. There are many options one should consider, many which might help in understanding one's entire worldview. Calvinism represents a view, one which I don't wholly accept, that has some reasonable offerings. It isn't the same thing as the Gospel.

Anytime someone attempts to say a theological system is, then we know they are in error.

what is interesting is that IF we take this view as being "truth" than Billy Graham, Charles Stanley, Chuck Swindoll etc have been teaching error and been false teachers/pastors/evangelist all these yers, as I believe all 3 claim to be Arminians! If nor Arms, definitly not Reformed!

 

[Skandelon]

Still saying that we Cals and you Arms ARE indded closer in theology then some of the more extreme in our camps would let you know!

thank God that by his grace I and any one else saved was allowed to come to God without having all of our Sotierlogy are straight and proper!

Hopefully you will allow me to say still that in this area Cals have a better view then Arms, but would also still say we both have same jesus and Gospel, just different views in exact details!

:thumbs: I most certainly can respect that brother!

 

[quantumfaith]

Still saying that we Cals and you Arms ARE indded closer in theology then some of the more extreme in our camps would let you know!

thank God that by his grace I and any one else saved was allowed to come to God without having all of our Sotierlogy are straight and proper!

Hopefully you will allow me to say still that in this area Cals have a better view then Arms, but would also still say we both have same jesus and Gospel, just different views in exact details!

Accepted, however, if I were the one writing your post, I would think it best to insert "I believe that in this area Cals have a better view". That is offered in love and respect, not in criticism.

 

[JesusFan]

Accepted, however, if I were the one writing your post, I would think it best to insert "I believe that in this area Cals have a better view". That is offered in love and respect, not in criticism.

point well taken, usually when I post something like that, or read someone else saying it, always assume its "in their opinion!"

 

[quantumfaith]

point well taken, usually when I post something like that, or read someone else saying it, always assume its "in their opinion!"

Love and respect to you brother.

 

[pinoybaptist]

what IS Christian unity, by the way ?

 

[DiamondLady]

what IS Christian unity, by the way ?

I am absolutely ROLLING here! I can not BELIEVE how a simple plea for peace and unity devolved into a mud slinging match so quickly. If you were children playing in my back yard I'd send you all home to your mothers. That is how you are acting, you know. For a group of supposedly mature adults you're all like a bunch of dogs fighting over the last bone in the pile.

I have adopted a very neutral response to this debate....What HEAVENLY difference does it make. If you believe you're going to Heaven and your soul is secure what difference does it make what someone else thinks about how they were selected/or they selected? None.

Since I have no dog in this fight I am taking my crayons and quietly slipping away...I just had to share how funny I found this whole argument.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I am absolutely ROLLING here! I can not BELIEVE how a simple plea for peace and unity devolved into a mud slinging match so quickly. If you were children playing in my back yard I'd send you all home to your mothers. That is how you are acting, you know. For a group of supposedly mature adults you're all like a bunch of dogs fighting over the last bone in the pile.

I have adopted a very neutral response to this debate....What HEAVENLY difference does it make. If you believe you're going to Heaven and your soul is secure what difference does it make what someone else thinks about how they were selected/or they selected? None.

Since I have no dog in this fight I am taking my crayons and quietly slipping away...I just had to share how funny I found this whole argument.

Wow.....a scolding! Glad I'm innocent of all this squabbling :tongue3::saint:

 

[webdog]

I am absolutely ROLLING here! I can not BELIEVE how a simple plea for peace and unity devolved into a mud slinging match so quickly. If you were children playing in my back yard I'd send you all home to your mothers. That is how you are acting, you know. For a group of supposedly mature adults you're all like a bunch of dogs fighting over the last bone in the pile.

I have adopted a very neutral response to this debate....What HEAVENLY difference does it make. If you believe you're going to Heaven and your soul is secure what difference does it make what someone else thinks about how they were selected/or they selected? None.

Since I have no dog in this fight I am taking my crayons and quietly slipping away...I just had to share how funny I found this whole argument.

You label us a bunch of dogs and children...the irony. I'm glad you are above the mud slinging You are right, you have no dog in this fight because you are doing the exact same thing...also, just believing you are going to Heaven doesn't make it so. Ask the masses of RC's on judgement day if they believed they were going to Heaven.

 

[Skandelon]

I am absolutely ROLLING here! I can not BELIEVE how a simple plea for peace and unity devolved into a mud slinging match so quickly.

It typically starts when someone claims their view is the gospel and everyone else's view is not.

I have adopted a very neutral response to this debate....What HEAVENLY difference does it make. If you believe you're going to Heaven and your soul is secure what difference does it make what someone else thinks about how they were selected/or they selected?

Well, according to some here, it means you would be spending an eternity in hell because the gospel you believe and teach is not the truth gospel. Should that accusation go unanswered as we all sing "Kum ba yah" and hug?

No, it means we respectfully but firmly rebuke, in love. I think most of the replies could fit into that category, unless your really sensitive to any conflict or disagreement. Unity doesn't mean we ignore error or refuse to confront false accusations. It just means we do so in love and with respect for each other.

 

[Luke2427]

just a question to those that believe we need to "toughen it up"

is it still though in Christian character to ridicule/demean/ accuse others of believing "stuff ignorantly/not biblical/" etc?

I am all for good discussions/debating from the scriptures, but doesn't there have to be a "Christ like" way to do this?

If not, than the would be no real need for Moderators, as we all can just "cut loose and let the chips fall where they may!"

I love how people use the phrase "Christ-like" to suit them.

Now bear with me here JesusFan. I like you. I think you are pretty sharp so don't misunderstand what I am saying here. And I even appreciate the effort of this thread to quell some of the ad hominem.

But Jesus was EXTRAORDINARILY blunt and pointed and HARSH. Yes- HARSH. Telling Pharisees that they are whited sepulchers is HARSH! Calling them SERPENTS is HARSH!!

The retort to this PLAIN fact is usually- But the Pharisees were evil. We're talking about brothers talking to brothers. We should follow Jesus' example there!

Of course the problem with that is that Jesus called the disciples his friends and called Peter SATAN, he said, "Oh FOOLISH ones! How long shall I suffer you??!!", etc, etc, etc...

Then the final retort is-n "JESUS can do that ! He is God! You are not LUKE2427!!! EVEN THOUGH YOU THINK YOU ARE!!!!!!!!!!"

Of course the problem with this is two fold:

#1. If Jesus was often HARSH and we cannot be because he was God, THEN WHY ON EARTH DO PEOPLE KEEP TELLING US TO BE CHRISTLIKE IN OUR MANNERS OF SPEAKING!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!"

Either we can be like him or we can't. Please pick one.

#2. When one resorts to accusing luke2427 or WHOEVER of having a God complex or of being arrogant, etc... he is guilty of being HARSH- the VERY THING he is condemning in luke2427 or Aaron or Skandelon, etc...


I think this. I think if you (and I do not mean you JesusFan- I mean WHOEVER) are going to jump on people for jumping on people or if you are going to be harsh on those who are harsh because they are harsh- YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE!

God bless.:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Luke2427]

Your theological meandering here is simply terrible. The polarization of belief is both unnecessary and wholly ill-informed.

It isn't Reformed views vs. everyone else. There are many options one should consider, many which might help in understanding one's entire worldview. Calvinism represents a view, one which I don't wholly accept, that has some reasonable offerings. It isn't the same thing as the Gospel.

Anytime someone attempts to say a theological system is, then we know they are in error.

Then what does your theological system represent if it does not represent the Gospel- a false gospel???

Eternal life is knowing God. Theology is the study of God. The Gospel is the way we know God. Therefore one's theology had better be the Gospel.

Now here is what most of us believe: You guys who have no systematic theology, (you are not Arminian or anything else) you guys are saved because you believe enough of the Gospel to know enough about God to be saved. (I know that is going to tick some of you off- that is not the intent but if it does it does).

At the same time we believe that Calvinism is THE DEAD LEVEL BEST REPRESENTATION OF THE BIBLICAL GOSPEL.

Calvinism is NOT just a soteriology. It is a THEOLOGY.

The Gospel is NOT just about a soteriology. It encompasses all the major divisions of theology.

If your theology is NOT the Gospel then you'd better get this right.

Until you do please consider stopping your assault against those who have studied their theology out and concluded that it indeed is the Biblical Gospel.

Now someone will want to say here something to the effect of- "So you are saying that one has to know all the intricate details of theology in order to be saved!?!!?!?!"

To which I respond in advance- NO. As I clearly stated above I believe that these people with no systematic theology are saved.

I am saying that there's is incomplete but sufficient.

 

[Aaron]

Calvinism:
Man is completely ruined but even God's work on the cross and sending of the gospel of grace isn't sufficient without a prior work of regeneration.

[snip - personal inflammatory language is not acceptable] It is still a work of God.

Non-Calvinism
Man is completely ruined, but God's work on the cross and sending of the gospel of grace gives mankind all they need to respond to his appeal to be reconciled and stand without excuse before God.

And this is man's work. I need go no further.

Calvinism: Christ's work on the cross is sufficient. Noncalvinism: I must add my own righteous work.

Everytime you "open your mouth" to argue your point, that is what you say.

 

[preacher4truth]

Calvinism: Man is completely ruined but even God's work on the cross and sending of the gospel of grace isn't sufficient without a prior work of regeneration.

Emphasis mine.

I absolutely disagree with this premise. I think it misunderstands the calvinists Biblical viewpoint completely and nowhere have I seen Calvinism say the Gospel and the work of the cross to not be sufficient. It is in this work and in this message that God regenerates His elect. Nothing added, nothing taken away.

This is an unfair representation. It insinuates calvinists adding to the Gospel, and that would then make the Gospel false.

Calvinists Gospel is not false in any way. What you say is clearly a distortion of the soteriology of calvinism.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Then what does your theological system represent if it does not represent the Gospel- a false gospel???

Eternal life is knowing God. Theology is the study of God. The Gospel is the way we know God. Therefore one's theology had better be the Gospel.

Now here is what most of us believe: You guys who have no systematic theology, (you are not Arminian or anything else) you guys are saved because you believe enough of the Gospel to know enough about God to be saved. (I know that is going to tick some of you off- that is not the intent but if it does it does).

At the same time we believe that Calvinism is THE DEAD LEVEL BEST REPRESENTATION OF THE BIBLICAL GOSPEL.

Calvinism is NOT just a soteriology. It is a THEOLOGY.

The Gospel is NOT just about a soteriology. It encompasses all the major divisions of theology.

If your theology is NOT the Gospel then you'd better get this right.

Until you do please consider stopping your assault against those who have studied their theology out and concluded that it indeed is the Biblical Gospel.

Now someone will want to say here something to the effect of- "So you are saying that one has to know all the intricate details of theology in order to be saved!?!!?!?!"

To which I respond in advance- NO. As I clearly stated above I believe that these people with no systematic theology are saved.

I am saying that there's is incomplete but sufficient.

Bingo but thats not going to stop the criticisms:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

[snipped for violation of rules] It is still a work of God.
And this is man's work. I need go no further.

Calvinism: Christ's work on the cross is sufficient. Noncalvinism: I must add my own righteous work.

Everytime you "open your mouth" to argue your point, that is what you say.

LOL, Oh Lord do I love the matter of fact character of your delivery...God Bless you:laugh: