Are Calvinists in danger of HELL FIRE??

I think it is clear here that Calvinists and free will believe that there is one way to salvation --- the way they believe. To that extent, both are "smug" or at least "exclusivists."

The issue of the OP addresses this exclusivism. Do we repent/convert in order to receive faith and regeneration OR are we regenerated and given faith in order to repent/convert?

It is a crucial issue. Jesus gave Nicodemus (John 3) the correct pattern for being saved when He spoke of the "brazen serpent." God/Moses did NOT bring the brazen serpent to the bitten children of Israel. Rather hearing of it, they had to, of their own volition, look to it. Likewise, we today of our own volition must look to Christ Who was "lifted up" on the cross. That is how to be born again/regenerated! We are NOT healed prior to looking -- we are healed only if we turn and look to Him.

So which group has followed that pattern? Let the "rationalizing" begin! :laugh:

skypair

 

Thank you for clearing that up. Your previous post seemed to be saying that it was only Calvinists who were smug, as a result of their belief in election.

 

My apologies to all then. Baptists are often accused of being "judgmental" and "holier than thou" because, whether they practice it or not, they preach "hell fire and damnation" on those who don't believe as they do.

I did an article responsive to a Daily Bread item I read on "Why They Hate Us." To me, it is not so much that they hate us as they hate the conviction of the Holy Spirit when we tell them the truth. It's like wanting to kill the messenger for bringing bad news when, actually, we are trying to bring good news!

skypair

 

Let me interpret these verses for you.

Luk 14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

This verse says that a Christian must follow Jesus by taking on the world's scorn and abuse. But you say this says disciple, not a Christian. As a life long Baptist, I don't believe there's any difference betweem ministers. Deacons, Teachers, etc. and someone sitting on the last pew. If you want to argue that there's a difference please state your scriptural proof.

Luk 14:28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have [sufficient] to finish [it]?
Luk 14:29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish [it], all that behold [it] begin to mock him,
Luk 14:30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
Luk 14:31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
Luk 14:32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.
Luk 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

This passage of scripture stresses the cost of decipleship. If you want to become a Christian there is a cost associated with that. Think about the story about the rich young ruler. He was unwilling to pay the cost (giving away all his wealth) and left, condemned to perdition. He made that choice not God before the beginnings of time.

Luk 14:34 Salt [is] good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?

What do you suppose Christ is saying here? That Christians can lose their salvation.

Your turn.

 

Sorry, BaptistBeliever, where does TC say that Luke 14.27 says disciple, not a Christian?

His first message on this thread just said:

And your point is...?​

His second:

1. Yet the very title of your post assumes the worst.

2. I challenge you to step forward and tell us why you should not be considered equally judgmental as those you are accusing of being judgmental.​

and his third:

You know not of what you speak.​

No mention of disciples being different to Christians.

Did you mean, "But perhaps someone will say that this says disciple, not a Christian."?

 

I'm not being judgmental. I'm merely interpreting the Bible. As a lifelong Baptist, I've always believed in the Priesthood of the Believer. If you believe that ministers are one caste and all other believers another then I understand separating out the requirements for salvation for each group. I don't. That's what I'm saying that all Christians are under Christ's requirement to "Come and follow me." In addition, we all are in the position of the rich young ruler. We cannot serve two masters. The rich yound ruler chose his money. Will we chose Christ to follow or something or someone else? That's the critical question.

 

Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood my message. Like you, I do not believe in a clergy/laity divide. All I was questioning was the statement you made in reply to TC Greek's message, when you said:

But you say this says disciple, not a Christian. ​

All I meant was that I could not find anywhere where TC had said that Luke 14.27 says disciple, not a Christian. If he did say it, could you tell me where? If he didn't say it, why did you say that he did?

 

I thought that perhaps you were making that distinction. TC didn't reply to the scripture at all so I don't know what his view is. Then, since there doesn't seem to be an issue let me paraphrase the verse as:


And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be a Christian.

 

The OP, while stretching the point to an unbiblical extreme, is not questioning the salvation of anyone. He is merely stating that the passage (Matthew 5:22) declares that someone is said to be in danger of "hell fire." He is asking if those who espouse the doctrine of predestination would fall into that category.

While I believe Calvinism to be a dangerous doctrine, I do not believe the passage is teaching of doctrinal errors. More than likely, given the context, Jesus simply means that if a man accuses another man with apostasy from the Jewish religion, or rebellion against God, and cannot offer proof, then he is due the punishment (in this case, burning alive in the place of the damned - geenna) which the accused would have suffered, if the charge had been substantiated.

 

PB : "While I believe Calvinism to be a dangerous doctrine ..." When did Calvinism consist of a singular doctrine ? It is much more full-orbed than that . You probably will have to retract that statement or qualify it quite a lot . You , as a Christian would agree with the majority of Calvinistic doctrines .

 

I have no intention of retracting my statement. I do not agree with any of the five points of Calvinism as I understand them.

 

Now you say that Calvinism consists of five doctrines . You're improving , but it is a lot more comprehensive than the so-called 5 points . And , I think you do misunderstand those propositions .

 

Everybody is in danger of hellfire. Anyone who rejects God's gift of salvation in Jesus Christ (those who refuse to trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross at Calvary) will end up in the Lake of Fire--eternally separated from God--the second death.

I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. (Luke 13:3)

I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. (Luke 13:5)

The wrath of God remains on those who reject Christ. (John 3:36)

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 3:36)

 

No, I did not say that; you said that. There are five tenants to Calvinism; I subscribe to none of them. Therefore, I would not agree with the majority of Calvinistic doctrines. However, feel free to continue telling me what I believe and what I am saying.

 

I am saying that you now concede that there are plurality of doctrineS in Calvinism . It is not "a" doctrine . In your initial post you made it seem as if we have a singular teaching .

Calvinism does not merely consist of 5 tenets . It is much broader in scope . But if you want to think it only comprises 5 points you would be mistaken ( you wouldn't be alone though ) .

So , as I said , you're making some progress . You went from one doctrine -- to 5 . Hopefully you will eventually admit there is much more to it than you currently believe . I'm a full-counsel-of-God kinda' guy myself .

 

I can assure you that I was not saying it, but even if I was, surely it would have been less confusing, as you were replying to a message from TC, not me, for you to have written:

But David Lamb says this says disciple, not a Christian. ​

I believe that "disciple", "Christian", "believer", "redeemed", (and other words and phrases used in Scripture) all mean the same people, those whom Christ has saved.

 

hear hear my friend

 

No, there are not five tenets of Calvinism. The so-called "Five Points" were formulated in answer to five points previously put forward by the followers of Arminius. They were never intended to be a full statement of faith, just answers to the Armianism's five points.

 

Then what is a concise summary of the Calvinist theology?

 

There may be better ones, but I would suggest the "Five Great Alones" of the Reformation, that is, that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, on the authority of Scripture alone.