Are You A Calvinist?

[Pastor Larry]

But you did equate denying Calvinism as "pointing out error to a fellow believer." My point is that this should not be pointing out error as though Calvinism is an objective truth - disagreement should be the mode here, not pointing out error as though you are being biblical and the non-Calvinist is not.

If Calvinism is right, as the Bible seems to indicate that it is, then it is pointing out error to those who disagree. But that wasn't what I was addressing in that post. You seemed shocked that a fellow believer would point out error in another fellow believer, and I merely pointed out that it had biblical precedent and in fact is a biblical command.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Well Larry, we understand Calvinism maybe better than you would like to give credit for.

Then I would encourage you to reflect that knowledge in your posting.

And, although you act as if you can settle this matter right here, right now, by bringing up the issue in this tread, I want you to know that we are waaaay ahead of your tactics which I would now consider rather fraudulent in your avoidance of my earlier statement here

Not sure how this comment came from anything I said. I am absolutely committed to the fact that God must be true to his word. That is why I am a Calvinist.

You talk of me being condenscending along with a bunch of other subtle name calling and personal attacks, but to my knowledge, I have never said the kind of things about others that you have said about me. I typically at least address the issues. So let's get back to that:

I think the problem you have is this:

Your side seems to think God is obligated to do whatever man asks and therefore God's free choice is removed for the sake of mans. That means that if man asks to be saved, God has to save him. He has no choice in the matter.

However, consider that in reverse: Man is obligated to do whatever God asks and therefore man's free choice is removed for the sake of God's. That means that if God asks [man] to be saved, man has to respond in belief. He has no choice in the matter.

Now I had to make a few changes in teh sentences, but I imagine you can probably see the dilemma that I am pointing out. You would respond very negatively to the second statement, right? And I think in so doing you would show that you value man's freedom above God's freedom.

I have concluded that the Bible teaches God's freedom to save whom he wills, and that God works that so that all who are saved are those whom God has made willing and those who reject are those who are willfully rejecting because of the hardness of their sin.

 

[hsmom22boys]

"Your side seems to think God is obligated to do whatever man asks and therefore God's free choice is removed for the sake of mans. That means that if man asks to be saved, God has to save him. He has no choice in the matter.

However, consider that in reverse: Man is obligated to do whatever God asks and therefore man's free choice is removed for the sake of God's. That means that if God asks [man] to be saved, man has to respond in belief. He has no choice in the matter.



I have concluded that the Bible teaches God's freedom to save whom he wills, and that God works that so that all who are saved are those whom God has made willing and those who reject are those who are willfully rejecting because of the hardness of their sin."

Thank you for laying it out the way you did. This is the shortest way that I have seen it explained and it is all right there. So are you saying that God really is in control after all? LOL! Of course we know He is. I am always trying to get a better understanding of it and this really helped me. You really can't convince everyone though. I realize that you are well aware of this. One thing that I have learned is that it really is revelation. I have tried and tried to convince people of the truth and the Lord had to show me that the only way I learned it was because He removed the blinders and allowed me to see. Thanks again!

 

[Amy.G]

Your side seems to think God is obligated to do whatever man asks and therefore God's free choice is removed for the sake of mans. That means that if man asks to be saved, God has to save him. He has no choice in the matter.

Can you provide one post that "seems to think" God is obligated to do whatever man asks?

No one on either side of this issue "seems" to think that. God requires that in order to be saved, one must have faith. Having faith doesn't put man in charge of God. It is God's requirement. Having faith means that I choose to believe God.

God does not have to save anyone. That's what it means to be saved by grace. You are not saved until God says you are. But you will not be saved unless you believe God. God does not believe for you. You must do that yourself.

To imply that any of us believe that God's free choice is removed by man is just ridiculous and quite insulting.

 

[Marcia]

Perhaps it just how we define the terms. Heresy and heretic are emotionally charged terms. If someone said, "I believe Arminians is a false teaching." it would likely be more accepted. Perhaps not..

RB

Even there, "false teaching" is pushing the envelope with a fellow believer, imo.

Since I started this thread, I feel a modicum of responsibility for what is being said in terms of accusations that I believe are unbiblical.

It used to be that it was forbidden to call anyone a heretic on the BB or suggest the person is a heretic. This is one reason I think they closed down the Calvinist/Arm. forum, but I think it was better to have it because at least you could avoid it if you wanted to. Someone on this thread said that another poster was upset because "the gospel is offensive." Well, the gospel is never offensive to a believer!

I understand heresy to be denying an essential of the faith. At least, this is how I use it. So I say the JW, Mormon, Oneness teachings are heresies. We can and should divide over essentials, such as those that separate Christianity from these cults, for example.

For a believer to call someone a heretic because he/she does not agree with Calvinism is divisive. Period.

 

[Rippon]

For a believer to call someone a heretic because he/she does not agree with Calvinism is divisive. Period.

For a believer to call someone a heretic because he/she does not agree with Lou's Lordless Salvation is divisive.Period.

 

[Marcia]

For a believer to call someone a heretic because he/she does not agree with Lou's Lordless Salvation is divisive.Period.

But that did not happen on this thread, and the former did.

And even if it did, does that make this okay?

I run across this all the time on the BB. Just a reminder - two wrongs don't make a right.