Awesome church experience!

[Van]

No, it does not. It reads into those verses what those verses do not say.

I can list some of them for you. Romans 3:11 says no one seeks after God, but it does not say no one seeks after God at any time. That is the Calvinist addition.

Ephesians 1:4 says He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. It does not say He chose us individually. That is the Calvinist addition.

1 Corinthians 2:14 says the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God. It does not say the natural man does not accept "all" the things of the Sp[irit of God, that is the Calvinist addition.

Sir, I provided specific verses demonstrating Calvinism is hogwash, and you ignored them. Instead you asserted those scriptures were hogwash, and appealed to unspecified verses. Thus you simply changed the subject. Not a very encouraging beginning....

2 Thessalonians 2:13 teaches our election for salvation was conditional.
1 Timothy 2:4-6 teaches Christ died as a ransom for all.
Matthew 23:13 teaches men were entering the kingdom of heaven but were blocked.
Deuteronomy 30:15-16 teaches God sets before us the choice of life or death, not death or life only.

 

[rsr]

This thread is perilously close to being sent to the C/A Forum because it had become dispute about C/A theology. Please return to the OP.

 

[Van]

The OP advocated the "awesome experience" of a Calvinist attending a Calvinist Church. Actually what was being advocated, in a backhanded way, was Calvinism. How does this line up with the Biblical Doctrine of not seeking "ear-ticklers."

 

[Don]

This thread is perilously close to being sent to the C/A Forum because it had become dispute about C/A theology. Please return to the OP.

Please re-read the opening post. This thread isn't becoming a C/A dispute; it started as a "calvinist feels better in a calvinist church than in a non-calvinist one" statement. Re-read the very last line of the OP, which asked for other calvinists in a similar situation to chime in.

The C/A forum is exactly where this thread belongs.

 

[rsr]

I take your point, but it seemed to me that the OP had a broader application, i.e., do you attend a church with you are in full agreement? That led to some discussion about the importance — or lack of importance — of soteriology in selecting a church. And then the proof texting began. At that point, it seems to me, it became not a matter of general interest but one of polemics.

 

[Don]

I take your point, but it seemed to me that the OP had a broader application, i.e., do you attend a church with you are in full agreement? That led to some discussion about the importance — or lack of importance — of soteriology in selecting a church. And then the proof texting began. At that point, it seems to me, it became not a matter of general interest but one of polemics.

If it weren't for that last line, I'd agree.

 

[Van]

What is really awesome is attending to a church that teaches the truth with clarity. No dismissing or nullifying verses that do not fit the presuppositions of the members. No claiming they do not mean what they say.

 

[rsr]

Do you have the privilege of attending such a church?

 

[evangelist6589]

I take your point, but it seemed to me that the OP had a broader application, i.e., do you attend a church with you are in full agreement? That led to some discussion about the importance — or lack of importance — of soteriology in selecting a church. And then the proof texting began. At that point, it seems to me, it became not a matter of general interest but one of polemics.

Agreed. Non Cal feel welcome in their churches and us Calvinist in our churches.[snipped]. I personally read plenty of Non Cal books.

Personally do you feel welcome in your church and is it a good church experience? I LOVED the message I heard last week and am listening to it again on CD in my car.

 

[Don]

Agreed. Non Cal feel welcome in their churches and us Calvinist in our churches.

You're still making this cal vs. non-cal.

I am not bashing Ron Rhodes and other non Cal as Van and Don may want you to believe.

Who mentioned Ron Rhodes? Wasn't me. Non-cal bashing? You've now made that claim; all I did was point out how your OP, particularly your final statement, focused the conversation on being a calvinist in a non-cal church.

I personally read plenty of Non Cal books.

Good for you.

Personally do you feel welcome in your church and is it a good church experience? I LOVED the message I heard last week and am listening to it again on CD in my car.

And that's where your opening post could have stopped, and we'd have a pleasant, "general" discussion about it; but YOU injected cal vs. non-cal throughout your opening post.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not real

So you would attend a church that thinks you can lose salvation? That's what you just said.

Not really, ly as most "arminian" churches pastors still teach eternal security!

 

[Salty]

Actually, I wonder how many church members even realize if they are Cal or Arm or somewhere in betwteen.

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually, I wonder how many church members even realize if they are Cal or Arm or somewhere in betwteen.

Would say that most Baptists churches would fall somewhere in the middle on that spectrum, as would still hold to some 'free will" tesponse, but also when you really discuss with them, they do see the need for God to do the moving first!

 

[rsr]

Closed until this mess can be cleaned up.

 

[Salty]

Would say that most Baptists churches would fall somewhere in the middle on that spectrum, as would still hold to some 'free will" tesponse, but also when you really discuss with them, they do see the need for God to do the moving first!

I'm not talking about the official church Doctrine statement -
I am referring to the rank and file members of the church.