Besides Lordship Haters and Calvinist Shills...?

[skypair]

ReformedBaptist,

If the "bridge is out," what do you do? I've heard this in so many sermons -- you put up a roadblock. If none is handy, you stand in the "way" and wave and shout, "Hey, you're going the wrong way!!!"

Salvation is not an equivocal issue. At some point YOU either choose Christ or you deny Him, even if that denial is by inaction.

Now you can go on "serving" Him all you want -- hell and the lake of fire will be a much better place for your work, I'm sure. But if you sit on your hands when the "call" is made, you're LOST and I need to come get you!! There's no assumptions about "election" to be made. "He that hath the Son hath life. He that hath not the Son hath not life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." DID YOU CHOOSE HIM OR DID YOU DO NOTHING about the spiritual information God gace you?

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

DID YOU CHOOSE HIM OR DID YOU DO NOTHING about the spiritual information God gace you?

Since by your post you seek to draw me into debate by the way of questioning my salvation, a thing I have never done with those who differ from me on the subject of soteriology, I will answer by way of personal testimony, and that by Scripture.

Why am I a Christian and to whom do I owe thanksgiving for the cause of my salvation? I testify that it is to God alone that I owe thanksgiving and praise for my salvation, which is in Christ Jesus alone by faith alone to the glory of God alone. It is of him that I am in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto me righteousness, and wisdom, and sanctification, and redemption. Glory to God! 1 Cor 1:30-31.

I am elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctifcation of the Spirit, unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ, who begot me again according to His abundant mercy to a living hope by the ressurection of Jesus Christ from the dead. I am kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time, in which salvation I greatly rejoice. 1 Peter 1:2-5.

Him, I say, I have not seen, but love. Yet believing in Him I rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory, recieving the end of my faith, the salvation of my soul. 1 Peter 1:8

Him, that is Jesus Christ, I have received, who has given me the power to become a son of God, I who believe on His name, who was not born of blood, or the will of the flesh, or the will of man, but of God. John 1:12-13

This salvation I have received is no novel thing. The prophets of old have enquired and seached diligently and prophesied of the grace that should come to me, and not only me, but all who believe on His name. 1 Peter 1:10

I myself was once foolish, disobedient, decieved, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating others. But after the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared to me, not by my works of righteousness which I had done, but according to His mercy He saved me, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit which He shed on me abundantly through Jesus Christ my Savior; that being justified by His grace I would be made an heir according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:3-7

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! He has blessed me with all spiritual blessings in the heavenly places. As He has chosen me in Him before the foundation of the world, that I should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined me unto adoption as a child of His by Jesus Christ to Himself, which He did according to the good pleasure of His will; to the praise of the glory of His grace, in which grace He has made me accepted in the Beloved. In this Beloved, who is Christ Jesus our Lord, I have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.

His grace he has abounded toward me in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to me the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposes in Himself: that in in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might gather into one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, in Him. And I have been, in Christ Jesus, have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things after the counsel of His own will. Ephesians 1:3-11

This salvation is that which the Apostles of Christ spoke concerning themselves saying, "That we should be to the praise of His glory, who first trusted Christ." Eph 1:12 In Christ Jesus I also, having heard the word of the truth, the Gospel, also having believed and trusted in Him, I was sealed with the Holy Spirit of the promise, who is my downpayment, my guarentee, of my inheritance, until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory! Ephesians 1:13-14

This is the salvation I have received my brethren, and no other. Nor, I am persuaded, does the Scripture know of or teach any other salvation than this.

Soli Deo Gloria (To God be the glory Alone!).

RB

 

[JustChristian]

It seems this forum has become the haven of either easy-believism opponents of the Lordship of Christ, or the domain of Calvinist shills making thinly veiled (or maybe not) attacks on anyone who doesn't believe in their brand of determinism.

Is there, in fact, anyone here who believes Jesus is Saviour & LORD, and who falls into the general "non-Calvinist" theological catergory anymore? Is there anyone who understands "Lordship" NOT to mean "works salvation" but DOES understand it to mean total commitment to being His Disciple? Is there anyone who reveres God's sovereignty while respecting His ability to enable but not enforce man's "Faith"?

It just seems most "Baptists" here have gone to one of these two extremes. Is it only me who attempts to "remain at the center of Biblical tension," or are there others? Just shout out -- I'd like to know!




JDale

I accept Jesus Christ as my LORD and SAVIOR. I believe that this is the only gospel taught in the Bible. I wouldn't budge from this position if my life depended on it (which it does in an eternal sense).

 

[JDale]

While the OP of this thread was to try and identify those who were not either "Lordship haters" or "Calvinist Shills," it has (unfortunately but perdictibly) begun to move in other directions.

SkyPair, your confrontation of ReformedBaptist was not necessary. While I may not agree with every nuance of his take on the Calvinist view of salvation, he didn't come across to me as meanspirited, nor did I think anything he said had to be confronted by implying that his salvation was in question.

ReformedBaptist, I don't blame you for defending yourself -- especially in the form of a testimony. I would kindly ask, however, that any further argument you and SkyPair have be done in another thread. I'd rather see this one stick to the OP. Of course, I have NO enforcement authority, but as the thread author, this was n't what I was aiming for. NO offense intended!

JDale

 

[ReformedBaptist]

While the OP of this thread was to try and identify those who were not either "Lordship haters" or "Calvinist Shills," it has (unfortunately but perdictibly) begun to move in other directions.

SkyPair, your confrontation of ReformedBaptist was not necessary. While I may not agree with every nuance of his take on the Calvinist view of salvation, he didn't come across to me as meanspirited, nor did I think anything he said had to be confronted by implying that his salvation was in question.

ReformedBaptist, I don't blame you for defending yourself -- especially in the form of a testimony. I would kindly ask, however, that any further argument you and SkyPair have be done in another thread. I'd rather see this one stick to the OP. Of course, I have NO enforcement authority, but as the thread author, this was n't what I was aiming for. NO offense intended!

JDale

No offense taken at all JDale. You have every right to have your thread stay on topic. I only wish that what skypair wrote to me didn't require somewhat of a response, but rest assured, that is the only response he will get from me. I have no desire to wrangle with that man.

Hope your thread stays on topic!

 

[JDale]

I accept Jesus Christ as my LORD and SAVIOR. I believe that this is the only gospel taught in the Bible. I wouldn't budge from this position if my life depended on it (which it does in an eternal sense).

In that case, I'm glad to say we are in agreement BB!

Blessings!


*********

As we sing another verse of "Just As I Am," perhaps the Holy Spirit is calling you tonight? It may even be IRRESISTIBLE...

(Sorry, I couldn't resist! Er, no pun intended!) Won't you come?

JDale

 

[EdSutton]

Actually out of some 8K members of the BB, I would suspect one can find about any and all of the well-known Baskin/Robbins "32 flavors" plus a few more that most have never even suspected even exist.

Personally, I suspect all the pejorative, accusatory, and/or "pigeonholing" terms, phrases, and sentences such as "easy-believism opponents of the Lordship of Christ", "shills", "... questioning my salvation ...", "Perhaps you should study more.", and "I notice you two have similar debating tactics.", all of which I see on this thread, do very little to shed much light, but certainly do generate a lot of heat.

Ed

 

[blackbird]

It seems this forum has become the haven of either easy-believism opponents of the Lordship of Christ, or the domain of Calvinist shills making thinly veiled (or maybe not) attacks on anyone who doesn't believe in their brand of determinism.

Is there, in fact, anyone here who believes Jesus is Saviour & LORD, and who falls into the general "non-Calvinist" theological catergory anymore? Is there anyone who understands "Lordship" NOT to mean "works salvation" but DOES understand it to mean total commitment to being His Disciple? Is there anyone who reveres God's sovereignty while respecting His ability to enable but not enforce man's "Faith"?






JDale

Here's another that fits your description

Ummmmmmm----I'm just curious, though--------------if I "come forward"---will the buses REALLY wait on me???:laugh: :laugh: (A little Billy Graham pun, there)

 

[skypair]

RB...

This is the salvation I have received my brethren, and no other. Nor, I am persuaded, does the Scripture know of or teach any other salvation than this.

This is the gospel you received or this is the salvation you received?

BTW, the you in my post (top of the page) was a hypothetical "you" referring to such as do sit on their hands and don't do anything about the gospel they have received. I didn't mean you in particular, RB.

skypair

 

[Jarthur001]

In your new nature (according Calvinism) you "have to" believe Him, there is no other choice. God changed you (when you didn't want Him) to make you want Him.
So would this not fall under the context of 'forced'?

This post is not to pick on Allan, for I could show you one of my own post where I have done the same thing as he has done. Please check out what I placed in bold above.

This is what drives the debate into high speed. This is why it gets heated at times. Its one side telling the other what they believe, when it is not. In fact this is the reason the debate started if you know your history. You still see it today.

Now what do you do? It seems it does not matter how many times you tell the other side this is poor understanding of "ourside", they still post as they want. It seems like there is but two things you can do. We can keep showing their error...say it nice...tell it with stories.....say 100 times, it really does not seem to matter for they will still post the wrong view of the other side, or you can stop debating.

I can count on my hand the number of threads (on the c/a debate) that did not go that way in the years I have been here. They are few, but they were the better ones as I remember.

But many, yes many, (not you Allan) but many, believe they are fighting to protect God's character from views of the other side. They feel the other side is so far off base they MUST tell the truth and expose their error. They even will go as far as say it's a doctrine of the devil.

The funny thing I have noticed is that the heated part of this debate seems to be over one subject. That subject is the love of God. Both sides feel they see God's love as pure, only in their view and their view only is it pure. As a matter of fact, in my own understanding of Calvinism, this is what has drawn me to the doctrines. I feel it shows the best view of Gods love. And to beat it all, it was when I took-up a study of the subject of the "love of God" that open my eyes to limited atonement. Now a non-Calvinist may never understand this, for they see limited atonement as an attack on Gods love which is my point. But a Calvinist will know what I'm talking about.

If you do nothing with this debate toward your walk with God, you are wasting your time. A Calvinist is driven to missions, as were all the early modern missions movement men. Arminian's seem to be drawn to building large churches. This is not to say their is no mission minded Arminian nor Church builders that are Calvinist.

Both has the desire to get out the gospel. I have no problem with most of the classic Arminian blueprint. I do not agree with classic Arminianism, but I understand where they are coming from and I do feel it is a system one must look at. The extreme free will side ...with no sin nature...easy believe is yet another thing.

Now what should I do when this extreme view comes up? This is where I take up the fight, for to me this is grave error. Yes I could walk away, and sometimes I do. I feel the extremes is what pulls all of us into the heat. The Arminian will side with the "free willer" even though he does not believe all that is said, for the free willer seems to be closer to them than Calvinism. Calvinist likewise take it easy on the "hyper-Calvinist" view even though they do not believe all that is said.

One thing I must say..I have been impressed with who I view as classic Arminian on this board for not jumping behind the attacks on the Lordship of Christ. Now the people I feel are classic Arminian would never admit it....but they are. I think they just hate all labels.

I think this shows that the middle ground found on the BB is a mix of Calvinist and classic Arminian but extremes carry the debate.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RB...

This is the gospel you received or this is the salvation you received?

BTW, the you in my post (top of the page) was a hypothetical "you" referring to such as do sit on their hands and don't do anything about the gospel they have received. I didn't mean you in particular, RB.

skypair

You may ask me in private message if you so desire. JDale has already asked that folks keep with his topic.

 

[Pastor Trent]

Non-Calvinist
Non-Easy Believism
Non-Arminian

I stand in the midst of the gathering crowd and raise my hand as well.

-------------------------------
oh, and if any one has a struggle with that just assume I was pre-ordained to believe this way.

 

[Jarthur001]

Non-Calvinist
Non-Easy Believism
Non-Arminian

I stand in the midst of the gathering crowd and raise my hand as well.

-------------------------------
oh, and if any one has a struggle with that just assume I was pre-ordained to believe this way.

Tell me your view on election and I will tell you where you lean.

It is my guess that ever hand that "goes up" holds to a Arminian view of election.

 

[IronWill]

A bit of a rude OP no?

 

[Grasshopper]

A bit of a rude OP no?

That was my thought.

Couldn't you just ask:

"Are there any here who deny both Calvinism and easy belivism?"

But that wouldn't really have served his ultimate purpose.

 

[IronWill]

That was my thought.

Couldn't you just ask:

"Are there any here who deny both Calvinism and easy belivism?"

But that wouldn't really have served his ultimate purpose.

Reminds me of the FFF, which I am trying to leave behind. Invective is far easier to hurl then well-thought out discussions. I struggle with this myself at times when I am particularly engaged in heated discussion. However, starting an entire thread based on nothing but invective is not conducive to a good conversation.

 

[JDale]

This post is not to pick on Allan, for I could show you one of my own post where I have done the same thing as he has done. Please check out what I placed in bold above.

This is what drives the debate into high speed. This is why it gets heated at times. Its one side telling the other what they believe, when it is not. In fact this is the reason the debate started if you know your history. You still see it today.

Now what do you do? It seems it does not matter how many times you tell the other side this is poor understanding of "ourside", they still post as they want. It seems like there is but two things you can do. We can keep showing their error...say it nice...tell it with stories.....say 100 times, it really does not seem to matter for they will still post the wrong view of the other side, or you can stop debating.

I can count on my hand the number of threads (on the c/a debate) that did not go that way in the years I have been here. They are few, but they were the better ones as I remember.

But many, yes many, (not you Allan) but many, believe they are fighting to protect God's character from views of the other side. They feel the other side is so far off base they MUST tell the truth and expose their error. They even will go as far as say it's a doctrine of the devil.

The funny thing I have noticed is that the heated part of this debate seems to be over one subject. That subject is the love of God. Both sides feel they see God's love as pure, only in their view and their view only is it pure. As a matter of fact, in my own understanding of Calvinism, this is what has drawn me to the doctrines. I feel it shows the best view of Gods love. And to beat it all, it was when I took-up a study of the subject of the "love of God" that open my eyes to limited atonement. Now a non-Calvinist may never understand this, for they see limited atonement as an attack on Gods love which is my point. But a Calvinist will know what I'm talking about.

If you do nothing with this debate toward your walk with God, you are wasting your time. A Calvinist is driven to missions, as were all the early modern missions movement men. Arminian's seem to be drawn to building large churches. This is not to say their is no mission minded Arminian nor Church builders that are Calvinist.

Both has the desire to get out the gospel. I have no problem with most of the classic Arminian blueprint. I do not agree with classic Arminianism, but I understand where they are coming from and I do feel it is a system one must look at. The extreme free will side ...with no sin nature...easy believe is yet another thing.

Now what should I do when this extreme view comes up? This is where I take up the fight, for to me this is grave error. Yes I could walk away, and sometimes I do. I feel the extremes is what pulls all of us into the heat. The Arminian will side with the "free willer" even though he does not believe all that is said, for the free willer seems to be closer to them than Calvinism. Calvinist likewise take it easy on the "hyper-Calvinist" view even though they do not believe all that is said.

One thing I must say..I have been impressed with who I view as classic Arminian on this board for not jumping behind the attacks on the Lordship of Christ. Now the people I feel are classic Arminian would never admit it....but they are. I think they just hate all labels.

I think this shows that the middle ground found on the BB is a mix of Calvinist and classic Arminian but extremes carry the debate.

Good post JA. Just one note -- As a Reformation Arminian, ANYONE who claims to be "Arminian" and yet rejects the idea of a "sin nature," I will oppose openly and forcefully. Indeed, they are NOT Arminian, but Pelagian. And further, I just can't imagine how so many among Evangelicals can conclude that they can "split" Jesus into "Savior" and "Lord," and then believe one yet reject or postpone the other. AW Tozer called it heresy. Maybe those who contend FOR such things just have a Quixote complex. Anyway, thank you for your candor and kindness.

JDale


PS -- Now, ah, where were we on the OP? Oh yes!.... The Buses won't leave you! They'll wait! Don't sell yourself short for eternity to take a bus ride home tonight! Begin making your way from the balcony to the infield...won't you come...?

 

[JDale]

Reminds me of the FFF, which I am trying to leave behind. Invective is far easier to hurl then well-thought out discussions. I struggle with this myself at times when I am particularly engaged in heated discussion. However, starting an entire thread based on nothing but invective is not conducive to a good conversation.

IW & GH:

Gentlemen, rather than standing on the back row and heckling those who've come to the Altar, won't you make your way forward? We have counselor's here at the front who will pray with you....

JDale

PS -- My "invective" was not meant to facilitate conversation with those of you who so vehemently oppose "Lordship Salvation" or so adamantly favor Calvinism. It was to find those who did not fall into one of these groups. That you are here to complain gives evidence to what I said in the OP being (too often) accurate. You are my brothers [from my perspective anyway] -- if you wish to disagree with me on these issues, fine. But that is not the point of this thread.

 

[IronWill]

IW & GH:

Gentlemen, rather than standing on the back row and heckling those who've come to the Altar, won't you make your way forward? We have counselor's here at the front who will pray with you....

JDale

PS -- My "invective" was not meant to facilitate conversation with those of you who so vehemently oppose "Lordship Salvation" or so adamantly favor Calvinism. It was to find those who did not fall into one of these groups. That you are here to complain gives evidence to what I said in the OP being (too often) accurate. You are my brothers [from my perspective anyway] -- if you wish to disagree with me on these issues, fine. But that is not the point of this thread.

And I believe that you could have pulled your objective off without the arrogance or the slandering.

 

[JerryL]

And I believe that you could have pulled your objective off without the arrogance or the slandering.

That's all he knows if you don't believe his way, in Arminian views or politics. Since his favorite board has been closed down, I suspect his politics an theological smirks will undoubtedbly will show up here more often.