Besides Lordship Haters and Calvinist Shills...?

[JDale]

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

It seems you have me tried and convicted IW. As I've said to ReformedBaptist earlier, I was not "aiming" at anyone, I was highlighting the "extremes" to define my actual target. Sorry about that, but, if the bow I drew "at a venture" has smitten you, that may be something you need to take up with the One who actually determined the course of the arrow.

As to your conclusion that I am arrogant and slanderous, I would ask that you consider the words of Paul, who said, "But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" (Romans 14:10). I have done neither, Brother.

JDale

PS -- OP time again -- The chior is still singing, another verse of "Just As I Am" is playing... Are there others who would come forward?

 

[JDale]

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.

JerryL...

I don't know you. Perhaps we've crossed swords in the past. Evidently you don't like my political views, or any others I guess.

First, I didn't know anything had been shut down. What board are you referring to?

Second, I KNOW you don't know me, though we may have discussed and debated on some other forum before -- so I refer you to Romans 14:10, which I quoted above.

While I will not apologize for the views I hold, if the way I have conveyed them in the heat of debate has offended you, please accept my apologies. Also, please note that the OP of this thread is not to attack the original poster. If you would like to talk to me personally about some offense you believe I may have committed, please PM me.

JDale

 

[Amy.G]

I have read through this thread and I personally don't see that JDale has been arrogant or slandering.

 

[IronWill]

I have read through this thread and I personally don't see that JDale has been arrogant or slandering.

The OP. Do you not understand what "shill" means?

 

[Revmitchell]

.

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

Yes. I do.Works is often defined incorrectly.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The OP. Do you not understand what "shill" means?

"one who makes a sales pitch or serves as a promoter" ?

 

[Goldie]

JDale,

The Bible does containly contain a doctrine called "The Lordship of Jesus Christ", but this shouldn't be confused with making Him the "Lord of your life" though in order to be saved. Many people also confuse discipleship with salvation. They think that if you're not called, you're not saved. So if Israel is chosen - does that mean all the Jews are saved? No. The Bible clearly states that only a remnant will be saved out of Israel.

One doesn't have to be either Arminian or Calvinist either in one's outlook - just a sinner who believes in Jesus Christ as his/her Saviour. Saved by Grace, through faith in Jesus Christ, and through faith alone, not by works. I'm neither an Arminianist or a Calvinist. I'm just a sinner saved by Grace. Even the best Christian is just a sinner, but a saved one nevertheless.

Once you let go of all the works and let God do all the work through Jesus Christ, you appreciate your salvation and right-standing with Him in a very special way, and He can accomplish more in and with you - I'm a very good example of this. I always held onto grace + law in order to be saved, or grace + self-righteousness, and guess what? I was always questioning my salvation. Since I was shown that it is through His grace and His grace alone - I've grown. It is not our righteousness, but His righteousness that justifies us. We are rotten to the core really - and when God looks at us He sees Jesus' Righteousness and that's what brings us into right-standing with Him.

The works that we do as Christians should be to please God - that should be our underlying motive, our works should not be done as a pathway to salvation, as we cannot save ourselves.

Once you hold onto saved by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone - you view people differently as well - you're not so prone to judging them because you realise that is you, that can very well be you (what the otrher person is saying/doing) - we all stumble and fall - even John the Baptist questioned whether Jesus was the Messiah - his faith took a knock in jail, and was he saved? Yes he was. We are all merely human. Fallen humans. And that's why we need to ease up on one another.

Take water baptism for instance - it's a sign of discipleship, not salvation - yet many people take it to be a sign of salvation. Many people confuse predestination with salvation as well. Christians are predestined to become like Christ (after the rapture/resurrection), they are not predestined to salvation. So salvation is only through Christ alone, not through works that we might boast - and works means anything that we might do in order to be saved. It is my understanding that Jesus rather BECOMES the Lord of our lives as we grow IN GRACE.

The Apostle Paul who is seen as the greatest Christian to have ever lived even stated, "O wretched man that I am" and called himself the "chief of sinners". My bet is that you would've banged heads even with Paul,

And last, but not least - there is a lot of pride in testifying to one's salvation via Lordship Salvation because in effect one is saying "I've made Jesus my Lord" which means that Jesus controls your life and that you are TOTALLY YIELDED - which you are not, because no-one is. Why? Because all still sin. So in effect we are giving something to God to get something in return - it's like making a trade for salvation - "I'll make you the Lord of my life and you will give me salvation". Therefore this type of salvation is earned. But salvation is never earned because it's a FREE GIFT that we just need to RECEIVE.

So easy - yet many find it so difficult cos they feel the need to DO something in order to be saved, this boils down to their actual trust in the Lord - they don't trust Him enough to save them, which equates to unbelief, which equates to rebellion, which in turn equates to witchcraft. That's why at the end of the day Salvation amounts to belief and reliance in Him (total dependence and trust), not giving up one's sins. The true meaning of Biblical repentance is to have a change of mind, i.e., to change from unbelief to belief in Him.

JBale, I trust this helps you and gives you a clearer picture.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well, at this point I am going to have to conclude that this so-called no-lordship position has not standard or centralized belief system. It contains no statement of faith and is probably not a group at all.

 

[IronWill]

"one who makes a sales pitch or serves as a promoter" ?

Not exactly. A shill is somebody who works with a con man but pretends to not know the con artist and just somebody interested in purchasing whatever the con man is selling.

 

[webdog]

Not exactly. A shill is somebody who works with a con man but pretends to not know the con artist and just somebody interested in purchasing whatever the con man is selling.

In looking at numerous dictionaries, I have yet to see "con man" used in any.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

In looking at numerous dictionaries, I have yet to see "con man" used in any.

1 a: one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler) b: one who makes a sales pitch or serves as a promoter.

Merrium-Webster - Shill is defined in this manner as a noun.

 

[Amy.G]

According to dictionary.com
1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

Check out the #2 definition. This is probably how JDale meant it. And before you get your tail feathers ruffled, many C's do promote Calvinism for reasons of self-interest.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

According to dictionary.com
1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

Check out the #2 definition. This is probably how JDale meant it. And before you get your tail feathers ruffled, many C's do promote Calvinism for reasons of self-interest.

How are Calvinists promoting Calvinism for reasons of self-interest? What are some of the examples of this where the promotion of calvinsim serves their own interests?

 

[Amy.G]

How are Calvinists promoting Calvinism for reasons of self-interest? What are some of the examples of this where the promotion of calvinsim serves their own interests?

When anyone pushes their doctrines on others, it is for self, is it not? And it is pushed by many Calvinists (not neccessarily you), as is evident by the fact that the Cal debate takes over many threads that have nothing to do with Calvinism.
I love you all, but this is my observation.

 

[Grasshopper]

many C's do promote Calvinism for reasons of self-interest.

And you and people like JDale promote non-Cal positions for your self interest. Fair enough??

 

[ReformedBaptist]

When anyone pushes their doctrines on others, it is for self, is it not? And it is pushed by many Calvinists (not neccessarily you), as is evident by the fact that the Cal debate takes over many threads that have nothing to do with Calvinism.
I love you all, but this is my observation.

I agree that we should not be pushy with our doctrine. I think you will agree that Christians can behave this way sometimes with unbelievers. I wonder if when you find someone who likes to talk about the things that relate to calvinism if they are not really being pushy, but maybe just too preoccupied with a particular area of theology. This seems to me an easy thing for any of us to do.

I know I have posted to things and made comments that had nothing to do with Calvinsim, but then another (skypair :laugh: ) will come along and bring the subject up.

Now I love the doctrine of election. I want to understand it better. But the doctrine of election is not a calvinist doctrine. It is a biblical doctrine. You may not understand election the way a calvinist explains it, but it is a biblical doctrine.

And I don't think a person is engaged in self-interest when they are expounding or teaching biblical doctrine. But I suppose selfish motivations are something we all shoudl guard against. :tongue3:

 

[Amy.G]

And you and people like JDale promote non-Cal positions for your self interest. Fair enough??

I can't speak for JDale. I don't think that I promote the non-cal position. I tell my personal opinion and things that I have learned, but I don't push it on anyone. I don't quote pages of writings from reformers or others to prove that my position is correct. I don't shift a discussion into non-cal doctrines during a thread that has nothing to do with it. But maybe I'm wrong.

It is my observation (and other's apparently) that Cals have a habit of changing a debate about 'whatever' to one about Calvinism.

That's what I see. I do not mean to bash Calvinists. It's just my opinion.

 

[Amy.G]

I agree that we should not be pushy with our doctrine. I think you will agree that Christians can behave this way sometimes with unbelievers. I wonder if when you find someone who likes to talk about the things that relate to calvinism if they are not really being pushy, but maybe just too preoccupied with a particular area of theology. This seems to me an easy thing for any of us to do.

I know I have posted to things and made comments that had nothing to do with Calvinsim, but then another (skypair :laugh: ) will come along and bring the subject up.

Now I love the doctrine of election. I want to understand it better. But the doctrine of election is not a calvinist doctrine. It is a biblical doctrine. You may not understand election the way a calvinist explains it, but it is a biblical doctrine.

And I don't think a person is engaged in self-interest when they are expounding or teaching biblical doctrine. But I suppose selfish motivations are something we all shoudl guard against. :tongue3:

Good post, o' bearded one.!

We must all be careful not to offend and criticize others for having beliefs different from our own. I think that's where we all get into trouble. If we could all learn to discuss gracefully, we all might learn something. And in this context, "all" means "all". Ha!:laugh:

 

[mparkerfd20]

I can't speak for JDale. I don't think that I promote the non-cal position. I tell my personal opinion and things that I have learned, but I don't push it on anyone. I don't quote pages of writings from reformers or others to prove that my position is correct. I don't shift a discussion into non-cal doctrines during a thread that has nothing to do with it. But maybe I'm wrong.

It is my observation (and other's apparently) that Cals have a habit of changing a debate about 'whatever' to one about Calvinism.

That's what I see. I do not mean to bash Calvinists. It's just my opinion.

I see where you are coming from Amy, but rest assured from the other perspective I see just as much from the non-Cal side trying to force Cals response by making snide remarks and such. Just reading through these threads today I'm saddened at how bad it's gotten.

I'm often ashamed that I share a common theological view with some here, because of their attitudes towards others. I'm even more ashamed that many "Christians" belittle one another (on BOTH sides of the theological debate) just for the sake of being "right" in their own eyes.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I can't speak for JDale. I don't think that I promote the non-cal position. I tell my personal opinion and things that I have learned, but I don't push it on anyone. I don't quote pages of writings from reformers or others to prove that my position is correct. I don't shift a discussion into non-cal doctrines during a thread that has nothing to do with it. But maybe I'm wrong.

It is my observation (and other's apparently) that Cals have a habit of changing a debate about 'whatever' to one about Calvinism.

That's what I see. I do not mean to bash Calvinists. It's just my opinion.

It is my observation that soteriology is a hot issue in many churches today. And churches are thrusting upon the people program after program, methodology after methodology, in order to achieve growth. Willowcreek and Saddleback are the leading proponents of the church growth movement.

These things have had a significant and widespread impact on American baptist churches, of whatever stream.

My point is not to raise issues, but these subjects are important to many. So that is why, in my opinion, it is brought up and discussed alot. It has nothing to do with someone being a calvinist or not. And both calvinists and non-cals can get preoccupied with a particular area.