Calvin Was A Man...

Indeed you are right my friend. For this reason I have cut way back on my posting.

 

Maybe I've deceived myself, but I believe I can have unity with my Calvinistic brothers and sisters because we both believe the Lord Jesus Christ, His virgin birth, sinless life, death and resurrection. We both believe He is the ONLY way and that we are given eternal life by grace through faith, not of works. We both love the Lord with our whole hearts.

I see both predestination and free will all through the scriptures. I am not going to be so stubborn as to say otherwise. I have enjoyed the discussions with my Calvin friends. There are a few that are super hyper-c and I do not have much in common with them.
But, unity can be attained simply by loving one another the way our Lord commanded.

I will not seek unity in situations where the very basics of our faith is in question, such as the diety of Christ, His authority to remove all sin (ME doctrine), the Trinity, the inerrancy of scripture, ect. (I think you get the idea). These are unbiblical and un-Christian doctrines and there can be no unity between these beliefs and mine.

 

Based on your first three points, what are the doctrines of Grace (without referring to Calvin's theology)?

 

You can find the doctrine(s) of grace in plenty of biblical locations . Try these chapters just for starters : Luke 10 ; John 6,10,17 ; Romans 3,8,9 ,11 ; Ephesians 1,2,5 . That's Grace 101 .

 

TC, Rippon, would you post the verses that go with the chapters that Rippon posted?

I think one would be Luke 10:22.

 

This may help....

From the London Baptist Confession of Faith dated 1644

The full confession is found here..

http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/h.htm

 

Thanks James, that will take me awhile to go through it. But, I will.

 

Amy, you have a sweet, charitable spirit, I do believe that you can have a degree of unity with Calvinists and even believers of other stripes. I belong to a church in which Calvinists are a small minority, yet we have a wonderful harmony and worship well together.

But the goal Linda64 espoused is much larger than unity between two Christians who disagree over Calvinism. It is a unity among all Christians she believes is possible. That's what I meant when I described it as an impossibility this side of heaven. That is, unless all of them were like you.

 

Amy , I am going to be presumptuous enough to say that the Calvinists here all appreciate you .

 

Amy should feel so honored...I have never gotten the calvinist appreciation award before

 

I do!

I would like to thank........:laugh:

Seriously, I appreciate you guys. I have actually learned a lot from my Cal. buddies.

Who knows, I may be a Calvinst myself one day! ....:laugh:

 

Why, thank you!

Speaking of unity. During the ME debates, I saw Baptists of all stripes come together to refute that false teaching. We were all unified at that time because we had a common goal to defend our faith!
Even though we all have our differences, we are still all the same in that we are God's children and He loves each one of us and we love Him.

 

That's good to hear. Spurgeon once remarked, "Beware that when the dogs fight, the sheep be ravished."

Meaning, we may spend some time debating, it may get hot, but if we be brethren, let it be to sharpen ourselves, and not forget that there are those out to spread damnables hereies and ravish the sheep.

 

Web, we love ya.

 

I am saying that I believe I have the right doctrines and I hope we can agree on them.

What makes terrific sense to me is that when an "ism" creates whole new vocabulary by which it explains scripture, that theology is reading it's own words and ideas into scripture, wouldn't you say? I mean, "trinity" or "rapture" aside, there are concepts in scripture that have been wrongly understood and then "spalined" to create a "human model" of what God has said -- and it ain't so.

Rev 2:22. Thyatira (according to Larkin's, mine, and others understanding) is the final phase of Catholicism. We have "her" riding the "beast" in Rev 17. IMO, this was confirmed/seen at Korazim in May 2000. Their leader IS the mystery of iniquity -- claims to be Christ vicariously living today. Satan, thus, has always had an AC standing in the wings to feigh Christ following His "imminent coming" for His own.

Election is "part and parcel" of NT salvation. "Election" is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in sanctification of the saints. Calvinism omits step 1, JUSTIFICATION, and takes its followers immediately to step 2, SANCTIFICATION which they admit is "election"/predestination (Rom 8:29) in eternity past. The assumption among most Christians is that if you are being sanctified, you are already "saved." Not necessarily. Not if you haven't received Christ as Savior first you're not.

Since Calvies say it is not their "choice" to be saved but God's, they might just as well "carry on," not in sin but with only a "hope" of that they are "elect" and not damned.

If one "cannot believe," one cannot be saved, be regenerated, have faith, etc.

For one to believe, it must be his decision based on the gospel whether he is a sinful man or a sinless infant (average age of SBC pastors' conversion is about ~6 years old). Tell me all the entreaties of the Spirit you possibly can, NONE force or make irresistible the saving knowledge of Christ.

Paul merely states that God controls the outcomes -- not the choices of men.

All due respect, but if a "cause" develops 10+ different words or different connotations not given in scripture but that are necessary to "systematize" their theology, those words were developed by men and applied to scripture "line-by-line." Words like:

Sin nature
Total sovereignty
Unconditional election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance (NOT preservation, BTW) of the Saints
total sovereignty of God
Doctrines of grace
Whosoever
All
Etc.

How can one help from reading into scripture (ISOgete) rather than reading our of scripture (EXOgete) when one doesn't like God's words nor to acknowledge the meaning behind them? And whose theology does one come up with when God's words are not respected?

skypair

 

That's not very "frank" if you are referring to me. I have bent over backwards to understand the application you make of some of your doctrine. I have seen the correctness of your "faith is given by God alone" stance. I have admitted that God is in total control but of the outcomes, not of our choices. I have offered a 'compromise' understanding of "sin nature,' suggested that your failure to distinguish soul from spirit is a weakness, etc.

It is y'all that stand firm on doctrines of men/Calvin.

skypair