Calvinism takes Biblical Truth Too Far

probably because they were NOT biblical based answers!

 

Garbage. Everything I believe is based on the Bible. How dare you make such a foolish accusation!

 

You're correct again.

Stop feeding him and he'll go away. :thumbsup:

 

I wouldn't bet on it.

 

Lighten up, Francis.

He doesn't believe in your proof-text theology. Your useage of Bible here is off-track and eisegetical.

You must understand simply using the Bible doesn't mean "Biblical", correct? Therefore, you are being UNbiblical here.

Isaiah 1:18 is a classic for you. Misinterpreted, misapplied, ripped out of context.

I'm happy that the people I teach and interact with understand context and don't have the practice that other groups use, and that is to rip verses out of context and tenaciously hold onto them to back up their fallacies.

 

In all honesty I feel sorry for the people who sit under you if you interact with them the way you do on here.

Of course you would see my theology as proof texting and applaud JesusFan's ignorant comments. Blind leading the blind.

Should have never taken you off ignore. :wavey:

 

In person he would probably be more like Barney Fife. Even the most timid can appear as bold as a lion on the Internet. :laugh:

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

After all the years of reading and being involved in the Cal/non Cal debates, here's what I have learned.....

No one can sufficiently explain how man's will and God's sovereignty can co-exist, yet they do. I don't understand how this is possible, but with God all things are possible.

This argument has gone on for centuries and it's not likely to be solved this side of heaven. I think we would all be better off if we spent our time telling others of the love of Christ and stopped all the in-fighting. Maybe we could even love one another and by unified in our love for God.

JMHO for what it's worth, which ain't much. :laugh:

 

Amy,

Your appeal is very much appreciated. Unity is a wonderful thing within the church. Unfortunately division has existed in the church since the beginning. Look at the writings of Paul, Peter, James, and John. In almost every epistle false or erroneous teaching is addressed. Truth can never be sacrificed in the name of unity. Our Baptist forebearers died over the issue of baptism; that's how important they thought it was.

Now, what should be avoided are petty arguments just for the sake of argument. There are those who just like to hear themselves. Some are just contrary by nature and enjoy sowing discord. We would see more unity in the church if the disconcerted among us would simply remain quiet.

 

Do you think this subject is one that should divide a church? Do you consider the non-cal view to be a "false teaching"? As far as I can tell from the NT, the false teachings had nothing to do with Calvinism or Arminianism or anything of the sort.

 

Would see it more as being Cal view on salvation closest/best view of the biblical record, but other views casn be held, as would NOT mean one HAS to be cal to be saved by God, what is ironic in this is that God uses cal theology to save all of us, including Arms and NON Cals !

 

Amy, I give you credit for asking the tough questions.

Is this subject one that should divide the church? No. Does it? Yes. Why? Because the issue at stake is the very nature of the Gospel.

Do I consider the non-Calvinist view to be a false teaching? Wow. You're really going to make me answer this question, aren't you?

Okay, yes, I think the non-Calvinist view is a false teaching. HOWEVER, the mainline Arminian view, that disagrees mostly with the Calvinist view of election, is not heresy. A person is not prevented from becoming a Christian or will lose their salvation because they disagree with the Calvinist view of election.

Heresy is a false teaching that perverts the Gospel. Those who believe in heresy place themselves in serious peril. If the Gospel is perverted what else is there that can save them? While I think the non-Calvinist position on election is in error (i.e. a false teaching), I don't believe it rises to the level of rank heresy that condemns a person to hell.

 

"You shall take a high churchman, who is a truly spiritual man, and there are such people, and you shall set him down side by side with the most rigid member of the Society of Friends, and when they begin to talk of Jesus, of the work of the Holy Spirit in the soul, and the desire of their hearts after God, you will hardly know which is which. The nearer we come to him who is the salvation of God, the more plainly we see that among the children of God the basis of agreement is far wider than the ground of division. Andrew Fuller well and pithily said, "There are, I conceive, four things which essentially belong to the common salvation; its necessity, its vicarious medium, its freeness to the chief of sinners, and its holy efficacy." We may differ on the "five points," but we are agreed upon these four points. Ask any true Christian if it be not so."" —Charles Spurgeon

 

Thanks for being nice.

But I think you should be careful about calling the non-cal position a false teaching. I understand what you mean, but when the bible refers to false teachings, it is referring to those teachings that in actuality do pervert the gospel. One such teaching was that the resurrection had taken place, another was the Gnostic belief that God could not have come in a human body, and another was regarding circumcision and Judaizing the Christians. There were more, but I think you understand what I'm saying.
I understand that you think my position is in error, and I can accept our disagreement, but we do not teach what the bible refers to as "false teachings".

I hope you understand my meaning.

 

Amy, I understand your meaning perfectly well. If you prefer I believe your view to be in error, as I'm sure you do mine. That sounds a tad better, doesn't it?

 

We are a diverse people, by nature we know we are all different, but in Christ one body. There is no reason for me to shape a foot into a hand, or a mouth to an ear.

I can decide too that I am in Christ to because of being chosen before the foundation of the world and say His Spirit testifies with my spirit that I am a child of God.

I did decide that I am no matter how much men try to say it is God centered.

I believe God will never pick me to be saved apart from Jesus, my only hope is to remain in Him. Those who trust in Him will not be put to shame. I was chosen before the foundation of the world for being in Christ. His Son is the only one who deserves anything. I deserve death. I will trust in Him over what I believe, because of His word I am saved that those who trust in Him will not be put to shame.

Trust in Jesus is only sure hope found in scripture a sure election, not the one where people have been disowned, cut out of and not able to enter for unbelief.

I will not limit the word all and world to a man's view of it, but what all God knows, unless it is a view from man not God. In other words if a man say's the world is running after them it is only talking about what that man sees. If God said He loved the world it is all he knows. That only those who believe, trust in His Son will be saved.

The whole world will be lead astray, praise God those who remain in Christ are in the world not of it.

That God does want all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, but only those who come to the knowledge of the truth will be saved.

There is no way a mentally sound person can walk away from Jesus coming to the knowledge of the truth, unless they haven't.

It is so important that we encourage one an other to remain in Him, we cannot make it apart from the body, apart from Jesus.

The first seed in me was God loved the world, the creator of the universe loved me. The water was that those who trust believe in Jesus His Son will be saved and those who do not will continue to condemnation. My next step in the word of life was two roads and I am saved because of His word, His will, His decisions that those who trust in His Son will be saved. That He placed life and death before me, not life only.

 

I don't have the time nor energy to read this entire debate, but I do have this to add:

Calvin was correct. God, in His omnipotence, knew who would be saved and who would not. However, how can we assume, with a loving God, that He someone 'elect' these people?

There is not Biblical proof for this assumption. So we must discard it.

However, there is something we've overlooked:

God exists outside of time. He created it. He is not limited by it. "A day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years a day." We find more proof of this in Job, and by the necessity of the word God; God cannot be limited by what He has created.

Therefore, to God, we are already in Heaven with Him because our earthly lives are no more, BUT, they are because, to us, we are still in existence. Does this make sense?

I hope it does. But before there was time, God created everything, and because He exists outside of time, it has all already happened, and we are already in Heaven.

Calvin assumed that God was somehow limited by time; that was his flaw, and sometimes ours as Baptists: We try to somehow limit God. But we serve an all powerful God, one great beyond our imagination! Calvinism doesn't work, however, because he assumed that the 'elect' were chosen, when in fact, God already knows who has chosen Him and His free gift, not the other way around.

I sincerely hope this makes sense and ends the debate.