Cured

[Tom Butler]

If you want to give me credit... fine.

It's funny, I did not feel smart, wise, or good when I felt compelled, mostly by fear, to say yes.
Good job, me, for feeling worthless, dirty, weak, ugly, helpless, and scared enough to say yes.
BTW, convinced by the word of God, the Holy Spirit. My life seemed good to me until I saw it through the light of scripture.

Blammo, I identify with your testimony. When the HS showed me my sin and opened my understanding, it scared me to death.

And I think that most people, in their own minds, would not claim any credit for their salvation. However, listen carefully to personal testimonies. You'll hear a lot of I. I realized that I was a sinner. I made a decision for Christ. I prayed the sinner's prayer. I accepted Christ. I'm so glad I did. They're not even aware of it, and would insist that salvation is by God's grace through repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus. And not of works.

At the very least we ought to see if there's a consistency between our soteriology and our testimony. I'll mean we either revise the language we use or the soteriology we embrace.

 

[Blammo]

Blammo, I identify with your testimony. When the HS showed me my sin and opened my understanding, it scared me to death.

And I think that most people, in their own minds, would not claim any credit for their salvation. However, listen carefully to personal testimonies. You'll hear a lot of I. I realized that I was a sinner. I made a decision for Christ. I prayed the sinner's prayer. I accepted Christ. I'm so glad I did. They're not even aware of it, and would insist that salvation is by God's grace through repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus. And not of works.

At the very least we ought to see if there's a consistency between our soteriology and our testimony. I'll mean we either revise the language we use or the soteriology we embrace.

Tom,

It is unfortunate that so many have self centered testimonies. I was guilty of the same thing for many years. The first line I dropped was "I prayed the sinners prayer" (Even though I did pray, that is not what saved me), then "I made a decision" had to go (I don't know how you "decide" to believe something. You either believe it or you don't), the last thing to go was "I asked Jesus into my heart". That, "I asked Jesus into my heart", was something I had heard others say, it sounded good at the time, but I never really did that.

The truth is, I learned I was a sinner on my way to hell, I learned that Christ died for my sins, I believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, and I was saved. There are still many "I"s in my testimony, but, I know where those things came from. God taught me I was a sinner on my way to hell, God taught me that Christ died for my sins, I could not do anything but believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, so, God saved me. If that makes me a Calvinist, fine, but don't call me one. I do NOT believe EVERYTHING Calvin taught. I am just a sinner, saved by grace.

 

[amity]

.. then "I made a decision" had to go (I don't know how you "decide" to believe something. You either believe it or you don't) ...

You are in good company:

Mark 9:23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. 24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.​

 

[Tom Butler]

I do NOT believe EVERYTHING Calvin taught. I am just a sinner, saved by grace.

I don't believe everything Calvin taught, either. Good for you.

And about all those "I"s: I have tried to devise a personal testimony that leaves them out, and makes God the actor and me the recipient. Man, is it hard to do. Almost impossible.

Here's my feeble effort: On a Sunday morning in the summer of 1947, the Holy Spirit opened my eyes and my understanding. He revealed to me my sin and the eternal consequences. Suddenly all those sermons on hell, which didn't register before, now applied to this 9-year-old boy. It scared the daylights out of me. Then the Holy Spirit nudged me out of my seat and down the aisle to my pastor. As he questioned me about my understanding of being lost, and pointed me to Christ, the Holy Spirit began to draw me to repentance and faith, and extended God's saving grace to me.

There was no sinner's prayer. As I recall, the pastor asked: Do you realize you are a sinner? Do you trust Christ as your Savior and Lord?

As a 9-year-old I had no concept of the work of the Holy Spirit in me at that point. I see it now in hindsight. All I know is that up to that moment I had never given one second's thought to my spiritual condition. I see now that God opened my eyes, stirred my heart, and gave me understanding. It was all His doing and none of mine.

 

[skypair]

J.d.

Now don't get cranky, J.D.

Originally Posted by skypair
sky: Good -- and how did YOU reconcile, J.D.? I'm asking YOU.
J.D.: My Shepard called me to Himself.

And you below said you repented. OK, did you make a profession of faith in Christ alone for salvation at that time? I know it sounds picky but maybe you thought you would turn over a "new leaf" -- "reform" as Reformers would say :laugh: -- "straighten up and fly right" as us pilots would say -- and you have tried and tried but it just isn't working, this "holy living" stuff.

1) sky: It [sinners prayer/walking the aisle] is NOT required.

J.D.: Not only is it not required, but inordinant sacraments and rituals are idolatrous abominations.[/quote] It's NOT a sacrament or ritual, J.D. I wasn't baptized until 9 years later but knew I was saved. Where do you get off calling it a sacrament? It's a sacrament to Catholics and Reform but not to Baptists.

sky: 2) It does NOT save those without belief but it certainly lays out a pattern for receiving salvation even if, like me, you did it at home.

J.D.: It doesn't even save them WITH belief. It's like saying it doesn't save them that are not saved, but it does save them that are saved. If you believe (by God-given faith), you're saved already, aren't you? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

The formulation I underlined it true. The one you propose ASSUMES that faith = belief. It DOESN'T. There's a "step" that makes belief into faith -- it's called obedience. The difference between belief unto salvation and belief NOT unto salvation is some "draw back," Heb 10:39. God drew them to Himself but they drew back.

sky: 4) Sacrament is the pagan notion that you can receive the character of God or grace through stuff like YOU believe in -- infant baptism and communion. Communion used to be called the "Agape feast" until it was realized that the pagans understood eating the flesh and blood of sacrifices and so would naturally accept the same from a "Christian" priest who could mystically transform the "elements" into blood and flesh.

J.D.: That's either a joke, a lie, or the words of a fool.

No foolin' J.D.! The "Constantinian change" where the gov't became the 2nd "sword" of the church established Christian "sacralism." That's where you have state religion and where everyone in the state "belongs" to the church. The obvious ways to bring them in is through infant baptism or forced baptism of adults and continuation through communion as a "grace-giving," salvific sacrament. These people were never saved, most of them! They were assumed to belong to God in the church and were begun on their road to sanctification without ever being justified by faith in anything but the state!

Do you not wonder why Christ said of the Sardis church "You have a name that liveth but art dead?" There you have it! The name is Christianity but the faith is in the church and sacraments and "election."

skypair

 

[skypair]

I guess I am missing something here. I for one believe "once saved always saved"

In my belief system the only sin that sends anyone to hell is "unbelief"

It can be confusing what with Calvinists equating belief with faith. Here's my answer:

Do you remember the man whose son would throw himself into the fire whom the disciples could not cast out his demon? What did the man say? "I believe, help Thou my unbelief!"

Unbelief can keep you from entering the kingdom "up front" but THAT unbelief is caused by rejection of the Holy Spirit. But like the man with the son, you could have unbelief after being saved and the only loss would be like the children of Israel who couldn't enter into God's EARTHLY rest!

Same with us. If we believed and trusted God in "going out of Egypt" (justification), we may live in much unbelief and fail to "make our calling and election sure" but that doesn't mean that we lose our salvation. Many Christians live in unbelief -- probably most -- but that doesn't keep them out of heaven if they first trusted Christ, does it? They just do not live "vistorious lives" is all (well, that's no small consequence but it seems pretty simple to correct).

I'm sure you agree with me on this but haven't brought it to the fine point of it mattering WHAT you don't believe, right? If you disbelieve the gospel, that's THE unbelief you're talking about, right? But really that is rejecting the Spirit, is it not? And what CAN God do with someone who rejects the gospel? Try again, right?

skypair

 

[skypair]

But there is no evidence from Scripture that God enables all men to respond. In fact, we are told specifically that he didn’t, such as with Pharaoh and Judas.

That would depend on what you see as "enabling." Do you think God doesn't send His Spirit to every man? Could the Spirit enable every man if He was sent and they were free?

Do you believe that the word of God is the incorruptible seed? Do you believe that the Spirit uses the word to draw men? What is different about some men that they don't "hear" but others do? Is it the Spirit not calling or are the others not hearing?

What or how does God put something in a man that enables him and not another?

The call enables one and not another because the other doesn’t get the call. There is no problem to explain.

That' "circular reasoning," Lar.

skypair

 

[psalms109:31]

Body as one

We are to be one body as Christ being our head working together, we are not to fight this battle with devil by ourselves.

I cannot take a chance on my own, but to continue to keep my faith, belief and my hope in Jesus and encourage other to do also.

Through Jesus we are to be a light to the world and we cannot be that light living in unbelief.

Hebrews 3:
Warning Against Unbelief
7So, as the Holy Spirit says:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
8do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion,
during the time of testing in the desert,
9where your fathers tested and tried me
and for forty years saw what I did.
10That is why I was angry with that generation,
and I said, 'Their hearts are always going astray,
and they have not known my ways.'
11So I declared on oath in my anger,
'They shall never enter my rest.' "[Psalm 95:7-11 a]
12See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. 14We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first. 12See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. 14We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first. 15As has just been said:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion."[Psalm 95:7,8 ]

16Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? 17And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert? 18And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed[ Or disbelieved ]? 19So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief.

I cannot take a chance to live my life in ubelief and still claim i am His. Because the truth still holds.

1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

Our faith is a seed that is planted if it never takes root in our heart satan can steal it and trials and tribulations can choke it out.

 

[skypair]

I hope I can sort through this correctly...

The Bible calls it [our "response"] the obedience of faith.

OK, but what is that? How does the Bible say we should "respond in faith?"

sky: Here's, perhaps, the point -- salvation is a "covenant relationship." Like marriage, it calls for a DECISION by BOTH parties.

Larry: Not really.

Oops! Better tell that to Jesus, then. :laugh: He's expecting a pretty BIG wedding, Mt 22, 25. And Paul is too! 2Cor 11:2. And John on top of them! Rev 21:1 And then there's Eph 5:32 -- the "mystery" of Christ and His church! Only someone not into the "hidden wisdom of God" I should think would not understand this -- wontya say?

Really Larry -- thats LAME! It's called the NEW COVENANT for a reason, right? How do we enter into it?

sky: I often feel that Calvinists would be quite content to live the Christian life and hope (cause that is all they are taught they can do if salvation is "all of God") hope it all turns out by-and-by.

Larry: Hope as compared to what? Hope is often used in the Bible with respect to what believers do. That’s not a bad thing to be content with.

Hope as compared to KNOW, 1John 5:13!

sky: Let me ask you -- have you ever heard that salvation is a unilateral covenant like God with Abraham? That ALL the conditions for execution would be on God's side and none on your side?

Larry: Some say that. I don’t think there is a real parallel there.

Good! Then what is required on our part? (Again it's the "response" question, isn't it?)

sky: I think (IMO)it is because they have changed the glory of God into an image man can understand and, in so doing ("Systematic Theology"), have become vain in their imaginations (Calvinism is for the elite of Christianity) and their foolish hearts have been darkened.

Larry: I think this is pure unadulterated nonsense.

Well follow my on this then -- How many terms have Calvinists 1) added by scriptural interpretation or 2) changed the meaning of in the biblical vocabulary? In what would be common, ordinary understanding of words? That's the "vain imagination." What has been the result, Lar? Instead of knowing the answers to CRUCIAL questions, Calvinists can't seem to find the answers to them!

Questions like why does God choose to salvation the ones He chooses? The simple answer would be He chooses those who believe, you'd think. But no -- that clashes with "it is all of God," doesn't it?

skypair

 

[Allan]

Okay I missed your miss - it's the words "through" and "by" you don't differentiate. Guess what - they're not the same.

I beg to differ. No, I take that back I just do differ.
Greek word for 'through' is the word 'en'
Greek word for 'by' is the word 'en' ----- SHocker!

Look it up, it is a fasinating study!

Just as faith and belief are the same, just as 'and' means 'in addition to', just as redeem and bought are the same, just as... (can go on and on) They are synonomys words used to convey the same meaning.

Like I said - SOPHISTRY.

Again, you need to study more. I just proved they not only are the same but they can be interchanged because they DO mean the same thing! Pure BIBLE.

-- Now why would Paul be bound to give thanks to God and not the people themselves for their salvation? Answer: because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation.

Because the people didn't save themselves. It is God that saves and yes it was something chosen from the beginning.

This tells us who the "you" are that Paul is thanking God for. And who is beloved of God? Those whom He foreknew.

Yep, all non-cals hold this to.

WHO did the choosing? Answer: God.
WHO was chosen? Answer: "You".
WHEN did this choosing take place? Answer: "from the beginning".

Still being affirmed and has been for over 2000 years.

WHAT destination were these beloved people chosen to? Answer: "to salvation".

Salvation isn't a destination, but still have no problem there.

HOW will God ensure their arrival to that destination of salvation that he has chosen them to? Answer: "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:".

I noticed you had to add your presupposition to the text - "How will God ensure their arrival..." Common on JD, you have to smarter than that. The text says ...God chose them to salvation THROUGH... The word through means 'BY'. I have not added anything to the text but simply let it speak for itself. You are the one engaged in sophistry my friend. I do not have to adlib to help the scripture say what I need it say. It speaks for itself and I am affirming it.

Look, God chose them TO salvation THROUGH (or by)...these 2 means. That is all it says.
If you are chosen to something through some means then by its very nature you were chosen TO - because of -, period. What is the means, Gods spirit and your belief of the truth- as says the scripture. It does not say your belief only but that first God must ... and then you must ...

Just plain english, that's all it is. It's easy to understand, but hard to accept if we want it to say something other than what it actually says

I agree, but you can keep trying if you want. I will stick to what scripture says above my theology.

Now here's what the Arminian would like this verse to say:

But we are bound to give thanks alway to you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because he loves everyone the same, and God hath from the beginning, after he looked into the future and saw you saying the sinner's prayer, chosen you to salvation by your profession of faith which you have of yourselves, for this natural-born faith is the one little island of virtue we have left by which we can be saved, and it is not the gift of God.

Nice strawman, eh?

Nope! it was a beautiful rendering of what pure sophistry is about.

Sophistry:
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

Try to win an arguement through deceptive means and distortion of truths, specifically for this case - those who do not hold to Calvinism.
Even the true Arminian would say you don't have any clue as to what they beleive.

In all seriouness though; I know you said that you have taught and preached over many years the Non-Cal view. However, with your understanding (which I can only grasp by/through reading your postings of what you understand our view to be, I must say) in my church you would have never been allowed to teach much less preach the garbage you claim you use to beleive. In truth I'm glad you found something that gave you a little more understanding than the nonsense you claim everyone else non-cal beleives, because you understanding of it is serverely distorted and in most cased out right wrong.

Again, plain english. But I know that there must be some way we can get the credit for our salvation in this passage.

Again, your understanding of the Non-cal position is so lacking that it is absolutely staggering. First I have never stated nor insinuated we get any credit for our salvation, niether does the doctrine the Holy Spirit has lead me to. Just because God says you must beleive, in no way gives credit to me, for if God had not come to me, I would have never been able to believe. It doesn't matter if God GAVE you the faith, YOU still MUST believe with the faith God gave you, so I guess you to can claim some credit for your salvation as well. For if you did not use that faith to believe WILLINGLY in your new nature you would still be lost and in your sins.
You, my friend must believe the truth even if God gives you the faith to do it.
You must believe, but it is God who saves!

 

[skypair]

And I think that most people, in their own minds, would not claim any credit for their salvation. However, listen carefully to personal testimonies. You'll hear a lot of I. I realized that I was a sinner. I made a decision for Christ. I prayed the sinner's prayer. I accepted Christ. I'm so glad I did. They're not even aware of it, and would insist that salvation is by God's grace through repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus. And not of works.

At the very least we ought to see if there's a consistency between our soteriology and our testimony. I'll mean we either revise the language we use or the soteriology we embrace.

Rom 10:10 -- "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." What do you expect? If you told people that God did everything TO you, there'd obviously be NOTHING they could do to be saved but, well maybe wait, right? See if it ever happened to them, eh? is that really what you want them to do?

Would you have our testimony to be, "Well, I guess I'm the 'fair haired boy.' Good luck to you!"

skypair

 

[Allan]

The truth is, I learned I was a sinner on my way to hell, I learned that Christ died for my sins, I believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, and I was saved. There are still many "I"s in my testimony, but, I know where those things came from. God taught me I was a sinner on my way to hell, God taught me that Christ died for my sins, I could not do anything but believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, so, God saved me. If that makes me a Calvinist, fine, but don't call me one. I do NOT believe EVERYTHING Calvin taught. I am just a sinner, saved by grace.

It doesn't make you a Calvinist, it makes you a child of God.

For with the heart a man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

WHOSOEVER (the person who) CALLS on the name of the Lord SHALL BE saved.

I agree we in this day do not teach or study the Word of God as we should and therefore have given birth to this weak version of christianity and Godless centered life. God holds man resposible for the truth revealed to him but at the same time man can not of himself save himself even with the truth he would believe. God saves man and man must believe.
You will never be able to get the 'I' out of your testimony because of the fact - you must beleive. Regardless of God giving or not actually giving us faith to be used, it still must be used by you to be saved. Thus the 'I' will always be there (and only in relation to beleif), but what matters is the context of the 'I' and whether it is 'I' or 'i'.

'I' must decrease and He must increase!

God be praised that I am saved not of nor by myself but of and by the power of Almighty God. I believed His word and what He said He will do, if I would just beleive.

BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ and you SHALL BE saved.

 

[skypair]

Tom

I have tried to devise a personal testimony that leaves them out, and makes God the actor and me the recipient. Man, is it hard to do. Almost impossible.

Basically, you are trying to be "politically correct." There was nothing wrong with your testimony or what you DID when you believed on Christ. You're just trying to "backfill" what you experienced with Calvinist rhetoric is all.

skypair

 

[Allan]

Malice, no. Mischief, yes.

I was simply referencing the verse pertaining to speach and our attitude in such.

Discord? We already have enough of that in our friendly debates. How can I bring discord to where it already is thriving?

Tom, I have had some debates with you but have never seen any show of discord that I can recall. DIfferences yes, discord - as in trying to put down another for the sake of showing you view as superior and thus bringing in division to hearts in Christ that should be one EVEN IN differences.

Anger? Can I make someone angry who refuses to be angry? One needs a thick skin to debate on the Baptist Board. I thought yours was one of the thickest, Allan.

Trust me my skin is thick but trash talk is uncalled for. I was not angry but then again I said nothing of anger either.

Evil speaking? Hardly.

Strongs - 1) slander, detraction, speech injurious, to another's good name

Cheap shot? Well, maybe.

:wavey:

So I repeat my question. Where is the prayer wrong about the non-Cal view?

From beginning to end and you should know that!

The Non-Cal and the Cal alike both pray to know the will of God and make petitions known before Him as they come bodly before His throne of Grace in their time of need.

 

[Allan]

Allan , you are out of line .

No yet again Rippon, I am spot on - as they say. I did not chastise him or berate him but simply stated a fact that it is sad to see a fellow brother to do such.

The free-will teaching in Spurgeon's day was of the same variety as we see in evidence these days .

Wrong.

You must not have read much of Spurgeon's sermons .

Wrong again. I am known and quite fond of quoting spurgeon especially when debating Calvinists. But then again I use John Calvin, Gill, Owens, Pink and other too.
You and others from your side would grit your teeth so hard under his preaching on the same subject matter that both sides discuss here . CHS actually expected some folks to be angry under his plain preaching . The " Beloved Spurgeon" would not be so beloved by a number of BB members if they would have actually been under his faithful preaching .[/QUOTE]And yet AGAIN your great lack of understanding concerning the Non-Cal is becoming quite common place anymore.

Charles Spurgeon said that the teachings of man's responsibility and God's sovereignty are both taught in Scripture . He further went on to say that that there was no falling out between the two -- they did not need to be reconciled , there was no breach in the friendship .( My paraphrase .)

Quote from Spurgeons sermon [Defence of Calvinism]

I do not think I differ from any of my Hyper-Calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. I do not hold any less than they do, but I hold a little more, and, I think, a little more of the truth revealed in the Scriptures. Not only are there a few cardinal doctrines, by which we can steer our ship North, South, East, or West, but as we study the Word, we shall begin to learn something about the North-west and North-east, and all else that lies between the four cardinal points. The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. For instance, I read in one Book of the Bible, "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Yet I am taught, in another part of the same inspired Word, that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.

As you can see he is speaking against libertarian free will and not free will or responsibility of the will.

As far as D.L.Moody is concerned -- I do regret that Spurgeon invited him in his pulpit to preach on a number of occasions . Spurgeon's dear friend John Kenndey of Scotland rebuked Spurgeon for doing so . Kennedy also wrote a rather lengthy paper on "The Evils Of Hyper-Evangelism " which dealt with Moodyism . I have no doubt that Moody was a Christian . I have no doubt that he was fervent for the Lord . But he showed little discernment regarding some basic Bible doctrines . He displayed little discernment regarding some of his friends like Drummond and his writings like " The Greatest Thing In The World " and " The Ascent Of man " .

God did not regret it for it was God who move Spurgeon to do so. Are you greater than God, that you can pass judgment upon one who diligently sought the Lord in all matters of life and holyness?
It is funny that God has preserved Spurgeons works if not his very name even among the Non-Cals and John K. is something of a by-word in relation to Spurgeon.

And yet Moody is a man that God used mightly.
I find that you always fault men for their understanding of scripture and never their teacher - The Holy Spirit who leads them into all truth.

Though you would never do such dastardly things as Spurgeon or Moody. Nor would you ever recommend a non-Cal for anything spiritual. I like what Spurgeon says - that speaks to the love of the brethren and unity of the Spirit that has apparently become lost to most modern day Calvinists.

There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one "of whom the world was not worthy." I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven

 

[Rippon]

Once again Allan , you have misspoken . I believe man's responsibity and God's foreordination of all things are both taught in the Bible . Spurgeon did not have a contrary view .

Now regarding Spurgeon -- I respect him more highly than you can possibly imagine . But those we greatly esteem we can sometimes differ with . Spurgeon said the same regaring Calvin -- CHS held Calvin's doctrines "in the main . " On the other hand CHS believed that the doctrines which Wesley taught were "detestable .." I do not hold Wesley in high regard . His doctrines were so disgraceful that I will not embrace such a man who went about to degrade the gospel of God .

You know next to nothing in a couple of respects Allan . You said that I would never recommnd the works of a non-Cal . That is absurd . You need to to some reading of old threads . I had even started a thread about such a thing . I respect I. Howard Marshall a modern . Alexander Maclaren was a contemporary of Spurgeon who I respect highly . That is despite the fact that he invited Gypsy Smith into his pulpit . G.S. was even further removed than Moody from the true gospel and solid biblical teaching . F.B. Myer is another Arminian who was a true man of God though wrong in some teachings .

You can hold a man in high esteem ,but don't do so blindly . I am allowed to differ with Spurgeon , Gill , Pink and other Calvinists in some respects . However that has no bearing on a nonsensical statement you made . Of course I would never fault the Holy Spirit . No man , no matter how godly and gifted has had it all together -- he has not arrived . If I take issue with some saint of the past or present does not equate with arguing with the Holy Spirit .

 

[Allan]

Once again Allan , you have misspoken . I believe man's responsibity and God's foreordination of all things are both taught in the Bible . Spurgeon did not have a contrary view .

Then why do you argue against mans responsibility so? That is all the term free-will implies with regard to those on the BB.
You have stated countless time in various ways, to me specifically, that man has not free will to be responsible for. God determinded man to do and man does. Where and how is man responsible then?

Now regarding Spurgeon -- I respect him more highly than you can possibly imagine . But those we greatly esteem we can sometimes differ with . Spurgeon said the same regaring Calvin -- CHS held Calvin's doctrines "in the main . " On the other hand CHS believed that the doctrines which Wesley taught were "detestable .." I do not hold Wesley in high regard . His doctrines were so disgraceful that I will not embrace such a man who went about to degrade the gospel of God .

And yet the Lord God used John Wesley and the view that Wesley had which was brought froth through prayer and study. He was a God fearing man. Though even I do not agree with all of Wesley, I do not pretend he was not a man who Loved the Lord dearly and that His Lord Jesus loved him even more. Spurgeon saw other believers as brothers in Christ and not just theological camps. One always overshadowed the other dispite his disagreements with them on doctrinal issues.

You know next to nothing in a couple of respects Allan .

I agree I am no scholar and even less any type of theologian. I also agree that my knowledge is vastly limited and my understanding simple at best. I have no problem acknowledging that I am like the clay UNDER the dirt that is UNDER grass on which many greater men than I ever will be walk. But I am still the clay in the Potters hand.

You said that I would never recommnd the works of a non-Cal .

That was my error in not finishing my thought. I was refering to preaching, so I appolgize there for my unfinished thought.

You can hold a man in high esteem ,but don't do so blindly . I am allowed to differ with Spurgeon , Gill , Pink and other Calvinists in some respects .

I agree, and pray you do so regarding men and esteem.

Of course I would never fault the Holy Spirit . No man , no matter how godly and gifted has had it all together -- he has not arrived .

I agree herein as well.

 

[Pastor Larry]

That would depend on what you see as "enabling." Do you think God doesn't send His Spirit to every man? Could the Spirit enable every man if He was sent and they were free?

God doesn’t send his Spirit to every man in the same way. The Holy Spirit enables all to whom He is sent to enable.

Do you believe that the word of God is the incorruptible seed? Do you believe that the Spirit uses the word to draw men? What is different about some men that they don't "hear" but others do? Is it the Spirit not calling or are the others not hearing?

Yes, Yes, the Spirit’s work, not calling effectually.

how does God put something in a man that enables him and not another?

Through his sovereign power. Why are you so concerned about the mechanics? The “how” or “what”? Is it not enough that the Bible says he does it and doesn’t explain more than that? Why are you trying to get me to go past Scripture?

That’s circular reasoning," Lar. OK, but what is that?

It’s not circular at all.

How does the Bible say we should "respond in faith?"

The “obedience of faith” is to believe on Christ for salvation, and all that it entails. You continue to err in suggesting that faith and belief are different. I see you try to peddle that again. The Scripture makes no distinction.

Oops! Better tell that to Jesus, then.

He's expecting a pretty BIG wedding, Mt 22, 25. And Paul is too! 2Cor 11:2. And John on top of them! Rev 21:1 And then there's Eph 5:32 -- the "mystery" of Christ and His church! Only someone not into the "hidden wisdom of God" I should think would not understand this -- wontya say?

Yes, but your description of it is not really accurate, though that is a hardly a dividing line in this point. In Calvinism, both parties make a decision. In fact, if you want to get right down to it, in our culture most times, the woman doesn’t ask and has no opportunity to say yes until the man asks. Plug that into your system, since you like that analogy.

Really Larry -- thats LAME! It's called the NEW COVENANT for a reason, right? How do we enter into it?

The New Covenant is a covenant with Israel, not with the church (cf. Jer 31:31-40). It involves much more than salvation, such as restoration to the land in peace, etc. It is entered into when God gives a new heart.

Hope as compared to KNOW, 1John 5:13!

The Bible uses both hope and knowledge. Hope, in Scripture, is not wishful thinking. It is settled assurance.

Good! Then what is required on our part? (Again it's the "response" question, isn't it?)

Yes, how many times do I have to answer this? Man must believe and repent.

Well follow my on this then -- How many terms have Calvinists 1) added by scriptural interpretation

It is quite common to use theological words that are not found in Scripture. We do it all the time with words like rapture, Trinity, etc.

or 2) changed the meaning of in the biblical vocabulary? In what would be common, ordinary understanding of words?

None. We use words as they are used in Scripture.

Instead of knowing the answers to CRUCIAL questions, Calvinists can't seem to find the answers to them!

We have the answers that God has revealed. Most Calvinists try to make up answers past that.

Questions like why does God choose to salvation the ones He chooses? The simple answer would be He chooses those who believe, you'd think. But no -- that clashes with "it is all of God," doesn't it?

God chooses to salvation those whom he does for his own glory (Eph 1), to confound the wise (1 Cor 1). Beyond that, he doesn’t tell us. Why do you insist on having answers that God has not given us?

You say that “he chooses those who believe.” Yet as we have shown over and over again, there is no verse of Scripture that shows God’s choice to be based on belief. You have changed Scripture and added to Scripture to get that.

 

[Tom Butler]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Butler
And I think that most people, in their own minds, would not claim any credit for their salvation. However, listen carefully to personal testimonies. You'll hear a lot of I. I realized that I was a sinner. I made a decision for Christ. I prayed the sinner's prayer. I accepted Christ. I'm so glad I did. They're not even aware of it, and would insist that salvation is by God's grace through repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus. And not of works.

At the very least we ought to see if there's a consistency between our soteriology and our testimony. I'll mean we either revise the language we use or the soteriology we embrace.


skypair said:

Rom 10:10 -- "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." What do you expect? If you told people that God did everything TO you, there'd obviously be NOTHING they could do to be saved but, well maybe wait, right? See if it ever happened to them, eh? is that really what you want them to do?

Would you have our testimony to be, "Well, I guess I'm the 'fair haired boy.' Good luck to you!"

If you'll go back to my conversations with Blammo (starting about Post 221), you'll get the context.

I'm talking mainly here about the language we use to describe our salvation experience, not about the salvation process. I think we both would express our gratitude for God's grace in saving us, and give him glory for it.

In describing my own salvation, I clearly spoke of my response of repentance and faith. (See post 224)

God is preeminent in our salvation. I just want our language to reflect that.

You might word your testimony differently from mine. But both should reflect our soteriology.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Butler
And I think that most people, in their own minds, would not claim any credit for their salvation. However, listen carefully to personal testimonies. You'll hear a lot of I. I realized that I was a sinner. I made a decision for Christ. I prayed the sinner's prayer. I accepted Christ. I'm so glad I did. They're not even aware of it, and would insist that salvation is by God's grace through repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus. And not of works.

At the very least we ought to see if there's a consistency between our soteriology and our testimony. I'll mean we either revise the language we use or the soteriology we embrace.


skypair said:


If you'll go back to my conversations with Blammo (starting about Post 221), you'll get the context.

I'm talking mainly here about the language we use to describe our salvation experience, not about the salvation process. I think we both would express our gratitude for God's grace in saving us, and give him glory for it.

In describing my own salvation, I clearly spoke of my response of repentance and faith. (See post 224)

God is preeminent in our salvation. I just want our language to reflect that.

You might word your testimony differently from mine. But both should reflect our soteriology.

Are you suggesting all person’s once they are saved that they should change the statement "I was saved because I believed in Christ" to "He saved me because He made me believe in Christ"