I must admit that I have said, as olegig well knows, the Apostle Paul states that anyone who claims there is more than one gospel is accursed.
I agree Paul said something similar to the above, let's look at what he did say:
Galatians 1:9 (King James Version)
9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
As is easily seen in the above, Paul does not make his curse against one who claims there was more than one gospel.
Paul makes the curse against anyone who would "preach" any other gospel than what he is preaching.
Would Paul make this curse if indeed there was not another gospel out there that his audience could follow?
And if this other "gospel" was indeed not from God; then why did Paul refer to it as "good news" and not heresy?
To fully appreciated the curse of Paul, one needs only compare what had been preached by others in the past with what Paul is preaching as the last revelation of good news from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Even Peter admitted Paul's revealed "good news" message was hard to understand, new, and different from what Peter had been preaching.
If Peter understood these things, OldRegular why can you not?
Everyone has something to worry about. We're told to examine ourselves, whether we be in the faith. Of course, the Holy Spirit is the one Who assures us.
A Calvinist has to worry whether he is truly born again, or if he is simply betraying the Son with a kiss. There is only one way to allay that fear—prayer.
A non-Calvinist has to worry whether he has done something right. Did he really fully "give" is heart to the Lord? There is no way to allay that fear. Many try multiple confessions and baptisms. Others trust in their works of prayer and confession (a scary place to be indeed).
I'd rather have the Calvinist's worry.
Aaron I don't wish to put words in your mouth, and if I am, please feel free to spit 'em out with correction.
But this is what the above sounds like:
One cannot be really sure if one has fully given one's heart to the Lord or if one only has a head knowledge of the Lord.
Therefore if one accepts the tenants of Calvinism, one can be assured of salvation because one could not accept the tenants of Calvinism unless one was truly saved.
(Sounds a bit circular to me.)
Is man saved because he is in a certain group and therefore saved by default because he would not accept the teaching of said group unless he was saved; or is man saved by what he believes?
When asked what should I do to be saved, did Paul say:
"Don't worry, if your foreordained to salvation it will happen; or did Paul say believe on the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ?
Sure some might reply that the asking of the initial question shows the foreordination or election; to which we would ask when Paul entered a place to spread the Gospel did he ask for a show of hands?
Did Paul say all those who want to be saved raise your hand and come over here and the rest of you can go home? No....
Paul preached the gospel message to everyone, from which we must assume Paul felt everyone entitled to hear it.
IMO when one looks to a group, an "ism" which is man made for the knowledge of salvation then one is taking his eyes off the true gospel message of belief.
Although many man made organizations teach it, IMO we are not saved because we accept the teachings of said organization, but by whom we believe in.
Calvinism, just as any other man made theology can become a works based salvation because one can feel security by doing the works of the theology.
I have not been here long; but in my short visit, I have seen far more said of the works needed to show membership in a given theology than I have seen in the actual spreading of the basic Gospel of Grace as revealed through Paul by our Lord Jesus Christ.
