Even the cable companies have fallen prey to Calvinism

[Revmitchell]

For me, I can in all honesty say that I am, by the grace of God, getting to where I understand about 99% of His word. Again, God's children have the privilege of going straight to His word, and for Him to teach us all things...things that we will eventually understand.

As I see it, "Calvinism" versus "Arminianism" is not even the deepest we as His children can go, because most people who get this far, in my opinion, still have yet to resolve the "problem passages", which is part of what convinced me that "Particular Redemption" is true.

God has shown me how to resolve most of those passages over the years, and there is the occasional "hold-out", but I know He will show me when He wants to. My job is to keep reading.

Best regards,

Dave.

Job's friends thought they had a form grasp on most things. I find God's response interesting:


Job 38:2 “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
Job 38:3 Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me.
Job 38:4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
Job 38:5 Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6 On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone,
Job 38:7 when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Job 38:8 “Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb,
Job 38:9 when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band,
Job 38:10 and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors,
Job 38:11 and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed’?
Job 38:12 “Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place,
Job 38:13 that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it?
Job 38:14 It is changed like clay under the seal, and its features stand out like a garment.
Job 38:15 From the wicked their light is withheld, and their uplifted arm is broken.
Job 38:16 “Have you entered into the springs of the sea, or walked in the recesses of the deep?
Job 38:17 Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?
Job 38:18 Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth? Declare, if you know all this.
Job 38:19 “Where is the way to the dwelling of light, and where is the place of darkness,
Job 38:20 that you may take it to its territory and that you may discern the paths to its home?
Job 38:21 You know, for you were born then, and the number of your days is great!
Job 38:22 “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,
Job 38:23 which I have reserved for the time of trouble, for the day of battle and war?
Job 38:24 What is the way to the place where the light is distributed, or where the east wind is scattered upon the earth?
Job 38:25 “Who has cleft a channel for the torrents of rain and a way for the thunderbolt,
Job 38:26 to bring rain on a land where no man is, on the desert in which there is no man,
Job 38:27 to satisfy the waste and desolate land, and to make the ground sprout with grass?
Job 38:28 “Has the rain a father, or who has begotten the drops of dew?
Job 38:29 From whose womb did the ice come forth, and who has given birth to the frost of heaven?
Job 38:30 The waters become hard like stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.
Job 38:31 “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades or loose the cords of Orion?
Job 38:32 Can you lead forth the Mazzaroth in their season, or can you guide the Bear with its children?
Job 38:33 Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their rule on the earth?
Job 38:34 “Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, that a flood of waters may cover you?
Job 38:35 Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go and say to you, ‘Here we are’?
Job 38:36 Who has put wisdom in the inward parts or given understanding to the mind?

 

[Revmitchell]

Normally the first thing I see from some who are opposed to the subject of "Irresistible Grace" ( Which is more a conclusion derived from the understanding of how God works in salvation, IMO...God saving someone without their "permission" ), is their upset that God would "force them" into being saved against their will.

I've seen men like Mark Cahill do it, as well as David Cloud and Max Younce, but you may wish to check me on that. I could be mistaken, and if so, then I ask for your forgiveness.

Respectfully,

Dave.

I don't care what they say I do not argue on their behalf.

 

[Revmitchell]

Sir,

Is there a particular reason you feel it necessary to mock people? I do hope that we can discuss things rationally, without devolving into teenage-style behaviour.

Myself, I will be more than happy to hold back on replying emotionally, and I would think that a person that appears to be a pastor would do the same thing in return.

May God bless you greatly, sir.

I'll tell you what. They day you drop the Catholic garbage you will have room to talk.

 

[Dave G]

I'll tell you what. They day you drop the Catholic garbage you will have room to talk.

It's an objective comparison, Mr. Mitchell, and I find it strange that you cannot see the similarities, but that's not for me to keep hitting you with. I can assure you that was not meant as a personal attack, although it appears that you took it as such. I sincerely meant no disrespect, but it seems I've found a sensitive spot...which I promise not to exploit, and will endeavor to avoid in the future, if there is such a thing for me here.

However, by calling me a "Calvinist", it appears you have no compunction about comparing me with a man who, as far as I know, never departed from infant baptism, did not believe in "Particular Redemption", and was apparently responsible for actions which, in my former occupation, would have been described as, "conduct unbecoming". People have linked me to John Calvin and the events in Geneva and compared my beliefs to a man who supposedly sponsored the death of Michael Servetus...which, if Calvin was saved, he is forgiven for, just like David was with Uriah the Hittite. If not, he will join the ranks of those who have killed people in the name of Christ, and He will be his Judge.

I'm not here to uphold the teachings of John Calvin, sir, I'm here to uphold the doctrines I see and understand from the Bible, and I will grant you the same, if that is agreeable to you.



Now, a question before I drop the subject:

Have you ever run your understanding of doctrine up against the predominant teachings found "out there", just to see who else believes as you do?



I have, and I can tell you that I've gone from being a "5 point Arminian" ( briefly when I was first called at the age of 12 ) to a "4 point Arminian / Traditionalist" for almost 26 years, to a "4 point Calvinist" for about 13 years, to a "5 point Calvinist" for the past couple of years.

I have no problem looking at the doctrines I believe, and then admitting that my understanding of Scripture is a still work in progress. I even make stupid statements that show lack of tact and humility. But I also have no problem recognizing that my understanding has changed drastically over the years, when, in the case of my fellow Baptists that I grew up with, theirs hasn't changed a lick. Either they are deceived and in the majority, or I am deceived and in the minority.

Admittedly, something piques my interest when I see people who are clinging to what I now see as error, when I, apart from them, started seeing things in Scripture that were previously "not there" years before...and all I did was to finally dig into God's word for myself and read it over and over again for the past 15 years.


With respect, I see them as being stuck in their error, when they probably see me as falling into it. I can't do anything about that. I am what I am...If I'm deceived, God will get me out of it. If they are ( and they are saved ) God will show them, eventually.

Job's friends thought they had a form grasp on most things. I find God's response interesting:

Point taken.

It seems I've still a lot to learn about interacting with people, and my own sense of correctness. It's called the flesh, and I have no confidence in it. I will work harder to present what I believe objectively, and to treat those who disagree with me, with civility.

God bless you sir.

 

[InTheLight]

It's an objective comparison, Mr. Mitchell,

<snip>

Why do you call someone with the screen name Revmitchell, "Mr. Mitchell"?



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[Dave G]

Because I'm assuming that his last name is Mitchell, and that he is a "reverend". I'm using my real name, and it looked to me as if he was using part of his.

Apologies for my mistake.

New guys make a lot of them.

 

[TCassidy]

Why do you call someone with the screen name Revmitchell, "Mr. Mitchell"?

Uh, let me guess. Because that is his name?

 

[TCassidy]

Apologies for my mistake.

No mistake. And all of us know Mark's name except, it would seem, "InTheLight." Revmitchell has made no secret of who he is (which, in my opinion, is better than hiding behind a false name).

Mr. Mitchell, Rev. Mitchell, Brother Mitchell, Pastor Mitchell would all be acceptable honorifics and an indication of polite address.

 

[Dave G]

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Rockson]

I know that if I would have run across the "me" of 30 years ago, I would look and sound like an complete stranger to him, theologically. Perhaps, in time, you will see the truth of this:

" But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
14 whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."


I wish you well, sir.

Let me just say first before commenting...I've read some of your other posts. You do seem to have a good spirit of wanting to show much diplomacy in speech much like 2 Timothy 2: 25 says to be to be gentle in seeking to instruct those of opposing views. Very good! I do think however that you're sincere but sincerely wrong and I'll comment on the verse you've put above. That very verse seems a lot more to support a non Calvinistic view than Calvin's.

It seems to state you were chosen from the beginning by the following method....sanctification of the Spirit and the belief of the truth. So salvation is hinged upon belief of the truth not saying anything about all who didn't believe couldn't have likewise done so. Even sanctification is done by a person willfully feeding on God's word for Jesus said it's his word that sanctifies. John 17:17 You put the word in you and you choose to believe and you're saved.

 

[TCassidy]

So salvation is hinged upon belief of the truth

I agree. But salvation (positional sanctification, progressive sanctification, and permanent sanctification) is, for the most part, predicated on our belief in the Truth of God's word.

But the ability to believe God's word is predicated on our regeneration. It is God's regenerating Grace that enables us to believe, repent, and obey. Without Him, we can do nothing.

 

[Dave G]

Let me just say first before commenting...I've read some of your other posts. You do seem to have a good spirit of wanting to show much diplomacy in speech much like 2 Timothy 2: 25 says to be to be gentle in seeking to instruct those of opposing views. Very good!

Thank you sir, for the observation and your graciousness.


In that verse I mentioned, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, I see two major points being stated:

1) God choosing the believers at Thessalonica to salvation through two methods ( not as a result of them )... sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. Those are things they were not responsible for, but are worked in them by His power.

Why do I state this?

Because I find quite a bit of reinforcement for the fact that God is the one who chooses and has compassion on someone in Psalm 65:4, Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:14-29.

I also see significant statements being made in places like Acts 13:48, where a person who was ordained to eternal life, believed.
Acts 2:39 where it is punctuated with, "...as many as the Lord our God shall call".
Acts 2:47 where it states that the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
John 10:26 where Christ tells the Jews why they did not believe on Him...because they were not "of" His sheep.

...and many, many others that I'm sure you know.



2) "Whereunto" ( speaking of that salvation is verse 13 ) He ( God ) "called" them by His Gospel...for what purpose?

To the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.


Regards,

Dave.

 

[Dave G]

So salvation is hinged upon belief of the truth

Always, and of that I agree with most wholeheartedly.

I would never state that salvation and belief are not inseparably bound.
I would state that:

1) Scripture does answer the question of why some believe and why some do not. The problem is, it seems that many people don't like or believe the answer. The "Calvinist" believes that salvation is evidenced by belief. The "non-Calvinist" believes that salvation is determined by belief.
The latter is what I listened to for 25 years in Independent Baptist churches, while the former is what I now believe that the Bible teaches:

" But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." ( John 10:26 )

2) Belief of the truth is directly connected to the gift of eternal life. There is no such thing as a person who is saved that will never believe, and no such thing as a believer that is not saved.



However, there are distinctions:

Tares are people who think they believe, but do not.
They do not have the Holy Spirit in them ( Romans 8:5-14 )
They fall away during the tests and trials, and show who their real father is ( Luke 8:10-15 ).
False teachers and tares are people who claim to believe, but in works they deny Him ( Titus 1:16 ), and they have a form of godliness, but deny the power of it...they resist the truth ( 2 Timothy 3:8 ).

There is no such thing as someone who is a believer and is not elect.
People disagree on what exactly the term means, but "elect", "sheep", "lively stone", "children of God", "whosoever believeth" "he that cometh to Me", "disciple", "whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord", "brethren", "beloved", etc. are all terms synonymous with each other. They are interchangeable.

Now here is where I might get into trouble from some of you:

" For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." ( Romans 8:29-30 )

I've seen this called, "the unbreakable chain of salvation", and it cannot be broken because everything it states, each piece that is stated, is inseparably linked to each of the others. I could summarize it many ways, but I chose this:

There is no such thing as someone who is justified by the blood of Christ not being foreknown.
There is no such thing as someone who is justified by the blood of Christ not being predestinated conformed to the image of His Son.
There is no such thing as someone who is justified by the blood of Christ not being called.

The difference in agreement are the terms:

"Foreknown" ( which "Calvinists" get their definition of from Jeremiah 1:5, Psalm 139:15-16, Galatians 1:15, 1 Corinthians 8:3, Isaiah 49:1, while "non-Calvinists" get their definition from...I don't know ).
"Called" ( Which "Calvinists" get their definition, inward, spiritual "calling" from Acts 2:39, the Gospels and the epistles, while "non-Calvinists" get theirs, outward calling through the Gospel, from, I believe, the Gospels and the epistles ).

"Predestinated" gets mixed up and used interchangeably by some "Calvinists", but when I read Scripture, I see the passage above and state that, strictly speaking, those that are foreknown are predestinated to one thing...being conformed to the image of His Son.
In Ephesians 1:5, believers are predestinated by the Father ( see verse 3 ) to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself ( which is according to the good pleasure of His will ) and in Ephesians 1:11, they are predestinated ( to what? see 1:5 ) according to the purpose of Him that works all things after the counsel of His own will.


The others are agreed upon, from what I understand.

Now, we could tak about the term, "chosen" and how its used, but I'm sure you've already been exposed to all that.



May He make His face to shine upon you.

 

[Yeshua1]

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:8-9.

it is impossible for a finite creature to ever have full knowledge and understanding on an Infinite Creator.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Greek word is αρτιος which means "complete" in the sense of being mature and well rounded. And the older English meaning of "perfect" is "complete; utter" as in
"perfect strangers."

Neither the Greek nor the English implies "entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings."

"That the man of God may be mature, completely equipped for every good work." The good work, in context, is to expose and denounce the false teachers. In order to expose the false you must have a mature understanding of the true.

And Col 3:16 tells us that is done in the context of those who have been ordained pastors and teachers of the local New Testament church, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another . . ."

Yes, as we can become mature in our understanding of the scriptures, in that we can know and apply what God wants us to be doing, but does not mean literally know perfectly all things recorded down to us.

 

[Revmitchell]

No mistake. And all of us know Mark's name except, it would seem, "InTheLight." Revmitchell has made no secret of who he is (which, in my opinion, is better than hiding behind a false name).

Mr. Mitchell, Rev. Mitchell, Brother Mitchell, Pastor Mitchell would all be acceptable honorifics and an indication of polite address.

I dont see the use of rev in the same way some do. I see their consternation as much ado about nothing. In fact it is usually not brought up until someone doesnt like one of my posts and they are looking for some personal attack. Its just a username, ive had it for a very long time, it means little to nothing. If people dont like it they can:

1. Avoid responding to any of my posts
2. Use my last name only or any form you mentioned
3. Get over themselves and move on.

I dont care what people do, ill not continue to respond to the childishness.

 

[InTheLight]

I dont see the use of rev in the same way some do. I see their consternation as much ado about nothing. In fact it is usually not brought up until someone doesnt like one of my posts and they are looking for some personal attack. Its just a username, ive had it for a very long time, it means little to nothing. If people dont like it they can:

1. Avoid responding to any of my posts
2. Use my last name only or any form you mentioned
3. Get over themselves and move on.

I dont care what people do, ill not continue to respond to the childishness.

Calling you Mr. Mitchell when your screen name is Revmitchell seemed to me to be a disrespectful and childish way to address you. Take someone's screen name and alter it slightly to show disapproval. Similar to when people address me as InTheDark when they don't agree with me.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Jerome]

No mistake. And all of us know Mark's name except, it would seem, "InTheLight."

It would avoid a lot of confusion if people would just stick to using the name next to the post. Rather than people's real first names: even if you know them many do not. I didn't know Revmitchell's first name. Or assuming what someone's real last name is: for all I know Mitchell could be a first name. Please just keep it simple and use the names BB members post with.

 

[TCassidy]

Please just keep it simple and use the names BB members post with.

Well, perhaps you missed it, but RevMitchell used to often sign his posts with his first name "Mark." So, by using his first name we did "keep it simple and use the names BB members post with."

 

[InTheLight]

Well, perhaps you missed it, but RevMitchell used to often sign his posts with his first name "Mark." So, by using his first name we did "keep it simple and use the names BB members post with."

I've been here since 2010 and I've never seen that.