In Perils Among False Brethren;

[JesusFan]

2 Corinthians 11:26
In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;

Paul lists many dangers he faced, many enemies. Have you ever come across these former Christians, who post videos on why The have deconstructed the faith?
Or even worse, those who claim to be former Calvinists who have drifted off from the truth?
You can mark it down, it is going to be a non stop attack from the enemy of the Cross!

Have you experienced this?

just look at the likes of Rob bell, or Brian Mclaren, who seek to make Christian relevant in the post modern age by making sure their theologies reflect moving to heresy

 

[JesusFan]

Number 1

No... you have never studied it enough so far...I am speaking about people who say...I used to be a Calvinist, or I used to be a Christian.
2 tim4:
2 Timothy 4:10
For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.

on this list has to be

• • Leighton Flowers: A former Southern Baptist pastor who now argues against Calvinism and has become a prominent voice for the broader evangelical public on the topic of Calvinism, according to Facebook posts and Reddit users.

 

[JesusFan]

So are you suggesting that only calvinists can be saved?

Only two views of Calvinism
"If Calvinism is an error:
The reason most Christians reject it is because they have good discernment.
If Calvinism is true:
The ultimate reason most resist it is because God sovereignly and unchangeably decreed their resistance for His own glory.

The idea that God unchangeably predestines His own children to reject His own truth for His own glory is so intuitively false that we don’t need to refute it.
We just need to make sure that everyone understands that’s what Calvinism entails so they know to reject it."

So someone leaving calvinism is not an indication they have lost faith but rather that they have found calvinism to be a false teaching of God's word.

No, rather he is suggesting that sometimes those who either misunderstood what Calvinism really teaches, or else are very angry/bitter at it can at times go so far other way they embrace doctrines and theology counter to the Cross itself, ending up with a severe misunderstanding of Pauline Justification

 

[JesusFan]

Z all you do is parrot the teachings of other calvinists. Have you ever taken the time to look at the foundations of your religion? I doubt that you have.

Calvinism is not the gospel Z. That is your first mistake.

I have tried to point you back to the truth as found in the word of God but you keep rejecting His truth as it does not fit with your man-made religion.

But you take your stance on the full free will gospel, so did Jesus death to you be for a real salvation, or just offering a potential one, as in God looks down from heaven hoping someone can make the right choice and choose Jesus to save them?

 

[JesusFan]

It has been my experience that the opposite is true. Nearly every Calvinist whose testimony I have heard or read has said they were a so called Armenian before they saw the light of Calvinism and converted to it. What is your testimony?

ALL of us here who are saved were saved the same way, its just that Calvinism explains it much more from the biblical perspective on how and why God saved us

 

[JesusFan]

I disagree to an extent, @Zaatar71 .

Typically what is viewed as "attacking a position" is when those who do not agree with that position express their disagreement. But we should "attack" even our own positions in this way because if they do not stand up to the "attack" they are mot worth holding.

You also need to define "credibility".

For me, any Christian offers a credible argument if they are evaluating a position via Scripture.

People do not need to have a masters degree in theology to evaluate what a person says the Bible teaches against what is actually written in Scripture. Now, it may help when it comes to having studied historical theology and the biblical languages, but it is fairly simple to compare the biblical text against God's words. Often people define "credibility" as being those who have a formal education in theology AND agree with their positions. I believe that type of thinking is flawed (even though I do have a formal education in theology).

I do not believe that Scripture is God's revelation to the religious elite (often the religious elite, the scholars and theologians, are the ones who cannot accept what God has revealed as it falls below their standards and expectations). Instead I believe that Scripture was written for the "common man" of the time of its writing (like fisherman, tax collector, farmers) and has baffled those who think themselves wise for centuries.


Another issue of disagreement is equating "attacking" a position with "doing evil" to the person who holds that position. It is, I believe, the exact opposite in reality. If you look at my belief and point out that it departs from Scripture then you do me a favor rather than an evil.


That said, I have seen arguments against Calvinism that were based on stereotypes and misunderstanding. One of these is the "cosmic child abuse argument".

But having come out of Calvinism, having been a Calvinist, having taught theology, having studied theology, theogical development, and historical theology, I have some insights that those within Calvinism who never went to seminary may overlook (or simply not know). But this helps realizing what is presupposes in a position rather than judging whether those presuppositions are wrong.

Ultimately, however, every Christian has the ability and responsibility to test their faith against the words of God.

But when you conclusion in regards to theology proper end ups flying in the face of all the Creeds and Confessions, and the teachings of various expositors over the centuries, NOT just Baptist but across all conservative Christians theologies, that should give us pause to really check to make sure that we are not following just novel theology we made up ourselves

 

[JesusFan]

A forum like this is in part for that purpose. You can agree or disagree, as I will do shortly.

I believe that historically rooted positions that are denied, or called theory, or philosophy is an attack. When people have described biblically major portions of truth and others insist on denying that, or actually questioning God's revealed word. I see it as an attack, just as much as Satan asked "has God Said"?

Credibility is when a person offers their own personal idea, that no one else has suggested at any time in Church History, not in any Confession of faith. On these issues Confessional Churches agree on the Cross.

Sure, if they do not deny Biblical definitions which has to take place to deny these teachings.

I see that the poster Martin M, has done a solid job of offering the Historic teaching, and the Current understanding in Churches.

Martin and others have done that day in and day out.

Claims of a formal education are not conclusive, or necessarily true. The truth of such claims without biblical alignment to the truth once delivered to the saints shows a lack of credibility. I can claim to be a master auto mechanic, but if I cannot explain the basics of a car engine, I in turn would wipe away any credibility, no one would take me seriously. In the same way, when posters state things that no one else does. they cannot be a trusted guide.

This might be your stated opinion, but that is all it is. Why call educated and gifted teachers. the religious elite?
Jn.3:27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

It is, however God for some reason has given Pastors and teachers, to local churches, to preach and to teach the gospel of the Kingdom as we see in Acts 28:
30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,

31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him. He does not say, He just kept saying, Just believe what was written, like I claim to do. He opened the scripture concerning the Kingdom for two years! The says that preaching, and teaching happened.


People have offered you help, you reject it. That is fine, but you stand alone.

yes, It is often attacked by caricatures and strawmen

Again, that is your claim, that we cannot verify. You do not give any evidence of that. Instead you are with those who oppose the se truths. That is your right to do so, but all the Cals, and those who are studying toward the position do not seem to accept your claim, based on what they se you post. These topics are not about, you and what you claim, they are about Jesus and the Cross.

We have no verification of that. That is your claim. Some might question that.

This is yet another claim that distracts from the discussion.

your view.

Yes indeed.

That said, I have seen arguments against Calvinism that were based on stereotypes and misunderstanding. One of these is the "cosmic child abuse argument".

yes, It is often attacked by caricatures and strawmen

Is not when anyone rejects Psa for the atonement they really are reacting to the concept of Jesus enduring the wrath of God for our sake as being "pagan concept? Indeed Cosmic child abuse?"

As have read various authors who used that very terminology when they went against Psa atonement view?

 

[Silverhair]

No, rather he is suggesting that sometimes those who either misunderstood what Calvinism really teaches, or else are very angry/bitter at it can at times go so far other way they embrace doctrines and theology counter to the Cross itself, ending up with a severe misunderstanding of Pauline Justification

So you have just proven that you really do not have good discernment.

Read what he said again but this time without the calvinst filters.

This is just understanding the truth of calvinism 101

"If Calvinism is an error:
The reason most Christians reject it is because they have good discernment.
If Calvinism is true:
The ultimate reason most resist it is because God sovereignly and unchangeably decreed their resistance for His own glory.

I understand that the truth is hard for you to accept but it is for your own good that you step back and take a clear eyed look at what your religion actually teaches.

 

[JonC]

A forum like this is in part for that purpose. You can agree or disagree, as I will do shortly.

I believe that historically rooted positions that are denied, or called theory, or philosophy is an attack. When people have described biblically major portions of truth and others insist on denying that, or actually questioning God's revealed word. I see it as an attack, just as much as Satan asked "has God Said"?

Credibility is when a person offers their own personal idea, that no one else has suggested at any time in Church History, not in any Confession of faith. On these issues Confessional Churches agree on the Cross.

Sure, if they do not deny Biblical definitions which has to take place to deny these teachings.

I see that the poster Martin M, has done a solid job of offering the Historic teaching, and the Current understanding in Churches.

Martin and others have done that day in and day out.

Claims of a formal education are not conclusive, or necessarily true. The truth of such claims without biblical alignment to the truth once delivered to the saints shows a lack of credibility. I can claim to be a master auto mechanic, but if I cannot explain the basics of a car engine, I in turn would wipe away any credibility, no one would take me seriously. In the same way, when posters state things that no one else does. they cannot be a trusted guide.

This might be your stated opinion, but that is all it is. Why call educated and gifted teachers. the religious elite?
Jn.3:27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

It is, however God for some reason has given Pastors and teachers, to local churches, to preach and to teach the gospel of the Kingdom as we see in Acts 28:
30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,

31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him. He does not say, He just kept saying, Just believe what was written, like I claim to do. He opened the scripture concerning the Kingdom for two years! The says that preaching, and teaching happened.


People have offered you help, you reject it. That is fine, but you stand alone.

yes, It is often attacked by caricatures and strawmen

Again, that is your claim, that we cannot verify. You do not give any evidence of that. Instead you are with those who oppose the se truths. That is your right to do so, but all the Cals, and those who are studying toward the position do not seem to accept your claim, based on what they se you post. These topics are not about, you and what you claim, they are about Jesus and the Cross.

We have no verification of that. That is your claim. Some might question that.

This is yet another claim that distracts from the discussion.

your view.

Yes indeed.

Brother.

I get that people's emotions are tied up in their beliefs.

I can. and have, referenced my beliefs through the writings of the early church and more contemporary scholars. They are deeply rooted in history. But that does not make my beliefs correct, and their antiquity certainly does not cast a negative light on you for denying them. There are many historically rooted positions.


You and I agree on the text of Scripture (that the words writtdn in the Bible are God's words).

You and I agree that when God judges the people those who are wicked will perish but those who have been conformed into the image of Christ will be justified (you mentioned this last week when pointing out that we are predestined to that righteousness).

So the discussion is about justice in how it relates not to the saved (they will be re-created and in the image of Christ on Judgment Day) and not to the wicked (they will be condemned) but to God Himself.


If God truly "makes us new creations in Christ", "conforms us to the image of Christ", "removes our heart", removes our heart snd spirit, giving us new ones, etc., then we were never in need of Christ being punished instead of us. What we needed was Christ to reconcile mankind to God, Christ to be set forth as a propitiation in His blood, and Christ to become a life giving spirit so that we woukd be reborn, made in His image.

The whole idea of Jesus having to be punished instead of us for our sins has to do with how the law relates to God (not to msn).


If we hold that justice demands God punish sins then God cannot forgive sins without violating the law.

It does not affect us because the "old man" has to cease existing, we have to be made anew.

It has to do with God submitting to what the law requires of Him.

That was a common philosophy at one time (secularly...it comes from the Renaissance Huminianism movement reaching back to Stoic and Roman philosophy to "better" their judicial system).

BUT I do not hold that philosophy. Obviously I do hold a philosophy (we all do) in regard to justice. That just is not the one I hold.


I view justice as restoration of a just state. This may be via punishment (punish the criminal) or it may be via reform (make the criminal not a criminal). So I view God as able to be just via the law (punishment) but also apart from the law (recreating men so as to remove guilt, creating them in the image of Christ).

We simply disagree about justice.

 

[Zaatar71]

Brother.

Hello JohnC,What is on your mind?

I get that people's emotions are tied up in their beliefs.

Yes, Ithink to a certain extent they should be. We are not called to be dead fish, floating downstream, but we are to hold fast to the gospel of the kingdom among a world of lost people in a culture in decline, and see if we can bring light in the darkness.

I can. and have, referenced my beliefs through the writings of the early church and more contemporary scholars. They are deeply rooted in history.

You have offered what you can with what you have, yes. Not everyone shares your perspective, which is also ok. We each act based upon what we believe.

But that does not make my beliefs correct,

No, nor mine, or any other person. What makes a belief correct is only as it aligns with the revealed word of God.

and their antiquity certainly does not cast a negative light on you for denying them.

No it does not, that is true. The thing is when we go outside of scripture to look at historical writings, they are always subject to scrutiny, as the bereans searched things out Acts17:11

There are many historically rooted positions.

Again, I agree. Where it can be come contentious is if we have different perspectives on historical events that may or may not be biblically related , but you might not care for some of my source material, or links, and vise versa. I find your posts attempt to do this more often where from my point of view, you broad brush a theology according to your perspective on history. I and others might have different source materials, and have come to a vastly different conclusion.

You and I agree on the text of Scripture (that the words writtdn in the Bible are God's words).

2tim3:16-17, yes...however we differ in I believe the words in the verses need explantion, you suggest this is not necessary, I will develop this more later on, as I think this is an attempt by you to clarify ore seek out areas, where we agree, and differ. It is preferable to do this, without you suggesting I am a Cult member, or a RC devotee, or such things as you have done in times past. I react when you do it to martin, and other Calvinists brothers, unjustly

You and I agree that when God judges the people those who are wicked will perish but those who have been conformed into the image of Christ will be justified (you mentioned this last week when pointing out that we are predestined to that righteousness).

Agreed

So the discussion is about justice in how it relates not to the saved (they will be re-created and in the image of Christ on Judgment Day) and not to the wicked (they will be condemned) but to God Himself.

Yes, this is at the core os several of the areas of disagreement.... I have to do something now, but will get back to this in awhile.

If God truly "makes us new creations in Christ", "conforms us to the image of Christ", "removes our heart", removes our heart snd spirit, giving us new ones, etc.,

Ok, I am back, lol This list is the end result of salvation, based upon what the Great Salvation that has been accomplished. Now as we work back to the cross, based on previous posts we will differ here.

then we were never in need of Christ being punished instead of us.

I believe we were in 100% need of that very thing.

What we needed was Christ to reconcile mankind to God,

I believe that Jesus reconciles the elect scattered throughout the world, in particular, not a generic reconciliation.

Christ to be set forth as a propitiation in His blood,

Again, this is an actual propitiation for the elect scattered worldwide, not generic or protentional

and Christ to become a life giving spirit so that we woukd be reborn, made in His image.

These again are a result.

The whole idea of Jesus having to be punished instead of us for our sins has to do with how the law relates to God (not to msn).

Yes, The law of God is the basis of the final Judgment. I believe the ten Commandments are the basis of God judging all sin.

If we hold that justice demands God punish sins then God cannot forgive sins without violating the law.

This is a central part of the gospel itself. God's law/word , over all mankind, saved or unsaved.

It does not affect us because the "old man" has to cease existing, we have to be made anew.

I believe the old man has been crucified with Christ, in that the reigning power of sin has been broken. We are still able to sin but no longer bound by sin.

It has to do with God submitting to what the law requires of Him.

As our mediator, that is part of what he actually did as in Mt.3
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
This has direct bearing on who he was a substitute, for, or representative of.

That was a common philosophy at one time (secularly...it comes from the Renaissance Huminianism movement reaching back to Stoic and Roman philosophy to "better" their judicial system).

here is a subjective opinion, ie, how you see it. Others may or may not accept thiis, that is why much of this kind of comment is secondary to scriptural discussion which is our primary concern.

BUT I do not hold that philosophy.

We hold we we hold.

Obviously I do hold a philosophy (we all do) in regard to justice. That just is not the one I hold.

Fair enough and agreed.

I view justice as restoration of a just state.

I see it as bring the whole man, to the whole Christ

This may be via punishment (punish the criminal) or it may be via reform (make the criminal not a criminal). So I view God as able to be just via the law (punishment) but also apart from the law (recreating men so as to remove guilt, creating them in the image of Christ).

We simply disagree about justice.

Well, this was in my view our best interaction that we have had.

 

[John of Japan]

Hello JOJ,
This is a good and important question. Not all Christians are Calvinists. To be in the mainstream of what is known as A "Calvinist" is to be the same as a rank-and-file Christian in that they believe the fundamentals of the Faith, Triune God, The fall into sin and death, Necessity of the New Birth,
The reality of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement, Resurrection and return of Christ, etc.
There are Christians who have not studied themselves into these positions and still work on what is true, and what is false. They still wrestle over passages and seek to refine what they believe, Calvinists do also, they read views of those who have not yet came to see that position as the biblical truth. J.C. Ryle is a good example of just such a person. His works on Holiness and The Christian life are classic and welcomed reads for all believers. That being said, we see many who are similar, in that they could not agree with the L. for some reason, yet they have a godly walk, and can be agreeable on many things.,. What we see in our time is some who claim, "I used to be a Calvinist", but then they go against every text and teaching that Confessional believers have held. It is not only that they claim to formerly have held to these truths, but in posting about these issues, cannot actually give the mainstream position in a way that demonstrates they had a grasp on it to begin with.
This indicates that perhaps they were in an assembly that might have taught these things, they learned a rough outline of some of the things, some of the terms, a bit of History. However upon further investigation, their understanding was quite defective and in fact shows they were not the real deal. These other professed Christion's who now call themselves "Christian deconstructionists", who go on to say that they never really believed in the Trinity, or Jesus being raised from the dead. Where they real Christians at all, or religious professors who never were indwelt with the Spirit?

When someone attacks a position without credibility, they are enemies of the Cross of Christ.
1tim1:
19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:

20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

2tim.2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.


2tim.1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

2tim4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world,

14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:

You used 492 words, according to MS Word, and still did not answer my question. And you need not give me lectures on Calvinism. I've known about the system for over 50 years.

 

[Zaatar71]

You used 492 words, according to MS Word, and still did not answer my question. And you need not give me lectures on Calvinism. I've known about the system for over 50 years.

Hello JOJ.
I am sorry I did not seem to answer your question. Perhaps you are a much smarter person than I am, and I might not have understood the specific thing you were asking.? Sorry, if that was the case. As far as Calvinism goes, I am glad to find that you are acquainted with it, but I do not like to assume that someone has a solid understanding of what it teaches. You might, or you might have been influenced by pastors, family, or friends, to a skewed version of how Calvinists would define or present it. I am open to any scriptural correction, or discussion you would like to offer.
I am more concerned with truth, rather than signing up for a "team". Thanks for your response.

 

[JesusFan]

Brother.

I get that people's emotions are tied up in their beliefs.

I can. and have, referenced my beliefs through the writings of the early church and more contemporary scholars. They are deeply rooted in history. But that does not make my beliefs correct, and their antiquity certainly does not cast a negative light on you for denying them. There are many historically rooted positions.


You and I agree on the text of Scripture (that the words writtdn in the Bible are God's words).

You and I agree that when God judges the people those who are wicked will perish but those who have been conformed into the image of Christ will be justified (you mentioned this last week when pointing out that we are predestined to that righteousness).

So the discussion is about justice in how it relates not to the saved (they will be re-created and in the image of Christ on Judgment Day) and not to the wicked (they will be condemned) but to God Himself.


If God truly "makes us new creations in Christ", "conforms us to the image of Christ", "removes our heart", removes our heart snd spirit, giving us new ones, etc., then we were never in need of Christ being punished instead of us. What we needed was Christ to reconcile mankind to God, Christ to be set forth as a propitiation in His blood, and Christ to become a life giving spirit so that we woukd be reborn, made in His image.

The whole idea of Jesus having to be punished instead of us for our sins has to do with how the law relates to God (not to msn).


If we hold that justice demands God punish sins then God cannot forgive sins without violating the law.

It does not affect us because the "old man" has to cease existing, we have to be made anew.

It has to do with God submitting to what the law requires of Him.

That was a common philosophy at one time (secularly...it comes from the Renaissance Huminianism movement reaching back to Stoic and Roman philosophy to "better" their judicial system).

BUT I do not hold that philosophy. Obviously I do hold a philosophy (we all do) in regard to justice. That just is not the one I hold.


I view justice as restoration of a just state. This may be via punishment (punish the criminal) or it may be via reform (make the criminal not a criminal). So I view God as able to be just via the law (punishment) but also apart from the law (recreating men so as to remove guilt, creating them in the image of Christ).

We simply disagree about justice.

You still have never explained just where did our deserved wrath God had stored up to place upon us in judgement actually went to