is it A MUST That Your pastor/Church Teach/Preach Calvinism?

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Before Augustine became a Christian he was a "hearer" of the Gnostics. He did not have the self-discipline to be of the "elect." The Gnostics believe there was the elect, the hearers, and the lost or un-elect. Augustine brought this erroneous belief into Christianity, jettisoning the "hearer' group as it could not be fit into scripture, and then found and twisted scripture to fit his Gnostic belief in the elect and the non-elect. Calvin was greatly influenced by Augustine and, unfortunately, bought this erroneous idea into his systematic theology and this has caused much trouble within the Christian community since.

Augustine was a follower of Mani, a Gnostic.



Mani defined total depravity as:



Calvin defined total depravity as:



See the connection?

No I dont.....nor do I care. Get the drift. Go peddle you nonsense somewhere else.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

May I address this, being in the FW camp? I hope its okay.

I would like to take this in another direction(for my post only, and not to derail this thread). Would it be okay for your pastor/moderator to preach FW? At my church, the pastor who preaches calvinism, will not be pastor for long. Why? We do not believe the scriptures that way, and therefore, for the harmony of our church, we wouldn't have a pastor that holds to calvinism. If the church isn't in harmony, how can the Light shine to a lost community? So for us to be in harmony, we must all agree...not on every little thing, but calvinsim, or not calvinism, rather, should be a major sticking point.

It would be like the church that has members who believe a christian can backslide/fall from grace and others that do not. After a while, this could bring tension to that church. So harmony is a core essential to "church health" if you ask me.

i am I AM's!!

Willis

Again when I mentioned that we would not want the likes of your no-name theology in our churches it created a fire storm of criticism from your side. We Calvinists as you seem to want to call us (even though many of us dont really study Calvin) are mostly content with our own brand of Systematic theology & we are not changing for anyone & will continue to practice our belief system. We have that right as Americans (with all do respect to our Brothers & Sisters abroad) to freely practice our beliefs.

Ive always maintained that the greatest freedom a "Calvinist" could have is to stay seperate from you No Namers via maintaining our own churches. Its only these SPC blended churches that are problematic in my view (for the most part) & again when I state this it infuriates some.

However this whole thread is just another vehicle used to create endless controversy & hard feelings between the two groups. My advise to any "Serious" Calvinist who is now sitting in a predominately No Name Theology church is two fold.....1. If your content then stay where you are. (2) If your not content & your facing a delema of not being able to profess your own theological views, then get out & find a Reformed or Calvinistic Church. They are out there (Reformed, Reformed Baptist, Calvinistic Baptist, Primitive Baptist, OPC, Many Old School Baptist Churches, Free Will Presbyterian Churches.....Check the Constitutions)

 

[Robert Snow]

No I dont.....nor do I care. Get the drift. Go peddle you nonsense somewhere else.

Perhaps his comments were concerning the truth about the beginnings of Calvinism. Just because you close your ears to the truth doesn't mean everyone does.

I believe this causes you great discomfort, seeing that the beginnings of your belief system are not grounded in truth, but rather in introducing error into the truth of the Gospel.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Perhaps his comments were concerning the truth about the beginnings of Calvinism. Just because you close your ears to the truth doesn't mean everyone does.

I believe this causes you great discomfort, seeing that the beginnings of your belief system are not grounded in truth, but rather in introducing error into the truth of the Gospel.

Thank you Robert. I was unsure how to respond to the post to which you just replied. A month or so ago I had absolutely no inkling of this connection. I was challenged on my knowledge of the history of orthodox Christian beliefs and was listening to a lecture on Augustine from the Modern Scholar series. In one of the lectures it suddenly occurred, "This sounds like beliefs of Gnostics." I conducted some research and was very surprised to find that, yes, the ideas given by Augustine about original sin and the elect and non-elect could be directly traced to the beliefs in this heretical group.

I will conduct more research on this topic.

It is very obvious that a direct line in thinking can be drawn from Calvin to Augustine to Gnostics. Where this will eventually lead, I do not know.

It appears, but I have not confirmed this to my satisfaction yet, that Augustine's concept of original sin also comes from Gnostic teachings.

More later ... one way or the other.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Perhaps his comments were concerning the truth about the beginnings of Calvinism. Just because you close your ears to the truth doesn't mean everyone does.

I believe this causes you great discomfort, seeing that the beginnings of your belief system are not grounded in truth, but rather in introducing error into the truth of the Gospel.

This doesnt cause me any discomfort, rather I find it amusing. I have done indepth study of Augustine & never found any of this to be valid....merely conjecture & I dont throw out my beliefs on mere conjecture. Let Crabby do a paper on it with all his evidence & then I will evaluate. Otherwise your position is pointless.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thank you Robert. I was unsure how to respond to the post to which you just replied. A month or so ago I had absolutely no inkling of this connection. I was challenged on my knowledge of the history of orthodox Christian beliefs and was listening to a lecture on Augustine from the Modern Scholar series. In one of the lectures it suddenly occurred, "This sounds like beliefs of Gnostics." I conducted some research and was very surprised to find that, yes, the ideas given by Augustine about original sin and the elect and non-elect could be directly traced to the beliefs in this heretical group.

I will conduct more research on this topic.

It is very obvious that a direct line in thinking can be drawn from Calvin to Augustine to Gnostics. Where this will eventually lead, I do not know.

It appears, but I have not confirmed this to my satisfaction yet, that Augustine's concept of original sin also comes from Gnostic teachings.

More later ... one way or the other.

Obnoxious Farce :smilewinkgrin:

 

[sag38]

There may be a few Calvinists and those who are not so dogmatic about it who get really upset and maybe even want to leave this forum. But, I think the majority are not willing to draw lines in the sand like Osage. If Osage really knew the gospel he wouldn't be telling us that it is Calvinism. He'd be quoting from I Corinthians 15 where Paul tells us in basic terms what the true gospel is. It's the gospel that I believed in and most here have believed in. To claim that the gospel is a five point theological system is not to believe in the resurrected Christ but in a false gospel based on faith in a system and not faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[psalms109:31]

I'm not a historian either, but I can assure you that Spurgeon (1834-1892) lives a long time after the era when people were put to death or exiled for disagreeing with "the church".

I'm not sure what you meant by "the church" - the local church (in Sprgeon's case, The Metroplitan Tabernacle for most of his pastoring life)? I don't think Spurgeon disagreed with that.

Baptist churches generally? Well, particularly towards the end of his life, Spurgeon was greatly saddened by what came to be known as the "Downgrade Controversy" which eventually resulted in him and his church withdrawing from the Baptist Union. This began because many of the churches in the Baptist Union (and other evangelical denominations too) were denying, or at least downgrading (dumbing down, as we would say today) such vital things as the authority of God's Word, the virgin birth, and the atonement. Clearly Spurgeon did not agree with such things, but he wasn't exiled or murdered.

The Church of England, the so-called "state church"? Yes, like all baptists, Spurgeon would have disagreed with the CofE on such things as baptism, church order, the separation of church and state, and much more. Yet he wasn't exiled or murdered.

The tale of two cities. It was the best of times it was the worst of times.

Burning witches in America, beheading. I wish I really new the history behind all that. If the church can misunderstand scripture then.

I myself love Spurgeon, My first book from Him "All of grace". A little book with great impact in my life. With my signature I know what Spurgeon considered Calvinism it isn't what others see it today.

 

[glfredrick]

The very most simple answer to this entire question is that preachers should preach the Word of God and from the Word of God, the gospel.

We do not "preach" Calvinism, nor do we "preach" Arminianism, or any other named or non-named theology.

We may hold a particular theological position, but those positions are not WHO we are, but merely HOW we see particular biblical doctrines.

The error that suggests that we preach a theological position because we "are" this or that is rampant on this board.

 

[mandym]

The very most simple answer to this entire question is that preachers should preach the Word of God and from the Word of God, the gospel.

We do not "preach" Calvinism, nor do we "preach" Arminianism, or any other named or non-named theology.

We may hold a particular theological position, but those positions are not WHO we are, but merely HOW we see particular biblical doctrines.

The error that suggests that we preach a theological position because we "are" this or that is rampant on this board.

Didn't someone post that "Calvinism" is the gospel?

 

[JesusFan]

Again when I mentioned that we would not want the likes of your no-name theology in our churches it created a fire storm of criticism from your side. We Calvinists as you seem to want to call us (even though many of us dont really study Calvin) are mostly content with our own brand of Systematic theology & we are not changing for anyone & will continue to practice our belief system. We have that right as Americans (with all do respect to our Brothers & Sisters abroad) to freely practice our beliefs.

Ive always maintained that the greatest freedom a "Calvinist" could have is to stay seperate from you No Namers via maintaining our own churches. Its only these SPC blended churches that are problematic in my view (for the most part) & again when I state this it infuriates some.

At times though, this does cause some of those groups act almost "superior" to others in Christ, like they have the "purer" doctrines perserved...
As long as a group recognizes that others too are preaching/teaching Christ, and not JUST their own little group...

However this whole thread is just another vehicle used to create endless controversy & hard feelings between the two groups. My advise to any "Serious" Calvinist who is now sitting in a predominately No Name Theology church is two fold.....1. If your content then stay where you are. (2) If your not content & your facing a delema of not being able to profess your own theological views, then get out & find a Reformed or Calvinistic Church. They are out there (Reformed, Reformed Baptist, Calvinistic Baptist, Primitive Baptist, OPC, Many Old School Baptist Churches, Free Will Presbyterian Churches.....Check the Constitutions)

A lot of this depends on though "what kind" you are...

many are those like me who do buy into the TULIP way to express salvation, but in all other areas ARE baptist...
Pre trip pre mill believers baptism etc

IF you a calvinist in the reformed tradition, that would be the creeda/infant baptism amil eschatlogy etc strongly KJV

That would be problematic, as many of them would NOT fell comfortable in traditional baptist circles who are "calvinistic" , as most of the Churches would JUST teach TULIP but not the rest of Calvinism!

 

[JesusFan]

The very most simple answer to this entire question is that preachers should preach the Word of God and from the Word of God, the gospel.

bingo...
we have to remember that the Gospel existed and was proclaimed WAY before there were these "models" of understanding how it all was to be "put together"...
Before either Calvinism or Arminism came on the scene...

We do not "preach" Calvinism, nor do we "preach" Arminianism, or any other named or non-named theology.

We can use those as "ways to understand/put together the big picture" what the Bible teaches, but that is NOT the Gospel message...

We may hold a particular theological position, but those positions are not WHO we are, but merely HOW we see particular biblical doctrines.

Aslo, think have to realise to majority of people Cal just means eternal security, Arms can lose their salvation, and that most in either side do not go into so much detail about it as the BB here...
Trust me, most do not knowif 4 points/5 points is right, divine election, free will rspionse etc
just concerned with who is jesus, what must I do to get saved, and how to study Bible and learn better how to live for Him!

The error that suggests that we preach a theological position because we "are" this or that is rampant on this board.

Whatis interesting is that the NT tells us how God provided the means to save us, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that by placing faith in Him we are redeemed..

Does NOT go into explaining if that is due to God election/ limited atonement to the elect only, or unlimited atonement free will etc

Just tells us to believe in Jesus and receive Him

Think that we spend sometimes too much time trying to explain/understand HOW we become Christians, and not just accepting that both Calvinist and Arminians preach and teach same Jesus crucufied and risen to redeem those who place their faith on Him...

HOW we got there, God directly electing us, giving us faith, or we can respond by own will etc is NOT where the Apostles put their primary emphasis on!

 

[sag38]

Thank you Jesus Fan. I agree with you. The emphasis on both sides is, too often, in the wrong place.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

A lot of this depends on though "what kind" you are...

many are those like me who do buy into the TULIP way to express salvation, but in all other areas ARE baptist...
Pre trip pre mill believers baptism etc

IF you a calvinist in the reformed tradition, that would be the creeda/infant baptism amil eschatlogy etc strongly KJV

That would be problematic, as many of them would NOT fell comfortable in traditional baptist circles who are "calvinistic" , as most of the Churches would JUST teach TULIP but not the rest of Calvinism!

I would agree with you that everyone needs to weigh the conditions of the church & which direction they are moving in. Pity the poor Calvinist or Arminian who is in the minority of a church who's majority has zero interest in helping him or her learn more about their personal theological choice (perhaps after tons of study & prayer).....to me thats tad amount to suppressing ones beliefs. I personally would be very uncomfortable with it. But to each their own....isnt that what individual soul liberty is all about?:thumbsup:

 

[JesusFan]

Thank you Jesus Fan. I agree with you. The emphasis on both sides is, too often, in the wrong place.

We tend to discuss, even argue among ourselves just HOW we actually got saved, igoring IF you actually got saved!

 

[David Lamb]

The tale of two cities. It was the best of times it was the worst of times.

Burning witches in America, beheading. I wish I really new the history behind all that. If the church can misunderstand scripture then.

I myself love Spurgeon, My first book from Him "All of grace". A little book with great impact in my life. With my signature I know what Spurgeon considered Calvinism it isn't what others see it today.

Apologies to you in that case - I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about Christians being killed or exiled for not agreeing with a church. It seems you were thinking of witches and the like.

Yes, "All of Grace" is great.

 

[glfredrick]

Didn't someone post that "Calvinism" is the gospel?

They may have, but that does not make their statement fact.

The GOSPEL is the gospel. Accept no substitutes, neither Arminian, Calvinistic, Amyraldian, Pelagian, Hyper, non-, etc.

Besides, for all the smoke, mirrors, rhetoric, et al, over Calvinism on this board, it is but a small aspect of the total theological picture. I'd suggest that only small-minded persons dwell on the significance of JUST that portion of theology, but I'd likely offend some in each camp, so I won't... :laugh:

 

[glfredrick]

Whatis interesting is that the NT tells us how God provided the means to save us, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that by placing faith in Him we are redeemed..

Does NOT go into explaining if that is due to God election/ limited atonement to the elect only, or unlimited atonement free will etc

Just tells us to believe in Jesus and receive Him

Think that we spend sometimes too much time trying to explain/understand HOW we become Christians, and not just accepting that both Calvinist and Arminians preach and teach same Jesus crucufied and risen to redeem those who place their faith on Him...

HOW we got there, God directly electing us, giving us faith, or we can respond by own will etc is NOT where the Apostles put their primary emphasis on!

Sorry...

You don't get to use my words for a jumping-off point to go right back into your own pet theology! :thumbsup:

 

[JesusFan]

Sorry...

You don't get to use my words for a jumping-off point to go right back into your own pet theology! :thumbsup:

Sorry about that IF I offend you somehow...

Just curious, what would be my "pet doctrine?"

Thought just was agreeing with you that we tend to try to divide down lines like Cal/Arm, while forgetting that neither are really the Gospel of Christ message must teach/proclaim to lost sinners?

 

[psalms109:31]

Doesn't add up

What doesn't add up to me is Spurgeon on one hand said inspiration scripture is more important than orthadox and then on the other side saying that Calvinism is the Gospel and he having always to defend why he leaves the door open for all man to come. Like for instance

Spurgeon was once asked, "Why don't you just preach to the called, the ones who are elect?" He said, "If you will pull up everybody's shirt tails so I can see if they have an E stamped on their back, I will." Only God knows if someone is called. But don't let that discourage you because John 6:37 says, "All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me; and HIM THAT COMETH TO ME I WILL IN NO WISE CAST OUT." Jesus said, "Don't worry about whether you are called or not. If you want to come, I'll take you."

Here is the full quote

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1673492#post1673492

We are missing something!