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

[Iconoclast]

Reformed Baptist said...



Wow.

A point blank denial of the scriptural truth that the Holy Spirit is ultimetly our teacher.


John 16:13...



These ultra calvinists are something else, and not in a good way.

They are just plain pitiful, to be honest about it.

(Not all of them, and not all the time..but some of them, most of the time) :tear:

AiC

AIC,
I hate to rain on your parade, but using jn16:13 out of context does not help your case...how you are taking it out of context, lets see:who was Jesus speaking to?

1These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.

2They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

3And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

4But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you. 5But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou?

6But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart. 7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9Of sin, because they believe not on me;

10Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

11Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

16A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

AIC,,,,, clearly this is a unique promise to the Apostles only. just read it, all of the you, unto you, show you,guide you.
Look at verse 4

4But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you

AIC.....no one alive today;
1]was there to listen to Jesus-4But these things have I told you
2]so no one of us can directly remember-ye may remember that I told you of them
3]they were with Him from the beginning

In Jn 14, 15, 16 The Apostles were given speacial instructions, and promises.

We feed off the complete truth they were given. No calvinist denies the Holy Spirit teaches us what truth we know, but no man is promised ALL Truth.

27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him

All who react to calvinists because of the truth they believe have a tendency to resist at all cost.

 

[Iconoclast]

Thought Jesus birth, life. death. resurrection is the Gospel, with His Apostles inspired by God to rightly interprete it for us...

Apostles were inspired, Calvin and calvinism, as well as Arminus and arminian were NOT....

The Birth,death , and resurrection Of Jesus.....are the historic facts of the gospel

1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

What is being ignored here is......according to the scriptures

What scriptures? What do the scriptures teach concerning these historical facts?
This takes study of all the scriptures. God has given pastors and teachers for this purpose. A careful study leads to the doctrines of grace.
A shallow study comes up short,and defective....that is one reason of how many a church cannot protect their people, from cults and charismatics.

Every church takes a doctrinal stand.....weak or strong.

Some take weak or heretical stands......woman preachers, liberal churches, sodomites in the pulpit,,continuing supposed gifts,etc

Others take stronger confessional stands....sometimes this issue can be that simple

When Spurgeon or calvinists say calvinism is the gospel...they are saying that the historical facts listed in 1 cor15.....when studied out according to all the scriptures.....show Jesus dying a Covenant death for those The Father has purposed for Him to redeem:

8Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

9And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

10To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

11According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: 12In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him

Then you have others who resist,and boast that they have resisted these truths for 40 years, or their pastor never preaches these truths.
Some say....they could never worship a God who does what calvinists teach?
That is to invite disaster,saying you could not worship God who does what He wills to do.

 

[glfredrick]

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?

It was the Apostle Paul who wrote much of what we now hold regarding the doctrine of election. Failure to include that aspect of the Scriptures equals taking a side in exchange for preaching the Word due to a theological position. Same with suggesting that we merely "come" to Christ based on some human-derived decision, also an error that falls under preaching a theology instead of the Scriptures.

 

[JesusFan]

It was the Apostle Paul who wrote much of what we now hold regarding the doctrine of election. Failure to include that aspect of the Scriptures equals taking a side in exchange for preaching the Word due to a theological position. Same with suggesting that we merely "come" to Christ based on some human-derived decision, also an error that falls under preaching a theology instead of the Scriptures.

Seems that much of the time whenever either Cal /Arm apologist posts here on the BB , that what gets quoted and reference much of the time is NOT the words of Christ nor His Apostles, but the words from whatever the "pet theologian" is for their respective theological position...

Think we have to come back to that ONLY The Bible is inspired of/from God, and NOT any particular system to understand it...

Think also problem is that not ANY system totally explains all of the Bible theology, at least well enough that there cannot be any questions left to discuss!

 

[convicted1]

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.

I would like to ask a question regarding what I bolded. Do you mean this in regards to taking membership, or that you wouldn't want a "non-cal" in your church house, period. I am thinking it is the former and not the latter. If it is the former, I understand your stance on this. It would make things "uneasy" if there are a bunch of people on opposing sides in a church. Harmony in the church is a core essential to "church health", if you ask me. FTR, by my typing "Calvinist", or "Calvinism", I mean it with no ill will on my part. Its just that most of what I have read, these are the most common words used in association with this belief system, and I know that DoG is used as well. But I truly mean nothing "ill" towards you when I use those terms.

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.

FTR, I do have a "name"; blood bought child of the King!!! This is the name I cherish more than anything, praise His sweet name!!

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)

Good advice for any DoG to follow. But most of all, we need to led by God. If He leads, and we follow after Him, then He will put us(both "C" and "A") where He wants us to work for Him!!

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[convicted1]

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.

Good post!! Though I am not a "C", I agree with what you posted here Brother! Anything we read, we need to know the source, where they got their sources from, etc. Never accept anything without proof first. Very good point there, Brother. I know you don't need my approval, but when I read a good post, I like to tell them about it!!

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[psalms109:31]

Love

Sometimes when we love something more than God through Jesus Christ and His word you have to watch out it might blind you from the truth. This song has been stuck in my head listening to post on this thread.

lyrics to When A Man Loves A Woman / Percy Sledge

It Tears Me Up-Best Of (1992)
When a man loves a woman,
Can't keep his mind on nothin' else,
He'd change the world for the good thing he's found.
If she is bad, he can't see it,
She can do no wrong,
Turn his back on his best friend if he put her down.
When a man loves a woman,
He'll spend his very last dime
Tryin' to hold on to what he needs.
He'd give up all his comforts
And sleep out in the rain,
If she said that's the way
It ought to be.
Well, this man loves you, woman.
I gave you everything I have,
Tryin' to hold on to your heartless love.
Baby, please don't treat me bad.
When a man loves a woman,
Down deep in his soul,
She can bring him such misery.
If she is playin' him for a fool,
He's the last one to know.
Lovin' eyes can never see.
When a man loves a woman
he can do her no wrong,
he can never want
some other girl.
Yes,When a man loves a woman
I know exactly how he feels,
'Cause baby, baby, you're my world
When a man loves a woman....

 

[sag38]

It seems from Jesus' letter to the church at Ephesus that they loved their doctrine and their methods more than they did Him. Whatever side you may be on concerning this thread we would all do well to heed Jesus call to love Him as we did at first. At that time we didn't even know what systematic theology was. We were just glad someone shared the "good news" with us. We didn't even really know that folks debated about the mechanics of salvation. We were just glad that we had Jesus and were saved. We weren't concerned about what version of the Bible we used. We were just thankful to have one to read. We didn't know about church politics, the pros and cons of alter calls, whether to have church on Saturday or Sunday... We were just glad to be with God's people. We didn't know we had to choose an eschatology. We were just glad that one day we would be with Jesus.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

In a perfect world everyone would be just like me.

:1_grouphug:

 

[glfredrick]

To take the conversation in a slightly different direction, but one pertinent to the topic, I've also seen a move here on the board and in actual churches to disavow a theological position BECAUSE of the debate/disagreement that theological positions engender.

That is just as false a position as is taking a substantive stance on one particular theology without reconciling it to Scripture. There is no way to escape theology as long as we are involved in biblical church work.

Some have suggested that we "just have Jesus and the Bible..." but that IS a theological position, albeit an uninformed and very simplistic view that probably fails to deal with any number of issues, but a position nonetheless.

Knowing one's (or one's church's) theological stance is actually critical to lay out a direction, establish a purpose, and accomplish the tasks that Christ set before His church. We all (or at least we all should!) agree that evangelism is a prime directive of Christ. We all (same) agree that discipleship of the evangelized ones is also a prime directive. But how we approach those tasks is largely dependent on how we see God, how we believe God works, the response of humankind, etc., all of which are part and parcel of a theological mindset.

In that light, I reject a non-theological stance, just as I reject a Pelagian (human-centered) stance and a hyper-Calvinistic (deterministic) stance as non-biblical and untenable.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I would like to ask a question regarding what I bolded. Do you mean this in regards to taking membership, or that you wouldn't want a "non-cal" in your church house, period. I am thinking it is the former and not the latter. If it is the former, I understand your stance on this. It would make things "uneasy" if there are a bunch of people on opposing sides in a church. Harmony in the church is a core essential to "church health", if you ask me. FTR, by my typing "Calvinist", or "Calvinism", I mean it with no ill will on my part. Its just that most of what I have read, these are the most common words used in association with this belief system, and I know that DoG is used as well. But I truly mean nothing "ill" towards you when I use those terms.



FTR, I do have a "name"; blood bought child of the King!!! This is the name I cherish more than anything, praise His sweet name!!




Good advice for any DoG to follow. But most of all, we need to led by God. If He leads, and we follow after Him, then He will put us(both "C" and "A") where He wants us to work for Him!!

i am I AM's!!

Willis

Willis, we are both Christians & both have the right to claim "blood bought child of the King" though that would be difficult to type. Note that while I dont like the name "Calvinist" since I believe in Credo Baptism, its easier to type.

Any Christian church should be professing Christ so you are welcome, after all, its His church ..... My favorite Scripture is 1 John 5: 11 & 12....And this is the testimony" God has given us eternal life, and this life is in the Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Truly, we are both Brothers. I just don't like squaring off in the areas that have caused petty discention

 

[JesusFan]

The Birth,death , and resurrection Of Jesus.....are the historic facts of the gospel



What is being ignored here is......according to the scriptures

What scriptures? What do the scriptures teach concerning these historical facts?
This takes study of all the scriptures. God has given pastors and teachers for this purpose. A careful study leads to the doctrines of grace.
A shallow study comes up short,and defective....that is one reason of how many a church cannot protect their people, from cults and charismatics.

Every church takes a doctrinal stand.....weak or strong.

Some take weak or heretical stands......woman preachers, liberal churches, sodomites in the pulpit,,continuing supposed gifts,etc

Others take stronger confessional stands....sometimes this issue can be that simple

When Spurgeon or calvinists say calvinism is the gospel...they are saying that the historical facts listed in 1 cor15.....when studied out according to all the scriptures.....show Jesus dying a Covenant death for those The Father has purposed for Him to redeem:


Then you have others who resist,and boast that they have resisted these truths for 40 years, or their pastor never preaches these truths.
Some say....they could never worship a God who does what calvinists teach?
That is to invite disaster,saying you could not worship God who does what He wills to do.

excuse my igrorance on this subject...

Dont BOTh we Calvinist and Arminians believe teach that God is able to do "whatever he wills?"
BOTH saying that God is infinite in power/authority/knowledge/widom etc in ALL His attributes?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

excuse my igrorance on this subject...

Dont BOTh we Calvinist and Arminians believe teach that God is able to do "whatever he wills?"
BOTH saying that God is infinite in power/authority/knowledge/widom etc in ALL His attributes?

I can only speak as a Calvinist.....We call that Sovereignty

 

[ReformedBaptist]

excuse my igrorance on this subject...

Dont BOTh we Calvinist and Arminians believe teach that God is able to do "whatever he wills?"
BOTH saying that God is infinite in power/authority/knowledge/widom etc in ALL His attributes?

Some of us would agree, and be thankful to the Lord for inconsistent Arminianism.

 

[JesusFan]

I can only speak as a Calvinist.....We call that Sovereignty

From 1 Cal to another, I agree with you that the Lord can do whatever He purposes to do...

just asking here, dont Arminians believe same way on God here?

We believe that God ministers his Grace to us based on His election, Arms based upon his foreknowledge, but that does not effect God being Sovereign to both Camps?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

To take the conversation in a slightly different direction, but one pertinent to the topic, I've also seen a move here on the board and in actual churches to disavow a theological position BECAUSE of the debate/disagreement that theological positions engender.

That is just as false a position as is taking a substantive stance on one particular theology without reconciling it to Scripture. There is no way to escape theology as long as we are involved in biblical church work.

Some have suggested that we "just have Jesus and the Bible..." but that IS a theological position, albeit an uninformed and very simplistic view that probably fails to deal with any number of issues, but a position nonetheless.

Knowing one's (or one's church's) theological stance is actually critical to lay out a direction, establish a purpose, and accomplish the tasks that Christ set before His church. We all (or at least we all should!) agree that evangelism is a prime directive of Christ. We all (same) agree that discipleship of the evangelized ones is also a prime directive. But how we approach those tasks is largely dependent on how we see God, how we believe God works, the response of humankind, etc., all of which are part and parcel of a theological mindset.

In that light, I reject a non-theological stance, just as I reject a Pelagian (human-centered) stance and a hyper-Calvinistic (deterministic) stance as non-biblical and untenable.

Hear Hear :thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

From 1 Cal to another, I agree with you that the Lord can do whatever He purposes to do...

just asking here, dont Arminians believe same way on God here?

We believe that God ministers his Grace to us based on His election, Arms based upon his foreknowledge, but that does not effect God being Sovereign to both Camps?

My younger brother was taught by his Arminian Pastor ....something along the lines of God as a say in your salvation, The Devil has a say & you have a say. Now I might have misunderstood but are you giving the entire glory to God if then He shares in only part of Salvation & isnt totally responsible? So here I get confused.

Also, how can one loose his Salvation & pick it up again? If God is Sovereign, why would he do that & allow you as a human to manipulate your own salvation....seems weak to me & not a sovereign God. So I will let them explain their position.

 

[JesusFan]

My younger brother was taught by his Arminian Pastor ....something along the lines of God as a say in your salvation, The Devil has a say & you have a say. Now I might have misunderstood but are you giving the entire glory to God if then He shares in only part of Salvation & isnt totally responsible? So here I get confused.
That sounds like someone who was teaching bekieving in a Carticure of Arminian!

Also, how can one loose his Salvation & pick it up again? If God is Sovereign, why would he do that & allow you as a human to manipulate your own salvation....seems weak to me & not a sovereign God. So I will let them explain their position.

Think that Arminians believe here that one can turn away from grace of God, more like a conditional salvation, God never rejects, but you can commit Aposty and deny the faith, turn your back on Christ, and God "honors" your free will..

I think they would say God still in control, just that he has chosen to allow us free will to a degree to decide final destiny!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Now I am hesitate to do this but I have been reading much on Calvin (Mostly because he is so excoriated in BB that the utter contempt against the man caused me to try to examine who the real Calvin was).

Now from everything Ive read, at every point in his theology, Calvin insisted that salvation is a gift of divine grace rather than an achievement of human effort. The whole aim of his theology, especially his soteriology, was to glorify God for his Sovereign Grace.

I would agree with J. Calvin here.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Think that Arminians believe here that one can turn away from grace of God, more like a conditional salvation, God never rejects, but you can commit Aposty and deny the faith, turn your back on Christ, and God "honors" your free will..

I think they would say God still in control, just that he has chosen to allow us free will to a degree to decide final destiny!

Yes & I suppose we can argue it till we are both blue in the face but I believe that if every true Calvinist was to be interviewed, they would claim that the other position is not exclusively God centered but is distorted in the direction of self.....at least I hold to that. So your point is very valid "God still in control, just that he has chosen to allow us free will to a degree to decide final destiny! This way of believing supplies exactly what todays evangelicalism demands....a gospel that preserves a determinative role for personal choice.