"just" calvinist

[Amy.G]

Not at all! I simply adhere to the doctrines of grace. :laugh:

:tonofbricks:

You are bad.

 

[TCGreek]

:tonofbricks:

You are bad.

I got you! :laugh:

 

[TCGreek]

The Calvinist's label has come to be identified ias something else, esp. on BB, that no amount of rhetoric is going to undo.

 

[Amy.G]

I got you! :laugh:

Take that TC! :laugh:

 

[TCGreek]

Take that TC! :laugh:

You've made my night. Thanks. :laugh:

 

[Amy.G]

I can't hear youuuuuuuu!

 

[Bartimaeus]

just cal.

Amy G,
I am a usta-be. I did live on Grandview Mtn. and then on top of Dayton Mtn. Is that anywhere close to you?

Bartimaeus

 

[skypair]

The simplicity found in Jesus is to love God and love others as ourself and God will do the same with us.

Deuteronomy 7:9
Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands.

Psalm 31:23
Love the LORD, all his saints! The LORD preserves the faithful, but the proud he pays back in full.

1 Corinthians 13
Love
1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Israel thinks they are the elect of God to, but they were cut out for unbelief. We are not to be arrogant if God did not spare these naturasl branches He will not spare us either.

Many people who think they are the elect of God will come to Jesus saying I did this and this in your name and He will say I never knew you go away you evil doer.

Keep your eyes on Jesus, He is your only hope for even the elect of God was cut out for unbelief.

To say that the Jews are not the elect of God, you don't know the scripture.

Many of you entered through the words of Christ saying God loved the world that He sent His and whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life, do not let men take away what God convinced you of in your youth.

Those of you entered through election without taking the faith God is giving you through the words of Jesus first. You were being elected to faith when you heard the words of Jesus, but you are not the elect until you believed, you went through the wrong door. You must enter election through Jesus. Jesus is the only way.

EXCELLENT WORDS, Psa 109:31!! :wavey:

That is exactly what we all need to hear!

skypair

 

[skypair]

The Calvinist's label has come to be identified ias something else, esp. on BB, that no amount of rhetoric is going to undo.

I've been trying lately to convince David Lamb of the same thing. Especially in this forum, we are more Baptist-leaning than we are Calvinist-leaning. We know we are saved/regenerated conditionally predicated on faith and repentance rather than upon election. As Psa 109 just pointed out, we can be "elect" just because we are church members, but that doesn't make us "saved."

I guess you are discovering that the title "carries a lot of baggage" with it. Almost like "followers of Cephas" in Gal 2:11 seemed to have Paul wondering what exactly distinguished those Christians from the others and was it helpful (re: Acts 15:35).

skypair

 

[David Lamb]

The Calvinist's label has come to be identified ias something else, esp. on BB, that no amount of rhetoric is going to undo.

I agree. I started calling myself a calvinist here on the BB, because at first it seemed to be being used as shorthand for "I believe in the Doctrines of Grace." However, I recently felt it necessary to say on another thread, "Some of the things you attribute to calvinism are so foreign to what I actually believe, that I must say that in the way you use that term I am not a Calvinist." (That happened to be in a reply to Skypair, but I am not picking him out).

 

[skypair]

I agree. I started calling myself a calvinist here on the BB, because at first it seemed to be being used as shorthand for "I believe in the Doctrines of Grace." However, I recently felt it necessary to say on another thread, "Some of the things you attribute to calvinism are so foreign to what I actually believe, that I must say that in the way you use that term I am not a Calvinist." (That happened to be in a reply to Skypair, but I am not picking him out).

And I believe we can both see "grace" in our slightly different ways (persuasion vs. regeneration) and still proclaim "sola gratia," "sola scriptura," "sola fide," sotierologically, right?

Our main differences, then, are philosophical (nature of God, nature of man, etc. which is what I think Calvinism really winds up being), dispensational, and eschatological. And these issues are matters of how we can know our common God better until we reach the stature of Christ's knowledge (Eph 4:13).

skypair

 

[David Lamb]

I've been trying lately to convince David Lamb of the same thing. Especially in this forum, we are more Baptist-leaning than we are Calvinist-leaning. We know we are saved/regenerated conditionally predicated on faith and repentance rather than upon election. As Psa 109 just pointed out, we can be "elect" just because we are church members, but that doesn't make us "saved."

I guess you are discovering that the title "carries a lot of baggage" with it. Almost like "followers of Cephas" in Gal 2:11 seemed to have Paul wondering what exactly distinguished those Christians from the others and was it helpful (re: Acts 15:35).

skypair

No need to convince me that the title "Calvinist" "carries a lot of baggage" with it, Skypair. In a reply to one of your posts, on the "Total Depravity Exposed" thread, I wrote: "That is one reason why I am not wholly in favour of the term "Calvinist", because it implies that the beliefs are dependent upon John Calvin." Before that, in one of my first posts after joining the Board, I replied to J.D., who had written: "A baptist that is reformed or calvinist does not typically follow John Calvin's and other reformers' teachings beyond the doctrine of salvation," I replied, "Yes, that is probably why baptists on this side of the Atlantic who hold to the "Doctrines of Grace" are more likely to describe themselves as "reformed baptist" or "grace baptist", rather than "Calvinist"."

But I disagree with you when you say that on this forum, "We know we are saved/regenerated conditionally predicated on faith and repentance rather than upon election." Some believe that - I know you do. Others do not. If that were not so, most of the "friendly difference" posts from you to me and vice versa would never have been written, would they? :laugh:

 

[nodak]

Obviously it is too soon to know if I agree with all these people teach and preach, but I am beginning to understand a few things:

The calvinists I have known in the past would probably be unlovely petty people regardless of their theology.

ALL calvinists I have known in the past were followers of lordship salvation. By that I mean they look to their works for assurance, rather than basing their assurance on the fact of their faith in Jesus, or in the fact of His promise concerning their salvation. Perhaps all lordship salvation people do not base their assurance on that, but these folks clearly did.

Somehow they moved from fruit producers to fruit judgers of others.

These people we visited Sunday teach that Calvin cautioned strongly against basing assurance on works.

They stress strongly that ALL our righteousnesses are as filthy rags, and we need the imputed righteousness of Jesus.

So far, I am finding I can work much better with non lordship salvation calvinists than I can lordship salvation dispensationalists or lorship salvation calvinists.

We have areas of agreement: All are sinners. Wages of sin are death. Eternal hell for the unsaved sinner. Eternal life for the saved. God the initiator and keeper of our salvation. Salvation by grace through faith. Imputed righteousness. Dynamic twin truths of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.
Agreement that there is much of God we will never understand on this earth.

So it is an interesting journey.

 

[Bob House]

Just a brief jump into the conversation... I'm not sure what the issue is with so-called "Lordship salvation". Nodak, I think that your problem is not with "Lordship salvation" but with those you knew who were lifted up in pride and caught in legalism. For a real understanding of it, I recommend John MacArthur's books, "The Gospel According to Jesus," and "Hard to Believe." If a person refuses to acknowledge that Christ is Lord and Master, are they truly saved? It is not teaching that a person will give up all sin and be perfect at the moment of salvation, but a truly regenerated person WILL have a new desire to please Christ and to remove sin in his life.

OK, back to lurking (at least for the next 10 minutes)...

Soli Deo Gloria,
Bob House

 

[TCGreek]

I've been trying lately to convince David Lamb of the same thing. Especially in this forum, we are more Baptist-leaning than we are Calvinist-leaning. We know we are saved/regenerated conditionally predicated on faith and repentance rather than upon election. As Psa 109 just pointed out, we can be "elect" just because we are church members, but that doesn't make us "saved."

I guess you are discovering that the title "carries a lot of baggage" with it. Almost like "followers of Cephas" in Gal 2:11 seemed to have Paul wondering what exactly distinguished those Christians from the others and was it helpful (re: Acts 15:35).

skypair

Thanks. I certainly can take away a few things from your comment.

But with the label I never thought of myself as following any man. My lead in the Spirit through the pages of Scripture.

But I too subscribe to the doctrines of grace like David Lamb

 

[J.D.]

Obviously it is too soon to know if I agree with all these people teach and preach, but I am beginning to understand a few things:

The calvinists I have known in the past would probably be unlovely petty people regardless of their theology.

ALL calvinists I have known in the past were followers of lordship salvation. By that I mean they look to their works for assurance, rather than basing their assurance on the fact of their faith in Jesus, or in the fact of His promise concerning their salvation. Perhaps all lordship salvation people do not base their assurance on that, but these folks clearly did.

Somehow they moved from fruit producers to fruit judgers of others.

These people we visited Sunday teach that Calvin cautioned strongly against basing assurance on works.

They stress strongly that ALL our righteousnesses are as filthy rags, and we need the imputed righteousness of Jesus.

So far, I am finding I can work much better with non lordship salvation calvinists than I can lordship salvation dispensationalists or lorship salvation calvinists.

We have areas of agreement: All are sinners. Wages of sin are death. Eternal hell for the unsaved sinner. Eternal life for the saved. God the initiator and keeper of our salvation. Salvation by grace through faith. Imputed righteousness. Dynamic twin truths of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.
Agreement that there is much of God we will never understand on this earth.

So it is an interesting journey.

Nodak, I wish you well on your journey. Consider this - if it's already been covered in this thread I apologize - but the easy believism(EB)/Lordship Salvation(LS) issue is controversial in both Calvinistic and non-C churches. The difference is that Calvinists are generally more unified on the issue than non-C's, and generally fall on the LS side.

Reasons why Calvinists oppose EB:

1. The EB idea (whether implied or intentional) that salvation is by mental assent only. (LS: the heart must be truly converted, and a confession that Jesus is Lord ostensibly reveals that true conversion).

2. The EB teaching that there are "carnal Christians" that will not progress in sanctification (LS: Believers may be temporarily carnal, but can not continue in sin due to the virtuous effects of conversion on the soul).

3. A separate but related issue is "how does the Law relate to the believer?" On this issue, Calvinists are probably as divided as the non-C's are. Rather than providing a summary of the various views on that subject, let me just go to the bottom line and say that I don't know very many Christians that are outright libertines (people that openly embrace sin and disregard moral Law), regardless of the view of the Law. Those that claim grace as an excuse to sin are probably not attending church because, you know, they're under "grace". The real dispute, doctrinally speaking, is whether the Law of Moses applies to the believer in some way, or are we simply under the "Law of Christ", that is, the Law of Love as some say it.

Either way, we are under law. Believers are not "free to sin", morally speaking, and no serious Christian would dispute that.

If this is all confusing to you, then join the crowd. I'm still trying to figure it all out myself. But hang in there and keep studying.

 

[webdog]

Just a brief jump into the conversation... I'm not sure what the issue is with so-called "Lordship salvation". Nodak, I think that your problem is not with "Lordship salvation" but with those you knew who were lifted up in pride and caught in legalism. For a real understanding of it, I recommend John MacArthur's books, "The Gospel According to Jesus," and "Hard to Believe." If a person refuses to acknowledge that Christ is Lord and Master, are they truly saved? It is not teaching that a person will give up all sin and be perfect at the moment of salvation, but a truly regenerated person WILL have a new desire to please Christ and to remove sin in his life.

OK, back to lurking (at least for the next 10 minutes)...

Soli Deo Gloria,
Bob House

Lou Maruneac's In Defense of the Gospel is a good read in regards to John Macarthur's TGATJ and Lordship Salvation. He is also a member here on the BB.

 

[nodak]

Thanks to all for the book recommendations.

I have read John MacArthur, have his study Bible, and find him thoroughly unbiblical. He confuses discipleship and salvation in my humble opinion.

Let me suggest those recommending him go back and read Ryrie's books on the subject, or "Absolutely Free" by Zane Hodges, or go on the web and read Dr. Bing's dissertation on lordship salvation.


I believe the terms "cheap grace" and "easy believism" are dishonoring to our Lord. There is nothing "cheap" about that which cost Jesus His life hanging on a cross.

As to "easy believism"--nothing could be further from the truth than that! The hardest thing for most people to accept is that their works contribute nothing, not one iota, to their salvation. What most people (IMHO) mean when they say they do not believe in "easy believism" is that they reserve the right to be fruit inspectors.

Bob House--free grace people DO believe in regeneration changing the person from the inside out. The issue is do people have to consent to that change BEFORE Jesus will save them, or is it a RESULT OF salvation.

I look at this way: when I witness to someone really thoroughly owned by a sin (such as addiction) the GOOD NEWS is that they can come to Jesus JUST AS THEY ARE. They probably are honestly going to ask me "what if I lose the battle with the bottle. What if I CANNOT change?" And I can tell them that Jesus Christ came to save SINNERS, not call the righteous to repentance. Those that come to Him He will in NO WISE cast out. (Sorry for all the caps--can't figure out any other way for emphasis yet.)

And I believe scripture teaches that person, once reborn, will be a new creation. That MAY mean God will give them the power to overcome the addiction. God may instantaneously heal them of that addiction. Or, God may let them continue the struggle to the grave that they may KNOW their salvation is not of works, but the free gift of God.

Honestly, I think sometimes we are so afraid that if we preach and teach free grace people will have no inclination to follow what WE consider good morals. We seem to forget the Holy Spirit is still on the job.

Truth is preaching works almost guarantees immorality. If the law is my judge, I am gonna have the tendancy to split hairs and find out just how much wiggle room it has.

But if I know my salvation does not depend on keeping the law I am gonna be one grateful person. And that will usually lead folks to good deeds. (And when it appears not to do so, we can still trust Christ. It isn't about my holding on to Him, but His holding on to me.)

Thanks to all for helping me learn!

 

[Rippon]

As Psa 109 just pointed out, we can be "elect" just because we are church members, but that doesn't make us "saved."

Rip: While in this life all the elect become saved. They don't "become elect" as some are unscripturally asserting.Everyone born is under the wrath of God, the elect and the non-elect ( reprobate).No one is elect because they are church members, that's complete silliness.

 

[psalms109:31]

Scripture

Some think they are the elect because they were chosen. The young rich ruler was chosen but not the elect.

The elect are the elect because the remain in Jesus, you are not the elect if you walk away from Jesus.

All men are elected to salvation, but two things have to happen, we have to hear the message and believe.

God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and He made us who believe the messenger. If someone walks away from Jesus thier grace it isn't because God didn't want them to be saved. Two reason why you are not saved one you didn't here the message the second you didn't believe.

So it is mans fault why someone isn't saved you cannot blame God because He wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.