"just" calvinist

[Rippon]

Wow! And these guys wonder why Baptist churches might want to steer clear of Calvinist preachers and leaders! :tonofbricks: No "conspiracy theory" here! This is a well choreographed "action plan!"

Thanks for thw warning, Jerome.

skypair

SP, you are ideally suited for falling prey to conspiracy theories. Plots and intrigue are right up your alley. Add a dash of slander and a smidgen of fabrication and this perfectly suits your personality.

 

[Rippon]

Someone Forgot To Wake This Guy Up

Salvation is for all men because God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, so salvation is for all men and we are the messenger. It is very biblical. But to those who lean on thier own understanding.

Praise be to Jesus.

Nothing can seperate a believer but we can walk away from our salvation only those who are in Christ are the elect. Period.

The young rich ruler was chosen, elected to salvation and walked away.

Are you on automatic pilot or something Ps.?

 

[David Lamb]

So you would also say that no one was "elect" because they were OT Jews? That circumcision, for one, didn't identify them as "elect?" That Israel was not an "elect" nation to bring forth the Savior? That there is no difference in "election" between the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael nor between Jacob and Esau??
skypair

When Rippon wrote, "No one is elect because they are church members," I understood him to mean, "Joining a church doesn't cause a person to be elect." After all, he was replying to a comment made by you stating the very opposite, referring to a comment from psalms109:31: "We can be "elect" just because we are church members." But I may be wrong. If so, I am sure Rip will put me right.

 

[skypair]

The members of the true Church which Christ purchased with His own blood are indeed elect. In the visible Church weeds are growing up alongside the wheat. But those weeds ( tares) are certainly not elect. No one merely being carried along in their earthy lives within a local Church is saved, hence, not elect.

I notice you are avoiding the parallel situation of Israel because you KNOW they were "elect" -- believers and unbelievers alike. Paul said (1Cor 4:3-4) tells us not to judge before the time but there is church discipline (1Cor 5) to "boot" those who are visibly NOT "making their calling and election sure."

Furthermore, technically the "wheat and tares" represent Israel, not the church. It's the "mustard tree" that is the church.

You're basically still "buying" Calvinism "lock, stock, and barrel" though, aren't you?

skypair

 

[Rippon]

So you would also say that no one was "elect" because they were OT Jews? That circumcision, for one, didn't identify them as "elect?" That Israel was not an "elect" nation to bring forth the Savior? That there is no difference in "election" between the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael nor between Jacob and Esau??

Rip: David, the words above are SP's, not mine. It's from his post #57.

 

[Rippon]

When Rippon wrote, "No one is elect because they are church members," I understood him to mean, "Joining a church doesn't cause a person to be elect." After all, he was replying to a comment made by you stating the very opposite, referring to a comment from psalms109:31: "We can be "elect" just because we are church members." But I may be wrong. If so, I am sure Rip will put me right.

Rip: You are correct David.

 

[skypair]

SP, you are ideally suited for falling prey to conspiracy theories. Plots and intrigue are right up your alley. Add a dash of slander and a smidgen of fabrication and this perfectly suits your personality.

Just call me "Mel Gibson!" :laugh: Remember his taxi driver role in "Consiracy Theory?" Good flick!

Me? I'm "sniffin' out" the "birds of the air" that lodge in the church "branches!"

Sardis had "a name that liveth but art dead." Sardis was one of the churches in God's plan yet most of it was dead. Laodicea was worse! Yet both were "elect" just as much as Israel at Christ's first advent, rip! And both have very specific uses for which God "elected" them both in this age and in the tribulation.

skypair

 

[psalms109:31]

Yes

Are you on automatic pilot or something Ps.?

The Lord told me to be strong and courageous

The Lord told me to be strong and courageous

The Lord told me to be strong and courageous

 

[Rippon]

The Lord told me to be strong and courageous

The Lord told me to be strong and courageous

The Lord told me to be strong and courageous

Rip: Well, that's fine. But why don't you type posts that are more conventional, so we can understand them? Try to address more things than your old stockpile. A little variety would be helpful Ps.

 

[David Lamb]

So you would also say that no one was "elect" because they were OT Jews? That circumcision, for one, didn't identify them as "elect?" That Israel was not an "elect" nation to bring forth the Savior? That there is no difference in "election" between the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael nor between Jacob and Esau??

Rip: David, the words above are SP's, not mine. It's from his post #57.

Sorry about that, Rip and Skypair. I just clicked on "Quote" as usual, and for some reason it made it look as though I was quoting Rip's words rather than SP's. I have now corrected my post.

 

[skypair]

"Joining a church doesn't cause a person to be elect."

We differ -- rip and I -- because rip sees "election = salvation." Of course, no one is saved by joining the church.

I see "election = God's purpose." Church members do the work of God (advancing the name of Christ) even though they be "dead" (Rev 3:1).

skypair

 

[Rippon]

We differ -- rip and I -- because rip sees "election = salvation." Of course, no one is saved by joining the church.

skypair

Rip: No, election does not equal salvation.Election is unto salvation.See 2 Thess. 2:13,14.Election is before salvation.No one enters life saved.God executes His foreordained plan in the lifetime of His elect ones.There is the testimony of the Bible on one side of this issue, and the ideas of depraved folks on the other.Election comes long before the work of grace in someone's heart. I know you don't like what Acts 13:48 says, but faith is a result of election, not the cause of it.

 

[psalms109:31]

Repeat

Rip: Well, that's fine. But why don't you type posts that are more conventional, so we can understand them? Try to address more things than your old stockpile. A little variety would be helpful Ps.

I keep repeating them many ways hoping that you will understand what i already said, but it is like a circle you do the same as i do and i have to give the same answer as i already did.

 

[Rippon]

I keep repeating them many ways hoping that you will understand what i already said, but it is like a circle you do the same as i do and i have to give the same answer as i already did.

Rip: I do not think I am the only one who finds your posts confusing. They are strange even. Vary your repertoire. I guarantee that I do not do as you do Ps. You have a unique niche.

 

[psalms109:31]

Confusing

I don';t see them confusing I clarify pretty well, but I seem to have the same answers because you keep comming back with what I already answered.

I'll keep preaching as God tells me to do and He will open thier eyes.

 

[Rippon]

I don';t see them confusing I clarify pretty well,

Rip: Well I guess I was wrong. If you say so Ps.

 

[David Lamb]

Furthermore, technically the "wheat and tares" represent Israel, not the church. It's the "mustard tree" that is the church.

You're basically still "buying" Calvinism "lock, stock, and barrel" though, aren't you?

skypair

Is that really right? Do all non-Calvinists believe that the wheat and the tares represent Israel? Commenting on Matthew 13.25, Adam Clarke wrote:

But while men slept:​

When the professors were lukewarm, and the pastors indolent, his enemy came and sowed tares, degenerate, or bastard wheat. The righteous and the wicked are often mingled in the visible Church. Every Christian society, how pure soever its principles may be, has its bastard wheat—those who bear a resemblance to the good, but whose hearts are not right with God.



​

Now certainly Clarke didn't "buy Calvinism, lock, stock and barrel, unless a biography of him is mistaken when it says:

Clarke followed Wesley in opposing a Calvinistic scheme of salvation, preferring instead the Wesleyan-Arminian positions.

​

I would be very surprised if Adam Clarke was the only non-calvinist who has that view of the parable of the wheat and the tares. It is not a view that only calvinists hold.

 

[skypair]

Rip: No, election does not equal salvation. Election is unto salvation.

Surely you can't be saying that the "elect" won't assuredly be saved? For the purposes of this discussion, they mean the same in your mind and do NOT mean "elect = set aside to God's purposes."

In fact, here's a little lesson on the difference: salvation comes by "justification" with God. Justification, even Sproul will tell you, requires belief and repentance. Sometimes if comes bacause you are associated with an "elect" assembly (Israel or the church) but being "elect" in that manner is not a prerequisite.

"Election" is actually SANCTIFICATION as in "the infant is SANCTIFIED by the believing spouse." Is the infant saved? No. Is it "set aside" by God on account of the believing spouse? Yeah. It is ELECT before it believes because it has some relationship to God (just like Israel and just like the church do). Making our "calling"/justification (Rom 8:30) and "election"/sanctification sure simply means continuing to grow in grace.

skypair

 

[Rippon]

For SP's Benefit

Rip: No, election does not equal salvation.Election is unto salvation.See 2 Thess. 2:13,14.Election is before salvation.No one enters life saved.God executes His foreordained plan in the lifetime of His elect ones.There is the testimony of the Bible on one side of this issue, and the ideas of depraved folks on the other.Election comes long before the work of grace in someone's heart. I know you don't like what Acts 13:48 says, but faith is a result of election, not the cause of it.

SP, if you simply bother to read my full posts you wouldn't pose the kinds of questions you do.

 

[skypair]

Is that really right? Do all non-Calvinists believe that the wheat and the tares represent Israel?

No. I believe only a few have even considered my admittedly dispensational interpretation of the Mt 13 parables. But I find that it is the only interpretation that fits all 11 of them. In the first 4 parables* (Mt 13:3-8), what kind of seed was the "sower" sowing? It becomes clear in 13:25 that a) it is wheat and b) that since Moses, Israel has "slept" whilest the devil sowed tares into Israel.

Then Jesus interjects something totally "out of the blue" -- the "mustard tree," the church. It is similar in that there is apostacy in it -- the "birds of the air"/"wicked ones" find lodging in it. It is also notable that it totally disappears from the discourse (as by being taken out of the timeline).

But in the 6th parable, the "woman" and the "leaven," we see something very interesting. What is the purpose of growing "wheat?" To make flour, right? But this is called "meal." Why? IMO, it is because the mix is "wheat" and something else -- say "barley" which represents the Gentiles (likely the "left behind" apostate church -- Laodicea at least!).

There's been a "false harvest" here, hasn't there! Something make to look like Rev 14:15-19 but conducted by the "woman"/false Christ.

Well, the last 4 parables showing judgments apply to the 7th dispensation -- the kingdom of Christ. When He returns, He will judge the living "wheat and tares" (Israel), the dead "treasure" (OT Israel whom He found when He first came), the dead "pearl" (from the sea of believing but dead trib Gentiles) and the fish (living Gentiles) -- likely in that order.

* In order, the wayside is Adam -- the shallow ground, Adam to Noah -- the thorny ground, Noah to Abraham -- the good ground, Abraham to Moses. If you are familiar with the dispensations, you'll see that innocence failed at the tree -- conscience failed at Cain -- human government failed at Babel -- family failed at Egypt and but the purpose of God has always been to call and bless a people unto Himself like Israel or the church.

[/INDENT]Now certainly Clarke didn't "buy Calvinism, lock, stock and barrel, unless a biography of him is mistaken when it says:

​

No. that was just a general observation regarding rip meaning that he is unable to consider anything that he senses might "upset the applecart." :laugh:

skypair​