Man Saved Out of Calvinism Gives Testimony at SBC

[glad4mercy]

I am completely on the same page with TC on particular redemption. His list is accurate also.
SovereignGrace at one time opposed those things as well but he now understands it.
not sure about kyred...he could be a universalist

Look at post 41 of the Pelagian boogie man thread. It was posted by TC. Do you agree with it?

I said the SAME thing to you the other day and you strongly disagreed with me.

 

[Yeshua1]

Nor the sacraments

You mean the ordinances?

 

[Revmitchell]

Are you calling me a dog?

Stupid question

 

[TCassidy]

Stupid question

Stupid answer.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You mean the ordinances?

No I do not... they believe you must go to the sacraments. Start reading what Orthodox Presbyterians believe

Orthodox Presbyterian Church

 

[Katarina Von Bora]

Stupid question

Name calling is not the hallmark of Christianity.

James 1:26English Standard Version (ESV)

26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.

 

[Covenanter]

I've read the first few posts. Surely most of us can testify - I was saved out of......

I was baptized into the church of England, and taught that I was a Christian. I went to church, Bible class, discussed Billy Graham at school, went on a coach trip to Wembley stadium to hear him, but never doubted. My salvation.

Then I was introduced to a Calvinist pastor who asked me about personal salvation. I thought back and realized I was saved a few months before.

Particular redemption, Christ died for me.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Reformed.
Iconoclast.
tyndale1946.
Rippon.
The Archangel.
thatbrian.
Rhetorician.
Yeshua1.
Dr. Bob.

And several more.

And me...

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

If this man was "saved out of Calvinism" he was lost while a member of the PCA church and while a member of a Baptist church. The PCAUSA is a very modernist denomination so I am not surprised he was taken into their membership while lost, but to join a Baptist church you must give a testimony of your salvation (at least in my experience) so, in order to be a member he must have lied to that church. So, he got saved out of being lost, not out of calvinism, for calvinism is a soteriological issue dealing with salvation.

Same as a PCA church. In fact, you normally have to attend a new member's class (which lasts 4-6 weeks at our church), meet with the elders and the senior pastor, and give your testimony.

 

[Revmitchell]

Name calling is not the hallmark of Christianity.

James 1:26English Standard Version (ESV)

26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.

Good thing I didn't do it

 

[Bill Martinson]

Though I'm still an SBC member, I left my SBC church and its megalomaniacal "pastor" and currently attend a PCA church with a solid, humble Calvinistic pastor who actually pastors. Like TCassidy, I have issues with certain beliefs that I cannot square with scripture, such as infant baptism. I'm trying to study various positions along the Calvinist-Arminian spectrum to understand how they line up with scripture. My current "best understanding" is that both extremes correctly state certain biblical truths, but then they make inferences and draw conclusions that are at odds with other biblical truths. But anyway, that's just a snapshot of my background and not the real reason I'm daring to post today.

I'm daring to post today because I weary of having the same experience over and over again on this board. I occasionally find myself on BB because of an internet search or a digest email sent to my inbox, and I come here hungry to learn, but it always ends up the same way: opposing camps hurling insults at each other and doing all these arrogant and ridiculous mic-drops. Then multiple posts of people arguing about which of them is the more rude or the more arrogant or the more unwilling to learn or the more in open rebellion to God's Word. A lot of education and knowledge (and opinion) is on display, but very little maturity.

Enough already. Stop acting like jerks.

TCassidy, you have some good things to say and I agree with you on many points, but you do come off as arrogant and condescending. A lot. (And that's an especially bad thing for a forum administrator; it's toxic to the long-term health of any online community. A higher standard applies to those in authority, whether they like it or not.) None of us like to receive negative feedback. But our response to it — whether we go off to ponder and pray, or simply blame others for sharing the observation with us — speaks volumes. One response communicates spiritual and emotional maturity, and the other ... well, let's just say it doesn't.

All of you, learn how to disagree without all the childish retorts. If you can grow your emotional maturity to even half the level of your education and knowledge, then maybe you'll have something great to offer.

1 Corinthians 13, people. Don't be clanging gongs. My eardrums can't take it any more.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Though I'm still an SBC member, I left my SBC church and its megalomaniacal "pastor" and currently attend a PCA church with a solid, humble Calvinistic pastor who actually pastors. Like TCassidy, I have issues with certain beliefs that I cannot square with scripture, such as infant baptism. I'm trying to study various positions along the Calvinist-Arminian spectrum to understand how they line up with scripture. My current "best understanding" is that both extremes correctly state certain biblical truths, but then they make inferences and draw conclusions that are at odds with other biblical truths. But anyway, that's just a snapshot of my background and not the real reason I'm daring to post today.

As a fellow recovering Baptist and current PCA member, welcome to the BBoard.

 

[Yeshua1]

Though I'm still an SBC member, I left my SBC church and its megalomaniacal "pastor" and currently attend a PCA church with a solid, humble Calvinistic pastor who actually pastors. Like TCassidy, I have issues with certain beliefs that I cannot square with scripture, such as infant baptism. I'm trying to study various positions along the Calvinist-Arminian spectrum to understand how they line up with scripture. My current "best understanding" is that both extremes correctly state certain biblical truths, but then they make inferences and draw conclusions that are at odds with other biblical truths. But anyway, that's just a snapshot of my background and not the real reason I'm daring to post today.

I'm daring to post today because I weary of having the same experience over and over again on this board. I occasionally find myself on BB because of an internet search or a digest email sent to my inbox, and I come here hungry to learn, but it always ends up the same way: opposing camps hurling insults at each other and doing all these arrogant and ridiculous mic-drops. Then multiple posts of people arguing about which of them is the more rude or the more arrogant or the more unwilling to learn or the more in open rebellion to God's Word. A lot of education and knowledge (and opinion) is on display, but very little maturity.

Enough already. Stop acting like jerks.

TCassidy, you have some good things to say and I agree with you on many points, but you do come off as arrogant and condescending. A lot. (And that's an especially bad thing for a forum administrator; it's toxic to the long-term health of any online community. A higher standard applies to those in authority, whether they like it or not.) None of us like to receive negative feedback. But our response to it — whether we go off to ponder and pray, or simply blame others for sharing the observation with us — speaks volumes. One response communicates spiritual and emotional maturity, and the other ... well, let's just say it doesn't.

All of you, learn how to disagree without all the childish retorts. If you can grow your emotional maturity to even half the level of your education and knowledge, then maybe you'll have something great to offer.

1 Corinthians 13, people. Don't be clanging gongs. My eardrums can't take it any more.

Try a Reformed Baptist church...

 

[Bill Martinson]

Try a Reformed Baptist church...

"Reformed" is something that I approach with some care and caution. Sometimes it means I'm in for some productive discussion, while other times it's a harbinger of cage-stage flexing. I think I need to get better at navigating between the two. Even if I can learn to give the latter a wide berth, right now I'm not in need of any more conversations where some well-meaning man tries to earnestly convince me that neither of us has ever had an ounce of free will and every decision we've ever made in life was pre-programmed. I especially enjoy the part where they eye me with pity when I don't readily agree.

Although that is still better than the tiny little church I visited because it advertised itself as "Berean," in which the pastor's entire sermon was on... geocentrism.

 

[TCassidy]

some well-meaning man tries to earnestly convince me that neither of us has ever had an ounce of free will and every decision we've ever made in life was pre-programmed.

Excellent example of why such discussions never bear fruit. No person who actually understands Particular Redemption would ever make such a statement.

Free will has absolutely nothing to do with making decisions or making choices. Free will is nothing more than a failure to understand that the will of the lost man is not free. It is in bondage to the law of sin and death. Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

People make decisions and choices every day. To suggest otherwise, or that anyone is saying otherwise, is pure folly.

 

[Bill Martinson]

Free will has absolutely nothing to do with making decisions or making choices. Free will is nothing more than a failure to understand that the will of the lost man is not free. It is in bondage to the law of sin and death. Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

The scripture you quoted does not prove the claims you make. Romans 8:2 states that Paul, and by natural implied extension all the redeemed, are free from the law of sin and death; it does not state that lost men have no free will, nor that free will has nothing to do with decision making. Not directly, certainly, and as far as I know not indirectly, either. (If there are scriptures showing that the law of sin and death states those things, I would very much like to hear them.)

This is probably a good exemplar of the conversations I've had on this topic. A claim plus a verse, minus sufficient applicability to the claim, does not make the case. I have yet to hear an anti-free-will argument that was biblically compelling. In between the claim and the verse, there has always been a gap that is filled with something other than scripture, usually a "therefore I think it has to be" kind of reasoning.

In my experience, the Calvinist position seems to be "I know God is sovereign, and I can prove it from scripture, therefore I cannot see how man could possibly have free will." While the Arminian position seems to be "I know God calls the lost to choose to repent, and I must believe on Christ to be saved, and I can prove those from scripture, therefore I cannot see how I would retain my salvation if as a believer I then chose to reject Christ."

Yet I have never found, nor has anyone shown me, any scripture that clearly states that man has no free will, nor that salvation once gifted can be lost. Both beliefs seem to be conclusions drawn by people who cannot imagine how God's universe could make sense otherwise. Both views start with scripture, progress to extrapolation, but never seem to come around to finding scripture to support the extrapolated conclusions. As a much wiser man than I once said, "Both are correct in what they assert but incorrect in what they deny."

It is very possible that I oversimplify here. It's possible that I fail to adequately understand or describe either or both of the end-of-spectrum positions because no representative of either has yet made for me a compelling argument where the claims made and the scriptures cited undeniably connected in the middle. Thus, what I am left with, as in other areas of scripture, is the understanding that His ways are higher than my ways, my mind is finite, and although there exist scriptures that may seem contradictory to man, they are in harmony for God. Thus I cannot embrace any position that focuses on one set of God-breathed verses but cannot seem to be reconciled with another set.

 

[Bill Martinson]

People make decisions and choices every day. To suggest ... that anyone is saying otherwise, is pure folly.

I have absolutely had in-person conversations with Calvinists who told me, to my face, that they do not actually make decisions, but rather their decisions were made by God for them. "I realized that every decision I'd ever made was God, not me."

This is a statement of fact, and for relating it here,on a discussion forum in a relevant context, you label me a fool.

This is why people tell you that you come off as arrogant. Because you write things that come off as arrogant. In this case it is also ignorant, since you accuse me based on your false assumptions about my personal experiences. For your sake, I hope you are operating in true, Godly righteous anger when you accuse me of folly (Matthew 5:22).

This is another good exemplar of some of my conversations with Calvinists. They fail to make their scriptural point, then they deploy the ad hominems. Why do they think this is an effective way to communicate?

EDIT: And now here I am drawn into exactly the kind of interchange I despise, and complained about in my first post. I apologize for becoming a hypocritical example. Time to go back to lurking....

 

[TCassidy]

Another example of the absolute waste of time these discussions usually are. Just deny what it says. Rather like the Jehovah's Witness's response of "that is just your interpretation." Uh, no, that is what the bible says.

Just like the rest of the folly posted by some General Redemptionists.

1. "Total Depravity teaches that every person is a Hitler, as bad as it is possible to be (or some similar accusation)!"

No, Total Depravity teachers that every part of man, his totality, has been affected by the fall. His body has been ruined by the fall, his soul has been ruined by the fall, and his spirit has been ruined by the fall.

2. "Unconditional Election teaches that God is capricious regarding who he chooses to save."

No, it simply means that no person has met God's condition of absolute holiness that is required to enter heaven. That holiness must be imparted to us from another source, the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ on our behalf.

3. "Limited Atonement means that Jesus did not die for all."

No, He did die for all. The Atonement is sufficient for all but efficient only for believers.

4. "Irresistible Grace means that God drags people to Christ against their will."

Uh, no, it means that God's Grace is efficacious. It always accomplishes exactly what God intended it to accomplish. God's Grace never fails to achieve what God wants it to achieve. God's amazing Grace allows us to see "the splendor of His holiness." (Psalm 96:9)

5. "Perseverance of the Saints means that in order to be saved you have to persevere unto the end of life and if you ever fall into sin it is proof you were never saved."

Nope. We persevere unto the end because we are preserved in Christ unto the day of Judgment and that Christ cannot and will not deny Himself.

 

[TCassidy]

I have absolutely had in-person conversations with Calvinists who told me, to my face, that they do not actually make decisions, but rather their decisions were made by God for them. "I realized that every decision I'd ever made was God, not me."

So you had a discussion with somebody claiming to be a "Calvinist" (whatever that is) who blames God for his every bad decision? I have had a discussion with a man who insists he is a woman. I don't take him very seriously as he is obviously mentally ill. I suggest you not take your friend too seriously. He seems to be quite confused.

This is a statement of fact, and for relating it here,on a discussion forum in a relevant context, you label me a fool.

Actually I didn't. But nice try. What I said was that those who say people don't make decisions on a regular basis have spoken folly. It is the statement that is folly, not the person making it.

This is why people tell you that you come off as arrogant.

Usually it is because they cannot discern the difference between arrogance and confidence. I have absolute confidence in my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Because you write things that come off as arrogant.

Confident. Confidence in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

For your sake, I hope you are operating in true, Godly righteous anger when you accuse me of folly

I am not operating in any sort of anger. I am not angry. I am not sure why you would make such a baseless accusation, but it is just that. Baseless. (And not to mention more than just a bit arrogant. To think I care enough about what is posted on an Internet Forum to make me angry at the poster, in this case, you, seems to me to be just a bit puffed up.)

 

[The Archangel]

This is another good exemplar of some of my conversations with Calvinists. They fail to make their scriptural point, then they deploy the ad hominems. Why do they think this is an effective way to communicate?

So you had a discussion with somebody claiming to be a "Calvinist" (whatever that is) who blames God for his every bad decision?...

I am not operating in any sort of anger. I am not angry. I am not sure why you would make such a baseless accusation, but it is just that. Baseless. (And not to mention more than just a bit arrogant. To think I care enough about what is posted on an Internet Forum to make me angry at the poster, in this case, you, seems to me to be just a bit puffed up.)

One of the issues at work here (and in the discussions referenced by both parties) is the confusion of systematic theology and biblical theology. We all have a "systematic theology" where we make logical inferences from the biblical text. A biblical theology is, on the other hand, the complete story-line of scripture from Genesis to Revelation. Not all of our systematics are good; but, then again, not all of us have a good biblical theology either. And, if your biblical theology isn't good, your systematic theology will be quite bad.

The endeavor of "theology" has to start with biblical theology, progress to systematic theology, and result in proper application to one's life. If any one of those steps is skipped or is, in some way, defective, the whole process turns into what we generally see on this message board.

I've had friends who essentially argue logical conclusions based on their systematic theology. The problem is that you can logically leap past biblical theology because you are now two steps removed from it. In this case, you have constructed a theology based on people's theology rather than a biblical theology. The biblical text is, of course, our home base. Logical inferences from the text and storyline of scripture are unavoidable. Dogmatic and inviolable conclusions made from a systematic theology (rather than a biblical theology) are to be avoided because systematic theologies are not infallible.

In my experience, many Calvinists revere systematic theology more than the biblical theology. In doing so, they construct a new type of theology that is, again, too far removed from the Bible itself to be trusted.

We know--according to biblical theology--that God is absolutely sovereign and man is free and responsible for his actions. We also know that man is never presented as having a so-called "libertarian" free will as he is bound to the laws of the Creator and His universe. In creation, God did not make equals; He made creatures. Nevertheless, man's actions in scripture are presented as being free (Joseph's brothers sell him into slavery of their own free will and decision making process). Yet, God is presented as absolutely sovereign--even over the free and sinful actions of man (Joseph's brothers freely do what God has ordained they do, yet He doesn't cause their "evil"). So, there is a tension between the sovereignty of God and the will of man, but biblical theology provides a welcome corrective to both sides: God doesn't cause the brothers to sin against Joseph nor does He "turn" their actions for good.

The Archangel