My Approach to Calvinism

Thanks, but a hearty no thanks! It's just the same arguments over and over like an endless hamster wheel going round and round! :sleep:

 

Maybe, maybe not (this is not a burning issue for everyone), but even so, I would not try to decide it based on posts on the BB.

 

Don't believe you can convince yourself anymore that you can decide for yourself....... Think the Bible says something about having eyes to see and ears to hear. All the study of scripture is futile with out said sight and hearing.

 

Amen TCG, and again I say Amen!

 

So God decided that those who do not hold to Calvinism do so because God determined they were not to have ears to hear and eyes to see. Isn't this scripture reference about the unsaved? Are you equating the those who are not Calvinist to the unsaved? You lost me here.

 

I've noticed this in myself, too. I think it's called the "brick wall." :laugh:

Although God wants us to be "united in the knowledge and faith of Jesus Christ," Eph 4:13 (which has been my endeavor with no cooperation from the other side), there are some huge issues that seem insurmountable.

1) The triune nature of man. If people are just going to insist that the whole spiritual man is "dead" -- that men can't even think for themselves -- then there is no getting around that to the truth.

2) The issue of whether belief and faith are different terms. If both mean faith, then yes, we are left with regeneration precedes faith. But most biblicists disgree that we can be given the new birth, faith, spiritual gifts, or anything else for doing nothing (i.e. without hearing, knowing, believing, repenting).

3) Sin nature/original sin/total depravity/born in sin. If the Calvies/DoGers are right, then we never were born the first time and it's silly for them to be talking about being "born again" or REgenerated.

4) DoGers are generally completely out of touch with a) Israel, b) God's covenants with them, and, c) therefore, with biblical eschatology. They have "boxed God up" into their limited view of theology and discarded or ignored what doesn't fit. I find it very strange, indeed, that they cannot even "hear" (re: 1Cor 2:14) these teachings.

I believe that all this DISunity would "melt away" if believers (Eph 4:3-6) would prayerfully study their Bibles and not rely on the confessions, the specious vocabularies, and the interpretations of men.

When we evangelize, we're not out to "uncover the elect" and damn the rest, are we (well, maybe your "emerging church" is. It seems to be their "mission" to find those who already share the Spirit/are regenerate.). Can we, when we evangelize, tell someone how to be saved? Or are we on such a "different page" that even that is impossible for believers to do?

And if we can lead them to salvation, why would we not believe that anybody and everybody can be saved? Are we offering a false gospel if we preach it "unbelieving" in this way?

OK, off the soapbox. I am willing to continue with anyone who would like to examine and refine their 'knowledge and faith" of these issues realizing that this is not just about the here and now but about how we arrive before the judgment seat of Christ with either gold, silver, and precious stones or wood, hay, and stubble.

skypair

 

I would like to add my two cents worth.

Debate so often involves so much ego that it can wear us down. After a while it seems futile to continue in an arguement with which there seems to be no end. We all hope to convince the other of our positions. Yet this rarely if ever, happens.

I once asked myself what I thought I was doing in a debate such as these. I too convinced myself that I'm defending the faith. When truthfully I found I had to be careful not to feed the sin I had with in. ("Pride");
"We must take heed not only of our sins, but of our good works"

"This was the saying of a precious saint that he was more afraid of his duties than of his sins; for his duties often made him proud, but his sins always made him humble". It was good counsel Luther gave.

The real test is to learn to debate with out feeding the ego when you think you've won. Also to be able to absorb the real truth humbly when we find it.

Myself I keep tripping over pride while convinced I was being humble.

MB

 

So, what's the reason for starting this post if you don't want to debate the issue anymore? Seems like a cheap parting shot at anyone who doesn't agree with "your" interpretation of scripture and particularly the so called "doctrines of grace." If I'm wrong I apologize for misunderstanding. If I'm not then we can be sure, with this type of attitude, that we will be fighting each other over Calvinism rather than carrying out the Great Commission. Satan is laughing.

 

I am only saying that Salvation is of the LORD! What we know of Him is only what He reveals to us.

Or in the words of Jesus, "All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him."

 

My approach to Calvinism? ...Depends; usually on what they are promoting, where and when. Usually, I passively ignore it and let the debate go for what it’s worth, other times I’m inclined to reach down to the base foundations of it and rip it out by the roots, but when it is meant to be an interruption, concerning election, and during the Gospel message I’m providing to a seeker, I’m apt to go directly for the jugular vein.

 

There is no "triune nature of man".People have a body and a soul (which also means spirit).

The biblical fact of people being dead in sin will not yield to your protestations.Being dead and sin does not mean that people can't think.That's your tendency to mischaracterize coming out again.

2) The issue of whether belief and faith are different terms. If both mean faith, then yes, we are left with regeneration precedes faith.
[/quote]

Yes, belief = faith.Yes again, regeneration precedes faith.

Speaking of silly ...

Since the Bible does teach that all of us have a sin nature and that we are totally depraved and born in sin Calvinists agree with the Bible on those scores.The last 22 words of yours are outlandishly absurd.

There you go again saying that Calvinists are unregenerate.You are not even capable of blushing because you have no shame.

Calvinists do rely on their Bibles.That's the source of their beliefs.Yet some prominent beliefs are codified in good,biblical Confessions such as the 1689.

You rely on Mr.Rogers for many of your semi-Pelagian ideas which are not biblical -- just interpretations of men.

We do no damning.That's just another item to add to your pile of falsehoods.It's not our mission to share only with those who are regenerate.If that's the case why would the Lord have led me in just the last few days to share the Gospel with about 4 people who certainly are 4-square against God?

Face it.You're always on your soapbox.

I don't have time to address your other errors.I have more important things to do like brushing my teeth.

 

I can think of our very important reason --- "UNITY." I can think of another -- so some can get rid of their "wood, hay, and stubble" before the judgment seat of Christ makes them look like the 2 foolish "little pigs" (I have this theory that the story of the 3 little pigs is a "take off" in some way of the judgment scene in 1Cor 3:13.).

If you say you don't agree with all of Calvinism, then what does that make it to you -- "cocktail information?" Isn't it just possible that the whole thing ought to be "torched?"

Calvinism, like Catholicism before it, is a "working model." It is the best they could do with the information they had. Unfortunately, it has been elevated to the status of "gospel" some even averring that it IS the gospel of Jesus Christ.

TC, it's a "working model." If we take the parts that are right along and the parts that aren't, we have a better model and we don't have a flawed model anymore. I am proposing alterations that more truly reflect what "scripture alone" says. Mine is not scripture + Calvinism, nor is it scripture + the Book of Mormon, nor is it scripture + tradition, nor any other competing source.

Surely admitting that the DoG has things with which you disagree, you are willing to investigate whether we ought to have a new "model," no?

I have this notion that it "emerged" from the Reform/Calvinist theology. Obviously you wouldn't find it "all bad."

One other thing came to mind yesterday. I was watching an abortion debate on Ankerburg where the respondents agreed that "abortion was the taking of "innocent life." But think about it -- this gets right to the heart of the issue of sin nature/original sin/total depravity, doesn't it? Couldn't a Calvinist be used to say that, no, no flesh is "innocent" -- not even in the womb -- and, therefore, abortion is OK?

skypair

 

I just had to comment on this one statement of your's. Your theology certainly isn't scripture alone. If it were you would not believe in a works for Salvation doctrine. You believe that you choose Christ and that alone isn't scriptural. It's more Billy Graham than anything else. The Salvation process is all of God, and the choice you claim you made has nothing to do with it.

Your doctrine refuses to admit that you just cannot do the works of God( Namely Believe) Your belief is the results of God's work and you claiming that you had a part in your own Salvation is boasting of your self.

My doctrine isn't perfect either. I wish it were but when Christ comes again it will be.

Unity is for ecumenists the only real unity that will ever be is the body, with Christ, at the second coming.
MB