N-C's Really Agree With Much of Calvinism

[reformedbeliever]

Yes, sir.

The depiction of the churches is not only issue of "type" but of "timing." This church timewise was the church that follows Thyatira which I hope we can agree is a major portion with Pergammum of Catholicism. Philadelphia timewise would represent the 1700's revival era.

So it behooves us to analyze both typology and timing regarding Sardis for this discussion -- mainly "How did 'having a name that liveth but art dead' manifest itself?" And the one thing that I see is that the Reformers felt like they were "elect" in Christ "irresistibly" and "unconditionally."

At first it was because they were baptized as infants that they were "adopted" and there was no more need of "works" (such as they believed choosing Christ to be). And they, in fact, railed on the Anabaptists who, though of the same Protestant pursuasion, felt like they needed to "rebaptize" those who made a profession of faith as an adult. The plain truth, in my biblical view of "NameTLBAD," is that there was no condition that they had to meet whereby must be saved. They were saved 'irresistibly.'

Now that is NOT the state of many Reform/Calvinist churches today. They have bowed to what Paul called characterized in 1Cor 11:19 as the pressure exerted upon all the sects/heresies to practice the "manifestly approved" theology of Philadelphia. But Sardis in Revelation is speaking to those who hold tenaciously to the original version whereby you could be baptized and attend church your whole life and presume to be saved.

And there were still such churches (specifically Presby, Congregational, Methodist) when I grew up in Indianapolis as a kid (BTW, I WAS paying attention then -- I got my "God and Country" Award as a Boy Scout which was a pretty intense study of denominatinal doctrine.). I was absolutely "blown away" by the notion that a) God spoke to me in scripture and b) that I must not just believe but receive salvation thereby entering into the new covenant.

Now today I come on board BB and see most Calvinists practicing my same faith but averring the original Sardis. This is what bothers me -- they think that by having a firm grasp on Calvinism, they have a firm grasp on Christianity. And no wonder when some of their teachers claim that "Calvinism IS the Christian gospel," etal. David, most of it's vocabulary is not even found in scripture. Most of its interpretation denies Israel and can't make heads or tails of eschatology. And most of them in the near future (if I understand prophecy) are going to throw in with the Catholics. Why? Read 2Thes 2:10 "...because they RECEIVED NOT ... that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie" -- "the lie"/AC's/the Pope's lie!

David, 2Thes 2 is the church's "Olivet Discourse." Every word and phrase -- even "man of sin" and "son of perdition" -- is church related. Knowing that, I fear what some people describe as Christianity! :tear:

skypair

Exegesis? What can I say?......................... :laugh:

 

[David Lamb]

Yes, sir.

The depiction of the churches is not only issue of "type" but of "timing." This church timewise was the church that follows Thyatira which I hope we can agree is a major portion with Pergammum of Catholicism. Philadelphia timewise would represent the 1700's revival era.

So it behooves us to analyze both typology and timing regarding Sardis for this discussion -- mainly "How did 'having a name that liveth but art dead' manifest itself?" And the one thing that I see is that the Reformers felt like they were "elect" in Christ "irresistibly" and "unconditionally."

At first it was because they were baptized as infants that they were "adopted" and there was no more need of "works" (such as they believed choosing Christ to be). And they, in fact, railed on the Anabaptists who, though of the same Protestant pursuasion, felt like they needed to "rebaptize" those who made a profession of faith as an adult. The plain truth, in my biblical view of "NameTLBAD," is that there was no condition that they had to meet whereby must be saved. They were saved 'irresistibly.'

Now that is NOT the state of many Reform/Calvinist churches today. They have bowed to what Paul called characterized in 1Cor 11:19 as the pressure exerted upon all the sects/heresies to practice the "manifestly approved" theology of Philadelphia. But Sardis in Revelation is speaking to those who hold tenaciously to the original version whereby you could be baptized and attend church your whole life and presume to be saved.

And there were still such churches (specifically Presby, Congregational, Methodist) when I grew up in Indianapolis as a kid (BTW, I WAS paying attention then -- I got my "God and Country" Award as a Boy Scout which was a pretty intense study of denominatinal doctrine.). I was absolutely "blown away" by the notion that a) God spoke to me in scripture and b) that I must not just believe but receive salvation thereby entering into the new covenant.

Now today I come on board BB and see most Calvinists practicing my same faith but averring the original Sardis. This is what bothers me -- they think that by having a firm grasp on Calvinism, they have a firm grasp on Christianity. And no wonder when some of their teachers claim that "Calvinism IS the Christian gospel," etal. David, most of it's vocabulary is not even found in scripture. Most of its interpretation denies Israel and can't make heads or tails of eschatology. And most of them in the near future (if I understand prophecy) are going to throw in with the Catholics. Why? Read 2Thes 2:10 "...because they RECEIVED NOT ... that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie" -- "the lie"/AC's/the Pope's lie!

David, 2Thes 2 is the church's "Olivet Discourse." Every word and phrase -- even "man of sin" and "son of perdition" -- is church related. Knowing that, I fear what some people describe as Christianity! :tear:

skypair

Sorry Skypair, but I just don't know where to start on this. You seem to state some very doubtful things as fact. For example, all that about the churches in Revelation not being churches in the bible sense of the word - since when has "the 1700's revival era" been a church? And even if you rate Roman Catholicism as a church, how do you know that Pergamon was intended to represent it? Indeed where does the idea come from that the Revelation churches were some kind of historical sequence? You seem to take that as fact, but I couldn't see any scriptural support for that idea in your message. (It was a fairly long one so I may have missed something, even on second reading )

You also seem to believe some pretty weird things about the Reformers - maybe I have misunderstood you, but your words "there was no condition that they had to meet whereby must be saved," seem to be saying that (according to you), the Reformers did not believe in repentance, or in the necessity of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ!

A little further on, you seem to be accusing those with calvinistic beliefs of following the pope's lie, and say that most of them in are going to throw in with the Catholics! I assure you, I for one don't believe Roman Catholic falsehood, whether from the lips of Herr Ratzinger or anyone else, nor am I about to "throw in with the Catholics."

You also repeated your claim (which I answered on another thread a few weeks back) that calvinists "can't make heads or tails of eschatology." Don't you really mean that their eschatological beliefs differ from yours? As I said on that other thread, there are all sorts of different eschatalogical beliefs among non-calvinists, as indeed there are among calvinists.

I assure you I am not deliberately trying to be critical of you, Skypair, but so many of the things you say about calvinism just do not match up with what calvinism actually is.

Talking of what things are, what ever is "NameTLBAD"? I tried Google, but got no results at all.

 

[skypair]

For example, all that about the churches in Revelation not being churches in the bible sense of the word...?

If you, David, were commenting on the churches in RETROSPECT, would you say that the visible churches of the past had certain "defects" that make them appear NOT to be "churches in the Bible sense of the word?" Catholicism is a perfect example -- or Laodicea. Do they look like "churches in ANY biblical sense of the word?" From what you say, you seem to make my case!

- since when has "the 1700's revival era" been a church"

Since it was a change in theology. Since it defends the literal sense of scripture whereas the "church" from Origen to 1700 revered 1) allegory and 2) denied Israel and 3) apparently did EXACTLY what I have averred -- they did not "remember how they received and heard" the gospel themselves and "hold fast" to that and "repent" of teaching otherwise!!! David -- many in Sardis "have not defiled their garments" with Calvinist "philosophy." TCGreek doesn't deny Israel, for instance. He does believe more literally than most. But he still does teach the "philosophy" of Calvinism regarding sotierology!

And even if you rate Roman Catholicism as a church, how do you know that Pergamon was intended to represent it?

Part Larkin -- part Spirit. I'm not smart enough to get all of this myself BUT Ephesus rejected the Nicolaitans and relied on councils for the understanding of scripture. Pergamos went the "Nicolaitan" route setting up a Pope and magestry to dictate doctrine to the laity who, they assume, couldn't hear from the Spirit for themselves!

Indeed where does the idea come from that the Revelation churches were some kind of historical sequence?

Dispensationalism. On another thread, in fact, JWWhite has come up with a 4th application of the 7 churches which I think has great merit. 1) extant churches, 2) real theological digressions/progressions, 3) real development over time and 4) (JWWhite's thought) how WE ought to determine if WE individually are "in the faith."

You also seem to believe some pretty weird things about the Reformers - maybe I have misunderstood you, but your words "there was no condition that they had to meet whereby must be saved," seem to be saying that (according to you), the Reformers did not believe in repentance, or in the necessity of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ!

This is where the current Reform as somewhat departed from the original (Thank God!). The teaching is that the "elect" are "regenerated" before they believe. Why in the world would anyone who is saved repent of anything but individual sins? They are saved! They don't have to give up anything! But true repentance unto salvation is repenting of SELF and turning to Christ which they classify as "works." Rebaptize? Don't you dare!! Sinner's prayer? "That ain't gonna save you," they say! "Works!" they scream.

A little further on, you seem to be accusing those with calvinistic beliefs of following the pope's lie, and say that most of them in are going to throw in with the Catholics!

Eschatologically speaking, that is exactly what they will do, Rev 2:22.

I assure you, I for one don't believe Roman Catholic falsehood, whether from the lips of Herr Ratzinger or anyone else, nor am I about to "throw in with the Catholics."

Again, PTL!! But David, there is a lot of scripture that says that the rest of the church will (2Thes 2:10-12, Rev 2:22, etc.).

You also repeated your claim (which I answered on another thread a few weeks back) that calvinists "can't make heads or tails of eschatology." Don't you really mean that their eschatological beliefs differ from yours?

That is true -- and I ascribe for myself and Philadelphia the true understanding of eschatology. As I've heard it in the church of Sardis, Christ is coming again and setting up the kingdom that He promised the ISRAEL. That's it! That's unscriptural, David. Do you know that that is unscriptural??

As I said on that other thread, there are all sorts of different eschatalogical beliefs among non-calvinists, as indeed there are among calvinists.

Yes, and only one is correct, right?

I assure you I am not deliberately trying to be critical of you, Skypair, but so many of the things you say about calvinism just do not match up with what calvinism actually is.

And I appreciate your measured responses. :thumbs: Do you think that Calvinism has "evolved?" I do -- especially here at BB. Most here have a testimony much like my own -- but then they "backfill" it with Calvinist philosophy. I find the same thing with Sproul but not with Calvin himself nor with Augustine (whence Calvinism comes) not Luther. But that is the point of Sardis, is it not??

Talking of what things are, what ever is "NameTLBAD"?

I'm sorry, "name that liveth but art dead."

skypair

 

[Rippon]

Since it was a change in theology. Since it defends the literal sense of scripture whereas the "church" from Origen to 1700 revered 1) allegory

skypair

Again , there are way too many errors and nonsense to address in SP's posts. But I will again speak to his false claim that the Church has only used the literal method of interpretation since the 1700's. I often correct him on this score , he acknowledges sometimes -- then promptly repeats his balderdash.

John Calvin repudiated the allegorical method -- especially that of Origen. He called Origen's method 'Satanic'. That's rather categorical ! Calvin used the literal method of hermeneutics. He was a pioneer in the exegetical approach --although the first generation Reformers demonstrated a marked improvement from that of the Scholastics of the Middle Ages.

Calvin died in 1564 and was using a grammatical/historical method of biblical interpretation for decades . So the 18th century math is off considerably ( as is SP's theology).

 

[David Lamb]

If you, David, were commenting on the churches in RETROSPECT, would you say that the visible churches of the past had certain "defects" that make them appear NOT to be "churches in the Bible sense of the word?" Catholicism is a perfect example -- or Laodicea. Do they look like "churches in ANY biblical sense of the word?" From what you say, you seem to make my case!

I was not talking of "defects", but the way in which "church" is used in the bible. It is never used there of a denomination, or of an era in history. The most usual scriptural use is to refer to a company of Christians in a certain place. "The church which was at Jerusalem" (Acts 8.1), "the church that was at Antioch" (Acts 13.1), "the church of the Laodiceans" (Colossians 4.16), and so on. Sometimes it refers to the totality of those saved by Christ, as in those passages that talk about Christ being Head over the church, and loving the church and giving Himself for her.

Since it was a change in theology. Since it defends the literal sense of scripture whereas the "church" from Origen to 1700 revered 1) allegory and 2) denied Israel and 3) apparently did EXACTLY what I have averred -- they did not "remember how they received and heard" the gospel themselves and "hold fast" to that and "repent" of teaching otherwise!!! David -- many in Sardis "have not defiled their garments" with Calvinist "philosophy." TCGreek doesn't deny Israel, for instance. He does believe more literally than most. But he still does teach the "philosophy" of Calvinism regarding sotierology!

How does a change in theology make a period of history into a church? And are you saying that churches that do not agree with your understanding of eschatology are not churches?

Part Larkin -- part Spirit. I'm not smart enough to get all of this myself BUT Ephesus rejected the Nicolaitans and relied on councils for the understanding of scripture. Pergamos went the "Nicolaitan" route setting up a Pope and magestry to dictate doctrine to the laity who, they assume, couldn't hear from the Spirit for themselves!

Part Larkin? I don't know him. Which book in the bible did he write? If he didn't , then are you doing exactly what you have accused calvinists of, - basing your beliefs on the teachings of a man, this Larkin fellow?

Dispensationalism. On another thread, in fact, JWWhite has come up with a 4th application of the 7 churches which I think has great merit. 1) extant churches, 2) real theological digressions/progressions, 3) real development over time and 4) (JWWhite's thought) how WE ought to determine if WE individually are "in the faith."

"Dispensationalism" is a word used to describe a certain theological stance. But where in the bible are we told that the Revelation churches were some kind of historical sequence?

This is where the current Reform as somewhat departed from the original (Thank God!). The teaching is that the "elect" are "regenerated" before they believe. Why in the world would anyone who is saved repent of anything but individual sins? They are saved! They don't have to give up anything! But true repentance unto salvation is repenting of SELF and turning to Christ which they classify as "works." Rebaptize? Don't you dare!! Sinner's prayer? "That ain't gonna save you," they say! "Works!" they scream.

That is not so (assuming that by "the original", you mean the beliefs of the Reformers at the time of the Reformation.) You are mistaken when you say that they, the Reformers, classified "repenting of SELF and turning to Christ" as works. Nor do I, nor (I am fairly certain) does anyone on the BB. Belief and repentance are essential to salvation - I have never seen anyone say otherwise on this Board. I take it that your "rebaptizing" is in reference to most at the time of the Reformation being against the baptistic truth of baptism being for believers only. But bear in mind that many non-calvinistic churches (Methodists and Congregationalists, for instance) do believe that baptism is for babies, and would view the baptism of a believer who has in their view already been "baptised" as a baby, as a "rebaptism". Sinner's Prayer - not sure what you are getting at. Even the most ardent "Sinner's Prayer advocates" would surely not claim that it is the prayer that saves, but Christ. My own aversion to the use of the Sinner's Prayer is not because I view it as "works", but because it is open to misunderstanding. The words can be said, parrot-fashion, and the person told, "Now you have prayed that prayer, you are a Christian!"

Eschatologically speaking, that is exactly what they will do, Rev 2:22.

Again, PTL!! But David, there is a lot of scripture that says that the rest of the church will (2Thes 2:10-12, Rev 2:22, etc.).

Revelation 2.22 says:

"Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds."​

2Thessalonians 2.10-12 says:

10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

​

You have to make a lot of assumptions there to make those verses mean that those with calvinistic beliefs will follow the pope's lie, and throw in with the Catholics. I don't know about America, but here, churches with calvinistic beliefs are far less likely to be involved with ecumenism, or going over to Roman Catholicism.

That is true -- and I ascribe for myself and Philadelphia the true understanding of eschatology. As I've heard it in the church of Sardis, Christ is coming again and setting up the kingdom that He promised the ISRAEL. That's it! That's unscriptural, David. Do you know that that is unscriptural??

I am sure you did not mean to sound arrogant (and I am certainly not accusing you of arrogance ), but can you not see that on a matter like this, where those who truly know the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour and hold the bible as the inspired, inerrant Word of God differ, it might seem arrogant to say, "I ascribe for myself .... the true understanding of eschatology."?

Yes, and only one is correct, right?

Could be right, but maybe not. An alternative might be that none of us has a perfectly correct understanding of eschatology. Who is the bold (or presumptious?) Christian who would dare to claim that his or her knowledge and understanding of God's Word were absolutely perfect?

And I appreciate your measured responses. :thumbs: Do you think that Calvinism has "evolved?" I do -- especially here at BB. Most here have a testimony much like my own -- but then they "backfill" it with Calvinist philosophy. I find the same thing with Sproul but not with Calvin himself nor with Augustine (whence Calvinism comes) not Luther. But that is the point of Sardis, is it not?? skypair

Not exactly sure what you mean by calvinism evolving. Certainly the nickname as generally used today seems to have come to include anyone who believes in things such as predestination and particular redemption, whether or not they have even heard of Calvin, and whether or not they agree word-for-word with every single thing Calvin wrote or taught.

"Backfilling" one's testimony with what you call "Calvinist philosophy" might be a good picture, depending on what you meant by it. I say this, because before I had believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, and repented, I did not spend my time as an unsaved sinner thinking to myself, "Well, if ever I become a Christian, it will be because God elected me in eternity past, and if He didn't there's nothing I can do about it!" No, it was only after I was converted that I was able to look back and see from the Scriptures (not from calvinist philosophy) how I as a sinner dead in trespasses and sins had been enabled to repent and believe the gospel. So, in the sense that I didn't know about it in advance, you could call it "backfilling". By the way, Calvinistic beliefs do not come from Augustine of Hippo, but from the bible. I know that you don't agree with that understanding of Scripture (I think I recall you saying things like "Elect in the bible means chosen for office," for example), so you could rightly say, "I don't agree with calvinists' understanding of the bible," but please, don't keep implying that my beliefs are based on human writings, whether those of Augustine of Hippo, John Calvin, C. H. Spurgeon, or anyone else. I could just as well say that you base your beliefs on Larkin. (I am not saying that, I should add! )

In spite of our theological differences, I praise God that we both know the Lord Jesus Christ as our Saviour, and that the mists that cloud our spiritual eyes and cause such differences here will be swept right away in glory, as we behold Him face to face. Praise His wonderful Name!

 

[skypair]

But I will again speak to his false claim that the Church has only used the literal method of interpretation since the 1700's.

I did misspeak to the extent that I was thinking about a) eschatology and b) importing substitute ritual from the OT Jews (infant baptism for circumcision).

BUt considering they got so many more words and ideas out of scripture that weren't there to begin with, that too speaks of some other methodology than historical-grammatical.

skypair

 

[skypair]

It is never used there of a denomination, or of an era in history.

When you say that, do you ask yourself "Why these churches in Rev 2-3?? Why this order of mention?? Is there correspondence between what we can study in history and the foibles of each of these churches in similar order?"

Some men have asked themselves these questions -- Larkin for one. I don't agree with his comparing Mt 13 to Rev 2-3 regarding church periods. See, that's when the Spirit comes in with His discerning eye.

How does a change in theology make a period of history into a church? And are you saying that churches that do not agree with your understanding of eschatology are not churches?

No, to the latter. As to "period of history into a church," we're talking about different churches literally and figuratively. It's the figurative part that you are not getting, right? Survey church history. Were there predominating beliefs or characteristics of much of Christianity during different eras? Smyrna, for example -- the church under strong persecution ending in 300 AD when the church was legitimatized by the state and made an arm of the state "Nicolaitan-style."

"Dispensationalism" is a word used to describe a certain theological stance. But where in the bible are we told that the Revelation churches were some kind of historical sequence?

As I've mentioned, there are "time tags" in some of the verses -- like "throw them in to great tribulation" or "suffer 10 days." I believe it was first applied by dispies in the same manner they applied dispensationalism to the kingdom of heaven parables and even to the OT chronology of events.

That is not so (assuming that by "the original", you mean the beliefs of the Reformers at the time of the Reformation.) You are mistaken when you say that they, the Reformers, classified "repenting of SELF and turning to Christ" as works.

Here's the view I get --- you cannot repent unto salvation unless you are regenerated. But if you are regenerated in the biblical sense, you are "born again"/saved already. Therefore, every repentance that comes after salvation is from sin per 2Cor 7:9-11. I guess to me the thought reaks of the Catholic confessional more than of an Acts 2:38-39 salvation wherein they received the Holy Spirit, and hence salvation, AFTER they repented.

I take it that your "rebaptizing" is in reference to most at the time of the Reformation being against the baptistic truth of baptism being for believers only.

Yes, and the "carry over" Catholic notions that it remitted original sin and entered the recipient into the kingdom. In most people's book today, entering the kingdom means saved, right?

My own aversion to the use of the Sinner's Prayer is not because I view it as "works", but because it is open to misunderstanding. The words can be said, parrot-fashion, and the person told, "Now you have prayed that prayer, you are a Christian!"

Yeah, but it not given to you to judge the heart. All in the world the sinner's prayer does is Rom 10:9-10. On another thread in General forum I point to the thief on the cross's prayer or the publican's prayer's as sinner's prayers that we KNOW "got the job done."

Revelation 2.22 says:

"Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds."​

David -- it ain't a "sickbed." This is a harlot's bed ("and those who commit fornication with her") and a spiritual harlot is an apostate from God.

Gotta go. I'll be back later. :wavey:

skypair

 

[skypair]

I am sure you did not mean to sound arrogant (and I am certainly not accusing you of arrogance ), but can you not see that on a matter like this, where those who truly know the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour and hold the bible as the inspired, inerrant Word of God differ, it might seem arrogant to say, "I ascribe for myself .... the true understanding of eschatology."?

I, like Caleb, claim the "land" God gave me. The Anikim are giants and there IS a consequence of not driving them all out of Canaan. But God's Bible does not belong to untruth!! The late Dr Rogers gave a wonderful sermon on what happens if you let even some of the Canaanites stay in the land.

Who is the bold (or presumptious?) Christian who would dare to claim that his or her knowledge and understanding of God's Word were absolutely perfect?

None. But God will reveal even this, right?

Certainly the nickname as generally used today seems to have come to include anyone who believes in things such as predestination and particular redemption, whether or not they have even heard of Calvin, and whether or not they agree word-for-word with every single thing Calvin wrote or taught.

I think you hit the "nail on the head," David. For a long time, even preachers that weren't Calvinists in practice (Spurgeon for instance) claimed it because the contratemps was Arminianism and the possibility of losing one's salvation.

"Backfilling" one's testimony with what you call "Calvinist philosophy" might be a good picture, depending on what you meant by it. I say this, because before I had believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, and repented, I did not spend my time as an unsaved sinner thinking to myself, "Well, if ever I become a Christian, it will be because God elected me in eternity past, and if He didn't there's nothing I can do about it!"

BINGO! And yet the attitude one has after they are saved regarding those without is that they need to be "elect" and we cannot save those who are reprobates SO .... we can't witness and invite just anyone to receive Christ!!

In spite of our theological differences, I praise God that we both know the Lord Jesus Christ as our Saviour, and that the mists that cloud our spiritual eyes and cause such differences here will be swept right away in glory, as we behold Him face to face. Praise His wonderful Name!

Thank you, David. You are truly a brother who does not jump to conclusions on the individual level. That means that our misunderstandings can still be worked out.

God bless!

skypair

 

[skypair]

David,

Here's the highlights of that sermon. It's entitled "How to be a victorious Christian."

God brought us out of the Egypt of sin and out of the desert of growth into the land of victory per the lessons of Joshua 17. It's a lesson regarding the sin of keeping company with the Canaanites.

1) The tragedy -- of Israel's partial possession of the land. Israel was to dispossess the Canaanites of all the land. There were 2 types of Canaanites they didn't dispossess:

a) Those they favored -- because they paid taxes (who served Israel as also do the sins we make peace with) but ultimately we are the losers.

b) Those they feared -- sin, like habits, we don't get rid of because they are too powerful. They "ride in chariots of iron."

2) The irony -- Israel complained to God about not having enough land when, in fact, they didn't possess all that God gave them!

3) The strategy -- for receiving what God promised.

a) Clear the forest: Clear out the clutter in your faith. Ask what you are doing with what you have been directly given -- the Bible.

b) drive out the Canaanites: clear out the things that corrupt or are unhelpful And here's where I would include Calvinism -- because of it's Total Sovereignty and predestination beliefs, Calvinism really destroys personal initiative and responsibility. You don't need "more land" (more theologies) --- you need to fully claim the "land" God has given you (which, to me, would mean revamping their sotierology and eschatology right now)

-- because why is it that the Baptist church is still growing rapidly while most of the mainline denoms (Presbies, Congregationalists, Methodists, etc.) are diminishing? Sotierology, human responsibility, and hope for the future, IMO. These are the things that should not have been cleared out.

That's the vision anyway. Perhaps you can tell me some ways in which Calvinism still belongs on the land and really helps Christianity post-Reformation?

skypair

 

[Rippon]

Perhaps you can tell me some ways in which Calvinism still belongs on the land and really helps Christianity post-Reformation?

skypair

Because itis biblical . You haven't a clue about Church History ( or want to bury it under your throwrug ) because you you wouldn't say the nonsensica;l things you do otherwise. Even Arminians/semi-Pelagians such as yourself benefit from Calvinism and the God-produced Reformation of the 16th century.

 

[Rippon]

b) drive out the Canaanites: clear out the things that corrupt or are unhelpful And here's where I would include Calvinism -- because of it's Total Sovereignty and predestination beliefs, Calvinism really destroys personal initiative and responsibility.

So you propose clearing out the clutter of central biblical doctrines. I think you need to remove your 'scissors-mentality' and return to a Bible-centered theology.
As for your contention that Calvinism destroys personal initiative and responsibility -- more bunk from your keystrokes.

 

[Rippon]

BINGO! And yet the attitude one has after they are saved regarding those without is that they need to be "elect" and we cannot save those who are reprobates SO .... we can't witness and invite just anyone to receive Christ!!

You manage to be consistently nonsensical in your thousands of posts. Name one Calvinist here who believes that they should not witness and tell the gospel to anyone -- indiscriminately. Can't do that , can you ? Well , I suggest that you make a brand new effort to tell the truth from now on.Being mendacious is landing you in the land of the Enemy.

 

[Rippon]

For a long time, even preachers that weren't Calvinists in practice (Spurgeon for instance)

Please demonstrate to our incredulous audience how Charles H. Spurgeon was not a Calvinist in practice. You spout more untruths in a single post than it is possible for most mortals to keep track of.

 

[David Lamb]

When you say that, do you ask yourself "Why these churches in Rev 2-3?? Why this order of mention?? Is there correspondence between what we can study in history and the foibles of each of these churches in similar order?"
skypair

I can't have explained myself properly. My point is that in the bible, the word "church" is never used to refer to a denomination, and is never used to refer to an era in history, yet you link Roman Catholicism to that church of the Laodiceans, and churches (you said "the church" I think) up to the 1700s with the church at Sardis. I know Roman Catholics refer to themselves as "the Roman Catholic Church", but their use of the word "church" does not link with the bible's use.

 

[David Lamb]

Here's the view I get --- you cannot repent unto salvation unless you are regenerated. But if you are regenerated in the biblical sense, you are "born again"/saved already. Therefore, every repentance that comes after salvation is from sin per 2Cor 7:9-11. I guess to me the thought reaks of the Catholic confessional more than of an Acts 2:38-39 salvation wherein they received the Holy Spirit, and hence salvation, AFTER they repented.skypair

Not sure where you get that view from, though! The first part is right - a dead spiritual "corpse" cannot do anything spiritual, such as believing and repenting. But you still seem mistaken when you imply that calvinists believe sinners can be actually saved without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Certainly, when they look back on their conversions, they see that it was God Who enabled them to believe, as in that glorious "but God...." passage, Ephesians 2.4-6:

4 ¶ But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.
​

As for any similarity between calvinism and the RC "confessional", I can tell you from personal experience that it is not so. Before my conversion to Christ, I was in what we call a "high" Anglican church, that is, an Anglican church holding to many RC practices (such as the mass, confession to an earthly "priest", referring to the clergyman as "Father", and so on). God brought me to see from His Word that such things were wrong, and in no way did they make me a Christian. After my conversion, I was particularly on the lookout for anything that smacked of the false doctrines I had formerly believed. Yet I have never, ever, in the 40 years I have been a Christian, heard or read anything that even suggested that the so-called "sacrament of penance" (the "confessional") is right.

 

[David Lamb]

Yes, and the "carry over" Catholic notions that it remitted original sin and entered the recipient into the kingdom. In most people's book today, entering the kingdom means saved, right? skypair

Sorry, Skypair, you must be using "Calvinist" in a different way to the way others seem to use it. I certainly have never met, or read of, a calvinist who believes that anyone apart from God can forgive sins. Does anyone on this Board believe that human beings can forgive sins apart from sins against self)? I hope not!

 

[David Lamb]

Yeah, but it not given to you to judge the heart. All in the world the sinner's prayer does is Rom 10:9-10. On another thread in General forum I point to the thief on the cross's prayer or the publican's prayer's as sinner's prayers that we KNOW "got the job done."
skypair

No, I never claimed that it was given to me to judge the heart. I think I agree with you here. (is the moon blue today? :laugh: ) I have come across sincere but (in my view) misguided Christians who tell sinners something like, "Pray the words on this card......good...now you are a Christian!"

 

[David Lamb]

David -- it ain't a "sickbed." This is a harlot's bed ("and those who commit fornication with her") and a spiritual harlot is an apostate from God. skypair

I have looked in several English translations. Some say just "bed", some "sickbed" or "bed of sickness". But you still have not dealt with my original point here, when I wrote:

You seem to be accusing those with calvinistic beliefs of following the pope's lie, and say that most of them in are going to throw in with the Catholics!

​

You replied to this in post 43:

Eschatologically speaking, that is exactly what they will do, Rev 2:22.

​

So I hope you won't mind if I try asking again. Where does it say (in Revelation 2.22, or anywhere else in the bible) that those following the doctrines known as "calvinism" will the pope's lie, or throw in their lot with the Catholics?

(I will try to get to your other points later, but for now I am going to give it a break, because there are other things - like sermon preparation - demanding my attention, apart from the BB. :laugh: )

 

[skypair]

Per your post previous to the on I quote below --- do you propose that we should teach the history from the pulpit? Would you, indeed, teach the blemishes along with the fact that Reformers turned us from false doctrine? How about that the church should control the state? How about that we should compel citizens to be members and burn heretics at the stake? How serious are you willing to get about teaching the doctrines of men?

So you propose clearing out the clutter of central biblical doctrines. I think you need to remove your 'scissors-mentality' and return to a Bible-centered theology. As for your contention that Calvinism destroys personal initiative and responsibility -- more bunk from your keystrokes.

I think it is important for you to note that I don't take those scissors to the Bible -- the Spirit of God. We can get our doctrine from the Bible and it will surely be less tainted as the history of Catholicism and its magesterium shows.

skypair

 

[skypair]

I can't have explained myself properly. My point is that in the bible, the word "church" is never used to refer to a denomination, and is never used to refer to an era in history, ...

But just like the children of Israel, the church has drifted into numerous errors. In the OT for instance, during the days of Jeremiah the worshipped the "queen of heaven." (Jer 7, 44) Another time Baalam. In Jesus day, they did none of the above but were legalists. None of the prophets quit calling them the children of Israel or house of Israel. There was no overt mention of "denominations" within the Jewish religion though most within it weren't true spiritual Israel, right?

But today the church has developed along what we recognize as denominational theologies and doctrines and we distinguish one part of the church from another in that way. Why? Basically because we, like Jesus, reject certain notions that have slipped into other denoms.

skypair