Programmed or not?

I don't think I ever said anything you just said. Please go back and reread what I actually said.

 

Translation: Just what I said...

God bless you weekend, brother :thumbs:

Hows the job search going for you?

 

When on the battlefield one might find oneself overwhelmed by the enemy. When defeat is realized there are two options to the warrior. Fight with all one has left to the death or surrender. To surrender one must put up evidence of his intentions. A banner of white is a sign of cessation of hostilities.
The world is at war with God's will. We who were soldiers in that war against His will have now surrendered to that will. God has called on the world to repent, His terms of surrender. The banner that must be lifted is the cross, as that is the only sign of surrender God will recognize as it was His will that His Son submitted His will to go to the cross.

Our surrendered will is the cross. May I therefore be crucified daily so that His will may be done.

 

Welcome to the Board, Palatka.

I can agree with most of what you said, except for a line or two, one of which is "God has called on the world to repent".

I don't recall such a Scripture, but maybe I missed it, who knows ?

I do recall a Scripture that says "God calls on all men everywhere to repent" (not verbatim, maybe, but close to it). Now, all men everywhere and "the world" may sound one and the same to some, but I submit that "all men" is not necessarily all of mankind, but those of all classes and kinds of men that are of God's elect, and under the hearing and/or influence of gospel preaching.

 

No...no programming at all.

 

And your point is ?

 

1. In college and seminary I was taught to opposed Calvinism, for it painted a bad picture of God. Well, that is what I did for years, until I heard a SB pastor talking about Calvinism over and over again, without even quoting the Institutes or any such.

2. Well, I began to question him from my non-Calvinistic bent and was impressed with the answers he gave me from the Bible. From then on, I began to look into the matter myself and was overcome by what I saw in Scripture, namely, the doctrines of grace, but not without its difficulties.

 

In my case, our pastor and Bible College president used to bad-mouth the Doctrine of Grace and John Mc'Arthur (and that while he quotes Spurgeon in the pulpit, and Martin Luther, and them other 'bad boys').
Made me wonder why he was so frothing mad at Calvinism, and John Mc'Arthur.
Says John Mc'Arthur didn't believe in the efficacy of the blood of Christ.
Then, one night, I heard John Mc'Arthur preaching from Romans 8:28-30, and never once did he say anything negative about the blood of Christ.
That started to turn me.
Became a half-baked Calvinist first, then somebody gave me a book by Dr. Boyce on Romans 9 and 10.
Then I came to this country, and joined the Primitive Baptists.
Ain't going back to the other side no mo', I tells ya.

 

I don't think so.
What those of the Doctrine of Grace have to deal with, and admit, is that in as far as "evangelism" is concerned, in our time, the free willers are the more prolific.

They've got missions and outreaches, tract-giving trips, soul-winning campaigns, and all that good stuff they say God uses to "get souls saved".

That being the case, the "free will" churches far outnumber those of the Doctrine of Grace churches, both in presence and in membership.

Let me speak for myself here.

I first heard the gospel in a free will church. Does that mean that was when I was saved, in the eternal sense ? No.

That was when I was saved, in the timely sense. From atheism, from a life of "hide-and-seek" which my family and I were living, and from a host of other things in this time world.

When I first heard John Mc'Arthur, and began to listen to other Doctrine of Grace speakers, I was already pastoring. I wanted to find a church that taught what I wanted to learn more about, and didn't know where to look.

Although there were plenty of Baptist churches who were in fact Calvinists, I didn't know who they were, and where they were, for the simple reason that they do not advertise themselves, do not join the "evangelism explosions" and all those good stuff that non Doctrine of Gracers do to "win souls to Christ", not that they don't believe in them, but that they were few, and in comparison to choirs, they were a choir of twenty trying to match voices with a choir of two hundred.

I think my experience and analysis could be a small part of the overall story.

 

Your Bible College pres and pastor's grievance against McArthur is that he is a LIVING calvinist, apparently. That's the Sword of the Lord mentality also. The thing about the blood was nothing but a big LIE about JMc. The interesting thing is that he was embroiled in a real doctrinal controvery years ago over a different issue, but most have never heard about it, and just as well because he changed his mind about it anyway.

 

1. I think the reason for more non-Calvinistic churches is because of the Western independent mind.

2. To think of a God sovereignly choosing who will be saved, is repugnant to a mind that has been trained to think individualistically and independently.

 

Compare to

I find this interesting. The OP begins by describing the claim by some that Calvinism is the result of programming, to be OUTRAGEOUS. Outrageous because of course it is a blanket statement without consideration of the merits of each case or without the polling data to support it.

Then, in the midst of this thread, a response on a related topic is made where non-Calvinists, also called "free willers" here, are described wholesally and without the discriminatory approach the OP finds wanting in those using the "programming" indictment, when, about the non-Calvinist group it is said:

Just as every single Calvinist or Calvinists in general object to as being described as "programmed" I am sure that non-Calvinist being described as those with "soul winning campaigns, tract-giving tips (I leave off missions and outreaches since Calvinist churches have both themselves) object to that in part seeing that not all non-Calvinists utilize or believe in such gimmicks. There are many non-Calvinist groups that do not subscribe to such practices born out of another erring doctrine and to neglect the recognition of such groups when referring to non-Calvnist in such a wholesale manner is to practice the very fault being objected to in the OP.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander and failing to apply or observe your own expectations in speaking of other sects certainly diminishes any credence regarding the complaint itself.

And for the fundie Pastor trying to rebuke John MacArthur on the blood of Christ...my eyes rolled when I heard one of those sermons about Mac. Mac is a very gifted teacher and it would be a priviledge for me to have him as a Pastor.

 

Point well made, which is why it is fruitful to post comments or arguments putting your opponent and their views in the best possible light. It's easy to say things that make your opponent and their views appear to be stupid and unthinking(or whatever other pejorative terms you can put there). And often our generalizations of the other side do just that.

 

Thank you for your comment, AQ.
Now what did you mean by this ?

 

Free-willers

I do not see too many free-willers on this site unless you are talking about the saved by grace through faith group?

 

Do they believe God had given them the freedom to choose between heaven and hell, redemption and damnation, Christ or Satan without such choice infringing on God's sovereignty ?