Should Christians call themselves Calvinists?

I try to understand why those who follow Calvin think that all others view of the truth is clouded.

When in fact, if they would use all the scripture so that it meshes and does not contradict, they would find that you have to cloud the truth to follow Calvin.

 

:laugh:
That is excellent and hilarious!

Isn't that what Arminians always tell us? I'm not an Arminian! I'm a biblicist!

I am attending Liberty right now and I ahve some wonderful professors but Dr. Towns amuses me by what he calls himself- A BIBLICAL dispensationalist!:laugh:

Isn't that great!

I love the attitude that many Arminians have when they say, "I don't adhere to a man-made system!!! I believe the BIBLE!!!!"

It's just wonderful isn't it?:laugh:

 

I don't know why Arminians and semi-Arminians follow man made systems and cannot see that Calvinism is biblical and all other systems are self contradictory and unscriptural.

 

The Scriptures teach not only that they WILL NOT but the Scriptures also tell us WHY they will not. They WILL NOT because they CAN NOT.

The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God... neither CAN HE.

I refuse to lift this house right now! You can command me to lift it all day long! I WILL NOT!!

Why?

Because I cannot.

In fact I resent you for commanding me to do what I cannot do!

I despise the very idea of getting out in this cold weather, digging in the cold wet dirt underneath the foundation of my house, and pulling and straining and tearing my back up trying to pull this house up. I have no desire to do it. Such a command not only do I find unappealing- but also foolish.

The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God FOR they are foolishness unto him, NEITHER CAN HE for they are spiritually discerned.
I Cor. 2:14

 

So your attitude is much different? You don't follow a systematic theology? :laugh:

 

Not entirely correct. Ours is not based on redefining words and adding asterisks.

God commands a man to repent who He will not empower to do so, and then holds him accountable for not doing what God will not allow him to do. We don't believe that.

Same as above.

We actually believe whosoever means "who out of everyone".

I thought it was your understanding the elect of God WILL believe, not that the elect are made up of those who do believe?

Not really. We don't believe election UNTO salvation.

 

Bibilist

I will not let men label me. I trust God and His sovereignty. He had the Holy Bible translated just the way He wanted it translated and He doesn't need the scholars just like the scholars of old changing it to fit their doctrine. They label people who are something they are not.

We all know from the beginning that He decided , decreed , willed, chosen to save those who believe in His Son. It is in His plan from the beginning. It is the building block that God is using

If men does nothing with His word, God does nothing. That means the preaching the Gospel means something and it makes changes, because He is including those who was not there from the beginning that heard the Gospel of their salvation having believed.

Look around you if man doesn't nothing with His word God does nothing. I have never seen a church grow with man doing nothing but relying on God with out going out. To say man has no part of it is a lie, and we know that from the beginning.

There was a lazy farmer who said God provided the seed, the water, I will let God take care of it and he just threw the seeds out, he had no crop that year and was forced to sell the farm.. The one who bought the farm worked hard. He tilled the rocky ground until it was fine, planted the seed at the right depth, watered, fertilized. That season after it was all done. He had a crop that was numerous. The guy who owed before came by and said God has blessed you. He said back, you should of seen it when God alone was working on it.

Increasing happens with God and man working together if you want to believe it or not. If man does nothing with His word, God does nothing.

 

I didn't say that I don't follow one. I said that it is laughable that Arminians and semi-arminians think they don't.

I think it is amusing when Arminians say, "I won't be labeled!!! I believe the BIBLE!!!!":laugh:

I just can't read that without laughing- that's all I am saying.

 

...yet calvinists maintain their doctrine IS the Gospel. No difference.

The Bible is the best systematic theology book out there, btw

 

The Bible is NOT a systematic theology book, though.

It does not deal with subjects systematically.

Now if you mean that the Bible is its own best commentator- I concur.

 

The Bible is NOT systematic theology. It is revelation.

 

I'll stop you right there. The one does not require or even lead to the other. I do not believe God will not empower some to repent. This is clear from Acts 17 where it is stated God has set man in the exact locations and times in history to seek Him. He has given man everything needed to repent, He has reached out to us. I believe man's refusal has nothing to do with empowerment.

Not understanding this logic. If man is not empowerd to repent, he is being prevented from doing so.

Not necessarily. People eating chicken are eating food...people eating food are not necessarily eating chicken. The converse and inverse of a truthful statement are not by default also true.

 

It's both

Systematic theology is a discipline of Christian theology that attempts to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs. Inherent to a system of theological thought is that a method is developed, one which can be applied both broadly and particularly. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_theology

 

...and it is shown in Acts 17 what the empowerment is.

If the car is empty, yes. Not having the gas is preventing it from moving. If I tell you to drive somewhere, you have a car on empty, I am the only access to the gasoline pump, and I do not give you any...if I tell you to drive somewhere I have prevented you from doing so.

Where is the difference? It's a converse of a truthful statement. How is there no logical connection? Person + action = result.

 

Look...

I would never, nor would ANY Baptist theologian say and want to that place Scripture on the say level as Systematic theology. This means every book written about the Bible is the same as the Bible. This is pretty much what the RCC teaches.

Revelation must be seen as the highest authority. I'm not sure you understand the danger.

Scripture is the BASE from which we GET Systematic theology but it is NOT systematic theology. It can never be changed.

Systematic theology changes based in Scripture. One is to NEVER place the two on the same level. All has ALWAYS been the protestant view.

I have nothing more to say on the subject. Its not even up for debate.