The route to Calvinism

It was a joke, John. Hey, this time I even remembered to us a smiley.

 

Intensive Bible study has never "proven" that Calvinism is wrong. It has never "proven" it right either. The biases and ideas with which one approaches the text gives way to conclusions. Where you come down on, to some degree, will depend on which texts you give priority to, and the degree to which logic drives your system.

The non-Calvinistic approach is given more heavily to logic in some areas than areas, and the Calvinist system is given to logic more heavily in some areas than others.

Having studied the issue for much longer than two years, I am convinced from Scripture that Calvinistic soteriology is the biblical teaching. The time I have spent here, reading the posts of Helen, Webdog, Skypair, and numerous others have solidified that in my mind as I have gone back to Scripture time and time again.

So for all your talking, Helen, you actually had the opposite affect you intended. You have confirmed Calvinism for me numerous times as I have gone back to Scripture to see what it actually says.

 

Way to go! See, even Calvinists have a sense of humor!:laugh: :thumbs:

 

So Helen and I are liars?

It's been 35 years for me. :type:

 

Edited in...

I have been studing the scriptures for 16 years (but seriously for 14) and it was about 6 years ago I came across Calvinism. In those 10 years of PERSONAL study I never found anything that accerted a Calvinistic veiw except Eternal Security/Perservence of the saints (on the whole of Tulip points). And after coming in contact with that doctrine and researching it then in the last 2 and half years debating it I still don't see the Calvinism in scriptures.

When I say personal study I don't just mean I studied what I knew already. But that I actually studied specifically against my own view point - literally. I wanted to know if I could disprove my own view or at least give me pause in it that I may know for myself what is truth. Open thesim was the easiest to discard. Calvism was the only one to give me pause but (IMO) never measured up to the scriptures themselves. I would be a fool to think I have it all figured out and know the best of them all. I only know what God has revealed to me and that is all that "I" know. But like many of the great theologians and men of God from the past, I to admit that I am but in the kiddy pool concerning the wonderous and exaulted knowledge of Almighty God.

 

I wouldn't say that about this. Otherwise, I don't know. I know Helen has said some things that are untrue before about what I and others believe. I know that these things have been aid after they have been corrected. But I will give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she simply didn't understand. I don't want to think she intentionally was being untruthful. As for you, I have never had anything but good conversations with you that I can recall.

But on this topic, if someone says that Bible proved Calvinism or Arminianism, they are mistaken about the issue. The Bible doesn't "prove." As I said, the position you come down on depends on your presuppositions, and the texts you give priority to. Either position can be supported from Scripture. I think non-Calvinism is extremely weak, but it can be supported. But "proof" is a higher statement.

Furthermore, if you say the Bible proves Calvinism wrong, then I am evidence that you have incorrectly judged the evidence, and a great amount of history does prove you wrong on that.

I am convinced you are wrong. That is not proof that you are wrong, but given the overwhelming evidence of scripture in favor of Calvinism, it is hard to avoid the conclusion without extreme precommitments to another position.

you would think you would learn something in that amount of time ... ...

 

I'll just keep on keeping on. Maybe I'll grow up spiritually one of these days. :smilewinkgrin:

One thing I know, those Calvinist systematic theologies I read through didn't do me much good, and even repelled me from the doctrine (as did the Institutes). :tongue3:

 

And that is what it is all about anyway, amen? :godisgood: :jesus:

 

Brother, if you preach faith alone through grace alone in Jesus alone as the only way of salvation, then I will rejoice in that.

 

And that is exactly what I preached today (just got back from the service)--Jesus as Bread from John 6: Bread from Heaven, God's Bread, Living Bread, the Bread of Life. :saint:

 

Amen, brother. Amen. :thumbs: :godisgood:

 

Calvinism is not exclusively about the doctrine of election . I have said often that it is a bit more full-orbed than that . However , I appreciate a good Spurgeon quote ( or several hundred on any teaching he deals with ) on this subject . It is from his sermon : " A defense Of Calvinism" .

I recollect an Arminian brother telling me that he had read the Scriptures through a score or more times , and could never find the doctrine of election in them . He added that he was sure he would have done so if it had been there , for he read the Word on his knees . I said to him , " I think you read the Bible in a very uncomfortable posture , and if you had read it in your easy chair , you would have been more likely to understand it . Pray , by all means , and the more , the better , but it is a piece of superstition to think there is anything in the posture in which a man puts himself for reading : and as to reading through the Bible twenty times without having found anything about the doctrine of election , the wonder is that you found anything at all : you must have galloped through it at such a rate that you were not likely to have any intelligible idea of the meaning of the Scriptures ."

 

If tomorrow I decided to go back to Arminianism (which I highly doubt will occur), and the day after that I died, it wouldn't change the fact that if Christ died and rose from the dead to save His own, and I am one of His own, then I will be with Him for eternity.

If on the other hand Helen or John of Japan or Webdog suddenly decided to turn Calvinist, or at least one who holds to the Doctrine of Grace, because they have thoroughly reviewed their current positions and in all honesty to themselves and to God turned to the doctrine they so hold in contempt, and embrace those who hold to these doctrines, which they so equally hold in contempt notwithstanding any forthcoming denials to the contrary, and Christ did not die for them because they were not one of His own, they will still not be among the redeemed in heaven.

That's just the way it is.

We can huff and puff at each other, and show why the other is in error and why our camp is right, because we have studied the Scriptures and are convinced the Holy Spirit is the One who showed us the correctness of our positions, but the fact remains theology, any theology, is simply a nice name for the ramblings of a finite mind, trying to study and define the infinite mind of God.

Which is why in the final analysis, there can be no intermingling of Baptists in fellowship with each other, where genuine love is expressed for one another, except if both were members of the same church, embracing the same doctrines and practices, and even that will be tainted with human depravity, not necessarily expressed in action more than thoughts.

 

posted in error.

 

Amen!

Never said I held it in contempt. Said more or less that I didn't agree with it. My first contact with the doctrinal system was in my second year of college with a Presbyterian roommate and two 4 point Calvinist teachers. The Presbyterian was a good, godly man who held me up through a very difficult time spiritually. But he couldn't answer my doubts about the doctrine, and the teachers didn't teach the doctrine specifically.

At any rate, that godly Presbyterian roommate who was so kind to me helped offset some bad experiences with Calvinists later on. So I don't hold the doctrine in contempt, nor its adherents. But sometimes it seems that many of the adherents (especially if they came to believe in the doctrinal system rather than being raised in it) hold in contempt those of us who do not accept it. I have seen that over and again on the BB. (Just with some of you, and I'm not thinking of any names except one now banned.)

If you want folk to believe in your doctrinal system, you'd better adorn it with humility and kindness and gentleness. Just my two yen. :type:

 

Cuts both ways.

 

From my expereince the name calling has been armenians against calvinists, especially that they aren't saved.
But,,, isn't the op topic of this thread how onw becasme a calvinists, off topic a little guys.

 

No one says the doctrine of election isn't in the bible. It most definately is, however the mechanics of that election is what we differ on.

We all agree to the five theological truths of scriptures:
Depravity
Election
Atonement
Grace
Perservence/Perseverence

We just differ on the mechanics or extent to which the scriptures speaks concerning them.

 

And from my experience it is the other way around in great measure.

 

Yes it does, Pinoy.

We should remember brotherly love towards those we disagree with, while humbly handling the Word of Truth. That sword is powerful, ever against its own wielder when inproperly used.

I remember something my Seminary Prof. said.
You can win an arguement and loose your brother. It is not enough to win one or the other but we must win them both because that is the true test of the Spirit lead indiviadual.