Posted on 02/17/2002 11:35:16 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
I can see that, but you do have an "edge." ;-)
And your heart really is in the Lord's hands, not mine (Proverbs 21:1).
For that I'm eternally grateful.
If you ever come to grasp this doctrine as a brother indeed, it will produce some of the most thrilling experiences possible in the Christian life.
Well, I have a whole passel of pentecostal friends who might disagree with you there, but let's not open that can of worms...
While I'm sure you see me as stubborn and following a dangerous path, I appreciate your willingness to try to teach me what you believe to be the truth. I have to tell you that in our three and a half years in a Reformed church I tried to "get it" I tried to grasp onto it. But I just couldn't. Now from some of my previous posts, you'll recognize that church had more problems than what I considered to be incorrect theology. So maybe I didn't get a clear representation.
This whole experience did prompt me to pull a few texts off the shelf and take another look at why I believe as I do. I'm fairly certain they will only solidify my position.
I will however, continue to follow these discussions, perhaps more as a lurker than a poster. But ask RnMomof7, she knows I can only keep my "mouth" shut for so long.
The question is Who will believe X..the world is full of those that will not ever believe.
Matthew 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
You fail to appreciate that all does not always mean all..
Matthew 22
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
So who can want to come? What sets Ward apart from the others that refuse to come?
Mark 13:20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.
Are those that come smarter than those that refuse ?
John 13
17 If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.
18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
It is foolishness and pride to believe that you are smarter and holier X
John 15:16
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
He chose you X , He chose you Wade
Not because you were or are any smarter or holier than the others ,but because it pleased Him to do so.
If you want humility remember
1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
May I always be a fool for Christ!
Thanks for asking. The 12-year-old went back to school today. Still whiney, but, well, he's 12.
The two-year-old is doing much better also. But mom worked all night last night and he woke up just about every hour on the hour. Now I'm the whiney one...
Perhaps. But I didn't know about it. I flagged that thread last night and haven't been back there today. It's not like I have foreknowledge or something... ;-)
I noticed *grin*
I am glad the kids are doing better...is your wife a nurse (working nights?)
Hang out Ward it is good to think of the things of God..
I saw it. And I understand "why" you preach the gospel.
But it still stands to say that nothing would change if you didn't. Unless you're saying you have the power to change history or the hearts of men.
No, she's actually an English teacher. But she's working in the accounting office at Wal-Mart at night because we're cash poor right now. This keeps the baby (who was premature and is highly susceptible to every virus known to man) out of daycare. He's kept ear infections since Christmas. He's already had RSV this winter and now the flu. Eventually she's going back to teaching so we can put the older one through college, but right now there's no way we could put him in a child care situation.
You do not know that. As a Wesleyan you believe that God has a plan..what happens if you do not hear and obey that plan? You believe that God will have someone do it. How is that any different?
If God intends that my daughter hear the Gospel from me and I do not do it,He will have someone else do it.You would believe the same thing Ward..God has a plan,that will be accomplished. But that does not excuse us from doing what He wants us to do.
Actually, I know I'm pond scum. I'm well aware of that. And it's precisely that knowledge that gets me back to square one..."why would God choose me, and not my neighbor?"
And there's the arrogance that I've seen (not necessarily on this thread) that "I'm chosen and you're not." Because while I'm sure that mom, jerry and doc don't take that attitude, I have experienced it in the local church.
In all seriousness, I don't think your "Reformed" background is very good at all. If a bright fellow like yourself had spent three years in a really good Reformed church as an adult (or even as a teenager), you would not have reacted to my claim concerning 1 Corinthians 2:14 in the way you did.
My point is that the relationship between monergistic regeneration and synergistic conversion as that of cause to effect is one of the fundamental teachings of predestinarian theology. Even if you had disagreed with the Reformed position, you should have known exactly what the Reformed position is concerning regeneration as necessarily preceding conversion.
Since your Reformed background is weak, IMHO, puh-leez don't just seek even deeper refuge in Wesleyan theology. Give us Calvinists a more open hearing. Wesley was wrong. His co-founder in Methodism, George Whitefield, was right.
You know what Ward I have seen that attitude in my Wesleyan church too.. I think it is part of the sin condition..not God's process.
And that is what we are talking about here process..not the outcome or the product (we are a sorry bunch)
Our salvation does not hinge on how we believe God works. I was saved as a Catholic.I was saved as an Arminian,I am saved today as I was then.
Then why is this an important discussion? Because God wants his kids to give Him the glory that is His.
I was saved in my bathroom 25 years ago, by the grace of God..no preacher, no altar call..just God and me..We have an awesome God..before I was born He knew my name, who am I Lord that you should have mercy on me??
If that is what you experienced, it was a BAD church. Calvinistic theology actually CONDEMNS that. The apostle Paul specifically says "If you have received something, why do you glory as if you have not received it?"
The kind of carnality which you are describing is utterly unacceptable. It is rare, but not completely unknown in Calvinistic circles, I guess. I just haven't seen it in my 25 years since ordination. I don't give a fig for churches like that. (Come to think of it, most of the time they prove to be non-Calvinistic after all, like today's mainstream Presbyterian churches.)
Again, I would like to stress that I don't think you have experienced a good Calvinistic church. And a good Calvinistic church is a good thing indeed. (I am not worried about the neo-pentecostals telling me what I am missing, of course!)
Have you figured out yet that Colossians is not talking about water?
Fortunately, and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. (John 6:37) - xzinsThat's another one of my favorite verses. It ranks up there with John 3:16 in my theology of God's wonderful grace.
How come only a Calvinist quotes the entire John 6:37 verse?
1 John 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...
Check the verb tense; we agree with John. Whoever believes is born of God. The Greek is on our side as well.
Naw! Doc is right! CCWoody--Charismatic Calvinist Woody. There is nothing more thrilling that worshipping in spirit and truth.
Regeneration (born again) happens first. 1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 John 5:1
Are you kidding me? With what your gang tries to pull, attacking every NonCalvinist as a Peligian or worse? Pathetic!
At least a couple times you inserted answers showing you hadn't read far enough to comprehend the point--so anxious were you to try to refute it.
I understood enough to know what you were saying. But then again the Calvinist retort is that no one understands us!
But perhaps I wasn't clear enough--I'll try to answer you. I'm certainly not a Bible scholar, and this is not a seminary level discussion by any means, but I do see some real misunderstandings.
Do tell!
Calvinism swept West in Europe. Correction, Chrisitanity swept western Europe. If you'd read the sentence below, you'd realize I was speaking of the movement of Calvinism after Calvin's death in the 1560s--not the innitial evangelization of Europe in the 500s+.
Well, I believe there were some non-Calvinists around that period also.Calvinists love to try to make it sound like they are Christianity.
Within 100 years of Calvin's death the most dedicated Calvinists were the Puritans of England--many of whom came to America. The ideas which fed the American Revolution and formed our constitutional government were largely of Calvinist background. So, the Calvinist would have you believe. The Purtians also drove out of their area those who would not agree with them, thats how Rhode Island got started. Jame's Madison, main writer of the Constitution, was from a Presbyterian background, attending Princeton. Many of the Founding Fathers had similar Calvinistical backgrounds. You will find many secular historians who agree Calvinism had a central role in the founding of the USA. The very form of representational government--republican democracy--a kind of leadership by "elders" (or presbyters, to use a biblical term) was originally formed for Church government, using the Bible as the guide, by John Calvin. Maybe even your own church fellowship uses elected elders or deacons to lead the church. I hate to break it to you by this is a Calvinistic idea.
I hate to break it to you but the idea of individual rights came from Locke, who got it from the Bible. The idea of the Bible being used as a guide for any gov't is counter to what this country was built on. That is postmillinial nonsense, and results in executions, inprisonments and exile, the very thing that the 'godly' Calvinists are well known for. Despite their formation of governments, which in structure are fine, as long as you are a Calvinist
The Puritans were intolerant--but not especially so for persons of the 17th Century. Keep in mind they banned people for their beliefs, while non-puritans in Europe were executing persons by the score for the same kind of offenses.
Here comes the excuse,' well, you have to remember the times'. The times had nothing to do with it, since there were Christians who advocated tolaration (like the Baptists) and were persecuted for their efforts.
Princeton and all the Ivy League did indeed go reprobate, however Calvinist ideas also were the ground in which the Baptist denominations were originally born in England. Most Baptists, indeed most evangelicals hold to at least 3 or 4 of the ACTUAL (not misstated) TULIP points. Total Depravity (I too have never been taught it termed "total inability") Unconditional election (we do nothing to earn our salvation), and Perseverance of the saints (meaning God preserves us--the meaning I've always been taught, not that we in our "strength" persevere--God preserves so we do indeed persevere, by His mercy alone) and even a form of Irresistible grace (no less an Arminian than C.S. Lewis taught this--from his own salvation experience). I'm not claiming that Baptists are "true" Calvinists, however I would claim most evangelicals who look the the Bible as their sole authority do incorporate many Calvinistic ideas--which have their root in the re-discovery of the Bible in the Reformation period.
Well Orthodox Presbyterian stated that all real Baptists were Calvinists! You had better check with him on that!See how well I did understand you! No, just because we held to Sola Scriptura doesn't mean that we held to 'Calvinistic' doctrines, as least not when it came to the nonsense known as TULIP.
That's one reason the bitterness of the debate is so untoward--on several points the position is close if not identical. For example, the arguement in the posting perporting to "refute" Perseverance of the saints, then goes on to SUPPORT "once saved always saved" theology, which is exactly the main point of the Perseverance doctrine. The man plays a semantic game--demolishing a straw man. Clearly he believes as John Calvin did, that the truly regenerate will not, by the grace of God, fall away.
That is very funny, since no Calvinist yet has stated that he knows that if he died today he would go to heaven! Now, that is what eternal security is about!
And what is your view on Limited Atonement? Can I have the quote from CS Lewis or am I just suppose to believe you? This is what goes under the heading of Calvinistic discussion, just throw our anything and it is suppose to be accepted as 'gospel' It's laughable that the author of the article uses the same language formulation as classic Calvinists use explaining Limited Atonement when attempting to refute Limited Atonement, namely "Sufficient for all but efficient" only for believers (the elect). Why is that so laughable if that is a true definition. The problem with Limited Atonement is that 1Jn2:2 and Heb.2:9 (to name just two off the top of my head) refute it! Only the philosophical view that no one who God died for could be lost makes Limited Atonment part of the TULIP system.It has no Scriptural support. But then again, that doesn't stop a Calvinist anyway. What was laughable, was he uses the same words Calvinists always have to describe the '"Sufficient for all but efficient" only for believers' nature of the attonement. His position is defined by the VERY SAME words, meaning the SAME THING as Calvinists take them to mean... I mean simple logic says that in eternity, you and any Arminian will have to admit, that Christ's blood is only EFFECTIVE for those in heaven. Those in hell will be punished not only for their failure to believe in Christ, but for all the other sins they have done too.
They will be Hell because they rejected the free gift (Rom.6:23) by not believing on the Lord Jesus Christ (Jn.16:9) which they could have if they wanted to (Jn.3:19-21)
The universalist sounding verses used in those "same tired arguments" by Arminians are easily understood when one is educated to the RADICAL idea in New Testament times that God was actually interested in saving people all over the world, not merely of the "chosen people" the Jews.
Now, what are you talking about? In the Old Testament times the Jews were the means by which God was known to the world (remember the Queen of Sheba?, Jonah?) Moreover that will happen again in the Millennial rule of Christ when Israel is again the major country of the world with Jerusalam its captial (Zech 8:22)
Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord of hosts in Jerusalam, and to pray before the Lord
What is really laughable is your defense of TULIP. Who cares who believes in it or not, the only question for a Christian is what saith the Scriptures? Its always been amazing to me that Arminians point to a few verses--disregarding the context--to call their views "scriptural," while when Calvinists can point to whole chapters (Romans 9-11) the Arminians simply attempt to CUT OUT those chapters from the Bible.
I am not cutting out those chapters I am reading what they say. And what does flesh mean to you in Rom.9:2,5?
While I think the arguments of Romans flow perfectly smoothly without trying to narrowly parentasize (read CUT OUT) chapters 9 to 11,
For one thing, a parenthesis is not cutting out something, it is a digression by the author. You must not do much reading.
EVEN IF YOU DO say they only apply to Israel, the point still holds--God has and does unconditionally elect people. Who ever said grace was fair?
God unconditionally elected Israel as a nation to perform a certain task. That is far different then stating that individuals are going to be sent to hell, despite the fact that God could save them if He wanted to, He just does not want to! God gave Israel to the world as a blessing for through her, the prophets, the scriptures and the Messiah came.
You know what I noticed in your post, the same tired Calvinist arguments, No one really understands our view, Calvinism is Christanity, and no scriptures! I'm not a bible scholar and really don't have the time to look up the relevant scriptures. I doubt anything would change your mind anyway. :)
Now how about that? After talking about Sola Scriptura you do not know the Scriptures? Do you know the other tenet of the Reformation? Every believer a Priest and having direct access to the Lord through the Scriptures, thus the emphasis on getting Bibles into peoples own language.
I actually think its a sin to bitterly argue these points, especially when the argument is so poor as the posting article. Get over it! This really doesn't reflect a mature Christ-like attitude.
It reflects the reality of the attitude of the Calvinists on these threads, who think they can call into question peoples salvation or spiritual state on the basis of how they accept TULIP. Since I have started putting up these posts all I have heard is Calvinists whine and complain, just like I thought they would!
These are mysterious issues... no one's will is violated by the grace of God and yet, as with Israel in the Old Testament, God is calling an elect people of His own, for His own reasons... Oh,yea, first talk about the few who God is choosing and rejecting the rest and then talk about how no one's will is being violated. Typical Calvinist doubletalk. Its "doubletalk" to stand in awe that God would choose to save people at all? God rejects no one--we all rejected Him, and yet He chose to DIE in my place!
So, what makes you so special and not most of the world which is going to hell. I infer from you statement (which you never did answer) that you do believe in Limited Atonement. (Calvinists never answer questions, but they love demanding answers)
I never really understood the appeal of trying to "parenthesize" Romans 9-11, as then it just makes God acting Calvinistically toward Israel... when I always thought God was consistent. The reason you do so is because the Scriptures demand it. When it speaks of those of Pauls and Christ flesh it is speaking of racial Jews. Israel is unconditionally elected, individuals are not. To say "scriptures demand it." doesn't self evidently prove that. That's a non-argument.
I made the argument by appealing to the Scriptures, but you were to lazy to look them up. Check out Rom.9:2,5 and see Paul referring to himself and Christ as relating to the kinsmen of the flesh, this is not 'spriritual Israel (Gal.3:29) but Physical Israel that Paul is discussing in chapters 9-11, no matter how you feel about it
As I said above, EVEN IF the point was granted (and certainly not a natural way to read Romans) STILL, as you admit here, God unconditionally elected a nation (through the individuals Jacob and Esau, I might add).
He elected Israel through Abraham, Issac and Jacob. Both Esau and Jacob thus represent their respective nations and the future of both (for the future of Edom see Obadiah)
To try to distinguish between Israel, and individuals is silly--since the very text deals with both the individuals, and the nations that came from them. Paul's arguement is very clear: Its fully just and right for God as Creator to elect some to love and not to elect others. I think his Holy Spirit inspired response to objections (such as yours) to such are outstanding:
Individual salvation is not the same as calling out people or nations for particular tasks. I know that is deep but try to mediate on it for a while.
You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? Romans 9:19-21
I find it amazing that you guys never seem to get around to quoting the rest of the passage,
What if God willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering (2Pet.3:9!) the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.(Rom.9:23)Moreover, if you care to note, you will see that every reference in the three chapters is an Old Testament reference.
Back to the original point though, to blame the apostasy of Europe, American universities and Presbyterianism on Calvinism is like blaming wars on Christianity.
There was a point to all of this?
No one blamed the apostasy on Calvinism, the point what that it is Calvinists who point out Arminians as the cause of apostasy and apostasy is just as rampant in their churches as Arminian ones. Actually the thing I innitially responded to was indeed claiming deadness--ie apostasy--was a result of Calvinism. Just as it is the LACK of Christian virtues which makes "Christian" Europe's history so full of bloodshed, so too it is a LACK of clear honest Biblical thinking--which is called Calvinism--which led and leads to apostasy. You'd be hard put to claim that the Methodists, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics and other historically more Pelagian (read Arminian) denominations are less fallen than Presbyterian and Reformed churches. No, and you would be hard pressed to say that the Calvinist churches were any less fallen. ??? I think it helps to distinquish historically Calvinist denominations (Presbyterian & Reformed) from actual Calvinists.
Oh, brother!
I have yet to meet a theologically liberal Calvinist. Persons who reject the authority of scripture (which liberals do) also throw out scripturally based doctrines--especially those repellent to the modern egalitarian mindset.
This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. Calvin had Servetus burned at the stake to show Rome how orthodox he was!
I would further argue that Arminian views were the ground from which Schliermacher and others raised up theological liberalism.
Well, you can argue all you want, do you have any facts?
When it becomes all about me...and my freedom--not about God and His freely given grace, one easily slips into wanting to block out certain objectionable parts of scripture.
It is not about 'freedom' it is about God's essence and what He said about His desire to save all men! (1Tim2:4,4:10,Jn.3:16,2Pet.3:9, Ezk,33:11-well, you get the point)
Another fact to be reckoned with: The modern missionary movement is FULL of evangelical Presbyterian types. Groups such as Wycliffe Bible Translators (the largest independent protestant mission organization in the world), Campus Crusade, Navigators, and Inter-Varsity also have undue numbers of evangelical Calvinistical types... so the claim that Calvinism stifles the preaching of the Gospel just doesn't hold water. Consider also how few Calvinists in America there are, How few? I thought you said that most Baptists (Evangicals) adhere to Calvinism!And the statement that you can accept three points and be a Calvinist is nonsense. Even 4pointers are attacked on these sites as being 'fake' Calvinists, as was L.S.Chafer To be consistantly Calvinist one should accept the 5 points--as supported (but not argued by me here) by scripture. An interesting thing is though, show me ANY modern group of Christians who believes ALL the 5 points of the Remonstrants? If not, then they are "partially" Calvinist. Are you partially Calvinist? :D
Not according to Calvinists I'm not! I am a Peligian,(which you yourself used) semi-Catholic immerser! So much for you Christian charity
and their numbers in those para-church organizations are even more notable. I would say that Arminian type evanglists could easily hold their own with the Calvinists, Wesley, Finney, Billy Sunday, Cartwright, Sam Jones to name a few. I've read Finney on the Atonement and sadly clearly the man was in no sense a biblical Christian.
According to you? Well, let me cross him off my list of soul savers!
He's still a famous evangelist, but underneath, his gospel was hollow, as he denied very basic biblical truths. Finney was a true Palagian,
There we go! That is Calvinism at its finest. Now, tell me how uncharitable I have been!
and honestly, having read him, I don't think can be named a brother in Christ.
I could say the same thing about CS Lewis, by the way did you find the quote about him accepting 'irresistable grace'
I know little of Billy Sunday except he was known as a great showman, of Cartwright or Jones I know nothing.
That is a pity, since all were responsible (through the power of the Holy Spirit) for saving hundreds of thousands. I also forgot the great Moody!
Now, let us get down to brass tacks. On this website it is not the Arminians who are accusing the Calvinists as being 'nonregenerate' because they reject Arminianism. It is the Calvinists who want to make the 'five points' a test of ones Christianity. I suppose thats possible, but I have yet to hear a Calvinist say a non-Calvinist must not be a Christian.
You just did with your comment on Finney! As for these cites you go back and check out some of the exchanges I have had with CCWoody, OrthodoxPresbyteran, the Doc, Jerry M to name a few. If I was a Christian (and they might grant that to me) I was carnal since I was refusing to accept that great Biblical truth known as TULIP.
They will say they are wrong and unbiblical, but real faith in Christ, dependent fully on his grace is what makes one a Christian or not. Calvinists primary concern is to make known the full extant of that dependence on God. Not 99% God's work, and 1 % my wise and good choice...
The Calvinists I have experienced on this site have only one goal to make everyone accept their rotten lie known as TULIP. If you do not, then you labeled in various ways (they do love making up theological terms, I guess it makes them feel smart or something)
So we will see just how Scriptural those points are. Do you know not one Calvinist has attempted to even defend TULIP by explaining it!. Everyone whined and moaned about how 'unfair' the article was, the author doesn't understand us, blah, blah, blah. There's an easy explanation for this--in that most of us have jobs and simply don't have the time to write an elaborate apologetic for TULIP. TULIP, after all was merely the Calvinist RESPONSE in the Cannons of Dort to the 5 Remonstrants points. Calvinism, as I tried to point out above in matters of church governance, is a lot bigger than 5 points developed long after Calvin's death.
Calvinism is wrong on TULIP and it is wrong on infant Baptism and it is wrong on its prophecy (most are Covenant, not dispensational)
You don't like it, put up a TULIP article explaining it and get used to the fact that you will be seeing more posts, which will reveal how nonScriptural Calvinism is. Several Calvinists in this thread have pointed out what a straw man the innitial post's argument is... Even where the authors view agree with Calvinist doctrine, he finds little semantic points to try and dispute so he can say he doesn't agree... Seems kinda petty in his hatred of Calvinists if you ask me.
Well, that is the typical Calvinistic response to anything, ignore it and hope it will go away. I will be posting a lot more articles, and have already done so by Arminius and others. No doubt they will all be straw men, because no can explain Calvinism, it seems even Calvinist's themselves can't!
Finally, I have gotten mail from Calvinists that they supported me since they (even though they agreed with the gang noted above in most areas) found themselves the subject of abuse and riducle if they didn't agree with every point that those bunch of Pharisees had concluded was real Calvinism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.