| Re: |
I still fail to understand why it is the case that those who do not embrace Calvinistic teaching chide those who do embrace Calvinistic theology as being followers of men and not Jesus, yet they themselves usually resort to a long list of quotes from church fathers instead seriously exegeting the Biblical text.
I consider the articles I post to be from a strong Biblical point. Others often label them as being from a particular theology. I find all my support from the Bible.
| 2010/1/25 16:55||Profile|
This world is not my home anymore.
| Re: Did I read correctly?|
To say 'here's a viewpoint but not for argument' on a forum like this, knowing the history of where this eventually leads, is surprisingly thoughtless.
Please tell me that you did NOT just call Greg thoughtless?
Brother, if I may offer my hopefully humble take on Greg's statement.
First and foremost Greg did not say no one could NOT debate!!
My understanding is that as the owner of a Christian website, people, whether consciously or unconsiously, look to Greg to see what he believes (or better said: what he [b]thinks[/b] is ok to believe); and I believe in order to avoid anyone surmising that he might be cramming this down a Calvinist's throat, he simply stated why he posted it.
Pure and simple, but look what all the calvinists read into it!! If that doesn't say something gigantic, I don't know what does. It takes one to know one because I used to be the first one to get skruffy with pre and post trib "discussions"!!!
Brothers united over calvinism, I know the Lord loves you but please consider your ways.
God bless you all!
(edited for clarity)
| 2010/1/25 17:25||Profile|
| Re: The Perversion of the Sovereignty of God by Britt Williams|
I am glad for your post on this Greg. It is timely in my life.
I have never posted on a thread such as this. I am only posting today because a man and wife in my Sunday school class, open-hearted disciples of Jesus [ who both believe and continue in His word] asked a question that ran to the heart of this. This coming Sunday we will discuss this.
I want to say that I am praying for that discussion time. Why? Because I have seen what has often occurred here in writing [not in what God may have done in the hearts of the writers and readers after-ward]. I witnessed members of my Sunday school class jump down the throats of these dear ones, who are not immature, to persuade them of a particular view. They alone responded that they would search the Word of God on this subject.
Quoting other students of the Bible, following their logic, human reasoning, whatever, just does not cut it for me. It goes so quickly to men with arguments as Leonard Ravenhill might say, and I can hardly tell the difference between Calvin, Brett Williams, a host of others including many who have posted on these threads and the thousands of Jewish commentators on the Torah.
What I would like to hear is how aCalvinist [I can hardly write that] understands the Scripture by which an Armenian [again hard to write] was persuaded to believe. And vise versa. Maybe that would be fruitful: a rule regarding who can give their understanding on which scripture when it comes to this debate.
[u]From Gareth Evans' web-site I happened to see today[/u]: Speaking of
the great move of God in the mid C18th which led to Methodism
He [Harris] began to go around local homes preaching until the crowds forced him to open air preaching. He was only a layman and was greatly opposed by the clergy, but he had great courage to continue though often beaten and persecuted. George Whitfield heard of him and came to visit him in Talgarth Church Cardiff. They became good friends and it was as a result of this that George Whitfield himself began to preach in the open air, later followed, at his suggestion, by John Wesley. Wesley also became a good friend of Harris' even though they held differing views on the sovereignty of God. Indeed, when Wesley and Whitfield were estranged because of their differing doctrines of free grace and the sovereignty of God, [u]it was Harris who was a major instrument in their reconciliation[/u].
[b]Now that bit of history I would like to know[/b]. It sounds like it might touch on the subject of this thread.
How often do we perceive truth in the scripture and apply it poorly, even missing the heart of it (Luke 13)?
| 2010/1/25 18:15||Profile|
| Re: |
A quote and an illustration from history.
"My dear friends, and I am going to say this bluntly, I know that there are Calvinists here and I know that there are Arminians here and I know that there are all sorts of strange animals in between, but I want you to know this. Although I am leaning more towardI guess I call myself a five point SpurgeonistI want you to know this. Calvinism is not the issue. No, I am going to get in a lot of trouble when this goes on the internet. Calvinism is not the issue. Ill tell you what the issue is. Regeneration. And that is why I can have fellowship with Wesley and Ravenhill and Tozer and all the rest because regardless of where they stood on the other issues they believed that salvation could not be manipulated by the preacher, that it was a magnificent work of the power of almighty God. And with them, therefore, I stand, that I was a work of God." -From 10 Indictments
And the illustration (and brief set-up):
Today [9-24-2009], 250 years ago a great pastor was born, Charles Simeon. He was called to Trinity Church, Cambridge in May of 1782. And he endured fruitfully there through much fire for 54 years until his death November 13, 1836.
Simeon never married. He "had deliberately and resolutely chosen the
celibacy of a Fellowship that he might
better work for God at Cambridge" (Moule, Charles Simeon, 111).
His greatest influence was probably through sustained biblical preaching for 54 years. This was the central labor of his life. In 1833, he placed into the hands of King William IV the completed 21 volumes of his collected sermons.
He tried to be conciliatory in doctrinal disputes. Here is an example of how he conversed with the elderly John Wesley:
Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?
-Yes, I do indeed.
And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?
-Yes, solely through Christ.
But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?
-No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.
Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?
What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?
And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?
-Yes, I have no hope but in Him.
Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree. (Moule, 79ff.)
(As a nod to historical accuracy, George Whitefield and John Wesley, however persuaded by the peacemaker Harris, were in part forced to take their messages to the fields, streets, and public squares as both were formally banned from preaching in the formal, orthodox churches of the day.)
(Also in these matters, it is important to study a man's life fully to know the broad spectrum of his theology. Many a man of God has been, like scripture, quoted out of context in order to use his name as weight in a debate.)
| 2010/1/25 19:07||Profile|
| Re: |
Did Abraham choose God or did God choose Abraham? Or was it both? How about Israel? Did God determine what gifts he would give? Did he determine what country you would be born in, who your parents would be? Or did you.
It's interesting how we can accept and understand the the Sovereignity of God on some issues and not Salvation.
| 2010/1/25 19:23||Profile|
| Re: |
I understand the sentiment of these stories and quotes. But the issue remains: what does God say? What do the Scriptures teach? Nothing else matters. The Holy Spirit mentions the concept of election quite frequently through the Apostles, which means that the Lord wants us to know what that means. It is presumptuous to ignore the issue or to skirt around it without serious study. The Lord desires his people to be greatly comforted by his abounding grace.
Serious, thorough Bible exposition will prove fruitful if it is conducted by mature, godly believers.
With care in Christ...
| 2010/1/25 19:39||Profile|
| Re: |
Wesley began the Methodist movement at a time when the protestant pulpit was dominated by a version of Calvinism so extreme that Calvin himelf might have found it odd. It was commonly taught, for example, that you could not do anything to be reconciled with God or even have assurance of salvation (you will find out on Judgment Day if you are one of the Elect); that it is blasphemous to send missionaries to the heathen because that would presume to improve on the Providence of God; that most stillborn babies went to hell, but a few are saved by Election. And Calvinism had even become a sociological philosophy; the Elect were not only chosen for eternal salvation, but elected to live a life of idol luxury while the damned were foreordained to draw water, hew wood and serve as chamber maids for the Elect. The upper class was the Elect; the poor were the children of wrath, and poverty was part of the punishment for their sins. This may sound like hyperbole, but it is not. This is what churchmen like Augustus Toplady actually taught.
It is not surprising that Arminianism made a comeback in those days. In America, Charles Finney's whole ministry was explaining to churches that their theology was dead wrong and the Lord required obedience on their part. But today one of the great errors of the evangelical pulpit is hyper-Arminianism, which puts so much emphasis on human performance that it effectively reduces God to an automation who is compelled by self-imposed laws to always respond in certain ways to human stimuli. Man is a free moral agent, but God is not.
That is what usually happens when Christians war over doctrine: they end up polarizing into two opposing errors.
| 2010/1/25 19:42||Profile|
| Re: |
Can you post or PM me the Toplady writings you refer to?
With care in Christ...
| 2010/1/25 21:10||Profile|
| Re: |
Wesley began the Methodist movement at a time when the protestant pulpit was dominated by a version of Calvinism so extreme that Calvin himelf might have found it odd.
I'm sure he would have as the Bible in no way teaches the things you mentioned as being taught, and Calvin only taught what he believed the Bible actually teaches.
I know that Wesley and Whitefield also had to combat infant baptism, which was the rite guaranteeing salvation. They both preached regeneration by the sovereign work of God as necessary to salvation.
| 2010/1/25 21:30||Profile|
This world is not my home anymore.
| Re: doctrine of devils|
I understand the sentiment of these stories and quotes. what does God say? What do the Scriptures teach? Nothing else matters.
Nothing else matters especially to people who think they are right in those matters!!!
I think that God has put many rest stops within His word. What do I mean by that? Do you believe that individuals can go all the way with God? I do!! I know that I haven't gone all the way with Him yet but I have hope that one day praise God!!! I believe that We can go all the way with God BUT ONLY if we choose to let go of our pride and arrogance. NOTHING has torn the church apart MORE than pride and arrogance of our own opinions on doctrine.
There are many rest stops along the highway of holiness. One rest stop is the prosperity doctrine, another is Calvinism and yet another rest stop is Arminianism. We pick and choose these like we pick and choose which resturant or rest stop might have the cleanest bathroom.
You and I DO NOT understand the importance of getting rid of "OUR" opinion on matters of doctrine; oh yes, that's right, the opinion you value so highly of yourself. If each of us are honest, we will admit that we value our beliefs in God more than we actually value God.
But then again... this is just my opinion!! (wink wink) Take it or leave it!
God bless us all, I pray we "[b]receive[/b] the [b]love[/b] of the Truth!"
| 2010/1/25 21:31||Profile|