Actual Non Cal Doctrine

Did any Calvinist read this and say, "Oh... that's what you believe"?

 

This one confuses me. It sounds like unlimited atonement, yet you labeled it as limited. ??

 

Thanks. I thought maybe it was me. :wavey:

 

So would that be God's sovereign election and man's free will working in harmony?

 

:applause::applause::applause::applause:

 

Thank you for rising to the occaison and publishing your own positive framework for the doctrines you hold! Kudos!

 

The OP sounds pretty confused to me.

In Total Depravity Mandym holds to teaching “God pursued Adam, Eve, Cain” by implication. Sounds good. That He pursues all is implied. It sounds as if all mankind is encapable of salvation and are totally dependent upon God, that is, until one gets to his second point “I hold the God’s Election of the Saints.” Things begin to blur and unravel from this point.

In the point, “I hold the God’s Election of the Saints” God elects based upon the basis of belief, which is "because they." This is in direct conflict of Mandyms previous statement. It also makes election conditional, or, based upon man, then God acts. This reflects the belief of salvation by faith which to the cursory observer sound legit, but faith does not save. We are instead saved by Grace, faith being the gift of God.

So, God pursued Adam and Eve “because they”? Or, does God pursue anyone “because they?” No, I don’t think so. This is unscriptural and his doctrine is contradictory to say the least. Did god prusue our father Abram, are supreme example of salvation "because he?" Not at all. I’d refer to Ephesians 2:4 and two words regarding salvation and to whom all the glory belongs; “But God.”

Unlimited Atonement. Here Mandym clearly holds to the LILAC position of “Limitless Atonement.” In this he mentions again how God pursues all men, yet, to temper that, (according to his teachings) we must also understand that God pursues all men because of the basis of their belief. So this pursuit is initiated by man, or because of something he does. This flies in the face of John 3:16 where we see the truth illustrated that God has initiated salvation based upon He and He alone, not upon man. But his belief here also rearranges “We love Him because He first loved us” into “He loves us because we first loved Him” or “He pursued and saved me because I first believed.”

A man believes, then God pursues them, and then He elects them? This is close to a works based election, “God pursued me because of the basis of my belief” or is what we call "conditional election" or "conditional choosing" to make it easier for us to see the error of this doctrine. I’m sure Mandym doesn’t really believe this, (I hope) but this is what his teachings are revealing at this point. Nevertheless the teaching is based upon “conditional election” that we met a condition prior to God pursuing us.

After these first points, Mandym drifts off into some other things that are givens and generalized statements, such as “I hold to the Grace of God;” “I hold to the Eternal and Secure Salvation of the Saints”; (this sounds like an attempt to sound original in thought concerning Eternal Security); “I hold to Biblical Salvation.” He qualifies his belief in this that it is offered to all and rejected by some. OK. I won’t go there. He also uses John 3:16 as a proof text to support his view against regeneration preceding salvation. The proof text used is poor to say the least as far as being used to support his thoughts, and does not support his theory here.

There is no need to get into the part on regeneration and whether or not is precedes salvation, there is enough baggage in the previous beliefs he’s shared with us. I do think that perhaps Mandym is newer to the faith, but that is my own opinion based upon what I am seeing here and among other places.

I am however glad to see him beginning to formulate his beliefs into statements. We all do this, then we sharpen them with Scriptures, and against one another.

- Peace

 

Actually, other than a small point or two here and there, you hold much the same doctrines as I do. And, I guess I am one of the flaming C's around here...

I'm thinking after reading what you wrote that you are probably arguing against the sterotype and straw man Calvinism instead of the real thing. You are closer than you think. :thumbs:

 

Yes, he is rising to the occasion.

 

Very good Mandym. That is pretty much what I believe as well. Mof, I'd like to borrow this for later use if I might?

 

I guess some do, but I think the majority of Calvi's know what non-calvi's believe. But I might just be over-generalizing and placing myself in others' situations since I used to be a non-calvi w/ similar views as yours.