Actual Non Cal Doctrine

due to how they see this topic, would that be why they view baptism as a way to regeneration?

 

lol...we have an entire section in our landscape filled with lilacs I've given my wife over the years, many differing types. Beautiful flowers, but as a representation of doctrine, horrific! :laugh:

 

It's not as bad as you would make it. The only doctrine I believe in is that of Jesus Christ. You don't make that claim because you have many false doctrines and everyone man made and with out the gospel truth.
MB

 

Well...

We Have the Apostle Paul in our camp on this discussion, as well as non inpired writers such as Calvin/Luthor/Owens/Edwards etc

Are ALL of them wrong in this?

 

Out of curiosity MB, if you were sitting directly opposite Charles Spurgeon, would you tell him the same thing?

 

lol...

Bro, this MB has been wiggling and squirming around his teachings since he engaged me in this thread.

I'm done with going down to him to dialogue in his little arena.

Anyone can take a gander at what he's said and teaches and see the deficiency and error in what he says. For instance, we have one here that is teaching that after we get in Christ, then God chooses us. That's fallacy 100%.

If one comes along and wants to play like they can't see the error, then I couldn't care less about that either.

The thing is, I won't bother to go round and round with him. I've showed him truth, he squirms and wiggles against it.

I've seen too many in the church in his way, willing even to deceive their ownselves, and turn chameleon on what they teach as the conversation wears on.

Oh, I love the statement; "The only doctrine I believe in is Jesus Christ." Just an attempt to appear pious and copout so as not to face facts.

 

Reply to Mandym:

Thanks for your clear statement of faith. If I understand your post, you agree with Calvinism and the doctrine of total spiritual inability. That is a false doctrine as demonstrated by Matthew 13, which says some, the first soil have total spiritual inability, but the other three have limited spiritual ability, they can understand the milk of the gospel.

You agree with Arminianism in that election is conditional, based on God choosing those whose trust in Christ He credits as righteousness.

You agree with Arminianism in that you believe as the bible clearly teaches that Christ died for all men, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world.

You agree with Arminianism in that you believe salvation is not compelled by irresistible grace, rather salvation is offered through the gospel and can be accepted or rejected. This also is what the Bible teaches.

And you believe in Once Saved, Always Saved.

We disagree on Spiritual Ability, and the timing of our individual election for salvation, but we agree it is based on faith, leaving aside whether foreseen or existent.

Your view is shared by many well studied people, and certainly presents a gospel that will attract rather than push away the lost.

 

Which jesus and which Doctrine though, Eh?

 

The Apostle Paul is in his own camp. In fact most of what Calvinist claim about him isn't in scripture either. He speaks against your doctrines of grace. Yet Calvinist take what he wrote out of context to make there doctrines seem believable.
There isn't one Calvinist I give any credit to in matters of doctrine. The tulip simply is a man writen doctrine for men so they can avoid the truth of scripture.
MB

 

You bet just as I'm telling you, Calvinism is not supported by scripture. Just like all the Calvinist here not one has ever proven there doctrines are truth.
MB

 

Well, based upon your line of rreasoning here...

trinity is JUST a manmade doctrine, as that specific word is NOT used in the Bible, so we must have made it up!

 

Wrong the trinity is not a doctrine of grace. The tulip is considered the doctrines of grace. Not one of them are spoken of in scripture in the way Calvinist interpret them. There is no inability in scripture that is man made. There is no particular election in scripture. There is no limited atonement. There is no irresistible grace and there is no perseverance to keep your selves saved. These are all man made doctrines no truth in any of them.
MB

 

In fairness, their doctrine is "supported by Scripture", it is just done in error.

 

An oxymoron if I ever heard one. :wavey:

 

I'm guessing you never have as one can use a source to support their error.

 

Of course, but if something can be SUPPORTED by Scripture then one is likely not arguing it incorrectly.

On the other hand, some make their points then find Scriptures to proof text their own arguments, and that is likely what you are trying to say in your post above.

I find that those holding the doctrines of grace use Scripture rather well, and are not running from verses as is SO often supposed. They do, however, tend to EXEGETE Scripture in context rather than "proof-text" (and I'm assuming that everyone knows what that term means by now).

 

So in your world Scripture supports error? Wow.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup:good point mandy:thumbs:

 

Well...unlike MB.....you understand that there is substantial scripture to support the teaching. That is at least workable...in other words I think this is where everyone who profess the name of Christ must at least acknowledge this.
It is similar to being able to give the Presbyterian position on the church for example...then being able to show scripturally why you are not one.
to just dismiss them as all wrong shows a lack of biblical knowledge.:thumbsup: Much of what they believe is more scripturally based then some who post on here.


MB.....if you try and articulate why you think the 5pts are off.....you might be surprised that you cannot defend your position at all.

it is one thing to say something...then...not stay and answer to it.