"just" calvinist

:tonofbricks:

You are bad.

 

I got you! :laugh:

 

The Calvinist's label has come to be identified ias something else, esp. on BB, that no amount of rhetoric is going to undo.

 

Take that TC! :laugh:

 

You've made my night. Thanks. :laugh:

 

I can't hear youuuuuuuu!

 

just cal.

Amy G,
I am a usta-be. I did live on Grandview Mtn. and then on top of Dayton Mtn. Is that anywhere close to you?

Bartimaeus

 

EXCELLENT WORDS, Psa 109:31!! :wavey:

That is exactly what we all need to hear!

skypair

 

I've been trying lately to convince David Lamb of the same thing. Especially in this forum, we are more Baptist-leaning than we are Calvinist-leaning. We know we are saved/regenerated conditionally predicated on faith and repentance rather than upon election. As Psa 109 just pointed out, we can be "elect" just because we are church members, but that doesn't make us "saved."

I guess you are discovering that the title "carries a lot of baggage" with it. Almost like "followers of Cephas" in Gal 2:11 seemed to have Paul wondering what exactly distinguished those Christians from the others and was it helpful (re: Acts 15:35).

skypair

 

I agree. I started calling myself a calvinist here on the BB, because at first it seemed to be being used as shorthand for "I believe in the Doctrines of Grace." However, I recently felt it necessary to say on another thread, "Some of the things you attribute to calvinism are so foreign to what I actually believe, that I must say that in the way you use that term I am not a Calvinist." (That happened to be in a reply to Skypair, but I am not picking him out).

 

And I believe we can both see "grace" in our slightly different ways (persuasion vs. regeneration) and still proclaim "sola gratia," "sola scriptura," "sola fide," sotierologically, right?

Our main differences, then, are philosophical (nature of God, nature of man, etc. which is what I think Calvinism really winds up being), dispensational, and eschatological. And these issues are matters of how we can know our common God better until we reach the stature of Christ's knowledge (Eph 4:13).

skypair

 

No need to convince me that the title "Calvinist" "carries a lot of baggage" with it, Skypair. In a reply to one of your posts, on the "Total Depravity Exposed" thread, I wrote: "That is one reason why I am not wholly in favour of the term "Calvinist", because it implies that the beliefs are dependent upon John Calvin." Before that, in one of my first posts after joining the Board, I replied to J.D., who had written: "A baptist that is reformed or calvinist does not typically follow John Calvin's and other reformers' teachings beyond the doctrine of salvation," I replied, "Yes, that is probably why baptists on this side of the Atlantic who hold to the "Doctrines of Grace" are more likely to describe themselves as "reformed baptist" or "grace baptist", rather than "Calvinist"."

But I disagree with you when you say that on this forum, "We know we are saved/regenerated conditionally predicated on faith and repentance rather than upon election." Some believe that - I know you do. Others do not. If that were not so, most of the "friendly difference" posts from you to me and vice versa would never have been written, would they? :laugh:

 

Just a brief jump into the conversation... I'm not sure what the issue is with so-called "Lordship salvation". Nodak, I think that your problem is not with "Lordship salvation" but with those you knew who were lifted up in pride and caught in legalism. For a real understanding of it, I recommend John MacArthur's books, "The Gospel According to Jesus," and "Hard to Believe." If a person refuses to acknowledge that Christ is Lord and Master, are they truly saved? It is not teaching that a person will give up all sin and be perfect at the moment of salvation, but a truly regenerated person WILL have a new desire to please Christ and to remove sin in his life.

OK, back to lurking (at least for the next 10 minutes)...

Soli Deo Gloria,
Bob House

 

Thanks. I certainly can take away a few things from your comment.

But with the label I never thought of myself as following any man. My lead in the Spirit through the pages of Scripture.

But I too subscribe to the doctrines of grace like David Lamb

 

Nodak, I wish you well on your journey. Consider this - if it's already been covered in this thread I apologize - but the easy believism(EB)/Lordship Salvation(LS) issue is controversial in both Calvinistic and non-C churches. The difference is that Calvinists are generally more unified on the issue than non-C's, and generally fall on the LS side.

Reasons why Calvinists oppose EB:

1. The EB idea (whether implied or intentional) that salvation is by mental assent only. (LS: the heart must be truly converted, and a confession that Jesus is Lord ostensibly reveals that true conversion).

2. The EB teaching that there are "carnal Christians" that will not progress in sanctification (LS: Believers may be temporarily carnal, but can not continue in sin due to the virtuous effects of conversion on the soul).

3. A separate but related issue is "how does the Law relate to the believer?" On this issue, Calvinists are probably as divided as the non-C's are. Rather than providing a summary of the various views on that subject, let me just go to the bottom line and say that I don't know very many Christians that are outright libertines (people that openly embrace sin and disregard moral Law), regardless of the view of the Law. Those that claim grace as an excuse to sin are probably not attending church because, you know, they're under "grace". The real dispute, doctrinally speaking, is whether the Law of Moses applies to the believer in some way, or are we simply under the "Law of Christ", that is, the Law of Love as some say it.

Either way, we are under law. Believers are not "free to sin", morally speaking, and no serious Christian would dispute that.

If this is all confusing to you, then join the crowd. I'm still trying to figure it all out myself. But hang in there and keep studying.

 

Lou Maruneac's In Defense of the Gospel is a good read in regards to John Macarthur's TGATJ and Lordship Salvation. He is also a member here on the BB.

 

Scripture

Some think they are the elect because they were chosen. The young rich ruler was chosen but not the elect.

The elect are the elect because the remain in Jesus, you are not the elect if you walk away from Jesus.

All men are elected to salvation, but two things have to happen, we have to hear the message and believe.

God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and He made us who believe the messenger. If someone walks away from Jesus thier grace it isn't because God didn't want them to be saved. Two reason why you are not saved one you didn't here the message the second you didn't believe.

So it is mans fault why someone isn't saved you cannot blame God because He wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.