a Plea To christian Unity On this BB!

Personally I think (My own Opinion) that people should stop being so hyper sensitive.

The smartest thing said yet on this thread. Arron posts with pharisee like demeanor and loves to stir the pot. Aaron doesn't offend me. I feel sorry for him. PFT can be very caustic and accusatory in his zeal for Calvinism. The problem is that he loves to point these same flaws out in others while ignoring the very plank in his eye. Luke loves post accusatory threads mocking those who don't agree with him and then will argue and argue and argue until the cows come home as to his innocence. And, in the end nothing is accomplished. Now, if everyone would just be like me this site would soon close up. The Aarons, Luke, PFT, Skandelons, Allens, are the ones who make this site interesting. Even in the midst of the heavy banter I've learned a lot and, more so, have been entertained by all the back and forth pot calling the kettle black.

 

Agreed! (adding more to reach the 10 character limit)

 

Just for clarification, I am not, nor do I like to be called a calvinist. I happen to believe the DoG's, but having not read much at all of Calvin, I would rather not get the label. Now, I probably do need to review TULIP &c, but even in doing, still I would like to not be labeled. Who knows, Calvin may be all wrong in how he is described in TULIP!!!! Even if I agreed with his doctrines in totallity, I would reject the label.

I agree with much of what Stott says, and Packer, MacArthur Jr, Lutzer, R C Sproul, and many others.

Imagine being labeled a Stottist, or Lutzerist! :laugh:

Christian is fine. As to being caustic, that's fine, I'll accept that, as I agree to this. I also like the word "passionate" being attatched to it also, and would rather that instead of the other. It doesn't tend to come across as caustic this way. :thumbsup:

- Peace

 

Of course there is a Christ like way to do this... But arguing on here (and I try not to get involved, sometimes unsuccessfully) is not like arguing with my wife or my deacons. I don't live with you people. After I log off, I don't give the debate a moments thought. It doesn't effect how I live, how I serve and my wife still loves me.

That's why we all might think about taking even the insulting things said on here occasionally with a little less sensitivity.

 

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

This is basic truth of the gospel message. You don't have to understand TULIP or the arguments against TULIP to understand, believe in or accept this truth. Prior to Augustine the matters concerning predestination/election weren't taught in a systematized "Calvinistic" manner, yet somehow the gospel continued to change lives and save souls.

 

No, that is not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that we stop making statements which presume those who don't drink our brand of soteriological kool-aid must not really believe the gospel, or believe in the one true God.

Imagine if I said, "Arminianism is the gospel, and anything else is not!" It's a preposterous statement and I would NEVER make that claim. Why? Because I believe someone can believe TULIP while still agreeing with me regarding the essential truths of the gospel.

I believe Calvinists are well meaning, God-fearing, believers and followers of Christ (for the most part, in that there are exceptions on all sides). I just happen to believe they misinterpret passages regarding God's judicial hardening of Israel, his ingrafting of the Gentiles into the covenant of Grace and his selection of individual Jews to take that message to the world. I made the same mistake for years, so I know its not intentional and they are not heathens out to destroy Christianity and you will see I do not treat them as such. I try to treat others with respect and brotherly love as I expect in return.

Being told I don't believe the true gospel is not within the realm of brotherly debate, in my humble opinion. Nor is it within the guidelines of this board. Why? Because if it is true one of us shouldn't be here because one of us isn't even a Christian, much less a Baptist.

 

I was fair. That is why I said, "You don't have to understand TULIP or the arguments against TULIP."

 

And this is what it all boils down to. Those who believe Aaron's statement to be true and support it are in actuality stating the majority on this board are not even believers. I find it disturbing that there are not more from the cal side rebuking such comments, but instead propping them up as some rallying point.

If you all really believe that to be true, why are you even on a site like this that has a blend of theological viewpoints? Why not form your own forum where only true Gospel believers can fellowship?

 

Sometimes it is just hard to understand when something is said in jest on these kind of internet forums. That is one reason for the invention of emoticons.

 

No, because it isn't true. Start with the differences in their views of man, and that will by necessity dictate a difference in the nature of the Atonement, which dictates a difference in the person of Christ.

Calvinism.............................................Noncalvinism
Man is completely ruined........................Man isn't completely ruined
Man won't and cannot choose good.........Man will and can
The Cross itself saved the elect..............The Cross itself saved no one
No one adds to the cross.......................One brings a righteous work
God has chosen the elect...................... Man has chosen God.

. . . and the list goes on.

 

:thumbs:

From the link:

The late lamented Mr. Denham has put, at the foot of his portrait, a most admirable text, "Salvation is of the Lord." That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, "He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord." I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, "God is my rock and my salvation." What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.
​

 

Question to administrators and moderators...how long will Aaron be allowed to openly question the salvation of others and blatantly violate BB rules repeatedly?

 

Here's another difference. Only Calvinism allows that those with an errant view of God can still be known of Him. Noncalvinism says you must think the "right" things about God, or at the very least it has to be right enough.

Calvinism brings liberty, Noncalvinism brings the Inquisition.

 

"Faith comes by hearing (understanding), and hearing by the Word of God". You contradict yourself...you say only you "know the right things" about the true Gospel...yet you do not need to know the "right things about God" to be known of Him. You don't even know the "right things" about your own view.

 

Was I answering a post you posted? No I wasn't I merely stated that it's blaspheme to make the claim that calvinism is the gospel.

That has nothing to do with what was said and you know it.

Being biblical and being the gospel are two very different things.

So try all you want to take the focus off of "Calvinism is the gospel" issue.
MB

 

Incorrect. Here is a more accurate comparison:

Calvinism:
Man is completely ruined but even God's work on the cross and sending of the gospel of grace isn't sufficient without a prior work of regeneration.

Non-Calvinism
Man is completely ruined, but God's work on the cross and sending of the gospel of grace gives mankind all they need to respond to his appeal to be reconciled and stand without excuse before God.

Incorrect.

Calvinism:
Man won't and cannot choose good without divine assistance (grace). That divine assistance is irresistible.

Non-Calvinism:
Man won't and cannot choose good without divine assistance (grace). That divine assistance is resistible.

Incorrect on SOOO many levels.

Calvinism:
The Cross is sufficient to save all but only saves those who will believe, which are those God has elected before the foundation of the world.

Non-Calvinism:
The Cross is sufficient to save all, but only saves whosoever will believe.

Incorrect.

Calvinism:
One must believe in order to be saved, but that ability must be granted or enabled through a prior work of regeneration (effectually calling).

Non-Calvinism:
One must believe in order to be saved, but they cannot believe in whom they have not heard, thus the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation, must be proclaimed. The grace of God's Spirit produced, preserved and carries this gospel today giving all who hear all they need to respond to God's appeal to be reconciled.

Incorrect.

Calvinism:
God has chosen the elect

Non-Calvinism:
God first chose Israel to receive his special revelation, but now has made it known to all the world. The gospel thus was sent "first to the Jew and then to the Gentile." The Jews were being hardened/cut off, while the Gentiles were being grafted in. However, God did select a few from the Jews to take this message of redemption to the world and establish his church.

Are the rest of them incorrect misrepresentations too?