Featured Calvinist Pastors being up front about their doctrine.

CHS was not wrong!

 

Actually, you did. But you shouldn't be throwing that verse out in a Christian debate setting. Might there be a few here that are not really Christians? I suppose that could be, but it would take more than a disagreement over Calvinism to raise the discussion to the level of calling one swine.

It was post #28

One of my best friends at our church is a Calvinist. We go back and forth on this issue quite often, but we love each other, it is not a Christian brotherhood essential.

I have studied this issue for years and I have heard all of the "exhaustive" answers. I totally understand why some believe TULIP. I know the scriptures they cite and those scriptures have not convinced me because I don't think TULIP's version harmonizes with the whole of Scripture.

So rather than go over the scriptures that I have already been over and over, I rather challenge Calvinist to answer the Scriptures that would seem to conflict with TULIP. There are quite a few.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not!" (Luke13:34)

 

Steaver,

Because of the fall...men are unwilling,and unable to come.....this is consistent with the T

in tulip...Jesus earlier taught on the T in jn 5:
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

41 I receive not honour from men.

42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.


My contention is that the teaching is most purely revealed by the Lord Himself.

Next-

Correct...in mt 7 we are told that they trample the Holy word of God ,underfoot....and then turn on the believer.When the God of scripture is ridiculed, then they turn on the calvinist brothers, I believe we are crossing into this area....Go back and look at some of the threads in the debate forum.

 

Icon, you didn't even attempt to exegesis the passage. Jesus says that He longed often to gather the Jews together and they would not! That's would not. If TULIP was true it would have to read could not! Jesus wasn't just playing with them. He wanted them to follow Him and they would not! Even begging them to follow Him, sending prophet after prophet, and they would not! Doesn't say could not, that wouldn't even make any sense if it did say "could" seeing how God longed for them to repent.

Brother, you have to accept the fact that a small percentage of believers embrace TULIP and a small percentage of believers oppose it through debate. Most Christians could care less about Calvin or Arminian, most never even heard of them, they simply follow Jesus and live out their callings.

I believe what happens is some TULIP believers get so passionate about this doctrine as to consider the very definitions of TULIP as equal to the very Word of God itself. So what happens is someone attacks the definitions of the T or the L or the P and it is automatically equated as an attack on the Word of God, brothers start thinking other brothers might not be saved, disagreement becomes slander, personal attacks begin to fly, etc, etc.

There was a fellow on here, I don't remember his name and don't know if he left or got banned, but he was so wrapped up in TULIP being the very Gospel of God that if one did not believe it to be the Gospel they were not saved.

Just saying, don't let yourself become like that. Godspeed brother! :thumbs:

 

Hello Steaver,

The passage is found in the middle of Jesus teaching from Mt20-25. It is lenghty to work through, but the Covenant curses from Deut 28-32 are coming upon the apostate nation. They were responsible to be bearing fruit,already Isa5-mt 21...they were not being invited to salvation, but to the Kingdom reality in full. They would not come.
Most of the Kindom parables already taught this truth.That is why Paul quotes from Isa 1:9 in romans
Do you see what I am suggesting to you?They were already supposed to come as covenant keepers...but they would not.

The would or could question was already explained earlier on in Jesus ministry.

15 Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt.

16 These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him.


37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:

38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?

39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,

40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

43 For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

Again....they were fully responsible.He did stop them from coming...He tells us about their will....they would not.Both aspects are true.They would not volitionally,and they could not because the natural man cannot properly understand spiritual realities being bound by sin and blinded by Satan.

 

STEVER...Are you referring to Biblicist?

 

The teaching of scripture is the teaching of scripture....I do not care what you want to call it.

Even those who have not heard of the men have a theology.Those who want no label have a theology. Their Pastors have a theology that they preach.Most christians pick and choose what they like it seems like. It is low tide in Christendom as far as doctrine being held and defended.That is why you have mega-mush churches singing their way to destruction just as much as the Mormon tabernacle choir.

 

Tony, it is evident that you have 'mega-mush' churches because they are in the comfort zone & are complacent. Seriously, what has happened to the Doctrines of Grace that it has come under attack & painted as irrelevant? These doctrines of grace did not emerge late in church history, but find their origins in the teachings of Jesus, which has been preserved throughout the church in many periods which has always been characteristic of the church at its greatest periods of faith and expression.

Many need to understand that John Calvin did not create them, nor were they characteristic of his thought alone during the reformation. Rather (I think you touched on it earlier Icono) these truths are contained in OT Psalms & recorded in John 6 & 10 and elsewhere. And Paul confirmed them in his letters to the Romans, the Ephesians and others. From my prospective, it is precisely the Doctrines of Grace that sorely needs to be stressed to enliven the church again & bring it back from it's malaise.

 

:applause: :thumbsup:

 

Like that......than spend 7 minutes in the truth (brother MD, I appologize that you cant hear this....you would love this)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5bc8QU4h2w

 

Revmitchell

thanks for asking for clarification;

No......it is not so much having or not having a label...as it is having the God who's doctrine is represented by the label.

Steaver posted a valid point that many christians do not know as much about labels and history, and historical controversy.
That is fine short term. In the long run we are to grow and mature in our knowledge so we can serve in a way that is faithful and pleasing to God.

Hebrews 5:12 was not a commendation but rather a rebuke-
11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

The writer wanted to speak about "strong meat"..Priesthood, Atonement, Covenants.....they were not ready:thumbsup:

Overall God did not send us a post card, but 66 writings that are full of
teaching that we are meant to know about.

We should know our bibles and doctrine about God and His great works, more than sports,music, movies, etc.

When a person accumulates a mass of doctrine it will come out as one that has a label in place anyhow you slice it.