Calvinists

"Are you what is normally called a 5 point Calvinist?"
No.

In fact my church has basically been feuding with the local hypercalvinist churches for the past 5 decades.

 

Precepts,

Some might call themselves Calvinist and not wish to be associated with Calvin, because we believe the five points but are not trying to follow the man but the Bible as we understand it. Hunt was mentioned by someone here, his book on calvinism(correct me if I am wrong) shows mistakes of Calvin and then asks or implies why would we follow him. I have not read the book but my sister did and didnt like it because Hunt seemed to equate Calvinist as getting their ideas only form Calvin, when we(my family) saw it in logic and Scripture not in Calvin. I dont know if I would call myself a Calvinist but only a follower of the Bible(As I understand it).

 

Never took Logic, did you?

 

Logic does not prove what is true, it only proves what is untrue. It is only part of the equation. We are to be diligent students of God's word.

I have found that most people who object to Sovereign Grace (my favorite term), do so ignorantly. Most people do not really understand what they supposedly are against.

 

I never took logic, but only received it.

 

My views on Calvinism are the same as Dr. Comfort's. What are his views? See one of his chapel sermons he preached at ABC a few years ago:

http://www.ambassadors.edu/HTML%20pages/School%20Info/calvinism.htm

 

I am 5 point, pre-mil, pre-trib, historic dispensational,lateral thinking literalist but, not reformed in theology

 

Actually, the doctrine of sovereign grace is very scriptural. You don't have to agree with the interpretations however to say that it is logical but not scriptural is patently false. Spurgeon, by no means a novice on the Bible, said that the doctrine commonly known as calvinism was nothing less than the biblical gospel.

Are the five points supported by scripture? Yes. Each one is supported. Also there is a great deal more latitude under this umbrella than its detractors would like to admit. I have no doubt about the scriptural proofs for arminianism nor the breadth of beliefs that fit under that tent. However, I disagree with the interpretations and basic assumptions. The only truly "unbiblical" view on this issue I have seen is open theism... which in my opinion simply takes arminianism/free willism to its logical, final extreme.

The persistent analogies of being spiritually "dead" or "blind" leave no room for the idea that man is simply marred or injured. However, I don't think it speaks to ability as much as to nature. A dead body may not lack any physical feature needed to walk. Blind people don't usually lack eyes. However, it isn't in the nature of dead bodies to walk or blind eyes to see. One main objection to calvinism is that "it makes man a puppet...". I disagree. Divine grace quickens an otherwise dead/blind spirit. It was not a violation of Lazarus' will when Christ raised him from the dead... it was a change in his nature.

Some folks argue that this is semantics... but I don't think so. Man is only "unable" because he is "unwilling"- not because he lacks functioning ears, eyes, intellect, etc. None the less, he willingly follows his nature to hell unless God opens his eyes spiritually.

The Bible is clear that God has elected the saints. It is likewise clear that man's will and choices are involved. My opinion is that calvinism harmonizes these biblical facts far better than any other system.

 

I'm A 4 1/2 point

 

4.99 on a technical scale.

Actually, mathematically speaking, if I was

4.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999etc,

I would be a 5 pointer.

If you don't understand that, I won't explain it.

[ March 14, 2004, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

from the link provided by Scofield:

Actually, no. In his zeal to discredit TULIP, the writer forgot that the unregenerate is dead
because of sin.

Romans 5:12 says :

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Likewise, Romans 5:21 :
That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Therefore, God must first give that dead soul life in order for him to accept Christ or look to Christ. Regeneration, and then faith.

Ezekiel 37:1-7 says:

The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones, And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry. And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest. Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.

 

Sorry, my mistake. Hit tab enter.

Anyway, it is not that a dead man cannot sin because he is dead. It is because he was born in sin that he is dead and therefore unable to heed the things of the Spirit since the Spirit is life and light being God.

 

More from the website link by Scofield:

Three points here.

First, Unconditional election in its strict sense is not the way this theologian oversimplified it. Unconditional Election is the election of an individual by God not based on any merit, work, race, social status, and all the usual bases used by human religionis and religionists. Unconditional Election is based upon God's mercy and God's mercy alone and His Sovereign right to exercise that mercy on whom He chooses to exercise that mercy on.

Second. Augustine was not the founder of Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism evolved from a marriage of Roman Imperialism, religion, and Roman Paganism, and the evolution was began by Emperor Constantine. Check your facts, man.

Third. While it is true that there are those who speak of double predestination, such is not the norm among those who hold to the Doctrines of Grace. More in number are those who teach that because God elected some to glory, it does not necessarily follow that those he did not elect to glory, he elected unto damnation.

God was under obligation to elect anyone to salvation. The fact that He did only magnifies His mercy. Others He simply passed by and left to their sin, and, like I said, He had no obligation to them or to the elect.

 

Erratum: God was under NO obligation to elect anyone to salvation.

 

Since I am responsible for my choices in life and not God making or predetermining my choices in advance I do not believe any of John Calvins' points are valid.The early church did not believe in nor did they teach calvinism;they believed in man being responsible for his sins not God.

 

Oh, sure, don't worry about that. You are responsible, and will be held responsible by the Sovereign God. Calvinists never said they were not responsible for their sins, only that God is responsible for their salvation because if it were up to them, they will never be saved.

If you can save yourself, then congratulations !

 

Oh, uhm, scofield:

That "check your facts, man". Not for you, okay ?
For Ron whateverhislastname was.