Do non-cals have something to be worried about?

Maturity

I believe that we should not suffer a witch to live. So he with no sin cast the first stone.

With pride the hardest thing to do is just believe God and not to lean on our own understanding. So many have left what God had convinced them of in thier youth and call it maturity. We are to go onto maturuty and not forget the pure milk that came from God.

I will never stop believing that God loved the world. It doesn't matter who you are the same hope we have the world has, Jesus Christ.

The scripture is the only truth, man can never condence it down to a few sentences and pour the scripture in it.

I believe every scripture. I don't have to understand how they all work together, but believe. God through Jesus will open my eyes.

I believe in the elect and from there the including of those who heard the Gospel of thier salvation having believed.

I will not go to a church that didn't preach expository preaching.

We are to grow and mature, but never turn away from what God has convinced you of in your youth.

 

Yes, and it goes the other way, too. I get tired of being labeled with labels I do not agree with nor use on myself because I'm not seen as a Calvinist. That is just wrong, but it happens here all the time.

Because why should anyone want to change their views when Cals themselves don't even agree? What makes any non-Cal think the Cals are right when they do disagree on so much? Iow, what is the point of Cals saying they are right when they don't agree?

 

I was not making that insinuation; you read that into it. That was not my point at all.

Thanks for your sarcasm. So typical here.

 

Marcia, it is hilarious for you to say that "they (Calvinists) disagreed with a statement from John Calvin. I remember it well."

How many times do we have to say that we don't follow John Calvin? How many times do we have to say that we don't check with him on the meaning of a text?

Calvinists are a mixed lot. We agree on core principles however. Non-Cals are a very diverse group. They agree on core principles though.

Move on.

 

"Move on?" Isn't that rather arrogant? Your post was fine until you said that. I've only received sarcasm and mean barbs here from most Calvinists (not just this thread but other threads as well). I would never say "move on" to anyone - and that is probably considered mild by most.

 

Well, just take in what I said before that then. Telling you to move on was meant to convey that your non-points were insubstantial -- so move on to something more meaningful;that's all. Sometimes my brevity may be misinterpreted -- sorry about that Marcia.

 

Rippon, in your opinion, what is the one core principle to which all Calvinist would agree?

thanks.......

 

That's great and quiet admirable because I know it is something I struggle with in real life. But I suppose some folks personal trials are one thing, while others have to deal with something else.

Here you make a very good point.
Seems it does not matter what "ism" or theology is considered, it is real easy to get to a point of looking for "proof" of salvation.

Now, don't get me wrong here, I do feel Christians should be selective in whom they have fellowship and Christians do have a responsibility to maintain a witness when viewed by the world; however it is very easy to go from this to a point where one "back loads the gospel" and feels one must do or not do certain things to have salvation.

And, again, please bear in mind I am speaking of what it appears which is not necessarily reality; but it seems this back loading of the gospel is more prevalent with Calvinist because of this chosen verses all thing.
It seems to go something like: if you are truly one of the chosen, then you will show it.
And it is real easy to then go to the point where one feels that since I do show it, then I must be one of the chosen.

I'm sorry you resent it, and yes, I meant no malice for I am speaking as someone from the outside looking in.
I am not talking about what you see as reality, I am talking about what others see from the outside.

I agree we are all sinners who deserve nothing better than the wrath of God; but from the outside it appears your theology leaves some by the wayside simply because God did not chose to show mercy on them while giving no understandable reason for this decree of God.

But where does the resentment stem? I have had others here make some pretty base remarks about my beliefs; but I do not resent it because I have confidence in my beliefs.
IMO if one is fully confident in one's beliefs, then disparaging remarks about them should just run off like water off a duck's back.

What do you feel eternal security really teaches?

Are you saying you accept parts of Calvinism; but you do not accept the part that says those who are saved were chosen before the foundation of the world by a decree of God?

I'm with ya' on this one brother.

And I do apologize for taking some time in response. I have read your post several times and still don't know if I have expressed my feelings in a brotherly way. :tonofbricks:

 

I'll answer that with the utmost confidence that Rippon and all other 'Calvinists' will agree:


...no flesh should glory before God....of him are ye in Christ Jesus....He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. 1 Cor 1

 

..........and before any freewillers start whining and say, 'But we believe that too!'; we 'Calvinists' believe it to be monergistic that we are in Christ, NOT synergistic as the freewillers do. That is the difference between the two.

 

The simple fact is that you must be born again. That is a calvinist doctrine. You have to be saved the calvinist way (ie, be born again) or you are not saved. However, you don't have to have that full understanding.

Many arminians were in fact born again yet they don't fully realize what has taken place. They are saved because they were born again. They just don't yet understand fully the supernatural side of what took place.

Thanks so much for clearing that up for me.

 

The Arminian asks, Did I? and the Calvinist asks did God?

Very good, concise and articulate point. Kudos

 

QF, I don't know if you're being facetious here or not; but in no way am I being facetious, you are sounding like a Primitive Baptist here.

 

Yes I was being a bit facetiously sarcastic, apologies.

 

Being "born again" is NOT Calvinist doctrine; it is God's doctrine and what Jesus said in John 3:7 to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again."

 

Interesting answer, would you, in your own words tell us what you feel those two words mean in relation to scripture? synergistic and monergistic

 

Gentlemen, sorry for being "unclear", I was quoting and responding to an earlier post, which came across to me as slightly "arrogant" and thus I was being facetiously sarcastic in response.

I am well aware that salvation is a Christian doctrine, not a calvinist doctrine, and in particular I AM NOT a calvinist, DoG, HB etc.

 

My forked tongued non-yankee friend I had previously through a private note communicated my regards for Amy G. Frankly I was very surprised that she would have any doubts about my opinion of her salvation after my note of mid January?

 

Let me restate the question.
Is there one "core" belief all Calvinist agree on that needs no further explanation in terminology or interpretation?

 

QF, wouldn't it be an odd thing that the very simplistic concept that you are facetious and sarcastic of panned out to be the truth?