The radical Calvinist on this BB have convinced me that would be reason to never hire a pastor who firmly believes in TULIP. These folk on the board have shown me how TULIP turns God into the author of all evil and thus making God evil. I totally reject their position on this.
Calvin, following Augustine's teaching succeeded is skillfully selecting various scriptures, using them and twisting them and perverting the real message of the Bible and gospel. There are beliefs within TULIP is gnostic.
I love expository preaching. I love the balance that is found in scripture. I couldn't go to a one sided church.
In the body we all have come to Christ in so many different way's and have our reasons that we believe came to us by God.
To say your salvation and coming to Christ is right and others is wrong because yours glorifies God and the others do not is your opinion and isn't what the others believe. We are not to cause discord among believers. You are not going to get everyone one to come to Christ the way you have and believe the way you do. I heard and been blessed by many different testimonies from the BB about how they come to Christ and I wouldn't want to be the person who trampled on their pearl.
Anybody can say that they are chosen by God and speak just like a Calvinist, or say they trust in Jesus and still not be saved. We know what the scripture say's how we can know them, by not what they say, but what they do.
Trust in Jesus and listen and learn from Him, and He will make your way straight or direct your path to salvation.
There are many views on what calvinism actually is, but I see as vital those five great "Alones" of the Reformation, that salvation:
1. has its foundation in Scripture alone 2. has as its Mediator Christ alone 3. is by God's grace alone 4. is through faith alone 5. is for God's glory alone
It doesn't matter to me whether a pastor uses the label "Calvinist" - in fact I think I'd prefer him not to use that particular label, because it can be so easily misunderstood to involve elevate Calvin's writings above the Word of God.
The acrostic "TULIP" (which of course only works in English, whereas Calvin was French and Arminius Dutch) was coined, presumeably by English-speaking theologians, to represent those five points which were formulated at the Synod of Dort in 1618/19 to answer five specific objections the Remonstrants (Arminians) in 1610. If a church just said, "We believe inthe 5 points of TULIP," I would need more information about what that church understood by those 5 points, and about what else the church believed.
Attending: I am sure that I am like other Christians in preferring to attend a church that has a similar doctrinal stance to my own when I'm away from home. But if that were not possible, I would attend an Arminian church.
Membership: If a church "teaches/preaches strongly the Bible just epouses Arminian theology", it would hardly be likely to want someone like me in its membership. In fact, I would say that it would be wrong for me even to try to join a church whose statement of faith was so different to my own - it would be unfair to that church.
"when I accepted the office of minister of this congregation, I looked to see what were your articles of faith. If I had not believed them I should not have accepted your call; and when I change my opinions, rest assured that, as an honest man, I shall resign the office; for how could I profess one thing in your declaration of faith, and quite another thing in my own preaching?"
"Are you biding your time till you can, without risk, renounce your present creed and tell out what your dastardly mind really holds to be true? Then are you fallen indeed, and are baser than the meanest slaves. God deliver us from treacherous men, and if they enter our ranks, may they speedily be drummed out to the tune of the Rogue's March. If we feel an abhorrence of them, how much more must the Spirit of truth detest them!"
"the fact is that the churches as a rule do not give such boundless license, but lay down more or less distinct creeds and rules of practice, to which assent is given by all their ministers; and while these are still in use, no man can promise to maintain them, and yet war against them, profess to esteem them, and yet despise them, without his conduct being a great moral mystery to those who fain would think him an honest man"
"The liberty of preachers is important, but the liberty of hearers is important too. It would be wrong to oppress the individual, but it is not less so to oppress the many. Let the preacher use his tongue as he wills, but by what show of right should a congregation support him while he is opposing their views of truth?"
Calvinisn is NOT the gospel. (Generally put) Calvinism is nothing more than mans attempt to understand the workings of God in and with creation and man.
[must like Arminianism and other systematic theological systems]
To pretend this view is the gospel is foolishness indeed.
Well said Allan. It would seem, from the postings of some, that Calvin's writings and beliefs as to be put ahead of scripture and the teachings of Christ.
And this from a reformed brother -Amen! (and I know there are others out there as well, as they have posted much the same statements in times past
Yes, not matter what view one takes it should never be equated as scripture.
To presume mans view of God's word equates to being Gods word itself borders on idolatry.
So you gentlemen are squarely against the greatest baptist pastor who ever lived. C.H. Spurgeon. That's a losing position as God greatly blessed his ministry by leading many souls to Christ and is still doing so today.
"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." -- C.H. Spurgeon
As long as he believed what my signature say's I have no problem with what he said it is the Gospel.
One thing Spurgeon taught is it doesn't matter if you do not know if you are the elect or not you just come and He will in no wise cast you out. Now that is a Gospel
Spurgeon was once asked, "Why don't you just preach to the called, the ones who are elect?" He said, "If you will pull up everybody's shirt tails so I can see if they have an E stamped on their back, I will." Only God knows if someone is called. But don't let that discourage you because John 6:37 says, "All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me; and HIM THAT COMETH TO ME I WILL IN NO WISE CAST OUT." Jesus said, "Don't worry about whether you are called or not. If you want to come, I'll take you."