We Have Forgotten His Grace...

Well, thank you for that! :wavey:

 

On this you are absolutely and completely wrong.

I have gone witnessing (door to door) with my Calvinistic brothers and sisters and they with me. And the Lord blessed our endevors. Preaching is not really an issue as long as the person coming to a pulpit understands there are certain issues that they should either be careful of or aviod if they can't. There are a multitude of scriptures to be preached upon that both groups hold fast to and believe.

Lastly, Calvinism is not the gospel and I agree with TCG in his position (apparently) It isn't semantics as you ascertted in another post, because you truly hold that it is as do some others of the Reformed group.

 

I have many feelings on this. I was raised quite legalistic. I found that if I could dress right, talk right, etc, I was told that God was pleased with me. I had control over whether or not God was pleased with me.

Over time, I became bitter at God because even though I could act the part on the outside, I knew the wickedness of my own mind. As hard as I'd try to keep it in subjection, it thought evil of someone. MY tongue spoke badly about someone. I hated my brothers and sisters on occasion. I tried hard to overcome it, but couldn't. I quit praying----God couldn't hear me, afterall.

Then one day, my heart broke free. I was set at liberty. God wasn't pleased with me for the good works of my flesh (which he said are filthy rags). God is pleased because when he sees me, he sees Jesus. He is pleased with Jesus in me.

I've found personally that living by grace alone has been a lot harder on this flesh! I had so much more control as a legalist. Odd, ain't it?

Though it's been a hard row to hoe, I wouldn't change it for the world! I've learned to love others no matter what. I've learned that I'm no better than anyone else. I've learned that Christ is my sufficiency.

Grace makes it all about Him and nothing at all about me! I praise God for that!

 

I agree with your post but I only quoted the above section because it isthe essense (I believe) of TCGreek's previous post about siting "together at the Table of Brotherhood".

 

Really?

There you go. You don't get to preach the whole Gospel as you see it.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

Sometimes the BB seems like a poorly designed intersection where the same type of accident keeps occuring over and over. For instance, there was a thread within the last month about "for whom did Christ die" and I interracted extensively on it. Now, there is a brand new thread about the exact same topic. I just can't get involved again. Over time, I've learned to read often on the board but post sparingly. I really have to guage my time and, if I don't have time to spend much time interracting, I just keep walking by the intersection and ignore the wreckage!

There has always been much of what I would call "intellectual posturing" on the board. It is easy to fall into this type of interraction. I try to avoid doing it myself and I try to point out to others when I sense them doing it to me.

 

Much too often the accusation of legalism is unfounded when one simply stands on the premise of righteousness.

You won't find righteousness in the core of anything that doesn't incorporate grace. To establish the essence of ritheousness one must know what is right and what is wrong and expressly speak to it's establishment to come to the proper conclusions. Forsaking the inception of grace is opposition to righteousness but not ever changing the laws which govern our existence.

Now, if the judge will only see that I had entered into the intersection before that light turned red and show me enough grace to let this ticket go as a warning!

 

If grace rules at an intersection, there is no need for a red-light because people give up their own rights and let others go first. Grace causes people to slow down for others and stop so that others may pass first. Because men are un-gracious and want to claim their own rights red lights and stop signs are necessary.

 

My motive was to simply proceed as to not hinder traffic. The red light is the law, your assumptions is legalistic. I was not trying to get ahead of anyone or attempting to be ungracious or preventing some one else from going through the intersection.

Your observation is incorrect and gives an obscure view of the occurance.

 

Salamander,

I've read your posts and re-read them. I don't know what you are talking about.

 

I find that a very wise statement. Do you mind if I steal it from you? Of course I'll reference you the first coulpe of times I use it, but after that I claim it as my own.

It reminds me of a youth leader we had in our church way back when. He would bring a plate full of cookies for the teens with one cookie much bigger and appealing than the others. He would pass the plate araound and let everyone get a cookie. If everyone really practiced grace and the Bibles teaching to preffer others above yourself then the "Best" cookie should be the last one chosen. Of course this was rarely the case.

 

Quote away!

 

No the whole gospel is still preached my brother.
The gospel is Christ's death, burial, and resurrection; forgivenss and repenance;
Grace and faith.

I have played the video of the sermon by Paul Washer at the youth conference (the one specifically about salvation) in church for a Wednesday night service. I doubt you can even pretend he would compromise his Calvinistic view of the gospel. I have even preached in a friend of mine Reformed Church before I moved up here to SD. a very direct salvation message. I did not change the gospel message at all. Why, because we both hold the same truths regarding salvation and that those whom the Lord is dealing with should repent and be saved.

IOW - your point falls short of the truth IF we are willing to exhault the gospel and not the finer points of our theology.

 

If it's non-essential, then remove it from the Canon.

It doesn't matter what you guys say on a web page, two cannot walk together except they be agreed. Blame an ungracious spirit if you must, but you aren't exempt from that universal, non-optional principle.

 

Show me where and don't play games. I answered you directly to the assumptions you had made.

 

Oh, so now it's ok to make a determination of spirituality by tempting the flesh?:laugh:

 

Ah, but some things that are essential for me may not be for you. But aren't all things expedient for us as Christians without our rationalizing questionable things as if everything falls under christian liberty?

I don't have a "TV". I do have a monitor television set whioch we play video games and watch dvds and vhs. I have been "condemned" for having the set by some "well-meaning" brethren. Does grace allow them to condemn me even though no proof can be established that we have ever watched anything inappropiate? Does grace allow some the privilege expressed as liberty to simply change the channel when an appropiate scene appears, but then isn't it too late and the images are forever etched upon the minds?

Ok, then how is it that "condemning spirit" is to be detected? Is it at the convenience to the accuser? One concocts an attitude of condmenation towards another and then operates from that level. All too comon it is a practice excercised by those who only want the ones who disagree with them to be vilified and themselves justified.

Maybe you should go into greater detail so these culminations could be diminished?