What if you're wrong and we are right?

Never will.

 

God uses means to accomplish His purposes. The warning passages in the Bible were written to let us know the serious consequences that would take place if we do not continue in belief. They do not imply that we will fail but they are the means that God uses to keep us from being distracted by the world. Unlike the slander by some against we Calvinists, we do not teach that saved people are robots. God uses means. Let me repeat that, God uses means.

If Romans chapter 8 doesn't convince someone that the saints are secure by the power of God and are preserved by Him, then I honestly don't know what else would convince such a person.

 

Do you understand what you are writing? You are advocating either of two things for Calvinists -

1)Sit down and shut up!

or

2)Teach what you believe to be false doctrine.

No sir. Neither option that you advocate is acceptable to me as a disciple of Jesus Christ and neither will they be to any God-fearing Calvinist.

 

If we stop believing permanently then He will cut any of us off. But the saints are secure in Christ. Do you think God was just funnin' with us in Romans chapter 8?

 

Here are some:

1) Understanding that I am incapable of doing anything to get myself out of my sin problem.

2) Understanding that Jesus has already suffered for my sins and the total debt is paid forever and ever.

3) Understanding it the work of the Holy Spirit that regenerated me and gave me a new heart and a resurrected soul - a work I could never accomplish.

4) Understanding the reason I am saved - it's all of Christ and none of me.

5) Knowing that I am absolutely and totally secure in my relationship with Jesus, my Savior and Lord.

 

Pleasant dreams and sleep tight.

 

Let me get back to the original question. What if I am wrong and arminianism is right? Let me answer that question for you.

If I am wrong and arminianism is right, then I completely change how I see God.

I see him as an absentee landlord, who creates us and lets us destroy or better ourselves on our own. I would never have brought my son into this world and then took off to let him raise himself.

I would see God as not a protector. If God let them go in the world and took off to let them do "as they wanted" then that is like me handing my son a gun with no training as to how it works.

I would see my eternity as unsure, and therefore never be able to rejoice in my salvation. I would only rejoice once I was in.

I would see God as a push over who did not see Himself as being paramount. That if he was so big, why does he put so much importance on me?

I would see evangelism as a business deal. Let us close down our seminarys and send them to saleman school. Let us close our conventions and send our congregations to a modified Amway conference.

Charles Hodge said it this way, "Pending on how you deal with this issue, is the woodshed of how you see God."

And it is, it will not change one thing about how God calls his elect, but it makes a world of difference in my worship of him, my respect to him, my reverence of him, my fear of Him, my hatred of sin, my desire to please him. My friends, this world is not here for our glorification, but the glorification of God.

The idea brought up here is the old arguement, "If the ends justify the means..." Then why can't we just believe bad doctrine, so that we can cover all the bases? The reason we cannot do that, is because God is just as concerned with the ends as He is the means.

If calvinism is wrong, it does not change anything as you assume it does Bro Bill. I was arminian for years, and I was affraid to share the gospel, because if I got it wrong they would be in hell and it would be my fault. When I was shown the truth about God sovereignty I surrendered to evangelism. I don't think that God might take care of me if all things work out, I know he will. I don't see God as a weak diety that hopes more than he moves anymore. I began to understand those things of God that I always questioned. Does it open a lot of questions, yes, but all in all, it has answered many more than it has brought up. Do I continue to study to find the answers to them, yes.

Again, I must say, that it matters not "what might be" because it is foolishness to trust what I think should be. God is not God because he fits my description of who he might be. He wasn't the best man for the job. Let us remember that He is the creator and I am the creation.

In Love,
sturgman

 

Just posted at 10:32 a.m. this morning. Tapped a nerve bro. Bill.

God Bless.
Bro Dallas

 

I repeat . . .

Originally posted by Abiyah:

These are the things I don't understand about
non-holiness-Arminianism:

1. Do they believe that when they sin, they always
lose their savation?
2. What happens if you, in a weak moment, gossip,
and immediately, you are struck by a car and
killed: do you go to Hell?
3. Do some sins not have the ability to cause you
to lose you savation, but others do? If so, which
sins are too small to cause the loss, and which are
big enough?
4. What verse(s) best define(s) sin in you opinion?
5. Do you believe that the BIble differentiates
between its uses of the words "sin"' and "sins"?
6. Can an infant go to Hell for Adam's sin before
they have commited sin themselves?

 

The Benefits of Calvinism.

1. No possibility of Open Theology
2. No possibility of Synergetic Theology
3. No possibility of Liberal Theology
4. No possibility of Easy Believe-ism Theology
5. No possibility of Existentialist Theology

BTW all of the above are the results of Arminianism.

 

Who says you have a choice?

The Bible is a 2000 year old document that we don't contain the original manuscripts for, it has been translated from a foreign language that currently is not actively spoken in our world. Is it possible your interpretation of that Word is wrong due to your lack of knowledge of the original language and the context in which it was written? Not to mention all the logical and textual problems that your doctrinal system affords; and the numerous scriptural contradictions that must continually be reconciled to fit into your system. It baffles me that you are so arrogant to think you could not be mistaken about your beliefs in light of all these things. You better hope your right, otherwise your arrogance may cost someone their life. I pray that is not the case! </font>[/QUOTE]The more I read what you have to say, the more it sounds like it comes straight from the pit.

1. You argue from what is NOT in the Bible.

2. You argue that we should care less about what is true and more about what affect things have (based on our ability to assess accurately what is "good" and what is "bad" in tersm of the results). In short, you advocate that we judge based on the knowledge of the flesh, not the Spirit.

3. Now you undermine the reliability of scripture itself. "C'mon, did God really say you shall surely die? After all, the Bible is 2000 years old and it's been translated SO many times!"

I'm beginning to think I see the reason why I find all of your threads so offensive.

 

Hi Npetreley;
A quote from you;
------------------------------
The more I read what you have to say, the more it sounds like it comes straight from the pit.

1. You argue from what is NOT in the Bible.

2. You argue that we should care less about what is true and more about what affect things have (based on our ability to assess accurately what is "good" and what is "bad" in tersm of the results). In short, you advocate that we judge based on the knowledge of the flesh, not the Spirit.
-----------------------------------------
My reply;
This such a perfect description of the view of Calvinism.
So nice of you to describe your self.
Romanbear