Calvanism

Musician4God1611 · June 14, 2021

I actually knew of (did not know her personally) a woman that did not believe she was one of the elect. She still felt like it was her duty to witness to try to help the elect find their way to the "truth".

BrotherTony · June 14, 2021

2 hours ago, Baptistsenior said:

My statement had little to do with salvation and everything to do with which Baptists were first. There is more to Christianity than salvation and yes what pastors think does matter. God gave them to us for a reason. However since all great pastors and theologians disagree it's best to get alone with God and His word to find out truths. Don't mind me, I'm not a theologian (nor would I follow one) I'm just an old lady

I'm sure we're all aware that there is more to this discussion than salvation. I simply asked, does it affect your salvation or standing with God? No, it doesn't, or at least, it shouldn't. Simple as that. I'm not just going to disregard what you said because your "old" or a woman. That wouldn't be a Christian thing to do. What pastors think does matter...yes. But what they preach matters as well. I've seen people go to Calvinist pastored churches who were Arminian in belief, and they did just fine. I've seen the reverse as well. Depends on the temperament of each individual. I've got many friends from both camps.

2 minutes ago, Musician4God1611 said:

I actually knew of (did not know her personally) a woman that did not believe she was one of the elect. She still felt like it was her duty to witness to try to help the elect find their way to the "truth".

Many of the Calvinists I know believe that they should be preaching and teaching God's Word to bring others to Jesus Christ. I didn't know that one of these people was a Calvinist until he told me. He seemed so Arminian in practice. He said HE didn't know who was in the elect...only God knew. I could agree with him on that particular point.

BrotherTony · June 14, 2021

3 hours ago, Salyan said:

THIS. Things that are different cannot be the same.

Tony, if it helps, here is my nutshell on why I personally believe that neither of your named two systems have the doctrine of salvation correct.

Calvinism: This doctrine blatantly ignores the repeated, clear words of scripture that God “would have all men to be saved,” and that “God so loved the world that whosoever believeth… may be saved.”

Arminism: In repudiating eternal security, this doctrine ignore God’s words that no one shall be able to pluck believers out of His hand.

The biblical position combines the free will of all men to accept Christ for salvation, combined with an assurance of salvation that is based on God’s promise, and not Calvinism’s teaching that “you will always be saved because you had no choice in the first place”.

I'm aware that many don't fit into either of these two camps. You're correct that MOST Calvinists (5 pointers) ignore these Scriptures. I also know several within the Arminian camp that DON'T believe one can lose their salvation. It's not good to try to lump all in a camp as believing a certain way, because that probably isn't going to happen. Not everyone will agree It's like the old saying says, "opinions are like heads...everybody has one!" I try NOT to lump everybody from either camp, because both are factioned off into separate splinter groups as well. I know of many in the Calvinist camp that have "left the faith" which they have so vigorously defended and are now out in the world living like heathens. Their words to me, "Well, I'm one of the elect, so God's not going to send me to hell. REALLY? I can't seem to find that position in Scripture.

Bouncing Bill · June 14, 2021

15 minutes ago, Musician4God1611 said:

I actually knew of (did not know her personally) a woman that did not believe she was one of the elect. She still felt like it was her duty to witness to try to help the elect find their way to the "truth".

To me that means she was definitely of the elect. Wow, I would like to meet her.

Ukulelemike · June 14, 2021

1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Has anyone every met a Calvinist who did not believe they were part of the elect?

I have. A very nice fellow, strong believer in Christ, but somehow got the idea, and he never really explained why, that he wasn't part of the elect, and it drove him almost to suicide. And because he could not let go of the flawed system, it finally drove him away. I have been in contact with him lately, and he now believes he is elect, and feels better, but again, could not give me an answer as to why.

BrotherTony · June 14, 2021

4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

First, you act as if there is ONLY two possible positions to take. This in itself is a mistake. Both the position of the Calvinist and the position of the Arminian are SYSTEMS of belief, including multiple points of doctrine (even when we are narrowing our consideration only upon the doctrine of salvation). Some of those points of doctrine may be mutually exclusive, possessing only two options - the one option and its direct opposite. However, other of those points possess more than two options, allowing for more than only two systems of belief.

Second, are you asking whether I can "prove" to YOU "100% beyond any reasonable doubt" which side is correct before I can recognize for MYSELF which side is "accursed," and thereby choose to separate MYSELF from ministry fellowship with them? Or are you asking whether I have "proven" to MYSELF 100% beyond any reasonable doubt which side is correct so that I can recognize for MYSELF which side is "accursed," and thereby choose to separate MYSELF from ministry fellowship with them? If you are asking the first question, I have no idea whether I could "prove" this to you, since I have never had any previous opportunity to attempt such an objective; however, I doubt that it would be possible since you seem to be portraying yourself as one who is already 100% determined to hold the position of "uncertainty." Yet I do not believe that I need to "prove" any such thing to YOU, in order for me to choose with whom I myself will or will not fellowship in ministry. Your recognition or denial of belief has no real bearing on my choices before the Lord my God concerning personal fellowship and separation. On the other hand, if you are asking the second question above, then I would answer that I most certainly HAVE "proven" to myself from Biblical study 100% beyond any reasonable doubt within my heart which side is correct; and it is NEITHER the Calvinistic system of belief NOR the Arminian system of belief. If we are considering only the so-called "five points" of the debate, I recognize that three of those points are mutually exclusive, possessing only two possible positions. On ALL three of those points I believe that the Calvinistic system of belief is in error and that the Arminian system of belief is correct. However, I recognize that the other two points are not mutually exclusive and actually posses more than two possible positions. Even so, on those two points I believe that both the Calvinistic system of belief and the Arminian system of belief are in error. Thus I hold to neither system of belief as a system. In addition, I possess NO reasonable doubts concerning the position that I hold. Even so, I am quite comfortable making choices of fellowship and separation over these matters.

Actually, let us recognize that the word "accursed" is NOT my word, but is from GOD'S OWN WORD on the matter. Furthermore, let us recognize that the doctrinal divide between the systems of Calvinism and Arminianism are great enough that both sides as a full system cannot be correct. It is possible that both sides could be in error; but the contradictions of the two systems of belief against each other are such that they both cannot be correct. Even so, at least one of the two systems of belief has the doctrine of salvation wrong, which further means that at least one of the two systems of belief falls under the condemnation of Galatians 1:6-9. Even so also, this behooves us to determine through diligent, disciplined Bible study which this might be, in order that we do not join in error and thus fall under that same condemnation.

So let me see...both sides are incorrect....correct? j/k...don't have a cow! I've already stated that I'm not going to give my position away. As I've already stated, I can defend either or. I don't like defending any of them. But, in the past I have debated for each side. I guess that's why I was interested in law when I got out of high school, and some have stated that I should have been an attorney. I don't think ANYONE can certify 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that either side is fully correct. All I can say is, "Let God be true and every man a liar!"

Ukulelemike · June 14, 2021

I have always likened the idea of biblcal "elect" or "elected" to the human idea of elect or elected. It means to be chosen, but generally, the one chosen has thrown their hat in the ring, seeking to be elected. I'm not aware of any president or government official being elected against his will, with no intent toward that election. I believe this basic idea is the same in Christianity, except that in this case, ALL who seek to be elected are elected, but I do not believe anyone is elected without being willing to be so. Even Paul, chosen by God to be an apostle, had an opportunity to reject, had he wanted. On the road to Damascus, when the voice said he was Jesus, Saul could have rejected the idea as being instead a trick of Satan, as the Pharisees had when dealing with Christ. Jonah was chosen to go to Nineveh as a prophet and he could have easily chosen to remain in the fish's belly to die, rather than follow the command of God.

Pastor Scott Markle · June 14, 2021

22 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

So let me see...both sides are incorrect....correct? j/k...don't have a cow!

I would not want to bring forth a cow; they are waaaaay to big to "pass." (joke warning as well) However, based upon my position as presented above - Yes, your opening statement is correct.

24 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

I don't think ANYONE can certify 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that either side is fully correct. All I can say is, "Let God be true and every man a liar!"

Well, I really do not want my following statement to be taken as "rude;" for I do NOT intend it as such. Yet I do feel the need to express (gently, if you would take it that way) - What you think about this is not really that relevant to me; I MYSELF will continue to contend that I am indeed "100% beyond a shadow of a doubt" convinced before the Lord my God that both systems of belief (as whole systems) are incorrect. Furthermore, I will continue to contend that I am indeed 100% without any doubts concerning the position that I hold. (Now, some may accuse me of ungodly arrogance for this; however, I would contend that in this matter I stand in the place of Biblical confidence.)

BrotherTony · June 14, 2021

2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I would not want to bring forth a cow; they are waaaaay to big to "pass." (joke warning as well) However, based upon my position as presented above - Yes, your opening statement is correct.

Well, I really do not want my following statement to be taken as "rude;" for I do NOT intend it as such. Yet I do feel the need to express (gently, if you would take it that way) - What you think about this is not really that relevant to me; I MYSELF will continue to contend that I am indeed "100% beyond a shadow of a doubt" convinced before the Lord my God that both systems of belief (as whole systems) are incorrect. Furthermore, I will continue to contend that I am indeed 100% without any doubts concerning the position that I hold. (Now, some may accuse me of ungodly arrogance for this; however, I would contend that in this matter I stand in the place of Biblical confidence.)

I don't think I'd ever accuse you of ungodly arrogance. Direct? Yes. That's fine with me. I don't take people as rude until they are BLATANTLY rude. It takes a lot, believe me. I don't offend easily. Personally, I'm not sure either position in and of itself is viable. Some good points to both. Some bad points as well.

Pastor Scott Markle · June 14, 2021

1 hour ago, BrotherTony said:

I don't think I'd ever accuse you of ungodly arrogance. Direct? Yes. That's fine with me.

Yeah, I can certainly accept being called "direct."

Baptistsenior · June 15, 2021

19 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

I'm sure we're all aware that there is more to this discussion than salvation. I simply asked, does it affect your salvation or standing with God? No, it doesn't, or at least, it shouldn't. Simple as that. I'm not just going to disregard what you said because your "old" or a woman. That wouldn't be a Christian thing to do. What pastors think does matter...yes. But what they preach matters as well. I've seen people go to Calvinist pastored churches who were Arminian in belief, and they did just fine. I've seen the reverse as well. Depends on the temperament of each individual. I've got many friends from both camps.

Many of the Calvinists I know believe that they should be preaching and teaching God's Word to bring others to Jesus Christ. I didn't know that one of these people was a Calvinist until he told me. He seemed so Arminian in practice. He said HE didn't know who was in the elect...only God knew. I could agree with him on that particular point.

I admit that I may have misunderstood your meaning. Being old or a women was only meant to show that I am not a pastor, theologian, etc. I'm just a old time Baptist that is still trying to learn. as the anabaptists etc of the past, I don't fit in either of those two belief systems. It seems to me that both are spawns of catholicism

SureWord · June 16, 2021

Everyone is called, but few chosen.

A preacher once said, "God is calling everyone on the phone but only those who pick up are chosen."

Bouncing Bill · June 16, 2021

7 minutes ago, SureWord said:

Everyone is called, but few chosen.

A preacher once said, "God is calling everyone on the phone but only those who pick up are chosen."

Which is more accurate;

few or chosen

or few chuse?

Strange the word chuse was the most popular spelling in the 17 and 1800s. Somehow 'choose' replaced 'chuse'. I think chuse is the better spelling.

SureWord · June 16, 2021

2 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Which is more accurate;

few or chosen

or few chuse?

Strange the word chuse was the most popular spelling in the 17 and 1800s. Somehow 'choose' replaced 'chuse'. I think chuse is the better spelling.

Huh?

Salyan · June 16, 2021

1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Which is more accurate;

few or chosen

or few chuse?

Strange the word chuse was the most popular spelling in the 17 and 1800s. Somehow 'choose' replaced 'chuse'. I think chuse is the better spelling.

Off topic! Let's get back to the OP.