Can non-Calvinists be saved

[nasa1]

To: nasa1

My complaint was, and still is, that you are showing the Calvinist icon, were answering questions in the Ask A Calvinist forum, and are not a Calvinist, proven by the content of your posts.

If you stop using the Calvinist icon and answering questions directed to Calvinists, I will withdraw my complaint.

If you are interested in learning more about God's word, and what Calvinists believe - which is what the Bible teaches - ask away and we will be more than willing to help.

God says what I am, and not you.

The very fact that you wanted me banned from the forum proves that there is a heart problem in yourself accepting the weaker, younger sheep.

Don't beat the sheep. Help them. God says who I am, not you.

NASA

 

[A New Dawn]

God says what I am, and not you.

The very fact that you wanted me banned from the forum proves that there is a heart problem in yourself accepting the weaker, younger sheep.

Don't beat the sheep. Help them. God says who I am, not you.

NASA

I don't think that accusing people of beating the sheep is a correct analogy, here. First, the concern was raised because you say you are a new Christian and Calvinist, but you are answering questions put to Calvinists and are misrepresenting what we believe. Secondly, the advice here was given so you have a place to go to learn what Calvinists do believe, not go get rid of you (or ban you from the forum) but to help you learn. You are always welcome here to ask questions and learn from discussions that are taking place, but it isn't appropriate to step into conversations and speak for the Calvinist position when what you are promoting isn't Calvinism.

(To be honest, I don't participate in these discussions much, either, because I don't accept all 5 petals on the TULIP. I am only a 4.5 petal Calvinist, but I feel that is enough to keep me from participating fully. )

 

[Elderone]

(To be honest, I don't participate in these discussions much, either, because I don't accept all 5 petals on the TULIP. I am only a 4.5 petal Calvinist, but I feel that is enough to keep me from participating fully. )

Don't worry, the Holy Spirit will show you the other 1/2 point.

 

[A New Dawn]

Don't worry, the Holy Spirit will show you the other 1/2 point.

If'n you insist!

 

[nasa1]

I don't think that accusing people of beating the sheep is a correct analogy, here. First, the concern was raised because you say you are a new Christian and Calvinist, but you are answering questions put to Calvinists and are misrepresenting what we believe. Secondly, the advice here was given so you have a place to go to learn what Calvinists do believe, not go get rid of you (or ban you from the forum) but to help you learn. You are always welcome here to ask questions and learn from discussions that are taking place, but it isn't appropriate to step into conversations and speak for the Calvinist position when what you are promoting isn't Calvinism.

(To be honest, I don't participate in these discussions much, either, because I don't accept all 5 petals on the TULIP. I am only a 4.5 petal Calvinist, but I feel that is enough to keep me from participating fully. )

Yes, I see what you mean...I should let the more seasoned Calvinist vets do the answering around here. I see your point.

I will refrain from answering a question, but perhaps I can also pose a view as a question, making sure that I state that I am a new learner.

I just thought that Elderone's suggestion for me to be banned showed an extreme lack of love and patience.

NASA

 

[AndOne]

I'm sorry but I feel that God called me to this and I cannot change for you or anyone else. I am a Calvinist, from what I've learned from John Piper's website, especially his booklet about the 5 points of Calvinism.

Nothing against John Piper - he is one of the greats - but again please read the Canons of Dort which clearly lay out the five points as accepted universally by all TRUE Calvinists.

Piper is just one man - the Canons of Dort were comprised by 89 delegates representing nine different nations in 1610 in response to the rise of Armianism. All of the Calvinists since then have positively affirmed them - of whom John Piper is one.

As a side note: I'm not entirely convinced that John Piper's description of the fifth point - perseverence of the saints - lines up exactly with the way it is laid out in Dort. But that is for another post. And for the record - I do love Piper's work regardless.

 

[rrguy]

Exacty! Making conditions such as , "You must believe in a Trinity or in Calvinism or in the catechisms of the roman catholic church" are legalistic rules and they should not a precedent for salvation!


NASA

Just a question cause maybe I don't understand, but is not believing in the Trinity, believing in Jesus & who he is?

 

[ladyt28]

so if there is a Calvinist going to other forums and being as mean and nasty as he can be regarding theology, I shouldn't assume that it is his Calvinism inspiring him to be this way - I truly appreciate forums and threads like yours so I can read how others are to learn when someone is hiding behind his religion to act like a fool. God Bless You all!!

 

[heymikey80]

Yes. Yet there are some things that will sound pretty stiff though that Calvinism does indeed embrace -- because the greatness of our salvation is seen in the depths of what we've been saved from.

That's where the real "steel and bone" of Calvinism comes from. Much of the rest is really getting inherited from more religious hubris. I tend to dislike that "rest of it", because again it detracts from the reality.

"Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is probably my chief entry into Calvinism's real "tough stuff." I think that toughness is real -- I also think that toughness in human depravity exposes the Gospel's true greatness.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.sinners.html

 

[calvinroyal]

Hello all,
Listen, you guys really need to get off nasa1's back. Now while it is true that we who are saved will come to a certain understanding in our faith, and certainly we can know much about an individuals maturity on the basis of their understandings. Let's not forget that if nasa1 is one of God's redeemed, he is being taught truth by the Holy Spirit, and Christ is still being formed in him. Nevermind the fact that you to were once babes in Christ. Besides, as Calvinists you all ought to know better than to grill a member of the covenant community. We are NOT saved by what we understand, but by God's decision. I don't care if I have FLAWLESS theology, or if I'm God fearing, or if I am as sincere as a hungry flea; I'm going to Hell for trying, unless God decides otherwise.

P.S. and I am a 5-pointer (whatever kinda of Gospel you think that is) The Gospel is the Gospel in spite of our theological accuracy.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Hello all,
Listen, you guys really need to get off nasa1's back. Now while it is true that we who are saved will come to a certain understanding in our faith, and certainly we can know much about an individuals maturity on the basis of their understandings. Let's not forget that if nasa1 is one of God's redeemed, he is being taught truth by the Holy Spirit, and Christ is still being formed in him. Nevermind the fact that you to were once babes in Christ. Besides, as Calvinists you all ought to know better than to grill a member of the covenant community. We are NOT saved by what we understand, but by God's decision. I don't care if I have FLAWLESS theology, or if I'm God fearing, or if I am as sincere as a hungry flea; I'm going to Hell for trying, unless God decides otherwise.

P.S. and I am a 5-pointer (whatever kinda of Gospel you think that is) The Gospel is the Gospel in spite of our theological accuracy.

Actually that isn't true, the Gospel of JWs and Mormons is zero percent of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Secondly NASA is a uniterian, therefore out of orthodoxy and not a Christian.

 

[calvinroyal]

Actually that isn't true, the Gospel of JWs and Mormons is zero percent of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I guess I can't get one over you.

Secondly NASA is a uniterian, therefore out of orthodoxy and not a Christian.

Ahhh...
Salvation by orthodoxy, I see.
And here I was thinking that faith that saves is faith in Christ, & His decision to boot. But you go ahead and "choose" your orthodoxy if you like.

P.S. I've decided to form the First Greenbeanian Church of God in Christ. Yea, were gonna serve greenbeans every sunday. We believe that that is a great example of Christ's love. Ohh.. and were gonna be Christ centered in our theology, but Quaker in our polity. But no one will get saved because orthodoxy is what REALLY saves us.

 

[heymikey80]

calvinroyal, I'd agree with you in the case of nasa that nasa really hasn't dealt seriously with the doctrine. So it's open-ended. And I agree with you that orthodoxy doesn't make a Christian.

It's a tough line though. I think y'can't assume Jesus is Someone He's not. Y'can be unaware or poorly informed about these doctrines, yes. You can reject the wording or the statements, for certain: they're humans trying to describe God. But denying Christ does mean rejecting some critical aspects of Christ's nature. To say, "He's not got the power needed to rescue", tends to reject the idea that relying on the rescuer, rescues.

So clearly there is such a thing as denying Christ. But no, it's not simply a departure from an orthodox statement, I'd definitely agree there.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Ahhh...
Salvation by orthodoxy, I see.
And here I was thinking that faith that saves is faith in Christ, & His decision to boot. But you go ahead and "choose" your orthodoxy if you like.

Faith in what Christ? That's the ultimate question.

P.S. I've decided to form the First Greenbeanian Church of God in Christ. Yea, were gonna serve greenbeans every sunday. We believe that that is a great example of Christ's love. Ohh.. and were gonna be Christ centered in our theology, but Quaker in our polity. But no one will get saved because orthodoxy is what REALLY saves us.

Good one.
But my point is that many people with SOME very wacky theology can be saved. Look at the majority of charismatic churches now a days.

 

[ReformedChapin]

So clearly there is such a thing as denying Christ. But no, it's not simply a departure from an orthodox statement, I'd definitely agree there.

What makes you a Christian then? Can we not give the benefit of the doubt to some groups that are orthodox but have crappy theology? Can you define orthodox for me?

 

[bradfordl]

Orthodoxy means "right teaching". I would assume that faith in Christ falls within that category.

 

[mlqurgw]

I believe the point is that you can't drive someone into orthodxy but by the Spirit you can lead them into it.

 

[frumanchu]

In a recent thread, a poster named "Stumpjumper" claims that Calvinists believe that all non-Calvinists are unsaved, simply by virtue of the fact that they're not Calvinists.

Now, obviously I know that this is stupid and untrue, but, in the interests of fairness, I wanted you all to have an opportunity to speak for yourselves.

So, how about it? Is there anybody here who agrees with Stumpjumper?

That sounds rather odd coming from sj and I'd be curious to know where exactly sj said that.

Suffice it to say though that that claim is patently and demonstrably untrue.

 

[ReformedChapin]

BTW I'm assuming that orthodoxy is the only way we as humans can see God's elect...even if they deny election. God's elect are spread through Christian orthodoxy! RCs, EOs, OOs, orthodox evangelicals

 

[A New Dawn]

BTW I'm assuming that orthodoxy is the only way we as humans can see God's elect...even if they deny election. God's elect are spread through Christian orthodoxy! RCs, EOs, OOs, orthodox evangelicals

I believe that God can save anyone who has heard the gospel, even if unorthodox, and then leads them to orthodoxy. I do not believe that He will leave them in unorthodoxy, though.