Can you be saved not believing Jesus is God?

[Mark Quayle]

there are two "gospels". the One which is the Gospel according to the Teachings of the Holy Bible; and the other is the gospel according to the Reformed/Calvinists. Of the latter the Apostle Paul says, "another gospel, Which is not another" (Galatians 1:6-7), and therefore a "pseudo-gospel", and must be rejected as not being from the God of the Holy Bible!

Verse 6 and 7 are not stand-alone verses, to be used on whatever occasion suits you. They were said in the context of some teaching the necessity of works for salvation. (See chapter 2). That is not --most definitely not-- Reformed/Calvinism. In fact, it is the opposite group(s) who teach that God cannot regenerate except by permission of the individual while still in their lost unregenerate state. The logic there is bad enough, (since the lost CANNOT please God and the inclination of their hearts is only evil continually), but it requires a WORK of the lost in order to be saved. THAT is the "other gospel".

 

[Bond-servant of Christ]

Verse 6 and 7 are not stand-alone verses, to be used on whatever occasion suits you. They were said in the context of some teaching the necessity of works for salvation. (See chapter 2). That is not --most definitely not-- Reformed/Calvinism. In fact, it is the opposite group(s) who teach that God cannot regenerate except by permission of the individual while still in their lost unregenerate state. The logic there is bad enough, (since the lost CANNOT please God and the inclination of their hearts is only evil continually), but it requires a WORK of the lost in order to be saved. THAT is the "other gospel".

you do talk a load of rubbish!

 

[Bond-servant of Christ]

Well, you are free to believe your personal doctrine.

Biblical. It is the Reformed that are on the decline all around the world, as they are being found out for their warped theology!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Biblical. It is the Reformed that are on the decline all around the world, as they are being found out for their warped theology!

That's like saying Christianity is on the decline. Truth is, it does my heart good to see the chaff blowing away with the wind.

 

[Bond-servant of Christ]

That's like saying Christianity is on the decline. Truth is, it does my heart good to see the chaff blowing away with the wind.

 

[Hammster]

Biblical. It is the Reformed that are on the decline all around the world, as they are being found out for their warped theology!

Reformed views are biblical.

But here’s a good place to disprove that if you can.

Debate with a Calvinist

 

[Bond-servant of Christ]

Reformed views are biblical.

But here’s a good place to disprove that if you can.

Debate with a Calvinist

really? so, the Bible says that God's loves the entire human race, and not just the elect, and that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the entire human race, including Judas, and Reformed "theology" is against this, and therefore NOT Biblical!

 

[Hammster]

really? so, the Bible says that God's loves the entire human race, and not just the elect, and that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the entire human race, including Judas, and Reformed "theology" is against this, and therefore NOT Biblical!

If you have a coherent argument to make, follow that link and make it. I’ll be sure to respond. I don’t want to take this thread off topic more than we already have.

 

[coronawatching]

I'm not even sure the Early Church knew it perfectly.

The Apostles seem to know.

 

[zoidar]

Verse 6 and 7 are not stand-alone verses, to be used on whatever occasion suits you. They were said in the context of some teaching the necessity of works for salvation. (See chapter 2). That is not --most definitely not-- Reformed/Calvinism. In fact, it is the opposite group(s) who teach that God cannot regenerate except by permission of the individual while still in their lost unregenerate state. The logic there is bad enough, (since the lost CANNOT please God and the inclination of their hearts is only evil continually), but it requires a WORK of the lost in order to be saved. THAT is the "other gospel".

Verse 6 and 7 are not stand-alone verses, to be used on whatever occasion suits you. They were said in the context of some teaching the necessity of works for salvation. (See chapter 2). That is not --most definitely not-- Reformed/Calvinism. In fact, it is the opposite group(s) who teach that God cannot regenerate except by permission of the individual while still in their lost unregenerate state. The logic there is bad enough, (since the lost CANNOT please God and the inclination of their hearts is only evil continually), but it requires a WORK of the lost in order to be saved. THAT is the "other gospel".

The other gospel was that they wanted to go back to circumcision. That would mean they had to keep the whole Mosaic Law. Maybe then the step to reintroducing animal sacrifices weren't too far off either. That would indeed be another gospel, and a disgrace to Christ.

Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.
— Galatians 5:2-3

 

[OzSpen]

take a look of Calvin on Mark 14:24 and Colossians 1:14. The man must have lost his mind at some time!

Bond-servant,

Please expound the point so I know what you mean.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Fortunately, the Puritans that can’t after him didn’t waver.

Hammster,

I presume you meant "came" and not "can't".

Oh, yes, some Puritans did waver:

I find it interesting to examine Richard Baxter, the Puritan's, teaching on the atonement. He stated in his article on the extent of redemption: "I have perused," he said, "all the articles of the Synod of Dort and unfeignedly honour them as containing sound and moderate doctrine". He wrote: "In the very article of perseverance, which some are pleased to quarrel with me about, I subscribe to the Synod." "Yea" he adds, "in the article of the extent of redemption, wherein I am most suspected and accused, I do subscribe to the Synod of Dort, without any exception, limitation, or exposition of any word, as doubtful or obscure. . . .

"I do subscribe to the Synod of Dort, without any exception, limitation, or exposition, of any word, as doubtful and obscure." Baxter's view was that Dort's theology expresses the mind of Calvin. Fundamental to the Dort Canon's conception of the atonement is the formula 'sufficient for all, efficient for the elect'" (Sec Orme's Memoir of Baxter in The Practical Works of the Rev. Richard Baxter, vol. 1, p. 456, emphasis in original).

A fundamental teaching of the Synod of Dort seems to be that the atonement was "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect."

The Puritan, John Bunyan, rejected limited atonement. He wrote:

O how heartily He will receive us into his arms! He offers all freely; yea, He comes in the word of the gospel with the blood running down his face, tears upon his cheeks, fresh wounds in his hands and feet, and blood still flowing from his side, to entreat you to accept his gracious offer of reconciliation. Will you love sin more than grace, and darkness more than light? Will you shut your eyes to Him but open them wide for the pleasures of the flesh? Will you run the hazard of death in the da of judgment? Will you despise Him and reject his grace? (Works 1:1 31-136).

The Puritan, Jonathan Edwards, viewed the atonement this way:

Universal redemption must be denied in the very sense of Calvinists themselves, whether predestination is acknowledged or no, if we acknowledge that Christ knows all things. For if Christ certainly knows all things to come, he certainly knew, when he died, that there were such and such men that would never be the better for his death. And therefore, it was impossible that he should die with an intent to make them (particular persons) happy. For it is a right-down contradiction [to say that] he died with an intent to make them happy, when at the same time he knew they would not be happy-Predestination or no predestination, it is all one for that. This is all that Calvinists mean when they say that Christ did not die for all, that he did not die intending and designing that such and such particular persons should be the better for it; and that is evident to a demonstration. Now Arminians, when [they]Ibid. say that Christ died for all, cannot mean, with any sense, that he died for all any otherwise than to give all an opportunity to be saved; and that, Calvinists themselves never denied. He did die for all in this sense; 'tis past all contradiction (Jonathan Edwards [1722], The “Miscellanies”: (Entry Nos. a–z, aa–zz, 1–500; "t": Universal redemption, Works of Jonathan Edwards, online Vol. 13) , Ed. Harry S. Stout, page 174.)

The Synod of Dort stated in ...

Article 2.8: The efficacy of the death of Christ. For this was the most free counsel of God the Father, that the life-giving and saving efficacy of the most precious death of his Son should extend to all the elect (John17:9). It was his most gracious will and intent to give to them alone justifying faith and thereby to bring them unfailingly to salvation (Ephesians5:25–27; Luke22:20.). This means: God willed that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) [Luke22:20; Hebrews8:6] should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and tongue (Revelation 5:9) all those, and those only, who from eternity were chosen to salvation and were given to him by the Father. God further willed that Christ should give to them faith (Philippians1:2, 9), which, together with other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, he acquired for them by his death; that he should cleanse them by his blood from all sins (1John1:7), both original and actual, both those committed after faith and before faith; and that he should guard them faithfully to the end (John10:28) and at last present them to himself in splendour without any spot or wrinkle (Ephesians5:27).

All is not hunky dory in relying on the Puritans to maintain Calvinistic Reformed doctrines.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

there are two "gospels". the One which is the Gospel according to the Teachings of the Holy Bible; and the other is the gospel according to the Reformed/Calvinists. Of the latter the Apostle Paul says, "another gospel, Which is not another" (Galatians 1:6-7), and therefore a "pseudo-gospel", and must be rejected as not being from the God of the Holy Bible!

Bond-servant,

You've made a mighty big leap here. To whom was Paul referring in Gal 1:6-7? What was the "different" kind of Gospel? I don't find anything in Gal 1 to state it was Calvinism vs Arminianism.

It was a Gospel of preaching to which Paul referred. How is it possible to make your leap to condemn Hammster's theology to "another gospel."

I don't consider it's "another gospel" but is another way of interpreting the data. Let's stay with the facts of Gal 1 and not fill "another gospel" with our own hermeneutical baggage.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

you do talk a load of rubbish!

Bond-servant, I urge you not to engage in this kind of red herring fallacy. We can't have a rational conversation when you do this. You are trying to divert attention away from this discussion with your inflammatory language.

 

[Bond-servant of Christ]

If you have a coherent argument to make, follow that link and make it. I’ll be sure to respond. I don’t want to take this thread off topic more than we already have.

you should really take serious note of what you have quoted:

Ignorance of the Scriptures is the root of all error. J. C. Ryle

 

[Bond-servant of Christ]

Bond-servant,

Please expound the point so I know what you mean.

Oz

in both these places it is very clear that Calvin says that the Death of Jesus Christ is for the entire human race

 

[Bond-servant of Christ]

Bond-servant, I urge you not to engage in this kind of red herring fallacy. We can't have a rational conversation when you do this. You are trying to divert attention away from this discussion with your inflammatory language.

have you heard of Truth? see what I wrote this in response to, and you just might understand what I say!

 

[Bond-servant of Christ]

Bond-servant,

You've made a mighty big leap here. To whom was Paul referring in Gal 1:6-7? What was the "different" kind of Gospel? I don't find anything in Gal 1 to state it was Calvinism vs Arminianism.

It was a Gospel of preaching to which Paul referred. How is it possible to make your leap to condemn Hammster's theology to "another gospel."

I don't consider it's "another gospel" but is another way of interpreting the data. Let's stay with the facts of Gal 1 and not fill "another gospel" with our own hermeneutical baggage.

Oz

says you!

 

[Hammster]

Hammster,

I presume you meant "came" and not "can't".

Oh, yes, some Puritans did waver:



A fundamental teaching of the Synod of Dort seems to be that the atonement was "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect."

The Puritan, John Bunyan, rejected limited atonement. He wrote:



The Puritan, Jonathan Edwards, viewed the atonement this way:



The Synod of Dort stated in ...


All is not hunky dory in relying on the Puritans to maintain Calvinistic Reformed doctrines.

Oz

Interesting how you read that. But I guess you see what you want.

 

[Hammster]

you should really take serious note of what you have quoted:

Ignorance of the Scriptures is the root of all error. J. C. Ryle

When the other side is only left with personal attacks...well, I’ll let you figure it out.