It Just Has To Be Grace!

[Iosias]

I was thinking the other day - it has to be by God's sovereign grace that a sinner believes the gospel and gets saved.

I agree and that is why it was by His Amazing Grace that I was saved!!

 

[BronxBriar]

I don't wanna argue, just learn how different folks think.

Me too

Hmm...I'm starting to wonder if my deodorant ain't workin' or something...

ROFL.

 

[Bible2]

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast."

-- Ephesians 2:8-9

 

[AVBunyan]

1. Say fellows, before y'all give up the dialogue I wonder if you wouldn't comment on post #8 in this thread. I'd like to know if you think the scriptures I referenced there apply.

2. Hmm...I'm starting to wonder if my deodorant ain't workin' or something...

1. I'm assuming you are referring to drawing of "all men" - Your view point is sound reasoning but what if, I say...what if, the "all men" all those whom Christ came to save?
There are difficult passages for both sides.

2. It appears to be working as far as I can tell

Either way - God is God and cannot do wrong, amen!

God bless

 

[CFoster]

Amen! Wonderful post!

Clifton

 

[BT]

1. Brother - I never said that the missionaries who were Calvinist in theology went over there and preached election to the heathen like you illustrated. My soul brother, have you ever even read their biographies? They never made an issue of election to the lost or to the saved. I don't even bring it up to the lost or even other saints unless it is forum issue. The average saint

No you did not but you implied that they were more successful than the Arminians.. did you not say:

Many of the greatest missionaires of old were Calvinistic in theology.

Many of the greatest evangelists and preachers of old were Calvinistic in theology.

To associate silliness with these men puzzles me - these were not silly men in their theology

I'll take their Christian character, results, works for God, and their holiness over anything that the doctrine of Arminiansm of this modern day has produced

2. They never preached "Calvinism" to the heathen though their theology was Calvinistic - never even used the words Calvinism or election in their preaaching to the heathen. Where did you get that is what they did or that I believe that is what they preached? The message you said that they preached in point 1. was never preached.

They preached the gospel of God's grace - they preached I Cor. 15:1-5, etc. They never went to a native and shook their fist in his face and said, "Are you the elect because if you are not then you have no hope." My soul brother, you are making more of this than needs to be made. What you are revealing is that you may not really know what these men did on the mission field - you are making assumptions or reading to much anti-calviniistic propaganda. I suggest you read what these men said about themsslevs and their ministries before you continue to re-write their sermons and make them say what they did not say. They believed that all men were born dead and were going to hell and God out of grace saved some and their jobs were to preach to those whom God elected and since they did not know who they were they went all over the globe preaching. I am asking you sincerely here - if yo have never read the autobiography of John Paton then do so - learn why these "Calvinists" went to preach to heathen that just finished eating the previous two missionaires not a year before he showed up!

Of course they did not, that's what I meant. They were calvinists but they did not preach calvinism. Therefore you can't measure their success against others who do not agree with their calvinistic theology. This is where you baffle me by saying... that you'd take their example over arminians... When clearly the stance on calvinism was not what made them successful.

3. Brother you are wrong here. Because they were Calvinist in theology they believed the elect were out there and their duty was to be used as instrument to preach to them the gospel so they would be saved. They understood the principle that it was the foolishness of preaching that God used to bring people to salvation. They did not know who they were so they obeyed and went and preached and trusted God for the results.

Yes but can't you understand the great foolishness of this statement? They were not out to spread the Gospel of Christ persay... they were out on a grand hunt to find the elect. It's ridiculous.

4. My basis of fellowship is mainly found in Eph. 4:4-6 and other places. I don't make whether or not a man is a Calvinist or not as a basis of fellowship. Do you? You mean if a man were to think a man were an heretic or based his fellowship on whether a saint was a Calvinist or not then he would have not fellowship witht he likes of Jonathan Edwards, Christopher Love, Thomas Boston, John Bunyan, George Whitefield, and others like the above. I don't panic over some of things you believe on your list. But it does appear you have big issues with mine.

No I don't make calvinism the basis of fellowship. I do have issues with calvinism, but not with you. I have told many people before that I am not an anti-calvinist.

You probably thought I was an ok fella till the dreaded "C" word came up - Why should that affect anything? Now you start to question and assume things about my view of God and Christ. Did I do this to you? Have I hammered you for not being Calvinistic in theology? I witness, read my Bible, believe the fundemental truths of the scriptures. What is the problem here?

You got me - very strange thinking.

No my brother. In truth I still think you are an ok fella, even if you are a calvinist. Street Preacher is among my best friends on these forums and we both know where he stands. One of my closest friends at my church is a calvinist. I do question things about your view of God and Christ, but only because of what the term "calvinist" says, and if you buy into that idea then I have a pretty good understanding of at least some of the things that you believe. You are more than free to hammer my non-calvinism. You see your last sentence is the trick... You witness, that's great, the Lord bless you for it. You say that you believe in the fundamental truths of the scriptures ok, but how much of what you believe has been influenced by Calvinism? You know I was in the reformed area the other day and was talking about the foolishness of applying human logic to the scriptures... I said that Calvin was highly influenced by Augustine, who is the father of Roman Catholicism (considered by many the father that is). That Augustine came up with a great heresy via the logical syllogism as thus:

Jesus is God
Mary is the mother of Jesus
Therefore Mary is the Mother of God

Ok? That's a clear representation of the foolishness as it were. You know what the calvinist told me? "Yeah we believe that is true." You know what a friend of mine told me about this syllogism who is a calvinist (not from here)... "yeah I can see how that makes sense"

Does that trouble you? It troubles me, and I don't care how many names you can pull out of your hat. The system is flawed. The entire grace idea is centered around the use of syllogistic logic.

Show me from the Bible that some men are predestinated to eternal damnation.

Show me from the Bible that Christ only died for some men or that His death was insufficient to save anyone (this, I consider a fundamental truth).

Show me from the Bible that a man who is dead (this is where the thread started) will be quickened or regenerated prior to salvation or prior to faith.

At least explain to me how God could be just if He sentences men to hell from before the foundations of the world. Is hell a punishment or not? If you say it is a punishment.. how could God punish man when man never had a chance? If man is unable to be saved, by the decree of God, then is not man in being sinful actually being obedient? How could a man be blamed when he stands before God, if God predestines man to hell. Wouldn't man just say, "You made me go to hell?" and be correct?

This is not strange thinking. You see when you put the calvinist badge upon yourself, you bring the questions up. You apply the preconceived notions not me.

My friend I tell you the truth when I say that I love you and have no hard feelings, and hope that I have not earned any from you.

 

[Bulldog]

You know what the calvinist told me? "Yeah we believe that is true."

I do not believe I said it quite like that

You can bring up your objections to Calvinism in the Reformed or Soteirlogy forums, I and I'm sure you'll get suficient answers.

 

[BT]

I do not believe I said it quite like that

No not exactly sorry, you said

Mary as the Mother of God is something that I and many other Reformed Christians believe, it does not require a deniel of sola scriptura.

This is where we ended. Since believing that Mary is the Mother of God does absolutely require a denial of sola scriptura. And in corporates eisegesis which is a very bad and dangerous habit. But Bulldog my friend thanks for keeping it civil between you and I in your forum. It was appreciated.

You can bring up your objections to Calvinism in the Reformed or Soteirlogy forums, I and I'm sure you'll get suficient answers.

Thank you but to tell you the truth I have grown weary of the debate, in the same way that I've grown weary of debating on CF in general. It is why I tend to stay in the Baptist forum, where I can edify like minded believers and fellowship with those who generally do not constantly argue with each other.

 

[AVBunyan]

Yes but can't you understand the great foolishness of this statement? They were not out to spread the Gospel of Christ persay... they were out on a grand hunt to find the elect. It's ridiculous.

If the above is your view of those men then we have gone far enough - no hard feelings.

God bless

 

[BT]

If the above is your view of those men then we have gone far enough - no hard feelings.

God bless

The above is what you said in this statement

Because they were Calvinist in theology they believed the elect were out there and their duty was to be used as instrument to preach to them the gospel so they would be saved. ... They did not know who they were so they obeyed and went and preached and trusted God for the results.

I really wish you would get your statements straight. You are right about one thing, enough is enough. We will not get anywhere with this. It seems that the only people who can have a rational conversation about this without turning into a debate or argument is Street Preacher and I. We will leave it at this. Find solice in your biographies, believe that God loves some and not others and that I'm a dullard who is unread, that men are walking zombies unable to choose anything for themselves, and which ever other pieces of doctrine from whichever camp you decide to pluck. God bless you and grant you peace, and the same for me.