Posted on 11/18/2013 8:53:42 AM PST by imardmd1
>>Also, LOL. As soon as I hit “post”, I knew that all W/A would think this is Calvinism speaking...and not biblicism.
Of course you would think that. I don’t know a single Calvinist! I know plenty of Baptists, Presbyterians, and Non-denoms and none of them are full five-point Calvinists. But, they are 3-4 point Calvinists and they always call it “biblical”. Arminianism is just as biblical and I could prove that it is more biblical than Calvinism if we were sitting across a table with some bibles.
You can call it whatever you want, but if you agree with Calvin, then you are somewhat Calvinist (but I know that you aren’t a full five-point Calvinist since those don’t exist in the modern world).
Wanna make a little bet? LOL
Without saying I agree 100% with Wesleyan theology (because I’m Catholic), I will say I agree that the decline of a good, solid Christian denomination is terribly sad. Methodism and the Holiness movement were a significant force in American life. Even today, of course, one can find Methodist congregations that are a great blessing to their members and their communities, but at the top, the denomination has gone loop-de-loo.
My mother’s Presbyterian church has gone on the same trajectory. When I was a girl, we were solid Church of Scotland people, but times changed.
>>Methodism and the Holiness movement were a significant force in American life. Even today, of course, one can find Methodist congregations that are a great blessing to their members and their communities, but at the top, the denomination has gone loop-de-loo.
We have a strong confessing/revival movement in the UMC and the excesses of the bishops and leftist clergy are opening people’s eyes to the reality that you can’t “a little bit” liberal. Once they get a toehold, they demand nothing but total surrender and we just aren’t willing to do that. I think that a new holiness movement will come out of this confusing time in the life of the church.
I’d like to see someone nail a new “95 Theses” on the door of the UMC leadership!
As I said, all organizations have left the message of the Scriptures. The PCUSA is as deviant as the UMC...
I suppose this depends on how you define "Calvinist". If it is simply that the 5 points often associated with Calvin are understood to be true, then you may be aware of Sproul, Storms, White, Boettner and others. Personally, I don't care for such a label. The term seems to imply a following of Calvin versus following the Scriptures.
But, I am curious, what part of TULIP do you believe is unbiblical? Not distasteful, but unbiblical. An Arminian may dislike the idea that they are not in control of their salvation at any point, but that does not change biblical realities.
>>Personally, I don’t care for such a label. The term seems to imply a following of Calvin versus following the Scriptures.
You might see it that way, but I see it as a way of interpreting scripture. Calvinists have their interpretation and Arminians have theirs. Each can “prove” their interpretation and each can “disprove” the other. The truth is somewhere in the middle of the two. Both come together at the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Our greater enemy is the humanist liberal. The Calvinists have been corrupted by the liberals and so have the Arminians. Likewise, the Roman Catholics and Lutherans have been corrupted by the same liberals. Even some Baptist congregations are starting feel the effects of leftist infiltration.
So, I applaud your Calvinism and hope that you can applaud my Wesleyanism, as long as we both fight the Enemy and accept the grace that only comes from the cross.
Can you prove this? Just kidding. It is interesting, however, that you offer a "solution" to the disparity between those who hold to free will (and other Arminian perspectives) and those who cannot find such doctrines in the Scriptures. Yet your "solution" does not involve the Bible. Perhaps you could direct me to the passage indicating "The truth is somewhere in the middle"?
Certainly, the Scriptures tell us that grace (unmerited favor) is the free gift of God and results in salvation for anyone whom Jesus draws to Himself. If an Arminian is among the elect, then of course he/she would be the beneficiary of the "...grace of our Lord Jesus Christ."
“Wanna make a little bet? LOL”
Yea if Laz will hit it they are strait. If he won’t they are bull dykes.
>>Yet your “solution” does not involve the Bible. Perhaps you could direct me to the passage indicating “The truth is somewhere in the middle”?
No, I won’t send you a list of prooftexts, because then you will do the same and that will solve nothing since the truth in the bible is not found in “who has the larger list of prooftexts”. There is scripture that supports Calvinism and there is scripture that supports Arminianism. Both interpretations cannot be right, so both must be wrong. If both are wrong, then God must have a plan that is something else.
>>It is interesting, however, that you offer a “solution” to the disparity between those who hold to free will (and other Arminian perspectives) and those who cannot find such doctrines in the Scriptures.
You can’t see the problem? When I became a Methodist, and learned that a Methodist is Arminian, I studied that and discovered the rift between the Arminians and Calvinists.
So, what did I do first? I got books on Calvinism and read the scriptures that “prove” Calvinism is right before I started trying to prove Arminianism. Then, I read the scriptures that “proved” Arminianism.
If you cannot find proof of such doctrine in scripture, then you just aren’t looking for it.
So hence the belief in free will is not a pre-requisite to claimining homosexuality is normal, neither is a belief in Calvinism such a pre-requisite
The gay mafia is attacking churches all around
If we stop and say "oh, they deserved it" rather than helping the conservatives in those churches, then we are failing the conservatives.
It is interesting that you now understand that your new, revised view is the correct view: Both interpretations cannot be right, so both must be wrong. This, in itself, need not be true, however. If both cannot be right, one may be wrong.
But, now you are faced with, "What do I tell my children?" Is the Gospel a mish-mash of both, both of which are incorrect? Do you simply say, "Well, this is what we are going to believe...although I acknowledge that the other view is also true!"? Do you say, "Just believe something because I, yes I, have decided that it must be okay, because I cannot make sense of it all."?
The PCUSA is simply another wandering organization. It may have had roots in the Gospel as presented in the Scriptures, but it has long ago departed any form of clinging to Scripture as the foundation of its views. Witness the departure of many of the more conservative elements. If you asked this group’s leadership, do you still hold to divine determinism, predestination, God’s management of all portions of salvation (the underlying components of TULIP), they would laugh you out of the room.
Look at Princeton. It will no longer acknowledge that it was a seminary up to 1930. It behaves as if it had no past, but just a spontaneous academic beginning. Such is the PCUSA...it is not a believing group of men/women. It is simply an organization. Thus, homosexuality is as welcome as the heresy of free will.
If you cannot find proof of such doctrine in scripture, then you just aren’t looking for it."
Curious...what Scriptures "proved" that Arminianism was correct? Other than the "freewill" offering in the Old Covenant, which simply meant it was not going to be prescribed, and once when Paul told Philemon that he ought to take back Onesimus not by compulsion but by his own "free will", the words "free will" do not appear in the Scriptures. Yet, you say "free will" (actions/thoughts/beliefs of a man without any influence from an outside agency) are apparent in Scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.