You can view the page at http://www.predestinarian.net/conten...yper-Calvinist
You can view the page at http://www.predestinarian.net/conten...yper-Calvinist
Ditch the Garbage! - Too many people are proud of their humility - I, on the other hand, am not humble - and am proud of it!
"Luther's New Testament was so much multiplied and spread by printers that even tailors and shoemakers, yea, even women and ignorant persons who had accepted this new Lutheran gospel, and could read a little German, studied it with the greatest avidity as the fountain of all truth. Some committed it to memory, and carried it about in their bosom. In a few months such people deemed themselves so learned that they were not ashamed to dispute about faith and the gospel not only with Catholic laymen, but even with priests and monks and doctors of divinity." - A complaint by German humanist Johann Cochlaeus.
Follow me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/kraftb
Follow Predestinarian Network on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/predestinarian
Follow Predestinarian Network on Twitter: http://twitter.com/predestinarian
This is my first encounter with posting a reply to a forum topic, so be patient with me. I will assume for lack of complete understanding how this works, that this reply is to "Gill". I have skimmed over some of the posts on this site and have embraced many, but also been amazed at the pious, sanctimonius, "I am in you are out" tone that spews from your mouth. You criticize people, obviously more learned than yourself, for not being absolute in their condemnation of those Arminians who would utter such blasphemies as "God is a failure, because, despite His best efforts, many nevertheless go to hell."
What is essential in saving faith is not what the individual thinks about all the other people in the world, but how he views himself in relation to God. Hence, it is essential that the sinner understand that he himself is a ruined sinner, condemned by God. It is not essential that he view everyone else around him as sinners also. It is essential that He believes that, by faith, he partakes of the pardon purchased by Christ on the Cross. It is not essential to salvation that he should have a view regarding the cross in its relation to anyone else. It is essential that he trusts wholly in Christ for the forgiveness of sins. It is not essential to believe that (1) the doctrine of "Efficacious Atonement" (i.e. Particular Redemption) is the gospel we must believe to be saved, therefore, (2) no Arminian is a true believer, and furthermore, (3) if you "speak peace" to an Arminian (i.e. tell the Arminian he is saved) you have denied the gospel, and this is proof that you, too, are unsaved. As long as his focus is on Christ to the exclusion of good works and the Law, then he has no need to be consciously thinking about the poverty of such things to save him. It was never my intention to suggest that a person could safely deny these points, but only that he could be saved without consciously thinking about them. A true Christian could never affirm that Moslems are saved, but that doesn't mean a true Christian needs to know what a Moslem is in order to be saved.
It is for the same reason that we cannot conclude that Peter was unregenerate when He denied Christ. Is not confessing Christ a primary evidence of salvation? Yet, Peter was a regenerate man when he disowned Christ, not once, but three times. The second time was with an oath—affirming absolutely that he did not know Christ. The third time was with cursing—calling on God to send judgment upon him if he was lying(Matthew 26:69-75). If Peter's thrice denial of Christ was not proof of his being unsaved, then how can we be so absolutely certain that an Arminian who calls God a failure is unsaved?
Or, take the case of David. David was a man after God's heart. David wrote Psalms praising God's Law. Yet, David horribly violated that very Law, first by committing adultery with Bathsheba, then by seeking to cover up his sin by deceit. When that failed, he arranged to have Uriah murdered to conceal the adultery. He then persisted in his deceit for several months until Nathan confronted him with his sin. David's eventual repentance was proof of his salvation. However, until he repented, he was reasoning like an unbeliever, denying in thought and deed God's sovereignty, omniscience and holiness. David's hypocrisy rivaled that of the Pharisees, yet David was a true believer! The bottom line is this: A true believer is capable of sinning horribly against God. Peter and David are two very graphic examples of this. Both men denied God emphatically in word and deed, and persisted in their sin for a time. By the gravity of their sins and their persistence in them, if not for the express testimony of scripture affirming their salvation, we would have concluded they were surely unregenerate men. Yet, Scripture affirms that both men had experienced the grace of regeneration. God knows the human heart, but man looks on the outward appearance, which can be deceptive.
The issue that divides Mr. Gill and myself is the identity of the gospel. What is it that a regenerate person must believe? He claims that the Gospel we must believe in order to be saved are the doctrines of Calvinism. I disagree. There is nothing in scripture to support such a claim. Based on what scripture plainly teaches, I conclude that the Gospel we must believe is the truth that Christ has died for sinners and that every sinner who trusts in Christ receives forgiveness. My understanding of the identity of the Gospel is consistent with the doctrines of Calvinism, but not nearly so extensive in its scope.
The way to settle this matter is to see what it is that Scripture identifies as the Gospel we must believe. This is why I appeal to the evangelistic encounters in Scripture, to see what was preached as a requirement for salvation, and what, in turn, people were said to have believed, when they were regenerated.
In no case did Christ or the apostles ever declare that a person must believe a distinctively Calvinistic teaching in order to be saved. They did not preach "Believe that you are totally depraved, and unable to come to Christ, and you will be saved." They did not preach "Believe that God has unconditionally chosen certain sinners to be saved, and you will be saved." They did not preach "Believe that Christ died for the elect only, and you will be saved." They did not preach "Believe that God sovereignly regenerates whomever He pleases, and you will be saved." They certainly did not preach "You must believe all these things, or else you are unregenerate."
What they did preach was "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" and "whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life" and "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" and "... through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses." The issue in all these passages is faith in Christ as Lord and sin-bearer, and the promise given is that everyone who believes in Him receives the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Nowhere in these, or any other passages, do we read that the object of saving faith is one or more distinctively Calvinistic doctrines.
The Philippian jailer asked "What must I do to be saved?" and Paul and Silas immediately answered "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved". It is true that, after they told the jailer to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, they then "spoke the word of the Lord to him". However, this does not change the fact that the stated object of faith was Christ, and not the various doctrines of Calvinism. Also, we are not told what specific doctrines Paul and Silas taught the jailer when they "spoke the word of the Lord to him". It might have included Calvinistic teachings, and it might not. Scripture is silent on this point.
Unquestionably, they preached "the Gospel" to the jailer. But this does not establish the identity of "the Gospel" that they preached to him. Again, we must adopt Mr. Gill's presupposition that "Calvinism is the Gospel" in order to draw the conclusion that Paul and Silas preached Calvinism to the jailer. This is a circular argument that proves nothing.
When reading a narrative account in scripture, we do not have the liberty to arbitrarily read into that passage things that are not stated. Scripture tells us the sorts of things that Jesus said to the thief on the cross. Scripture tells us the sorts of things that Paul and Silas spoke to the Philippian jailer. On neither occasion does the narrative tell us that Calvinistic doctrines were discussed.
We must believe that the divine Author of Holy Scripture chose His words carefully and gave us an accurate record of what was said on any given occasion. Granted, it is not necessarily a complete record of everything that was said, but we would still expect it to be representative of what was said. The fact that Mr.Gill's Calvinistic doctrine is so seldom mentioned in the evangelistic encounters is a very emphatic demonstration that Mr. Gills's Calvinism is not a necessary part of the gospel message.
Those who claim that Mr. Gill's Calvinism is the gospel seem to forget that Calvinism is a complex system of Bible doctrines that requires grappling with many difficult issues in order to adequately understand how it can be consistent, both with itself and with Scripture. To insist that a person is not saved unless he understands and believes Mr. Gill's Calvinistic teaching implies that no one can be saved until he has been through numerous theological studies that seek to present the various doctrines and to resolve the major difficulties that are normally encountered.
A person who is new to the faith will seldom have a comprehensive acquaintance with Scripture. Suppose he is taught the Calvinistic truth that Christ died for the elect only, and suppose he genuinely embraces this truth. But later, as he is reading through the gospel of John, he encounters the passage: "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29). Unless someone has explained to him that words like "world" and "all" often refer to nations and classes of men rather than all without exception, he will likely detect an inconsistency between the "gospel" he has received and the apparent teaching of scripture.
As a true believer, he cannot deny the gospel. However, as a true believer, he cannot ignore the scriptures, either. If someone then explains to him that "world" often refers to a universality of nations rather than a universality of persons, he may still wonder whether this person truly knows what he is talking about, or is being honest with him. He may have lingering doubts that perhaps, like a new convert to Mormonism, he has been duped into believing something that scripture does not teach.
Obviously, the solution to this is to give the individual as extensive and complete an introduction as possible into Calvinism—dealing with the major objections, and giving substantive Biblical evidence to prove, for example, that "world" and "all" need not mean "all without exception". Certainly, it is good and commendable to provide this kind of training for anyone who is willing and able to receive it.
The question remains, however, whether such a formidable amount of education and training is actually required for regeneration. Is this the Biblical pattern?
How did Jesus evangelize the Samaritan woman in John 4? Did He give her a semester-long course in Calvinism, setting forth each of the five points of Calvinism, teaching her that a self-generated faith must necessarily be a work that cannot save, exegeting from the Old Testament the various passages that teach Calvinism, as well as explaining those which might seem to contradict Calvinism? Did He carefully explain to her how man's responsibility and God's sovereignty can be reconciled, how man has the freedom to sin but lacks the freedom to trust God, how we are justified by an imputed righteousness, that God hates the reprobate, and she will be in hell if she does not believe in the 5 points and beyond of Mr. Gill's perverted theology?Obviously, He did not. His encounter with her probably lasted less than an hour. The Holy Spirit was very careful to record the highlights of their conversation, which contains nothing that is distinctively Calvinistic. The most profound theological truths He taught her were (1) that He was the Messiah, who could provide her with "living water" that would forever quench her thirst, (2) that salvation is of the Jews, and (3) that true worshipers must worship in spirit and truth. It is ludicrous to suggest that this simple woman was given a comprehensive lesson in Calvinistic doctrine. Yet, Scripture indicates that she was converted by her encounter with Christ that day.
Calvinistic theology is known today exclusively through the writings and teachings of godly men throughout history who never deemed it necessary to assert that Arminians are unsaved. Who then are the true zealots for Calvinism?
Charles Spurgeon openly expressed the opinion that there are Arminians among the ranks of the regenerate. George Whitefield regarded John and Charles Wesley as brothers in Christ to the day of his death. Yet, the Wesleys were unquestionably Arminians, and John, in particular, expressed wicked opposition to Calvinism.
According to the you Mr.Gill, Spurgeon and Whitefield are necessarily unsaved, for they were guilty of "speaking peace" to Arminians. How many multitudes of other Calvinists throughout history are likewise guilty of this "sin" (if it be a sin), is difficult to say. But one thing is certain—few if any notable Calvinists have ever asserted the views expressed on this website. Which means, if nothing else, that they did not regard such a teaching to be so plainly taught in scripture as Mr. Gill and others apparently believe it to be. Mr. Gill imagines that they (and the few who share his views) are the true church, and that anyone who disagrees with them is unsaved. If so, it seems amazing that this is a "church" that has no continuity with the past, no significant impact on the present, and a message that viciously emphasizes the negative—telling us what not to believe, and who isn't a believer—rather than joyfully proclaiming the Savior and His sovereign mercy to hell-deserving sinners.
WHAT WAS THE MISSION OF THE SON OF MAN? TO SEEK AND SAVE THOSE WHO ARE LOST!!!!!!!!!
Grace and Peace
Lion
Dear Saint:Originally Posted by lionovjudah
I was reading attentively your post and finding some very strong and "grasp-worthy" points until I came to the quote above.
Let me not be Brandan's (Darth Gill) Canonical Attorney here. Thankfully we're not papists!
Let me however tell you that either because of Brandan's characterization of himself as a "Hard Shell Calvinist" many people do not understand him and base their conclusions on him on this nickname which cannot be farther from what Brandan really is. Brandan's acceptance of such a nickname is simply because he was so tired and exhausted with so many people calling him that, both here and in PalTalk circles that he made it easier for them by adopting that characterization.
"Well, you may say, it is not his nickname that matters here but what he wrote above". Fair enough. Brandan does write as if he was a "Calvinist". Again, nothing can be farther from the truth. Brandan is a Soverign Grace believer. Brandan has debated the :"Outsidethecamp" crowd exactly because of the exaggerations on "Doctrinal Regeneration", or, that teaches that no one is regenerated without the perfect doctrine being revealed to them. Brandan does not subscribe to that idea. Brandan has been characterized as "unregenerate", and somtimes even "usavable" by them.
As such, Brandan would never say thatI believe you did not intend to impugn Brandan's word with a cheap-shot accusation by creating the mother of all straw-man. Again, your points are attention grabbing. If you only knew what I think of Grace, then you would know why I think your points are worthy not only of our attention, but our prayerful consideration as we think about the Salvation of others. But what I think is not important here. I just want you to suggest that you also pay as much attention to Brandan's thinking as I paid to yours (again, up to the point of the quote above. Then I could not resist and had to stop and write this response).
There are in the "kingdom" a damaging and noxious notion of tolerance amidst Christians (saved people, I say) with the darkest absudities of Arminianism. How damaging this is to the preaching of Grace is what is at stake here. How hurtfull it is to the doctrine of the Sovereign of God is what is at stake here.
If I know Brandan, and I think I do, that's his concern. Do Christians believe fully in the Sovereign of God today? Or have they compromised the doctrine with human participation in Salvation? Do Christians today actually hurt the Gospel when they believe that God "loves" everybody, thinking that is really what the message of the Gospel is? Does this belief nullifies the logic of the Sovereignty of God? Isn't such a teaching vaccinating (putting a little bit of the disease on someone so they will not catch it) crowds of "church-goers" today? Wouldn't it be much more biblical, even fun and wholesome if we all would persist in teaching the Biblical notion of the Sovereignty of God in Salvation, or at a minimum, pursue a Biblical veracity about it?
That is what Brandan is concerned about. That concerned gained him the "hardshell Calvinist notion".
Here is why Brandan is not a Calvinist, neither am I and many in this Forum who defend the teachings of Calvin:
Well, why continue? Brandan is not a Calvinist.
- We believe in believers Baptism, or adult baptism. We don't comdemn those who baptize children. My golden retriever must be a presbyterian since he hates immersion and only takes sprinkling. He is still my beloved dog! If he has puppies and decides to practice puppybaptism, I will not forbid. I would cut his rations if he tells me that "immersion" is perversion of Baptism.
- We don't have the regard for the Law that most Calvinist do
- We have a problem with "sundayism, or sabbatarianism"
If after this defense of my friend and brother you don't read and see his words differently, not as a sine qua non condition to Salvation, but a serious concern for pure, veritable Bible teaching, or, at least, the pursuit of it, then, I don't know what will.
Again, I will return to the reading of your response and may burn my tongue or my fingers. But I think I needed to write this before I go on. Everything I read from you in that post will have the background of your thinking of Brandan as expressed in your quote above.
Thanks for considering my words. I hope we don't bear false witness because of a snippet of what the other person says about themselves.
Milt
Last edited by GraceAmbassador; 11-19-2004 at 10:07 PM.
Grace Ambassador
A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace
My pledge to other members:
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11
Wow, unbelievable. LionofJudah, you missed the entire point of my article you're replying to here. Further, I think you are misrepresenting me COMPLETELY. But I'm going to go to bed now and I'll formulate a response in the morning. Milt, thank you very much brother for defending me. You are definitely a true friend.
in Free Grace,
Brandan Kraft
Ditch the Garbage! - Too many people are proud of their humility - I, on the other hand, am not humble - and am proud of it!
"Luther's New Testament was so much multiplied and spread by printers that even tailors and shoemakers, yea, even women and ignorant persons who had accepted this new Lutheran gospel, and could read a little German, studied it with the greatest avidity as the fountain of all truth. Some committed it to memory, and carried it about in their bosom. In a few months such people deemed themselves so learned that they were not ashamed to dispute about faith and the gospel not only with Catholic laymen, but even with priests and monks and doctors of divinity." - A complaint by German humanist Johann Cochlaeus.
Follow me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/kraftb
Follow Predestinarian Network on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/predestinarian
Follow Predestinarian Network on Twitter: http://twitter.com/predestinarian
WOW ... aren't we just ready for a fight!!!!
Lion ... I can assure you like Grace Ambassador that Darth Gill is not an "election police" type. He and I disagree on many issues yet Far be it for me to say ... GEEE I am right you are wrong therefore you can NOT possibly be saved. hahaha how ludicrus. Brandan never once said in this article that you had to believe the 5 points of "calvinism" in order to be saved. I would ask you to point to such a statement and if you believe you have in fact found such a statement, I can assure you that it wasn't his intent.
Now that that has been cleared up .... I must confess in the past couple of years of having delved into the truth of scripture which I will term "reformed" faith, I see that Brandan has in fact demonstrated by his article that there are many forms of "calvinism". I personally believe that term is useless. I also personally believe that the man that it comes from would completely denounce it as a way to describe a "christian".
GA I commend you on your defination though ... hahaha ... no "baptist" could be called a calvinist or reformed for that matter. The reformed faith is very much "Covenantal" and I think that has been demonstrated in previous discussions.
That is neither here nor there in regards to Brandan's article though.
So here are my comments about the article.....
Progressive santification?
I think Brandan you have cleared up for me what "progressive santification" actually means. Thanks!!!!
I too would whole heartedly reject the notion that a believer becomes "more holy". This is impossible as you stated. You are holy by the righteousness of Christ and can't be more holy then that.
I think that when the term was brought up in the "theonomy" discussion I really had no idea what was meant by that. When descibing the Believer's walk in this life ... I in fact meant exactly what you term as "continueous" santification.
So, I believe that often times when we disagree we end up talking over each other's heads ... using termininology and actually agreeing without realizing it.
Justification from Eternity
Justification from God's perspective is very much so from before the foundation of the world. But from our perspective it is something that happens to us in time. So we agree and disagree I think on this issue.I dare say you sorta put that into words I can completely agree with you on.
Yet I think we disagree on some points of this "doctrine" but it would never cause me to say that Gill is not saved and I must be saved because I am right and he is wrong.
The Christian's Rule of Living is not the Law
Ummm you haven't yet chimed in on the theonomy discussion ... I can only say that what I have addressed in that thread demonstrates that using the Law as my guideline and something to determine my ethical "christian" living in no way JUSTIFIES me to God. It is something that has been totally misrepresented and that has sorta given me a headachehahaha.
I would love for you to address some of the issues that were brought up in there but I also completely understand if it gives you a headache as well. My point being Brandan ... that when I say or others that hold to the continuity of scripture are using the Law is a "rule" for determining God's idea of what is right and what is wrong.
I am merely saying that it is my guideline and again partly because of my "covenantal" background we must "beg to differ" on this issue. I do find it most disconcerting though to be poorly misrepresented within the scope of NCT. At least that is what I have read in some of the articles you put together under the Christian Theology heading.
I think you are very good at writing and debating the issues at hand for the Church today. We disagree on some points but golly geee ... aren't we all still dealing with a "fallen nature".
These folks that suppose a "perfect knowledge" in understanding are guilty of denying the fact that we humans won't have or obtain perfect knowledge as long as we are "sucking oxygen" on earth.
You know that I too have been labeled a "hyper" calvie ... I think I probably deserve the label more so than you do because I happen to believe that the 5 points of "calvinism" are the GOSPEL.
Dear lionovjudah ... What is clear in the scripture is that the summary of the "5 points" of Calvinism were in fact presented in various form to ALL that believe. Perhaps we can go the rounds with what I mean with that statement. An arminian that in fact DOES understand what scripture teaches and denies that very scripture ... as I believe John Wesley did (IMHO) can not be considered saved. Do I know for a fact if he is in heaven or hell .... of course not!!!! But I will tell you this though ... I WILL FIGHT AGAINIST WHAT HE STOOD FOR UNTIL MY LAST BREATH!!!!
Well Good Article Brandan .... luv ya in the LORD ... out for now ... Jan
It is what it is
I don't know where you got this "tone"... First of all this site belongs to me, and your very first post you end up criticizing the host! I find that to be quite "pious" and "sanctimonious".
"Obviously more learned than yourself????" "Obviously" you think highly of yourself to make that comment. You don't know my level of education, so how in the world can you make such a statement? As far as men who utter such blasphemies, I can only say that I was once in their position hurling their same insults toward God. I do not believe in condemning ANYONE, as condemnation resides in the Sovereign will of God - not mine.
Did I say anything to the contrary?
Actually I would modify that to say "worthy of condemnation".
I never said it was, but if he fails to realize this, I would say it evidences a TOTAL LACK of understanding who God is and His perfect standard of righteousness that is required. Anyonne who does not see the rest of the world as self-righteous sinners obviously has not learned God properly and has not experienced the joy of knowing Christ.
Yes of course.
I never said this, did I? Please point out where I stated this absurdity! I only maintain that a proper understanding of the the atonement (limited) is a necessary CONSEQUENCE of knowing the Lord.
I agree.
I completely disagree. Christ dying for His sheep is a message that all believers of like precious faith agree upon.
Anyone that looks to their faith other than Christ alone is not a true believer. If a person denies this, I doubt they know my Lord.
I never said this either. But I do believe some Christians have done this because they don't necessarily understand the errors of Arminianism. Those that truly understand that Arminianism is a false gospel and fellowship with Arminians knowing these people truly have faith in their faith, then in my mind - that evidence themselves to not know the true Gospel of Substitution and Imputation by Free Grace. However there are some individuals who think Arminians are really just confused free grace believers and truly do not believe in "free will". They believe the faulty doctrine of a head/heart dichotomy. I think these individuals are deluded, but that does not necessarily mean they are not Christians.
I don't understand what you are saying here.
I agree.
I personally don't have an opinion on Peter as of this time. I don't know when he was regenerated as the Scriptures never really indicate to me when this took place. Personally, I don't know why it is important to know exactly what point in time Peter experienced justification before God; but I do know that He was saved in Christ on the cross.
David actually reminds me a lot of myself.
I agree completely!
If we knew them at the time, I'm sure I would make that judgement - but we know that God viewed them differently. My judgement would have absolutely no bearing on their status with God - so what's the big deal?
But God does not consider a man just or unjust based upon what is in that person's heart. He looks upon men as if they are in Christ. Experience is a vital consequence of salvation, but it is not the means through which God looks upon a person.
If we are divided, why did you seek me out to notify me of our division?
A person who immediately experiences salvation through the gift of faith only sees two things... First, he sees his complete inability to please His Lord, and second, he sees that Christ has made satisfaction for him. As he grows in grace and knowledge of the Lord, he will learn more of the truth - and even adopt some error - but he will never stray from the truth of the Gospel of Free Grace.
That's not true - the particulars of total depravity, irresistable grace, limited atonement, unconditional election, and perserverence of the faith are all doctrines that are necessary consequences of sanctification. However, I don't believe you need to believe ANYTHING in order to be saved as salvation is accomplished for all of God's people. All of God's people experience salvation through the gift of faith at conversion, but the extra beliefs and doctrines he learns are not necessary at all for experiential salvation - just necessary consequences.
I never made such a stupid claim. Nice straw man!
The gospel is so much more than that. While it is true that Christ died for sinners, it is necessary for one to be revealed from above that he is indeed numbered amongst the elect for whom lived and died.
Well, to put it bluntly - whooppeee doooo!
Why do you place so much significance on regeneration?
Salvation is much more than redemption, but it is about knowing and communing with the Saviour. It is about knowing God and experiencing His love. Salvation is something that COMES upon people - it is a revealing of Grace, not something people ponder as if it's something they can accept or reject. The Gospel is something that is BELIEVED by Divine Revelation.
I agree...
It is true that if one believes, he will experience salvation - but these passages deal strictly with experimental salvation - which is through faith alone. Forensically, all believers understand that salvation is completely by free grace without faith.
... I'm running short on time so I'm going to skip to the end of your tirade...
GAG!!!! This makes me ill to read. First of all, I'm not a "calvinist", I am a believer in FREE GRACE. THat's not complicated at all! Substitution and Imputation are VERY SIMPLE "issues" as you call them that every believer has no problem at all grasping. How hard is it for a regenerate individual to grasp that salvation is entirely by God's Grace and that Christ is every aspect of salvation to that individual? I don't think it's hard at all, indeed I believe a mere child could grasp that.
Sooo? who cares? I don't. Charles Spurgeon is of no significance to me. I don't care what he believed.
I don't care!
I don't know anything about the details of Spurgeon or Whitefield, so I will simply claim I don't know. Quit putting words in my mouth - you sound so foolish when you do.
You're a sick individual. I'm beginning to tire of your straw-man attack.
Whew, I'm glad you are done. I demand an apology. I wonder if you'll return. If not, good riddance. I find it amazing that you posted so much against me without even providing one quote. I have no more time for your foolishness.
Brandan
P.S. - To everyone else - I agree I was a bit harsh with this individual - but he is well deserving of my rebukes.
Ditch the Garbage! - Too many people are proud of their humility - I, on the other hand, am not humble - and am proud of it!
"Luther's New Testament was so much multiplied and spread by printers that even tailors and shoemakers, yea, even women and ignorant persons who had accepted this new Lutheran gospel, and could read a little German, studied it with the greatest avidity as the fountain of all truth. Some committed it to memory, and carried it about in their bosom. In a few months such people deemed themselves so learned that they were not ashamed to dispute about faith and the gospel not only with Catholic laymen, but even with priests and monks and doctors of divinity." - A complaint by German humanist Johann Cochlaeus.
Follow me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/kraftb
Follow Predestinarian Network on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/predestinarian
Follow Predestinarian Network on Twitter: http://twitter.com/predestinarian
hahaha Brandan ... I think you took Lion dude to task. Thanks for the rebuttal. You crack me up!!!!
Jan
It is what it is
Saints:
Remember my favorite Brazilian expression: A snake bitten dog will run away scared even of a sausage link?
That means, anything that remotely resembles a snake is grounds for panic on the part of the poor caninie.
That's LionOfJudah. He probably got so sick of Internet Sites that proclaim the exclusivity of Calvinism, got so tired of writers who defend things that he, AND WE ALL deplore that when he read Brandan's writings he simply went on state of panic felt pressed to respond and decided to load his aversion to it all on Brandan.
I also think, that he attacked Brandan personally in that he totally mischaracterized Brandan's writings, assumed Brandan's education level and Brandan's overall position in all issues. Furthermore I don't think he is coming back, although, for the sake of showing some Christ-like attitute I hope he does come back and explains himself, ultimately apologizing.
We can discuss and debate about "what to being a Christian is" and "what is a Christian" all day long without ever using words such as Calvinism and Arminianism. However we can know that a Christian will not bear false testimomy deliberately and those who do, whether mild-Calvinist, harsh-Calvinist, Arminianist or any other "ist" cannot be credible when they call themselves a Christian. What I mean, (if explanation is needed) is that LionOfJudah, in defending his Christian view showed himself in this case (deliberately or not) not to be one, although he might very well be one. That is why I think he should come back and engage the debate. What I mean is, further explained, that, even if you are an exemplary Christian you cannot discuss "being a Christian" without acting like one.
Milt
Grace Ambassador
A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace
My pledge to other members:
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11
I used to equate the label 'hyper-Calvinist' with the teaching of those who deny personal assurance of justification and faith in a perverse and compartmentalized teaching on God's sovereignty. Today, I could care less whether anyone calls me by this label or not. In fact I encourage it. If someone is DETERMINED to slander their enemy with labels, rather than facing the exegetical issues of the gospel revealed in the Bible, I want their deception INCREASED because that is also what God wants. Until one is plunged deep into the misery of the sin of slander, the Lord does not usually grant repentance.
Proud to be called a hyper-Calvinist,
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them. But far be it from me even to imagine that Heavan contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one "of whom the world was not worthy." I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.
Brendan, you state that you do not condemn anyone, but you must read your own writings then. Perhaps I need Huntington, Gill, or Hoeksma lenses for my glasses to see as you do. Perhaps I am employing the same "interpretation techniques with your writings, as you do with Scripture, and I lament that sincerely.
To be enabled to form a clear, consistent, and comprehensive judgment of the truths revealed in the Scripture, is a great privilege; but they who possess it are exposed to the temptation of thinking too highly of themselves, and too meanly of others, especially of those who not only refuse to adopt their sentiments, but venture to oppose them. We see few controversial writings, however excellent in other respects, but are tinctured with this spirit of self-superiority; and they who are not called to this service (of writing) if they are attentive to what passes in their hearts, may feel it working within them, upon a thousand occasions; though so far as it prevails, it brings forcibly home to ourselves the charge of ignorance and inconsistence, which we are so ready to fix upon our opponents. I know nothing as a means more likely to correct this evil, than a serious consideration of the amazing difference between our acquired judgment, and our actual experience; or, in other words, how little influence our knowledge and judgment have upon our own conduct. This may confirm to us the truth and propriety of the apostle’s observation, "If any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know." Not that we are bound to be insensible that the Lord has taught us what we were once ignorant of; nor is it possible that we should be so; yet because, if we estimate our knowledge by its effects, and value it no farther than it is experimental and operative (which is the proper standard whereby to try it), we shall find it so faint and feeble as hardly to deserve the name.
The doctrine of God’s sovereignty likewise, though not so generally owned as the former, is no less fully assented to by those who are called Calvinists. We zealously contend for this point in our debates with the Armimians; and are ready to wonder that any should be hardy enough to dispute the Creator’s right to do what he will with his own. While we are only engaged in defense of the election of grace, and have a comfortable hope that we are ourselves of that number, we seem so convinced, by the arguments the Scripture affords us in support of the truth, that we can hardly forbear charging our adversaries with perverse obstinacy and pride, for opposing it. Undoubtedly the ground of this opposition lies in the pride of the human heart, but this evil principle is not confined to any party: and occasions frequently arise, when they who contend for the divine sovereignty are little more practically influenced by it than their opponents. This humiliating doctrine concludes as strongly for submission to the will of God, under every circumstance of life, as it does for our acquiescing in his purpose to have mercy. But, alas! how often do we find ourselves utterly unable to apply it, so as to reconcile our spirits to those afflictions which he is pleased to allot us. So far as we are enabled to say, when we are exercised with poverty, or heavy losses or crosses, . ‘I was dumb and opened not my mouth, because thou didst it," so far, and no farther, are we truly convinced, that God has a sovereign right to dispose of us and all our concemments as he pleases. How often, and how justly at such seasons, might the argument we offer to others, as sufficient to silence all their objections, be retorted upon ourselves, "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? shall the thing formed say unto him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" A plain proof that our knowledge is more notional than experimental. What an inconsistency, that while we think God is just and righteous in withholding from others the things which pertain to their everlasting peace, we should find it so hard to submit to his dispensations to ourselves in matters of unspeakably less importance!
But the Lord’s appointments, to those who fear him, are not only sovereign, but wise and gracious. He has connected their good with his own glory, and is engaged, by promise, to make all things work together for their advantage. He chooses for his people better than they could choose for themselves; if they are in ‘heaviness, theme is a need-be for it, and he withholds nothing from them but what upon the whole it is better they should be without. Thus the Scriptures teach, and thus we profess to believe. Furnished with these principles, we are at no loss to suggest motives of patience and consolation to our brethren that are afflicted; we can assure them, without hesitation, that if they are interested in the promises, their concerns are in safe hands; that the things which at present are not joyous but grievous. shall in due season yield the peaceful fruits of righteousness, and that their trials are as certainly mercies as their comforts. We can prove to them, from the history of Joseph, David, Job, and other instances recorded in Scriptures, that, notwithstanding any present dark appearances, it shall certainly be well with the righteous; that God can and will make crooked things straight; and that he often produces the greatest good from those events which we are apt to look upon as evil. From hence we can infer, not only the sinfulness, but the folly of finding fault with any of his dispensations. We can tell them, that at the worst the sufferings of the present life are not worthy to he compared with the glory that shall be revealed; and that therefore, under, the greatest pressures, they should so weep as those who expect in a little time to have all their tears wiped away. But when the case is our own, when we are troubled on every side, or touched in the tenderest part, how difficult it is to feel the force of these reasonings, though we know they are true to a demonstration! Then, unless we are endued with fresh strength from on high, we are as liable to complain and despond as if we thought our afflictions sprang out of the ground, and the Lord had forgotten to be gracious.
I might proceed to show the difference between our judgment when most enlightened, and our actual experience, with respect to every spiritual truth. We know there is no proportion between time and eternity, between God and the creature, the favour of the Lord and the favour or the frowns of men; and yet often, when these things are brought into close competition, we are sorely put to it to keep stead-fast in the path of duty; nay without new supplies of grace, we should certainly fail in the time of trial, and our knowledge would have no other effect than to render our guilt more inexcusable. We seem to be sure that we are weak, sinful, fallible creatures, as we are that we exist and yet we are prone to act as if we were wise and good. In a word, we cannot deny, that a great part of our knowledge is, as I have described it, like the light of the moon, destitute of heat and influence; and yet we can hardly help thinking of ourselves too highly upon the account of it.
May we not say with the Psalmist, "Lord, what is man!" yea, what an enigma, what a poor inconsistent creature is a believer! He knows the Lord; he knows himself. His understanding is enlightened to apprehend and contemplate the great mysteries of the gospel. He has just ideas of the evil of sin, the vanity of the world, the beauties of holiness, and the nature of true happiness. He was once "darkness, but now he is light in the Lord." He has access to God by Jesus Christ; to whom he is united, and in whom he lives by faith. While the principles he has received are enlivened by the agency of the Holy Spirit, he can do all things. He is humble, gentle, patient, watchful, faithful. He rejoices in afflictions, triumphs over temptations, lives upon the foretastes of eternal glory, and counts not his life dear, so he may glorify God his Saviour, and finish his course with joy. But his strength is not his own; he is absolutely dependent, and is still encompassed with infirmities. and burdened with a depraved nature. If the Lord withdraws his power, he becomes weak as another man, and drops, as a stone sinks to the earth by its own weight. His inherent knowledge may be compared to the windows of a house, which can transmit the light, but cannot retain it. Without renewed and continual communications from the Spirit of grace, he is unable to withstand the smallest temptation, to endure the slightest trial, to perform the least service in a due manner, or even to think a good thought. He knows this, and yet he too often forgets it. But the Lord reminds him of it frequently, by suspending that assistance without which he can do nothing. Then he feels what he is, and is easily prevailed upon to act in contradiction to his better judgment. This repeated experience of his own weakness teaches him by degrees where his strength lies; that it is not in any thing he has already attained, or can call his own, but the grace, power, and faithfulness of his Saviour. He learns to cease from his own understanding, to be ashamed of his best endeavours, to abhor himself in dust and ashes, and to glory only in the Lord.
From hence we may observe, that believers who have most knowledge, are not therefore necessarily the most spiritual. Some may and do walk more honorably and more comfortably with two talents, than others with five. He who experimentally knows his own weakness, and depends simply upon the Lord, will surely thrive, though his acquired attainments and abilities may be but small; and he who has the greatest gifts, the clearest judgment, and the most extensive knowledge, if he indulges high thoughts of his advantages, is in imminent danger of mistaking, and falling at every step; for the Lord will suffer none whom he loves to boast in themselves. He will guide the meek with his eyes, and fill the hungry with good things; but the rich he sendeth empty away. It is an invariable maxim in his kingdom, that whosoever exalteth himself, shall be abased; but he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted.
Please accept my deepest apologies, and I welcome all partakers of this dialogue to respond. And remember, If you believe God ordained all things that come to pass, then for some reason beyond our capapbilities, well at least mine, we must procliam "It pleased Him" and "It seemed good in Your sight" to ordain our Arminian brethren.
Grace and Peace
Lion
Lion,
The first part of your reply to me was from Charles Spurgeon: "A Defense of Calvinism" http://www.the-highway.com/defense_Spurgeon.html
The third part was from John Newton: "More than a Calvinist". You can read it online here: http://www.gracegems.org/2/More%20Th...0Calvinist.htm
I've read these before. Do you think I'm so unfamiliar with historic literature that I wouldn't recognize this? That's very bold of you to pass these things off as your own words, not to mention DISHONEST!
As far as I can tell, although I have my doubts, the only words that were yours in your latest post were:Please, enlighten me! Show me my writings where I condemn people to hell. I've made this mistake in the past before, but I sincerely do not intend to make it now. I condemn NO MAN to hell!
and the fourth part:What are you apologizing for? After quoting Spurgeon and Newton without giving credit, I can only assume that your "apologies" are insincere.
Brandan
Ditch the Garbage! - Too many people are proud of their humility - I, on the other hand, am not humble - and am proud of it!
"Luther's New Testament was so much multiplied and spread by printers that even tailors and shoemakers, yea, even women and ignorant persons who had accepted this new Lutheran gospel, and could read a little German, studied it with the greatest avidity as the fountain of all truth. Some committed it to memory, and carried it about in their bosom. In a few months such people deemed themselves so learned that they were not ashamed to dispute about faith and the gospel not only with Catholic laymen, but even with priests and monks and doctors of divinity." - A complaint by German humanist Johann Cochlaeus.
Follow me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/kraftb
Follow Predestinarian Network on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/predestinarian
Follow Predestinarian Network on Twitter: http://twitter.com/predestinarian
LionovJudah also quoted liberally from this page in his reply to me: http://www.planetkc.com/puritan/Arti...d-Response.htm
LionovJudah, if you do respond, and I catch you quoting from another source without citing your source, you will be banned. As far as I can tell you're as dishonest as they come. At least that's the impression you've given me in this thread - maybe I'm wrong.
I suspect you're incapable of formulating a rebuttal to my arguments without depending upon others as a crutch. That's fine. Feel free to quote from others, but don't use other's words as your own.
Brandan
Ditch the Garbage! - Too many people are proud of their humility - I, on the other hand, am not humble - and am proud of it!
"Luther's New Testament was so much multiplied and spread by printers that even tailors and shoemakers, yea, even women and ignorant persons who had accepted this new Lutheran gospel, and could read a little German, studied it with the greatest avidity as the fountain of all truth. Some committed it to memory, and carried it about in their bosom. In a few months such people deemed themselves so learned that they were not ashamed to dispute about faith and the gospel not only with Catholic laymen, but even with priests and monks and doctors of divinity." - A complaint by German humanist Johann Cochlaeus.
Follow me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/kraftb
Follow Predestinarian Network on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/predestinarian
Follow Predestinarian Network on Twitter: http://twitter.com/predestinarian
Brendon, My sincerest apologies, In haste I actuslly thought I did quote those sources, those words were not mine, but speak to me dearly. I was not attempting to be decitful. As I said I am new to all of this and do not know, obviously, how to quote or add quotes as you do. One thing that you may count on is my sincerity and honest in my opinions. Ask my wife, that may be perhaps my only admirable qualities. HAHAHAHAHAHA. For some reason, my whole ending paragraph, citing Spurgeon and Newton did not post and i do not know how to add to previous posts. Please enlighten me how you put quotes into your posts.
Grace and Peace
Lion
Lion ... I completely understand your confusion about posting someone's quote. I have found it easiest to use the copy/paste method ... When quoting someone you type in [QUOTE=there name] and when you are done with their words you close it with [ /QUOTE]Hope this helpsbut don't put the space after the the bracket
Jan
It is what it is
I generally believe charity should be exercised when we look at the lives of those who have passed on who have worn the name "Christian." I certainly believe we will find those in heaven who do not hold to the 5 points of Calvinism. There are certainly those who live their lives holding onto nothing but Christ for their salvation and attributing all of their salvation to God's grace without doing so consistently.
On the other hand there were those such as John Wesley who were violently opposed to the doctrines of grace which are found in the Scripture. Some of his commentaries are laughable and say the exact opposite of what the passage he is commenting on says. Wesley said that Calvinism presented a god which was far worse than the devil, thus condemning the true God of the Scriptures. Wesley denied justification by faith alone and brought the same objections against it as the Roman Catholic Church. He taught justification by a continual process. Wesley taught perfectionism which inevitably drives men to dispair or makes hypocrites of them. He made the same error in defining sin as the Pharisees did by saying that sin is just a "voluntary transgression of a known law." He also spoke of a second blessing of the Holy Spirit which has led to our present charismatic madness. Under the ministry of Wesley, those in the congregation laughed insanely and fell down as slain resembling the modern day 'Toronto blessing.' Wesley behaved wickedly towards his wife, virtually abandoning her. While he alienated his wife he engaged in close relationships with other women. He supervised the reprinting of Puritan works and would edit out the passages which disagreed with his position, breaking the ninth commandment. He lied in order to defend himself and in order to promote his false teachings. He expressed no repentance for any of these things.
It shows a true decline in the church when suppsedly reformed men are willing to exalt such a hater of the Gospel as John Wesley. People praise him for all his work in evangelism. But if one is to be a true herald of the King, he must bring the King's message and not his own. There is not Christianity without doctrine. If we throw doctrine out the window then the only difference between Christianity and Islam and Hinduism is just a name. Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisees equally applies to those who are zealous to spread false gospels.
Matthew 23:15 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
LionOfJudah:
This would suffice for me and I am sure for all here:
"Here is what Spurgeon says:"
"Here is what John Newton says"
"Here is a quote from this or that guy"
You can also follow Doctr of Grace instructions... They are good. But not to know how to write Internet/Html/Xml code is not a good excuse for not giving credit to the original writers of your quotes. The phrases above, since you can write and type, would do the job and would avoid the impression of "parroting".
Just a friendly advice...
Milt
Grace Ambassador
A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace
My pledge to other members:
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11
WBOTR:
Hello Chuck, long time no see.... I have a couple of questions for you that may jog your memory a little.
1) Does your church have a sign yet?
2) Will the 43 members of your congregation enjoy Heavan alone?
3) Robert Schuller called and is looking for a window cleaner for the cathedral, do you have any spare time?
4) Does your church have a door yet?
Anyway boar, I will agree that you cannot throw Doctrine out the window. But what is "essential Doctrine?" What were the truths that Paul taught in speaking to the Church is Colosse? See, I have not yet attained the "grace" of becoming a heretic hunter. So in the case of Wesley, I disagree zealously with the Doctrine he confessed, but do not feel the liberty to declare his personal salvation or anyones. Judging the salvation of others causes a lack of charity and separation of believers. When they have painted their brothers to be worse than they are, they must rebuke them, or have no Christian fellowshoip with them, and avoid them because they dont believe as what has been determined truth: or when they have usurped God's work in judging, they follow a Gospel made of wax that can be formed into whatever doctrines we must believe for salvation. It is a "stealing" of God's prerogative, who is the Judge of all the world: it is a stepping up into his judgment-seat, and doing His job; as if you said, I will play God as to this action. And he is terribly mistaken, who elevates himself to the office of Christ, you may imagine what he does; he sets up himself in the place of God. Remember the meekness of Christ, who does not rebuke the weak , He is the great physician who feasts with sinners and publicans. He carries his children in his arms, He heals the wounded man, when the priest and Levite pass him by. We all need the tenderness of Christ ourselves as well as others. I am afraid to judge because I know he will find greater faults with me than I find in others; and condemn me as we condemn them....
Grace and Peace
Lion
The difference between Christianity and all other religions is that all other religions teach that in some way man saves himself and Christianity teaches we are saved solely by God's grace. If someone teaches that man saves himself or must add to his justification in some way in order to be saved, whatever it is, it is not Christianity.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
Also Lion, if you are going to take that position consistently, why evangelize at all? If what you are saying is true then shouldn't we think of the Muslim as a true follower of Christ? The fact is that Jesus said we can know the tree by its fruit. There are certainly hypocrites who will live their lives in such a way that they give no evidence that they are not truly children of God throughout their lives, but there are others who give ample proof. How can we claim that someone is a child of God who shows so much hatred towards the truths of God's Word and who does not love the true brethren.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
WBOTR:
Chuck, the difference between Christianity and all other religions is that we are to look to God alone for salvation, not ourselves. All other relegions have man looking to himself. My objective is judging another Christians, and i say Christian Chuck, not Hindu, not Moslem, etc.. is wrong. Doctrine does not save Chuck, Christ alone saves. You come right out of the gate as a heretic hunter. Where as Scripture comes out of the gate with our love of Christ. When Christ asked Peter thrice if he loved Him, why didnt He ask peter what Doctrine he believed? Doctrine is a fruit of Salvation. And again I will pose this question to you and all who read this. Since you and others emphatically believe the God has actively decreed, ordained, whatever you call it, everything that has come to pass, than what choice does our arminian brethren have? Does our Arminian brethren posses the free will to choose doctrine? It cannot be both ways. Those of us who posses High Doctrine can be condemned just as easy as a free willer chuck.. If the blood of Christ was not shed for any person, Calvinist, SGB, Arminian, RC, then that person is lost. Independant on what he believed. I know a few Atheists who show more love to their neighbors, than Christians do Chuck, SO the judging the tree by its fruit cannot be taken as far as some take it. When speaking of "evidence" or ample proof, I know many who claim to LOVE Christ, but do not. They can argue every doctrine under the sun, but have no love of Christ. Let us return back to Peters inquisition.
"Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, Lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep."—John 21:15-17.
What was the question asked of Peter? Do you love Me?
1)It was not do you believe in TULIP?
2) It was not, do you believe an arminian can be saved?
3) it was not , dont forget to judge the tree by its fruits.
4) It was not do you fear me?
5) it was not, are you supra or infra?
It was a very simple, yet heart tearing question that I believe we do not ask ourselves enough. Yet it is very easy to decide another brothers condition. Ah, you say, bring out the rack for that minister, for he is right on all points except one. Our arnminian brethren has a splinter so small in his eye, that the rays of the sun at 100 feet away could barely show it, yet somehow we have a piece of plywood in front of our eyes and see it? How can it be?
Faith is the true root evidence to us being Gods Children, but love is the most brilliant. Very few can see our faith, but show them the Love of Christ, and it becomes our best evidence. Evidence as you put it, or proofs without the love of Christ mean absolutely nothing. Christ hems Peter in on this one subject, 3 times, and does nto waver until Peter is weeping and gives the greatest answer of all, "Lord, thou knowest that I love thee." So if we cannot point to our own evidence, then how can we look to others?
Chuck, you jump to asking hypothetical questions avoiding the point of Christs Love to sinners and publicans. Who does He avoid who is in need Chuck, Who does he avoid who cries "Lord I am a sinner, have mercy on me!!!!!!!" You look for evidence, Christ says look for love to Him alone.
Somehow the Doctrine of total depravity is skimmed over for 5 pointers. In what I have read so far on this site, I have yet, I am not saying it isnt there, but I have yet to find one person pointing to themselves in reference to that doctrine. But words like, heretic, unsaved, unregenerate, false gospel, bad tree are adjectives frequently used.
The evidence we have in the Gospel account, epistles and Church Fathers point to core essential doctrines to determine if one is outside orthodox belief.
Asking about a moslem, does not need a reply, I am talking only of professing Christins. And I also do not know what the evangleism question means.
Quote= How can we claim that someone is a child of God who shows so much hatred towards the truths of God's Word and who does not love the true brethren.
Was peter a child of God when he denied Him thrice? Yes he was, If ones first account of Peter was in his denying Christ with oaths and curses, what fruit or evidence would you see? According to your method of determination, we would have to conclude peter was an unbeliever and unsaved. But what does Christ do? The great Physician heals peter, digs out the cancer from his heart and heals him. no thunderbolts, no judging, not anything of the sort. Christ was concerned abotu one thing only as the foundation, and that was peters love for Him. The command follws as do our works, but the foundation is our love.
Look at all the times the apostles, the "CHOSEN" we a roadblock to people, and look at how Christ rebuked them.
1) The children brought to Christ
2) the woman with the issue of blood
3) bartimeaus
4) the woman caught in adultery
Doctrine does the same thing. I will debate doctrine all day, but my first concern is the persons love for Christ and love for his neighbor. Christ never preaches better than when he preached to sinners. He takes the most vile, blackened person and cleanses Him by His grace. Your method seems to do the opposite, you take a lover of Christ, and because he does not agree with you point to point, you paint him black and call him a hater of the Gospel.
Grace and Peace
Lion
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks