Who will be more likely to sign the S... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 1 » Who will be more likely to sign the Sabbath death decree? « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through August 9, 2000Dennis20 8-09-00  8:15 pm
Archive through August 10, 2000Breezy20 8-10-00  4:29 pm
Archive through August 23, 2000Terry20 8-23-00  12:14 pm
Archive through August 28, 2000Graceambassador20 8-28-00  2:22 pm
Archive through August 30, 2000Colleentinker20 8-30-00  5:20 pm
Archive through August 31, 2000Sherry220 8-31-00  6:48 pm
Archive through September 5, 2000Sherry220 9-05-00  5:56 am
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Billtwisse
Posted on Wednesday, September 06, 2000 - 10:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dear Sherry,

I hope that you are not so involved in college that you miss reading this response to your challenge.

The 'church fathers' (so-called) were very careful to imitate the apostolic teaching on ethical issues, such as the Sabbath. The shift in theology from the apostles to the 2nd century leaders was not in the issue of ethics. Quite the contrary, the ethics of the apostles were made more prominent! Cyril Richardson emphasizes this fact in his introduction to the 'Early Christian Fathers' compilation of 2nd & 3rd century works.

The shift in the 2nd & 3rd centuries was away from the gospel and toward a system of New Testament law. The Epistle of Barnabas is the best evidence of this. Read it, it speaks for itself. The ethics of the apostles died a much slower death than the kerygma (gospel--passion) of the apostles. The chicken and rattlesnake continue to move about for quite awhile after the head is cut off. On matters such as gathering for worship on the 1st day of the week, certainly the 'fathers' preserved apostolic teaching and practice.

Nontheless, I challenge anyone to find a spoonful of the kerygma of the apostles (expressing the gospel passion of Paul) in any of the 'fathers'! I have spent tireless hours in seminary libraries trying to find it. It doesn't exist, period. One of my most terrible disappointments in the study of theology has been the utter bankruptcy of the 'fathers' on the superior revelation of the gospel given to Paul. There are a few gospel quotes but you have to look hard to find them.

Changing subjects, I want to respond to your quote:

"Someone above mentioned Spurgeon being Calvinist in his thinking. I talked with someone this weekend who had studied through church history, and without me mentioning Spurgeon, he said Spurgeon said he was more Calvinist then Armenian because he did agree with 4 points out of 5, again the disagreement being the "L".

The person that you mention is entirely wrong. Spurgeon was the greatest defender of Limited Atonement in history. He never changed his position but defended this doctrine to his dying day.

I want to present two quotes from Spurgeon defending the 'horrible' Limited Atonement doctrine that so many on this board love to hate. After reading these, please respond with other quotes from Spurgeon illustrating that he denied LA, since hundreds of theologians today cite this as an undisputed fact. I have been reading Spurgeon for 27 years and never once saw any such thing.

"Now, beloved, when you hear any one laughing or jeering at a limited atonement, you may tell hiim this: General atonement is like a great wide bridge with only half an arch; it does not go across the stream: it only professes to go half way; it does not secure the salvation of anybody. Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream. I am told it is my duty to say that all men have been redeemed, and I am told that there is a Scriptural warrant for it--'Who gave himself as a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.' Now, that looks like a very, very great argument indeed on the other side of the question. For instance, look here. 'The whole world is gone after him.' Did all the world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? 'Ye are of God, little children,' and 'the whole world lieth in the wicked one.' Does 'the whole world' there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were 'of God?' The words 'world' and 'all' are used in seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts--some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile. Leaving controversy, however, I will now answer a question. Tell me, then sir, whom did Christ die for? Will you answer me a question or two, and I will tell you whether He died for you. Do you want a Saviour? Do you feel that you need a Savior? Are you this morning conscious of sin? Has the Holy Spirit taught you that you are lost? Then Christ died for you and you will be saved."
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, "Particular Redemption," The New Park Street Pulpit (six vols.; reprint of the 1st ed. published by Alabaster, Passmore and Sons in 1859; Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1964), IV, 135-36.

"We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it, we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, "No, certainly not." We ask them the next question--Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer "No." They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say "No; Christ has died that nay man may be saved if"--and then follow certain conditions of salvation. We say, then, we will just go back to the old statement--Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did he? You must say "No"; you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace, and perish. Now, who is it limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg our pardon, when you say we limit Christ's death; we say, "No, my dear sir, it is you that do it." We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it." (sermon 181 from same series quoted above.)

I have many quotes but will leave it at these two for sake of brevity. Some of the others are even more passionate.

Spurgeon, what were you smokin?! Cigars. He often joked, "I cultivate my flowers and burn my weeds!" Of course, according to Ellen White, he could not possibly have comprehended spiritual truth. The tobaccoist cannot do this!

--Twisse
Sherry2
Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2000 - 5:20 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

First, I did not challenge you...you felt challenged, per chance but that is not of my doing. Secondly, I shared from this man who I thought indeed would know because he had studied church history. Obviously he was wrong about Spurgeon. Again, Twisse, do you care to respect that I do not agree or do you just wish to argue? I've already stated that I respect you and those who believe this, and even if the whole world should believe it, I will not change my opinion of what I understand from Scripture soley to please you. And I am not asking you to change yours soley to please me. Again, I will not espouse something for the sake of pleasing the general crowd, no matter what it is. Let God do His convicting if it is truth, ok? Is it perchance necessary for me to take up smoking too, and then I will understand? I don't have a clue why you would even bring that up to make a point. God bless ya, Twisse. I'll see you in heaven.
Patti
Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2000 - 1:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

EVERYONE ULTIMATELY ENDS UP "CALVINIST"

I attended Ben's services this morning. They were held in the funeral home by a Catholic priest. We went through the usual Catholic rituals, no surprises. It was the words he spoke directly to the family that made me start thinking.
You know what he said. He said that Jesus was waiting to receive His own in heaven, that He died the second death for us and rose again to give us everlasting life. In short, he left Ben at the mercy of Jesus.

No matter how legalistic, Arminan, Semi-pelagian, Augustinian, etc., etc., a group is, when it comes to the bottom line, when we have to give up a loved one to the great beyond, everyone falls on the mercy of God. There it is. Belief that our salvation is in anyway affected by our works flies out the window when one is on his deathbed, ourselves or someone we love. It is then that we must let go totally of any notion that we have any control over anything in our life, especially our eternal destiny, and acknowledge that it is all in God's hands. It always was, if we could have only believed.
Graceambassador
Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2000 - 3:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

BILL AND PATTI:
Well... Here I am!
Bill, I was reading the posts as I do every evening after work, and always promising within myself not to respond or post since my last discussion about the "L" where I was packed with the "evangelism hater" "babies-hell-sender" and others nice names, promising in my heart to learn something from the wonderful people from this forum and not to respond so as to interfere with the beautiful "support group" atmosphere that some of the members wish to maintain here.

THEN... I see your post and you make a statement which I have been proclaiming from pulpits wherever the opportunity is given to me which made me leap for joy bacause of your courage and insight in church history. This is the same teaching that forced me back to a secular job since no one wants to invite me to their churches anymore because of it. And I re-post your statement because it is so true:

...Nontheless, I challenge anyone to find a spoonful of the kerygma of the apostles (expressing the gospel passion of Paul) in any of the 'fathers'! I have spent tireless hours in seminary libraries trying to find it. It doesn't exist, period. One of my most terrible disappointments in the study of theology has been the utter bankruptcy of the 'fathers' on the superior revelation of the gospel given to Paul. There are a few gospel quotes but you have to look hard to find them.

That is so truth! There is some evidence in the early history of the church that at least some of the disciples of James and Jude actually had a fall back into Judaism... Hence some weird interpretations on the book of James, specifically. We know about Barnabas... We know about preaching the right religion as being helping the poor... We heard about preaching charitable acts as a way to heaven... So, it should be nothing new that some would fall back in Judaism.

I read that a prominent Rabbi in America once said: "IF IT WOULD NOT BE FOR THE WRITINGS OF THE APOSTLE PAUL, CHRISTIANITY WOULD BE A MEANINGLESS SECT OF JUDAISM"

Now, many will ask: IS PAUL'S GOSPEL ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE WHICH WAS TAUGHT AFTER HE WAS DECAPITATED?
Read the same sources as I and Bill are reading: Read the DOCTRINE OF PAUL IN HIS 13 EPISTLES, READ THE INSPIRED BOOK OF JAMES, JUDE AND THEN READ SOME OF THE EARLIEST HISTORY OF THE CHURCH... It is not that the Gospel is different. Is that EVEN TODAY, we have a hard time PLACING THE TEACHINGS OF PAUL INTO THE PERSPECTIVE OF GOD'S ADMINISTRATION OF HIS REVELATION THROUGH TIMES. I do believe that some of the Jewish Apostles that separated from Paul as stated in GALATIANS 2:9, perhaps kept some Jewish religious elements until later in their lives EVEN AFTER BEING INSPIRED BY GOD TO BE PART OF THE CANNON. (This is NOT so uncommon; one can preach a great inspired sermon on Sunday and contradict it with their religious actions from Monday through Friday. The contradiction does not remove the Sunday sermon's inspiration).

Does that "fallig back" affect our churches today?
As the paranoid told his psychiatrist: "If you don't know that everyone is out to get you is because you not paying attention". If you have not noticed yet, listen to some of the sermons on TV. Coming from every denomination. Listen to, perhaps, your own minister. There is as much "people in control gospel" today as there was when PAUL wrote to the Epistles to the Galatians and when he rebuked Peter in Galatians 2:14. It may come with different names, but it comes from the same pit with the same devastating effect. This is the cancer that is eating us up! And it starts with FREE-WILL teaching!
We can only have one or the other:
"people in control gospel" or "Pauline passion for the gospel, where God is in control". There is no link or relationship between both!

Well... Bill, YOU ARE RIGHT AGAIN!!!

PATTI:
The title of your post is almost ipsis literis, ipso verbo, ipso facto a phrase attributed to George Smithfield, according to Spurgeon Book of best quotes:

EVERYONE IS BORN ARMINIAN; GRACE MAKES US CALVINIST!!

Although I prefer to be called "Paulista" (I was born in Sao Paulo, Brazil), Paulista in theology, I think this phrase above is really descriptive of all of us at our deathbed!

Grace Ambassador
Billtwisse
Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2000 - 7:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dear GA,

I can't express how much gratitude I am feeling! Though many of those posting here believe that my agenda is utilitarian, your encouragement is especially appropriate at this time. Thanks for being the main source of encouragement in the true gospel!

I apologize if my comments a week or two ago--about not challenging the motives of those posting here--were invalid or inappropriate.

I deliberately chose not to post the strongest quotations of Spurgeon so as to avoid the charge of being opportunist. So much for that stupid approach!

I truly love you in the Lord. In case you did not 'read it between the lines,' I perfectly understand if you are tired of posting here. It's a real battle but maybe worth fighting (?!) .

In the true gospel,

--Twisse
Billtwisse
Posted on Friday, September 08, 2000 - 5:35 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Patti:

I agree with everything that you said regarding Ben. Let me express my sincere Christian love (not just 'sympathy').

We often wonder about the issue of whether our own actions affect the destiny of souls. Well, God asks us to do our best in sharing the gospel. At the same time, he is in charge of whether someone is saved or not. That burden is removed from us entirely! I do believe that if we acknowledge a sovereign God, our hope of the salvation of those that we tried to influence is much greater.

Sherry2:

I'm sorry that you interpreted my words in the manner that you did. I deal with issues, not personalities or emotions. For me, the issue that I was addressing was significant and serious. I only used the fact of Spurgeon's cigar habit to give those a way out who think that his arguments were crazy! Maybe his tobacco clouded his spiritual mind, as Ellen White would have it! It is called illustrating the ridiculous by being ridiculous.

I'm not upset by whatever your views are. In actual fact, I did not know for sure what you personally believed on this until your last post, which was after the post in which you claimed that I was expressing upset at your beliefs. God wants every man and woman thinking exactly what he/she is at this moment. Otherwise, he is not sovereign! He shrouded my mind in darkness for years in order to bring glory to himself at the moment that he confronted me with light! Whether the thinking of anyone is right or wrong is entirely up to him. I have to praise the wisdom of God, however he chooses to turn hearts at any point in history.

By the way, the views of Spurgeon are anything but 'popular' today. Scores of modern theologians have tried to reinvent him, because they hate his real teaching. With respect to Christian professors who agree with the quotes that I cited from Spurgeon, you are talking a fraction of 1% (I gladly include myself in that group, to the glory of God--I am not worthy.).

--Twisse
Billthompson
Posted on Friday, September 08, 2000 - 8:50 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Patti and GA,

Your comments above:

EVERYONE ULTIMATELY ENDS UP "CALVINIST"

EVERYONE IS BORN ARMINIAN; GRACE MAKES US CALVINIST!!

...remind me of a conversation I had with a Baptist pastor I respect greatly. This was several years ago and I was just learning about Arminianism vs. Calvinism. He was reluctant to discuss it at all until he first knew that I had studied it quite a bit already and was familiar with the differences. He smiled at me and said, "I am both. To the unsaved I am Arminian, to the saved I am Calvinistic." He explained further, "In my evenagelistic efforts, as I spread the Gospel to lost people, I do so as if all people may be saved if they so choose. To the saved person I remind them over and over that they should have no pride in their own salvation, they did nothing to earn it, it is totally a gift from a sovereign God."

My intitial response was, "That's not fair! You have to choose one camp or the other." His response was, "Do I really?! I don't think so. If the Arminian understanding of free will makes a more effective evangelist and helps me fulfill the great commission with red hot zeal then so be it. If the Calvinistic emphasis on the sovereignty of God reminds me that I do not save anyone, and have no room or reason for pride in the numbers of people I have seen come to Christ, then this also is a good thing."

With a serious, contemplative look on his face he repaeted, "Yes, to the unsaved I am Arminian, to the saved I am a Calvinist and I see no problem with that." I didn't like that answer at the time but over the years as I have seen the extremes of each camp, Calvinists who do not evangelize and Arminians who offer no assurance of salvation to anyone, I have seen the wisdom and Biblical significance of his seemingly contradictory position.

In my own heart I lean much more to the Calvinist position, but in my efforts to reach the lost I try to use an Arminian approach. I do find it difficult to zealously seek to fulfill the great commission without an Arminian, free will slant. It is equally difficult to have the assurance of salvation the Bible says we should have or be enthusiastic about how good the Good News is without the Calvinistic view of the sovereignty of God. For me the answers are not in the extremes of either camp.

I have noticed over the years, that most Baptist churches I have been associated with take the approach this pastor mentioned. My current pastor (Baptist) says, "It is hard to be 100% Calvinistic when you read all the 'whosoever' passages of Scripture. It is also hard to be 100% Arminian when you read all the passages about election, assurance of salvation, etc." He also said to me once, "God is going to save who He wants to save, but I don't know who they are, so I preach to all men with the hope that they are among the elect and that free will does come into play where being saved is concerned. I don't take any credit for those who are saved but I'll continue to preach as if each man has a choice in the matter."

It has taken me awhile to see the merrit in this approach, but I find it has become my own. There are depths to the mistery of God which we can not fully understand and that neither Arminianism nor Calvinism fully explain. We can try to fulfill the Biblical great commission with zeal and have the assurance the Gospel offers, however. He has revealed this much to us and we should use that which He has blessed us with.

A Sinner Saved By Grace Alone,
Bill Thompson
(not to be confused with Bill Twisse)
Graceambassador
Posted on Friday, September 08, 2000 - 10:20 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hey Bill Thompson:
Great to hear from you!

Good comments!

Our efforts should be in doing what the Holy Spirit sent Paul "westernly" to do!
How we "name" our efforts should be meaningless!
But I say that pointing out to the fact that it was the Holy Spirit that impeded Paul to go east! (What does it have to do with our conversation?}. Well, why would the Holy Spiit leave out almost an entire half of the world? Why are there countries such as Sudan where there are living beings that WILL NEVER HEAR what we in AMERICA take for granted, that is, THE PRECIOUS NAME OF JESUS? (I do not mean that God will not save them as he saved Cornelius, the eunuch, the gentiles of Romans 11, and others who were saved without a preacher). What I am saying is that today many of them died without being saved. Could God not have foreseen that? Of course he could! Just to provoke some thinking...

A friend of mine Calvinist by heart, says that in heaven there is a narrow gate; in the outside of the gate it says "enter those who accepted Christ" on the inside it reads "only the elected ones have ever entered these doors". It is a way that people are seeking to weld together Arminianism and Calvinism.

I DO NOT THINK IT IS POSSIBLE until Arminians renounce the idea that "we did not lose our divine attributes entirely in Adam" or something to that effect! This is at blatant variance with Romans 3:23.

I prefer to preach to everything that moves! With passion, with love and with confidence that God will save his own and that His sheep will hear his voice. When someone blatanly and constanly refuses to receive the gospel, I do not go home sad and feeling unfulfilled. I do not go to my church and FUND RAISE to reach them, nor do I create a NEW MARKETING PROGRAM to reach them, or even start a new "service style" to reach them, contract a comedic preacher, remodel the nursery, hire a great musician and all the other CARNAL METHODS that are used to reach people. ULTIMATELY, MY RESPONSIBILITY IS TO PREACH TO THOSE WHO ARE CAPABLE OF HEARING WHEREVER THEY ARE! But that does not excuse me for being ignorant of BIBLICAL SOTERIOLOGY, or as I called in an article I wrote "VALID SOTERIOLOGY IN THE BIBLE". Hence my passionate desire to debate issues pertaining to Salvation.

I do believe that theology plays a role in our living with Christ. What I know about Jesus and His love, God and His methods plays a tremendous role in my Christian walk. Theology is only the means whereby I will acquire such knowledge.

SUPPORT GROUP VERSUS DISCUSSION GROUPS

The Bible has a long list of support for "support groups". And I do understand that some of my beloved friends in ths forum would prefer to maintain an atmosphere of a "support group" rather than having a "high brow" theological discussion; I do feel to be supportive it is biblical. There are 33 (if I remember correctly) examples in the N.T. of things that we should do "one for another". Obviously this refers to "support group". However there are at least three things that Paul says that we should be not ignorant about. I recognize that between being ignorant and being an expert there is a vast difference I, however, will be more likely to learn from brethren LIKE YOU BILL TH. AND BILL TW. and PATTI} who do seek to grow in konwledge, even as impossible as it is to achieve it, then from support groups. But that it is me!

Grace Ambassador
Graceambassador
Posted on Friday, September 08, 2000 - 10:43 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thompson, Twisse and Patti:

In the above post I REALLY meant to say:
(last phrase) "then, from support groups". I missed a comma and it could be confused with "than from support groups". I meant first and foremost from youS (Pittsburgh accent) and then, second place, I learn from support groups.

Grace Ambassador
Billtwisse
Posted on Friday, September 08, 2000 - 6:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dear GA,

I wholly endorse your distinction between 'support groups' and a serious pursuit of NT truth. The two cannot mix! The gospel cannot be prostituted with the proverbial B.S. of modern psychology which tries to please the emotionally unstable.

Dear Bill (by the way, my real name is not Bill),

You state that "to the unsaved I am Arminian and to the saved I am Calvinist." I hope that you will interpret my response in the Christian spirit that it comes from. Hogwash! God's truth is the same for all men, whether they are saved or lost. What they are confronted with on judgment day will be the same. We are to preach the gospel of the New Testament. The gospel we preach to the unsaved is not different than the the gospel we confess as saved Christians.

We are not responsible for being 'politically' or 'psychologically' correct with the unsaved. Paul didn't care about this whatsoever! If the sovereignty of God is a fact, those who reject the gospel would have done so--no matter who the instrument of preaching it happened to be.

My Current Thoughts (I don't care if someone views this as a complaint.):

I have put off much correspondence with Christian friends and leaders in order to post on this bulletin board. I have a very full life outside of any discussion here. Some may have noticed that I often post in the middle of the night. I will attempt with all the power that is in me, by God's grace, to finish my studies on the covenants this weekend. I will keep my word to post all of them--in any case. After that, I will not abandon all interaction on this board. However, I will only sign on every 2-4 weeks. That is all the time that the Lord has given me--considering my other spiritual, family, and work commitments.

There are many other issues discussed on this board that I have desired to interact on. Maybe someday the Lord will open up more opportunity for this. I am not going to discuss all of my other personal commitments here--but they are huge, huge, huge!

I had intended to attend the FAF meeting in Redlands this evening, as I am a couple of hours away in my current location 'on the road'--and am not working for once. Instead, I will spend the hours finishing the covenant studies. Having weighed all of these matters in the balance, I believe that priority is what the Lord would have me to focus on. I intend to use these studies in the future, quite apart from the fact that they once existed here.

In the gospel,

--Twisse
Graceambassador
Posted on Friday, September 08, 2000 - 8:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dear Twisse:

Although I will greatly miss your postings, it would be selfish of me if I'd ask you to keep your effort level as it has been so far. Take your time and do the things that you see as priority!

In the other hand, I do believe that I had to be blind not to have drawn great insights from your teachings so far. Thank God I am not blind and I did draw such great insights!

Thanks for your faithfulness and I will be looking forward to your next postings whenever they are published.

Grace Ambassador
Billtwisse
Posted on Saturday, September 09, 2000 - 11:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A Final Note to Bill Thompson:

Bill, since I won't be posting again for a while, I wanted to express my apology for the strong language that I used to challenge your position. Although I did express my heart in my response, I could have exercised more Christian love and support.

In the gospel,

--Twisse
Colleentinker
Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2000 - 12:53 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bill TwisseóI will miss your posts! Thank you for your studies. We'll look forward to your future participation.

I'm really sorry you weren't able to come on Friday. I hope someday you can join us!

In His Grace,
Colleen
Billthompson
Posted on Monday, September 11, 2000 - 12:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bill Twisse,

If you'll read my post again you'll see the quote you objected to was a quote from a Baptist pastor and I went on to say I strongly objected to this statement at the time I first heard it. Over the yars I have come to understand what he was saying, however.

This is where I stand. I do not believe that either Calvinism or Arminianism adequately explain the mysteries of God. Calvinism clearly has a better emphasis where the sovereignty of God is concerned and that is why I myself lean more in their direction.

I do not think either school of thought is infallible or is totally true to the total exclusion of the other. I think we place ourselves in a particularly vulnerable postion when we rely totally on any one extrabiblical source of doctrine.

I'll stick to the Bible alone and pray for guidance as I continue to study this reliable source.

A Sinner Saved By Grace Alone,
Bill Thompson
Billthompson
Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2000 - 2:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bill Twisse,

I confess that I did not know you at all until I encountered you here a couple of posts ago. I went to the archives and read some of your previous posts. In spite of what seems to be disagreement above, I see that we are in almost complete harmony. I read a post of your's dated May 14, 2000. I am in complete agreement with your position there. It reads as follows:

On Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism:

I do not believe that these terms are being used correctly by those who have recently posted messages. It is important that we correctly state the position of an 'enemy' before analyzing it. Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism are not the same thing.

Hyper-Calvinism is a branch of Calvinism that denies the free proclamation of the gospel and the accountability of all persons to the gospel. I have interacted with many 'hardshell' Calvinists who teach this: a person will go to either heaven or hell apart from any personal belief in Christ. God saves and condemns those whom he will, regardless of whether we believe in him or not.

That is a far cry from the godly doctrine of men like Luther, Calvin, Zanchius, Knox, Whitefield, Edwards, Bunyan, Owen, Spurgeon, and a host of other great men of God who believed in God's sovereign election. Many of these assumed the 'Calvinist' label. These men all rejected with horror the revolving-door concept of salvation taught by Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Arminius, and Wesley.


With the above definitions in place I would gladly stand beside a "Calvinist" like you describe above but reject the hyper-Calvinism described. It is in defense of the "free proclamation of the gospel and the accountability of all persons to the gospel" that I have resisted the label of "Calvinism" and perhaps in a sloppy way tried to say "I am use an Arminian approach to the lost and Calvinist to the saved". What I meant by that was that I believe the Bible does teach "free proclamation of the gospel and the accountability of all persons to the gospel". I perhaps wrongly equated this approach to the lost as "Arminian".

I do fail to understand "Limited Atonement" unless one is saying that the atonement is only applicable to those who are saved and not to those who, by choice, rejected it.

I read your post where you differentiate between "free will" and "choice". Note, it is the word "choice" I use above since I agree with the way you separate the two.

The defining doctrine for me after leaving SDAism in 1979 was "eternal security", the "P" of TULIP. I felt the Gospel is not truly Good News without this doctrine and still hold very strongly to that point. It was several years later before I ever learned of Calvinism's five points. I have struggled to understand them ever since.

In choosing a church to raise my children in, I refused to have anything to do with any church which did not teach "eternal security" and still feel very strongly about that doctrine.

The definitions of "Calvinism" I have come across have been more like what you call "hyper-Calvinism" and it is this "hyper" form which I can not accept as Biblical.

I want you to know that whether we agree on all points or not, I respect you a great deal as I have come to know you a little better from your posts in the archives.

A Sinner Saved By Grace Alone,
Bill Thompson
Graceambassador
Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2000 - 6:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello Everyone!
Anyone interested in knowing about our missions in Brazil, please check:
EMBASSY OF GRACE then click on the NEWSLETTER link and you will find a summary of our work.

Thanks and thank you for allowing me to plug in!

Grace Ambassador
Colleentinker
Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2000 - 10:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I want to second Bill Thompson's message to Bill Twisse. I'm grateful to both of you for your thoughtful contributions here. I really do thank God for both your presences here! You too, Grace Ambassadoróand all the rest of the posters and lurkers, too!

I really miss being able to check in daily or more often. Since school started my time is greatly limited, but I look forward to opportunities to come online.

My prayers continue daily for this site and for each of us here. I praise God for his love and freedom that he has freely given to us.

Colleen
Graceambassador
Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 6:04 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dear Colleen:

you said:
"I really do thank God for both your presences here! You too, Grace Ambassadoró"

No need to thanking me! I cannot express often enough that between me and this forum, I was the the one who had the greatest share of benefit for being a part in it! I WISH I could be a blessing to this forum half the way it has been a blessing to me!

Grace Ambassador
Billtwisse
Posted on Saturday, September 16, 2000 - 1:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dear Bill Thompson,

I certainly appreciate your honest evaluation of all that I have said. We have been mutually blessed by the exchange of Christian wisdom here. I know that what you have expressed is a blessing to me.

There are a lot of issues at stake in the matters that have been introduced. I hope to comment more in detail in the future.

Colleen:

I'm grateful for all of your prayers--both for this site and for those of us who are involved. I have come to realize that the sincere pursuit of gospel truth evident in many persons here is rare and hard to find. May the Lord continue to bless the ministry of you and Richard!

GA:

Your ministry is a blessing that cannot be measured! I plan to continue my dialogue with you at any cost!

In Christ's grace and love,

--Twisse

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration