Archive through September 5, 2000 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? » Archive through September 5, 2000 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Sherry2
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 6:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Now for all you formers, doesn't those fruits sound like SDAism..? Now I see where the roots in Arminiasm come from...Very interesting... Ok..heres the FRUIT OF CALVINISM: Five point Calvinists, like full strict Arminians, typically bear fruit contrary to the teaching of God's Word. Specifically, it is typical of five point Calvinists to ignore or at times even oppose evangelism. After all, if all of humanity is either predestined to hell or to heaven, and there is nothing anyone can do to switch from one group to the other regardless of their will, then why evangelize? The elect will be saved whether they like it or not, and the non-elect will be doomed whether they want to or not. Historically, some hyper-Calvinists have even gone so far as to object to putting a Gospel verse on a sign, lest one of the non-elect read it and believe, thus thwarting God's plan. Even today, Calvinists can be found fighting against evangelistic crusades and missions.

Secondly, strict Calvinism seems to invariably lead to division, strife and argument. Many Calvinists seem to spend more time arguing with fellow Christians about doctrine than loving and caring for the lost and hurting in the world. They are seeking, it seems, to convert the converted, and have neglected the call of God to missions, evangelism, and practical service. Indeed, Calvinism seems to attract those of an argumentative nature who are often unteachable, legalistic, and dogmatic.

Five point Calvinists tend to speak of love and grace frequently, but display very little of either. Rather than loving and serving the lost and hurting, they are engaged in continual arguing, often dividing the Body of Christ in a legalistic and hurtful manner. To many of them, being what they consider to be right is more important than doing what Jesus commanded, viz., evangelizing the lost and ministering to those in need. I have not infrequently seen rank Calvinists who assert that because God chose some for heaven and others for hell, we cannot know the destiny of babies who die. If they were elect, they are in heaven, if not, hell. Such a belief makes God a monster who eternally tortures innocent children, it removes the hope of consolation from the Gospel, it limits the atoning work of Christ, it resists evangelism, it stirs up argumentation and division, and it promotes a small, angry, judgmental God rather than the large-hearted God of the Bible.
Sherry2
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 6:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

AN EVALUATION OF THE DOCTRINES
At the heart of the controversy between Calvinism and Arminianism is the emphasis on the sovereignty of God by the Calvinists and on the free will of man, or human responsibility, by the Arminians. Arminian theology teaches that man has free will and that God will never interrupt or take that free will away, that God has obligated Himself to respect the free moral agency and capacity of free choice with which He created us. Calvinism, on the other hand, emphasizes that God is in total control of everything, and that nothing can happen that He does not plan and direct, including man's salvation. Both doctrinal positions are logical, both have Scriptures to back up each of their five points, and both are, in my opinion, partially right and partially wrong.

As Philip Schaff put it in his History of the Christian Church, "Calvinism emphasizes divine sovereignty and free grace; Arminianism emphasizes human responsibility. The one restricts the saving grace to the elect; the other extends it to all men on the condition of faith. Both are right in what they assert; both are wrong in what they deny. If one important truth is pressed to the exclusion of another truth of equal importance, it becomes an error, and loses its hold upon the conscience. The Bible gives us a theology which is more human than Calvinism and more divine than Arminianism, and more Christian than either of them." (New York, Charles Scribner's & Son, 1910, VIII 815 f). Certainly, the Bible does teach that God is sovereign (Psalm 135:6; Daniel 4:35, Ephesians 1:11), and that believers are predestined and elected by God (Romans 8) to spend eternity with Him. Nowhere, however, does the Bible ever associate election with damnation. Conversely, the Scriptures teach that God elects for salvation, but that unbelievers are in hell by their own choice.

Every passage of the Bible that deals with election deals with it in the context of salvation, not damnation. No one is elect for hell. The only support for such a view (which John Calvin did teach) is human logic, not Biblical revelation.

The idea of total depravity is consistent with Scripture (Ephesians 2:1, Romans 3:11), but the doctrine of limited atonement, that Jesus did not die for the sins of the whole world, is clearly anti-Biblical (John 3:16, I Timothy 2:6, 11 Peter 2:1, I John 2:2). The Bible teaches that Jesus died for everyone's sins and that everyone is able to be saved if they will repent and turn to Christ. Limited atonement is a non-Biblical doctrine. (John 3:16,17; Romans 5:8, 18; 2Corinthians 5:14,15; 1Timothy 2:4; 4:10; Hebrews 2:9; 10:29; 2Peter 2: I; 1John 2:2; 4:14.)

Irresistible grace is taught by some, who do not understand the concept, to mean that God drags people to Himself contrary to their wills. Actually, the Biblical view, and the view of most Calvinists, is the belief that God works on our wills so as to make us willing to surrender to Him. In other words, He makes us willing to come to Christ for salvation.

And, many Scriptures teach that a true believer is safe and secure in Christ, that salvation doesn't depend on our ability to keep ourselves, but on God's ability to keep us. (1John S:11-13; John 10:28; Romans 5:1 and 8:1). The only condition for salvation is faith in Christ (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9). On the other hand, the Bible teaches us that we must abide in Christ (John 15; Luke 13:14; Colossians 1:29; 2Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 6:4-6; 1Peter 1:10) to persevere in salvation.



This can all be found at:http://www.calvarychapel.com/cheyenne/Books/Calvinism.html

So much more out there too. Very interesting research..I know I just overwhelmed the thread with loads of info...Sorry for that. I hope that it will be helpful to some of you who may wonder about these things too. This is good, examining church history way back - things that I did not know.. thank you about the Baptists too. That was helpful, Twisse.

Happy studying to all on whatever Christ has put on your hearts.

Love in Christ, even with my rough edges, Sherry
Graceambassador
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 7:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Let me play Columbo here...
(Putting my hand over my eye...)

Uhh! one more thing:

My son and I write in a couple of forums almost the same thing. People send ALL the studies above to us. You know, all you have to do is to put the word "calvinism" in the search box and voi-la.
They send the studies as though now they're experts in the issue. Then they label us and put us in the same category as the people about whom the authors of these articles wrote.

The other day we looked at each other and said what I am saying to a few of you now:

"Son...we left our country because of the Gospel... I was spit upon, threatened and all because I preach Salvation in Christ... I lost jobs because of it... You son gave up your country, your friends, you gave up your life in a home with 18 rooms and a penthouse swimming pool to come to America, to preach to this pseudo-religious country. How come, because of our beliefs we have to receive in our computer studies insinuating all kinds of things about us from people who never saw the eye of a sinner, (no one in this forum in particular) that find themselves in the comfort of a computer, with no firm comvictions of their own, depending on books and Web search, with no sense of place in God's plan... What is wrong with this picture?
Well, if because we believe in TULIP I am placed in a bag with a bunch of pharisees that are duly bombarded by authors who know very well what they're against but have a hard time to point what they're for, then, son... we should give up Web Sites, give up writing in it...
If because we believe in TULIP we are misinterpreted by people who are "just-now" experts, not matter what we say; If we have to defend ourselves telling them that we are not "ists" (Calvinists, Arninianists, Pentecostalists etc.) of any kind, then... we better stop contributing to forums in the Web!

This is not a complaint. Usually, in most cases is the truth. People who perhaps never lift an ounce for a sinner (no one in this forum included) have this new found interest for "lost souls" "grace" "free-will" "God's love" the "great commission" and others. Too bad it is only behind their computers, These are the ones who criticize me and my son the most, labeling us "evangelism haters" "not merciful to the poor" "proud, mean, exclusivist" etc.. (They do not know of our labor in the Lord, I forgive them)
I am just happy we cause people to be interested in doing some research!

Well, no wonder Christianity is jeered at, lampooned, labasted by the world!

I will strive to be like Jesus. To think like Jesus and to have the mind of Christ! To love like Jesus! It is not hopeless since God commanded and He would never command any impossible thing from us!

A warning before fading quietly into the night: The attitude of "just-now" experts, who read something with no timely reflection, no long term pondering on them, and accept them as babies take candy, GAVE US HERETICS such as EGW. Please, exercise discernement when reading articles from a failed religious system (Churchianity in America). Paul tells us: Prove all things, retain that which is good!

Columbo is leaving now with his crummy cape and beat up car... (no cigar though)

Grace Ambassador
Susan
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 7:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sherry2, I'm a bit confused. You made some negative comments about Calvanists. I've had the exact opposite experiences. The Chrisitan Reformed Church was the first church to embrace me as a new Christian. What impacted me the most, was their love for people. They have an awesome missions ministry, relief help, and assistance to the poor. I went through a natural disaster once and their relief effort was just amazing. They were a blessing not only to others in their denomination, but to their neighbors and anyone else in need. I've also been to Presbyterian churches and have been pleased by their evangelism emphasis. D. James Kennedy started "Evangelism Explosion" and he's reformed. Also, R.C.Sproul has a wonderful outreach/radio ministry. I guess I'm just puzzled by your opinions.

While I've been attracted to the love and outreach I've experienced in reformed churches, their intellectualism is something I really appreciate. Other churches (arminian, and nondenominational) I've been to, have not reflected a balance of these things.

I guess I'm so one-sided because of my experience. You see, my conversion was totally a "God Thing". I was completely incapable of even wanting or desiring a holy God. I was at such a low spot that without the prompting of the Holy Spirit, I would've died many years ago (literally and spiritualy). We can debate these issues "till the cows come home", but God saved me. From begining to end. The righteous faith that it took, to even say yes to Jesus' invitation, did not come from my sinful nature. My faith was a gift from God. When I contemplate that He would even chose me, I'm so blown away that I can hardly keep from crying. When I think of how totally unworthy I am, it humbles me. God deserves all the glory for the entirety of my salvation. I don't want to claim any part. Not even the free choice. Because I could not chose holiness, when I don't possess any holiness apart from Christ in me. To say Jesus saves all, but only some come to Him, implies that we who would "choose" are perhaps more intelligent, or spiritual. It also implies to me, that Jesus work wasn't successful enough, because so many people don't come to Him. If He died for everyones sins paying the price for all, why would anyone suffer in hell? Is it fair for punishment to be paid twice?


Well, I've gone on long enough. I hope that I haven't offended anyone. Just curious Sherry. I just know MANY Calvanists who are very loving and work hard in spreading the gospel of Jesus.

May God be glorified in all!

In Christ,
Susan
Susan
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 8:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm so sorry. In my above posts I keep spelling Calvinism wrong. I really stink at spelling. Haven't figured out yet how to run the spellcheck when I'm posting!

In Christ,
Susan
Sherry2
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 8:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't know what comments you are talking about, Susan. Those above articles are from the Encyclopedia Brittanica, another is from a Reformed church which is pro-Calvinist (did you even see that, GA?), another was from another encyclopedia, doing nothing else but sharing history and what happened way back when. I found it interesting to study the church fathers if you will. What could be so offensive about that, I do not know. I am terribly sorry. I wrote that I was sharing info, nothing more. I thought it was pretty cool, finding this stuff out. And yes, I gave opposing views: for and against both sentiments. Ok..I'm out of here. Had enough...really got to let it go. I thought it was productive to share from different perspectives, and obviously not. I'll be the first one to go, GA.. No worries. I'm sorry I wasn't of more support. Many of you have been a blessing. Thank you and thank you Colleen and Richard.
Susan
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 8:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sherry, sorry if I took those comments as yours. I guess I wasn't reading carefully. Sometimes when I'm reading fast, I tend to miss things. I truly am sorry. I wasn't offended. People have bad experiences in all denominations. I was just confused. Please forgive me, I would never want to offend you. Thanks for setting me straight!

Love in Christ,
Susan
Lydell
Posted on Friday, September 01, 2000 - 6:33 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sherry2, I thought it was pretty neat that you found stuff on both sides and the middle.

And you're welcome for pointing you to this site. AND please let me hear from you again! When my computer guru fixed the computer he dumped my address book somehow. I'd love to hear how things are going with you.
Billtwisse
Posted on Friday, September 01, 2000 - 4:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, it is interesting to contemplate how far this discussion has strayed from the 'Sabbath death decree.' It should be moved to the 'predestination' category.

GA, you state:

"He will save mentally ill people, he will save the Indians, He will save the Hindus, He will SAVE ALL THROUGH CHRIST AND HIS BLOOD!"

I can agree with you partially. I only have trouble with the Hindu part. That is, if it means those committed to Hindu religion and philosophy--which is absolutely opposed to the gospel. I don't believe for a moment that you espouse the notion that those committed to this devilish doctrine are saved. Maybe you refer to the fact that God will call some Hindus out of darkness into the light of Christ.

Christianity and the 'ladder of Karma' (taught in both Hinduism and Buddhism) don't mix. The latter is salvation by character and it is the doctrine of devils. The greatest counterfeit of salvation by grace is salvation by character.

When it comes to mentally ill people, infants, and those of any race who have not heard the gospel (including Indians), I leave the matter to the sovereignty of God. God can work where no man is able to do so! He can preach the gospel through the stones or reach humans in a realm that we do not understand. This does not mean that ALL infants, mentally ill, or tribes without the gospel are saved. God is sovereign and is able to save those whom he will! With regard to babies, they do not remain babies at all after death. Salvation or judgment are completely unrelated to age. None at any age deserve the grace of God.

Sherry:

You are studying well and I commend you for that! I only wish that many others would search the scriptures and the writings of history as you have done.

You state:

"It is typical of five-point Calvinists to oppose evangelism."

Not true in any sense! Hyper-Calvinists oppose evangelism. Not Calvinists--and I do not label myself as a Calvinist. William Carey did. He was one of the greatest evangelists and missionaries in history. He labored in India for 6 years before one person accepted Christ, lost his entire family to disease, lost all of his Bible translation work to fire, and wondered if he had missed his calling entirely by going to that dreaded and God-cursed place! But God finally blessed his ministry with many souls who came to faith. He was so devoted to evangelism that almost all other would-be evangelists look like deserters of the cause!

Mainstream Calvinists had never been anti-evangelical. Only their critics accuse them of being that.

If predestination is not unconditional, it is not predestination. That is a complete contradiction in terms. God either accomplishes all of his pleasure without one failure or his hand is cut short by the will of man.

--Twisse
Graceambassador
Posted on Friday, September 01, 2000 - 6:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Bill:

Thanks for correcting me. I should write this to you in private, but I will do it publically. When you ask:

"Maybe you refer to the fact that God will call some Hindus out of darkness into the light of Christ."

Yes of course, I was referring to the fact God will save Hindus independent of a preacher! I know a FORMER HINDU (no, he does not have a forum in the WEB) that could not possibly hear the name of Christ in his Hindu village. I do not have the details of his testimony, but I KNOW that he had no copy of the Bible, there was no preacher present, not even radio. But HE CAME TO CHRIST and got out of Hinduism and is now a preacher.

I saw in A&E the other day how in the dark mountains of Apheganistan (which has a meaning in Hebrew that I forgot) there is a village of people compelled to be Muslims that know almost by heart the entire Pentateuch. Then, a Jewish guy who is searching for the lost tribes took their DNA. Their DNA has the same characteristic of that of the Levites! Then, the leader of the village said that they are actually JEWS compelled to claim that they are Muslims. Then they found many other like this in China and other places. They found one of these tribes in Africa where there is a "priest" that runs something pretty much like a synagogue EXCEPT THAT HE PREACHES THE MESSIAH JESUS HAS ALREADY COME AND DOES IT OUT OF THE BIBLE.

IF GOD IS ABLE TO GATHER HIS PEOPLE WHO CAME THROUGH ABRAHAM'S PROMISE, HOW MUCH MORE CAN HE GATHER FROM ALL THE CORNERS OF THE WORLD THOSE WHOM HE PROMISED TO JESUS .

I believe he will do that with or without a preacher. Preachers would like us to think otherwise because of fund raising. They want you to think that if they do not do their job, then a Chinese behind the bamboo curtain will not be saved, meaning, GOD IS INCAPABLE OF SAVING ANYONE WITHOUT A PREACHER! THE HOLY SPIRIT is the only PERSON necessary to REVEAL CHRIST. All else are instruments that are used according to God's ETERNAL PLAN!
I do know that Paul asks: How can they hear without a preacher? Well the Holy Spirit is THE Preacher! He is the one with beautiful feet who goes on the mountais anouncing peace and proclaiming songs of happiness and saying Our God reigns! Isaiah 52:7. Jesus said He'd be a preacher, a guide and a teacher!
Besides, when a physical preacher is preaching, if one believes the Bible, actually is the Holy Spirit inspiring that preacher anyway (hopefully...).

I hope I did not leave any impression that I am an UNIVERSALIST by believing that Hindus that remain Hindus serving the devil can be saved and continue in their dark ways.

Bill, I love to interact here, but now everything I say and do will be received as something from an "evangelism hater", "one who sends babies to hell", "who preaches that he is saved but others are swine" type of guy. So, I believe that my time to help in this forum is passed!

I will really seek God and prayerfully decide if I should continue to write here. I love the former SDA and have nothing but reverent respect for them. Someone said it properly a few posts above: "You will never understand what we've been through", or words to that effect. I think she is right. Thus, if I can't help them, then I think it is time to find a new field to camp!

I have to say in the name of fairness that I learned a lot here! It is a good place to learn!

Grace Ambassador
Sherry2
Posted on Saturday, September 02, 2000 - 9:29 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Twisse, thank you. The comment :"It is typical of five-point Calvinists to oppose evangelism." was a comment from that article I copied from Larry Taylor...again refer to what I told Susan. I was sharing info, pro, con, in the middle to help anyone here who like me did not have a clue about TULIP until recently. It is amazing how all throughout history Christians persecuted and killed other christians. Have been reading the "Anabaptist story" and Reformed persecuted as well as the Catholics for a belief and practice of baptism as adults,...I read how Calvinists persecuted the Arminians. I think the bottom line is if God's Agape Love is not in us, regardless of whether we agree entirely in doctrine, then God is not in us and in our hearts period. Agape Love. Why throughout history do Christians kill other christians for believing differently is beyond me. It is sickening. Back to the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Cross. There is true unity and love for each other found, and a love for the lost. If Christians are killing other Christians for a different doctrine, then indeed they have lost total site of the Cross and Jesus' life and death and what that means. Blessings to all. Lord knows, I need to be more like Him.
Sherry2
Posted on Saturday, September 02, 2000 - 1:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Oh, Twisse, I should say I agree with you entirely on that not being true of Calvinists. You are right. It is Hyper-calvanism that does that. Our dentist is Calvinist, and get this, he's a Sabbath-keeping one. He goes to church on Sunday but apparently keeps Saturday as Sabbath at home with his family. My husband and him have many interesting conversations - and they disagree agreeably.
Billtwisse
Posted on Sunday, September 03, 2000 - 12:44 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dear GA, you state:

Bill, I love to interact here, but now everything I say and do will be received as something from an "evangelism hater", "one who sends babies to hell", "who preaches that he is saved but others are swine" type of guy. So, I believe that my time to help in this forum is passed!

What can I say to convince you that this is not the case? The forum here is not only for former SDA's but for Christians at large. The SDA theology (recognizing the falsehood that it was-- and is) is used as a catalyst to seek out the truth on all pertinent matters related to the NT gospel. Although some within SDAism have posted here & others have hearts that are not fully removed from it, there are enough mainstream Christian believers to keep things focused on the real gospel issues of our time.

Let me address the 'labels' that you mention.

Evangelism Hater

The issue of whether God saves some without the preaching of the gospel through human instruments is nothing new. Like yourself, I have known many believers personally who deny that anyone is saved without the gospel through humans. I have certainly read a lot of theologians who affirm this (Hodge, etc.), others (Strong, etc.) take the position that you are espousing. It is a matter of reasonable debate and should be discussed in a Christian spirit; with scriptural evidence presented for any position taken.

One who Sends Babies to Hell

No way! Firstly, it is entirely possible that a sovereign God elects to save all of those dying as babies. Maybe the fact of infant death shows that God has only a heavenly purpose for these souls. I'm saying that I don't know. The Bible is not perfectly clear on this. I think both of us agree that we have to trust the judge of all the Earth to do right. Perhaps that is the only scripture applicable here.

After babies depart this world, it is reasonable to assume that they are no longer such. Whatever they were in infancy matures into adulthood. The seed immediately becomes a full-grown tree.

One who preaches that he is saved but others are swine.

I'm sure that other Christians do not believe you are calling them swine! There certainly are such persons in this world--Christ warned us regarding them. However, those individuals will be exposed if we stick with defending the gospel.

Moving on,

Would you be more comfortable on a bulletin board of former Roman Catholics? In spite of the many differences in external doctrine and practice, Romanism and Adventism are fundamentally the same thing. Both teach that Christ's work of atonement was not finished once-for-all in his death. Both teach a similar doctrine of personal salvation (justification)--with a lack of final assurance. I rode to D.C. and back with 3 Roman Catholics a few years ago. It was for a political function. I listened to R.C. 'evangelism' for nearly 30 hours! They had no interest whatsoever in what I had to say. They had the TRUTH! When I got home, I never felt more like I had been with a bunch of Adventists in my life! There was a familiar spirit and ring to everything that had been said.

Well, my friend, the issue is whether the Lord has given each of us something that needs to be shared. Are others blessed by your ministry here? I definitely believe so. There is great blessing in mutual encouragement and and an increase in wisdom as we learn from one another.

I get the impression that you regret some of the things that you have posted. Me too! I will state this: not everything that any of us have to say is of equal value. As a lifetime recipient of that thing they call Tourette's Syndrome, I know what it is to be regularly embarrased by acting and speaking before thinking.

However, the 3 issues that I have commented on above are perfectly legitimate matters for you to bring up--as far as I'm concerned.

Love you in Christ,

--Twisse
Billtwisse
Posted on Sunday, September 03, 2000 - 1:10 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dear Sherry2:

I sincerely apologize for confusing the statement of Larry Taylor with your own opinion. I feel that I'm understanding you much better as time goes on.

You have a good spirit. I can see that your interest in the truth is genuine.

On the matter of Christians persecuting one another, this has been a horrible testimony to the world. It happened in the early centuries with regard to issues of Christology. After that, it simply continued to occur with everything else. The history of the 5-point 'exchange' of Arminianism & Calvinism in the Netherlands is interesting indeed. Both the Remonstrants and the Calvinists persecuted the other side--whenever each had the political opportunity to do so. Churches were burned, pastors were arrested, teaching the opposite viewpoint from the state-sanctioned one was forbidden. This happened so many times in history. Not the least with the 'Anabaptists'--really the Nonconformists. It was Luther and Calvin who called them Anabaptists.

I don't like to evaluate biblical issues with the terminology of later eras like 'Arminian' and 'Calvinist.' It recasts the teaching of scripture into an extra-Biblical (really infra-Biblical) platform of debate. None of these issues started in century 16 and 17. Judaism was debating free will vs. predestination, sacramentalism, baptisms, resurrection, the deity of Messiah to come, prophecy, the sacred calendar, grace vs. works, etc. before Christ ever appeared.

The real issue for all of us is what the 'apostles doctrine' was.

In Christ's grace,

--Twisse
Patti
Posted on Sunday, September 03, 2000 - 12:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You are right about the persecution that happened in Europe between the schools of Calvinism and Arminism. I know some Europeans who want nothing to do with Christianity because of the fighting that has gone on for centuries (is still going on in Ireland, Northern Ireland) between factions of "Christians." Very, very sad and indefensible.

I found this article while doing a little net-surfing. I am not going to comment, just present it to see if any of you would like to comment.

The URL I found it at is:
http://www.songtime.com/feb96art.htm


WHEN LABELS ARE DANGEROUS

I dislike being labeled a Calvinist, Arminian or even a Dispensationalist. I would rather be known as a "Biblicist". Keep in mind that prior to the 16th Century these terms were unknown. How could believers function before John Calvin or Jacob Arminius? The biblical account demonstrates that they functioned rather well.


In fact, it was Paul who introduced a wonderful viewpoint toward other members of the organism the body of Christ. "That there should be no division in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it" (I Cor. 12:25-27).


Throughout my life, I have had the wonderful privilege of spending much time with Donald Grey Barnhouse (an extreme Calvinist), and Dr. Herbert S. Mekeel (a moderate Calvinist). I also graduated from Houghton College (a Wesleyan Methodist College) and took courses in Theology on the graduate level from Dr. Gould at Eastern Nazarene College. I learned much from these encounters.

Perhaps the most important lesson was not to study the Bible through theological glasses. I had the privilege of learning from Dr. Dean Bedford in Rochester, N.Y. the importance and meaning of exegesis. I learned that we must build on a thorough and accurate exegesis; i.e., what does the text actually say and what are the meanings of the words? You might think of exegesis as the ingredients of a recipe. This means a particular dish will not taste right if certain ingredients are missing. You who are on a salt-free, low-fat diet can understand that!

Let me share a case in point. I have listened to a respected Bible teacher preach on II Peter 3:9: "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." He then went on to demonstrate that this verse teaches that salvation cannot be lost. In other words, he used this text to support his view of the security of the believer. However, this great text simply does not teach that and the only reason he taught it that way was due to the fact that he read it through his theological glasses. His teaching was totally dependent upon one 26 year-old theologian from the early 16th Century and not on proper exegesis.


Take those glasses off and you'll realize that II Peter 3:9 is a reminder that Christ died for the world. This is not teaching "universalism" but it is teaching that everyone who comes into the world has the privilege to relate to Acts 16:31: "And they said, `Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household.' "


Think exegesis again. The word refers to a critical analysis or interpretation of a word in the Bible text. For example: you can make some kind of orange dessert but if you omit the orange flavor nobody will understand why you call it "Orange Delight". Remember: The best commentary on the Bible is the Bible, which means when we come to a theme we must go to the whole of Scripture to understand it.

One Bible teacher (a good friend), used to quote I Timothy 2:4 as follows: "Who will have all men who are elect be saved." There is one problem with that. That is not what the text says. That same teacher told me Acts 16:31 guaranteed his children would all be converted. But that is not what Acts 16:31 says. It says they must believe just as he did. Two of them are atheists! By his own admission Billy Sunday's sons went to hell. He was a great evangelist but he didn't reach his own children.

Let me pause here and make it very clear that I do not want you to destroy your labels however, I do want you to realize two things:

1. You can have a label on an empty bottle.

2. Read all of Scripture without your theological glasses. Ask what the text says and not what John Calvin or Jacob Arminius said it says.


Let me show you an example. The Apostle Paul did not preach election. He preached the Gospel and taught election. There is adifference. Paul didn't come into a city and say, "Some of you in the audience are elected to Eternal Salvation and some aren't." Notice exactly what he did do. Study Acts 13:37-39:


"But He whom God raised did not undergo decay. Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that 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."

Let me repeat my goal. It is this: to help you prevent biblical imbalance. You who are pastors, stop quoting the latest books you've read and teach the Bible. Read all the books you want and build your library but don't walk into the pulpit and quote the German theologian you happen to have read that week. Instead say, "This is what the Bible says." Take them to chapter and verse. Isaiah 55:8-11 states that God will back us when we teach His Word and not when we quote the latest authors we have read that week.


For us to have biblical balance, we need to understand the following paradox:


1. Is salvation by believing? YES

2. Is salvation by election? YES


Now how do you tie these two questions together? We'll note that in next month's study and also prove according to Romans 4:4-5 that believing is a non-meritorious act. In the meantime lay aside your theological glasses and study Romans 4:4-5. You'll be blessed.


As I stated in the beginning of this article, God has enabled me to be with some great Bible teachers who represented various positions. Dr. Percy Crawford was not a Bible teacher. He was an evangelist. I learned much from him and I'll never forget an incident he shared. He attended a very fine seminary but it had some extreme positions. A professor called him into his office and objected to Percy's aggressive evangelism. They were horrified with the fact that he gave public invitations. "Stop it," was the admonition. His reply was classic: "I think if someone gets converted who is not supposed to, the Lord will forgive me." He continued to use his gift of evangelism and to this day, I still run into people who responded.


Hear it. The Bible doesn't say, "Preach Calvinism or Arminianism." These were fine men God used, but the Bible says, "Preach The Word:" "Preach the Word: be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction" (II Timothy 4:2).


Because we have failed to do this and have instead emphasized labels books like Good Morning, Holy Spirit, have become best-sellers and represent some really way out ideas that totally reject John 16:14-15. However, we buy these books because the pulpit has failed to teach this truth. We must correct this biblical imbalance.


Solution? Preach the Word!
Billtwisse
Posted on Sunday, September 03, 2000 - 8:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Patti,

Although I depolore labels, in no sense do I want to be understood as supporting an anti-predestinarian exegesis of scripture. I do not believe that the free-will notion of Justin Martyr, Origen, Thomas Aquinas, Erasmus, Melanchthon, Arminius, or Wesley can be supported for a moment.

The Wesleyan 'greats' (such as Dr. Samuel Wakefield) never convinced me with their ingenious argument and reasoning. Too many contradictions to the Biblical emphasis on the sovereignty of God. These were mighty men from an academic point of view. But the answer from scripture keeps thundering back: God cannot be sovereign if his purposes might somehow be cut short by the contrary will of man.

If God desires the salvation of all men in the human race (as opposed to elect men from every nation, kindred, tribe, and tongue), does 'all the world wandered after the beast' (Rev. 13:3) refer to all men in the world or all reprobate men in the world? If the universal interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:4 is correct, the same reasoning from would demonstrate that every member of the human race will follow antichrist.

I would challenge the notion that salvation is by believing, in the sense that you seem to be promoting. The experience of faith declares us to be justified. However, the verdict of justification declared from the throne of God proves that we were perfected forever in the once-for-all atonement of Christ (Heb. 10:14). It demonstrates that we were saved 2000 years ago. The fact that the Holy Spirit gives us faith only proves that we were included in the atonement of Christ. Being 'declared righteous' at the moment of faith demonstrates that we were 'constituted righteous' at Calvary (Murray).

--Twisse
Patti
Posted on Sunday, September 03, 2000 - 8:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bill,
I am not espousing anything in the post above yours. I merely posted an essay I found on another website.

You wrote:
I would challenge the notion that salvation is by believing, in the sense that you seem to be promoting. The experience of faith declares us to be justified. However, the verdict of justification declared from the throne of God proves that we were perfected forever in the once-for-all atonement of Christ (Heb. 10:14). It demonstrates that we were saved 2000 years ago. The fact that the Holy Spirit gives us faith only proves that we were included in the atonement of Christ. Being 'declared righteous' at the moment of faith demonstrates that we were 'constituted righteous' at Calvary (Murray).

Bill, you are preaching to the choir here! :)
Please read my other posts. I have always made the distinction between being saved by faith and being saved by grace alone. Our faith is only the conduit by which we comprehend the reality of the salvation Christ worked out for us when He was on earth.

Grace and peace,
Patti
Billtwisse
Posted on Monday, September 04, 2000 - 9:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Patti,

I must have been drunk (just kidding!) This is the second time in a row that I have confused a quotation with someone's own ideas.

Many apologies,

--Twisse
Sherry2
Posted on Tuesday, September 05, 2000 - 5:37 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The more I study Sabbath out, the more furious I am the lies that have enjoined the SDA church in this doctrine!!! I had pretty much settled it in my heart about June or end of May that in fact it was fulfilled through Christ and is not part of the New Covenant. However, what gets me is all the history from our apostolic fathers that shows that they did indeed worship on the Lord's Day as a memorial of Christ's resurrection, thus even showing the truth in John the Revelator's testimony of being in the Spirit on the Lord's Day. I am just furious the more I learn. And that I indeed was sure that people who would ignore this doctrine were indeed deceived of the devil. Lord forgive me for that! How deceptive, how amazing! I'm just steaming this morning. Give me a pulpit and I'll preach all day!
Sherry2
Posted on Tuesday, September 05, 2000 - 5:56 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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". Anyhow just thought I would mention that. Frankly, I see through most of human nature the pendolum swing, extreme one way or the other...what if God has in mind a balance? But instead we do indeed like to divide into camps, one against the other, calling the other not as mature for their beliefs, which do have value as well. Instead of opposing the other, shouldn't there be understanding on the things we can hold in common, and pray together for unity in the bonds of peace, see each as helping the other instead. Unless a doctrine is entirely a doctrine of demons...I'm not saying that.

You mentioned Justin Martyr espousing free will, and not agreeing, Twisse. That is good to know in what you believe. I recently heard the speaker from California who is so popular on the radio espousing that he could not accept Justin Martyr's view on Sabbath either, and believes that he was wrong, and Sabbath is still viable for the Christian (this is from a non-Sda person)...can't remember his name - Ken Martin? Anyhow. We do need to examine what the apostolic fathers believed in, and as always look to the Word of God, and His Spirit speaking in our hearts, and we must follow what we believe to be true of what Scripture is saying, for to do otherwise is not believing in faith. For me to claim to believe in all of the TULIP to satisfy others would be indeed wrong, and for you to do otherwise would be as well. I respect that. Hope you respect my decision as well.

You all may not hear from me very often for a while, as I start college this week. Blessings to all of you, and great joy in the Lord Jesus Christ who suffered and died for our sins, and brought us to freedom.

Love in Christ,
Sherry

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