Calling all Calvinists [Archive]

View Full Version : Calling all Calvinists

mannequinsmile

28th January 2007, 10:28 PM

Didn’t Jesus look into the rich, young ruler and ask him to sell all his possessions and follow him? Didn’t the man leave with great sorrow having rejected Jesus’ call?

IamAdopted

28th January 2007, 10:40 PM

He wanted to show this rich man that holding on to riches instead of trusting the Lord is what it takes to be His.. You can't serve both.. You will hate one and love the other..

Cajun Huguenot

28th January 2007, 11:07 PM

And the point is?

In Christ,
Kenith

Quijote

28th January 2007, 11:27 PM

And the point is?

In Christ,
Kenith

:scratch: I was wondering that myself. I don't get what the OP has to do with Calvinism (or Catholicisim, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Orthodoxy, Fundamentalism, etc..for that matter).

VCViking

29th January 2007, 12:38 AM

I believe the OP is saying the rich, young man had a choice in his salvation along with being called.

LittleLambofJesus

29th January 2007, 12:50 AM

Didn’t Jesus look into the rich, young ruler and ask him to sell all his possessions and follow him? Didn’t the man leave with great sorrow having rejected Jesus’ call? Well, he was at least lucky enough to see the Christ in the flesh. :)

Matthew 20:28 even as the Son of Man did not come to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give his life a Ransom/lutron <3083> for Many.'

Hairy Tic

29th January 2007, 12:53 AM

Didn’t Jesus look into the rich, young ruler and ask him to sell all his possessions and follow him? Didn’t the man leave with great sorrow having rejected Jesus’ call?
## Certainly :)

God's calling is effectual, and His grace invincible & irresistible, even so - the episode shows that the man did not answer the call of God on that occasion; it says nothing of the rest of his life.

Irresistible grace is irresistible, because man never finally gets the better of it - the all-ruling Sovereignty of God always has the last word :). This is entirely compatible with human refusals that precede our surrender to His grace. Once God has decreed to save a man, that man's salvation in Christ is absolutely certain - no matter how great his rebellion in the mean time. All struggling against God's Will to save, merely becomes another means by which God shows His grace to that person: because all our steps, without exception, are open to, & known by, Him.

Does that clarify ? ##

CCWoody

29th January 2007, 01:17 AM

Rats. I thought it was a summons to one of our super secret meetings where we (the following has been stricken from the record)....

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

CCWoody

29th January 2007, 01:21 AM

And the point is?

In Christ,
Kenith
Talk about your Total Depravity. Here he was in the presence of the incarnate God and he says: No thanks, I like money better.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

leothelioness

29th January 2007, 01:56 AM

## Certainly :)

God's calling is effectual, and His grace invincible & irresistible, even so - the episode shows that the man did not answer the call of God on that occasion; it says nothing of the rest of his life.

Irresistible grace is irresistible, because man never finally gets the better of it - the all-ruling Sovereignty of God always has the last word :). This is entirely compatible with human refusals that precede our surrender to His grace. Once God has decreed to save a man, that man's salvation in Christ is absolutely certain - no matter how great his rebellion in the mean time. All struggling against God's Will to save, merely becomes another means by which God shows His grace to that person: because all our steps, without exception, are open to, & known by, Him.

Does that clarify ? ##
Excellent post (that is if I understood it correctly ^_^ ).

When I read that I had to blink my eyes a few times to see if what I was reading was real. ^_^

A Catholic with Calvinist leanings. Don't think I've ever seen that (again, that is if I understood your post correctly- and I think I did! ^_^ ).

LittleLambofJesus

29th January 2007, 02:07 AM

Excellent post (that is if I understood it correctly ^_^ ).

When I read that I had to blink my eyes a few times to see if what I was reading was real. ^_^

A Catholic with Calvinist leanings. Don't think I've ever seen that (again, that is if I understood your post correctly- and I think I did! ^_^ ).You can try to run from His effectual calling, but you can never hide nor lose it. Thank you LORD. :)

Jonah 1:1 And there is a word of Jehovah unto Jonah son of Amittai, saying: 2 `Rise, go unto Nineveh, the great city, and proclaim against it that their wickedness hath come up before Me.' 3 And Jonah riseth to flee to Tarshish from the face of Jehovah, :P

Coffeedrinkingbeliever

29th January 2007, 02:17 AM

Mat 22:14For many are called,but few are chosen. ;)

leothelioness

29th January 2007, 02:32 AM

You can try to run from His effectual calling, but you can never hide nor lose it. Thank you LORD. :)

Jonah 1:1 And there is a word of Jehovah unto Jonah son of Amittai, saying: 2 `Rise, go unto Nineveh, the great city, and proclaim against it that their wickedness hath come up before Me.' 3 And Jonah riseth to flee to Tarshish from the face of Jehovah, :P
I guess it's a good thing we can't run from salvation. In the end we'll realise how good it was for us.

It's just like being a kind and running from mom when she tries to give you a bath, but when you get your bath and get all clean you realise just how good it feels and how glad you are that you gave in to mom. ^_^

It's no different with God and salvation. :)

ksen

29th January 2007, 08:25 AM

Didn’t Jesus look into the rich, young ruler and ask him to sell all his possessions and follow him? Didn’t the man leave with great sorrow having rejected Jesus’ call?

Who is to say that the young ruler didn't convert to Christ later on in his life?

And then I'd need to ask: what "call" do you think the young man was rejecting?

ksen

29th January 2007, 08:27 AM

A Catholic with Calvinist leanings. Don't think I've ever seen that (again, that is if I understood your post correctly- and I think I did! ^_^ ).

He's just following the example of St. Augustine. ;)

BBAS 64

29th January 2007, 08:32 AM

## Certainly :)

God's calling is effectual, and His grace invincible & irresistible, even so - the episode shows that the man did not answer the call of God on that occasion; it says nothing of the rest of his life.

Irresistible grace is irresistible, because man never finally gets the better of it - the all-ruling Sovereignty of God always has the last word :). This is entirely compatible with human refusals that precede our surrender to His grace. Once God has decreed to save a man, that man's salvation in Christ is absolutely certain - no matter how great his rebellion in the mean time. All struggling against God's Will to save, merely becomes another means by which God shows His grace to that person: because all our steps, without exception, are open to, & known by, Him.

Does that clarify ? ##

Good Day, Tic

Your first name would not happen to be Augustine would it :confused:

In Him,

Bill

BBAS 64

29th January 2007, 08:34 AM

CCWoody

29th January 2007, 10:55 AM

He's just following the example of St. Augustine. ;)
A Thomistist (sp) catholic???

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

leothelioness

30th January 2007, 01:08 AM

He's just following the example of St. Augustine. ;)
St. Augustine is good. :)

Actually our theology was "founded" on the teachings of Augustine.

Augustine was a great apologist and theologian. :)

From what I see though most Catholics follow Arminius' theology. That's why I found it interesting.

Hairy Tic

3rd July 2007, 06:05 PM

Excellent post (that is if I understood it correctly ^_^ ).

When I read that I had to blink my eyes a few times to see if what I was reading was real. ^_^

A Catholic with Calvinist leanings. Don't think I've ever seen that (again, that is if I understood your post correctly- and I think I did! ^_^ ).## LOL - there's nothing wrong with your eyes. :D And thanks for the kind words. I do read St. Thomas Aquinas :holy: : who owed a lot to St. Augustine, so, he is close to Calvin in some respects. I admire Calvin's approach because he insists on giving God the supreme place - everything else is subordinated to that. ##

Loveaboveall

31st July 2007, 10:24 PM

ghs1994

1st August 2007, 06:31 AM

Can someone explain to me this verse in light of the discussion?

Hebrews 10:26-27 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

I believe those who have received the truth, they have heard and come to a comprehensible knowledge of what is true.

They show they do not believe, but reject that truth by living a life based upon that rejection of truth. They have set their life up in opposition to the truth of God's Word. They live their way.

The person the author of Hebrews describes is one who knows the truth, but refuses to accept it. Same thing applies in Hebrews 6:4-6 as well. Remember, it says "received the knowledge of truth", not received salvation. The author is not referring to born again Christians, but gives stern warning to Christians about those who have not believed.

Man is responsible.

Yeshualover

3rd August 2007, 06:23 PM

## Certainly :)

God's calling is effectual, and His grace invincible & irresistible, even so - the episode shows that the man did not answer the call of God on that occasion; it says nothing of the rest of his life.

Irresistible grace is irresistible, because man never finally gets the better of it - the all-ruling Sovereignty of God always has the last word :). This is entirely compatible with human refusals that precede our surrender to His grace. Once God has decreed to save a man, that man's salvation in Christ is absolutely certain - no matter how great his rebellion in the mean time. All struggling against God's Will to save, merely becomes another means by which God shows His grace to that person: because all our steps, without exception, are open to, & known by, Him.

Does that clarify ? ##
Amen, I love reformed theology.

Do you understand and fully agree with TULIP?

Yeshualover

3rd August 2007, 06:38 PM

TALEdaily

5th August 2007, 11:19 PM

GrinningDwarf

21st August 2007, 12:49 AM

There are many statements to bring to the discussion, but (for now) I'll leave it at this:

Why do Calvinists talk about "Perseverance of the Saints," like WE have been victorious? Wouldn't it be more appropriate, in discussing the sovereignty of God, to say preservation of the saints?

God Bless!

You're correct. Actually, many Calvinists think the traditional wording of the TULIP acronym is somewhat poorly worded. For instance, many think that Total Depravity would more accurately be called Radical Corruption. 'Total Depravity' seems to many to mean that all people are as evil as they possibly could be, which is not the case and something that Calvinists don't claim. As RC Sproul says, even Hitler didn't kill his mother! So a better phrase would be 'Radical Corruption', which better indicates the Calvinist idea that sin corrupts everything that fallen man does.

But then that changes the acronym to RULEP...which kinda messes things up in that regard! :D

cajunhillbilly

9th September 2007, 12:52 PM

Actually I had a friend that attended Westminster Seminary in Phillie. They had an exchange program with a Catholic Augustinian Seminary. He said there was not much difference between the two in terms of what they taught on predistination, etc.

DUDLEY61

5th October 2007, 07:30 PM

I am a former roman catholic and only a Protestant a little over a year. I have been a convert to the Presbyterian fold only since last February but I am now an avowed Calvinist Presbyterian. I wrote the following to many Presbyterian friends today and I am sharing it with all of you.
Dudley

October 5th 2007

To all my friends in the Presbyterian fold,

The following are the reasons I became a Presbyterian Calvinist Protestant. They are based on James Tucketts letter "Foundation of faith part 1"

I believe the Reformed Theology of John Calvin and the Orthodox Presbyterian teachings is the only Christian theology that truly helps people to see their sinfulness and the need for salvation.

i also believe that the Reformed Theology of John Calvin and the Orthodox Presbyterian teachings is the only Christian theology that truly helps people see that God is sovereign and has a wonderful plan for their lives.

The Reformed Theology of John Calvin and the Orthodox Presbyterian teachings is the only Christian theology that truly helps people see that Jesus Christ died for their sins; that He paid the full price for their salvation.

The Reformed Theology of John Calvin and the Orthodox Presbyterian teachings is the only Christian theology that truly helps people see the trustworthiness of God's irresistible grace . . . to lead them to the good works for which they were created; to convict them of their sin; to strengthen them when they become weak or weary.

The Reformed Theology of John Calvin and the Orthodox Presbyterian teachings is the only Christian theology that truly helps people see they are eternally secure in Christ.

I agree with James Tuckett that "According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

I Cor. 3: 10-11

The celebration of the Lords Supper according to the Reformed Theology of John Calvin and the Orthodox Presbyterian teachings is the only sacramental celebration of the "communion" of true Christians. I now believe The Presbyterian teaching of The Lord's Supper is the most biblically and theologically correct. As a Presbyterian I now believe that it was instituted by Jesus the same night he was betrayed, to be only a symbolic remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death and for our spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, and as a bond and pledge of our communion with him, and with each other.

The Roman catholic teaching of transubstantiation I now believe is the most inaccurate and theologically unsound form of the Lords Supper. I now experience the presence of the Lord when I receive the Lords Supper as a Protestant Presbyterian that was never present for me when I was a Roman catholic. Further the worship of the bread wafer placed in an Elaborate Gold Monstrance is the most abominable practice any church which says it is Christian can do. It is not only a distortion of the true meaning of the sacrament and ordinance of the Lords Supper it is in itself idolatry and an insult to the sacrifice Of Our Savior on Calvary.

The roman sacrifice of the mass as a continuing sacrifice of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary is also awful and should not be imitated by Protestants as is the case in the Anglican, Episcopal and Lutheran churches today. The Protestant Reformation and its cause and true teachings are best defended by Presbyterians in our way and teaching of the Lords Supper.

Jim Tuckett quoted Albert Einstein "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." I think that is the best definition of the Roman mass and Lords Supper as celebrated by Rome and the church of Rome. Unfortunately many Protestants do not understand that in the way I do as a former roman catholic who is now a Presbyterian Protestant.

When I first converted to the Presbyterian Protestant fold I thought I missed the weekly and regular celebration of the Eucharist as I knew it as a Roam catholic. However my thinking there has changed also. I am now more inline with many Presbyterians who cling to the administration once a month of the Lords Supper. I have no problem with more frequent celebration as long as we do not confuse its true meaning as taught by Calvin.

I believe that the Presbyterian order of worship is biblically correct and its simplicity reveals the truth of the Gospel of Christ. The reading of the Scriptures, preaching, and hearing the Word of God, teaching one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, and singing to the Lord; as well as the administration once a month of the Lords Supper and also the administration of Baptism are all parts of religious worship of God as it should be. It is as I have witnessed done with understanding, faith, reverence, and solemn humiliation in a holy and religious manner. I have attended worship services at all denominations I am most comfortable with the Presbyterian order of worship.

As Reformed Presbyterian Protestants we must be vigilant and on our guard to any teaching which give an element of other than Christ as our savior and mediator. I renounce Other Mediators Between God and Man, as Presbyterian Protestant I now go directly to God and his Son, Jesus Christ. Christ only is the head of his church. No other man is or can be the head of Christ's church. Our governmental structure of presbytery and elders is also the most biblically correct and must be upheld and defended.

God bless,
Dudley