It Just Has To Be Grace!

[AVBunyan]

I was thinking the other day - it has to be by God's sovereign grace that a sinner believes the gospel and gets saved. Two reason - there are more but here are two that caught my attention.

First reason:

Think about it - a person comes up to you and says, "What must I do to be saved."

Answer: "Trust the blood of a dead Jew who died 2000 years ago." http://www.av1611bible.com/forum/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif
Now I know Christ is alive today but you get the idea. A rational mind just can't get that or wouldn't in their right mind believe such a thing plus he doesn't hink he needs it anyway. God has to do a work first for a person to believe such a wild thing! Think about it.

Second reason:

If man could do it himself then he would be able to stand before God and give himself a pat on the back for bein such a fine fella'.

But if I read my Bible correctly I get another viewpoint:

Isa 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

I read my Bible and it says:

1 Cor 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
1 Cor 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
1 Cor 1:31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

So, those are my thoughts - God has to do the work for man just would't accept such a on his own.

[eldermike]

Amen! I have been teaching on this for two weeks. Romans 9, 10. Paul shows his broken heart over his peoples rejection of grace, the reason is "pride in works". They have kept the law, built the lineage, brought the prophets, did all that God gave then to do. But Grace has a gentle way, it is foolishness to the prideful.

Today, it's all around us. People claiming all manner of reasons that God is "in my house", when in fact God's house is in us, through grace. Grace has a purpose: His Glory; it's not our good! There is no measurement of good that will tip the scales, Paul writes the good works of his people, with a broken heart. Not one of us could make such an impressive list as the Hebrew people, those that rejected Christ. Grace is not a logical conclusion to the dispensation of the law, anymore than more law being a logical conclusion to the cross. Grace is Grace, it's God's way of bringing glory to Himself, doing what we could not ever do. Amen again! God will call who He calls, they will get it, others will work and judge us. We should never, never stop praying for God to call them. Just as Paul was broken over the same issue, so should we.

[AVBunyan]

1. Amen! I have been teaching on this for two weeks. But Grace has a gentle way, it is foolishness to the prideful.

2. Grace is Grace, it's God's way of bringing glory to Himself, doing what we could not ever do. Amen again! God will call who He calls, they will get it, others will work and judge us. We should never, never stop praying for God to call them. Just as Paul was broken over the same issue, so should we.
1. Keep teaching it brother, Amen!

2. Nicely put - I like that - good way to start the day - thanks

God bless:wave:

[RED that's ME]

Awesome post :angel:

People think it has to be their faith that saves them. Our faith is not perfect it has to be His faith through us. His strength through the hard times His power, His grace :angel:

[Mary_Magdalene]

Second reason: If man could do it himself then he would be able to stand before God and give himself a pat on the back for bein such a fine fella'.


Kirk Cameron (the kid from "Growing Pains") has a Evangilism ministry. He puts it a good way (my paraphrase):

Accepting Christ is like a cure for a disease (the disease being sin which leads to death). To go up to someone and say, "Hey Joe. I have the cure for "ooga booga disease-here it is!" Well, Joe doesnt think he needs a cure (Christ) cause he doesnt know he has "ooga booga disease" (sin). He actually thinks your a little nuts to offer him a cure for this disease which he doesnt think he has.

Rather- "Hey Joe. Are you feeling ok? You have all the symptoms of ooga booga disease." You then point out to Joe his symptoms which he now is able to see cause you showed him them. Then Joe doesnt think your giving him a cure for "ooga booga disease" is too odd. He becomes greatful. He knows he has the disease (sin)and needs the cure (Christ) so he gladly accepts it....

[BT]

Sure. What else could it be? :P


Great post AV.


So, those are my thoughts - God has to do the work for man just would't accept such a on his own.
Though I wonder if you aren't turning a little calvinist on me. :scratch:

[AVBunyan]

1. Great post AV.

2. Though I wonder if you aren't turning a little calvinist on me. http://christianforums.com/images/smilies/scratch.gif1. Thanks BT

2. Well, I know that is a volatile subject - you've brought up that "dreaded" term - but I've always wondered how a dead man could choose God?
I'm not getting into the "eternal degrees" and all that theoloigcal stuff but look at the verses below - strange stuff for thsoe who think they can choose God. http://christianforums.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

Mat 8:22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
2 Cor 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2 Cor 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (Now, take that verse and run it to Gen. 1:1-5 and pray about what Paul was saying!)

Then when I look at the words having to do with quicken, quickeneth, etc. and couple those with "dead" then I have to wonder!

I'm justified by the faith of Christ - Gal. 2:16 - the faith is not mine own - Eph. 2:8 - so...

If I was dead, wasn't seeking God, no good in me, then why would I chose God unless God did something in me first? Not trying to stir it up here by no means, brother, but some things are hard to run from and I just don't haveit all figured out yet. :confused:

God bless http://christianforums.com/images/smilies/wave.gif

[Razorbuck]

If I was dead, wasn't seeking God, no good in me, then why would I chose God unless God did something in me first? Not trying to stir it up here by no means, brother, but some things are hard to run from and I just don't haveit all figured out yet.

God bless
Well put, sir. Like you, I don't have it all figured out either, but I will say that I disagree with the doctrine of total inability, while agreeing it is God's grace alone that saves me. I just don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

John 6:44 indeed says, "No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him...." but it seems clear in John 12:32 that Christ will draw all men to Himself-- "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."
I believe all men are drawn to our Lord, but not all men will trust Him as their personal Saviour. All of us must answer the question, "What think ye of Christ...?". John's gospel teaches that all men have light. John 1:9 says, "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."
Romans 1:19,20 says that sinners are called through the creation around them.
Romans 2:11-16 says that sinners are called by our Father through their conscience:


"For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another, In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."


I'd also like to say that I appreciate your thought provoking posts. They have been edifying for me, and I look forward to the few minutes I get each day to read stuff from folks like you and BT.


not worthy but His,


Matt (Razorbuck)

[BT]

Indeed you are stumbling onto one of the great sillinesses of calvinism, which says that a man must be regenerated before he is saved. It is not too tricky a subject. If you like I'll recommend a couple of books for you that straighten it out, and in this way avoid stirring up a big pot of ick on this thread.

It looks complicated on the outset but it really isn't.

[AVBunyan]

Indeed you are stumbling onto one of the great sillinesses of calvinism, which says that a man must be regenerated before he is saved. I think the word silliness might not be the approriate word for Calvinism.

Many of the greatest theolgoians and writers of old were Calvinistic in theology.

Many of the greatest missionaires of old were Calvinistic in theology.

Many of the greatest evangelists and preachers of old were Calvinistic in theology.

To associate silliness with these men puzzles me - these were not silly men in their theology. http://christianforums.com/images/smilies/indiff.gif

May God bless http://christianforums.com/images/smilies/wave.gif

[BT]

I assure you there is much silliness in calvinism.

Many of the great Theologians were Roman Catholics (much silliness)

Many of the greatest missionaries of old were Roman Catholics (much silliness)

Many of the greatest evangelists and preachers of old are claimed by both Calvinists and Arminians and Biblicists (this in and of itself is a great silliness, what do I care of the opinions of "great" evangelists and preachers, if after all it was the Bible's message that made them "great" as it ought to be). Don't follow after men.

If you study calvinism in depth you will see that there is a great deal that equates to silliness (some would say heresy, though I don't use that word lightly). It's roots you see are the beginning of the problem.

These men were silly in their theology. They sought to bring God to a human level. To insert human logic upon the Bible and God Himself. If you don't see a problem with that, they you are silly. Hyper-calvinists will not witness (in general), some say why pray? This is silliness. There is a great pride in calvinism which is silly. There is a misunderstanding and misconception on the sovereignty of God which is sad. There is much zeal and at times good intentions, however there is much that is silly. If you study it you will see.

[AVBunyan]

I assure you there is much silliness in calvinism.

1. Many of the great Theologians were Roman Catholics (much silliness)

2. Many of the greatest missionaries of old were Roman Catholics (much silliness)

3. Don't follow after men.

4. If you study calvinism in depth you will see that there is a great deal that equates to silliness (some would say heresy, though I don't use that word lightly). It's roots you see are the beginning of the problem.

5. These men were silly in their theology.

6. If you study it you will see.
1. I don't count Rome as being sound in doctrine in anyway shape or form.

2. Ditto

3. I don't - but I learn from them just like you.

4. I have - used to think Calvinism was false.

5. Which men? Do you mean Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, John Bunyan, Thomas Boston, Thomas Watson, CH Spurgeon, John Newton, Geroge Whitfield, etc.?

If you can show me from the scriptures how a dead man that is not seeking after God can chose God then I'm all ears. http://christianforums.com/images/smilies/wave.gif

God bless. http://christianforums.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[Razorbuck]

If you can show me from the scriptures how a dead man that is not seeking after God can chose God then I'm all ears.

God bless.
I thought I did. See my last post. The Bible says we must be drawn. The Bible says all men are drawn. The light appeared to all men.

We can carry the "dead" analogy too far. I was dead in trespasses and yet able to make choices about many things. I was dead in sin yet I walked, talked and reasoned with intellect given to me by God, in whose image I was created. Is there merit in a drowning man grabbing a lifeline thrown to him? Did I earn my own salvation by crying out in anguish from a state of total helplessness? Why can God not gift His creation with free will and still be sovereign?

[BT]

4. I have - used to think Calvinism was false.
It is false.


5. Which men? Do you mean Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, John Bunyan, Thomas Boston, Thomas Watson, CH Spurgeon, John Newton, Geroge Whitfield, etc.?
The one most often claimed by all camps is Spurgeon.

If you can show me from the scriptures how a dead man that is not seeking after God can chose God then I'm all ears. http://christianforums.com/images/smilies/wave.gif

God bless. http://christianforums.com/images/smilies/cool.gifNo my friend the onus is on you to show us regeneration coming before salvation.

[AVBunyan]

It is false.

The one most often claimed by all camps is Spurgeon.


Fine, I'm not beating the banner for CH Spurgeon alone - what about the others - are they silly in their theology? Have you read the other men much?
How about the life of John Paton, Missionary to the Canniblas of the New Hebrides? Was he silly in theology also?

I'll take their Christian character, results, works for God, and their holiness over anything that the doctrine of Arminiansm of this modern day has produced.

God bless

[BT]

Fine, I'm not beating the banner for CH Spurgeon alone - what about the others - are they silly in their theology? Have you read the other men much?
How about the life of John Paton, Missionary to the Canniblas of the New Hebrides? Was he silly in theology also?

I'll take their Christian character, results, works for God, and their holiness over anything that the doctrine of Arminiansm of this modern day has produced.

God bless
Isn't it funny how upset the calvinists get, bar none. Sorry I expected more maturity from you AV. Let us end this conversation before you go to far overboard ok? The debate, I find, is not worth it. I will mention as I go out, though I have said it many times before in many threads, I am not an Arminian. This is also a silliness of calvinism. You have become so attached to your theological idea that if one does not agree with you they must automatically be Arminian. I had a friend who attended Detroit Theological Seminary which is almost hyper-calvinist who used to think the same way. It is something that he was taught.

And I will end with a non passive-aggressive

God bless you my friend.

[AVBunyan]

Isn't it funny how upset the calvinists get, bar none. Sorry I expected more maturity from you AV. Let us end this conversation before you go to far overboard ok? The debate, I find, is not worth it. I will mention as I go out, though I have said it many times before in many threads, I am not an Arminian. This is also a silliness of calvinism. You have become so attached to your theological idea that if one does not agree with you they must automatically be Arminian. I had a friend who attended Detroit Theological Seminary which is almost hyper-calvinist who used to think the same way. It is something that he was taught.

And I will end with a non passive-aggressive

God bless you my friend.
Brother - you assume much - you didn't upset me - where did you get that idea? I asked , in a very calm state of mind (whether you choose to believe it or not) some simple questions in my last post.

Instead of answering you accused me of getting upset (wrong) of being immature (oh, I agree in many areas, but not here on this issue), etc. My feathers were not ruffled. I just tried to show that the word silly is a poor choice of words when associating with those men.

Now, you appeared to take offence at me calling you an Arminian. I referred to Arminian doctrine, yes - some Arminians beleve in eternal security and some do not. I assume you do. did I think I was accsuing you of being the extreme Arminian (those that believe one can lose it)? If I misrepsented you or used a poor choice of words then my apology. I was comparing the fruits as a whole from the two camps. You labeled me a Calvinist - there are different camps in this group also. I believe in the sovereignty of God.

So, we'll drop it - I normally don't even bring up "Calvinism" because this is how the chats end up anyway.

I repeat - I look at what those men produced for God and others by their "silliness" over what the other camp has produced anyday of the week.

Now, we both believe Christ did it all and He gets the glory - let's rejoice and fellowship together in that!

God bless :wave:

[BT]

I repeat - I look at what those men produced for God and others by their "silliness" over what the other camp has produced anyday of the week.

Do you think that all that they produced was because of their view of soteriology? Did the great missionaries go about the tribes saying, "God has elected some of you to salvation, some of you to damnation. If God is calling you, you must believe... no not believe because you are dead in your sins. So since you're dead you can't do anything, not even believe. Don't worry though God will regenerate you, then you can believe, wait no, you can't believe even then, so God will regenerate you, then force you to salvation. Yes...that's it."

So your error is assuming that calvinism is what they were preaching while on the mission field. No they were preaching the word of God to the unsaved, who chose to believe it or not. I doubt calvinism had much to do with their mission at all. Thankfully as well, since it is such a great misrepresentation of God, and yes a grand silliness.


Now, we both believe Christ did it all and He gets the glory - let's rejoice and fellowship together in that!

Yes but the question now is, do we both believe in the same Christ. If you believe in a Christ who only died for "some people", then no we do not believe in the same Christ. You have labeled yourself a calvinist. You said that you used to believe that calvinism was wrong... does that not mean that you now believe that it is correct? I find it ironic that the calvinist believes in the sovereignty of God but then seeks to limit the love of God, and thus the sovereignty of God. Is God not sovereign enough to allow choice? I think He is.

I believe in the sovereignty of God.
I believe that God has given man free will.
I believe that if man goes to hell he is inexcusable, because he did not accept salvation.
I believe that once a man has accepted the GIFT of salvation, it is permanent. The work is God's. He saves the man, and He maintains the mans salvation, because it is based on the one time sacrifice of Christ. That becomes applied through belief.
I believe that God knows who will accept and who will reject.
I believe that election has nothing to do with salvation. It has to do with blessings in Christ in the kingdom to come.

[AVBunyan]

1. Did the great missionaries go about the tribes saying, "God has elected some of you to salvation, some of you to damnation. If God is calling you, you must believe... no not believe because you are dead in your sins. So since you're dead you can't do anything, not even believe. Don't worry though God will regenerate you, then you can believe, wait no, you can't believe even then, so God will regenerate you, then force you to salvation. Yes...that's it."

2. So your error is assuming that calvinism is what they were preaching while on the mission field. No they were preaching the word of God to the unsaved, who chose to believe it or not.

3. I doubt calvinism had much to do with their mission at all. Thankfully as well, since it is such a great misrepresentation of God, and yes a grand silliness.

4. Your beliefs
I believe in the sovereignty of God.
I believe that God has given man free will.
I believe that if man goes to hell he is inexcusable, because he did not accept salvation.
I believe that once a man has accepted the GIFT of salvation, it is permanent. The work is God's. He saves the man, and He maintains the mans salvation, because it is based on the one time sacrifice of Christ. That becomes applied through belief.
I believe that God knows who will accept and who will reject.
I believe that election has nothing to do with salvation. It has to do with blessings in Christ in the kingdom to come.
1. Brother - I never said that the missionaries who were Calvinist in theology went over there and preached election to the heathen like you illustrated. My soul brother, have you ever even read their biographies? They never made an issue of election to the lost or to the saved. I don't even bring it up to the lost or even other saints unless it is forum issue. The average saint

2. They never preached "Calvinism" to the heathen though their theology was Calvinistic - never even used the words Calvinism or election in their preaaching to the heathen. Where did you get that is what they did or that I believe that is what they preached? The message you said that they preached in point 1. was never preached. They preached the gospel of God's grace - they preached I Cor. 15:1-5, etc. They never went to a native and shook their fist in his face and said, "Are you the elect because if you are not then you have no hope." My soul brother, you are making more of this than needs to be made. What you are revealing is that you may not really know what these men did on the mission field - you are making assumptions or reading to much anti-calviniistic propaganda. I suggest you read what these men said about themsslevs and their ministries before you continue to re-write their sermons and make them say what they did not say. They believed that all men were born dead and were going to hell and God out of grace saved some and their jobs were to preach to those whom God elected and since they did not know who they were they went all over the globe preaching. I am asking you sincerely here - if yo have never read the autobiography of John Paton then do so - learn why these "Calvinists" went to preach to heathen that just finished eating the previous two missionaires not a year before he showed up!

3. Brother you are wrong here. Because they were Calvinist in theology they believed the elect were out there and their duty was to be used as instrument to preach to them the gospel so they would be saved. They understood the principle that it was the foolishness of preaching that God used to bring people to salvation. They did not know who they were so they obeyed and went and preached and trusted God for the results.

4. My basis of fellowship is mainly found in Eph. 4:4-6 and other places. I don't make whether or not a man is a Calvinist or not as a basis of fellowship. Do you? You mean if a man were to think a man were an heretic or based his fellowship on whether a saint was a Calvinist or not then he would have not fellowship witht he likes of Jonathan Edwards, Christopher Love, Thomas Boston, John Bunyan, George Whitefield, and others like the above. I don't panic over some of things you believe on your list. But it does appear you have big issues with mine.

You probably thought I was an ok fella till the dreaded "C" word came up - Why should that affect anything? Now you start to question and assume things about my view of God and Christ. Did I do this to you? Have I hammered you for not being Calvinistic in theology? I witness, read my Bible, believe the fundemental truths of the scriptures. What is the problem here?

You got me - very strange thinking. :confused:

[Razorbuck]

Say fellows, before y'all give up the dialogue I wonder if you wouldn't comment on post #8 in this thread. I'd like to know if you think the scriptures I referenced there apply.

Last time I tried to chime in on a TULIP-tinged discussion folks gave up before I got to dig in much. I don't wanna argue, just learn how different folks think.

Hmm...I'm starting to wonder if my deodorant ain't workin' or something...:-)

[Iosias]

I was thinking the other day - it has to be by God's sovereign grace that a sinner believes the gospel and gets saved.
I agree and that is why it was by His Amazing Grace that I was saved!!

[BronxBriar]

I don't wanna argue, just learn how different folks think.Me too:clap:

Hmm...I'm starting to wonder if my deodorant ain't workin' or something...:-)ROFL.

[Bible2]

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast."

-- Ephesians 2:8-9

[AVBunyan]

1. Say fellows, before y'all give up the dialogue I wonder if you wouldn't comment on post #8 in this thread. I'd like to know if you think the scriptures I referenced there apply.

2. Hmm...I'm starting to wonder if my deodorant ain't workin' or something...:-) 1. I'm assuming you are referring to drawing of "all men" - Your view point is sound reasoning but what if, I say...what if, the "all men" all those whom Christ came to save?
There are difficult passages for both sides.

2. It appears to be working as far as I can tell http://christianforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Either way - God is God and cannot do wrong, amen!

God bless http://christianforums.com/images/smilies/wave.gif

[CFoster]

Amen! Wonderful post!

Clifton

[BT]

1. Brother - I never said that the missionaries who were Calvinist in theology went over there and preached election to the heathen like you illustrated. My soul brother, have you ever even read their biographies? They never made an issue of election to the lost or to the saved. I don't even bring it up to the lost or even other saints unless it is forum issue. The average saint

No you did not but you implied that they were more successful than the Arminians.. did you not say:


Many of the greatest missionaires of old were Calvinistic in theology.

Many of the greatest evangelists and preachers of old were Calvinistic in theology.

To associate silliness with these men puzzles me - these were not silly men in their theology

I'll take their Christian character, results, works for God, and their holiness over anything that the doctrine of Arminiansm of this modern day has produced




2. They never preached "Calvinism" to the heathen though their theology was Calvinistic - never even used the words Calvinism or election in their preaaching to the heathen. Where did you get that is what they did or that I believe that is what they preached? The message you said that they preached in point 1. was never preached.

They preached the gospel of God's grace - they preached I Cor. 15:1-5, etc. They never went to a native and shook their fist in his face and said, "Are you the elect because if you are not then you have no hope." My soul brother, you are making more of this than needs to be made. What you are revealing is that you may not really know what these men did on the mission field - you are making assumptions or reading to much anti-calviniistic propaganda. I suggest you read what these men said about themsslevs and their ministries before you continue to re-write their sermons and make them say what they did not say. They believed that all men were born dead and were going to hell and God out of grace saved some and their jobs were to preach to those whom God elected and since they did not know who they were they went all over the globe preaching. I am asking you sincerely here - if yo have never read the autobiography of John Paton then do so - learn why these "Calvinists" went to preach to heathen that just finished eating the previous two missionaires not a year before he showed up!

Of course they did not, that's what I meant. They were calvinists but they did not preach calvinism. Therefore you can't measure their success against others who do not agree with their calvinistic theology. This is where you baffle me by saying... that you'd take their example over arminians... When clearly the stance on calvinism was not what made them successful.


3. Brother you are wrong here. Because they were Calvinist in theology they believed the elect were out there and their duty was to be used as instrument to preach to them the gospel so they would be saved. They understood the principle that it was the foolishness of preaching that God used to bring people to salvation. They did not know who they were so they obeyed and went and preached and trusted God for the results.

Yes but can't you understand the great foolishness of this statement? They were not out to spread the Gospel of Christ persay... they were out on a grand hunt to find the elect. It's ridiculous.



4. My basis of fellowship is mainly found in Eph. 4:4-6 and other places. I don't make whether or not a man is a Calvinist or not as a basis of fellowship. Do you? You mean if a man were to think a man were an heretic or based his fellowship on whether a saint was a Calvinist or not then he would have not fellowship witht he likes of Jonathan Edwards, Christopher Love, Thomas Boston, John Bunyan, George Whitefield, and others like the above. I don't panic over some of things you believe on your list. But it does appear you have big issues with mine.

No I don't make calvinism the basis of fellowship. I do have issues with calvinism, but not with you. I have told many people before that I am not an anti-calvinist.



You probably thought I was an ok fella till the dreaded "C" word came up - Why should that affect anything? Now you start to question and assume things about my view of God and Christ. Did I do this to you? Have I hammered you for not being Calvinistic in theology? I witness, read my Bible, believe the fundemental truths of the scriptures. What is the problem here?

You got me - very strange thinking. :confused:
No my brother. In truth I still think you are an ok fella, even if you are a calvinist. Street Preacher is among my best friends on these forums and we both know where he stands. One of my closest friends at my church is a calvinist. I do question things about your view of God and Christ, but only because of what the term "calvinist" says, and if you buy into that idea then I have a pretty good understanding of at least some of the things that you believe. You are more than free to hammer my non-calvinism. You see your last sentence is the trick... You witness, that's great, the Lord bless you for it. You say that you believe in the fundamental truths of the scriptures ok, but how much of what you believe has been influenced by Calvinism? You know I was in the reformed area the other day and was talking about the foolishness of applying human logic to the scriptures... I said that Calvin was highly influenced by Augustine, who is the father of Roman Catholicism (considered by many the father that is). That Augustine came up with a great heresy via the logical syllogism as thus:

Jesus is God
Mary is the mother of Jesus
Therefore Mary is the Mother of God

Ok? That's a clear representation of the foolishness as it were. You know what the calvinist told me? "Yeah we believe that is true." You know what a friend of mine told me about this syllogism who is a calvinist (not from here)... "yeah I can see how that makes sense"

Does that trouble you? It troubles me, and I don't care how many names you can pull out of your hat. The system is flawed. The entire grace idea is centered around the use of syllogistic logic.

Show me from the Bible that some men are predestinated to eternal damnation.

Show me from the Bible that Christ only died for some men or that His death was insufficient to save anyone (this, I consider a fundamental truth).

Show me from the Bible that a man who is dead (this is where the thread started) will be quickened or regenerated prior to salvation or prior to faith.

At least explain to me how God could be just if He sentences men to hell from before the foundations of the world. Is hell a punishment or not? If you say it is a punishment.. how could God punish man when man never had a chance? If man is unable to be saved, by the decree of God, then is not man in being sinful actually being obedient? How could a man be blamed when he stands before God, if God predestines man to hell. Wouldn't man just say, "You made me go to hell?" and be correct?

This is not strange thinking. You see when you put the calvinist badge upon yourself, you bring the questions up. You apply the preconceived notions not me.

My friend I tell you the truth when I say that I love you and have no hard feelings, and hope that I have not earned any from you.

[Bulldog]

You know what the calvinist told me? "Yeah we believe that is true."

I do not believe I said it quite like that :D

You can bring up your objections to Calvinism in the Reformed or Soteirlogy forums, I and I'm sure you'll get suficient answers. :)

[BT]

I do not believe I said it quite like that :D

No not exactly sorry, you said


Mary as the Mother of God is something that I and many other Reformed Christians believe, it does not require a deniel of sola scriptura.

This is where we ended. Since believing that Mary is the Mother of God does absolutely require a denial of sola scriptura. And in corporates eisegesis which is a very bad and dangerous habit. But Bulldog my friend thanks for keeping it civil between you and I in your forum. It was appreciated.



You can bring up your objections to Calvinism in the Reformed or Soteirlogy forums, I and I'm sure you'll get suficient answers. :)
Thank you but to tell you the truth I have grown weary of the debate, in the same way that I've grown weary of debating on CF in general. It is why I tend to stay in the Baptist forum, where I can edify like minded believers and fellowship with those who generally do not constantly argue with each other.

[AVBunyan]

Yes but can't you understand the great foolishness of this statement? They were not out to spread the Gospel of Christ persay... they were out on a grand hunt to find the elect. It's ridiculous.
If the above is your view of those men then we have gone far enough - no hard feelings.

God bless

[BT]

If the above is your view of those men then we have gone far enough - no hard feelings.

God bless
The above is what you said in this statement


Because they were Calvinist in theology they believed the elect were out there and their duty was to be used as instrument to preach to them the gospel so they would be saved. ... They did not know who they were so they obeyed and went and preached and trusted God for the results.

I really wish you would get your statements straight. You are right about one thing, enough is enough. We will not get anywhere with this. It seems that the only people who can have a rational conversation about this without turning into a debate or argument is Street Preacher and I. We will leave it at this. Find solice in your biographies, believe that God loves some and not others and that I'm a dullard who is unread, that men are walking zombies unable to choose anything for themselves, and which ever other pieces of doctrine from whichever camp you decide to pluck. God bless you and grant you peace, and the same for me.