Calvinists,Im Asking...

[ForthAngel]

So can you explain double election vs what you believe?

I believe what the bible says about it. Mankind fell when Adam ate the fruit and brought sin to all men. We did that. God didn't. So God has concluded that all are under sin and guilty before him. I believe scripture that when it says no one seeks after God, all have turned aside to go their own way, that we are slaves to our sin, we are estranged from the womb, and that we are born children of wrath. Out of this group of fallen people, God, in his grace, has chose to save some, apart from any supposed merit, and for his own purpose and glory. The group of people he chose has nothing to do with anything they have done but strictly for his own reasons, that being worship and his glory.

Double predestination or equal ultimacy suggests that God takes part in causing us to sin. The general reformed belief is that we do have a will, it is just in bondage. So we make choices, but based on our fallen nature, therefore we would never choose God apart from his intervention.

 

[Grandpa]

So can you explain double election vs what you believe?

God chose Israel to be His People.

But you don't think God chose the Amorites just so He could have a people to destroy, right?

I think most of us who believe in election believe that God has chosen us for Salvation and not that He specifically chooses others to not be Saved.

It almost equals the same thing, but not quite. And that's where the arguments come in.

 

[notuptome]

God chose Israel to be His People.

But you don't think God chose the Amorites just so He could have a people to destroy, right?

I think most of us who believe in election believe that God has chosen us for Salvation and not that He specifically chooses others to not be Saved.

It almost equals the same thing, but not quite. And that's where the arguments come in.

And not all of Israel will be saved. Only those who believe.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notmyown]

I believe what the bible says about it. Mankind fell when Adam ate the fruit and brought sin to all men. We did that. God didn't. So God has concluded that all are under sin and guilty before him. I believe scripture that when it says no one seeks after God, all have turned aside to go their own way, that we are slaves to our sin, we are estranged from the womb, and that we are born children of wrath. Out of this group of fallen people, God, in his grace, has chose to save some, apart from any supposed merit, and for his own purpose and glory. The group of people he chose has nothing to do with anything they have done but strictly for his own reasons, that being worship and his glory.

Double predestination or equal ultimacy suggests that God takes part in causing us to sin. The general reformed belief is that we do have a will, it is just in bondage. So we make choices, but based on our fallen nature, therefore we would never choose God apart from his intervention.

exactly! slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness, those are the only options the Bible gives us.

 

[lonestar26]

You really have an axe to grind don't ya? Following me around like a little lost puppy. I'm gonna have to buy some treats for you. You gotta say something coherent and logical before you get one though.

no axe, just keeping you guys in line, because you accuse people of having 2 usernames and other foolishness that is not true.

 

[kaylagrl]

no axe, just keeping you guys in line, because you accuse people of having 2 usernames and other foolishness that is not true.

Im training my 9month old Shepard pup and taking her to school.When she latches on to something and wont let go or pay attention Im to say in a very firm voice "leave it"!! So Im trying to be nice but Im saying "leave it" leave to another thread. We are having an open and honest discussion here and I promised those who were Calvinists that I would listen and ask questions,that is all. So please take any animosity,grudges somewhere else. I dont care who is wrong,go argue somewhere else.This thread is for sharing and learning.

 

[Ariel82]

So maybe you can tell op what amilleanism is truly about.

Too complicated for just one post and I would never learn what Calvinist think if we chase that rabbit.

 

[Ariel82]

Hey I learned a new vocabulary word or two:

"Double predestination or equal ultimacy "

Yaaaahhhhh Us! Lol

It's good no one believes that or we would have issues...

 

[Grandpa]

Hey I learned a new vocabulary word or two:

"Double predestination or equal ultimacy "

Yaaaahhhhh Us! Lol

It's good no one believes that or we would have issues...

I've never heard of equal ultimacy either...

 

[kaylagrl]

Ha!! I think this should CCs theme picture. A gf of mine just shared this on FB. We all need this one,some more than others,and you know who you are. rofl

 

[notmyown]

I've never heard of equal ultimacy either...

it's forth. he's educating everybody. lol

 

[Tinuviel]

I think one of the reasons non-Calvinists (and even some Calvinists!) don't "get" it (for lack of a better term), is because we're a little infamous for defining terms...and terms...and terms! There are so many handy dandy terms that Reformed people use, and if the person I'm talking to is not familiar with the terms, I'm at something of a loss because it seems like every term is interconnected. The basics of Christianity are very, very simple. Yet the teachings of Christ are such that we could spend a lifetime defining and drawing deeper and still not know everything.

 

[preacher4truth]

THANK YOU! One thing answered. All my friends call themselves Calvinists so as I said,I had heard Reformed but did not know they were the same thing. So the Calvinists I know are also Baptist. So would you attend a Reformed or Baptist,or it wouldn't matter. And I do know not all Baptists are Calvinists.

You may already be aware kaylagrl that the Reformed are basically in two different blocks (again, basically).

One group practices paedobaptism, the other, Reformed Baptists like myself only administer believers baptism. But basically, other than that we all get along (conservative paedos/Reformed Baptists) and have very similar beliefs. As for myself I am Reformed and prefer that term, and I've never read any of Calvin's works.

We adhere to the 1689 LBCoF as a statement of what we believe. I know people may use this to blast us saying we use it like our Bible but that is not true. Generally I will ask those who attack its usage what church they belong to? Do they have a website? And do they have a SoF (statement of faith) on their website? The answer is always yes to the latter even if they do not have a website. I then let them know that the LBCoF is no different than any church's SoF and there is no difference between our church and theirs as far as that is concerned. That generally ends that discussion, and some have never thought of it that way.

Of course the LBCoF is more exhaustive and much more Biblically convincing, and covers pretty much everything necessary doctrinally. FTR, I do not adhere to every single tidbit in the LBCoF. Most church's SoF are rather short and vague.

 

[ForthAngel]

You may already be aware kaylagrl that the Reformed are basically in two different blocks (again, basically).

One group practices paedobaptism, the other, Reformed Baptists like myself only administer believers baptism. But basically, other than that we all get along (conservative paedos/Reformed Baptists) and have very similar beliefs. As for myself I am Reformed and prefer that term, and I've never read any of Calvin's works.

We adhere to the 1689 LBCoF as a statement of what we believe. I know people may use this to blast us saying we use it like our Bible but that is not true. Generally I will ask those who attack its usage what church they belong to? Do they have a website? And do they have a SoF (statement of faith) on their website? The answer is always yes to the latter even if they do not have a website. I then let them know that the LBCoF is no different than any church's SoF and there is no difference between our church and theirs as far as that is concerned. That generally ends that discussion, and some have never thought of it that way.

Of course the LBCoF is more exhaustive and much more Biblically convincing, and covers pretty much everything necessary doctrinally. FTR, I do not adhere to every single tidbit in the LBCoF. Most church's SoF are rather short and vague.

I was tempted to post the confession too but, yeah. It's a good read for anyone who wants to take a good look at what we believe.

 

[Ariel82]

Fyi "paedobaptism" baptism of babies.

 

[Ariel82]

Lol it's true most SoF are short, but Methodist ministers are legally bound to uphold the Book of Discipline and it's 500 pages.

https://www.cokesbury.com/forms/DynamicContent.aspx?id=87&pageid=920


Sorry side note and not Calvin in nature. Just thought it was kind of funny,

 

[kaylagrl]

You may already be aware kaylagrl that the Reformed are basically in two different blocks (again, basically).

One group practices paedobaptism, the other, Reformed Baptists like myself only administer believers baptism. But basically, other than that we all get along (conservative paedos/Reformed Baptists) and have very similar beliefs. As for myself I am Reformed and prefer that term, and I've never read any of Calvin's works.

We adhere to the 1689 LBCoF as a statement of what we believe. I know people may use this to blast us saying we use it like our Bible but that is not true. Generally I will ask those who attack its usage what church they belong to? Do they have a website? And do they have a SoF (statement of faith) on their website? The answer is always yes to the latter even if they do not have a website. I then let them know that the LBCoF is no different than any church's SoF and there is no difference between our church and theirs as far as that is concerned. That generally ends that discussion, and some have never thought of it that way.

Of course the LBCoF is more exhaustive and much more Biblically convincing, and covers pretty much everything necessary doctrinally. FTR, I do not adhere to every single tidbit in the LBCoF. Most church's SoF are rather short and vague.

No,I did not know there were two different blocks,someone said so earlier about baptism. Im no nothing about Reformed except I had heard the name. Ive been in a lot of denominations but I dont believe I was in Reformed,but perhaps I was and didn't know it!

So now you say you are Reformed but haven't read Calvins works. So if Reformed =Calvinists do you have a different belief than Calvinism or are there parts you agree with? I guess the SofF would tell me all that info...

 

[kaylagrl]

Fyi "paedobaptism" baptism of babies.

Ya,I had to google that! lol A lot of new terms today.Im gonna be a walking thesaurus after this.

 

[stonesoffire]

exactly! slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness, those are the only options the Bible gives us.

I know this post is off topic but it's too important to let slide by. We are not slaves. We are Sons in the house of God. Free. Slaves are what the law makes. Grace makes Sons.

 

[ForthAngel]

I know this post is off topic but it's too important to let slide by. We are not slaves. We are Sons in the house of God. Free. Slaves are what the law makes. Grace makes Sons.

Free from one, slave to another.

Romans 6:15-18


Slaves to Righteousness
15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.