Calvinists,Im Asking...

[Depleted]

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.

And, in line with Preach's Confession for his denomination, one thing PCA has going for us is long winded. (I fit in so well. lol)

Here is our Westminster's Confession.

 

[Depleted]

Fyi "paedobaptism" baptism of babies.

You're the footnote giver? Cool! Thanks!

 

[Depleted]

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.

Check out the OT Laws on slavery. The two concepts aren't apart from each other. I am a daughter, yet I am also a slave to God. I want to serve him because he freed me from my old master. He is my new master now. Got the hole in the ear and everything.

 

[Ariel82]

You're the footnote giver? Cool! Thanks!

I am a highlighter. Lol I highlight all the New words folks use to figure out if they use them the same way or not.

That way if they don't like the definition, they can correct it at the beginning of the conversation...instead of ten pages later.

It's interesting to realize you agree with someone in principle but don't like the way they use certain words after hours of discussion.

 

[Depleted]

Ok so free will,where do we all stand on that.Im guessing Im going to get several different answers on this one.

My tried and true comparison.

Did you know cats are omnivores, not carnivores? They need more than meat to live on. And yet, put a starving lion in a wheat field with no game, and he will die! He could eat the wheat. Nothing stops him from eating the wheat, except he just never thinks to eat the wheat. Matter of fact, lions would live longer if they realized they were omnivores.

In like kind, we are sinners. We don't have to sin. We can choose not to sin. It just never dawns us to not-sin, unless God regenerates us.

Our will is free. We are still captured by our nature. Our sin nature never conceives to not-sin, because not-sin is outside of sin-nature. What saves us is God's super-nature.

 

[Depleted]

John Wesley didn't fully support all of the Arminian theology.

Just a side note. He did believe in Total depravity.

Ah, man! Then I'm stuck with trying to remember if that letter is an E or an I every time again. (ArmInian vs. ArmEnian.) Why couldn't they name their country Smith? Or, better yet, why couldn't Arminius be named Smith?

Either way, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Depleted]

I know you want Calvinist, but wanted to pipe in on this one.

Do United Methodists believe “once saved, always saved” or can we “lose our salvation”? - The United Methodist Church

Free will has something to do with OSAS too?

The stuff I did not know! I think we're all learning new stuff in this thread.

 

[Depleted]

Only if you consider "Reformed" to be on a lower level than "Calvinist". For me, the more general group the better ;-)

As the larger invisible church sees us, I think we're all both.

As we see us, I don't know a single person who follows Calvin. I think we're all Reformed.

 

[Depleted]

This has nothing to do with God on purpose choosing certain people to go to hell. The heart of man is not designed by God to trust in such a being that would do this. The scriptures are full of verses telling us that in one way or other that - God so loved the world that He gave His son that whosoever believes in Him will have eternal life."

It is a complete violation of the gospel and of the very nature of God that He on purpose chooses certain people to go to hell for all of eternity because He chose them to go there.

This ungodly teaching that God on purpose has chosen people by His own will certain ones to go to hell is one of the reasons why some people reject the religion of Christianity. They know within themselves that such a being is evil and their heart will not trust such an evil thing as that thought.

They are not really rejecting God - they are rejecting what some are projecting as "being God". But the Lord will be faithful to them and reveal His love and grace to them. I believe He will be caught in the act of being His true self to them all.

Until then I will proclaim that "Whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved - you and your household" - just like Paul had the boldness to do.

Ah, come on, Bruce! This thread is about what Calvinist believe. There are plenty of threads to argue about it already. This is about finding out what we do believe, not arguing that we're wrong before knowing what we believe.

 

[preacher4truth]

The Wesley's opposed predestination and sent off some snarky letters to George Whitefield pertaining to this (one or the other or both, cannot recall at this time). They are the first of the "angry arminians" and we see this same attitude from those of this theological camp today.

The Wesley's hated the teachings, hence their following, and note my signature. I believe iirc this would include hatred toward Sovereign election.

They may have claimed to be Reformed, but that just isn't true. They also had some strange goings on at their meetings. Weird manifestations that are unbiblical. Whitefield also saw these at his and at some point denounced them as not of God. He was correct but these manifestations have carried over into today's false gospel camps.

 

[Depleted]

Let me make this simple.

Man = evil
God = good
God saves some man = grace
God no save other man = hell for that man

Practice, practice, practice. Keep practicing not falling into the arguing trap!

(And that said by someone who has to keep practicing that too. lol)

 

[preacher4truth]

And, in line with Preach's Confession for his denomination, one thing PCA has going for us is long winded. (I fit in so well. lol)

Here is our Westminster's Confession.

"Baby dunker." Can't believe ya'll waterboard infants.

 

[Depleted]

Calvin and Arminius both supported baptizing babies.

Hyper-Calvinists teach that babies when they die are condemned depending on their election.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

And "hyper-Calvinists" is a word used to inflame.

For the cause!

 

[preacher4truth]

Free will has something to do with OSAS too?

The stuff I did not know! I think we're all learning new stuff in this thread.

Yes, the person can free will themselves out of salvation according to free will beliefs.

 

[Depleted]

For those who believe in Reformed Theology.

Is there really anyone you know who believes in hyper-Calvinism?

The word is thrown out there like the word "empowered" in the 21st century, but is it real? Is it accurate?

I've never met one.

Calvin and Arminius both supported baptizing babies.

Hyper-Calvinists teach that babies when they die are condemned depending on their election.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[trofimus]

"Now as theologians of all parties are divided among themselves on this subject of predestination and grace, and often give different answers to the same objections, according to their various principles, one cannot avoid touching on the differences which prevail among them.

One may say in general that some look upon God more metaphysically and others more morally: and it has already been stated on other occasions that the Counter-Remonstrants took the first course and the Remonstrants the second.

But to act rightly we must affirm alike on one side the independence of God and the dependence of creatures, and on the other side the justice and goodness of God, which makes him dependent upon himself, his will upon his understanding or his wisdom."

Leibniz, Theodicy

 

[lonestar26]

This is the kind of misrepresentation that causes all the strife. If you aren't going to look at what we believe and truthfully represent it, then you have nothing to add. None of us have said that God chooses anyone for hell except those who are disobedient and deserve it. Guess what? That's all of mankind. It's what makes grace so amazing. Deal with it.

But you do say this when you say some are elected and others are not, so deal with that.

 

[lonestar26]

I'll try and be serious and answer your question. What you are talking about is double predestination. I only know of one person who believes that, the rest of us don't. Mankind is responsible for their own sins. God in his grace chose to save some to display his grace and mercy, and chose not to save others to display his justice and wrath.

The only thing serious is your complete contradiction. You say in one post We do not believe God chooses to send anyone to hell and right here you are stating he does.

and chose not to save others to display his justice and wrath.

 

[kaylagrl]

Ah, shoot! Should have gone with tongues, instead of traveling ministers, huh? lol

Sorry. I didn't know people told you you have to speak in tongues to be considered Pentecostal. Honestly? I thought that notion left sometime between the 1970's and now.

Hahaha! Yes,Ive heard every argument all my life over tongues,up down and sideways. After a while you're immune to it. I believe what I believe and I let others do the same.

Nope its still hanging around. People still hear Pentecostal and go for the jugular. I stopped explaining,unless I make a comment here,a long time ago.

 

[Depleted]

Hi G7,

My husband and I were in a Calvinist church for awhile. They called themselves Calvinist or Reformed. But said they were essentially Calvinist which meant they accepted the whole TULIP.

But we baptized adults and not children and the governmental body was a little different, but everything else was total Calvinism.

Within Calvinism, no that would not be accurate. It isn't whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord - it's only those whom God has elected before the creation of the world.

The thinking is that mankind is so depraved that there is no good within them to even be able to call out to God. So God has to do it for them.

In my understanding of scripture, it's kind of backwards from what we read in scripture.....the Calvinist believes God has to give you the new birth before you can call on the name of the Lord.

It's really not backward. It's a timeline of events, and part of that timeline is so squished together, it feels like one thing.

Can a baby cry out before he/she is born? Does a baby cry when born though?

The Lord reborns (regenerates) us, and then we cry out. The intent is the same. We want it known loud and clear we want our parent NOW! That's what birth does to us -- both times.

Parents hold their breaths until that first scream. It doesn't mean the child wasn't born yet. It is the sign the child is born!