Showing posts with label Calvinism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Calvinism. Show all posts

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Three Views Calvinism, Arminianism and "iggyism": or just some theological riffing



I am fully aware that this is way over simplified... But for discussion.... any thoughts?
blessings,
iggy



John CalvinFoundation laid by Augustine
John WesleyFoundation laid by Arminius
iggy
Foundation laid by Irenaeus and The Bible


T
Total Depravity - Human beings are so affected by the negative consequences of original sin that they are incapable of being righteous, and are always and unchangeably sinful; human freedom is totally enslaved by sin so we can only choose evil.
Deprivation - Human beings are sinful and without God, incapable (deprived) on their own of being righteous; however, they are not irredeemably sinful and can be transformed by God’s grace; God's prevenient grace restores to humanity the freedom of will.
Innocent until one sins – Man has a predisposition to sin. We have had our eyes open to see the difference between good and evil, given statutes and laws that step by step give us all the mercy and grace and forgiveness and blessings of God, yet have not the moral consistency to live it out.  All men eventually sin thus only by sacrifice of blood can man be forgiven.
U
Unconditional Election - Since human beings cannot choose for themselves, God by His eternal decree has chosen or elected some to be counted as righteous, without any conditions being placed on that election.
Conditional Election - God has chosen that all humanity be righteous by His grace, yet has called us to respond to that grace by exercising our God-restored human freedom as a condition of fulfilling election.
Conditional Election modified– All have been forgiven once and for all through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Yet, not all are saved. Man must lay down his free will as a living sacrifice and receive the Life of Christ Jesus in order to be saved. Once one has converted, he is predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ.
L
Limited Atonement - The effects of the Atonement, by which God forgave sinful humanity, are limited only to those whom He has chosen.
Unlimited Atonement - The effects of the Atonement are freely available to all those whom He has chosen, which includes all humanity, "whosoever will."
Unlimited Atonement – Not only was the whosoever -will atoned for but the whole of creation. Except save the fallen Angels.


I
Irresistible Grace - The grace that God extends to human beings to effect their election cannot be refused, since it has been decreed by God.
Resistible Grace - God’s grace is free and offered without merit; however, human beings have been granted freedom by God and can refuse His grace.
Sustaining Grace – God’s grace sustains all creation. For if God so willed He could say, “no more” and nothing would exist. This is contrary to the character of God. There is the calling of the Holy Spirit or wooing, then the conversion. Conversion can be instant or may take a lifetime or be denied or forfeited, thus not accepting salvation and being later cast into the Lake of Fire.
P
Perseverance of the Saints - Since God has decreed the elect, and they cannot resist grace, they are unconditionally and eternally secure in that election.
Assurance and Security - There is security in God’s grace that allows assurance of salvation, but that security is in relation to continued faithfulness; we can still defiantly reject God.
Assurance and Eternal Security – Once one has gone through conversion he is no longer subject to this world, but is now subject to the works of Christ Jesus whose works are final and complete. No man can remove salvation from himself for it is not of himself as it is God’s salvation given to us by His Grace, through Faith in Jesus Christ

To sum it up, Calvinism denies that God is truly sovereign as He is subject to the system and is without a true free will. Armenianism puts too much on mans works to justify a person as only by the blood of Jesus are we justified and kept pure. It is not by works we are saved, nor is it by works our salvation is maintained, as it is God's salvation given to us through His Grace, through faith in His Son. A bit of a disclaimer, I wrote this up about 5 years ago, and re-reading it I am not satisfied with some phrasing or ideas.

Saturday, June 05, 2010

Thursday, March 04, 2010

Why I am not a Calvinist

First have some humor about the pictures will ya? It is not my fault how Calvinists are perceived!





I was a hard core Arminian, but when I found Grace (or God showed me His Grace) it screwed me up. I was told I was "Calvinist" in my ideas (Except for free will) and so I did some research on it. Of all people, James White convinced me I could not be a Calvinist... LOL! I think that is funny. It is not the gymnastics to make John 3:16 fit the theology that convinced me, it was that when I read the teachings of Calvinists... such as one is spiritually dead so they cannot hear God, and I read in Genesis where Adam not only hears God after eating the fruit, but (being spiritually dead) interacts with God... as well as Cain and many other "spiritually dead" individuals. I also could not get past how, if we are totally depraved, that God hands us over to a depraved mind as Romans teaches... How can a totally depraved person be more depraved? I ask these questions and get numerous answers, but all of them miss the point or are answered in a "double speak" that rivals Mormonism.

Now, don't get me wrong, I read Calvin and have gained some great insight, yet what I see in his teachings see remote from modern day "TULIP" that defines Calvinism today.

I hold theology like water. Water does it job, it seeps in to place it should and should not go. It flows sweetly at times and at times is a tsunami... yet, I do not hold to theology like a brick wall that must be built to keep others out or myself restrained. That is religion... God wants a flowing relationship not a static reading to the living word. God wants to wrestle, fight, hate, argue, love, struggle, doubt, have certainty, trust, question, and most of all be honest with Him and in turn ourselves. To me, if a theology keeps God at bay or makes God too small then it may not be a good theology. Likewise though, there are some things I see that are straightforward in scripture... but then even those are up to debate by others... In a way, our relationship with God is like any other relationship... it has ups and downs but do be alive and to learn how to be fully human, to me, that is what it takes to learn how to love and trust God. The final thing about my theology is this. I am the sick one in need of a Dr. while God knows what is going on. He is God and I am not... and to me that is the start of understanding what the relationship is about.

As far as some "good" Calvinists... check out Steve Brown... for all my griping about Calvinists, there are a couple left out there who give me hope for the rest...

Share/Save/Bookmark

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Thursday, February 04, 2010

One degree of seperation



I was thinking that there is only one degree of separation between a Calvinist and a Christian Universalist... and that is limited atonement. However both miss that we are not saved by the Cross but by the Resurrection. We are not saved by Jesus' death, but by His Life imparted to us. If you equate forgiveness and salvation, you end up with error... and that is the error of both CU and Calvinists.

Calvin equated forgiveness and salvation, and in that saw the logical step of Universalism... yet could not accept Universalism so created Limited Atonement. Yet, if one understand that forgiveness was only part of the salvic equation, and that though one is forgiven, without the Life of Christ they are still dead. For the Life is in the Son. The living risen Son.


Share/Save/Bookmark

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Great Quotes: Spurgeon




Like the fascination which attracts the gnat to the candle, though it burns its wings, men by nature fly to the law for salvation, and cannot be kept from seeking life by it. The law can do nothing else but reveal sin and pronounce condemnation upon the sinner, and yet we cannot get men away from it, even though we show them how sweetly Jesus stands between them and it.





~ Charles Spurgeon, Christ’s Glorious Achievements




HT: RI


Monday, October 29, 2007

John Calvin and Spurgeon on Alcohol.


Here is a little food for thought...

'And you shall bestow that money for whatsoever your soul lusts after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever your soul desires: and you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, and your household.' ~ John Calvin teaching on Deuteronomy 14:26

It seems Calvin was not against alcohol, rather preached moderation. It seems that when a "Calvinist" states that all alcohol is wrong he is at odds with Calvin himself. Even more so if Calvin had been a Southern Baptist... oh well!

For that matter Charles Spurgeon would not make a good Southern Baptist today either...

“I neither said nor implied that it was sinful to drink wine; nay, I said that, in and by itself, this might be done without blame. But I remarked that, if I knew that another would be led to take it by my example, and this would lead them on to further drinking, and even to intoxication, then I would not touch it.” ~ Charles Spurgeon


Such is appeasing the flesh with its rules "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? (Colossians 2:20-23)


Be blessed,
iggy

Saturday, October 27, 2007

I forgot about mychurch...


I forgot at some point I signed up for mychurch.com and had my blog at blogger.com being posted there also... the last post on "John MacArthur: Can one be an Arminian and still be saved?" has been developing some interesting conversation over there.


Be blessed,

iggy


Thursday, October 25, 2007

John MacArthur: Can one be an Arminian and still be saved?


I read from two different sources what John MacArthur thinks concerning salvation of Arminians... and really I ended up scratching my head... what does he really believe?



"So, they are diametrically opposed. The question comes, “Can somebody who holds an Arminian view be a Christian?” And I would hate to say they couldn’t be. I really believe that it is possible to be Arminian and to be a Christian…to misunderstand your human capability, to misunderstand the election, to misunderstand the extent of the atonement, even to misunderstand the irresistible nature of God’s saving grace, and even to think you could lose your salvation. But, at the same time--while being confused or ignorant of those things--to know that you’re a sinner and know that the only way of salvation is through Jesus Christ. I guess you could say that someone could be an Arminian and push those points far enough, where they could jeopardize my confidence that they really are a Christian. You could push the point of not being totally depraved far enough where you’re actually being saved by your own works, by your own belief, by your own ingenuity, by your own self-induced faith. And you could get to the point where you could really wonder whether someone understands that it’s all a work of God.
But, I think it would be going too far to say someone who holds an Arminian view, or anyone who holds an Arminian view, is, by virtue of that view, not a Christian. I think there are people who just don’t understand rightly those things, but who know they’re sinners and who cry out in their sin for the Lord to save them. They don’t understand how what they’re doing works together with the great purposes and power of God, and consequently can’t give God fully the glory He deserves for all of that, but they could be genuinely saved, by hoping in Christ and Christ alone." Source


Or this?

"He (Spurgeon) preached that both predestination and (limited) free-will were simultaneously in full force. He believed that in the end that salvation was wholly of God from start to finish, and yet God secures the complete cooperation of our wills in so-doing. He decried both antinomianism and fatalism (only predestination) and Arminianism (only free will) and said that anyone who denied either of these two truths was engaged in heresy.
He openly called both heresy. I tend to agree. I really like what this guy says since I had come to the same conclusions myself.
But he said something that confused me for a long time and said that John Wesley (a famous Arminian) was a man of God, yes he disagreed with him, but he said he had great respect for the man.
The best explanation I can come up for this is that Arminians are confused about how they came to Christ, but their definition of the atonement, and who Christ is is accurate, as is their view of sanctification (no striving by works), so it is possible Biblically to admit that Arminians are our brothers and sisters in Christ. It took me a lot of thought to get here however as at first glance I thought a heretical viewpoint always produces heretics who aren't saved.
The message I heard was that Arminians might be on the the right side of the line, but just barely, just a little more confused thinking about other related issues and the line is easily crossed. You don't have to get the finer points of theology to be saved, but certain basics are required and Arminianism appears to pass the test, barely, and only if you are willing admit that a faulty view of the atonment is not sufficient to block salvation. As time passes I realize that Spurgeon is essentially spouting double-speak, the definition of heresy is a soul-destroying perversion of either the Gospel or the nature of God. There is no such thing as a heresy that doesn't kill. Therefore, to be technically accurate, if you believe an Arminian can be a Christian, then to you, Arminianism is not heresy. However, many Arminians of today have swallowed enough other false doctrines to sink their ships so there is no need to argue about Arminianism. I for example was such a one. Spurgeon is consistent with most of his forebears however, including Augustine, who first faced a theology similar to Arminianism, and dealt with it as one would to a brother in Christ, and not as one would deal with a heretic who is outside the body. "
Source



Now, talk about double speak! On one hand Arminians are saved, but are heretics and heresy kills... but as you keep reading John he is clear that they are not saved!

So which is it... or is he double minded?

Be Blessed,
iggy

a response to intolerant dogmatism

"There does not appear any greater evil in the disputes concerning matters of religion, than the persuading ourselves that our salvation or God's glory are lost by every little difference. As for me, I exhort my scholars, not only to distinguish between the true and the false according to Scripture, but also between the essential articles of faith, and the less essential articles, by the same Scripture." - Jacobus Arminius in response to intolerant dogmatism from both Calvinists and Arminians.

"Next to the study of the Scriptures which I earnestly inculcate, I exhort my pupils to peruse Calvin's Commentaries, which I extol in loftier terms than Helmich himself (a Dutch divine, 1551-1608]; for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison (incomparabilem esse) in the interpretation of Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to us by the library of the fathers; so that I acknowledge him to have possessed above most others, or rather above all other men, what may be called an eminent spirit of prophecy (spiritum aliquem prophetiae eximium). His Institutes ought to be studied after the [Heidelberg] Catechism, as containing a fuller explanation, but with discrimination ( cum delectu), like the writings of all men"(History of Christian Church - Ch VIII). ~ Jacobus Arminius

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Walking through Romans: Romans 9:1-13 part 13

Romans 9
1I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.

6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."[b] 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. 9For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."[c]

10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This will be interesting as I do not see that I can cover this chapter all in one swoop. In fact this chapter is so widely misunderstood that it may take the reader a bit to go over this so see my perspective. I will only be building on the theme that was coming out of Chapter 8 in how we are comforted by the Love of God and that we are to live life by the Spirit. It is God Who justifies and who can condemn you then?

(Romans 9: 1-6)That not all that is called Israel is “Israel”, gave Paul great sorrow as he saw the people of his own bloodline not seeing that it was “by the Spirit” we live and that it is God who justifies. In this he models Jesus in the willingness to lay down his own life so that his brothers would be spared. For it was through this chosen people that God gave us the Messiah Himself.

(Verses 7- 9) It would seem that Paul knew that some would say then that God failed. That since the natural born Jew is not able to fulfill all that was required even with all that God had given to and through them. Yet, again it is not of the natural birth one is saved… but of the Promise. God said, "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son." This coincides with the prophecy that YWYH God will return to Israel. It is that this promise of God returning and a Son is born…

(Verses 9 – 13) Paul makes the point more clear that it is that one is born of God by the Promise and not of the flesh by pointing out that Esau and Jacob had the same father yet, God loved Jacob and hated Esau.

I have taught a couple of places on this so I will not go into it now but please check out this post.
Now, I have heard some go one and on that this passage is about “Nations” and then the other rebuttal that it is “individuals” and I say it is both.

Of course Jacob and Esau are individuals.
Yet, both went on to be Fathers of Nations.

As I pointed out in my post on “Esau I hated…” it is clear that the direct quote comes from the passage in Malachi 1:2-3 and it is definitely about nations, yet also in the story of Esau and Jacob, they are individuals and we see that God may choose a nation but he also chooses by Grace, individuals.


I will point out that God promised Sarah that “at the appointed time” she would have a son, so also Jesus came “at the appointed time” (Titus 1:3) and God revealed His Light through Jesus Christ. Now, Interesting also is that the “younger will serve the older” I see that this as possibly the two covenants in that the Old Covenant of the Law is now over ruled by the New Convent and the Law of Love. Yet, there is a great significance in that Esau will also serve Jacob.

The Moabites are the descendants of Esau and few realize the ">Herod was also a descendant of the Edomites. In that Herod also represented Rome. So on tow levels Herod was the enemy of the Jew. This was part of the reason the Herod desired to be called King of the Jews as it would be the final victory for him as a descendant of Isaac. Yet, the issue is that the “blessings” were passed on to Jacob and not Esau.


Also in the story of Esau and Jacob, Jacob sought after the blessings and birthright and Esau cared nothing for his birthright trading it for food. This is important to realize as I will point out later.

Paul speaks that is by Grace so that “11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls” .

It was decided that Jacob and his descendants would carry the faith of Abraham. Though neither were yet born it was God’s decision to choose Jacob, so that His purpose of election might stand.

Many seem to think election is about individuals, yet if one looks closely at the passages in Ephesians concerning election, in chapter one versus 4-5 we read:

“For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will…”

Now, as I have talked to Calvinists I have heard them tell me over and over that this means “they” existed “in Christ” before the creation of the world… I do not see it that way. I see that God purposed “in Christ” that His plan of salvation would be done through Jesus. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the only Immortal (1 Timothy 6: 13-16) yet, it seems that Calvin taught that man existed before creation. Some try to say Paul is saying that, yet I see that Paul is simply stating that by His Grace that “those”, meaning a people whom God chooses, not necessarily individuals, will come to Jesus and be placed “in Christ” and be saved. To say somehow the “us” (which is plural btw) is about individuals… misses that though God will choose the individual, man was yet to exist and to exist in any form is more in line with Gnosticism and Mormonism.

To say that somehow man pre-existed is negates scripture:

John 6:46
“No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.”

1 Timothy 6: 13-16

“In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time--God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see.”

Roman 2:7

To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. (Note that Paul only refers to the future and not that they had any pre-existence.)


I Corinthians 15: 51-54

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed-- in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

(Notice that it is after the mortal is exchanged for the immortal that what is written will come true.)

To say that man somehow “pre-exists” is like I stated more in line with Mormonism and the Gnostic teachings of the Plermora and that man is somehow part of the aeons (eternal beings). Man is not an eternal being he is a created being. To state that man existed “in Christ” is to go against the clear teaching that man is not an eternal being and is mortal.

The Mormons teach that man is eternal. Here is their view.


"We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement -- a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share. In spite of the opposition of the sects, in the face of direct charges of blasphemy, the Church proclaims the eternal truth: 'As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.'" (LDS Apostle James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, Ch.24, p.430 - p.431, LDS Collectors Library '97 CD-ROM)

“‘It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God,' the inspired word continues, 'and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did.' The Father is a glorified, perfected, resurrected, exalted man who worked out his salvation by obedience to the same laws he has given to us so that we may do the same." (LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p.64, LDS Collectors Library '97 CD-ROM)


God is not a uniquely eternal being. All spirit is self-existent matter and is eternal (without beginning or end) . Such "matter (called intelligences) sometimes becomes organized into a spirit being through birth to celestial parents. Then that spirit is born through human parents on earth. Like all people, God took this course and eventually reached Godhood. God would stop being God if intelligences stopped supporting him as God. (D&C 93:29, 33; Abraham 3:18-23; Mormon Doctrine, 1977 ed. p. 751)

Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be" (D&C 93:29)

Here is one Calvinists take:

Though I will point out that more well read Calvinists reject the “pre-existence of man", many do hold to this doctrine as biblical.

To quote one I debated recently with where I pointed out that man would have to pre-exist in order to be "in Christ" as many teach or explain this passage.

“Iggy,
you wrote out Ephesians 1:4-5 and you can’t see election in it?
Then you say that the focus of that passage is not “us” but “in Him”.
So what is Paul saying about being in Him?

What or who is in Him? It is “us”. The focus is “us” in what Paul is saying and that we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world What you say Calvinists believe about being in Christ before He has even lived, been crucified and buried and resuurrected is true.
Yes, even before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit! You say, “What a Calvinist does without realizing it is making mortal humans who have not even been created, be known before they are even created.
”No, the Calvinists are not doing this without realizing it. They are believing this with all they got!
Must be that tricky little passage of Ephesians 1:4-5. Yep, that’s the cause of this “terrible” belief!”



Now some Calvinists do reject this and they should… but it seems they give no answer as to how we existed in Jesus without actually existing… Also, I might point out that I do see “election” taught in the Ephesians passage yet not in the way that this person was stating. Also, she needs to read a bit more of Calvin to see that even Calvin rejected her view.

"By saying that they were "elect before the creation of the world" [Ephesians 1:4], he takes away all regard for worth. For what basis for distinction is there among those who did not yet exist, and who were subsequently to be equals in Adam? Now if they are elect in Christ, it follows that not only is each man elected without respect to his own person but also certain ones are separated from others, since we see that not all are members of Christ." (John Calvin Institutes III:22:2)

Yet many do believe this teaching and it is simply a heretical view.

Now, from what I see Calvin actually teaching I think is closer to what I believe, and many Calvinists twist at what I state and do not realize it pretty much what Calvin stated himself.

I see that the “election” was purposed that those “in Christ” would be saved. The “us” is about those of that “election”. It is not about the pre-existence of man in any way.


Here is the bible’ teaching regarding this:

Man is a finite being, not an eternal one. The first man Adam was created at a specific point in time (Ge 1:26-27; 2:7; 1Co 15:45-49). Man did not exist in the beginning when God was creating the universe, for if he had, God's question to Job would have made no sense (Job 38:4).

Now, I see that God knew Jesus as Jesus was in the Father and that all things were made through Jesus. In that "things" did not exist before creation, God purposed a plan of Salvation "in Jesus Christ" that those who would believe and receive would be saved. The "us" Paul is referring to is those that were then in Christ.

Jesus died and rose at a specific point in time. and that was the "appointed time".

The mystery hidden that is Jesus Christ was not known to man until it was revealed. Now, man was known by God, and that "some" would believe and receive Jesus was also known... as well that some would reject the Call and be lost. Now, this sounds close to Calvinism... yet I see that the point of focus is Jesus... and not the elect. Our focus is to always be Jesus.
We are only to verse 13… and this is already a bit too long. So this will be done in two posts… hopefully. LOL!

Cleck here for more thoughts on predestination.

Be blessed,
iggy

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Just one of those thoughts that keep gnawing at me…

Just one of those thoughts that keep gnawing at me… which will most probably get me some blanks stares at best from the Lordship Salvation crowd.

First off I want to say, Jesus is Lord… but more He is God, which trump a Lord… as I see it.

Jesus, also being God was through Whom all creation came… so again, just by default I think He is Lord…

Now saying that, the issues to me is what does it matter that one accepts Jesus exactly in the right manner… This reeks of works as it means one need do something so exact to please God. It places works on salvation.

Now, that is not the big issue.

Most of the “Lordship Salvation (referred to as LS from now on as my fingers are tired) are Calvinist or of some sort of Calvinist bent. Nothing that bad there I can’t put up with, yet part of TULIP… (It is a sort of Calvinist shorthand just look it up if you have not heard of it before) is Irresistible Grace which is the teaching that when God calls someone who is “Elect” they cannot resist God’s Grace. Now I am not going into all that at this point, but if one is “elect” and called by God by His grace, then how can they accept Jesus wrongly? I mean it seems that as the teaching of irresistible grace states, God calls someone and they cannot resist.

So, here we have a group of people who teach on one hand that God Grace cannot be resisted and that Whom He calls being the “Elect” are already saved from the foundation of the world… worried about how someone state their faith? They are worried that someone does not accept Jesus with the right words or understanding? They seem to negate God’s sovereignty by the very teaching of LS.
So, which one is it… that one has to accept Jesus with just the right words and understanding or that God calls His Elect by Grace and they cannot resist it.

To me this is just a vain argument over “words” that is warned against is scripture. In fact for the most part I have only found the fruit LS bears is like this…

Beware of divisive people… 2 Tim 2:23 Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.

I will end this with this thought, In Romans10:13, it does not say "Everyone who calls Jesus Lord will be saved." It doe s say, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
It is God Who reveals Who Jesus is, as Ephesians 3:4-5 states:
“In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets.”

I think as far as Salvation is concerned… If someone is in God’s hands, someone is in much better hands some man who teaches that there is some formula that includes magical words that can lead to salvation.

The bottom line is LS should be an affront to the True Calvinist... and one would wonder that it would be more likely taught out of the Arminian camp. Being neither, I just see it as a waste of time to debate. But... here I am! LOL!

Be Blessed,
iggy

Monday, July 23, 2007

Great Quotes: Spurgeon

I found this great quote:

"All our transgressions are swept away at once, carried off as by a flood, and so completely removed from us that no guilty trace of them remains. They are all gone!

O ye believers, think of this, for the all is no little thing: sins against a holy God, sins against his loving Son, sins against gospel as well as against law, sins against man as well as against God, sins of the body as well as sins of the mind, sins as numerous as the sands on the sea shore, and as great as the sea itself: all, all are removed from us as far as the east is from the west. All this evil was rolled into one great mass, and laid upon Jesus, and having borne it all he has made an end of it for ever.

When the Lord forgave us he forgave us the whole debt. He did not take the bill and say, "I strike out this item and that," but the pen went through it all;—PAID." (C H Spurgeon, Sermon 1448 at Newington)

Thorugh this site...


Funny how things work.

Blessings,
iggy

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

I am giving up writing my blog...

After reading Rick Ianniello's blog and some of his posts on John MacArthur... I realized he is much better and a clearer thinker than myself...

So I relinquish all my blogging to him...


Well at least for this post...

Check out his last installment as he takes a look at John MacArthur's latest articles...

Oh, and Rick is one of my favorite Calvinists....

Be blessed,
iggy

Friday, June 01, 2007

Calvin and the Mystics that influenced him…

Calvin and the Mystics that influenced him…

It seems rather sad that some are so bent at calling Christian Mysticism wrong… even satanic. They miss that many of the reformers were highly influenced by the Mystic Saints. Case in point is John Calvin who was greatly influenced by Augustine who is considered a Christian Mystic and also St. Bernard. (This is well noted in “Institutes: written by John Calvin as he refers often to both of these Christian mystics and build his thought from their thoughts.)

Noting first that both of these men were of the Catholic persuasion, then that they were “mystics” make me truly wonder at many who call themselves Calvinist today. I think they really have a short term understanding of history and even more how their own “system” of Theology came to be.

To cast Christian mysticism as satanic as many have, seems then that without realizing it, they have condemned Calvin to the pit of Hell for being influenced by two Christian Mystics.

Can one separated the influencer from the one influenced? I do see that one can, yet often without thinking we act as if Calvin or Luther just fell out of the sky one day and came up with something new, or as some say, reclaimed the old.

Yet, influences are that, they guide one to think on terms that they might not have considered, and it seems that Calvin himself was at least more open to things than many who claim his name…

(A bit of a side note here: I cannot ever be a Calvinist as it goes against the teachings of Paul in 1 Cor 1 where Paul is stating that we are to follow and be baptized into the Name of Jesus… so I see that by this I cannot take Calvin’s name as Calvin did not die for my sins, nor did he raise from the grave the third day… as far as I know he is still in his own grave waiting for the day of Resurrection. I am baptized into the Name of Jesus and am content in that as my identity.)

I see that anyone who blindly calls all Christian mysticism as Satanic have missed and possibly are missing a very important element in their faith… and that is intimacy with Jesus Christ. Calvin called this "unio mystica" or the "mystical union".

Blessings,
iggy