"Aineo"
""Men come to repentance through the will of God not by an exercise of free will. The Holy Spirit convicts and converts, not you or me." If this is what you really believe then you are indeed a Calvinist my friend.””
If my belief in the sovereignty of God makes me a Calvinist, I plead guilty.
With all due respect, it's not your belief in the sovereignty of God that makes you a Calvinist (since I believe in that too) but your belief in the sovereignty of God to the exclusion of the Free Will of Man, as evidenced by your statement "Men come to repentance through the will of God, not by an exercise of free will."?!
However,
Quote:
Ephesians 1:3-7
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. NAS
Sounds like the Doctrine of Election, a Calvinist idea, to me.
The doctrine of election, like the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, is actually God's idea, as elucidated in scripture (and no, I do not believe that God is a Calvinist or an Arminianist either). Calvin simply took the idea of divine sovereignty and built an entire systematic theology around it using the doctrine of divine sovereignty as a myopic lens through which to view and understand the rest of Christianity, thereby straying into the realm of heresy.
"But, you might say:
Quote:
John 3:16
16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. NAS
This is the Doctrine of the free will of man."
A doctrine to which the average Calvinist would not give houseroom.
"We seem to have diametrically opposed and apparently contradictory doctrines taught in Scripture. But, do we? I see both of these doctrines as true. Let me see if I can give you a simile that makes sense. I view both of these doctrines as Biblical truth and compare them to railroad tracks and the Gospel as a locomotive. If you remove either track the Gospel will crash. Many Christians stand on one doctrine or the other, and argue to defeat the one they don’t like."
Excuse me but doesn't this contradict your earlier statement that "Men come to repentance through the will of God, not by an exercise of free will."(which is how I came to the conclusion that you are a Calvinist)?
"When I am dealing with gays and liberal Christians who accept and promote gay theology, I stand on the Doctrine of the free will of mankind. I point out what the Bible teaches about homosexuality and will not back down. Like you I will not compromise the truth of Scripture. On the other hand, when dealing with those in the gay community and un-saved heterosexuals, I follow my belief in the sovereignty of God; teach about Christ’s love, His redemptive work on the cross, and the grace of God. What is grace? The unearned, unmerited, unwarranted gift of God, the free will of mankind has nothing to do with grace. Eventually the subject of what is sin comes up and then I simply state what the Scripture teaches about sin – all sin."
With all due respect I am not clear about what you are saying here. How does "standing on the doctrine of the Free Will of Mankind" help you to refute those arguments advocated by those within the Church who support homosexuality? Further, how does "following your belief in the sovereignty of God" help you when dealing with those in the homosexual community and un-saved heterosexuals? Surely our brief as Christians is to make known the whole counsel of God (thereby emphasising both the sovereignty of God AND the free will of Man together) to all men everywhere?
"”So what you are actually saying then is that unbelievers should not be told the truth or warned about the danger that they are in because of their sin since this is an act of judgement on the part of those who would seek to warn them. Rather, only believers should be made explicitly aware of the nature and consequences of sin whilst the rest of the poor unfortunate souls should be left to flounder in blissful ignorance only to discover the truth on Judgement Day as Christ reads out the judgement against them and the subsequent sentence of death before having them hurled into the everlasting Lake of Fire (the "good news" of salvation is completely meaningless without first coming to an understanding of the reality of the "bad news" of sin first)?!”
Of course not! I am saying that we should emphasize the love of Christ FIRST and FOREMOST."
But, with all due respect, do you not see that to emphasise the "love of Christ first and foremost" is actually a parody of the Biblical gospel? It is the nature of the Biblical Gospel to declare that because of man's sinful rebellion against his Creator he is destined to face judgement for his sinful rebellion and afterwards to be separated from his Creator for ever by being cast into the everlasting Lake of Fire "where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die". Only when man understands this will he then appreciate the nature of divine grace in saving him from such a fate. (If Adam and Eve had not fallen then how would they have ever learned about God's grace?) A man will not seek salvation until he realises (a) the nature of the impending situation from which he needs to be saved and (b) that in and of himself he is utterly powerless to do anything about it and thus is in need of a saviour. To emphasise the love of God to the diminution or exclusion of His other atributes (holiness, righteousness, justice, etc.) is to proclaim not the Biblical YHWH but a heretical parody which cannot and will not save anyone.
"I stand corrected, and agree that if you LOVINGLY AND COMPASSIONATELY declare all the truth of Scripture you will be rewarded with fruit. However, most Christians don’t approach homosexuality with love and compassion but with judgment. You are the exception not the rule, at least in my experience in my 21-year journey out of and living free of gay life."
I thank you for your most gracious comments. I only wish that I could be even more gracious and compassionate. It is true, many Christians are a very poor reflection of Christ when it comes to dealing with members of the homosexual community and this is an area where the Church needs to fall on it's knees and repent instead of adorning itself in robes of self-righteousness...sometimes, I just want to cry.
"No I am not a 5-point Calvinist. I do believe in the total depravity of man. (Gen 8:21, Rom 3:23, and 5:12) I reject any man is predestined to live a sinful life (ultra-Calvinism), however I do believe that God saves us through grace not works (repentance is a work), I do not subscribe to the limited atonement of Christ, and I reject the Calvinist view of once saved always saved (as practiced by many so-called Christians)"
Firstly, I believe that all men are predestined, without exception, some to everlasting life and others to everlasting torment. However, I find the idea of predestination as being "cast in concrete" (and therefore impossible to change) to be utterly repugnant and absolutely unbiblical (which is why I passionately believe that both Calvinism and Arminianism are heretical). God by His Spirit has shown me that all men are free to make their moral and ethical choices which in turn will seal their everlasting fate without this affecting, even remotely, the sovereignty of God. Most Calvinists like to cite Rom.9 in support of their theology whilst at the same time completely ignoring passages such as Ex.8:15,32; 9:34,35 which show that Pharoh hardened his own heart (thereby making God's judgement upon him just and righteous instead of a "kangaroo court" as in the case of the heretical version of God's judgement espoused by Hyper-Calvinism - a belief system to which many so called "moderate" Calvinists unwittingly subscribe).
With respect, Your understanding of repentance as being a "work" is incorrect. It is actually an act of faith (and as such is essential to salvation). For a much better explanation of Christian initiation than I could ever present I urge you to obtain and read Rev. J. David Pawson's superb work The Normal Christian Birth published in the UK by Hodder and Stoughton and available online from: http://www.davidpawson.com/. With regard to your views on "Limited Atonement" and "Once saved, always saved!" on these matters we share a common belief and as such stand shoulder to shoulder (which is as it should be). If you're interested, David Pawson has also written several other excellent works, (not to mention a very extensive audio and video cassette tape teaching ministry) two of which I commend to you now: Once Saved Always Saved? and The Road To Hell These two works are, in my opinion, the equivalent, in theological terms, of two "nuclear bombs" as far as "Once saved, always saved!" is concerned and I urge all who believe in "Once saved, always saved!" to prayerfully read and consider David's arguments before coming down dogmatically ( and often intransigently) on either side.
"”For the record, I am not teaching "salvation by legalistically manufactured self-righteousness" but I am teaching that salvation in order to be shown to be authentic must be accompanied by works of righteousness (Jas.2:14-26) therefore the true Biblical gospel (as opposed to popular Evangelicalism's parody of it) is actually a gospel of salvation by faith and works and not just "faith alone" (for "faith" read "giving mental ascent to a set of theological propositions"). “
"James teaches that good works is evidence of salvation; he does not teach good works as a prerequisite of salvation.
Are you by any chance Roman Catholic?"
As I recall, I also did not advocate that "works" (a.k.a. "legalistically manufactured self-righteousness") are a prerequisite to salvation, but rather I advocated that works of righteousness must accompany (not precede) salvation in order to establish and maintain it's authenticity (Jas.2:14-16).
Far too many "Evangelical Christians" have been duped into believing a parody of the authentic gospel which requires them simply to pray a "sinners prayer" and then give mental ascent to a set of theological propsitions without actually making significant fundamental difference to their lives (other than to take on a religious veneer, expend ones energies in perpetuating what I call the "Evangelical sausage machine" by engaging in copious amounts of "evangelism" and be seen in Church on a week by week basis). This is most definately not the Biblical understanding of salvation. But, sadly, it's what often passes for "salvation" within the sub-culture of "popular Evangelicalism".
In answer to your question "Am I a Roman Catholic?" the answer is most definately no. I loathe Roman Catholicism with every fibre of my being (as I do any and every religious system which seeks to draw people away from a living faith in God by incarcerating them into a form of institutionalized religion which often has the effect of sapping the spiritual life out of people).
"”The first stage of the Biblical gospel is a call to repentance from any and all forms of sinful behaviour and attitudes and a turning towards God.”
This is a manmade doctrine not backed up in Scripture. I am doing a Biblical study of “repent” and “repentance”. The prophets called the Jews to repent; in Revelation Christ tells the churches to repent. You are correct that repent means “turn to God” or better “return to God”."
"Repentance is a man-made doctrine not backed up in Scripture."?! Are we reading the same Bible (Matt.3:2; 4:17; Mk.1:15; 6:12; Lk.13:3; 13:5; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 17:30; 26:20)?!
"“Finally, having now dealt with and "signed off" the believers past through water baptism, the normal procedure is that the believer then receives the baptism of the Spirit in order to enable them to successfully live the Christian life and to walk upright and blameless in God's sight”
It did not work this way with Cornelius, did it? He received the Holy Spirit PRIOR to baptism."
With respect, that is precisely why I inserted the words "normal procedure" thereby tacitly acknowledging that there were exceptions to the normal procedure ( I was thinking of Cornelius as I wrote) but the exceptions are just that, exceptions, not the rule (see David Pawson's book The Normal Christian Birth op. cit.)
"So you have to first preach the gospel and let GOD BRING THE INCREASE."
But I was under the impression that that is in fact what I am doing?!”
Does that now make sense?
"”Except perhaps for during the millennium, there is, as far as I am aware, no mandate for Christians to judge those outside the Church. Au contrare, Paul expressly forbids it (1Cor.5 especially verses 9-13). However, if, in your mind, the proclamation of the gospel (which involves proclaiming the need for repentance from sinful acts and attitudes (including homosexuality)) is synonymous with judging those outside the Church as you seem to be arguing then you are faced with quite a dilemma are you not? How do you propose to resolve this dilemma?”
Again, the Bible does not teach repentance as a prerequisite to salvation.
With all due respect, I am wondering what kind of a gospel you are advocating because it does not seem to me to be the Biblical one (Matt.3:2; 4:17; Mk.1:15; 6:12; Lk.13:3; 13:5; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 17:30; 26:20; Gal.1:6-10)?! The Bible clearly teaches that repentance is the first step in the initiation process into the body of Christ (the ekklesia those who are "called out" from the world) and therefore into salvation, for there is no salvation outside of the redeemed community of living Biblical faith (by which I mean inclusive of all true believers throughout human history but not of the institution of either the Roman Catholic Church or any other man-made religious institution) I should therefore be grateful if you would please explain your position?
"Quote:
1 Cor 6:11
11 And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God. NAS
Notice the past tense in this verse? “Were sanctified,” means that at the moment of salvation God has set you apart; in one sense sanctification is the completed work of God. However, sanctification is also a continuing process of learning through the power and ministry of the Holy Spirit."
With respect, this does not alter the fact that the Biblical gospel commands people to "repent and believe" not "believe and repent". It is the repentance which must come first.
""NEVER learn what the Bible says...
ALWAYS learn what the Bible ALSO says!"
I like this; maybe you should learn what it also says."
I already have (Matt.7:1-5)
"Have you ever heard of Arthur Pink? He wrote an excellent book titled “The Sovereignty of God”. Pink is a 5-point Calvinist and although I reject Calvinistic theology I did learn a lot from reading Pink’s books. Another man you might consider reading is Jonathon Edward’s he is considered the best theologian America every produced. I would especially recommend his sermon “Sinners in the hands of an angry God.” Edward’s preaching is credited for the Great Revival of the mid 1700’s."
I am familiar with both Arthur W. Pink and Jonathan Edwards and I own, and have read, copies of both books to which you refer though I must confess it is quite some time ago since I last read either book.
"Quote:
Can a lost (unregenerate) man exercise a saving faith in Christ without first being regenerated by the Holy Spirit?
The Dallas Theological Seminary doctrinal statement says, "Yes". Edwards, the Reformers, and all major protestant confessions of faith since the Reformation say, "No"
[url]http://www.jonathanedwards.com/
So, with a little research Simonline, you will see that my belief is not just my own."
I'll give you another of the quotes I often use in my signatures...
"Truth is still true even if no-one believes it. Falsehood is still false even if everyone believes it." Truth does not stand or fall based on the number of people who believe it but rather it stands on the immutable character of God.
"Scott Schalchlin, asked a question that I answered through personal experience. As far as I can tell from responses on this thread I am the only one to answer his direct question with a direct answer. Now, Simonline, have you seen any fruit from your way of ministering to the unsaved gay or lesbian? I have, God has blessed my ministry with fruit. I will not argue with success.
I am not in a position to comment on the success or otherwise of your ministry nor do I believe it would be prudent of me to do so. Therefore I shall leave you to the tender mercies of Christ and allow him to be the only true judge of the success or otherwise of your ministry.
Every blessing,
Simonline.