How Calvinistic Are You?

Amen.

 

Then you sure picked an odd User Name unless of course you work for the insurance company.

 

How Calvinistic Are You?

I'm a Sovereign Grace Independent Particular Baptist. In plain English, I'm a 5-point Calvinist.

 

Welcome to the frey LRL71.

A 5-point Calvinist? One does not meet many of them outside the Southern United States.

 

I think that should read... 'one doesn't meet many 5 point Calvinists in the south'.

 

Thanks Diane, I thought that was probably the truth, but I don't live there so I did not want to make such a declaration.

 

From the website posted by whatever;

"It is not enough for the professing Christian to know that God loves him and that his sins have been forgiven."

Um...It is ENOUGH for THIS sinner saved by grace!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Then that makes you less than Protestant. All the Reformers were monergists. Arminianism is Romanism without the sacramentalism, nothing more.

 

Red herring. That's not the issue. The issue is the perseverance of that believer whom the Spirit does not abandon. See 1 John 2:29 also The question for you is "Does 1 John 3:9 teach that a believer that continues in sin is saved? Is the apostate saved or not? Nobody, not even the most strident Arminian teaches the backslider loses salvation. This issue is the apostate. Can Christians apostacize or not, and, if they can, can they lose their salvation. You believe they can apostacize, but they are still eternally secure, do you not? Arminians, as a whole, reject this, as do Calvinists. This is the first reason why eternal security in the way you seem to mean it is a problem. There simply is nothing in Christian theology and exegesis until your brand of dispensationalism that has ever held this view. Perseverance of the saints is not your antinomian eternal security. We believe exactly what 1 John 3:9 and 2:29 say, and we understand that eternal security, even your version, does not make logical sense unless the preceding soteriological point is true. You believe in free willism to the point of saying that God will not violate the libertarian free will of the believer right up until you get here, where, suddenly, you have God violating His highest value in your soteriology: human free will! This is massively inconsistent. This is why we believe that all the saints persevere until the end, some better than others, but none can lose their salvation. We reject the notion that apostastates were ever truly saved. However, we carefully distinguish between backsliding and apostasy and understand that no man can truly know if those we think are apostates now are not really backslidden. Only time will tell. In fact, we'd say there is a good reason that Scripture teaches assurance along with perseverance. Think about it, when people severely backslide and appear to come back to the Lord, don't most of us, when we're honest, and those of us that have been down that road ourselves, often wonder when that person really came to know the Lord, but those of us that are "living rightly" and know we believe have real assurance, again, proving that assurance and holy living do, in fact, go hand in hand.

I'd like you to exegete 1 John 5:1 alongside 1 John 2:29 and show us how you get regeneration through faith out of it and not regeneration preceding faith.

 

I suppose the Bible is much too long for your taste, then. Why do you suppose God wasted all of that time and effort teaching us "how and why [our] redemption has been accomplished and how it has been made effective"? All He really had to say is that He loves us and that our sins are forgiven. Yep, it's all about us. Right.

 

Is it really grace that does the saving?

How!

 

I suppose the Bible is much too long for your taste, then. Why do you suppose God wasted all of that time and effort teaching us "how and why [our] redemption has been accomplished and how it has been made effective"? All He really had to say is that He loves us and that our sins are forgiven. Yep, it's all about us. Right. </font>[/QUOTE]__________________________________________________

The statement has NOTHING to do with the extent of revelation in the Scriptures. The statement is an arrogant assumption made on behalf of ALL Christians. "It is not enough..." To which I reply, IT IS ENOUGH!

It's got nothing to do with anything else but the scope of that one staement. I contend the statement is false.

You statements are just plain nonsense. You can suppose all day long. I suppose that you really don't care that God loves you and that your sins are forgiven.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

You wouldn't think so would you? Eph 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved...
But I think it best if we say His Grace.
johnp.

 

GeneMBridges

Wasn't Calvin was a Catholic priest?
... And what about Luther?
... And that other guy - Augustine?

As a Baptist, I thought we returned to the Bible and to being local Biblical Churches.

 

You wouldn't think so would you? Eph 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved...
But I think it best if we say His Grace.
johnp. </font>[/QUOTE]If you truly believe that it is Grace that does the saving, you should be able to explain exactly how it does so. You should also have a pretty clear definition for Grace.

How about it, can you define it and explain how it works?

 

Well, Not to deflate your bubble but there are more SBC Calvinists in the South than anywhere else!

 

It is obvious that I am ignorant, so please enlighten me. If God didn't want all Christians to understand how and why we were redeemed then why bother to tell us?

Also, how do you know that the author of the statement is arrogant?

 

Apparently, I am as Calvinist as my Bible tells me to be. I have never read Calvin or Augustine or any other Calvinist people, and yet I get accused of being Calvinist on a regular basis.