Cavinism a Cult?

[anotherDan]

Yeah, Spurgeon has a way of doing that!

[Abigail]

Abigail:

On second thought I will write about it tonight. I just want to say that if my ascertations on Calvin make me look like a legalist, you have my heartfelt apology, and tell you a little about myself because I am anything but.

Sky, it wasn't your post abut Calvin that gave me pause, it was your later post regarding the second death, lake of fire, etc. etc. Honestly, I have not really studied Revelations or much of anything pertaining what is to come in the next life. I have formed some opinions based on what I have studied pertaining to this life, pertaining to who I have come to believe God is (all loving, father, etc. etc), but if I had to lay all of my opinions on the subject out "chapter and verse" I am not sure I could.

The other aspect of that is in addition to utlizing the Bible and various scholars in my studies, I also draw a lot on what I have experienced in life and what others have shared with me about their own experiences. I think if the Bible were the only tool by which we could come to know God (as good a tool as it may be) there would be millions upon millions of people who simply could not ever know God because they never saw the book we call the Bible. Therefore, I have to conclude that there are many paths/tools by which we can come to know Him.

The most legalistic book, according to some, in the New Testament establishes the "law of liberty" which I think is new testament theology in a nutshell. (the book of james law of liberty used x2) The book of Galations, which is all about liberty, probably saved my life when I was 18 and getting hammered by a Southern Babtist legalistic dude who was telling me movies could destroy my soul. the Law of Liberty, I think is about doing things in your life with some regard to moderation.

Ah yes, moderation. One of my favorite quotes from the NT is the one about letting all things be done with moderation. :)

In saying that Abby, I think your the best, because you always talk about treating people right and doing what right in your heart, and you dont do it based on theology but based on thats who you are. I think that stuff is important to God too. More importantly I think God wants us to do things because thats the way we are.

Thanks, Sky. One of the big lessons I have put together in my mind since leaving TWI was to be true to yourself. To realize that at the end of the day it was me I had to face in the mirror, not my twig leader and not even my husband. And in a sense, not even God, because for all I think I may know about Him, there is still that possibility I am wrong.

Somewhere down here in the basement is a thread that contains an article about studying. The jist of the article is that we study and use our intellect with the idea that those things eventually become "writtien in our hearts." Because in the end, it is often our hearts that direct us, not our intellect.

I could digress about my ownlife somewhat but I wont. My concept of being a bad man isnt what it used to be. As such, I probably am a bad man. ( At least in the eyes of some) But the things I spoke about in here, them I keep. My level of caring for people has changed. Am I required to care about others particularily when they hate me? See I dont think so Abby, I really dont. Your suppose to love your enemies but when does love become perfect hate? Oddly, the Psalmist said I hated them with a perfect hatred.

I don't understand what perfect hatred is. Also, when I read this I wonder how you define love. In TWI we were boundary jumpers. We got into other people's space, we tried to dictate their hearts and minds, their personal lives their financial lives, etc. etc. (at least during my tendure with them this occured over time). In some instances we were expected to tolerate the intolerable and in other cases we were supposed to shun those who had truly done no wrong. The boundaries were all blurry and mixed up.

Now, I see all of this very differently. Now, I think it is entirely possible to love someone (even your enemy) and maintain healthy boundaries. Now, I can look at an individual who I may not particularly like and try to put myself in their shoes - to see the world from their POV. That offers me an avenue to understand where they are coming from. At the same time, that does not mean I have to let them enter the livingroom of my home or my heart. I can look at someone and say, "you know, I love you, but there are actions you chose to take that I cannot allow to influence my life, and therefore I cannot spend time with you. Don't know if that communicates or not.

So when I bash Calvin, why I do it is because I really beleive its a fornicators dream doctrine, and covetousness which is a little more difficult hole in the dam to plug. Ferstu?

Yes, I can see where it would be such. I can also see where it could lead one to despair in thinking they were not chosen of the elect and nothing they could do would ever change that and make them pleasing to God.

lastly, you have been through a lot, and thats why there grace,I dont know how to answer the pedophile thing, its just a question i have in my mind as in, how awful can some people be till there isnt anything left.

Oh heck, I think we have all been through a lot. Who lives in this world to adulthood and doesn't experience the bad along with the good?

[wrdsandwrks]

wrdsandwrks:

In reading your philosohical post, yeah its rather interesting, I felt like I was reading something out of Kant or Renae Decartes. This interesting thing is my freind that, Chuck Colson, a man I really respect, argues that guys like Renae Decartes are counterproductive to Christian thought. I personlly dont agree with that tack, because I think DeCarte was a Christian, Colsons points center on having issues which engage simple debate in terms of "self" which creates a rather humanistic viewpoint which is counterproductive. Colson makes a good point, but I certainly don't think its one that is all that harmful, but perhaps harmful from the standpoint most people can't boil philosphy into simpler concepts. Not oddly Calvin's writings are very very philophical as you do well to point out.

I like Chuck Colson too. I'm not sure I get what you're saying here? Can you give a link Colson's statements? Are they about Descartes or philosophy in general?

Boethius was a Christian martyr so he was speaking from a Christian perspective about free-will vs. predestination.

I liked his analogy about the man sitting in a chair. The opinion that he is sitting does not cause him to sit. "But it is not because the opinion is true, that the man sits, rather, the opinion is true because it is preceded by the man's act of sitting."

Of course what is left unsaid here is that since God exists in a dimension outside of time, where He is the "man's act of sitting" is foreknown (it could actually be said to have already happened in eternity). But did God "cause" the man to sit in the chair because He knew in advance that he would choose to sit down?

Actually when I think about it this is one place where PFAL seems to me to have taught a proper perspective.

Wrdsandwrks: I think one of the most common mistakes made about God is that because he is kind and good and "nice" so to speak, one can always waffle well on judgement. But this point is addressed abundantly clear in the New and Old Testament. Romans talks about "taking heed lest you also be cut off" and again in Hebrews "How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation. You see there is an endgame with the Almighty no question, and banking behavior that runs rough shod over this stuff, is in fact tempting God.

Behold the goodness and severity of God.

You know, I'd like to think that everyone gets saved. What I do know is that God is completely good and completely just and I'm glad He's God and I'm not.

I'm also glad that He gave us truths in the Bible and the Holy Spirit to help us understand it and a mind to think about it all. I know so much less now than I did when I had pat answers to everything, but I have such a better relationship with the One who knows it all...

Here are some C.S. Lewis quotes that make me think:

"In all discussions of hell we should keep steadily before our eys the possible damnation, not of our enemies nor our friends.. but of ourselves."

"A man can't be taken to hell, or sent to hell: you can only get there on your own steam."

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened."

Edited August 23, 2007 by wrdsandwrks

[Abigail]

"A man can't be taken to hell, or sent to hell: you can only get their on your own steam."

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened."

I tend to agree with these concepts. I think we create our own hell via the consequences of our own actions. Or we can live in paradise on earth via the same.

[cman]

Without hell there wouldn't be a heaven.

Neither terms are explained by Lewis.

Hell is a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.

It sends you to heaven though.

Can't have one without the other.

Hell is thought of as inescapable, some things will die there.

Others will live and leave, Love leading the way.

[sky4it]

wrdsandwrks:

I too enjoyed that CS Lewis quote.

Here's the website with the Colson quote

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darkages.html

The discussion starts in the fourth paragraph down under the heading New Barbarianism and its roots.

My point is simply this: I dont have a problem bieng in my 40's boiling down philosphical debates. Colson makes the arguemnent they are counterproductive to Christian thought. My problem ( and I think its a more experience related one) is how they effect young people. When I was 18, and wanted to know the truth of the Gospel, I felt I might have to consume a virtual library to "get it" The other thing is lets face it, some of this stuff isnt an easy read. At that time I felt like a nut trapped in a shell. The thing that got me out of that was a young Petancostal women, who explained to me (from scripture) that the "letter killeth but the spirit giveth life" Wether you take that to mean the spirit gives the letter life or me personally, (its seems to have application in both) it helped me to disolve libraries as sources of truth.

A lot of people, and I think Abigail addressed that point, either dont or cant deal with philosphical debates. It confuses them. On to Calvin: Thats precisely my point with his writings: they are annoyingly, persistently adjective laden to the point of never really being direct about the point. People read that stuff, and think "Sounds pretty smart to me, must be right" And this is where I think the Apostle Paul painstakingly said to avoid philosphical arguements so as not to confuse those who dont or cant get through it. In addition the point, is the philosphical disguise. Thats part of the card trick. LMAO

[sky4it]

Abigail:

Wrdsand wrks: see post above for website u requested.

Abigail:

And I probably should preface this by saying I have been apart from my wife for over 2 years and have a little problem with Bible toters who waddle into other peoples houses and take off there pants. No, I am not pointing my finger at the Calvinists, at least not yet. Any doctrine thats ok with that, however is a little to big for my stomach.

you said:Abigail:

I also draw a lot on what I have experienced in life and what others have shared with me about their own experiences. I think if the Bible were the only tool by which we could come to know God (as good a tool as it may be) there would be millions upon millions of people who simply could not ever know God because they never saw the book we call the Bible. Therefore, I have to conclude that there are many paths/tools by which we can come to know Him.

And I agree with that Abigail, but thats Biblical too, sort of a paraphrase of Roman 2: 6-16, While one can make the arguement that in our country were the bible is available that point is moot, (and many Christian and other ministries assert it forcefully) one cannot make that arguement in places where its not allowed. Excellent point.

With regard to your point about love and how I define it, oh I dunno know, I suppose it would take a cup of coffee and a three hour meal to explain myself. With respect to your view of people and what your concept of love is: So your saying that in all your experience your love has grown. Terrific and thats how its suppose to be , I guess. I just hope mine is doing the same.

you said:

Yes, I can see where it would be such. I can also see where it could lead one to despair in thinking they were not chosen of the elect and nothing they could do would ever change that and make them pleasing to God.

Excellent point and one I never considered. You also touch breifly on the Calvin card trick throughout your entire post which is: If some are elect and some are not and thatis the only basis upon which salvation is derived, (and thats what unconditional election is) how can God be just? But like most people who drop the ball squarely on Gods shoulders, thats what they love, it doesn't have to go any further than that. Thus it entirely negates the cross, you know, put to death the deeds of the flesh etc etc. And even if it doesn't, (because Calvinists clearly have some philosphical counter arguements in reverse) at a minimum it cheapens it.

I want your opinion Abigail on one verse of Scripture which in context with Salvation, I have never heard one teaching but I have thought a lot about it over the last 10 years. Its is this verse in Romans 10: 6,7 right before the salvation which says: But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart Who shall ascend into heaven (that is , to bring Christ down) 7) or, who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ from the dead)

Two points this speaks to me (and some others but for brevity sake)

1) the wisdom of God's salvation is not herearchial or about who gets to go where, its is instead about having a living salvation, so when you plug scripture with arguements of who goes where you completey miss the boat.

2) "To bring Christ down" part of those statements. Making arguements about who gets in and who doesnt is done for precisly this reason, they want to bring Christ down. They don't trust the fact that God and Jesus are living entities who make decisions based on things out of there control. And thats the P in TULIP. They want it on a shelf where its safe and out of the Almighties control, and really dont want anything to do with the "living it out salvation" which out to be enjoyed and embraced. Notice Abigail that this scripture talks about what the wisdom of Righteousness, faith and Salvation are. That wisdom, is something that everyone in the world thinks about from time to time when people that arent saved ask why? So what I am saying is, those two scriptures are pretty significant and very deep. Whats your take on those two scriptures?

[Abigail]

Abigail:

And I probably should preface this by saying I have been apart from my wife for over 2 years and have a little problem with Bible toters who waddle into other peoples houses and take off there pants. No, I am not pointing my finger at the Calvinists, at least not yet. Any doctrine thats ok with that, however is a little to big for my stomach.

I am sorry to hear about our wife, Sky. Such separations are very painful.

SNIP

And I agree with that Abigail, but thats Biblical too, sort of a paraphrase of Roman 2: 6-16, While one can make the arguement that in our country were the bible is available that point is moot, (and many Christian and other ministries assert it forcefully) one cannot make that arguement in places where its not allowed. Excellent point.

One can make many arguments, but that doesn't mean they are correct! LOL LOL

With regard to your point about love and how I define it, oh I dunno know, I suppose it would take a cup of coffee and a three hour meal to explain myself. With respect to your view of people and what your concept of love is: So your saying that in all your experience your love has grown. Terrific and thats how its suppose to be , I guess. I just hope mine is doing the same.

Grown? I don't know - it has changed, for sure. One thing, I think VPW MAY have said in PFAL (though my memory could be fuzzy) or someone once said to me anyway, that I really hold to . . . I think of all the things God has forgiven ME for (or at least I sure like to believe he has :) ) and I figure it is not my place to assume he wouldn't forgive others for what they have done.

Another way I look at it - The Sanheidren were the judges of Israel. They didn't have a jury, instead there were 24 (I may be off on the number) judges who presided over a trial. Both sides presented their case for guilt and innocense. The judges divided into two groups, based on whether they thought the person was guilty or innocent. They debated back and forth and eventually voted on the issue. However, if ALL of the judges thought the person was guilty, if there was not a single judge who believed the person had some redeeming quality that merited an argument for a defense, then the person had to be found innocent. The reasoning behind this was the notion that every person has at least one redeeming quality and if not even a single judge could find a single redeeming quality, then the panel was too biased to make an honest and fair ruling.

you said:

Yes, I can see where it would be such. I can also see where it could lead one to despair in thinking they were not chosen of the elect and nothing they could do would ever change that and make them pleasing to God.

SNIP

I want your opinion Abigail on one verse of Scripture which in context with Salvation, I have never heard one teaching but I have thought a lot about it over the last 10 years. Its is this verse in Romans 10: 6,7 right before the salvation which says: But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart Who shall ascend into heaven (that is , to bring Christ down) 7) or, who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ from the dead)

Two points this speaks to me (and some others but for brevity sake)

Ha! For as much as I enjoy participating in the discussions down here, I flinch a bit when someone asks specifically for my opinion. :) But I will dust off my NT and give it a peak.

Okay all dusted off and ironically, I went back to the OT for understanding. :) See, on the surface and with no real background information, it would read to me that Paul was saying we should not judge in our hearts the "standing" of another person. We should not speculate on or form an opinion as to whether another person was 'bound for heaven or hell'. That is what those verses appear to say on the surface to me, and honestly I do believe we should not do those things because I am not God to know the heart of another man so intimatly as to be able to make such a judgment.

But if one goes back to Deut 30, from which Paul was paraphrasing when he said those things, then add in the overall context of that section of Romans, and consider what Jesus so often preached about (enough yet?), then I would have to go back a bit further for context and say

. . .

Paul starts off by talking about how Israel pursued a law of righteousness, but not by faith, and instead by works (which is one of the big things Jesus spoke out against. The laws were being performed out of fear and legalism and not out of any kind of understanding or love for God and each other.

He goes on to say Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes (Now my own take on this is that the laws didn't really end - at least not all of them, because even Paul at times speaks of things one should and should not do, i.e. rules/laws. Rather, and again, my understanding when I put all of this together is that there has to be MORE than just doing or not doing because of fear and legalism. There has to be heart, understanding, a belief in and trust in God's righteousness and justice, etc. In fact, that is a large part of Yom Kippur and the weeks leading up to it - spending some time getting honest with God about what you have done wrong, spending time trying to right those wrongs, going to God for forgiveness - again, not out of fear, but because you trust God with your heart and you trust HIS mercy, justice, righteousness, etc. etc.)

Paul then paraphrases Moses by saying the man who does these things will live by them. (Again the context of what Moses said and what Paul paraphrased was God telling Israel not to do as the Egyptians did and not to do as they do in the land of Canaan, but instead follow God's laws for in doing so you will live by them - i.e. have life because of doing them).

THEN Paul gets to the verses you mentioned.

"But the righteousness that is by faith says The word is near you, it is in your mouth and it is in your heart."

The parentheticals about bringing Christ down and rising Christ up is stated in this manner in Deut "For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away. It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"

Paul is telling us that what God is asking of us is not beyond our reach because "the word is very near you: it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it (Deut 30:14 - this section in Deut is the one that talks about seeting before you life and death, blessings and cursings, btw).

Then Paul goes into Rom 10: 9 & 10, which I will forego getting into right now. :)

So in the end, Paul is saying that fear and legalism isn't the way to go, instead the way to go is faith and faith isn't difficult because God has written His word in your heart. Of course, this world we live in tends to want to pull us off into the ways of Egypt and Canaan. Wants to confound and confuse us, no doubt about that! That is the chaos that is still being reorganized back into order. But again, that is probably for another time. :)

Edited August 24, 2007 by Abigail

[sky4it]

Abigail:

Thank you, I needed that. You have helped me in more ways than I can explain.

I have two friends, (good freinds but I havent spoken to them in a while) both who are Jewish. Sometime, I think you would find those stories interesting.

Off topic, but here I go. I here this song on the radio, as I flip between rock, and gospel music on the gospel radio. It's called "Remember me" and I dont know the author. Everytime, or every other time, it brings some tears to my eyes. I read John or Mathew and see a lonely man, who wether weeks or the night before tells his disciples. "Remember Me", and try as I might, I cant get it out of my mind. For me, I identify with that for one reason. I see a man, who thought he would be forgotten. I see man who thought his life may have no purpose. In that, I see myself, because if I died tommorow, the attendance would be marginal, and I wonder what is my purpose? Still, I see a man who before death and wondering if anyone would remember him, loved me. And even if I wanted to, a I cant deny such love for one reason: his reassurance wasnt any greater than mine if he thought they would forget him. In that somehow, i dont fear death or anything related that comes my way.

You know Abigail, you really are, too nice too special. Some people are really evil in this world. There are people in this world that are so evil, that they make guys like VPW look like a picnic waitress for them. Some are that bad.

[wrdsandwrks]

Recently I spent some time researching John Calvin and what todays Calvinists actually beleive.

Reading this stuff I think it is probably one of the most dangerous promiscuous doctrines ever invented.

You could easily envision people who dont have any moral fortitude doing any thing they want , because the are totally unable.

The end result of course is once you have your salvation you can never lose it. This is always a key component to any group that doesnt want the members to feel they need to put some salt in it, and also a common doctrine which is flouted with those who are cults. Real religion or service never needs it because one is secure in God's love.

Anyway, its my view this doctrine is worse than that which Catholics disgarded years ago, namely selling indulgences. At least with indulgences you had to pay something for your deeds. This stuff has to be the most cultic doctrine I think I have ever seen.

comments?

Sky, thinking about the original question, "Is Calvinism a cult?", my opinion would be no. (Of course I'm still not sure what the definition of a cult is.) But Calvinism is a mainstream Christian belief system, with many adherents, both in the past and present, who have contributed/are contributing to the body of Christ in many different positive ways.

One thing to consider is that Calvinism is not a monlithic, one-size fits all belief system, under one leader. There are various incarnations of Calvinism, various churches that consider themselves Calvinistic, with many different voices to represent it.

You say that "You could easily envision people who dont have any moral fortitude doing any thing they want". Do you have any examples of this? In the little that I've observed about Calvinism, if there's any going overboard with it, it would be on the side of fatalism, not license.

I'm not promoting Calvinism, I just don't think it's a cult.

[Abigail]

Off topic, but here I go. I here this song on the radio, as I flip between rock, and gospel music on the gospel radio. It's called "Remember me" and I dont know the author. Everytime, or every other time, it brings some tears to my eyes. I read John or Mathew and see a lonely man, who wether weeks or the night before tells his disciples. "Remember Me", and try as I might, I cant get it out of my mind. For me, I identify with that for one reason. I see a man, who thought he would be forgotten. I see man who thought his life may have no purpose. In that, I see myself, because if I died tommorow, the attendance would be marginal, and I wonder what is my purpose? Still, I see a man who before death and wondering if anyone would remember him, loved me. And even if I wanted to, a I cant deny such love for one reason: his reassurance wasnt any greater than mine if he thought they would forget him. In that somehow, i dont fear death or anything related that comes my way.

Awe Sky, you always have us basement dwellers. :)

I think most people at times wonder about the purpose and meaning of their lives. But, in reading the above paragraph, it also occurs to me, is it the NUMBER of people who remember you that counts or the impact you had on their lives that is the most important?

In a sense, we are all connected. You could do something today, it may even be a small thing, that will change someone else's life. Again, maybe just in a small way. Maybe they will leave five minutes later than they planned, who knows what it could be. As a result, that person will do something different and it will impact someone else's life, etc. etc. Before you know it some guy on the other side of the planet is doing something, maybe even something big, because you indirectly influenced their life by a small decision you made today.

I know, in a sense it sounds far fetched I suppose. Yet, I do believe we are all connected in one way or another, I do believe we impact things far more than we are often aware. That is one of the reasons why what we do does matter.

Edited August 24, 2007 by Abigail

[sky4it]

wrdsandwrks:

It's not like it makes any difference what I think, but its fun discussing the topic with you.

Jahovas Witness isnt mainstream, but it has many members and mainstream considers them a cult.

Mormonism isnt mainstream, but it has many members and mainstream considers them a cult.

To be Mainstream, about all you need is to accept two creeds and the trinity (which I do by the way) and your in.

Calvinism is a whole different shoe than Mainstream and it works something like this:

Imagine this situation playing out in a courtroom between a judge and a Calvinist:

Judge: you understand the charges against you how do you plead? Calvinist : Your honor I plead

Total Depravity because I am Totally Unable to help my depravity Judge: Come again? Calvinist: Theres some good news though your honor, sometime ( and I dont know when) my Unconditional Election will kick in and make me just right Judge: you are kidding right? Calvinist: No, your honor

The Sovereign Ones Irresistable Grace and Saving Faith do the job for me. Judge: Well in that case, case dismissed.

There isnt a judge on the planet that will accept that and yet the Almighty God and Jesus are suppose to at judgement? This isnt a misreprentation of the underpinnings of "the program" either wrdsandwrks, this is the ideological underpinnings.

I think its UnAmerican. I respectfully disagree with you, I think it is a Cult.

[Imagine]

Besides TULIP

There's

GGG

in the catechism

Guilt

Grace

Gratitude

A Calvinist does good things not for merit with God but out of gratitude for what God has done for him.

Now how is that like a cult? hmmm :)

[sky4it]

Imagine:

I suppose if one ran out of bounds with the TU in the Tulip one would have some guilt then huh?

What do the GGG actually mean then, that for whatever the offense there is grace? Because you can't have guilt without offense can you?

I think the topic of grace for guilt (if you mean sin produced the guilt) was abundantly discussed by Paul and narrowed to one conclusive point which was: What shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God Forbid. (Romans etc etc)

Does God want gratitude from a willing sinner? ( I speak only if you mean sin caused the guilt) Well thats pretty clear in this passage: Hebrews 10:26 "For if we sin willfully after that we have recieved a knowledge of the truth there remainth no more sacrifice for sins" and the punishment for the "willful person" Hebrews 10:29 YOU WANT TO SEE HOW BARBARIC CALVINISTIC THOUGHT IS?

They dont like that one, it takes the steering wheel out of there car. So what do they do? They say man doesnt have a free will on the topic. They degrade "the will" to degrade the message of the bible.

But it aint just Hebrews Imagine, that gets it right. Ephesians 5:5 "For this you know (well a Calvinist obviously doesn't know because they dont have to do it right? And thats exactly what they want to say on judgement day and the card trick won't work), that NO WHOREMONGER, NOR UNCLEAN PERSON, NOR COVETOUS MAN WHICH IS AN IDOLATER, HATH ANY INHERITANCE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND CHRIST" Same message I quoted from acts with one more amazing fact, whoremongers and idolaters are "unclean" in NT parameters. Its all over in Pauls writings too. Only two places I know where it tells people what God's will is in NT are very specific which are: I Thess. 4:3 "this is the will of God your SANTIFICATION, that you should abstain from FORNICATION, and I Thess 5:18 "In everything give thanks for this is the will of God..." thankfullness is a good antidote for covetousness.

So i suppose Imagine this makes me a legalist right? Well , I already addressed that in this thread. There is nothing legalistic about those two New Testament concepts unless someone dont want to do them.

I said it once before under this thread. Call this what it is a spade, a spade. This is a fornicators dream doctrine. They might as well put on the negligee's of there hookers or there affair laiden women, on those clothes, the words John Calvin. Somebody's gotta get up pretty early in the morning to fool an alley cat like me. Thats what this stuff is.

Edited August 24, 2007 by sky4it

[RainbowsGirl]

I Have nothing doctrinally to add to this thread. I am here to say that I truly appreciate and thank all of you for your individual and collective contributions within it. I am learning and broadening my understanding of things I have be thinking about and studying. I have always enjoyed reading the doctrinal threads and now my appreciation has deepened with this thread.

Sky4it, Polar Bear suggested that I read more of the things you have in the archives posted and I will. I appreciate the way you present your information and the compliments you bestowed on Abi are certainly true, and might well apply to all of You here within this thread.

Thank You All again, RG

[sky4it]

Rainbow Girl:

thank you from the bottom of my heart, and your right, conversation always remains civil here. Where else on the planet can you talk to people of multi- different faiths, have a few athiests too and have everybody get along.

thanks

[wrdsandwrks]

I said it once before under this thread. Call this what it is a spade, a spade. This is a fornicators dream doctrine. They might as well put on the negligee's of there hookers or there affair laiden women, on those clothes, the words John Calvin. Somebody's gotta get up pretty early in the morning to fool an alley cat like me. Thats what this stuff is.

Hi Sky, I hear what you're saying here, it's just that in my experience I haven't seen the Calvinistic doctrine play out this way, in other words I haven't heard of any Presbyterians running around saying that you can sleep around... Have you? The Puritans were Calvinists and they were pretty strait-laced, if anything tending more to legalism than license.

[wrdsandwrks]

wrdsandwrks:

It's not like it makes any difference what I think, but its fun discussing the topic with you.

I agree

Jahovas Witness isnt mainstream, but it has many members and mainstream considers them a cult.

Mormonism isnt mainstream, but it has many members and mainstream considers them a cult.

To be Mainstream, about all you need is to accept two creeds and the trinity (which I do by the way) and your in.

Calvinism is a whole different shoe than Mainstream..

I think its UnAmerican. I respectfully disagree with you, I think it is a Cult.

I respect your opinion, and appreciate the opportunity to discuss it. I think part of the problem is we have no objective definition of a cult.

I was thinking about it this morning and I came up with this, again, my own subjective opinion on this and I don't expect you to change your opinion.

My eight-year old daughter has friends of many different faiths, Baptists, Presbyterians, Jewish, Mormans, non churchgoers etc. Sometimes she'll have sleepovers on Sat. nights and ask if her friends can come to church with us (we go to a Four-square Gospel church) and sometimes she'll be at friend's house and they'll ask if she can go to church with them.

I have no problem with her going to a Baptist or Presbyterian kids church service, Awana, VBS, etc. in fact she's been to both of them. Now I don't agree with all the Baptist's teach, or the Presbyterian's teach but I don't have a problem with her going there. I guess we have enough common ground there and I don't want her to be exclusive about her beliefs. She hasn't been asked to a synagogue service, but I'd be happy to let her go. But if her Mormon friend invited her, or if she had a Jehovah's Witness friend I don't think that I in good conscience would allow her to attend. Spiritually, I don't think it would be the right place for her to be.

[cman]

Any type of doctrine can go bad quite easily.

Problem is whether it goes bad or not, people are usually stuck in one way of thinking.

Using the saying of Jesus-I am the Way.

Or any scripture that captivates the mind and and holds it hostage.

When the way is not clear. Others say here is Christ or there is Christ.

Just look at how many people posted on who they like to hear teach.

Not that that is bad in itself.

But why not break the mold, the limits and hear other ideas.

And really consider them.

Jesus was never held to any doctrine, in fact he went against so much of it they killed him.

Leaving us an example to follow, letting yourselves die, the doctrines being put out of the way.

To see that there is some good in all doctrines and just a stepping stone to be released into true spiritual life and living.

Not held back by words, but reaching for them as the spirit gives the utterance.

[sky4it]

wrdsandwrks,cman, abigail:

Abigail: see next post

Cman: Enjoyed your post thanks

Wrdsandwrks:

you said:

Hi Sky, I hear what you're saying here, it's just that in my experience I haven't seen the Calvinistic doctrine play out this way, in other words I haven't heard of any Presbyterians running around saying that you can sleep around... Have you?

Your right, I dont have a myopic view of Calvanist or any other organization and what can happen in there bedroom etc al. Its true also of course that any organization can have a breakdown in one place, so finding a breakdown in one Calvinist church may also not be fair. This has happened in a Lutheran Church and other ones in my own community. I certainly hope your right as far as the Puritan concepts rooted deep in these people. It's just I think the doctrine is very symptomatic.

I had an opportunity to look over some of Pink's work on the Soveriegnty of God. Nothing there at all changes my mind. I could sit and quote from that book and say why, but after a while it just starts to look a little distasteful, rehasing the same arguement ( Now I suppose I could sum up in a couple of sentences, but I think that would be going to far)

I was thinking of a scripture which talks about stating your opinion a couple times. I graped that one once and some proverbs that relate and began some years ago to apply that to ordinary life and business dealings. For example, on just about any topic, if I start rehashing the same argument , I find I just start looking like a brute force and at a minimum, distasteful.

Not unlike TWI for most people in this room, I had a 4-5 year journey in an Independent Assembly church where the roof came off and the church collapsed. I see a value in that for people in this room and my own experience for one big reason: We all jumped out of where we were, because we wanted something better. I think that in that, GOD will reward us for a good reason, we were seekers. The thing I like about that wrdsandwrks, is that if people like you and I did and others in this room did that, that shows me one big thing. That seeking God is a criteria for all people in order that they might find. True the journey for both you and I and those in this room has been perilous and costly. The skinny is for me, if people want the truth all they have to do is seek , just seeking God and Jesus who are in heaven gets the job done. Thus, its not my job or responsibility to correct others except out of love and showing what my beliefs are and where my faith is as opportunity allows here at Greasespot. Therefore, I cant get bent over others doctrines and man is that a good feeling.

Edited August 24, 2007 by sky4it

[sky4it]

Abigail:

wrdswrks, cman see above post

you said:

Awe Sky, you always have us basement dwellers.

I think most people at times wonder about the purpose and meaning of their lives. But, in reading the above paragraph, it also occurs to me, is it the NUMBER of people who remember you that counts or the impact you had on their lives that is the most important?

And I am right on board with you on that Abigail, 100 percent. I especially love the part about us "basement dwellers." I have taken that to new extremes in recent years, and continually tell myself that the view from here is better because its a clear shot at whats happening up at the top> LOL

As far as number of people go? yeah i agree it is unimportant, quality conversation (like here at GS) vs quantity is better. It makes me think back to my Evangelical/Assemblies days when all the rumbling was about getting big big and bigger. The more people involved the more you are suppose to measure your success? I think too thats rubbish. When many people in all the worlds biggest trumpet is to be a STAR because that is the measurement of success? yeah I think thats wrong. Problem is thats the stuff if you know too many people are always trying to feed to you. I think we become what we eat. Thats why I think the Bible cautions to a limited degree about eating with covetous people, those things they are wanting become infectious. Perhaps that relates somewhat to the covetous issue of this thread, which one can make an arguement if any churches only view of success is the population of its church, thats wrong. There is a problem with that though, not with just churches but in ordinary life, thats what most people are striving for big big and bigger. I think thats why God is God, I mean if somebody had something to say that is that important, God will get that message out. ( Does that mean I have nothing to offer? Ooops I shouldnt have said that)

Edited August 24, 2007 by sky4it

[cman]

sky4it, you have plenty to offer....

[Abigail]

Sky are you familiar with the song "High School Never Ends"? If not, I'll ask Sushi if he can find a link to it.

Popularity comes with a high price, the selling out of yourself. I'd rather have a funeral with a very small grup of people who knew me well and loved me well than a large gathering of aquaintences who didn't reallhy know me and are only there because they figure there is something in it for them.

You are doing just fine, Sky and I enjoy your words here.

[anotherDan]

Marvelous discussion, and too much to comment on... you guys have really been posting up a storm, and I'm delighted in all of you. Partly, I must admit, I'm over my head. I'm tackling some doctrinal issues that are more basic than predestination/free-will, election/decision. Once someone quoted Spurgeon, I felt in myself, "yes," I can go with that, at least for now. Of course the discussion has veered in a good way to encompass other vital interests in our lives, and again, I'm so delighted to see the discussion being fruitful in various ways.

I would like to comment on one of the things that cman said about Jesus, who he said, "was never held to a doctrine" and "letting yourselves die" (as he did), "the doctrines being put out of the way." I do not see Jesus not being held to a doctrine. He confronted those who taught as doctrine the commandments of men, but held to the commandment of God (John 15:1ff) and he didn't come to destroy the Law, but to establish it. I have two books on my shelf with the same exact title, The Gospel According to Jesus. One is by John MacArthur, the other by a zen guy (can't think of his name) who shows throughout the NT how Jesus was in tune with all the great voices of God throughout the eons. One is left and the other is right. The Jesus I see is not somewhere in the middle, but transcends both their paradigms of him.

Jesus Christ is the key to all of this. One good look at the cross, and so many things fade into insignificance. As the heart begins to comprehend the onlybegotten Son of God, His beloved Son, giving up all his glory, all his rights, his very life "for the joy that was set before him," suddenly even God Himself-- His ways and His love, are brought home to us. Jesus was the Word itself, the doctrine and the Law and quite surely the songs of Israel, the Psalms. This may be akin to what cman was saying, but I didn't read it that way.

Where I think these great issues come to have meaning is where Spurgeon so often dwelt, at the foot of the cross. Those were my nails that held him to the cross, that was my crown of thorns upon his head. Those were my stripes laid upon his back. He turned not his face from spitting and contempt. He was despised of men and they concluded that God hated him. They mocked him in his pain and reveled in their hearts about their "victory" over him, but they never did really take his life, he was giving it freely for them -- even them! And even me. "Father, forgive them...."

I cannot hammer out the intersection of Spurgeon's "two lines," but I can see Jesus, where those two lines crossed, where both the goodness and severity of God intersected at the crossroads of all time. Yes, sky, JUST LIKE YOU, he did not have a chance in hell that he would be remembered... but he had a chance in heaven. His funeral was very poorly attended, though a few loved him immensely. Just a few? But he had fed THOUSANDS! There were times when crowds of people followed him "and he healed THEM ALL." Josephus took little note, Caesar took little note, but his followers became filled with the spirit that he promised them -- "I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you." Christ himself was raised from the dead, and lives today for one reason only, he was subject unto God. He did not put away doctrine; far from it. He was the doctrine in blood red, black and blue, and all the colors of the rainbow.

Edited August 24, 2007 by anotherDan

[cman]

he didn't come to destroy the Law, but to establish it

not quite the way it's worded

he didn't establish it

he fulfilled it by breaking it

6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Not to do away with the law, for we all have our own laws to fulfill. And break into new understanding.