Are Calvinists the Only True Christians?

[Seabass]

It sounds like your saying calvinist are not part of the "real" Church. Is that what you are saying?

That is exactly what I believe and the valid biblical, logical reason I believe this:----there is ONE faith, so the difference in what Calvinism says how one is saved is not what I believe or see that the bible teaches therefore one of us must be wrong on the issue of salvation, both cannot be logically, biblically right....someone HAS to be wrong. Yet if I thought both of us are somehow right and both teach truth, then I am going against both sound logic and the bible. If this were all Christianity was truly about (truth in contradiction), then I would waste no more of my time with it.

Man, not God, created all the various religious denominations.
Man, not God, created all the various religious/doctrinal contradictions.

I will never go along with any contradictions for that would be taking a stand against God. Yet all these man made organizations that created all the contradictions get upset with me because I am not tolerant, will not compromise and go along with all the contradictions they have created. Yet this is their problem not mine. I sense from some of your posts it upsets you that I will not go along with all the man made doctrines that contradict each other.

Look at this way, if I accept the idea that Christians can be found in all these various denominational groups, then I might as well throw my bible away for I will not be following it and its infallible, inspired teachings and doctrines but instead I will be following man made fallible, uninspired worthless contradictions.

For example, if I accept Mormons as Christians, then I am accepting Mormon doctrine as true and Smith was a real inspired man of God... which I do not believe.
If I accept Catholics as Christians, then I am accepting that Christianity is headed by a Pope....which I do not believe.
If I accept Baptists as Christians then I am accepting water baptism is not important, accepting OSAS, accepting original sin, etc..... which I do not believe.

If you cannot see the biblical logical problem in accepting all these denominations as Christian then YOU have a very big biblical, logcial problem and it is YOUR problem not mine. If it upsets you that I will not throw my bible away and go along with all these man made contradictions, again, that is YOUR problem not mine. You cannot accept these man made contradictions and the bible at the same time...impossible. If you accept the idea that Christians can be found in all these denominational groups then you are are rejecting the bible for man made contradictions.

Simple question: do you believe Christianity is headquartered in Rome and has a Pope as it's head?

 

[billybalke]

That is exactly what I believe and the valid biblical, logical reason I believe this:----there is ONE faith, so the difference in what Calvinism says how one is saved is not what I believe or see that the bible teaches therefore one of us must be wrong on the issue of salvation, both cannot be logically, biblically right....someone HAS to be wrong. Yet if I thought both of us are somehow right and both teach truth, then I am going against both sound logic and the bible. If this were all Christianity was truly about (truth in contradiction), then I would waste no more of my time with it.

Man, not God, created all the various religious denominations.
Man, not God, created all the various religious/doctrinal contradictions.

I will never go along with any contradictions for that would be taking a stand against God. Yet all these man made organizations that created all the contradictions get upset with me because I am not tolerant, will not compromise and go along with all the contradictions they have created. Yet this is their problem not mine. I sense from some of your posts it upsets you that I will not go along with all the man made doctrines that contradict each other.

Look at this way, if I accept the idea that Christians can be found in all these various denominational groups, then I might as well throw my bible away for I will not be following it and its infallible, inspired teachings and doctrines but instead I will be following man made fallible, uninspired worthless contradictions.

For example, if I accept Mormons as Christians, then I am accepting Mormon doctrine as true and Smith was a real inspired man of God... which I do not believe.
If I accept Catholics as Christians, then I am accepting that Christianity is headed by a Pope....which I do not believe.
If I accept Baptists as Christians then I am accepting water baptism is not important, accepting OSAS, accepting original sin, etc..... which I do not believe.

If you cannot see the biblical logical problem in accepting all these denominations as Christian then YOU have a very big biblical, logcial problem and it is YOUR problem not mine. If it upsets you that I will not throw my bible away and go along with all these man made contradictions, again, that is YOUR problem not mine. You cannot accept these man made contradictions and the bible at the same time...impossible. If you accept the idea that Christians can be found in all these denominational groups then you are are rejecting the bible for man made contradictions.

Simple question: do you believe Christianity is headquartered in Rome and has a Pope as it's head?

Amen and Amen!

 

[Cygnus]

I am not a member of any denomination.

The the denomination you belong to is...Nondenominational.

Never heard of Jacob Arminius.
Never heard of Pelagius.

If you want to critize Calvin....then I suggest you find out who those people are. The theology you believe in is for the most part based upon their beliefs.

Charles Russell and Rutherford founded what is know today as the Jehovah's Witnesses. I am now engaged with a JW in my home. Hope to see him become a Christian.

Maybe I should have said Joseph Smith or the theologian Emanuel Swedenborg.

 

[Cygnus]

That is exactly what I believe and the valid biblical, logical reason I believe this:----there is ONE faith, so the difference in what Calvinism says how one is saved is not what I believe or see that the bible teaches therefore one of us must be wrong on the issue of salvation, both cannot be logically, biblically right....someone HAS to be wrong. Yet if I thought both of us are somehow right and both teach truth, then I am going against both sound logic and the bible. If this were all Christianity was truly about (truth in contradiction), then I would waste no more of my time with it.

Got it. Thak you....who ever disagree's with your interpretation of salvation.....is not saved.

Perhaps we should ask if Seabassism is a cult rather than Calvinism.

 

[billybalke]

The the denomination you belong to is...Nondenominational.

If you want to critize Calvin....then I suggest you find out who those people are. The theology you believe in is for the most part based upon their beliefs.


Maybe I should have said Joseph Smith or the theologian Emanuel Swedenborg.

The term "non-denominational" is not found in scripture.
What "theology" do you think I "believe in" is Calvinistic?
In my understanding Joseph Smith is a false teacher of the lowest grade.
Jesus I know, but who is Emanuel Swedenborg?

 

[Gregg T]

You said:

Wrong. DEAD wrong.
Remember your dead in your sins and trespasses. You can't even come close to being obedient.
Regeneration MUST happen first. You must be born again.

Then I asked:
'Are your children obedient to your will? Do they respect your will and obey you?'

The answer to the above is yes and no. Why do you ask?

If children can be obedient to their parents, or an adult to authorities, then surely an adult can be obedient to God. Obedience does not require regeneration, nor does faith require regeneration.

You have the process backwards. It is an act of obedience to believe in the Lord: John 3:36 "The one believing into the Son has everlasting life; but the one disobeying the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."

Rom 6:17 "But thanks be to God that you were slaves of sin, but you obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine to which you were delivered."

We have a choice of whom to obey, obedience to God's and His Spirit leads the individual to believe into Christ, which leads to righteousness: Rom 6:16 "Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves to whom you obey, whether of sin to death, or obedience to righteousness?"

Obedience and believing lead to righteousness and regeneration.

 

[Cygnus]

Then I asked:
'Are your children obedient to your will? Do they respect your will and obey you?'

I don;t think our relationship with our kids is like our relationship with God. In someways perhaps...but not in the way you just seemed to suggest.

You have the process backwards. It is an act of obedience to believe in the Lord: John 3:36 "The one believing into the Son has everlasting life; but the one disobeying the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."

I've never had that backwards.
God commanded it...gave me the ability to believe...and now I believe.
I had no choice in the matter.

 

[Seabass]

The thief is an excellent point and case. Saved with no water.

The thief argument is not logical or biblical base on the facts:

1) it ASSUMED the thief was NEVER baptized, yet for all we know he could have been of those in Mark 1:5 that was baptized becoming a disciple but later fell into a life of crime. So the thief argument is not logical factual biblical for it solely based upon an ASSUMPTION and nothing more.

2) the NT gospel was not even in effect at the time Christ promised the thief paradise, (Hebrews 9:16-17) so the thief logical, factually biblically is not a NT gospel example of salvation for us today but he was saved under the OT law while it was still in effect.

3) to go along with #2, the thief cannot be an example of NT gospel salvation for NT gospel salvation requires one believe God "hath raised" (past tense) Christ from the dead (Romans 10:9) and NT baptism requires one be baptized into the death of Christ (Romans 6:3-5). Yet at the time Christ promised the thief paradise Christ had not yet died, much less been raised from the dead, making these two NT requirements impossible for the thief. Yet again, the NT gospel was not in effect therefore the thief was not accountable to Rom 6:3-5; Romans 10:9 or Acts 2:38 as we today are who are under the NT gospel.

4) Lastly, But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house." When Christ was ON EARTH He had the authority/power to forgive sins as He did with the thief. Yet Christ left earth some 2000 years ago, so He is not on earth personally forgiveing men of their sins as he did with the thief, so no one can logically, factually claim they are saved as the thief. When Christ left earth He left behind His NT as His authority on earth and it requires one believe (John 8:24) repent (Luke 13:3) confess (Mathew 10:32-33) and be baptized (Mark 16;16)

Here are some logical biblical fact presented about the thief. The anti-water baptism crowd can deny the facts the bible gives, but simple denial proves nothing nor does their ASSUMPTIONS made about the thief prove anything.

Others in the book of Acts are saved....THEN baptized.

Not a single example of one saved then baptized. The first record we have in Acts 2 Peter put repentance and Baptism BEFORE remission of sins, not after. ANd since we learn from the 'get go' in Acts that the purpseo f water baptism is for the remission of sins, then this is true in all examples in Acts with baptism BEFORE remission of sins.

Several verses in the bible present salvation with out even mentioning baptism. Romans 10:13 is an example with for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Even the famous John 3:16 doesn't mention water baptism.
If baptism was a requirement then it would have been mentioned along side of those verses. But it's not.

This is an old argument but not a logical, biblical argument. Just because baptism is not specifically mentioned in every salvific verse does not prove it is unnecessary to being saved. "Grace" or the "blood of Christ" is not specifically mentioned in every salvific verse, then does that "logically" mean they are not necessary to being saved?

But lets say it was a requirement. For the sake of the argument,.
We all know we can enter into heaven because of Jesus' righteousness being added to us. Jesus demonstrated His righteousness all through out the Gospels. The works that get us into heaven are Jesus' works...not ours. Jesus did for us what we can't do for ourselves. In fact if you want to argue that water baptism is a requirement..Jesus even did that for us fullfilling that requirement in our place just as Jesus died on the cross in out place.

So, to be honest....I wish you would give up on the water baptism requirement and discuss something else. It's getting old, boring and repetitive.
Thank you.

Jesus' righteousness is not transferred to the sinner while the sinner sits and does nothing. Yet the bible teaches the sinner must have an obedient faith in submitting to water baptism where there he is baptized into Christ being then clothed in Christ (Galatians 3:27). Once "IN CHRIST" one is covered by Christ's perfect righteousness and seen by God thru that perfect righteousness. Do a search on the phrase "IN CHRIST" at the number of times it appears in the bible and how one must be IN CHRIST to be saved and not Christ's righteousness being transferred to the sinner.

Another common invalid argument I have seen made against the necessity of water baptism is this>>Water baptism is a work and if one does a work he is trying to earn his salvation.

This is invalid for it is something of a straw man argument in defining baptism in a way the bible does not. The bible does not define baptism as a work man does, yet man passively submits himself to water baptism where God does the work of cutting away the body of sin (Colossians 2:11-12). Much like you would submit yourself to the barber where HE does the work of cutting your hair. Yet the work done by God (and the barber) does not take place until you obediently submit yourself to God.

Furthermore this 'argument' against water baptism denies the simple everyday facts that free gifts come with conditions and just meeting the condition does not in anyway earn the gift. Naaman obediently dipped in the Jordan river 7 times and healed by grace but he did not earn tht grace/healing. Likewise when one believes, repents, confesses and submits to baptism is meeting conditions upon a free gift and is not canot be earning the free gift of salvation.

 

[Seabass]

Got it. Thak you....who ever disagree's with your interpretation of salvation.....is not saved.

Perhaps we should ask if Seabassism is a cult rather than Calvinism.

So your argument against me is that since I do not go along with a lot of illogical contradicting interpretations then I am wrong.

I see from your posts you do not know how to deal with all the contradicting interpretations so you go after me for not going along with them as you do.

For the record, if my "interpretation" is wrong, then I WILL BE LOST.
But I can know with certainty I will be lost if totally reject the bible to go along with all the man made contradictions.
So far you have failed to refute my "interpretation" so I have no reason to give my "interpretation" up.
The "that's just your interpretations" which some people offer up fails, never works.

 

[Gregg T]

Hello everyone! I'm wondering what people here think about Calvinists claiming that Calvinism is the gospel, Arminianism is another gospel, and that Arminianism has another Jesus. Do these kinds of statements deserve to put Calvinism into the category of a cult? What do you think?

Maurice Roberts, on the back-cover of The Potter’s Freedom, by James White, wrote, “In a manner reminiscent of Luther demolishing Erasmus, James White grinds the Semi-Pelagianism of Dr. Geisler to fine powder, not in the spirit of triumphalism, but knowing that all Arminianism is as hostile to the true gospel as it is friendly to a reviving Roman Catholicism.”



The description on the back-cover of The Potter’s Freedom says, “This book is written as a reply to Dr. Geisler, but it is much more: it is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very gospel itself!”



Arthur Custance said, “It is questionable whether a dogmatic theology which is not Calvinistic is truly Christian.”

He also said, “Calvinism is the Gospel and to teach Calvinism is in fact to preach the Gospel.”



Kenneth Talbot and W. Gary Crampton said, “any compromise of Calvinism is a step towards humanism.”



They also said, “The apostolic doctrine was that of Reformed Theology.”



Loraine Boettner said, “There is no consistent stopping place between Calvinism and atheism.”



and, “The doctrine that men are saved only through the unmerited love and grace of God finds its full and honest expression only in the doctrines of Calvinism.”



William Cunningham said, “Calvinism is just the full exposition of and development of the sum and substance of what is represented in Scripture as done for the salvation of sinners by the three persons of the Godhead.”



David Engelsma said, “Calvinism is the Gospel. Its outstanding doctrines are simply the truths that make up the Gospel.”



Charles Spurgeon has said, “It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, nothing else.”



and, “There is no such thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism.”

and, “The longer I live the clearer does it appear that John Calvin’s system is the nearest to perfection.”



Rienk Kuiper said, “It is my firm conviction that the only theology contained in the Bible is the Reformed theology.”



R. K. McGregor Wright said, “Arminianism thought is best understood historically, as a compromise of the Reformation gospel with the humanistic motif of the autonomy of the human consciousness flowing out of the ancient pagan learning that had just been rediscovered in the Renaissance.”



Alexander Leighton said this about Arminianism, “The last and greatest monster of the man of sin; the elixir of Anti-Christianism.”



William MacLean wrote in his book Arminianism: Another Gospel, “Arminianism is the very essence of Popery.” Not potpourri, but Popery, as in the Pope.

He also wrote that Arminianism “appears as the gospel of Christ, but in reality is ‘another gospel.’”



Duane Spencer said that “Arminianism is but a refinement of Pelegianism.”



Grover Gunn said, “Arminianism teaches salvation mostly of grace but not all of grace.”3 If Arminianism teaches a gospel not all of grace, that means they teach a gospel of works, which would mean teach a false gospel and are not real Christians. This would once again make Calvinism the only true form of Christianity.



Edwin Palmer said, “I believe some Arminians may be born-again Christians.” How gracious of Mr. Palmer.



According to Milburn Cockrell, “The Christ of Arminianism is not the Christ of the New Testament.”



He also claims that “Christ and His apostles” were Calvinists!



Joseph Wilson said that “no one has ever been or ever will be saved in the way taught by Arminianism.”

So after reading those quotes by prominent Reformed Theologians, what do you think? Is that an extreme cult-like form of Calvinism, or normal "orthodox" Calvinism? If you don't think those beliefs make Calvinism a cult, why not? Thanks!

Calvinism is not the Gospel, and in response to the forum title, I wonder if Calvinists are Christians. Some are I am sure, but I have reservations regarding the leaders aggressively pushing the movement, covertly [http://founders.org/2017/03/22/churches-get-a-calvinist-pastor/] and outwardly.

I've been approached by Calvinists whose first words are 'Have you heard of the reformed movement?' Or 'Do you know what the reformation is?' This as opposed to, 'Have you heard the Gospel.' or 'Do you know the Lord?'

If a non-christian asked a Calvinist these questions:

• Am I able to believe in the Lord?
• Is it God's will for me to believe in Christ?
• Does God love me qualitatively in the same way as He loves you?
• Did Christ die for my sins?

their answers would have to be 'I do not know.' That is if they truly hold to the tenants of Calvinism.

So are Calvinist promoting the Gospel of Christ? I think not.

 

[dirtfarmer]

The term "non-denominational" is not found in scripture.
What "theology" do you think I "believe in" is Calvinistic?
In my understanding Joseph Smith is a false teacher of the lowest grade.
Jesus I know, but who is Emanuel Swedenborg?

hello billybalke & Seabass, dirtfarmer here

Is it your belief that Alexander Campbell re-established the buildings that have a "sign out front" with these words or something similiar: " The Church of Christ meets here"?

 

[Seabass]

Got it. Thak you....who ever disagree's with your interpretation of salvation.....is not saved.

Perhaps we should ask if Seabassism is a cult rather than Calvinism.

Simple question: do you believe Christianity is headquartered in Rome and has a Pope as it's head?

 

[Seabass]

hello billybalke & Seabass, dirtfarmer here

Is it your belief that Alexander Campbell re-established the buildings that have a "sign out front" with these words or something similiar: " The Church of Christ meets here"?

The church of Christ existed in America before Campbell ever came here. Campbell was involved in that era commonly known as a "Restoration Movement" in trying to restore bible truths of the one church to men in getting men away from denominationlism. Tons of false information out there about this time period and what these men were trying to do.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/822-alexander-campbell-and-christs-church

 

[billybalke]

The church of Christ existed in America before Campbell ever came here. Campbell was involved in that era commonly known as a "Restoration Movement" in trying to restore bible truths of the one church to men in getting men away from denominationlism. Tons of false information out there about this time period and what these men were trying to do.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/822-alexander-campbell-and-christs-church

ditto

 

[dirtfarmer]

The church of Christ existed in America before Campbell ever came here. Campbell was involved in that era commonly known as a "Restoration Movement" in trying to restore bible truths of the one church to men in getting men away from denominationlism. Tons of false information out there about this time period and what these men were trying to do.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/822-alexander-campbell-and-christs-church

hello Seabass, dirtfarmer here

Thanks

 

[dirtfarmer]

ditto

hello billybalke, dirtfarmer here

Thanks

 

[Gregg T]

I don;t think our relationship with our kids is like our relationship with God. In someways perhaps...but not in the way you just seemed to suggest.

I've never had that backwards.
God commanded it...gave me the ability to believe...and now I believe.
I had no choice in the matter.

Or perhaps no matter in your choice.

 

[Christ_empowered]

i dunno. its interesting. It wasn't until the 2nd Great Awakening in America that Arminianism hit the big time in America. Some of the techniques developed way back then to evangelize are still popular in many Protestant circles today, 150+ years later.

I just don't know. I don't really have a firm opinion here, honestly. I read alot of RC Sproul and such before The Lord miraculously saved me. I was also raised on the liberal/progressive end of PCUSA, so I --get-- Calvinism 101. And now...

...His ways are higher than our ways, that's for sure. My own Born Again experience sometimes makes me think those Calvinists are on to something, in a big big way. I knew about The Lord, but I didn't have what I needed to repent and ask forgiveness until He moved on my heart of hearts...then, I was able to get genuinely, truly saved, and everything about me has changed tremendously since then, only 4 1/2 years later.

I mean...I have an older, wiser, Pentecostal friend, Verna. She's basically my 2nd mother. As a Pentecostal, she clearly believes that one can make a decision for Christ and then keep on going in the walk with The Lord. She also clearly believes that one can fall away and lose salvation, also.

She went above and beyond with her own kids, who are a good bit older than me. Neither of them are in church or living the right way or...genuinely saved, bearing fruit, any of that. The Lord moved on her heart to take an interest in me, a deviant weakling, years ago, and now...The Lord has saved me, and our friendship is incredibly meaningful to me. And I wonder...

...well, if many are called, but few are chosen...is that why her kids are going the way of the world, despite a good upbringing in traditional Pentecostal churches? Is that why many will go to church when life gets rough, and go back to their old routine once things simmer down a bit?

And me? If I say "well, I believe in predestination," am I saying that because I think I'm so special that The Lord saved --me--, to the exclusion of others? Or am I just stating the facts of the situation as I see them....that I was wretched, hopeless, lost, destroyed, and The Lord saw fit to save me (from: sin, satan, self, death, and the world), as He has many other miserable creatures over the centuries?

And...what about prevenient grace? Is it possible that The Lord blessed me with enough humility, enough lucidity, to see my need for Christ, and then I did make something of a "decision for Christ," empowered by blessings from On High?

OK. I'm finished now, lol.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Cygnus,
I am very sorry somebody broke your Bottle of Ire but it has ruined you for,I would say, oral Intercourse, but I did what is most commonly done by most users, is not reasonable to believe you have a copy of the Bibl3 somewhere? I'm certain that, assuming you have a compter with Windoze, any of the better than 1,000 Linux Systems, BSD, or any of the developing systems when you rest the cursor over the scripture on this site, it gives you the text, meaning, in effect, I did post the scriptures because the scripture verses are a pop-up link. So why are you looking for a fight, that is dumb because it is counter productive to Intelligent Discourse.

As I read further it will be interesting to see if you responded to the post or if you were, only, looking to fight and act stupid.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Dude, what is your problem?????
the Bible doesn't condemn denominations.
In fact I et you belong to a denomination.

Sure, there may be contradiction..or should I say, disagreements....but they all agree on theological issues such as Jesus being God.
Why do you fail to understand that?

I have read through and I conclude that you want to be rude and crass and I'm considering, just, turning you off if you do not get into the scriptures and study to correct that disposition. That is a sad thing and I hesitate because turning a person off is akin to leaving them to the Devil, I just don't like that,