I did a post on the SDA last year.
I have purchased several books about them, including their own study materials. They are a cult in my book.
Not surprised that again this site can dredge up someone with a deficient understanding of what SDAs believe.
1. There has never been any controversy within adventism regarding the eternality of the Son of God. The quote of EG White referring to God’s exaltation of Jesus as His Son is taken out of context.
2. Jesus did not complete the atonement at the cross. Nor even with the resurrection, although it seems the commentator in the video seems to think the resurrection plays no part in our reconciliation with God. But don’t look to anyone else to oneself to complete it. It is Jesus Himself who even now is continuing the ministry of reconciliation as our High priest in the heavenly sanctuary. Just as in the OT the sanctuary service BEGAN with the sacrifice of the lamb, and was a type of the true yet to be displayed, so also was calvary just the first act in a process which continues as we live. Our sanctification, which is ongoing till the day we die, is as essential to our ultimate salvation as was the cross.
3. The speaker claims that once we are saved our obedience or lack thereof plays no further part in our ultimate destiny. Once saved always saved? Oh please!
Brakelite, the citation by E.G. White was indeed in context. White was a false prophet, as I proved in my article reference in my previous comment. Your second comment is totally unbiblical and explains why SDA is a cult. Your third comment assumes that the individual’s conduct is that of an unbeliever’s. No truly saved Christian will live a lifestyle defined by sin, however no one is without sin. Once a person accepts Christ’s payment for his sin, he is eternally saved. Of course this is DEMONSTRATED by the individual’s changed life. One’s works do not save them.
I agree with your comments, with the exception of ‘accepting Jesus’. We do not have the ability to accept him because our hearts (minds) are dead in sin and our nature is warped with sin. All of salvation is wrought by God…the only reason I would accept Him is that He accepted me FIRST.
I recommend this from C.H. Spurgeon http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0182.htm
Lyn, I have to disagree with the Calvinist interpretation of Scripture, which I know this site promotes. But the Scripture toooooooooo often tells us to make a choice. So we’ll just leave the Calvinist debate :oD (And I am NOT Arminian either!)
my comment is not based on John Calvin and his teaching, it is based on Ephesians 2:1, 8-9, John 6:44,Psalm 37:39, John 5:40…human depravity and inability are the clear teachings of God’s word. To say you accepted Jesus is to claim a work; this is a direct violation of Eph.2:8-9. I do hope you will read the piece by Spurgeon, and remember this, the Lord will not give His glory to another (Is.42:8, 48:11).
I have never even read one thing written or
taught by Calvin!
Placing one’s faith in the work of Christ is NOT a work, no more than accepting the birthday present someone gives you is a work. Scripture contrasts faith with works numerous times. Whether you have read Calvin is irrelevant; what you are expressing is Calvinism/Lutheranism – actually Augustine’s teachings. No where in Scripture does it say we are too depraved to seek God; God tells us to seek him and if we can’t do so then that makes God a liar.
We are getting off the subject of this post. If you really want to discuss this with me, then contact me by the e-mail on my blog.
We are commanded to seek Him and yet, no one does (romans 3:11).
As for faith, I have one last referral for you…http://defendingcontending.com/2009/05/04/the-gift-of-faith/
What I have stated I have backed with God’s word giving chapter and verse, how is it you claim I am referring to the teachings of men?
Everyone is given the gift of faith – but it is our responsibility to exercise it. God does not force us to do anything – if he did, then we would be just pre-programmed robots.
And there is a difference between saying no one does something and that no one is able to do it. One can be able yet not do so. But the context of Rom 3:11 is a citation from Psalms. It is about as literal as Elijah’s statement that he was the only one left!
Do you have a chapter and verse stating we must exercise faith, as well as chapter and verses to back your claim we can seek him? Also, what do you do with the verses I stated?
“You will not come unto me that ye may have life”…as long as that ‘ye will not come’ stands on record in holy scripture, we shall not be brought to believe in any doctrine of the freedom of human will’- C.H. Spurgeon from his sermon entitled ‘Human Inability’. Not only are we dead, unable to respond to the Gospel call apart from Divine power, our nature is so corrupt that coming to Christ is repulsive to us: again, apart from Divine power and intervention.
You can respond, then we must let this thread get back on topic.
I felt it necessary to delete your last comment because you brought nothing biblical to the table; you simply resorted to a common tactic of name-calling. Even though I provided scripture after scripture to support the dead state of sinners, you give credit to mortal men and provide no biblical basis or support for your argument. This thread will now resume its original topic.
Grace and peace to you,
Food for thought…since the apostle Paul wrote Eph.2:1 and 8-9 under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit long before Calvin or Augustine, what ‘label’ would he be given?
Since Seventh-day Adventism denies the dualistic nature of man (body and spirit), this fact alone makes it impossible for them to understand biblical soteriology–notably the new birth or regeneration. If one doesn’t understand Genesis, it clouds their entire perception of the Bible. To an Adventist, being “born again” denotes merely a mental assent to their dogma. For example, one must confess Ellen White BEFORE being baptized into her church. After all, she remains their church mother and infallible interpreter of Scripture.
Moreover, her writings are officially declared to be a “continuing and authoritative SOURCE of truth.” The SDA belief system is very physical in nature (i.e., sabbathing, tithing, vegetarianism, veganism, footwashing, baptism, no jewelry, no spices, no sweet cakes (like “Little Debbies” which are actually made by the well-known McKee family from Tennesse), no dancing, no card playing, no clapping in church, no make-up, no ankles exposed by women in public, no bathing or swimming on Sabbath, no apple cider, no eggs for children, no masturbation, no cooking (also no TV viewing or reading secular magazines) on Sabbath, no Christmas decorations in church unless used for fund-raising, ad infinitum.
Interestingly, the SDA hierarchy hasn’t yet forbidden Web surfing on the Jewish Sabbath. Consequently, many Seventh-day Adventists are finding Jesus as their true Sabbath Rest. As we are already painfully aware, there are alot worse things to see and read on the Internet than can be typically viewed by a family on their TV. Legalism is never consistent. Adventists commonly pick and choose their favorite prohibitions (do’s and don’ts) from the foregoing limited, incomplete list. If they didn’t choose their favorite prohibitions and entirely ignore others, insanity would surely overtake them.
Thus, I do not fault them for their numerous inconsistencies. Before an Adventist can evaluate the doctrines of grace, they must first embrace the biblical (dualistic) nature of man. Calvinism makes absolutely no sense to them without getting Genesis right. Even talking about Calvinistic views is in vain with them because of their cultic background–nothing could be further from their understanding. Oh yes, if an Adventist denies that Ellen White is their acclaimed infallible interpreter of Scripture, bluntly ask them, “Which of her teachings, visions, and interpretations do you NOT agree with?”
A former SDA minister,
I feel sorry for you Dennis, that your SDA background must have been so perverted and distorted as to give you such a twisted perspective on true adventism. Sure, I am aware that there are some within our community who were raised on the dos and don’ts of legalism, but what church is there completely pure from such people?
I can assure you that I personally, and as far as I know those of my family who are adventist and those others I worship with, do not ‘work’ as you imply in order to gain their salvation.
Before I was an adventist I was 20 years in the AOG. It was there that my relationship with my Lord led me to those moral decisions that affected my television viewing, my dress sense, tithing, baptism, and yes, even sabbath keeping. I asked several pastors why we didn’t keep the Sabbath as Christians seeing it is a commandment and was never given a satisfactory answer. Still haven’t seen one actually. I could turn to any Christian TV station today (and go to any local church on Sunday) and see the following: much jewellery on many; such casual dress that wouldn’t look out of place at the beach or the local pub on others; unhealthy dietery habits that must grieve the Holy Spirit who’s temple we are; temperance issues unheard of etc etc. Dennis, we are called to be a holy people, sanctified and consecrated to just one cause…to bring glory to God in all that we say and do. Not by our own efforts, but through the influence and ministry of the Holy Spirit in our lives as revealed through God’s word.
As for the “adventist” rejection of the duality of man’s nature, I am sure you are only too aware of the scriptural foundation that Adventists use for their beliefs regarding the state of the dead and the mortal nature of man. So Israel also rejects the duality nature of man based on Genesis 2:7 where we are told that man became, not received, a living soul.
As for understanding regeneration and the new birth, Adventists aren’t the only ones who reject your adopted Calvinist principles, as is evidenced by the above conversation.
And surely you don’t reject holy living??
Ethical, moral, and civil boundaries are essential to the well being of secular society, they must remain constant, and they must be enforced. Accomplished musicians adhere to the laws of harmony, melody, and rhythm. The closer the musician keeps to the laws, the better is the music. The alternative, to rebel against the laws that govern music, results in punk rock.
The same applies to builders, who must adhere to the laws of engineering and physics etc that govern their trade. Any compromise or disobedience to those laws result in what we recently witnessed in Haiti.
Just as in art and trade, so also in all of life. We can only live to our potential as spiritual human beings if we obey the laws and parameters God has set for mankind and revealed to us through the Ten Commandments. The law of God is the eternal unchanging standard by which mankind will be judged, and for the transgression of which Christ died. Sin is transgression against the law, and the wages of sin is death. Only through the grace of God through Christ can obedience be attained, but obedience is none the less essential to gaining eternal life. God set the nation of Israel to be His witnesses in the midst of rampant idolatry and sinfulness in the surrounding nations. Sadly, through compromise and refusing to obey God by destroying the heathen pagan Canaanites, their abominations became “pricks in their eyes and thorns in their sides” and Israel failed in their God given opportunities. The church is now in a similar role. The church now stands as God’s witness to His power to establish His righteousness in the minds and hearts of His people. Let us not fail Him in these last days. Let us now recommit ourselves in holy consecration to obey, love, and share the gospel with a world lost in sin and idolatry. The world needs Jesus; the world needs to know Jesus loves them, and they will never know until we love them first, and demonstrate the power of God to change lives and make them conformable to His laws. The abundant powerful testimony of a life dedicated to God is the most effectual witness to a world dying of starvation from a chronic shortage of Spirit filled standard bearers.
You choose to represent the high moral code that many adventists live by as legalism.
If we have the very same Spirit that activated and motivated Jesus all His life to honor, obey, and surrender to the will of His Father, how can we not help but do the same? So we have nothing of ourselves to boast. Charges of ‘legalism’ and ‘cheap grace’ from either quarter fall flat. We have no ground for self-exaltation or pride. Our only hope is in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us by His death, and His righteousness imparted to us by His life. All is grace, through faith.
And as we partake of the power offered us freely by His grace, our lives become the holy sanctified examples of love and righteousness that the world so desperately needs to witness. The world sees no hope, and no future for mankind beyond the futile efforts of its vacillating lawmakers and politicians. They see corruption on every hand, and little promise that anything is going to change any time soon. They need us to reflect the holy love of a God who cares deeply for their welfare and their future. A love that doesn’t compromise with sin, that doesn’t seek the temporary entertainment features the world offers, but rather earnestly and sincerely seeks the well being of the lost and is willing to sacrifice self on behalf of those perishing in sin.
Sorry Lyn, I realize that you’re trying to keep this thread on-topic, but frankly speaking it appears to me that some tired old synergistic arguments are being trotted out that probably ought to be addressed for both Glenn’s sake, and the sake of DefCon’s readership.
Based on your statements here is it fair to conclude that you believe faith precedes regeneration in the ordo salutis? In other words man’s libertarian free-will decision to exercise his “gift of faith” by trusting in Christ results in his regeneration (e.g. spiritual re-birth); is this your view?
P.S. – this site promotes the Biblical doctrines of grace, which represent nothing more or less than the Gospel, not “Calvinism” per se, although I’m personally persuaded that “Calvinism” is nothing more or less than a faithful, Christ-centered system of exegesis of Scripture which points one to the Biblical doctrines of grace, which represent nothing more or less than the Gospel (yes I’m being intentionally circular). Furthermore based on your comment, “God does not force us to do anything – if he did, then we would be just pre-programmed robots” I can only conclude that you have a rather deficient understanding of Reformation theology, and one that isn’t shared by more thoughtful and informed opponents of the position.
“It is sometimes thought that Calvinism teaches that God forces us to do things against our will or compels us against our wishes. However, this is a serious misunderstanding of Calvinism. Look again at the passage above. It says that God enlightens the minds of the elect, that he renews their wills, changes their hearts, and so on. Consequently, God does not cause the elect to act against their wills, rather, he changes their wills so that when they come to Christ, they do so quite willingly. To be sure, they could not do otherwise—that is what makes it irresistible grace—but given how God has changed them internally, they do not want to do otherwise. They do exactly what God has determined them to do, and they do exactly what they want to do. They are both determined and free, in the sense that they do what they want to do. God causes them to have the beliefs and desires they do, and they act in accordance with those desires.” – Jerry Walls (http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/351Walls.htm“)
It’s interesting that you chose to call it “libertarian” free will.
Yes, I believe the Bible is very plain that man must choose whether to follow Christ. And one is not regenerated until one places their faith in the work of Christ. To be regenerated before placing faith in Christ is totally unbiblical. And Calvinism does indeed teach that God chose from the beginning of time who would be save – he made the choice arbitrarily and those he did not choose are therefore destined for hell without the opportunity to turn to Christ. This is not a loving God. And in this version of “the elect,” it would be a lie to tell someone that Christ died for them, because you would have no way of knowing if they were one of the elect.
I really don’t think this comment string is the place to discuss the issue, and I am also well aware that the vast majority of Calvinists – yes it is Calvinism and not Scriptural no matter what you label it (doctrine of Grace – restricted grace, you mean) – will never change their minds about it, so discussion becomes futile (I tend to just point them to a few books to study). And no, I am not a heretic for saying the Augustinian teachings followed by Calvin and Luther completely turned the Christian faith upside down, nor am I a heretic and false teacher because I am not a Calvinist (I have been called that many times by Calvinists).
Your comments demonstrate that you are misinformed about the topic you’re addressing, and your emotively-loaded language and well-poisoning tactics expose your a priori predisposition against Biblical instruction contrary to the traditions you’ve received.
It is hard to kick against the goads.
I beg to differ with you, but that is the normal response I get from those dedicated to a man’s theology. It’s always, “you don’t understand” – but I certainly do. I have studied the subject for almost 25 years. I find it interesting – and sad – that usually the Augustinian/Calvinist/Lutheran followers get all upset, and usually end up calling me a false teacher or heretic, yet I would never say the same about them (I would just say they are a wee bit deceived :oD).
I’m sorry to hear that after 25 years of study you still hold to erroneous misconceptions on this topic.
Please continue to visit DefCon.
I’m sorry to hear you think I hold misconceptions :oD. By the way, some of my favorite teachers are Calvinists: John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Gary Gilley, James White, et al. And I like your site too! I just tune out the erroneous (:oD) doctrine.
Lazarus could not “come forth” until he was first given life.
Typical over-use of the idea of spiritual death. While there is an analogy between spiritual death and physical death, one can’t press the analogy too far. A physically dead man cannot deny Christ either.
A physically dead man cannot choose not to breathe but it doesn’t make him alive.
A physically dead man can’t do anything. A spiritually dead man can do anything, including seeking the Lord!
Now can we get back to the topic of SDA?
“A spiritually dead man can do anything, including seeking the Lord!”
Are you sure that you find it in the Word of God?
In my Bible I see this: (Rom 3:11) “There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.”
(John 6:44): “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”
But you can say: “Many came to Him of their own will, and some of them became His disciples”.
But it is written (John 6:65-66):
“And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.”
What spiritually dead men are seeking after? Christ?
And this is also problem for SDA.
“A spiritually dead man can do anything, including seeking the Lord!”
That is one the most blatantly unscriptural things I’ve read from anyone claiming to be a Christian. From Romans chapter 8: ” For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”
Glen – what is more pleasing to God than having His chosen ones honor Him? A spiritually dead man can do NOTHING good, in spirit or in truth. And you claim Calvinism is not of the Bible.
You guys are determined to hijack this article to be about Calvinism. And I knew the next thing was going to be how unbiblical anything against Calvinism is. Well, look at the early church fathers BEFORE Augustine and you will see a whole different outlook.
John 12:31-32 Jesus draws ALL men.
It isn’t about being unable to seek God – which we are able – it is about being unwilling to do so.
As I said before, if man can’t choose to serve God or repent or choose Christ, then that makes God a liar when he commands us to do so.
Deut. 4:29 if they seek God they will find him
Josh. 24:15 he says to choose to serve God
1 Chron 16:11 command is to “seek his face”
1 Chron 28::9 “if you seek him, He will be found by you”
2 Chron. 15:2 “IF you seek him…but IF you forsake him… Indicates choice Many such passages in 2 Chron
Ezra 8:22: “everyone who looks to him” vs “all who forsake him” indicates choice
Ps. 9:10 “Those who seek you” is a choice
Ps. 22:6 “they who seek the Lord”
Ps. 34:10 “those who seek the Lord”
Ps. 40:16 “all who seek you”
Ps. 69:6 “may those who seek you”
Ps. 86:5 one chooses whether to call on God.
Ps. 119:10 ” I seek you with all my heart” – he has a choice!
Isa. 55:6 “seek the Lord while He may be found”
Jer. 29:13 “And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.” CHOICE
Hos. 10:12 “It is time to seek the Lord”
Zeph 2:3 “Seek the Lord!”
Mark 16:16 “whoever believes” vs “whoever will not believe” indicates choice
Luke 8:12 the devil must prevent them from believing – why is that necessary if no choice is available?
Jn 1:12 the choice is to receive or not
Jn 3:16 “whoever believes” vs “whoever does not believe” indicates choice
Jn. 3:36 “whoever believes” vs “whoever rejects” indicates choice
Jn 5:24 “whoever…believes” indicates choice
Jn. 5:40 “you refuse to come to me” indicates choice of refusal
Jn. 20:31 “by believing” indicates choice
Acts 16:31 “believe…” is choice
Acts 17:27 “so that they should seek the Lord”
Acts 17:30 the choice of repenting God commands this and yet if we are not able then he will punish us for not doing so?!?!?!
Rom. 1:16 “To everyone who believes” indicates choice
2 Cor. 4:4 unbelievers must be blinded so as not to believe – makes it a matter of choice
1 Tim. 1:16 “those who would believe” vs those who would not is a choice
Heb. 11:6 must believe God exists, meaning they have the ability to believe or not “he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him”
1 Pet. 3:1 The husband has a choice to become a believer
Rev. 22:17 “whoever wishes” indicates choice
There are many, many more passages like these which demonstrate we have a free will choice to seek God. If not, then all we are is a bunch of puppets.
The source of our salvation is God but the means of our salvation is Faith. If God has not given everyone the ability to come to him, then he is a liar when he says he wants all mankind to be saved 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Tim. 2:4. And no, those passages don’t say “all kinds” or “all types” of men – that is reading into the text.
NOW, CAN WE GET BACK TO THE SDA!?! Have any of the SDA defenders here even read my critique of that cult at: http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/search/label/Seventh-day%20Adventist
With all due respect, you hijacked this thread with your phrase ‘accepted Jesus’. Salvation is not a work of man, but a supernatural work of God ( Eph.2:8,9).
As Coram has so graciously said, do continue to visit DefCon!
Grace and peace,
Just a few things:
i.) I don’t merely think you hold to erroneous misconceptions about the Biblical doctrines of grace, this comment alone clearly demonstrates said misconceptions to anyone knowledgable on the subject.
ii.) As I’ve previously pointed out your emotionally charged and well-poisoning language is not conducive to a rational, Biblical discussion. In my experience such behavior is usually indicative of a lack of a substantive argument.
iii.) Your accusations of blog moderators “hijacking” our own posts is a bit bizarre. This shouldn’t need to be pointed out, but this is our blog, and if you’re not interested in pursuing any discussion at any given time, you’re free to simply stop posting.
iv.) Prooftexting doesn’t work here. You must exegete the passages in the light of the whole counsel of God and demonstrate by argument that your position is valid. Engaging in cut-n-paste prooftexting that you simply assert and assume to prove your position is a bit less than compelling.
v.) While claiming to be victimized by mean, name-calling “Calvinists”, being accused of heresy, of being a false teacher, etc., and then claiming that you would “never say the same about them” you nevertheless frame your assertions (such as they are) against a Biblical, Reformed view of soteriology in exceptionally strident and antithetical “us vs. them” language, for example:
“To be regenerated before placing faith in Christ is totally unbiblical.” Totally unbiblical?
“And Calvinism does indeed teach that God chose from the beginning of time who would be save – he made the choice arbitrarily and those he did not choose are therefore destined for hell without the opportunity to turn to Christ. This is not a loving God.” Not the God of Scripture?
“And in this version of “the elect,” it would be a lie to tell someone that Christ died for them, because you would have no way of knowing if they were one of the elect.” Another Gospel?
” really don’t think this comment string is the place to discuss the issue, and I am also well aware that the vast majority of Calvinists – yes it is Calvinism and not Scriptural no matter what you label it (doctrine of Grace – restricted grace, you mean) – will never change their minds about it, so discussion becomes futile (I tend to just point them to a few books to study).” Unreasonable and unscriptural?
“And no, I am not a heretic for saying the Augustinian teachings followed by Calvin and Luther completely turned the Christian faith upside down, nor am I a heretic and false teacher because I am not a Calvinist (I have been called that many times by Calvinists).” “I beg to differ with you, but that is the normal response I get from those dedicated to a man’s theology.” Dedicated to a man’s theology?
Even “mean Calvinists” are still creatures made in the image of God, no? And they’re sinners to boot, so if you insult them, they’re probably more likely to react negatively to you. If you prefer insults to reasoned dialogue, then there’s probably something wrong with you. I’ll also note in passing that I think it’s bit odd that you would fail to demonstrate the much vaunted indiscriminate love of God which you profess is extended to all men equally towards your theological opponents. What love is this?
vi.) Appeals to the ECF’s don’t carry any weight here. Our sole rule and authority is the revealed Word of God, not that of the pre or post-Nicene fathers in general, or Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Turretin, Gill, Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Mohler or MacArthur in particular. Although many godly men have interesting and important insights to share from their fruitful labors in the Word, only the revealed truths of the Scriptures themselves are binding upon men’s consciences, and able to make the simple wise unto salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the praise and glory of the Triune One true and living God alone.
Salvation is all of grace, and all of God. He gets all the glory!
Soli Deo Gloria!
Once a person accepts Christ’s payment for his sin, he is eternally saved.
When I made this statement, it was not hijacking the thread. I would hope even the Calvinist would say that a person has to accept the work of Christ – even if you want to say God led him to that. If a person does not have faith that Christ died for his sin, then he isn’t saved. That is a very fundamental belief, no matter how you want to say the faith came to the person. Everywhere in Scripture we have faith being required for salvation. I understand the Calvinist interpretation is that God pre-regenerated the person so as to give him that faith, but faith is nevertheless a requirement. The statement did not say one has to “accept Christ” (whatever that is supposed to mean) – rather it was a statement that one has to accept the fact that Christ died for his sin, and in order to accept that fact one has to believe it – i.e., have faith.
I didn’t realize there were so many moderators of this blog, and I made the erroneous assumption that it was outside commenters trying to keep the focus on Calvinism by hijacking the comments away from the subject at hand, namely the SDA. If you want to hijack your own blog, I guess that’s okay, but on my blog I prefer to keep the comments germane to the topic; comments about the SDA are now so buried as to make it difficult for anyone interested in that topic to follow it. Which is why I suggested continuing the dialog by e-mail.
You say my language is “emotionally charged” and that I’m “poisoning the well” as well as not understanding Calvinistic doctrine. I tried to be brief just to get off the subject, and agree I was more flippant and simplistic in order to just get off the topic. Explaining things in a simplistic manner doesn’t imply lack of knowledge. I sincerely apologize that I used any terminology that was taken as insults – that was never my intention, and I perhaps should be a wee bit more careful.
I was not claiming “victimization” when explaining the usual result in denying the Augustinian/Calvinist/Lutheran view of Scripture – I was just stating the usual course of action I have experienced as a way of saying I know what was coming next. I would say it is the same as me telling a Mormon that I am not an “anti-Mormon” and I know that is what he will resort to labeling me in any debate. With a Mormon it happens 100% of the time; and this is not to claim victimization, rather it is to make an observation. And virtually 100% of the time I debate Calvinism I will be told I don’t understand (Mormons tell me that too), or that I am a heretic and/or that I am a false teacher. Either way, I don’t feel victimized – it is like water off a duck’s back.
Saying someone is teaching something unbiblical also does not always mean they are a heretic or a false teacher – it may be that on a particular subject the person has a bad understanding of what the Bible says. I think Calvinists have a bad understanding of Scripture leading to unbiblical teachings in that regard, yet I would never say a Calvinist is a false teacher. Which is why I can tune that theology out when I listen to, and read, great teachers like Albert Mohler, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, et al.
I didn’t cut and paste anything. If you are referring to my string of biblical passages, I copied those – did my own typing – from my notebook of various passages I have collected for various purposes. I did all the work over the years collecting passages for addressing all sorts of teachings, be it claims of new apostles and prophets, be it evolution, be it abortion, be it LDS or JW, or WOF, or Catholicism, or discernment, and a whole raft of subjects; I add verses almost every time I read Scripture. Making quick reference to collected passages and then typing them in is certainly not cut and paste. Complete exegesis of those passages, in a short comment, in my opinion, is a bit impractical, and I believe these particular passages speak for themselves anyway.
The reason I say the conversation becomes futile is because we can spend hours on the dialogue and neither one will change his position. I don’t see the Calvinist/non-calvinist position to be an issue of which determines one’s salvation, so it becomes pointless to spend such a great amount of time on it. On the other hand, if the discussion happens to be with a cult member where their very salvation is at stake, then I see the importance of continuing to reason with the individual so that they will be open to the Gospel.
I agree that salvation is all of grace, and all of God, and that He alone gets the glory. But it does not impinge on His sovereignty or glory to say that one must come to Him in the way He has specified. “If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.” The contrast with that would be “If you deny with you mouth Jesus as Lord, and refuse to believe God raised him from the dead, you will die in your sins.” I would say that doing the first does not take away the fact that it is all of God. And I believe the Bible says that we have the choice to do one or the other.
I tried to find the first quote mentioned in your video unsuccessfully. Is it a paraphrase and could you please reference the citation?
All in all, salvation comes from the Lord (Jonah 2:9). Salvation is a gift to be received, not a goal to be achieved. It is not the intent of this blog to argue people into salvation. I realize that man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true. However, only our awesome, sovereign God can open the heart of the unsaved as occurred with Lydia and her family, Paul on the road to Damascus, etc. It’s all about Him! Soli Deo Gloria!
In awe of the guilt-removing and sin-atoning sacrifice of Jesus,
Dennis J. Fischer
Many thanks for stopping by and Amen! Praise the Lord, the God of Heaven and Ruler and Creator of all things and people! Soli Deo Gloria! Yes and amen!
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.