Salvation is a Gift....now what?

[moonflower2]

It's interesting how we've all had different experiences.
I grew up in a Calvinistic church and i felt that I had to strain to hear preaching of what Christ had done for me. Yes, we heard that "it" was all of grace and not of ourselves, but it  was assumed that because our parents were Christians, we the children were going to heaven. They really believe that. So I was always left with the question of what do I do when I sin, because I'm supposed to know better; I'm saved. But, am I really? Maybe I'm one of the ones that God didn't choose. Maybe I'm going to hell and don't know it.

There was not a real focus on outreach because those unsaved people may not have been chosen by God to be saved, and that's why they (and their children will be eternally lost.) We were preached to as if we were better than other Christians. We had the truth (and ALL the catechism). We had all the Bible (head) knowledge but nowhere to go with it because we were predestined to be where we were and the unsaved were predestined to be where they were.    

According to Calvinistic thought, we can't help but sin. What happened to grace here?

I was saved when I heard Billy Graham preach to me like I needed to be saved and that Christ died to give me eternal life.

I'm just glad I finally heard the gospel and that there is grace for every moment of my life, if I want to turn to God and take hold of it. I don't believe that anyone is beyond the reach of God's grace.

[Tony]

Scott and all,

  I do agree with the following:

Scott said:
"There are a million bulletin boards where you can find debates about Calvinism and Arminianism. There are only two
 boards where former victims and adherents of Geftakysism can go to find answers to their questions and help with their new lives from other former members."

--Tony

P.S.  Can we try a bit to change the subject line when we change the subject?  

[Oscar]

You debaters sometimes bore me................

My 5 cents (for Scott )

Right after we left the assembly, we ended up at a wonderful Calvinist preaching and believing church.  Preaching wonderful grace sermons, an evangelical zeal, a love for one another and the community at large and the unsaved as a whole, welcoming us with open arms and teaching us with great love and care (particularly considering what we had just come out from.)

I was thankful for a Calvinist leaning teaching (based on grace and no merit of myself) as opposed to finding an Arminian style of ministry (of which I have had WAY too much of since I've been saved.)

Without having all the correct doctrine and citing this biblical scholar or that biblical scholar, blah, blah, blah, blah............here is my response............

I am saved, I know I'm saved, I pray for those I love to be saved, it doesn't keep me up nights.......my trust is in God.........being at a church like I mentioned above was more liberating and more profitable than what Tom cites as the "norm".  btw - they had approximately 3-400 in attendance any given Sunday, quite a good showing for a "dead" Calvinist church.

When we begin looking again for a church, I will be looking for the same kind of church.

my 5 cents

Kimberley,

You wrote, "I am saved, I know I'm saved, I pray for those I love to be saved, it doesn't keep me up nights.......my trust is in God.........being at a church like I mentioned above was more liberating and more profitable than what Tom cites as the "norm".  btw - they had approximately 3-400 in attendance any given Sunday, quite a good showing for a "dead" Calvinist church.

How "Arminian" of you.  You see, a Calvinist can never be certain of his salvation.    

The "P" in TULIP stands for perseverance of the saints.  While you are still alive you have not persevered to the end.   Therefore, you can only arrive at "I think I'm saved", or "Its likely that I am saved".  You really cannot know that you will not deny Christ before you die.

The Arminian churches have traditionally accepted a profession of faith to be adequate evidence of salvation.   The apostles seem to have fallen in to this error also,  .

Colonial Puritans had a big ruckus over this in the "Halfway Covenant" controversies.

Also, Kimberley, I wouldn't call the ignorant blather we heard so frequently in the Assembly the "Arminian style of preaching".

BTW, I said the state churches and liberal churches were "dead".  There are many fine Christians of Calvinists persuasion.  However, they have their nuts as well.

Are you aware of the Calvinist "Theonomy" movement?   They believe that it is the churches mission to establish the Law of Moses as the law of the land.  

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[Scott McCumber]

You debaters sometimes bore me................

My 5 cents (for Scott )

Right after we left the assembly, we ended up at a wonderful Calvinist preaching and believing church.  Preaching wonderful grace sermons, an evangelical zeal, a love for one another and the community at large and the unsaved as a whole, welcoming us with open arms and teaching us with great love and care (particularly considering what we had just come out from.)

I was thankful for a Calvinist leaning teaching (based on grace and no merit of myself) as opposed to finding an Arminian style of ministry (of which I have had WAY too much of since I've been saved.)

Without having all the correct doctrine and citing this biblical scholar or that biblical scholar, blah, blah, blah, blah............here is my response............

I am saved, I know I'm saved, I pray for those I love to be saved, it doesn't keep me up nights.......my trust is in God.........being at a church like I mentioned above was more liberating and more profitable than what Tom cites as the "norm".  btw - they had approximately 3-400 in attendance any given Sunday, quite a good showing for a "dead" Calvinist church.

When we begin looking again for a church, I will be looking for the same kind of church.

my 5 cents

Kimberley,

You wrote, "I am saved, I know I'm saved, I pray for those I love to be saved, it doesn't keep me up nights.......my trust is in God........."

How "Arminian" of you.  You see, a Calvinist can never be certain of his salvation.    

The "P" in TULIP stands for perseverance of the saints.  While you are still alive you have not persevered to the end.   Therefore, you can only arrive at "I think I'm saved", or "Its likely that I am saved".  You really cannot know that you will not deny Christ before you die.

The Arminian churches have traditionally accepted a profession of faith to be adequate evidence of salvation.   The apostles seem to have fallen in to this error also,  .

Colonial Puritans had a big ruckus over this in the "Halfway Covenant" controversies. . . .


Thomas Maddux

I was discussing this just the other day with someone off the board. They were concerned with the concept because even though they believed they were saved, had accepted Christ as saviour, etc.

"But what if I'm not one of the elect?"

Guess you'll just have to hang tight 'til the end and see how it plays out, huh?

Scary thought.

S

[Oscar]

Folks,

What I am doing on these boards is exactly what GOT ME OUT of the assembly years before it collapsed.

We have all heard of the Bereans who were more noble than the others...when we were Geftakysites we were sure WE were their descendants.

When someone comes to me and says, "The Bible clearly says...", I subject it to critical examination before swallowing.

I have been pointing out some problems with a brand of Christianity that many ex-assembly folks seem enamored with.  The basis for their infatuation seems to be, according to what I have read here, that "they teach grace".

Friends, ALL HEALTHY CHURCHES teach grace.   We are saved by grace, through faith.  Is there any one here that would claim that Calvary Chapel, which is clearly "Arminian", does not teach grace?

Remember, WE WERE IN A GROUP THAT HAD GONE CULTIC!

The weird form of works based salvation that GG taught was destructive in its results.   One does not have to go to go Calvinist to find better.

If you wish to go to a Calvinist church, that is up to you.  I certainly didn't ask anyone's permission to attend E. Free of Fullerton.  But do it for the right reasons, not in reaction.

All man made systems of theology, such as Calvinism and Arminianism, have problems.  If we never do anything because there are problems, we will never do anything.

The perfect church will cease to be perfect when you and I get there.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

Hi folks,

I just re-read my post, and it brought something to mind.

The reason most Calvinist churches tend to be small is, IMHO, that they tend to give the memebers an cold and exclusive attitude toward people.

After all, if God doesn't love the world, why should I?

Not a fair or objective statement in my view and like most generalisation tends to error. Are you familiar with many reformed churches in this country like John Piper's Bethlehem chapel? In countless gatherings of this sort your generalisation is inaccurate Tom. Ask the police department in Minneapolis.

The "P" in TULIP stands for perseverance of the saints.  While you are still alive you have not persevered to the end.  Therefore, you can only arrive at "I think I'm saved", or "Its likely that I am saved".  You really cannot know that you will not deny Christ before you die.

Perseverance has to do with God's faithfulness, not ours. This type of thinking is unscriptural. The only time we get into trouble is when we stray form God's Word.

Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
Phil 1:6

I was discussing this just the other day with someone off the board. They were concerned with the concept because even though they believed they were saved, had accepted Christ as saviour, etc.

"But what if I'm not one of the elect?"

Guess you'll just have to hang tight 'til the end and see how it plays out, huh?

Scary thought.

S

Scott. others may not know with certainty whether this person is elect or not, but this person can. Others may not be sure that we have passed from death to life, but we can, and ought to be!

Verne

Verne,

You wrote, "Perseverance has to do with God's faithfulness, not ours. This type of thinking is unscriptural. The only time we get into trouble is when we stray form God's Word."

To be sure Verne.  But my point is, How do you know you are one of the elect?  

Regarding most Calvinist churches being small...I readily admit my subjective judgement.  That is why I wrote IMHO.

Nevertheless, two things are undeniable:

1. Calvinism of one form or another was the dominant form of Christianity in early America.

2. The Arminian churches have outstripped the Calvinists exponentially.  There is a reason for this my friend.

Also, I most certainly do not believe that God exists in the time frame of this universe.

Whether God is a timeless being or exists in another time dimension is a matter of debate among theologians and philosophers.  It is possible that the concept of time cannot be applied to God at all.

In fact, Calvinist theology is very time bound.  First, God elects, then he...etc. etc.  How do you know that God experiences this in this way at all, and that it isn't just described in this way to fit our limitations?

We are incapable of visualizing dimensions beyond our experience.  Some have used math to work with the concept, but they can't visualize beyond three dimensions.

What does the history of the universe and all the men in it look like to an omnicient being to whom all events are present?  This is a question I thought of over 30 years ago.  

In fact, it is what got me to take a second look at Calvinism.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[al Hartman]

   ...It is possible that the concept of time cannot be applied to God at all.

In fact, Calvinist theology is very time bound.  First, God elects, then he...etc. etc.  How do you know that God experiences this in this way at all, and that it isn't just described in this way to fit our limitations?

We are incapable of visualizing dimensions beyond our experience.  Some have used math to work with the concept, but they can't visualize beyond three dimensions.

     Actually, Billy Graham preached on "Man in the Fifth Dimension" back in the early 1960s.  He visualized time as the fourth dimension and the spiritual realm as the fifth.
     Some science fiction authors have written brilliantly about dimensions beyond those with which we are familiar.  But not everyone is attuned to such concepts, and if they were important for us to comprehend, surely God would have made our capacity for them more universal.  (Unless one chooses to believe that only "trekkies" can be among the elect)

     Verne sums up my personal opinion as follows:

   ...I agree that some of this is quite beyond us This is why I think we have to be so careful to not be too confident is asserting that which we are not explicity given in Scripture. I don't think though that there is anything wrong with wondering about these things!  

Verne and Tom,

     In all humility, I ask you to use the Preview feature to edit your expressions before posting.  It would multiply the blessings of the things you share.

God bless,
al

[Kimberley Tobin]

I'm tired of seeing this person's quote and that person's quote so I'm just going to write without the "quote" thingy.

I am neither "Arminian" nor am I "Calvinist".  I am a "Christian".  I believe I lean more "towards" Verne's "argument" than that which Tom postulates.  But I would not categorize myself as a 5-point Calvinist.

I was trying to ascertain why these debates annoy me.  I think I have stumbled upon the reason.  As you can see by both Verne's and Tom's "heated" debate, they both vehemently believe in their position.  I am not persuaded by their arguments(and I believe, particularly the non-believer, repudiates this form of "winning").  You both have your "scriptural references" to support your thesis.  It just grates on me the arguing back and forth, each one trying to jockey for position as to who is "right".  

That is why I firmly stated to you Tom, "I am saved, I know I'm saved."  I don't care that the "P" in Tulip stands for the perseverance of the saints.

I use to love to argue...............then I spent 15 years in the assembly.  Using my skills at debate to wound people , to distance them from my God by my behavior...........I'm just not interested anymore.

[moonflower2]

I, for one, enjoy reading these discussions.
Getting away from my Calvinistic ways of looking at things released me from binding chains, but reading these discussions, especially Verne's insights and  viewpoints, has helped me to see a little farther and understand some of what Calvin's beliefs were.
Weren't these protestant reformers reacting against the salvation by works taught by the Catholic church at the time?
It is interesting, to me, to note the severe persecution of the "anabaptists" of that time. They were the believers who did not believe that the baptism of infants was a scriptural idea and stood fast against the state in their beliefs. The adult believers who were baptised at that time, were hunted down and drowned in a mockery of their beliefs.
Can someone explain to me why protestant reformers (Zwingli) would go along with the persecution of "anabaptists"?
In the back of the Psalter Hymnal of the Christian Reformed Church is an article in which one must agree to disagree with the teaching of the anabaptists, in fact, it must be repudiated.
Zwingli had an clue that infant baptism wasn't a scriptural idea, but wouldn't stand against the state, and in fact held a state office, but why wouldn't the rest of the reformers take a stand against it?

[moonflower2]

Most excellent question Tom. I'm so glad you asked! The way I know that I am one of the elect is the same way Abraham knew that he would have a son in his old age -God promised! This was a test right?  
The Scirpture is replete with answers to this exact query and nothing is left to doubt as regards the one who has placed saving faith in Christ. I have Tom. You or anyone else may not know that for certain, but I do... Hallelujah!  

  In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; Titius 1:2

Verne,
I agree with what you say here, but the way I was taught to look at things was to look at the teachings of Calvin, first, then look to see how scripture backed it up. It's the wrong way to do it. We were not taught to look at a scripture verse and say that because God says so, it is true. Calvin was supposed to have been the last word on interpretation of the Word.
So when the doctrine of "election" is brought up, was I or was I not one of the elect? It appears that I was not the only one who was adversely affected by this way of thinking.

[Mark C.]

[quote author=Kimberley Tobin link=board=6;threadid=601;start=0#msg15230 date=1075044968

I was trying to ascertain why these debates annoy me.  

I use to love to argue...............then I spent 15 years in the assembly.  Using my skills at debate to wound people , to distance them from my God by my behavior...........I'm just not interested anymore.

 Hi Kimberley and other fellow Christians ,

  My problem with the quote stuff is that I make weird mistakes and I cannot account for what I did wrong.   Earlier on this thread I tried to quote Chuck and ended up quoting myself and shifting the screen to the right
   Kimberley:  Paul talks about the dangers of knowledge in I Cor. 8 and states, "knowledge puffs up, but love builds up."  Paul, in that passage, was talking about being loving in our knowledge of the liberty we have in Christ and not stumbling those who are not clear in this regard.  I think your post makes a very good point and that is we need to think about our confused friends from the Assembly who may be reading here.
   Let's remember our BB history and what a certain individual did  here in his attempt to achieve mastery via argument.  I'm not saying we can't disagree, but we should eschew using sarcasm and ridicule of another's opinion as there are sensitive souls for whom this can wound (as Kimberley mentioned.)  We are not here to master one another, but to serve one another.  If someone post's clear error we should seek to" restore such a one in the spirit of meekness" but if we are debating the finer points of Reformed vs. Dispensational theology let's strive to consider what is edfying.
   I do think it is very valuable to study these theological perspectives for the exassemblyite, if they have active intellects that are searching for answers in this area, but not all Assembly people will be able to follow these arguments and we need to help them to start thinking again on their own from a good basic foundation.  Most exassemblyites don't even have a clear idea of salvation (which I believe was Brent's idea in starting this thread) and whether Reformed Baptist or Foursquare Gospel we need to understand what it means that I'm a Christian saved by grace through faith.
   Now, if we can only get Joe Sperling to stop spreading his heresy re. wearing head coverings for only "1/4 of the meeting please" we will be able to attain to BB Nirvana !
                                                      God Bless,  Mark C.

[M2]

My .05 worth:

I learn from any profitable discussion of the Scriptures. Though Verne and H have an opposing viewpoint to Tom's (sometimes) I enjoy seeing the argument from both perspectives. I might actually be a 3.5 pointer myself without knowing it. I have never thoroughly investigated Calvinism etc.

Anyway, like Kimberley, I know too that I am saved whether Calvin agrees with me or not.

Lord bless,
Marcia

[Scott McCumber]

My .05 cents (again)

I enjoy the debates. I have learned a lot from them. I think Tom, Verne, H & others have kept it very friendly and positive.

My only suggestion was that the debaters remember their audience. IMHO, the topic is much more profitable when viewed through the context of this particular BB (Geftakysism).

Last night Tom wrote about how this type of questioning led him to see errors in Geftakys doctrine and how this particular topic often comes into play as ex-Assemblyites move on with their lives.

By putting the debate in this context, it made the whole thing make much more sense.

Sometimes those engaged in a discussion take it for granted that the audience understands the context and purpose of it. That's not always true.

When some small effort is made to keep the context and purpose as part of the discussion, many more people can profit from it.

Carry on, gentlemen!

Scott  

[Margaret]

Re. topic of this thread, today's sermon (Jan. 25) by Kim Riddlebarger at CRC was on the Reformed view.  It can be heard for about a month at http://www.christreformed.org/index.shtml.  

[Oscar]

Hi folks,

Today I went over to Biola to buy books for next semester.

In one of my classes the texts will be Grudem's Systematic Theology and some historical writings.  Grudem's is written from a Reformed viewpoint.  (this should be VERY interesting)

One of the other books is the Heidelberg Catechism.  It is a Reformed catechism written in the Generation after Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli.  This publication is by the Christian Reformed Church.

A catechism is an instructional book written as a series of questions and answers.  I browsed through the book this afternoon.  I discovered this, which was quite a surprise to me.

This is question 85, page 115.

85. Q. How is the kingdom of heaven closed and opened by Christian discipline?

A. According to the command of Christ:

Those who, though called Christians, profess  unchristian teachings or live unchristian lives,
and after repeated and loving counsel,
refuse to abandon their errors and wickedness,
and after being reported to the church, that is, to its officers,
fail to respond also to their admonition-

such persons the officers shall exclude from the Christian fellowship
by withholding the sacraments from them,
and God himself excludes them from the kingdom of Christ.

Such persons
when promising and demonstrating genuine reform,
are received again
as members of Christ
and of His Church.

Do you realize what this is saying?  It says that:

1. The leaders of the church have the authority to cast you out of the church for "unchristian teachings".  This could be a real problem to many evangelicals, depending on what these fellows choose to define as "unchristian".

2. The means of this casting out is by withholding the "sacraments".
    This sounds a lot like "sitting back" to me.
3. God honors such judgement by casting you out of the kingdom of Christ!!!!!

4. The church leaders may relent, upon conditions they dictate, and recieve you back.
 This reception is not just into the fellowship of the congregation, it is reinstatement as MEMBERS OF CHRIST!

(this must necessarily mean that they have cast you OUT of Christ)

5. Notice also the part about the subjects conduct being reported to the officers.  

I have called these groups the semi-reformed churches many times.  This I have always done tongue in cheek, as sort of a pointed joke.

This, however, is obviously Catholic baggage that they need to jettison.  There is much more, but this is obviously very close to the teaching/practice of George Geftakys.

John 10:27-29.  "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand."

God bless,

Thomas Maddux