I was saved on May 11, 1986 at the Berean Baptist Church. I am a sign artist/graphics designer by trade. http://www.webbsignworks.com. My family and I play acoustic gospel music and raise sheep on our farm in NW Florida.
Group*Independent Fundamental Baptist
Member TitleHe shall feed his flock like a shepherd....
I notice that, as we have removed those from the forum who clearly stand for false doctrines, LIKE the reformed position, here we are, all of us ultimately in agreement on the subject at hand, and still we are fighting over such things as, 'should we even care what a reformed person believes about his words' and 'does it matter how they define terminology?'. Are are all of us against the doctrine, all agree it is wrong, but now, we aregue over how we deal with it. That's pretty sad, folks.
I guess it boils down to, do we want to successfully discuss the subject with a Calvinist or not? If not, that's fine, it doesn't matter how they define terms, let them continue. If you want to discuss it with them, you'd best understand what they mean when they talk, or there's going to be a lot of confusion.
Like many false groups, Mormons, JW's Catholics, etc, Calvinists change the meanings of biblical terminology to fit their doctrine. Ask a Mormon about gospel, and they will say they believe it. If we don't know that for them, the gospel is all about one's way of life, and not the death for our sins, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we might well go on our merry way thinking they are saved. A good example there is Glenn Beck. So with the Calvinist, if we want to discuss it, we'd best understand what they mean when they speak.
I guess my point it, after reading so much here, we all seem to agree-but we are arguning minute, non-issues about the subject at hand. Are we so desirous to argue that even in agreement we must argue?
Unless they have ''reformed'', you still have a couple.
I can usually deal with cats. However, there was this one tomcat which kept coming at night to fight with my Wife's tom. We lived in a tin-roofed mobile home at the time and most nights they would race across the roof and the tom would jump off onto a nearby pine tree to escape. But one night that big tom had my wife's cat pinned to the ground by the steps, holding him in a death-grip by his neck. I went back into the house, selected a .22 rifle, and sent him to his ''long home''.
But you have to be careful of killing people's ''fur children'' because they, for the most part, can't or won't comprehend that it's not OK for their ''loving'' ''sweet'' dog to roam the neighbors' property and do as it pleases with it's predatory nature. I've had our dogs attacked, chickens killed, rabbits killed and my son threatened on our own front porch. It gets old pretty quick.
Have you ever read Luther's Bondage of the Will? He said Adam was given free will and exercised it for his children, us in other word He used his freewill to sin and bore his son "in his own image" his sinful image. I used Luther as one who believed in predestination and if you actually read my post, you will see that I said they were Calvinists "!in your words." That is, they believed in predestination. To say that predestination did not mean predestination to life, but some other predestination is foolish Called, chosen, predestinated. If that were the only reference in scripture I would be inclined to agree with you, but there are many other places tat confirm this, remember, Jesus said "You didn't choose me, I chose you." and
John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
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.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
As you can see, the teaching of Jesus is no more popular today than it was them.
DasveW, you completely miss the point by trying to vilify me. (I am glad that n one will have that attitude when we get to glory) My point was, they all believed in predestination. Incidentally, they all (AS far as I know) taught that the Pope is the Man of Sin, the Antichrist.
A catholic is hardly likely to teach that.
I used the word "Calvinist" as you use it on anyone who believes in predestination.
I am an admirer of Br Cloud, except when he gets onto history and prophecy.
I don't follow Calvin, or any 5 points or TULIP, I just read the bible.
You asked, "Why did I use the label 'Arminian'?"
AS I was labelled "Calvinist" I used the term that some Calvinistic Baptists use about all those who believe in free will. I know a pastor who calls himself Arminian, and won't go to our church as he said we are Strict Baptists, but when I spoke to a member of his church, he said "Have you ever asked him to explain his position?" I said "No." and he replied, "I have and when he explains his beliefs, he is nearer to Calvin than Arminius.
First of all, we believe "predestination'' because it is a Bible doctrine. You want people to believe that predestination means the same as predeterminism. That's false doctrine, using a Bible word.
That's right. Jesus, angels, Israel, and the Church all have a job, and purpose. Jesus came to Earth, performed miracles, "went about doing good", shed His blood on the cross and rose from the dead. Part of His "work", his "job" was finished on Calvary. Now He makes "intercession for the saints" and will one day do something else when he comes in the clouds to get us, then fights with the sword of His mouth and stands upon the Mount of Olives, and reigns a thousand years....see what I'm saying? Likewise the angels, Israel and the Church have a purpose/function/job as well. Point being; Jesus is "elect" but that doesn't mean God "chose" him in the sense that he "picked" him...He has always existed and has always been God.
The bible mentions the plurality of elders in individual churches. It also mentions ''elders'' having ''rule''. A ''pastor'' might indeed be an ''elder'' if he is ''older', as Peter said he was, but not every elder was a church pastor. A ''bishop'' was evidently an ''office'' as was a ''deacon'' because the Bible says so. Men try to say that all of these three words; elder, bishop, and pastor, refer to the same ''office''. I have seen no Bible evidence that this is true. If you can convince your church that all three mean the same thing, then you have the ''means'' to eliminate any other ''rulers'' but yourself and thereby squelch the voice of anyone who disagrees with you. This type power gives occasion to the Jack Hyles's, Jack Schaaps and Jim Jones's of this world because it IS worldly. Too many of us want preeminence, want to dominate; not too many are willing to humble ourselves as servants.
Matthew 20: 25But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.26But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister
I posted this in a previous thread... what do you think?
"Here we go, bashing someone else's beliefs on 'what' the scriptures plainly teach from a believers own view.
Are we not aloud to believe our own 'convictions'? ''believing'' your own convictions is one thing; voicing them is another
It scares me how Scwenke can be so 'clear' in what he says, (and be wrong 'from my perspective'), and he is aloud to
be a 'believer'; yet someone else can be a 'false teacher' by also believing the scriptures 'clearly'. Scwenke is IFB, KJB and this a KJB, IFB forum
The road does go both ways. Both use the same 'road', yet only one can be right.
But does one being 'right', cancel out what the other guy believes from his own experience in Bible study, and that for years of study?
How is it that two diverse fella's, both with years of reading and studying the scriptures, come up with different views of the scriptures, and
disagree with eachother, how can they say to eachother, you are a false teacher?
Doesn't it have to do with experience, spiritually with the Lord? How can you call one's convictions that he learned from God in his own relationship, wrong doctrine.
Probably with these words - 'you are not understanding what God is saying here...'.
We have the mind of Christ.
Maybe a new thread."
Anything anyone? Do we 'have' to agree?
I've been an IFB for some 28 years but have been out of my 'element' much as you are, here on this forum, because I have been attending a SBC for 3 years. During those 3 years, I still don't like the rock music, the pants on women, the men in shorts with 'necklaces', the tobacco chewing, the MV's and some of the other things that SBC folks do. But though we still try to 'live right, dress right and spit white', we don't try to impose our beliefs on the SBC's because, again, I feel out of my element there. But here, on this IFB forum, I can still voice such things as that the King James Bible (not 'version') is God's pure, holy, inerrant, unadulterated Word for English Speaking people and that the others are corrupted and false, that Jesus Christ is coming back in the clouds pre-millennially, that Israel has not been 'replaced', and that Calvinism is lie and a slander against the name of the Lord Jesus Christ: because this is an IFB forum; not a ''Geneva bible'' forum. Why are you here: to learn or to sway others to your doctrine?