C&A debate distracts from the gospel.

[Frank Russell]

I tend to conclude that both Calvinist and Arminist debate make it about the person as to whether they have a choice or not. This debate distracts from the central theme of the gospel of Jesus Christ, that being: Jesus Christ.

In the garden the snake spoke of a choice to eat of the tree and be like God, but they were already created to be like God.

Instead of focusing on what God declared about all of creation .. "It is very good:" The humans consumed the knowing of good and evil, thus introducing all of the evil to their infantile brains that were just born yesterday. Having the power of God, but none of the maturity, all of creation was polluted by the evil imaginings created by said choice.

In the same way, the C&A debate creates a false dichotomy that points our minds away from the true purpose of God in this present age and in our lives.

It's not about me, it's about Jesus.

 

[Diserner]

Just saying something is about "Jesus" does not describe who Jesus really is.

Jesus could be the guy mowing your lawn, for all the information that gives.

If we recognize there is "another Jesus" and "false Christs," then it does make sense to fight over who we think Christ really is, and false misrepresentations of him.

For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted-- you may well put up with it! (2 Cor. 11:4 NKJ)

Then if anyone says to you,`Look, here is the Christ!' or,`Look, He is there!' do not believe it. (Mk. 13:21 NKJ)

I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3 NKJ)


A Jesus who does not love every single man, woman and boy, a Jesus who did not die to suffer for the sins of the whole world:

This is a false Jesus.

 

[Frank Russell]

Just saying something is about "Jesus" does not describe who Jesus really is.

Jesus could be the guy mowing your lawn, for all the information that gives.

If we recognize there is "another Jesus" and "false Christs," then it does make sense to fight over who we think Christ really is, and false misrepresentations of him.

For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted-- you may well put up with it! (2 Cor. 11:4 NKJ)

Then if anyone says to you,`Look, here is the Christ!' or,`Look, He is there!' do not believe it. (Mk. 13:21 NKJ)

I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3 NKJ)


A Jesus who does not love every single man, woman and boy, a Jesus who did not die for the sins of the whole world:

This is a false Jesus.

Jesus also taught that we would know of false teachings by their fruit.

The fruit is evident, congregations where there is calvinism, calvinist adjacent theology, or the debate in general results in people being separated from the love of God .. a thing Paul was convinced ... was impossible.

Since the spiritual fruit is bad, I reject the underlying premise.

 

[civic]

I tend to conclude that both Calvinist and Arminist debate make it about the person as to whether they have a choice or not. This debate distracts from the central theme of the gospel of Jesus Christ, that being: Jesus Christ.

In the garden the snake spoke of a choice to eat of the tree and be like God, but they were already created to be like God.

Instead of focusing on what God declared about all of creation .. "It is very good:" The humans consumed the knowing of good and evil, thus introducing all of the evil to their infantile brains that were just born yesterday. Having the power of God, but none of the maturity, all of creation was polluted by the evil imaginings created by said choice.

In the same way, the C&A debate creates a false dichotomy that points our minds away from the true purpose of God in this present age and in our lives.

It's not about me, it's about Jesus.

I get your point Frank. It is all about Him from cover to cover. The major problem is who is representing Jesus correctly. The Jesus I know gave His life for the whole world, everyone, all people. The gospel message is for everyone not just some or a few elect, chosen or predetermined few.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Frank Russell]

I get your point Frank. It is all about Him from cover to cover. The major problem is who is representing Jesus correctly. The Jesus I know gave His life for the whole world, everyone, all people. The gospel message is for everyone not just some or a few elect, chosen or predetermined few.

hope this helps !!!

I understand why there is a debate, but it has become so widespread people tend to get the impression this is all that Christianity is about. It wasn't really an issue prior to the reformation.

 

[civic]

I understand why there is a debate, but it has become so widespread people tend to get the impression this is all that Christianity is about. It wasn't really an issue prior to the reformation.

Correct there was no debate about it prior to that time in history as the church never believed what the Reformers taught.

 

[Frank Russell]

Correct there was no debate about it prior to that time in history as the church never believed what the Reformers taught.

And the good that came out of it is, we can have discussions like this without fear of life.

We take the good with the bad, but I noticed some especially harmful fruit regarding this subject matter, so posted.

 

[civic]

And the good that came out of it is, we can have discussions like this without fear of life.

We take the good with the bad, but I noticed some especially harmful fruit here, so posted.

I have no fear but I have been banned for coming against calvinism on calvinist based forums. I was a calvinist and friends with them on those sites until I left calvinism after being one for 40 plus years. I left calvinism officially in 2022. The forums I speak of permanently banned me for coming against calvinism and attacking their doctrines. It is one of the reasons this forum exists because several people saw what was happening with them and encouraged me to start a forum. So for me it personal in many ways since I believed and taught calvinism for so many years and was mistreated by them when I left calvinism.

If you look at our rules section I made a promise to everyone who joins this forum they would never be mocked, ridiculed, bullied, attacked personally for believing differently than I or anyone else believes. That is your freedom and its your own personal faith whether you are protestant, catholic, JW, muslim, Jewish etc.....

 

[Frank Russell]

I have no fear but I have been banned for coming against calvinism on calvinist based forums. I was a calvinist and friends with them on those sites until I left calvinism after being one for 40 plus years. I left calvinism officially in 2022. The forums I speak of permanently banned me for coming against calvinism and attacking their doctrines. It one of the reasons this one existes because several people saw what was happening with them and encouraged me to start a forum. So for me it personal in many ways since I believed and taught calvinism for so many years and was mistreated by them when I left calvinism.

If you look at our rules section I made a promise to everyone who joins this forum they would never be mocked, ridiculed, bullied, attacked personally for believing differently than I or anyone else believes. That is your freedom and its your own personal faith whether you are protestant, catholic, JW, muslim, Jewish etc.....

I read that in the rules, I like that about this site.

Some years ago, I stopped looking at things like protestants tend to, and got a lot of criticism for it. I didn't join orthodox or catholic after that because I had no spiritual revelation regarding their mary teachings and couldn't find the bible agreeing with their regard of her.

So I'm kind of in a middle position in that respect.

Thanks for creating a place to be.

 

[civic]

I read that in the rules, I like that about this site.

Some years ago, I stopped looking at things like protestants tend to, and got a lot of criticism for it. I didn't join orthodox or catholic after that because I had no spiritual revelation regarding their mary teachings and couldn't find the bible agreeing with their regard of her.

So I'm kind of in a middle position in that regard.

Thanks for creating a place to be.

Thanks for sharing your story with us and we are all on a different journey with our individual faith and walk. And no one has a 100% grasp of the truth like Jesus and the Apostles. So personally I believe we should all be "reforming" what we believe and growing in our knowledge and practice while remaining humble. I was a very proud calvinist who thought everything I believed that was reformed was actually the bible. But they were doctrines created by man and not equal with scripture. I would look at the bible through a reformed/calvinist lens so my eyes were biased and only saw things through the reformed/calvinist lens.

The study of the nature/character of God starting back before the pandemic happened is what eventually led me out of calvinism and I wrote a thesis paper about that search/study which is found here. Its still a work in progress I will be adding to and maybe a book down the road.

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/the-nature-of-god-in-the-atonement.30/

 

[synergy]

Thanks for sharing your story with us and we are all on a different journey with our individual faith and walk. And no one has a 100% grasp of the truth like Jesus and the Apostles. So personally I believe we should all be "reforming" what we believe and growing in our knowledge and practice while remaining humble. I was a very proud calvinist who thought everything I believed that was reformed was actually the bible. But they were doctrines created by man and not equal with scripture. I would look at the bible through a reformed/calvinist lens so my eyes were biased and only saw things through the reformed/calvinist lens.

The study of the nature/character of God starting back before the pandemic happened is what eventually led me out of calvinism and I wrote a thesis paper about that search/study which is found here. Its still a work in progress I will be adding to and maybe a book down the road.

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/the-nature-of-god-in-the-atonement.30/

You know, the Early Church did study the nature of God, the Holy Trinity, Christology, Christian Anthropology, Sacramentology, etc... primarily in the church counsels held between 300 and 800 AD. I have found Jay Dyer to be an excellent spokesman on all that, when he does focus on that subject. He will delve into many other subjects so you have to select only those videos where he talks about christianity (eastern orthodoxy to be more precise).

Here are 2 excellent Jay Dyer videos (parts 1 & 2). I had to pause the videos many times to absorb what Jay is trying to get across to his audience:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUnk2m_3a5g&t=393s

 

[civic]

You know, the Early Church did study the nature of God, the Holy Trinity, Christology, Christian Anthropology, Sacramentology, etc... primarily in the church counsels held between 300 and 800 AD. I have found Jay Dyer to be an excellent spokesman on all that, when he does focus on that subject. He will delve into many other subjects so you have to select only those videos where he talks about christianity (eastern orthodoxy to be more precise).

Here are 2 excellent Jay Dyer videos (parts 1 & 2). I had to pause the videos many times to absorb what Jay is trying to get across to his audience:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUnk2m_3a5g&t=393s

Thanks I’ll check them out after our company leaves today

 

[Diserner]

i got some problems with EO

 

[synergy]

i got some problems with EO

Since all churches are composed of fallible people then of course no church is absolutely perfect. Nevertheless, if you're interested in Christology and if you do have a look at Jay Dyer's video Part 1, l would be interested in what you think.

 

[Diserner]

Since all churches are composed of fallible people then of course no church is absolutely perfect. Nevertheless, if you're interested in Christology and if you do have a look at Jay Dyer's video Part 1, l would be interested in what you think.

I've watched a lot of Jay Dyer's stuff.

He's very intelligent, there is no doubt of that.

I have an EO friend who is also super smart.

But I just can't swallow some EO doctrine.

 

[synergy]

I've watched a lot of Jay Dyer's stuff.

He's very intelligent, there is no doubt of that.

I have an EO friend who is also super smart.

But I just can't swallow some EO doctrine.

I noticed that the EO does not have a well defined justification doctrine. They concentrated more on Theology, Christology, and an ontological view of anthropology. Nevertheless, I've found that both views are compatible and do not contradict each other.

I'm curious. What is it that turns you off about EO doctrine?

 

[Diserner]

I'm curious. What is it that turns you off about EO doctrine?

My biggest beeef is they claim to be the only true church and no one else outside can be saved, but also tend to hide that doctrine from people (big red flag always).

Weak on the sin nature—it's kinda there, but very weak.

Weak on PSA—again, it's kinda there, but very weak.

Strange beliefs—only triple dunked baptism saves, spiritual "toll" houses on the way to heaven, prayer to saints, etc.

I think EO can be within the pale of salvation, but has very serious errors.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I tend to conclude that both Calvinist and Arminist debate make it about the person as to whether they have a choice or not. This debate distracts from the central theme of the gospel of Jesus Christ, that being: Jesus Christ.

In the garden the snake spoke of a choice to eat of the tree and be like God, but they were already created to be like God.

Instead of focusing on what God declared about all of creation .. "It is very good:" The humans consumed the knowing of good and evil, thus introducing all of the evil to their infantile brains that were just born yesterday. Having the power of God, but none of the maturity, all of creation was polluted by the evil imaginings created by said choice.

In the same way, the C&A debate creates a false dichotomy that points our minds away from the true purpose of God in this present age and in our lives.

It's not about me, it's about Jesus.

Calvinism has a very real issue with preaching the Gospel properly. I don't say that "lightly", but I must tell the truth. Just there other day I saw a reference where James White said he found comfort in not having to get the Gospel right. That God's work is not impacted by the failure of preaching the Gospel properly. I can't help but vehemently disagree.

When Calvinism teaches that man must be "drawn" before accepting Jesus, then man ends up waiting for an event that never takes place. They insist that God must overwhelm them. That is not the Gospel. That distracts from the Gospel.

Arminianisms have an issue with presenting a merit based faith in the Gospel. While they deny this, I can't help but see many opportunities for the unlearned to believe they can indirectly earn the favor of God in their doctrine.

Needs to say, it is good that no man has to accept the musings of anyone. Any man can go directly to God through Jesus Christ. Any man can seek God. That is what God desires. Too many people are lazy and want/desire others to do all the work for them.

 

[civic]

My biggest beeef is they claim to be the only true church and no one else outside can be saved, but also tend to hide that doctrine from people (big red flag always).

Weak on the sin nature—it's kinda there, but very weak.

Weak on PSA—again, it's kinda there, but very weak.

Strange beliefs—only triple dunked baptism saves, spiritual "toll" houses on the way to heaven, prayer to saints, etc.

I think EO can be within the pale of salvation, but has very serious errors.

They are right on with PSA. They predate the reformation

 

[Rockson]

Calvinism has a very real issue with preaching the Gospel properly. I don't say that "lightly", but I must tell the truth. Just there other day I saw a reference where James White said he found comfort in not having to get the Gospel right. That God's work is not impacted by the failure of preaching the Gospel properly. I can't help but vehemently disagree.

As all know I'm not a Calvinist but I still would like to believe ones like White are still precious brothers in the Lord. I have to agree with you though. It is of super great importance to be preaching the gospel properly. If it wasn't why would James 3:1 state,

"My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation." James 3:1

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. James 3:1

I think as well there are many Bible subjects one might be wrong on but I most certainly would never want to be wrong in the way of saying God is not willing to save all sinners...I mean one is talking about potentially discouraging another that God might not even love them.....NO, no, let us never be wrong on that. God is not willing that any should perish and that's every single member of the human race.