Calvinism: You Must Already be Saved to Get Saved?

Shasta

Shasta

Well-known member
Let me add that I think the scriptures should be the source of theology their plain meaning must not be subverted or reverse-engineered to serve anyone's theology. If we can dismiss what God has revealed calling the passions of God mere "anthropopatheisms" then we are exalting philosophy over the word. I have no problem with logic, reason or even philosophy so long as they are subordinated to revelation.
 
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
Shasta said:
Let me add that I think the scriptures should be the source of theology their plain meaning must not be subverted or reverse-engineered to serve anyone's theology. If we can dismiss what God has revealed calling the passions of God mere "anthropopatheisms" then we are exalting philosophy over the word. I have no problem with logic, reason or even philosophy so long as they are subordinated to revelation.
Click to expand...
I agree BUT we all have to work from our own perception, which is, indeed, slanted. I have read a lot of good inductive Bible study books and sat in a few classes on the same BUT imho, they all presuppose as well as superimpose their own perspectives. I don't believe in a Tabula Rasa approach to Bible Study. Rather, I believe it is the further inductions after initial ones that better hone one's theology. James 1:25

I also agree this is a bit off the topic at hand, but it is an important discussion between Covenant and Dispensational theologies, so I think it worth the short detour. As far as I've seen, we have not had a "How To Study and Understand" your Bible other thank from various perspectives like Enyart's "The Plot" which is a manual on how to read the Bible from a MAD (and Open Theism) perspective. -Lon
 
meshak

meshak

BANNED
Banned
Lon said:
Wouldn't you need to quote me as saying such or other for it to actually be irony? :think:

As far as the other, 1 John 5:12 Romans 10:13 We either have or deny the Son. Have the Son.
Click to expand...

Not even one non-trins deny God, Son nor Holy Spirit. You just twist the scripture to fit your violent faith.

Your argument is a straw man.
 
Eagles Wings

Eagles Wings

New member
meshak said:
Not even one non-trins deny God, Son nor Holy Spirit. You just twist the scripture to fit your violent faith.

Your argument is a straw man.
Click to expand...
He hasn't posted an argument, dear, so no straw man in sight.

Lon would be more likely than most to accept one at face value if they claimed saving faith. He can correct me if I'm wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon
Shasta

Shasta

Well-known member
Lon said:
I agree BUT we all have to work from our own perception, which is, indeed, slanted. I have read a lot of good inductive Bible study books and sat in a few classes on the same BUT imho, they all presuppose as well as superimpose their own perspectives. I don't believe in a Tabula Rasa approach to Bible Study. Rather, I believe it is the further inductions after initial ones that better hone one's theology. James 1:25

I also agree this is a bit off the topic at hand, but it is an important discussion between Covenant and Dispensational theologies, so I think it worth the short detour. As far as I've seen, we have not had a "How To Study and Understand" your Bible other thank from various perspectives like Enyart's "The Plot" which is a manual on how to read the Bible from a MAD (and Open Theism) perspective. -Lon
Click to expand...

We do have to be careful with our perceptions. I do not think my perceptions are completely accurate by any means. In the end I think we will all be surprised (pleasantly, I hope) bu how things really are. To a certain degree studying science is like studying God. For one, we should not think that our internal models of creation are actually what the actual phenomenon is. When scientists have gotten to committed to a theory about reality that they constantly look for proofs they often end up going wrong. Nothing but referring to the text of nature can keep you going the right way. Likewise, when we are off track with our understanding of God, the scripture will object. When we find ourselves adjusting and stretching the scriptures to match our theories then we are off course. To me sound exegesis of the original languages is the basis for any study of God.
 
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
Shasta said:
We do have to be careful with our perceptions. I do not think my perceptions are completely accurate by any means. In the end I think we will all be surprised (pleasantly, I hope) bu how things really are.
Click to expand...
1 John 3:2


Shasta said:
To a certain degree studying science is like studying God.
Click to expand...
Agree. Sentence diagramming, storyboarding, as well as language study are all education disciplines and involved in scripture study and interpretation. We always learn this through our respective Systematic Theologies, though. When we get Bible Study Method, we get Reformed or Dispensational leanings with it.

Shasta said:
For one, we should not think that our internal models of creation are actually what the actual phenomenon is.
Click to expand...
This particular doesn't seem so much Inductive Bible Study to me. It is more of Systematic theology on that conversation, unless it were a scriptural discussion. I haven't seen many of those between Science and Creation, so it perks my interest. Have you seen a lot of these?

Shasta said:
When scientists have gotten to committed to a theory about reality that they constantly look for proofs they often end up going wrong. Nothing but referring to the text of nature can keep you going the right way.
Click to expand...
:think: Perhaps the creation discussion is simply illustrative, but I have a bit of a difficult time following one into the other...

Shasta said:
Likewise, when we are off track with our understanding of God, the scripture will object. When we find ourselves adjusting and stretching the scriptures to match our theories then we are off course. To me sound exegesis of the original languages is the basis for any study of God.
Click to expand...
True. I followed them toward Augustine. I suppose if we called ourselves Augustinian instead of Calvinist, it'd still get us into trouble. It isn't that I read Augustine, I just found after reading scripture, and afterwards reading attributes to Augustine, that I realized It was what I was getting from scripture. Today, I'm a Calvinist as far as I understand. I'd give it up, and like you say above, probably gladly if it was shown I was wrong, as God's Word continues to have its way in my life. Again, btw, if you ever start a thread on Inductive Bible Study, or Bible Study Method, or simply Biblical Theology, please send me a note and invite me over. -Lon
 
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
meshak said:
Not even one non-trins deny God, Son nor Holy Spirit. You just twist the scripture to fit your violent faith.

Your argument is a straw man.
Click to expand...
What argument? All I asked was, "Do you have the Son?" and then expressed "Have the Son." Is that an argument? How could it be an argument or a strawman? You haven't even given me a quote on any of this where I supposedly said only Trinitarians are Saved. What I have said in the past, is that I don't understand how a person can indwell a person, so in my thinking, it seems essential that you attribute the Son His proper place. I haven't really heard many Arians or Unitarians talk about their relationship to the Son, so here was an opportunity to tell if you have called on the name for Salvation and if you have the Son. Why did it become a conflict at that point? :idunno: Meshak, you are on ignore because you are always trying to pick an argument or fight with me, even when I don't intend any. I don't really want all our interactions to devolve to spats, so I have you on ignore still. When that ever changes, I'll take you off.
 
TulipBee

TulipBee

BANNED
Banned
“A man’s free will cannot cure him even of the toothache, or a sore finger; and yet he madly thinks it is in its power to cure his soul.” ~ (Augustus Toplady)
 
glorydaz

glorydaz

Well-known member
Ask Mr. Religion said:
This assumes we actually possessed some righteousness as unbelievers. We did not.

What "good" the unbeliever does do, helping the old lady across the road, giving to charity, feeding the poor, etc.,, are acts performed without the motive to glorify God, hence sin, sin, sin. These "good" acts are but the restraint of God upon their dry bones for the civic good, else the streets would be running with blood, given the moral inability of the unbeliever to not sin with every breath they draw from the very air God has given them with the lungs He created.
AMR
Click to expand...

I'll focus on this which speaks to the crux of the matter. You still aren't considering our choosing good over evil as our conscience dictates. This idea of total depravity or "moral inability" belies what Romans 1 tells us, as well as what other verses point out as a matter of fact.

Isaiah 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.​

Choosing good is not sinning because it's obeying our God given conscience, therefore He does get all the glory.
 
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
meshak said:
He will not correct any Calvinist who agree with him.
Click to expand...

I have in the past. I honestly haven't been a Calvinist long enough to go around correcting them so even if I disagree, I sit quietly and listen more often than not.

I generally would like those who have been Calvinists longer to speak up where there are differences (AMR does). So, you are correct. I have walked in scriptures a long time, but my Calvinism is fairly recent. -Lon
 
meshak

meshak

BANNED
Banned
Lon said:
:idunno: Meshak, you are on ignore because you are always trying to pick an argument or fight with me, even when I don't intend any.
Click to expand...

I can read the between the lines.

When you discuss with your opposed, you try to convince them with sweet lips.

It seems many of you are trying to silence the truth. You and AMR tried to silence me with this tactic but it did not work. That's why you give up on me, who are speaking the whole truth of Jesus' word, by ignoring me.
 
TulipBee

TulipBee

BANNED
Banned
meshak said:
I can read the between the lines.

When you discuss with your opposed, you try to convince them with sweet lips.

It seems many of you are trying to silence the truth. You and AMR tried to silence me with this tactic but it did not work. That's why you give up on me, who are speaking the whole truth of Jesus' word, by ignoring me.
Click to expand...
Airheads see empty spaces between the lines
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top