"...a church practicing the doctrines of Calvinism, you are not in the Lord's Church"

[GoBahnsen]

Well, here we have another radical web site. I just had some e-mail contact with the lead guy, Allen McNabb. I told him I was about to join an OPC Church and he wants me to know that isn't one of the Lord's Churches. Pretty amazing. I'll post some of Allen's stuff as time goes and maybe Allen will join us here on Tweb for some friendly discussion. Below is a page off of McNabb's web site.


McNabb says: What is Calvin's doctrine of total inability (i.e., total hereditary depravity, original sin)? Is it taught in the Bible?
"While John Calvin studied to become a Catholic priest, he undoubtedly learned the Catholic doctrine of original sin. Roman Catholics believe that babies are "born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin". John Calvin's doctrine of original sin and sprinkling babies is closely related to the Catholic Church's doctrine.

Calvin is known as the founder of the Reformed Churches (Presbyterian Church). He taught that each person's life perished, "having been extinguished by the sin of Adam", and that each person has a depraved nature. Therefore, Presbyterians believe that each person inherits original sin from Adam and is born lost in sin being hostile to God, slaves to Satan, and servants to sin. The doctrine of total inability (i.e., total hereditary depravity, original sin) is not taught in the Bible. God tells us that we do not inherit anyone's sin (Ezek. 18:20; cf. 2 Ki. 14:6). We sin after being tempted when we are carried away and enticed by our own lusts (Ja. 1:13-15).

Jesus teaches us that we must become as little children to enter the kingdom of God (Matt. 18:3- 4; Lk. 18:16-17) ---- we must be as infants regarding evil (1 Cor. 14:20). Babies are not born as sinners (as Calvinists would have us beleive). If they die, they are safe, because they have no sin.

If you are in a church practicing the doctrines of Calvinism, you are not in the Lord's church (1 Tim. 3:15).

Allan McNabb"

[Berean Todd]

Well, while I call myself a mild-calvinist, total depravity is one area where I differ with a full Calvninist. Full calvinists believe that the image of God in man is utterly destroyed, I believe that it is utterly marred, but not destroyed. That said, original sin is obvious in the Bible, and the above poster you quoted has no clue what he is talking about.

[GoBahnsen]

Well, while I call myself a mild-calvinist, total depravity is one area where I differ with a full Calvninist. Full calvinists believe that the image of God in man is utterly destroyed, I believe that it is utterly marred, but not destroyed. That said, original sin is obvious in the Bible, and the above poster you quoted has no clue what he is talking about.Hey Todd, thanks for getting this thread off the ground. I'm curious to learn more about your "mild-Calvinism".

Are you sure Calvinists believe the image of God is "utterly" destroyed? It is the doctrine of "total" depravity, not utter depravity. Calvinists maintain that man is not as depraved as he can be. Fallen man still reflects the image of God which has been marred or distorted, but not utterly destroyed.

Man is totally depraved in that the fall affects man in the totality of his being, in his body (man is dying), mind and spirit (man is spiritually dead in sin Eph 2). Man is born in a state whereby he cannot perceive the Kingdom of God. His flesh profits nothing and in it dwells no good thing. In short, fallen man must be re-created by God into a new man. A spiritual man, whereby he can know God and understand true spiritual realities. This is regeneration in Calvinism. A monergistic sovereign work of God upon His chosen ones (all who believe in Christ. all Christians , not just Calvinists)

Such that they (believers) see Jesus as Lord and call Him Lord in truth. No man can call Jesus Lord, in truth, except by the Holy Spirit (1Cor 12:3). So Calvinists don't claim that men are not capable of knowing right from wrong or that the moral image of God has been completely destroyed. It's just that fallen men are not able to come to Christ and be saved unless the Father intiates this by drawing them to the Son. And the Son receives them, will never lose them and will raise them up on the last day (John 6:39-44)

Thanks for writing Todd and I look forward to discussing this further. I hope to get Allen over here to defend his radical stance on Calvinism.

[bar Jonah]

Two cents from an Open Creationist who very strongly opposes Calvinist doctrine...


This guy is off his nut. He's preaching a false gospel of works to the Body of Christ, guilty of Gal. 1:6-9. Demanding that believers hold to secondary issues or else they are hellbound -- preposterous. Despite my significant differences with doctrines, I believe the odds of a "Calvinist" being saved are higher than that of the average Christain overall. Additionally, I respect hte fact that Calvinists have a stronger tendency to know their theology (in general, not even just in Calvinism). They certainly have their downsides (most notably a strong lack of interest in evangelism in the general body - their theologians notwithstanding). But to reject Calvinists from the Body is wholly unacceptable and I would say it goes as far as being a false gospel based on works.

Ironically, as someone who is preaching a false gospel, this guy is actually less likely to be saved than the average Calvinist. (Though we can't know the heart of a person; just referring to likelihoods.)

[GoBahnsen]

Two cents from an Open Creationist who very strongly opposes Calvinist doctrine...


This guy is off his nut. He's preaching a false gospel of works to the Body of Christ, guilty of Gal. 1:6-9. Demanding that believers hold to secondary issues or else they are hellbound -- preposterous. Despite my significant differences with doctrines, I believe the odds of a "Calvinist" being saved are higher than that of the average Christain overall. Additionally, I respect hte fact that Calvinists have a stronger tendency to know their theology (in general, not even just in Calvinism). They certainly have their downsides (most notably a strong lack of interest in evangelism in the general body - their theologians notwithstanding). But to reject Calvinists from the Body is wholly unacceptable and I would say it goes as far as being a false gospel based on works.

Ironically, as someone who is preaching a false gospel, this guy is actually less likely to be saved than the average Calvinist. (Though we can't know the heart of a person; just referring to likelihoods.) I think you make some good points Right. In fact I was just reading up on Allen and found out this:

McNabb says:"Does the church bear a Scriptural name? Some of the most common names in the Bible for a New Testament church are: church of the Firstborn (Heb. 12:23), church of God (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 1:2; 10:32; 1 Tim. 3:5), the church (1 Th. 1:1; Eph. 5:23), church of Christ (Rom. 16:16), house of God (1 Tim. 3:15). A church with any other name is not a church founded upon the doctrine of Christ but upon the doctrines of men."

Well there goes most Churches down the drain. What you "call" your Church identifies whether it's a true Church or not. I guess Calvary Chapels bombed out with that choice of a name. So Allen is of the Church of Christ. I guess the Mormons were doing pretty well with the name selction, but of course McNabb rejects them for most of the same reasons Calvinistic and Arminian Churches do.

I've yet to invite Allen over here. I'm waiting for the right post to e-mail him with. Personally, I have had little to no discussion with Church of Christ folks. I suppose they vary, like most denominations do. With Allen's variety being very narrow, much like the OTC with their hyper-Calvinism.

[Spokoina]

Doesn't surprise me that condemnation flies back and forth. Good thing we are not God, huh?

My problem with men trying to say which is or who is in the body of Christ or not is that there is no depth of agreement on what essentials are and what depth you have to agree in explaining them.. Just start a thread on what is essential or not, and what the essentials mean, and with three men, you will have ten answers.

I think people in Christ are found in a number of places, and most might be surprised who God is working on...in the end, we will all know.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Personally, I have had little to no discussion with Church of Christ folks. I suppose they vary, like most denominations do. With Allen's variety being very narrow, much like the OTC with their hyper-Calvinism.

There's a breadth of beliefs there, to be sure; a friend of mine is a professor of biblical studies and is also a pastor in the Church of Christ. He's one of the wisest and yet among the most humble men I know....

[Xmansmommy]

Doesn't surprise me that condemnation flies back and forth. Good thing we are not God, huh?

My problem with men trying to say which is or who is in the body of Christ or not is that there is no depth of agreement on what essentials are and what depth you have to agree in explaining them.. Just start a thread on what is essential or not, and what the essentials mean, and with three men, you will have ten answers.

I think people in Christ are found in a number of places, and most might be surprised who God is working on...in the end, we will all know.

Amen sista! :thumb:

[GoBahnsen]

Edit correction: Allan did not post this, I meant it as merely showing that this is his statement. Sorry for being sloppy. I've invited him as of today, but I'm not sure if he will come on.
McNabb says: What is Calvin's doctrine of total inability (i.e., total hereditary depravity, original sin)? Is it taught in the Bible?
"While John Calvin studied to become a Catholic priest, he undoubtedly learned the Catholic doctrine of original sin. Roman Catholics believe that babies are "born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin". John Calvin's doctrine of original sin and sprinkling babies is closely related to the Catholic Church's doctrine.


Allan McNabb" Calvinists are merely agreeing with the Biblical data. For example: Jesus says "Apart from Me you can do nothing (John 15:5)" Now Jesus is not saying that men can actually do nothing at all, but rather that on their own, they can't do anything that is truly good (fruit). They can't do it. Cannot. "no man CAN come to ME", Jesus said Can't do it. Impossible. Calvinists call this "inability" and it is a part of man's falleness.
The same holds true when Jesus says "the flesh profits nothing." Jesus isn't saying that men can't hold down jobs, support their families, but rather that they cannot please God being unregenerate, "in the flesh". Something must take place that is a work of God.
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

A man must be born again.

Calvinists maintain that God is the One who starts this work. Because... if an unregenerate man, in the flesh, can help God get this born again business off the ground...well then, the flesh apparently profits quite a bit.
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, are are life.

[GoBahnsen]

Allan sent this to me in an e-mail:

"We are commanded to obey Jesus (Heb. 5:9), speaking and doing the things He has authorized (Col. 3:17). Therefore, a congregation of His body does the work Jesus has commanded, organized the way He was commanded, with the name He has commanded.

Also, Paul teaches that denominationalism (taking on man-made religious names) is wrong (1 Cor. 1:10-13), and is a result of carnality (1 Cor. 3:1-4).
GoBahnsen replied: The problem here Allan (forgive me for misspelling your name earlier), is that these verses make no clear statement that a Church cannot use the name of a man or of a city or a Harvest or Calvary or whatever. The idea was to not divide into little splits saying "hey your baptism doesn't count because you didn't get baptized by Paul". Or "we have the Holy Spirit and you don't because we speak in tongues" Paul was addressing this kind of carnality in Corinth.

In fact, to focus on what a congregation calls themselves and making that a mark of a true church, that appears to be divisive and carnal my friend.

[bar Jonah]

When you get down to it, almost every theological group has preachers of an overly exclusionary false gospel as the nitwit in the OP. I know there are some Calvies like that... there are dispensationalists like that, including Mid-Acts people.

Heck, Linda can tell you about some very unedifying and hyper-divisive people who are Calvinist Mid-Acts people who had no problem looking a street preacher like myself in the eye and saying I'm not a brother in Christ, and then turn around and call an unbeliever "brother" or "sister" in full view of the chat room. People like Bruce Ware, Norman Geisler and R.C. Sproul have also been guilty of hyper-exclusionary preaching in openly rejecting members of the Open View as being unsaved. I'm not aware of anyone in the Open camp guilty of that, but if there are, I really would like to hear it (not being sarcastic) so I can condemn that as well. I'm sure it'll happen, sooner or later.

Preachers of a false gospel are all around us.

[GoBahnsen]

When you get down to it, almost every theological group has preachers of an overly exclusionary false gospel as the nitwit in the OP. I know there are some Calvies like that... there are dispensationalists like that, including Mid-Acts people.

Heck, Linda can tell you about some very unedifying and hyper-divisive people who are Calvinist Mid-Acts people who had no problem looking a street preacher like myself in the eye and saying I'm not a brother in Christ, and then turn around and call an unbeliever "brother" or "sister" in full view of the chat room. People like Bruce Ware, Norman Geisler and R.C. Sproul have also been guilty of hyper-exclusionary preaching in openly rejecting members of the Open View as being unsaved. I'm not aware of anyone in the Open camp guilty of that, but if there are, I really would like to hear it (not being sarcastic) so I can condemn that as well. I'm sure it'll happen, sooner or later.

Preachers of a false gospel are all around us.I suppose we all do our share of boogering things up. I like you Right, but I'm not sure you're right about your evaluation of Calvinists in your previous post here.

Even now Trout 13 has gone off to street witness with a group of believers, to the Mormons. I think they've gone right into the thick of it in Utah (not sure it's Utah). But anyway, I think Calvinists are passionate for evangelizing the lost, though not for the same exact motive of the Arminian.

The Calvinist ministers the Gospel because the King has commanded it and guaranteed it's success. God will save a People for Himself and He will use men, Calvinists, Arminians, OVT's and whoever He wants to, in order to get His Gospel to His before appointed hearers.

I'm here on Tweb as a Calvinist seeking to win the lost. I'm evangelizing here. I expect there are unsaved readers, who never post, that may be influenced by something I say. Or you for that matter. Don't you consider this a ministry? I'm guessing you do.

[Gabby]

I think you make some good points Right. In fact I was just reading up on Allen and found out this:

Well there goes most Churches down the drain. What you "call" your Church identifies whether it's a true Church or not. I guess Calvary Chapels bombed out with that choice of a name. So Allen is of the Church of Christ. I guess the Mormons were doing pretty well with the name selction, but of course McNabb rejects them for most of the same reasons Calvinistic and Arminian Churches do.

I've yet to invite Allen over here. I'm waiting for the right post to e-mail him with. Personally, I have had little to no discussion with Church of Christ folks. I suppose they vary, like most denominations do. With Allen's variety being very narrow, much like the OTC with their hyper-Calvinism.

Don't put us all in the same basket!

chris

[GoBahnsen]

Well folks, Allan won't be joining us afterall, but he wanted me to post this e-mail, so I am, in it's entirety. In fact I have done nothing to misrepresent Mr. McNabb. He has a public site. I asked public questions and since none of his answers to me were of a personal nature, I felt there was no betrayal in posting his remarks here. I think he should rather be happy that his site got some wider recognition. But you know, when you go on the internet and tell people that they are in a false Church, you should expect some heat and exposure.

Maybe I'm wrong. Some people are very sensitive about these things. My apologies to Allan for any inappropriateness on my part. Had he mentioned his wife or kids, or a personal struggle with sin, I would never have posted it here. I merely posted answers to Theological questions. What do you guys think? Did I botch it?



Allan said: I'm disappointed that you were not forthright when you approached me through my web site. Not that I would not have responded to your inquiry, but I would have liked to of known in advance that you were going to post my email response on your site.

Please make it clear that I did not put these posts on your site, and that they were put there with my advance knowledge. Please also indicate that you were not honest with me when you asked me these questions --- you did not tell me that my responses would be posted on your site, to provide fuel for the fire you are fanning. If I had known, I would have answer in a way that people who had not read the material on my site would have been better informed.

Also, please put a citation for the material you took from my site, so that interested parties can go to BibleStudyGuide.org and read what I have written on this topic, not small snippets that you have chosen to include in your posts.

Please advise all your readers that I do not wish, and never have wished to participate in your forum. But if anyone wishes to discuss this topic with me, they are welcome to go to my site (BibleStudyGuide.org) and contact me. Or, they can email me at
allan@biblestudyguide.org (http://us.f811.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=allan@biblestudyguide.org).

P.S. If anyone goes to the "Ask Question" section at
http://www.biblestudyguide.org/question/questionform.htm (http://www.biblestudyguide.org/question/questionform.htm) of my site, they're inquiry may be sent to a volunteer Bible teacher. It will not necessarily be forward to me.

Thank you. I suggest that you be forthright about your intentions in the future. I look forward to seeing if you post this email.

Allan McNabb

[Spiritus Naturae]

I think you make some good points Right. In fact I was just reading up on Allen and found out this:

Well there goes most Churches down the drain. What you "call" your Church identifies whether it's a true Church or not. I guess Calvary Chapels bombed out with that choice of a name. So Allen is of the Church of Christ. I guess the Mormons were doing pretty well with the name selction, but of course McNabb rejects them for most of the same reasons Calvinistic and Arminian Churches do.

I've yet to invite Allen over here. I'm waiting for the right post to e-mail him with. Personally, I have had little to no discussion with Church of Christ folks. I suppose they vary, like most denominations do. With Allen's variety being very narrow, much like the OTC with their hyper-Calvinism.

Hiya, GoB. I do believe you are dealing with what is called a mainstream/accapella Church of Christ crowd. You'll have your work cut out for you. I myself am dealing with the issue as my wifes family is ensconced in the CoC tradition, all stemming from the Restoration Movement of the late 19th Century. I have quite a few posts on the subject here on the TWeb. One in particular: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11028 They are hard to deal with, as they have a peculiar hermenuetic. It is based solely in tradition which they heartily deny it being tradition or doctrine but rather the Bible only, "Bible names for Bible things", "We are silent where the Bible is silent" etc. They take non-salvational issues to the level of damning a person, one point in particular that I have 'harped' (pun intended)on about is their statements regarding music in church. I have some good site references on the subject if your interested. I'll help if I can.

Jonathan

[Gabby]

Not all of us in the c of C are like that Spiritus.

chris

[Spiritus Naturae]

Not all of us in the c of C are like that Spiritus.

chris

Hiya chris. :hi:

I know, that is why I pointed out that what GoB is probably dealing with is a non-instrumental CoCer. There are lots of CoC's that have music in worship and do not see the matter as salvational; they tend to understand there will be differences amongst the body, the church universal.

[GoBahnsen]

Well friends (and enemies) I just sent this off to Allan with all forthrightness.
I hope this helps to heal the hurt I have apparently caused him. Maybe my skin is getting too thick being here on Tweb so much.

Sent to Allan McNabb by GoBahnsen:
I was just about to send this when your last e-mail just came through. Actually Allan, I stumbled onto your site (by providence no doubt) and at the first I wasn't thinking of starting a thread on Tweb with regard to it. So I could not have been forthright about my intentions, because they had not developed yet. I think you are believing your own judgments too quickly.

Dear Allan, I wanted to offer my personal apology to you for any offense I may have committed against you. Please forgive for the sake of Christ. Though I am a moderator on Theologyweb, my actions taken were my own and do not necessarily reflect the desires of the owners and administrators. It really never crossed my mind about being forthright or not be forthright. I was merely discussing Theology with you and just like I would not ask you if it was ok to discuss your responses with my friends at Church, so I felt I was doing no harm making your Theological, non personal answers known to my friends on Tweb.

Actually, I'm curious to know why you refuse to or have any interest in defending your claims on a public debate forum? Your view makes null and void most of our Churches, yet you don't want to come out in the open to be challenged. I don't understand that part.
Seems you would be glad to represent your web site, instead of having me do it. In fact, while you're upset with me for posting an e-mail (and I only posted one of the several you sent), at least I did make it known to you (that I was) and invited you to come on Tweb. Albeit, perhaps I had the cart before the horse; nevertheless I did end up being forthright, when I could have been secret all along.

I had no malice of intent in making your views a subject of public debate and discussion. My desire is not to start a fire and fan the flames as you have judged me. Rather my desire is to see you come to your senses, and to what ever extent I need to have my eyes opened as well. I do hope you'll continue to at least read the posts that come in over the next several days or weeks. If I come across a rather insightful one, I may go ahead and forward it to you via e-mail. Again, I'm sorry if I crossed a line. I'm still learning the game of life with all it's unspoken rules of conduct. I'll be posting this e-mail as well, just so you know.

Sincerely, GoBahnsen of Tweb.

[Gabby]

Hiya chris. :hi:

I know, that is why I pointed out that what GoB is probably dealing with is a non-instrumental CoCer. There are lots of CoC's that have music in worship and do not see the matter as salvational; they tend to understand there will be differences amongst the body, the church universal.

Actually we are a non-instrumental cofC. However, we don't hold to the idea that it is a salvational issue. We have just chosen to be non-instrament during our worship service. Instruments are used at other times when we are together. Women are also actice in reading scripture, passing, ect.

chris

[GoBahnsen]

Actually we are a non-instrumental cofC. However, we don't hold to the idea that it is a salvational issue. We have just chosen to be non-instrament during our worship service. Instruments are used at other times when we are together. Women are also actice in reading scripture, passing, ect.

chrisSo tell me gab, are you with Allan? Do you believe my Presbyterian Church is not a Church of the Lord's? I mean, simply because it is Presbyterian?

[Gabby]

Ummm No.

I didn't read much of what he said, and I've never heard of him. But I don't believe that only those who attend a cofc are saved. I have some problems with Calvinism, but from what I know of Calvinism (which isn't much) they are all secondary issues/non-salvational issues.

Does that answer your question?

[bar Jonah]

I suppose we all do our share of boogering things up. I like you Right, but I'm not sure you're right about your evaluation of Calvinists in your previous post here.

Even now Trout 13 has gone off to street witness with a group of believers, to the Mormons. I think they've gone right into the thick of it in Utah (not sure it's Utah). But anyway, I think Calvinists are passionate for evangelizing the lost, though not for the same exact motive of the Arminian.

The Calvinist ministers the Gospel because the King has commanded it and guaranteed it's success. God will save a People for Himself and He will use men, Calvinists, Arminians, OVT's and whoever He wants to, in order to get His Gospel to His before appointed hearers.

I'm here on Tweb as a Calvinist seeking to win the lost. I'm evangelizing here. I expect there are unsaved readers, who never post, that may be influenced by something I say. Or you for that matter. Don't you consider this a ministry? I'm guessing you do.
Well, I dont' survey large groups like Barna. All I know is my ministry's experience, and we meet people from almost literally every walk of life, from millionaires to homeless, every race and almost every culture, and virtually every belief system, including all the Christian sects and denoms, etc.

And in our experience, the average Calvinist believer/church-goer has has less desire to evangelize than the average Christian in general. What Trout does is awesome, and I laud any Christian who commits to evangelistic efforts, and there are many of those in Calvinism. But overall, the church-going Calvinists frequently use Calvinism as an excuse to not evangelize, literally. I have personally begged Calvinist Christians in my ministry's tent to witness to me (they thinking I was unsaved, which is often how we operate). "Well, based on what I've learned about Calvinism, you're probably predestined to go to Hell, so it would probably be a waste of time to witness to you." That is almost word for word what they said. And they're not the only ones.

But there's room for improvement all over the place. :ribrown:

[GoBahnsen]

Well, I dont' survey large groups like Barna. All I know is my ministry's experience, and we meet people from almost literally every walk of life, from millionaires to homeless, every race and almost every culture, and virtually every belief system, including all the Christian sects and denoms, etc.

And in our experience, the average Calvinist believer/church-goer has has less desire to evangelize than the average Christian in general. What Trout does is awesome, and I laud any Christian who commits to evangelistic efforts, and there are many of those in Calvinism. But overall, the church-going Calvinists frequently use Calvinism as an excuse to not evangelize, literally. I have personally begged Calvinist Christians in my ministry's tent to witness to me (they thinking I was unsaved, which is often how we operate). "Well, based on what I've learned about Calvinism, you're probably predestined to go to Hell, so it would probably be a waste of time to witness to you." That is almost word for word what they said. And they're not the only ones.

But there's room for improvement all over the place. :ribrown:Yeah, well my Calvinist world is pretty small. All I know is that my limited exposure has been very encouraging. But you see the OPC tends to be almost like a Calvary Chapel, except for the Arminianism and other worship practices not prescribed in the Scripture. But it is definitely a lively Church, with few if any lukewarm Christians.

All I can say is I'm saddened to hear about your experiences. But if you begged me to witness to you, I would merely want to know Who and what you are trusting in for Salvation. Then we could spend the next ten years banging our heads together trying to get some better consensus.:argh: :hehe:

[bar Jonah]

Well, I'd like to give an encouraging challenge to a Calvinist brother in Christ .... to challenge your fellow Calvinist believers - the average folks - to always be ready with an answer when the world comes asking for a reason for the hope that lies within them! In season, and out of season! To challenge themselves to grow in their ability to share the gospel with others more effectively! :rithumb:

[GoBahnsen]

Well, I'd like to give an encouraging challenge to a Calvinist brother in Christ .... to challenge your fellow Calvinist believers - the average folks - to always be ready with an answer when the world comes asking for a reason for the hope that lies within them! In season, and out of season! To challenge themselves to grow in their ability to share the gospel with others more effectively! :rithumb:Well thanks Right. Did you see my post a few back where I posted Allan's disgruntled email to me? Speaking of consensus, what's your take on his complaint about what I've done here?

[Spiritus Naturae]

Actually we are a non-instrumental cofC. However, we don't hold to the idea that it is a salvational issue. We have just chosen to be non-instrument during our worship service. Instruments are used at other times when we are together. Women are also active in reading scripture, passing, ect.

chris

That is refreshing to hear...I think accapella worship can be quite beautiful. And I like the fact that women are allowed to participate in church. You wont find that in the CoC's I am speaking of.

:smile:
Jonathan

[Gabby]

Actually, you'd probably find quite a difference between the American cofc and the Canadian cofc's. But that might be just because we're just a Liberal society. :wink:

chris

hmmm wrong wink, guess I need to fix that.

[seer]

Calvinists are merely agreeing with the Biblical data. For example: Jesus says "Apart from Me you can do nothing (John 15:5)" Now Jesus is not saying that men can actually do nothing at all, but rather that on their own, they can't do anything that is truly good (fruit). They can't do it. Cannot. "no man CAN come to ME", Jesus said Can't do it. Impossible. Calvinists call this "inability" and it is a part of man's falleness.
The same holds true when Jesus says "the flesh profits nothing." Jesus isn't saying that men can't hold down jobs, support their families, but rather that they cannot please God being unregenerate, "in the flesh". Something must take place that is a work of God.

This is true GB, and Classic Arminianism would agree:

Hebrews 11:6

"And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."

Romans 14:23

"But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin."

[Berean Todd]

Hey Todd, thanks for getting this thread off the ground. I'm curious to learn more about your "mild-Calvinism".
Well, I definately can not ascribe to any non-calvinistic theology as I find serious fault with all of them. But I see in the Bible, as do many others, that there is a clear teaching of God's soveriegnty and predestination. I also see a very clear teaching of man's responsibility, choice, and God's desiring of all to be saved.

I have never heard a full Calvinist explain Romans 1-2 in an acceptable way, nor many other tough passages. I see Romans 8 as the key, and that God predestined those whom He foreknew would choose Him. I feel that He is calling to all of us, and that He created the world such that the most good could come about from it. It is impossible to have true love without free will, thus He gave us free will, but in so doing it was impossible for this world to be perfect, because invariably we would choose against Him. But I think that He has arranged it that the most people possible would come to Him.

I do believe in divine sovereignty, in purposeful atonement, perseverance of the saints, etc, etc. My main issues with full Calvinism are total depravity (image of God in man destroyed), and Irresistible Grace. There have been several theologians who hold positions similar to mine, and none of them (nor I) would ever claim any non-calvinist camp's position, but neither do we fully fit into the Calvinism camp, thus the title "mild-Calvinist". Basically Calvies like to call us "Arminian" and any non-Calvinist absolutely calls us Calvinist.

[GoBahnsen]

Ok, here's where Allan and I stand. Allan has agreed to forgive and forget. He has agreed to have his answers to my questions posted here as long as he knows in advance what I'm up to. Fair enough? Sounds good and I'm thankful for Allan's willingness to forgive me and participate here, even if it is indirectly for now.

I say we give him a nice Tweb welcome here or if you want to send him an email through his site address (given on a previous post). Either way, I think it is good to see forgiveness and a willingness to move on. My goal is for us to learn. To grow in Christ. To test all things, hold fast that which is good.

Warmly in Christ, GB

[Calvinist4Him]

Hey Todd, thanks for getting this thread off the ground. I'm curious to learn more about your "mild-Calvinism".

Are you sure Calvinists believe the image of God is "utterly" destroyed? It is the doctrine of "total" depravity, not utter depravity. Calvinists maintain that man is not as depraved as he can be. Fallen man still reflects the image of God which has been marred or distorted, but not utterly destroyed.

Man is totally depraved in that the fall affects man in the totality of his being, in his body (man is dying), mind and spirit (man is spiritually dead in sin Eph 2). Man is born in a state whereby he cannot perceive the Kingdom of God. His flesh profits nothing and in it dwells no good thing. In short, fallen man must be re-created by God into a new man. A spiritual man, whereby he can know God and understand true spiritual realities. This is regeneration in Calvinism. A monergistic sovereign work of God upon His chosen ones (all who believe in Christ. all Christians , not just Calvinists)

Such that they (believers) see Jesus as Lord and call Him Lord in truth. No man can call Jesus Lord, in truth, except by the Holy Spirit (1Cor 12:3). So Calvinists don't claim that men are not capable of knowing right from wrong or that the moral image of God has been completely destroyed. It's just that fallen men are not able to come to Christ and be saved unless the Father intiates this by drawing them to the Son. And the Son receives them, will never lose them and will raise them up on the last day (John 6:39-44)

Thanks for writing Todd and I look forward to discussing this further. I hope to get Allen over here to defend his radical stance on Calvinism.

Amen and amen! :smile: Gobahnsen, you make me proud to call myself a Calvinist!

[Ormly]

I just finished listening to David Jeremiah's broadcast on resentment. He left nothing out as to what to do from a "self-help" perspective. You have to do this and do that, etc. Asking why you are resentful was the first step and then it went downhill from there into all sorts of psychology and such. Never once did I hear him say: "check you relationship with Christ, that's where the problem lies". It didn't happen.

[GoBahnsen]

Well, I definately can not ascribe to any non-calvinistic theology as I find serious fault with all of them. But I see in the Bible, as do many others, that there is a clear teaching of God's soveriegnty and predestination. I also see a very clear teaching of man's responsibility, choice, and God's desiring of all to be saved. I just quoted Spurgeon at length yesterday (the God hater thread?, can't seem to keep track of all my posts), anyway, he was saying a person has got to learn to look at both parallel lines, sovereignty and responsibility, at the same time. I thought he was right on.

I have never heard a full Calvinist explain Romans 1-2 in an acceptable way, nor many other tough passages. Keep listening, you'll hear one. If you've got a developed vocab, try John Murray's exposition of Romans. He doesn't skip one single nuance.

I see Romans 8 as the key, and that God predestined those whom He foreknew would choose Him. But then God isn't really choosing, He just ratifies man's choice. Or He knows about the choice in advance. But men really elect themselves, and that is at the heart of these non-Calvinistic theologies you find "serious fault with."

I feel that He is calling to all of us, and that He created the world such that the most good could come about from it. It is impossible to have true love without free will, thus He gave us free will, but in so doing it was impossible for this world to be perfect, because invariably we would choose against Him. But I think that He has arranged it that the most people possible would come to Him. I like you Todd, so don't become my enemy now on Tweb, but I think you're being just too Pollyanna-ish here. Though I make no claim to be the one who knows exactly what God had in mind, when He created man, then let Satan into the garden, etc. I will say that I think it has more to do with God displaying His glory in Redemptive history. This talk of freewill in order to get true love is not necessary IMHO.

As I've said many a time now, God could have filled the earth with John the Baptists. Filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb. John had freewill (as far as it goes) and I'm sure his love for God was meaningful. This picture of God letting us run around autonomously, and God setting things up so that lots of people would use their freewill's rightly, just doesn't seem to be the round peg for the round hole.

Right there in the OT, you have God, sort of not caring as it were (not saying He didn't) about the mass of humanity (already completely goofed up after the flood), but God hones in on a man, Abram. And God sooooo patiently, works through Abram, who becomes Abraham and then the others, then 400 years in captivity, etc. God has got His people for His Name. He doesn't seem to care about the rest of the nations. He is being very selective and particular, very sovereign if you will.

My point is, historically, God doesn't seem to fit this modern idea, that He isn't partial, that He loves all the same and is trying to get as many saved as He can. It just doesn't square with redemptive history. Calvinists recognize this, while non Reformed views are focused on some proof texts, "God is not willing that any should perish..." Well, I'm off topic and Calvinists have a good answer for 2Pet 3:9, I guess I've said enough for now.



I do believe in divine sovereignty, in purposeful atonement, perseverance of the saints, etc, etc. My main issues with full Calvinism are total depravity (image of God in man destroyed), and Irresistible Grace. There have been several theologians who hold positions similar to mine, and none of them (nor I) would ever claim any non-calvinist camp's position, but neither do we fully fit into the Calvinism camp, thus the title "mild-Calvinist". Basically Calvies like to call us "Arminian" and any non-Calvinist absolutely calls us Calvinist.
Yeah, you're an Arminian Todd, but you seem like a very reasonable one and I have high hopes for you. Friends?:highfive:

[Ormly]

[/url] I have never heard a full Calvinist explain Romans 1-2 in an acceptable way, nor many other tough passages.[url="http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-bot-left.gif"] (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-top-left.gif)Keep listening, you'll hear one. If you've got a developed vocab, try John Murray's exposition of Romans. He doesn't skip one single nuance.


LOL!! Why should we have to wait so long?? ROTFLOL!!!!

[GoBahnsen]

Keep listening, you'll hear one. If you've got a developed vocab, try John Murray's exposition of Romans. He doesn't skip one single nuance.


LOL!! Why should we have to wait so long?? ROTFLOL!!!!Hey Orm, any insights into the Church of Christ? Know anything meaningful about them?

[Ormly]

Hey Orm, any insights into the Church of Christ? Know anything meaningful about them?
Yeah, you want a forum? They'd love to have you. They are as snapped shut as you are. :wink:

[Berean Todd]

Keep listening, you'll hear one. If you've got a developed vocab, try John Murray's exposition of Romans. He doesn't skip one single nuance.
Developed vocab I have, I am a seminary student.

But then God isn't really choosing, He just ratifies man's choice. Or He knows about the choice in advance.
Not nescacarily; my views here get kind of complicated and metaphysical, and separate from that of most theologians I know. I don't have time to go into great detail now, but let's say that I see God as "sitting at a weaving machine", he sees what the result would be if he put each thread in a specific place, and each thread represents a human soul. He has arraged the canvas such that His own purposes will be fullfilled, to His own glory, and that the most possible good will come from this world. I don't buy the LFW concept at all - I am a free-will advocate, but I believe that free will and divine sovereignty can co-exist.




Yeah, you're an Arminian Todd, but you seem like a very reasonable one and I have high hopes for you. Friends?:highfive:
Sure, I have no problem with you; as far as I go though I still flatly deny the title of Arminian. I'm basically right there with men like Ryrie, Lightener, and Charles Hodge, all of who very few people would call Arminian.

[GoBahnsen]

Developed vocab I have, I am a seminary student.


Not nescacarily; my views here get kind of complicated and metaphysical, and separate from that of most theologians I know. I don't have time to go into great detail now, but let's say that I see God as "sitting at a weaving machine", he sees what the result would be if he put each thread in a specific place, and each thread represents a human soul. He has arraged the canvas such that His own purposes will be fullfilled, to His own glory, and that the most possible good will come from this world. I don't buy the LFW concept at all - I am a free-will advocate, but I believe that free will and divine sovereignty can co-exist.





Sure, I have no problem with you; as far as I go though I still flatly deny the title of Arminian. I'm basically right there with men like Ryrie, Lightener, and Charles Hodge, all of who very few people would call Arminian.
Charles Hodge? I don't think so Todd.
http://www.tracts.ukgo.com/images/bar2.gif


http://www.tracts.ukgo.com/images/hodge3.jpg

CHARLES HODGE, D.D., LL.D. (1797-1878)


“Dr. Hodge was a man of warm affection, of generous impulses, and of John-like piety. Devotion to Christ was the salient characteristic of his experience, and it was the test by which he judged the experience of others. Hence, though a Presbyterian and a Calvinist, his sympathies went far beyond the boundaries of sect. He refused to entertain the narrow views of church polity which some of his brethren advocated. He repudiated the unhistorical position of those who denied the validity of Roman Catholic baptism. He gave his sympathy to all good agencies. He was conservative by nature, and his life was spent in defending the Reformed theology as set forth in the Westminster symbols. He was fond of saying that Princeton had never originated a new idea; but this meant no more than that Princeton was the advocate of historical Calvinism in opposition to the modified and provincial Calvinism of a later day. And it is true that Dr. Hodge must be classed among the great defenders of the faith, rather than among the great constructive minds of the Church. He had no ambition to be epoch-making by marking the era of a new departure. But he has earned a higher title to fame, in that he was the champion of his Church's faith during a long and active life, her trusted leader in time of trial, and for more than half a century the most conspicuous teacher of her ministry. The garnered wisdom of his life is given us in his Systematic Theology, the greatest system of dogmatics in our language.”Francis L. Patton (from Schaff-Herzog Encyc. of Religious Knowledge)

[Ormly]

Charles Hodge? I don't think so Todd.


http://www.tracts.ukgo.com/images/bar2.gif




http://www.tracts.ukgo.com/images/hodge3.jpg





CHARLES HODGE, D.D., LL.D. (1797-1878)


“Dr. Hodge was a man of warm affection, of generous impulses, and of John-like piety. Devotion to Christ was the salient characteristic of his experience, and it was the test by which he judged the experience of others. Hence, though a Presbyterian and a Calvinist, his sympathies went far beyond the boundaries of sect. He refused to entertain the narrow views of church polity which some of his brethren advocated. He repudiated the unhistorical position of those who denied the validity of Roman Catholic baptism. He gave his sympathy to all good agencies. He was conservative by nature, and his life was spent in defending the Reformed theology as set forth in the Westminster symbols. He was fond of saying that Princeton had never originated a new idea; but this meant no more than that Princeton was the advocate of historical Calvinism in opposition to the modified and provincial Calvinism of a later day. And it is true that Dr. Hodge must be classed among the great defenders of the faith, rather than among the great constructive minds of the Church. He had no ambition to be epoch-making by marking the era of a new departure. But he has earned a higher title to fame, in that he was the champion of his Church's faith during a long and active life, her trusted leader in time of trial, and for more than half a century the most conspicuous teacher of her ministry. The garnered wisdom of his life is given us in his Systematic Theology, the greatest system of dogmatics in our language.”Francis L. Patton (from Schaff-Herzog Encyc. of Religious Knowledge)



I'm Still wondering why Calvinism needs to be defended to Christians.

[GoBahnsen]

I'm Still wondering why Calvinism needs to be defended to Christians.You mean why we aren't all on the same page? Anybody else here want to handle this one? Yeah...hey, Orm's right. We all ought to be just believing the same thing. I vote for Orm for president of the Church. What's next boss?

[GoBahnsen]

Developed vocab I have, I am a seminary student.

Which seminary? And I hope you do well.



Not nescacarily; my views here get kind of complicated and metaphysical, and separate from that of most theologians I know. I don't have time to go into great detail now, but let's say that I see God as "sitting at a weaving machine", he sees what the result would be if he put each thread in a specific place, and each thread represents a human soul. He has arraged the canvas such that His own purposes will be fullfilled, to His own glory, and that the most possible good will come from this world. I don't buy the LFW concept at all - I am a free-will advocate, but I believe that free will and divine sovereignty can co-exist.
Doesn't sound too bad to me, on face value. I agree that we freely choose, as far as it goes and that God is in control of everything physical and non at the same time.





Sure, I have no problem with you; as far as I go though I still flatly deny the title of Arminian. I'm basically right there with men like Ryrie, Lightener, and Charles Hodge, all of who very few people would call Arminian. When I called you an Arminian, I meant the popular variety. I think, if you were pressed hard on all the five points of Calvinism, you might find you agree with none of them. Or if you held to less than five, it would be inconsistent...ultimately.

[Ormly]

When I called you an Arminian, I meant the popular variety. I think, if you were pressed hard on all the five points of Calvinism, you might find you agree with none of them. Or if you held to less than five, it would be inconsistent...ultimately.Yeah, but he would be on the right track for a good foundation in Christ. The right track is the issue, correct? Calvin's rails don't meet as intended. Not only that but I think he ran outta spikes 1/4 way into the deal.:tongue:

[Berean Todd]

What seminary? I'm between finishing my bachelor's (BS in Christian Ministry) and entering DTS (Dallas Theological) at the moment, but this semester I am taking NT Greek from the seminary.

As for my denying all 5 of the points as you claim, no I would not at all. If you use the TULIP then you have:

Total Depravity - I am half-way there here. Hard calvinists, as I've read them, for the most part assert that the image of God in man is utterly destroyed. I do not adhere to that, I believe that it is utterly marred. However I do not find good in man either, so I don't really fall into Arminian or other camps.

Unconditional Election - Here I am on board with Calvinists. I do think that foreknowledge plays a role in this, but this gets at my metaphysical discussion above, and ultimately He makes the choice, according to His will.

Limited Atonement - I don't care for this wording, I prefer purposeful atonement, but I am on board here as well pretty much.

Irresistable Grace - I disagree here, to an extent, but not entirely.

Perseverance of the Saints - I am absolutely, positively, 100% a OSAS believer, so I am solid here.

What does that leave me? I would call myself a 3 1/2 point Calvinist, though I don't like "pointing" ... thus my mild Calvinism. As for Hodge, I know He was a Calvinist, I could name other Calvinistic theologians I like, but there is much that Hodge and I agree on, and his systematic theology is probably my favorite systematic text on theology out there.

[GoBahnsen]

What seminary? I'm between finishing my bachelor's (BS in Christian Ministry) and entering DTS (Dallas Theological) at the moment, but this semester I am taking NT Greek from the seminary.
No chance for a Reformed Seminary?


As for my denying all 5 of the points as you claim, no I would not at all. If you use the TULIP then you have:
I didn't claim that, but I did question that.


Total Depravity - I am half-way there here. Hard calvinists, as I've read them, for the most part assert that the image of God in man is utterly destroyed. I do not adhere to that, I believe that it is utterly marred. However I do not find good in man either, so I don't really fall into Arminian or other camps.

Unconditional Election - Here I am on board with Calvinists. I do think that foreknowledge plays a role in this, but this gets at my metaphysical discussion above, and ultimately He makes the choice, according to His will.

Limited Atonement - I don't care for this wording, I prefer purposeful atonement, but I am on board here as well pretty much.

Irresistable Grace - I disagree here, to an extent, but not entirely.

Perseverance of the Saints - I am absolutely, positively, 100% a OSAS believer, so I am solid here.

What does that leave me? I would call myself a 3 1/2 point Calvinist, though I don't like "pointing" ... thus my mild Calvinism. As for Hodge, I know He was a Calvinist, I could name other Calvinistic theologians I like, but there is much that Hodge and I agree on, and his systematic theology is probably my favorite systematic text on theology out there.
Thanks Todd, I'm going to copy this post and paste it into my Calvinism thread and press a bit further.

[Berean Todd]

No chance for a Reformed Seminary?

95% of what DTS turns out are Calvinists as a general rule, though not reformed Calvies as it is a solid dispensational school; I am also quite comfortable as an Acts 2 dispensationalist, although I am interested in reading some covenant and/or reformed theologians, as I always like pressing myself on issues.

[GoBahnsen]

95% of what DTS turns out are Calvinists as a general rule, though not reformed Calvies as it is a solid dispensational school; I am also quite comfortable as an Acts 2 dispensationalist, although I am interested in reading some covenant and/or reformed theologians, as I always like pressing myself on issues. You see Todd, this really puzzles me to hear you say this. It's like we have a different definition of Calvinism. I recall a while back when one of Tweb's own members "Arminian" was all up in arms because he thought I was mis-representing Arminianism.

I pressed him to show me where I was wrong and he just faded away, never dealing with it. Leaving me to really scratch my head, because he is a very smart man (or so I thought). So now, I am curious about your statement.

Take Norman Geisler, I don't consider him a Calvinist. He seems to me to be an Arminian dressed in Calvinistic garb. Or a confused Calvinist? Now I realize that not all Calvinists are classically Reformed, but to be a Calvinist you must hold to the five points at a minimum. At least that's what I think.

Another example is David Hocking. Some people say he is a Calvinist. And granted, sometimes he will take a more Calvinistic position on a verse often used for an Arminian proof text; but the very fact that he can survive in the Calvary Chapel system, shows that he is not a full Calvinist.

In fact, I think he might cave in if pressed for a deeper definition of what he believes about the five points. I think he might find that he is an Arminian or a confused Calvinist.

This really should be in my 3 or 4 point Calvinism thread. I'm going to copy this and move it there, if you don't mind.

[Ormly]

Take Norman Geisler, I don't consider him a Calvinist. He seems to me to be an Arminian dressed in Calvinistic garb. Or a confused Calvinist? Now I realize that not all Calvinists are classically Reformed, but to be a Calvinist you must hold to the five points at a minimum. At least that's what I think.


Geisler confused? Ever think about reading what you write and wonder that it is you that's confused?

[GoBahnsen]

Geisler confused? Ever think about reading what you write and wonder that it is you that's confused?Orm, have you ever considered writing those short little sayings inside of Chinese fortune cookies? There might be a future, I don't know. Maybe a new kind of fortune cookie? Fortune cookies with attitude! Just a thought.

[Ormly]

Orm, have you ever considered writing those short little sayings inside of Chinese fortune cookies? There might be a future, I don't know. Maybe a new kind of fortune cookie? Fortune cookies with attitude! Just a thought.
<More poor thinking from one, I'm convinced, lives in denial. How sad.>

[GoBahnsen]

<More poor thinking from one, I'm convinced, lives in denial. How sad.>I deny that.


Anybody Else?: Any Church of Christ experiences out there that deal with the OP on this thread. I'll have to take another look at Allan's site. From what I've seen, he seems to be fairly brief in expaining away Calvinism, so it's hard to really get any where. This thread may be close to dead.

[Ormly]

Hey GoJangles, don't you ever get weary of posting up YOUR "facts" and walking away without backing them up. Yer real quick to hold other's feet to the fire when you think you can get away with it.

[Gabby]

I deny that.


Anybody Else?: Any Church of Christ experiences out there that deal with the OP on this thread. I'll have to take another look at Allan's site. From what I've seen, he seems to be fairly brief in expaining away Calvinism, so it's hard to really get any where. This thread may be close to dead.


What exactly do you want?? I attend a cofc, as already stated. I'm no theologian and am uncertain of many terms, but if you have questions I can maybe answer them. I'm NOT into debate though.

chris

[Spiritus Naturae]

Well, here we have another radical web site. I just had some e-mail contact with the lead guy, Allen McNabb. I told him I was about to join an OPC Church and he wants me to know that isn't one of the Lord's Churches. Pretty amazing. I'll post some of Allen's stuff as time goes and maybe Allen will join us here on Tweb for some friendly discussion. Below is a page off of McNabb's web site.


McNabb says: What is Calvin's doctrine of total inability (i.e., total hereditary depravity, original sin)? Is it taught in the Bible?
"While John Calvin studied to become a Catholic priest, he undoubtedly learned the Catholic doctrine of original sin. Roman Catholics believe that babies are "born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin". John Calvin's doctrine of original sin and sprinkling babies is closely related to the Catholic Church's doctrine.

Calvin is known as the founder of the Reformed Churches (Presbyterian Church). He taught that each person's life perished, "having been extinguished by the sin of Adam", and that each person has a depraved nature. Therefore, Presbyterians believe that each person inherits original sin from Adam and is born lost in sin being hostile to God, slaves to Satan, and servants to sin. The doctrine of total inability (i.e., total hereditary depravity, original sin) is not taught in the Bible. God tells us that we do not inherit anyone's sin (Ezek. 18:20; cf. 2 Ki. 14:6). We sin after being tempted when we are carried away and enticed by our own lusts (Ja. 1:13-15).

Jesus teaches us that we must become as little children to enter the kingdom of God (Matt. 18:3- 4; Lk. 18:16-17) ---- we must be as infants regarding evil (1 Cor. 14:20). Babies are not born as sinners (as Calvinists would have us beleive). If they die, they are safe, because they have no sin.

If you are in a church practicing the doctrines of Calvinism, you are not in the Lord's church (1 Tim. 3:15).

Allan McNabb"


Well, GoB, it wouldn't matter what theology you subscribe to, in the non-instrumental CoC (NOT the gabbailey, Canadian variety) if you dont call your denomination, "Happytown Church of Christ" or "Downtown Church of Christ" etc. your not a part of the Lord's Church. If you use musical instruments in your Church, even if you get the name right, you are not in the Lord's Church. Most in the CoC see theology as man's invention and just plain wrong. You will be hard pressed to find any one in the Mainline CoC, at least here in Texas, who subscribes to any real theology. I have had several encounters with the elders of my wife's CoC and can tell you that they are very specific as to what qualifies one as being in the Lords Church.

[Ormly]

Go here and have fun --- when they respond, that is:

http://p210.ezboard.com/btyngsborochurchofchristforum

[GoBahnsen]

Well, GoB, it wouldn't matter what theology you subscribe to, in the non-instrumental CoC (NOT the gabbailey, Canadian variety) if you dont call your denomination, "Happytown Church of Christ" or "Downtown Church of Christ" etc. your not a part of the Lord's Church. If you use musical instruments in your Church, even if you get the name right, you are not in the Lord's Church. Most in the CoC see theology as man's invention and just plain wrong. You will be hard pressed to find any one in the Mainline CoC, at least here in Texas, who subscribes to any real theology. I have had several encounters with the elders of my wife's CoC and can tell you that they are very specific as to what qualifies one as being in the Lords Church.Thanks Spiritus, that's helpful. Now I'll just wait for Orm to show up and tell me I wouldn't know a CoC if it bit me on my rear end. Then endure being told how full of nonsense I am. Absorb some more verbal abuse about how stupid I am. Then be challenged to become a true spiritual man, like Orm. Wonderful.

[Spiritus Naturae]

Thanks Spiritus, that's helpful. Now I'll just wait for Orm to show up and tell me I wouldn't know a CoC if it bit me on my rear end. Then endure being told how full of nonsense I am. Absorb some more verbal abuse about how stupid I am. Then be challenged to become a true spiritual man, like Orm. Wonderful.


No prob,GoB. :thumb: Anytime...and don't let Orm get to ya.

[Ormly]

Thanks Spiritus, that's helpful. Now I'll just wait for Orm to show up and tell me I wouldn't know a CoC if it bit me on my rear end. Then endure being told how full of nonsense I am. Absorb some more verbal abuse about how stupid I am. Then be challenged to become a true spiritual man, like Orm. Wonderful.Who knows? When you getting around to responding in some meaningful way to what has already been posed to you on other BASIC, ELEMENTARY, FOUNDATIONAL, EASY, SIMPLE, issues, I might. But you haven't demonstrated any ability to comprehend what's being posted to you. Do we dare think that maybe that was what Calvin might have been alluding to when speaking of Total Depravity? Goodness Gracious!! Zounds! I shutter to think, GB!:eek:Perhaps he saw your day coming??

[Gabby]

umm btw, be aware that ICOfC (Boston Movement) is considered a cult and shouldn't be confused with other CofC's. However that said, some of the ICofC doctrine has infiltrated some of the mainstream CofC's, to make matters worse.
The ICC is an offshoot of the mainline Church of Christ denomination, whose name it has usurped. The mainline Church of Christ has distanced itself from the movement.

The movement's churches generally take on the name of the place in which they are located, e.g.: Boston Church of Christ, Los Angeles Church of Christ, London Church of Christ, Gemeente van Christus te Amsterdam, etcetera. This is an example of the ICC's exclusivistic and elitists attitude. Considering itself to be the only true Christian church, the movement implicitly teaches that there should only be one church per city. It reluctantly allows for other churches only if those churches are in complete agreement with ICC theology and practice.

Explicitly, it teaches that unless you are part of the ICC, you are not saved. Hear, for example, John Causy: "Everyone needs to be a member of this church if they're going to go to heaven" (November 1996 sermon. 290K wave fileInternational Church of Christ (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i02.html)

chris

[GoBahnsen]

umm btw, be aware that ICOfC (Boston Movement) is considered a cult and shouldn't be confused with other CofC's. However that said, some of the ICofC doctrine has infiltrated some of the mainstream CofC's, to make matters worse.
International Church of Christ (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i02.html)

chrisThanks Chris, I appreciate it. I'll let you know if I develop a question or two.


And Orm: Nice blast man. You exeeded my expectations. Have a nice day Orm.

[Ormly]

Thanks Chris, I appreciate it. I'll let you know if I develop a question or two.


And Orm: Nice blast man. You exeeded my expectations. Have a nice day Orm.Just respond or ask for help.:ahem: