[Luke]

Did he tell anyone in that audience how to actually get saved if they weren't.

No, he didn't, and I'll tell you why.

He is a 5 point calvinist who believes that a man must be regenerated before he can be saved. He believes that God will save whoever God chooses, and that this was decreed before the foundation of the world. He believes that if he was to stop persevering, it would be a sign that he was never saved in the first place.

He explains this very clearly in another sermon, giving a testimony of a man who wanted to be saved, but felt that he couldn't, because he "felt no change wrought in him". Mr Washer then says "that man has better theology than most baptist pastors in America". So Mr Washer proceeds to go through the gospel with the man until suddenly, after reading John 3:16 for the hundredth time, a feeling comes over him and he starts shouting that he is saved. His sermons are all done with a high pitched wavy, shaky voice, half crying most of the time, and it comes across as showing compassion sometimes, but other times, one could accuse him of charasmatic emotionalism.

You think Paul Washer is schooled in this "unknown doctrine" of Holiness? Do you even know what independent baptists stand for? Seperation & Holiness. Some of them take it even further than Mr Washer, who claims in his sermon "What is the Gospel" - "I am not against mixed swimming or anything like that". If Paul Washer is so holy, why is he preaching against a backdrop of electric guitars and drums?

As I have said (maybe not in this thread, please forgive me), I think that the sermon raises a lot of good points, but it goes about the wrong way to do so. Works are not evidence of salvation. Faith is. Sinners can do good works before men. It is not evidence that they are saved. Sinners can have joy and peace, but it's not evidence that they are saved. The only evidence a man is saved is that he has faith in Jesus Christ.

[PB1789]

Originally Posted by Luke

<snipped for brevity>

What do the Bible Believers think?

And I'm NOT asking the calvinists on here who love defending their "doctrines of grace", which are not very gracious at all.

And a quote from another post on this Thread: "He's a 5 Point Calvinist". end Quote.


Luke:---What is your problem..? Did some kids that attended a Reformed Church steal your lunch money when you were in 4th Grade? Seems like you have a "knee-jerk reaction" and can't help yourself from using Calvinists/calvinism/5 Point calvinists as a cussword. You started a thread and asked folks to explain Dispensationalism to you...yet, in actuallity you already had made up your mind and in fact admitted that you didn't understand Calvinism--but,,,you were against it...

I posted a couple of links and mentioned a few names, yet you obviously did NOT bother to look at them but instead get your info from Youtube. I will post some more links and this time please read them and do some thinkin'/mulling/searching. Ask yourself some questions. This website is for the A.V. and as such I imagine the founder of it believes his Bible as do I. Do you not know, have you not heard of the MEN that stood up in the 1500's during what we call the Reformation?

Before you make fun of and insult Calvinists you should read "The Institutes of the Christian Religion" which Calvin (who had fled to Geneva,Switzerland) wrote as a letter to the King of France, trying to reason with the Roman Catholic monarch that Bible-believing Christians were not heretics, and using the Bible to frame his points. Martin Luther did very similar things for the German speaking peoples and translated the word of God into the language of the people. Have you not heard of men like Martin Bucer,John Knox,Zwingli...? These men were Bible Believers and were in league with the Doctrines of Grace. Why? Because all of those men listed and many more stood for the Bible and Free Grace instead of the Pope and the Vatican's religion of faith+works+church traditions. When Luther stood before the Diet of Worms he used Scripture to back his points. When the Pope sent spies to Geneva to find out what Calvin was preaching...his guys returned and said: Calvin reads from the Scriptures and preaches. Have you ever/never heard or read Thomas Cranmer, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Dr. J.Vernon McGee, Pastor C.H. Spurgeon, Dr. John Gill, Arthur W. Pink...? These men were Bible-believers and they were Calvinists!


It wasn't until the 1600's in The Netherlands that a professor Jacob Hermann (Arminius=Latinized name) started teaching some departures from the Reformed teachings. Some of his students and a few fellow teachers wrote them down as the 5 points of Arminius= "The Remonstrance". The State Government and the Church Government held a council and repudiated the Arminians by SCRIPTURE and then published the 5 points of Calvinism or better The Doctrines of Grace. This was known as the Synod of Dort.

Grace= God's unmerited favor. { meaning we did NOT deserve His favor, but our God was gracious to us...Amen!}

Exposition of the Doctrines of Grace:

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0385.htm {read the words of the Wesleyan Hymns he quotes from.}

Doctrines of Grace do not lead to sin.

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1735.htm

http://www.grace.org.uk/faith/calvin.html

http://www.monergism.com/directory/l...ines-of-Grace/

http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html

http://www.geocites.com/Heartland/4857/confessions.html

John Charles Ryle wrote a great book called "Holiness". I had been taught by arminians and other evangelicals and fundamentalists over the years that: Calvinists believe in that "greasy-grace/anything goes" religion. Imagine my shock and surprise that the very first time I ever went inside a Reformed Baptist Church (1689) they were teaching the Sunday School class right from J.C. Ryle's book "Holiness"..? I started going there as a "Flaming Arminian",{when the arminian/non-calvinist churches in my town punked out and went "seeker-sensitive"} with many objections/questions. Over a couple of years and reading through the Confession (with scripture proofs) and reading/listening to good solid teaching that put the Lord God Almighty in charge rather than people in charge...I now count myself with men that stood against the Pope and indulgences and the re-sacrifice of Jesus at the mass, translated/printed Bibles for the people in their native tongues,started the modern missions movement, and the original Southern Baptist Convention.

You also mentioned "Sinners in the hands of a Angry God" a sermon by a calvinist named Jonathan Edwards of New England. Not sure if you were making fun of that or not, but that sermon was used by The Holy Spirit to start "The Great Awakening" in the 1740's in New England. If you have never read or heard it you can listen to the sermon being read by a speaker on www.sermonaudio.com . Nowadays with seeker-sensitive trash taking over our churches and easy-believism and God is my pal mentality, Edwards sermon would not be tolerated.

"The Lord preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy. Psalm 145:20

"And I saw a great white throne , and Him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them." Rev. 20:11

[Luke]

I realise God used calvinists, but it was in spite of their calvinism, not because of it.

And I used to be a calvinist. Don't tell me I don't understand it.

I disagree with covenant theology and what you call reformed theology, because it makes little sense.

I was asking for clarification of dispensationalism in the other thread.

I'm not going to buy into your argument that everyone since the reformation has been a calvinist. It's simply wrong.

Maybe I'll debate with you when I know more about the alternatives to calvinism. I am reading a book called "The Other Side of Calvinism", and it's quite prophetic in a way. You have already made the claims that the author says mosts calvinists will make, by claiming calvinism as the historic position.

If Calvinism is the historic position, how come we don't teach Baptismal Regeneration as LUTHER did (and Augustine)? How come we aren't a bunch of baby sprinklers like Calvin and his ilk? Surely, if they were wrong on that (as well as their amillenialism), they can be wrong on countless other doctrines. The book is right. And calvinism is simply false thilosophy that turns God into a non-loving monster.

Sure, grace for you, but eternal hopelessness to all those he didn't choose, and yet they have no excuse for their sins, because God "decreed" everything eternally. Or maybe you are a double predestination guy, and believe not only in unconditional election, but also unconditional reprobation. Such Love! Such compassion! Such grace! Marvellous. Wonderful.....

If all of God's decrees are eternal, here is one for you. Why does God decree that Hezekiah would die, and then God repents after hearing Hezekiah's prayer, and gives him 15 more years. In fact, why does the Bible say God repents (changes his mind) at all. Or did God decree that He would change His mind. It's stupid human philosophy.

I have nothing against Paul Washer, except his Calvinism and Lordship salvation, which are basically all he ever preaches on. He raises many good points, but his (And yours) false theology requires an impossible solution to the problem.

God bless,
Luke

P.S. Calvinism may as well be a cussword. It's blasphemous and wicked in all it's forms, even if you reject limited atonement.

[Luke]

For some reason I can't edit my post. I spelt philosophy wrong.

[scott]

Originally Posted by Luke

He is a 5 point calvinist who believes that a man must be regenerated before he can be saved.[/

Somebody please explain to me the last part of that statement ...."he believes that a man must be regenerated before he can be saved".... there is a lot more to these debates than what I understand, but I can tell you one thing, the MOMENT I was saved, I didn't have to have anybody tell me I was saved, I KNEW it [AMEN]

Works are not evidence of salvation. Faith is

I thought faith without works was dead....I also thought Jesus said, by their fruits you shall know them....Am I not understanding the basis of this debate??

God Bless, Scott

[Luke]

Scott, are you sinless? Do you always put God first in your life? Have you repented of all your sins? Do you repent every single day? Do you believe God CHOSE to save you, apart from any decision you made to accept Him as Saviour? Do you believe God CHOSE you, for no reason, and doesn't choose others, just to prove He is "sovereign", and full of so called "grace".

That's the argument here. It's not REALLY about calvinism (but whenever Lordship Salvation comes into the fray, Calvinism is usually there, waving it's banner).

The man preaching the message claims that a true Christian is one that repents of their sins every single day, and has committed their life to Christ, and endures to the end, and does the work of God. Yet we can find countless examples of men in the Bible who did the opposite of that, and yet are counted righteous. Lot for example. There is no evidence of him being righteous before God in the Old Testament (the complete opposite is evident), but the New Testament says he was a just man (justified).

So the issue at hand is whether or not that is true. Must a "True Christian" continue in good works to be saved, and prove his salvation. I am not asking "Will a true Christian continue", but "MUST". Are works after salvation a requirement of eternal security. If they are, then it is not eternal security at all, but conditional security.

It's funny how people add works to salvation when they feel like it, and then claim salvation by faith alone elsewhere.

Either it's FAITH alone, or WORKS.

There is none of this "Saved by Faith, preserved by works business, all the while claiming faith alone". That makes no sense. It's either Faith, or Works. There is no middle ground.

[scott]

Since you addressed me by name, I'll say hello, Luke....in answer to your question [am I sinless?] the Bible says:

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

I am a minister in a denomination [even though Baptist] that does not believe eternal security although I do believe if you are saved, you are saved [in other words, I personally believe in eternal security]...salvation is a gift of God, by grace through faith....faith comes by hearing, hearing by the word of God....etc...I also believe when a person is saved, there is a change in that person, wrought by God [regeneration]. Again the Bible says:

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

The Bible also says:

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

This doesn't mean we can't sin or won't backslide--salvation is eternal, our relationship with the Lord is day to day, moment to moment....but the question is, if I'm understanding you, can a person be saved and there be absolutely no change in him....If that is the opposite of Calvanism, I must be a "10 point Calvanist" [and I have NO idea what that means]....again, I'm not real bright, but I'm trying to learn--you never really answered my question which was:

Somebody please explain to me the last part of that statement ...."he believes that a man must be regenerated before he can be saved"....

God bless, Scott

[Luke]

Oh, the preacher in the message I posted (Paul Washer), believes that before a man can respond to God's grace, he must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

Now, as a Bible Believing Baptist, I believe that a man is convicted by the Holy Spirit, responds to God's grace out of his own free will, and God regenerates a man at the moment of conversion.

This man, Paul Washer, believes that a man is regenerated before he is saved, against his will, and that he then calls on God, against his will, because God "made" him do it.

The latter is clearly wrong. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I know Calvinism has even less.

[scott]

I appreciate you clearing that up, and I'm sorry for my misunderstanding--I agree with you on this point, and with everything you just said. I don't have time to post anything else right now....God bless, Scott