If...

[Jon Estes]

If... the Calvinists view of salvation is correct, what kind of God is He that would only save some when He could save them all?

If... the Calvinists view of salvation is incorrect, what kind of God is He that would save some when He could save them all?

[Dave Roberts]

If....God is truly holy, why would he save any?

[Jon Estes]

If....God is truly holy, why would he save any?

We know that answer... Love. We don’t deserve it but His love is truly undefinable.

Since He does love us enough to save us... why some or why not all?

[Sandy]

I found this today. Seems relevant to this discussion. (If someone can shorten that link, be my guest.)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/allsetfree ... tm_source=[!]%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NL%20Progressive%20Christian&utm_content=49114

From personal experience, I've found one of the toughest, most difficult things to do in applying Quaker values is that they are not categorical and distinct, but they overlap and interact. When it comes to systems of doctrine and statements of faith, it is almost the opposite of what I was taught all of my life. There's no expectation of doctrinal conformity, and no expectation that any human study of the scripture or application of faith will be any closer or further from the "truth" than any other. I've found it extremely difficult to get away from drawing conclusions and thinking that what I've discovered, or what a particular preacher or author or denominational perspective has discovered or practices is "closer to the truth" than another. The approach in Seminary was to study theology "systematically" and to develop personal beliefs and convictions based on historical and traditional viewpoints, like Calvinism, Wesleyanism, Arminianism, Catholicism, Anabaptist theology, etc. We're taught to evaluate doctrine by whether we agree with it or not, and to dig in and find corroborating "scripture" to support our points, and we start with where we've presupposed ourselves to what we think is right. I've been in some pretty deep and comprehensive Bible studies over the past couple of years, without any mention of any theological "system" or use of one of their doctrinal points as an accepted conclusion. And while I wouldn't find myself in agreement with the author of the article I posted on many points, I would say that my perspective on many things has shifted considerably from what it was when I was a Southern Baptist denominational loyalist.

[Jon Estes]

I found this today. Seems relevant to this discussion. (If someone can shorten that link, be my guest.)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/allsetfree ... tm_source=[!]%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NL%20Progressive%20Christian&utm_content=49114

From personal experience, I've found one of the toughest, most difficult things to do in applying Quaker values is that they are not categorical and distinct, but they overlap and interact. When it comes to systems of doctrine and statements of faith, it is almost the opposite of what I was taught all of my life. There's no expectation of doctrinal conformity, and no expectation that any human study of the scripture or application of faith will be any closer or further from the "truth" than any other. I've found it extremely difficult to get away from drawing conclusions and thinking that what I've discovered, or what a particular preacher or author or denominational perspective has discovered or practices is "closer to the truth" than another. The approach in Seminary was to study theology "systematically" and to develop personal beliefs and convictions based on historical and traditional viewpoints, like Calvinism, Wesleyanism, Arminianism, Catholicism, Anabaptist theology, etc. We're taught to evaluate doctrine by whether we agree with it or not, and to dig in and find corroborating "scripture" to support our points, and we start with where we've presupposed ourselves to what we think is right. I've been in some pretty deep and comprehensive Bible studies over the past couple of years, without any mention of any theological "system" or use of one of their doctrinal points as an accepted conclusion. And while I wouldn't find myself in agreement with the author of the article I posted on many points, I would say that my perspective on many things has shifted considerably from what it was when I was a Southern Baptist denominational loyalist.

Good for you. I’m not sure if the article is relevant to the discussion since the post is under “Baptist Faith and Practice”. I have no problem learning from other faith systems and I have no problem with people not replying if they have nothing to offer.

Glad to be a Baptist.

[Sandy]

There are those who would say that a discussion of Calvinism doesn't belong in a "Baptist Faith and Practice" forum either.

[Haruo]

I'm an optimist, and a universalist, but I certainly don't think I can make an open-and-shut case for my beliefs. I trust God to love me and do for me what I can't for myself even when I don't trust him. I don't think God created a one-size-fits-all universe or saves based on a one-size-fits-all formula. I think God saves people who never heard of Jesus. But that's just me, and I'm not out to convince anybody.

[Jon Estes]

There are those who would say that a discussion of Calvinism doesn't belong in a "Baptist Faith and Practice" forum either.

Probably. Oh well.

[JE Pettibone]

There are those who would say that a discussion of Calvinism doesn't belong in a "Baptist Faith and Practice" forum either.

Ed: Sandy, while I am not at all enthused about another discussion about Calvinism because it has been discussed on the BL.C site many times, with no productive results that I can discern. However If there are those who want to discuss Calvinism, I believe this is probably the the best BL.Com forum for it, since in many Baptist circles it is a point of controversy affecting faith and practice.

[Rvaughn]

(If someone can shorten that link, be my guest.)

5 Things I Wish My Pastors Told Me

[Dave Roberts]

The best explanation of the doctrine of election came to me from a Presbyterian who said:

" On the outside of the gates of heaven is writter, 'Whosoever will may come.'

On the inside of the gates of heaven is written, 'Chosen in him before the foundatioin of the world.'"

That has always helped and humbled me.

[Jon Estes]

I am not sure if the intent of my question was understood. It was less about Calvinism but more about the Character of God.

“What kind of God is He if...”

[JE Pettibone]

I am not sure if the intent of my question was understood. It was less about Calvinism but more about the Character of God.

“What kind of God is He if...”

Ed: God is loving and Jealous .

[Dave Roberts]

The greatest problem with the doctrine of God is that every principle seems to have an exception or an event in scripture that derails our neatly running theology. J. B. Phillips remains correct for all of us: "Your God is Too Small."

[Sandy]

I am not sure if the intent of my question was understood. It was less about Calvinism but more about the Character of God.

“What kind of God is He if...”

Well, you put it inside Calvinist brackets, so that set the context. Like all other theological "systems", Calvinism has a very limited perspective of the nature and character of God.

Ed suggested that God is loving and jealous. How do you define jealousy, when it is a characteristic of a perfect God?

[JE Pettibone]

The greatest problem with the doctrine of God is that every principle seems to have an exception or an event in scripture that derails our neatly running theology. J. B. Phillips remains correct for all of us: "Your God is Too Small."

Ed: That is true only for those who believe that they can put God in a box (book) that they can carry with them. BTW I do appreciate the Phillips NT.

We are still looking for a Church home in this part of Florida so yesterday we visited one near by that identifies only as "The Church at ......... .... " . The atmosphere was great, friendly, good music, very good sermon, however at the end they introduced their new Deacons and Elders, all MEN. We where both disappointed. yet we feel no need to return to correct their error. As I said we are still looking for a Church home in this part of Florida.

BTW, Sandy the definition of jealousy is not affected by the perfection of GOD.

[Sandy]

BTW, Sandy the definition of jealousy is not affected by the perfection of GOD.

No, it's not. But our perception of it certainly is.

[Haruo]

J. B. Phillips remains correct for all of us: "Your God is Too Small."

Ed: That is true only for those who believe that they can put God in a box (book) that they can carry with them. BTW I do appreciate the Phillips NT.

I greatly enjoyed reading Terry Pratchett's Small Gods.