Not bashing Petra, just an honest question.

[p-freak]

In the 17th century there was a huge debate in the Netherlands between two leading theologians, Arminius and Gomarus. At the time we were one of the Calvinistic hot spots in Europe. Their debate raged through the church causing deep division and eventually spreading to the realm of politics, causing some of the most tragic events in our history. I don't think theological debates should get that heated. I am from a Calvinistic reformed tradition and I know that many of the things that Calvinists believe were not propagated by Calvin himself at all.

As far as this Arminius - Gomarus debate: they were discussing the relationship between faith and election. Gomarus said: I believe because I am elected. Arminius said: I am elected because I believe. Those are two different ways of looking at the theme of election. I feel myself more at home with the Arminian point of view, but I firmly believe that we have two sides of the same medal here.

And another thing about election that's usually overlooked: in the Bible election is always a positive thing. You are elected. We automatically conclude that there are people who are not elected and we feel like that it's not fair because then they would've never had a chance at all. But that's not what it says. The fact that we are elected doesn't put the stress on other people not being elected. I guess in the end the whole debate is revolving around an extremely complicated paradoxical truth that we're never going to be able to grasp fully. I love to remind myself of what Paul says in Ephesians 3 that only with all the saints together we are able to grasp the depth of God's love, grace and mercy. And since election is a tool God is using in extending his grace to us, I think here we also need all the saints together to grasp the depth and beauty of election.

[brent]

God's will is that none should parish.
God loved the world (representative of all) that he gave salvation. Whoever believes in Him, shall have every lasting life.
Jesus said few (in relation to the many that take the wide road to destruction) will find it.
All will not be saved. God would like it to be. God does not force love on anyone, nor will he hold anyone captive in heaven for all eternity against their will.
God rains on the just and the unjust.
God blesses the saint and the sinner.
God causes the good and the bad.
God made the law of sowing and reaping and that law applies to everyone.
ALL people will die.
ALL people will face judgement.

I am amazed at how whole doctrines and denomination stances are built upon a poor English translation and mis-application of a word.

[pmal]

It's all very complicated and I, too, struggled with "Calvinism" a while. It wasn't until I re-read Job and Romans 9 and the other scriptures that I began to understand, not fully mind you, but I now understand. As an aside, Calvin would have been very upset about referring to this as "Calvinism". It's one of the reasons he requested to be in an unmarked grave. Anyway, the great thing about it is that I know that God is in charge of saving people and that, even as sinful and imperfect as I am, He will lead people to Christ anyway. No matter how much I stink at presenting the gospel, God will overcome. It makes presenting the gospel "easier" in my mind.

[Timbo]

I agree. God will overcome our shortcomings in sharing His gospel. Never the less, He has chosen us to be His mouth piece to a dieing world. It is a sacred trust not to be taken lightly and we must represent Him accuratley.

There are people all around us that are hurting from cancer, death of a loved one, loneliness, and a whole other host of things. They are longing to make sense of it all. They are longing to believe that their life has some
meaning and purpose on this earth. Whether they admit it or not, they are longing to know the one, true, living,
Triune, creator, redeemer God. We not only have the opportunity but also the obligation to tell them about God’s story of creation, the fall, redemption, consummation. They do not need nor do they want a 30 point outline of “how to become a Christian”.

I challenge everyone who reads this to change their wording of salvation from what we’ve been taught
growing up. We need to be careful, brothers and sisters, of how we share the gospel with others, especially
children. We are not looking for them to invite Jesus into their life. I do not believe a child could begin to
possibly understand what that even means. I’m not sure that I even know what that means.

Picture with me for a moment:
If my life is like a circular pie and I invite Jesus into my life, then I control how big a piece Jesus is in my life.
It’s still my kingdom, my rule, my reign. When God saved me, Jesus invited me to be a part of His life. God adopted me into his family to be in His kingdom, under His rule and His reign.

Do you see the difference?

I have not found in God’s word where I am the one doing the inviting.

[Preacherman777]

Well, I had written up a rather lengthy reply for everyone who took issue with what I said and when I hit submit, I failed to notice that I wasn't logged in so I lost the whole thing. I don't have the ambition to write it all again. Suffice it to say I'm not going to get into a big debate on this thread because we are so off topic. If you really want to take issue with me, send me a PM and we can get into the nuts and bolts and explore some of the issues I tried to write about.

[blayze5150]

Back on topic: I think Petra would have never died had some of the decisions around the time of No Doubt had been made differently. I don't mean to second guess Bob Hartman by any stretch of the imagination, but the album itself seemed rushed (the lack of live drums really hurt it), arguably the most important line-up change in the band's history ended up being a bust, and the departure of John Lawry just after Wake-Up Call didn't help much either. I always knew Petra would go on after Bob left, and I wish he'd have found maybe a Christian rock veteran to replace him instead of the guy he did. I don't know much about David Lichens, but I can't imagine what happened being the outcome John & Bob had in mind when they brought him into Petra. The band had some success with that album and the one that followed it, but I have always looked at Petra's decline starting at that point. I really don't think they should have abandoned the follow up to Jekyll & Hyde, though. I think Petra would have risen from the ashes and reclaimed their place as Christian Music's greatest rock band had they continued. Not my call though. Not John & Bob's, either: I know God made that decision! I'm just glad he gave them the gift and they shared it with us.

[p-freak]

Back on topic: I think Petra would have never died had some of the decisions around the time of No Doubt had been made differently. I don't mean to second guess Bob Hartman by any stretch of the imagination, but the album itself seemed rushed (the lack of live drums really hurt it), arguably the most important line-up change in the band's history ended up being a bust, and the departure of John Lawry just after Wake-Up Call didn't help much either.

Maybe it's not so much that the album is rushed. Bob has said that it took him seven months to actually write the album and that this was one of the factors prompting him to retire.

[BForm]

I am amazed at how whole doctrines and denomination stances are built upon a poor English translation and mis-application of a word.

Brent, seriously? Are you suggesting that the reason Piper, Sproul, MacArthur, Mohler, Spurgeon, Luther, Calvin, Newton (Amazing Grace) all taught this is because they were using a poor english translation? You haven't read much from them have you.

I think this thread probably should go away or get moved, but here's my last comment. If you really want to start addressing the seamingly conflicting motives of God, take a look at Piper's article:

Are There Two Wills in God?
Divine Election and God's Desire for All to Be Saved.
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-lib ... lls-in-god

[Preacherman777]

I don't know about Brent, but I've been debating with Calvinists for years and I've heard it all. The only thing it's left with is the impression that I'm talking to confused individuals who are trying their hardest to prove to you that their confusion makes sense. I'm sorry, but Calvinists and Arminians are both missing the big picture. The Bible teaches both election/predestination and the free will/responsibility of man to both receive the gospel and remain in the faith. Seems like two sides of a coin to us, but to God I have no doubt it makes perfect sense. Dr. Walter Martin called it a divine mystery not unlike the Trinity. I have a distaste for both sides as neither seems to want to deal with all of God's word without trying to explain parts of it away, but Calvinists (IMO) are the worse of the two when it comes to that.

[pmal]

I've got no problems with anyone on here. There's no reason to keep on with this topic. There is plenty of scripture that backs up what Calvinists believe and I've given parts of it. I've seen nothing to refute it, scripturally. That is fine. I didn't believe it when I first heard it either. I felt, that if that were true, God wasn't being fair to people. It took the passages that I mentioned and the Book of Job to change that. There are always people that will argue something to death and try to make one side look worse than the other. I refuse to do that. I believe that Calvinists are correct based on the scripture that I've seen. I don't have it all together, so I'm not going to get upset at anyone for believing different. Let's talk about Petra instead.

[separateunion]

I am amazed at how whole doctrines and denomination stances are built upon a poor English translation and mis-application of a word.

Brent, seriously? Are you suggesting that the reason Piper, Sproul, MacArthur, Mohler, Spurgeon, Luther, Calvin, Newton (Amazing Grace) all taught this is because they were using a poor english translation? You haven't read much from them have you.

Well, Brent IS a pre-millenial dispensationailst. What did you expect?

[BForm]

Isn't that the same as Superfundamentalistic Eschatologosis?

[brent]

I like MacAuthor...although he has some unique perspectives. He is anti-Christian rock music. R.C. actually thinks it is cool, although he is anti-modern church buildings/productions. John does not believe in the eternal security of the believer. There is too much biblical proof to the contrary. Read Hebrews for goodness sake.

I believe what Jesus taught. I believe in his church, which never existed before he established it. If that qualifies as dispensationalism, then I guess I believe in that. There once was a time God dealt with a couple of people face to face in the Garden. There was a time God spoke to one man at a time to rule is chosen human nation to do his will. There was a time when Jesus was on the earth. There is a time when heaven will come to earth. There is a time when there will be a judgement of nations. Since none of these things have always been or will always be, it is safe to assume that dispensations of God doing his thing are real.

I am not a fundamentalist, as that ties me to the KJV, legalism, no pants for the ladies, etc, etc. I am conservative. I am not a pentacostal, charismatic, etc. I am not closed minded. If God wants to gift me with some super babbling tongue like Jimmy Swaggart, then I will use it. He never has, so I don't play at it.

[corolla1]

Brent,

John MacArthur does believe in eternal security (perseverence of the saints). He believes in all 5 points of Calvinism (TULIP). I don't recall him saying he is against Christian rock either. I may be wrong on the last point though.

[separateunion]

John MacArthur does believe in eternal security (perseverence of the saints). He believes in all 5 points of Calvinism (TULIP).

I was going to say, he's a 5-point Calvinist, he HAS to be believe in eternal security.

I don't recall him saying he is against Christian rock either. I may be wrong on the last point though.

I've never heard him say that he is against Christian rock. I've attended his church and know people that attend there, and I've never heard anyone from that circle say anything negative towards Christian rock. Phil Johnson, his editor, has a blog where he's discussed how much he enjoys fairly mainstream media (TV shows, music, movies, etc.), so I'd be surprised to find out that Johnny Mac is anti-Christian rock.