Just a teeny bit of Calvinism

If this is an insult, I apologize....but are you (contendah) a COC? If so is that the denomination that is sometimes referred to as Campbellites (sp?) ?

Hi Contendah,

I don't know about "New Calvinism" -- but, I do know that in the past 20-30 years, the SBC has become more infested with Calvinism.  I would guesstimate that about half their seminaries today teach Calvinism.

And, you are right that many Calvinist will deny teaching the Calvinist TULIP doctrines, claiming that they teach "doctrines of grace."   But, if one examines this "doctrines of grace" you will find that it is just TULIP without the rouge.

I could never become involved with a church which teaches Calvinism; for as I told the pastor of a local Calvinist church who asked me to become a member of his fellowship -- "If I joined your church, we would be disagreeing at most Bible studies." 

There is another local church in my area where I have many Friends.  Watching their young people on Facebook, I am excited about the on-fire spiritual fervor I see there.  But, again, I could never join them -- because I could never accept the teaching of Calvinist predestination.

My wife began a Wednesday Bible at the home of a close Friend who belongs to that Calvinist church.  The father has advanced Alzheimer's and often the mother cannot go to church.   So, my wife decided to take church to her home.  The Bible study is made up of Friends from several local churches and once they got it started, I joined them.

The lady is a strong Calvinist believer -- and knows that I am not.  So, we solve our problem by avoiding any discussion which may lead into Calvinism.   We are going through the book of John and when we came to John 3, it was my time to lead the discussion.  I will admit that I was concerned that this particular portion of Scripture would get us into Calvinism -- but, we avoided it and had a great discussion.  Next week I will lead as we begin chapter 7.

All that said, although I am not a Calvinist nor an Arminian -- those believers who hold those beliefs are just as saved as any other Christian.

Dark, you asked about the Campbellites. 

Viewing the following web site, it would seem that the Campbellites lean toward Arminianism, i.e, the belief that a true believer can lose his/her salvation.   This web site http://www.aplaintalk.com/campbellites.html tells us:

What is the “Campbellite” theology of salvation?

We believe, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”  This is a true statement, but it is far from complete.  To often we have focused on that and have rightly been criticized for neglecting other factors.  A more complete statement, I believe, is,”Salvation is by the grace of God through faith which obeys (repents and is baptized) through love.”

So, basically, it seems the Campbellites do believe that baptism is necessary for salvation.  But, to make this claim, they have chosen to add to the passage found in Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

God says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. . ."

Campbellites change that to read, ”Salvation is by the grace of God through faith which obeys (repents and is baptized)."

In other words, they have added "works" to attain salvation where God did not include "works."  As a matter of fact, God tells us salvation is a "free gift" from Him -- and "not as a result of works.

The Angelfire web site http://www.angelfire.com/fl/Lo.../ChurchOfChrist.html explains a bit more about the Campbellite doctrines:

Doctrinal Errors:

While there are many doctrinal issues that divide the Evangelical from the Campbellite, the greatest point of controversy is their view of baptism.

The Evangelical believes that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Human works such as baptism, church membership, etc., are not necessary for salvation. . .  Baptism, like circumcision, is an outward rite that symbolizes an inner state.  While both ceremonies symbolize regeneration, they do not accomplish it.

In opposition to evangelical doctrine, Campbellite theology teaches "baptismal regeneration."  It is claimed that water baptism by immersion of adults only unto remission of sins does not merely symbolize regeneration, but it actually accomplishes it.

So, for a long time I have shared Contendah's concern that the Southern Baptist Convention is moving too much toward Calvinism.  That is why when I get involved with a church which is affiliated with the SBC, the first question I ask the pastor is, "Do you believe and teach Calvinism, i.e., Calvinist predestination?"  But, sadly, what I have often found is that the pastor will either ignore the question -- or will turn to the "doctrines of grace" defense.   In either case, while I will fellowship with them, I keep an arm's length separation. 

For the sake of the discussion, the church I attend is affiliated with the Baptist General Conference -- which does not lean toward Calvinism at all.

Watching a video today which a Friend posted on Facebook (and I still have not been able to determine who the man is or with which church he is affiliated) -- I was concerned when he lumped all Baptists into one group -- the Baptists.  When in fact, there are hundreds of different Baptist denominations -- ranging from very conservative, like the church where I was saved -- to radical off-the-chart characters such as the Westboro Baptist folks who are affiliated with the Independent Baptist denomination.

But, the man made a statement which caught my attention.  He said, "Jesus was not a Baptist!" 

And, to that I proclaim, loudly, "Amen!  Amen!  Amen!"

Jesus Christ gave us the Christian church, the Day of Pentecost church, the body of Christian believers world-wide.  He did not give us any denominations -- not any of the Protestant denominations, nor the Roman Catholic church.   He gave us the body of believers.

Then, man began to corrupt what Christ had given us.  When one group did not like what was being taught, they went off and formed a new fellowship to teach what fit their agenda.  This is true of the church of Rome --and it is true of all Protestant denominations.

I like the Baptist General Conference because their Statement of Beliefs aligns very closely with my own personal Statement of Beliefs.

Yet, when someone asks me about our church, I will say we are a Christian church and will share with them what we believe and teach.  If the person or persons push and insist upon knowing our affiliation, I will tell them we are Baptist.  But, I always put Christian first -- then, add Baptist under duress.  Not that I am ashamed of being a Baptist; only that I feel the true church is only Christian.

It is not Calvinist, it is not Arminian, it is not Roman Catholic, it is not Baptist, nor Methodist, nor Lutheran, nor Presbyterian -- nor any other man-made denomination.  The true church is Christian -- only.   And, one day, that status will be returned and renewed -- when Christ rules during the Millennial Kingdom of God on earth.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill, two points...first, while Alexander Campbell was an early evangelist in the Christian church, as it was dubbed then, that was all. He, for whatever reason, married a very rich woman. Therefore, unlike many preachers of the day, he had no need to work in business, etc., so he had time to travel and preach. Many saw him as the church's "leader" for that reason.

As for baptism, you may have answered this question before, but could you please reiterate it here. If not in baptism, just where do you think a sinner comes into contact with Christ's blood?

==
Oh, listen to yourselves go on in all seriousness about such silly things. Bathing in the blood of Christ, eating the body of Christ. What a bunch of cannibal zombie worshipers your various sects have turned you into. Somewhere inside your brains there must be a subdued voice saying, "this ridiculous".

Rob, what is ridiculous is your flying in the face of one often quoted by your camp, Sam Harris, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g&feature=relmfurefuting your argument that these posters had any choice but to take these positions due to NO FREE WILL.

Rob perhaps you can explain your disrespect to PAPA SAM HARRIS.

Shouldn't be much longer now.

What about it Bestus von vorther do you agree with Sam Harris that we have no free will?

Thank you for that info on Campbell.  I wasn't really knowledgeable of his history.   I suppose I had always assumed the name "Campbellite" came from "camp meetings."   I know that when I was a young boy, my grandparents who lived on a farm outside Tuscumbia attended a tent church back in the woods with sawdust on the floor.  That always reminded me of camp meetings -- and is one reason the old hymns bring such sweet memories.

Our contact with the blood of Christ comes from the fact that He spilled His blood to purchase atonement for all who will believe and receive Him.   We are told in Isaiah 64:6 that all of us are unclean by God's standard, and our righteousness, i.e., our good works, are like filthy garments or rags in the eyes of God.

So, how can we be saved if we are not righteous enough for God's eyes?  Jesus Christ spreads His righteousness, his blood, over all who will believe -- so that when God looks at us, He sees the righteousness of Jesus Christ and not us.  Therefore we can be righteous in the eyes of God.

A side note to Robust:  Yes, that may sound gross -- spreading blood over us.  But, keep in mind that this is symbolic.  (We always read the Bible literal at first.  If that fits, we wear it.  If not, we look for a symbolic or metaphorical meaning.)  It is saying that when Christ died on the cross, when He spilled His blood for our sake -- He was offering His blood to purchase our forgiveness. 

It is not speaking of actual blood -- just as Communion is not speaking of eating real flesh and drinking real blood.  In both instances, salvation and Communion -- the body and blood we receive are symbolic -- because He gave His real body and blood for us.

Now, back to my discussion of righteousness and the blood of Christ:

Romans 3:22, "Even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction."

Romans 5:17, "For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ."

Romans 8:10, "If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness."    This is speaking of His righteousness.

Romans 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."

Galatians 2:21, "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

Philippians 1:11, "Having been filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God."

Philippians 3:9, "And may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."

2 Peter 1:1, "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ."

His blood "paid in full" our sin debt, i.e., purchased a full pardon for all who will believe and receive His free gift of eternal life.  That is why, on the cross, He declared, "It is finished!" (John 19:30) -- and then He died.  In this He declared that His work of redemption was finished. 

The next step in our path toward salvation then rests on our shoulders -- through the "free will" God has given to all people.  We have to choose to open the door of our hearts and invite Him to come in (Revelation 3:20).  If we do, He will be our Best Friend, our personal Lord and Savior. 

If we will not, then we cannot accept His "paid in full" pardon -- and, through denial of Him and His atonement, we have condemned ourselves to having to pay our own sin debt -- which is hell, the second death  (Revelation 2:11, 20:6, 20:14, 21:8).

Firenze, I pray this answers your question.  If not, let's talk more.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Most Southern Baptist Churches try to resist Calvinism and the infiltration of our Churches by Calvinists is still highly unpopular among the general membership. Here and there a preacher, Sunday school director, youth minister, music guy or other staff sneaks their way in but their Calvinist beliefs are not usually revealed until they have been there for a while. I even heard of one congregation in Muscle Shoals where the new preacher who was a hyper Calvinist did not even do an invitation at the end of the service (the Calvinists do not bother with an invitation because their predestination beliefs dictate that it is useless because they think that if God has chosen a particular person that that person will be saved when God is ready for them to be either with or without an invitation) and one of the members stood up when he tried to dismiss and informed the preacher that they were to have an invitation at every service.

Hi BFred,

I am afraid you have misjudged the extent of Calvinism's encroachment into the SBC.  Personally, I was shocked when I first was told about it.   About 7 or 8 years ago, a Messianic Jew Friend shared his writings which seemed to reflect Calvinism.  When I asked about it and asked to confirm that he was in a Southern Baptist church -- he told me that his church and his pastor were very Calvinist.

This led me look into it and the first thing I did was go to my best friend from high school and with whom I joined the Air Force.   He earned his Ph.d. in Theology in the early 1970s and has done evangelism through the SBC for many decades.  So, he seemed a logical one to ask -- and he confirmed what I posted earler, that Calvinism has greatly infested the SBC and many of their seminaries.  

That led me to further investigation and I found that many of the SBC seminaries indeed do teach Calvinism.  But, keep in mind that all SBC churches, as well as other Baptist churches, are autonomous and set their own path in such things.   If your SBC church is not Calvinist, then be happy and praise God for good guidance in your church leadership.

The problem with the Calvinism infestation in many of their seminaries -- is that the pastors taught in those seminaries come out and bring that Calvinism into the churches they lead.

About four years ago, my wife and I were involved with a group who was going to plant a new church.  They brought in a pastor, which several already knew from past association, to be the pastor.  When he told me he was from the SBC, my first question was, "Are you Calvinist?"   He never answered my question -- and four years later, he still has not answered that question.  We stayed with that group for about two years before returning to our home BGC church -- and, only occasionally did he touch on anything in his sermons which smelled of Calvinism.  But, I still strongly suspect he is a closet Calvinist; one who, I believe, if I were to press him for an answer, he would stand on the "doctrines of grace" defense.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

==
I do appreciate the response and explanations but it leads me to more questions. 1) Where in the Bible are followers instructed to first interpret scripture literally and if it doesn't "fit", then switch to a solely symbolic interpretation? How does one know when scripture doesn't fit & needs to be read metaphorically? 2) Don't Catholics and other large Christian sects believe that they're ingesting the actual and "transubstantiated" flesh & blood of Christ through Holy Communion?

_______

What's the difference between a lost sinner & a sinner?

All people are sinners.  It is just that believers are "forgiven sinners" -- while those who choose not to believe, or refuse to believe -- are lost sinners.   However, with a few moments of time spent in sincere prayer of repentance and seeking Christ -- that lost sinner can become a "forgiven sinner."

That is my desire for you -- that you will become a "forgiven sinner" so that we can fellowship in heaven one day.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Hi Robust and Vic,

Yes, Robust, Roman Catholics do believe in "transubstantiation"-- i.e., that the bread and wine actually become the physical flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.

And, other Romanesque denominations, i.e., Lutheran, Anglican (Episcopalian), Methodist, etc., believe in "consubstantiation" -- i.e., that the bread and wine do not become the actual flesh and blood of Christ -- but, that He is physically there in the elements.  They call this His "real presence."

They base this upon the passage found in John 6:53-58.

Most mainline Protestant denominations, including the Baptists, believe what we read in Luke 22:19:

"And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' "

Robust, you asked how we know when to read a Scripture passage literally -- and when to read it symbolically or metaphorically.  This is a good case.   In the John 6 passage, Jesus tells us to eat His body and drink His blood.  If one looks at only THAT passage, they may believe it to be His intent -- as do the Roman Catholics.

However, when one stands that Scripture passage alongside Luke 22:19 -- we can see that Christ meant this to be taken symbolically.  His intent was for us to always remember that He had died a cruel death upon the cross and spilled His precious blood for us -- but, it was a "ONCE for all" sacrifice.   He never intended that we continue to sacrifice Him upon the cross on a daily basis as happens in the Roman Catholic mass.

As I have often said, we cannot take a single Scripture verse or passage and build a theology upon that.  Any valid theology MUST be built upon the entire Bible.  And, when one passage contradicts another -- then we have to use BOTH in forming our belief, our theology.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Hi Chick,

All people are sinners.  It is just that believers are "forgiven sinners" -- while those who choose not to believe, or refuse to believe -- are lost sinners.   However, with a few moments of time spent in sincere prayer of repentance and seeking Christ -- that lost sinner can become a "forgiven sinner."

That is my desire for you -- that you will become a "forgiven sinner" so that we can fellowship in heaven one day.

Bill

________

You're not paying attention, Billy. My question was to what4. He seems to have a handle on the Bible & what a Christian is more than you do.

Maybe you should take off that sheep's clothing & spend some in your own sincere prayer of repentance.

You know, that thing of getting the beam out of your own eye. Hmm....no, maybe you don't know.

*****************************

semi, I don't know what the thinking is on this, unless a lost sinner is in Hell,

then, No, God breaks his plate.

But concerning the living, I don't of any time God would turn His back on

any of us. How does one achieve born again status if the Holy Spirit doesn't

influence the person along the way, people need the help from God.

_____

Maybe he'll let us know for sure but I assume what4 is speaking of the Baptism  of the Holy Spirit. But I could be wrong.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Firenze,

 You are a bit wrong on the history of Alexander Campbell. To be brief:

Thomas Campbell, the father of Alexander was a Presbterian minister. He tried to come up with a purely Biblical fellowship of Christians, finding something lacking in his church. He fell out of sorts with the Presbyterians over the fact that he had adopted the Arian doctrine on the Deity of Christ. He was expelled from the Prsbyterian church. Alexander was in ministry school in Scotland, also a Presbyterian. Thomas came to America in an effort to defend his Father.

  This defense ended up being in the form of  many debates. During the Campbell-McCalla debate, Alexander for the first time affirmed that in Acts 2:38, the meaning of the greek word "eis" meant in order to obtain. At this time, Thomas and Alexander had formed their own church, The Brush Run Church,  and that church had been accepted into a loose association with a Baptist Association.

  When Campbell affirmed his interpretation of Acts 2:38, the Baptist Churches cut off fellowship with him. Following this he had heard of a similar movement in Kentucky lead by another apostate Presbyterian by the name of Barton Stone. The Stoneites and the followers of Campbell had a partial union in 1824 and formed the Christian Church.  Barton Stone did not agree with Campbells version of Acts 2:38 and asked that it not be preached in his church.

 After the death of Campbell, David Lipscomb became the chief theologian of this group, whose doctrines became much more extreme.  The Stoneites had enough and split off. In 1924, the Christian church, started by Alexander and Thomas Campbell, celebrated their first centennial and changed their name to Church of Christ.

 The Stoneites took the name Disciples of Christ.

I didn't know that but of course within the twisted mind of the Calvanists, the murder was OK because God planned it. For those that are unaware, the best way to sum up the beliefs of Calvanism is that they beleive that God plans and controls every detail of every person, animal, plant, etc and that He arbitrarily chooses who he will show mercy to and who he will condemn to hell along with who will be good and who will be evil. There is pretty much zero free will included in the Calvin's theology.

I can appreciate what you are saying, that a believer will do all within our power to not sin.  But, then we have to face reality -- no one except Jesus Christ has gone through this life without sin.  Neither before receiving Christ -- or after receiving Christ.

1 John 1:8-10, "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.   If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us."

Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Do you know anyone who does not sin?   I do not.  Like you, I know a lot of faithful Christian believers.   And, we all sin.  Therefore, we are sinners.  But, since we have been forgiven -- we are "forgiven sinners."  No one can anyone deny this.

But, as you have pointed out -- we must be striving, every day, to be more and more like Him.   Yet, we will never be sinless.

So, where Chick asked, "What's the difference between a lost sinner & a sinner?" -- I suppose we will need to modify her question a wee bit and have it read, "What's the difference between a 'lost sinner' and a 'forgiven sinner'"?  And, the difference is that the "forgiven sinner" has the assurance of Jesus Christ that we HAVE eternal life in Christ (John 6:47).  And, the "lost sinner" is still mired in the world, does not have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ -- and needs Christian believers to point him/her toward Jesus Christ.

What4, my Friend, I know we are on the same page -- just looking at the same faith from a slightly different point of view.  And, that is not a problem.  When we have slightly different points of view, this encourages discussion -- which is a win-win for everyone.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill, it is not the idea that we as Christians still sin that I object to, but it is your terminology of referring to a child of God as a "forgiven sinner" that I have a problem with. I understand that as a child of God, we still sin and fall short of perfection. We cannot possibly live a perfect life without sin, but will always be dependant on the grace of God to save and keep us. Salvation is a gift that we cannot earn or deserve. Yet, those who refuse God's reign over them, and stubbornly choose to go their own way, are not candidates for God's grace. God's grace is for the humble, and not for the proud, defiant, or rebellious sinner. 1 Peter 5:5; James 4:6

Many who consider themselves forgiven sinners will sin with the feeling of impunity, believing their salvation is sealed and there is nothing they can do to change it. They are living under a delusion.  I once heard a pastor say that once you accept Jesus as your Savior, you could then choose whether or not to serve him. How can that be? If you don't choose to follow God, then how could you be saved to begin with? I prefer not to feed that perception by referring to a child of God as a forgiven sinner.

When a sinner acknowledges that he or she is a lost sinner, repents of their sins, and accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord, then at that point they are no longer a lost sinner. Their sins are washed away. They are born into the family of God, and given a new  life, and a new heart with a new devotion to forsake sin, to resist tempation, and to please God, They should no longer live a lifestlye of a sinner. If they do, how can they say they are saved? A child of God is far more than what the term "forgiven sinner" suggests.

Any child of God who has fallen into a lifestyle of sin is in a dangerous condition. If they don't repent, then they are living in clear rebellion. Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. (1 Samuel 15:23)  A person who practices witchcraft will not enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Galatians 5:19-24) We can deny Christ with our actions as well as our words. 1 Timothy 5:8

Although I understand what you are saying, and acknowledge that we may be somewhat on the same page, I don't like the terminology of a "forgiven sinner" when referring to a child of God. The bible doesn't use that terminology for a child of God. I personally will not use it because of the improper connotations and misleading presumptions that are often ascoiated with it. You will have to make your own personal call on the matter.

Take care

-.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Correction, God created you, you owe him everything. God owes you nothing. You were created for his glory, not your own.

Originally Posted by: Bill Gray

Hi What4,

So, where Chick asked, "What's the difference between a lost sinner & a sinner?" -- I suppose we will need to modify her question a wee bit and have it read, "What's the difference between a 'lost sinner' and a 'forgiven sinner'"?

 And, the difference is that the "forgiven sinner" has the assurance of Jesus Christ that we HAVE eternal life in Christ (John 6:47). And, the "lost sinner" is still mired in the world, does not have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ -- and needs Christian believers to point him/her toward Jesus Christ.

What4, my Friend, I know we are on the same page

When we have slightly different points of view, this encourages discussion -- which is a win-win for everyone.

________

Billy, I asked the question the way I wanted. I don't need a wolf in sheep's clothing changing my question to suit his purpose.

Your "forgiven sinner has the assurance of Jesus Christ that you have eternal life in Christ" is full of holes.

I would hate to know I was "on the same page" with someone like you.

When have you ever debated with anyone on this forum? You don't answer questions. When we give you scripture that goes against what you say, you run from that topic. It's either your way or no way, so no, there is no win win.

*********************************************************

Incorrect, God owes me salvation. If I had asked God to create me,

then it would be different.

Life is a gift and Heaven is the Goal. God owes me a way out, or he

would never have sent Jesus. It's up to me.

___________

He owes you a way out or He gave you a way out?

_________

I would think He doesn't owe us anything. He made Hell for those that doesn't do what he says & walk that very narrow line. It's either His way or the other. 

There's going to be a huge number of people that's walking that narrow line but will find out in the end that they weren't doing it right. Anyone that says they "love" you but would put you in a lake of fire for not doing it right, wouldn't feel that He owe's us anything.  

Hi What4,

You tell me, "Bill, it is not the idea that we as Christians still sin that I object to, but it is your terminology of referring to a child of God as a "forgiven sinner" that I have a problem with.  I understand that as a child of God, we still sin and fall short of perfection.  We cannot possibly live a perfect life without sin, but will always be dependent on the grace of God to save and keep us.  Salvation is a gift that we cannot earn or deserve."

We are completely in agreement.

Then, you write, "Yet, those who refuse God's reign over them, and stubbornly choose to go their own way, are not candidates for God's grace.  God's grace is for the humble, and not for the proud, defiant, or rebellious sinner. 1 Peter 5:5; James 4:6"

I would go a bit further and say that "those who refuse God's reign over them, and stubbornly choose to go their own way" -- do have the offer of God's grace since Jesus took all the world from under the Law and we are all living in the dispensation of Grace.  So, the grace of God is there.  But, those who do as you suggest and choose their own way over Gods' Way -- are not Christian believers; because they have rejected the grace of God.

Yes, we are saying the same thing -- but, with a slightly different emphasis.  It is my understanding that, flat out, those people you have described above are not believers and are therefore still in the world, still lost in sin, still on their way toward eternal destruction.   Yet, they can still repent, turn to God, and be saved.  That is God's grace and mercy.

But, let's define the two so that there can be no confusion among our readers.

Grace, Justice, and Mercy are all different:

Justice -- is getting exactly what we deserve (which, in the case of the unrepentant sinner, is death).

Mercy -- is not getting the punishment, death, that we deserve.

Grace --  is getting the forgiveness and eternal life that we do not deserve.

That is why we are told in Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

This Scripture verse is telling us that, by the overwhelming, indescribable grace of God -- all men are offered His free gift of eternal life.  But, only those who, through faith in Jesus Christ, will believe in Him and receive Him as Lord, Master, and Savior -- will receive His "free gift" of eternal life.

By God's grace, ALL men are offered eternal life.  But, only those who accept His free gift receive eternal life.

You tell us, "Many who consider themselves forgiven sinners will sin with the feeling of impunity, believing their salvation is sealed and there is nothing they can do to change it.  They are living under a delusion."

When, in John 6:47, Jesus told us, "He who believes HAS eternal life" -- is that a delusion?

When, in John 10:28-29 Jesus tells us, "And I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.  My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand" -- is that a delusion?

Next, you tell us, "I once heard a pastor say that once you accept Jesus as your Savior, you could then choose whether or not to serve him.  How can that be? If you don't choose to follow God, then how could you be saved to begin with?"

That pastor needs to better understand his Bible and what is taught there.  Just because a man is a pastor does not mean that he knows the Bible.  When I was a young boy I knew a man who could not even read, yet he had somehow become a pastor.  His son had to read the Bible for him during the service.  With this man, I would say his heart was in the right place -- but, his being in the pulpit -- he was in the wrong place.

You write, "I prefer not to feed that perception by referring to a child of God as a forgiven sinner."

My Friend, are you forgiven?  I believe you are forgiven.  Are you a sinner?  I know that both you and I are sinners.  Therefore, by your own confession, you are a "forgiven sinner."

What4, you tell us, "When a sinner acknowledges that he or she is a lost sinner, repents of their sins, and accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord, then at that point they are no longer a lost sinner.  Their sins are washed away.  They are born into the family of God, and given a new  life, and a new heart with a new devotion to forsake sin, to resist temptation, and to please God. They should no longer live a lifestyle of a sinner.  If they do, how can they say they are saved?"

Once again, I agree with you 100%.  I agree with every word you have written in this paragraph.

But, then you write, "A child of God is far more than what the term 'forgiven sinner' suggests."

I believe you are a child of God.  And, above, I believe we both agree that you are forgiven and that you are a sinner.   So, are you not a child of God who is a "forgiven sinner"?

Next, you say, "Any child of God who has fallen into a lifestyle of sin is in a dangerous condition.  If they don't repent, then they are living in clear rebellion. Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. (1 Samuel 15:23)  A person who practices witchcraft will not enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Galatians 5:19-24) We can deny Christ with our actions as well as our words. 1 Timothy 5:8"

This is where we may take a different path.  I believe that a person who is living an active lifestyle of sin -- any sin -- is not a Christian believer.

For a person to become a believer, he/she MUST turn 180 degrees FROM following the world -- and turn TO following Jesus Christ.  A person who is still living an active sin lifestyle is still following the world.   And, therefore is not following Christ.  If a person is not following Christ -- that person is NOT a Christian believer.

Finally, my Friend, you tell me, "Although I understand what you are saying, and acknowledge that we may be somewhat on the same page, I don't like the terminology of a 'forgiven sinner' when referring to a child of God.  The bible doesn't use that terminology for a child of God.  I personally will not use it because of the improper connotations and misleading presumptions that are often associated with it.  You will have to make your own personal call on the matter.  Take care."

What4, I do believe we are on the same page.  And, if using the term "forgiven sinner" bothers you, you should not use it.  However, just as the word Trinity is not in the Bible, but the concept is clearly taught there -- I believe that the concept of a "forgiven sinner" is clearly taught in the Bible.  So, I am comfortable using the phrase.

But, most importantly, we, as Christian brothers, should never allow that, or any, disagreement to divide us.  And, we should never allow it to imply to the world that we are two Christians trying to convert one another.  We are Christian brothers -- and, at times we may agree to disagree.  Yet, we never allow this to divide us.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

I gave a brief explanation of why some call the church of Christ "Campbellite." I didn't see anything you referenced that was in opposition. The Christian Church today is referred to as Disciples of Christ in some areas. There are "degrees" of what could be called liberalism in the sect, for lack of a better word, just as there are degrees of such in the "church of Christ."

As for the split you mentioned, it occurred well before 1924 in some areas--Athens and other areas in north Alabama being a prime example. Those who opposed certain traits thought of as liberal, and I would agree, did change their public name in order to distinguish between the two. Interestingly, it is the church of Christ that is more often associated with Campbell than the Christian Church.