Back in the '90s, we did an annual Christmas Pageant at FBC Pearland. It was similar, although smaller church, so not as elaborate. That said, it was very professionally done. We did an Act 1 which was secular Christmas, then Act 2 which was a musical portrayal of the Gospel. We did it over 5 or 6 nights, and locals who were not members looked forward to attending. We had very large numbers saved, including my son! I don't recall if we charged anything but can assure you we did not do it as a fund-raiser.

F4GIB71 said:

---

Back in the '90s, we did an annual Christmas Pageant at FBC Pearland. It was similar, although smaller church, so not as elaborate. That said, it was very professionally done. We did an Act 1 which was secular Christmas, then Act 2 which was a musical portrayal of the Gospel. We did it over 5 or 6 nights, and locals who were not members looked forward to attending. We had very large numbers saved, including my son! I don't recall if we charged anything but can assure you we did not do it as a fund-raiser.

---

We had stuff like that also. Never heard any complaints until I encountered Calvinists. I do not get it.

It's not complicated. Christians need to be set apart from the world. So for me, that means not idolizing/celebrating Santa Claus (or however you want to explain it). Not saying tear down anything Santa and company but a service sponsored by a church doesn't need to coexist, in my mind.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

It's not complicated. Christians need to be set apart from the world. So for me, that means not idolizing/celebrating Santa Claus (or however you want to explain it). Not saying tear down anything Santa and company but a service sponsored by a church doesn't need to coexist, in my mind.

---

Fair enough. It just seems to me a line in the sand that does not need to be drawn.

And Calvinists/Reformed, you be you. Just get out of my Baptist convention and churches. Your theology/soteriology is not compatible with traditional Baptist beliefs.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

It's not complicated. Christians need to be set apart from the world. So for me, that means not idolizing/celebrating Santa Claus (or however you want to explain it). Not saying tear down anything Santa and company but a service sponsored by a church doesn't need to coexist, in my mind.

---

Fair enough. It just seems to me a line in the sand that does not need to be drawn.

And Calvinists/Reformed, you be you. Just get out of my Baptist convention and churches. Your theology/soteriology is not compatible with traditional Baptist beliefs.

---

I get why you feel this way, but every Baptist/non-denom I've met has already let Calvinism/reformed theology in by accepting once saved, always saved (which was not a belief of the founders of the Baptist church in America). The main proponent of this belief during the reformation was Calvin. OSAS is a main tenant of his teaching. If you let that in your church, the rest of Calvinism is bound to follow if you stay logically consistent. The only way to avoid it is by accepting some variation of cheap grace/free grace theology, which is equally unbiblical, if not even more so.

Get OSAS out, and Calvinism/reformed theology is much easier to combat.

I think that's true. I grew up southern Baptist, and I assumed that was standard belief.

Once aved/always saved is a purely western crazy belief.

As is the concept of being "saved ".

Salvation is a lifelong journey. There is no single moment you are saved.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I think that's true. I grew up southern Baptist, and I assumed that was standard belief.

Once aved/always saved is a purely western crazy belief.

As is the concept of being "saved ".

Salvation is a lifelong journey. There is no single moment you are saved.

---

I wouldn't say it's a "western" belief. This theology comes from a rejection of the "western" Catholic Church (really the entire Church).

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but this seems to be an attempt to undercut Catholicism. Sorry if I misread that. We're on the same page in this particular theological topic, and don't want to cause any friction

I don't thinks it's a reformation thing.

My understanding is that it is an American concept from the 1800's.

I may be wrong but I'm pretty certain.

The European/British Protestants I've spoken to don't get American Protestantism at all.

The Banned said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I don't thinks it's a reformation thing.

My understanding is that it is an American concept from the 1800's.

I may be wrong but I'm pretty certain.

The European/British Protestants I've spoken to don't get American Protestantism at all.

---

that God is intentionally leaving people out

---

I prefer the positive view of God intentionally grafting people in versus leaving them up to their own (wicked) devices

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I don't thinks it's a reformation thing.

My understanding is that it is an American concept from the 1800's.

I may be wrong but I'm pretty certain.

The European/British Protestants I've spoken to don't get American Protestantism at all.

---

that God is intentionally leaving people out

---

I prefer the positive view of God intentionally grafting people in versus leaving them up to their own (wicked) devices

---

Two children wander into a pond and are struggling to stay afloat. I have the full and complete capacity to save both. There is no question that I can do it. In fact it would be very easy. Also, neither child is capable of saving themselves, no matter how hard they try. If I don't step in, death is inevitable. Only I can save them both…. And I only choose one.

Calvin accepted this. Luther rejected it because of the horrible implications, which is why his views aren't coherent. You have to either accept the fact that God, as fully sovereign, has actively chosen to let people be damned for eternity or you find a different interpretive lens. Any faith view that says God allows people to reject Him has to also accept that He allows people to accept Him. We cannot accept what we cannot reject and vice versa.

This is not the correct picture. The picture I would affirm is that there are people are the bottom of the pond, completely dead. It is God alone who can drag those whom he chooses, to give new life to, up from the bottom to the surface.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is not the correct picture. The picture I would affirm is that there are people are the bottom of the pond, completely dead. It is God alone who can drag those whom he chooses, to give new life to, up from the bottom to the surface.

---

Gross… You and I do not share a similar concept of what God is.

It's strange to me that you can get this from the Gospels.
It is antithetical to the very spirit of the Gospels.

The analogy that you just gave, I cannot imagine coming out of Christ's mouth.

I am genuinely sad for you.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is not the correct picture. The picture I would affirm is that there are people are the bottom of the pond, completely dead. It is God alone who can drag those whom he chooses, to give new life to, up from the bottom to the surface.

---

I'm fine with using your example. One change:

All of my children are dead at the bottom of the pond. I alone can choose which of my children to bring back to life, and which children I will leave at the bottom.

And before we get into "child of God" vs "child of wrath", I am using child in the sense that I created them (obviously along with my wife, which is the one weakness in this analogy). They do not exist unless I chose the procreative act. They come into existence through me. And I leave some of them at the bottom of the pond despite having the ability to bring them back with no more than a snap of my fingers…

and the ones you do leave, you knew you would and did it anyway, "to show your glory" to the ones you would rescue

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is not the correct picture. The picture I would affirm is that there are people are the bottom of the pond, completely dead. It is God alone who can drag those whom he chooses, to give new life to, up from the bottom to the surface.

---

What about the ones God does not choose? Did He not create them also? Can you not see how your theology/soteriology makes God into a monster who creates people and then chooses those he will save and those He will "pass over" and therefore sentence them to eternal torment in hell?

Why would God need to create people who He knew were predestined to hell? Can you not see how evil that is?

I know your point of view is that man is so depraved that it is a wonder God saves anyone. But why create people only for eternal torment? What kind of God does that? It is the worst evil that ever existed. Hitler only tortured and killed people in this temporal life. You are worshipping an entity who, just like Hitler, arbitrarily chooses who will live and who will die, but tortures the ones he does not choose eternally.

I do not get how you can not see this.

Dear Lord, please open the eyes, minds, and hearts of all people so they can know your true character. And how you created and love all of us.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is not the correct picture. The picture I would affirm is that there are people are the bottom of the pond, completely dead. It is God alone who can drag those whom he chooses, to give new life to, up from the bottom to the surface.

---

I cannot imagine coming out of Christ's mouth.

---

I would caution anyone interpreting holy scripture through the lens of what you can or cannot imagine

Also, Christ never said anything I typed.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is not the correct picture. The picture I would affirm is that there are people are the bottom of the pond, completely dead. It is God alone who can drag those whom he chooses, to give new life to, up from the bottom to the surface.

---

I'm fine with using your example. One change:

All of my children are dead at the bottom of the pond. I alone can choose which of my children to bring back to life, and which children I will leave at the bottom.

And before we get into "child of God" vs "child of wrath", I am using child in the sense that I created them (obviously along with my wife, which is the one weakness in this analogy). They do not exist unless I chose the procreative act. They come into existence through me. And I leave some of them at the bottom of the pond despite having the ability to bring them back with no more than a snap of my fingers…

---

It is pure evil.

Well, I think it's evil to present a watered down gospel message that includes Santa and penguins. (Ok, not EVIL, but maybe disgraceful)

10andBOUNCE said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is not the correct picture. The picture I would affirm is that there are people are the bottom of the pond, completely dead. It is God alone who can drag those whom he chooses, to give new life to, up from the bottom to the surface.

---

I cannot imagine coming out of Christ's mouth.

---

I would caution anyone interpreting holy scripture through the lens of what you can or cannot imagine

Also, Christ never said anything I typed.

---

I have presented a lot of Scripture proving God desires to save all men.

How do you interpret those and still believe in Calvinism?

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is not the correct picture. The picture I would affirm is that there are people are the bottom of the pond, completely dead. It is God alone who can drag those whom he chooses, to give new life to, up from the bottom to the surface.

---

Dear Lord, please open the eyes, minds, and hearts of all people so they can know your true character. And how you created and love all of us.

---

Amen

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Well, I think it's evil to present a watered down gospel message that includes Santa and penguins. (Ok, not EVIL, but maybe disgraceful)

---

Santa and penguins do not do the evil things your God does. And all for "His glory". Hitler did his stuff for his glory also.

What does Gospel mean? Good news, correct? In your theology it is only good news for the "elect". And horrible news for everybody else. That is not the Gospel. That is a man made abomination.

based derm spittin fire

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is not the correct picture. The picture I would affirm is that there are people are the bottom of the pond, completely dead. It is God alone who can drag those whom he chooses, to give new life to, up from the bottom to the surface.

---

Dear Lord, please open the eyes, minds, and hearts of all people so they can know your true character. And how you created and love all of us.

---

Amen

---

How, as a Calvinist, can you say God loves all of us? That is totally inconsistent with TULIP.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Well, I think it's evil to present a watered down gospel message that includes Santa and penguins. (Ok, not EVIL, but maybe disgraceful)

---

And I know you are trying to be cute, but your words are revealing.

Nobody is preaching a "watered down Gospel" with Santa and penguins. Or at least I have never heard that at the churches I have been to.

There is no need for the Gospel, watered down or not, if our fate has already been determined, correct?

Ephesians 2:1-5

[1] And you were dead in the trespasses and sins [2] in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience[3] among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. [4] But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, [5] even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christby grace you have been saved

We were DEAD - not drowning or dying. Dead.

Have you ever seen a dead person make themselves come back to life?

Verse 4 shows the God centered initiative as he "made us alive"

That's all that picture I described is from.

The picture of someone drowning just isn't Biblical at all.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Well, I think it's evil to present a watered down gospel message that includes Santa and penguins. (Ok, not EVIL, but maybe disgraceful)

---

And I know you are trying to be cute, but your words are revealing.

Nobody is preaching a "watered down Gospel" with Santa and penguins. Or at least I have never heard that at the churches I have been to.

There is no need for the Gospel, watered down or not, if our fate has already been determined, correct?

---

God uses the proclamation of his word to save sinners

Zobel said:

---

based derm spittin fire

---

I get angry when men besmirch the character of the one true God. That I love. Who revealed Himself through Jesus Christ.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Well, I think it's evil to present a watered down gospel message that includes Santa and penguins. (Ok, not EVIL, but maybe disgraceful)

---

And I know you are trying to be cute, but your words are revealing.

Nobody is preaching a "watered down Gospel" with Santa and penguins. Or at least I have never heard that at the churches I have been to.

There is no need for the Gospel, watered down or not, if our fate has already been determined, correct?

---

God uses the proclamation of his word to save sinners

---

Don't you believe God has already predestined who are the "elect"? And who are the damned? How does hearing the Gospel change that?

Unconditional election does not need the Gospel by definition.

You wouldn't be able to love God unless he first gave you a new heart. I'm glad he did.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is not the correct picture. The picture I would affirm is that there are people are the bottom of the pond, completely dead. It is God alone who can drag those whom he chooses, to give new life to, up from the bottom to the surface.

---

I cannot imagine coming out of Christ's mouth.

---

I would caution anyone interpreting holy scripture through the lens of what you can or cannot imagine

Also, Christ never said anything I typed.

---

True…

It's pretty obvious Christ never said anything that you typed.

Listening to you give advice and "cautioning interpreting holy scripture" is weird. You sound like a charlatan giving advice to the lesser about how to properly find the perceived hidden messages or special interpretations in the Bible.

That is the biggest scam ever. Our theology makes no sense so let's just basically discredit everything but scripture and then allow everybody to interpret their own scripture so long as they interpret it the way that you tell them to. On it's surface alone it's a joke.

Can you also read cards? What if I send you a picture of my tea leaves. I saw three black birds flying west this morning and one landed on my car? Are the omens good or bad?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

You wouldn't be able to love God unless he first gave you a new heart. I'm glad he did.

---

Do you believe God loves all men? And that He desires all to be saved? Or do the Scriptures clearly stating He desires to save all mankind not matter?

I linked Sproul's commentary on this weeks ago.

Here is some from Piper.
https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/if-god-desires-all-to-be-saved-why-arent-they