Not too add to the recent uproar..."Calvinism"

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

It is not my intention too add fuel to the fire, but I did some research in to some of the issues and assertions made here as of late as they relate to the Doctrines of Grace and Baptist.

From David Clouds web site, who by the way is not a Calvinist.

CALVINISM ON THE MARCH AMONG EVANGELICALS (Friday Church News Notes, September 29, 2006, www.wayoflife.org (http://www.wayoflife.org/) fbns@wayoflife.org (fbns@wayoflife.org), 866-295-4143) - A report in Christianity Today for September 2006 was entitled ÒYoung, Restless, Reformed: Calvinism Is Making a Comeback--And Shaking up the Church.Ó It documents the rapid spread of Calvinism in Evangelical circles, and I am seeing the same thing among Fundamentalists. The report cites John Piper, R.C. Sproul, R. Albert Mohler, Louie Giglio, Joshua Harris, J.I. Packer, and the Puritans as among the chief influences responsible for the upsurge in Calvinism. PiperÕs book ÒDesiring GodÓ has sold more than 275,000 copies. The trend toward the acceptance of Calvinism is evident at leading evangelical seminaries such as Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Under the direction of Al Mohler, Southern Seminary has become Òa Reformed hotbedÓ and is turning out Òa steady flow of young Reformed pastors.


FUNDAMENTALISTS ALSO TURNING TO CALVINISM (Friday Church News Notes, September 29, 2006, www.wayoflife.org (http://www.wayoflife.org/) fbns@wayoflife.org (fbns@wayoflife.org), 866-295-4143) - A few years ago I visited the Bob Jones University bookstore and was amazed at the large number of volumes that were available on Puritanism. I thought to myself at the time that this probably signifies that many BJU teachers and graduates are being influenced by PuritanismÕs Reformed theology. Since then I have seen growing evidence of this. I know of formerly non-Calvinist Baptist churches that have become Calvinistic after BJU graduates were called to the pastorate. On a recent trip to Australia I was shown a publication (ÒWhy Read the Puritans TodayÓ) that was sent out to an independent Baptist mailing list by a BJ graduate. The booklet lists 10 reasons for the renewed interest in Puritanism. The recommendation was not accompanied by any warning about Reformed theology and its attendant Calvinism and Amillennialism. I donÕt know if this BJ grad is a Calvinist, but he is certainly helping to promote Calvinism with this type of thing. And this is not something limited to those associated with Bob Jones. In 2005 an extensive survey was done of Òyoung fundamentalists.Ó Entitled ÒYoung FundamentalistsÕ Beliefs and Personal Life,Ó the survey results are available online at http://www.sharperiron.org/downloads/2005%20Young%20Fundamentalists%20Survey%20Results.pdf (http://www.sharperiron.org/downloads/2005%20Young%20Fundamentalists%20Survey%20Results.pdf).



http://wayoflife.org/fbns/fridaynews/news/2006/fridaynews060929.html

I have downloaded the .pdf from sharperiron, it is very interesting on many levels.



Peace to u,

Bill

[mlqurgw]

The internet has had a big impact. The hits on the sites that are Calvinistic are enormous. The Spirit does seem to be working and it is very encouraging.

[Matthan]

I do not understand why, and it saddens me. I just have to ask why this is happening...

Matthan

[Jim1927]

The Lord always does exceedingly more than we can ever anticipate.

Cheers, and thanks for that. It encourages this old man's heart.

Jim

[mlqurgw]

I do not understand why, and it saddens me. I just have to ask why this is happening...

Matthan
I truly believe it is because folks are beginning to see that the Doctrines of Grace do actually glorify God instead of man. The straw man that its enemies have built just doesn't explain how Calvinists can be loving and preach to the lost from the heart. Yet that is what we do. And we do it consistently according to our beliefs. Rather than making us cold and heartless it gives us heart. Rather than make us sit back and not preach it inspires us to preach and seek the elect wherever they are. We really aren't trying to spread Calvinism but seeking for others to know truth as it is in Christ.

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

Found the "booklet" to which David refers in part online:


Soli Deo Gloria just reached a milestone for us: we sold our 200,000th volume in January. And I dare say few would have thought that you could make it in publishing selling 300 year old religious books by the Puritans! There are several reasons, I believe, for the resurgence in interest in the Puritans and their writings. One is that people are getting tired of religion offering things it can't deliver. All kinds of promises are being made, but people come out of self-interest and when these things don't come true, they are disappointed. I think they are also tired of shallow, superficial religion.
Most people don't worship God because the God most people hear about really isn't worth worshipping. He is not the "high and lofty one," He is not the "Lord God Omnipotent Who Reigneth Forever and Ever." He is just "my friend," and familiarity surely breeds contempt!
The Puritans, people are finding men who were passionately obsessed with the knowledge of God. I have listed several thing that I think are reasons why we should read the Puritans today, and every one of those reason is directly derived from the Puritans view of God and Scripture.
1. They will elevate your concept of God to a degree you probably never thought possible, and show you a God who is truly worthy of your worship and adoration. Jeremiah Burroughs, in his classic book Gospel Worship, said "The reason why we worship God in a slight way is because we do not see God in His glory." The modern man hears about a God who isn't worth worshipping; why should he worship a God who wants to do good, but can't pull it off because man just won't co-operate, and then who is sovereign? MAN IS! .... snip

http://www.the-highway.com/articleDec97.html

Good read!!


Peace to u,

Bill

[TwinCrier]

As we draw ever closer to the end times the sin of man will increase.

If Calvinism is true, and God controls who believes what, He has chosen for me to not believe in predestination.

[arunma]

I do not understand why, and it saddens me. I just have to ask why this is happening...

Because Calvinism is true?

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

[DeaconDean]

I agree with my friend. Calvinism does not seek to glorify man in any way as does Arminianism. It does my heart good to know that there is a return to these age old values.

Realitive truth comes and goes, but real truth never goes. That is why the Bible has stood the test of time.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Matthan]

Can't you see that, if Calvinism were a truth of Scripture, then none of Jesus' teachings would have been necessary? Can't you see that Jesus giving us the Great Commission would not have been necessary? Can't you see that the apostles establishing Christian Churches all over the place and preaching Jesus to everyone would not have been necessary? Can't you see that even the final judgement would not be necessary? If God predestines, then none of these things are necessary. The saved will always be saved, and the lost will always be lost.

Fatalism is fatally flawed in several scripturally sound ways. For it to be truth would literally negate the work of Christ. In fact for fatalism to be God's truth would necessarily mean that Jesus was a liar, and repeatedly lied in His ministry. How so? If fatalism were a fact, then "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish" would not be true unless someone wanted to argue that "whosoever" really only applied to the predestinate, and not to "whosoever."

And, when Jesus stated, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.", He was only talking about the predestinated, right? Wrong! That would make Him a liar. Jesus is here teaching about ALL MEN. Any person who hears His word and believes will be saved. If He were talking about only the predestinate, then He would not have had to even make this statement for the obvious reason that the "he" that our Savior mentioned will be saved regardless of whether he hears and develops a belief or not. And anyone who is not listed among the predestinate and who hears God's Truth and develops a belief is just wasting his time with all that belief carp. That is how fatalism works, folks.

For predestination to be God's Truth would also make all of the apostles liars as well. Why would Peter even preach the first sermon and then tell everyone who was pricked in their hearts to repent and be baptized? They would not have needed to hear about Jesus and be pricked in their hearts. They would not even have had to repent and be baptized. If they were predestined to be saved, then none of this would have needed to happen. And Paul would have lied when he stated, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." He is emphatic when he states "shall call upon" and "shall be saved." Both of those "shall"s are absolutes, and leave no room for any wiggle. But, what if a non-predestined person calls upon the name of the Lord? What happens then? That person could have all the faith, and all the belief, and all the love possible, and he would still be lost eternally, that's what! He could fervently and lovingly call upon the name of the Lord until the cows came home and he died of old age, and it would not make any difference at all. He would still be lost eternally.

Turn that fact around and you see another major problem. What about the predestinated man who strolls from bordello to bar to bordello, cussing Jesus with every breath and telling the Holy Spirit to get lost and leave him alone? Will he still find eternal salvation? If he is predestinated, then yes, he certainly will. He could commit any sin conceivable, and it would not matter to God, at least according to fatalists. But I believe it certainly would matter to God.

It all boils down to this. I cannot believe that anyone that believes (and believes in) the Gospels could possibly also believe in predestination. Certainly God already knows who among men will believe and be saved. He also knows who among men will not believe and therefore will be lost eternally. But, our Heavenly Father does not cause anyone to believe in Him and His Son, just as He does not cause anyone NOT to believe in Him and His Son.

Matthan

[arunma]

Can't you see that, if Calvinism were a truth of Scripture, then none of Jesus' teachings would have been necessary? Can't you see that Jesus giving us the Great Commission would not have been necessary? Can't you see that the apostles establishing Christian Churches all over the place and preaching Jesus to everyone would not have been necessary? Can't you see that even the final judgement would not be necessary? If God predestines, then none of these things are necessary. The saved will always be saved, and the lost will always be lost.

I see here what may be some honest misunderstandings about Calvinism. To put it succinctly, we do not believe that genuine Christians will be condemned because they were not on a "predestination list," nor do we believe that unbelievers will be saved for the opposite reason. The pastors at my church explain it with the saying, "God ordains the ends, and God ordains the means." What they mean to say is that God predestines all those who are saved to be given the gift of faith in Jesus Christ, to display the fruits of the Spirit, and for our faith to cause the remission of sin. The first of these ordinances, namely faith in Jesus, is the means by which we are saved. As Dean said, the problem with the alternatives to Calvinism is that they glorify man by saying that we are saved by means of our own decisions. I wouldn't call it heresy to deny the absolute sovereignty of God (that is, to believe that man chooses to have faith), nor would I avoid fellowship with such Christians. But I do think that non-Reformed doctrines do not glorify God as much as he ought to be glorified, and I know that they are not in complete accordance with the Scriptures.

I have a genuine question here for those who do not believe in Reformed doctrine. I know that all of you pray for the salvation of unbelievers, as we Reformed Christians do. When you request for God to open unbelievers to the Gospel, are you not implicitly assuming the sovereignty of God to overcome human free will? And if so, then does this not show that by your own beliefs, man's will is not truly free?

[mlqurgw]

Can't you see that, if Calvinism were a truth of Scripture, then none of Jesus' teachings would have been necessary? Can't you see that Jesus giving us the Great Commission would not have been necessary? Can't you see that the apostles establishing Christian Churches all over the place and preaching Jesus to everyone would not have been necessary? Can't you see that even the final judgement would not be necessary? If God predestines, then none of these things are necessary. The saved will always be saved, and the lost will always be lost.

Fatalism is fatally flawed in several scripturally sound ways. For it to be truth would literally negate the work of Christ. In fact for fatalism to be God's truth would necessarily mean that Jesus was a liar, and repeatedly lied in His ministry. How so? If fatalism were a fact, then "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish" would not be true unless someone wanted to argue that "whosoever" really only applied to the predestinate, and not to "whosoever."

And, when Jesus stated, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.", He was only talking about the predestinated, right? Wrong! That would make Him a liar. Jesus is here teaching about ALL MEN. Any person who hears His word and believes will be saved. If He were talking about only the predestinate, then He would not have had to even make this statement for the obvious reason that the "he" that our Savior mentioned will be saved regardless of whether he hears and develops a belief or not. And anyone who is not listed among the predestinate and who hears God's Truth and develops a belief is just wasting his time with all that belief carp. That is how fatalism works, folks.

For predestination to be God's Truth would also make all of the apostles liars as well. Why would Peter even preach the first sermon and then tell everyone who was pricked in their hearts to repent and be baptized? They would not have needed to hear about Jesus and be pricked in their hearts. They would not even have had to repent and be baptized. If they were predestined to be saved, then none of this would have needed to happen. And Paul would have lied when he stated, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." He is emphatic when he states "shall call upon" and "shall be saved." Both of those "shall"s are absolutes, and leave no room for any wiggle. But, what if a non-predestined person calls upon the name of the Lord? What happens then? That person could have all the faith, and all the belief, and all the love possible, and he would still be lost eternally, that's what! He could fervently and lovingly call upon the name of the Lord until the cows came home and he died of old age, and it would not make any difference at all. He would still be lost eternally.

Turn that fact around and you see another major problem. What about the predestinated man who strolls from bordello to bar to bordello, cussing Jesus with every breath and telling the Holy Spirit to get lost and leave him alone? Will he still find eternal salvation? If he is predestinated, then yes, he certainly will. He could commit any sin conceivable, and it would not matter to God, at least according to fatalists. But I believe it certainly would matter to God.

It all boils down to this. I cannot believe that anyone that believes (and believes in) the Gospels could possibly also believe in predestination. Certainly God already knows who among men will believe and be saved. He also knows who among men will not believe and therefore will be lost eternally. But, our Heavenly Father does not cause anyone to believe in Him and His Son, just as He does not cause anyone NOT to believe in Him and His Son.

MatthanI know you don't think so but every one of your arguments are a straw man. I intend to respond to each when I have more time. I will do my best to be nice.;) Much of my nastiness comes from hearing these same old tired arguments over and over again and refuting them only to have them repeated as though nothing has been said. It is tiring to constantly have to correct straw men and be ignored. I have yet to read anyone here who actually interacts with the refutations of those straw men. It seems it is thought that simply repeating them is evidence of their truth. Perhaps tommorrow evening, I don't get to preach tommorrow evening, I will tackle the straw men you present and as politely as I am able, one more time answer the claims you bring up. I ask that if you respond that you actually deal with what I say rather than defending a caracature of Calvinism. If you will do that maybe we can debate these things cordially.

[DeaconDean]

I know you don't think so but every one of your arguments are a straw man. I intend to respond to each when I have more time. I will do my best to be nice.;) Much of my nastiness comes from hearing these same old tired arguments over and over again and refuting them only to have them repeated as though nothing has been said. It is tiring to constantly have to correct straw men and be ignored. I have yet to read anyone here who actually interacts with the refutations of those straw men. It seems it is thought that simply repeating them is evidence of their truth. Perhaps tommorrow evening, I don't get to preach tommorrow evening, I will tackle the straw men you present and as politely as I am able, one more time answer the claims you bring up. I ask that if you respond that you actually deal with what I say rather than defending a caracature of Calvinism. If you will do that maybe we can debate these things cordially.

I don't know how you feel, but I myself am seeing a definate slide towards Arminianism on this forum. And like you, I get tired of refuting the same arguments time and time again. Perhaps it is time to stop and let Arminianism take them where it would logically go?

God Bless

Till all are one.

[mlqurgw]

I don't know how you feel, but I myself am seeing a definate slide towards Arminianism on this forum. And like you, I get tired of refuting the same arguments time and time again. Perhaps it is time to stop and let Arminianism take them where it would logically go?

God Bless

Till all are one. If it weren't for those who they would influence I would keep silent. But I am convinced that there are some who may not post here but read and God may grant them eyes to see and ears to hear. I do not need to know that God has done a work of grace in their hearts to be encouraged. I know that my God is faithful to His word and will call His elect out of darkness into His marvellous light. Truth doesn't need defending just proclaiming.

[DeaconDean]

Your right. Somebody must stand up for God's sovereignty. If not you, then me. If not me, then you. If not us, who then?

God Bless

Till all are one.

[mlqurgw]

Your right. Somebody must stand up for God's sovereignty. If not you, then me. If not me, then you. If not us, who then?

God Bless

Till all are one.
There are others here who are doing a great job. :clap:

[DiscipleOfIAm]

As we draw ever closer to the end times the sin of man will increase.

If Calvinism is true, and God controls who believes what, He has chosen for me to not believe in predestination.

Right on!

Can't you see that, if Calvinism were a truth of Scripture, then none of Jesus' teachings would have been necessary? Can't you see that Jesus giving us the Great Commission would not have been necessary? Can't you see that the apostles establishing Christian Churches all over the place and preaching Jesus to everyone would not have been necessary? Can't you see that even the final judgement would not be necessary? If God predestines, then none of these things are necessary. The saved will always be saved, and the lost will always be lost.

Fatalism is fatally flawed in several scripturally sound ways. For it to be truth would literally negate the work of Christ. In fact for fatalism to be God's truth would necessarily mean that Jesus was a liar, and repeatedly lied in His ministry. How so? If fatalism were a fact, then "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish" would not be true unless someone wanted to argue that "whosoever" really only applied to the predestinate, and not to "whosoever."

And, when Jesus stated, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.", He was only talking about the predestinated, right? Wrong! That would make Him a liar. Jesus is here teaching about ALL MEN. Any person who hears His word and believes will be saved. If He were talking about only the predestinate, then He would not have had to even make this statement for the obvious reason that the "he" that our Savior mentioned will be saved regardless of whether he hears and develops a belief or not. And anyone who is not listed among the predestinate and who hears God's Truth and develops a belief is just wasting his time with all that belief carp. That is how fatalism works, folks.

For predestination to be God's Truth would also make all of the apostles liars as well. Why would Peter even preach the first sermon and then tell everyone who was pricked in their hearts to repent and be baptized? They would not have needed to hear about Jesus and be pricked in their hearts. They would not even have had to repent and be baptized. If they were predestined to be saved, then none of this would have needed to happen. And Paul would have lied when he stated, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." He is emphatic when he states "shall call upon" and "shall be saved." Both of those "shall"s are absolutes, and leave no room for any wiggle. But, what if a non-predestined person calls upon the name of the Lord? What happens then? That person could have all the faith, and all the belief, and all the love possible, and he would still be lost eternally, that's what! He could fervently and lovingly call upon the name of the Lord until the cows came home and he died of old age, and it would not make any difference at all. He would still be lost eternally.

Turn that fact around and you see another major problem. What about the predestinated man who strolls from bordello to bar to bordello, cussing Jesus with every breath and telling the Holy Spirit to get lost and leave him alone? Will he still find eternal salvation? If he is predestinated, then yes, he certainly will. He could commit any sin conceivable, and it would not matter to God, at least according to fatalists. But I believe it certainly would matter to God.

It all boils down to this. I cannot believe that anyone that believes (and believes in) the Gospels could possibly also believe in predestination. Certainly God already knows who among men will believe and be saved. He also knows who among men will not believe and therefore will be lost eternally. But, our Heavenly Father does not cause anyone to believe in Him and His Son, just as He does not cause anyone NOT to believe in Him and His Son.

Matthan

Yes!, Yes!, and Yes!

One other thing to add: Pre-destination is not the person, it is the place. Heaven is the pre-destination. It's like buying a plane ticket. Whether you get on the plane or not, the plane is still going to it's destination which was determined beforehand (i.e. pre-destination). Same thing with Heaven and that is what Paul was saying in Romans, not the way Calvin proclaimed it.

Just my short take on it!

God Bless!

[Matthan]

Let's see here. You fatalists claim that you still preach to the lost. You know they are lost forever, but you will still preach Jesus to them, none the less. Wow! What a monumental act of compassion! What a magnanamous gesture of Christian love!!! Paul must have had the same ideas when he wrote about how this very situation:

" For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15. And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16. But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17. So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

For anyone to make the claim that the "they" in verse 14 refers only to the predestinate makes all of the concept contained here so huch nonsense. Would it not be better for fatalists to change the "how" in v.14 to "why"?

Actually, verse 14 (as it appears in Scripture) destroys the fatalist's viewpoint completely. All believers must first believe! They cannot get into heaven until they believe. And, to claim that God will make them believe is to also claim that Paul lied when he wrote these verses.

Matthan

[arunma]

Let's see here. You fatalists claim that you still preach to the lost. You know they are lost forever, but you will still preach Jesus to them, none the less. Wow! What a monumental act of compassion! What a magnanamous gesture of Christian love!!!

We're not fatalists, and we don't claim to know who is ordained to eternal salvation (which is why we preach to everyone and anyone). I have no problem discussing this issue, but I only ask that you not misrepresent our doctrines. The above statement doesn't accurately represent what we claim to believe.

[Jim1927]

Quote:
And, to claim that God will make them believe is to also claim that Paul lied when he wrote these verses.
----------------------------------------------

It is news to me that God"made" anyone believe. He made it possible for one to believe, but some cannot see the huge theological ladder of logic and its consistency with the absolute sovereignty of a Supreme Being, we call God.

All we know as men is that we are told to preach the gospel in the whole world and to all humankind. It is, has been, and always will be, the determinative act of an holy God to call whom He pleases and for His own purpse and to His own glory.

I have wondered so many times just what some people were talking about in here when they labelled some as fatalists.

Cheers, and God bless,

Jim

[Matthan]

We're not fatalists, and we don't claim to know who is ordained to eternal salvation (which is why we preach to everyone and anyone). I have no problem discussing this issue, but I only ask that you not misrepresent our doctrines. The above statement doesn't accurately represent what we claim to believe.

You are caught in the undertow of your own ill-conceived logic, arunma. Since all men are predestinate for either heaven or hell, there is no need to preach at all. It simply does not matter. Those destined for heaven will get there, regardless of anything else. Those destined for damnation have no hope at all, regardless of anything else.

But don't you feel just a little bit sorry for the guy or gal who reads about Jesus, learns to believe in Him, and spends his or her entire life working for Jesus, and then discovers after death that he or she was not destined for heaven in the first place. Oh well....

Matthan

[GordonSlocum]

I see here what may be some honest misunderstandings about Calvinism. To put it succinctly, we do not believe that genuine Christians will be condemned because they were not on a "predestination list," nor do we believe that unbelievers will be saved for the opposite reason. The pastors at my church explain it with the saying, "God ordains the ends, and God ordains the means." What they mean to say is that God predestines all those who are saved to be given the gift of faith in Jesus Christ, to display the fruits of the Spirit, and for our faith to cause the remission of sin. The first of these ordinances, namely faith in Jesus, is the means by which we are saved. As Dean said, the problem with the alternatives to Calvinism is that they glorify man by saying that we are saved by means of our own decisions. I wouldn't call it heresy to deny the absolute sovereignty of God (that is, to believe that man chooses to have faith), nor would I avoid fellowship with such Christians. But I do think that non-Reformed doctrines do not glorify God as much as he ought to be glorified, and I know that they are not in complete accordance with the Scriptures.

I have a genuine question here for those who do not believe in Reformed doctrine. I know that all of you pray for the salvation of unbelievers, as we Reformed Christians do. When you request for God to open unbelievers to the Gospel, are you not implicitly assuming the sovereignty of God to overcome human free will? And if so, then does this not show that by your own beliefs, man's will is not truly free?
Arunma
As Dean said, the problem with the alternatives to Calvinism is that they glorify man by saying that we are saved by means of our own decisions. I wouldn't call it heresy to deny the absolute sovereignty of God (that is, to believe that man chooses to have faith), nor would I avoid fellowship with such Christians. But I do think that non-Reformed doctrines do not glorify God as much as he ought to be glorified, and I know that they are not in complete accordance with the Scriptures.
Gordon
The faith issue is, perhaps to many of us, the major contention of difference. I am not going to change you and you are not going to change me. We both feel very strong in our position. In the end as believers, our daily walk is what sets us apart on this earth.

The people being won over to RT are mainly proselytized. These are they, for the most part, who are new Believers not yet grounded in Scripture and vulnerable to who is willing to disciple them. RT is not an evangelistic movement as are non-RT evangelicals. It is a trend that will not sustain as it has not in the past. The phenomenon of this insurgence will be met head on by it opposition and is basically underway across the board. You will see a marked increase in the months and years ahead to combat it.

Arunma
I have a genuine question here for those who do not believe in Reformed doctrine. I know that all of you pray for the salvation of unbelievers, as we Reformed Christians do. When you request for God to open unbelievers to the Gospel, are you not implicitly assuming the sovereignty of God to overcome human free will? And if so, then does this not show that by your own beliefs, man's will is not truly free?

Gordon

The convicting of the sinner does not negate the sinner’s “image of god” abilities. “Open unbelievers to the Gospel” is an incorrect statement. I can’t control all the words that come out of the mouth of believers. Because Jesus draws all men, and the Holy Spirit, the one that convicts man of his sin, this is a given. When the Gospel goes out by you or me and others the Spirit uses the Word to convict the heart. This is the work of God, convecting the hearts of mankind. The person hearing it only has to agree and surrender, we call it trusting in Christ, Believing in Christ, or having faith in Christ and obeying the Gospel. When the Gospel heard the spirit convects and a decision is made to accept or reject. Our responsibility is to give the message and God’s is to convict, and save all who respond to the data, information, message etc.

[TwinCrier]

I don't think ANYBODY believes in Arminianism, I think Arminianism is a strawman theology that Calvinists invented so they would have a word to identify everyone who doesn't believe in the tulip.

[mlqurgw]

I don't think ANYBODY believes in Arminianism, I think Arminianism is a strawman theology that Calvinists invented so they would have a word to identify everyone who doesn't believe in the tulip.Actually there are few true classical Arminians today. The name comes from Jacob Arminius who was a contemporary of John Calvin. He disagreed slightly with Calvin but by no means was he the Pelagian his later followers became. After he died some of his students and followers took his views and expanded them into what is now known as Arminianism. They came up with a document called the Remonstances outlining 5 points. 1. that man wasn't totally depraved. 2. that election was conditional. 3. that Christ died for all men. 4. That grace is resistable. 5. That they wern't sure whether a man coild loose salvation once he had it which later formed into the the doctrine of loosing salvation. These men presented the Remonstrances to the State of Holland where they lived and the Synod of Dort was the outcome. It was that Synod which came up with a response and the acronym TULIP. It wasn't John Calvin. The Synod consisted of 102 delegates form various countries and they met in 154 sessions over a period of 7 months. So you can see that both Calvinism and Arminianism are actually taken not so much from the men themselves but from their followers. Calvin actually treated vey little of predestination. Arminius was not very far from Calvin on the issue.
All I have said has come from a faulty memory so if I have given any detail incorrectly blame it on my old age. ;)

[mlqurgw]

You are caught in the undertow of your own ill-conceived logic, arunma. Since all men are predestinate for either heaven or hell, there is no need to preach at all. It simply does not matter. Those destined for heaven will get there, regardless of anything else. Those destined for damnation have no hope at all, regardless of anything else.

But don't you feel just a little bit sorry for the guy or gal who reads about Jesus, learns to believe in Him, and spends his or her entire life working for Jesus, and then discovers after death that he or she was not destined for heaven in the first place. Oh well....

MatthanSTRAWMAN. If you are going to continue to build strawmen is there any reason for me to respond? I offered to be cordial and you seem to prefer rhetoric. I make the offer once again but, as you know I am able, I will respond in kind if you persist. The ball is in your court.

[PETE_]

The people being won over to RT are mainly proselytized. These are they, for the most part, who are new Believers not yet grounded in Scripture and vulnerable to who is willing to disciple them. RT is not an evangelistic movement as are non-RT evangelicals. It is a trend that will not sustain as it has not in the past. The phenomenon of this insurgence will be met head on by it opposition and is basically underway across the board. You will see a marked increase in the months and years ahead to combat it.

I found RT after 25 years as a Christian in Some very fine Baptist churches. The majority of people I know that hold to it were mature Christians before realizing the validity of the message



The convicting of the sinner does not negate the sinner’s “image of god” abilities. “Open unbelievers to the Gospel” is an incorrect statement. I can’t control all the words that come out of the mouth of believers. Because Jesus draws all men, and the Holy Spirit, the one that convicts man of his sin, this is a given. When the Gospel goes out by you or me and others the Spirit uses the Word to convict the heart. This is the work of God, convecting the hearts of mankind. The person hearing it only has to agree and surrender, we call it trusting in Christ, Believing in Christ, or having faith in Christ and obeying the Gospel. When the Gospel heard the spirit convects and a decision is made to accept or reject. Our responsibility is to give the message and God’s is to convict, and save all who respond to the data, information, message etc.


Disciples normally chose to become students of a particular rabbi, rather than a teacher calling his own disciples. Jesus called His disciples and they immediately came.

[holdon]

Actually there are few true classical Arminians today. The name comes from Jacob Arminius who was a contemporary of John Calvin. Arminius was 4 years old when Calvin died. That's not what we call contemporary. Maybe you are getting too old....

[mlqurgw]

Arminius was 4 years old when Calvin died. That's not what we call contemporary. Maybe you are getting too old....:blush: :sorry: :yawn:

[Matthan]

That's twice you have mentioned strawmen arguments (you even yelled it once lol). The scriptural truth is that there is not one strawman argument in any of my posts. Let me state that again. THERE IS NOT ONE STRAWMAN ARGUMENT IN ANY OF MY POSTS!!!! (Oops, sorry about all that yelling on my part. Sure hope no mods are crusing this thread...)

So, miqurgw, the ball is squarely in your court. You claim strawmen are present when they are not. Prove your accusations. But please, use Scripture only, and keep it as short as possible while still making your case. All you have to do is show me and everyone else using this thread where God has predestinated many to eternal perdition. Demonstrate with the written word where our Lord created countless humans that He specifically condemned to eternal hell. Let us see where He really does not want ALL MEN to be saved (except, of course, for those specific verses where we are clearly told someone or some group are not permitted to understand Jesus' lessons so they should be healed...)

Either that, or stop yelling strawman and begin asking Gordon for his forgivness. I'm absolutely sure he will grant it without any hesitation.

(Oh, and I'm sorry if I sounded the least bit "nasty" with this or any of my other posts...)

Matthan

[Phileoeklogos]

The more I observe the way things are going, ie... the recent resurgence of Reformed Theology, I can't help but think alot of the backlash is nothing but fear, especially among Baptists.

When the Calvinists where off in the distance of history, like Spurgeon, Boyce etc, or thought of as tiny minority, no one felt threatened, it wasn't too uncommon for the average Baptist to identify themselves as 4 pointers or Calvinists, even though they were neither.

It seems to me that some folks need a Bogeyman to sound the alarm about too, the fear of the unknown, think about how many Baptists don't know anything of the history that Baptists and Calvinism share.

To those of you who are deadset against Calvinism, I ask you to read Spurgeon's " All of Grace" and J.P. Boyce's Abstract of Systematic Theology, both available on E-Sword, or maybe go to John MacArthur or John Piper's website and read thru some of the FAQ type stuff. If you are going to argue against Calvinism, at least find out what it is first.

That's my 2 cents.............

[GordonSlocum]

The more I observe the way things are going, ie... the recent resurgence of Reformed Theology, I can't help but think alot of the backlash is nothing but fear, especially among Baptists.

When the Calvinists where off in the distance of history, like Spurgeon, Boyce etc, or thought of as tiny minority, no one felt threatened, it wasn't too uncommon for the average Baptist to identify themselves as 4 pointers or Calvinists, even though they were neither.

It seems to me that some folks need a Bogeyman to sound the alarm about too, the fear of the unknown, think about how many Baptists don't know anything of the history that Baptists and Calvinism share.

To those of you who are deadset against Calvinism, I ask you to read Spurgeon's " All of Grace" and J.P. Boyce's Abstract of Systematic Theology, both available on E-Sword, or maybe go to John MacArthur or John Piper's website and read thru some of the FAQ type stuff. If you are going to argue against Calvinism, at least find out what it is first.

That's my 2 cents.............

The multitudes of believers don't have to read any of the authors you suggest.

Their followers have made their views knows on countless post and forums.

Now most of us know you TULIP TROOPS are Fatalist.

We know that you believe God only saved some of the all and the rest are not considered or can ever be considered.

We know you teach limited atonement

We know you teach Fatalism

We know you teach that only a select few can be saved.

Are you saying that because anyone has not read the books and works you suggest are ignorant of God's word and the truth?

Are you denying what statements I have made?

Do you believe all can be saved?

Do you believe atonement was for every human being from beginning to end?

Do you believe God zapped the selected few to believe and will only save them and all the rest don't have a change to get saved because God is not going to do the same for them?

This really is the issue not reading countless books on brain washing false views.

What say you?

[holdon]

The more I observe the way things are going, ie... the recent resurgence of Reformed Theology, I can't help but think alot of the backlash is nothing but fear, especially among Baptists.

When the Calvinists where off in the distance of history, like Spurgeon, Boyce etc, or thought of as tiny minority, no one felt threatened, it wasn't too uncommon for the average Baptist to identify themselves as 4 pointers or Calvinists, even though they were neither.

It seems to me that some folks need a Bogeyman to sound the alarm about too, the fear of the unknown, think about how many Baptists don't know anything of the history that Baptists and Calvinism share.

To those of you who are deadset against Calvinism, I ask you to read Spurgeon's " All of Grace" and J.P. Boyce's Abstract of Systematic Theology, both available on E-Sword, or maybe go to John MacArthur or John Piper's website and read thru some of the FAQ type stuff. If you are going to argue against Calvinism, at least find out what it is first.

That's my 2 cents.............

Why not go directly to the source and read Calvin? Then you know what Calvinism is all about.... Rather then read those who have sought to chasten Calvin's words.

[Matthan]

To those of you who are deadset against Calvinism, I ask you to read Spurgeon's " All of Grace" and J.P. Boyce's Abstract of Systematic Theology, both available on E-Sword, or maybe go to John MacArthur or John Piper's website and read thru some of the FAQ type stuff. If you are going to argue against Calvinism, at least find out what it is first.

That's my 2 cents.............

Ah, you suggest we "non-believers" search out and cling to the wisdom of man? Thanks but no thanks.
"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."
"And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."

Instead, why don't you try reading God's "Bible", and you can definitely concentrate on the New Testament. Try reading John 3:15-18, and concentrate on the word "whosoever". That is always a wonderful starting point for anyone and everyone who really want to cling to the wisdom of men. Oh, and please do not overlook Romans 10:13 ("For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.") That verse contains another "whosoever" worth concentrating on, too!

Matthan

[Behe's Boy]

Why not go directly to the source and read Calvin? Then you know what Calvinism is all about.... Rather then read those who have sought to chasten Calvin's words.

I don't know Brother - Spurgeon and Boyce are pretty good. They don't chasten his words - they compliment them as far as I'm concerned.

Don' disagree about Calvin though - I'm reading through his commentary now and have read both "The Institutes..." and "The Bondage and Liberation of the Will." Really good stuff all around....

In regards to the "source" though - I'd have to say Augustine would be an even better choice (with the exception of all of Paul' epistles of course). Calvin and Luther developed their soretiology off of Augustine - and its obvious by how much they both quote him in their works.

[holdon]

I don't know Brother - Spurgeon and Boyce are pretty good. They don't chasten his words - they compliment them as far as I'm concerned.

Don' disagree about Calvin though - I'm reading through his commentary now and have read both "The Institutes..." and "The Bondage and Liberation of the Will." Really good stuff all around....

In regards to the "source" though - I'd have to say Augustine would be an even better choice (with the exception of all of Paul' epistles of course). Calvin and Luther developed their soretiology off of Augustine - and its obvious by how much they both quote him in their works.

Yes, you can do that too: read Augustine. Not necessarily a bad reading, but you may end up a Catholic!

Ein Mensch ist, was er isst.

[Behe's Boy]

Yes, you can do that too: read Augustine. Not necessarily a bad reading, but you may end up a Catholic!

Ein Mensch ist, was er isst.

Not really - If Catholics read him and took what he said seriously they would end up Calvinists. Problem is they either ignore everything he says in regards to grace/salvation or try to twist his meaning into something totally contrary to what it is. Or - they admit what he truly taught in regards to grace but discredit him as not being authoritative.

[S Walch]

In England, there has been an opposite reaction to Calvinism - Calvinism in the UK is finally on the decline.

I don't want to start a "Calvinism vs Arminism" debate,as there's been more than enough of those on these forums.

[holdon]

Not really - If Catholics read him and took what he said seriously they would end up Calvinists. Problem is they either ignore everything he says in regards to grace/salvation or try to twist his meaning into something totally contrary to what it is. Or - they admit what he truly taught in regards to grace but discredit him as not being authoritative.

Are you sure Catholics don't take Augustine seriously? Did you ever read him?

[Behe's Boy]

Yes - I've read him... And all one has to do is read as far back as Calvin's "Bondage and Liberation of the Will" to see what I'm talking about in regards to Augustine. More than half of the book was written in defense of Augustine's stand on this issue.

Holdon - are you Calvinist?

[Behe's Boy]

In England, there has been an opposite reaction to Calvinism - Calvinism in the UK is finally on the decline.

I don't want to start a "Calvinism vs Arminism" debate,as there's been more than enough of those on these forums.

Doesn't surprise me since Christianity as a whole has been pretty much on the decline in Europe...

[S Walch]

Doesn't surprise me since Christianity as a whole has been pretty much on the decline in Europe...

Thank you for your over stereotypical, arrogant and ignorant post, which isn't warrented nor based on much fact.

In certain places over the whole world it's "on the decline" - but there are certain places where an uproar is coming from new Christians, my town of Salford being one of the main focal points of Yahuweh at the moment.

Hold your breath Behe's boy, another revolution is brewing in England, and thankfully, Calvinism is absent from it.

[holdon]

Yes - I've read him... And all one has to do is read as far back as Calvin's "Bondage and Liberation of the Will" to see what I'm talking about in regards to Augustine. More than half of the book was written in defense of Augustine's stand on this issue.

Holdon - are you Calvinist?

No, I dare not say I'm a Calvinist. I guess I disagree with him on many important points.
Nor do I think that Calvin's book on Bondage of the Will was written in defense of Augustine, but rather a defense of Calvin's own Institutes. He corroborates quite a bit from Augustine in that book. Which is most interesting, because I found Calvin to be quite a blurr (as compared to Luther and Erasmus for instance), while Augustine although not easy had more clarity.

[Phileoeklogos]

To those who reacted to my post, the reason I suggested the reading I listed is because Boyce and Spurgeon were
Baptists, and the material is not overly long but covers the issues fairly well. If you want to argue the issues, at least be informed of what the issues really are, some of the comments that pop up here about Calvinism are about the same as arguing with a Muslim that Mecca is located in Alabama and Muhammed used to drive in NASCAR.

[Behe's Boy]

Hold your breath Behe's boy, another revolution is brewing in England.

If you are referring to revival - I hope you are right!

[Behe's Boy]

Nor do I think that Calvin's book on Bondage of the Will was written in defense of Augustine, but rather a defense of Calvin's own Institutes. He corroborates quite a bit from Augustine in that book. Which is most interesting, because I found Calvin to be quite a blurr (as compared to Luther and Erasmus for instance), while Augustine although not easy had more clarity.

Luther's book was much better.

Just for clarification' sake - I believe I said half of Calvin's book was spent prooving that his view was the same as Augustine's - I just read the book two weeks ago - and there is no denying that. It's one reason Luther does a better job.

[Calminaion]

I recently wrote on this subject on MySpace, so allow me to quote from there:


John Calvin lived from 1509 to 1564 in France. He was a Reformer most famous for espousing the doctrine commonly known as Calvinism. I am not a Calvinist, but I believe in the doctrine of Calvinism. The reason I am not a Calvinist is because I do not worship John Calvin.

Five-Point Calvinism espouses that:
Man is totally depraved, in and of himself. He, by himself, is incapable of doing anything of any eternal good.

Man is unconditionally elected by God for salvation. This is one part that I believe with a caveat: I believe we choose God just as much as He chooses us.

God's sacrifice on the cross was a limited atonement. I hold this belief as well, but with a seperate caveat: I believe that Christ's sacrifice opened the opportunity for all men to accept Him and receive salvation, but not that it atoned for all sin and thus God will "bury the hatchet."

God provided irresistable grace. This fits in with the doctrine of predestination, that we are chosen for His grace and can't get around it.

The Saints (Christians) will persevere in their obedience to Christ.
So, what do I personally believe about Calvin's doctrines?

First of all, I do believe that in and of himself, man is not capable of doing anything of eternal value (John 15:1-8). Apart from Christ, a man is not capable of doing anything that is truly important. That includes the life of a wayward Christian: anything we do in our flesh nature is worthless, even if to the outside world it seems like a good deed. God is very clear about the actions of a Christian whose heart is not in obedience (Isaiah 29:13-14). Even when our hearts are "right" with the Lord, our righteousness is as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6), despite the fact the Lord desires that we bring those filthy rags before Him.

Secondly, I believe that yes, we are chosen for salvation. As King David says, "the earth is the Lord's" (Psalm 24:1). Therefore, even as God cares for the sparrows (Matthew 10:31), so God cares for us--especially the eternal state of our souls. I believe that--as I'll talk about later--Christ's sacrifice on the cross provided the opportunity for any human to come to salvation. However, Peter tells us that before humanity was created, God looked over the expanse of human history, saw both our obedience to Christ and the atonement of Christ, and commanded that the Holy Spirit should set us apart as holy (1 Peter 1:2). Thus, all God has done is seen our actions of obedience toward Christ, set it "in stone", and we have been chosen because of what God knows we will do (that is, obey Christ). It is as much our decision to accept Christ as it is God's decision to "elect" (choose) us. This also covers the doctrine of "irresistable grace," that one cannot refuse God's election.

Thirdly, and this is where it gets somewhat sticky with Calvin's beliefs, I do believe in the limited atonement of Christ. I believe that Christ died for the sins of the Saints (Christians), not for the sins of the world, but He did die so that all might have the opportunity to accept Him (John 3:16). It is very clear throughout the book of Revelation that our sins will be judged, and there will be those who are sent to Hell. That means that Christ did not die so God will forgive all of mankind, but He will forgive those who have chosen Him and whom He has chosen (which are one in the same). No man who chooses Christ can be turned away (James 4:8), because God is faithful to His promises (2 Timothy 2:13).

Finally, we reach the perseverance of the Saints (Christians). The Bible discusses this issue, stating perseverence is a requirement to receive His blessings (Hebrews 10:36). This fits in with the issue of "faith with works," meaning that faith without works is dead (James 2:14-18). If we are a true Christian, then--despite the fact that we sin--we will continue to repent and return to the good works prepared for us (Ephesians 2:10). This is what is known as perseverence: working through our trials and continually trusting in Him (even if we aren't perfect) to take care of us and provide for us.

In a nutshell, that's an overview of my views on Calvin's doctrines.