A few questions on predestination

[JerryNumbers]

The Devil has been around since the dawn of time too, Calvin was not a "founder of the faith", and I wouldn't care if John Calvin came back from the dead and showed up on my doorstep sporting wings and a halo.....
Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


Both election and predestination are biblical doctrines; the only prOBlem is, they do not mean what the Calvinists say they mean.

Only one thing I would add, the TULIP doctrine has not been around forever, it was invented by man and is not found within the pages of the Bible.

[anime4christ]

What I'm saying, and have been saying, it that the TULIP Doctrine is not no the Bible, its deadly. I have never said that Romans 3:23 is false. Yet the way the Calvinist state it, its 100% wrong.

Why deadly? The puritans were Calvinists, so was Spurgeon and many other people who God used to bring about great revivals. Shall we not know them by their fruits? How can people teaching deadly doctrine be used so greatly by God?

[heartstrings]

Why deadly? The puritans were Calvinists, so was Spurgeon and many other people who God used to bring about great revivals. Shall we not know them by their fruits? How can people teaching deadly doctrine be used so greatly by God?

Even a man like Spurgeon can be messed up on some of his doctrine. But I'm not basing what I believe on what Calvin, the Puritans, Spurgeon, or anyone else said; I rely on what the King James Bible says. Remember, the Berean Christians searched the scripures for themselves. Edited April 27, 2010 by heartstrings

[JerryNumbers]

Why deadly? The puritans were Calvinists, so was Spurgeon and many other people who God used to bring about great revivals. Shall we not know them by their fruits? How can people teaching deadly doctrine be used so greatly by God?

Its deadly because its not of God, but of man.


Mt 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mr 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

[anime4christ]

Its deadly because its not of God, but of man.


Mt 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mr 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

While I don't have a prOBlem with TULIP and Calvinism, I don't necessarily adhere to the system itself. I believe* in God's absolute sovereignty and election however, and I think that it's not TULIP and Calvinism themselves that many are against, but the previously mentioned underlying theology of those systems which OBviously defines them. Am I right?

*Note that I do believe that limited human free will exists as well. Edited April 28, 2010 by anime4christ

[Reformation Man35]

Even a man like Spurgeon can be messed up on some of his doctrine. But I'm not basing what I believe on what Calvin, the Puritans, Spurgeon, or anyone else said; I rely on what the King James Bible says. Remember, the Berean Christians searched the scripures for themselves.

Hmm..well maybe its your that is messed up on some of your doctrines? I would be careful in calling God's man messed up. He anointed Spurgeon for a reason, and who exactly are you to make such a judgement?

[DennisD]

Hmm..well maybe its your that is messed up on some of your doctrines? I would be careful in calling God's man messed up. He anointed Spurgeon for a reason, and who exactly are you to make such a judgement?

Spurgeon was a man just like all of us. He wasn't infallible.

[DennisD]

Was Spurgeon a Calvinist?

Some of the writings of Spurgeon may cause much confusion for a newly saved Christian. At times, one may find that Spurgeon rationalized the Bible by reading more into the Scriptures than what is actually being said (example: as in his interpretation of Isaiah 53 and the following quote below). God is not the author of confusion and the Lord certainly did not intend us to be confused when reading His Word. Spurgeon said, “I believe there will be more in Heaven than in hell. If anyone asks me why I think so, I answer, because Christ, in everything, is to ‘have the pre-eminence,’ and I cannot conceive how He could have the pre-eminence if there are to be more in the dominions of Satan than in Paradise”

Most Baptist Fundamentalists would say, "Well, where is that in the Bible?" It's not in the Bible. Christ Jesus said, "...FEW there be that find it."

The trouble with many today is that they have put their trust in C. H. Spurgeon rather than in the Lord. Rather than reading their KJV Bible and praying for the correct interpretation, many run to the bookshelf to see what someone else wrote-- whether it be Spurgeon, Pink, Henry, Gill, etc. Edited April 28, 2010 by Durty

[DennisD]

A point I wanted to add to this discussion which is not to point fingers or to highlight anything, it's just something personal I wanted to share that went along with some of the things we are talking about.

Just recently, I've decided I'm going to start memorizing as many parts of the Bible that I can because I believe God really will give you some special insight on a specific verse/chapter that you take the time to memorize. But first, I plan to read the Bible through (starting fresh), a few times. I am not reading any commentary or study notes or references...just prayer and the word of God. I feel it's best I do it this way because commentary just gets in the way of me and God. I want to learn it on my own with no interference.

Thanks.

[heartstrings]

Hmm..well maybe its your that is messed up on some of your doctrines? I would be careful in calling God's man messed up. He anointed Spurgeon for a reason, and who exactly are you to make such a judgement?

Who am I? I'm a sinner saved by grace, born of the Spirit, one of God's anointed and am still not afraid to say.....

Even a man like Spurgeon can be messed up on some of his doctrine.

Spurgeon claimed to be a Calvinist, promoted it in his writings, and (I hope ignorantly) taught the heresy of "limited atonement".

"It would not be possible for me too earnestly to press upon you the importance of reading the expositions of that prince among men, JOHN CALVIN!"

"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."

"... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

"That Christ
should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins of which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!"--C.H. Spurgeon

But God's word says.......Psalm 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. Edited April 28, 2010 by heartstrings

[Reformation Man35]

Who am I? I'm a sinner saved by grace, born of the Spirit, one of God's anointed and am still not afraid to say.....


Spurgeon claimed to be a Calvinist, promoted it in his writings, and (I hope ignorantly) taught the heresy of "limited atonement".


But God's word says.......Psalm 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

Well as always, being unstudied in the doctrine of limited atonement makes one uneasy about it. Limited atonement is as biblical as you can get. The doctrine of limited atonement is that the blood of Christ is limited in that it only covers those that come to faith in Christ Jesus. Therefore, Christ's substitutinary death covers a limited amount of people. It does not cover the world, if it did, everyone would be saved and going to heaven. Where you get your boxers in a wad is thinking that the reformed limited atonement doctrine means that the opportunity to hear the gospel and respond is limited, when it is not.

[Alimantado]

Well as always, being unstudied in the doctrine of limited atonement makes one uneasy about it. Limited atonement is as biblical as you can get. The doctrine of limited atonement is that the blood of Christ is limited in that it only covers those that come to faith in Christ Jesus. Therefore, Christ's substitutinary death covers a limited amount of people. It does not cover the world, if it did, everyone would be saved and going to heaven. Where you get your boxers in a wad is thinking that the reformed limited atonement doctrine means that the opportunity to hear the gospel and respond is limited, when it is not.

Regardless of whether it is explicitly stated in one of 5 points or deduced from a combination of them, what people often OBject to in Calvinism is the idea that there is a minority elect that God chooses to save, instead of Him offering salvation to all. Your point about the doctrine of limited atonement not encapsulating this idea by itself is trivial unless you are also suggesting that reformed belief in an 'elect' is a complete myth (i.e. it is a myth that reformed believers believe in an elect). Edited April 28, 2010 by Alimantado

[JerryNumbers]

Well as always, being unstudied in the doctrine of limited atonement makes one uneasy about it. Limited atonement is as biblical as you can get. The doctrine of limited atonement is that the blood of Christ is limited in that it only covers those that come to faith in Christ Jesus. Therefore, Christ's substitutinary death covers a limited amount of people. It does not cover the world, if it did, everyone would be saved and going to heaven. Where you get your boxers in a wad is thinking that the reformed limited atonement doctrine means that the opportunity to hear the gospel and respond is limited, when it is not.

I'm not a bit uneasy about it, I'm not understudied on this issue, yet you need to stop making such accusations, its not very becoming of you.

What I am uneasy about is false teachings, its not in the Bible.

Amazing that you would teach that our God who has shown grace to all men yet He has created many souls only to suffer in hell forever when the Bible clearly states all men can be saved if only they will accept that precious free gift He has for them.

[John81]

A point I wanted to add to this discussion which is not to point fingers or to highlight anything, it's just something personal I wanted to share that went along with some of the things we are talking about.

Just recently, I've decided I'm going to start memorizing as many parts of the Bible that I can because I believe God really will give you some special insight on a specific verse/chapter that you take the time to memorize. But first, I plan to read the Bible through (starting fresh), a few times. I am not reading any commentary or study notes or references...just prayer and the word of God. I feel it's best I do it this way because commentary just gets in the way of me and God. I want to learn it on my own with no interference.

Thanks.

In my own walk with the Lord I know making it a point to read through the Word itself, without commentary, was a real blessing. For myself, I determined to set aside time first thing each morning to read the Word. Over the years I've followed several different reading through the Bible in one year plans and this has been a real blessing.

It's a good thing to read the Word itself, praying for the Holy Spirit to open the Word to you, praying for wisdom, discernment and understanding that we may know God and His will.

I separate that sort of reading from any particular study I may do. In a study I may look at a commentary or check to see what some other men of God may have said about what I'm studying.

Anyway, I say all this simply to say that your plan is a good one. We need to take in the pure Word of God and to take in the whole Word of God.

[John81]

Well as always, being unstudied in the doctrine of limited atonement makes one uneasy about it. Limited atonement is as biblical as you can get. The doctrine of limited atonement is that the blood of Christ is limited in that it only covers those that come to faith in Christ Jesus. Therefore, Christ's substitutinary death covers a limited amount of people. It does not cover the world, if it did, everyone would be saved and going to heaven. Where you get your boxers in a wad is thinking that the reformed limited atonement doctrine means that the opportunity to hear the gospel and respond is limited, when it is not.

The few I know who call themselves Calvinists have said this. I've also read something, I can't recall if it was Spurgeon or another, who said this and proclaimed this is why the Gospel must be preached.

There are differences among some Calvinists because while some believe preaching the Gospel is necessary and important, there are others who believe such isn't necessary because those God has chosen will come to Him anyway and it's a waste of time to preach the Gospel to everyone else.

This, in part, is why I've found it difficult to really understand what is or isn't "true" Calvinism, or if, as Spurgeon puts forth, that "Calvinism" is just a more modern term applied to something that's been around for a long time (back to Scripture as Spurgeon and others claim). Online I've encountered many who call themselves Calvinists who argue among themselves over what Calvinism is (and isn't) and just who is or isn't a real Calvinist. There seems to be a few different versions or degrees of Calvinism and I'm not up on these at all.

I think some of this is what anime has been trying to discuss. To totally dismiss everything "Calvinist" doesn't seem prudent because even if some of their views are not correct that doesn't mean all their views are wrong. Sadly, I've known of some Christians who have turned their stand on eternal security when they found out Calvinists believe in eternal security. Why disbelieve in eternal security just because Calvinists believe this too?