Jump to content
Online Baptist

New Argument Against Calvinism


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 234
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

IN a nutshell, this is the basics of Calvinism: TULIP   Total Depravity: that man is so depraved and dead in sin  that he can not even hear the voice or respond to the gospel without God regeneratin

Let's try something different for a moment: Let's look at our agreements on the issue, and see where we go from there.   As I understand, we agree that:   1: Except a man be born again, he cannot

The Word is clear on predestination and God's elect. He knew us in the womb, He knew/knows all born of water and all born of the Spirit before He carved the universe.   We don't understand it fully

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member

Do you have a source for this? I'm pretty familiar with the WCF and have never seen this.

3. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

 

http://www.opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_10

 

Chapter 10 can be read with Chatper 3 sec 3 "3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death", and the reading he gave is 100% accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

 

http://www.opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_10

 

Chapter 10 can be read with Chatper 3 sec 3 "3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death", and the reading he gave is 100% accurate.

 

Nice try,but that's not what he said it says.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Let's try something different for a moment: Let's look at our agreements on the issue, and see where we go from there.

 

As I understand, we agree that:

 

1: Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. So, we must be born again.

 

2: God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to eternal life. Let's, just for the moment, set aside whether this is ALL or all elect. Let's just go with the verse.

 

3: Jesus has promised "I will never leave thee nor forsake thee if we are are His, He will never leave us, nor forsake us-if saved, we can be secure in that salvation

 

  Now, there are diffeent ways we may understand these verses, between Reformed, Non-Reformed, (we'll leave Calvin and Arminus out of it for the moment), as well as others. Some believe only certain are destined to salvation, others that anyone according to ther decision; some believe we can sin and lose slavation or turn away, and others that we can't ever lose it once we have it, bu we all believe that Jesus has prmised never to leave us or forsake us.  we ALL believe, essentially, these three things, in one form or another.

 

 

So, how about this: Does it matter between Reformed/Non-reformed? Seriously? We know that to be saved, whether because the Lord has elected/pre-destined salvation, or we choose, we must all agree that the path is the same: Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. We know we must call, we know we must repent, we know we must admit and seek forgiveness-so does it matter if the Lord MAKES us do it, or we choose to do it, the bottom line is, we MUST do it! If we are to see the kingdom of God, we MUST be born again, born of the flesh and the Spirit.

 

Does it matter if the Lord predestines, or not, if we ALL believe that the scripture makes us accountable to be witnesses of Jesus and His gospel of salvation? We are told to go, so we go, and whatever the mechanism that brings the soul to salvation, does it matter, so long as we are obedient? We do what we are called to do and let the Lord bring the results.

 

Does it matter if we can sin and lose salvation, or walk away? After all if we are HIS then we should be seeking to live a life according to His ways, trusting in Him to take care of our salvation. Not that we go about hoping to maintain our salvation, but if we LIVE in a way that we seek to be honoring and obedient to our Saviour, it should really not matter.

 

I agree this last point stands on shaky ground-I don't intend it to be solid doctrine, but to make a point. IF we live in obedience to God's word as best as we can, seeking His strength, His will, His guidance, through prayer, through the word, through obedience, saved by His grace through faith, why should we spend our time making and arguing the tiny specifics? Obviously we'll never come to an agreement-presonally I find both sides of the argument flawed and incomplete, but both having merit-the problem being, they are men's placing the immortal, omnipotent, eternal things of God into a nice, neat little packet, and I really don't think we can do it.

 

Spurgeon said, (this is not a quote, but the best I remember), essentially that the Bible clearly teaches the sovereignty of God, as well as the accountability of man-things which on this side of Heaven may always seem to be two separate roads, yet which both must join as one at the throne of God in Heaven.  Nowhere does the Bible say we'll have perfect understading of His ways and thoughts-rather, that we will NOT, that it isn't possible, for His thoughts and ways are above our thoughts and ways, as high as the heavens are above the earth. 

 

   So why not just obey the things we know, and leave the rest in God's more-than-capable hands to handle the details?

I can so no agreement with Calvinists even on issues that Non Calvinists appear to agree on, and I think the issue is too important to ignore.

 

*Calvinism is an assault on the faith once delivered unto the saints of which we are to earnestly contend for

*Calvinism is admittedly  based largely on the writings and opinions of the Roman Catholic Augustine

*Calvinism is an assault on soul winning churches that eventually kills the drive for evangelism

*Calvinism destroys the assurance of believers once they realize there is no way to determine whether or not one is elect or predestinated

*Calvinism is an assault on the very nature of God

 

Because of Calvinism's rising influence in even fundamental Baptist churches, I don't think there can be agreement on the matters, and it must be contended against if true Bible believing Christians are going to be true to their calling and profession.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Nice try,but that's not what he said it says.

There's a lot of things that the confessions don't "say" but are clearly demonstrated in the results and implications. For instance, Calvinists hold that God determines ALL THINGS, and because He determines all things, all things that He foreknows He causes. That makes God the author of sin and evil even though a Calvinist may not readily admit that and whether or not it is explicit in the Confessions. Some Calvinist theologians like AW Pink actually concede to this point, and just chalk it up to "mystery".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

And there's your answer, John.

 

Please note the part of his post where he declares that we're not Bible believers, but interlopers against whom the Church must be defended.

And I stand on that assertion. Calvinism is not based on the Bible, but on the theological speculations of a Roman Catholic heretic. The Bible is not the final authority if a Calvinist is honest within his system of interpretation because all Calvinist doctrines are based on the interpretations of a man made  philosophy. For example, when a Calvinist says he believes the Bible that some are elect to heaven and some are elect to hell, there's not one verse in the Bible that affirms the predestinated reprobation of sinners, so Calvinists apply the private interpretations of Calvin to Ephesians 1 and Romans 8 to prove the predetermined damnation of sinners. Thus, when it comes to election, the Bible is not the final authority for the Calvinist, but the Calvinist interpretation (which in turn is based on what Augustine said about election )of Eph 1 and Rom 8 is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I stand on that assertion. Calvinism is not based on the Bible, but on the theological speculations of a Roman Catholic heretic.

 

You mean the one who lived before the Roman Catholic Church and who's writings are largely responsible for the fact that you're not Roman Catholic?

 

 

But your interpretation of your man-made philosophy is another story, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

 

 

Actually, Augustine lived before the Roman Catholic Church.

 

 

 

 

If you honestly examine your testimony compared to the Calvinist system of soteriology, you will not be able to prove you are saved without resorting to works to explain your salvation. Go ahead, try it.

 

Calvinist soteriology holds that you are "saved" because God foreordained the elect to be saved, and gave them repentance to believe and regenerated them in order to have the "gift" of faith. But, what if you are WRONG? What if you are not one of the elect? Calvinists readily admit that election can only be known to God because it is within His sole sovereign discretion. And since salvation is dependent upon election, then HOW DO YOU KNOW that YOU are one of the elect?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you honestly examine your testimony compared to the Calvinist system of soteriology, you will not be able to prove you are saved without resorting to works to explain your salvation. Go ahead, try it.

 

I have tried it. In your arrogance, you assume that I just woke up this morning and decided to believe it on a whim. That isn't the case at all. The only work involved was Christ's atoning work.

 

 

If I'm not one of the elect, then I won't meet that criteria I just listed.

 

HOW DO YOU KNOW that YOU are one of the elect?

 

Because I meet the criteria the Bible gives us so that we can know we're saved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The Catholic church readily admits that the RCC truly began with Constantine from whence they then attempted to connect him to Origen, to Peter. Augustine is credited with the foundational relgious beliefs of the Roman Catholic church, and it was under Augustine that the church of Rome was officially referred to as the "Catholic Church".

 

Augustine demanded a council under Emperor Theodosius that all outside of the Catholic church should be "compelled to come in" based on his interpretation of Luke 14:23. Based on this verse Augustine justified the murder of the the Donatists (Baptists).

 

Augustine was no friend to the real church and his writings about the "holy Roman Catholic church" are the foundation of the RCC's belief in ecclesiastical sovereignty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

 

 

I have tried it. In your arrogance, you assume that I just woke up this morning and decided to believe it on a whim. That isn't the case at all. The only work involved was Christ's atoning work.

 

 

 

 

If I'm not one of the elect, then I won't meet that criteria I just listed.

 

 

 

 

Because I meet the criteria the Bible gives us so that we can know we're saved.

 

Edited by Dr James Ach
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

And there's your answer, John.

 

Please note the part of his post where he declares that we're not Bible believers, but interlopers against whom the Church must be defended.

Like I said, we are not a collective. Deal with individuals, or ignore individuals, and sometimes discussions can proceed.

 

Some simply like to go to extremes and we can find them on every side, while the truth typically is in between the extremes somewhere. Accusations without proof are unproductive wherever they come from. An antagonistic attitude is not edifying for anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

"Calvinist" or non-Calvinist, one knows they are saved by the witness of the Holy Ghost within them. Other than "hypers" online, I've never heard either say otherwise.

 

It's amazing how many have been born again in Christ and built up in Christ through the preaching and teaching of "Calvinists" if they are not men of God. That which the likes of Edwards, Whitefield and Spurgeon did for the cause of Christ are to this day still bearing fruit for the Kingdom of God.  

 

It should be very clear that whether one holds to "Calvinist" views or non-Calvinist views, they can be born again believers in Christ.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

"Calvinist" or non-Calvinist, one knows they are saved by the witness of the Holy Ghost within them. Other than "hypers" online, I've never heard either say otherwise.

 

It's amazing how many have been born again in Christ and built up in Christ through the preaching and teaching of "Calvinists" if they are not men of God. That which the likes of Edwards, Whitefield and Spurgeon did for the cause of Christ are to this day still bearing fruit for the Kingdom of God.  

 

It should be very clear that whether one holds to "Calvinist" views or non-Calvinist views, they can be born again believers in Christ.

Calvinism today has taken on quite a different meaning and application then it did during the times of Whitefield, Spurgeon, and Carey. Although in theory they agreed with Calvin, in practice they were not consistent Calvinists. William Carey's church once told him after he wrote a paper on using means for salvation "when God wants to save someone, He will do so without you are Is involvement". Spurgeon quite often contradicted himself on free will and election, and Whitefield and John Wesley's correspondence back and forth showed that Whitefield was not consistent in his Calvinism. He even said that all men are born Arminians and that it is by grace that they become Calvinists.

 

It must also be kept in mind that these men were Baptists and evangelistic in their ministries BEFORE they embraced Calvinism. Most of them were not of the hyper Calvinist ilk that are prevalent today-although Calvinism when PRACTICED honestly always leads to "hyper Calvinism". Calvinism today has become even more philosophical and creed based then it was in the 18th century, and is destroying the faith of many and destroying good churches. It is now being used as an ecumenical tool to draw Baptists in the Protestant folds which will eventually unite with the RCC. 

 

Bible believing Baptists MUST stand against this erroneous heresy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Calvinism today has taken on quite a different meaning and application then it did during the times of Whitefield, Spurgeon, and Carey. Although in theory they agreed with Calvin, in practice they were not consistent Calvinists. William Carey's church once told him after he wrote a paper on using means for salvation "when God wants to save someone, He will do so without you are Is involvement". Spurgeon quite often contradicted himself on free will and election, and Whitefield and John Wesley's correspondence back and forth showed that Whitefield was not consistent in his Calvinism. He even said that all men are born Arminians and that it is by grace that they become Calvinists.

 

It must also be kept in mind that these men were Baptists and evangelistic in their ministries BEFORE they embraced Calvinism. Most of them were not of the hyper Calvinist ilk that are prevalent today-although Calvinism when PRACTICED honestly always leads to "hyper Calvinism". Calvinism today has become even more philosophical and creed based then it was in the 18th century, and is destroying the faith of many and destroying good churches. It is now being used as an ecumenical tool to draw Baptists in the Protestant folds which will eventually unite with the RCC. 

 

Bible believing Baptists MUST stand against this erroneous heresy.

What you say here proves my simple statement. That is not all who are called "Calvinist" are one and the same. The vast majority of "Calvinists" I've known are mostly in line with the "Calvinism" of Spurgeon. So far, the only hypers I've encountered have been online and they seem to be operating more out of the flesh rather than the Spirit.

 

If one reads the writings and sermons of Spurgeon it's clear he was a consistent "Calvinist" from beginning to end and he got this from his reading of Scripture, not the outside sources. Spurgeon, unlike some "Calvinists", notably the hypers, which Spurgeon denounced as not true "Calvinists", acknowledged that as he read Scripture he saw that God elected some in accord with His will while at the same time saying believers are to spread the Gospel and some will be saved through the preaching of the Gospel. He admitted he didn't understand how it all worked out, but he consistently held to his belief in election along the "Calvinist" lines.

 

In any event, all I'm saying is that some "Calvinists" are our brothers/sisters in Christ and we shouldn't tar them as we tackle the hypers who often have a worldly agenda they are pursuing.

 

As well, when we are dealing with brothers/sisters in Christ we believe to be in error, we are to speak the truth in love to them in the hopes of restoration, not in an attacking manner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

John, actually you are wrong about Spurgeon.
He preached at least two sermons on the 5 tulip points, so his Calvinism was not 'self found' as you seem to indicate.
secondly, his overwhelming position was that of free will salvation. His preaching drips with it.

His position was at odds with his statement which makes him inconsistent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

John, actually you are wrong about Spurgeon.
He preached at least two sermons on the 5 tulip points, so his Calvinism was not 'self found' as you seem to indicate.
secondly, his overwhelming position was that of free will salvation. His preaching drips with it.

His position was at odds with his statement which makes him inconsistent.

Spurgeon said he came to his views based upon Scripture. He also acknowledged that Calvin was the first to put what he says he saw in Scripture into detailed writings. He also acknowledged that Augustine wrote on the matter earlier but not in such detail as Calvin. He used their writings, and others, in some of his sermons, the same as most pastors do with the writings of those they find themselves in agreement with.

 

Spurgeon acknowledged that he saw Scripture making it clear God directly elected some, yet in some way God also used general calling, or free will, in some manner.

 

Spurgeon gave some good sermons on these seeming contradictions and admitted that while he couldn't explain it all, he simply preached what Scripture said and trusted God with the results. Spurgeon wasn't inconsistent, he consistently said he didn't know how all these played out, but since both were present in Scripture, he believed both and preached both. This is why he came under fire from hyper-Calvinists (which Spurgeon declared to not be "Calvinists" at all) and Arminians, or non-Calvinists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...