Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

RSS Robot

Calvinism Committee Issues Report, Urges Sbc To 'stand Together' For Great Commission

Recommended Posts

Division is sometimes good, its quite silly to claim unity where there is no unity, yet once the dividers are cleared out them you can claim unity, & that's exactly what's happening in the SBC, claiming unity when its not present.

 

Some just do not have the back bone to stand on God's true Word face to face with men. Sad, one day they will stand face to face with the Judge, what will they tell Him?

 

I might add, its never enjoyable, no fun at all, to have to take such a stand, yet if your going to walk closely to Jesus trusting & obeying, it can be a necessity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently all the Calvinists on THIS forum need to GO MAKE THEIR OWN where they can pat each other on the back and congratulate each other on being "elected".  

 

Their posts remind me of recent threads with Catholics...waste of time. Better spent with people open to the truth. They are hard hearted which is not of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ian:

It looks a very sensible approach. The "anticalvinists" seem determined to divide as much as possible, & denounce as heretics anyone they disagree with. "Calvinists" expect opposition & disagreement so we are not perturbed, until we are accused of believing& teaching lies.

 

None of us comes to a perfect understanding around the time of our salvation. We are eager to learn, & unhappily there are false teachers, and teachers who are ill-equipped to be teachers.

 

 

This is what Calvinist want is to divide.  It is not sensible in any way.  Following the Bible is sensible.

 

Romans 16:17  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
 
If the SBC had any common sense they would not try to create fellowship with Calvinist, nor homosexuals, nor any other heresy.  The SBC will fall and it's willingness to "be flexible" with doctrine is why.  

 

What a divisive reply! To link calvinists with homosexuals is a very evil slander. We honour our Father God as Sovereign, and honour his Word, but you are determined to dishonour & slander us.

 

I hope your fellow anticalvinists on this forum will see your views for what they are - CARNAL -  and call on YOU to repent.

 

1 Cor. 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

 

We hold Bible truth, as we recognise God as Sovereign but you anticalvinists like to speak divisively & deride us as following a man, Calvin. Shame on you!

 

 

Rom. 3:And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a divisive reply! To link calvinists with homosexuals is a very evil slander. We honour our Father God as Sovereign, and honour his Word, but you are determined to dishonour & slander us.

 

 

We hold Bible truth, as we recognise God as Sovereign but you anticalvinists like to speak divisively & deride us as following a man, Calvin. Shame on you!

 

Just to clarify, the SBC is attempting to have unity and fellowship not only with the Calvinist (anti-biblical), but also with homosexuals (anti-biblical). I did not intend to link Calvinist with homosexuals and I apologize if you misconstrued my intentions.   

 

Nevertheless, I would stand firm on allowing either to remain in our churches  unless they repent.  If a homosexual or Calvinist comes into our church with the sole intention of spreading their anti-biblical teachings, and refuses to repent, the only thing they will do is cause disunity, and division by spreading false doctrine.  They must be marked and separated.   Romans 16:17  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

 

Concerning your last statement.  "We hold Bible truth, as we recognise God as Sovereign but you anticalvinists like to speak divisively & deride us as following a man, Calvin. Shame on you!"

 

It is obvious that you follow Calvin and elevate his teachings above the Bible.  If you want to call us names like anticalvinists I have no issue with that name, as I would tell anyone I stand against Calvin or any other anti-biblical teaching.  Let me also remind you that you can here to this website to spread your heresy, we did not come to where you fellowship.  As far as I am concerned you are the ones who came to a Baptist forum to create division, which I might add you have done successfully.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohio  - you continue to give offence by your "apology" as you continue to link "calvinists" with homosexuals & reject both as "anti-biblical teachings."

 

This board has recently been plagued by anticalvinists determined to spread strife & disruption among brethren.

 

But, of course, you follow Dave Hunt & his ignorant ranting. We do not follow Calvin - we follow Scripture. Paul justified his "calvinism", his doctrines of grace, by quoting freely from Moses & other inspired OT writers.

 

Rom. 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

 

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This board has recently been plagued by anticalvinists determined to spread strife & disruption among brethren.

 

But, of course, you follow Dave Hunt & his ignorant ranting. We do not follow Calvin - we follow Scripture. Paul justified his "calvinism", his doctrines of grace, by quoting freely from Moses & other inspired OT writers.

 

This board is an IFB board so in anticalvinist in it's very nature, don't forget that.  Concerning the rest of your post, I will pray you understand saving truth some day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This board is an IFB board so in anticalvinist in it's very nature, don't forget that.  Concerning the rest of your post, I will pray you understand saving truth some day.

While I agree this IFB board is set up as being non-Calvinist, that doesn't mean all IFB are non-Calvinist. From what I'm aware of, the exceeding vast majority of IFB are non-Calvinist, but there are a few "Calvinist" IFB churches.

 

As I've tried to learn a little more about these matters I've actually been surprised at how many Baptist churches over the centuries have been "Calvinist".

 

In any event, I don't understand what sometimes seems to be much anger, bitterness, and even hate (not addressing this point to anyone, speaking in general terms now) towards those "Calvinists" who are our brothers/sisters in Christ. Even when we have disagreement, as brothers/sisters in Christ we should be able to disagree while yet loving one another.

 

There are those "Calvinists" who may not even be born again. When we encounter them we should still do so in love with the hope of being able to help them be born again in Christ.

 

Not all who get lumped under the heading of "Calvinist" are one and the same, there are no cookie cutter "Calvinists" any more than the non-Calvinists here, or elsewhere are all one and the same, are not cookie cutter non-Calvinist Christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree this IFB board is set up as being non-Calvinist, that doesn't mean all IFB are non-Calvinist. From what I'm aware of, the exceeding vast majority of IFB are non-Calvinist, but there are a few "Calvinist" IFB churches.

 

As I've tried to learn a little more about these matters I've actually been surprised at how many Baptist churches over the centuries have been "Calvinist".

 

In any event, I don't understand what sometimes seems to be much anger, bitterness, and even hate (not addressing this point to anyone, speaking in general terms now) towards those "Calvinists" who are our brothers/sisters in Christ. Even when we have disagreement, as brothers/sisters in Christ we should be able to disagree while yet loving one another.

 

There are those "Calvinists" who may not even be born again. When we encounter them we should still do so in love with the hope of being able to help them be born again in Christ.

 

Not all who get lumped under the heading of "Calvinist" are one and the same, there are no cookie cutter "Calvinists" any more than the non-Calvinists here, or elsewhere are all one and the same, are not cookie cutter non-Calvinist Christians.

 

If a church is Calvinistic they have hence left behind Baptist and Biblical doctrine, and you should know this by now John.  

 

Nobody is angry but I think it is an error to assume a Calvinist is a brother/sister.  If they believe they were ceremoniously zapped by God and saved, then that is contrary to Biblical doctrine, how then are they saved?  The fact that Calvinist can not agree on their own "doctrine" is another thing that should alert you that the "doctrine" is false.

 

This websites doctrinal statement is clear on the position of Calvinism.

Edited by The Ohio Patriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not even logical if anybody knows there Bible they will be anti-calvinistic. 

I'm not sure what you are saying isn't logical.

 

As we find time and again on a variety of issues, believers have different understandings of what some verses/passages teach. We see this not only in regards to the "Calvinism" issue, but in matters of music, dress, hair, school, books, TV and movies, speech, repentance, healing, politics, and on and on.

 

These issues have been points of disagreement for much of the history of Christianity by those who spent a great deal of time in the Word but yet came to different conclusions.

 

Just look at the small section of Christianity here on the this forum. Do we all agree on each of these points? If we don't agree does that mean each of us doesn't know the Bible?

 

How many pastors, past or present, do we agree with 100%? Whether we look at Spurgeon, Rice, Hyles or Smith, we typically agree with some, or even much, but not 100% even though these were/are men of The Book as much or more than we.

 

All that said, I don't understand why so many solid Christians have so many differences in their understanding of some parts of Scripture, but it's been that way from the beginning of Christianity to this day. I so look forward to heaven and hearing from the Lord Himself exactly what the whole Word of God means and how it's perfectly meant to apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you are saying isn't logical.

 

As we find time and again on a variety of issues, believers have different understandings of what some verses/passages teach. We see this not only in regards to the "Calvinism" issue, but in matters of music, dress, hair, school, books, TV and movies, speech, repentance, healing, politics, and on and on.

 

These issues have been points of disagreement for much of the history of Christianity by those who spent a great deal of time in the Word but yet came to different conclusions.

 

Just look at the small section of Christianity here on the this forum. Do we all agree on each of these points? If we don't agree does that mean each of us doesn't know the Bible?

 

How many pastors, past or present, do we agree with 100%? Whether we look at Spurgeon, Rice, Hyles or Smith, we typically agree with some, or even much, but not 100% even though these were/are men of The Book as much or more than we.

 

All that said, I don't understand why so many solid Christians have so many differences in their understanding of some parts of Scripture, but it's been that way from the beginning of Christianity to this day. I so look forward to heaven and hearing from the Lord Himself exactly what the whole Word of God means and how it's perfectly meant to apply.

 

John,  If you do not understand what is not logical that you don't know the Bible, Baptist history, or what Calvinist believe.  Perhaps you should study these things before you reply to them.  I also disagree with you regarding the point of Calvinism, those who know the Bible, and Baptist history on this forum, none are Calvinistic at all.

Edited by The Ohio Patriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohio  - you continue to give offence by your "apology" as you continue to link "calvinists" with homosexuals & reject both as "anti-biblical teachings."

 

I have to admit, I did get a good laugh when he "apologized" for one of his many insults, but then, in the same post, continued to hurl more insults.

 

It's like saying, "You're a jerk, an idiot, a moron, a dope, a fool, a homo, and your wife is a pig. I'm sorry for calling you a jerk, you dummy."

 

I truly do not understand the hatred. I disagree with people about much more important things than this and yet, we still manage to be respectful of one another.

 

I also find it interesting that he continues to try to apply Romans 16:17, but doesn't follow that verse's instruction to avoid us. He continues to come at us. If He really believed the Bible and believed that verse applied to us, he would have put us on ignore a long time ago.

 

And then, he tells us that "if you knew Baptist history, you would be anti-Calvinist", but then turns around and reveals by his misconceptions about Augustine that he's never studied Church History.

Edited by Auburn88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

English baptist history has a division of particular Baptists and general Baptists. The basic division was that one group believed that particular people were offered salvation while the other group believed that the offer of salvation was a general call.

in other words, at that time in English history There were both calvinistic and non-calvinistic baptist churches.

it is not a new thing by any means, although the formulated system of belief came into being as a result of Calvin's writings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

English baptist history has a division of particular Baptists and general Baptists. The basic division was that one group believed that particular people were offered salvation while the other group believed that the offer of salvation was a general call.

in other words, at that time in English history There were both calvinistic and non-calvinistic baptist churches.

it is not a new thing by any means, although the formulated system of belief came into being as a result of Calvin's writings.

To an extent, Spurgeon was between these two. Spurgeon believed some were specifically elected to salvation while also believing there was a general call as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,  If you do not understand what is not logical that you don't know the Bible, Baptist history, or what Calvinist believe.  Perhaps you should study these things before you reply to them.  I also disagree with you regarding the point of Calvinism, those who know the Bible, and Baptist history on this forum, none are Calvinistic at all.

I didn't say I didn't know anything, I said I'm still trying to learn more.

 

My question was asking what you specifically were referring to as being illogical. I still don't now what you were referring to.

 

For some reason when it comes to this topic you seem to be quick to make broad assumptions and accusations. Just because I couldn't recite details of each Baptist church in 1657 regarding their views on "Calvinism" doesn't mean I don't know Scripture, doesn't mean I know nothing of Baptist history, and doesn't mean I don't know what "Calvinists" believe.

 

The fact of the matter is, Baptist history, like Christian history, is very broad and diverse. The fact of the matter is not all "Calvinists" hold to the same views, believe the same things or are in accord with one another.

 

It behooves us to move beyond generalities and get to specifics.

 

I'm not arguing against you, if somehow you have got that impression, I'm seeking to learn more in this area, just as I seek to learn more in other areas as well. The broad generalities, the broad brushstrokes, don't fully, and sometimes don't rightly, address the issues at hand. We need to be more specific.

 

I'm sorry if my wording has somehow caused some friction, that was not, and is not, my intention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree this IFB board is set up as being non-Calvinist, that doesn't mean all IFB are non-Calvinist. From what I'm aware of, the exceeding vast majority of IFB are non-Calvinist, but there are a few "Calvinist" IFB churches.

To claim that you are Baptist and Calvinist is illogical.  

 

Calvin persecuted the Baptists, Baptists have always stood for Biblical standards, if it is not in the Book then it is false.  Baptist have always stood for Baptism of Believers, not infants.  Etc, etc, etc.  It does not make logical sense in any way for a true Baptist to be Calvinistic.  All who claim so have removed themselves from the basic tenets of the faith end up like the American Baptist, GARBC, SBC, etc.  For clarification I do not consider the before mentioned churches true Baptist churches any longer.  I wonder sometimes today of the IFB movement is not dead.  Absolutely there are still many good churches, represented by people here and across the country who hold to true doctrine, but as you have mentioned there are many that do that are apostate.  I believe that we are in the Post IFB movement days.  You can not walk just any IFB church any longer and hear the truth.

 

I didn't say I didn't know anything, I said I'm still trying to learn more.

 

My question was asking what you specifically were referring to as being illogical. I still don't now what you were referring to.

 

For some reason when it comes to this topic you seem to be quick to make broad assumptions and accusations. Just because I couldn't recite details of each Baptist church in 1657 regarding their views on "Calvinism" doesn't mean I don't know Scripture, doesn't mean I know nothing of Baptist history, and doesn't mean I don't know what "Calvinists" believe.

 

The fact of the matter is, Baptist history, like Christian history, is very broad and diverse. The fact of the matter is not all "Calvinists" hold to the same views, believe the same things or are in accord with one another.

 

It behooves us to move beyond generalities and get to specifics.

 

I'm not arguing against you, if somehow you have got that impression, I'm seeking to learn more in this area, just as I seek to learn more in other areas as well. The broad generalities, the broad brushstrokes, don't fully, and sometimes don't rightly, address the issues at hand. We need to be more specific.

 

I'm sorry if my wording has somehow caused some friction, that was not, and is not, my intention.

 

John, I have studied Calvinism in detail and once you accept a single part of its teaching you have exited from Biblical Christianity.  Calvinism is a topic I am passionate about because it is infiltrating churches right now because people are not aware of how dangerous it is.  I don't mind discussing this in general or very detailed points with you.

 

 I realize that you are seeking to learn more and I do not consider our conversation as argumentative.  I also am always seeking knowledge and truth, but when it comes to Calvinism that door is shut.  The Bible tells us to content for the faith and when it comes to Calvinism I will do just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To claim that you are Baptist and Calvinist is illogical.  

 

Logic is not subject to YOUR understanding but must follow Scripture logic itself. We preach Christ crucified, & salvation by repentance & faith. Those who repent & confess Christ as Lord and Saviour are baptised. Where is there a "logic" failure?  

 

 

Calvin persecuted the Baptists, sadly that is true, but is not relevant to the discussion. As I pointed out elsewhere, much of Calvin's teaching in the Institutes (which I haven't read, but I have read calvinistic teaching) is unacceptable to independent baptists including me. 

 

Baptists have always stood for Biblical standards, if it is not in the Book then it is false.  Baptist have always stood for Baptism of Believers, not infants.  Etc, etc, etc.  Sadly, not true. Baptism of converts is practised by all sorts of sects & heresies. Even within once Christian Baptist denominations, when the Bible is rejected, & homosexuality & other sins absolutely condemned in Scripture are permitted, even of ministers, immersion baptism is practised. Your own posts against the SBC demonstrate this. 

 

It does not make logical sense in any way for a true Baptist to be Calvinistic.  All who claim so have removed themselves from the basic tenets of the faith end up like the American Baptist, GARBC, SBC, etc.  For clarification I do not consider the before mentioned churches true Baptist churches any longer.  I wonder sometimes today of the IFB movement is not dead.  Absolutely there are still many good churches, represented by people here and across the country who hold to true doctrine, but as you have mentioned there are many that do that are apostate.  I believe that we are in the Post IFB movement days.  You can not walk just any IFB church any longer and hear the truth.

 

In no way does that substantiate your anticalvinistic stance. 

 

John, I have studied Calvinism in detail and once you accept a single part of its teaching you have exited from Biblical Christianity.  Calvinism is a topic I am passionate about because it is infiltrating churches right now because people are not aware of how dangerous it is.  I don't mind discussing this in general or very detailed points with you.

 

I do NOT consider that you have studied the doctrines of Sovereign grace in a positive way - only from slanderers who reject the doctrine. I don't think you have responded to the Scriptures I have posted. You may have posted some Scriptures that show the Gospel should be freely preached, & that it is the responsibility of individual sinners to repent & turn to God. I have not seen any Scriptures posted that actually deny the doctrines. I challenge you - prove me wrong!

 

 I realize that you are seeking to learn more and I do not consider our conversation as argumentative.  I also am always seeking knowledge and truth, but when it comes to Calvinism that door is shut.  The Bible tells us to content for the faith and when it comes to Calvinism I will do just that.

 

That remark proves that you are NOT open to learning about a truth that vast numbers of Bible-believing evangelical Christians believe & preach. You can only reason effectively if you understand what you are arguing against.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you not accept Spurgeon as your brother in Christ?

 

Not all "Calvinists" are equal.

 

I have no problem with a local church choosing who or what they accept within their church. If a local church is totally unaccepting of any person who holds to any form of "Calvinism", that's their decision to make. The policies of other churches is their business as well. Then we as individual Christians must choose which church to attend and or join.

 

One of the reasons we need to be more specific, rather than broad, is because when a statement simply says "there are no Baptist Calvinists", or anything to that effect, then the argument is harmed because instantly there will be those who think of the Baptist Spurgeon, or some of those "Calvinist" Baptist churches you mentioned. That's one of the reasons we need to be specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you not accept Spurgeon as your brother in Christ?

 

Not all "Calvinists" are equal.

 

I have no problem with a local church choosing who or what they accept within their church. If a local church is totally unaccepting of any person who holds to any form of "Calvinism", that's their decision to make. The policies of other churches is their business as well. Then we as individual Christians must choose which church to attend and or join.

 

One of the reasons we need to be more specific, rather than broad, is because when a statement simply says "there are no Baptist Calvinists", or anything to that effect, then the argument is harmed because instantly there will be those who think of the Baptist Spurgeon, or some of those "Calvinist" Baptist churches you mentioned. That's one of the reasons we need to be specific.

 

I would accept Spurgeon for several reasons but mainly what he taught. He did teach biblical salvation.  He did teach some Calvinist doctrine.  In many points he contradicted himself and to me it is clear he did not understand the issues of Calvinism completely either.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would accept Spurgeon for several reasons but mainly what he taught. He did teach biblical salvation.  He did teach some Calvinist doctrine.  In many points he contradicted himself and to me it is clear he did not understand the issues of Calvinism completely either.  

The above statement ( In many points he contradicted himself) begs a question namely; Did he indeed contradict himself, or was he so intent on dealing with the subject at hand that he did not elucidate every singular point and several texts must be viewed collectively to properly construe his theology?

 

I know that if I took the time to clarify and ensure no possible misunderstanding in everything as I preached or taught (is there a difference and if so, what is the difference -- is a subject for a separate thread), it would take an hour and a quarter to preach a 10-20 minute message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above statement ( In many points he contradicted himself) begs a question namely; Did he indeed contradict himself, or was he so intent on dealing with the subject at hand that he did not elucidate every singular point and several texts must be viewed collectively to properly construe his theology?

 

I know that if I took the time to clarify and ensure no possible misunderstanding in everything as I preached or taught (is there a difference and if so, what is the difference -- is a subject for a separate thread), it would take an hour and a quarter to preach a 10-20 minute message.

 

He seemed to be confused and questioned different parts of Calvinistic doctrine, sometimes he preached from one viewpoint and other times from another.  Not really important I would say.  I think when it comes to these issues the clearness of scripture is easy enough to understand,

Edited by The Ohio Patriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above statement ( In many points he contradicted himself) begs a question namely; Did he indeed contradict himself, or was he so intent on dealing with the subject at hand that he did not elucidate every singular point and several texts must be viewed collectively to properly construe his theology?

I know that if I took the time to clarify and ensure no possible misunderstanding in everything as I preached or taught (is there a difference and if so, what is the difference -- is a subject for a separate thread), it would take an hour and a quarter to preach a 10-20 minute message.


He claimed calvinism often for himself and preached at least two messages that I have personally read that were on the five tulip points in a positive sense.
However, he also claimed the free will of man on this issue and almost every message he preached dripped with a free will call to Salvation.

it could easily be claimed that on this point he was decidedly schizophrenic.
And he admitted the quandary of his stand and position but claimed the high things of God, much as the vast majority of us would with the understanding of the Triune God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He claimed calvinism often for himself and preached at least two messages that I have personally read that were on the five tulip points in a positive sense.
However, he also claimed the free will of man on this issue and almost every message he preached dripped with a free will call to Salvation.

it could easily be claimed that on this point he was decidedly schizophrenic.
And he admitted the quandary of his stand and position but claimed the high things of God, much as the vast majority of us would with the understanding of the Triune God.

Spurgeon said that he didn't necessarily understand every aspect, but he believed Scripture was clear with regards to election/predestination in the "Calvinistic" sense while at the same time calling men to spread the Gospel. Spurgeon believed there were those who were specifically chosen and there was a need for a "general call" to be put forth for others. He trusted God with the details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spurgeon said that he didn't necessarily understand every aspect, but he believed Scripture was clear with regards to election/predestination in the "Calvinistic" sense while at the same time calling men to spread the Gospel. Spurgeon believed there were those who were specifically chosen and there was a need for a "general call" to be put forth for others. He trusted God with the details.

 

I think he agreed with a few points of the tulip and others he plucked and discarded.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who believe that Spurgeon was a Calvinist, I urge you to read his book entitled "The Soul Winner." Within this book is a chapter called "Obstacles to Soul-Winning" in which Spurgeon says,

 

"Another obstacle to soul-winning is despair. The pendulum swings first one way and then the other; and the man who yesterday had no fear, today has no hope. There are thousands who have heard the gospel, and yet live in a kind of despair of its power being ever exerted upon them. Perhaps they been brought up among people who taught them that the work of salvation was something of God altogether apart from the sinner; and so they that, if they are to be saved, they will be saved. You know that this teaching contains a great truth, and yet, if it is left by itself, without qualification, it is a horrible falsehood. It is fatalism, not predestination, that makes men talk as if there is nothing whatever for them to do, or that there is nothing they can do. There is no likelihood of anyone being saved while he gives you this as his only hope, 'If salvation is for me, it will come to me in due time." You may meet with people who talk thus; and when you have said all you can, they will remain as if they were cased in steel, with no sense of  responsibility, because there is no hope awakened in their spirit. Oh, if they would but hope that they might receive mercy by asking for it, and so be led to cast their guilty souls on Christ, what a blessing it would be! Let us preach full and free salvation to all who trust in Jesus, so that we may, if possible, reach these people. If the carnally secure should be despairing may pluck up heart, and hope, and may venture to come to Christ."

 

As to Calvinism, is it not written, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Brethern the word all here is an English word meaning, "Evey one, or the whole number of particulars. The whole quanity, extent, duration, amount, quality, or degree; as, all the wheat; all the land; all the year; all the strength. the word signifies then, the whole or entire thing, or all the parts or particulars which compose it." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure why the thread has migrated to "Spurgeonism" except that he clearly demonstrated that ALL the objections to "calvinism" are spurious. We preach Christ & call on sinners to repent. If they reject the Gospel one day that is no proof they are not elect. God uses the Gospel of Christ to convict sinners & call them to repentance.

 

The anticalvinists misunderstand the doctriens of grace, & attempt to refute their own misunderstanding.

 

God uses the preached word. We do not say that preaching is unnecessary - God will save his elect regardless, even if they reject him completely. NO! God uses the means he has ordained to save his people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...