Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Spurgeon's Calvinism-Not Quite As Claimed?


Ukulelemike

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Of course its what's in the Bible that counts, & that is exactly what Curtis Hutson points out, He points to the holy Scriptures, Calvinism is not found in the Bible. Its false teachings, & always has been. I refuse to compromise on it in order to make someone happy.

 

And I fail to see who anyone could follow Calvin, he murdered people who disagreed with him. And sometimes I believe some of his follower wants to do the same.

 

I sometimes wonder if you have ever read the bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Its amazing to me the number of Calvinist defenders in this world. They're a growing bunch & are trying to gain converts among the save.

Where do your numbers come from, Jerry?

 

In the UK after the WWII, there was a move to return to faithful Biblical teaching to combat the ever-rising influence of modernism & ecumenism. Those holding Reformed doctrine were in the forefront. Sadly, sound doctrine is never popular, & the rise of the charismatic movement proved too attractive & people moving out of the declining churches moved into "house churches" in numbers too large for houses to accommodate them.

 

We all want to gain followers & drawing them from other churches is good if the other churches are unsound, & the saved realise that they are hearing false teaching. If the other churches are sound, we should stand with them & not "sheep-steal." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There are those on here that claim man has total free will, but then say they believe in one saved always saved.  If one has absolute free will to accept Christ, then he must have absolute free will to later reject Him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There are those on here that claim man has total free will, but then say they believe in one saved always saved. If one has absolute free will to accept Christ, then he must have absolute free will to later reject Him.


So does man have any form of free will at all?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Where do your numbers come from, Jerry?

In the UK after the WWII, there was a move to return to faithful Biblical teaching to combat the ever-rising influence of modernism & ecumenism. Those holding Reformed doctrine were in the forefront. Sadly, sound doctrine is never popular, & the rise of the charismatic movement proved too attractive & people moving out of the declining churches moved into "house churches" in numbers too large for houses to accommodate them.

We all want to gain followers & drawing them from other churches is good if the other churches are unsound, & the saved realise that they are hearing false teaching. If the other churches are sound, we should stand with them & not "sheep-steal."


You criticise Jerry for his statement then suggest - also without providing numbers - that reformed doctrine was at the forefront.
My "many many" statement has just as much validity as yours or Jerry's.


And without addressing each individual verse, your verses barely relate to CALVIN's points.
for instance, God choosing a nation can not be related to "unconditional election" of an individual for salvation. Irrelevant verses.

And you complain that others won't let go 9f the name of Calvin then use the five points most clearly associated with him - I didn't ask you to explain calvinism - you have promoted the association.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There are those on here that claim man has total free will, but then say they believe in one saved always saved.  If one has absolute free will to accept Christ, then he must have absolute free will to later reject Him.

I wonder if YOU'VE ever read the Bible or just have a hard time believing the things you may have read. Considering the amount of time it takes to "understand" Reformed Theology, Calvinists/Reformers spend much more time reading creeds, confessions, catechisms and commentaries ABOUT the Bible then they do actually reading it.

 

That fact that you would equate free will in salvation with free will in rejecting salvation defies common sense. It's called "salvation" for a reason because once the person has been adjudicated by God, the option to go to hell no longer exists so it is not possible to CHOOSE to go to hell. If Calvinists actually understood what justification and atonement meant, that silly quip would never be uttered. Hence, the reason Calvinism adheres to perseverance of the saints instead of eternal security.

 

Furthermore, if Calvinists hold that God irresistibly saves you because of a preordained decree, then why doesn't He irresistibly cause you to maintain good works which are also "ordained" (Eph 2:10)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So does man have any form of free will at all?

 

Yes, of course.  Luther rightly said Adam was given free will and he used it to sin  As Adam sired his children in his own image, man has inherited the freewill only to sin.  (The Bondage of the Will)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This could be a really great discussion if everyone involved were to take their time to avoid emotionalism, personal attacks and such. If we stick to Scripture, and keep our focus there, it's possible someone will post something very beneficial, and not just for us, but for onlookers as well.

 

Keep in mind, all involved in the discussion at this point are brothers in Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I wonder if YOU'VE ever read the Bible or just have a hard time believing the things you may have read. Considering the amount of time it takes to "understand" Reformed Theology, Calvinists/Reformers spend much more time reading creeds, confessions, catechisms and commentaries ABOUT the Bible then they do actually reading it.

 

That fact that you would equate free will in salvation with free will in rejecting salvation defies common sense. It's called "salvation" for a reason because once the person has been adjudicated by God, the option to go to hell no longer exists so it is not possible to CHOOSE to go to hell. If Calvinists actually understood what justification and atonement meant, that silly quip would never be uttered. Hence, the reason Calvinism adheres to perseverance of the saints instead of eternal security.

 

Furthermore, if Calvinists hold that God irresistibly saves you because of a preordained decree, then why doesn't He irresistibly cause you to maintain good works which are also "ordained" (Eph 2:10)?

 

Yes, it surely seems Calvin & his followers teaches man keeps himself saved when its a fact that man cannot do that, & its a fact that its God who keeps the man saved.

 

2Ti 1:12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
 
Jude 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
 
1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
 
Yet when you show proof that the Calvinist are wrong they refuse to accept it. Perhaps its pride from believing they're so special, chosen above all others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Yes, it surely seems Calvin & his followers teaches man keeps himself saved when its a fact that man cannot do that, & its a fact that its God who keeps the man saved.

 

2Ti 1:12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
 
Jude 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
 
1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
 
Yet when you show proof that the Calvinist are wrong they refuse to accept it. Perhaps its pride from believing they're so special, chosen above all others.

 

Now don't get me wrong here, most Calvinists don't believe you can lose your salvation, but its not for the same reasons as those of us that believe in eternal security. Perseverance of the Saints holds that God keeps you through perseverance of faith, and since Calvinists believe that faith and works are one and the same (see any Calvinist interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-9), even though it is God causing the perseverance, it is no different than the Arminian position of conditional security substantively. If one ever ceases from works, then that merely evidence that they were never one of the elect in the first place. And as such, no Calvinist can ever explain how their election is made sure other than by works.

 

There are some Neo-Calvinists that have morphed elements of eternal security into their TULIP system, but such is not consistent Calvinism and is not the traditional view of Perseverance of the Saints, and simply an effort to make Calvinism more palatable to fundamental Baptists. The bait and switch tactic is to convince you there are only 2 tenable positions-Arminian or Calvinism-and since most fundamental Baptists believe in eternal security, they ultimately persuade you to choose Calvinism by default once the conditional security of Arminianism is rejected (and it is debatable whether Arminius himself was actually settled on this issue).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So Adam had total free will, but men now have only the free will to sin?

Am I understanding this correctly?

If Calvinism is actually boiled down to its uttermost logical implications, Adam actually did not have free will to sin, but God caused it. It was really necessary for God to cause Adam to sin because for God to decree the salvation of only some elect, the potential elect only become realized when there are sinners to compare the pool against. If God decreed salvation before the foundation of the world, and then Adam fails to sin, then God's decree of election can not come to pass. Thus God had to guarantee that Adam would sin in order to insure that His "eternal decrees" would come to fruition.

 

There are some honest Calvinist theologians that actually admit this, but contemporary Calvinists shun the idea because they know it is viewed as repugnant by those they are trying to gain as converts to Reformed theology. Thus they attempt to explain Adam's actions by secondary causation (a system that is full of self-defeating and misleading rhetoric).

 

Now for those on here that seem to bump heads with Reformers/Calvinists (same thing whether they like it, admit it or not which I think has been proven over and over again by their repeated defense of Calvinism on here) in the matter of free will, the importance to understanding how a Calvinist views free will is to understand the differences between compatibilism (soft -determinism) and libertarian freedom. The Calvinist holds to the same view of freedom that an atheist does, only the Calvinist gives credit to God's "sovereignty" as the initial first cause of the mans nature.

 

Thus, where non-Calvinist get lost in dialoguing with Calvinists is in the lack of knowing just how Calvinists view freedom. And for any meaningful discourse with an open minded Calvinist requires a functional knowledge of the different views of freedom in which will help the non Calvinist then understand what the core problem is with Calvinism: an attack on His love and character.

 

I would recommend for anyone wishing to understand this Calvinist conundrum to take the time to watch Jerry Walls "What's Wrong With Calvinism". Now Walls is an Armininian Weslyan, but when it comes to explaining the foundations of the Calvinist view of freedom, he nails it better than most exposes I've seen or read on the matter for the last 25 years. I could write a 200 page book on the differences between compatibilism and libertarian freedom, and the flaws of compatibilim, but I'd rather post a video LOL.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...