Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Ukulelemike

Spurgeon's Calvinism-Not Quite As Claimed?

Recommended Posts

It was the teaching of John Calvin, that confused my son.  When he was in the 9th grade, his dad took his business down to North Carolina.  I prayed about letting him go, and thought it best for him to be with his dad, b/c he might have resented me keeping him with me.  However, the school system was upset with his dad, taking him out of the school at this time.  I had to release his records to the school in Noth Carolina.  The long and short of it is this.  A friend from his school in NC asked him to go to church with him.  My son, said yes.  It was Calvin in it's teachings.  My son was very upset, with what they were preaching from the pulpit and said to me, "John Calvin was a very mean man, mom."  Nevertheless, my son was so homesick in NC, that it was his dad's attorney who forced him to come back, after the year was over.  It is because of this, that I began to research John Calvin.  Needless to say, I do not agree with his teachings, at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The so called "doctrines of grace" are not biblical.

You often say the teaching is misunderstood, why not explain Your Version of it?

 

OK

 

Total depravity - is a misleading term I would not use as the obvious implication is that we are all utterly evil. That is not what I believe of most of the unsaved people around us, nor our as yet unconverted children.

 

We are all sinners, fallen in Adam, by nature & by practise; our works cannot earn acceptance with God, further our carnal mind cannot renew itself. We are lost & helpless, but for God's saving grace.

Rom. 3:23 for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

 

Unconditional election - follows TD. If we are helpless lost sinners, God must take the initiative in our salvation.

Deu. 7:For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

 

Jer. 31:3 The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying,
Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

 

1 Peter 1:2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Whose choice? Whose everlasting love? Whose foreknowledge, sanctification, obedience, blood, grace & peace?

 

Limited atonement - again a term I do not use. I prefer "Particular redemption" as used by the "Particular Baptists" to avoid confusion with the "General Baptists."

While his atoning death is sufficient for every sinner who has ever lived, Jesus died to save, and save completely, only the elect. That of course is no disincentive to any repentant sinner, nor a limitation on the Gospel call to be proclaimed. 

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Don't wait for your "call" - hear the Gospel proclaimed & come for salvation.

 

Irresistible grace - Salvation is new birth, by the will of God & the Spirit of God, whose quickening power is life, both for salvation & for spiritual life.

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

3:That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

 

Preservation & Perseverance of the saints - those saved cannot lose their salvation, nor can they repudiate their salvation, return to the world & still be saved.

John 5:24 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. 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

 

6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The so called "doctrines of grace" are not biblical.

You often say the teaching is misunderstood, why not explain Your Version of it?

And do so without covering any aspect of them that John Calvin did not THOROUGHLY develop and explain in his Institutes, or that Augustine did not completely cover.

 

Like I just said in my two previous posts, those who shun John Calvin and claim to be Reformed or "DoGs" (Doctrines of Grace) always rush to the defense of a belief system they claim not to follow. Perfect example is Post 22 above where Jerry Numbers didn't mention one word about Reformers, or doctrines of grace or sovereignty of God; he said CALVINISM and Covenanter came running to its defense. Like I said, they can't separate themselves from Calvin if they wanted to. I rest my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes wonder if you have ever read the bible.

 

I'm not going to insult you as you have me making the same comment you made towards me. Yet I will say you need much help in understand the Scriptures when you read them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


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.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...