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

One of the real difficulties in Calvinism is there is no real standard as to just what Calvinism really is. Calvinists will typically punt to the accusation "you don't understand Calvinism" when they are confronted with the many facets of professing Calvinists. If you point out the errors of the supralapsarian, you will be accused of misrepresenting the infralapsarian. If you confront the preterist, you will be accused of misrepresenting the premillennialist. If you point out the Westminster Confession teaches decreed reprobation, you will be accused of misrepresenting those who don't follow the WC. etc etc..

I have on many occasions asked Calvinists as to just what should one study in order to accurately represent Calvinism, and there is never a uniform consensus on this. I was a Calvinist in a Presbyterian church for several years after I left Judaism. I studied Shedd, Spurgeon, Warfield, Gill, Calvin, Beza, Boettner, Pink, Wright, Hodge, Packer, Sproul, Kennedy, MacArthur, et al from 1560-1991 publications, and yet, now when I debate Calvinists, there's not one Calvinist that can agree on what Calvinism really is. Some shun the term "Calvinism" altogether, and prefer "Reformed", and "doctrines of grace" and an emphasis on the 5 "sola fides" instead of TULIP although in substance the "doctrines of grace"  are exactly the same. The emphasis on shunning the association with John Calvin is presumably to avoid the stigma attached to the lifestyle of John Calvin (mainly, his treatment of "heretics", and by 'treatment' I mean, murder).

 

What is quite humorous is you will often see a person who refuses to identify with Calvin, be the first in line to defend Calvinism when the doctrines of Calvin are attacked. You will also find that Calvinists will vacillate in between popular Calvinist authors to defend their doctrines of grace, many in which they will cite to defend a particular view of Calvinism or Reformed theology, when that particular author would disagree with them elsewhere (Spurgeon is a perfect example of this).

 

Regardless of what doctrines the plethora of Calvinist or Reformed followers adhere to that are in common, one thing that the Calvinists can not do is honestly accuse anyone of misrepresenting them when they themselves can not agree on what Calvinism is. I understood it just fine when I was a Calvinist, and I understand it perfectly now after exhaustive contemplation on the real implications of Calvinist determinism, and it's assault on the character of God.

 

 

Curtis Hutson wrote a small booklet entitled, "Why I Disagree With All Five Points of Calvinism," I agree with him on this subject. I'm furnishing a link to it, it is on the net.

 

Your correct, Their favorite defense is to accuse us of misrepresenting them, especially when we tell them that doctrine is not found in the pages of the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I have Hutson's booklet and a good sermon of his on CD.

 

That's the key to what is or isn't Bible doctrine, what is found in the pages of the Bible; not what's found in the writings or teachings of men.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I decided (a couple of years ago) that I would read Calvin's Institutes...I made it through 3 pages.

 

It was page after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page,

after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page, after page,

 

...of what I can only describe as incessant theological ramblings.  I'm not trying to be unkind, but I don't understand why folks would want to spend so much time reading and studying Calvin's Institutes rather than the word of God.

 

Some people are in love with false teachings, & that is all they will follow.

 

Right now those in the SBC who don't agree with Calvin doctrine are trying to appease those who do, letting this false teachings over take the SBC, letting those who believe in Calvin's doctrine gain many converts.

 

That is they refuse to stand up for the Word of God. So sad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Perhaps there are more of those in your neck of the woods. Even among those who know some points from Calvin's Institutes (even the very anti-Calvinist Adrian Rogers hailed the Institutes as a great work) know little of the man and don't care.

Thus far, I've not met a single Calvinist who, if they believed Calvin were akin to Stalin, that such would impact their views regarding predestination and such.

Beyond that, we get back to the point that only the Word of God truly matters. Regardless of what any of us think of another persons views or their life, what makes the difference is what the Word of God says and how we apply that.

If Freddy becomes fully convinced of another persons views of Calvin, yet his biblical view has not changed, then Freddy is still where he began on the key issue of understanding Scripture.

It is the Word of God that is alive and powerful, and that's what must change men's hearts and minds, not historical presentations pro or con of various men.

Every Calvinist I have ever spoken to about such things REFUSES to believe what history records about Calvin, rather than accepting the record of history and dumping the man - including several people who have posted here in the past.

This has taken place on this site within the last 12 or so months.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You are wrong on this John.
Many many who hold to this theology look directly to Calvin's institutes for their direction.
They say that Paul's writings can only be understood by referencing Calvin's commentaries.

This is not universal of course, but it is widely true.
Very few people claim Calvin thought it up, but there is a reason why his name is associated with it.
And this applies even to those who refer to themselves as reformed rather than Calvinist.

Dave - we CANNOT have a meaningful forum discussion on your opinion about "many many."

 

We are real people who hold to the teaching of Scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Some people are in love with false teachings, & that is all they will follow. Agreed

 

Right now those in the SBC who don't agree with Calvin doctrine are trying to appease those who do, letting this false teachings over take the SBC, I can't comment on that -  letting those who believe in Calvin's doctrine gain many converts. That is a testimony to the power of sound doctrine - "many converts" who continue faithful to their redeeming Lord. Not like those who deny the so-called "5 points" & teach that those saved may not continue to Persevere & be Preserved by grace. That is a product of the sad observation that those "converted" by decision prayer evangelism are unlikely to continue in the faith. Consider the parable of the sower & the seed.    

 

That is they refuse to stand up for the Word of God. So sad! Who refuses to stand up for the Word of God? I have heard sad reports of apostacy in the SBC, as in the UK Baptist Union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Every Calvinist I have ever spoken to about such things REFUSES to believe what history records about Calvin, rather than accepting the record of history and dumping the man - including several people who have posted here in the past.

This has taken place on this site within the last 12 or so months.

If you have spoken to ME your assertion is false. I have NEVER read the Institutes, & I oppose doctrines derived from his teaching - particularly infant baptism, Presbyterian church government, and the church-state relationship that led to proceedings against Servetus & other "non-conformists." 

 

I even debated with another "calvinist" his treatment of Servetus on another forum. In the opinion of an "anti-calvinist" I won the debate by my defence of Servetus against Calvin.

 

The Reformers generally were not kind to baptists - the concept of the redeemed church of Christ comprising baptised believers worshipping in independent churches was anathema to them. The state church was all-important - EVERYBODY had to accept whatever church & doctrine was in power. The 1689 Baptist Confession is a significant date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Apologies - my screen had not refreshed before I posted.

I will make a correction - every Calvinist I have ever spoken to face to face.

Thanks for your apology. Now - why do anti-calvinists persist in keeping the name alive, rather than "dumping the man?"

 

In order to "dump the man" we speak of "reformed doctrine" & "the doctrines of grace" rather than "calvinism" but you "anticalvinists" keep the name & your caricature of BIBLICAL reformed doctrine by defining it by your own misunderstanding, rather than our Biblical teaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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



×
×
  • Create New...