Reformed Theology Is Replacement Theology

[Alimantado]

So would you say, then, Dave, that the vast majority of those who have called themselves Calvinist or Reformed have held to Calvin's views on free will and not to something akin to Spurgeon's acknowledgement of both TULIP and free will?

[Gorship]

So would you say, then, Dave, that the vast majority of those who have called themselves Calvinist or Reformed have held to Calvin's views on free will and not to something akin to Spurgeon's acknowledgement of both TULIP and free will?

spurgeon wasn't a consistent Calvinist.

[Ukulelemike]

Now, see, I have no prOBlem reconciling God's soverignty with man's will-i just see His acting on His soverignty differently, I guess.

 

See, God IS sovereign; He could easily, if it was His will, make every man woman and child OBey Him, and receive Him. He could have given no choice to Israel, made them, as His nation, completely OBedient to His will, such that it would be impossible for them to break His law. He could have done the same thing to Adam and Eve and the world would have been a perfect place. And He could have done it in a way, though technically puppets, no one would ever know-they would just have the desire and will to perfectly follow His will.

 

BUT, in His soverignty, He ALLOWS us to do according to our own wills, to choose to follow or not follw. He gives every reason for us to follow Him, to believe on Him and receive Him, but He ALLOWS us to choose. Yes, it is His will that none should perish, but He aloows us to decide if we will follow His will or not. And of course, there is a consequence either way we go.   But, allowing us to choose does not, in one iota, diminish His authority and sovereignty.

 

And by Allowing us to choose, we appreciate even more what He has done for us-had He enforced His sovereignty since the beginning, there would have been no need for Calvary, no need of redemption and reconciliation. But because He allowed us to choose, Christ died that we might be reconciled, and when we turn to Him and follow Him, we receive rewards in recognition for what we choose to do in following Him-if we were compelled beynd our choosing, how could we be rewarded for doing what we are programmed to do?

 

 So, if God in His sovereignty, chose to give us a will to follow or not, how does this diminish His sovereignty? I say, it does not, not one bit.

[Jeffrey]

No prOBlem with what you wrote Mike, makes sense. But; how do you reconcile John 15:16 or Eph 1:4?

[Alimantado]

spurgeon wasn't a consistent Calvinist.

 

Well, Dave's already made the point the Spurgeon's beliefs about free will differed from Calvin and I've acknowledged that, Jordan.

 

I'm no scholar of this topic, Jordan, but I've noticed a trend in these recent discussions for people, churches, preachers and theologans that I've always assumed were Calvinist to be considered not Calvinist or 'inconsistent Calvinist'. So I guess what I'm asking is, is it the case that pretty much everyone from the late 19th century onwards who has called themselves Calvinist hasn't actually affirmed the 'pure' Calvinism that Dave says is what counts? If that were true--and I'm not saying it is nor am I sure the question can be answered--I guess I'd call those folk 'inconsistent Calvinist' on here (maybe 'iCalvinist'), and 'Calvinist' everywhere else on the planet. 

[Gorship]

Well, Dave's already made the point the Spurgeon's beliefs about free will differed from Calvin and I've acknowledged that, Jordan.

 

I'm no scholar of this topic, Jordan, but I've noticed a trend in these recent discussions for people, churches, preachers and theologans that I've always assumed were Calvinist to be considered not Calvinist or 'inconsistent Calvinist'. So I guess what I'm asking is, is it the case that pretty much everyone from the late 19th century onwards who has called themselves Calvinist hasn't actually affirmed the 'pure' Calvinism that Dave says is what counts? If that were true--and I'm not saying it is nor am I sure the question can be answered--I guess I'd call those folk 'inconsistent Calvinist' on here (maybe 'iCalvinist'), and 'Calvinist' everywhere else on the planet. 

I cant speak for Dave and say "what counts as full Calvinism". I would say you need to look at each "theologian" and what they teach, Personally I have learned that not one theologian have I ever found to be solid 100% on everything, and that includes spurgeon who we love to esteem so highly. Now If people call Inconsistent Calvinists, full Calvinists, I would say they are just looking to bolster their numbers. I would also say anyone who starts down the road of TULIP, to be consistent would need all of the points. the T needs the ULI to have the P.

[Alimantado]

See, God IS sovereign; He could easily, if it was His will, make every man woman and child OBey Him...and He could have done it in a way, though technically puppets, no one would ever know-they would just have the desire and will to perfectly follow His will.

 

BUT, in His soverignty, He ALLOWS us to do according to our own wills, to choose to follow or not follw. He gives every reason for us to follow Him, to believe on Him and receive Him, but He ALLOWS us to choose. Yes, it is His will that none should perish, but He aloows us to decide if we will follow His will or not. 

 

This bit is where I've always got stuck, Mike. I do believe we choose of our volition and are called to do so, but I don't deny that I'm not really sure what free will actually is.

 

You say above that God could have given us all 'wills' to follow Him but instead he allows us to do according to our own wills. But in both those scenarios you are saying that we have 'wills' and those wills determine the choices we make. That prompts two questions in my mind:

 

1. If having a will that determines our choices is consistent with 'free will', why would it go against free will for God to give us all a will to desire to 'perfectly follow' him, as you say?

 

2. If God hasn't given us wills to perfectly follow him, but we still do have wills that govern our choices, where did those wills come from? Did God create them, in which case is he the author of our choices after all? Or are they random, in which case are you just lucky if you happen to get a will that results in you making a choice to accept God's gift of salvation? Or is there another option?

[Alimantado]

Btw, I don't mind moving this to another thread on the grounds that the OP is about reformed views of eschatology, not reformed views of free will. 

[Alimantado]

Now If people call Inconsistent Calvinists, full Calvinists, I would say they are just looking to bolster their numbers. I would also say anyone who starts down the road of TULIP, to be consistent would need all of the points. the T needs the ULI to have the P.

 

Fair enough, Jordan. I guess the way I'm leaning is, 'Calvinism' and 'Reformed' are just human labels used to describe a set of beliefs, perhaps a tradition too, and so we need to ask, what do people mean when they call themselves it?

 

As far as I know, there's no hard and fast rule that says if an 'ism' is named after someone then that 'ism' has to be perfectly consistent with what that person originally thought or did. Nor is there a rule that says an 'ism' must be a pristine train of systematic theological thought. Therefore, for me, if someone did a survey and it turned out that it's always been the case that about 50% of people who've called themselves Calvinist have had a combo of 'TULIP' and dispensationalist views, then I'd be happy to say that Calvinists include folk who have dispensationalist views, and it wouldn't matter to me whether someone thought those people were being logically inconsistent or contrary to Calvin's original views.

 

I guess I could sum it up with a hypothetical: let's say that you thought that the label 'Calvinism' could only mean 100% Calvin's views, including a replacement view of eschatology (no idea what he thought about that). Now let's imagine it turned out that the only person who ever had that combo of views was Calvin himself and that everyone in history who used that term meant something different to your definition. In that hypothetical scenario, do you think your definition would be useful?

 

Overall I'm asking an open question though. Maybe >90% of people who have called themselves Calvinist have been 'proper' ones and those that are like Spurgeon have been in the vast minority.

[Alimantado]

>Here's a thread about this from back in 2007. Good to see I'm still as confused about it all now as I was back then.   Wow, how differently we talked together in those days--the past is a foreign country, as they say. And I wonder what all those folk are doing now.

 

By the way, the order of the posts has been jumbled by the archiving process--look at the time stamps on the posts.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

If that was in reference to the post above yours (the only one in the vicinity where someone named other men and what they taught or believed) -- then consider this a cease and desist order on the personal slander. It's not what he did.

 

If it's just a generic statement (the lack of clarity is why I used "if" in the above sentence), then it OBviously doesn't apply -- carry on.

I was not trying to slander.  I was simply making a true statement.  Slander is when someone makes an oral defamation about another that is untrue. I am sorry you took it as slander.  It was not meant to be, nor did it name any names or speak any untruth.

It really is sad that a person cannot state a fact without getting chewed out.  smh.  This is one of the reasons I rarely post in the forum threads anymore.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Let's ask him! SFIC, in post 53 were you saying that John81 likes to paint liars as honest men? And if not, who on OB were you referring to?

I was not referring to anyone on OB when I made that statement. 

[HappyChristian]

I was not trying to slander.  I was simply making a true statement.  I am sorry you took it as slander.  It was not meant to be.

It really is sad that a person cannot state a fact without getting chewed out.  smh.  This is one of the reasons I rarely post in the forum threads anymore.

You think that was a chewing out?  Think again...it was simply a notice that if it were meant to be slander, stop.  And he did add the caveat of "if" to it.  My mind goes back to posts you've made to people that were much closer to being chewing out posts...

 

Thank you for the clarification. 

[Alimantado]

SFIC

[OLD fashioned preacher]

Pastor Adrian Rogers, a staunch anti-Calvinist, yet called Calvin's Institutes one of the greatest Christian books.

 

While I don't know what all Reformed Baptist churches hold to, the few I'm familiar with don't hold to Replacement Theology. Thus far, none of the Reformed Baptists I've ever known or spoken with hold to Replacement Theology.

 

Not that all confessions or creeds are sound, but the intent of them were to put forth biblical truths in a manner easy to read, study and learn from. They are similar to what many Statements of Faith are today. As with all things put forth by man, each confession, creed or statement of faith must be considered in light of Scripture.

 

The most famous, most quoted and most studied Baptist pastor, Charles Spurgeon, was a Calvinist but he didn't teach Replacement Theology. He did at times cite the 1689 Baptist confession. In all things, he began with Scripture and finished with Scripture.

 

Attempting to say there are only two or three boxes in existence and that everyone must fit neatly into only one box ignores the complexity of reality and at times calls honest men liars.

 

 

At the same time, many like to paint liars as honest men.

 

 

If that was in reference to the post above yours (the only one in the vicinity where someone named other men and what they taught or believed) -- then consider this a cease and desist order on the personal slander. It's not what he did.

 

If it's just a generic statement (the lack of clarity is why I used "if" in the above sentence), then it OBviously doesn't apply -- carry on.

 

 

I was not referring to anyone on OB when I made that statement. 

 

 

I was not trying to slander.  I was simply making a true statement.  I am sorry you took it as slander.  It was not meant to be.

It really is sad that a person cannot state a fact without getting chewed out.  smh.  This is one of the reasons I rarely post in the forum threads anymore.

That is why my statement was a 2 part one --  IF it was directed at John81 then cut the slander, if NOT then don't worry about it.

 

You answered that when you replied to Al, which would have been a sufficient reply to me without the extra "woe is me" drama.