denial by avoidance

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Exactly!  All or nothing.

A tulip with less than five petals collapses and dies eventually.

The Calvinist doctrine is a dying doctrine.  They just can't accept it.

[heartstrings]

Interesting - I've not heard there are 7-pointers...what are the two beyond TULIP?

Happy,

I've posted this before. Maybe you didn't see it.

​http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-does-piper-mean-when-he-says-hes-a-seven-point-calvinist

[mkrishna]

Interesting - I've not heard there are 7-pointers...what are the two beyond TULIP?

​Maybe we can say 6 pointers believe those who don't believe in the philosophy of Calvinism are not saved and maybe we can say 7 pointers believe Calvinists who believe non Calvinists are saved are themselves not saved. Maybe an 8 pointer could be someone who believes God caused Adam and Eve to sin and has pleasure in throwing people to hell.

[HappyChristian]

Happy,

I've posted this before. Maybe you didn't see it.

​http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-does-piper-mean-when-he-says-hes-a-seven-point-calvinist

No, I didn't see it. I can't open it on my phone but will read it next time I go to the library. Thanks!

[heartstrings]

When John Piper says he is a "seven point Calvinist," he does so half jokingly and half seriously. Historically, there are five points of Calvinism, not seven. Piper isn't seeking to add two more points, but is simply calling attention to his belief in the traditional five points (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints) in a way that also points toward two additional "Calvinistic" truths that follow from them: double predestination and the best-of-all-possible worlds.

The "sixth" point, double predestination, is simply the flip side of unconditional election. Just as God chooses whom He will save without regard to any distinctives in the person (Ephesians 1:5-6; Acts 13:48; Revelation 17:8), so also he decides whom He will not save without regard to any distinctives in the individual (John 10:26; 12:37-40; Romans 9:11-18; 1 Peter 2:7-8). By definition, the decision to elect some individuals to salvation necessarily implies the decision not to save those that were not chosen. God ordains not only that some will be rescued from his judgment, but that others will undergo that judgment. This does not mean that someone might really want to be saved but then be rejected because they are on the wrong list. Rather, we are all dead in sin and unwilling to seek God on our own. A true, genuine desire for salvation in Christ is in fact a mark of election, and therefore none who truly come to Christ for salvation will be turned away (John 6:37-40).

So just as God doesn't choose to save certain people because they are better than others (unconditional election), neither does he choose not to save certain people because they are worse than others (unconditional reprobation, or double predestination). Rather, everybody is lost in sin and no one has anything to recommend them to God above anyone else. And so from this mass of fallen humanity, God chooses to redeem some and leave others.

The "seventh" point, the best-of-all-possible worlds, means that God governs the course of history so that, in the long run, His glory will be more fully displayed and His people more fully satisfied than would have been the case in any other world. If we look only at the way things are now in the present era of this fallen world, this is not the best-of-all-possible worlds. But if we look at the whole course of history, from creation to redemption to eternity and beyond, and see the entirety of God's plan, it is the best-of-all-possible plans and leads to the best-of-all-possible eternities. And therefore this universe (and the events that happen in it from creation into eternity, taken as a whole) is the best-of-all-possible-worlds.

[heartstrings]

Piper also teaches that those people in the "sixth point", who God chooses for Hell, are chosen for Hell for God's glory. He teaches that God's most passionate desire is His own glory: Whereas the Bible says that Jesus endured the cross "for the joy set before him"(Hebrews 12:2) and John 3:16-17 says that God sent his Son because he "so loved the world", Piper says something entirely different here, beginning at the 47 minute mark.........

http://www.desiringgod.org/conference-messages/gods-passion-for-his-glory--2

Edited April 13, 2015 by heartstrings

[John81]

Piper is a crackpot. I tried watching some videos of him in interviews, doing a Q&A and a sermon but he's all over the place and irritating. His promotion of "Christian hedonism" is more than enough reason to stay far away from him.

Sadly, just as I hear some seemingly sound preachers quoting the likes of Mother Teresa and MLK, some also quote Piper.

Has Piper's popularity faded some? I don't hear as much about him anymore.

Also, thank you for posting the information directly to the thread!

[1Timothy115]

How do they handle Romans 11:25-27?

​The same way Jews do with Isaiah 53...they stay away from it.

[1Timothy115]

You can't be IFB and a Calvinist.

[Salyan]

You can't be IFB and a Calvinist.

​Well, unfortunately, you can be... you just can't be our stripe of IFB.   There's an IFB church near us that's slowly going Calvinist... and rejecting the KJV... and looking a bit more neo-evangelical... but they still call themselves IFB. Although I'd have to argue about the F.

[John81]

You can't be IFB and a Calvinist.

​If that's true it really makes a person wonder why so many IFB pastors quote Calvinists in their sermons and writings so often.

That's one thing that's concerned me over the years is those who speak against Calvinists, Southern Baptists, phoney Christian politicians, and others, yet they quote those very people in positive ways.

[1Timothy115]

​Well, unfortunately, you can be... you just can't be our stripe of IFB.   There's an IFB church near us that's slowly going Calvinist... and rejecting the KJV... and looking a bit more neo-evangelical... but they still call themselves IFB. Although I'd have to argue about the F.

​Yep...they are "evolving". But, the sign out front will also evolve.

[1Timothy115]

​If that's true it really makes a person wonder why so many IFB pastors quote Calvinists in their sermons and writings so often.

That's one thing that's concerned me over the years is those who speak against Calvinists, Southern Baptists, phoney Christian politicians, and others, yet they quote those very people in positive ways.

​Never have heard a true IFB preacher quote Calvin for anything more than to rebut his incorrect doctrine.

[John81]

​Well, unfortunately, you can be... you just can't be our stripe of IFB.   There's an IFB church near us that's slowly going Calvinist... and rejecting the KJV... and looking a bit more neo-evangelical... but they still call themselves IFB. Although I'd have to argue about the F.

​There are several IFB churches in this area which have gone a bad direction yet they retain the IFB name. I've heard one has a Calvinist pastor but I've never had the opportunity to find out if that's true. The others have moved in a more modern evangelical direction I guess. Their dress standards have dropped, they've changed their music, most have dropped the KJB, some unite with other area churches (including Catholics) for political strength or community service; that sort of stuff.

All of those churches still display the IFB name and still consider themselves to be fundamentalists.

[John81]

​Yep...they are "evolving". But, the sign out front will also evolve.

​While these churches used to be fairly quick to drop the IFB name that's not the case anymore. It seems many are determined to redefine IFB to their new way. They cling to the name and still describe themselves as fundamentalists.