Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

Soulwinning Teens and Young people


Recommended Posts

  • Members

​If this statement isn't Calvinistic, I don't know what is. <_<

​That depends upon which way one chooses to look at it. Many anti-cals say the same thing, it's just a matter of their perspective of "why" being different from the cals.

The non-cal says anyone saved is of the elect and they are elect because they chose to be born again in Christ.

While the cal says anyone saved is of the elect and they are elect because God specifically chose them to be born again at that specific time.

The saved person is viewed as one of the elect by both the cal and non-cal, but each holds a very different view as to the how and why the saved is one of the elect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​That depends upon which way one chooses to look at it. Many anti-cals say the same thing, it's just a matter of their perspective of "why" being different from the cals.

The non-cal says anyone saved is of the elect and they are elect because they chose to be born again in Christ.

While the cal says anyone saved is of the elect and they are elect because God specifically chose them to be born again at that specific time.

The saved person is viewed as one of the elect by both the cal and non-cal, but each holds a very different view as to the how and why the saved is one of the elect.

​This is pretty reasonable but misses the real point.

The biggest difference is the fruit each type bears. The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life and he that winneth souls is wise.

The calvin worshippers worship his ideas because it justifies their laziness and lack of witnessing in their own hearts. Face it folks, witnessing is the by far the hardest thing we can do and the only thing that counts in Jesus' opinion and if you want that backed by Scripture, start at Genesis and finish at Revelation.

The only reason anyone turns their ear to this calvin rubbish is because its relieves their fleshly desire to do nothing for God.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​This is pretty reasonable but misses the real point.

The biggest difference is the fruit each type bears. The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life and he that winneth souls is wise.

The calvin worshippers worship his ideas because it justifies their laziness and lack of witnessing in their own hearts. Face it folks, witnessing is the by far the hardest thing we can do and the only thing that counts in Jesus' opinion and if you want that backed by Scripture, start at Genesis and finish at Revelation.

The only reason anyone turns their ear to this calvin rubbish is because its relieves their fleshly desire to do nothing for God.

 

​Actually, I made my point. You are addressing another point, which is fine too. The only point I was speaking to was that we all believe the saved are elect. It's the how and why which we differ on, which those questions are the beginning of the point you wanted to address.

To another point, I've never yet met one of these "calvin worshippers". I've also never met a cal that didn't believe in witnessing.

Previously you asked about a website for a cal Bap church I mentioned to which I have found out they have none. I was sent some recordings of a few sermons and the most recent one I listened to had the pastor, a cal, talking about how whosoever believes shall be saved and it's our (Christians) duty to take the Gospel to the lost and to witness at every opportunity. This is in line with cal preachers such as Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Mueller and others.

One of the reasons some folks don't listen to anti-cals is because of the way they deliver their arguments against cals. They hear all sorts of charges but then when they investigate in person they find so many of the charges weren't true they are more open to give the cals a more attentive ear.

This is similar to the old hype against doing marijuana when they used to warn of outrageous effects that even a puff of a joint could cause but when some tried a puff to see if it was true or not, and found out it wasn't, they determined there was nothing to worry about and smoked on.

When dealing with the cal issue it's so much better to stick with the biblical points than to use hyperbole, argue about Calvin (which many cals know little or nothing about anyway), or to try and tell them what they think. Speak the Scripture, let the Holy Ghost do His work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To another point, I've never yet met one of these "calvin worshippers".

​I have.  Had to rebuke a pastor in his own church over this.  So what?  Yes, there are those that take Calvin's writings as gospel.  That doesn't invalidate the TULIP.

Speak the Scripture, let the Holy Ghost do His work.

Indeed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No, what invalidates TULIP is that it is unbiblical.

It misuses and redefines biblical terms. 

Calvin was unsaved man who examined the Bible as a book of law, then created his own version of Catholicism with him as the leader,  and then ruled that religion by fear and threatenings. 

Those who follow this wicked man,  follow the ravings of a man opposed to God and opposed to God's Word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​Actually, I made my point. You are addressing another point, which is fine too. The only point I was speaking to was that we all believe the saved are elect. It's the how and why which we differ on, which those questions are the beginning of the point you wanted to address.

To another point, I've never yet met one of these "calvin worshippers". I've also never met a cal that didn't believe in witnessing.

Previously you asked about a website for a cal Bap church I mentioned to which I have found out they have none. I was sent some recordings of a few sermons and the most recent one I listened to had the pastor, a cal, talking about how whosoever believes shall be saved and it's our (Christians) duty to take the Gospel to the lost and to witness at every opportunity. This is in line with cal preachers such as Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Mueller and others.

One of the reasons some folks don't listen to anti-cals is because of the way they deliver their arguments against cals. They hear all sorts of charges but then when they investigate in person they find so many of the charges weren't true they are more open to give the cals a more attentive ear.

This is similar to the old hype against doing marijuana when they used to warn of outrageous effects that even a puff of a joint could cause but when some tried a puff to see if it was true or not, and found out it wasn't, they determined there was nothing to worry about and smoked on.

When dealing with the cal issue it's so much better to stick with the biblical points than to use hyperbole, argue about Calvin (which many cals know little or nothing about anyway), or to try and tell them what they think. Speak the Scripture, let the Holy Ghost do His work.

​Interesting response John but still no website demonstrating both calvin doctrine and real soulwinning ministries. I suspect if you can't find it, it isn't out there. 

I would certainly consider your defense of calvin worship if you could find just one and post it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
 

​I have.  Had to rebuke a pastor in his own church over this.  So what?  Yes, there are those that take Calvin's writings as gospel.  That doesn't invalidate the TULIP.

Indeed!

​I don't doubt such exists, I've simply never encountered any in person, only online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​Interesting response John but still no website demonstrating both calvin doctrine and real soulwinning ministries. I suspect if you can't find it, it isn't out there. 

I would certainly consider your defense of calvin worship if you could find just one and post it.

​I'm not looking for websites that defend cal or demonstrate anything. You had asked about a specific church to which I pointed out they have no website.

If you are interested in soul winning cals you can read Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon and Mueller; all of which were cals and all were soul winners.

Every call I've ever met in person looks to Scripture as their source, not Calvin. They all point to Paul as their main source for their views. As far as I can recall, they say Augustine was the first to write some about this subject and later Calvin gave attention to trying to put in writing what they claim was the view of the Apostle Paul and Christians for centuries prior to Calvin. Calvin, they will point out, didn't originate anything, he simply tried to write it out.

In any event, there are dozens of books revealing well known cals who were soul winners, as well as cal missions organizations if you wish to pursue such.

These days I only see a handful of churches of any kind doing much towards soul winning. Most Christians seem to do nothing and many of those who are more active are presenting a watered down "gospel" and/or they push people to say a "sinners prayer", then they tell them they are going to heaven, write down another mark in their record book so they can tell everyone how many souls they've saved yet neither their church nor any others around ever have these supposed new Christians entering their doors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No John, you are wrong.

They SAY they don't look to Calvin,  but they reference his writings and in fact some of them "reverence" his writings.

I have had it said to me that "It is a pity that Calvin didn't write about Revelation, because then we could understand it".

These were the very words from a man in the Dutch reformed church here in my city, and they are Calvinist through and through, and hold to many other false doctrines, such as replacement  theology, infant baptism, and the like - all by the way supported from Calvin's institutes.

As well as this, many of your so called calvinists either have been wrongly claimed by the calvinist mobs to try to bolster their position, or like Spurgeon, they were schizophrenic Calvinists who held to a dual position of calvinistic election and total free will of men.

You have been told this before but still insist on adding Spurgeon's name automatically to the list at every opportunity.

It shows poor research and poor understanding of the man and his position.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No John, you are wrong.

They SAY they don't look to Calvin,  but they reference his writings and in fact some of them "reverence" his writings.

I have had it said to me that "It is a pity that Calvin didn't write about Revelation, because then we could understand it".

These were the very words from a man in the Dutch reformed church here in my city, and they are Calvinist through and through, and hold to many other false doctrines, such as replacement  theology, infant baptism, and the like - all by the way supported from Calvin's institutes.

As well as this, many of your so called calvinists either have been wrongly claimed by the calvinist mobs to try to bolster their position, or like Spurgeon, they were schizophrenic Calvinists who held to a dual position of calvinistic election and total free will of men.

You have been told this before but still insist on adding Spurgeon's name automatically to the list at every opportunity.

It shows poor research and poor understanding of the man and his position.

 

​No, in this I'm not wrong. Every cal I've met it's true what I said. I never said every cal is like those cals. I've pointed out I've encountered such cals online and I have no doubt such are out there, probably even thick in some areas. However, of the cals I've met in person, having spoken with them, they don't look to Calvin, they don't follow Calvin, they don't defend Calvin, many know little to nothing of Calvin.

Spurgeon made his position very clear that he was a cal. I've read most of what he wrote and he was consistent in his stance as a cal tho he pointed to Paul's writings in Scripture as the authority on the subject, not Calvin.

It's not just some cals that hang on the words of men, there are many out there who back their positions more on the words of Scofield, Graham, Moody, Stanley, Luther, Sproul, Osteen, and on and on. With each it's important to go to the Scripture rather than argue about the man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No, what invalidates TULIP is that it is unbiblical.

It misuses and redefines biblical terms. 

Calvin was unsaved man who examined the Bible as a book of law, then created his own version of Catholicism with him as the leader,  and then ruled that religion by fear and threatenings. 

Those who follow this wicked man,  follow the ravings of a man opposed to God and opposed to God's Word.

​I wonder why someone would name a system of theology after an unsaved man who persecuted true Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​No, in this I'm not wrong. Every cal I've met it's true what I said. I never said every cal is like those cals. I've pointed out I've encountered such cals online and I have no doubt such are out there, probably even thick in some areas. However, of the cals I've met in person, having spoken with them, they don't look to Calvin, they don't follow Calvin, they don't defend Calvin, many know little to nothing of Calvin.

Spurgeon made his position very clear that he was a cal. I've read most of what he wrote and he was consistent in his stance as a cal tho he pointed to Paul's writings in Scripture as the authority on the subject, not Calvin.

It's not just some cals that hang on the words of men, there are many out there who back their positions more on the words of Scofield, Graham, Moody, Stanley, Luther, Sproul, Osteen, and on and on. With each it's important to go to the Scripture rather than argue about the man.

You say you have read most of what Spurgeon wrote and yet you still misrepresent him.......

There is something wrong with this picture.

There is no doubt that he claimed to follow Calvin, but he also opposed Calvin's  teachings.

As to your claim that you are not wrong, if you refuse to see the point I made then there is nothing I  can do to help you.

They SAY they don't  follow Calvin and obviously they deceive you with their words, because to be a calvinist or to uphold the "doctrines of grace" as they call them is to be a follower of Calvin.

The SAY they look to Paul, but they twist his words to make them fit into their philosophy.

You refuse to see this and stand there innocently saying that they have somehow found this false doctrine from the Bible......

You are deceived - they found this doctrine from Calvin and from those who follow him.

 

Just because a man claims to be a fish, that doesn't  make him a fish. Just because a claims not to follow Calvin doesn't make it so.

Open your eyes and do some proper research, and begin to compare these teachers against the Bible.

No man who does so will keep saying the things you say about these men.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​I'm not looking for websites that defend cal or demonstrate anything. You had asked about a specific church to which I pointed out they have no website.

If you are interested in soul winning cals you can read Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon and Mueller; all of which were cals and all were soul winners.

Every call I've ever met in person looks to Scripture as their source, not Calvin. They all point to Paul as their main source for their views. As far as I can recall, they say Augustine was the first to write some about this subject and later Calvin gave attention to trying to put in writing what they claim was the view of the Apostle Paul and Christians for centuries prior to Calvin. Calvin, they will point out, didn't originate anything, he simply tried to write it out.

In any event, there are dozens of books revealing well known cals who were soul winners, as well as cal missions organizations if you wish to pursue such.

These days I only see a handful of churches of any kind doing much towards soul winning. Most Christians seem to do nothing and many of those who are more active are presenting a watered down "gospel" and/or they push people to say a "sinners prayer", then they tell them they are going to heaven, write down another mark in their record book so they can tell everyone how many souls they've saved yet neither their church nor any others around ever have these supposed new Christians entering their doors.

​John,

The calvin worshippers today have zero resemblance to any of the old timers you keep referring to. Calvin worship has taken a nose dive in modern times.

IMO you seem to experience very little but read very much and that may the point of your confusion in this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​John,

The calvin worshippers today have zero resemblance to any of the old timers you keep referring to. Calvin worship has taken a nose dive in modern times.

IMO you seem to experience very little but read very much and that may the point of your confusion in this.

​Just because my experiences differ from yours doesn't mean I'm not experiencing very much.

Things can be very different from one place to the next, from one area to another, State to State, country to country. Yes, I also read a lot, something only a handful of others I know do.

Most of the churches near here are relatively the same regardless of the name they go by or whether they are cal, armin, neither. They are more social and/or secular in nature and often rather dead when it comes to the things of God.

Whatever you and others have personal experience with I don't question it or think something must be wrong if it happens to differ from my own. I know brothers in Christ who would never set foot in another Baptist church again due to their past experiences in Baptist churches but that differs from my experiences in Baptist churches so I have no wall up.

If the Word can't be brought to bear on a situation and allowed to work, bringing up the things of man isn't going to get it done.

 

Link to comment
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.



×
×
  • Create New...