MacArthur

[heartstrings]

1 hour ago, Bob Hutton said:

Whether or not Calvinism is a "doctrine of devils" is  a matter of opinion and interpretation.  There are many preachers who hold to a form of Calvinistic theology, are they all guilty of spreading poison?

I also believe that you will win more people to agree with you if you show a little more Christlikeness, and adopt a less abusive manner. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with Calvinism (indeed, I did for many years until I read the Bible properly) but a little more of a reasoned attitude would be helpful to yourself and others.

With kind regards to you, dear brother,

Bob

No, dear brother, I'm not interested in "bagging" you but simply encourage you to be a little less angry, and a little more gentle as Christ is to all of us.

No worries. I said my peace on this. You have a nice day, friend, and welcome to Online Baptist. :)

[DaveW]

Calvinism is not a "secondary issue" at all.

In Calvinism salvation is through the choice of God - in the Bible salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

This is another Gospel.

And no small issue at all.

I have always found it interesting to see what other false doctrines people will accept in their zeal to follow Calvinism.

 

[Bob Hutton]

12 hours ago, DaveW said:

Calvinism is not a "secondary issue" at all.

In Calvinism salvation is through the choice of God - in the Bible salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

This is another Gospel.

And no small issue at all.

I have always found it interesting to see what other false doctrines people will accept in their zeal to follow Calvinism.

 

I have a question for you: if calvinism is not a secondary issue (and I believe that it is) does that mean that C H Spurgeon was a heretic?

Come to that - was William Carey (a Baptist missionary to India) a heretic?

Was Dr D M Lloyd-Jones a heretic? (He was a Welsh preacher who ministered in London for many years, and highly respected among British evangelicals).

Are John Piper and Steve Lawson heretics?

Was B B Warfield a heretic?  Was Martin Luther (who wrote "The Bondage of the Will) a heretic?

Once you start saying that calvinism is not a secondary issue, you are on very dangerous ground.

Think very carefully, dear brother, before you make sweeping statements.

Kind regards

Bob

Edited February 23, 2017 by Bob Hutton
Spelled the word heretic wrong

[DaveW]

Calvinism IS NOT A SECONDARY ISSUE.

 I prefer to align with the Bible than what you say about various people.

 

 

[Alimantado]

Bob, it's the long-stated view of DaveW, Heartstrings and probably several others on this forum that if a person comes to believe the Calvinist/reformed interpretation of scripture before they are saved, then they cannot be saved while continuing to believe it, since it is a false Gospel. Or in other words a Calvinist is not a Christian unless it so happens that the Calvinist got saved before believing in Calvinism, or they think they believe reformed doctrine but don't really. If you look back over the forum's history you will see mammoth threads discussing this.

And among those here who don't think reformed beliefs are incompatible with salvation, a large number still think that reformed beliefs are incompatible with the label 'IFB'.

This forum used to have a page called 'Doctrinal Statement of this board' with a statement of faith on it, but I can't find it anymore. That statement specifically rejected some of the reformed distinctives, including limited atonement. Even so, back when this forum was busy it used to tolerate a much more 'eclectic' mix of people who called themselves IFB. Not so among the dozen or so who still post here, or so it seems.

Those are just some of my own observations from having been on here a long time...

[DaveW]

3 minutes ago, Alimantado said:

Bob, it's the long-stated view of DaveW, Heartstrings and probably several others on this forum that if a person comes to believe the Calvinist/reformed interpretation of scripture before they are saved, then they cannot be saved while continuing to believe it, since it is a false Gospel. Or in other words a Calvinist is not a Christian unless it so happens that the Calvinist got saved before believing in Calvinism, or they think they believe reformed doctrine but don't really. If you look back over the forum's history you will see mammoth threads discussing this.

And among those here who don't think reformed beliefs are incompatible with salvation, a large number still think that reformed beliefs are incompatible with the label 'IFB'.

This forum used to have a page called 'Doctrinal Statement of this board' with a statement of faith on it, but I can't find it anymore. That statement specifically rejected some of the reformed distinctives, including limited atonement. Even so, back when this forum was busy it used to tolerate a much more 'eclectic' mix of people who called themselves IFB. Not so among the dozen or so who still post here, or so it seems.

Those are just some of my own observations from having been on here a long time...

I thank you for the attempt, but your representation of my position is in error.

[Alimantado]

Well here's the last time I remember you summing it up, Dave:

On 06/07/2014 at 11:25 PM, DaveW said:

If I may explain my position - I believe that anyone who holds to Calvinism as Calvin intended is not trusting in the shed blood of Christ for salvation - their salvation is based on the choice of God. This is unbiblical, for the Bible never says that we are saved by God's choice, but it constantly says we are saved by the precious blood of the Lamb of God.

However, I believe many people who "align with Calvin" do not really understand what Calvin believed and taught. These people might be saved because they believe the surface words without understanding the depth of Calvinism.

I think that there are people in various false churches who are saved in spite of what their church teaches, not because of it.

I have known people who defend Calvin who I would think are saved (I can not know another man's heart for certain), in spite of their defence of the system which teaches salvation not by faith, but by God's choice.
I have also known people who defend Calvin who, by their actions and attitudes, I would think are definitely not saved (again, I can not know another man's heart but the indicators??????? ).

But I have met many people who claim the name of Christ who appear by their life and actions to not know the Saviour.
That is not the exclusive domain of Calvin.

I don't see where my representation of that is wrong. Heartstrings has written very similar in the past but I can't remember where.

[DaveW]

If you had it ready to fire, why did you not just post it up?

[Alimantado]

22 minutes ago, DaveW said:

If you had it ready to fire, why did you not just post it up?

Because I was also talking about other things in that post, not just you, and I wanted to be concise for Bob's sake. And since I wasn't trying to misrepresent you, I didn't think you'd disagree with what I said.

[Alimantado]

Still, now that you have disagreed, I've gone and posted up your own words, so no harm no foul eh? I'll just have to accept that I don't have a clue what you're saying--since you've told me I'm wrong. Hopefully Bob will understand better.

[DaveW]

8 minutes ago, Alimantado said:

Still, now that you have disagreed, I've gone and posted up your own words, so no harm no foul eh? I'll just have to accept that I don't have a clue what you're saying--since you've told me I'm wrong. Hopefully Bob will understand better.

No need to be like that.....

I stand by what I wrote, and I disagree with your explanation of what I wrote.

I doubt Bob will understand it, but I am sure he will attack it and smile while he does.

I was not really interested in becoming the subject of discussion, especially since this was supposed be an explanation if my warning against MacArthur.

Bob has chosen to ignore my initial post and go on the attack, making this about Calvinism and ignoring any discussion about MacArthur while accusing me of treating MacArthur unfairly.

I am just not interested in all this muck.

And people asked me why I stopped posting recently.........

EXACTLY how much false doctrine is enough to warrant a warning such as the one I posted in the original discussion, or even the listed points in my op here?

And why has this become about me?

MacArthur promotes the five listed points in the op which are ALL UNBIBLICAL.

That is my warning, and if you don't think they are unbiblical, or you wish to follow his teachings, then I have warned and my job is done. Chew carefully, and don't whine to me when you start to feel the effects. 

[Alimantado]

4 minutes ago, DaveW said:

No need to be like that.....

I stand by what I wrote, and I disagree with your explanation of what I wrote.

I doubt Bob will understand it, but I am sure he will attack it and smile while he does.

I was not really interested in becoming the subject of discussion, especially since this was supposed be an explanation if my warning against MacArthur.

Bob has chosen to ignore my initial post and go on the attack, making this about Calvinism and ignoring any discussion about MacArthur while accusing me of treating MacArthur unfairly.

I am just not interested in all this muck.

And people asked me why I stopped posting recently.........

EXACTLY how much false doctrine is enough to warrant a warning such as the one I posted in the original discussion, or even the listed points in my op here?

And why has this become about me?

MacArthur promotes the five listed points in the op which are ALL UNBIBLICAL.

That is my warning, and if you don't think they are unbiblical, or you wish to follow his teachings, then I have warned and my job is done. Chew carefully, and don't whine to me when you start to feel the effects. 

You and Bob started talking about whether Calvinism was a secondary issue or not--your choice.

At that point I saw the convo and felt like chiming in with my experience of how it is not a secondary issue to many on here, so I did. In doing so I happened to mention you (though not just you).

You then disagreed with how I represented you, so I posted up your own words, hoping that would settle that.

You then questioned my motive ("If you had it ready to fire, why did you not just post it up?"), so I responded to that too.

Drama over, hopefully.

[Salyan]

(Bother, where is that 'back to topic' emoticon when you need it?)

[Salyan]

Bob, the Bible says to mark those who bring teaching contrary to the faith (my paraphrase). That is what Dave & Jim are doing. Instead of focusing on your perception of their words as abusive (which, btw, they're not), why don't you examine the allegations against Scripture and see whether they don't have something?

[Bob Hutton]

16 minutes ago, Salyan said:

Bob, the Bible says to mark those who bring teaching contrary to the faith (my paraphrase). That is what Dave & Jim are doing. Instead of focusing on your perception of their words as abusive (which, btw, they're not), why don't you examine the allegations against Scripture and see whether they don't have something?

You have missed the point.  If people wish to disagree with Calvinism that's fine, I did for many years.  However, saying that people are teaching poison because they are Calvinists is ridiculous.  Do people who make this allegation really believe that C H Spurgeon taught poison?