Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Errors of Calvanism


Shadowfeathers
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

1

“EORRORS OF CALVANISM”

 

  • Doctrine originated by a man – Did not begin with John Calvin, (1509 – 1564)

  • It began with “Augustine” - (354-429)

  • It flourished under Calvin who greatly showed his influence in Catholicism, the Presbyterian church and the Church of Christ, as with others.

  • Calvanism claims that the Bible itself is the true source of this religious system.

  • His background was Roman Catholicism, from which his doctrine was greatly influenced, rather than from the Bible.

 

2

Five points of Calvanism

  • Came about actually 50 years after the death of Calvin.

  • These five points were first set forth in order as an expression of opposition to the five points of Arminianism.

  • Calvanism hangs deeply on the doctrine of “Election” - meaning; God choses some to be saved, and others to be lost, and also the doctrine of “Sovereignty” - but does not reveal the reason why.

  • Calvanism has been summed up by the acrostic T-U-L-I-P.

 

3

T-U-L-I-P

  • T – Total depravity

  • U – Unconditional election

  • L – Limited atonement

  • I – Irresistible grace

  • P – perseverance of the saints

 

4

“Amenian doctrine”

  • 1 – Conditional election and reprobation, in opposition to the absolute predestination taught by Calvin.

  • 2 – Universal redemption, or that the atonement was made by Christ for all mankind, though none but believers can be partakers of the benefit.

  • 3 – That man, in order to exercise true faith, must be regenerated and renewed by the operation of the Holy Spirit which is the gift of God.

  • 4 – That man may resist divine grace.

  • 5 – That man may relapse from a state of grace – in opposition to Calvin's doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.

  • Wesleyans of Great Britain and Methodists of America are Armenian.

 

5

The Contrasts

Armenian = A, Calvanism = C

Depravity: A – Man is depraved, lost, guilty, but has been helped so that he can believe if he will.

Depravity: C – Man is totally depraved. He is dead. Depravity indicates inability.

Man's will is not free, but enslaved by sin.

 

I am a Biblicist, not Calvanist or Arminian. I believe the Bible as Authority, Not John Calvin or Jacobus Arminus.

 

6

Election

  • A – God elected those whom He foresaw would believe.

  • C – God's election rested solely in His own sovereign will. It is not based on anything foreseen in man.

  • Redemption

  • A – Christ died to provide salvation for all. Those who believe will be saved.

  • C – Christ died to provide salvation for all and to secure and guarantee salvation for the elect. Faith is necessary to salvation, and faith is certain since the means as well as the end are secured. This is known as particular redemption and sometimes called limited atonement (a poor term).

 

7

Obedience

  • A – Man can obey the gospel call or disobey and reject. God's grace is not invincible, but can be and often is rejected and thwarted by man.

  • C – Man can obey the gospel called or disobey, but God makes certain that the inward call to the elect is willingly obeyed. God's plan of election is invincible and will not be thwarted.

  • Security

  • A – Believers can lose their salvation. (Armenius was uncertain about this.)

  • C – True believers (elect) are eternally secure.

 

8

Questions of Mystery!

  • How can God be sovereign and how can man be responsible?

  • How can there be responsibility without ability?

  • How can limits be placed on an infinite sacrifice?

  • Great preachers have strongly emphasized both divine sovereignty and human responsibility.

  • You might be surprised that C. H. Spurgeon leaned toward Calvanism, although he strongly disagreed with the doctrine of limited atonement.

 

9

TOTALLY DEPRAVITY

  • The phrases of Calvanism appear nowhere in the scriptures – Gen. To Rev.

  • Depravity equals inability. Man, being dead, does not have to ability to believe, or call on God for salvation.

  • This necessitates both Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace.

  • From the canons of Dort declare: “Therefore all men. . .without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit. . .are neither able nor willing to return to God. . .nor to dispose themselves to reformation.

  • This statement is an expression of human opinion without biblical support.

  • Question: How is it that a person is unwilling to do what he is unable to do?

 

 

10

The Bible teaches that man is morally corrupt (Jer. 17:9. Rom. 3:10-18).

That he is dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1).

That he is spiritually blind (1 Cor. 2:14).

But is does not teach that man cannot respond to the Gospel.

Just the opposite, the Bible teaches that Christ gives light to every man, (Jn. 1:9)

He draws all men to himself (Jn 12:32),

He convicts men through the Holy Spirit (Jn 16:8).

God calls men to salvation through the gospel, (2 Thes. 2:14),

And He has ordained that the gospel be preached to every creature (Mk. 16:15).

 

11

Unconditional Election

  • They teach that some are elected by God to go to heaven, and others are elected by God to go to hell.

  • They use Jn 6:37 - “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”

  • But vs 40 explains vs 37. It is God's will that every one that believes on Christ will be saved.

  • The ones that the Father gives to the Son are those who believe on Him.

 

12

They use Jn. 6:44

  • “No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

  • A threefold problem: 1 – Christ said He would draw all men to Himself (Jn. 12:32, 1:9)

  • 2 – The Bible says God desires all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-4, 2 Pet. 3:9), those who are rejected are those who reject the truth and do not believe. (2 Thes. 2:10, 12)

  • 3 – God draws men through the gospel (2 Thes. 2:14, and the gospel is to preached to every man. (Mk. 16:15)

 

13

They use Acts 13:48

  • “And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord; and as man as were ordained to eternal life believed.”

  • But verse 46 explains: “Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.”

  • It was because they did not believe, not because they were not chosen.

  • Calvanism confuses such words as: Election, Predestination, and foreordained.

  • It is man who “elects” to believe. It is God who predestines all who do believe, to eternal life. It is God who, in His foreknowledge, knows who will believe, and thus foreordains them to eternal life. (Jn. 3:16)

  • Belief is the key word: (1 Pet. 2:6, Jn. 11:25, Jn. 6:47, Mk. 16:16, Jn. 3:36, Jn. 3:15-18).

  • Call is another key word: (Rom. 10:13)

 

 

 

14

Limited Atonement

  • God loves all men (Jn. 3:16)

  • God desires all men to be saved (2 Pet. 3:9)

  • God has commanded that the gospel be preached to every person (Mk. 16:15)

  • Jesus was a ransom for all men (1 Tim. 2:6)

  • Jesus tasted death for all men (Heb. 2:9)

  • Jesus provided propitiation for all men (1 Jn. 2:2)

  • Jesus bought even unsaved false teachers (2 Pet. 2:1)

  • The iniquity of all men was laid on Jesus (Isa. 53:6)

  • If the first part of Isa. 53:6 is universal, the second part can not be limited.

 

15

Irresistible Grace

 

  • It is clear that God extends Grace to all men, but it is man who rejected that Grace.

 

 

  • The world before the flood: (Gen. 6:3)

 

 

 

 

16

Perseverance of the Saints

  • This, of course, means that one has to persevere in order to stay saved. It is a denial of “eternal security”.

  • A denial of eternal security, means that salvation depends on man to hold out, rather upon God who gives it. In other words: Eternal does not mean eternal, etc. and grace is not grace.

  • Eph. 2: 8-9 – We are saved through faith (believing), by the grace of God – not of ourselves.

  • Faith comes before salvation, (man responds to the conviction of the Holy Spirit, by grace).

  • Faith comes through hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.

 

17

A Summary

  • If God elects only certain ones to be saved and others to be lost; if one cannot resist the Grace of God, if there is a limit on the atonement made by Christ; there would be no need for Missionaries, no need for the church, no need for preaching the gospel, no need for the great commission, no need for visitation programs, no need for soul-winning, no need for repenting, no need for study the word, no need for printing and handing out tracts, no need for believing.

  • And God would be lying when he says: “Whosoever will may come”. And, “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

  • Most Calvanist are probably saved, but just confused on the Scriptures.

 

 

 

Edited by Shadowfeathers
I copy paste lesson came from my Pastor just to share with y'all
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Excellent study! Please let your pastor know that we appreciate the time and effort put into the study on Calvinism. I thoroughly agree with the study and want to thank you for bringing it to our attention.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Shadowfeathers said:

1

“EORRORS OF CALVANISM”

 

  • Doctrine originated by a man – Did not begin with John Calvin, (1509 – 1564)

  • It began with “Augustine” - (354-429)

  • It flourished under Calvin who greatly showed his influence in Catholicism, the Presbyterian church and the Church of Christ, as with others.

  • Calvanism claims that the Bible itself is the true source of this religious system.

  • His background was Roman Catholicism, from which his doctrine was greatly influenced, rather than from the Bible.

Quick response to the first five points, which I assume are a summary of the rest of it:

1 & 2. Saying the doctrine originated by a man just begs the question. Ultimately we're asking whether its true and Biblical, right? If it is then by definition it's from God. If it isn't, then by definition it's from man (or you could argue Satan but for the purposes of discussion there's no difference). So saying the doctrine is man-made is a conclusion, not an argument.

3. This is just attacking the person, or a guilt by association argument--think boffins call it an 'ad hominem'. The doctrine is either wrong because of its contents or it isn't, and therefore we should be able to judge whether it's Biblical without any necessary reference to who wrote it out. If we want to assume it's wrong because of the credentials of who wrote it, do we start doing that for other things too, e.g. warn against the KJV because of its association with Angicanism?

4 & 5. If the doctrine isn't from the Bible then that's what needs to be shown by comparing it with the Bible. Saying where otherwise it has come from is another--possibly interesting--question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Moderators
On ‎11‎/‎5‎/‎2015‎ ‎5‎:‎20‎:‎06‎, Alimantado said:

Quick response to the first five points, which I assume are a summary of the rest of it:

1 & 2. Saying the doctrine originated by a man just begs the question. Ultimately we're asking whether its true and Biblical, right? If it is then by definition it's from God. If it isn't, then by definition it's from man (or you could argue Satan but for the purposes of discussion there's no difference). So saying the doctrine is man-made is a conclusion, not an argument.

3. This is just attacking the person, or a guilt by association argument--think boffins call it an 'ad hominem'. The doctrine is either wrong because of its contents or it isn't, and therefore we should be able to judge whether it's Biblical without any necessary reference to who wrote it out. If we want to assume it's wrong because of the credentials of who wrote it, do we start doing that for other things too, e.g. warn against the KJV because of its association with Angicanism?

4 & 5. If the doctrine isn't from the Bible then that's what needs to be shown by comparing it with the Bible. Saying where otherwise it has come from is another--possibly interesting--question.

Actually, I think an ad hominem attack would be like "Calvinism is wrong because Calvin is a jerk who eats worms." In other words, a personal attack that has nothing to do with the issues at hand. However, when dealing with Calvin's theological leanings and manner toward those who disagreed with him, I would say they are quite relevant.

Calvin may have left the RCC, but he acted like a pope, himself-he allowed no disagreement with him, and would imprison, torture, banish and kill those who disagreed with him, or even for lesser things, like being silly. Some kid stuck a bean in some Easter cake, (I don't remember the entire story off the top of my head), and Calvin had him put in prison for a few days. Calvin showed no sign of a Christian spirit of kindness and love-he ruled with an iron fist. So really, when dealing with associations and character, you CAN make some proper associations, and it should not be considered an ad hominem attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

Actually, I think an ad hominem attack would be like "Calvinism is wrong because Calvin is a jerk who eats worms." In other words, a personal attack that has nothing to do with the issues at hand. However, when dealing with Calvin's theological leanings and manner toward those who disagreed with him, I would say they are quite relevant.

Calvin may have left the RCC, but he acted like a pope, himself-he allowed no disagreement with him, and would imprison, torture, banish and kill those who disagreed with him, or even for lesser things, like being silly. Some kid stuck a bean in some Easter cake, (I don't remember the entire story off the top of my head), and Calvin had him put in prison for a few days. Calvin showed no sign of a Christian spirit of kindness and love-he ruled with an iron fist. So really, when dealing with associations and character, you CAN make some proper associations, and it should not be considered an ad hominem attack.

Well, while I'm no fan of strict dictionary definitions, for a term as technical as ad hominem I guess we should come up with one. Here's what my Oxford dictionary says: an argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

I think that definition fits what's going on above. If Calvinism is wrong then it's wrong because it's untrue in of itself, not because of what Calvin was like or what he did or didn't do. The acid test is: if you came across the doctrine but didn't know the author, you would still be able to see that it's in error. Therefore the life of Calvin is irrelevant to whether Calvinism is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, Alimantado said:

Well, while I'm no fan of strict dictionary definitions, for a term as technical as ad hominem I guess we should come up with one. Here's what my Oxford dictionary says: an argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

I think that definition fits what's going on above. If Calvinism is wrong then it's wrong because it's untrue in of itself, not because of what Calvin was like or what he did or didn't do. The acid test is: if you came across the doctrine but didn't know the author, you would still be able to see that it's in error. Therefore the life of Calvin is irrelevant to whether Calvinism is true.

Well, you are misinterpreting your own Oxford dictionary. The majority of the OP's argument is against the position with anecdotal comments about the source reinforcing the argument against the position. In issues of God and His Truth, the source must be Spiritually evaluated. I John 4 is pretty clear on trying the spirits to see whether they be of God. Allot of spirits out there sound real close but this ain't a game of horseshoes.

Satan comes you tonight with his new ideas about God, I would hope you would consider the source before you dove into the new religion. If a woman pastor writes a book about how to run a church, I would hope you would consider the source before you bought the book, etc....

 

Edited by wretched
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, wretched said:

Well, you are misinterpreting your own Oxford dictionary. The majority of the OP's argument is against the position with anecdotal comments about the source reinforcing the argument against the position. In issues of God and His Truth, the source must be Spiritually evaluated. I John 4 is pretty clear on trying the spirits to see whether they be of God. Allot of spirits out there sound real close but this ain't a game of horseshoes.

Satan comes you tonight with his new ideas about God, I would hope you would consider the source before you dove into the new religion. If a woman pastor writes a book about how to run a church, I would hope you would consider the source before you bought the book, etc....

 

On your point about evaluating the source: I actually agree with you. If deciding whether to read the book/argument/doctine at all, it is worth considering the source--you can save yourself time by not considering sources that are discredited. It's also worth it if you know you're gonna have to take the source's word for things you can't individually fact-check yourself, such as a journalist reporting on an event (not the case when we have scripture that we can compare a given doctrine to).

So that's fine, but it isn't what I was addressing. The OP purports to be addressing the "errors" of "Calvinism", and what I take from that is that the OP has read the doctrine and wants to tell us what's wrong with it. Not the source, not the author, but the doctrine.

Now you say I misrepresented. I was very clear about what I did do. I said I had read the first five bullet points and I was addressing those. I didn't claim to have read the rest of the article and I didn't claim to be commenting on it--I was clear that I wasn't.

So, do you still want to claim that I misrepresented the content of those first five points? If so, why don't you quote my original post--the one where I explain my position--and rebut my actual arguments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Brethren,

The study on "The Errors of Calvinism," is an excellent article from beginning to ending in every area. The side-tracking of the issue on Calvin, ad horminem itself is, in my estimation, a futile effort to detract, side-tract, and cause a reader to doubt the veracity of the message of the article. The section on Calvin is only a brief, a very brief, background sketch that is instructive in itself.

8 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

Actually, I think an ad hominem attack would be like "Calvinism is wrong because Calvin is a jerk who eats worms." In other words, a personal attack that has nothing to do with the issues at hand. However, when dealing with Calvin's theological leanings and manner toward those who disagreed with him, I would say they are quite relevant.

Calvin may have left the RCC, but he acted like a pope, himself-he allowed no disagreement with him, and would imprison, torture, banish and kill those who disagreed with him, or even for lesser things, like being silly. Some kid stuck a bean in some Easter cake, (I don't remember the entire story off the top of my head), and Calvin had him put in prison for a few days. Calvin showed no sign of a Christian spirit of kindness and love-he ruled with an iron fist. So really, when dealing with associations and character, you CAN make some proper associations, and it should not be considered an ad hominem attack.

Also, the expression of the character of Calvin by Ukellemike, is excellent. Calvin was a Protestant Pope. Calvin had no grace or other Christian vitues in his life. Anybody who followes Calvin, or his works, is following a deluded individual who taught heretical doctrines, anti-semitic, had a filthy mouth (used curse words and had a demeaning vocabulary), and will be held accountable for blood on his hands. John Calvin was the instigatior of the death of Michael Servetus (another heretic). Here is a link: http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/michael-servetus.htm John Calvin has the blood of men on his hands.

Again, I want  to publicly commend Shadowfeathers sharing the excellent article on, "The Errors of Calvinism," by her pastor. It my estimation not one word of the article, "The Errors of Calvinism," should be changed or altered. In fact, I would suggest that all of the brethren copy the article, use it in church teaching services and promote it among the brethren.

Alan

Edited by Alan
grammer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Alan said:

The study on "The Errors of Calvinism," is an excellent article from beginning to ending in every area. The side-tracking of the issue on Calvin, ad horminem itself is, in my estimation, a futile effort to detract, side-tract, and cause a reader to doubt the veracity of the message of the article. The section on Calvin is only a brief, a very brief, background sketch that is instructive in itself.

Alan, I see in your comment above that you've made an assertion about my motives. You say I've attempted to "detract" from the article by introducing a side issue, as if I'm trying to bury the article and discourage the author.

What I did was begin at the beginning and give the author (or the OP) some feedback on their opening statements. I took pains to point out that I was doing no more than this, that I hadn't read all the article, and that I'd assumed the first five points were a summary of the rest--the reason being that articles do often begin by introducing the content that is to follow.

My motive was to give constructive feedback to the author/OP, and looking back over my original response I still think this intent is apparent from the tone and content.

Shadowfeathers could have responded with something like: "Please read on because the opening points don't actually cover the scope of the article. Since you thought they did, I might move them further down and put an introduction at the top, so thanks for the feedback!" Or something similar, which is what I would have done. I say this not to criticise Shadowfeathers--who has been polite throughout--but only to point out that an adversarial response to my words wasn't necessary.

It seems to be the mode of the forum these days: I try to give some constructive feedback and Alan paints it as if I'm doing a hatchet job to discourage and confound. And for the avoidance of doubt I think Calvinism/reformed doctrine is untrue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, Alimantado said:

 And for the avoidance of doubt I think Calvinism/reformed doctrine is untrue.

I do appreciate your last point very highly. Thank you for letting us know you position.

It seems to me that the lesson needs to be taken as a whole and not as a part. The first section, pertaining to Augustine and Calvin, was more a brief review of the main proponants of Calvinism which was necessary for the entire lesson. The lesson whould be incomplete without the introduction. And, in my opinion, since the doctrine of TULIP is a man-made doctrine, the individuals must be recognized as Paul clearly tells us in Romans 16;17, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

The writer of the article was the pastor of Shadowfeathers. And, he performed his obedience to the command of Paul to the letter and appropriatly. Also, as Ukelemike pointed out that it was relevant in bringing out the character of the individual who promoted this false doctrine. I also feel, whether wrong, or right, that I was appropriate in my response as it did detract from the article itself. Nor, did I mention you in particular but I mentioned the method of detracting from the thrust of the lesson.

Permit me to explain my motives. The method of using one small section of a lesson to throw doubt on the whole lesson is a common practice to detract from the main points. That is a common practice.

Edited by Alan
grammer and added phrase
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

After I finished the lastpost this thought came into mind. Maybe, just maybe, this may be a good time, and opportunity, since we have discussed the first point ad nauseam,  to discuss the remainder points of the lesson? It may help any rancor that has developed andmaybe we can move onto more edifying thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
58 minutes ago, Alan said:

I also feel, whether wrong, or right, that I was appropriate in my response as it did detract from the article itself. Nor, did I mention you in particular but I mentioned the method of detracting from the thrust of the lesson.

Firstly I object to it being called a 'detraction', which means to belittle or denigrate. Like I said before, I was trying to provide constructive criticism. You may diagree with the criticism, but that doesn't per se mean I was belittling anyone (and it's obvious from the tone of my post that I was not). And yes you did mention me because you labelled the matter a "futile effort to detract", and so by talking about effort you were talking about motive--my motive, because obviously I was the one who brought the matter up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Alan said:

Permit me to explain my motives. The method of using one small section of a lesson to throw doubt on the whole lesson is a common practice to detract from the main points. That is a common practice.

Sorry, I missed this last bit. The problem with accusing me of doing that (and you are accusing me, since you're talking about motive), is that I really clearly said in my first post that it was only a "quick response" to the "first few points". Now, I did say that I assumed those points were a summary of the rest of the article--but that wasn't me trying to cast doubt. On the contrary that was me admitting loud and clear that I hadn't checked, a "correct me if I'm wrong" statement, if you will. Had I wanted to mislead others into not reading the rest, I would've pretended that I had read all of it and was commenting on all of it.

And had you just told me that my assumption is wrong, and moreover my points are invalid because of reasons A,B,C I would've been fine with that--points taken and thanks for the correction. But instead you went further...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
21 hours ago, Alimantado said:

Well, while I'm no fan of strict dictionary definitions, for a term as technical as ad hominem I guess we should come up with one. Here's what my Oxford dictionary says: an argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

I think that definition fits what's going on above. If Calvinism is wrong then it's wrong because it's untrue in of itself, not because of what Calvin was like or what he did or didn't do. The acid test is: if you came across the doctrine but didn't know the author, you would still be able to see that it's in error. Therefore the life of Calvin is irrelevant to whether Calvinism is true.

I agree on the definition. I guess my point being, in matters of biblical doctrine, we must, as well, consider the character of the person who is putting forth such doctrines, to aid us. Its true that we can know doctrine is false regardless of whether we know who the author is, And really, its best that way, so we can be careful not to be lulled into careless appraisal of doctrine because we know the person and trust them. Case in point, someone showed me a sermon done by Spurgeon, (not on Calvinism), where he called Michael the Archangel, Jesus Christ. Now, while I disagree with Spurgeon on his Calvinist views, (though at least he believed strongly in witnessing), I generally agree in other areas. So that he would make such a statement was jarring, and his stamp of approval, as it were, on a false doctrine, could lure others into such falsehoods.

 In Calvin's case, we know from history that he was a wicked man with no grace, no compassion, no tolerance for anyone who held a belief different from his own-this is not to say that we ignore other doctrines and just get along, but he wasn't willing to really search the scriptures-he had his doctrine, his box for God, and rather than repudiate what he disagreed with, he would use force and torture to make others follow. Not godly. So, his life and character help, because can a man who shows no sign of regeneration, be trusted in ANY of his doctrines? If he has no leading of the Spirit in his daily walk, can we trust him to have it in his understanding of scripture?

That's all I'm saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Ukulelemike said:

I agree on the definition. I guess my point being, in matters of biblical doctrine, we must, as well, consider the character of the person who is putting forth such doctrines, to aid us. Its true that we can know doctrine is false regardless of whether we know who the author is, And really, its best that way, so we can be careful not to be lulled into careless appraisal of doctrine because we know the person and trust them. Case in point, someone showed me a sermon done by Spurgeon, (not on Calvinism), where he called Michael the Archangel, Jesus Christ. Now, while I disagree with Spurgeon on his Calvinist views, (though at least he believed strongly in witnessing), I generally agree in other areas. So that he would make such a statement was jarring, and his stamp of approval, as it were, on a false doctrine, could lure others into such falsehoods.

 In Calvin's case, we know from history that he was a wicked man with no grace, no compassion, no tolerance for anyone who held a belief different from his own-this is not to say that we ignore other doctrines and just get along, but he wasn't willing to really search the scriptures-he had his doctrine, his box for God, and rather than repudiate what he disagreed with, he would use force and torture to make others follow. Not godly. So, his life and character help, because can a man who shows no sign of regeneration, be trusted in ANY of his doctrines? If he has no leading of the Spirit in his daily walk, can we trust him to have it in his understanding of scripture?

That's all I'm saying. 

Very good points Mike--what immediately puts us on common ground is your statement that the character of the person can be analysed as well as the doctrines they put forth. I assumed the article wasn't going to do that--a wrong assumption, as Alan and Wretched have pointed out. In hindsight I can see I treated the original post as an article, where you might expect an introduction outlining the scope, instead of a set of sermon notes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
7 hours ago, Alimantado said:

Firstly I object to it being called a 'detraction', which means to belittle or denigrate. Like I said before, I was trying to provide constructive criticism. You may diagree with the criticism, but that doesn't per se mean I was belittling anyone (and it's obvious from the tone of my post that I was not). And yes you did mention me because you labelled the matter a "futile effort to detract", and so by talking about effort you were talking about motive--my motive, because obviously I was the one who brought the matter up.

Here is, American Heritage Dictionary meaning of, 'detract.' "To take away (from); divert:" And, that was the meaning that I had in my post. 'Detract does not mean to belittle or denigrate, nor did I have that meaning in my post. Nor did I mention you, nor mention anything that belittled you. I really think you misunderstood the meaning and my usage of the word detract. I cannot stop what you think, but, I want to clarify what the word 'detract' means and how I used it.

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.

 Share

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      First Post
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...