Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Consider the Calvinists, What They Know
First Things ^ | 10/1/2013 | B. D. McClay

Posted on 10/02/2013 9:44:27 PM PDT by Alex Murphy

Calvinists get a bad rap, but how many of the critics really understand him? James R. Rogers points out how few of us read the Institutes or bother to think seriously about Calvin in today’s On the Square. Instead, we rely on easy stereotypes:

Some of the answer certainly derives from misunderstandings of Calvinism. I recall in elementary school my teacher instructing the class that when the Puritans sailed to America on ships, if someone fell off the ship into the water, the others would not attempt to save him, because they believed that God had predestined that person to drown. In trying to save that person from drowning, she said, the Puritans thought they would be opposing God’s will.

Read the rest here. Searching for some kind of definitive statement on this “letting people drown” business, I uncovered a Puritans subreddit. So, Puritan enthusiasts, there’s your link for the day. (Dorothy Bradford fell off the Mayflower and drowned, but so far I have not encountered an account of her fellow Puritans standing around and shrugging. The search continues.)

Sometimes, of course, people aren’t really reading Calvin even when they’re reading Calvin. Once in a seminar on the Institutes, I heard someone assert that Calvin’s thinking was based in a hatred of life. Calvin, he thought, wanted us to stew in self-hatred until we died. In response, someone read him this passage from “Of Christian Liberty”:

Certainly ivory and gold, and riches, are the good creatures of God, permitted, nay destined, by divine providence for the use of man; nor was it ever forbidden to laugh, or to be full, or to add new to old and hereditary possessions, or to be delighted with music, or to drink wine.

“Well,” said the critic, after a moment’s thought, “there’s just no way he could possibly mean that.”


TOPICS: Apologetics; History; Mainline Protestant; Theology
KEYWORDS: calvin
Sometimes, of course, people aren’t really reading Calvin even when they’re reading Calvin. Once in a seminar on the Institutes, I heard someone assert that Calvin’s thinking was based in a hatred of life. Calvin, he thought, wanted us to stew in self-hatred until we died. In response, someone read him this passage from “Of Christian Liberty”:

Certainly ivory and gold, and riches, are the good creatures of God, permitted, nay destined, by divine providence for the use of man; nor was it ever forbidden to laugh, or to be full, or to add new to old and hereditary possessions, or to be delighted with music, or to drink wine.

“Well,” said the critic, after a moment’s thought, “there’s just no way he could possibly mean that.”

1 posted on 10/02/2013 9:44:27 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Calvinism is the most absurd example of pathological heresy. It not only denies the existence of free will but it worships a merciless and brutal God. It actually believes that God would create human beings who would suffer for eternity as their predestined fate. There really is no role for grace and personal redemption.


2 posted on 10/02/2013 9:52:59 PM PDT by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allendale
I'm a Calvinist.....and I most certainly have a God given free will.

And I pray you will receive grace and redemption......and ask God's forgiveness.

3 posted on 10/02/2013 10:19:31 PM PDT by Guenevere (....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: allendale

“Calvinism is the most absurd example of pathological heresy. It not only denies the existence of free will but it worships a merciless and brutal God. It actually believes that God would create human beings who would suffer for eternity as their predestined fate.


And on the other hand, you believe in a powerless God, who lets people be born at random, wills what He cannot accomplish, and lets men perish at random, especially those born in lands where the Gospel was never preached, even to this day, as if he set the world in motion and, as Luther would say, went off to an Ethiopian dinner.

“There really is no role for grace and personal redemption”


Which goes to prove the point of the article, that very few people who criticize Calvinism (that is, Christianity) actually understand it. Isn’t your position exactly that God ‘s mercy, His grace, isn’t capable of saving anyone? We say that the grace of God is so potent, that, it is not of Him that wills, nor Him that runs, but God who has mercy, that we are effectually brought to salvation. That we, who are utterly unworthy, who, if God abandoned us without His grace, would do nothing but sin; yet, despite this, God deigned to save us, while we were yet sinners.

That, my friend, is grace. Not your self-righteous working and debt, which imagines that God rewards grace to those who earn it.


4 posted on 10/02/2013 10:32:20 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: allendale

You will need to condemn as pathological heretics Augustine, Anselm, Acquinas & Luther too, who all believed Jesus meant it when He said: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last.” (John 15:16)

Also you must condemn the earliest Baptists, Congregationalists, Independents, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Reformeds, and the great majority of early Americans up through the 1700s as “pathological heretics.”

Choose a happy life then!


5 posted on 10/02/2013 10:33:12 PM PDT by AnalogReigns (Real life is ANALOG!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Guenevere

Calvinism and Armenianism both have the same problem, they just open the box at opposite ends.

5 point Calvinism denies the reality of choice and Armenianism denies the sovereignty of God. The real truth is that one of the proofs (somewhat paradoxically)of Christianity is that it can’t be explained. While the concepts of predestination are clearly taught in the Bible so is the doctrine that our choices, our prayers and actions actually matter. The only two religions that share this quandary are Christianity and Judaism.

Islam is highly fatalistic (Allah does what he will and we must submit). Eastern religions like Hinduism/Buddhism are works based and it is even sometimes said that Buddhism does not require a god at all because the Karmic wheel could simply be an almost mechanical process and you are just getting what you deserve for your actions.

Both Christians and Jews say “Yes God is in absolute control but yes it matters what we do and how we live and your choices matter.” The two are mutually exclusive of each other but both are true. It is something that Christians can spiritually see and experience at a very basic level but cannot be explained. The error of both Calvinism and Armenianism is looking at only one side of the coin.

If I could explain it any better than that there would be a statue of my balding, somewhat portly likeness in front at least one seminary somewhere.

But then what do I know? I’m a fideist in a lot of these areas


6 posted on 10/02/2013 10:41:12 PM PDT by Fai Mao (Genius at Large)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Guenevere
I'm more of a Hobbesian:


7 posted on 10/02/2013 11:02:05 PM PDT by Defiant (A rainbow curtain has descended upon the west, from Munich to San Francisco.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: allendale
It's like an evil robot-maker God who creates robots who are programmed to either do good or do evil. These robots are then programmed for what deeds they will do.

So they are "destined" by the robot-make to do evil and when they DO do evil, then the robot-maker laughs and says "you will get eternal torment for doing what I programmed you to do'

8 posted on 10/02/2013 11:05:48 PM PDT by Cronos (Obama’s dislike of Assad is not based on Assad’s brutality but that he isn't a jihadi Moslem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: allendale; alphadog; infool7; Heart-Rest; HoosierDammit; red irish; fastrock; NorthernCrunchyCon; ..

Calvinism is the most absurd example of pathological heresy. It not only denies the existence of free will but it worships a merciless and brutal God. It actually believes that God would create human beings who would suffer for eternity as their predestined fate. There really is no role for grace and personal redemption.


9 posted on 10/02/2013 11:07:54 PM PDT by narses (... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao; Guenevere; allendale
Sorry, but "A denies the sovereignty of God." is incorrect. That philosophy holds that God governs the entire universe and nothing happens sans God’s permission -- many things are specifically and directly controlled and caused by God.

God permits evil and limits it without willing or causing it.

Between Calvinism and Arminianism is the definition of sovereignty. For the Calvinists: sovereignty means meticulous control, super control, like the ultimate police state from 1984 while for Arminians, God’s sovereignty necessarily means His complete freedom and authority to act any way He so wills.

10 posted on 10/02/2013 11:19:58 PM PDT by Cronos (Obama’s dislike of Assad is not based on Assad’s brutality but that he isn't a jihadi Moslem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

I think it would be fair to say that Calvin didn’t experience much joy in his life; and neither did those who lived under his tyranny.


11 posted on 10/02/2013 11:28:20 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Guenevere; allendale
I'm a Calvinist.....and I most certainly have a God given free will. And I pray you will receive grace and redemption......and ask God's forgiveness.

Based on this statement you are a Spurgeon type Calvinist rather than a hyper-Calvinists like many Calvinists on freerepublic.

12 posted on 10/02/2013 11:31:04 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

The more extreme versions of Armenianism do deny the Sovereignty of God when they state it is possible to lose ones salvation inadvertently, when they claim that it is possible to earn salvation or live a holy live through human effort.

You are right and I do not disagree. I was focusing upon the hard line T.U.L.I.P Calvinist who do exemplify the stereotype and some of what might be called “Ubber pentecostals” like the Churches of God (which in addition to being Armenian are Modalist and thus limit the power of God.


13 posted on 10/02/2013 11:34:06 PM PDT by Fai Mao (Genius at Large)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: allendale

Ding-ding-ding - we have a winner!

Beat a man with a club and win over his heart award!

Must be an author of “How to convince a man in 4 easy sentences!” living the life of great violent joy.

Don’t help a man discover the truth, KICK him down with it and stomp him.

What’s wrong with the world? I am.


14 posted on 10/03/2013 1:25:34 AM PDT by If You Want It Fixed - Fix It
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
Actually I should have put it another, better way....

I am a Christian and I follow Christ...

.....Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards, etc. are great men of God of whom I revere.
And I acknowledge the Westminster Confession.

15 posted on 10/03/2013 4:01:42 AM PDT by Guenevere (....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
How does that differ from Bartism? bart simpson photo: bart-simpson bart-simpson.jpg
16 posted on 10/03/2013 5:23:51 AM PDT by Morgana (Always a bit of truth in dark humor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao

I did not know that about the CoG — they are Modalists?


17 posted on 10/03/2013 5:46:08 AM PDT by Cronos (Obama’s dislike of Assad is not based on Assad’s brutality but that he isn't a jihadi Moslem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Morgana; Guenevere

Morgana, do you and Guenevere know each other?


18 posted on 10/03/2013 7:54:35 AM PDT by Defiant (A rainbow curtain has descended upon the west, from Munich to San Francisco.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Guenevere

I greatly admire Spurgeon’s. Calvin, not really. Calvin was an egotistical tyrant who was responsible for the murder of Servitus simply because he disagreed on a few theological points.


19 posted on 10/03/2013 11:22:20 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

There are quite a number of “Church of God” denominations/movements. Need to be much more specific about which one to which you make a reference.

The Church of God, Anderson, IN is very Biblically based. No one would call it a Calvinistic church, but there are many families in my local COG that are members who used to belong to the Christian Reformed Church, including me.

One older guy was fond of saying, “I was raised in the CRC, but praise God, I got saved.”


20 posted on 10/03/2013 11:30:41 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao

It’s Arminianism with an ‘I’, not an ‘e’.


21 posted on 10/03/2013 11:33:45 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: allendale

You worship your free will.

I will worship the triune God, who saved me from my own free will.


22 posted on 10/03/2013 11:35:19 AM PDT by Gamecock (Many Atheists take the stand: "There is no God AND I hate Him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan; Gamecock; Alex Murphy; All

“Based on this statement you are a Spurgeon type Calvinist rather than a hyper-Calvinists like many Calvinists on freerepublic.”


It’s comments like these that really demonstrate just how little people actually know what they’re talking about when they unleash their vile statements against Christians. Case and point, Spurgeon is a 5-point Calvinist and has absolutely no difference in doctrine or attitude between Calvin. Though you, not knowing the difference between a Calvinist and an actual HyperCalvinist, or Calvin and those wretches, would like to pretend that Calvinism proper is HYPER and therefore would like to damn every one of us on FR!

First, Spurgeon on Calvin:

“Among all those who have been born of women, there has not risen a greater than John Calvin.” (C. H. Spurgeon, Autobiography, Vol. II: The Full Harvest)

On Calvinism:

“And I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in his dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering, love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the peculiar redemption which Christ made for his elect and chosen people; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having believed. Such a gospel I abhor. The gospel of the Bible is not such a gospel as that. We preach Christ and him crucified in a different fashion, and to all gainsayers we reply, “We have not so learned Christ.” (Sermon number 98 New Park Street Pulpit 1:100)

“Did you say that such-and- such a thing is believed by you because you found it in Calvin’s Institutes? I am a Calvinist, and a lover of that grand man’s memory and doctrine; but I believe nothing merely because Calvin taught it, but because I have found his teaching in the Word of God.” (Sermon number 2584 Metropolitan Tabernacle 44:517)

“Do you know that John Calvin wrote his famous “Institutes” — a most wonderful production for thought if not for accuracy — before he was twenty-seven years of age?” (Unusual Occasions p95)

“The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox’s gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again. — C. H. S.” (Defence of Calvinism)

“But is it not all idle talk, even to controvert for a single moment, with the absurd idea that man can fetter his Maker. Shall the purpose of the Eternal be left contingent on the will of man?” (6:244)

“This election of God is sovereign. He chooseth as he will. Who shall call him to account? “Can I not do as I will with my own?” is his answer to every caviller. “Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” is the solemn utterance that silences every one who would impugn the justice of the Most High. He has a right, seeing we are all criminals, to punish whom he will. As king of the universe he doubtless acts with discretion, but still according to his sovereignty. Wisely not wantonly he rules, but ever according to the counsel of his own will. Election, then, is sovereign.” (51:63)

“It is no novelty, then, that I am-preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines, which are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus. By this truth I make a pilgrimage into the past, and as I go, I see father after father, confessor after confessor, martyr after martyr, standing up to shake hands with me. Were I a Pelagian, or a believer in the doctrine of free-will, I should have to walk for centuries all alone. Here and there a heretic of no very honorable character might rise up and call me brother. But taking these things to be the standard of my faith, I see the land of the ancients peopled with my brethren-I behold multitudes who confess the same as I do, and acknowledge that this is the religion of God’s own church.” (Sermon on Election 1:551)

Against Conditional Election:

“I come to the hardest part of my task this morning — Election in its justice. Now, I shall defend this great fact, that God has chosen men to himself, and I shall regard it from rather a different point of view from that which is usually taken. My defence is just this. You tell me, if God has chosen some men to eternal life, that he has been unjust. I ask you to prove it. The burden of the proof lies with you. For I would have you remember that none merited this at all. Is there one man in the whole world who would have the impertinence to say that he merits anything of his Maker? If so, be it known unto you that he shall have all he merits; and his reward will be the flames of hell for ever, for that is the utmost that any man ever merited of God. God is in debt to no man, and at the last great day every man shall have as much love as much pity, and as much goodness, as he deserves.”(Sermon on Election 6:244)

“’But,’ say others, “God elected them on the foresight of their faith.” Now, God gives faith, therefore he could not have elected them on account of faith, which he foresaw. There shall be twenty beggars in the street, and I determine to give one of them a shilling; but will any one say that I determined to give that one a shilling, that I elected him to have the shilling, because I foresaw that he would have it? That would be talking nonsense. In like manner to say that God elected men because he foresaw they would have faith, which is salvation in the germ, would be too absurd for us to listen to for a moment. Faith is the gift of God. Every virtue comes from him. Therefore it cannot have caused him to elect men, because it is his gift.” (1:557)

Now, I have a good theory on why you say these strange things, as if Spurgeon was somehow a different type of Calvinist than Calvin. It’s because of the man’s holiness, which is so obvious to all those who hear his sermons, that it does not fit with your unholy prejudice. Therefore, out of necessity, men must imagine that Spurgeon was somehow “not really a Calvinist” in order to continue in the vile things they say.

As for Calvin and Servetus, ever hear about a thing called HISTORICAL CONTEXT? Servetus was a heretic who denied the trinity, despite warnings and many corrections. Back in those days, that was worthy of capital punishment. Everybody wanted a piece of Servetus, not just Calvin. In fact, the Papists already had a death warrant on him. At the very least, Calvin preferred that he be beheaded over being burned alive at the stake. For a man of that century, that’s got to be worth something!


23 posted on 10/03/2013 5:31:49 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

Maybe you should learn to read. I said the individual was a Spurgeon type Calvinist. It is also a factually correct statement to say that many FR Calvinists are hyper-Calvinists.

Here is a quick test for you. Do you believe that God desires that ALL men be saved? I’ll have a response once you answer.


24 posted on 10/03/2013 9:38:01 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

Also, Calvin had someone else accuse Servitus because in those times, the accuser was also placed in prison along with the accused when someone was charged; and Calvin didn’t want to inconvenience himself by being placed in prison. That is an undisputed fact.

As it is, you are justifying Calvin putting a man to death for a believe. In reality, Calvin didn’t like theological competition. Would Jesus have put Servitus to death for his statements? Absolutely not. The fact is, Calvin was murderer., To excuse his behavior is no different than Nazis murdering Jews in the WW II concentration camps.


25 posted on 10/03/2013 9:43:07 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

“Maybe you should learn to read. I said the individual was a Spurgeon type Calvinist.”


I read it perfectly. Apparently you didn’t read what I said, because if you did, you would know to be ashamed to repeat such a phrase, since it’s basically like saying “He’s a Calvinist type of Calvinist,” and that your hatred towards Christians who hold these doctrines is unfounded.

“It is also a factually correct statement to say that many FR Calvinists are hyper-Calvinists.”


If it’s factually correct, then prove it. Please show me who these hyper-calvinists are, and please explain what MAKES them “hyper”.

“Here is a quick test for you.”


I think you can guess my answer on that(here’s a hint, it’s the same as SPURGEONS, the one I just QUOTED on the same BLOODY SUBJECT as he was AFFIRMING Limited Atonement and denying Conditional election). But before you troll me on the matter, can you please define what a HyperCalvinist is, and how they differ from Calvinists like Spurgeon and myself?


26 posted on 10/03/2013 10:07:14 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

“In reality, Calvin didn’t like theological competition.”


You’re full of assertions but you don’t have very many facts.


27 posted on 10/03/2013 10:10:17 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
“I was raised in the CRC, but praise God, I got saved.”

Thanks for your viewpoint. Is the CRC so bad?

28 posted on 10/03/2013 10:13:45 PM PDT by Cronos (Obama’s dislike of Assad is not based on Assad’s brutality but that he isn't a jihadi Moslem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

I was not accusing you of being a hyper-Calvinist. You may or may not be one; but they do exist.

I am a Christian, and I don’t hate anyone who is a Calvinists. It is the hyper-Calvinism that I detest; and so did Spurgeon.

link to an excellent article on hyper-Calvinism by a very respected Calvinist:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

As for my question to you, “Do you believe that God desires that all men be saved?”, you say your answer is the same as Spurgeons. So, is that a “yes” or a “no”? It’s a simple question that you should be able to answer.


29 posted on 10/03/2013 10:24:03 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

That was not my statement. It was a statement of one of my friends who grew up in the CRC, and he is not a young man by any means.


30 posted on 10/03/2013 10:25:20 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

I see that you are a newbie, so you wouldn’t have a clue about the hyper-Calvinists on FR.


31 posted on 10/03/2013 10:27:02 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

“I was not accusing you of being a hyper-Calvinist. You may or may not be one; but they do exist.”


Your arrogance is breathtaking. You just got done damning the Calvinists on FR as “Hyper-Calvinists,’ you then give me a link from Spurgeon defining Hyper-Calvinists, which basically renders no one on this forum as Hyper-Calvinists.

So which FR Posters, presumably hiding somewhere and who don’t post much, are these HyperCalvinists? And can you please tell me, in YOUR words, what a Hyper Calvinist is? Because I suspect you don’t even agree with Spurgeon on what they are.

“So, is that a “yes” or a “no”? It’s a simple question that you should be able to answer.”


What do you think “limited atonement” even means? It means that salvation is limited only to the elect, and is not “willed’ (in His secret counsel) or given to anyone else! (Otherwise, it would happen.) Are you going to try to claim that 5-Point Calvinists are all HYPER?

(You might want to read your own link:)

“Lest anyone wonder where my own convictions lie, I am a Calvinist. I am a five-point Calvinist, affirming without reservation the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. And when I speak of hyper-Calvinism, I am not using the term as a careless pejorative. I’m not an Arminian who labels all Calvinism “hyper.” “


32 posted on 10/03/2013 10:30:16 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

“I see that you are a newbie, so you wouldn’t have a clue about the hyper-Calvinists on FR.”


How can you look at yourself in the mirror with this kind of behavior? SHOW ME THE FR POSTER WHO IS A HYPER-CALVINIST. SHOW ME THE FACTS THAT YOU CLAIM YOU HAVE. I’ve been posting here for months now, debating Calvinism, debating Catholics, chatting with all the Calvinists on this forum who post anywhere. WHO is it? Who is the Dark Lord of the Sith!?


33 posted on 10/03/2013 10:32:06 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: SeaHawkFan; Alex Murphy; RnMomof7; drstevej

“Alex Murphy is a hyper-Calvinist”


I bet Alex would be surprised to hear it! How come you didn’t ping him? Afraid?

“but Rnmomof7 is even more-so”


I don’t know him, but I’m sure he’d be interested to know that someone is bad mouthing him randomly in a thread and not pinging him to it! (Ditto for the Dr.)

“At one time she had a statement on her FR home page that Billy Graham taught a false Gospel.”


Doesn’t help how the Graham clan kisses the RCC’s butt (they even directed lax Catholic “converts” back to Roman Parishes!) and, more recently, Mormonism!

“...even though he claimed not to be one.”


Honestly, that’s all I needed to hear. From your link:

“Lest anyone wonder where my own convictions lie, I am a Calvinist. I am a five-point Calvinist, affirming without reservation the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. And when I speak of hyper-Calvinism, I am not using the term as a careless pejorative. I’m not an Arminian who labels all Calvinism “hyper.””

Want to know what else is missing from your maddening post? You didn’t even explain what a ‘hyper Calvinist’ even IS, and what sets them apart from 5-point Calvinists.

“You have still not answered the question,”


Uh yes, yes I did. And I wasn’t even playing games with you either. I suspect the problem is your unfamiliarity with the people you are damning, and not that my answer about God not WILLING ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ELECT to be saved, wasn’t clear or something.


35 posted on 10/03/2013 10:59:01 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

To: SeaHawkFan

“Spurgeon preached that God desires that all men be saved”


“It is quite certain that when we read that God will have all men to be saved it does not mean that he wills it with the force of a decree or a divine purpose, for, if he did, then all men would be saved. He willed to make the world, and the world was made: he does not so will the salvation of all men, for we know that all men will not be saved.” (Spurgeon, Salvation by Knowing the Truth)

“By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of His glorious grace. Others are left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of His glorious justice.
(The Baptist Confession of Faith -the 2nd London Baptist Confession with slight revisions by Spurgeon- Ch.3 - God’s Decree, par. 3)

“and because of that fact, the double predestination that all the individuals I mentioned hold to are, by definition, hyper-Calvinists.”


This is why I say that the opponents of Calvinism are barely rational. You can’t just go redefining things to fit your prejudices. Double Predestination is the doctrine of Luther, Calvin, and all the Reformers, which Spurgeon praised. If double predestination makes a person a hyper-Calvinist, then everyone from Christ, to Paul, to Augustine, to Spurgeon himself, are Hyper-Calvinists (and the world has never known a lesser!).

The real problem here is that you do not know the Reformed Doctrine of Double Predestination, and what exists in your mind is merely a shadow of it, twisted by your theological requirements to deny the inevitable:

That no one can believe, unless it is given to them by the Father.


37 posted on 10/03/2013 11:30:50 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao

Start with basics.

Volition is one of 4 known institutions established by God for believers and unbelievers.

God also has Volition. His Volition is known as His Sovereignty.

Salvation is by His grace not by our works, i.e. it isn’t a debt owed us by God for being good or just or lacking evil.

We are saved by faith.

Faith is His good work in us.

Before we are saved, we are condemned. Every believer was originally in a state of condemnation prior to salvation (except Christ, who it might be argued became sin for us, condemned, bore the price, then was given grace and resurrected and later ascended as the First Fruits.)

We, our souls, have volitional responsibility. We will be held accountable for our volitional choices.

When we choose to accept faith in Christ, it is God’s work in us and we recognize and accept it. He regenerates our human spirit. We lack that faculty and have no means to create it. He saves us by His grace. We have done nothing to merit salvation when He gives it. He gives it by His Volition, His Sovereign decision.


38 posted on 10/04/2013 1:41:07 AM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

Also, do not bring disputes from prior threads forward. If you wish to continue the dispute, do it on the prior thread.

39 posted on 10/04/2013 8:02:20 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

I answered a question that was asked. Was not trying ro make it personal. Have no animosity towards anyone on FR aside from one person who was banned a number of years ago.


40 posted on 10/04/2013 11:34:14 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

Never said all five point Calvinists were hyper, but Spurgeon and Johnson state that they exist and are a danger to the speading of the Gospel.

I stand with Johnson and Spurgeon.


41 posted on 10/04/2013 1:42:57 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

“I stand with Johnson and Spurgeon”


Pfffft, you keep telling yourself that. What things men delude themselves with is none of my concern.


42 posted on 10/04/2013 2:41:39 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao
5 point Calvinism denies the reality of choice and Armenianism denies the sovereignty of God. The real truth is that one of the proofs (somewhat paradoxically)of Christianity is that it can’t be explained. While the concepts of predestination are clearly taught in the Bible so is the doctrine that our choices, our prayers and actions actually matter. The only two religions that share this quandary are Christianity and Judaism....

Both Christians and Jews say “Yes God is in absolute control but yes it matters what we do and how we live and your choices matter.” The two are mutually exclusive of each other but both are true. It is something that Christians can spiritually see and experience at a very basic level but cannot be explained. The error of both Calvinism and Armenianism is looking at only one side of the coin.


While we can't know the mind of God...

consider this from the human perspective then consider from God's perspective.

My "sinking ship" example: You're a passenger on a sinking ship, and the crew says that it's hopeless, no other ships in sight, not enough lifeboats, will sink in 30 minutes. Do you give up and go down with the ship ? No, everyone tries to get in a lifeboat or find something floating to cling to. Ship sinks. You wait, floating on something. Do you give up trying to survive ? No, there could be rescue coming over the horizon in minutes - at any time.

We as humans don't know what God has in store for us, but God knows what he has in store for us. We can't make it so that a ship comes over the horizon and saves us, but God can; there may have been a ship coming all along that the crew did not know about.

We can't think of God's perspective being the same as our perspective if we are to understand.

The Bible tells us that men are "without excuse" (Rom. 1:20). How can we be without excuse if we have no free will ? Thus we have a source of confusion when jointly considering both God's sovereignty and our responsibility.

Such confusion reveals a basic misunderstanding of the whole counsel of God.

Scripture contains multiple concepts relating to man's responsibility and God's sovereignty that come to bear all at once; one concept cannot be considered without the rest and yield an honest understanding. What we say and do is our "fruit"; if we are saved, God's Holy Spirit dwells within us, thus we can't boast of our good works, as they are the fruit of the Spirit. Absent the indwelling, a man's works are the fruit of his sinful self (i.e., doctrine of original sin). Jesus' parables speaking about "fruit" teach on this subject.

Christ commands our obedience (John 14:15), the true believer finds themselves desiring to be obedient to God's Word (Heb 5:9, Rom 6, Matt 7). Meanwhile, the children of disobedience (Eph 2:2, Eph 5:6, Col 3:6) do as they will.
43 posted on 10/04/2013 7:11:57 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson