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.”
It’s Arminianism with an ‘I’, not an ‘e’.
You worship your free will.
I will worship the triune God, who saved me from my own free will.
“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!
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.
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.
“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?
“In reality, Calvin didn’t like theological competition.”
You’re full of assertions but you don’t have very many facts.
Thanks for your viewpoint. Is the CRC so bad?
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.
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.
I see that you are a newbie, so you wouldn’t have a clue about the hyper-Calvinists on FR.
“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.” “
“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!?
“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.
“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.
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.
Also, do not bring disputes from prior threads forward. If you wish to continue the dispute, do it on the prior thread.
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.
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.