Jump to content

Photo

John Calvin Had It All Wrong


  • Please log in to reply
337 replies to this topic

#201 Miss Daisy

Miss Daisy

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,316 posts
475
Excellent
  • LocationUSA

Posted 26 July 2014 - 10:55 PM

Very true. I always wonder why my pastor quotes Spurgeon or anyone else or other than the Bible for that matter in his sermons.



#202 AVBibleBeliever

AVBibleBeliever

    A True AV Bible Believer

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,330 posts
288
Excellent
  • LocationCentral Virginia

Posted 27 July 2014 - 07:46 AM

Very true. I always wonder why my pastor quotes Spurgeon or anyone else or other than the Bible for that matter in his sermons.

And that Mis Daisy is why I said to study the Holy Scriptures and not go to men.


Edited by AVBibleBeliever, 27 July 2014 - 07:47 AM.


#203 Covenanter

Covenanter

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,019 posts
474
Excellent
  • LocationSouthall, West London, England

Posted 27 July 2014 - 09:53 AM

You don't preach the gospel to believers, you preach the gospel to unbelievers so they might believe. 

Yes, but in most gatherings unbelievers are present. In any case Paul was not there preaching, (in 1 Cor.) but reminding the Corinthian Christians the essentials of the Gospel, particularly the importance of the resurrection. In the early church there was a lot of confusion about the Gospel, as is clear from Acts (e.g. 15) & from the epistles. Peter didn't take your attitude:

 Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. 2 Peter 1:12-15

 

Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

 

What would be the purpose of preaching the gospel to someone who already believes? It would accomplish nothing. 

 As Peter says, to remind them & establish them in the truth, to prevent complacency or back-sliding. On a one-to-one basis, preaching repentance to a fellow believer may not be helpful. However, in a Gospel service, we expect that unbelievers will be present by invitation. Should we not preach repentance because believers are also present?      

 

Paul told unbelievers that Jesus died for "our" sins so they MIGHT believe. 

 

But you can't do that. 

I do preach that Jesus died for OUR sins, so that unbelievers present may respond with confidence in Jesus' atoning sacrifice. If they reject the Gospel at that time, they still know that when they come to Jesus in repentance, their sins will be forgiven.   

 

You are correct, it is not the same gospel. 

I cannot preach universal redemption. I do NOT believe that Jesus died for the sins of Judas, or Hitler, or Mohammed, etc. I DO believe that had they repented, they would have been forgiven through the blood of Jesus who died for them. Jesus' atoning sacrifice was sufficient for all mankind. However, it was specifically for the redeemed. Election excludes NO-ONE from the Gospel call, nor the command to repent, nor the personal guilt in refusing to repent. Nor does it give the Calvinist an excuse for not preaching the Gospel. Preaching is God's means of calling the elect to salvation.   

 

 

We do not know if it was God's will that Felix should come to repentance, believe the Gospel, and be saved. His convenient season frequently came to listen again to Paul. Acts 24:24-27 What we do know it was God's will that Paul should be kept in prison, to witness also to Agrippa & Festus, and to appeal to Caesar & so to travel to Rome to preach to the Emperor & his court. Whether these came to faith in Christ, we do not know. Scripture is silent, but we must learn from Scripture - dare ANY wait for a convenient season, & delay repentance.   

 

Do YOU believe Jesus died for Hitler's sins on the cross? Not just a general "Jesus died for everybody" but specifically for Hitler's sins?



#204 DaveW

DaveW

    Resident Aussie and general dumb bloke

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,380 posts
1,917
Excellent
  • LocationI'm a West Aussie

Posted 27 July 2014 - 10:09 AM

Again you avoid giving a proper answer and throw smokescreen info in.

Standard practice. .......

#205 Winman

Winman

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 130 posts
40
Excellent
  • LocationNW Connecticut

Posted 27 July 2014 - 10:10 AM

Yes, but in most gatherings unbelievers are present. In any case Paul was not there preaching, (in 1 Cor.) but reminding the Corinthian Christians the essentials of the Gospel, particularly the importance of the resurrection. In the early church there was a lot of confusion about the Gospel, as is clear from Acts (e.g. 15) & from the epistles. Peter didn't take your attitude

Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. 2 Peter 1:12-15

 

What a bunch of baloney. The purpose of preaching the gospel is so that unbelievers can hear it and believe and be saved. (Jhn 20:31) Yes, it is good for believers to hear the gospel again on occasion so that they stay sure in sound doctrine, but that is not the primary purpose of the gospel. 

 

I do preach that Jesus died for OUR sins, so that unbelievers present may respond with confidence in Jesus' atoning sacrifice. If they reject the Gospel at that time, they still know that when they come to Jesus in repentance, their sins will be forgiven.   

 

Yes, but you are only speaking to believers. Do you make sure to mention to the unbelievers that you are not sure if Jesus died for their sins or not? You don't want to be misleading do you? You don't want unbelievers to get the impression you are telling them Jesus assuredly died for THEIR sins do you? That wouldn't be completely honest would it? 

 

And if you were completely honest and told the unbelievers that you cannot say whether Jesus died for them personally, do you think they could respond in "confidence" to Jesus's atoning sacrifice?

 

I would be absolutely offended if someone preached to me like this. You Calvinists must believe people are stupid. 

 

I cannot preach universal redemption. I do NOT believe that Jesus died for the sins of Judas, or Hitler, or Mohammed, etc. I DO believe that had they repented, they would have been forgiven through the blood of Jesus who died for them. Jesus' atoning sacrifice was sufficient for all mankind. However, it was specifically for the redeemed. Election excludes NO-ONE from the Gospel call, nor the command to repent, nor the personal guilt in refusing to repent. Nor does it give the Calvinist an excuse for not preaching the Gospel. Preaching is God's means of calling the elect to salvation. 

 

Your view is nonsensical. Just because you believe something does not make it true. You could believe a gun is unloaded and put it to your head and pull the trigger, and if it is loaded it will blow your brains out no matter what you believe. 

 

If Jesus did not die for you personally, it doesn't matter if you believe he did, your faith is vain and you will perish in your sins. Paul showed this concept in 1 Corinthians 15;

 

1 Cor 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

 

Paul shows here that your personal belief does not determine reality. You might believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but if Jesus did not rise from the dead our faith is vain and we will all die in our sins. Why? Because Jesus had to ascend to heaven and sprinkle his blood on the mercy seat in heaven for our sins to be forgiven. 

 

But your faith does not determine reality. If Jesus did not die for you personally, your faith is vain and you will die in your sins. 

 

By the way, how DO you know Jesus died for you personally? Was your name on a list somewhere? Or did you simply convince yourself you are one of the few fortunate elect? 

 

That is the problem with Limited Atonement. If Jesus die not die for all men, you have no way of knowing if he died for YOU. 

 

And how can anybody have faith in a complete uncertainty?????? 


Edited by Winman, 27 July 2014 - 10:12 AM.


#206 Winman

Winman

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 130 posts
40
Excellent
  • LocationNW Connecticut

Posted 27 July 2014 - 10:16 AM

We do not know if it was God's will that Felix should come to repentance, believe the Gospel, and be saved. His convenient season frequently came to listen again to Paul. Acts 24:24-27 What we do know it was God's will that Paul should be kept in prison, to witness also to Agrippa & Festus, and to appeal to Caesar & so to travel to Rome to preach to the Emperor & his court. Whether these came to faith in Christ, we do not know. Scripture is silent, but we must learn from Scripture - dare ANY wait for a convenient season, & delay repentance.   

 

Do YOU believe Jesus died for Hitler's sins on the cross? Not just a general "Jesus died for everybody" but specifically for Hitler's sins?

 

You do not know if it was God's will that YOU should come to repentance if Limited Atonement is true. John Calvin taught that God himself deceives persons to believe they are elect when they in fact are not. According to Calvin, just because you believe you are elect does not make it so. 

 

How do you know you are elect? Was your name on a list somewhere?

 

You see, non-Cals can have confidence that Jesus assuredly died for us PERSONALLY. You cannot know that. 

 

And just because you believe you are elect does not make it so. 

 

And yes, I believe that Jesus died for Hitler's sins, and Judas Iscariot's sins as well. I believe Jesus died for all men's sins. 


Edited by Winman, 27 July 2014 - 10:19 AM.


#207 Winman

Winman

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 130 posts
40
Excellent
  • LocationNW Connecticut

Posted 27 July 2014 - 10:38 AM

Again you avoid giving a proper answer and throw smokescreen info in.

Standard practice. .......

 

Calvinism is founded on deception. Calvinist preachers will declare to unbelievers that Jesus died for "sinners", for the purpose of giving that person the false impression Jesus died for them personally, when the Calvinist preacher has no way to know if Jesus died for that person or not. Calvinists constantly play word games with people like this. 

 

If a Calvinist preacher was honest, he would tell people that Jesus only died for "some" sinners, and that he has no idea who those persons are. His listeners MIGHT be one of the fortunate people Jesus died for, but the higher probability is that they are not. 

 

And if a Calvinist preacher was REALLY forthcoming, he would tell you he is not even sure he is one of the fortunate elect. He thinks he is because he believes NOW, but he must endure and persevere to his last breath to know for sure. Even then he cannot know if his works were good enough to qualify him as a true believer. 

 

Truth is, a Calvinist cannot even know if he believes. A Calvinist is taught that an unregenerate person cannot understand or perform anything spiritual, so he has no idea what REAL saving belief is. Spiritual matters are all a big mystery to the Calvinist. Do I really believe? Who knows? How can I know?

 

Calvinism is designed to cause a person to doubt, not believe. 



#208 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,904 posts
5,460
Excellent

Posted 27 July 2014 - 12:28 PM

Considering that at least 90% of "Calvinists" I've ever known became so after salvation and study of the Word, and the fact "Calvinism" is growing (at least here in America), it seems a different approach might be beneficial for those who feel led to speak out against "Calvinism".

 

First of all, an approach of compassion with the goal of helping one understand Scripture would be much preferable to the most often used goal of name calling, denouncing, telling others what they think, and coming across as arrogant and only wanting to prove themselves right and others wrong (that approach serves no one). As Paul said, even if we are doing something seemingly right, if we are doing so without love it's meaningless.

 

Secondly, it would be helpful knowing who to engage in such discussions and when; as well as who to disengage from. There are some "Calvinists" who are only interested in arguing, only interested in proving their position right and others wrong. There is no point in arguing with these and there can be no discussion with them. Best to move on from them rather than risking casting pearls before swine. Those "Calvinists" who are open to biblically consider the issue are the ones that should be focused upon.

 

We aren't going to convince others to our position by conducting ourselves as uncaring brutes. We all too often forget about the important points of love, kindness, gentleness and such which the Lord can use to great effect when accompanied by His Word.

 

Third, we should remember it's the Holy Ghost that convicts, opens minds, softens hearts and transforms. We are to simply speak the truth in love and allow the Holy Ghost to do His work. It's not up to us to change others through our own force, loudness, brilliance of communication or any such thing.

 

Fourth, we need to be in much prayer and paying attention to the Spirit's leading so we can rightly do the other points.

 

These are all common biblical points we are called to live by regardless of the subject at hand. This doesn't only apply to aspects regarding "Calvinism" but to all things whether divorce, dress standards, alcohol, homosexuality, hair length, church leadership, etc.



#209 MatthewDiscipleOfGod

MatthewDiscipleOfGod

    Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 369 posts
143
Excellent

Posted 27 July 2014 - 01:08 PM

I normally would just send a PM but I would like to thank DaveW, Winman and others for speaking out against Calvinism. It is finding it's way into our churches and schools. We need to speak out boldly against these false teachings and not allow it to get it's foot in the door.



#210 heartstrings

heartstrings

    He shall feed his flock like a shepherd....

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,349 posts
1,164
Excellent

Posted 27 July 2014 - 01:44 PM

We do not know if it was God's will that Felix should come to repentance, believe the Gospel, and be saved. His convenient season frequently came to listen again to Paul. Acts 24:24-27 What we do know it was God's will that Paul should be kept in prison, to witness also to Agrippa & Festus, and to appeal to Caesar & so to travel to Rome to preach to the Emperor & his court. Whether these came to faith in Christ, we do not know. Scripture is silent, but we must learn from Scripture - dare ANY wait for a convenient season, & delay repentance.   

 

Do YOU believe Jesus died for Hitler's sins on the cross? Not just a general "Jesus died for everybody" but specifically for Hitler's sins?

The Bible says that Felix, "reasoned of temperance, righteousness, and judgment to come". Those three things are the "convincing" of the Holy Ghost who, the Bible also says, is God. So I would say, yes, it was God's will that Felix repent and believe the Gospel. But it was Felix who made the choice to say "go and come again at a more convenient time". To answer your question: Yes sir I believe Jesus died on the cross for every sin committed by and every atrocity ordered by Adolf Hitler. If Hitler is in Hell right this minute, it is because Hitler refused his last opportunity to repent of those sins and rejected Jesus. It was Hitler's choice.

 

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2

 

He is also the propitiation for your sin of teaching ''Calvinism''. But you, yourself make that choice not to repent of it. Repent means to "turn against" or "turn away".


Edited by heartstrings, 27 July 2014 - 01:52 PM.


#211 DaveW

DaveW

    Resident Aussie and general dumb bloke

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,380 posts
1,917
Excellent
  • LocationI'm a West Aussie

Posted 27 July 2014 - 06:13 PM

So John, if a Calvinist is clearly not interested in discussion we should just ignore him and let him post his trash without anyone pointing out the error?

#212 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,904 posts
5,460
Excellent

Posted 27 July 2014 - 06:42 PM

I wasn't speaking specifically to OB but more in the matter of the course of our lives.

 

That said, if a rabid "Calvinist" shows up pushing his view with no intent other than doing that and attacking any who oppose his view, there is really no need to engage them. Far better to simply report their postings and allow the Mods to deal with them.

 

At the same time, if one feels so led, they can post a general refutation or posting espousing their view on the matter without addressing the posting towards the rabid one or making any reference to them or their posting at all.

 

In these online encounters here it's best not to feed the trolls.



#213 Miss Daisy

Miss Daisy

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,316 posts
475
Excellent
  • LocationUSA

Posted 27 July 2014 - 10:47 PM

COVENANTOR IS A TROLL!!

 

WHY IS HE NOT BANNED MODERATORS?????

AFRAID OF OFFENDING HIM?

HE DOESN'T CARE IF HE OFFENDS MOST OF US!! WITH HIS VIEWS AND TWISTED LOGIC AND NEWS FROM AL JAZEERA!

 

WHAT'S THE QUOTE ABOUT GOOD MEN DOING NOTHING WHILE EVIL SPREADS????



#214 Covenanter

Covenanter

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,019 posts
474
Excellent
  • LocationSouthall, West London, England

Posted 28 July 2014 - 05:26 AM

COVENANTOR IS A TROLL!!

 

WHY IS HE NOT BANNED MODERATORS?????

AFRAID OF OFFENDING HIM?

HE DOESN'T CARE IF HE OFFENDS MOST OF US!! WITH HIS VIEWS AND TWISTED LOGIC AND NEWS FROM AL JAZEERA!

 

WHAT'S THE QUOTE ABOUT GOOD MEN DOING NOTHING WHILE EVIL SPREADS????

Our church begins our Holiday Bible Club at 1 p.m. today. It will run all week. Previous years we have up to 70 children, mostly from non-Christian families.

 

Later, I will be leading a Bible study with Asian friends, hopefully including a Muslim lady. I thought Hebrews 1:1 - 2:4 would be a suitable passage for a mixed gathering.

 

We have a number of choruses we can sing in both Punjabi & English. 



#215 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,904 posts
5,460
Excellent

Posted 28 July 2014 - 07:05 AM

Covenanter might be called a few different things but troll isn't one of them.

 

A troll is one who shows up on a forum for the one and only purpose of doing nothing but trying to force a pet peeve or agenda while denouncing all others.

 

Covenanter is a long-time member who engages in a wide variety of topics, often with the same basic view most others are posting. Indeed, like most of us, there are things he posts that all don't agree with; which necessarily means most of us at times post things he doesn't agree with.

 

Is Covenanter, or are we, posting things some folks disagree with in order to offend, or is it simply stating ones viewpoint?

 

Surely we don't have to agree on every political or geo-political point to fellowship with one another. Surely we can having differing political and geo-political views without it being an offense to one another.

 

No doubt there are a couple other, more important, points in which Covenanter's position differs from most here. While he states his view on these matters I've not noticed him trying to force anyone to adopt his view or telling them they aren't Christians because they disagree with him or such matters.

 

Knowing someone holds views one might not want to read about, in this case Covenanter, it's typically not that difficult to avoid reading their postings on the matter. There have been a few posters here over the years that on certain topics it was clear where they were going to go and not wanting to read all that again or rehash the issue, I simply avoided certain threads they were posting in or just worked around their postings.

 

Covenanter holds views I disagree with and some I'm not sure about, but over the years he's proven to be a brother in Christ and one who has much to offer in many areas.



#216 DaveW

DaveW

    Resident Aussie and general dumb bloke

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,380 posts
1,917
Excellent
  • LocationI'm a West Aussie

Posted 28 July 2014 - 07:18 AM

Yes he willingly and knowingly posts items that he knows are against the majority here and that he is certainly aware will cause offence.

#217 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,904 posts
5,460
Excellent

Posted 28 July 2014 - 07:29 AM

Why take offense just because someone has a different view? In this country that's the tactic of liberal Leftists trying to shut down anyone and anything they disagree with.

 

I don't know about you, but nobody checks with me first to see if something they plan to post will offend me. Not that it would matter because I'm not easily offended and I'm not afraid of differing viewpoints.

 

As some on here apparently do, if someone is that offended with a persons postings they can block them. Or, as I mentioned earlier, simply ignore their postings.

 

For instance, I wouldn't care if Israel decided to carpet bomb all of Gaza yet I know Covenanter would take an opposite view. I'm not offended by that and I don't mean to offend him by my view; it's a simple statement of my view.

 

As most of us here know, the news media has their own agenda and rarely simply report the facts. One can find news sources taking all sorts of views on a topic. If one posts a news item on Obama from Fox News and another from MSNBC it's likely those same stories will be conveyed very differently by each news organization. That leaves us to try and determine which news source is true or false or closest to the truth or to try and pick the truth out where we can.

 

So folks post news links saying different things. Some we accept, some we don't. Some we just ignore.

 

Now, if someone (Covenanter or anyone else) says we all have to take a certain specific position on this or that geo-political issue or we must not be a true Christian, then there arises a problem. However, simply putting forth a viewpoint most do or don't agree with isn't an offense.



#218 DaveW

DaveW

    Resident Aussie and general dumb bloke

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,380 posts
1,917
Excellent
  • LocationI'm a West Aussie

Posted 28 July 2014 - 07:36 AM

So its OK now to put up things that you know with certainty will cause offence?

What if someone posts pictures of scantily clad women?
He thinks it is Ok - just because it might offend someone else is no reason not to post them huh?

#219 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,904 posts
5,460
Excellent

Posted 28 July 2014 - 07:48 AM

Where did that come from?

 

Scantily clad women are clearly unbiblical while believing news reports that Israel has targeted civilians isn't.

 

Again, why take offense at a viewpoint different from your own? If we are going down that road then we will have to eliminate most postings here.

 

We should find it more offensive to have such a number of Christians posting in unkind, unloving, disrespectful manners towards one another. Yet this biblical point is overlooked or dismissed with a wave of the hand.

 

If you want your nation to bomb New Zealand and blockade the island and send in a quarter million troops I'm going to disagree with that (unless you can present compelling reasons for such) yet I'm not going to take offense. I'm also, hopefully, not going to show you disrespect as I disagree with you.



#220 DaveW

DaveW

    Resident Aussie and general dumb bloke

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,380 posts
1,917
Excellent
  • LocationI'm a West Aussie

Posted 28 July 2014 - 08:10 AM

When people post something they KNOW WILL BE OFFENSIVE they should be pulled up.
Regardless of the subject matter, if they post something THEY KNOW WILL BE OFFENSIVE they should be dealt with.

He does precisely that.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500