Jump to content

Photo

John Calvin Had It All Wrong


  • Please log in to reply
337 replies to this topic

#161 Alimantado

Alimantado

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,430 posts
252
Excellent

Posted 23 July 2014 - 06:54 AM

I spent the first five years out of Bible college reading and refuting what Calvinist teach.  But of course you knew that already because you are gifted with insight on where each of us are at in our personal walk.

 

AVBB, you make a sarcastic comment here about me apparently presuming to know where each of us are in our walk with God, yet the only one of us two who has been making statements about another's walk is you about me, in post 150. As for the article, everyone's got their own article that they insist everyone else reads--so far I've read Linda's and dipped into Calvary's so it's not as if I'm not trying. I will try to get to yours.



#162 LindaR

LindaR

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,115 posts
467
Excellent

Posted 23 July 2014 - 06:58 AM

Why does it seem everyone is missing the very simple point Alimantado is trying to make?

 

The entire point is simply knowing what the person we are talking with is actually trying to say. If we simply go by an assumption, if we happen to be right with this person the conversation may go well but if we happen to be wrong then the potential for a good conversation is likely ruined.

 

Alimantado isn't arguing for or against any particular aspect of Calvinism; only that we need to know where the person we are talking with is coming from, what they mean when they use a particular word or phrase, so we can best know how to proceed in talking with them.

If Alimantado would read that entire article he would not have to try so hard to understand what R. C. Sproul believes about regeneration.  But instead, he made a very hasty assumption about what I quoted...and then bolded a portion of my post that I guess he was trying to emphasize. 

If he isn't arguing, why is he jumping all over me about a simple quote without reading the context of the article himself?



#163 Alimantado

Alimantado

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,430 posts
252
Excellent

Posted 23 July 2014 - 07:12 AM

First, I have read it. You asked me if I've read it and I've confirmed that I have. Second, what I did was ask a question about one of your premises, not make an assumption about it. And I don't think I'm jumping all over you. If someone makes an argument, even inviting others to comment by phrasing it as a question, then what's wrong with examining that argument, including testing the premises? It's just a discussion.



#164 Standing Firm In Christ

Standing Firm In Christ

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,033 posts
1,151
Excellent
  • LocationSee Bio

Posted 23 July 2014 - 07:20 AM

T.U.L.I.P. is a lie that originated with the devil and believed by people who are easily deceived.

#165 Alimantado

Alimantado

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,430 posts
252
Excellent

Posted 23 July 2014 - 07:23 AM

I think this discussion is turning into more heat than light so I'm going to bow out at this point. Thanks in particular to Calvary, Dave and Winman for some enlightening points. Winman, sorry I've not been able to respond to your much earlier post about evanescent grace--really enjoyed it though as I didn't know anything about this aspect of Calvinism.

 

Ta



#166 AVBibleBeliever

AVBibleBeliever

    A True AV Bible Believer

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,297 posts
285
Excellent
  • LocationCentral Virginia

Posted 23 July 2014 - 09:05 AM

I think this discussion is turning into more heat than light so I'm going to bow out at this point. Thanks in particular to Calvary, Dave and Winman for some enlightening points. Winman, sorry I've not been able to respond to your much earlier post about evanescent grace--really enjoyed it though as I didn't know anything about this aspect of Calvinism.

 

Ta

that is why it is a waste of time.  I have been down the road you are now traveling.  These things can be discussed and depending on what you are trying to prove by discussing it you need to find the right Website.  I do not believe there are Calvinist here and you seem to be pro Calvinism.



#167 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 17,536 posts
1,920
Excellent

Posted 23 July 2014 - 09:27 AM

There was no jumping done, but there sure have been some assumptions made.  And wrong ones, to boot.

 

Let's get back to topic and stop making this personal.  



#168 Invicta

Invicta

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,424 posts
551
Excellent
  • LocationWhitstable, Kent, England

Posted 23 July 2014 - 11:14 AM

They define regeneration as God making a person alive so that they may then believe and be saved.

 

I have never defined it as that, or believed it and I have never heard anyone mention it till someone posted it on here.

 

We believe in five solas 



#169 Standing Firm In Christ

Standing Firm In Christ

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,033 posts
1,151
Excellent
  • LocationSee Bio

Posted 23 July 2014 - 11:25 AM

The word "regeneration" in Titus 3:5 is translated from the Greek "palengenesea.  When applied to man, as in the verse in Titus, it means... New Birth.

New Birth does not precede faith in Christ.  He that believeth not is condemned already (John 3:18)


Edited by Standing Firm In Christ, 23 July 2014 - 11:32 AM.


#170 mkrishna

mkrishna

    Advanced Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPip
  • 79 posts
46
Excellent
  • LocationChicago, IL

Posted 23 July 2014 - 11:38 AM

The Calvinists associate spiritual death with physical death. However, you have to hear the word of God in order to repent and believe. According to their logic, if spiritual death is physical death, how can anyone who is dead hear the word? Also, many unbelievers understand the Gospel but reject. How can they do so according to their theology that one who is dead cannot understand the Gospel?? They would have to take the view that someone hears the word and understands it after they are saved, spiritually alive.



#171 Invicta

Invicta

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,424 posts
551
Excellent
  • LocationWhitstable, Kent, England

Posted 23 July 2014 - 12:40 PM

The Calvinists associate spiritual death with physical death. However, you have to hear the word of God in order to repent and believe. According to their logic, if spiritual death is physical death, how can anyone who is dead hear the word? Also, many unbelievers understand the Gospel but reject. How can they do so according to their theology that one who is dead cannot understand the Gospel?? They would have to take the view that someone hears the word and understands it after they are saved, spiritually alive.

 

Joh 5:25  Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.



#172 Standing Firm In Christ

Standing Firm In Christ

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,033 posts
1,151
Excellent
  • LocationSee Bio

Posted 23 July 2014 - 12:56 PM

All will hear His voice and live. 

Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.



#173 mkrishna

mkrishna

    Advanced Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPip
  • 79 posts
46
Excellent
  • LocationChicago, IL

Posted 23 July 2014 - 01:45 PM

This throws out the idea that the unsaved cannot believe and repent and be saved. The Bible does not define spiritual death in these terms.



#174 Winman

Winman

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 23 July 2014 - 03:47 PM

I think this discussion is turning into more heat than light so I'm going to bow out at this point. Thanks in particular to Calvary, Dave and Winman for some enlightening points. Winman, sorry I've not been able to respond to your much earlier post about evanescent grace--really enjoyed it though as I didn't know anything about this aspect of Calvinism.

 

Ta

Yes, John Calvin taught that God himself sends a strong delusion meant to deceive a sinner to believe that he has true faith in Jesus and is saved, but this person will finally fall away in unbelief. Calvin taught the purpose of this deception was "the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse". Nice.

 

I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprobate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for though none are enlightened into faith, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are fore-ordained to salvation, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. Should it be objected, that believers have no stronger testimony to assure them of their adoption, I answer, that though there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith, yet the elect alone have that full assurance which is extolled by Paul, and by which they are enabled to cry, Abba, Father. Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate. Meanwhile, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest carnal security creep in and take the place of assurance of faith. We may add, that the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying it by special faith to their use. Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.

 

http://www.spurgeon....in/bk3ch02.html

 

Nice huh? God gives some persons just enough grace to believe they are saved, but in the end he allows them to perish. In fact, God deceives these persons "better to convict them, and leave them without excuse". Nice view of God John Calvin had didn't he?? 

 

The problem with trying to discuss anything with Calvinists is that they don't really say anything. Whenever they say something, they will immediately contradict themselves. They will say God ordained all things that come to pass, yet God is not the author sin. Yet, if you ask them if Ted Bundy could have been a good man and not a serial killer they will say, NO, God ordained that Ted Bundy would be a serial killer before the foundation of the world. Ted Bundy could not possibly have been a good man, he HAD to kill people, as that is what God ordained he should do. But then they will tell you God is not the author of sin. So, they constantly contradict themselves. They really say NOTHING at all. This is what DaveW meant by "doublespeak". They talk out of both sides of their mouth, you can't get anywhere with any of them. 



#175 mkrishna

mkrishna

    Advanced Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPip
  • 79 posts
46
Excellent
  • LocationChicago, IL

Posted 23 July 2014 - 04:50 PM

One of the worst heresies is God deceiving someone to make them think they are saved but are really not. Some hyper calvinists who believe non-calvinists are not saved believe this. That makes a mockery out of God, and thankfully is not the "god" I serve.



#176 Ukulelemike

Ukulelemike

    Just a Servant

  • Moderators
  • 2,450 posts
1,922
Excellent
  • LocationNE California

Posted 23 July 2014 - 04:55 PM

OFF TOPIC for a moment:

 

    I notice that, as we have removed those from the forum who clearly stand for false doctrines, LIKE the reformed position, here we are, all of us ultimately in agreement on the subject at hand, and still we are fighting over such things as, 'should we even care what a reformed person believes about his words' and 'does it matter how they define terminology?'.  Are are all of us against the doctrine, all agree it is wrong, but now, we aregue over how we deal with it. That's pretty sad, folks.

 

  I guess it boils down to, do we want to successfully discuss the subject with a Calvinist or not? If not, that's fine, it doesn't matter how they define terms, let them continue. If you want to discuss it with them, you'd best understand what they mean when they talk, or there's going to be a lot of confusion. 

 

Like many false groups, Mormons, JW's Catholics, etc, Calvinists change the meanings of biblical terminology to fit their doctrine. Ask a Mormon about gospel, and they will say they believe it. If we don't know that for them, the gospel is all about one's way of life, and not the death for our sins, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we might well go on our merry way thinking they are saved. A good example there is Glenn Beck. So with the Calvinist, if we want to discuss it, we'd best understand what they mean when they speak.

 

I guess my point it, after reading so much here, we all seem to agree-but we are arguning minute, non-issues about the subject at hand. Are we so desirous to argue that even in agreement we must argue?



#177 heartstrings

heartstrings

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

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,335 posts
1,157
Excellent

Posted 25 July 2014 - 11:49 AM

OFF TOPIC for a moment:

 

    I notice that, as we have removed those from the forum who clearly stand for false doctrines, LIKE the reformed position, here we are, all of us ultimately in agreement on the subject at hand, and still we are fighting over such things as, 'should we even care what a reformed person believes about his words' and 'does it matter how they define terminology?'.  Are are all of us against the doctrine, all agree it is wrong, but now, we aregue over how we deal with it. That's pretty sad, folks.

 

  I guess it boils down to, do we want to successfully discuss the subject with a Calvinist or not? If not, that's fine, it doesn't matter how they define terms, let them continue. If you want to discuss it with them, you'd best understand what they mean when they talk, or there's going to be a lot of confusion. 

 

Like many false groups, Mormons, JW's Catholics, etc, Calvinists change the meanings of biblical terminology to fit their doctrine. Ask a Mormon about gospel, and they will say they believe it. If we don't know that for them, the gospel is all about one's way of life, and not the death for our sins, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we might well go on our merry way thinking they are saved. A good example there is Glenn Beck. So with the Calvinist, if we want to discuss it, we'd best understand what they mean when they speak.

 

I guess my point it, after reading so much here, we all seem to agree-but we are arguning minute, non-issues about the subject at hand. Are we so desirous to argue that even in agreement we must argue?

Unless they have ''reformed'', you still have a couple.



#178 Covenanter

Covenanter

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,919 posts
449
Excellent
  • LocationSouthall, West London, England

Posted 25 July 2014 - 04:35 PM

The discussion has been largely theoretical with many quotations from Calvinist sources.

 

What hasn't been considered is the practical application by Calvinists in the preaching of the Gospel. Somebody claimed Spurgeon wasn't a true Calvinist because of the message he preached. By the same standard, NONE of the calvinist preachers were "true" calvinists. That includes me - I preach Christ, & the need for repentance & faith in Christ. 

 

The point is that there are two aspects of this - God's call to sinners through the preached Gospel, & God's Holy Spirit working in the hearts of sinners, so the sinner hears, & believes and praises God his Saviour.

 

The problem with this thread has been over analysis. We all have a Gospel to believe & proclaim.



#179 heartstrings

heartstrings

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

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,335 posts
1,157
Excellent

Posted 25 July 2014 - 07:45 PM

Covenanter,

Was it God's will that Felix should come to repentance, believe the Gospel, and be saved?



#180 Winman

Winman

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 25 July 2014 - 08:50 PM

The discussion has been largely theoretical with many quotations from Calvinist sources.

 

What hasn't been considered is the practical application by Calvinists in the preaching of the Gospel. Somebody claimed Spurgeon wasn't a true Calvinist because of the message he preached. By the same standard, NONE of the calvinist preachers were "true" calvinists. That includes me - I preach Christ, & the need for repentance & faith in Christ. 

 

The point is that there are two aspects of this - God's call to sinners through the preached Gospel, & God's Holy Spirit working in the hearts of sinners, so the sinner hears, & believes and praises God his Saviour.

 

The problem with this thread has been over analysis. We all have a Gospel to believe & proclaim.

There is only one gospel, and that is Jesus died for OUR sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. (1 Cor 15:3-4)

 

Can you look an unbeliever in the eye and tell him that Jesus died for OUR sins as Paul did? 


Edited by Winman, 25 July 2014 - 08:53 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500