Posted on 07/28/2003 1:24:07 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
Funny how you appeal to Calvinists when it suits your purpose, which is to discredit Calvinism. You've been trying to do so for quite a while, and you haven't accomplished it. Why?? Because YOU CAN'T!!!! LOL!!!
I don't care who said what. When I read 2 Peter 3 in context paying attention to whom Peter is speaking and what he is speaking about, it is crystal clear, razor-sharp clear, that he is speaking to and about believers, and ONLY believers. I don't need a theologian to tell me what my own eyes can see, my own mind can comprehend, and what I have learned of English syntax, grammar, and sentence construction. Sorry you can't wrap you mind around that obvious and clear fact due to your spiritual blindness and bias. It's there, if you will open your eyes and mind.
I do post alot of articles and sometimes forget which ones I had already posted.
I hope you did not have a stroke or anything about seeing the same article posted again!
Feel free to have it pulled.
Ofcourse, the Christian attitude when a brother makes an error is to find out why the error was made, not to assume it was done for a wicked purpose. (Gal.6:1)
But the Calvinists (with a few exceptions) on these threads do not display any Christian charity, which makes me wonder if they are indeed truly saved (Matt.7:17-20)
I appeal to Calvinists because it shows
(1) That Calvinism is inconsistent within itself, disagreeing among 'extreme' and 'moderate' on how to interpret various verses.
(2) The Calvinist is like a Romanist, he will not accept anything that is not written by a Calvinist as being valid.
Thus, like the Romanist, if an article is from a non-Calvinist source, it is just dismissed as being 'Arminian', 'Romanist' 'Pelegian', etc and not 'worthy' to be addressed.
The King James translators knew your mindset when they stated in their preface that those who opposed them would be the Papists and 'certain brethren who do not accept anything unless it is hammered out on their own anvil'
So, I will use Calvinistic sources to show that Calvinism is a mass of inner contradictions and bible twisting, that is rooted in one single premise, God's will and ways are unknowable, not revealed in Scripture (but 'we' Calvinists do know that God only saved those He chose, for no known reason found in scripture)
I don't care who said what. When I read 2 Peter 3 in context paying attention to whom Peter is speaking and what he is speaking about, it is crystal clear, razor-sharp clear, that he is speaking to and about believers, and ONLY believers. I don't need a theologian to tell me what my own eyes can see, my own mind can comprehend, and what I have learned of English syntax, grammar, and sentence construction. Sorry you can't wrap you mind around that obvious and clear fact due to your spiritual blindness and bias. It's there, if you will open your eyes and mind.
And 1Tim.2:4?
Spurgeon said that referred to all men!
Piper admitted that there too many passages that referred to God's love for all of mankind, to be summarily dismissed by the Calvinists.
Hence his article on the 'two wills'.
Now if it were not God's revealed will for all men to be saved, there would be no reason for a 'secret will' as maintained by Calvin, Spurgeon, Boettner, Piper etc.
But I guess you guys are smarter then these guys, who really did not understand Calvinism as well as you do!
You mean Reformed churches don't you?
We Lutherans have our strongest disagreements with our Calvinist brothers and sisters on unconditional election and limited atonement, not to mention the nature of the Lord's Supper -- in, with, under -- though I imagine we'd both disagree with your position for some of the same reasons. Everything boils down to two main areas of scripture: law and gospel. Law tells us what to do. Gospel tells us what has been done for us in Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Nobody is saved under the law since we cannot keep it. Only gospel saves, for the sake of Christ's work alone.
Amen.
You've certainly pointed out some important verses with respect to total depravity (or inability). The thing is, you don't find many instances of people responding to such calls to salvation in the Scripture under the law. The verses you use are all law: do this, do that, you come to Me. You only find people responding as a matter of gospel. "No man cometh to the father but by me," and "No man cometh unless the Holy Ghost draw him," and "No man sayeth Jesus Christ is lord but by the Holy Ghost." If you get law and gospel wrong, everything else will be wrong. On this our churches agree.
As did Arminius (who was also Reformed)
His only difference was that man had the ability to reject grace as well as accept it.
Thus, 'election' was based on this 'foreseen' acceptance of grace.
As I noted, we disagree with our Calvinist brethren about election and predestination -- but to a degree. We, too, agree the Bible contains doctrines of election and predestination. They're both good Bible words and sound doctrine. So don't be too excited because we both disagree with you.
Amen!
Both words are good Bible words, and they refer to a Christian who is predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ (Rom.8).
No one is Predestinated for salvation or damnation.
As for our differences, the scripture does not say, "God is not willing that the elect should perish..." but rather than ANY. Nor does the Bible say, "For God so loved the elect," rather he loved the world. We accept that grace is available to both the elect (who were predestined) and to those who aren't (though we disagree that they're predestined to hell). The Calvinist position is, we believe, an attempt to rationalize incongruent teachings from Scripture rather than leaving it to the unsearchable knowledge and purposes of God.
Amen!
The purpose of which is to keep eternal security, which need not be based on unconditional election, but on unconditional love (Rom.8) after one is saved.
I hope you noted that I still refer to Calvinists as my brethren. They truly are. They believe and trust in Christ alone for their salvation, and they're drawn to faith by the same Holy Spirit working through word and sacrament. BTW, sacraments are all gospel. Your position is most likely that they're all law, which is why we would disagree with your views about them. Let me know if you'd like to discuss the matter fully so you can understand our position accurately.
Yes I would like to discuss your views on the 'sacraments' which imply some infusion of grace.
Luther rejected Augustine over his usage of Sacraments as opposed to unconditional election (sovereign grace).
We Baptists have two ordinances adult Baptism by immersion and the Lords supper.
Let me also remind you that Calvin and his colleagues, like Luther and his colleagues, faced penalty of death for proclaiming salvation by grace alone through faith alone for the sake of Christ alone.
Which is very admirable, but on the other hand they also sought death on those who disagree with them (Luther rejoicing when he heard of Zwingli's death) and Calvins actions in Geneva.
I urge you to read the Belgic Confession, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Heidelberg Catechism to see what Calvinists believe and confess and then decide if Calvinism is of the Bible or of man. Though I'm not Calvinist, I know the answer's not man.
The issue is not a confession but what does the Scripture say (Sola Scriptura).
That was what the Reformers were fighting against in the first place, traditions and confessions replacing the teachings of the Bible.
The problem was that they did not go fall enough and get rid of everything that did not line up with the Scriptures.
Feel free to post me on any Lutheran doctrines, as I am always interested in learning what you believe and why (even though I may disagree with it)
In your dreams, Ed. That statement is not provable, and I am living proof that it is wrong. Truth is Truth, and I don't filter it through Calvinist glasses, despite your illusion that I do. I wouldn't lean to heavily on that statement, because you can very easily be proven very, very wrong.
And 1Tim.2:4?
What about it? That's not the passage we're talking about. 2 Peter 3 is what I was referring to. Stay on topic. My remarks are concerned with that passage and that passage alone.
But I guess you guys are smarter then these guys, who really did not understand Calvinism as well as you do!
I make no claims to be such. It is you who accuse me of that, with no grounds other than your intense hatred of Calvin. I trust in God to lead me into all truth, and I read a wide variety of material, and not all of it is Calvinist, or Calvinist leaning. In fact the majority is not. I'm currently reading some things about Wesley, and looking for more by him and Jacob Arminius as well. Once I have found enough, I intend to post and critique what I have found.
What I have found so far is rather interesting, and I expect to hear howls of protest from the Wesleyan and Arminian camps when I finish my study...Wesley said some rather controversial things, that are not really very biblical and can be proven as such. When I have gathered enough, I will post it. Do not make the mistake of thinking I will be "converted"...what I have found so far has only strengthened my beliefs.
I will give you proof!
Check out the early post I made from a Finney website regarding the trial of Servetus.
See how dr Steve, responded to it, by simply putting a picture of Finney on the post as if that was argument enough.
That is consistent behaviour on these threads.
Mormons will make logical arguments (not theological) against Calvinism and they are dismissed as being unbelievers and thus not worthy of being addressed.
And 1Tim.2:4? What about it? That's not the passage we're talking about. 2 Peter 3 is what I was referring to. Stay on topic. My remarks are concerned with that passage and that passage alone.
No, because the 'topic' in general is not just that particular passage but the issue did Christ die for all men.
Sidestepping a single passage will not get you out of the minefield, that God does indeed want all men to be saved, a fact acknowledged by your most renowned theologians.
But I guess you guys are smarter then these guys, who really did not understand Calvinism as well as you do! I make no claims to be such. It is you who accuse me of that, with no grounds other than your intense hatred of Calvin. I trust in God to lead me into all truth, and I read a wide variety of material, and not all of it is Calvinist, or Calvinist leaning. In fact the majority is not. I'm currently reading some things about Wesley, and looking for more by him and Jacob Arminius as well. Once I have found enough, I intend to post and critique what I have found.
Good, if my posts have led you to read Arminius and Wesley then they have accomplished something!
My 'intense' hatred for Calvinism stems from an 'intense' hatred of anything that purports to be Biblical and isn't.
Do not the Calvinists have the same feelings toward the Arminians and the Romanists for that very reason?
That doesn't mean I have that hatred for the individual Calvinist or Romanist but only for that system.
That is a distinction that the Calvinists on these threads seem to ignore and make attacks very personal (as did Calvin himself)
What I have found so far is rather interesting, and I expect to hear howls of protest from the Wesleyan and Arminian camps when I finish my study...Wesley said some rather controversial things, that are not really very biblical and can be proven as such.
So, if I agreed with everything Arminius and Wesley said I would be a Methodist not a Baptist.
Wesley was not dispensational, believed in sprinkling babies and remained a member of the Church of England.
However, in Christian practice, Spurgeon himself likened him to an Apostle himself.(I believe that statement can be found in Spurgeons' sermon 'The defense of Calvinism')
So whatever theological mistakes he made, they did not effect how he lived as a Christian.
Which I would say about Spurgeon, Bunyan and Whitfield.
When I have gathered enough, I will post it. Do not make the mistake of thinking I will be "converted"...what I have found so far has only strengthened my beliefs.
Good, I am not attempting to 'convert' you but to have an honest discussion on what each side believes and why.
We may actually learn something from these posts instead of waging a theological 'jihad' against those who disagree with us.
Shame on you, ftd. You're better than that.
Only in Catholic teachings. In Reformed and Lutheran teaching, they are means of grace: God's word connected with a visible sign. No different than circumcision, which St Paul likens baptism to. In both sacraments, God connects the promise of forgiveness of sins not in the doing but in His word. Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Drink ye all of it for the forgiveness of your sins. That -- the forgiveness of sins -- IS the gospel. That's why we do it.
Your churches have thrown out the baby with the baptism water. You take away the gospel part of it and turn it into law. You deny the promises to the "little ones," and substitute a man-made doctrine of "age of accountability." You comfort parents of dead infants with hollow, unscriptural words; at least those Jews at Pentecost understood what they were doing when Peter told them "...for the promise is to you AND YOUR CHILDREN..." Why would good Jews, who understood that God's covenants included their children who received believer's circum... I mean circumcision at eight days of age, trade that for another covenant that no longer bore any such mark which included their children in it?
Your church has two ordinances and one sacrament, the sacrament of the Altar Call and Rededication. You also substitute "dedication" of infants in the place of baptism, and then promise parents the blessings which only baptism brings. We don't have altar calls -- not just because they're anti-scriptural ("every head bowed, every eye closed...") -- but because we have the sacraments God himself offers that convey the same things you try to substitute. I recommend you read some of Michael Scott Horton's books which mention the sacraments. He came out of your tradition and he probably clears it up better than I can.
That was what the Reformers were fighting against in the first place, traditions and confessions replacing the teachings of the Bible.
Brother, read the confessions. They confessed Christ, they confessed scripture. That's why they got in so much trouble in the first place. Our confessions are not instruments of tradition and happenstance, they are systematic statements of the scriptures of what our churches believe and why we believe it. Your churches, too, have such statements, even if as a way to tell others what you believe. On some points (Trinity), you manage to hit it on the head; on others ("ordinances" and eschatology), you usually screw up royally.
The word creed comes from the Latin credo: I believe. We share that creed with the fathers of our faith -- from Adam and Eve to Abraham to the prophets to the apostles to the church fathers to the Reformers and so on -- and we struggle as they did to protect our faith from error and the devil. The main reason why our creeds have become lengthy is because so many errors continue to creep in and subvert the faith of the church.
The problem was that they did not go fall enough and get rid of everything that did not line up with the Scriptures.
Have you any examples?
You're stretching already. Steve is a man of few words, something that I aspire to (although I have a looooong way to go).
Mormons will make logical arguments (not theological) against Calvinism and they are dismissed as being unbelievers and thus not worthy of being addressed.
Well, they really have no part in this discussion. As for logical arguments, I have attempted on many occasions to engage on that level with you, and have received a lot of insult and abuse for my trouble. That's why I tend to give as good as I get with you. I can hurl insults with the best of 'em, but I prefer not to do so. It doesn't help anyone to learn, except to learn more insults. I'm probably more patient than some in that I still try to engage you in something other than an insult-fest. Why? Because I was once where you are.
No, because the 'topic' in general is not just that particular passage but the issue did Christ die for all men. Sidestepping a single passage will not get you out of the minefield, that God does indeed want all men to be saved, a fact acknowledged by your most renowned theologians.
I am trying to make a point about that passage, and that passage alone. I am not trying to extend what is there to everything else. We'll get to the rest, but I say, stay on topic, because what I am addressing is 2 Peter 3, and that passage only. You act like a child with ADD sometimes! In a serious discussion, there is a time to stay on topic, and a time to anticipate where your opponent is going. The skill comes in knowing the difference.
That is a distinction that the Calvinists on these threads seem to ignore and make attacks very personal (as did Calvin himself)
When you engage in wholesale slams of Calvinists (and you say Calvinists, not Calvinism), is it any wonder that some take it personally? Confine your scorn to the system, and the personal attacks will be less frequent. Calvinists are the people, Calvinism is the system. Same for Arminians/Arminianism, Catholics/Catholicism. If you look back over posts you've made, there ARE a lot of personal attacks, attacks you've made (maybe not thinking they were) and attacks made against you because people took your remarks personally. You know I'm not afraid to step up to the plate and let some stuff fly if I am attacked. Why should that surprise you?
Bull.
For predestination (election) to salvation, one needs look no deeper than in Strongs:
"But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth." - 2The. 2:13
Now, I realize there is an interpretation of this verse floating around out there that claims the salvation referred to here is not soteriological, but eschatological in nature. The rationale is this: II Thessalonians is eschatological in nature, discussing the Tribulation, and Paul here is expressing that the Christians are not appointed to go through the Tribulation, but will instead be Raptured off the earth. I heard this just last week. But, that is bootstrapping -- using an assumed pretrib Rapture (I myself lean post-trib, but that's another discussion for another day. Suffice it to say that there are huge assumptions necessary to use an eschatological interpretation of that verse.)
As for predestination to reprobation, there are fewer definitive verses, hence the split between infralapsarians (single predestinationists) and supralapsarians (double predestinationists). I myself am supralapsarian. I know that makes me in the eyes of many a hypercalvinist, but hey: I've never been one to care what people think. (If I were, would I be a Plymouth Brethren who's a post-trib Calvinist?) My proof of this, is this:
6 For this is contained in Scripture: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."Feel free to post me on any Lutheran doctrines, as I am always interested in learning what you believe and why (even though I may disagree with it)
7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, "THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,"
8 and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.
9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
-- 1Pet 2:6-9"So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." -- Romans 9:18
That'd be a first for a man for whom no shot is too cheap.
I had never heard that interpretation of 2 Thes. 2:13. In reading through it, I can't see any reason why it would be eschatological. In that verse, Paul seems to take a step backwards, and gives thanks for the fact that the believers he is addressing were chosen from the beginning by God, as is clear from other scriptures. In a sense he seems to be contrasting the chosen with those who will be given the strong deception which seals their doom.
I have come to believe that the so-called Rapture is post-trib, and you're right, that is a discussion for another day. It's not a defining doctrine of the Faith.
For this is contained in Scripture: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, "THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone," and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed. But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; -- 1Pet 2:6-9"So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." -- Romans 9:18
It doesn't get much clearer than that.
The term "Calvinism" is used by some people who do not hold Calvin's teaching on predestination and do not understand exactly what Calvin taught.
The author sets the tone for the whole piece by planting the idea that Calvinists don't know what they are talking about. That is a huge assumption that he throws out with no substantiation other than what he quotes following, which contains an error in the very first part.
T - Total Inability;
It's Total Depravity, not total inability. As can be seen rather quickly, Dr. Boettner has no problem with total depravity, as it is clear that scripture teaches that. But, if he's going to tear down Calvinism, he can't very well agree with its first point, now can he? So he slips in a little change that the non-Calvinist would not notice. It raises the question as to what else he has mis-defined...
Concerning Unconditional Election:
This teaching insists that we need not try to win men to the Lord because men cannot be saved unless God has planned for them to be saved. And if God has planned for them to be eternally lost, they will not come to Christ.
This is an opinion of the author, not what the teaching itself says. But he presents it as though that is what Calvinisits believe. Subtle deception (possibly unintentional) once again.
Concerning Irresistible Grace:
By irresistible grace, John Calvin meant that God simply forces people to be saved.
Once again, the author inserts his own opinion and passes it off as Calvin's teaching. That is his own interpretation of Calvin's teaching. The author doesn't even try to quote Calvin, or to deal with what Calvin actually said, he just takes it upon himself to tell the reader his own interpretation, from his own obviously biased viewpoint. He's saying, in effect, "trust me, I know what Calvin said, and I don't agree with it, so I'll give you some scripture that seems to speak against what I say Calvin says." He may have the best of intentions, but he is being dishonest in doing so.
Closing remarks:
I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist. I believe in salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ. I believe in the eternal security of the believer. I believe that Jesus Christ died for all men, and I believe what the Bible says, "That whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Here he attempts to protray himself as being "above the fray", and adopts the philosophical "high ground", to lend weight to what he has written. It sounds good, and it certainly would persuade the average listener that he must know what he's talking about, because he's doing so from a neutral position. Then he says:
But I disagree with all five points of Calvinism as John Calvin taught it.
A dishonest statement. What he really means is, "But I disagree with all five points of Calvinism as I have defined them."
Since he has not been entirely truthful with his definitions, his whole teaching here must be called into question. He may sincerely believe he is right, but he hasn't been completely honest with his definitions. His bias against Calvinism has colored his perceptions, so he cannot lay claim to the high moral ground that he attempts to do at the end of his teaching here.
Frumanchu had a word for it...sludge. I think it's an apt description.
A person is in hell because they chose to be there.
The Christian responsibilty is to tell everyone what we know, that hell is real but they do not have to go there, the price has been paid, or they have to do is accept the free gift of salvation (Rom.6:23)
If they do not accept the gift, then they will stand before the Great White Throne Judgement on their own merits which means eternal damnation (Rev.20, Isa.64:6)
Therefore a person is in heaven because they chose to be there.
True!
They accept the free gift of salvation which is offered by grace.
'choice' is not a work since it is faith that saves us and we choose to believe or not. (Jn.3:36, Rom.4:4-5)
Just like a Christian has to 'choose' to yield in his Christian walk (Rom.6), but we still walk by faith (2Cor.5:7).
So if you are not choosing to 'yield' to God, then you are choosing not to yield to God and reject His grace and thus, you grieve/quench the Holy Spirit (Eph.4 1Thess.5)
The 'choice' that God has give us is to believe or not. It is that faith that pleases God. (Heb.11:6)
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.