"The Many Errors of Calvinism" -

[Hitch]

Well, Hitch I don't really have any problem and God can and will do as He determines. The questions that have yet to be answered are these - do you preach “repent or perish” to the lost? If you do, why do you preach it when Calvinism teaches that the non-elect can’t repent and the elect can’t perish? God is not a Calvinist are you?

Because the method is as sacrosanct as the message.

As Spurgeon wrote;

In his work, "A Defence of Calvinism," he states unequivocally: [T]here is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. 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 special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; 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


Regarding Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace:
When you say, "Can God make me become a Christian?" I tell you yes, for herein rests the power of the gospel. It does not ask your consent; but it gets it. It does not say, "Will you have it?" but it makes you willing in the day of God's power....The gospel wants not your consent, it gets it. It knocks the enmity out of your heart. You say, I do not want to be saved; Christ says you shall be. He makes our will turn round, and then you cry,"'Lord save, or I perish!"8


Regarding Unconditional Election:
I do not hesitate to say, that next to the doctrine of the crucifixion and the resurrection of our blessed Lord--no doctrine had such prominence in the early Christian Church as the doctrine of the election of grace.9 And when confronted with the discomfort this doctrine would bring, he responded with little sympathy: "'I do not like it [divine election],' saith one. Well, I thought you would not; whoever dreamed you would?"10


Regarding Particular Atonement:
f it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has he been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood.11



Better yet Calvin on evengelism;

“It is no small consolation to godly teachers that, although the larger part of the world does not listen to Christ, He has His sheep whom He knows and by whom He is also known. They (all preachers) must do their utmost to bring the whole world into Christ’s fold, but when they do not succeed as they would wish, they must be satisfied with the single thought that those who are sheep will be collected together by their work.

 

[Hitch]

Men today have the same influence wrt their own salvation as Adam did with his creation.

 

[zeke]

zeke, my friend, yet again you are making big assumptions about how other people read Calvin, and various people called Calvinists.

And what exactly are those "big assumptions', farouk? You appear to be vague - are you?

Sorry, but this is almost in the same sort of vein as impossible questions such as 'When did you stop beating your wife?'

Lol - let me revise for you -

Statement of fact--God is not a Calvinist. Valid question--are you a Calvinist? I won't ask you about your relationship with your wife.​

 

[zeke]

Men today have the same influence wrt their own salvation as Adam did with his creation.

Men today are to "obey from the heart the doctrine delivered" (Rom 6:17) using the noodle God has given them - "faith comes by hearing the word of God" - and we all must "work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling".

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
(Php 2:12 NKJV)​

 

[zeke]

Because the method is as sacrosanct as the message.

As Spurgeon wrote;

Spurgeon was not inspired by God. Paul was inspired by God. Spurgeon was a Calvinist. Paul was not a Calvinist. Spureon's error does not trump the word of God.

 

[Hitch]

Men today are to "obey from the heart the doctrine delivered" (Rom 6:17) using the noodle God has given them - "faith comes by hearing the word of God" - and we all must "work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling".

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
(Php 2:12 NKJV)​

Men who 'have passed from death unto life' . Regeneration is the name of the horse pulling the 'salvation; wagon.

 

[Hitch]

Spurgeon was not inspired by God. Paul was inspired by God. Spurgeon was a Calvinist. Paul was not a Calvinist. Spureon's error does not trump the word of God.

LOL Actually I cant think of a better example of 'Calvinism' than Saul,,,er ,,,you know the story.

 

[farouk]

And what exactly are those "big assumptions', farouk? You appear to be vague - are you?


Lol - let me revise for you -

Statement of fact--God is not a Calvinist. Valid question--are you a Calvinist? I won't ask you about your relationship with your wife.​

zeke:

You continue to assume that the way you read Calvin means that his comments, as interpreted, make it incompatible to preach the Gospel. I have read over and over what you say, and this seems to be your repeated thought.

Well, fair enough, if this is what you think; I don't agree with your interpretation of Calvin, but let's look at Scripture, at what the Lord Jesus Himself said about sovereignty and responsibility.

In John 6 He says, 'All that the Father hath given me shall come to me.'

A clear statement of sovereignty and election. And then immediately afterwards, the Lord Jesus says:

'and he that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out'.

Here now is responsibility for believing the Gospel.

We can read the first statement. We can read the second. There is no need to read either of them in isolation. These truths are not contradictory, but they instead complement each other.

Maybe instead of saying that 'God is not a Calvinist' (in fact, God does not use names of sinful, mortal men), maybe instead we could consider that both sovereignty in election and human responsibility in believing the Gospel are equally Biblical.

 

[zeke]

zeke:

You continue to assume that the way you read Calvin means that his comments, as interpreted, make it incompatible to preach the Gospel.

You misunderstand - I have correctly stated that many dogmas presented by Calvinism are at odds with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I have read over and over what you say, and this seems to be your repeated thought.

Yes and let me repeat it one more time - many dogmas presented by Calvinism are at odds with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In John 6 He says, 'All that the Father hath given me shall come to me.'

John 6 does not support the error of Calvinism. Jesus and John were not Calvinists.

Maybe instead of saying that 'God is not a Calvinist' (in fact, God does not use names of sinful, mortal men), maybe instead we could consider that both sovereignty in election and human responsibility in believing the Gospel are equally Biblical.

I could agree with the biblical truth that God is Sovereign, that election is a biblical concept and that one must believe and obey the gospel of Christ via free-will. I can believe all of that and still reject the error of Calvinism.

 

[zeke]

Men who 'have passed from death unto life' . Regeneration is the name of the horse pulling the 'salvation; wagon.

What about the blood of Christ - isn't that what makes the new birth possible? Do you agree with the Bible - was the blood of Christ shed for ALL men? Or was His blood only shed for those select few identified by Calvinism?

 

[farouk]

You misunderstand - I have correctly stated that many dogmas presented by Calvinism are at odds with the gospel of Jesus Christ.


Yes and let me repeat it one more time - many dogmas presented by Calvinism are at odds with the gospel of Jesus Christ.


John 6 does not support the error of Calvinism. Jesus and John were not Calvinists.


I could agree with the biblical truth that God is Sovereign, that election is a biblical concept and that one must believe and obey the gospel of Christ via free-will. I can believe all of that and still reject the error of Calvinism.

Sorry, I find it hard to engage with you, because when I give you Scriptures you go back to repeating those phrases.

 

[zeke]

Sorry, I find it hard to engage with you, because when I give you Scriptures you go back to repeating those phrases.

Well. farouk - you can't just present scriptures, waive your hands in the air and say you have proven Calvinism. That's really not the way it works in the real world. Try actually proving your point via God's word. Give us something with a little meat. Are you capable of doing that?

 

[farouk]

Well. farouk - you can't just present scriptures, waive your hands in the air and say you have proven Calvinism. That's really not the way it works in the real world. Try actually proving your point via God's word. Give us something with a little meat. Are you capable of doing that?

zeke:

I have in fact quoted Scriptures which seem to show that both sovereignty and human responsibility in the Gospel are Biblical, which is what I thought this exercise was about. (Mere labels can often not tell the whole story.)

Regarding your other comments here about me, I flatter myself that I don't take offence easily.

 

[zeke]

zeke:

I have in fact quoted Scriptures which seem to show that both sovereignty and human responsibility in the Gospel are Biblical, which is what I thought this exercise was about. (Mere labels can often not tell the whole story.)

Regarding your other comments here about me, I flatter myself that I don't take offence easily.

The thread is about "The Many Errors of Calvinism". I think there are - you do not. I am simply asking if you can defend your position. Thus far you have not. No offence intended.

 

[farouk]

The thread is about "The Many Errors of Calvinism". I think there are - you do not. I am simply asking if you can defend your position. Thus far you have not. No offence intended.

zeke:

If by definition one of the main, supposed errors of Calvinism is that the truth of sovereign election, defined whether by Calvin or Calvinists, is supposedly incompatible with responsibility in the Gospel, I gave some Scriptures which seem to show that they are not actually incompatible.

In fact, here is more Scriptural illustration of the truth of both electing sovereignty and human responsibility:

John 6.65 onwards:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]No man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father .
66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.



Even then, the truth of election was something that some of the Lord's disciples found diffcult. But there were others who still acknowledged the need to come to Him in faith.

[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Mike]

If I'm not mistaken, the point of this thread is to clearly state the two opposing views. I may be wrong, but from the beginning, this seemed set up to differentiate itself from all the other threads on the topic. I'm always hoping to hear a take on Calvin's doctrine that presents his views in a light that is compatible with scripture. I'm thinking of all the times it speaks to those to believe and never put limitations on a group of elect.

For example, 2 Peter 3 tells us that He is patient, that ALL will come to believe. It doesn't put limitations on who can. It honestly seems one has to impute this notion upon it. I don't want to present "sound bites" and make an argument for free will based on them. I want to understand how Calvin could read these same scriptures and conclude that there are only certain people who have an opportunity to believe when it doesn't say there are.

 

[zeke]

In fact, here is more Scriptural illustration of the truth of both electing sovereignty and human responsibility:

John 6.65 onwards:

Again, my friend you provide nothing from John 6 to support the Calvinistic error that God – before the world began - chose a few for salvation and many for damnation. That is not the way God works. God calls ALL ‘whosoever will’ to come to Him. The offer of salvation is and has always been to all who will hear the gospel, believe that gospel message and obey from the heart the Gospel of Christ.

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
(2Pe 3:9)​

The Baptist, Robert Shank sums up John 6 this way...

“There is nothing about God’s gift of believers to be the heritage of the Son who died for them which somehow transforms the Gospel’s ‘whosoever will’ into a ‘whosoever must’ and a ‘most of you shan’t.’ There is nothing about it which binds men in the strait jacket of an antecedent decree of positive unconditional election and reprobation, while insisting that they are ‘free’†(Life in the Son)​

God does not force men to obey – men hear the word of God and choose via free-will to obey. Unconditional election has been defeated by God's word. God is not a Calvinist. What else do you have.

 

[Hitch]

What about the blood of Christ - isn't that what makes the new birth possible?

You are mistaken. Jesus and Calvin both taught that one must be drawn by the Spirit.

Do you agree with the Bible - was the blood of Christ shed for ALL men?

Do you agree that you should stop molesting little boys?
Matthew 20:28
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Or was His blood only shed for those select few identified by Calvinism?

[/QUOTE]
Matthew 20:28
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

In reality Calvin makes quite a great deal out of the impossibilty to know the wheat from the tares. So either you dont know what you're gtalking about or perhaps you had a different Calvin in mind ?

 

[Hitch]

If I'm not mistaken, the point of this thread is to clearly state the two opposing views. I may be wrong, but from the beginning, this seemed set up to differentiate itself from all the other threads on the topic. I'm always hoping to hear a take on Calvin's doctrine that presents his views in a light that is compatible with scripture. I'm thinking of all the times it speaks to those to believe and never put limitations on a group of elect.

For example, 2 Peter 3 tells us that He is patient, that ALL will come to believe. It doesn't put limitations on who can. It honestly seems one has to impute this notion upon it. I don't want to present "sound bites" and make an argument for free will based on them. I want to understand how Calvin could read these same scriptures and conclude that there are only certain people who have an opportunity to believe when it doesn't say there are.

OK Mike im convinced no limitations ALL means ALL GoD said it I believe it....

Welcome to Mike's First Universalist Lutheren Church

Its great no limitations even dead folks can be saved, and the only thing needed is to wait long enough.

Falls off the table pretty quickly doesnt it?

 

[Hitch]

Exactly where does Scripture teach that dead men have free will ?