David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones was certainly Welsh, but John Owen (assuming you mean the puritan, 1616-1683) was English.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
John Calvin’s errant views
- Thread starter Van
- Start date
- Status
Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones was certainly Welsh, but John Owen (assuming you mean the puritan, 1616-1683) was English.
Yes but he was of welsh descent....Blood will out David.
freeatlast
New Member
They would do better to just spend that much time in studying the bible.
Well, now, since you seem to be jumping in as Mr. Van's self-appointed apologist, let me direct the question to you which Mr. Van seems to have ignored:
ARE HIS VIEWS INERRANT ?
What does he have to bring to the discussion table ?
Because from the very beginning of this thread, nobody seems to quite make of what he is trying to argue about.
You seem to know.
So: Are His views inerrant ?
If yes, kindly explain why in your estimation his views are inerrant.
He kind of comes across to me as like this 8 year old boy in YOUTUBE who has an IQ of 170 something (not to say Mr. Van's IQ is the same) who has these ideas about relativity and has some questions about Einstein's theory and all, but you see, the heart of the matter is he may be right and Einstein may have erred but until he has the same credentials and accomplishments in the field of physics as Einstein has, his statements will be taken with a grain of salt by physicists who have long gone by Einstein's principles and have established branches of theories and principles from Einstein's theories.
That is what I meant when I cited my experiences with the Filipino Arminian and Calvinist pastors, and that is what I meant when I cited Calvin's accomplishments and Scoffield's.
There may have been flaws in both's theologies, but the fact is, many a seminary and many a missionary and many pastors have come and gone and preached and been accepted and known and rejected based on teachings that branched out from these two's theologies.
And here is my seminary professor, an unknown, could read English but couldn't speak it all that well, sitting in class, in a dusty old Philippine town, before a class of 20, announcing with all authority (from where, I know not), that this dead and long gone gentleman from a country he has never been to, that have had Bibles printed out with his name and commentaries in it which Bibles have been used by many individual Christians of different soteriological persuasions and which commentaries have been used as study tool by many a preacher burning the midnight oil, after having spent countless hours in prayer before his Lord.....well, this pastor says: Scoffield is wrong.
And when he gives his counter-view it is the same old dispensational view that have been spoon-fed to me as a new believer, and on down the years.
Nothing new.
How ridiculous can a situation get.
So, what is it that this man, Mr. Van, has to offer on the discussion table ?
Can you answer on his behalf, Mr. Snow ?
ARE MR. VAN'S VIEWS INERRANT ?
Last edited by a moderator:
Yet another badgering post, asking a question that has been answered several times. My views are not inerrant, and neither are the views of John Calvin. What I bring to the table is scripture which shows that the TULI of Calvinism is unbiblical.
Why not stick with the topic of the thread, rather than try to undercut them by disparging me. We all make mistakes, we all sin, and we all have fallen and continue to fall short of the Glory of God, but praise be to God that all these failures and the resulting condemnation has been taken out of the way and nailed to that old rugged cross.
Why not stick with the topic of the thread, rather than try to undercut them by disparging me. We all make mistakes, we all sin, and we all have fallen and continue to fall short of the Glory of God, but praise be to God that all these failures and the resulting condemnation has been taken out of the way and nailed to that old rugged cross.
Robert, I see that you do take your fair share of jibes & insults on this Forum so I'm not going to retaliate but Rippon is correct, you have tunnel vision concerning another faith perspective. For example , at the heart of your perspective, you continue to insist that divine sovereignty must be tied to humans doing something. You further insist that Election & Reprobation are not divine decrees....that they are based on human choices.
Further, the efficiency of atonement does NOT rest on Christ's saving work alone but on the sinners faith & repentance. And although God's grace is persuasive, its not powerful enough to triumph over those who stubbornly resist His love.
The results in your theological perspective is not exclusively God Centered but it's distorted in the direction of self.
This is what I saw when God saved me & the fallacies of Human Decision Theology fell away, because previous to this I had been Arminian. And of course you are correct Robert this is what the spirit of the age demands IE that the HUMAN DECISION making process must hold a central place in salvation. People today are looking for spiritual experiences that are secularized, humanized & relativized and your type of theology supply's that type of modern human gratification.
But we believe that the starting point for Christian faith must be the greater glory of God. If humans contribute any essential part towards their own salvations, they effectively become their own savior. I don't see how you couldn't instinctively realize the truth that appears to now have alluded you to date that you have not worked into your theology, namely that sinners contribute nothing to their own salvation & that it is God's work from beginning to end. Cant you see man that in order for the gospel to be the gospel of grace that it MUST BE all of Grace?
So keep slipping that human element back into the equation. Lets see what happens. I have my owns thoughts about it which includes why Orthodox Beliefs are still in practice & will stubbornly refuse to be suppressed, but they are my own thoughts.
Here is what you need to know, we are not going away. so go knock yourself out & we will have fun disputing you.
Blessings
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi E, W & F,
You have expressed again what is unsound scripturally. Note the lack of any biblical references to support your views.
(1) Divine sovereignty allows autonomous thinking and decisions by people. So both views are completely compatible. It is a false dichotomy to say it is one or the other.
God can allow us to choose life or death in one part of our life, and take our choice of life away in another part, See Romans 11 and God hardening the hearts of the unbelieving Jews for the purpose of spreading His gospel to the Gentiles. And on the other hand if God credits our faith as righteousness, and puts us in Christ, He takes away our choice to choose death, 1 Peter 1:3-5.
(2) The Calvinist view of Christ's sacrifice on the cross is unbiblical. He died as a ransom for all, not a ransom for the previously chosen elect. There would be no need for Christ to be the propitiation for the whole world 1 John 2:2) unless Him being the propitiation provides the means of salvation for all, and therefore we have the duty, as ambassadors of Christ to beg the lost, be reconciled to God.
(3) The Calvinist view distorts the gospel in the direction of man-made doctrine. While I believe the Arminian view is flawed, it is far more God centered, reflecting a view that is closer to biblical truth than Calvinism.
(4) The Spirit of this age, Satan, does ensnare people in mistaken views, rendering them ineffective or less effective in the ministry of Christ. To say human decision making, putting our faith in Christ, is the center of salvation would be wrong, since it is God who credits our faith as righteousness and places us in Christ who died for us. Seems like God is central to salvation and our effort to will to be saved is at best an effort to seek the righteousness of God through faith. God does it all, revealing Himself, sacrificing His Son to provide the means of salvation, providing the gospel for us to hear and learn from the Father, crediting our faith as righteousness, putting us in Christ, undergoing the circumcision of Christ, and arising in Christ a new creation created for good works. It sure seems God is central.
No one wants Calvinists to go away, we want them to be more effective ministers of Christ.
You have expressed again what is unsound scripturally. Note the lack of any biblical references to support your views.
(1) Divine sovereignty allows autonomous thinking and decisions by people. So both views are completely compatible. It is a false dichotomy to say it is one or the other.
God can allow us to choose life or death in one part of our life, and take our choice of life away in another part, See Romans 11 and God hardening the hearts of the unbelieving Jews for the purpose of spreading His gospel to the Gentiles. And on the other hand if God credits our faith as righteousness, and puts us in Christ, He takes away our choice to choose death, 1 Peter 1:3-5.
(2) The Calvinist view of Christ's sacrifice on the cross is unbiblical. He died as a ransom for all, not a ransom for the previously chosen elect. There would be no need for Christ to be the propitiation for the whole world 1 John 2:2) unless Him being the propitiation provides the means of salvation for all, and therefore we have the duty, as ambassadors of Christ to beg the lost, be reconciled to God.
(3) The Calvinist view distorts the gospel in the direction of man-made doctrine. While I believe the Arminian view is flawed, it is far more God centered, reflecting a view that is closer to biblical truth than Calvinism.
(4) The Spirit of this age, Satan, does ensnare people in mistaken views, rendering them ineffective or less effective in the ministry of Christ. To say human decision making, putting our faith in Christ, is the center of salvation would be wrong, since it is God who credits our faith as righteousness and places us in Christ who died for us. Seems like God is central to salvation and our effort to will to be saved is at best an effort to seek the righteousness of God through faith. God does it all, revealing Himself, sacrificing His Son to provide the means of salvation, providing the gospel for us to hear and learn from the Father, crediting our faith as righteousness, putting us in Christ, undergoing the circumcision of Christ, and arising in Christ a new creation created for good works. It sure seems God is central.
No one wants Calvinists to go away, we want them to be more effective ministers of Christ.
Last edited by a moderator:
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
What I don't understand Van, is that those of us who are called Calvinists understand your points of disagreement. We do not believe they are justified or biblical. The objections you have raised have been answered a thousand times over. I understand that some folks reject the answers. But what else are we to do? Continue to debate endlessly?
When a person's mind is made up the best thing to do is to proclaim the truth. Otherwise, we find ourselves in danger of engendering strife.
Your right brother & thats why I decided not to waste any more time on the guy.
What I don't understand Van, is that those of us who are called Calvinists understand your points of disagreement. We do not believe they are justified or biblical. The objections you have raised have been answered a thousand times over. I understand that some folks reject the answers. But what else are we to do? Continue to debate endlessly?
First, thanks for presenting truth as you see the truth.
(1) I do not think any Calvinist who has posted specific responses to my positions has indicated an understanding of my position. But certainly they have restated some specific points with complete accuracy.
(2) It is ok to believe my points are unjustified and unbiblical, I believe exactly the same thing about Calvinism.
(3) The objections I have raised to Calvinism have been answered? We part company here. I have not seen that any of my points has been shown to miss the mark. Yes, some of my efforts to support my views missed the mark, but since other biblical support was presented and not addressed except by absurdity, the point was in fact not answered.
Lets just take one verse: James 2:5 (NASB) "Listen, my beloved brethren, did not God choose the poor of this world, to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him." Before we try to understand this verse, note that "of this world" has a footnote which says "literally to the world". So those chosen were poor from the viewpoint of the world, but not necessarily in the eyes of God. More on that later.
Now for the study, Listen is used to get the audience to pay attention, and we should listen up.
My beloved brethren, refers to the 12 tribes,
did not God choose the poor to the world, says those chosen were known to the world and were thought by the world to be poor, putting the timing of God's choice during the lifetime of those chosen after they were known to the world as being poor.
The answer provided by one poster was God chose the individual before creation and foreknew they would be poor and that those living at that time would view them as poor. This is an absurd response, not based on what the verse says, but changing it completely based on doctrine. Anyone can make anything say anything if you add imaginary stuff to it. "Two equals four" seem like falsehood, but I could add, there is an invisible "plus two" in the saying, but you cannot see it. This is no way to try to discern what James was actually saying.
To be rich in faith, first the to be is added by the translators probably in an attempt to make it read more smoothly, but because of the Greek grammar construction, double accusative where poor is the direct object and rich is the compliment describing as aspect of the poor, a better more grammatically correct translation, if the need to add is followed is "poor to the world, as rich in faith, and ....
Therefore this verse demonstrates conditional election based on God choosing those who are rich in faith. This is consistent with Romans 5:2 where our faith provides our access to God's grace.
And heirs of the kingdom, this refers to those who love God, because it was to those who love God the kingdom was promised. So yet another statement that the election was conditioned on people who were living and loved God.
Lets see your answer, devoid of "I do not believe it" or "you failed to prove it" or "its unbiblical" and other generalized rebuttals.
First, thanks for presenting truth as you see the truth.
(1) I do not think any Calvinist who has posted specific responses to my positions has indicated an understanding of my position. But certainly they have restated some specific points with complete accuracy.
(2) It is ok to believe my points are unjustified and unbiblical, I believe exactly the same thing about Calvinism.
(3) The objections I have raised to Calvinism have been answered? We part company here. I have not seen that any of my points has been shown to miss the mark. Yes, some of my efforts to support my views missed the mark, but since other biblical support was presented and not addressed except by absurdity, the point was in fact not answered.
Lets just take one verse: James 2:5 (NASB) "Listen, my beloved brethren, did not God choose the poor of this world, to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him." Before we try to understand this verse, note that "of this world" has a footnote which says "literally to the world". So those chosen were poor from the viewpoint of the world, but not necessarily in the eyes of God. More on that later.
Now for the study, Listen is used to get the audience to pay attention, and we should listen up.
My beloved brethren, refers to the 12 tribes,
did not God choose the poor to the world, says those chosen were known to the world and were thought by the world to be poor, putting the timing of God's choice during the lifetime of those chosen after they were known to the world as being poor.
The answer provided by one poster was God chose the individual before creation and foreknew they would be poor and that those living at that time would view them as poor. This is an absurd response, not based on what the verse says, but changing it completely based on doctrine. Anyone can make anything say anything if you add imaginary stuff to it. "Two equals four" seem like falsehood, but I could add, there is an invisible "plus two" in the saying, but you cannot see it. This is no way to try to discern what James was actually saying.
To be rich in faith, first the to be is added by the translators probably in an attempt to make it read more smoothly, but because of the Greek grammar construction, double accusative where poor is the direct object and rich is the compliment describing as aspect of the poor, a better more grammatically correct translation, if the need to add is followed is "poor to the world, as rich in faith, and ....
Therefore this verse demonstrates conditional election based on God choosing those who are rich in faith. This is consistent with Romans 5:2 where our faith provides our access to God's grace.
And heirs of the kingdom, this refers to those who love God, because it was to those who love God the kingdom was promised. So yet another statement that the election was conditioned on people who were living and loved God.
Lets see your answer, devoid of "I do not believe it" or "you failed to prove it" or "its unbiblical" and other generalized rebuttals.
Last edited by a moderator:
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
To answer your question in point 3, the answer is yes. I did not mean on the BB, but from the works of Christians throughout Church history. Begin with the Synod of Dort and move forward from there. Most of your objections have been raised in history and answered in history.
Also, I think its unwise to expect every objection or challenge you raise to be answered. I will pray about answering your points here.
Tom Butler
New Member
I'm asking for clarification here with regard to the term "crediting faith as righteousness."
How do you see this? Does it mean that because of our faith, we become righteous? If so, is it enough righteousness for God to declare us justified?
Paul also writes about imputed righteousness, by which he means Christ's righteousness imputed to us. Is that the righteousness which God credits to us?
A second question regards the term "sacrificing his son to provide the means of salvation." Does Christ's sacrifice provide salvation or simply make salvation possible?
I'm not going to get involved in the rest of this debate, but I did want to hear how you defined those things I mentioned?
Fair enough, Reformed Baptist, the longer we meditate on what God would have us do, and reflect on His instructions in His word, the more we realize we must both study and pray and study and pray and above all, listen to God and apply His word to our lives, becoming doers rather than hearers. God Bless
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Tom,
I'm asking for clarification here with regard to the term "crediting faith as righteousness."
How do you see this? Does it mean that because of our faith, we become righteous? If so, is it enough righteousness for God to declare us justified?
Paul also writes about imputed righteousness, by which he means Christ's righteousness imputed to us. Is that the righteousness which God credits to us?
A second question regards the term "sacrificing his son to provide the means of salvation." Does Christ's sacrifice provide salvation or simply make salvation possible?
I'm not going to get involved in the rest of this debate, but I did want to hear how you defined those things I mentioned?
Does it mean we become righteous? Not directly. We are not credited as righteousness, Romans 4:4-5 says God credits our faithas righteousness. Now based on that, God chooses us, setting us apart by spiritually placing us in Christ, where we undergo the circumcision of Christ and arise in Christ a new creation. So we are righteous in Christ, but not until we are converted spiritually. Only when we are in Christ do we receive the justification provided by Christ to all mankind. The circumcision is where we receive the justification.
The body of flesh, sin is removed, we are forgiven and justified, for it is just as if we did not sin in the past, present or future because of Christ's justification once for all our sin.
Does Christ's sacrifice provide salvation or just the means of salvation? Both! When He died on the cross, you were not saved, but He provided the means, the propitiation, for your salvation. Thus in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, fallen men could be reconciled to God through Christ, He is the way and on one comes to God except through the Son. So how do we enter salvation. God chooses us based on crediting our faith as righteousness, and puts us in Christ. Only when we are spiritually put in Christ do we "receive the reconciliation" provided by Christ's sacrifice.
Thanks for the questions, and giving me the opportunity to share my study results, as dubious as they may seem at first with others.
I'm asking for clarification here with regard to the term "crediting faith as righteousness."
How do you see this? Does it mean that because of our faith, we become righteous? If so, is it enough righteousness for God to declare us justified?
Paul also writes about imputed righteousness, by which he means Christ's righteousness imputed to us. Is that the righteousness which God credits to us?
A second question regards the term "sacrificing his son to provide the means of salvation." Does Christ's sacrifice provide salvation or simply make salvation possible?
I'm not going to get involved in the rest of this debate, but I did want to hear how you defined those things I mentioned?
Does it mean we become righteous? Not directly. We are not credited as righteousness, Romans 4:4-5 says God credits our faithas righteousness. Now based on that, God chooses us, setting us apart by spiritually placing us in Christ, where we undergo the circumcision of Christ and arise in Christ a new creation. So we are righteous in Christ, but not until we are converted spiritually. Only when we are in Christ do we receive the justification provided by Christ to all mankind. The circumcision is where we receive the justification.
The body of flesh, sin is removed, we are forgiven and justified, for it is just as if we did not sin in the past, present or future because of Christ's justification once for all our sin.
Does Christ's sacrifice provide salvation or just the means of salvation? Both! When He died on the cross, you were not saved, but He provided the means, the propitiation, for your salvation. Thus in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, fallen men could be reconciled to God through Christ, He is the way and on one comes to God except through the Son. So how do we enter salvation. God chooses us based on crediting our faith as righteousness, and puts us in Christ. Only when we are spiritually put in Christ do we "receive the reconciliation" provided by Christ's sacrifice.
Thanks for the questions, and giving me the opportunity to share my study results, as dubious as they may seem at first with others.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Translation: When I can't address the content of your arguments I'll put my fingers in my ears and make a lot of noise. :laugh:
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
I did mention to EWF that someone would take the childish road to try and claim some sort of victory over his stance, even if in jest.
Sad.
Actually no, proper translation....when arguing...best to give them the floor. Ive done that on countless occasions with you.:laugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
To the board: What EWF is expressing here may be found in Proverbs 26:4-5
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
There is great wisdom in these two verses and it takes wisdom to know which one to follow.
Ahhh RB, I can answer for myself....truth is that your never going to stop these characters from demeaning Calvinist beliefs so I just choose not to waste my time anymore with those that do..... I just go ahead & practice my faith as I believe its to be practiced....forget them if they dont like it.
What they dont understand is that they are actually making us more resolute & more committed in our faith. Thanks Scan, thanks Van and all you critics & self opposed messengers from God. Keep it coming. :thumbs:
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status