How Calvinists are like Charismatics

[stilllearning]

First of all, Charismatics(God love’m), appear to be very zealous, but they put “their man-made doctrine” above the Word of God.

They have the Doctrine of salvation right, but they are forced to “slide over” lot’s of Scripture, when it contradicts there traditions.

In the same way Calvinists, have the Doctrine of salvation right, but are forced to slide over or twist or misinterpret Scripture, when it disagrees with their dogma.
-----------------------------
Here is a good example.

John Gill, is one of my favorite commentators, who I am sure to see in heaven one day; But I am forced to ignore “some” of his observations in Scripture, because he is a Calvinist.

Recently I read what he had to say about..........
Revelation 22:17
“And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”

Now it is clear, that this word “Come”, is an invitation for the unsaved to “come to the Lord”.
But John Gill being a good Calvinist, is forced by his theology(that denies man’s free will), to disagree with the Word of God.

Here is what brother Gill says about this verse......
Ver. 17. And the Spirit and the bride say, come, &c.] Hearing Christ say that he should come quickly, #Re 22:7,12 the Spirit and the bride express an earnest wish, and a most affectionate desire after his coming: by "the Spirit" may be meant the Spirit of God in the hearts of his people, who not only convinces them of, and acquaints with the coming of Christ to judgment, and gives them reason to expect it, but fills their souls with the love of his appearance, so that they look and long for it, and hasten in the breathings of their souls after it:.....

Note: His entire quote can be downloaded free from the internet; But he never gets this verse right.
-----------------------------
I do not mean to anger my Calvinist brothers and sisters by this OP {rule violation snipped}

 

[Ruiz]

I hate to put a damper on your critique of Owen, but the context is that this is a message to the Churches delivered by the angels. This is not a salvation message. The previous verse states:

“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”

This is not a call to the non-Christians, but is a message given by Jesus to the angels for the churches. This exact issue was brought up in my Evangelism class in Seminary. I think most of us concluded that this was not an evangelistic calling (I went to school at mostly a non-calvinist school).

This is also like the earlier verse of Jesus saying that he stands at the door and knock. Again, a message to the church about Christians, not to non-Christians. Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists recognize this is not a verse calling people to salvation. I believe the same exists in this verse.

As well, Owen does not deny one needs to repent nor does he deny that people should be called to Christ. Having read his work on justification, I know he believes we should call people to repent and the like. He, however, does not believe the context dictates that this is a call to salvation. Thus, you shouldn't use this as a proof text when there is clear room to say that at best this is a debatable verse or at worse definitely not a salvation call.

 

[psalms109:31]

Messenger

Angel means messenger, so the church does not have to spread this message to the unsaved , but keep it to themselves?

 

[David Lamb]

I hate to put a damper on your critique of Owen, but the context is that this is a message to the Churches delivered by the angels. This is not a salvation message.

I agree with you, Ruiz, but I think you probably meant "Gill", 'cos he was critiqued in the OP, where John Owen wasn't mentioned.

 

[David Lamb]

Angel means messenger, so the church does not have to spread this message to the unsaved , but keep it to themselves?

Of course the church is not to keep the gospel message to itself. But that doesn't mean that we must apply to people who are not Christians those things in the bible that are said of believers. For example, 1 Thessalonians 5.4:

But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief.
​

Applying those words to an unbeliever would be just plain wrong. I know, as I am sure you do, that before Jesus saved me,I was in darkness.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Ruiz

Don’t worry about putting a “damper” on anything I sayI am here to learn.)
(Surly when you say “Owen” you mean to say “Gill”.)

You call this a debatable verse........great.
Let me show you the way I see it.
-----------
Sure enough in verse 16, the Lord is talking to the Church, but verse 17 starts out with....
“And the Spirit and the bride say,”

So the Lord is no longer talking “to” the Church, but this is what the Church(& the Spirit), are saying to the world.

And we know that this message is directed toward the world, because it says......
“And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”

Now, there should be no question, that “the water of life”, is talking about “salvation”.
----------------------
You also said.......

“I went to school at mostly a non-calvinist school”

Well that is good.
But all it takes in one Calvinist professor, to start you off on the wrong track.

I say “the wrong track”, because although you and I may agree about the Doctrine of Salvation, when it comes to Calvinism, one of us must be right and the other one must be wrong.

If I am wrong, I want to be corrected! (Using “all” of the Scriptures.)

I am more interested in being “proven” wrong myself, than proving you wrong!

 

[psalms109:31]

Messenger

When it comes from a messenger to the church that spreads the Gospel, i see it as a Gospel message to spread. Just like this

Revelation 3:
14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:

To the messenger of the Church of Laodicea write:

Revelation 3:
20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

It is to the messenger to spread not to keep to themselves. If they are already believers they have done this already, if they are not they haven't and unsaved and need to do so.

That is how i see it.

John 15:
5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

 

[convicted1]

I hate to put a damper on your critique of Owen, but the context is that this is a message to the Churches delivered by the angels. This is not a salvation message. The previous verse states:

“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”

This is not a call to the non-Christians, but is a message given by Jesus to the angels for the churches. This exact issue was brought up in my Evangelism class in Seminary. I think most of us concluded that this was not an evangelistic calling (I went to school at mostly a non-calvinist school).

Ooooookkkkkkaaaaaayyyyyyy. So this message is to the church? The church needs to come and take the water of life freely? The Spirit and the Bride are saying "come" to the church? I have news for you Brother Ruiz, the Church IS the bride. The church? Hmmmm.....never heard that one before. So I guess they had to get another dose of the "water of life"????

This is also like the earlier verse of Jesus saying that he stands at the door and knock. Again, a message to the church about Christians, not to non-Christians. Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists recognize this is not a verse calling people to salvation. I believe the same exists in this verse.

As well, Owen does not deny one needs to repent nor does he deny that people should be called to Christ. Having read his work on justification, I know he believes we should call people to repent and the like. He, however, does not believe the context dictates that this is a call to salvation. Thus, you shouldn't use this as a proof text when there is clear room to say that at best this is a debatable verse or at worse definitely not a salvation call.

Rev. 3:20 to be precise. I use it a lot when I tell people who are lost, that if Jesus is knocking on your door, open up and invite Him in. Jesus is the Head of the Church, correct? The Church is the body of Christ, correct? So then, by 'splainin' it this way, why would Jesus be knocking on His own body? IOW, why would He be on the outside of His Own body? Like 2 + 2= 1,000,000; it just doesn't add up.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello psalms109:31

Not to change the subject of this thread, but you said.......

“Revelation 3:
20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

It is to the messenger to spread not to keep to themselves. If they are already believers they have done this already, if they are not they haven't and unsaved and need to do so.”

This may indeed be a “debatable” verse, because this is a letter to “a Church”.
Therefore this just might be talking to Christians.

If so, then this is talking about “Sanctification” and not “Justification”!

 

[convicted1]

Hello psalms109:31

Not to change the subject of this thread, but you said.......


This may indeed be a “debatable” verse, because this is a letter to “a Church”.
Therefore this just might be talking to Christians.

If so, then this is talking about “Sanctification” and not “Justification”!

Brother, I know this was not pointed at me, but I want to respond to it.

I agree that this is directed towards a church. But remember one thing; a church(local I mean) can have hypocrites in it. The Church, which is the body of Christ, the bride of the Lamb, does not have one hypocrite in Her.

So Jesus can not be talking about His body(The Church), because the members of The Church are on the "inside looking out", whereas the world is on the "outside looking in" , so to speak. So if Jesus is telling the church, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any man will hear My voice, and OPEN THE DOOR(sounds like Jesus is on the outside here), I will come in and sup with him, and him with Me", then He has to be talking about those who have not been anchored in Him, the lost, the unregenerate, the reprobate, etc. So, Bro. Psalms109:31 and my take on that verse stands on its own merit. Jesus is not asking His Bride to open the door, they did so, and are already His; there is no need of Him asking them to open the door again.

 

[Winman]

Brother, I know this was not pointed at me, but I want to respond to it.

I agree that this is directed towards a church. But remember one thing; a church(local I mean) can have hypocrites in it. The Church, which is the body of Christ, the bride of the Lamb, does not have one hypocrite in Her.

So Jesus can not be talking about His body(The Church), because the members of The Church are on the "inside looking out", whereas the world is on the "outside looking in" , so to speak. So if Jesus is telling the church, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any man will hear My voice, and OPEN THE DOOR(sounds like Jesus is on the outside here), I will come in and sup with him, and him with Me", then He has to be talking about those who have not been anchored in Him, the lost, the unregenerate, the reprobate, etc. So, Bro. Psalms109:31 and my take on that verse stands on its own merit. Jesus is not asking His Bride to open the door, they did so, and are already His; there is no need of Him asking them to open the door again.

Jesus was not speaking to this church only.

Rev 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Do you have an ear? Then Jesus was speaking to you. This is not speaking of having a physical ear, it is speaking of being willing to hear what God says. Verse 20 is a universal salvation offer and is spoken to anyone who will listen.

Rev 3:20 also shows how regeneration takes place, the gospel is an external call likened to Jesus knocking on your door. He does not force himself in, else why would he knock? No, he patiently knocks, but we of our own free will must respond and open the door inviting him in.
When Jesus comes in to you, this is when you are regenerated.

 

[convicted1]

Jesus was not speaking to this church only.

Rev 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Do you have an ear? Then Jesus was speaking to you. This is not speaking of having a physical ear, it is speaking of being willing to hear what God says. Verse 20 is a universal salvation offer and is spoken to anyone who will listen.

Rev 3:20 also shows how regeneration takes place, the gospel is an external call likened to Jesus knocking on your door. He does not force himself in, else why would he knock? No, he patiently knocks, but we of our own free will must respond and open the door inviting him in.
When Jesus comes in to you, this is when you are regenerated.

I agree with this post 100%, especially that last sentence. :thumbs:

 

[Ruiz]

I agree with you, Ruiz, but I think you probably meant "Gill", 'cos he was critiqued in the OP, where John Owen wasn't mentioned.

Your right, I was writing too late at night.

 

[Ruiz]

Hi Ruiz

Don’t worry about putting a “damper” on anything I sayI am here to learn.)
(Surly when you say “Owen” you mean to say “Gill”.)

You call this a debatable verse........great.
Let me show you the way I see it.
-----------
Sure enough in verse 16, the Lord is talking to the Church, but verse 17 starts out with....
“And the Spirit and the bride say,”

So the Lord is no longer talking “to” the Church, but this is what the Church(& the Spirit), are saying to the world.

And we know that this message is directed toward the world, because it says......
“And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”

Now, there should be no question, that “the water of life”, is talking about “salvation”.
----------------------
You also said.......


Well that is good.
But all it takes in one Calvinist professor, to start you off on the wrong track.

I say “the wrong track”, because although you and I may agree about the Doctrine of Salvation, when it comes to Calvinism, one of us must be right and the other one must be wrong.

If I am wrong, I want to be corrected! (Using “all” of the Scriptures.)

I am more interested in being “proven” wrong myself, than proving you wrong!

I am sure you know this, but the "Bride" throughout Scripture is the Church. We are the Bride of CHrist. He is calling the church to himself.

Either way, to critique Gill on this verse is really saying that your interpretation must be correct and there is no alternative interpretation. Thus, I think your criticism of him is unwarranted.

 

[Ruiz]

Ooooookkkkkkaaaaaayyyyyyy. So this message is to the church? The church needs to come and take the water of life freely? The Spirit and the Bride are saying "come" to the church? I have news for you Brother Ruiz, the Church IS the bride. The church? Hmmmm.....never heard that one before. So I guess they had to get another dose of the "water of life"????




Rev. 3:20 to be precise. I use it a lot when I tell people who are lost, that if Jesus is knocking on your door, open up and invite Him in. Jesus is the Head of the Church, correct? The Church is the body of Christ, correct? So then, by 'splainin' it this way, why would Jesus be knocking on His own body? IOW, why would He be on the outside of His Own body? Like 2 + 2= 1,000,000; it just doesn't add up.

I agree that the church is the Bride, that was my entire point. I am not sure what point you are trying to make, but I do believe this is a message to the Church and it seems you want to agree with me, then you change to not agree with me.

Yet, my entire point is this, why be critical of a person when obviously there is a great amount of room to disagree on the verse. If we are making a litmus about Christianity on this one verse, it seems like a rather poor verse to make it on.

 

[preacher4truth]

Your name is "stilllearing" on here?

Gill has this correct. The problem is you've listened to too many sermons that apply Scripture instead of interpreting Scripture. This is the same issue with Rev. 3:20, it's been applied wrongly so often people think it's the interpretation. For example you've heard the "come" part used as a proof-text too many times as an invitation (or have used it yourself) and think you have or they have expounded the truth of the passage with a razor sharp hermenuetic.

You'd be incorrect in your assessment.

I mean, you listen to the radio and hear about Sarah Palin and somehow it supports the KJB to you? How will anyone believe in your interpretations when you oft have such fantastical practices?

Also you've said Charismatics have salvation right (which I will disagree with their methods of it, so no, not altogether are they correct) and have other issues wrong. Such as?

Put up: Give your exposition of Revelation and prove your points.

- Peace

 

[Winman]

Your name is "stilllearing" on here?

Gill has this correct. The problem is you've listened to too many sermons that apply Scripture instead of interpreting Scripture. This is the same issue with Rev. 3:20, it's been applied wrongly so often people think it's the interpretation. For example you've heard the "come" part used as a proof-text too many times as an invitation (or have used it yourself) and think you have or they have expounded the truth of the passage with a razor sharp hermenuetic.

You'd be incorrect in your assessment.

I mean, you listen to the radio and hear about Sarah Palin and somehow it supports the KJB to you? How will anyone believe in your interpretations when you oft have such fantastical practices?

Also you've said Charismatics have salvation right (which I will disagree with their methods of it, so no, not altogether are they correct) and have other issues wrong. Such as?

Put up: Give your exposition of Revelation and prove your points.

- Peace

Many commentators interpret Rev 3:20 to be a universal invitation of salvation to all men including Clarke, Barnes, Henry, and many others. By the way, Barnes and Henry were Calvinists.

 

[preacher4truth]

Many commentators interpret Rev 3:20 to be a universal invitation of salvation to all men including Clarke, Barnes, Henry, and many others. By the way, Barnes and Henry were Calvinists.

I'm sure they do this. They are applying this passage. Ray C. Stedman does the same. It's been applied for so long, it's become a tradition in the church to believe that is its interpretation.

It makes for a good verse to preach the Gospel to some.

Do you use a Bible Program with commentaries?

- Peace

 

[Winman]

double post

 

[Winman]

I'm sure they do this. They are applying this passage. Ray C. Stedman does the same. It's been applied for so long, it's become a tradition in the church to believe that is its interpretation.

It makes for a good verse to preach the Gospel to some.

Do you use a Bible Program with commentaries?

- Peace

I do not commonly consult commentaries, I only listed those to show you that many true scholars interpret Rev 3:20 to be a universal invitation of salvation to all men.

Spurgeon also believed this, Google "Spurgeon's Devotional on Revelation 3:20". Here Spurgeon says such things as "fling wide the portal of your souls", "open your heart to him", "give the keys of your heart to him"... the kind of statements Calvinists often ridicule non-Cals for using. Search and see for yourself if you are really interested in knowing the truth.