John Robertson and New Teaching

I agree with this Steve.

The idea is that we should always be being reformed. The church today should not be weaker but stronger because she has the shoulders of others that God has given us before her to stand upon for our aid.

The evil arrogance of our day is this idea that every individual Christian can understand the deep things of Scripture by himself in a vacuum- that he does not need the aid of other God gifted teachers both present on earth and long departed.

But Christ builds his CHURCH. Though he is a wonderfully personal God, his evangelical work in this world comes through Christians working together, studying together, interpreting together, holding each other up and holding each other accountable.

This CHURCH Christ came to build consists not only of Christians living in our lifetime, but Christians throughout the ages. The CHURCH is not only upon this earth now but is also in heaven. And we have the help of those who've long departed still available to us.

We are not so stupid and conceited as to think that we do not need them. God doesn't give the individual all he needs in a vacuum. God gives it to him as he studies with Christians of all ages- aka THE CHURCH.

None of us would understand the Trinity as we do, if it were not for the Patristics. We work WITH Athanasias and the Church of his day to help us understand the Trinity though they have long been in heaven. We work with them because that is what Christ always intended for us to do- to work together. He gives teachers to profit the Body. Preachers who do not at all utilize these gifts God expects them to utilize are killing us in our culture.

What is utter wickedness to me is this, "Me and the Holy Ghost," business- this arrogance that says that it does not matter if what I believe -any other Christian on earth believes it! It does not matter if what I preach- no other Christian in history has preached it! The Pentecostals do not care that nobody but fringe heretical groups ever practiced what they practice. The KJVonlyists do not care that their doctrine is BRAND SPANKING NEW!

That is the intense arrogance of many in this age- and I think it manifests itself often in these threads.

 

DO see what you are argueing for/from, but do think not as black/white on "doctrinal purity" as you seem to hold to!

 

Ah, doctrinal purity, how quaint. Why not study the Word of God and "reform" the doctrinal impurity of Calvin? We are all familiar with the TULIP.

Why not reform it? A long time ago, about 400 years, great Biblical thinkers like John Calvin pondered the question of why some folks accept the gospel and some folks reject the gospel. Some said the reason is the message was not well presented. Others said no it can't be our fault, it must be God's fault.

John Calvin and others hit upon an idea. The folks that accept the gospel are the ones God individually chose before the foundation of the world and they were predestined to salvation, while the others not chosen were prevented by God from accepting the gospel. Having a working hypothesis, they manufactured support for the doctrine and attempted to address the many paradoxes the doctrine creates. God wants all men to come to salvation - nope, God wants all [kinds] of men to come to salvation. Over the years the reformed theology was developed. And over the years a sizeable group of folks rejected the manufactured support.

In parallel with this development process, Jacob Arminius, an objector developed his alternate view, desperately trying to put faith back into the equation. The Calvinist's had taken it out, and then attempted to address the scriptural weakness by manufacturing the gift of faith and asserting regeneration before belief.

Now four hundred years or so later, here we sit pridefully asserting Calvinism is either true or false and presenting a range of opposing views including those of Jacob Arminius.

Some believe the dark ages, as characterized by Religion being ensconced in government, was brought on by Augustine, who misinterpreted the parable of the feast (Luke 14:16-24). Augustine’s erroneous idea was that compel them (verse 23) meant use force to bring about God’s will and thus the foundation was laid for government compulsion enforcing the decrees of church leaders. Luther and other leaders of the Reformation realized folks should have religious freedom from the corrupted traditions of the Church and its leaders, and thus the foundation for church-state separation was laid.

I have said many times that Calvinism is not only a false doctrine; it is an obviously false doctrine. Despite numerous verses indicating total depravity is a false doctrine, folks say no they mean the exact opposite of what they say. Nobody can find the narrow door unless God regenerates them supernaturally. Nobody can seek God even though Jesus said to seek the kingdom of God. God wants only the elect to be saved even though scripture says God wants all men to be saved. Salvation or damnation has nothing to do with trusting in Christ or being a sinner, God decreed before mankind fell who would be saved and who would be damned and then just brings about His predestined will. In other words, the exact opposite of what scripture says.

I believe the Church is still partly bogged down in the dark age of Calvinism, with folks implying flawed evangelism is worse than no evangelism, or worse yet, God will save the elect in China, no need to send missionaries there! How does Calvinism hinder evangelism: two ways, it undercuts persistence (all I need do is present the gospel and God will do the rest) and it sidetracks believers (they spend much time debating the paradoxes of Calvinism and bashing opponents.)

 

Just a straw man arguement posting here, really need to take your "problems" with it up with Apostle Paul!

 

Yep. Typical of him.

More false doctrine of a non-cal fighting against truth. Nothing new.

Oh, am I too allowed to say what he's said? I'm considered a cal you know. :laugh:

:thumbsup:

 

He perverted the gospel of Jesus Christ through infant baptism. Either baptism is a sacrament that conveys saving grace or it is a type! Sacramentalism perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ directly. If you believe it is a type then the only value of a type is that it conveys the truth it is designed by God to typify. If you pervert the type, you pervert the truth it is designed to convey.

Baptism as a type, is designed to convey the central truth of the gospel which is the symbolic portral of his death, burial and resurrection. Infant baptism perverts the type two different ways and thus perverts the gospel truth it is designed to convey. It perverts the gospel as it teaches infants are beleivers in the gospel. It perverts the gospel by denying the burial of Jesus Christ.

May the present day followers of John Robinson heed his instruction and stop following him in this grave error.

 

Problem with your request [to reform the TULIP] though is that Calvin took his theological "model" from the Apostle Paul Himself!

No, Calvinism represents a corruption of Paul, as I have demonstrated citing Paul's own words.

Calvin and Luther were both involved in determining form the BIBLE why the model of Sotierology that was being served up to them in RCC was NOT that of the Bible, and was shown/revealed by the H illuminating their minds that we are savd by grace alone/faith alone in the person and work of jesus Christ!

This is true, we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. But this "regeneration before faith" adsurdity is the corruption.

Again, he and others of the reformation were seeking the scriptures to solve the problem of a false Gospel being taught by RCC, and the HS shone the light of true salvation unto them, and used them to start Great reformation!

Nonsense! Calvin wrote in the Institutes why he came up with his absurd doctrines. You can deny it, but his book is available for anyone to read.

Again, your arguement is NOT with Augustine/Calvin etc but with the Apostle paul, as theri doectrines for Sotierogy was derived from him!

I have absolutely no problem with Paul, I cite Paul to refute Calvin.

NO Cal here, unless of PB/Hyper strand, says no need to preach and proclaim the Gospel! Historically my examples are valid, Calvinism hinders the ministry of Christ and should be reformed to present what the Bible actually says.

Instead of Total Spiritual Inability, the Bible teaches limited spiritual ability and may be lost completely with the practice of sin, i.e the first soil of Matthew 13. Paul clearly teaches that men of flesh can understand the milk of the gospel, 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3 but not the things spiritually discerned because they are not indwelt.

Instead of Unconditional Election, the Bible teaches conditional election, through faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Paul yet again!!

Instead of Limited Atonement, the Bible teaches Christ died for all, and therefore provided reconciliation for all, but only those who "receive" the reconcilation when God puts them in Christ benefit from Christ's finished work on the cross. 2 Cor. 5, Romans 5, etc. Oh yes, Paul yet again!!!

Instead of Irresistible Grace (AKA Gift of Faith, Effectual Call, etc), the Bible teaches faith comes from hearing the gospel and believing in it from the heart. The Holy Spirit provided the Gospel message which we as ambassadors of Christ preach. The gospel is the power of God to salvation. If a person embraces the gospel fully, as described in Matthew 13, then God will credit that faith as righteousness, Romans 4:4-5, and put that person "in Christ."

In summary four of the five points of the TULIP are corruptions of Paul and this truth can be plainly seen in his very writings.

[/B]

 

Reply to Martin

Hi Steve, I am addressing how to reform Reformed Theology.

You said your view of "sovereignty of God" was part of the good! Is that not code for God ordains sin? That everything is predestined by God! I believe those views are corruptions of Paul.

You said you view of "total depravity of man" which is code for total spiritual inability was part of the good. I believe it is part of the bad, yet another corruption of Paul by Calvin and should be reformed.

You said your view of Particular Redemption, code for Limited Atonement was part of the good. I believe is is part of the bad, yet another corruption of Paul by Calvin and should be reformed.

 

Hi Steve, why put words in my mouth. I said Calvinism hinders evangelism and you say I believe Calvin did not believe in evangelism. You should not misrepresent my views to score debate points. Here is the entire quote you edited to misrepresent my view:

I believe the Church is still partly bogged down in the dark age of Calvinism, with folks implying flawed evangelism is worse than no evangelism, or worse yet, God will save the elect in China, no need to send missionaries there! How does Calvinism hinder evangelism: two ways, it undercuts persistence (all I need do is present the gospel and God will do the rest) and it sidetracks believers (they spend much time debating the paradoxes of Calvinism and bashing opponents.)

 

Hi Steve, you misrepresented my view. Own up to your misbehavior. You should have said, if you believe Calvinism hinders evangelism in two ways, you know nothing about Calvinism. If you had, you would be wrong, but but not dishonest. Notice my sentence started with an if, so I did not say you were dishonest. See how it done, my friend?

I understand you think my views are rubbish, but then I believe your views are rubbish. So why not actually discuss doctrine?

You claimed baby baptism had been put on the dust bin of history. Really? How would you answer this, if an elect unborn baby was aborted, never having heard the gospel, would that elect person go to heaven? What is the official Reformed Position.

 

God's business is doing the supernatural --that's why He is God Mr.Van.

You have no idea how wrong you are -- or you persist in telling falsehoods.

 

Ha,ha,ha.

He "came up" with his doctrines because they were biblically based.

And you,have quite apparently not read it.

Calvin was as Pauline as they come.

You say "historically",yet you show no evidence of being aware of the glowing examples in Church History of Calvinists being dedicated to the ministry of the Gospel of Christ Jesus.

I'm sure you have been told before,but Calvin did not come up with 5 points. The so-called five propositions were in response to the five propositions of the Remonstrants.

 

Van,

I know I am coming into this discussion late, and I am not a follower of Calvin, athough my soteriology would be identified as Calvinism by most. However, I take issue with your "two ways" that Calvinism (I assume we are not talking about hypercalvinism, but the kind that C.H.Spurgeon taught and preached).

Evangelical calvinists believe that God not only elected the persons to be saved but also the means by which they shall be saved - the preaching of the gospel. Secondly, the elect and the timing of their salvation is known only to God. Therefore, we are to continue sharing the gospel as long as the person before us is willing to tolerate it. We do not know if that person may be saved today or tomorrow, or never, only that as long as we have opportunity to share the gospel we should and we desire to do so.

Secondly, contending for the faith, however one may define the faith from their own perspective is our duty.

Personally, I never stop praying for my lost loved ones and use every opportunity they will humor me, I share the gospel and whatever truth that is applicable for the opportunity availed me. I don't take for granted that everyone who claims to be saved is saved, and so I preach the gospel every opportunity I can to the saved.

There was no one more opposed to Calvinism than I was. No preacher, no professor could change my mind or remove my hate of that doctrine. However, when my wife and I were reading through the gospel of John in our nightly devotions the truth of God's elective grace seemed to jump out of the pages in every chapter we were reading. I turned to my wife one night and said, I can fight preachers and professors but how do you fight God in good conscience.

However, because of my intense hatred for that truth and because of the travail I went through in my own experience in coming to embrace it, I perfectly understand those who hate it and truely believed it was a false doctrine, unjust, unloving, and makes God a respector of persons and the author of sin. I fully agree if it is the hyper-Calvinistic position it can lead to anti-evangelism and dry up a person and a church.

I personally beleive C. H. Spurgeon held a fairly balanced Calvinistic view. I have his sermons that he preached on TULIP. Yes, he used that very acronym. I have read them often.

 

I do not understand what you are saying here.

All I am saying is that you cannot sufficiently interpret Scripture alone. You require the aid of the Church that Jesus Christ said he would build. That church spans thousands of years of history.

You can't understand the Bible properly without the aid of those God has given us to aid us to understand the Scripture. You don't get the deep things of God in a vacuum. You don't get them through spiritual osmosis. You STUDY. You utilize the teachings of the Church that spans the ages. You don't accept something just because it is old, but you find out how the church came to believe what it believed and you learn.

What I am saying is that you do not sufficiently understand the Trinity without Athanasias. You don't properly understand Grace without Augustine. And the list goes on and on.

So when a Pentecostal or a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon or a dispensationalist or a KJVonlyist comes along and ignores the fact that the CHURCH never adhered to these new doctrines- that person ought to be condemned for this arrogance and ignorance that says, "I don't NEED the Church to help me understand the deep things of God!" That person is dangerous.

I am contending that this type of arrogance and ignorance permeates many movements in our culture and is greatly responsible for the apostasy of our culture.

 

Poppycock.

Taking only one example: One does not even have to know who Athanasias is to understand the Trinity. One does not have to know who Augustine is to understand the grace of our heavenly father.

Is it good to study these? Yes, without reservation. Will it make the one who studies them a better-educated person? Yes. All education is worthwhile, and makes us better people.

Will it make us better Christians? Is it necessary?

Not necessarily.

While the pursuit of knowledge is worthy and recommended, one must be careful that knowledge isn't elevated to a position of "idol."

In essence, Luke is absolutely correct; in practice, it can deny the scripture that says we are each different, with different gifts and talents; and that none of us are able to say that we are better than any other, or have no need of any other.

 

You don't HAVE to know who they are- but you DO rely upon the teachings they passed down to us.

This is not enough. I'm glad that you acknowledge this much but you have yet to display that you understand that Scripture is not interpreted in a vacuum. That it takes the CHURCH to understand the Word of God properly. That God always intended for us to work together. That even the authors of the Bible worked with each other and those before them and that you have to do the same thing.

The knowledge of God cannot be over elevated.

To know him better is to be further from idolatry- not closer to it.

The problem is the independent mindset that keeps people from REALLY knowing God. Because of this mindset they themselves are idolators fixing a god in their mind to suit them.

Since they lack the humility to submit their interpretations to the scrutiny of the Church, it is THEIR knowledge that is idolatry- because it is not the knowledge of God- it is the knowledge of a god who is the product of ignorance and arrogance.