Must a Fundemental baptist be A calvinist?

No, I come clean, but I read Calvin in context. I see the theological point he is making.

Calvin is not quotable, he is theological. Thus, when he makes a statement he is making a bigger point that you must grasp. If you fail to grasp that point you then fail to grasp the quote.

As noted, God is more powerful than all the evil and they can only do what God permits. That is a doctrine everyone agrees to.

God also has commanded things to happen, like the crucifixion.

Then God permits evil to occur for Christ to be crucified. Yet, to show God is in control, Jesus' bones were not broken. Even evil served God.

That is not Calvinism or Arminianism, but people on both sides agree to this doctrine.

 

“He has plenty of reasons for comfort as he realises that the devil and all the ungodly are reined in by God, so that they cannot conceive, plan or carry out any crime, unless God allows it, indeed commands it"

Doesn't "all" include men also? It says in the quote that the devil and all of the ungodly cannot commit a sin unless God commands it. Seems pretty plain to me. He is saying that God ordains every sin committed.

So no, I don't agree with your doctrine. I beieve the Bible teaches that God has already stepped in when Jesus paid the price for all of us on the cross. Any man waiting for God to step in is wasteing his time, God has already done it. Again, the problem does not lie in whom God chooses, the problem lies in the hearts of men that don't choose God.

Besides, murder, robbery, rape, ect will not send a man to hell. Dieing without admitting that we are lost without Jesus and accepting the gift of the cross is the only thing that will send us to hell.

John

 

John, you can't nail them down on anything, because they all hold slightly different views. They use this knowingly to falsely accuse us of misrepresenting and not understanding Calvinism.

Trying to accurately represent Calvinism is like trying to catch a smoke ring with a butterfly net.

It is simply a deflection on their part, nobody is fooled.

 

Ruiz said: "Calvin is not quotable, he is theological. Thus, when he makes a statement he is making a bigger point that you must grasp. If you fail to grasp that point you then fail to grasp the quote."

Again, you have to be an intellectual to interpret/understand Calvin and the Bible correctly.

John

 

John,

It seems you hate intellectuals. That is fine and I take your attacks as a compliment. I am intellectual as I have 3 Masters and I teach at a College. However, that is not an argument against me. If you are saying you are stupid and you can't understand things, then I am here to help you and give you the tools to learn and grow. If you merely want to stereotype, you are worse than an intellectual, you are a hack.

Calvin is simple to understand (unlike Owen) but you cannot take one sentence in his arguments and build a case based upon that one sentence. You cannot pull his arguments from it's context, just like Paul whose arguments are rich and a pull quote is not always helpful in understanding his argument (Philippians 4:13 is an example)

 

I disagree, there is no context which would make Calvin's statement correct. To say the the devil and all who are ungodly cannot conceive of sin unless God commands it is close to pure blasphemy.

The scriptures say God does not even tempt a man to sin, much less force him to commit it as Calvin wrote. There is no context where Calvin can be correct.

But we have some who agree with Calvin here, and I am pretty sure you know who they are.

You can't say God commands and forces a man to conceive and carry out sin, and then say God is not the author of sin. This is no "mystery" as some try to explain it away, it is a direct contradiction and utter falsehood. It directly contradicts the word of God and should be rejected immediately by anyone who believes the scriptures.

But that is the problem, there are many here who follow the false doctrines and traditions of men, and not the scriptures.

 

Actually Ruiz, I was being facetious, it's not that I think you are an intellectual, my point is that most all Calvinists see themselves as intellectually superior than the rest of us. And you proved that with the post above.

FYI, i score in the mid 140's on IQ, which is the top 1 to 2 % of all Americans. When I went to college in 1978, I CLEP'd out of a whole year of college (32 hours). When I took the ASVAB to go into the ARMY I scored a 98 1/2 percentile. That includes the scores of generals and joint chiefs of staff.

So I seriously doubt that you are any smarter than I am, I am just pointing out that Calvinist's beliefs come more from academic overthinking, and the rantings of dead 16th century authors than they do from the Bible.

And get this, I am also 100% disabled for a mental illness that I was born with and has no cure. Go figure. So the only school I ever completed after HS was a two year Asscociates Degree in Biblical Studies from bible college.

I may not have 3 masters but I aint stupid.

John

 

Ah come on with that "All Calvinists think their Intellectuals" nonsense. Thats just ridiculous! You just have to want to try to understand it is all....its systematic theology is all it is. Why make such a big deal out of it? :laugh:

 

Cause I only have two brain cells that still work, and you want me to use them both at the same time! :laugh:

 

The reason Calvinists often times present themselves as intellectually superior to non-Cals is simply to use the logical fallacy of attacking the opponent as not understanding the incomprehensible absurdities of Calvinism. They are quick to question my qualifications and character and just as quick to claim the incoherent mishmash that is Calvinism as a systematic theology. What a joke. Everywhere you turn they offer nonsense as support.

For example a Calvinist claiming knowledge of Greek to the extent of 5 years training, claimed eis could not be translated as "for" However, numerous well respected translation did indeed translate eis as "for." So their claims of knowing more than those who oppose Calvinism actually shout a lack of rational support for the doctrine.

In a nutshell they use the same tactics as atheists, featuring an arrogant know it all attitude, and constantly asserting a lack of knowledge and a need for training and understand in their opponents. Transparent reliance of logical fallacies time and again by almost every proponent of the false doctrine.

 

Amen Van! You express the truth much better than me.

It's the old "If I can make them feel stupid then I can get them to agree with me" routine. :laugh:

John

 

I will say that that commentary alone displays an insulting, arrogant & ignorant attitude that you seem hell bent on continuing to flaunt. Who made you the absolute right provider of Faith Belief? And if you are the poster child for proper Christianity, then I understand why people would prefer to reject Christianity altogether. I for one am glad to be a Calvinist because as the song goes...."I wouldn't want to be like you" :smilewinkgrin:

 

I do not put myself as intellectually superior to non-Calvinists. There are some awesome non-calvinist scholars. For instance, Dr. Danny Aiken. I have the utmost respect for the man. He is very compelling and is a true scholar that demands respect for his intellectual ability.

Dr. Gary Habermas was one of my professors and was one of the great influences on my life theologically. Yes, I disagree with him on so much theologically, but there are few I respect more.

Dr. Mark Noll used to be a Calvinist but now he is a Lutheran. In my opinion, Mark is the greatest historic theologian in my lifetime. I read more than his simple four hundred, easy read, pages. I read his scholarly books that are big, bulky, and small print.

What I hate is the fundamentalist attitude that scholarship doesn't matter or is unimportant. Intellectualism is thrown out.

Thus, I do not hate non-Calvinists for being anti-intellectual. No, I hate it when anyone is anti-intellectual. God commanded us to love Him with all our mind, that was not an option to move towards anti-intellectualism. In fact, it is disobedience to God.

 

John,

Again, my viewpoint is not that I think non-Calvinists are anti-intellectual. I think fundamentalists have a tendency towards anti-intellectualism. Note a previous post where I noted some men I respect for their intellectualism who are not Calvinists. I could mention others like Paige, Ryrie, and Dr. York. I think the approach by most fundamentalists are diametrically opposed to the scholars in these other areas.

See, I don't think that only Calvinists are intellectual, but I agree with J. Greshem Machen when he noticed in Fundamental circles there was a resistance to intellectualism.

 

I could not agree more.

 

What is an intellectual anyway? Is it a man who goes through formal schooling all his life & collects degrees ....well thats fine with me but can it be a person like my Great Grandfather who had 2 years of formal schooling but throughout his life read & studied & elevated himself through his own force of personality, natural intelligence & determination to be the best man he could be. In addition, he worked every day but Sunday in a coal mine but built a church for his community (before he built his own house) & spent all Sunday as a simple preacher spreading the Gospel.

 

So what do you do about Job, "Have you considered my servant Job?"

The contrive issue is not a permissible act and again, the differentiation between permisive and command is slight in this instance as I noted before. However, God does give Satan "ideas" in the text of Job. Was it evil for God to suggest Job? No!

 

Well brothers, thats fine & you are generally respected but the disrespect will always rear its head when the humility is no longer there. We must all be on our guard ....and there are many hypersensitive people out there ready & throw rocks at any perceived defects in character....especially at anyone who professes to being a Calvinist. Need I say more?