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!
Calvinists are false, and so is Piper, so what does it matter what the two false teachers say about each other?
You may not agree with the approach of either, but in two thousand years of church history, neither of them would be labeled false teachers.
You might claim their false beliefs of Calvinism have been around since Jesus, but that does not make them true. There have been false teachers two thousand years ago, just as Jesus warned
As for no one labeling them false...what happened to Servetus? What happened to him after he tried to go against Calvin? Did you not know that John Calvin had many people put to death?
If you're talking about the fellow with the long question who slammed Piper, then took a swing at Sinclair Ferguson questioning and belittling their belief in giving the Gospel to every man and the "Knocking the L out of Tulip" in so doing, then my answer is simple, and biblical; We don't know who the elect are, and we don't selectively choose out of a group those whom we think are elect and preach only to them. Any on the outside of Reformed/Calvinistic belief who accuse Calvinists of this absurdity don't understand the doctrine in the first place, and secondly make a false accusation. We simply preach the Gospel, God's elect believe. 2 Timothy 2:8-10.
The man presenting this question (in the video) reminds me of a recent thread here where some children made a video quoting John 3:16, and the OP sort of slammed them for their presentation, for the sake of what "whole world" means.
That's ridiculous.
Were the kids to qualify that and say "If you're elect?" No. What the kids were doing is telling those who watch "the Good News." The result of preaching the Gospel is that only those chosen in Him will be saved; 1 Thess. 1:4; 2 Thess 2:13-14; Eph. 1:4.
Anyone who preaches any other Gospel, that is, other than the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is preaching another Gospel. We are not to qualify the message, we are to preach it. God knows who are His. We don't.
- Peace
My friend. Thank you for the video
I wasn't crazy about John Piper inviting Rick Warren. John Piper is obviously working through some things, and has not thought things through to associate himself with Warren, but I do not see how that is John Piper knocking the "L" out of T.U.L.I.P.
Us Calvinists have to be careful in how we interpret one another's words or actions, because we ourselves could be one interpretation away from being outside the camp as well.
First, it has to be demonstrated that Warren is not in fact a Calvinist himself. That is almost always assumed because he applies missiological tactics to growing his church, but that does not, in and of itself, disqualify him from holding to doctrines of grace.
Alsp dependent upon which definition of Cal one holds to, as reformed see it as ALL of the system, while baptists tend to see it as regarding holding mainly to the DoG!
Rick Warren’s shift to Calvinism was officially announced in 2007 when he was accepted into the membership of Together for the Gospel (T4G), a Calvinist organization that began with conservative Calvinists Ligon Duncan, Mark Dever, Al Mohler and C. J. Mahaney for the purpose of promoting Calvinism’s core “Doctrines of Grace” (aka TULIP). Warren released a statement explaining his association with T4G shortly after his acceptance saying, “I know this is going to be difficult for many to accept, but in the famous words of Martin Luther ‘My conscience is captive to the word of God!’ I look forward to building relationships with those with whom I have disagreed for so long. I am excited to now be a part of the Together for the Gospel team.” While this was Rick Warren’s “coming out” event, it’s not his first mention of Calvinism. He’s apparently held to the sovereign predestining purposes of God for some time.
Alsp dependent upon which definition of Cal one holds to, as reformed see it as ALL of the system, while baptists tend to see it as regarding holding mainly to the DoG!
I have a book of Sermons on all five points of Calvinism identified, defined and preached by C.H. Spurgeon. Yet, Spurgeon combined human responsibility and God's sovereignty in such a harmonous fashion in all his preaching that both sides claim him. He struck the perfect balance. That perfect balance is best expressed in these words "He invited all that would come to Christ to come."
also would depend on the mindset of each Christian, for if one holds to those such as Calvin and Spurgeon as teaching heresy, then it would not matter/bother to them how well it sounded!
Spurgeon was probably the greatest "soul winner" in his day. He also was one of the cheif proponents of Calvinism in his day. All I am saying is the doctrine of grace does not prohibit soul winning but rather promotes it if correctly understood. I believe Spurgeon correctly understood the relationship between the sovereignty of God and human responsibility and that is precisely why both Arminians and Calvinist both claim him as the example for preaching the gospel.
He was one of the greatest preachers of the Gospel who ever lived, and would totally agree with you about him!
Jesus invited all who were "heaven ladened" and tired of sin to come to Him for rest. He always qualified his invitation. He never invited the righteous to come to him - "I came not to call the righteous." He never invited those in love with sin to come to him. Spurgeon invited all who "would" come to come. Spurgeon invited all who needed forgiveness, freedom, and remission of sins to come to Christ freely. Spurgeon always presented Christ as the Savior from sin and never the Savior for those in love with sin. He believed that in preaching the gospel and calling upon all his hearers to repent of sin and then invite all who freely desired to be freed from sin to come to Christ was perfectly in keeping with the doctrines of grace.
Greatest example of this would be the Apostle paul, as he was the One that the Lord revealed those doctrines too, and he still felt the hearts cry towards his people isreal, who were denying jesus as their Messiah!
Just saying that some non cals here automatically would refuse to hear what Spurgeon wrote/preached, as he was cal, and just "had to be wrong!"
My friend. This is really bad logic you are using. I really suggest you do your own reading rather than repeat what others have said.
It is apparent that you don't like Calvinism, but Calvinism (was not started by John Calvin) is not false and anyone associated with it is not false. You have absolutely no support for making a blanket statement such as this.
As far as Servetus? My friend. We must be careful judging Christians in past societies-There were no police, no special organizations etc... they did the best that they could with what little they had and knew. If we use your logic, any white Christian who owned a slave was false as well.
200 years from now. Christians will judge us in the same manner in how the church treated the homosexual community.
I see that you put great worth in your own opinion
If there is anyone calling themselves a Christian, and yet they are killing homosexuals, like John Calvin killed, then those Christians should be judged.