Featured Hunt vs White

You've answered nothing. This is a debate forum, correct?

Answer this and especially the latter:

Up to this point you've offered not one plausible argument to support your false accusations against the reformed brothers. Nothing.

You've accused us of using other sources other than Scripture as our final authority. You've not proven this, nor is your accusation even remotely true.

 

I only attempted the translation to demonstrate that TULIP came much later than Calvin, and therefore could not originate with Calvin. We don't even know if Calvin believed in all five points. You claim this is Calvinism, but it isn't Calvin's work. See the hypocrisy here. It is the essence and core of Calvinism but doesn't originate with Calvin. He probably doesn't agree with all five points, at least not in the way you neo-Calvinists define them.

 

If you are so blind you cannot see from the evidence I have given you, then I cannot help you. Either the Bible is one's authority or it isn't.

 

This falls well short of your original indictment. TULIP came from Calvins teachings and were presented at the remonstrance to prove opponents wrong. You need to rethink your stance as it is erroneous.

'We'? You have a mouse in your pocket? YOU don't believe it, and YOU are misinformed.

Nope. YOU claim this is Calvinism. YOU claim Calvinism is based upon other sources other than Scripture as the final authority.

Yes, I see it.

He probably doesn't agree? That's solid! With any due respect, you simply do not know what you are talking about. I think perhaps with your 'probably' you are beginning to see your arguments are crumbling.

Explain to me again how we Calvinists base our final authority on other sources other than Scripture.

got bias DHK?

 

So be it, call me blind. Anything else?

But I await your evidence leveled upon Calvinists that they use things other than Scripture as their final authority.

Your accusations are unfounded and show a severe bias and misunderstanding on your part.

 

You are hung up on the English handy-dandy simplified memory helper.You need to read the canons of Dort for your information and edifification. It would clarify things for you so that you will not make so many categorical mistakes.

Horrors! He became a member of another Calvinistic assembly of believers. But you try and make it seem he almost departed from the Fath once delivered.

Only in your mind. John R.Rice made the same claim. However, he tried to edit out the Calvinistic elements from Spurgeon's sermons. That's hard to do,without using a read pen every couple of words.

The only sermon that non-Cals latch onto is C.H.S's one on 1 Timothy 2. It was certainly not one of his best and not one that was characteristic of him.

 

Oh,you are going to staigten him out,huh? Dr.M-Lloyd-Jones had the same stance as Calvin. Are you willing to villify him as well on a secondary doctrine?

I already made it clear several weeks ago that Calvin commented and preached on almost the whole canon of Scripture (including Daniel,a prophetic book if there ever was one).Give the man from Geneva credit where credit was due. He accoplished much more in his expositions of Scripture tan many have done in Church History and in little more than quarter of a century.

 

The Canons of Dort man,the Canons of Dort. Not the little acrostic.

"We."? You don't know.

Yes,it did not originate with calvin. No Calvinists would disagree. The source is Holy Writ.

Produce evidence please. Don't just assert.

 

To quote a famous fallen Jedi knight, "There is no conflict."

Charles Haddon Spurgeon was as Calvinistic as a Baptist could possibly be while still remaining a Baptist. Spurgeon possessed not only a right theology in regards to God's sovereignty, but also a right understanding of the means of salvation. He saw no conflict between God choosing His elect from eternity past and the need to appeal to sinners to repent and believe. Why? Because he understood that the preaching of the gospel was the means of salvation. God ordained the means by which His elect were to come to faith in Christ. That is why the Arminian can look at Spurgeon and think he was an Arminian. They ignore Spurgeon's statement that, "Calvinism is the gospel".

Almost every Reformed Baptist pastor I know preaches the same gospel that Spurgeon preached. We appeal to all who will listen to us to repent and believe. We believe that all who genuinely repent and believe will be saved. It is not for us to know who is elect and who is not. Theologically we know that all who truly repent and believe in Christ do so because they are one of God's elect. It is the Arminian who gets sidetracked in dissecting all the potential problems with Calvinism. The Calvinist pastor is too busy preaching the gospel to be caught up in all that nonsense.

 

Ahh, Yes! I occasionally like to help them define it with “Determinism” – which all 5 points of TULIP must vitally hinge on to logically stand. Watching their desperate methods to try to avoid the logical conclusions to their system’s claims, which can easily be shown to reject the truths of scripture which reveal God’s genuine and loving plan for all His creation, have become so stereotypically obvious that I tire of taking the time to pin them down on it. They simply attempt to rabbit-hole into one fallacy after another while demonstrating some false sense of intellectual pride thinking if they do this that they can’t be proved wrong. Such tactics defeat the ethical purposes of organized and meaningful debate. On that note:

Oh, as you are probably aware or will be, some here deny any philosophy is involved in that system…it all comes through “special enlightenments given to the members of the true church fathers who wrote the confessions” don’t you know…

Anyway, rare that a topic is respected or can be maintained on this board…as you can see…

For example, I once demonstrated just how truly willing the opposition would be to actually see a direct rebuttal to answer and put to rest just one of their stereotypical accusations that the non-Cal had no scripture to support our view (for those always wanting to resort to endless proof-texting and making such claims) - just for fun…yet, as expected, when I did so one could envision their heads were spinning like they were in an exorcism, they couldn’t STAND IT, wouldn’t allow it to stay on topic, their agenda was being compromised, certainly the complaints and reports to the administration were ramped up and the thread was mysteriously closed without explanation by means of a stealth-like flyby:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=79718

Such is life trying to debate in the BB forum being regulated with little regard for drawing out the truth or understanding of the principles to turn a common meaningless argument into an ethical and organized philosophically logical argument or the differences between the two…But you’d think someone like White should be embarrassed to attempt those stereotypical stunts such as: “you don’t understand the Calvinist system”.

:type:

 

Maybe it was because you were yelling STOP!!! most of the time and acting very childish.

 

Correction

As RSR just pointed out to me in a PM,the Canons of Dort were originally written in Latin,not Dutch.

 

Without the hashtag of "Calvinist" many non-Cals understand the same thing. Are you insinuating some false accusation because either we disagree with you, or you don't really understand what we believe.

First, you take Spurgeon's statement out of its context.
Second, and more importantly, you have blinders on.
A person who can only has only known black can only see white. He doesn't realize there are many colors in between.
I am not a Calvinist. Neither am I an Arminian.
You fail to realize there are "many colors in between," and make the mistake that many Calvinists do, of blindly classifying all who are not Calvinists as Armiininians. That is a bad mistake.

I am a missionary. I was asked by a Muslim, who knew I was a Christian missionary, if I was Catholic. I said, "No, I am Christian that believes the Bible.? He said, are you a Protestant than? I said, "No, I am a Christian, that believes the Bible."
That Muslim is like you. He believes all Christians must be divided into two categories: Protestant and Catholic. There is nothing in between. You have firmly set in your mind that all Christianity is either Calvinist or Arminian. "There are no colors in between."

I quote from Spurgeon often, many times.
I rarely use Reformed sources. There is a reason for that.

That is a testament to show the confusion among the ranks of the Reformed.

Not all who wear the name tag of "Reformed" will admit to this "free will."

Again, I am not the Arminian, and I don't get sidetracked. Look at my record. I rarely post on this subject.

Again, look at your record and those that are posting on this subject. Who are the ones taking up reams of bandwith discussing Calvinism? IMO, it is the Calvinists, primarily. Yes there are some non-Cals involved. But the majority are Calvinists. He certainly isn't busy out reaching the lost, as this forum, and many such threads demonstrate.

 

What did Spurgeon really say?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.articlesbase.com/spirituality-articles/charles-spurgeon-quotes-on-calvinism-the-doctrine-of-the-gospel-2720239.html
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Calvinism was but a nickname. It was not the Calvinism that is preached today. It was not the gospel that Spurgeon preached. Spurgeon preached free will--that man had a choice to make. He agreed with Luther, who was not a Calvinist. He agreed with Whitefield, not a Calvinist. His message was not Calvinistic in nature. The terminology has changed since then and is misunderstood by today's Calvinists.
[/FONT]

 

DHK, I want to express my gratitude for the temperament of your posts. It makes your statements less "threatening" (for lack of a better word that comes to mind) than some such as "Benjamin" who seems unable to defend his view without demeaning characterizations.

The statement from your post that I quoted above, does bring a bit of pause to my reading.

See, I don't see the "reformed" teachers as admitting to "free will" EXCEPT for those who teach that God manipulates the current fallen will (I consider that Spurgeon was of this thinking).

There are those of us, who consider the total person (heathen) as completely corrupted and incapacitated by sin; that God gives the believer a new nature that includes a new will. This new will wars against the old will (think of Paul's "wretched man" writing in Romans).

If God only manipulated the old will to be able to believe, then there would seem to not be the struggle that all believers have historically experienced and to which Paul admits.

Those of us who hold to no free will / choice may certainly be in the minority but there does seem to be a bit more Scriptural support for God actually including a new will with the new creature rather than some old manipulated yet fallen will, especially when considering eternity.

There is NOTHING of the old nature that enters the believer's eternity, and to me that would include a will that must be made subject to God by the constant exercise of the Holy Spirit and the will of the new creation.

BTW, this thinking also holds more to the teaching that states:

"14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."​

Note: capitalization was part of the "copy / paste" and is meant to show a quote in the original, NOT meant as to indicate a certain point in this post.

 

DHK,

You do not know what you are saying, you are trying, but remain incorrect.

'We are all born Arminians. It is grace that turns us into Calvinists.' -George Whitefield

Your allegations that todays Calvinists don't preach the Gospel and don't have 'true Calvinism' is an erroneous broad brushed conclusion.

- Blessings

 

Most of your response addresses issues that a Non Calvinist does not dispute, viz, that born again believers receive a new will after conversion, but I would clarify that it is not a replaced will as if God pulls out the will and then uses an assembly line robot to install a new one. It is a TRANSFORMED will. Even our bodies are left intact until they are transformed in heaven (and notice that in Christ's transformed body, He still has the scars).

All Calvinists hold to some form of a manipulated will. If the will is never free to choose, then it must be manipulated by default. Although there is much to debate about the fallacy of the Calvinist view of free will, one major element that Calvinism fails to consider is that in rejecting the part of man's involvement in salvation by rejecting free will (because they claim it is merely man-centric), Calvinism ignores man's part in PRESENTING the gospel.

If faith comes by hearing in Romans 10, and that hearing comes from a preacher, then ultimately man is still involved in the process. If Calvinist philosophy was followed consistently, God could and would save a man whether or not there is a human presentation of the gospel or not.

Romans 9:16 is one of the most misinterpreted and misquoted passages among Calvinists. It takes an incredible amount of Biblical gymnastics to deprive this chapter of its historical contrast between Edom and Jacob going all the way back to Genesis 25:23 ("there are 2 nations in thy womb").

Paul is not talking about individual salvation, but of corporate election between 2 nations. The entire chapter (and from ch 9-11) is clear that Paul is showing that He chose Israel over the bondwoman, and God chose that nation to shew forth His mercy to the world.

When God said, "Jacob have I loved Esau have I hated", he was not using "hate" in a manner any different than when Christ said if any man "hate" not his father or mother he is not worthy to follow Christ. Luke 14:26. It was a standard of contrast of Jacob OVER Esau, not that God personally hated the person Esau, but that He chose the NATION of Jacob, Israel, over the NATION of Esau ("there are 2 NATIONS in thy womb").

When Paul asks the question "Is there unrighteousness with God" and answers that God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, this is in context with explaining His right to choose one nation over the other. And even this was not based on some arbitrary election because Abraham proved his faith by offering Isaac, and Jacob proved his faith by believing the angel of the Lord, and in contrast, Esau rejected his birthright-Hebrews 12:16.

So when Paul says it is not of him that wills or of him that runs, but God that shows mercy, that has nothing to do with whether a man's will is involved in salvation, that's not even the context. It is based on how and why God chose one nation over the other. God chose to have mercy on those that adhered to His conditions, and the entire context of chapter 9 is summed up in verse 32-33, "Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."

This is a very short explanation and perhaps I will start another thread on Romans 9 to address "not of him that willeth", "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated" and "hath not the potter power over the clay", the 3 most misinterpreted passages out of ch 9 among Calvinists.

The other issue to address which is somewhat out of place and held last, was your statement that :

You are assuming that salvation is maintained by "the will of the new creation". Without further explanation on your part, that describes the Arminian fallacy of salvation that is maintained by man's will.

 

When Charles Spurgeon identifies himself as a Calvinist, and when he states "Calvinism is the gospel", it strains credulity to come to a different conclusion. Unless, of course, you believe Spurgeon was a liar.

I have not participated in this thread except to correct your misunderstanding of Charles Spurgeon's soteriology. You accuse me of having blinders on when it is you who is either woefully ignorant or intentionally dishonest about Spurgeon's theology.

Next thing you'll be doing is trying to convince us that Spurgeon was a Hindu.

 

I never stated that "God pulls out the old will" but do challenge the thinking that many hold of God "manipulating" the old will to be somehow receptive. Our current bodies DO NOT in any way (including the fallen will) enter heaven. We are given NEW bodies, and are even now having to subject the old nature (including old will) to the things of God.

Frankly, like I admitted, I do not hold what perhaps Calvinistic thinkers such as Spurgeon (and others) might on the "manipulated will." Rather, I am very consistent with there being NO free will / choice until Christ has given such to that person that they may express what has already taken place in their heart.

Unfortunately, many assign MAN as having faith, rather than Faith being instilled in a person that they may express (confess). I find humankind has no such faith ability, nor does the Scriptures indicate that such ability without the direct and purposed work of God already having taken place in the person having been done.

Man cannot be "involved in the process" other than as reflex response on what has already taken place - which is the proper rendering of Romans.

See here again, we can disagree, because I do not find "cooperate salvation election" as viable in the Scriptures. All salvation is individual and is by the clear choice of God. Jesus said,

"43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me."​

You may contend to your heart's content over cooperate salvation, but frankly I have never found such to be the evidence in Scriptures. There is ONE exception. That is when God directly states to ISRAEL (that is the political and spiritual Israel in which the church is united under the millennial rule) shall be saved. There is only one bride of Christ, and there is the only cooperate election / salvation Scriptures indicate - it takes place in the millennium.

Do you not see that in the quote of Jesus (above) that even HE distinguishes between everyone who "has been taught of God" is NOT the same group as "who has heard and learned from the Father,"

Using the parable of the sower, the seed falls in all places, but ONLY the good earth seed grows and is harvested. Just who do you think is in charge of the dirt? Man? NO!!!! It is the farmer (God) who decides the roadway, the place to pile up stones, what will remain uncultivated and shallow, and what is prepared soil.

Start what you will, but I can state that if you contend you are right on your "very short explanation," you will be found to have faulty reasoning. Just as I have indicated, above.

You are misreading (which isn't an anomaly, apparently) the statement. The old will battles with the new will of the new creation. Paul states,

"12 Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect."​

Do you not see two element of the old nature? Mind and body

What has to be conformed to the will of God? Mind and body

What is left out? the will - the part which expresses desire.

Why? Because the new nature will is already conformed to God in Christ and is at war with the old nature will, mind, and body. Again referenced in Paul's writings in Romans where he considers how wretched he is the the old will seems to win out in the tug of desires (wills).

The old fallen nature cannot be conformed to God and neither can the old will (desires) - it is impossible. It can only be mind and body can be subjected and the old will superseded by the will (desires) of God, which is given to the believer as part of being the new creature.

BTW, you consider the new creation given "after salvation" and I consider it ALL salvation. I don't component out salvation into parcels of this has to be done followed by this, as some have attempted to chart. But that is for another thread.

 

[QUOTEDHK,

[/QUOTE]

It is funny that you have continued to point out how the Calvinists rely on the creeds and Reformed "Theologians" and notice how all of your Biblical arguments are continually ignored and every Calvinist is trying to force the debate to defining Spurgeon's beliefs.

Predicting Calvinist tactics is easier than making toast.