The two major shortcomings of Calvinism

[JonC]

Jesus said that people who persecute others for believing in Him, do so, because they haven't known Him.

Jn 16:2-3
2 They shall put you out of the synagogues:yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

Does this not establish cause and effect?

No, it does not establish a cause and effect insofar as God using these people to revitalize doctrines in specific points in history. It also does not establish a cause and effect in regards to the actual salvation of the people in question - this is not known to us and is not applicable to the passage that you present.

John 16 does not deal with the Reformers banning the disciples from the synagogue or killing them thinking it is a service to God. In Calvin’s case, Michael Serventus was a far cry from a disciple and Calvin viewed his guilt as treason (his teachings were heresy, but Calvin opposed execution as a heretic). You are taking the passage out of context - but you are right that the Reformers were wrong in their view of the Church.

The biggest error here is that you assume that “Calvinism” or “Reformed” refers to “followers of Calvin.” Obviously they have rejected much of their beliefs, just as Arminianism does not “follow” Arminius. Calvinists do not claim to definitively expect (or even to desire) to meet John Calvin in Heaven. They, along with non-Calvinist brethren, look to be with Christ. It is interpretation and doctrine that you combat - not the men. It is the arena where your arguments should be assessed - but it is precisely this arena that you seem to avoid.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have no idea how this relates to what i posted.

You seem to be arguing for the position that how we behave determines if Giod has saved us or not!

 

[JonC]

You seem to be arguing for the position that how we behave determines if Giod has saved us or not!

I think that he is arguing the position that if you kill a believer thinking that you are offering to God then you have not known the Father or Son. It is an odd application of John 16 where Jesus warned the disciples - He hadn’t told these things from the beginning because He was with them - but He was going to the Father. It is the persecution that was to follow from the Jewish leaders. They would be outcasts in the synagogue and killed for their faith by those who were claiming to be the people of God. Hence the problem - the purposed application is out of context from the passage.

When we are saved we still struggle with the flesh and we still grow in understanding. We can have so much wrong, yet still have the gospel right (and be saved…if you believe the gospel). The Reformers carried over an understanding of the church from the RCC. This was a primary objection of the Radical Reformers. But it does not mean that these people were not saved any more than it means that their misunderstandings voided any hope of salvation.

He is correct, however and IMHO, that salvation does exhibit works. It is not applicable in this particular argument (Reformed doctrines) and is a mildly interesting distraction - but a distraction nonetheless. The problem with assessing the actions of the Reformers against Christians (and specifically Calvin’s actions against a heretic) is their understanding. Calvin was a Trinitarian and rejected Servetus’ assertion that Trinitarians held to tritheism. He viewed the teaching of Servetus as a crime against the State - treason. The Reformers rejected “believer’s baptism” for a similar reason. From one standpoint it was denying salvation (in their eyes), but on another and perhaps more important standpoint it was denying citizenship. The appropriate action is to address the doctrines that formed and maintained this idea of Christendom - not the men who were influenced by the notion.

 

[Reformed]

I never pretended it was anything but a personal critique.

But you go on to mention two well-known Calvinists to support your personal critique without so much as quoting them, as though we are to trust you are correct. That strains credulity.

Exactly. So what?

I am just taking the opportunity to point out to the interested reader that your editorial lacks substance. As to whether you have the right to post an editorial, that is not being objected to.

I'm more than familiar with it, ascribe to it, and defend it regularly. Your first question is the crux of your paragraph. Who is careless? That was stated in the quote you snipped for your post. Most of the modern Calvinists, if not all of them, hold to a doctrine of election that is unbiblical, and though many deny they would not preach the gospel, allegedly because they don't know who are the "elect" and therefore they must, to be sure none are missed, the view nonetheless holds to an exclusion of man's responsibility...

My first question is posed to you based on your own statement. You wrote, "But they are careless in providing biblical balance by ignoring what is also true, that salvation in the temporal world is conditional." Obviously the "they" you are referring to are modern Calvinists. But you have yet to put forth any convincing proof other than your opinion. If your response is going to be "I don't need to offer proof" then you cannot hope to be taken seriously other than by the eager anti-Calvinist sycophants.

and if you want a Spurgeon quote...

I do not need a Spurgeon quote. My point is that if you are going to appeal to a person as supporting your position you should at least offer proof. That would be the intellectually honest thing to do.

Then you shouldn't be. You should be a gospel preacher.

Well, none other than Charles Spurgeon said, "Calvinism is the Gospel". Calvinism is not just about election and predestination. It is also about rightly proclaiming the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

Then you are exceptions, not the rule.

How do you know? Sproul, Piper, Dever, Duncan, Way, Johnson, MacArthur, Campbell, Mohler, Barcellos, Mixer, Gonzalez, McMaster, Ryken, Keller, Nettles, Crampton, Ascol, Malone, Chandler et. al are contemporary Calvinist preachers and theologians who I stand in agreement with on the historic teaching of justification by faith. I will not argue that the group of people you are purporting do not exist. It is just that you have yet to name one and prove that he fits the description you have provided.

Sheesh, and just when I thought maybe you understood election. You don't. Election does not determine who is saved. Election determines who is justified, "conformed to the image of His Son."

Donald McKim offers this definition of election, "God's choosing of a people to enjoy the benefits of salvation and to carry out God's purposes in the world" (Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, page 88).

From the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Chapter III

3.3 By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

3.4 These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

3.5 Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.

VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

From the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith:

Chapter 3 of the 1689 LBC is almost an exact republication of the WCF, but chapter 10 offers this:

10.1 Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.

You have a very myopic view of election.

I don't know. This one seems to have raised your hackles some.

Hackles? I responded to your OP because it had a lot of holes that needed to be addressed.

And, as always, this is not personal with me. It is always about the truth. Nothing more.

 

[Van]

“For example, Calvinists emphasize election from eternity past as unconditional. That is absolutely true.” What this statement omits is that the Election of Ephesians 1:4 is corporate, not individual.

“However, it is just as sound and true biblically that faith is the requirement of God for salvation.” What this statement omits is that faith is the requirement of individual election for salvation, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

“God is sovereign….” But sovereignty is defined as God causing or allowing whatsoever comes to pass, not God causing directly or indirectly whatsoever comes to pass.

“The fact is that if Adam had not sinned, then all men would have been elect.” Adam had the capacity to volitionally sin, as do all humans. If Adam had not sinned, what would have happened when Eve sinned. The separation of mankind from God due to sin was arranged to bring about the Fall. Remember, the Word was known as the Lamb of God before creation. 1 Peter 1:19-20.

The problem with Calvinism is not its lack of balance, but with its unbiblical doctrine. It is not partly true that unregenerate people are conceived without the ability to seek God and trust in Christ, it is completely false. It is not partly true that God elects individuals unconditionally for salvation, it is completely false. It is not partly true that Christ died only for the elect, it is completely false. And it is not partly true that faith is instilled via irresistible grace, it is completely false.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

But you go on to mention two well-known Calvinists to support your personal critique without so much as quoting them, as though we are to trust you are correct. That strains credulity.

Only in those who would deny the accuracy of the post. Anyone can easily find the Spurgeon and Calvin quotes, and for your convenience, I responded by posting Spurgeon, a fact you ignore.

I am just taking the opportunity to point out to the interested reader that your editorial lacks substance. As to whether you have the right to post an editorial, that is not being objected to.

And yet again, so what? It's a non sequitur, totally irrelevant.

My first question is posed to you based on your own statement. You wrote, "But they are careless in providing biblical balance by ignoring what is also true, that salvation in the temporal world is conditional." Obviously the "they" you are referring to are modern Calvinists. But you have yet to put forth any convincing proof other than your opinion.

I suppose it would be unconvincing to a modern Calvinist who has trouble seeing the error of the doctrine on a frighteningly regular basis.

If your response is going to be "I don't need to offer proof" then you cannot hope to be taken seriously other than by the eager anti-Calvinist sycophants.

Straw man argument, a logical fallacy. I didn't say I don't need to offer proof, those are words you put in my mouth -- which also ignores the fact I've offered much proof in the two posts.

I do not need a Spurgeon quote. My point is that if you are going to appeal to a person as supporting your position you should at least offer proof.

If you don't need a Spurgeon quote, they why ask for one? And once given one, why not dispute or affirm it? Instead, you deny you need what you claimed you wanted. That, my friend, is what is intellectually dishonest.

Well, none other than Charles Spurgeon said, "Calvinism is the Gospel". Calvinism is not just about election and predestination. It is also about rightly proclaiming the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

Calvinism is the gospel if all of Calvin's theology is considered, preached, and compared to Scripture. The gospel is only found in Calvin because he found it in the Bible. What the modern Calvinist adheres to is not all of Calvin, and therefore is not all of the gospel. I have no statistics upon which to base my opinion that when someone today calls himself a Calvinist, he hasn't a clue what Calvin taught in the whole. Nonetheless, Calvinists prove to me every day that my opinion appears to be spot on, as most can only cite the Doctrines of Grace as being Calvinistic. Those are only a very small portion of what Calvin wrote of, taught, and believed. Calvinists today are overly simplistic in their biblical approach, and miss a great deal of the complexity of God, though they try very hard to explain Him in toto through Calvin. In case they hadn't heard, I will point out to them that God defies understanding. He said so Himself.

How do you know? Sproul, Piper, Dever, Duncan, Way, Johnson, MacArthur, Campbell, Mohler, Barcellos, Mixer, Gonzalez, McMaster, Ryken, Keller, Nettles, Crampton, Ascol, Malone, Chandler et. al are contemporary Calvinist preachers and theologians who I stand in agreement with on the historic teaching of justification by faith. I will not argue that the group of people you are purporting do not exist. It is just that you have yet to name one and prove that he fits the description you have provided.

Of teaching justification, I have no doubt. Hardly any of those you just named teach sanctification, and those that do confuse it with justification. The two are totally separate, and sanctification has three different levels. Most modern Calvinists deny this plain biblical fact. You should have thrown Paul Washer in there, too. He also utterly fails to conceive of a biblical concept of sanctification.

But that is just one area of the complexity of God and the gospel modern Calvinists either do not understand, do not teach, or simply and outrightly reject. To list them all would require a book, but I don't need to write such a book, as many have already been written.

Donald McKim offers this definition of election, "God's choosing of a people to enjoy the benefits of salvation and to carry out God's purposes in the world" (Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, page 88).

Please forgive me for not responding to the entire Westminster Confession, as I have no problem with its tenets whatsoever. What I have a problem with is the modern Calvinist's view of the Confession. McKim's definition is excellent. Did you notice is collectively said "a people," and not "an individual"? The same can be said of the Second London Baptist Confession. Why do you suppose that is?

You have a very myopic view of election.

Incorrect. I have a biblical view of election.

Hackles? I responded to your OP because it had a lot of holes that needed to be addressed.

Be that as it may, hackles or not, as I've pointed out here, what you call "holes" are not, but merely your own disagreement with the view expressed, and I appreciate it being posted.

And, as always, this is not personal with me. It is always about the truth. Nothing more.

As was my original post. Thanks for expressing your own opinions on the thread.

 

[Reformed]

Only in those who would deny the accuracy of the post. Anyone can easily find the Spurgeon and Calvin quotes, and for your convenience, I responded by posting Spurgeon, a fact you ignore.

Seeing as you have provided zero proof to back up your assertions denying your post is a relatively easy thing to do.

As far as your Spurgeon post, your opportunity to cite sources belonged in your OP. You have steadily been on the defensive since my first response and I do not see that changing.

And yet again, so what? It's a non sequitur, totally irrelevant.

To you, since you are too enamored with your own position to see its fallacies. There are many more people that read these posts but do not respond to them. Those are the one's I am really trying to communicate with.

I suppose it would be unconvincing to a modern Calvinist who has trouble seeing the error of the doctrine on a frighteningly regular basis.

Since you have not shared one scintilla of proof to back up your arguments being unconvinced would be a reasonable response.

Straw man argument, a logical fallacy. I didn't say I don't need to offer proof, those are words you put in my mouth -- which also ignores the fact I've offered much proof in the two posts.

No. It is a logical deduction made from your self-serving argumentation. As to having offered proof, I have not seen it.

If you don't need a Spurgeon quote, they why ask for one? And once given one, why not dispute or affirm it? Instead, you deny you need what you claimed you wanted. That, my friend, is what is intellectually dishonest.

I think you are having difficulty comprehending me. In your OP you cited two figures from history, yet failed to probably cite them. Your OP is where you should have done that, not later in the thread. And when you did quote Spurgeon, where is the disagreement? Spurgeon and Calvin are not on trial here. I am interesting in reading how I, and the rest of those who believe as I do, are in the minority among contemporary Calvinists.

Calvinism is the gospel if all of Calvin's theology is considered, preached, and compared to Scripture. The gospel is only found in Calvin because he found it in the Bible. What the modern Calvinist adheres to is not all of Calvin, and therefore is not all of the gospel. I have no statistics upon which to base my opinion that when someone today calls himself a Calvinist, he hasn't a clue what Calvin taught in the whole. Nonetheless, Calvinists prove to me every day that my opinion appears to be spot on, as most can only cite the Doctrines of Grace as being Calvinistic. Those are only a very small portion of what Calvin wrote of, taught, and believed. Calvinists today are overly simplistic in their biblical approach, and miss a great deal of the complexity of God, though they try very hard to explain Him in toto through Calvin. In case they hadn't heard, I will point out to them that God defies understanding. He said so Himself.

You really do have a problem comprehending me. Do you think Spurgeon agreed with Calvin on every point of doctrine? Of course not! But when it came to soteriology Spurgeon was willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with John Calvin. Calvinism, as it is popularly used, refers to the Reformed view of soteriology, not ecclesiology. But I would wager you already know this.

Of teaching justification, I have no doubt. Hardly any of those you just named teach sanctification, and those that do confuse it with justification. The two are totally separate, and sanctification has three different levels. Most modern Calvinists deny this plain biblical fact. You should have thrown Paul Washer in there, too. He also utterly fails to conceive of a biblical concept of sanctification.

But that is just one area of the complexity of God and the gospel modern Calvinists either do not understand, do not teach, or simply and outrightly reject. To list them all would require a book, but I don't need to write such a book, as many have already been written.

To quote Ronald Reagan, "there you go again". I will make it easy for you. Prove to me that just one of the preacher/theologians I listed does not teach sanctification (specifically, progressive sanctification).

Please forgive me for not responding to the entire Westminster Confession, as I have no problem with its tenets whatsoever. What I have a problem with is the modern Calvinist's view of the Confession. McKim's definition is excellent. Did you notice is collectively said "a people," and not "an individual"? The same can be said of the Second London Baptist Confession. Why do you suppose that is?

God has called a people to be His own - the Church. Of course the Church is built brick-by-brick. Individuals are predestined (from eternity past), called (in time), justified (at the moment of regeneration), and then sanctified two ways: set apart for God's work and progressively conformed to the image of the Son.

Incorrect. I have a biblical view of election.Be that as it may, hackles or not, as I've pointed out here, what you call "holes" are not, but merely your own disagreement with the view expressed, and I appreciate it being posted.As was my original post. Thanks for expressing your own opinions on the thread.

It is more than my disagreement with your views. I have a pet peeve with arguments that lack proof. That is why I responded.

 

[Iconoclast]

Seeing as you have provided zero proof to back up your assertions denying your post is a relatively easy thing to do.

As far as your Spurgeon post, your opportunity to cite sources belonged in your OP. You have steadily been on the defensive since my first response and I do not see that changing.



To you, since you are too enamored with your own position to see its fallacies. There are many more people that read these posts but do not respond to them. Those are the one's I am really trying to communicate with.



Since you have not shared one scintilla of proof to back up your arguments being unconvinced would be a reasonable response.



No. It is a logical deduction made from your self-serving argumentation. As to having offered proof, I have not seen it.



I think you are having difficulty comprehending me. In your OP you cited two figures from history, yet failed to probably cite them. Your OP is where you should have done that, not later in the thread. And when you did quote Spurgeon, where is the disagreement? Spurgeon and Calvin are not on trial here. I am interesting in reading how I, and the rest of those who believe as I do, are in the minority among contemporary Calvinists.



You really do have a problem comprehending me. Do you think Spurgeon agreed with Calvin on every point of doctrine? Of course not! But when it came to soteriology Spurgeon was willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with John Calvin. Calvinism, as it is popularly used, refers to the Reformed view of soteriology, not ecclesiology. But I would wager you already know this.



To quote Ronald Reagan, "there you go again". I will make it easy for you. Prove to me that just one of the preacher/theologians I listed does not teach sanctification (specifically, progressive sanctification).



God has called a people to be His own - the Church. Of course the Church is built brick-by-brick. Individuals are predestined (from eternity past), called (in time), justified (at the moment of regeneration), and then sanctified two ways: set apart for God's work and progressively conformed to the image of the Son.



It is more than my disagreement with your views. I have a pet peeve with arguments that lack proof. That is why I responded.

Your posts have highlighted these repeated errors, which he fails to answer...because he cannot.:wavey::thumbs:The statements about sanctification not being taught are absurd to the max.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

It is more than my disagreement with your views. I have a pet peeve with arguments that lack proof. That is why I responded.

Apparently you have difficulty identifying proof when it is set before you. I will state this one more time, then so be it.

Sanctification as taught by the modern Calvinist overemphasizes God's sovereignty -- and lest anyone be confused, I am not talking about "New Calvinism" on this thread, but simply the modern Calvinist who thinks he/she is adhering to Calvinistic thought. In that statement regarding overemphasizing God's sovereignty, I mean to say that the modern Calvinist relegates believers to passive participants in the Christian life. They argue that God is the agent of spiritual growth whether believers cooperate in the process or not. Undeniably, yes, God is the agent and power of sanctification. That does not mean believers are uninvolved.

Believers can and do resist the Holy Spirit. Unbelievers who may eventually believe, resist the Holy Spirit by ignoring the drawing, calling and revelation of the Spirit. But we're talking about believers here, who resist growth, change, refuse to tear down strongholds in their lives such as alcohol or drug addiction, pornography, adultery, gluttony, or the whole host of sins discussed in the Bible. Any one of those sins can become a stronghold, and clearly the most enticing and idolic among them do become strongholds. We utterly fail, as Christians, to produce fruit when we live in a stronghold of sin. The Bible teaches us that the Holy Spirit produces fruit in our lives.

Galatians 5, NASB
2 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.​

The Bible also instructs us to sacrifice our lives, continually, to God's service.

Romans 12
1 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.​

It is God who saves and sanctifies us, but we are called to be holy ...

1 Peter 1
15 but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior;
16 because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."​

... and to obey God.

1 John 5
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.​

Without Christ we can do nothing ...

John 15
5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing."​

... but through Christ we can do anything.

Philippians 4
13 I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.​

That is the biblical balance in sanctification. We rely on God and recognize His sovereignty, but at the same time we put forth our best effort, through His strength, to conform our lives to Christ's image.

Whenever we attempt to create a system that defines God, we will fail. It is impossible for us finite human beings to fully comprehend an infinite God. God is indefinable, unexplainable, and incomprehensible. Calvinism is a system designed to explain the relationship of God's sovereignty with the free will of mankind. Many, including all of those whom you named in your previous post, do not even grant that free will even exists. Our behaviors, both before and after salvation, disprove that concept. Man definitely has free will, but God is no less sovereign because of it.

Calvinism strongly emphasizes God's sovereignty, sometimes to the extent that it teaches mankind has no free will whatsoever. Extreme Calvinism relegates mankind to nothing but robots doing exactly what God has pre-programmed us to do. The opposite of Calvinism, Arminianism, emphasizes mankind's free will, sometimes to the extent that God is not sovereign and/or is not in complete control. Extreme Arminianism relegates God to a being who does not know the future and is limited in what He can do. Neither extreme is biblical. The truth, as usual, is somewhere in between. Modern Calvinists fail to understand that simple truth, nor do they realize that no system, including theirs, can fully explain God.

 

[Reformed]

Apparently you have difficulty identifying proof when it is set before you. I will state this one more time, then so be it.

Sanctification as taught by the modern Calvinist overemphasizes God's sovereignty --

WHERE? WHO? You cite yourself as the source of information since you do not provide one credible source to back up your claim. Give me a name. Give me their own words that prove your thesis. Give me anything else but your own word. You have not done it. You repeatedly torpedo your own credibility. The only thing worse than your intellectual dishonesty is your doubling and tripling down on it. I am starting to feel sorry for you.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

WHERE? WHO? You cite yourself as the source of information since you do not provide one credible source to back up your claim. Give me a name. Give me their own words that prove your thesis. Give me anything else but your own word. You have not done it. You repeatedly torpedo your own credibility. The only thing worse than your intellectual dishonesty is your doubling and tripling down on it. I am starting to feel sorry for you.

I already feel sorry for you, being someone who must reach deep into hyperbole and misdirection in order to attack another member's viewpoint. You have dealt with none of what I've said, only chosen to attack the form of what I've stated, which I've said from the beginning is "editorial," a point you yourself made, disparagingly, though I never pretended it was anything but. Therefore, despite my giving in to your irrational insistence on support for an opinion and delivering some, you now want more, and still have said nothing about the substance of what I've said.

Therein lies the sorrowful feeling I have for you, that such responses come from a lack of ability to respond otherwise, i.e., with reasoned argument against my points. So, to make it easier for you, I'll give you something solid -- not my opinion, but factual statements from those you admire -- to illustrate my points. Then you can attempt to negate them, again, with reason, not the intellectual dishonesty of self-righteous, puffed-up yet empty protest.

John MacArthur's book "Slave" is a prime example of what I'm talking about, if you want specifics. Throughout the book, MacArthur describes Christian obedience as “pure delight” and “joy-filled.” On page 208, he describes our experience as slaves to Christ as “not partially sweet and partially sour, but totally sweet.” This, despite what the apostle John clearly experienced as recorded in Revelation. But regardless of the fact that there is nothing sweeter than being a slave of Christ, to suggest that our experience is never mixed with bitterness (taste, not attitude) is just plain nonsense. A believer who has lost an unbelieving relative or close friend would be an example. A job loss, a prolonged illness personally experienced in self or close family -- these things serve to progressively sanctify, but is MacArthur going to try to convince us that we must face them with joy and delight, with no negatively expressed emotion mixed in, or else we are in sin? Tell me that isn't what he said.

According to Piper, if we find ourselves in a situation where we find no joy in the obedience, we are to move ahead and unhesitatingly obey. So far so good, but then he gets unbiblical in claiming that we must also ask God for forgiveness because of our sinful obedience. He states this quite plainly in (John Piper: Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial. Moreover, this paradigm, according to many Calvinists in our day including John MacArthur, asserts that Christians often obey and experience biblical truth that they are unaware of intellectually. That erroneous view is expressed by Bill Baldwin.

These appear specific to the concept of joy and delight as commands, when in reality they are the authors' efforts to encourage us through difficult times, pointing out to us that these trials always result in growth, learning, and a greater closeness to God. But they are also a general indicator of how Calvinists view sanctification. That is, as totally God-centered, God-empowered, without cooperation, acquiescence, or acceptance on our part. Such is utter folly and fallacy, for it does nothing more than reinforce the unbiblical belief of the modern Calvinist that man has no cooperation, acquiescence, nor acceptance of his own salvation, either. That is a matter we settled with Spurgeon earlier, who clearly states that two seemingly disparate facts -- God's sovereignty and man's responsibility -- are nonetheless intertwined, equally active and important, and absolutely necessary to salvation.

There can be no argument. The activity of both God and man are absolute necessities to enable effectual saving grace, though it is all of God to empower man's grasp of that grace, of His truth, for salvation to be possible.

Now -- argue the points. I will no longer accept the nitpicking of form. It is disingenuous.

 

[Rippon]

Whenever we attempt to create a system that defines God, we will fail. It is impossible for us finite human beings to fully comprehend an infinite God. God is indefinable, unexplainable, and incomprehensible.

You are going too far there. We are indeed finite creatures but to affirm all of the above would be absurd. We can't plumb the depths but we can certainly give explanations of many things that Scripture reveals.

Calvinism is a system designed to explain the relationship of God's sovereignty with the free will of mankind.

And what Calvinist has maintained that idea?

The opposite of Calvinism, Arminianism,

The opposite of Calvinism is Pelagianism. The opposite of Arminianism is hyper-Calvinism.

The truth, as usual, is somewhere in between.

That is a ridiculous maxim.

Modern Calvinists fail to realize that no system, including theirs, can fully explain God.[/QUOTE]
You are being the disingenuous one here. No Calvinist insits that they can "fully explain" God. Drop the adverb and see what I said at the beginning of this post.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

There are many things in this post I could pick apart, but I'm going to deal with just two, because they totally disqualify anything else you say in the post. First there is ...

You are going too far there. We are indeed finite creatures but to affirm all of the above would be absurd. We can't plumb the depths but we can certainly give explanations of many things that Scripture reveals.

... followed at the end of the post by this:

You are being the disingenuous one here. No Calvinist insits that they can "fully explain" God.

You have contradicted yourself. Both my statements, to which these two segments of the post replied, said the same thing. And you say the first statement goes too far, then you claim no Calvinist claims this ability. Yet saying that I am "going too far" in the first post implies that Calvinism can, in fact, explain God. Then you deny it. That doesn't logically follow anything that has been said up to this point.

 

[Rippon]

And you say the first statement goes too far, then you claim no Calvinist claims this ability. Yet saying that I am "going too far" in the first post implies that Calvinism can, in fact, explain God. Then you deny it. That doesn't logically follow anything that has been said up to this point.[/FONT][/SIZE]

If you would take the time to read carefully you would have no need to dig the hole you're in.

I said that we can explain many things that Scripture reveals. I also said to drop the adverb "fully" though. Of course we can explain the things of God --not in an exhaustive manner of course. As I said we are finite --God is infinite. But surely we can explain; expound the Bible. Paul preached the full counsel of the Word of God, as the KJV renders it. A sermon explains the Scripture. Ideally a biblical message will be expository --seeking to explain. Get it?

 

[convicted1]

"shortcomings" and "calvinism"? You can not put them together in a gramatically correct sentence. :saint:

 

[Iconoclast]

If you would take the time to read carefully you would have no need to dig the hole you're in.

I said that we can explain many things that Scripture reveals. I also said to drop the adverb "fully" though. Of course we can explain the things of God --not in an exhaustive manner of course. As I said we are finite --God is infinite. But surely we can explain; expound the Bible. Paul preached the full counsel of the Word of God, as the KJV renders it. A sermon explains the Scripture. Ideally a biblical message will be expository --seeking to explain. Get it?

He is making excuses and not dealing with your posting or that of Reformed.
He tries to dismiss the posts so as to avoid the issue:wavey:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You are being the disingenuous one here. No Calvinist insits that they can "fully explain" God. Drop the adverb and see what I said at the beginning of this post.

You have a spelling error:tear:

 

[Rippon]

You have a spelling error:tear:

Yeah,that invalidates my post. How many of yours would thus be invalidated?

 

[saturneptune]

You are going too far there. We are indeed finite creatures but to affirm all of the above would be absurd. We can't plumb the depths but we can certainly give explanations of many things that Scripture reveals.

And what Calvinist has maintained that idea?

The opposite of Calvinism is Pelagianism. The opposite of Arminianism is hyper-Calvinism.

That is a ridiculous maxim.

Modern Calvinists fail to realize that no system, including theirs, can fully explain God.

You are being the disingenuous one here. No Calvinist insits that they can "fully explain" God. Drop the adverb and see what I said at the beginning of this post.[/QUOTE]

Post reported.............

 

[saturneptune]

If you would take the time to read carefully you would have no need to dig the hole you're in.

I said that we can explain many things that Scripture reveals. I also said to drop the adverb "fully" though. Of course we can explain the things of God --not in an exhaustive manner of course. As I said we are finite --God is infinite. But surely we can explain; expound the Bible. Paul preached the full counsel of the Word of God, as the KJV renders it. A sermon explains the Scripture. Ideally a biblical message will be expository --seeking to explain. Get it?

Post reported....................