The Biblical teaching of Calvinism

[Iconoclast]

What is known as Calvinism is the biblical teaching of Jesus, the Apostles,and Prophets.

Whatever speculation, or philosophy might surround it, does not detract that it is based on the correct teaching of both Spiritual and physical death entering in to the human race by Adam in that day.

All what are known as the 5 points were derived in response to errors present at the time . They were correct responses to defective ideas.

from grace online;“Charles Spurgeon was NOT a Calvinist!” – Grace Online Library
Just for the record, I thought I’d let Spurgeon speak for himself:

What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here.

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.

then this;
A Defense of Calvinism

Well, then since He purchased me when I was dead in sins, does it not follow, as a consequence necessary and logical, that He must have loved me first? Did my Saviour die for me because I believed on Him? No; I was not then in existence; I had then no being. Could the Saviour, therefore, have died because I had faith, when I myself was not yet born? Could that have been possible? Could that have been the origin of the Saviour's love towards me? Oh! no; my Saviour died for me long before I believed. "But," says someone, "He foresaw that you would have faith; and, therefore, He loved you." What did He foresee about my faith? Did He foresee that I should get that faith myself, and that I should believe on Him of myself? No; Christ could not foresee that, because no Christian man will ever say that faith came of itself without the gift and without the working of the Holy Spirit. I have met with a great many believers, and talked with them about this matter; but I never knew one who could put his hand on his heart, and say, "I believed in Jesus without the assistance of the Holy Spirit."

I am bound to the doctrine of the depravity of the human heart, because I find myself depraved in heart, and have daily proofs that in my flesh there dwelleth no good thing. If God enters into covenant with unfallen man, man is so insignificant a creature that it must be an act of gracious condescension on the Lord's part; but if God enters into covenant with sinful man, he is then so offensive a creature that it must be, on God's part, an act of pure, free, rich, sovereign grace. When the Lord entered into covenant with me, I am sure that it was all of grace, nothing else but grace. When I remember what a den of unclean beasts and birds my heart was, and how strong was my unrenewed will, how obstinate and rebellious against the sovereignty of the Divine rule, I always feel inclined to take the very lowest room in my Father's house, and when I enter Heaven, it will be to go among the less than the least of all saints, and with the chief of sinners.

 

[Iconoclast]

continued;
If one dear saint of God had perished, so might all; if one of the covenant ones be lost, so may all be; and then there is no gospel promise true, but the Bible is a lie, and there is nothing in it worth my acceptance. I will be an infidel at once when I can believe that a saint of God can ever fall finally. If God hath loved me once, then He will love me for ever.
If one dear saint of God had perished, so might all; if one of the covenant ones be lost, so may all be; and then there is no gospel promise true, but the Bible is a lie, and there is nothing in it worth my acceptance. I will be an infidel at once when I can believe that a saint of God can ever fall finally. If God hath loved me once, then He will love me for ever. God has a master-mind; He arranged everything in His gigantic intellect long before He did it; and once having settled it, He never alters it, "This shall be done," saith He, and the iron hand of destiny marks it down, and it is brought to pass. "This is My purpose," and it stands, nor can earth or hell alter it. "This is My decree," saith He, "promulgate it, ye holy angels; rend it down from the gate of Heaven, ye devils, if ye can; but ye cannot alter the decree, it shall stand for ever." God altereth not His plans; why should He? He is Almighty, and therefore can perform His pleasure. Why should He? He is the All-wise, and therefore cannot have planned wrongly. Why should He? He is the everlasting God, and therefore cannot die before His plan is accomplished. Why should He change? Ye worthless atoms of earth, ephemera of a day, ye creeping insects upon this bay-leaf of existence, ye may change your plans, but He shall never, never change His. Has He told me that His plan is to save me? If so, I am for ever safe.

 

[Iconoclast]

Every real Calvinist does start with presuppositions .
They start with Gen.1.....In beginning God created.
God as creator is the only one who can define reality.
He does so by special revelation we know as SCRIPTURE.

In John 7:15-17 Jesus spoke of the doctrinal content being from The Father.
Then He explained that to those persons who obeyed the will of God,he shall know of the doctrine..

He did not say...he shall speculate on carnal philosophy, and cultural worldviews, and piece to gather a religious philosophy.

Understanding those attributes of God revealed in all 66 books,the doctrinal pieces mesh together and we have a faith once for all time delivered to the saints.

When we discuss the doctrine of the trinity,we do not say we are discussing the philosophy of if there is a trinity.We go to scriptural truth revealed and declared.

Calvinists can explain why they believe, what they see In scripture teaches the absolute sovereignty of God.
People who do not believe it,offer ideas not really taught in scripture but they speculate on failed human wisdom and carnal philosophy.
They erect caricatures that no real Calvinist would even suggest.

 

[Iconoclast]

The work of redemption is God's work and His alone. It is not of him who wills nor of him who runs but of God who shows Mercy Romans 9:16
There is an external calling which comes to many Matthew 22:14, but there is also an internal effectual calling which is the consequence of the election Romans 8 28 to 30.
God gives the gospel not only but he also has it preached in power and The Holy Spirit 1st Corinthians 2:4 and 1st Thessalonians 1 5 and 6.
And he himself gives the increase 1st Corinthians 3:6 to 9 he opens the heart acts 16:14, and lightens the mind Ephesians 1:18 in Colossians 1 9 to 11, He bows the will acts 9 6, and works both the willing and the doing of his good pleasure Philippians 2:13
Herman Bavinck...the Christian calling..The wonderful works of God.

 

[Iconoclast]

From Calvinism/Arminianism,pg43,44

MODIFICATIONS OF THE TRUTH

Concerning the so–called “Five Points of Calvinism,” there have developed various approaches of a “moderate Calvinism.” Some espouse a so–called “Four–Point Calvinism,” following Amyraldianism, and many today claim to adhere to a “Three–Point Calvinism,” i.e., claiming to hold to “Total Depravity,” “Unconditional Election” and “Eternal Security,” while denying both “Limited Atonement” and “Irresistible Grace”—simply a further step from Amyraldianism to Congruism. These are usually the very individuals or groups that deride consistent [so–called “Five Point”] Calvinism as “hyper–Calvinism.” Then there are some who call themselves “Calvinists” because they adhere to “eternal security” as opposed to “falling from grace.”108

Biblical truth and consistency demand free and sovereign grace and an effectual call if man is, indeed, totally depraved in the biblical sense.

All forms of “Moderate Calvinism” are, in reality, both inherently contradictory and a refined Arminianism—an attempt to escape the disapprobation of being called a Calvinist and to accommodate a given amount of humanistic philosophy.

The great Baptist evangelist and commentator, Robert Haldane, has stated the matter in a concise and very clear way in his comment upon Romans 9:18:

Many call themselves moderate Calvinists, a denomination to which it is not easy to affix a precise idea. To the system called Calvinism, there may be nearer or more distant approaches, but those who deny any of the peculiar doctrines of that system cannot in any sense be called Calvinists.

To affix the term Calvinism to any system, from which the doctrine of predestination is excluded, or in which it is even modified, is entirely a misnomer.

Some profess Calvinism, but affect to hold it in a more unexceptionable manner than it is held in the system in general. They seem to think that in the defense of that system, Calvin was extravagant, and that he gave unnecessary offense by exaggerated statements, and by language not warranted by the Scriptures. Such persons, it is presumed, are strangers to the writings of Calvin. Calvin himself is remarkable for keeping on Scripture ground, and avoiding anything that may justly be termed extravagant. No writer has ever indulged less in metaphysical speculation on the deep things of God than this writer. To support his system, it was necessary only to exhibit Scripture testimony; and he seems quite contented to rest the matter on this foundation.

What is called moderate Calvinism is in reality refined Arminianism. It is impossible to modify the former without sliding into the latter. If the doctrine of God’s sovereignty and of unconditional election be denied, regeneration and redemption must undergo a corresponding modification, and all the doctrines of grace will be more or less affected.109

IV WHAT IS “HYPER–CALVINISM”?

“…neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me.” Psa. 131:1

108 The Calvinistic Baptists of the South used to refer to these refined Arminians as “Whiskey–Bottle Baptists”—as they simply “cling to the fifth.” 109 Robert Haldane, Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, pp. 478–479. 56

INTRODUCTION

The term “hyper–Calvinism” is ambiguous, and may refer to either a theological persuasion or to an attitude or approach. Those who place this label on certain men and their teachings usually have either inherently Arminian presuppositions or a certain prejudice against historic, Gospel Calvinism. Thus, it is a pejorative and often a subjective epithet.

NOTE: The subjectivity of theological persuasion is pervasive and must be taken into consideration. E.g., “Those who are stronger on the Law than I am are legalists; those who are weaker are Antinomians.” “Those who are stronger than I am in their Calvinism are ‘hyper–Calvinists;’ those who are weaker are ‘Arminians’.”

This is true concerning the great eighteenth century Baptist preacher and theologian, Dr. John Gill. Although termed a “hyper–Calvinist” even by C. H. Spurgeon and some modern–day writers because of his view of eternal justification (following Hussey, Twisse and Brine), others stoutly and intelligently defend him against this charge. For a thorough discussion of the issues, see the following: Peter Toon, “Hyper–Calvinism,” New Dictionary of Theology, p. 324–325; Timothy George, Baptist Theologians, pp. 77–101; George M. Ella, John Gill and the Cause of God and Truth, pp. 151–183; Bob L. Ross, “John Gill—Not a Hardshell,” The History and Heresies of Hardshellism # 7. From Gill’s own writings and his contemporaries, it is plain that he did believe in and practice a free offer of the Gospel, and was not an Antinomian. Once a visitor said to him after a sermon, “If I had not been told that it was the great Dr. Gill who preached, I should have said that I had heard an Arminian.” (Timothy George, Op. cit., p. 83).

 

[Iconoclast]

pg47;
THE KEY: A CONSISTENT AND INCLUSIVE APPLICATION OF SCRIPTURE

Calvin was motivated by scriptural principles and their application to the immediate circumstances of his life and ministry as a human being, a Christian, a theologian, a pastor and a Reformer—sixteenth century culture, religion, church and government. His ideas were revolutionary for the sixteenth century and have proven to be revolutionary wherever they have taken root. Those who followed him—the Huguenots, Dutch Reformed, German Reformed, Scottish Reformers and Covenanters, English Puritans and American Puritans—partook of his thinking and were directed and motivated by his world–and–life view.

120 See W. Stanford Reid, John Calvin: His Influence in the Western World, pp. 13–14. 60

The key to understanding his pervasive influence is the scripturalness and inclusiveness of his system and its consistent application to every area of reality and life. Consider the following statements by Dr. Singer:

Calvinism is a theology which honors the Word of God and seeks to proclaim his whole counsel: it speaks to every aspect of culture, and provides the frame of reference for a life that is truly biblical in every respect.121

....Calvin’s careful and exacting study of the Scriptures brought him to see that the testimony of the Holy Spirit, who gave to man an inspired objective revelation, also confers upon the elect a subjective assurance as to the authority of that revelation and the power to appropriate its content for their own redemption.....

This union of the objective Word and the subjective operation of the Spirit in restoring to fallen man that necessary knowledge of God for his redemption gives to Calvinism a distinctive character not found in any other theological system.


It makes possible a doctrine of general revelation and grace on the one hand, without giving support to a Thomistic conception of natural theology on the other; at the same time it avoids the error of neo–orthodoxy in that it does not feel any obligation to deny common grace and natural revelation in order to safeguard the biblical doctrines of redeeming grace.

Because Calvin brought together both the objective and subjective elements in his doctrine of revelation he could with full assurance assert that the Scriptures are the final authority in all areas of human life. Not only do they teach what man is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man, they also furnish an infallible frame of reference in the light of which man is to evaluate all that he says, thinks and does. Its theological principles are to guide man in all of his intellectual, scientific, economic, social and political activities; not in the sense that the Bible is to be used as a textbook in these various fields of human endeavor, but in the sense that such doctrines as the sovereignty of God, the sinfulness of man and our election in Jesus Christ unto eternal salvation must be the guiding factors in the formulation of scientific, political, social and economic formulas and programs. In short, man in his cultural activities is to be biblically minded and guided.122

Calvinism has had a greater influence on human history and institutions than any other theology ever formulated....Because it was the greatest exposition of the truth of the Scriptures, it gave to the church and the world the most truly biblical and therefore, consistent theism in western history. The basic doctrines of Calvinism, such as the sovereignty of God, predestination, the infallibility and supremacy of the Scriptures, faith and conduct, the nature of man both before and after the Fall, the nature of the atonement, and the nature and purpose of the church are not only the essence of a truly biblical theology but they are also the basis for the proper interpretation of every aspect of human life and of all the activities in which man engages. They make it possible once again for the Christian man to think, analogically to some degree, the thoughts of God after him, and to find in nature and human history that meaning which God has given to his creation and to the life of man on earth. Apart from Calvinism a genuine and lasting theism is virtually impossible. Calvinism is Christian theism and, as such, it has vitally and inescapably affected every aspect of western culture in which it took root. Not only has it enabled Christians to place on life something of that interpretation which God has given to it by his decrees of creation and providence, but it has inspired the dedicated Calvinist to use his Christian doctrine as the formative principle in his cultural life and

121 C. Gregg Singer, John Calvin: His Roots and Fruits, p. 69. 122 Ibid., pp. 9–10. 61

endeavors. Calvinism is not only a theistic interpretation of life, but...it molds history theistically. It is not only an interpretation of political life, but it offers a blueprint for correct political action. Likewise, it plays the same role in the economic, social, educational and cultural life of man. It offers the only sound support for man’s aesthetic activities. No area of human life or interest is neglected by it or is immune to its penetrating analysis and influence. Calvinism speaks with authority to all those spheres of life and action because it views them all in the light of a sovereign God who is the Creator and Sustainer of all life. It assures man that his own life and, therefore, his interests and activities have meaning and purpose. He is likewise assured by these truths that he is a rational creature living in a rational world. As a knowing creature he has the assurance that he is living in a knowable world. Thus, only Calvinism furnishes the necessary guarantees for any genuine intellectual and scientific activity. The doctrines of creation and providence give to man the assurance that he has a cultural mandate from God. The scientist, consciously or unconsciously, assumes that there is an order in nature which makes it rationally comprehensible. Without such an assumption, scientific activity must be devoid of real and ultimate purpose. But only in the light of biblical postulates can such assumptions be made.

Calvinism not only makes cultural and scientific activity possible, but it also confers upon it a new importance. For the non–Christian there is no intrinsic incentive for any cultural or scientific endeavor beyond the immediate need of making a living. Calvinism insists that man is in the world to live for the glory of God and that his cultural and scientific efforts are in obedience to the divine mandate, and not ends in themselves. No other theology or philosophical system places human intellectual and cultural endeavor in such an intrinsically meaningful role...Calvinism as a world–and–life view stands in even sharper contrast to the pagan reasoning and optimism of the evolutionary philosophy, on the one hand, and the despairing voice of existentialism, on the other.123

 

[Iconoclast]

pg49
ELECTION, PREDESTINATION AND PROVIDENCE

Although biblical truths, and believed and taught by those before Calvin, he put predestination and election in the context of the eternal, redemptive purpose and of everyday life rather than merely in context of the decree of God.135 By focusing on the eternal, redemptive love and care of God for his elect, he made the individual—who had been nothing apart from the priest and the sacerdotal system—significant in the eyes of God. It was said as a complaint by Calvin’s enemies that “he gave significance to the common man.” The common believer could have a scriptural God–consciousness, a self–consciousness in his calling and daily life as a human being, a Christian, a husband and father, a church member, and a citizen in society. This would be evidenced in the great courage, boldness and civil involvement of subsequent generations, e.g., the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, the Scottish Covenanters, the English Puritans, the American Puritans, Pilgrims and those of Calvinistic beliefs and convictions who came to America and transformed it into a largely Christian culture by the grace of God.

 

[Iconoclast]

pg50;
THE HISTORIC REFORMED AND EVANGELICAL CONFESSIONS AND CATECHISMS

Every Reformed and Evangelical Confession of Faith and Catechism reflects the influence of Calvin. Note should be taken of the following: The Gaelic or French Confession, written by Calvin himself (1559); The Scots Confession of John Knox (1560); The Belgian Confession of the Dutch Reformed Church (1561); The Heidelberg Catechism of the German Reformed Churches (1562); The Thirty–Nine Articles of the Church of

132 American Presbyterianism has produced such great men as the Tennents, Samuel Davies, Archibald Alexander, James W. Alexander, Joseph A. Alexander, Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, Henry B. Smith, Gardiner Spring, B. B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, etc. Calhoun’s history of Princeton Seminary is a history of orthodox Calvinism in America (David B. Calhoun, Princeton Seminary: Faith and Learning 1812–1868; Princeton Seminary: The Majestic Testimony 1869–1929). Also see B. B. Warfield, Calvin and Calvinism, p. 366. 133 American Congregationalism had such men as Jonathan Edwards, David Brainerd, Edward Griffin, Edward Payson, Heman Humphrey, and Asahel Nettleton.

134 Calvinistic Baptists were prominent in Colonial America, especially in the Philadelphia Association and the later Southern Baptist Denomination.

This included such stalwarts as John Clarke, Hanserd Knollys, John Gano, Isaac Backus, John Leland and Richard Furman.

Later great Calvinistic Baptists include such men as John L. Dagg, J. P. Boyce, John A. Broadus and B. H. Carroll.

135 Calvin does not deal with election and predestination directly until Books II and III of the Institutes, in the context of man and, in Book III, after considering the subjects of The Christian Life and Prayer—and he devotes much more space to the two previous subjects than he does to election. 64

England (1563);
The Second Helvetic Confession of the Reformed Churches of Switzerland (1566);
The Irish Articles, written by James Ussher (1615)
\
136; The Canons of Dort (1618–1619);

The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the English Presbyterians and Puritans (1647):

NOTE: The first question of the Shorter Catechism is taken from Calvin’s Catechism and shows the impress of Calvin’s mind upon countless English–speaking generations: Q: “What is the chief end of man?” A: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.“ This should be contrasted with the first question of the English Catechism, “What is your name?” Calvinism immediately comes to terms with the essence of the issue and instills a God–consciousness from the outset. B. B. Warfield wrote:

No Catechism begins on a higher plane than the Westminster "Shorter Catechism." Its opening question, "What is the chief end of man?" with its answer, " Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever"...sets the learner at once in his right relation to God. Withdrawing his eyes from himself, even from his own salvation, as the chief object of concern, it fixes them on God and His glory, and bids him seek his highest blessedness in Him.

The Shorter Catechism owes this elevated standpoint, of course, to the purity of its reflection of the Reformed consciousness. To others, the question of questions might be, What shall I do to be saved? and it is on this plane that many, or rather most, of the Catechisms even of the Reformation begin. There is a sort of spiritual utilitarianism, a divine euthumia, at work in this, which determines the whole point of view. Even the Heidelberg Catechism is not wholly free from this leaven. Taking its starting point from the longing for comfort, even though it be the highest comfort for life and death, it claims the attention of the pupil from the beginning for his own state, his own present unhappiness, his own possibilities of bliss. There may be some danger that the pupil should acquire the impression that God exists for his benefit. The Westminster Catechism cuts itself free at once from this entanglement with lower things and begins, as it centers and ends, under the illumination of the vision of God in His glory, to subserve which it finds to be the proper end of human as of all other existence, of salvation as of all other achievements.

....When we ask after the source of this question and answer, therefore, it is an adequate response to point simply to the Reformed consciousness....

The ultimate source of the declaration is almost as easily identified as its proximate source. This must undoubtedly be found in John Calvin, who, in his "Institutes" and in his "Catechisms" alike, placed this identical idea in the forefront of his instruction... “The First Question of the Shorter Catechism,” Works, VI, pp. 379–380.

The Cambridge Platform of the New England Congregationalists (1648);
The Savoy Declaration of the English Congregationalists (1658);

The First (1644, 46)137 and Second (1677, 89) London Baptist Confessions; The Philadelphia Baptist Confession (1742); and

136 Bishop Ussher was the Prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and the Irish Articles helped form the basis of the Westminster Confession.

137 The First London Baptist Confession was published a year before the Westminster Confession. 65

even the New Hampshire Baptist Confession (1831). Also included are the various Baptist catechisms.138

THE MORAL LAW

Of all the Reformers, Calvin’s view of the Moral Law was most consistent and inclusive. As God—Creator and Sustainer of the universe—is absolutely sovereign, man individually and collectively [as church or state], is under his Law. The rule of God is therefore the rule of Law.139

...Calvin...holds a very positive view of the value of the moral law for the Christian life and for all human life.

Calvin mentioned three uses of the moral law:

First, by showing us God’s righteousness, it condemns our sinfulness and drives us to Christ (2.7.6, 8, 9).

Second, by causing fear of punishment, it restrains evil men from sin (2–7. 1 0, 1 I).

And third, it is a positive guide for the Christian life (2.7.12)...for Calvin...its true purpose...is positive guidance to the Christian.

This emphasis on the “third use” of the law gives the only proper context in which we may interpret Calvin’s lifelong concern with both ultimate authority and proximate legal structures: it is to restore fallen man back into the image of God for the glory of Christ. Thus Calvin says in his section on “the sum of the law”:

Now it will not be difficult to decide the purpose of the whole law; the fulfillment of righteousness to form human life to the archetype of divine purity. For God has so depicted his character in the law that if any man carries out in deeds whatever is enjoined there, he will express the image of God, as it were, in his own life (2.8.51).

The ultimate purpose of the law is the same as the ultimate purpose of all institutions of both “spiritual” and “civil” realms: to glorify God, who is the source of all law, authority, and grace, by redeeming man in Christ.

That is why, in Calvin’s view of society, the church is so central. Without a grasp of this centrality of church and redemption we cannot understand the agenda that motivates his particular approach to various types of law and polity. Nor can we understand the powerful sway that his approach to church and state exercised on his own generation and generations to come.140

Calvin viewed the Moral Law as corresponding to the “natural law”141 written by God upon the inner being of man as created in his image. He viewed the Moral Law as

138 Calvinistic Baptist catechisms include:

Henry Jessey, A Catechism for Babes, or Little Ones,

1652; Hercules Collins, The Orthodox Catechism (adapted from the Heidelberg Catechism),

1680; Benjamin Keach and William Collins, The Baptist Catechism (based on the Westminster Shorter Catechism),

1693; The Philadelphia Baptist Catechism,

1742; William Gadsby, The Things Most Surely Believed Among Us,


1809; C. H. Spurgeon, A Baptist Catechism (compiled from the Westminster Shorter Catechism and Keach’s Catechism);

J. P. Boyce, A Brief Catechism of Bible Doctrine (1864);

revised and reissued by John A. Broadus (1892).

139 Cf. Robert D. Knudsen, “Calvinism as a Cultural Force,” John Calvin: His Influence in the Western World, pp. 21–26;
Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, p. 82.

140 Douglas F. Kelly, Op. cit., pp. 22–23. 141 “In all this Calvin has no notion of modem secular interpretations of natural law. It is part of the divine endowment of the natural man, impaired indeed, but not obliterated by sin, evident in common concepts of justice and in the inner voice of conscience.” Quoted by Douglas F. Kelly, Op. cit., p. 21 from John T. McNeill, Introduction to On God and Political Duty, p. xvi. 66

 

[37818]

What is known as Calvinism is the biblical teaching of Jesus, the Apostles,and Prophets.

Whatever speculation, or philosophy might surround it, does not detract that it is based on the correct teaching of both Spiritual and physical death entering in to the human race by Adam in that day.

All what are known as the 5 points were derived in response to errors present at the time . They were correct responses to defective ideas.

from grace online;“Charles Spurgeon was NOT a Calvinist!” – Grace Online Library
Just for the record, I thought I’d let Spurgeon speak for himself:

What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here.

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.

then this;
A Defense of Calvinism

Well, then since He purchased me when I was dead in sins, does it not follow, as a consequence necessary and logical, that He must have loved me first? Did my Saviour die for me because I believed on Him? No; I was not then in existence; I had then no being. Could the Saviour, therefore, have died because I had faith, when I myself was not yet born? Could that have been possible? Could that have been the origin of the Saviour's love towards me? Oh! no; my Saviour died for me long before I believed. "But," says someone, "He foresaw that you would have faith; and, therefore, He loved you." What did He foresee about my faith? Did He foresee that I should get that faith myself, and that I should believe on Him of myself? No; Christ could not foresee that, because no Christian man will ever say that faith came of itself without the gift and without the working of the Holy Spirit. I have met with a great many believers, and talked with them about this matter; but I never knew one who could put his hand on his heart, and say, "I believed in Jesus without the assistance of the Holy Spirit."

I am bound to the doctrine of the depravity of the human heart, because I find myself depraved in heart, and have daily proofs that in my flesh there dwelleth no good thing. If God enters into covenant with unfallen man, man is so insignificant a creature that it must be an act of gracious condescension on the Lord's part; but if God enters into covenant with sinful man, he is then so offensive a creature that it must be, on God's part, an act of pure, free, rich, sovereign grace. When the Lord entered into covenant with me, I am sure that it was all of grace, nothing else but grace. When I remember what a den of unclean beasts and birds my heart was, and how strong was my unrenewed will, how obstinate and rebellious against the sovereignty of the Divine rule, I always feel inclined to take the very lowest room in my Father's house, and when I enter Heaven, it will be to go among the less than the least of all saints, and with the chief of sinners.

I agree that Calvinism is an interpertation of the Biblical teachings of the doctrine of grace. This being said by me, I am not in agreement with Calvinism. And this being the case, I cannot be a follower of Calvinism.

 

[Iconoclast]

I agree that Calvinism is an interpertation of the Biblical teachings of the doctrine of grace. This being said by me, I am not in agreement with Calvinism. And this being the case, I cannot be a follower of Calvinism.

I see what you're posting. All of us ought to be followers of Jesus ,
followers of God and his word written.
Calvin and the reformers and all who have lived before us that had access to scripture have sought to give an understanding of what is taught in scripture. We can all say all I believe in God or I believe in Jesus I believe in The Bible but the question becomes obviously what does The Bible teach. These men sought to derive from scripture what The Bible declares. If you could give me your 5 best arguments or 5 best reasons why you struggle with the teaching of what is known as Calvinism. I'm looking particularly for scriptural ideas that you think are not addressed by the teaching that's been known historically as Calvinism.

 

[Barry Johnson]

What is known as Calvinism is the biblical teaching of Jesus, the Apostles,and Prophets.

Whatever speculation, or philosophy might surround it, does not detract that it is based on the correct teaching of both Spiritual and physical death entering in to the human race by Adam in that day.

All what are known as the 5 points were derived in response to errors present at the time . They were correct responses to defective ideas.

from grace online;“Charles Spurgeon was NOT a Calvinist!” – Grace Online Library
Just for the record, I thought I’d let Spurgeon speak for himself:

What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here.

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.

then this;
A Defense of Calvinism

Well, then since He purchased me when I was dead in sins, does it not follow, as a consequence necessary and logical, that He must have loved me first? Did my Saviour die for me because I believed on Him? No; I was not then in existence; I had then no being. Could the Saviour, therefore, have died because I had faith, when I myself was not yet born? Could that have been possible? Could that have been the origin of the Saviour's love towards me? Oh! no; my Saviour died for me long before I believed. "But," says someone, "He foresaw that you would have faith; and, therefore, He loved you." What did He foresee about my faith? Did He foresee that I should get that faith myself, and that I should believe on Him of myself? No; Christ could not foresee that, because no Christian man will ever say that faith came of itself without the gift and without the working of the Holy Spirit. I have met with a great many believers, and talked with them about this matter; but I never knew one who could put his hand on his heart, and say, "I believed in Jesus without the assistance of the Holy Spirit."

I am bound to the doctrine of the depravity of the human heart, because I find myself depraved in heart, and have daily proofs that in my flesh there dwelleth no good thing. If God enters into covenant with unfallen man, man is so insignificant a creature that it must be an act of gracious condescension on the Lord's part; but if God enters into covenant with sinful man, he is then so offensive a creature that it must be, on God's part, an act of pure, free, rich, sovereign grace. When the Lord entered into covenant with me, I am sure that it was all of grace, nothing else but grace. When I remember what a den of unclean beasts and birds my heart was, and how strong was my unrenewed will, how obstinate and rebellious against the sovereignty of the Divine rule, I always feel inclined to take the very lowest room in my Father's house, and when I enter Heaven, it will be to go among the less than the least of all saints, and with the chief of sinners.

One false system debates another false system and creates a new false system . Its all just an in house squabble.

 

[Barry Johnson]

Every real Calvinist does start with presuppositions .
They start with Gen.1.....In beginning God created.
God as creator is the only one who can define reality.
He does so by special revelation we know as SCRIPTURE.

In John 7:15-17 Jesus spoke of the doctrinal content being from The Father.
Then He explained that to those persons who obeyed the will of God,he shall know of the doctrine..

He did not say...he shall speculate on carnal philosophy, and cultural worldviews, and piece to gather a religious philosophy.

Understanding those attributes of God revealed in all 66 books,the doctrinal pieces mesh together and we have a faith once for all time delivered to the saints.

When we discuss the doctrine of the trinity,we do not say we are discussing the philosophy of if there is a trinity.We go to scriptural truth revealed and declared.

Calvinists can explain why they believe, what they see In scripture teaches the absolute sovereignty of God.
People who do not believe it,offer ideas not really taught in scripture but they speculate on failed human wisdom and carnal philosophy.
They erect caricatures that no real Calvinist would even suggest.

Gen.1.....In beginning God created.
With 1cor1.21

 

[Barry Johnson]

I see what you're posting. All of us ought to be followers of Jesus ,
followers of God and his word written.
Calvin and the reformers and all who have lived before us that had access to scripture have sought to give an understanding of what is taught in scripture. We can all say all I believe in God or I believe in Jesus I believe in The Bible but the question becomes obviously what does The Bible teach. These men sought to derive from scripture what The Bible declares. If you could give me your 5 best arguments or 5 best reasons why you struggle with the teaching of what is known as Calvinism. I'm looking particularly for scriptural ideas that you think are not addressed by the teaching that's been known historically as Calvinism.

The irony is you see rightly that Catholicism puts a system in front of the bible in which it views the bible through . Amazingly you don't see your also doing it ?

 

[37818]

I see what you're posting. All of us ought to be followers of Jesus ,
followers of God and his word written.
Calvin and the reformers and all who have lived before us that had access to scripture have sought to give an understanding of what is taught in scripture. We can all say all I believe in God or I believe in Jesus I believe in The Bible but the question becomes obviously what does The Bible teach. These men sought to derive from scripture what The Bible declares. If you could give me your 5 best arguments or 5 best reasons why you struggle with the teaching of what is known as Calvinism. I'm looking particularly for scriptural ideas that you think are not addressed by the teaching that's been known historically as Calvinism.

Why must I provide 5 argumens? If I disagree on one point, then I disagree.
Revelation 20:15 is the final sole reason persons perish. Little children who die before coming of age to believe, it is my understanding their names are not removed.

 

[Iconoclast]

37818,

Hello 37818,
We have not interacted too often,so I wondered what was on your mind when you said this;

I am not in agreement with Calvinism. And this being the case, I cannot be a follower of Calvinism.

Why must I provide 5 argumens?

5 was just a random number, you could offer 1,5 or 29, that is up to you.
I have found that most times there is only a few main points of contention. I was trying to understand your place, or places of disagreement.

If I disagree on one point, then I disagree.

If there is only one thing you do not agree on, perhaps you agree with the majority of what is taught. I am not a mind reader, so being the thread is about the biblical teaching of Calvinism, I thought we could explore your comments[I am not in agreement, I cannot be a follower]

Revelation 20:15 is the final sole reason persons perish.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

I think this is the end result of those who are found outside of Christ

Little children who die before coming of age to believe, it is my understanding their names are not removed.

I believe only the teaching known as Calvinism offers a biblical answer to this question, so as it stands I see no reason that you find fault with the biblical teaching known as Calvinism....Could you clarify what you were getting at, in post #9

 

[Iconoclast]

"Barry Johnson,

One false system debates another false system and creates a new false system . Its all just an in house squabble.

Your opinions do not address the topic. Truth matters. If your main source of info is the 101 podcast, you are not going to have much to offer as that person used to post here, and was consistently silenced by scripture.
If you want a response, pick out something from one of the links and offer what you think is biblical correction if you can

 

[Iconoclast]

"Barry Johnson,

Gen.1.....In beginning God created.

Stands by itself.

With 1cor1.21

This is a good verse but only has meaning because of the truth about Gen.1

 

[Iconoclast]

Barry Johnson,

The irony is you see rightly that Catholicism puts a system in front of the bible in which it views the bible through

.

No... The biblical teaching came first, then carnal professors perverted it.
The Reformation was getting people back to the truth that had been perverted,

Amazingly you don't see your also doing it ?

The truth comes from God,when men drift by philosophy, speculation,double talk, debate fallacies, you can mark it down they are devoid of truth.
Reformation means setting things right.

 

[JonC]

I agree that Calvinism is an interpertation of the Biblical teachings of the doctrine of grace. This being said by me, I am not in agreement with Calvinism. And this being the case, I cannot be a follower of Calvinism.

What we can do is explain our interpretations.

Calvinism, Amyraldianism, Arminianism and all of those interpretations not of a Calvinistic trajectory are men's understanding of Scripture.

Obviously none of these understandings are divinely inspired beyond the extent of what they hold in common (scripture).

Unfortunately sometimes people do know where Scripture ends and their understanding begins and choose to lean on their own understanding rather than God's words to us.

For those who have a more mature faith, discussions center on reasoning out scripture in order to understand one another and facilitate communication (not to force one's philosophies, worldviews, theories ot interpretations on other people).

 

[Iconoclast]

posted earlier;

Calvinism insists that man is in the world to live for the glory of God and that his cultural and scientific efforts are in obedience to the divine mandate, and not ends in themselves.

No other theology or philosophical system places human intellectual and cultural endeavor in such an intrinsically meaningful role...

Calvinism as a world–and–life view stands in even sharper contrast to the pagan reasoning and optimism of the evolutionary philosophy, on the one hand, and the despairing voice of existentialism, on the other.

Some divert from biblical truth by changing definitions ,speaking out of both sides of the mouth, and avoiding scripture at all costs.
Then they pick and choose as if they alone have discovered what everyone in church history has somehow missed.
Avoid such persons who put themselves out on the fringe.

Such a person does not like when multitudes see virtually the same thing clearly taught, and yet they cannot see it, but it remains concealed from their understanding.