Calvinism needs to add words to scripture

[Ben1445]

But I find it a bit outrageous to say that there is no point in just anyone believing in Jesus Christ if John didn’t see them when he saw things to come.

Now come on! Tell me where I have said that or anything approaching it.

This is unbiblical. Scripture speaks of 'A great multitude, which no one could number, of all nations tribes, peoples and tongues, standing before the throne.....' If no one can number them, then who are you, may I ask, not only to number them, but to find the insufficient? Also, would you like to explain to me how the number gets any bigger under Pelagianism or Arminianism?

That sounded like it is approaching it to me.

'Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.'

We agree on this.

The problem with trying to discuss, not just with you, but with several others as well,

Dave seems to be able to discuss it without being offended. And we go back and forth with thoughts and give and take.

is that you have conjured up a hobgoblin of Calvinism in your minds that bears no resemblance to the real thing,

What you call a hobgoblin exists here on the BB. And there are stamens that all Calvinism makes that taken to their logical conclusions equal your hobgoblin.

and nothing I say is going to persuade you that the hobgoblin doesn't really exist. It gets really tiresome!

I grant you that he may not be at your house.
I have made some other people quite upset with me for being a Calvinist while you think that I am searching for the boogeyman. So I get it from both sides and that is tiresome. So I think I understand what you mean. I don’t think you should be so upset about it. Your view of Calvinism is not the only one.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

It’s a shame that their foundational premise is unbiblical.

The Foundational Premise of the Doctrines of Grace is The Counsel of Peace
and Eternal Covenant of Grace, Among the Triune Godhead.

"Their" are simply Bible believers.

As with so many others, who disappoint themselves by knowing that they are guessing, the 'shame' you have is a non-system of innumerable self-contradictions that your heart and soul know can not be reconciled, i.e., "many" restricts "all", however "all" does not qualify "many", as in these two verses;

Mark 10:45
"For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to Minister,
and to Give His Life a Ransom for many."
vs
I Timothy 2:6
"Who Gave Himself a Ransom for all, to be Testified in Due Time."

They assert that Christ did not die for everyone.

Is Jesus Christ Someone that you allow to tell us who He died for?

John 10:15 "As the Father Knoweth Me, even so Know I the Father: and I Lay Down My Life for the sheep."

They suggest that God has rejected most people and even wills that they be damned.

God has Left 'most people', exactly where He Found them, in their sins, and Did Not Choose to Elect them to Eternal Salvation.

God Did Not Actively "reject" most people and He Did Not have to "Will" that they be Damned.

The sin of lost sinners Damns their soul to Hell, without any Positive Decree by God to "Will" that they be Damned.

Romans 9:15
"For He saith to Moses, I Will have Mercy on whom I Will have Mercy,
and I Will have Compassion on whom I Will have Compassion."

Romans 9:11
"(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil,
that the Purpose of God According to Election might Stand, not of works, but of Him that Calleth"

Romans 8:28
"And we know that all things Work Together for Good to them that Love God,
to them who are the Called According to His Purpose.

29 "For whom He did Foreknow, He also did Predestinate to be Conformed to the Image of His Son,
that He might be the Firstborn among many brethren.

30 "Moreover whom He did Predestinate, them He also Called:
and whom He Called, them He also Justified: and whom He Justified, them He also Glorified."

Romans 8:16
"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that Sheweth Mercy.

17 "For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same Purpose have I Raised thee Up,
that I might Shew My Power in thee, and that My Name might be Declared throughout all the Earth.

18 "Therefore hath He Mercy on whom He Will have Mercy, and whom He Will he Hardeneth."

"...this hardening of men's hearts may be understood in perfect agreement with the Justice and Holiness of God:
men first Harden their own hearts by sinning, as Pharaoh did;

what God Does, is by Leaving them to their Hardness of their hearts,
Denying them that Grace which only can Soften them,
and which He is not Obliged to Give,
and therefore Does them No Injustice in Withholding Saving Grace from them;

"by Sending them both Mercies and Judgments,
which through the Corruption of their hearts, are the Means of the Greater Hardening of them;

"so Judgments in the case of Pharaoh, and Mercies in the case of others; (see Isaiah 6:10, Romans 11:8-10);
by Delivering them Up into the hands of Satan, and to their own lusts, which they themselves approve of;
and by Giving them Up to a Judicial Blindness and Hardness of heart, as a Just Punishment for their Impieties."

John Gill's Old and New Testament Bible Exposition: Romans Chapter 9

John Gill's Old and New Testament Bible Exposition: Romans Chapter 9 - in PDF format.

biblenotes.online

Romans 1:20
"For the Invisible Things of Him from the Creation of the World are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are Made, even His Eternal Power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 "Because that, when they knew God, they Glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful;
but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 "And changed the Glory of the Uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,
and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 "Wherefore God also Gave them Up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts,
to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:"

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

For Calvinism to exist as a theology, scripture alone will not support it.

The Word of God is Saturated with the Perfect Accomplishment of God's Eternal Plan of Salvation, through the Sacrificial Suffering of His Son, in the Eternal Doctrines of Grace, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.

Do you allow God to Add Words in His Bible to Explain what He is Saying in a verse, by using the rest of the Bible, comparing Scripture with Scripture, and Spiritual things with Spiritual, or do you believe what you think is equal to the Truth of God, already?

Romans 8:1
1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,
who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 "For the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus hath Made me Free from the Law of sin and death.

3 "For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,
God Sending His Own Son in the Likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, Condemned sin in the flesh:

4 "That the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh;
but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be Spiritually Minded is Life and Peace.

7 "Because the carnal mind is Enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 "So then they that are in the flesh cannot Please God."

1 John 2:2
Jesus is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of those for whom Jesus died in the whole world.

Are the definitions you are using for the words "our" and "the whole world" just some things off the top of your head
that you are assuming, or can they be supported by the Word of God?

What definitions do you give to those words?

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that ALL those for whom Jesus died should come to repentance.

Are the definitions you are using for the words "us-ward" and "perish" just some things off the top of your head
that you are assuming, or can they be supported by the Word of God?

What definitions do you give to those words?

1 Timothy 2:1-4
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior;
Who will have ALL men, those for whom Jesus died, to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Are the definitions you are using for the words "all men" and "to be saved" just some things off the top of your head
that you are assuming, or can they be supported by the Word of God?

What definitions do you give to those words?

2 Corinthians 5:19,20
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world of those for whom Jesus died unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you, those for whom Jesus died, in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Are the definitions you are using for the words "the world" and "them" just some things off the top of your head
that you are assuming, or can they be supported by the Word of God?

What definitions do you give to those words?

Acts 17:30
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth ALL men, those for whom Jesus died, every where to repent:

Don't know how this verse could be a problem for anyone who has not been blessed to understand what a sinner is.

A sinner is what they are and this verse is what it is and means what it says and says what it means.

You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that.

What did God say, to express what He Meant by "all men"?

The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men.

Yes, he most certainly did and that is not all The Holy Spirit Wrote with regard to "all men" in the immediate context.

My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater.

Then, it should follow that he nor anyone else should "knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture", so why did he?

God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

So runs the text, and so we must read it,
"God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

People might like to listen to these two talks by Geoff Thomas on the subject of Effectual Atonement.
Geoff was pastor of Alfred Place Baptist church in the Welsh town of Aberystwyth for exactly 50 years. He is credited, along with Walter Chantry, with coining the phrase 'Reformed Baptist' when they were both studying at Westminster Seminary. Having met him on a few occasions, I can tell you that he is definitely a man to look up to, and not only because he is about 6ft 4ins tall!

There is a lot of waffling before Geoff starts to speak. Go to about 28 minutes to save time.

 

[DaveXR650]

@Martin Marprelate. I thought that was excellent and thanks for putting that up. I would ask, not as a challenge, but since this thread started out with what I was hoping would be a conciliatory and uniting tone, that you guys who don't like Calvinism would take the time to view that video above. What I am specifically interested in would be if you guys would look at the 1:20:00 mark and then the next 10 minutes where he offers the gospel and gives what I consider an invitation to come to Christ. For just one moment, theology aside, would anyone have any objections to that segment? I sincerely would like to know what your opinion would be on that.

 

[Ascetic X]

Charles Spurgeon rebuked Calvinists for contorting Scripture to fit their grand scheme:

I Timothy 2:4

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that.

The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth."

Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater.

I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression.

So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."" —Charles Spurgeon, "Salvation By Knowing the Truth"

While there is no reason to condemn Calvinists, and they have much good material to share with us, the TULIP formula must be rejected in favor of the True Grace of God extended to all humanity.

 

[Jerome]

Geoff Thomas...is credited, along with Walter Chantry, with coining the phrase 'Reformed Baptist' when they were both studying at Westminster Seminary.

They are wrongly credited with coining the term.

Walter Chantry's son Tom Chantry was corrected when he laid claim to that for Geoff Thomas and Daddy. Commenters educated him about prior use of the phrase "Reformed Baptist":

"Interesting post but historically inaccurate. The term 'Reformed Baptist' was actually first used by the Welsh Baptist preacher J.R. Jones of Ramoth. A doctrinal difference existed between the Scotch Baptists and the English Baptists who were both Calvinist particulars. J.R. Jones, although being more in the camp of Archibald M’Lean and the Scotch Baptist churches, did not want to be referred to either Scotch or English Baptist and called his connection 'Bedyddwyr Diwygiedig' or 'Reformed Baptist' in Welsh. So this term was being used in the late 1700’s or early 1800’s."

"Churches of Christ also used the term 'Reformed Baptist' at one point."

 

[Jerome]

There is a pattern of aberrant groups initially claiming to be just 'Reformed Baptists'.

J.R. Jones mentioned above was a Sandemanian.

Campbellites went under "Reformed Baptists" in the 1800s before settling on calling themselves "Churches of Christ" or "Disciples".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

They are wrongly credited with coining the term.

Walter Chantry's son Tom Chantry was corrected when he laid claim to that for Geoff Thomas and Daddy. Commenters educated him about prior use of the phrase "Reformed Baptist":

"Interesting post but historically inaccurate. The term 'Reformed Baptist' was actually first used by the Welsh Baptist preacher J.R. Jones of Ramoth. A doctrinal difference existed between the Scotch Baptists and the English Baptists who were both Calvinist particulars. J.R. Jones, although being more in the camp of Archibald M’Lean and the Scotch Baptist churches, did not want to be referred to either Scotch or English Baptist and called his connection 'Bedyddwyr Diwygiedig' or 'Reformed Baptist' in Welsh. So this term was being used in the late 1700’s or early 1800’s."

"Churches of Christ also used the term 'Reformed Baptist' at one point."

You may be right, though I see nothing in the link you posted to suggest that you are. You do not attribute the quote.
I will only say that as a student of Particular Baptist church history I have found nothing to suggest that the term existed before the 1960s. The old 'Strict and Particular Baptists' called themselves just that: Strict and Particular. 'Strict' meaning that they held to closed communion and 'Particular' meaning that they held to particular redemption.

 

[Jerome]

Primitive Baptists likewise called themselves "Reformed Baptists" in the 1820s. An early manifesto of the Primitive Baptists was titled the "Declaration of the Reformed Baptist Churches of North Carolina".

And there was the Alliance of Reformed Baptist Churches (Northeastern U.S and Maritime Canada) that eventually merged into the Wesleyan Church in 1966!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

While there is no reason to condemn Calvinists, and they have much good material to share with us, the TULIP formula must be rejected in favor of the True Grace of God extended to all humanity.

I have huge respect for Charles Spurgeon, who was of course, a 5 point Calvinist and very often spoke in favour of Calvinism (quotes available on request). However, the Bible often uses 'all' in the sense of 'all sorts of.' I quoted one example above; I can trawl through the Bible to find more if you want.
Of course the grace of God extends to all humanity. 'Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.' I don't know how many times I have to quote that text before you will believe me. The trouble is, as I have posted above, that men will not call on His name unless they are born from above. Moreover, God makes His sun rise on the evil as well as the good; He sends rain on the just and on the unjust (Matt. 5:45); He is kind to the unthankful and evil (Luke 6:35); He endures with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (Romans 9:22; c.f. Proverbs 16:4). But 'Having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end' (or 'to the uttermost').

 

[Jerome]

Charles Spurgeon rebuked Calvinists for contorting Scripture to fit their grand scheme:

I Timothy 2:4

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men." —Charles Spurgeon, "Salvation By Knowing the Truth"

Yes he did...look on the Martyn Lloyd-Jones sermon archive website and plug in the sermon "Arminianism, Calvinism, and HyperCalvinism, toward the end of the sermon, he goes into the dangers of making Calvinism too much of a rigid "deterministic system".

Yes, and it seems there are still around some of that ilk (that Spurgeon rebuked long ago) who persist in contorting that Scripture to "all sorts" to fit their 'grand scheme'.

How sad.

 

[DaveXR650]

Yes, and it seems there are still around some of that ilk (that Spurgeon rebuked long ago) who persist in contorting that Scripture to "all sorts" to fit their 'grand scheme'.

What Spurgeon believed like all Calvinists, was that Christ's atonement actually wiped away the sins of a person, not potentially, but actually. The thought that a person whose sins had been atoned for by the blood of Christ could be in Hell was horrifying to him. And likewise, the thought that a person could come to Christ, be saved and have his sins atoned for, then lose that was also abhorrent to him. It was an insult to Christ and the effectiveness of his atoning work.

But what was also horrifying to Spurgeon and many other Calvinists is the idea that people would interpret the truth of this as meaning that the atonement was limited so that it was possible for a scenario where a person could come to Christ only to be told that they had not been included in the atonement. Thus you have an open invitation and offer of the gospel as an essential part of most Calvinist preaching. And it is genuine.

It is simply untrue to represent Spurgeon as not being a 5 point Calvinist or believing in a particular atonement, unless he might have evolved over the years, which, if he did, I am not aware of.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It is simply untrue to represent Spurgeon as not being a 5 point Calvinist or believing in a particular atonement, unless he might have evolved over the years, which, if he did, I am not aware of.

Having read many of his sermons, and having read two biographies, I can assure you and anyone else reading absolutely that Spurgeon did not change his theological views in any way in the last years of his life.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

View attachment 13961

Yum! I still can't find one that looks like a dodecahedron though

 

[Ascetic X]

I do not see how Spurgeon could have been a 5 Point TULIP Calvinist when this quote from him debunks the L which is Limited Atonement.

QUOTE

I Timothy 2:4

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.


"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not.

You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text.

"All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men.

"All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men.

So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.""

—Charles Spurgeon, "Salvation By Knowing the Truth"


END QUOTE

 

[DaveXR650]

I do not see how Spurgeon could have been a 5 Point TULIP Calvinist when this quote from him debunks the L which is Limited Atonement.

Well you have to read what he said.

The Spurgeon ArchiveMain Menu

I was going to put up the direct quote pertaining to limited atonement from that sermon but if you are serious about wanting to understand this then take the time to read the whole thing. Because Spurgeon goes in to what I was talking about earlier - that being that a moderate Calvinist will admit, as he does in this sermon, that there are things that he knows as scriptural truth that cannot be reconciled in his finite mind.

Take Calvinism or leave it but Spurgeon was a Calvinist. The fact that you, John R. Rice, and almost all Baptists find him acceptable should be a clue that it would be unwise to hate Calvinism or avoid fellowship with them no matter what you decide.

 

[Ascetic X]

Well you have to read what he said.

The Spurgeon ArchiveMain Menu

I was going to put up the direct quote pertaining to limited atonement from that sermon but if you are serious about wanting to understand this then take the time to read the whole thing. Because Spurgeon goes in to what I was talking about earlier - that being that a moderate Calvinist will admit, as he does in this sermon, that there are things that he knows as scriptural truth that cannot be reconciled in his finite mind.

Take Calvinism or leave it but Spurgeon was a Calvinist. The fact that you, John R. Rice, and almost all Baptists find him acceptable should be a clue that it would be unwise to hate Calvinism or avoid fellowship with them no matter what you decide.

I like quite a lot of Spurgeon, John Piper, John McArthur, and some other Calvinists, when they are not promoting Calvinism. I totally reject their Calvinist doctrines.

 

[DaveXR650]

I like quite a lot of Spurgeon, John Piper, John McArthur, and some other Calvinists, when they are not promoting Calvinism. I totally reject their Calvinist doctrines.

That's OK. In that sermon above you will find that Spurgeon himself would not think badly of you, just as he thought very highly of Wesley, and I'm sure he was aware of Wesley's writings on Calvinism.

 

[Ascetic X]

That's OK. In that sermon above you will find that Spurgeon himself would not think badly of you, just as he thought very highly of Wesley, and I'm sure he was aware of Wesley's writings on Calvinism.

“Hold the two Truths of God—do not try to run to the extreme, either of the Hyper-Calvinist or of the ultra-Arminian. There is some truth in Calvinism and some in Arminianism, and he who would hold the whole Truth of God must neither be cramped by the one system nor bound by the other, but take Truth wherever he can find it in the Bible—and leave it to the God of Truth to show him, when he gets into another world, anything that is beyond his comprehension now.”

— It Pleased God by CH Spurgeon

C. H. Spurgeon: Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 56: 1910 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

www.ccel.org