Featured doctrines of grace ?

Believe me, brother, I understand. The "Doctrines of Grace" describe my salvation, but like you I did not know that for a long time . All through seminary I held a strong "free will" position. From the time I first encountered Calvinistic soteriology until I discovered my presuppositions wrong, I came to exactly the same “logical conclusions” as you do here.

When I finally gave in and read the Canons of Dort, I discovered my error. Not only does the Canons describe God’s work (that I took as “compulsion”) as “softening” and “enlightening”, but they flatly deny men are saved contrary to their will. They even affirm men’s freedom of choice. And, of course, when I read the Institutes I realized how foreign the characterizations I had gathered were to Calvinism. In other words, I “uningorantified” myself.

But that only told me that my “logical conclusions” were wrong, not that they were right. So I went through what they believe and what I had believed, without my presuppositions, and discovered that they held a more biblical soteriology than I. It took a long time, a lot of prayer, and a lot of study before I would agree. But, I suppose that is how it should be.

Are there places where I disagree? Sure. For example, I do not agree with their definition of “regeneration”, but I absolutely agree with the doctrine that they call “regeneration”. I don’t agree with their reason children who die in infancy are safe, but I do agree that they are.

As one who does hold the “doctrines of grace”, but once held a “free-will” position, I can tell you that I have put both to the test. My logical conclusion of your position is that you believe God makes a way but man ultimately saves himself. And there is no other conclusion that can be made. My logical conclusion of the Doctrines of Grace is that God saves man.

 

No, brother. I was saying that I formed a “logical conclusion” about Calvinism in ignorance. I do not know you or your experience.

What I am saying, however, is that your “version” of Calvinism is not what Calvinists believe.

Believe me, it is not because of our answers but because of your refusal to accept anything but your own presuppositions. If you notice, EVERY Calvinist that has responded has told you the same thing - what you are saying is "Calvinism" is not what Calvinists believe. Yet you continue because you "sat under teachers and read books".

The God that you slander (the God that men like John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, John Wesley, D.L. Moody, and A.W. Tozier worshipped) is the God who desires that all be saved, who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and who loved the world by sending his Son as the Savior of all mankind, especially those who believe. The God that you deny on this post is the very God who lay down his life that you might not perish. But isn’t that the crux of the matter? God loves you and sacrificed of himself for you. But there is a choice to make and you have to decide. You see, God never forces men…never drags unwilling men into his salvation…this is the God of Calvinists, Arminians, Free-Will Baptists, Reformed Baptists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. Where do you fit in? Who is your God?

I know that you believe Calvinists at heart reject the Canons of Dort and their own writings in favor of your presupposed ideas of their "logical conclusions". I suppose you read that somewhere and have decided to believe it, even when Calvinists tell you that what you are presenting is not Calvinism, but in fact foreign to Calvinistic doctrine. That’s fine. Pride is a part of being human, it’s natural.

So you are your own savior. And you claim omniscience by looking into the heart of the Calvinist and telling them what they "really" believe. Do you have any more divine attributes we should know about?

 

Disagreement and misunderstanding can be the result of ignorance. For me, it was ignorance of what actually constituted “Calvinistic soteriology”. I believed people and books, but never even considered the source. I now know where I depart from Calvinism (in terms of the Canons) because I have taken the time to learn of that doctrine, and it is not in the “doctrines of grace”. I didn’t know before I learned.

You seem like an intelligent person. I think that you have a shorter way to go in learning than you do in listening.

Yes, there has always been room for disagreement in Calvinism – particularly in terms of Soteriology alone.

Calvinists vary on doctrine, and they argue. But some considered “Calvinists” also deny the Canons of Dort in their theology (Daniel Parker, for example). And maybe some even believe that God compels men to believe, but again this would be a denial of the Canons.

The notion men are saved by compulsion is specifically denied in the Canons of Dort. The notion salvation was not legitimately offered, and the call given, to those who don’t believe is also refuted in the Canons of Dort as error. Christ is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe (this is Calvinistic belief, but it is also Scripture…specifically, it’s Paul). I know that you disagree with Calvinism. But why not let your disagreement be legitimate? Why not debate or discuss rather than troll, slander, and bear false witness? We have the documents, the Canons are available. The Articles they opposed are available. The Institutes are available. We can discuss things honestly, no need to stereotype here.

Your questions were answered, but you dismissed the answers.

What questions are you looking to have answered? Ask, brother, and you will receive. Just stop telling us what we believe and deal with the answers given.

According to you, he is not. But according to Scripture, he is.

I grant that we have had some nasty “Calvinists” here in the past. Some have been banned, others not, but if you had been around a couple of years ago you would have met yourself in Calvinistic form.

I don’t know your past. You seem to have a difficult time dealing with the Canons of Dort, so I wonder what kind of “Calvinist” you could have been.

I also enjoy Lewis Carroll (just yesterday I was reading “The Hunting of the Snark”).

Is “irresistible grace” available to all man? This is a nonsense question that demonstrates your lack of understanding of the doctrine.

“Irresistible” is not something to be given. This “grace” is mercy. So what you are essentially asking me is if God brings all men to belief. This is universal salvation, something I deny. While God does have mercy on all men, God does not save those who do not believe in Christ.

More to the doctrine, however, is that “irresistible grace” means that the Holy Spirit works in the life of a lost man in such a way that the Truth of the Gospel is revealed (not just that the truth about the gospel is made known and understood, but that man understands it as true). And this is not something that God does in the life of every man.

Don’t forgive me. What you have been doing this entire time was pretending to know what I believe, and you even ignored evidence that you were wrong in your assumptions…but you continue. This is called hypocrisy.

That is an issue today, isn’t it. Where does the biblical narrative become stale and expired, thus necessitating its intended purpose of a continuation through the ongoing narrative of God’s people? My answer is never and while I understand your “need” for something new, I was never a fan of Brian Mclaren crowd.

But you have, twice now. “Taking God’s name in vain” does not mean putting “god” in front of a cuss word. It is much more a serious matter when a believer treats God as common. And you have twice used God as your “lapdog”, your “pawn”, to emphasize your view. And that is a sin.

 

Throughout your interaction here you have insisted that Calvinism teaches doctrines that are specifically denied in the Canons of Dort.

What evidences (except your presuppositions and conclusions of what their conclusions should have been) are you offering in support of your position?

Evidence has been presented that contradicts your claims. I am interested in reading your evidence to the contrary.

Soteriological differences within Christianity arise from differences in understanding how God accomplishes his work of redemption. What remains in common is God and that work. That is why Christians of varying beliefs can discuss such things. We are children of the same God.

You, however, seem to reject this God that men like Calvin, Spurgeon, Wesley, and Tozer worshipped. You seem opposed to the God that TCasidy, MB, HeirOfSalvation, and others adore even as we disagree on theological issue of how our God worked things. As you reject and slander the God that both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic soteriologies seek to explain, you need to know you are speaking of the One True God who is not defined by our understanding of him. When someone rejects the God of Calvinism, or the God of a "free-will" Christian theology, they are simply rejecting God.

 

Thank you for your testimony. I think that sometimes it is even more difficult for those like you and I who grew up in church. So often churches assume salvation when we see hypocrisy, not only around us but with us as we try to live a standard while yet unsaved.

Anyway, you misunderstood my post.

My point in saying what you present is "typical Calvinistic thinking" was to highlight Agents error of doing the same ("typical free-will thinking"). I do not believe "free-will" advocates think that they save themselves any more than you should think I believe I was saved against my will. Calvinism does not teach men do not choose. Does not Scripture say "choose this day..."?

My point in offering what some less than honest Calvinists may argue was to point out the less than honest tactic Agent had taken up.

I believe in the same God who saved me under free will doctrine, regardless to what a minority of "hyper" free willers would suggest.

Agent 47 is the one, not I, who said he saved himself just as Peter freed himself by taking advantage of an opportunity.

 

I'm OK regardless.

 

That would help. But no, I don't think you'd drop your stance on what you believe if you read more....That wasn't what I was saying.

My request for actual Calvinists who believe what you represent their beliefs as a whole to be was not that I thought you were ignorant, but because I am about such Calvinistic teachings.

Who are those Calvinists who reach God saves men against their will?

 

Good luck brother.

 

I like some of Calvin's work on prayer.

Insofar as "Calvinism" goes, he had been dead over 50 years before the Canons of Dort. I'm not really sure how he would have articulated the doctrines. It was Beza who placed sovereignty where it stands in Calvinism. Also, issues such as the "scope of the Atonement" was not in such sharp focus until much later.

Sometimes people forget that the term "Calvinism" was coined not for Calvin's soterilogy but for how his doctrine of Communion differed from Luther's. Calvinism (soterilogy) was not restricted to Calvin's doctrines. And I think most today would consider James Arminius at least a moderate Calvinist....I know Norman Geisler would....

Although I disagree with Calvin (I am Baptist), his defense for infant baptism as well as his accusations against those who oppose the view are interesting. They serve to highlight that theology consists of "more than meets the eye" and show the extent worldviews come into play.