A Question for Calvinist here

[DHK]

Just a point of information here...

You've set up a false dichotomy between being a Calvinist and having an "evangelistic...burden for souls." It should be noted that William Carey--the founder of the modern Baptist missionary movement--was, himself, a 5-point Calvinist.

To hold to the Doctrines of Grace does not affect one's evangelistic zeal. Certainly some of the "Hyper-Calvinist" crowd are wrong by suggesting that one doesn't need to engage in missions." The typical Calvinists--like Piper, Mohler, Mark Dever, etc.--are VERY evangelistic in that they work, pray, evangelize, plead, etc. with the lost to come to Christ.

Get your facts straight and don't paint false pictures.

The Archangel

I didn't paint a false picture and neither was that my intent. I was addressing the theology of Spurgeon, and that is all that I addressed.

To your other point, IMO, the Calvinists of this day are not very evangelical in general. You might point out some exceptions, but Calvinistic churches in general are not as evangelistic as others. Calvinism leads to a neglect or an abrogation of human responsibility. That is evident even in some of the posts in other threads here. I have been told plainly that there is no need to obey "The Great Commission," and in another case: "Your Great Commission," is not the "real" Great Commission, a denial that Matthew 28:19,20 was even applicable.

 

[The Archangel]

I didn't paint a false picture and neither was that my intent. I was addressing the theology of Spurgeon, and that is all that I addressed.

To your other point, IMO, the Calvinists of this day are not very evangelical in general. You might point out some exceptions, but Calvinistic churches in general are not as evangelistic as others. Calvinism leads to a neglect or an abrogation of human responsibility. That is evident even in some of the posts in other threads here. I have been told plainly that there is no need to obey "The Great Commission," and in another case: "Your Great Commission," is not the "real" Great Commission, a denial that Matthew 28:19,20 was even applicable.

You are simply wrong.

The Archangel

 

[Thousand Hills]

Get your facts straight and don't paint false pictures.

I'm wondering if DHK isn't getting his beliefs on Spurgeon from this jewel of a website again.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Doctrines/Calvinism/spurgeon.htm

Here are some real gems for those whose eyes can't handle the website fonts and colors.

Charles Spurgeon was indeed a Calvinist, but NOT a 5-point Calvinist. Spurgeon clearly believed that anyone could come to Christ of his own freewill to be saved. Unfortunately, Spurgeon did teach "limited atonement" (the heresy that Jesus only died for the redeemed, and not the whole world). I will explain more on this later.

Spurgeon was NOT a Calvinist on all points, though he may have thought he was. I sincerely believe that Spurgeon didn't quite fully understand Calvin's teachings.

I believe that Calvin misunderstood the Bible, and Spurgeon misunderstood Calvin.

 

[DHK]

I'm wondering if DHK isn't getting his beliefs on Spurgeon from this jewel of a website again.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Doctrines/Calvinism/spurgeon.htm

Here are some real gems for those whose eyes can't handle the website fonts and colors.

Here is the URL again:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/spurgeon_charles/sermons/1000.cfm

Notice it is from blueletterbible.org. That is a website that has nothing to do with Jesus-is-savior. It is a resource center. The sermon was taken from C.H. Spurgeon's archive of sermons. No need to cast any more stones.

 

[Iconoclast]

Thousand Hills

:laugh:

Here are some real gems for those whose eyes can't handle the website fonts and colors.[/QUOTE]

Charles Spurgeon was indeed a Calvinist, but NOT a 5-point Calvinist. Spurgeon clearly believed that anyone could come to Christ of his own freewill to be saved. Unfortunately, Spurgeon did teach "limited atonement" (the heresy that Jesus only died for the redeemed, and not the whole world). I will explain more on this later.

:laugh::laugh: free will indeed...that must be why he wrote free will a slave:thumbs:

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0052.htm

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

As for Spurgeon you don't know what Spurgeon believed.

Let's take a close look DHK. If I do not know what Spurgeon believed I will admit such here on BB...

Perhaps you need some education.

So not only do I not know what Spurgeon believed....but you are going to volunteer to inform me....as you know much about him, and of course cals have it all wrong......I see....lets look together:laugh:

Spurgeon was conflicted over Calvinism.

:laugh:

The thing I like best of exposing a theological poser is getting to the root of their false teaching, lack of scholarship, falsehoods , allegations and lies.
the same sermon you extracted this quote from begins this way;

The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."—C. H. Spurgeon

maybe you should have done your homework..here are the other parts of this sermon....

I suppose there are some persons whose minds naturally incline towards the doctrine of free-will. I can only say that mine inclines as naturally towards the doctrines of sovereign grace

Well can I remember the manner in which I learned the doctrines of grace in a single instant. Born, as all of us are by nature, an Arminian, I still believed the old things I had heard continually from the pulpit, and did not see the grace of God. When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me.

Those men who think that, afterwards, we are left to our own free-will to choose this one or the other to direct our steps, must admit that our entrance into the world was not of our own will, but that God had then to choose for us.

John Newton used to tell a whimsical story, and laugh at it, too, of a good woman who said, in order to prove the doctrine of election, "Ah! sir, the Lord must have loved me before I was born, or else He would not have seen anything in me to love afterwards." I am sure it is true in my case; I believe the doctrine of election, because I am quite certain that, if God had not chosen me, I should never have chosen Him; and I am sure He chose me before I was born, or else He never would have chosen me afterwards; and He must have elected me for reasons unknown to me, for I never could find any reason in myself why He should have looked upon me with special love. So I am forced to accept that great Biblical doctrine

God loved His chosen creatures. Before there was any created being—when the ether was not fanned by an angel's wing, when space itself had not an existence, when there was nothing save God alone—even then, in that loneliness of Deity, and in that deep quiet and profundity, His bowels moved with love for His chosen. Their names were written on His heart, and then were they dear to His soul. Jesus loved His people before the foundation of the world—even from eternity! and when He called me by His grace, He said to me, "I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee."

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.

YET YOU CLAIM THIS IS TRUE OF YOU ...RIGHT DHK?

And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer?

There is more....stay tuned for pt2...:laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

pt2
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.

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.

Good choice of sermon DHK...lol

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.

Then you say this....

Sure, you can find one sermon where he admits to Calvinism.

If you said...I am the court jester, the BB clown...I would go easy on you...But instead you pretend to know what you do not, your theology is twisted, you defame nationally known pastors, and attempt to belittle people on here by twisting their words ,and falsehoods at every turn.

You need to repent, own up up your folly, give up this anti-cal jihad..and seek God.

But most of his sermons were evangelistic with a burden for souls. In fact he had such a burden for winning the lost that he prayed (and I paraphrase), "if this is election, then God elect some more." To pray that God would elect some more is not a Calvinist belief. In the end his evangelistic zeal won over the prederterministic Calvinism of the day.
That is quite evident when one reads sermons like this:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/spurgeon_charles/sermons/1000.cfm
Here is the real Spurgeon. His heart is in the lost soul's of men, in the love of God for them. He will not allow a man's system of theology to interfere with that.

He mentions Augustine and Calvin in his own words. You are wrong again..He tells us in his own words and you would tell him instead what you think he meant by his own words...that is so much what you do now with us here , you CANNOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REALITY AND THOSE TWISTED IDEAS YOU INFLICT ON US.

The Bible does not teach that God gives faith to the unregenerate. That is a fable, a myth. It is found in story books, but not in the Bible.

We have all found it in the bible...keep looking DHK..maybe one day..................

 

[DHK]

We have all found it in the bible...keep looking DHK..maybe one day..................

You keep repeating that myth. But you don't back it up with Scripture. You can't.
God does not give faith to the unregenerate. He does not force people to become His little robots. He is not a puppeteer and we his puppets. That in a nutshell is the essence of Calvinism.

But God does give faith to the believer. It was a spiritual gift. You will find it mentioned among the gifts in 1Cor.12.
It is a fruit of the Spirit, mentioned in Gal.5. Why would God give either a spiritual gift or the fruit of the Spirit to the unregenerate? He doesn't.

 

[Iconoclast]

steaver

Brother Icon, you desperately want to turn this OP into a general application of a text. It ain't happening!

Not at all Steaver my friend... I stand I by what I have posted.
I just ask that you post what I said and how I said it...not your twisted commentary on what I posted...perhaps you have studied at the DHK institute of:thumbsup: post twisting.

The OP is specific, and it pertains specifically to two issues; (1) Your declarations that the reason one does not believe Calvinism/TULIP is because of Matt 13 and John 10, which of course means because they are not saved/sheep. (2) Your declaration that the "camp" agrees with you.

I had to look up the post myself as you have diluted it..here it is-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

steaver



Quote:
Oh good grief! Do all Calvinist believe as you do Icon?

I am one person Steaver. I do not speak for any group. My views are within the camp however.

That we are all just puppets waiting for the Great Puppet Master to zap us into Christians and Calvinist?

I find this kind of comment profane. God is God steaver.
He does not have to check with you to get the Okay to do what He does.

The unbiblical puppet argument is just that unbiblical.

You are way off the deep end,

I am glad to some extent that you feel that way as you are in a badly confused state of mind.

I believe your fellow brothers and sisters in Calvinism would also agree that you have actually left Calvinism with your "Divine Enablement" doctrine.

okay....and I believe you have need to learn the biblical ...a,b c's to raise this issue...

27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Can you see it now Steaver????...guess what salvation is also ...GIVEN...by Divine enablement...they go hand in hand....

With that said, AA does not agree with you on this OP and he said so clearly.

I answered you on this...your commentary not withstanding.

So where does that leave AA in your world of applying Matt 13 and John 10 to those who do not agree with your understanding of scripture?

As he is a Cal...I would say he does not find fault with this verse;

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given

Has the Holy Spirit failed to teach AA correctly?

The Holy Spirit is God...what you suggest..failure...is profane.

Or is it as you like to say, because of Matt 13 and John 10 that he does not believe the doctrine application as you do?

He believes these verses. He differs in how I see an application of those verses...As I said...He has every right to how he would explain those verses.

You have every right to comment on the verses..both in that post and this one;
yes ...;lets look again;

Is it God who opens understanding and enables sinners to welcome truth?

Hmmm,,,,,

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

truth revealed by God from heaven to Peter on earth: applause:

25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?


let's see if the evil psalmist also believed such things???? from psalm 119-
5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!

What...does this man want to be a Puppet?

18 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.

Is he praying.....for Divine enablement??? was the psalmist a Calvinist?


oh no...not again
26 I have declared my ways, and thou heardest me: teach me thy statutes.

27 Make me to understand the way of thy precepts: so shall I talk of thy wondrous works.

It is in almost every verse...look S-

32 I will run the way of thy commandments, when thou shalt enlarge my heart.
33 Teach me, O Lord, the way of thy statutes; and I shall keep it unto the end.

34 Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart.

35 Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight.

36 Incline my heart unto thy testimonies, and not to covetousness

133 Order my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me.

Maybe Paul was a Calvinist....look S-

13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.

According to your declarations, AA, or any other professing Christian for that matter, does not have the luxury of "working through" or disagreeing with you,or not believing the scriptures as you see them.

Show a direct quote where I said all Christians must believe as I do....If you cannot show a direct quote...then you like DHK speak falsely about me...

put up, or shut up:laugh:

You have a couple quotes brother Icon, which may haunt you for the rest of your life here on the BB. You have created a position that unless one interprets scripture as you doone has not been taught of the Holy Spirit . This places anyone who is in disagreement with you outside the grace of God.

quote directly where I said this...put up or shut up:wavey:

Question is, will you continue doubling down and digging in your heels, even when a fellow Cal brother you respect has declared you are mishandling the application of this Scripture when it comes to applying it to those who do not embrace TULIP?

I stand by what I POST , not what you infer I posted . Show a direct quote, put up, or shut up....

I say put up..quote my words directly....or shut up, because if you cannot support your claim then you are just being a contentious troublemaker looking to post falsehoods.:thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

You keep repeating that myth. But you don't back it up with Scripture. You can't.
God does not give faith to the unregenerate. He does not force people to become His little robots. He is not a puppeteer and we his puppets. That in a nutshell is the essence of Calvinism.

But God does give faith to the believer. It was a spiritual gift. You will find it mentioned among the gifts in 1Cor.12.
It is a fruit of the Spirit, mentioned in Gal.5. Why would God give either a spiritual gift or the fruit of the Spirit to the unregenerate? He doesn't.

How did I know you would weasel out using this as a loophole to avoid the embarrassment of being totally wrong on Spurgeon...You could not be more wrong as a matter of fact.

Any recanting of yet more false posting and posturing on your part.
You were going to lecture me on Spurgeon...
You said I did not know about Spurgeon......
You are trying to hit and run, move away from yet another false posting on your part:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[DHK]

How did I know you would weasel out using this as a loophole to avoid the embarrassment of being totally wrong on Spurgeon...You could not be more wrong as a matter of fact.

Any recanting of yet more false posting and posturing on your part.
You were going to lecture me on Spurgeon...
You said I did not know about Spurgeon......
You are trying to hit and run, move away from yet another false posting on your part:laugh::laugh::laugh:

No deflection was needed. I simply responded to your last post.
You made a statement based on a Calvinistic myth.
I challenge you on it and still no Scripture forth coming. You laugh at your inability to back up your statements with Scripture?? Amazing!

As for Spurgeon, I backed up my statements with documented proof.
Read it for yourself:

www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/charles_spurgeon/sermons/1000.html.



[FONT=&quot]

I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not, allow the thought to find lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In Christ’s finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discerns no shore. There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, if God had so willed it to have saved not only all in this world, but in ten thousand worlds…[/FONT]

Spurgeon did not believe in a limited atonement.

 

[Rippon]

Spurgeon did not believe in a limited atonement.

How about fish don't swim? That's about as truthful as your absurd claim above.

 

[DHK]

How about fish don't swim? That's about as truthful as your absurd claim above.

Please explain the above quote:

[FONT=&quot]I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not, allow the thought to find lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In Christ’s finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discerns no shore. There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, if God had so willed it to have saved not only all in this world, but in ten thousand worlds…

[/FONT]

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I following the link below, I found this as the title to the message:

A Sermon
(No. 1000)
Delivered on Lord's-day Morning, July 16th, 1871, by
C. H. SPURGEON,
At the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington​

I didn't read far enough to see if the quote is accurate or not.

SNIP
As for Spurgeon, I backed up my statements with documented proof.
Read it for yourself:

www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/charles_spurgeon/sermons/1000.html.

 

[Rippon]

Mastering the art of reading with understanding is necessary DHK and Squire.

From Spurgeon's sermon : Bread Enough, and To Spare.

"The intent of the divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work."

The application of Christ's cross-work was limited in design. It is of infinite value however. No Calvinist believes it was a finite work.

Sorry, one cannot make C.H.S. into an Arminian --try as one might. Spurgeon made too many definitive statements that no amount of white-washing can possibly deface.

 

[Iconoclast]

How about fish don't swim? That's about as truthful as your absurd claim above.

fish that do not swim.....:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

Mastering the art of reading with understanding is necessary DHK and Squire.

From Spurgeon's sermon : Bread Enough, and To Spare.

"The intent of the divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work."

The application of Christ's cross-work was limited in design. It is of infinite value however. No Calvinist believes it was a finite work.

Sorry, one cannot make C.H.S. into an Arminian --try as one might. Spurgeon made too many definitive statements that no amount of white-washing can possibly deface.

DHK claims he documented it...but I do not see it in his link...I found it here

http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm:wavey::wavey::wavey:

This was in DHK's link;

I must leave this point, but I cannot do so without adding that I think "BREAD ENOUGH AND TO SPARE" might be taken for the motto of the gospel. I believe in particular redemption, and that Christ laid down his life for his sheep;

but, as I have already said, I do not believe in the limited value of that redemption; how else could I dare to read the words of John, "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sine of the whole world." There is a sure portion for his own elect, but there is also over and above "to spare."

 

[Iconoclast]

I following the link below, I found this as the title to the message:I didn't read far enough to see if the quote is accurate or not.

You did...the quote was not there...I linked where you will find the quote originally used speaking of the merit of the blood, not the design or efficacy.

here is where you will find the misguided quote in the link by DHK-

http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm:thumbsup::thumbsup::wavey:

This link completely exposes DHK and what he is trying in vain to do.

Squire...take time and read the whole link...it is a good read and you will see very clearly why we suggest an agenda at work.The comment speaks of the merit...not the design, for whom it was intended.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

No deflection was needed.

Sure it was. I made 4 or 5 posts refuting your false claim andlink think was completely against your statements....You did not respond to your own link, because it absolutely buries you.:thumbsup:

I simply responded to your last post.

If you want to call it that:laugh:

You made a statement based on a Calvinistic myth.

My statement is based on God's word...it might seem like a myth to you, but it is bible based.

I challenge you on it and still no Scripture forth coming.

I have answered you on this same topic several times.You ignored it then, you will ignore it now, unless God intervenes:thumbsup:

You laugh at your inability to back up your statements with Scripture?? Amazing!

No..i laugh at your scheme being exposed and foiled. You have persisted with your zeal to try and speak evil of Calvinism and Calvinists...you have not only failed but demonstrated who you are ....

Spurgeon did not believe in a limited atonement.

This is a denial of reality:thumbsup:

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Thank you for your more detailed rebuttal. DHK, can you give us the paragraph and line in the paragraph of you quote?