A Question for Calvinist here

[DHK]

DHK
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.

Your 4 or 5 posts were made long ago. Ancient history. They were copy and paste from Calvin. I told you before time I wasn't going to answer them.
I answered your post, and in post #108 challenged you about a statement you made about "faith." You have not given a Scriptural answer to that statement yet.

If you want to call it that:laugh:

Yes, it was a response; unlike this mockery of yours.

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

You haven't provided me one reference, not one in the entire Bible to back up this belief, that I have termed a Calvinistic myth.
That "faith is given to the unregenerate" as you affirm is a myth, and not taught anywhere in the Bible. I have challenged you to provide scripture, but still you will not do so. You can't. It is not there.

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

This is a deflection. It is not a reason why you cannot defend yourself in this debate nor ever have been able to answer for this myth that you believe.

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 ....

Again, the Bible is not a laughing matter. To state some so-called doctrine and not to be able to back it up with Scripture is sad, and not a laughing matter. Why the mockery? Don't you take God's Word seriously?
I have nothing to lose here.

This is a denial of reality:thumbsup:

I quoted what Spurgeon said, and backed it up with a link so you could read it yourself. There are many other sermons just like it.
Spurgeon did have Calvinistic beliefs, of that there is no doubt. But he wasn't a full five point Calvinist. According to many on this board: If one doesn't believe all five points then he isn't a Calvinist at all. I guess that puts Spurgeon out of the Calvinist camp then, doesn't it?

 

[Iconoclast]

Perhaps Heb.9 will be more helpful here:

yes heb9 is quite helpful

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us

It does not say...for all who "accept it"..it says...for us



26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

--He appeared to put away sin. What sin? All the sin of the world! Not just the sin of the elect, but all sin.

vs 12 identified who...us.....not all the sins of all men

Again, it is the completed work of the cross, and it accomplished redemption for all men,

it does not say for all men...all are not redeemed

all who would accept it

this is unbiblical language

by trusting Christ, by receiving him.

that is those elected by God

God's covenants are with Israel.

God's eternal covenant existed before the world was....before Israel was

"It is finished." What did Christ say? Salvation is finished. And then he was buried and rose again. The penalty had been paid. It was not potential in any way.

the penalty was paid for the sheep

 

[DHK]

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

I think it is the 10th paragraph down. It starts with the line:

"But, ah! the master proof that in Christ Jesus there is "bread enough and to spare," is the cross."

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I found the quote. It's:
Paragraph 10, Lines 10-13.
The passage is buried but there. Folks we need to have better footnoteing.

I think it is the 10th paragraph down. It starts with the line:

"But, ah! the master proof that in Christ Jesus there is "bread enough and to spare," is the cross."

 

[DHK]

having obtained eternal redemption for us[/B]

By using the personal pronouns in the Book of Hebrews it is the same as taking Scripture out of context. The author of the Book of Hebrews was writing to Jewish believers who were being tempted to go back to Judaism or to Temple worship. They were being sorely tried and persecuted. It would be much easier.
Thus the author throughout the book presents a contrast between Judaism and Christ. The key word is "better" WE have a better sacrifice, a better priest, a better prophet, a better apostle, etc. Thus the pronoun "we." He is identifying himself with these Jewish believers. These are not verses that prove limited atonement, unconditional election, etc. You are simply using them out of context.
redemption for us --The Jewish believers in the book of Hebrews.
--Don't ignore historical context. That does not in anyway ignore that fact that Christ provided salvation for all.

It does not say...for all who "accept it"..it says...for us

It is exactly what John 1:12 says. "receive him." He must be received, as a gift. It is His salvation. There is no other.

26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

vs 12 identified who...us.....not all the sins of all men

it does not say for all men...all are not redeemed

More scripture from the Book of Hebrews taken out of context. The "us" is the Hebrew Christians.

this is unbiblical language

Accept or receive; the same thing. John 1:12.

that is those elected by God

Those are your words. It is not what the Bible says. You are following a man-made system. The Bible says "that WHOSOEVER believes in Him shall have eternal life." It says nothing of the elect.

God's eternal covenant existed before the world was....before Israel was

Don't make statements you know nothing about. You were not there, were you?

the penalty was paid for the sheep

A false and unbiblical statement.
1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Your 4 or 5 posts were made long ago. Ancient history.

I am talking about post 106,107 in this thread, not ancient history...I consolidated them...8-10 small paragraphs...hardly ancient history...you ignored them

They were copy and paste from Calvin.

that was the other thread...you could not answer them:thumbs:

I told you before time I wasn't going to answer them.

this is what you do

I answered your post, and in post #108 challenged you about a statement you made about "faith." You have not given a Scriptural answer to that statement yet.

post 108...follows 106 and 107 which you ignored...

Yes, it was a response; unlike this mockery of yours.

you calling the teaching of Calvinism a myth was not mockery

You haven't provided me one reference, not one in the entire Bible to back up this belief, that I have termed a Calvinistic myth.

you did it again right here....

That "faith is given to the unregenerate" as you affirm is a myth

,

It is biblical salvation...You can read about it in John 3....Jesus explained to an unsaved religious person that except a man be born from above he could not be saved... The new birth is heavenly in origin....
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again...no myth..biblical truth.

and not taught anywhere in the Bible.

yes ..it is..john 3...eph2

I have challenged you to provide scripture, but still you will not do so. You can't. It is not there.

this is now the 6th time I have explained this to you

This is a deflection. It is not a reason why you cannot defend yourself in this debate nor ever have been able to answer for this myth that you believe.

I answered to God thanking Him for saving me by His grace.

Again, the Bible is not a laughing matter.

Your misquotes, and posts are sad and sometimes we laugh, because you insist we are wrong, when it is evident you are out of sorts:thumbs:

To state some so-called doctrine and not to be able to back it up with Scripture is sad,

The scripture is there...you resist it at every turn.
In doing so you oppose yourself.

and not a laughing matter. Why the mockery? Don't you take God's Word seriously?

God's word yes. Even when the greek text is opened up.

..your condescending attitude and failure to honestly respond is strange , and comical in that you insist we are wrong, when you have been exposed absolutely. To say Spurgeon was conflicted about Calvinism is the lateset of your pronouncements that are almost beyond belief.
I have nothing to lose here.

I quoted what Spurgeon said, and backed it up with a link so you could read it yourself. There are many other sermons just like it.

I found your original quote and gave you the link where it was found. For your point of view it was the worst quote you could have picked as it showed all five points that Spurgeon championed. When it was pointed out to you post 106,107...you side stepped it.

With so much falsehood being produced by you I am wondering if you are okay? Seriously...I am wondering if something is going wrong with you. I cannot believe what you are posting lately.

Spurgeon did have Calvinistic beliefs, of that there is no doubt.
But he wasn't a full five point Calvinist.

Rippon shredded that idea...my link buried you, and yet you persist. Sometimes I have more time than many to post...I am at a truckstop with only 4 or 5 people around....my two deliveries are later in the day tomorrow, so I have time. I f I did not have more time I would not spend time like this with you insisting on absurdities, but I think some might want to see the truth to some extent.

According to many on this board: If one doesn't believe all five points then he isn't a Calvinist at all. I guess that puts Spurgeon out of the Calvinist camp then, doesn't it?

Spurgeon used and endorsed Benjamin Keachs Catechism...it is as 5 pts as can be. Your statements are getting completely deranged..

The whole downgrade controversy was about these things and declension in the churches in His day.

.A few days ago I told you I have all of Spurgeons works...in print form and on disc...yet you were telling me I did not know about him, and you were going to instruct me even though I told you this

 

[convicted1]

Brother DHK,


You are categorically wrong about Spurgeon. I've read many of his writings and he is a biblically solid 5-pointer.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

]More scripture from the Book of Hebrews taken out of context. The "us" is the Hebrew Christians.

Here again...despite your dispensational stylings...in Hebrews 2 all the elect from all time are spoken of Hebrews 2:9-16..he took on Him the seed of Abraham....
in Galatians we are told;
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
You fail at every turn..can you not see this?

Accept or receive; the same thing. John 1:12.

Not the same and include vs 13 and your contention disappears
,
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Those are your words. It is not what the Bible says. You are following a man-made system. The Bible says "that WHOSOEVER believes in Him shall have eternal life." It says nothing of the elect.

AA pointed out..everyone believing...that would be the elect. You just cannot receive or welcome it.

Don't make statements you know nothing about. You were not there, were you?

Jesus was however and he told us what happened.

A false and unbiblical statement.
1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

[/QUOTE]
jn 10 says he laid down His life for the sheep, jkn 11 says the children are scattered all over the world...you deny scripture again...no surprise.

 

[convicted1]

Brother DHK,

Read Spurgeon's sermon titled 'Election' and you'll see his views...

 

[Iconoclast]

Brother DHK,


You are categorically wrong about Spurgeon. I've read many of his writings and he is a biblically solid 5-pointer.

Con1.....that will not stop him however...he wants to be a revisionist, almost or perhaps more sad than those holocaust deniers you hear about.

rippon gives him post after post to no avail, AA gives him greek texts, no change. People offer correction he jumps to something else...
I offered him this link where his first quote came from....he ignores it-



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

 

[DHK]

Brother DHK,

Read Spurgeon's sermon titled 'Election' and you'll see his views...

I know what Spurgeon believes concerning Calvinism and it "appears" that he is a strong Calvinist, but appearances are deceiving.
There are many Calvinists on this board and they don't like my assessment.
However, Spurgeon was conflicted in his views. He had a soul-winners heart. The logical end of Calvinism discourages obedience to the Great Commission, after all, no matter what happens the elect will be elected, right?

Here is what Spurgeon believed on "Coming to Christ," something that is fervently denied by many Cals here:

II. In the second place we observe from the text that the invitation is very wide—"WHOSOEVER WILL, LET HIM TAKE THE WATER OF LIFE FREELY." How wide is this invitation! There are some ministers who are afraid to invite sinners, then why are they ministers! for they are afraid to perform the most important part of the sacred office. There was a time I must confess when I somewhat faltered when about to give a free invitation. My doctrinal sentiments did at thee time somewhat hamper me. I boldly avow that I am unchanged as to the doctrines I have preached; I preach Calvinism as high, as stern, and as sound as ever; but I do feel, and always did feel an anxiety to invite sinners to Christ. And I do feel also, that not only is such a course consistent with the soundest doctrines, but that the other course is after all the unsound one, and has no title whatever to plead Scripture on its behalf. There has grown up in many Baptist churches an idea that none are to be called to Christ but what they call sensible sinners. I sometimes rebut that by remarking, that I call stupid sinners to Christ as well as sensible sinners, and that stupid sinners make by far the greatest proportion of the ungodly. But I glory in the avowal that I preach Christ even to insensible sinners—that I would say even to the dry bones of the valley, as Ezekiel did, "Ye dry bones live!" doing it as an act of faith; not faith in the power of those that hear to obey the command, but faith in the power of God who gives the command to give strength also to those addressed, that they may be constrained to obey it. But now listen to my text; for here, at least, there is no limitation. But sensible or insensible, all that the text saith is, "Whosoever will, let him come and take the water of life freely."

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0279.htm

"Whosoever, will, let him come and take of the water of life freely."
--An excellent message. The emphasis is on the lost coming to Christ. No regeneration required first. No "forced-faith," no anything but simply "come." The emphasis is on the lost coming to Christ.

"And for that, there is no limitation."

 

[plain_n_simple]

Now that is a slam dunk for DHK. Spurgeon must of said whosoever 50 times in that sermon lol.

 

[Rippon]

I know what Spurgeon believes concerning Calvinism and it "appears" that he is a strong Calvinist, but appearances are deceiving.

You are either deceived or purposefully deceiving.

However, Spurgeon was conflicted in his views.

You are confuted at every turn.

The logical end of Calvinism discourages obedience to the Great Commission,

What an example you set as a moderator! You are bearing false witness and you very well know it.

No "forced-faith," no anything but simply "come."

No Calvinist believes in "forced-faith" so why do you make things up out of whole cloth and attribute it to Calvinists?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I'm sorry, what do you mean by "Forced Faith?"

 

[RLBosley]

This thread seems to be little more than a childish, shameful witch-hunt.

At least one good thing has come of it, DHKs incapacity to be truthful was laid bare.

You are either deceived or purposefully deceiving.

You are confuted at every turn.

What an example you set as a moderator! You are bearing false witness and you very well know it.

What more do you expect from him? That's his standard MO.


As to the OP. I am a relatively recent comer to the reformed corner, only in the last 2 years or so. I do not know if I fully agree with Icon's interpretation of illumination regarding the doctrines of grace, though I think it would be logical. If, as according to scripture, we require God to enlighten our minds and open our hearts to receive the gospel because of our fallenness, then it would seem to follow that any correct theology would require similar illumination.

 

[Yeshua1]

I know what Spurgeon believes concerning Calvinism and it "appears" that he is a strong Calvinist, but appearances are deceiving.
There are many Calvinists on this board and they don't like my assessment.
However, Spurgeon was conflicted in his views. He had a soul-winners heart. The logical end of Calvinism discourages obedience to the Great Commission, after all, no matter what happens the elect will be elected, right?

Here is what Spurgeon believed on "Coming to Christ," something that is fervently denied by many Cals here:

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0279.htm

"Whosoever, will, let him come and take of the water of life freely."
--An excellent message. The emphasis is on the lost coming to Christ. No regeneration required first. No "forced-faith," no anything but simply "come." The emphasis is on the lost coming to Christ.

"And for that, there is no limitation."
[/SIZE]

Except that Spurgeon, and calvin themselves would limiyed the "able to come free;y", to being the chosen out elect group of sinners God had the Cross of Christ as their atonement for...

have to read Spurgeon with the understanding that one can be a strong calvinist and a strong soul winner, as they are not opposite ends!

 

[Rippon]

The Blood Of The Everlasting Covenant --C.H.S.

Snips follow:

"...the blood-bought seed who were loved of Christ from the foundation of the world."

[The Father speaking] "...these whom I now give to Christ shall be for ever the objects of eternal love. Them I will forgive through the merit of the blood. To these will I give a perfect righteousness; these will I adopt and make my sons and daughters, and these shall reign with me through Christ eternally."

"I will give them faith whereby this blood shall be applied to them."

"God the Son as the covenant head and representative of all God's elect."

"God the Son has paid the debt of all the elect."

 

[Rippon]

The Blood Of The Everlasting Covenant C.H.S.

Snips will follow:

"All for whom Christ died shall be pardoned, all justified, all adopted. The Spirit shall quicken them all, shall give them all faith, shall bring them all to heaven..."

"...let us see what were the objects of this covenant. Was this covenant made for every man of the race of Adam? Assuredly not..."

"The covenant --to come at once straight to the matter, however offensive the doctrine may be --the covenant has relationship to the elect and none besides. Does this offend you?"

 

[convicted1]

I know what Spurgeon believes concerning Calvinism and it "appears" that he is a strong Calvinist, but appearances are deceiving.
There are many Calvinists on this board and they don't like my assessment.
However, Spurgeon was conflicted in his views. He had a soul-winners heart. The logical end of Calvinism discourages obedience to the Great Commission, after all, no matter what happens the elect will be elected, right?

Here is what Spurgeon believed on "Coming to Christ," something that is fervently denied by many Cals here:

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0279.htm

"Whosoever, will, let him come and take of the water of life freely."
--An excellent message. The emphasis is on the lost coming to Christ. No regeneration required first. No "forced-faith," no anything but simply "come." The emphasis is on the lost coming to Christ.

"And for that, there is no limitation."
[/SIZE]

Calvinists have soul-winning hearts. What you said that we don't is just plain stoopid...not ignorant...ignorance can be fixed...stoopidity can't. No DOGer worth his weight in marshmallows is anti-Great Commissional. Another categorigally stoopid statement you've made.

You are just un-teachable, and are in the thralls of 'Winmanism'....

 

[plain_n_simple]

So the Calvin preacher speaks to the lost, knowing that some were not meant to hear or accept the Gospel. One or two of the unelected accept the call. An exercise in futility at best.
The Calvinist cannot have a heart for the lost believing the deck is stacked.