Adrian Rodgers

[Dave G]

If only the elect will get saved - then there is no need for witnessing.

The elect are the "whosoever believeth".

The Gospel still needs to be preached.

 

[JonC]

JonC,

[I am tired of hearing the foolishness that boarders on proclaiming Calvinism as the way, truth, and life.
As Christians we need to realize that the “heroes of the faith”, men who have labored faithfully, men who were used greatly by God, are no less because they held understandings of Scripture differently.
Argue doctrine, but do not become an enemy of God by striving against God’s people and slandering other Christians.]

No one was slandered. Doctrine was mentioned, not his character.
You claim you are tired of Calvinism being spoken of, and yet in the thread concealing and revealing truth you mention Calvinism 48 times when it was not even the topic.
You constantly offer your take on it, when no one is asking you.
If people want to ask you they will. No one is doing what you suggest, except in your own mind.

No one, myself included, needs your invitation to respond to a thread.

I do not want to see people slandered regardless of their Calvinistic or non-Calvinistic positions.

For the record, based on your positions against Christians you seem to have acquired a knowledge of Calvinism without understanding. If Calvinism produces the spirit you show others then there is a serious problem.

 

[Dave G]

If Calvinism produces the spirit you show others then there is a serious problem.

"Calvinism" does not produce bad spirits, or bad behavior.

The wicked flesh does...for truly, in our flesh dwells no good thing.
I've seen it from both sides, and experienced the fiercest of it from "Wesleyan Arminians", who defend loss of salvation.

They call people like us, "sin defenders" and "greasy gracers".
Some of them don't even hold back when they get angry, and completely forget about their conduct;
They don't bat an eyelash when they call people they disagree with, "charlatans" and "devils".

Regardless, we all need to remember Romans 12 and many other Scriptures when it comes to our conduct, Jon.
No one who professes Christ has any business attacking and maligning anyone.

 

[Reynolds]

No one's betting souls on a belief system.
They are giving God the credit He deserves in saving someone.

For all the things he got right, I'm sure God used him to edify his people...but Adrian Rogers did not understand how and why God saves someone.

That is a perfect illustration of how Calvinists of today have gone too far.

 

[Dave G]

That is a perfect illustration of how Calvinists of today have gone too far.

Reynolds, I was being honest.
Would you prefer that I wasn't?

If you believe me to be less than charitable, just say so.

But if I think someone doesn't understand or preach a doctrine correctly, then I have the right to say so.
I don't think it goes too far to state things unequivocally.
I do think that it goes too far to speak evil of a man, which is what God's word tells me not to do ( Titus 3:2 )...

Stated differently, I don't think it goes too far to tell someone how and why I think someone is in error, and to do it unashamedly.
Discussing doctrines and teachings is not off-limits on this board, no matter who we are speaking of.

I suppose that that is where we will have to disagree.

 

[JonC]

"Calvinism" does not produce bad spirits, or bad behavior.

The wicked flesh does...for truly, in our flesh dwells no good thing.
I've seen it from both sides, and experienced the fiercest of it from "Wesleyan Arminians", who defend loss of salvation.

They call people like us, "sin defenders" and "greasy gracers".
Some of them don't even hold back when they get angry, and completely forget about their conduct;
They don't bat an eyelash when they call people they disagree with, "charlatans".

Regardless, we all need to remember Romans 12 and many other Scriptures when it comes to our conduct, Jon.
No one who professes Christ has any business attacking and maligning anyone.

I agree that Christians have no business attacking and melining anyone.

Apart from the fruit of the Spirit Calvinism and non-Calvinist theology can only produce hostility towards others opposed to that view.

What makes the difference is Christ, not one's understanding of predestination in salvation. Unfortunately there are people (on both sides of the debate) that lack a Christ-likeness in how they deal with people who disagree with their views.

Most of my influences (in terms of pastors and teachers) are Calvinists. But they are nothing like a few I have seen on this board. They exhibit the Spirit in their lives. This is true of the many non-Calvinists who have influenced me as well.

Christ is the common denominator where theology differs. That makes all the difference.

 

[Dave G]

Its sad really. People who probably in their entire life have not won the people to Christ that Adrian did on one of his worst Sundays call him a false teacher.

I think we all need to remember who does the real "soul winning", and it's not men.
It's the Spirit of God.

If anyone is used of Him, it's out of His grace and His willingness to bless His own word, no matter where it issues forth from.

We ought not to exalt men as "great", just because they had a lot of people who liked them.
We ought to think of men as "great", because they selflessly serve a risen Saviour and often don't even get noticed by and large.

" Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." ( Matthew 18:4 ).

Notice that it doesn't say, "whosoever shall be the preacher with the most admirers shall be the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven."
Again, the Lord Jesus had something a bit different to say, that should cast light on our opinions of men.

 

[Reynolds]

Reynolds, I was being honest.
Would you prefer that I wasn't?

If you believe me to be less than charitable, just say so.

But if I think someone doesn't understand or preach a doctrine correctly, then I have the right to say so.
I don't think it goes too far to state things unequivocally.
I do think that it goes too far to speak evil of a man, which is what God's word tells me not to do ( Titus 3:2 )...

Stated differently, I don't think it goes too far to tell someone how and why I think someone is in error, and to do it unashamedly.
Discussing doctrines and teachings is not off-limits on this board, no matter who we are speaking of.

I suppose that that is where we will have to disagree.

You are saying anything but Calvinism is a false doctrine. You are saying that if anyone disagrees with Calvinism it is due to ignorance.
Since you asked, I actually see you as arrogant and egotistical when you are discussing Calvinism.

 

[Reynolds]

I think we all need to remember who does the real "soul winning", and it's not men.
It's the Spirit of God.

If anyone is used of Him, it's out of His grace and His willingness to bless His own word, no matter where it issues forth from.

We ought not to exalt men as "great", just because they had a lot of people who liked them.
We ought to think of men as "great", because they selflessly serve a risen Saviour and often don't even get noticed by and large.

" Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." ( Matthew 18:4 ).

Notice that it doesn't say, "whosoever shall be the preacher with the most admirers shall be the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven."
Again, the Lord Jesus had something a bit different to say, that should cast light on our opinions of men.

Again, you see the world through the lens of Calvinism.

 

[Dave G]

You are saying anything but Calvinism is a false doctrine. You are saying that if anyone disagrees with Calvinism it is due to ignorance.
Since you asked, I actually see you as arrogant and egotistical when you are discussing Calvinism.

You see something that is not intended.

But since you asked, what you call "Calvinism", at least in the TULIP, I call the truth of salvation and part of sound doctrine.
I say that anything outside of God doing the saving, without any help from men, is error.
What you see is confidence in what I believe and understand from Scripture, and what I'm convinced glorifies God in the highest.

You're welcome to accuse me of anything you like, that is between you and the Lord, Reynolds.
But if you think I'm going to back off and say that I believe that there is more than one way that God saves someone, you'll be waiting a long time.

I'm not egotistical, because I did nothing to save myself.
I have nothing to be proud of.
What you see as boasting in myself and my "doctrine", I see as boasting in the Lord and being confident that I understand His word about those things.

Are you saying that a born again child of the living God cannot understand the Scriptures properly and confidently?
I hope not.

 

[Dave G]

Again, you see the world through the lens of Calvinism.

I don't know how, as I've never studied him.
I don't really care to study the works of prominent "Calvinists", either.

I study the Scriptures, and what you see in my posts is what I've arrived at independently of men and institutions of men.

If you want to call me a liar, that is between you and the Lord as well.
But I won't think any ill of you one way or the other.

 

[Reynolds]

You see something that is not intended.

But since you asked, what you call "Calvinism", at least in the TULIP, I call the truth of salvation and part of sound doctrine.
I say that anything outside of God doing the saving, without any help from men, is error.
What you see is confidence in what I believe and understand from Scripture, and what I'm convinced glorifies God in the highest.

You're welcome to accuse me of anything you like, that is between you and the Lord, Reynolds.
But if you think I'm going to back off and say that I believe that there is more than one way God saves someone, you'll be waiting a long time.

I'm not egotistical, because I did nothing to save myself.
I have nothing to be proud of.

What you see as boasting in myself and my "doctrine", I see as boasting in the Lord and being confident that I understand His word about those things.

I am confident I understand The Word and we disagree. The difference is I dont see you as ignorant. I recognize that one can understand a doctrine without embracing it. With you, its Calvinism or ignorance.

 

[JonC]

being confident that I understand His word about those things.

I think and hope we all have this confidence (while not leaning on our understanding).

I am likewise confident that Calvinism (and Arminianism.... no offense, @Reynolds) is incorrect. But I do not believe I need to change either of your doctrines.

The problem comes in when one side claims the other side rejects a view out of ignorance. I have not seen @Dave Gilbert do this, but another "Calvinist" on this board often takes that position. There are real reasons people reject Calvinism just as there are real reasons people hold that position.

 

[Dave G]

I am confident I understand The Word and we disagree. The difference is I dont see you as ignorant. I recognize that one can understand a doctrine without embracing it. With you, its Calvinism or ignorance.

With me, it's doctrinal soundness biblically, or error.
From my viewpoint, you label it as "Calvinism".

Question:

What do you think the "sound doctrine" that Paul told Titus ( Titus 2:1 ) to always speak, was?
Can we know it as believers, or do you think it's mysterious or never learnable?

What is the "unity of the faith" spoken of in Ephesians 4, and what does it entail?
Can it be known, or are we always supposed to go around with differing beliefs about God's word, as believers, never arriving at a consensus even though we all claim to be saved and to have the Spirit of truth within us?

As I see it, you're telling me that I'm not supposed to have a firm belief of what sound doctrine is, and that I'm not allowed to state what it consists of...just because you disagree with it.

I'm just supposed to keep things "light", and never tell you what I believe the answers are to "controversial" questions?
That would be doing you more of an injustice than saying that I agree with you on everything would...
Because then I would be lying to you.

So, am I "egotistical", or being honest and standing on what I believe to be the truth, no matter what?

 

[Reynolds]

With me, it's definite doctrinal purity, or error.
From my viewpoint, you label it as "Calvinism".

Question:

What do you think the "sound doctrine" that Paul told Titus ( Titus 2:1 ) to always speak, was?
Can we know it as believers, or do you think it's mysterious?

What is the "unity of the faith" spoken of in Ephesians 4, and what does it entail?
Can it be known, or are we always supposed to go around with differing beliefs about God's word, as believers?

I would say Articles of Remonstrance most accurately describe those truths. You would say The Canons of Dort do.

 

[Dave G]

I would say Articles of Remonstrance most accurately describe those truths. You would say The Canons of Dort do.

For the record, I read the Scriptures first, and later investigated the Canons of Dort.
That is when I discovered that I agreed with them.

But the fact is, you're persuaded of one thing, and I another...
and I don't call you arrogant or egotistical for it, do I?

I respect you Reynolds, even though we don't agree on some things.

 

[Reynolds]

I think and hope we all have this confidence (while not leaning on our understanding).

I am likewise confident that Calvinism (and Arminianism.... no offense, @Reynolds) is incorrect. But I do not believe I need to change either of your doctrines.

The problem comes in when one side claims the other side rejects a view out of ignorance. I have not seen @Dave Gilbert do this, but another "Calvinist" on this board often takes that position. There are real reasons people reject Calvinism just as there are real reasons people hold that position.

I would agree with you that there are problems with Arminianism. It is my view that there are problems with all the doctrines we have created to explain the process of Salvation. I simplycsee the fewest amount of problems with Classical Arminianism.

 

[Reynolds]

For the record, I read the Scriptures first, and later investigated the Canons of Dort.
that is when I discovered that I agreed with them.

But the fact is, you're persuaded of one thing, and I another...
and I don't call you arrogant or egotistical for it, do I?

I respect you Reynolds, even though we don't agree on some things.

I dont call you arrogant for your belief. I call you arrogant for continually suggesting that those who do not agree with you do so because they lack knowledge.

 

[JonC]

I would agree with you that there are problems with Arminianism. It is my view that there are problems with all the doctrines we have created to explain the process of Salvation. I simplycsee the fewest amount of problems with Classical Arminianism.

I have suggested before that the best we should hope for in these discussions is a mutual understanding and perhaps being able to review our own views while helping a brother reexamine theirs. If an Arminian then be the the best Arminian you can be. If a Calvinist be the best Calvinist you can be. Over all, be the best Christian and brother we can be.

 

[Dave G]

I call you arrogant for continually suggesting that those who do not agree with you do so because they lack knowledge.

I can see that I have been less than gracious.
I ask your forgiveness for not treating you and others here as thinking, reasoning human beings who simply disagree with my beliefs about things.

My time here has taught me a lot, but not enough, apparently.
Definitely not enough to keep from offending people even if unintentionally.

I'll take my leave of this thread, and I wish you a good evening, sir.