Calvinism takes Biblical Truth Too Far

[Herald]

Notice how Calvinists deal with truth, they attack the messenger. They speak in generalities, They ask questions but provide no content. Shuck and jive is all they have.

Have you ever read Spurgeon; the quintessential Baptist who is revered by Baptists who believe in the DoG and those who don't? Spurgeon said no less than, "Calvinism is the gospel." Would any Baptist accuse Spurgeon of not dealing with the truth; of speaking in generalities; of asking questions without content; of shucking and jiving?

 

[psalms109:31]

"I do not know how some people, who believe that a Christian can fall from grace, manage to be happy. It must be a very commendable thing in them to be able to get through a day without despair. If I did not believe the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints, I think I should be of all men the most miserable, because I should lack any ground of comfort. I could not say, whatever state of heart I came into, that I should be like a well-spring of water, whose stream fails not; I should rather have to take the comparison of an intermittent spring, that might stop on a sudden, or a reservoir, which I had no reason to expect would always be full. I believe that the happiest of Christians and the truest of Christians are those who never dare to doubt God, but who take His Word simply as it stands, and believe it, and ask no questions, just feeling assured that if God has said it, it will be so. I bear my willing testimony that I have no reason, nor even the shadow of a reason, to doubt my Lord, and I challenge Heaven, and earth, and hell, to bring any proof that God is untrue."

C. H Spurgeon

Any doctrine that will twist and mold scripture to match their views isn't the Gospel

 

[Herald]

"I do not know how some people, who believe that a Christian can fall from grace, manage to be happy. It must be a very commendable thing in them to be able to get through a day without despair. If I did not believe the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints, I think I should be of all men the most miserable, because I should lack any ground of comfort. I could not say, whatever state of heart I came into, that I should be like a well-spring of water, whose stream fails not; I should rather have to take the comparison of an intermittent spring, that might stop on a sudden, or a reservoir, which I had no reason to expect would always be full. I believe that the happiest of Christians and the truest of Christians are those who never dare to doubt God, but who take His Word simply as it stands, and believe it, and ask no questions, just feeling assured that if God has said it, it will be so. I bear my willing testimony that I have no reason, nor even the shadow of a reason, to doubt my Lord, and I challenge Heaven, and earth, and hell, to bring any proof that God is untrue."

C. H Spurgeon

Any doctrine that will twist and mold scripture to match their views isn't the Gospel

I'm not sure that is an answer to my question?

 

[preacher4truth]

"I do not know how some people, who believe that a Christian can fall from grace, manage to be happy. It must be a very commendable thing in them to be able to get through a day without despair. If I did not believe the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints, I think I should be of all men the most miserable, because I should lack any ground of comfort. I could not say, whatever state of heart I came into, that I should be like a well-spring of water, whose stream fails not; I should rather have to take the comparison of an intermittent spring, that might stop on a sudden, or a reservoir, which I had no reason to expect would always be full. I believe that the happiest of Christians and the truest of Christians are those who never dare to doubt God, but who take His Word simply as it stands, and believe it, and ask no questions, just feeling assured that if God has said it, it will be so. I bear my willing testimony that I have no reason, nor even the shadow of a reason, to doubt my Lord, and I challenge Heaven, and earth, and hell, to bring any proof that God is untrue."

C. H Spurgeon

...

Amen! :thumbsup:

 

[psalms109:31]

I'm not sure that is an answer to my question?

I pulled out a quote from the article you posted that i liked, that was it.

 

[Herald]

I pulled out a quote from the article you posted that i liked, that was it.

Oh, okay. I'm not sure you whether you were trying to make a point with that quote since you bolded and underlined part of it and didn't add your own commentary.

 

[psalms109:31]

I do believe that Spurgeon view of Calvinism is the Gospel. There is not too many like him.

I liked him, because of his view on scripture.

"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. "

C.H. Spurgeon

 

[Herald]

I do believe that Spurgeon view of Calvinism is the Gospel. There is not too many like him.

Spurgeon has played an important role in driving me to the Word of God. He wasn't just a theologian, he was also a pastor. He was unapologetic in his belief in the DoG, and could be unrelenting in his attacks on Arminianism. But he tempered his dogma with a deep concern for the souls of the sheep in his flock. His was not simply a rhetorical or theoretical Calvinism. He lived it. Because he believed salvation was wholly of God (from a Calvinist perspective, of course), he felt a great liberty and freedom in proclaiming the Gospel. There's good practicality in Spurgeon's Calvinism. He believed God ordained the means by which sinners were converted; the preaching of the Gospel. Therefore, if God ordained the preaching of the Gospel as the means by which sinners were to be converted, how could Spurgeon do anything other than preach the Gospel? Carrying that forward to today, how can any preacher who holds to the DoG do anything other than preach the Gospel to all who will listen? Calvinists should be the most ardent and passionate of evangelists. Yes. No one comes to faith in Christ unless granted and called by the Father. Spurgeon believed that. Calvinists today believe that. But the process by which the Father brings the elect to faith is through the preaching of, and the belief in, the Gospel. Spurgeon would do back flips in his grave if he heard of a Calvinist pastor who did not believe in freely proclaiming the Gospel to all who would listen.

 

[psalms109:31]

Spurgeon has played an important role in driving me to the Word of God. He wasn't just a theologian, he was also a pastor. He was unapologetic in his belief in the DoG, and could be unrelenting in his attacks on Arminianism. But he tempered his dogma with a deep concern for the souls of the sheep in his flock. His was not simply a rhetorical or theoretical Calvinism. He lived it. Because he believed salvation was wholly of God (from a Calvinist perspective, of course), he felt a great liberty and freedom in proclaiming the Gospel. There's good practicality in Spurgeon's Calvinism. He believed God ordained the means by which sinners were converted; the preaching of the Gospel. Therefore, if God ordained the preaching of the Gospel as the means by which sinners were to be converted, how could Spurgeon do anything other than preach the Gospel? Carrying that forward to today, how can any preacher who holds to the DoG do anything other than preach the Gospel to all who will listen? Calvinists should be the most ardent and passionate of evangelists. Yes. No one comes to faith in Christ unless granted and called by the Father. Spurgeon believed that. Calvinists today believe that. But the process by which the Father brings the elect to faith is through the preaching of, and the belief in, the Gospel. Spurgeon would do back flips in his grave if he heard of a Calvinist pastor who did not believe in freely proclaiming the Gospel to all who would listen.

The Father calls and draws those who listen and learn from the Father through the words of Jesus.

Jesus words was not only the Fathers, but it is also Spirit and life.

We should believe in DoG, because the cost of our sin is death, not belief, not faith, not trust, but death. So we are saved by Grace, no other means that we can do, because of the cost of our sin is death.

This is what the word say's

John 6:45
It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

John 14:24
Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

John 5:25
Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.

Psalm 73:28
But it is good for me to draw near to God; I have put my trust in the Lord GOD, That I may declare all Your works.

Romans 4:
4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

 

[Iconoclast]

I find it intriguing that those who attack Calvinism, shy away when repeatedly asked for the points of Calvinism to which they disagree, along with Scripture to boot, which is in itself a difficult (and impossible) task to accomplish. I mean, it would actually take some time and learning to do so.

Seekingthetruth, Robert Snow, DHK are among them.

Typically after a request to do so there is yet another baseless attack against teachings they are clueless about. Then come the all too familiar generalized attacks of "arrogance," "lauding ones intellect," "rejecting simple teachings," "the Bible doesn't have any verses that show Calvinism is correct" and the list goes on, with no substance to back it up of course.

Their reluctance to address the facts with substance and actual documentation stems from fear of facts, and a lack of really knowing what they are talking about, or even what they are fighting against in the first place.

P4T,
This reminds me of when I was wrapped up in dispensationalism years ago.
I was taught that anyone who held a different view was on the edge of apostacy.
If we remain patient and faithful to the scriptures, God will use His word to allow the truth to prevail:

23But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

24And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

25In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

26And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Some of the zeal against the grace of God ,when re-focused sometimes leads to the most earnest apologists for the very teaching they once resisted:type:

 

[DHK]

P4T,
This reminds me of when I was wrapped up in dispensationalism years ago.
I was taught that anyone who held a different view was on the edge of apostacy.
If we remain patient and faithful to the scriptures, God will use His word to allow the truth to prevail:

Some of the zeal against the grace of God ,when re-focused sometimes leads to the most earnest apologists for the very teaching they once resisted:type:

God will and does use his word which has been my point. He uses his word even with the unregenerate man, a point which the Calvinist denies. Note there has been no real refutation of that since I last posted it. Only the typical ridicule.

 

[Iconoclast]

God will and does use his word which has been my point. He uses his word even with the unregenerate man, a point which the Calvinist denies. Note there has been no real refutation of that since I last posted it. Only the typical ridicule.

DHK,
On the contrary you have been answered many times, you just resist the answer.Let's try again......

These other men have just answered you on this[luke24,p4t,rippon]

A natural man.....unregenerate cannot receive the truth of God 1cor2:14.

Then this same unsaved person looks at the word of God.

Unless and until the Spirit illuminates him, giving hin new birth,new heart, allowing him to welcome these truths ...he cannot.
When the Spirit quickens this dead sinner.....and enables him then he can read with spiritual comprehension,,,,for the first time....

So you then have an unsaved man.......before/after the Spirits work

before= he cannot welcome truth
after= he now can welcome it......

God makes the difference....not the dead sinner.:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved

 

[jbh28]

So when Taylor picked up this tract, either in that moment God used the Scripture to awaken his dead spirit so that he could receive the Truth- or God had awakened his spirit prior to that. This resulted in his regeneration which inevitably led to his calling upon the Lord and being saved.

I would say that Taylor was regenerated at that moment.

 

[jbh28]

I am not stating anything about God. Hudson was a rebel against God--unregenerate and unsaved. According to 1Cor.2:14 the Calvinist interpretation says that he could not understand the things of God. But he did, and was saved. Hundreds of others have similar testimonies.

This goes along with God's expectation of the unregenerate or of "all men everywhere to repent." This was not a command given to believers, but it is a command God gave to the unregenerate that he expects to be obeyed.

You seem to be arguing against Paul and not Calvinist. Paul says that the unregenerate cannot understand. That's very clear. So when Hudson got saved, we know that he was regenerate. That's why he understood the things of God in reading of the word.

what you are saying is basically that no one can be saved. Calvinist don't teach that at all. They teach that unregenerate(natural man) doesn't understand the Spiritual things as Paul stated very clearly. Hudson was saved reading the track so it is 100% clear that he was regenerate. Where I would disagree with some is that he could have been regenerate prior. The Bible never mentions unsaved regenerate people nor does the Bible mention saved unregenerate people.

 

[Luke2427]

Let's look at it objectively. Now when the unregenerate man picked up this tract he had to understand the spiritual truth that was written on that tract in order for the Holy Spirit to convict him that he might be saved. That is the only choice you have. God uses His Word. He uses the Holy Spirit through His Word. But he must have the revelation of the Word first in order that the Holy Spirit might use it. The Gospel does not work in a vacuum.
Then regeneration/salvation take place. Prior to that, if you read his testimony, there was nothing Christian about him. He was a rebel in the face of God. He stood against God inwardly and outwardly.
Does it really matter what MOST Calvinists believe? Does it not matter to the Calvinist what the Bible believes or teaches? That is the real question.

It is GOD'S WORD that the Holy Spirit uses to regenerate the dead spirit of a man.

When God speaks life to the dead, the dead live.

The Words of Christ are words of LIFE.

When Hudson Taylor picked up that tract, the WORD OF LIFE, the WORD OF GOD spoke to his dead spirit and he lived.

When he lived, he could receive the Gospel, which no unregenerate man can receive. When he received the Gospel he was saved.

It is that simple.

The natural man CANNOT receive the things of the Spirit of God- period. End of story.

The carnal mind is enmity with God and is not subject to the law of God neither indeed can it be. Period. End of story.

A man must be made alive so that he can receive the Gospel and be saved.

That is what the Bible plainly teaches. IFB may not teach you this. But IFB is a new movement with new doctrines. You are probably not going to get the truth of this matter so long as you blindly cling to what you were taught from a child- or from whenever you began to be trained in IFB.

You are going to have to choose between the Word of God on this matter and what you have been wrongly taught.

Choose.

 

[Luke2427]

I would say that Taylor was regenerated at that moment.

Or he could have been regenerated earlier. There is no Bible teaching that says they have to happen simultaneously.

The point is that regeneration must precede faith- whether by a month or in a moment is irrelevant.

The dead spirit cannot receive the Gospel, it cannot be subject to the law of God (Romans 8), it cannot SEE the Kingdom of God (John 3).

It must be made alive first- THEN it can receive the Word of God.

 

[kyredneck]

......The Bible never mentions unsaved regenerate people.....

....Cornelius...a devout man...that feared God...who gave much...and prayed... Acts 10:1,2

Actually, to the trained eye, the scriptures abound with examples of the Spirit's independent work within the hearts of His elect. He operates whenever and wherever and on whomever He pleases. Christ revealed a mystery from of old in Jn 3:8.

 

[DHK]

It is GOD'S WORD that the Holy Spirit uses to regenerate the dead spirit of a man.

When God speaks life to the dead, the dead live.

The Words of Christ are words of LIFE.

When Hudson Taylor picked up that tract, the WORD OF LIFE, the WORD OF GOD spoke to his dead spirit and he lived.

I would agree thus far and then stop. There are not two salvations. If he is regenerated (made alive) then he is saved. He has already read the tract, and the Holy Spirit has already used it. Why make salvation more complicated then it really is? Why put a false dichotomy when there isn't any? The new birth is salvation.

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)

That being the case look again at 1Cor.2:14

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. (1 Corinthians 2:14)
--I don't believe this is an absolute statement but a general statement; generally true. In other words most unsaved men do not understand the things of God for they are spiritually discerned. The verse does not absolutely say ALL unsaved men do not understand the things of God for they are spiritually discerned.

God does make exceptions as he reveals himself through his word to different individuals. However, there must be an elementary ability for that individual to understand the Word of God, basic spiritual truths, in order for him to be saved.

We also differ on the matter of faith. Salvation is by faith and faith alone. (sola fide). "For by grace are ye saved through faith." "Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God." It is the object of the faith that is important, not the source. I believe that man has the ability to believe or have faith from childhood up--as Jesus said--to have faith as a child, therefore children have faith. The devils have faith. In each case the object of their faith is not Christ. They don't get zapped with a supernatural faith when they are regenerated. Nowhere does the Bible teach that faith is a gift in that sense.

There is only one salvation. It is a simple gospel message to be received by faith. I marvel at those who try to complicate it.

 

[preacher4truth]

God will and does use his word which has been my point. He uses his word even with the unregenerate man, a point which the Calvinist denies. Note there has been no real refutation of that since I last posted it. Only the typical ridicule.

Your philosophy has been refuted, and you've been the one dealing ridicule in other threads, it's well known.

Here is something no one will refute, including Robert Snow, he simply disappears when asked to provide solid dialogue, or will come back with something to say that is simply cynical or snide:

Bob, you can't explain nor apologize against Calvinism scripturally. I've not witnessed you do this once on the BB.

I'm certain you cannot even name the doctrines concisely, nor apologize against TULIP or DoG soundly as you are marching oblivious to such teachings uninformed in maladroitness.

I recall in the past you've stated even Swindoll is reformed and therefore cast him off as in error, stating such reason as to why you don't listen to him or something to that effect.

Please provide proof Swindoll as Calvinistic or reformed.

Also, please show why you are against each point of TULIP, while describing what each point actually does teach, with Scriptures. Show also the totality of Scriptures showing gaping holes within Calvinism, with Scriptures of DoG and your passages showing the alleged gaping holes.

Perhaps also your pastor should've told you the difference between the nuts and the shells. You've been spitting out the nuts my friend.

I await the answers to the above, and the alleged gaping holes to be shown.

...and I'm still waiting. You, and others fight blindly against doctrines clueless to what they actually teach, and they are 100% Biblical. You've proven it, and I have proven that you all do such. "Please Explain the "I" in Tulip" thread?

I think everyone on the BB would appreciate that those who have been questioned to prove their "beliefs" which are against DoG (allegedly against, as they remain clueless to what it actually does teach) namely the non-cals, use Scripture and also know what they are refuting by detailing it out. None of you have done this on this site. I see scurrying away and cynical quips used after asked to provide thoughtful, knowledgable rebuttals from the non-cal side.

Typically what happens is it becomes heated, the non-cal errors are exposed, they are refuted 100% then the threats come in PM or in public forum.

Secondly, name calling, that our doctrine is from darkness, riding the thin line of calling one heretical, telling others to shut up, holding BB rules that have not been broken over ones head as to intimidate, editing after the fact, then saying it was original, derailing threads, then warning others about doing what they themselves do consistently, things of that nature? That kind of behavior is not becoming any Christian, nor and especially one who teaches others.

- Peace

 

[DHK]

Your philosophy has been refuted, and you've been the one dealing ridicule in other threads, it's well known.

I have responded, as is given above.

Here is something no one will refute, including Robert Snow, he simply disappears when asked to provide solid dialogue, or will come back with something to say that is simply cynical or snide:



I await the answers to the above, and the alleged gaping holes to be shown.

Then you can wait for Robert Snow. I am not going to speak for him.