Calvinism... THE SEQUEL!

[tragic_pizza]

What else is there that's worth believing in?

To be honest? God.

 

[Amy.G]

To be honest? God.

Agreed, but that puts us right back at the Bible being worth trusting since it is the word of God.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Agreed, but that puts us right back at the Bible being worth trusting since it is the word of God.

No one is distrusting the Bible. Yet Scripture can be, and is, interpreted in a variety of ways.

For example:
Are the dead immediately with God, or do they sleep?

The answer, according to Scripture, is "yes."

Reformed theology recognizes this, and lets these things remain in tension. Other theological interpretations tend to try too hard to reconcile them.

 

[Pastor Larry]

To be honest? God.

How is believing the Bible different than believing God? (Nothing confrontational or provocative.)

 

[Pastor Larry]

Are the dead immediately with God, or do they sleep?

The answer, according to Scripture, is "yes."

"Sleep" in the context of death is just that ... death. It isn't some kind of state of consciouslessness, or "soul sleep." The soul is immediately with God. The bodies will rise at the resurrection.

 

[tragic_pizza]

How is believing the Bible different than believing God? (Nothing confrontational or provocative.)

My faith is in God, my trust is in God, my hope is in God.

The Bible is a book. Inspired by God, yes. Instructive for doctrine and spiritual truth, yes. But can the Bible save me? No. God alone can, and has, done that.

 

[tragic_pizza]

"Sleep" in the context of death is just that ... death. It isn't some kind of state of consciouslessness, or "soul sleep." The soul is immediately with God. The bodies will rise at the resurrection.

... proof?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

FoS: According to JI Packer, the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is more than simply emphasis.

• One proclaims a God who saves. The other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself.
• One makes salvation the work of God. The other on the work of man.
• One regards faith as part of God's gift of salvation. The other as man's own contribution to salvation.
• One gives all the glory to God. The other divides the praise between God (who built the machinery of salvation) and man (who by believing, operated it).

HP: Pastor Larry, do you believe that these statements are in fact a true and fair representation of Arminians or those opposed to Calvinism? If so, would you then say that these statements could have been just as well stated by you?

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

To be truthful Pastor Larry,
Most people don't know what Calvinism really is. They just follow the thinking of what the majority think it is. And that is pretty shallow.
"Calvinism" never originiated with Calvin. It came from Augustine. It is Augustinianism resurrected. We all know that Augustine is a Catholic, staunch defender of the Catholic faith, and a heretic. Yet that is where Calvinism had its roots. Calvin adored Augustine, almost to the extent of worship. That is where he got his ideas from. Simply looking at it from a historical perspective casts doubts on the whole system in my eyes. quote]

So, you base your opinion on the fact that St. Augustine was catholic? What church was he supposed to go to? Oh that's right, there were no other churches.

Arminius didn't start Arminianism as well, but at least it was named after upon the dead Dutch professor's actual teachings (as opposed to Calvin who did not develop the five points named after him -- though he, Luther, Zwingli and all other leaders in the Reformation held to this view).

Arminius went back to Pelagius (who was a declared heretic by the early church) and Cassius. And don't forget that both of them were catholic too.

 

[Rippon]

You call yourself a friend of Spurgeon but are ill-informed about Church history and the teachings of the Bible . Calvinism originated from the teachings of the word of God , not a mere man . Augustine was a great man with flaws . ( Some of which he corrected in his "Retractions " ) . He was right on regarding the doctrine(s) of grace , but dead wrong on the nature of the Church . Calvin was also a great servant of the Lord who was used mightily by Him . But I look unto Jesus -- the Author and finisher of my faith and The Faith .

How much of Spurgeon have you really read ? He fervently admired Calvin and paid due respect to Augustine as well . He held to Calvin's teachings " in the main ." He even said wearing a Genevan gown in Calvin's pulpit was one of the proudest moments in his life .

 

[J.D.]

You call yourself a friend of Spurgeon but are ill-informed about Church history and the teachings of the Bible . Calvinism originated from the teachings of the word of God , not a mere man . Augustine was a great man with flaws . ( Some of which he corrected in his "Retractions " ) . He was right on regarding the doctrine(s) of grace , but dead wrong on the nature of the Church . Calvin was also a great servant of the Lord who was used mightily by Him . But I look unto Jesus -- the Author and finisher of my faith and The Faith .

How much of Spurgeon have you really read ? He fervently admired Calvin and paid due respect to Augustine as well . He held to Calvin's teachings " in the main ." He even said wearing a Genevan gown in Calvin's pulpit was one of the proudest moments in his life .

Rippon, it seems like your comments are more fitting to DHK's comments than friendofspurgeon's.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Rippon, it seems like your comments are more fitting to DHK's comments than friendofspurgeon's.

Thanks R -- I kept reading and re-reading trying to understand where he was coming from on this. As you know, I tend to be one of the more reformed ones on this board. BTW, I too have been in Calvin's church in Geneva, though I didn't climb the stairway to the pulpit.

 

[Rippon]

Sorry , Friend of Spurgeon . I did not mean to come down hard on you . I did not have the time to read the whole thread . Read Spurgeon's works .

JD , I read what DHK said and I only agree with him in that Calvinism did not originate with John Calvin . I have posted many things in that regard in the past .

Augustine was no heretic ( at least a heretic with capital letters ) . He had his share of bad doctrine , but some very sound stuff as well . Calvin certainly appreciated him and quoted him approvingly most of the time . But Augustine , Calvin and so many others after the canon closed were being biblical and Pauline . And of course Paul followed Christ .

 

[Claudia_T]

Didnt Calvin have someone murdered named Servetus?

On October 27, 1553 John Calvin, the founder of Calvinism, had Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician, burned at the stake just outside of Geneva for his doctrinal heresies

...and didnt he have a total of about 58 others executed?

Why would anyone want to follow the theology of someone like that?


IJohn 3:15

15: ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

 

[Rippon]

No Claudia , Calvin did not have someone murdered . He did not have that kind of authority in that he was not even a citizen of Geneva at that time . He was not to be totally exonerated on the other hand . He was a creature of his times . That doesn't excuse any of us . Yet look at other notable men at that time and their feelings about Servetus . Calvin comes off as kind of mild in comparison . But certainly Calvin's sins have been covered by Christ's work . This whole idea of Calvin being a killer has been done to death on this board . Claudia , you have been around the block here a time or two . Just look at old threads on the subject . But please don't bring that stuff up here . Deal with what Calvin has said on texts of Scripture . If you disagree ( as I do on some of his stuff ) then explain why it is wrong in your estimation .

Fifty-eight others ?! I have no idea what in the world you are referring to there .

 

[Claudia_T]

No Claudia , Calvin did not have someone murdered . He did not have that kind of authority in that he was not even a citizen of Geneva at that time . He was not to be totally exonerated on the other hand . He was a creature of his times . That doesn't excuse any of us . Yet look at other notable men at that time and their feelings about Servetus . Calvin comes off as kind of mild in comparison . But certainly Calvin's sins have been covered by Christ's work . This whole idea of Calvin being a killer has been done to death on this board . Claudia , you have been around the block here a time or two . Just look at old threads on the subject . But please don't bring that stuff up here . Deal with what Calvin has said on texts of Scripture . If you disagree ( as I do on some of his stuff ) then explain why it is wrong in your estimation .

Fifty-eight others ?! I have no idea what in the world you are referring to there .

Thats what it says on the internet about him, but of course I realize you cannot always believe what is on the internet, but Jesus said by their fruits ye shall know them so if he did murder a bunch of people then in my opinion it would be awfully important. Im just asking about that.

It doesnt matter if other people in their time did that kind of thing, the Bible has said not to be a murderer a long time ago, and if it was wrong for Cain to murder his brother Abel then?

 

[Pastor Larry]

My faith is in God, my trust is in God, my hope is in God.

The Bible is a book. Inspired by God, yes. Instructive for doctrine and spiritual truth, yes. But can the Bible save me? No. God alone can, and has, done that.

I think this is too strong of a dichotomy. The message that God saves comes only through his Word. The message that must be believed comes only through his Word. Without His word, we would not know how to be saved. So while our faith, trust, and hope is in God, we have none of that without his word. A dichotomy between believing the Bible and believing God is ill-founded.

... proof?

Look up the meaning of the words, the context in which they are used, and the whole teaching of the Bible.

 

[Pastor Larry]

HP: Pastor Larry, do you believe that these statements are in fact a true and fair representation of Arminians or those opposed to Calvinism? If so, would you then say that these statements could have been just as well stated by you?

I think those things are true of some arminians, and true to some extent of arminianism, but I would not put it that way. I think some arminians are true evangelicals. I think some have a very difficult time staying away from a works salvation, merited by faith. I don't think Arminians can deal entirely with the biblical teaching on these matters.

Packer's statements are overboard to me. I think a case could be made that some arminians believe that. And I think they would have a hard time showing that they don't.

But I would not say it as Packer said it. I do not believe it fairly represents what arminianism holds.

 

[tragic_pizza]

I think this is too strong of a dichotomy. The message that God saves comes only through his Word. The message that must be believed comes only through his Word. Without His word, we would not know how to be saved. So while our faith, trust, and hope is in God, we have none of that without his word. A dichotomy between believing the Bible and believing God is ill-founded.

I disagree.

We are saved through the Word made flesh.

 

[webdog]

I will promise you without any fear of being wrong that I know more than you do about this topic. I have never twisted your words, and that is proven by the fact that you have never shown any place I have twisted your words. I don't talk down or demean anyone. I simply happen to know what I am talking about.

Summary...your opinion.

I don't have to pretend. I can read and have read, and have interacted with you for a long time. Have you forgotten that?

You admit you do not frequent the C/A threads much. As far as a "long time" goes...a little over a year is a "long time"?

I read most of them in the CvA forum. I have since quit because they are repeats.

This statment shows your previous one to be less than honest. BTW...the C/A forum hasn't been around in over a year. Please don't pretend you STILL read the C/A threads if you don't.

I don't follow you around and don't assassinate your character.

Blanketing me with "you don't know anything" is just that.

Memory about what? You think I don't remember you? You think I haven't interacted with you?

Here is a classic Pastor Larry "twist" that you do so often. Memory about what? Let's see what it was I responded to in the first place...PL: "It is hard to remember a person on this board (and I have been here a long time) who has argued so vehemently against Calvinism with such a gross misunderstanding of it."
What was my response? "I have only been here less than two years, so your memory is incorrect."
So in the six years you have been here, your memory of my posts...what the subject matter of my posts... as well as the many who speak out against calvinism is incorrect...not that "you don't remember me".

You have yet to show how the doctrine of Calvinism is false. I will be very interested to see you do this. So far, what you have shown to be false isn't Calvinism.

I guess it's in the eye of the beholder...huh? On the contrary, you have never shown where the doctrine of calvinism to be true. Pulling Scripture out of context and eisegesis proves nothing.

So I will be waiting and reading. But I am not expecting anything new. I have told you many times that you need to learn what you are talking about. You simply won't listen.

...and you have been told just as many times that you don't represent the non cal position accurately, and you need to learn what you are speaking out against. You simply won't listen.

I expect the same spitting match, accusatory blanket responses from you..."you don't know anything"..."I know more than you"..."please learn something"..."you don't listen"..."you don't know what you are talking about"...yada-yada...