Calvinist Confusion

[JonC]

So you would have to be Calvinist at least in Sotierology, if you really do affirm the 5 points of Grace!

No. Not at all.

 

[JonC]

Why did you believe and not Him?

I have no idea what you are getting at.

I believed because God brought me to believe.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have no idea what you are getting at.

I believed because God brought me to believe.

So it was the will of God, and not your own then?

 

[Yeshua1]

No. Not at all.

What Non Calvinist though affirm all 5 points of Grace then?

 

[JonC]

So it was the will of God, and not your own then?

Yes.....what part of "I can affirm all five points of Calvinism" did you not understand?

 

[JonC]

What Non Calvinist though affirm all 5 points of Grace then?

Me.

Before I came to this forum I had a good impresion of Calvinism and Calvinists. After two decades I still appreciate Calvinism (although I disagree with the theology) but I pretty much distrust Calvinists. My experience is that they are dishonest traditionalists who hold their faith as some hold to politics. My experience is that they are "tribal" in nature and care less about Scripture than they do for their traditions.

I believe this can be seen in my "argument" with @TCassidy . We both believe that the reason God draws some to a saving faith yet not others is an issue of God's will. Why us and not others is a mystery to us because we are not God. Yet he will never agree (although he already has) because I am not a Calvinist.

 

[JonC]

It's not a mystery because God told us the reason He elects men to salvation. "According to the good pleasure of His will." Romans 9:15 For he said to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy.

The "why" is a mystery to the Calvinist (as you stated twice....three times if we count the Piper quote). You are confusing the fact that God does as He wills with the fact man does not know the mind of God (as you say, the "why" of the matter). Whether you are confusing these two concepts internationally or accidentally only you can say.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

My experience of people who affirm all five points of Calvinism and then say they are not Calvinists is that they are smart-ar*es, or would be if they were smart enough.

 

[Dave G]

And there is no difference between Calvinist preachers to the masses and Non-Cal preachers to the masses.

As I see it, that depends on the preaching.
Ask the masses what they think of someone who preaches like Billy Graham did, and you'll get general respect for him, in many cases.
Ask the masses what they think of someone like Rolf Barnard, and you'll get general disregard and even hatred, in my opinion.

What really needs to be established, however, is the fact that it is not the style of preaching that does the true converting;
It's the word of God combined with the power of the Spirit that brings someone to Christ.

So, in the end, style of preaching and man-made content are not what is at issue here.
You seem to think that man-made persuasion brings people to Christ;
It doesn't.

Mankind cannot be persuaded to believe on Him by what men say or the way they say it...
People come to Him based on God's words alone, and the fact that they impact the spirit of a person who is being drawn by their Father in Heaven.

If God does not draw, then nothing that is said will make a difference.

This is the issue. If a Calvinist really believes a person cannot choose Christ then stop preaching as MacArthur does begging the sinner to believe on Christ.

I agree.
Stop preaching the Gospel as men have becomed accustomed to doing it, and preach it with the power and direction of the Spirit of God, like Peter and Paul did.
The problem is, that it takes the timing and urging of the Spirit to do that.
We cannot force God to grant us that power...He does it as He will ( Philippians 2:13 ).

Have you ever experienced the moving of God's Spirit?
It's an amazing thing, when it happens.
It's direct, true, and powerful.

Not filled with excitement, but calm, clear and riveting.

Just preach what you believe! I have no problem with that. I don;t believe what you believe, but I do believe you should preach what you believe and not go about preaching "believe" when you believe it is impossible to believe unless God draws you.

Preach the word of God at the urging of the Spirit, instead of preaching in the power of our flesh.
Trust the Lord for the words, and not tradition.

So preach it like you believe Calvinism! Say to your audience of sinners. "Some of you here today, maybe even all of you here today, may be drawn by God to believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ which I am about to preach. Most likely God is not going to save you all. Some here God may do a work in your heart and save you. Others here God may pass over you and leave you for condemnation to hell. So here we go, let me begin with John 3:16, God so loved the world...........well, I will explain that later to those who God selects today to be saved........I know it say world, but, well, we will get to that later after you get learned better.......

Neither Peter nor Paul told the masses the deeper things of God's word that are reserved for the ears of His children.
How about beginning exactly where Peter and Paul did:

Plow the ground with the Law, and then preach Christ crucified.

"Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
..................And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again."

Do you understand the reason Paul wrote of that?
The emphasis is on not being high-minded, and I think you're emphasizing the "unbelief" part.

Yes, because of unbelief ( a sin...please see John 16:8-11 ) God judiciously blinded the nation as a whole ( broke the natural branches off ), but anyone who is not born again is not going to believe anyway.
The Jews broke their part of the old covenant, and God judiciously punished them for going back on their word ( Exodus 19:3, Exodus 24:3 ).

The Gentile believers were not grafted in because of their belief...they were grafted in because of election ( which Paul just established in the preceding chapters and re-emphasized in Romans 11:7-8 ), and their belief was evidence of it...not the determining factor.
God is able to graft anyone into the olive tree, and they will then stand by faith as well.

Salvation depends on the grace of God, not the efforts of men to gain it.
The essence of the Gospel, is this:

Psalms 1:1, Psalms 65:4, Jeremiah 17:7.

Blessed is the person whose hope is in Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross for their sins.

 

[Dave G]

John 3 verse 16.

Can't be any simpler than that.

The truth is, it's not as "simple" as John 3:16.
It's as simple as every word of God ( Matthew 4:4 ).


May He bless you in abundance.

 

[Dave G]

My experience of people who affirm all five points of Calvinism and then say they are not Calvinists is that they are smart-ar*es, or would be if they were smart enough.

Steve,

One can affirm the TULIP, and not consider themselves as "Calvinists".
I agree with the findings of the Synod of Dordt.
I do not agree with everything John Calvin may have taught and said.

Examples include infant Baptism, Universal Atonement and several others I am not remembering at the moment.

Again, and I've stated this before...
I don't agree with having the label "Calvinist" pinned on me by those who think I follow John Calvin.

I identify with and follow my Saviour, Jesus Christ.

I just happen to agree with some things that John Calvin ( and many things that William Tyndale, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Augustus Toplady, George Muller and others ) may have written, because I see them in the Scriptures.

I'm not a "Calvinist" by tradition...I'm a "Calvinist" because people who disagree with me, call me one.

 

[Jerome]

My experience of people who affirm all five points of Calvinism and then say they are not Calvinists is that they are smart-ar*es, or would be if they were smart enough.

You said it.

Steve, one can affirm the TULIP, and not consider themselves as "Calvinists".
I agree with the findings of the Synod of Dordt.

I'm not a "Calvinist".

I am not a Calvinist.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You said it.

No Baptist is going to be a Calvinist in the sense of being an unreserved follower of Calvin, since he will not be a Presbyterian, would not baptize infants and would not have burned Servatus.

However, the term 'Calvinist' has been used for well over 100 years to describe those who adhere to the five principles laid down at the Synod of Dort. Bunyan and Spurgeon, to name but two, were Calvinists. Spurgeon declared that he did not necessarity care for the name, but for "the glorious system that teaches that salvation is of grace from first to last." Nevertheless, he did not deny the term and used it of himself. To insinuate that those men, and others like them are

Dishonest traditionalists who hold their faith as some hold to politics. My experience is that they are "tribal" in nature and care less about Scripture than they do for their traditions"

is just pathetic, rude and 'smart' in the worst sense of the word.

 

[JonC]

No Baptist is going to be a Calvinist in the sense of being an unreserved follower of Calvin, since he will not be a Presbyterian, would not baptize infants and would not have burned Servatus.

However, the term 'Calvinist' has been used for well over 100 years to describe those who adhere to the five principles laid down at the Synod of Dort. Bunyan and Spurgeon, to name but two, were Calvinists. Spurgeon declared that he did not necessarity care for the name, but for "the glorious system that teaches that salvation is of grace from first to last." Nevertheless, he did not deny the term and used it of himself. To insinuate that those men, and others like them are

is just pathetic, rude and 'smart' in the worst sense of the word.

Read again. I never insinuated that those men hold those attributes. I never interacted with those men. I stated a fact. In my experience most Calvinists are "tribal". They "run in packs" and see themselves as great defenders of truth, caring more about their tradition than Scripture itself. They try to 'gang up" on anyone who would dare disagree with their tradition.

You can argue that I have not met most Calvinists. That would be a true statement. BUT my opinion is formed by those with whom I have interacted.

And not all I have encountered are this way. But enough are that I distrust them.

My experience of people who affirm all five points of Calvinism and then say they are not Calvinists is that they are smart-ar*es, or would be if they were smart enough.

My first action was to remove this post because I thought it inappropriate. It was determined this may be appropriate after all. So let’s talk about it.

Here you have made an accusation against at least three members of this forum (@TCassidy , @Dave Gilbert , and me).

Each of us have explained why we don't call ourselves Calvinists. I think that least @Dave Gilbert and I do not consider ourselves Calvinists because while we may agree with the "points" we also reject other aspects that fell into Calvinism (and those aspects may differ between us).

What you are doing is insulting people because they do not accept the label you would prefer that they fall under. THIS is a part of the "problem" so many Calvinists seem to have. They want an echo chamber and when they find something else they start projecting all kinds of things on other people. This is what I would refer to as "tribal" mentality because I believe your purpose was to insult me when your words were true of other people in your camp (I suspect you will start back tracking because your insults were broader than you intended).

 

[Yeshua1]

My experience of people who affirm all five points of Calvinism and then say they are not Calvinists is that they are smart-ar*es, or would be if they were smart enough.

One can be a Calvinist, and yet not be Reformed, as think many Baptists fall under that group!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes.....what part of "I can affirm all five points of Calvinism" did you not understand?

That refers to salvation proper, so are you Calvinist in regards to how you view God saves lost sinners?

 

[Yeshua1]

No Baptist is going to be a Calvinist in the sense of being an unreserved follower of Calvin, since he will not be a Presbyterian, would not baptize infants and would not have burned Servatus.

However, the term 'Calvinist' has been used for well over 100 years to describe those who adhere to the five principles laid down at the Synod of Dort. Bunyan and Spurgeon, to name but two, were Calvinists. Spurgeon declared that he did not necessarity care for the name, but for "the glorious system that teaches that salvation is of grace from first to last." Nevertheless, he did not deny the term and used it of himself. To insinuate that those men, and others like them are

is just pathetic, rude and 'smart' in the worst sense of the word.

I tend to see there being within the Baptist Camp 2 groups of Calvinist, some who uphold the points of Grace, and Reformed ones that also hold to Covenant theology in full!

 

[Yeshua1]

Read again.

I never insinuated that those men hold those attributes.

I never interacted with those men. I stated a fact. In my experience most Calvinists are "tribal". They "run in packs" and see themselves as great defenders of truth, caring more about their tradition than Scripture itself. They try to 'gang up" on anyone who would dare disagree with their tradition.

You can argue that I have not met most Calvinists. That would be a true statement. BUT my opinion is formed by those with whom I have interacted.

And not all I have encountered are this way. But enough are that I distrust them.


My first action was to remove this post because I thought it inappropriate. It was determined this may be appropriate after all. So let’s talk about it.

Here you have made an accusation against at least three members of this forum (@TCassidy , @Dave Gilbert , and me).

Each of us have explained why we don't call ourselves Calvinists. I think that least @Dave Gilbert and I do not consider ourselves Calvinists because while we may agree with the "points" we also reject other aspects that fell into Calvinism (and those aspects may differ between us).

What you are doing is insulting people because they do not accept the label you would prefer that they fall under. THIS is a part of the "problem" so many Calvinists seem to have. They want an echo chamber and when they find something else they start projecting all kinds of things on other people. This is what I would refer to as "tribal" mentality because I believe your purpose was to insult me when your words were true of other people in your camp (I suspect you will start back tracking because your insults were broader than you intended).

To my understanding , Calvinistic Baptists would agree with the points of Grace, while Reformed Baptists would agree with entire Covenant theology !
So would tend to see and those others as Calvinists, but not Reformed!

 

[JonC]

That refers to salvation proper, so are you Calvinist in regards to how you view God saves lost sinners?

No.

What I have in common with Calvinists is that I believe men are completely unable to turn to God; for one to be saved God must draw that person (I believe that faith itself is of God). I believe that God chooses a people for His own out of fallen man. I believe that Christ died to save those who would believe. I believe that God’s purposes in salvation will be accomplished. And I believe in the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer.

But I do not believe in the doctrine of “original sin” in such a way that is held by many of a Calvinist trajectory. I do not believe that men must be regenerated or born again in order to believe. Instead I believe that human inability is a matter of the will. I also believe that the context through which Calvinism and Arminianism exists is flawed. I do not believe that the legal aspect is correct and this extends to how a Calvinist would hold certain points (e.g., depravity and what exactly was accomplished at the cross). I also disagree with the breakdown of soteriology into mini-"stand alone" components.

So while I can affirm the points my view of them (the "how") is different from a Calvinistic view.

 

[Dave G]

First of all Kevin Thompson is known for bearing false witness in his videos.

I'd like to reply to this, even though I'm not going to directly reply to your comment, Icon.

My purpose for this post is to highlight some things I thought were interesting when I first ran across Kevin Thompson, who I understand is no longer pastor at New Orleans Bible Church that he was identifying with in recent years.
Here are some links I found especially intriguing, in that Kevin takes time to develop whole videos in order to try and explain certain passagres that he believes are being mis-used by "Calvinists":


In this one, he takes over two hours to develop an answer to James White's use of John 6:37...

Here, he takes over 42 minutes to explain Ephesians 1:4....

Here he spends 43 minutes telling believers what he thinks "predestination" is...

and here decides that over two hours is necessary to "de-Calvinize" Romans 9....

For more, he devotes over 2 hours to "de-Calvinize" 3 passages of Scripture here...

And, for those who wish to know what he thinks, past what the words on the page state, I think this one helps to explain, in great detail, what Mr. Thompson believes about John 10:26...Why John 10 Does Not Support Calvinism


Finally,
For those who desire a complete analysis of why he believes that people should avoid "Calvinism", please take a look at his channel on Youtube and subscribe here:

Beyond The Fundamentals

His website can be found here:

Home




I discovered his channel some time ago, and was amazed at how he managed to try and explain away many passages that clearly show God's responsibility for every aspect of the believer's salvation.
Also, I spotted something that every believer should sit up and take notice of...
Self-promotion of his own "ministry" ( Acts of the Apostles 20:30 ), found on his YouTube channel in his introductory "trailer":

I quote:

" So many Christian ministries are just milk ministries"
" They are unbalanced and shallow"
" Emphasizing only some message or list of essential doctrines or fundamentals that a man has selected as "important""
" For meaningful growth, Christians must go to..."
" Beyond the Fundamentals", which is his own personal website.

Sensational, huh?
The music is dramatic ( appeals to the senses ), and at 0:36, he zeros in on what I believe is his focus for most of his videos:

"Calvinism Refuted".

From my own personal viewing of them, I've determined that anyone who invests this much time trying to prove Acts of the Apostles 13:48 wrong ( two videos in total, the first 31 minutes, and the second over 36 minutes ) is attempting to do two things...

Appeal to the flesh through grand words ( 2 Peter 2:18-22 ) and...
Draws men after himself and gets them focused on him and what he has to say, not God's word alone.