standingfirminChrist
New Member
The TULIP doctrine is a damnable heresy. Calvin was not sure of his salvation on his deathbed.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
confused about Calvin
- Thread starter psalm40.17
- Start date
psalm40.17
New Member
Well if anything I'm more confused now than I was :lol: . However I know I have been saved as have we all here either by God's intervention or by a choice. I want to tell people about this and if they accept all the better if not then we should continue in prayer and ministry.
We can at least all agree with that ?
We can at least all agree with that ?
If you are going to make a charge of heresy then the burden lies on you to substantiate it. If you can't then you should show more fear than to speak for God.
Calvin was a theologian often credited with the doctrine but as Spurgeon said it is nothing more nor less than the biblical doctrine of grace.
FTR, many arminians (which most non-calvinists effectively are whether they acknowledge it or not) believe you can lose your salvation... never being quite sure that you have had enough faith, stayed holy enough, or done enough sustaining work.
Whether you only believe that your salvation is dependent on a little work like a single decision at the beginning or alot of work that sustains your salvation, non-calvinists make salvation ultimately dependent on a critical decision(s) by man. I don't believe that is what scripture teaches.
I prefer calvinism because it is the system that best assimilates both truths. We are saved both by God's changing of our nature (quickening the spirit) and our choice.
Agreed. I believe that arminianism is false. I do not believe that all non-calvinists are lost... or lazy or proud.
People like Rice, Adrian Rogers, Geisler, Ryrie, and others have worked very hard to produce explanations that in many ways are good. They seem to be satisfied with them. I respect them and have read/listened to each of them. I simply believe that their explanations are less sufficient for accommodating all of scripture than calvinism.
We should be able to... but some without giving good reason seem insistent on making emotional charges.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
Why call yourselves Calvinist's, Why not Christians?
4His_glory
New Member
Well said Scott.
4His_glory
New Member
Well then I guess, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, William Carrey, Adoniram Judson, George Whitfield, the Apostle Paul, and many others were so surprised to find them selves damned to hell since they believed in a "damable doctrine. I am so glad that you elightened me to their pride and laziness too.
</font>[/QUOTE]You're welcome. </font>[/QUOTE]Well then could you provide me with evidence of these men's pride and laziness?Calvinist, like Baptist, is a description of one who accepts a general set of principles.
I personally don't like all of Calvin's explanations and reasoning. However I don't spend very much time at all learning about him or his beliefs. His name has become representative of a general belief in TULIP... which I believe provides the best framework for understanding biblical sotierology.
I personally don't like all of Calvin's explanations and reasoning. However I don't spend very much time at all learning about him or his beliefs. His name has become representative of a general belief in TULIP... which I believe provides the best framework for understanding biblical sotierology.
BTW, I seldom approach someone describing myself as a calvinists or even a Baptist. I will tell them I am both and explain why I am if they ask or when the time is appropriate. However, people are most in need of the plain simple gospel... not lessons on deep theology or sectarian arguments.
4His_glory
New Member
I agree. In fact I don't really call myself a Calvinist. I consider the truth of God's sovereignty in man's salvation to be unapolegetically biblical. What I blieve is historically described as a calvinistic understanding of soteriology.
I did not come to this understanding initally by reading anything of John Calvin's or any prominate Calvinist in church history, but by simply reading the Scriptures and letting them say what they say.
4His_glory
New Member
Amen and amen.
Yeah, the "Calvinism" moniker is unfortunate since I've yet to meet a "Calvinist" who thinks John Calvin was some sort of infallable superhero.
The man does deserve credit for some of the clearest and biblical teaching the church has ever been privileged to receive.
I agree with Calvin's soteriology but not all of his ecclesiology or eschatology.
The man does deserve credit for some of the clearest and biblical teaching the church has ever been privileged to receive.
I agree with Calvin's soteriology but not all of his ecclesiology or eschatology.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
Well then I guess, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, William Carrey, Adoniram Judson, George Whitfield, the Apostle Paul, and many others were so surprised to find them selves damned to hell since they believed in a "damable doctrine. I am so glad that you elightened me to their pride and laziness too.
</font>[/QUOTE]You're welcome. </font>[/QUOTE]Terry,Do you believe Spurgeon and Whitefield preached a "damnable" doctrine? You are the one who made the accusation. Can you actually say, publicly, that these men were leading people astray? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, they were leading people astray. I don't think this was done intentionally, but I do think that this doctrine is wrong. I don't even think that many Calvinists are lost; I think they will go to heaven in spite of this erroneous belief.
4His_glory
New Member
Where is an instance where they lead men astray? Certainly there must be some recorded instance of this?
So you are suggesting that clavinism does not teach salvation by Christ alone, but some other gospel that keeps people blinded on their way to hell?
So you are suggesting that clavinism does not teach salvation by Christ alone, but some other gospel that keeps people blinded on their way to hell?
I don't see it either 4hg. In fact, the effectiveness of men like Edwards and Spurgeon in delivering the gospel in a way that had lasting effects on the society around them is impressive compared to the arminian revivalists who at best had a temporary effect.
Charles Finney immediately comes to mind. Reports of his revivals are that they were highly emotional, broadly embraced within a community,... but very short lived.
Charles Finney immediately comes to mind. Reports of his revivals are that they were highly emotional, broadly embraced within a community,... but very short lived.
4His_glory
New Member
Absolutly right Scott. When one compares the effects of the Great Awakening and the revivals of Finney it is evident which was more effective. Unfortuantly Finney did have sucess in having his unbiblical methodoligies adopted by many churches and we continue to see the negative effects of finneyism to this day.
I've pardnered with the "American Reformed Prebyterian" (ARP) for about the last 20 years conducting "VBS", and they are as "Calvinist" as you can get, but I've "NEVER" question their "Salvation".
While I disagree with certain doctrines, I don't believe "Salvation" is based on "knowledge" of the scriptures, but "FAITH", I'm quite "positive", none of us "know it all".
That said:
The remark that God doesn't have to obey the "law" he gave when "predestination" the future of people, makes obeying the "LAW" totally un-necessary to be saved, and the giving of the "LAW" also un-necessary.
Do whatever you chose, be whatever you want to be, if it's in the cards, you'll be saved, if not, you won't, forget the law/God/Heaven/Hell, your "predestine" future is "unchangeable".
Is that what the scriptures teach???
Jesus offered to take Jerusalem "under his wings", but they refused, was this "predestine", or did they let an opportunity pass that would have "changed, not only their future, but also the future of the world??
If that "opportunity" (Choice) wasn't "REALLY" available to them, (predestine otherwise) then Jesus's (being God) offer was REALLY a "Vailed LIE".
From Adam to the "last man", we find "CHOICES" offered to people, and "JUDGEMENT" rendered according to the "LAW/CHOICES".....WE MAKE.
While I disagree with certain doctrines, I don't believe "Salvation" is based on "knowledge" of the scriptures, but "FAITH", I'm quite "positive", none of us "know it all".
That said:
The remark that God doesn't have to obey the "law" he gave when "predestination" the future of people, makes obeying the "LAW" totally un-necessary to be saved, and the giving of the "LAW" also un-necessary.
Do whatever you chose, be whatever you want to be, if it's in the cards, you'll be saved, if not, you won't, forget the law/God/Heaven/Hell, your "predestine" future is "unchangeable".
Is that what the scriptures teach???
Jesus offered to take Jerusalem "under his wings", but they refused, was this "predestine", or did they let an opportunity pass that would have "changed, not only their future, but also the future of the world??
If that "opportunity" (Choice) wasn't "REALLY" available to them, (predestine otherwise) then Jesus's (being God) offer was REALLY a "Vailed LIE".
From Adam to the "last man", we find "CHOICES" offered to people, and "JUDGEMENT" rendered according to the "LAW/CHOICES".....WE MAKE.
NO... it is a near total mischaracterization of what calvinists believe.
No. They rejected because of their sin nature... they wouldn't hear His voice and follow because they weren't His sheep.
The opportunity obviously was available. He was there. He did preach the truth to them. They did reject it... according to their own sinful nature.
We don't do things that are outside the restrictions of our nature.
Which in no way contradicts what calvinists actually teach and believe.
We don't say that men are puppets and do not exercise their will to make choices... that is how non-calvinists choose to mischaracterize our view since they cannot actually address our points as they stand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus offered to take Jerusalem "under his wings", but they refused, was this "predestine", or did they let an opportunity pass that would have "changed, not only their future, but also the future of the world??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. They rejected because of their sin nature... they wouldn't hear His voice and follow because they weren't His sheep.
"...I would...but ye would not."
Jesus (God) would, they would not.
Jesus offered to take Jerusalem "under his wings", but they refused, was this "predestine", or did they let an opportunity pass that would have "changed, not only their future, but also the future of the world??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. They rejected because of their sin nature... they wouldn't hear His voice and follow because they weren't His sheep.
"...I would...but ye would not."
Jesus (God) would, they would not.
Jesus said beliefd (decision for Christ) IS a work, graciously enabled by the Holy Spirit to the elect:
"Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”" (John 6:29, ESV) </font>[/QUOTE]Here the Lord Jesus merely states that that what you need to do is believe. This passage does not affirm belief as being work, it clearly separates the two. Every Chistian, if he/she is a Christian, got there by believing, even you, (and all Calvinist's) at one time believed.
If you say your belief is a work, then you say you have a works-based salvation.