• 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!

Do Calvinists hold a different gospel?

Zaatar71

Active Member
we could say at least he has truth.

why don't you try to argue his points instead of attacking him like a child. Comments like this are childish and add nothing to the conversation
The poster John is making non biblical posts. You are so mature, so he is all yours. You will do well together. Both of you are far from truth, but thats your choice after all.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So do you believe man has a God given free will or not.
How can you ask me that after what I posted? Of course I do.
But if Todd Friel had been honest to his calvinism he could not use the words he did nor can any other calvinist. Calvinism says God has to give you faith after you are saved. For the calvinist it is not a matter of "if you believe" but rather it is if God makes you believe so no free will involved.
I don't think you have the faintest idea of what Calvinism is. The Bible says that whoever will may come. That is what Calvinists believe. But the Bible also says that men and women will always use their free will not to come.
God has provided to information for man to know God but the person still has to make the choice to believe or reject Him.
Just so. But unless God opens the person's heart to believe, he never will; not because God prevents him, but because of his wicked unbelieving heart.
Many who hear the gospel message will reject it that is obvious but you take the story of Lydia to far. We know she was already a worshiper of God and upon hearing Paul came to an understanding of the full gospel message that he was preaching. That is why we are told the gospel is the power of God to salvation.
It is clear that Lydia had never heard of Jesus Christ before; how could she have? When Paul preached Christ to her, the Lord opened her heart to believe. Why do you not believe the plain words of the Bible? Cornelius was a worshipper of God (Acts 10:2), but he still needed Peter to preach to him so that he could be saved (Acts 11:13-14). God the Holy Spirit came down upon him to open his heart and lead him freely to believe (10:44).
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I am not sure that's the case, but if it is, it shouldn't be.
It may not always be the case, but from what I have seen it is often the case (not with everybody, but it is often the picture opposing positions try to paint).

Free-will folks are viewed as superficial (theologically), viewing man as authoring his own salvation.
Calvininists are viewed as hate-filled anti-mission "Christians"
Early Church theology is presented as underdeveloped
Anabaptists are presented as "backwards" and uneducated.
Pentecistals are presented as emotion-driven and unscholarly.

We (in the US) see this in politics as well.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You said, " when and if God opens their hearts to believe, they freely embrase it (Acts 16:14-15)."

God gives them the Gospel to open their hearts, they have the choice to open up and receive His Grace once they hear the truth.

Titus 2:11-12

"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;"
Yes, that is quite right. People have the choice to believe or not, but unless God opens their hearts to believe they will freely exercise their choice not to believe (John 5:40; 6:44; Romans 3:11; 1 Cor. 2:14). When God opens their hearts to do so, they freely believe.

Read Titus 2:11-12 alongside 3:3-7.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It may not always be the case, but from what I have seen it is often the case (not with everybody, but it is often the picture opposing positions try to paint).
So you, as moderator, staff member (owner?) of the BB should be at pains not to misrepresent Calvinism on this forum.

If only!
 

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
Yes, that is quite right. People have the choice to believe or not, but unless God opens their hearts to believe they will freely exercise their choice not to believe (John 5:40; 6:44; Romans 3:11; 1 Cor. 2:14). When God opens their hearts to do so, they freely believe.

Read Titus 2:11-12 alongside 3:3-7.

Maybe we are agreeing and wording it differently.

God opens the heart through the Gospel but not all will believe.

In your last line it seems you are saying that when God opens the heart (as in it being His choice for them to believe and not man's) they will freely believe.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
You said, " when and if God opens their hearts to believe, they freely embrase it (Acts 16:14-15)."

God gives them the Gospel to open their hearts, they have the choice to open up and receive His Grace once they hear the truth.

Titus 2:11-12

"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;"
Calvinism holds that men who will only choose evil (this by their own free-will) are first regenerated and then they will God (Fifth point, Article 5).

The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism (which was one time within orthodox Calvinism) is not how men believe but if men can reject God.

This is where one has to pay attention to the cards in the Calvinist's hands (they are not from the deck many use).
Calvinism insists that man is regenerated before they can (or are willing to) believe. So you have somebody already "made a new creation" presented with the gospel.

Arminianism presents God as drawing all men in such a way God alone can be the author of salvation, but man can still author their condemnation. This is probably the closest to free-will you can get in these two theories. God enables one to believe without preventing man from disbelief. And regeneration follows faith.

Neither theory is biblical (in the sence neither can be found in God's Word). But both can look to Scripture to find individual verses to "support" their theories.


I tried to avoid these theogies and stick to what really matters (Calvinism and Arminianism are of no eternal consequence). But every time I think I'm out they keep pulling me back in. :Biggrin
 

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
How can you ask me that after what I posted? Of course I do.
Either man has a free will or he does not. You seem to think his free will is limited to only reject but in that case it is not free will is it.
I don't think you have the faintest idea of what Calvinism is. The Bible says that whoever will may come. That is what Calvinists believe. But the Bible also says that men and women will always use their free will not to come.
I understand calvinism more than you think. I have seen many of the twisted bits of logic that come from those that hold to that view.

Yes whoever will call on Him will be saved which logical people would see as man having free will but not the average calvinist.

Odd that you would make such a silly comment Martin since Christ does not see it that way. Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. Or Paul Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Or even John Joh 20:31 But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.
Just so. But unless God opens the person's heart to believe, he never will; not because God prevents him, but because of his wicked unbelieving heart.
The bible shows many people that have responded tot the gospel message Martin And that is why we preach the message to all.
God has provide the information for all to know Him some trust in Him others reject Him. Because all have the ability to trust in Him those that reject Him can and will be rightly judged.

If as you say God has to open their hearts before they can trust in Him then all those that do not have their hearts opened by Him have the best excuse going for not believing.
It is clear that Lydia had never heard of Jesus Christ before; how could she have? When Paul preached Christ to her, the Lord opened her heart to believe. Why do you not believe the plain words of the Bible? Cornelius was a worshipper of God (Acts 10:2), but he still needed Peter to preach to him so that he could be saved (Acts 11:13-14). God the Holy Spirit came down upon him to open his heart and lead him freely to believe (10:44).
Why do you misuse the words of God and ignore the whole teaching of His word?

God whats all to come to Him so logically He has opened all peoples hearts so they can respond in faith or He is not being honest. Which is it Martin?
 

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
Calvinism holds that men who will only choose evil (this by their own free-will) are first regenerated and then they will God (Fifth point, Article 5).

The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism (which was one time within orthodox Calvinism) is not how men believe but if men can reject God.

This is where one has to pay attention to the cards in the Calvinist's hands (they are not from the deck many use).
Calvinism insists that man is regenerated before they can (or are willing to) believe. So you have somebody already "made a new creation" presented with the gospel.

Arminianism presents God as drawing all men in such a way God alone can be the author of salvation, but man can still author their condemnation. This is probably the closest to free-will you can get in these two theories. God enables one to believe without preventing man from disbelief. And regeneration follows faith.

Neither theory is biblical (in the sence neither can be found in God's Word). But both can look to Scripture to find individual verses to "support" their theories.


I tried to avoid these theogies and stick to what really matters (Calvinism and Arminianism are of no eternal consequence). But every time I think I'm out they keep pulling me back in. :Biggrin

I have talked to many through the years concerning their souls. I have heard many times "God doesn't want me, if He had chosen me I wouldn't be in this mess I'm in.

I ask them how do you know God doesn't want you and hasn't chosen you for salvation. Then they begin repeating Reformed Theology without even knowing what it is and where it came from.

They just give up believing they have no chance.

God is going to judge this, it's written on the wall!
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I have talked to many through the years concerning their souls. I have heard many times "God doesn't want me, if He had chosen me I wouldn't be in this mess I'm in.

I ask them how do you know God doesn't want you and hasn't chosen you for salvation. Then they begin repeating Reformed Theology without even knowing what it is and where it came from.

They just give up believing they have no chance.

God is going to judge this, it's written on the wall!
I agree. This is one reason why I regret having been a Calvinist. I never told anybody the could not be saved, but I could have steered them into that direction. Looking back, I never truly believed that there were people who had no opportunity to be saved. Had I gone that far, I could be a Calvinist but I do not think I could be a Christian.

Calvinists have been great missionaries. So have free-will theologians. So have Pentecostals. This is God, not man.

When Christians teach or preach they should teach or preach God's Word - never their understanding, theory or philosophy.

My theology today is much more biblical than when I was a Calvinist. My hope is it continues to change, becoming even more biblical just as I continue to change becoming more like Christ.

Christians move from glory to glory.

If I had to guess, there will be a vast majority of Calvinists (at least those completely indoctrinated into the philosophy) that will hear "I never knew you". That is the danger of placing one's faith in any philosophy. One can be carried away.

If this were pre-16th century Calvinism would have been dismissed as a heresy. It occurred at the right time (for Calvinism) as a reform of Roman Catholic doctrine. But even going back to the New Testament church there were false teachers and false teachings.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
@Charlie24

God instructed Christians to evaluate those teachings against "what is written" in Scripture. I believe this is why it took awhile for heresies to take hold. Churches were initially fairhful. And that is why I believe Christians today should obey that standard.

IF Christians tested doctrine against "what is written" in God's Word, leaned not on their own understanding but on every word from God, then many of these philosophies would never have taken hold in our churches. There would still be disagreements, different interpretations, and different understandings. Christians would still emphasize different truths of Scripture when dealing with doctrine.

But Chriatians would be united in Christ with God as their authority and these false doctrines (like Calvinism and Arminianism) would never have gained hold because they fail the test we are commanded to use.

There would be disagreements because we see now as through a glass, dimly. But Chrustianity as a whole would not have to deal with these stumbling blocks to the faith coming from within its own walks.

That is why I try so hard to keep my doctrine biblical (keep what I believe limited to "what is written" in God's Word). Now, I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed but I ain't stupid. I know I also have an understanding. I just try to keep that seperate from my belief (I try not to lean on it).

This is why you will never see me discussing end-times theories. I take what the Bible says as it comes, but freely admit I have no idea how it will look. I am not a dispensationalist or a covenant theorist. I take what the Bible says about dispensations and what God says about covenants as it comes in Scripture. How does God's mind work? I have no idea.


But I can read the words in my Bible. And I can believe those words. And I can easily test doctrine with a Bible and a highlighter to determine their validity.

What I have seen on this board is Calvinists condemning what I post when what I post is actually God's Word. They condemn me for rejecting what is NOT in God's Word.
Claiming to be wise they become fools - not because of me but because of Scripture. It is truly to them foolishness without their theory.

To the Calvinist this makes me two cans short of a six-pack. But I know where I stand now and will stand "on that day". So I'm cool with it.
 

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
@Charlie24

God instructed Christians to evaluate those teachings against "what is written" in Scripture. I believe this is why it took awhile for heresies to take hold. Churches were initially fairhful. And that is why I believe Christians today should obey that standard.

IF Christians tested doctrine against "what is written" in God's Word, leaned not on their own understanding but on every word from God, then many of these philosophies would never have taken hold in our churches. There would still be disagreements, different interpretations, and different understandings. Christians would still emphasize different truths of Scripture when dealing with doctrine.

But Chriatians would be united in Christ with God as their authority and these false doctrines (like Calvinism and Arminianism) would never have gained hold because they fail the test we are commanded to use.

There would be disagreements because we see now as through a glass, dimly. But Chrustianity as a whole would not have to deal with these stumbling blocks to the faith coming from within its own walks.

That is why I try so hard to keep my doctrine biblical (keep what I believe limited to "what is written" in God's Word). Now, I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed but I ain't stupid. I know I also have an understanding. I just try to keep that seperate from my belief (I try not to lean on it).

This is why you will never see me discussing end-times theories. I take what the Bible says as it comes, but freely admit I have no idea how it will look. I am not a dispensationalist or a covenant theorist. I take what the Bible says about dispensations and what God says about covenants as it comes in Scripture. How does God's mind work? I have no idea.


But I can read the words in my Bible. And I can believe those words. And I can easily test doctrine with a Bible and a highlighter to determine their validity.

What I have seen on this board is Calvinists condemning what I post when what I post is actually God's Word. They condemn me for rejecting what is NOT in God's Word.
Claiming to be wise they become fools - not because of me but because of Scripture. It is truly to them foolishness without their theory.

To the Calvinist this makes me two cans short of a six-pack. But I know where I stand now and will stand "on that day". So I'm cool with it.

That is a solid stand on the Word of God, and a position that should be respected by all of us.

Not to mention just plain good advice.

I take it a bit farther than you in certain doctrines, I believe through searching the Scriptures I have solid proof of my beliefs.

Dispensationalism is one that comes to mind at the moment, just finished Part 3.

But I'm not saying the possibility of being wrong doesn't exist, I'm saying someone will have to show me I'm wrong from Scripture.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
That is a solid stand on the Word of God, and a position that should be respected by all of us.

Not to mention just plain good advice.

I take it a bit farther than you in certain doctrines, I believe through searching the Scriptures I have solid proof of my beliefs.

Dispensationalism is one that comes to mind at the moment, just finished Part 3.

But I'm not saying the possibility of being wrong doesn't exist, I'm saying someone will have to show me I'm wrong from Scripture.
That is a good stand. I can see dispensationalism, and I think it can be defended biblically.

I guess if pressed I would be a dispensationalist as I do see God working in various dispensations. Scripture tells us this.

I think that my interest in theological development and theology in general (particularly systematic theologies) has colored my opinion. So many just do not line up with Scripture. Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin....they are interesting at first but at some point I think Christians realize they are missing out on the depth that is God's Word.
It is like drinking. At one time I liked beer. Now I don't. It was not a conscious decision not to drink. I just realized there was no benefit.
 

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
That is a good stand. I can see dispensationalism, and I think it can be defended biblically.

I guess if pressed I would be a dispensationalist as I do see God working in various dispensations. Scripture tells us this.

I think that my interest in theological development and theology in general (particularly systematic theologies) has colored my opinion. So many just do not line up with Scripture. Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin....they are interesting at first but at some point I think Christians realize they are missing out on the depth that is God's Word.
It is like drinking. At one time I liked beer. Now I don't. It was not a conscious decision not to drink. I just realized there was no benefit.

Since I was a kid I've been excessively interested in what God is telling us and why.

The broader picture of why Israel is so often the center of God's Word, both New and Old Testaments.

I suppose that's why I dove into Dispensationalism the way I did.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
All the elect.
Your emotional presentations of “the gospel” lead to many false conversions.
Problem is Scripture (2 Cor, 2 Peter) say the elect are those with spiritual life and those who have faith. These are not the people who we evangelize (they are already Christians).

I always wondered, even when a Calvinist, why so many reject emotion when Scripture has so many passages associating evangelism with rejoicing and joy.

But I think I get what you mean - an emotional appeal without the actual gospel message.

It goes both ways, I guess. Some go to the extreme of emotionless facts while others go to the extreme of factless emotions.
 

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
All the elect.
Your emotional presentations of “the gospel” lead to many false conversions.

The "elect" do not need the gospel as their faith will be given to them after they are saved, well that is what calvinist think anyway. The shame of it is that what they believe is not what the word of God teaches.

I do not use emotion but rather I present the truth. Repent and believe the gospel.

Not the calvinist gospel, that if you are lucky enough to be part of the "calvinist elect" then no problem if your not part of that group then your are out of luck but be happy as your being sent to hell for no reason will glorify God.
 
Last edited:

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Since I was a kid I've been excessively interested in what God is telling us and why.

The broader picture of why Israel is so often the center of God's Word, both New and Old Testaments.

I suppose that's why I dove into Dispensationalism the way I did.
That is kinda like why I chose to study theology. We had all of these doctrines. But others had doctrines that stood in opposition. I wanted to know not what ti believe but why to believe it, and how opposing views reasoned out their positions. Nobody forms a belief system without a reason.

I also found how theologies develop from other theologies very interesting. Anselm had a reason to want a new theory (he should have returned to Scripture and corrected what that view had become, but he had a reason). His theory was shaped by his worldview (the focus on honor). As worldviews changed Aquinas reformed Anselm's theory, and Calvin reformed Aquinas' theory.

From a historical perspective it is interesting. But from a biblical perspective it is wrong.

Anyway, that has nothing to do with dispensationalism. God has interacted with man in various ways in different dispensations.
 

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
All the elect.
Your emotional presentations of “the gospel” lead to many false conversions.

You have a point there, Reynolds.

The Gospel we preach at least brings hope to all of mankind.

There are many who make professions of faith through a simple prayer but never actually repent.

Some say this is not Biblical, the prayer of repentance. But Christ said otherwise.

Luke 18:9-14

"And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."
 
Top