Brother Ed, "Doctrines of Grace" is a phrase that is commonly used to signify the 5 points of calvinism and it's associated teachings. This is the first objection to it I've ever seen. You completely over reacted. But I understand - I'm a frequent over-reactor myself.
-
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!
Dortian, not Calvinist
- Thread starter J.D.
- Start date
I don't ever yell, in any 'theological' sense. I embold for emphasis, or to differentiate, only. How else is one to "emphasize" something, when italics are used for another purpose?Rippon said:
I refuse to be 'bound' by some other's 'internet protocol', per se, and 'write' on the BB, just as I would on paper.
For example, I have always refused to write in all lower-case letters. (I am certainly no fan of the style ascribed to e. e. cummings!)
My own use of "giant" print is usually for 'double emphasis', or should be self-explanatory, I would hope.
Italics are normally reserved for terms that are Latin, French, German, etc., and also 'legal terms', to differentiate from 'ordinary' English.
My annoyance or rare anger will be shown by the "Post Icon" picture alongside the topic heading, if there is such. Very rarely do you see the "red face" there, in my posts. I do use it on cases of outright bigotry, and the deliberate misrepresentation of one poster, by another, occasionally. You will see the 'purple' face some, as it is the closest thing one can put there to signify 'annoyance', as well as most of the others. The only one I do not ever recall using is the "Joe Cool" icon with the 'shades', but may have even used that one once or twice, in 6500 posts without recalling.
Ed
I do understand that the phrase "the Doctrines of Grace" are often "commonly used" to signify "the 5 points of calvinism (sic) and it's (sic) associated teachings." And I contend that this appellation is one more instance of something being mis-labeled, as well. I am no big fan of pejorative and/or "pigeonhole" terms and phrases, by any stretch.J.D. said:
Wanna' hear a few? (They will be bolded, for the benefit of both J.D. and Rippon, who seem to be worried about my blood pressure.)
I am one who is often classified as being in the "free grace" camp, which happens to be a redundancy. There is no such thing as grace that is not "free", to begin with, by definition. (I and others who are of the same general bent, are also often falsely 'accused' of believing in "no-Lordship" for another pejorative term.) I do not believe in and teach what is commonly known as "Lordship salvation", to be sure, but that is far from being the same thing. I have been accurately portrayed as saying that one cannot "make Jesus Lord!"
And I have been said, at various times, to be one "not believing in repentance"; one who believes in "no repentence" (sic); and one 'who does not believe that repentance is necessary for salvation'.
(All of the three above are untrue, but what are facts among friends, I guess?!)
One can search the threads that deal with repentance to see exactly what I do believe and teach, but suffice it to say that I do believe that one must repent to be saved. I do not believe (nor does Scripture teach) that one must "repent of/from sin(s)" to be saved, for that is not what repentance regarding salvation is directed toward, but rather is a change of mind, directed toward God, and from one's own 'dead works'. One cannot find the phrase "repent of/from (ones) sins" in Scripture, either. Don't take my word for this; look it up!
Thankfully, thus far at least, no one has actually accused me of being in the "Millenial Exclusion" crowd, but I would not be at all surprised to see this appear as well, some day. That too, would be a false charge.
I have been classified as being both "a Calvinist" and "an Arminian". Neither of these is accurate, or true, either. It is a choice of a false alternative, to assume that one must be one or the other. And I reject the doctrine of "perseverance" as presented by both camps. Scripture never uses the words "perseverance of the saints", at least in the KJV, NKJV, RV, or ASV. I cannot speak to any other versions off the top of my head, on this, but these are four that I can definitely say this about.
That I am preserved and kept entirely by the power of the triune God? Yes!! Absolutely!! This is stated in Scripture. That I will necessarily "persevere"? No. But thankfully, I do not have to. My Lord will persevere (in my stead), for He abides faithful. I may and do fail miserably. He doesn't, and that is what is important and necessary!
And I have been classified as a "dispensationalist", in a pejorative attempt, as well. Despite the intent, I'll happily lay claim to this one. Paul was a 'dispensationalist' or 'economist'; named two of these dispensations specifically, implied at least two more, and spoke of "οικονομια" and "οικονομος", in even more instances. The Holy Spirit inspired Luke to record these two terms, plus "οικονομεω", where Jesus spoke of this subject, and Peter speaks of "οικονομος", as well. All talking about 'administrations' or 'stewardships' or 'dispensations' - 'to oversee or manage a household or an economy' or the 'manager' of such an 'economy'. I figure that is pretty good company to hang around with.
BTW, by definition, both 'Calvinism' and 'Arminianism' are types of 'covenant' theology, I believe, as opposed to any sort of "dispensational theology".
So this non-Calvinist, non-Arminian, non-'Lordship salvation', 'salvation by (free) grace', non-'persevering', dispensationalist also believes in "the doctrines of grace", and is not willing to "abandon" this phrase to someone else.
Ed
Last edited by a moderator:
Good post. I wish calvinists, reformers, dortianists, martians, whatever would quit with the claim they solely believe in "doctrines of grace". Since God cannot be contained...neither should His grace.EdSutton said:I do understand that the phrase "the Doctrines of Grace" are often "commonly used" to signify "the 5 points of calvinism (sic) and it's (sic) associated teachings." And I contend that this appellation is one more instance of something being mis-labeled, as well. I am no big fan of pejorative and/or "pigeonhole" terms and phrases, by any stretch.
Wanna' hear a few? (They will be bolded, for the benefit of both J.D. and Rippon, who seem to be worried about my blood pressure.)
I am one who is often classified as being in the "free grace" camp, which happens to be a redundancy. There is no such thing as grace that is not "free", to begin with, by definition. (I and others who are of the same general bent, are also often falsely 'accused' of believing in "no-Lordship" for another pejorative term.) I do not believe in and teach what is commonly known as "Lordship salvation", to be sure, but that is far from being the same thing. I have been accurately portrayed as saying that one cannot "make Jesus Lord!"
And I have been said, at various times, to be one "not believing in repentance"; one who believes in "no repentence" (sic); and one 'who does not believe that repentance is necessary for salvation'.
(All of the three above are untrue, but what are facts among friends, I guess?!)
One can search the threads that deal with repentance to see exactly what I do believe and teach, but suffice it to say that I do believe that one must repent to be saved. I do not believe (nor does Scripture teach) that one must "repent of/from sin(s)" to be saved, for that is not what repentance regarding salvation is directed toward, but rather is a change of mind, directed toward God, and from one's own 'dead works'. One cannot find the phrase "repent of/from (ones) sins" in Scripture, either. Don't take my word for this; look it up!
Thankfully, thus far at least, no one has actually accused me of being in the "Millenial Exclusion" crowd, but I would not be at all surprised to see this appear as well, some day. That too, would be a false charge.
I have been classified as being both "a Calvinist" and "an Arminian". Neither of these is accurate, or true, either. It is a choice of a false alternative, to assume that one must be one or the other. And I reject the doctrine of "perseverance" as presented by both camps. Scripture never uses the words "perseverance of the saints", at least in the KJV, NKJV, RV, or ASV. I cannot speak to any other versions off the top of my head, on this, but these are four that I can definitely say this about.
That I am preserved and kept entirely by the power of the triune God? Yes!! Absolutely!! This is stated in Scripture. That I will necessarily "persevere"? No. But thankfully, I do not have to. My Lord will persevere (in my stead), for He abides faithful. I may and do fail miserably. He doesn't, and that is what is important and necessary!
And I have been classified as a "dispensationalist", in a pejorative attempt, as well. Despite the intent, I'll happily lay claim to this one. Paul was a 'dispensationalist' or 'economist'; named two of these dispensations specifically, implied at least two more, and spoke of "οικονομια" and "οικονομος", in even more instances. The Holy Spirit inspired Luke to record these two terms, plus "οικονομεω", where Jesus spoke of this subject, and Peter speaks of "οικονομος", as well. All talking about 'administrations' or 'stewardships' or 'dispensations' - 'to oversee or manage a household or an economy' or the 'manager' of such an 'economy'. I figure that is pretty good company to hang around with.
BTW, by definition, both 'Calvinism' and 'Arminianism' are types of 'covenant' theology, I believe, as opposed to any sort of "dispensational theology".
So this non-Calvinist, non-Arminian, non-'Lordship salvation', 'salvation by (free) grace', non-'persevering', dispensationalist also believes in "the doctrines of grace", and is not willing to "abandon" this phrase to someone else.
Ed
Last edited by a moderator:
webdog said:
Uhhhh.....
Perseverance of The Saints: Does God (in his Grace) keep you?
Unconditional Election: Does God (solely based on his Grace, not on your "wise" choice) Save you?
Total Depravity: Are you COMPLETELY unable to do anything Good, and everything you do or get is completely because of God's grace? You didn't take a single step towards Him> He carried you.
Irresistible Grace: How powerful IS God's graceful call?
Limited Atonement: Did God place our literal sins on the Cross? Did he literally "pay it all", or is there something WE have to do (such as coming to Him/Chosing Him, Choosing to accept the offer etc.)
I am sorry, but conditional election, Resistable Grace, an incomplete depravity, the chance of God abandoning us because we don't "measure up", etc. DOES NOT teach Grace...
Only those who say "HE DID IT ALL", may lay claim to the title "Doctrines of Grace".
I mean, I am glad all the Arminian/free will folks made such a wise and prudent decision (scoff), but that is NOT true grace...
Originally Posted by EdSutton
"Now as to point two I am making, "Shame on you!", here, on this one. The attempt to "theologically kidnap" a 'praising' phrase is deplorable, IMO. I am referring to this one, and I quote you again. This implies that (a.) those of your belief system are the only ones who believe in grace., and (b.) that your belief systems has gotten it all rightly, for this system is the only one that properly understands grace.
What hogwash! Not to mention what arrogance!!!
Whether or not this is intentional, it is still an arrogant usage, IMO.
The so-called "Calvinist", "Dordtist", "Counter-remonstrant", what have you as to "label" has no monoply on "the Doctines of Grace" (unless this happens to be a book title) by any stretch. (Nor is the term "Reformed" much better, FTR, although I will let that one slide, for now.)
I subscribe to none of "the Five Points of Dordt" in their entirety; I also subscribe to none of the Five Points of Remonstrance, as written and worded, in their entirety. Yet I am also sure that I believe in "the doctrines of grace" as taught in Scripture, as well as you."
drfuss: Ed, you are so right. In the past, I have objected on BB to the term "doctrines of grace". But they ignore it and continue to use it even though the Calvinists know it implies a misrepresentation of what others believe. Sometimes it make one wonder if misrepresenting what others believe is a part of their theology since they claim "doctrines of grace" as part of their theology.
"Now as to point two I am making, "Shame on you!", here, on this one. The attempt to "theologically kidnap" a 'praising' phrase is deplorable, IMO. I am referring to this one, and I quote you again. This implies that (a.) those of your belief system are the only ones who believe in grace., and (b.) that your belief systems has gotten it all rightly, for this system is the only one that properly understands grace.
What hogwash! Not to mention what arrogance!!!
Whether or not this is intentional, it is still an arrogant usage, IMO.
The so-called "Calvinist", "Dordtist", "Counter-remonstrant", what have you as to "label" has no monoply on "the Doctines of Grace" (unless this happens to be a book title) by any stretch. (Nor is the term "Reformed" much better, FTR, although I will let that one slide, for now.)
I subscribe to none of "the Five Points of Dordt" in their entirety; I also subscribe to none of the Five Points of Remonstrance, as written and worded, in their entirety. Yet I am also sure that I believe in "the doctrines of grace" as taught in Scripture, as well as you."
drfuss: Ed, you are so right. In the past, I have objected on BB to the term "doctrines of grace". But they ignore it and continue to use it even though the Calvinists know it implies a misrepresentation of what others believe. Sometimes it make one wonder if misrepresenting what others believe is a part of their theology since they claim "doctrines of grace" as part of their theology.
EdSutton said:
Ed said he was sorry and apologized because he erred about Mr. Harmenszoon's age at death . He felt compelled to express his regrets about that technicality.However, he felt no shame at the mention of his conduct above . He said he never yells in "any theological sense." ( I never knew there was a theological way of shouting .)
Ed says he's not a big fan of pejorative phrases . ( But you wouldn't guess that from his quoted material above.)
Ed said he's willing for Calvinists to use the term "Reformed' . He'll "let it slide."He's so generous.
The term "Reformed" has been around for almost 500 years to indicate those of a particular theological stance. ( So has the term "Protestant" , though many Baptists refuse to use that designation.)I would like to know when the term ""Doctrines of Grace" first began. I think it may be nearly 400 years by now . It's been used in a host of theological books and other assorted materials for centuries to identify Calvinists. But Ed became livid when J.D. used it on this thread.You are free to let it slide though, Mr.Sutton, just as you ,from your vaunted perch, will permit us the usage of "Reformed".Thank you.
Originally Posted by drfuss
drfuss: Ed, you are so right. In the past, I have objected on BB to the term "doctrines of grace". But they ignore it and continue to use it even though the Calvinists know it implies a misrepresentation of what others believe. Sometimes it make one wonder if misrepresenting what others believe is a part of their theology since they claim "doctrines of grace" as part of their theology.
Rippon's response: Refer to my previous post ( #31 )drfuss .
Post #31 - Originally Posted by Rippon
We don't mean to suggest that we alone have an exclusive entitlement to the terminology . You have the perfect right to employ it as well . But in doing so you may be mistaken for a Calvinist in the process .:laugh:
drfuss: Am I to conclude that even though Calvinists know using "doctrines of grace" misrepresents non-Calvinists views as much as non-Calvinists referring to Calvinists as puppets or robots misrepresents Calvinism, Calvinists will continue to claim their "doctrine of grace?
Non-Calvinists on BB have been more considerate.
drfuss: Ed, you are so right. In the past, I have objected on BB to the term "doctrines of grace". But they ignore it and continue to use it even though the Calvinists know it implies a misrepresentation of what others believe. Sometimes it make one wonder if misrepresenting what others believe is a part of their theology since they claim "doctrines of grace" as part of their theology.
Rippon's response: Refer to my previous post ( #31 )drfuss .
Post #31 - Originally Posted by Rippon
We don't mean to suggest that we alone have an exclusive entitlement to the terminology . You have the perfect right to employ it as well . But in doing so you may be mistaken for a Calvinist in the process .:laugh:
drfuss: Am I to conclude that even though Calvinists know using "doctrines of grace" misrepresents non-Calvinists views as much as non-Calvinists referring to Calvinists as puppets or robots misrepresents Calvinism, Calvinists will continue to claim their "doctrine of grace?
Non-Calvinists on BB have been more considerate.
Results of a Google search on "Doctrines of Grace" (fist page only):
Doctrines of Grace - Soli Deo Gloria
Doctrines of Grace is a web site/forums devoted to the doctrines of God's sovereign grace in salvation. The forums are moderated by Christians from the USA ...
doctrinesofgrace.net/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages
The Doctrines of Grace
The Doctrines of Grace. Although also referred to as The Five Points of Calvinism, these are simply five key teachings found in the Bible that were written ...
www.grace.org.uk/faith/calvin.html - 8k - Cached - Similar pages
Exposition of the Doctrines of Grace
I have found commonly that, with regard to the doctrine of grace which we preach, there are a great many objections raised. One of the simplest trades in ...
www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0385.htm - 154k - Cached - Similar pages
Monergism Directory of Theology
Calvinism/Reformed Theology: Calvinism * Reformed Theology * Overview of Reformed Theology * Covenant Theology * The Doctrines of Grace * Total Depravity ...
64.13.227.128/directory/ - 76k - Cached - Similar pages
Amazon.com: The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical ...
Amazon.com: The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel: Philip Graham Ryken,James Montgomery Boice,RC Sproul: Books.
www.amazon.com/Doctrines-Grace-Rediscovering-Evangelical-Gospel/dp/1581342993 - 238k - Cached - Similar pages
Doctrines of Grace
Different Gospels | Doctrines of Grace | Praise His Name! | The Christian Cyberport | Statement of Faith | Search | Site Map | Contact Us.
www.gospeloutreach.net/tulip.html - 8k - Cached - Similar pages
Doctrines of Grace Reformed Internet Radio
Preaching and teaching programs and submitted church sermons.
www.dogrir.org/ - 2k - Cached - Similar pages
Calvin's Castle - The Doctrines of Grace Homepage
An eclectic collection of Reformed, and other, theology, teaching and preaching.
www.geocities.com/Heartland/4857/ - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
His By Grace--"Baptist Reformed Doctrine Theology Grace Christian ...
A Christian Resource Page Committed to the Doctrines Of Grace .... His By Grace: John Gill's 11 Volume Classic... "A Body of Doctrinal Divinity" ...
www.gracesermons.com/hisbygrace/Homepage.html - 4k - Cached - Similar pages
The Doctrines of Grace
The Doctrines of Grace. Articles on the gospel offer, the new birth, conversion and directions to new converts, sorrow for sin, prayer, encouragements to ...
members.aol.com/rsichurch/grace.html - 26k - Cached - Similar pages
As I said, the phrase "Doctrines of Grace" are COMMONLY used to describe the 5 points of Calvimism and it's associated teachings. And I''ll add this time that they are soteriological teachings, not eschatological or covenantel.
Doctrines of Grace - Soli Deo Gloria
Doctrines of Grace is a web site/forums devoted to the doctrines of God's sovereign grace in salvation. The forums are moderated by Christians from the USA ...
doctrinesofgrace.net/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages
The Doctrines of Grace
The Doctrines of Grace. Although also referred to as The Five Points of Calvinism, these are simply five key teachings found in the Bible that were written ...
www.grace.org.uk/faith/calvin.html - 8k - Cached - Similar pages
Exposition of the Doctrines of Grace
I have found commonly that, with regard to the doctrine of grace which we preach, there are a great many objections raised. One of the simplest trades in ...
www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0385.htm - 154k - Cached - Similar pages
Monergism Directory of Theology
Calvinism/Reformed Theology: Calvinism * Reformed Theology * Overview of Reformed Theology * Covenant Theology * The Doctrines of Grace * Total Depravity ...
64.13.227.128/directory/ - 76k - Cached - Similar pages
Amazon.com: The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical ...
Amazon.com: The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel: Philip Graham Ryken,James Montgomery Boice,RC Sproul: Books.
www.amazon.com/Doctrines-Grace-Rediscovering-Evangelical-Gospel/dp/1581342993 - 238k - Cached - Similar pages
Doctrines of Grace
Different Gospels | Doctrines of Grace | Praise His Name! | The Christian Cyberport | Statement of Faith | Search | Site Map | Contact Us.
www.gospeloutreach.net/tulip.html - 8k - Cached - Similar pages
Doctrines of Grace Reformed Internet Radio
Preaching and teaching programs and submitted church sermons.
www.dogrir.org/ - 2k - Cached - Similar pages
Calvin's Castle - The Doctrines of Grace Homepage
An eclectic collection of Reformed, and other, theology, teaching and preaching.
www.geocities.com/Heartland/4857/ - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
His By Grace--"Baptist Reformed Doctrine Theology Grace Christian ...
A Christian Resource Page Committed to the Doctrines Of Grace .... His By Grace: John Gill's 11 Volume Classic... "A Body of Doctrinal Divinity" ...
www.gracesermons.com/hisbygrace/Homepage.html - 4k - Cached - Similar pages
The Doctrines of Grace
The Doctrines of Grace. Articles on the gospel offer, the new birth, conversion and directions to new converts, sorrow for sin, prayer, encouragements to ...
members.aol.com/rsichurch/grace.html - 26k - Cached - Similar pages
As I said, the phrase "Doctrines of Grace" are COMMONLY used to describe the 5 points of Calvimism and it's associated teachings. And I''ll add this time that they are soteriological teachings, not eschatological or covenantel.
Last edited by a moderator:
From: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0385.htm
Exposition of the Doctrines of Grace
nos. 385-88.
[SIZE=+1]Thursday, April 11th, 1861.
[/SIZE][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
EDITOR'S NOTE: These messages are part of the inaugural ceremonies held at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London, when it first opened. Spurgeon had already preached the first sermons there, beginning March 25, while the building was not yet quite finished. This, however, was the official opening ceremony, and Spurgeon presided, choosing several fellow pastors to expound the doctrines of Calvinism. This guide is offered the reader wishing to follow the familiar TULIP acronym:
The Rev. C. H. SPURGEON took the chair at 3 o'clock. he REV. C. H. Spurgeon in opening the proceedings said, we have met together beneath this roof already to set forth most of those truths in which consists the peculiarity of this Church. Last evening we endeavoured to show to the world, that we heartily recognised the essential union of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. And now, this afternoon and evening, it is our intention, through the lips of our brethren, to set forth those things which are verily received among us, and especially those great points which have been so often attacked, but which are still upheld and maintained,—truths which we have proved in our experience to be full of grace and truth. My only business upon this occasion is to introduce the brethren who shall address you, and I shall do so as briefly as possible, making what I shall say a preface to their remarks.
The controversy which has been carried on between the Calvinist and the Arminian is exceedingly important, but it does not so involve the vital point of personal godliness as to make eternal life depend upon our holding either system of theology. Between the Protestant and the Papist there is a controversy of such a character, that he who is saved on the one side by faith in Jesus, dare not allow that his opponent on the opposite side can be saved while depending on his own works. There the controversy is for life or death, because it hinges mainly upon the doctrine of justification by faith, which Luther so properly called the test doctrine, by which a Church either stands or falls. The controversy again between the believer in Christ and the Socinian, is one which affects a vital point. If the Socinian be right, we are most frightfully in error; we are, in fact, idolaters, and how dwelleth eternal life in us? and if we be right, our largest charity will not permit us to imagine that a man can enter heaven who does not believe the real divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. There are other controversies which thus cut at the very core, and touch the very essence of the whole subject. But, I think we are free to admit, that while John Wesley, for instance, in modern times zealously defended Arminianism, and on the other hand, George Whitfield with equal fervour fought for Calvinism, we should not be prepared either of us, on either side of the question, to deny the vital godliness of either the one or the other. We cannot shut our eyes to what we believe to be the gross mistakes of our opponents, and should think ourselves unworthy of the name of honest men, if we could admit that they are right in all things and ourselves right too. An honest man has an intellect which does not permit him to believe that "yes" and "no" can both subsist at the same hour and both be true. I cannot say, "It is," and my brother point blank say, "It is not," and yet both of us be right on that point. We are willing to admit, in fact, we dare not do otherwise, that opinion upon this controversy does not determine the future of even the present state of any man; but still, we think it to be so important, that in maintaining our views, we advance with all courage and fervency if spirit, believing that we are doing God's work and upholding most important truth. It may not be misunderstood, we only use the term for shortness. That doctrine which is called "Calvinism" did not spring from Calvin; we believe that it sprang from the great founder of all truth. Perhaps Calvin himself derived it mainly from the writings of Augustine. Augustine obtained his views, without doubt, through the Spirit of God, from the diligent study of the writings of Paul, and Paul received them of the Holy Ghost, from Jesus Christ the great founder of the Christian dispensation. We use the term then, not because we impute any extraordinary importance to Calvin's having taught these doctrines. We would be just as willing to call them by any other name, if we could find one which would be better understood, and which on the whole would be as consistent with fact.
Exposition of the Doctrines of Grace
nos. 385-88.
[SIZE=+1]Thursday, April 11th, 1861.
[/SIZE][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
EDITOR'S NOTE: These messages are part of the inaugural ceremonies held at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London, when it first opened. Spurgeon had already preached the first sermons there, beginning March 25, while the building was not yet quite finished. This, however, was the official opening ceremony, and Spurgeon presided, choosing several fellow pastors to expound the doctrines of Calvinism. This guide is offered the reader wishing to follow the familiar TULIP acronym:
- Total depravity—"Human Depravity," by Evan Probert (message 2).
- Unconditional Election—"Election", by John Bloomfield (message 1).
- Limited Atonement—"Particular Redemption," by J. A. Spurgeon (message 3).
- Irresistible Grace—"Effectual Calling," by James Smith (message 4).
- Perseverance of the Saints—"The Final Perseverance of Believers in Christ Jesus," by William O'Neill (message 5).
The Rev. C. H. SPURGEON took the chair at 3 o'clock. he REV. C. H. Spurgeon in opening the proceedings said, we have met together beneath this roof already to set forth most of those truths in which consists the peculiarity of this Church. Last evening we endeavoured to show to the world, that we heartily recognised the essential union of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. And now, this afternoon and evening, it is our intention, through the lips of our brethren, to set forth those things which are verily received among us, and especially those great points which have been so often attacked, but which are still upheld and maintained,—truths which we have proved in our experience to be full of grace and truth. My only business upon this occasion is to introduce the brethren who shall address you, and I shall do so as briefly as possible, making what I shall say a preface to their remarks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Coninuing...
And then again, this afternoon, we shall have very likely to speak of Arminians, and by that, we would not for a moment insinuate that all who are in membership with the Arminian body, hold those particular views. There are Calvinists in connection with Calvinistic Churches, who are not Calvinistic, bearing the name but discarding the system. There are, on the other hand, not a few in the Methodist Churches, who, in most points perfectly agree with us, and I believe that if the matter came to be thoroughly sifted, it would be found that we are more agreed in our private opinions than in our public confessions, and our devotional religion is more uniform than our theology. For instance, Mr. Wesley's hymn-book, which may be looked upon as being the standard of his divinity, has in it upon some topics higher Calvinism than many books used by ourselves. I have been exceedingly struck with the very forcible expressions there used, some of which I might have hesitated to employ myself. I shall ask your attention while I quote verses from the hymns of Mr. Wesley, which we can all endorse as fully and plainly in harmony with the doctrines of grace, far more so than the preaching of some modern Calvinists. I do this because our low-doctrine Baptists and Morisonians ought to be aware of the vast difference between themselves and the Evangelical Arminians.
HYMN 131, verses 1, 2, 3.
"Lord, I despair myself to heal:
I see my sin, but cannot feel;
I cannot, till thy Spirit blow,
And bid the obedient waters flow.
'Tis thine a heart of flesh to give;
Thy gifts I only can receive:
Here, then, to thee I all resign;
To draw, redeem, and seal,—is thine.
With simple faith on thee I call,
My Light, my Life, my Lord, my all:
I wait the moving of the pool;
I wait the word that speaks me whole."
HYMN 133, verse 4.
"Thy golden sceptre from above
Reach forth; lo! my whole heart I bow;
Say to my soul, Thou art my love;
My chosen midst ten thousand, thou."
This is very like election.
HYMN 136, verses 8, 9, 10.
"I cannot rest, till in thy blood
I full redemption have:
But thou, through whom I come to God,
Canst to the utmost save.
From sin, the guilt, the power, the pain,
Thou wilt redeem my soul:
Lord, I believe, and not in vain;
My faith shall make me whole.
I too, with thee, shall walk in white;
With all thy saints shall prove,
What is the length, and breadth, and height,
And depth of perfect love."
Brethren, is not this somewhat like final perseverance? and what is meant by the next quotation, if people of God can perish at all?
HYMN 138, verses 6, 7.
"Who, who shall in thy presence stand,
And match Omnipotence?
Ungrasp the hold of thy right hand,
Or pluck the sinner thence?
Sworn to destroy, let earth assail;
Nearer to save thou art:
Stronger than all the powers of hell,
And greater than my heart."
The following is remarkably strong, especially in the expression "force." I give it in full:—
HYMN 158
"O my God, what must I do?
Thou alone the way canst show;
Thou canst save me in this hour;
I have neither will nor power:
God, if over all thou art,
Greater than my sinful heart,
All thy power on me be shown,
Take away the heart of stone.
Take away my darling sin,
Make me willing to be clean;
Make me willing to receive
All thy goodness waits to give.
Force me, Lord, with all to part;
Tear these idols from my heart;
Now thy love almighty show,
Make even me a creature new.
Jesus, mighty to renew,
Work in me to will and do;
Turn my nature's rapid tide,
Stem the torrent of my pride;
Stop the whirlwind of my will;
Speak, and bid the sun stand still;
Now thy love almighty show,
Make even me a creature new.
Arm of God, thy strength put on;
Bow the heavens, and come down;
All my unbelief o'erthrow;
Lay th' aspiring mountain low:
Conquer thy worst foe in me,
Get thyself the victory;
Save the vilest of the race;
Force me to be saved by grace." [remember, this was written by an Arminian]
HYMN 206, verses 1, 2.
"What am I, O thou glorious God!
And what my father's house to thee,
That thou such mercies hast bestow'd
On me, the vilest reptile, me!
I take the blessing from above,
And wonder at the boundless love. Me in my blood the love pass'd by,
And stopp'd, my ruin to retrieve;
Wept o'er my soul thy pitying eye;
Thy bowels yearn'd, and sounded, "Live!"
Dying, I heard the welcome sound,
And pardon in thy mercy found."
And then again, this afternoon, we shall have very likely to speak of Arminians, and by that, we would not for a moment insinuate that all who are in membership with the Arminian body, hold those particular views. There are Calvinists in connection with Calvinistic Churches, who are not Calvinistic, bearing the name but discarding the system. There are, on the other hand, not a few in the Methodist Churches, who, in most points perfectly agree with us, and I believe that if the matter came to be thoroughly sifted, it would be found that we are more agreed in our private opinions than in our public confessions, and our devotional religion is more uniform than our theology. For instance, Mr. Wesley's hymn-book, which may be looked upon as being the standard of his divinity, has in it upon some topics higher Calvinism than many books used by ourselves. I have been exceedingly struck with the very forcible expressions there used, some of which I might have hesitated to employ myself. I shall ask your attention while I quote verses from the hymns of Mr. Wesley, which we can all endorse as fully and plainly in harmony with the doctrines of grace, far more so than the preaching of some modern Calvinists. I do this because our low-doctrine Baptists and Morisonians ought to be aware of the vast difference between themselves and the Evangelical Arminians.
HYMN 131, verses 1, 2, 3.
"Lord, I despair myself to heal:
I see my sin, but cannot feel;
I cannot, till thy Spirit blow,
And bid the obedient waters flow.
'Tis thine a heart of flesh to give;
Thy gifts I only can receive:
Here, then, to thee I all resign;
To draw, redeem, and seal,—is thine.
With simple faith on thee I call,
My Light, my Life, my Lord, my all:
I wait the moving of the pool;
I wait the word that speaks me whole."
HYMN 133, verse 4.
"Thy golden sceptre from above
Reach forth; lo! my whole heart I bow;
Say to my soul, Thou art my love;
My chosen midst ten thousand, thou."
This is very like election.
HYMN 136, verses 8, 9, 10.
"I cannot rest, till in thy blood
I full redemption have:
But thou, through whom I come to God,
Canst to the utmost save.
From sin, the guilt, the power, the pain,
Thou wilt redeem my soul:
Lord, I believe, and not in vain;
My faith shall make me whole.
I too, with thee, shall walk in white;
With all thy saints shall prove,
What is the length, and breadth, and height,
And depth of perfect love."
Brethren, is not this somewhat like final perseverance? and what is meant by the next quotation, if people of God can perish at all?
HYMN 138, verses 6, 7.
"Who, who shall in thy presence stand,
And match Omnipotence?
Ungrasp the hold of thy right hand,
Or pluck the sinner thence?
Sworn to destroy, let earth assail;
Nearer to save thou art:
Stronger than all the powers of hell,
And greater than my heart."
The following is remarkably strong, especially in the expression "force." I give it in full:—
HYMN 158
"O my God, what must I do?
Thou alone the way canst show;
Thou canst save me in this hour;
I have neither will nor power:
God, if over all thou art,
Greater than my sinful heart,
All thy power on me be shown,
Take away the heart of stone.
Take away my darling sin,
Make me willing to be clean;
Make me willing to receive
All thy goodness waits to give.
Force me, Lord, with all to part;
Tear these idols from my heart;
Now thy love almighty show,
Make even me a creature new.
Jesus, mighty to renew,
Work in me to will and do;
Turn my nature's rapid tide,
Stem the torrent of my pride;
Stop the whirlwind of my will;
Speak, and bid the sun stand still;
Now thy love almighty show,
Make even me a creature new.
Arm of God, thy strength put on;
Bow the heavens, and come down;
All my unbelief o'erthrow;
Lay th' aspiring mountain low:
Conquer thy worst foe in me,
Get thyself the victory;
Save the vilest of the race;
Force me to be saved by grace." [remember, this was written by an Arminian]
HYMN 206, verses 1, 2.
"What am I, O thou glorious God!
And what my father's house to thee,
That thou such mercies hast bestow'd
On me, the vilest reptile, me!
I take the blessing from above,
And wonder at the boundless love. Me in my blood the love pass'd by,
And stopp'd, my ruin to retrieve;
Wept o'er my soul thy pitying eye;
Thy bowels yearn'd, and sounded, "Live!"
Dying, I heard the welcome sound,
And pardon in thy mercy found."
Last edited by a moderator:
Continuing:
Nor are these all, for such good things as these abound, and they constrain me to say, that in attacking Arminianism we have no hostility towards the men who bear the name rather than the nature of that error, and we are opposed not to any body of men, but to the notions which they have espoused.
And now, having made these remarks upon terms used, we must observe that there is nothing upon which men need to be more instructed than upon the question of what Calvinism really is. The most infamous allegations have been brought against us, and sometime, I must fear, by men who knew them to be utterly untrue; and, to this day, there are many of our opponents, who, when they run short of matter, invent and make for themselves a man of straw, call that John Calvin, and then shoot all their arrows at it. We are not come here to defend your man of straw—shoot at it or burn it as you will, and, if it suit your convenience, still oppose doctrines which were never taught, and rail at fictions which, save in your own brain, were never in existence. We come here to state what our views really are, and we trust that any who do not agree with us will do us the justice of not misrepresenting us. If they can disprove our doctrines, let them state them fairly and then overthrow them, but why should they first caricature our opinions and then afterwards attempt to put them down?
Nor are these all, for such good things as these abound, and they constrain me to say, that in attacking Arminianism we have no hostility towards the men who bear the name rather than the nature of that error, and we are opposed not to any body of men, but to the notions which they have espoused.
Last edited by a moderator:
If you are determined to describe me as "an anti-Dortist", please at least be fair and simultaneously describe me as "an anti-Hagueist" at the same time. For one is not accurate without the other, simultaneously, otherwise it is not a characterization but a caricaturization.Rippon said:
Ed
EdSutton said:
As I said,you are an anti-Dortist ( or at least a non-Dortist ) Ed.
But you are sure that we both believe in the doctrines of grace as taught in the Bible .That's a puzzling statement for I believe that the doctrines of grace which Calvinists hold are one and the same with the teaching of the Bible.We don't have a two-tract system with two entirely distinct views of the Doctrines of Grace.