Fruits of Calvanism

Samarelda,

I am glad that you are reading about this issue. Let me encourge you though to read and learn straight from the horses mouth- that is learn about Calvinism from a calvinist and Arminianism from an Arminian. You are wrong that the whole goal of the Calvinist is to promote Calvinism. This false idea is commonly shared by those who disagree with Calvinism but have not taken the time to actually learn what Calvinists really believe (like Ron Comfort does here).

I went to ABC, I strongly disagree with Ron Comfort's message, though I love him as a brother in Christ and appreciate his ministry in my life. His sermon here not only uses poor hermenutics, but is simply a rehash of Dave Hunt's book "What Love is this?"- a book that was dishonest and full of mis-quotes in order to paint a false picture of Calvinism.

I wrote a response to Ron Comforts message, perhaps I will post if I have the time to go through it and clean up the grammer.

Again I appreciate your willingness to know the truth, but I encourage you to study the Scritpures dillegently and you will see that sovereign grace is biblical. And ask a Calvinist if they real believe some of the things Ron Comfort and anti-calvinists like him say. You will be surprised by what you learn.

God bless

 

Probably one of the better things you can do to learn how calvinists really approach Christianity... you could read Spurgeon.

 

This is very good advice. It is always best to study in that manner. Many just take what other people say and apply it as their own belief.

 

Great article, except for the end where he equates "personal holiness" with social drinking.

As far as reading Spurgeon, if you are confused now...just wait!

 

Excellent point Scott! I would also include Jonathan Edwards and the history of the Great Awakening.

 

I have to agree with the author that Calvanism is a way to slide man's works back into the salvation equation. And then cover it with a coating of 'irresistable grace', like that changes works into something else.

 

Great article?

First of all it was a message he preached and secondly it is full of false assertions and claims.

 

Taking a quick look at brother Comforts message here are the problems I see with it.

1). Comparing Calvinists to gnostics. Gnostics were a heretical group that denied the diety of Christ, and to compare men like Spurgeon and Edwards to gnostics is perposterous.

2). A misrepresentaion of the TULIP accrostic that comes from not getting his deffinitions straight from the source, but rather a thrid party.

3). Character assaination- claiming that Calvin's Institutes could not possibly be good since he was only in his twenties when he wrote it.

4). Misquoting or giving partial quotations by men such as Spurgeon. You can make anybody say what you want them to say when you take them out of context. For instance he states that John Calvin does not mention the love of God in his Institutes, well I can show you numerous places where he does mention it.

5). He makes false claims about Calvinists such as this: "They have no concept that they are hurting the cause of Christ and dividing the body of Christ.
Calvinists are not builders; they are destroyers." Was Charles Spurgeon, William Carey, Judson, and Edward and others destroyers?

He also says: "In forty-two years of ministry, I have been in thousands of churches. I have never been in one thatwas built on Calvinism." Clearly then he does not realize that Baptist history is dominated by men of Calvinistic leaning and that almost all of the early church planting done in America as by Calvinistic Baptists.

6). He claims that Calvinists are not evangelistic when nothing could be further from the truth.

These are just a few problems with Ron Comforts message, besides the fact that the shoddy hermenutics he used to proof text his points is unacceptable.

 

Reading and research will give you the fine points of Calvinism and Arminianism.

What I have learned through discussion and reading on this board alone is the serious christians of either the Calvinist or Arminian leaning is busy about doing what God would have them do. They are both evangelistic. They both believe and perform personal evangelism.Both have pew potatoes they just have different excuses for not doing anything.

So I part in saying, "Pray as if everything depends on God and work as if everything depends on you."

 

Why not try reading the bible and asking the "Holy Spirit" to teach you???

The problem now is man trying to interpret God's writing rather than letting God interpret his own writing.

 

I don't follow Calvin or Armin...these are flawed men. In Calvin's case, very flawed, as he murdered those with whom he had theological differences. He burned Michael Servetus at the stake, so I would never brand myself with the name of such a man. Christian? Hardly!

 

It was when I did this that I began to see the merits of calvinism for explaining the relationship between God's sovereignty, omnipotence, and omniscience as it relates to man's responsibility.

 

Calvinism only has it's merits due to the merit men give it.

All men have the responsibilty to answer to God.

If it were that men are appointed to never be saved from the foundations of the world, then it would be God's irresponsibilty to have created them for just that purpose.

It could be no different that God calls men everywhere to repent; and it is man's responsibility to pick up the phone when it is ringing and God knows every man's phone number, why He doesn't even have to call directory assistence!

 

Whatever... as Spurgeon said "Calvinism is the gospel".

I agree, and so would every other Calvinist on this board.

God didn't appoint men to damnation, man is a sinner and by nature already damned. God simply saves some of them- those He chose to save before the universe was created.

God does call all men to repent, but that does nto mean they can or will repent. By His grace many have and will repent.

 

Then with all due respect, your research is faulty. I pointed out why Ron Comforts sermon is wrong. I don't mind if some one wants to disagree with me, but I do mind if that someone is dishonest in his presentation of facts.

If you barrow thoughts from the wrong source your thoughts will be corrupted.

I don't know about the Calvinists you know, but the ones i know (and I know many) are not like you describe.

My concern samarelda, is that you are not thinking objectivly, but rather are approaching things from a subjective standpoint. My challenge to you is read Eph. 1 with a open heart and mind.

 

That's the P in tulip, right? Prank Calling of the Holy Spirit?

 

That's the P in tulip, right? Prank Calling of the Holy Spirit? </font>[/QUOTE]

 

The majority would agree yours is.

You pointed out why you BELIEVE Comfort's sermon is wrong.

BTW, if you want to split hairs, I should have said "sermon" instead of "article". For someone that follows a theology where meanings of words are changed, I would have hoped you would have done the same with my error.