Fruits of Calvanism

Amen I agree. I will also add the the fruites of Calvinism where the many churches started in early America by Calvinistic Baptists, and the Great Awkening, and many of the large missionary movements of church history...

and above all- a great passion for the glory of God in all things.

 

Amen I agree. I will also add the the fruites of Calvinism where the many churches started in early America by Calvinistic Baptists, and the Great Awkening, and many of the large missionary movements of church history...

and above all- a great passion for the glory of God in all things. </font>[/QUOTE]Really, right or wrong (on calvinist issue) these two statements just show huge amounts of ignorance! They mis-represent the non calvinist veiw and are just opinions. And you know what they say about opinioins.

No where on this thread, or any other has anyone given man credit for salvation. Yes ignorant. self rightoues people continue to cry that calvinist is being mis represented then turn a deaf ear too what those who disagree with them say. And spout this crap.

 

R.C. is just rehashing tired ole'stuff that has been around for 50 years or more . There is indeed nothing new under the sun .

[ He says ] "They make the analogy , Ephesians 2:1: And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins ; and they say dead means ' total inability . ' In other words , if a man is spiritually dead , he is unable to accept Christ . However , if you follow that analogy to its logical conclusion , then you would have to say that a dead man cannot receive nor can he reject . He cannot sin . Their analogy falls apart if you follow it to its logical conclusion ."

Well , I say Comfort is wrong . In Eph. 2:1 , which he quoted and Colossians 2:13 it is clear that God quickens the spiritually dead . The spiritually dead doesn't contribute to his spiritual aliveness . It is true . A spiritually dead person is unable to accept Christ . He has no power or strength on his own to effect that turning to Christ . For RC to say that the biblical doctrine of the inability of men would make them unable to receive or reject is half true . They can't receive , but they do in-fact reject quite well . He goes on to say then that that means this spiritually dead person cannot sin . How silly is that ? Of course the spiritually dead person sins . They have the freedom and ability to sin up a storm . It is RC's logic which is suspect here .

 

Hi samarelda,

I hope this comes across the right way. I have read criticisms of Calvinism before by people who genuinely understand and disagree with us. I have also read many, many criticisms of Calvinism by people who do not understand what we believe, and who do not argue in a way becoming a Christian. This article falls into the second category.

I am not sure that I have ever head of anyone who equates Calvinism with Gnosticism. That is simply ridiculous.

I went to the end of the article to see where the Spurgeon quote came from, and that's where I figured out the problem. Of the 27 footnotes recorded at the end of the article, 26 of them were either primary or secondary quotations from Dave Hunt's book "What Love is This?". The fellow doesn't even do his own research - he just quotes what someone else said that others said! I doubt there's a worse place you could go to learn about Calvinism than this.

Please, don't take my word for this. Do your own reading. Read Piper and Spurgeon and the others for yourself, and see whether they mix works and grace or whether they have been misrepresented. Here's a quote from Piper: "We are not teaching salvation by works when we say that in order to enter final salvation you must bear the fruit of the Spirit. All we are saying is what Paul says in Romans 8:14, 'All who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.'" You can go to www.desiringgod.org and search for "salvation by works" and see what comes up. Decide for yourself whether Piper is right or wrong.

 

Then you are just as lame as them as both are assertions are lies.

As a "free-willer" I believe that God makes the dynamic decision to save (Rom. 9:15) based on our humble (Lk 18:1-4) cry for mercy (Isa. 66:2) and choice to trust Christ and His Word. That is why in John 12:48 Jesus chides those that do not.

That is what's in line with most free will believers interpret the Scripture concern salvation. It is not just one or the other. At least not with Arminians.

 

Ron Comfort then has a go at Unconditional Election . He sticks with the subject-at-hand for the first two sentences . Then he has five statements which have nothing to do with Unconditional Election . He then summarizes ( ?!) with : " So there you have U, Unconditional Election . " Huh ? He hardly addressed it at all . So there you have it ?

" Then you have L , which is Limited Atonement . That simply means that Jesus died only for the elect ."

That is all Comfort says about Limited Atonement , no elaboration or refutation of the doctrine . I was really surprised . I thought he would launch into a John 3:16 or 1 Timothy 2:4 at least . But no , nothing .

 

Amen I agree. I will also add the the fruites of Calvinism where the many churches started in early America by Calvinistic Baptists, and the Great Awkening, and many of the large missionary movements of church history...

and above all- a great passion for the glory of God in all things. </font>[/QUOTE]Really, right or wrong (on calvinist issue) these two statements just show huge amounts of ignorance! They mis-represent the non calvinist veiw and are just opinions. And you know what they say about opinioins.

No where on this thread, or any other has anyone given man credit for salvation. Yes ignorant. self rightoues people continue to cry that calvinist is being mis represented then turn a deaf ear too what those who disagree with them say. And spout this crap. </font>[/QUOTE]Tim, calm down man, not need to use words like "crap".

You can't argue with historical fact Tim. What I said is true regarding early American chruch planting and missions.

And Calvinists do have a great passion for the glory of God that many times does surpass that of non-Calvinits. I have even heard non-Calvinists testify to this fact. I am NOT saying that a non-Calvinist cannot have a passion for God's glory, but I do believe that a proper understanding of the doctrines of grace leads one to a greater passion of God's glory in all things.

I love you as a brother in Christ (and fellow Pistons fan!! ) I do not think any less of a person who does not hold to the same understanding of the doctrines of grace as I.

God bless.

 

Okay, I get a little heated at times. And I try to apologize when I do. You will find there are a few. Is crap like a swear word on here. I can refrain from using it. Even with my limited vocabulary.



Tim

 

Then you are just as lame as them as both are assertions are lies.</font>[/QUOTE]I don't mind being called "lame". I've been called a lot worse. But do you have any idea what the word "lie" means? How about the word "opinion"?

 

Then Ron Comfort ventures into Irresistible Grace . He says : " How can ' grace ' be irresistible ? Anything imposed upon someone by a grace that is ' irresistable ' is not a gift received . If something is imposed upon you , without your desire to have it , I ask you , is that grace ? "

Again , I.G. is usually referred to as effectual calling . God gets who he had determined before the world was established . God the Holy Spirit melts hearts . People who are overcome by the Spirit of God -- quickened , as the KJV renders it , are not fighting God tooth and nail . He subdues them and their enmity . I really recoil when I hear that quote from C.S.Lewis that goes something like " I came kicking and fighting into the kingdom of God . " That's not how God operates . It is true that many of us can say that we WERE in opposition to the Lord , enemies toward Him . That is the testimony from Scripture . But at the point of regeneration there is no fight from the one God infallibly gets .He makes our hearts like flesh , whereas it was like stone before .There is no resistance , no struggle .It is , shall I say it ? -- Irresistable .

 

Then you are just as lame as them as both are assertions are lies.</font>[/QUOTE]I don't mind being called "lame". I've been called a lot worse. But do you have any idea what the word "lie" means? How about the word "opinion"? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, a lie is a falsehood re-packaged as a truth. A misrepresentation if you will. And my point was that both Calvinists and Arminians that spout those misrepresentations of the other side are either grossly ignorant of their opponent's beliefs, or they are lying in order to denigrate the other side with a straw-man argument in order to get some small victory.

Also then I suppose that the 'opinion' euphemism that you presented would have to fall into the ignorant category as a best case scenario.

 

"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." Acts 7:51

 

Brother, the Calvinist in me abhors any attempt to rob God of His glory. But I have to look at the heart attitude of each person, not just their theological system. I followed Arminian theology in the arena of soteriology from 1979-1998. But that didn't mean that I approached every area of theology from an Arminian perspective. Think about it, most Baptist's that believe man excercised free will in salvation bristle at being labled Arminians. An old pastor of mine characterized Arminians as those who believe you can lose your salvation. That certainly was one facet of Arminianism but not the only one.

I have found that what a person says they believe and how they live their lives are two different things. I know some godly Baptist Arminians who would fight me tooth and nail on the Calvinism issue but believe (with all their heart) in the "P" of TULIP.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I would rather tread carefully on examining the heart attitude of the individual even though I may discount or reject their theology.

 

Brother, the Calvinist in me abhors any attempt to rob God of His glory. But I have to look at the heart attitude of each person, not just their theological system. I followed Arminian theology in the arena of soteriology from 1979-1998. But that didn't mean that I approached every area of theology from an Arminian perspective. Think about it, most Baptist's that believe man excercised free will in salvation bristle at being labled Arminians. An old pastor of mine characterized Arminians as those who believe you can lose your salvation. That certainly was one facet of Arminianism but not the only one.

I have found that what a person says they believe and how they live their lives are two different things. I know some godly Baptist Arminians who would fight me tooth and nail on the Calvinism issue but believe (with all their heart) in the "P" of TULIP.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I would rather tread carefully on examining the heart attitude of the individual even though I may discount or reject their theology. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree with you in principle. But I have heard way too many free will preachers who not only teach that we are the ones who win souls, but they treat the process of soul-winning as if it depends entirely on how well you've been taught in the ways of soul-winning, and your success is measured almost as if you have to meet a quota. If you don't meet the quota, well, you must not be a good soul winner. IMO that's a total lack of faith in God, and a misplaced faith in man.

I have also heard way too many free will preachers teach absurd things like Jesus cannot return until we have preached the gospel to the whole world (re: the gospel will be preached to all nations and then the end will come). In other words, God is handcuffed by what we do or fail to do.

I could go on and on. I don't think it's true of everyone who believes in salvation by free will, but I do believe that free willism often does infect the theology and attitude of many way beyond the aspect of soteriology itself.

 

Must I go, and empty handed? Will there be any stars in my crown?


-- OR --


Nothing is my hands I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling.


I'll take door #2.

 

Comfort says that : " Calvinism incriminates the nature of God . Calvinists talk about the Soveriegnty ( sic ) of God . When they talk about the Sovereignty of God , they do not mean by that what we mean . They mean that God is the author of sin . I believe that incriminates His holiness . "

He then quotes some words from R.C.Sproul and Edwin Palmer to substantiate that . But since he takes the quotes from Hunt second-hand , I have my doubts about " their words . "

When Calvinists talk about God's sovereignty we mean a whole lot more than those of Comfort's persuasion . Not only is our view much more comprehensive , but it seems to be of a different species . The Lord ( the very word is suggestive ) is the grand orchestrator of all . Nothing escapes His notice . Nothing is out of His Divine control . Satan is on God's leash as Job one demonstrates . I hear Arminians (who don't claim to be)that Calvinists stress God's sovereignty too much . How is that possible ? Do you non-Calvinists want to elevate man's status even more than you do currently ? I recognize, of course , that the Bible is full of many doctrinal truths . All need to be studied , applied and taught as well as the precepts . God's sovereignty is not the only teaching of the Scripture . But I must say , if that is not firmly set down in your heart/mind you are obscuring a major theme in His Word . Match your words with their biblical meaning .

 

We know that James says:

We also know that John says:

In light of these two passages I pose a question: did God create sin? Did God create evil? Take pause before you answer too quickly. If you answer, "Yes. God did create evil and sin." then can it be said that God is not holy? Consequently, if God did not create evil and sin does that call into question God's omnipotence? How can something be created (evil or good) unless God created it?

I'm just posing the question.

 

Comfort says : " While I was preaching in Wisconsin, , a young man came to me and said , 'Brother Comfort ,do you preach that God hates sin and loves the sinner ? ' I said , ' I certainly do .' He said , ' Oh no, no , let me show you in the book of Psalms that God hates the sinner . '
Can you imagine even saying that ?... 'For forty-two years I've been preaching in evangelism that God loves the sinner , and I've seen thousands of them converted , so , I think I'll just keep preaching that God loves the sinner and hates the sin . ' "


Comfort puts his experience and personal philosophy before the Word of God . The student approached him with texts from Scripture and yet that was not good enough for Comfort -- it was too close for Comfort ( pun intended ) . Shouldn't you let the Bible speak , and not your philosophy/sentiment ?

Psalm 5:5,6 -- The arrogant cannot stand in your presence ; you hate all who do wrong . You destroy those who tell lies ; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the Lord abhors .[ God hates the people , not only the sin ]

Psalm 53:5 -- There they were , overwhelmed with dread , where there was nothing to dread . God scattered the bones of those who attacked you ; you put them to shame , for God despised them .

Psalm 73:20 -- As a dream when one awakes , so when you arise , O Lord , you will despise them [ wicked men ]as fantasies .

Proverbs 3:32 -- For the Lord detests a perverse man but takes the upright into his confidence .

Fundamentalism which does not stand on the Word of God is not really fundamental .