How Calvinists are like Charismatics

[preacher4truth]

I do not commonly consult commentaries, I only listed those to show you that many true scholars interpret Rev 3:20 to be a universal invitation of salvation to all men.

Spurgeon also believed this, Google "Spurgeon's Devotional on Revelation 3:20". Here Spurgeon says such things as "fling open the portal of your souls", "open your heart to him", "give the keys of your heart to him"... the kind of statements Calvinists often ridicule non-Cals for using. Search and see for yourself if you are really interested in knowing the truth.

Don't start getting twisted Winman. You're getting subjective here and now alluding that only "true" scholars are the ones who see things your way in Revelation 3:20.

Spurgeon was simpling using this as an invitation, it has been used so long that people think "interpretation" but, it is not. A devotional is typically application, surely you are aware of this?

You have this opinion that all calvinists are anti-evangelistic. I know plenty of "calvinists" that are quite evangelistic and would preach the same as Spurgeon, who also is a noted Calvinist. Not everyone who holds to the DoG are non-evangelistic. Including myself.

Do you use Bible Programs or not? Also, you should readily look at commentary from many different views.

- Peace

 

[Ruiz]

I do not commonly consult commentaries, I only listed those to show you that many true scholars interpret Rev 3:20 to be a universal invitation of salvation to all men.

Spurgeon also believed this, Google "Spurgeon's Devotional on Revelation 3:20". Here Spurgeon says such things as "fling open the portal of your souls", "open your heart to him", "give the keys of your heart to him"... the kind of statements Calvinists often ridicule non-Cals for using. Search and see for yourself if you are really interested in knowing the truth.

I love Spurgeon, but Spurgeon sees the Gospel call in almost every passage.

Let me point this out, to make charismatics similar to Calvinists based upon this passage is ridiculous. As noted, there are substantial reasons to base this verse on a call to the church. We can disagree with the interpretation and still walk away disagreeing with the premise of the original post which said:

In the same way Calvinists, have the Doctrine of salvation right, but are forced to slide over or twist or misinterpret Scripture, when it disagrees with their dogma.
-----------------------------
Here is a good example.

John Gill, is one of my favorite commentators, who I am sure to see in heaven one day; But I am forced to ignore “some” of his observations in Scripture, because he is a Calvinist.

Recently I read what he had to say about..........
Revelation 22:17
“And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”

Now it is clear, that this word “Come”, is an invitation for the unsaved to “come to the Lord”.
But John Gill being a good Calvinist, is forced by his theology(that denies man’s free will), to disagree with the Word of God.

This is a terrible example as noted throughout this discussion.

 

[TomVols]

Winman wrote:

Jesus was not speaking to this church only.

Rev 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Do you have an ear? Then Jesus was speaking to you.

I don't mean to pick on you, Winman, but here is a shining example of a major deficit in the church today. We start with a text and immediately move to "what does this mean to you?" It's subjective and allows for multiple meanings that never ask the fundamental question "What did the author intend to say?" As Alistair Begg famously said, we can't ask "What does this text mean to Cleveland?" before we ask "What did this text mean to Corinth?"

God's Word is far too precious to be haphazard about the way we handle it. Remember the three rules of interpretation: context, context, and context! :thumbs:

 

[TomVols]

Still,
I could equate Charismatics with KJVOs, dispensationalists, Arminians, etc., just the way you have with Calvinists. But why? It's just red herring after red herring. Got better things to do with my time. I appreciate your statement about being open to correction. Praise God for that. Consider those who are trying to do so lovingly.

 

[Winman]

Winman wrote: I don't mean to pick on you, Winman, but here is a shining example of a major deficit in the church today. We start with a text and immediately move to "what does this mean to you?" It's subjective and allows for multiple meanings that never ask the fundamental question "What did the author intend to say?" As Alistair Begg famously said, we can't ask "What does this text mean to Cleveland?" before we ask "What did this text mean to Corinth?"

God's Word is far too precious to be haphazard about the way we handle it. Remember the three rules of interpretation: context, context, and context! :thumbs:

And yet many recognized scholars agree with my interpretation.

But your point is a good one and shows why a certain person's insistence on studying the beliefs of scholars or following creeds is a problem, all scholars and creeds do not agree.

So, who are you going to believe, Gill's interpretation, or Barnes's interpretation? Which creed do you believe?

The only sure and reliable way to know correct doctrine is to study the scriptures and depend upon the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth as the scriptures promise (Jn 16:13). Relying on fallible men is in fact doubting Jesus's promise is it not?

 

[psalms109:31]

Scripture

If I was the messenger in the church that received that to give to the church I would take as needed to be spread out and not to keep in the church. I feel all scripture teaches the church to be an example to a dead world with the message of life. All scripture points to Jesus as the church should be doing.

 

[Winman]

Don't start getting twisted Winman. You're getting subjective here and now alluding that only "true" scholars are the ones who see things your way in Revelation 3:20.

Spurgeon was simpling using this as an invitation, it has been used so long that people think "interpretation" but, it is not. A devotional is typically application, surely you are aware of this?

You have this opinion that all calvinists are anti-evangelistic. I know plenty of "calvinists" that are quite evangelistic and would preach the same as Spurgeon, who also is a noted Calvinist. Not everyone who holds to the DoG are non-evangelistic. Including myself.

Do you use Bible Programs or not? Also, you should readily look at commentary from many different views.

- Peace

I was simply showing you that even many noted Calvinists believe Rev 3:20 was a universal invitation of salvation.

I did not say one word about Calvinists being evangelistic or not, I do not know where you got that from my posts. I am talking about the interpretation of this passage, nothing more.

I don't have any Bible programs on my computer, although I go online to Blue Letter Bible to look up verses, use a online KJB to copy and paste verses, and will go to several "Bible commentaries online" to look up various authors of commentaries. I rarely consult commentaries, when I do it is usually to show that my intepretations of scripture are very orthodox and held by noted scholars, such as I did in this case. I didn't form my opinion from them, they just happen to hold the same view.

 

[Skandelon]

Winman wrote: I don't mean to pick on you, Winman, but here is a shining example of a major deficit in the church today. We start with a text and immediately move to "what does this mean to you?" It's subjective and allows for multiple meanings that never ask the fundamental question "What did the author intend to say?" As Alistair Begg famously said, we can't ask "What does this text mean to Cleveland?" before we ask "What did this text mean to Corinth?"

God's Word is far too precious to be haphazard about the way we handle it. Remember the three rules of interpretation: context, context, and context! :thumbs:

I agree! But I wish people (especially Calvinistic ones) would apply this principle when approaching John 6. Every time I attempt to apply this basic rule of hermeneutics with regard to John's intent in chapter 6 I'm railed on as one who doesn't believe the scripture is to be applied to us today.

 

[Winman]

I agree! But I wish people (especially Calvinistic ones) would apply this principle when approaching John 6. Every time I attempt to apply this basic rule of hermeneutics with regard to John's intent in chapter 6 I'm railed on as one who doesn't believe the scripture is to be applied to us today.

Some folks abuse context, have you ever run into a hyper-dispensationalist?

1 Cor 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Here Paul was directly speaking of the Israelites who had tempted God and he sent fiery serpents among them. Paul explains that this passage in Numbers 21 applies to all believers, not just those OT Jews.

Some folks attempt to explain away scripture that applies to us by arguing context, that certain verses only applied directly to the persons mentioned in scripture. Sometimes this is true, but even when this is the case there is always a lesson and example for every believer.

 

[TomVols]

Skan wrote:

I agree! But I wish people (especially Calvinistic ones) would apply this principle when approaching John 6. Every time I attempt to apply this basic rule of hermeneutics with regard to John's intent in chapter 6 I'm railed on as one who doesn't believe the scripture is to be applied to us today.

I won't argue one moment that there are eisegetes on the Reformed side of the fence. But there are many on the other side, too. Shoddy hermeneutics is not the domain of any one soteriological camp

Wiman wrote:

And yet many recognized scholars agree with my interpretation.

You're missing the point. You aren't making an interpretation. You're making an application and calling it an interpretation. That's the problem. It's a huge one.

But your point is a good one and shows why a certain person's insistence on studying the beliefs of scholars or following creeds is a problem, all scholars and creeds do not agree.

I don't advocate anyone using a creed as a guide for interpretation as such. That said, a basic understanding of truth is necessary so one does not arrive at an interpretation that violates the overarching truth of God's Word. For instance, if someone believes a text teaches one can lose their salvation, they'd better check themselves because the rule of faith/analogy of Scripture doesn't agree with them. Nor would consensus. Thus, the value of studying others, which you selectively deride. Thank you for the complement about the point, however. I appreciate it.

So, who are you going to believe, Gill's interpretation, or Barnes's interpretation? Which creed do you believe?

Where did this come from? I didn't address any of these in my post vis-a-vis, hermeneutics

The only sure and reliable way to know correct doctrine is to study the scriptures and depend upon the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth as the scriptures promise (Jn 16:13). Relying on fallible men is in fact doubting Jesus's promise is it not?

No, it isn't. Fallible men preach every Sunday. Fallible men write commentaries and expositions. I disagree with your seeming assertion that fallible men could flummox the purposes and promises of Jesus by trying to expound the Word which is commanded in the Bible.

 

[Skandelon]

Skan wrote:

I won't argue one moment that there are eisegetes on the Reformed side of the fence. But there are many on the other side, too. Shoddy hermeneutics is not the domain of any one soteriological camp

I concede that point. :thumbs:

But, just so you know I bookmarked your post for the next time I get in a discussion about John 6.

 

[TomVols]

Don't think you and I have discussed it, have we? Maybe you're going to use me against other Reformed folks

That's okay. I'm not Reformed enough for some Reformed folks, and I'm too Reformed for many non-Reformed. I must be somewhere close to the truth then :type:

 

[Skandelon]

Don't think you and I have discussed it, have we? Maybe you're going to use me against other Reformed folks

No, you and I haven't discussed it to my recollection.

That's okay. I'm not Reformed enough for some Reformed folks, and I'm too Reformed for many non-Reformed. I must be somewhere close to the truth then :type:

Maybe. You certainly have a good spirit about you and I'm much more likely to learn from you because of it.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Stilllearning posted...

First of all, Charismatics(God love’m), appear to be very zealous, but they put “their man-made doctrine” above the Word of God.

They have the Doctrine of salvation right, but they are forced to “slide over” lot’s of Scripture, when it contradicts there traditions.

In the same way Calvinists, have the Doctrine of salvation right, but are forced to slide over or twist or misinterpret Scripture, when it disagrees with their dogma.

Agree completely. I notice it a lot. Holding to the doctrines men (actually A man) rather then the scriptures.

 

[Iconoclast]

Stilllearning posted...




Agree completely. I notice it a lot. Holding to the doctrines men (actually A man) rather then the scriptures.

Good post aic....:thumbs: I was going to go to church tommorow but there is a man there called a pastor who is going to teach and preach...but he is a man, so whatever he says will be the teaching of a man.....
so I will just go sit in a field somewhere and wait for a special light to lead me:thumbs: Oh wait...isn't that Joseph Smith's testimony?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Iconoclast...

Dont be silly. You know exactly what I meant.

 

[Iconoclast]

:laugh:

Iconoclast...

Dont be silly. You know exactly what I meant.

oh yes...I do:laugh::laugh::laugh:

And I think you caught my drift also!

 

[Winman]

double post

 

[Winman]

Stilllearning posted...

Agree completely. I notice it a lot. Holding to the doctrines men (actually A man) rather then the scriptures.

Acts 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether these things were so.

HOW DARE these evil Bereans question Paul! Who do they think they are, searching the scriptures to see if what Paul taught was true!

What's that? The scriptures say they were MORE NOBLE?

Nevermind!

 

[Winman]

?hturt eht gnillet si ohw wonk uoy od woH