I Would Like to Opine Regarding Calvinism that...

[jne1611]

I looked to see if this bloke was a pastor. Thankfully not, but he is a pilot and I think I just gave up flying.

Cheers,

Jim

Amen to that! I am with you!

 

[jne1611]

Well I replied with no, but it said my answer was too short. Read John 6:37

Amen to that. My thought exactly. Those given come to Christ!

 

[jne1611]

==I must say that I have never seen a "classical" Calvinist confess the beliefs you outlined in either one of your posts. And before you say that I don't know what I am talking about, or something like that, I spend alot of time studying church history, historical theology, and reformed theology. Now there maybe some self proclaimed "Calvinists" who believe the things you outlined but they would be in the minority. Btw, can you give the names of mainstream, classical Calvinists who believe the things you outlined? Names and biographical information would be best.

I see from your public profile that you attend Bellevue Baptist. I must assume this is the church that was pastored by the late Adrian Rodgers? If this is the case I would like to say two things. (1) Adrian Rodgers was "generally" a great preacher. I have many of his sermons on CD (etc). (2) Adrian Rodgers, like Falwell, Vines, Graham, Caner, and others, had a poor understanding of the doctrines of Calvinism. His sermon(s) on this issue were some of his worst. Often these men misrepresent, misunderstand, over-simplify, and just generally get Calvinism wrong. So if your Bellevue is the Bellevue I am thinking of I am not all that surprised at your posts.

You said:
1) Some kind of salvation for infants through baptism (like RCC),

What Calvinist believes in baptismal salvation?


2) regeneration/indwelling by the Spirit BEFORE faith ( thus enabling one to believe),

What Calvinist believes that the Holy Spirit indwells lost people?

3) claims that we can do nothing to be saved (going even so far as to imply fate vs. free will in every event that happens in this world. Makes me wonder whether we are "able" do anything about any situation we face in life.),

You can't do anything to be saved. Salvation is by grace through faith apart from works, so that no man may boast (Eph 2:8-9, Rom 4:4-5, Jn 3:14-18, etc). As for daily life you can do what you want, but your "want" is ensalved to someone. Either the devil and sin (if you are lost) or God (if you are saved). No human has total free-will. As for salvation it was Jesus who said that "ALL" that the Father gives Him "WILL" come to Him (Jn 6:37-39, 10:26-31, 17:1-3). There is such thing as "election", and there is nothing hap-hazard (sp?) about it either. Election is based on God's will, plan, and purpose. Those He has elected "will" come to Christ (period).


4) decry that a "decision" we make following belief in the gospel saves us (in fact, claim that to believe is to have faith and both are "gifts" of God),

Both are gifts of God (Eph 2:8-9).


5) claim that we don't choose God, He chooses us (ergo, totally negating the "salvation model" given in 1Cor 15:1-4).

Of course Paul never states that people choose God, in fact in Romans 3 he says the exact opposite. I believe it was the Lord Jesus Himself who said we did not choose Him but rather He chose us. Since I am not at my computer I don't know the verse off the top of my head, but I believe it can be found in either John 15 or 17.


Now I know as well that some of you THINK you are Calvinists without having investigated any of this.

O, I have investigated this.

Believe me, if you are saved, you're not going to pay attention too much to how they say you got there.

I don't agree with that statement.

Good Post.:thumbs:

 

[jne1611]

Yeah, seen that. They recite the Apostle's Creed every Sunday as a kinda "sign" that they have the unity of the Spirit" spoken of in Eph 4 -- that they are saved. The believe without ever having actually RECEIVED salvation per 1Cor 15.

Oh, I'm real careful around them. My "model" is hear - BELIEVE (these are available to ALL, as scripture says) - repent and RECEIVE (faith, regeneration, spirtual gifts, eternal life). Hearing, believing, and receiving are things WE need to do. God does the rest as we obey Him in sanctifying works.

Conflict -- WE RECEIVE Christ. There is an God-ordained accepted response to the gospel and that is to appropriate Christ's work to our lives.

And God chose ALL of us -- He foreknew who would choose Him is how we know who He saves. This it a key issue on which Calvinism is ignorant -- How does God choose whom He chooses. How can you have a theology when the critical question is left unanswered??? You can't! What you have is a theory or false religion, wouldn't you say??

Good, when is it?

That's my point, larry, these people THINK God is sanctifying them. He's NOT. They're NOT SAVED.

skypair

Hello skypair,
Give one Scripture to substantiate the claim that God chooses who He foreknows will choose Him. To my recollection there is not 1 verse, even half of a verse that says God chose the elect because of foreknown choice or faith. The Scripture only identifies the individual as chosen, not what they are, or are not going to do. If God based His choice on just what He saw without His intervention, we would all be in trouble.
Psa 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

 

[jne1611]

typically, the recite the creed as an affirmation of doctrine, not salvation.

Really? And how do you know that?

There is no doubt that we need to hear, believe, and receive. That is standard Calvinistic doctrine. Some hyper Calvinists, such as Primitive Baptists, deny this, but Calvinism does not.

Where is the conflict? Calvinism teaches this.

Actually he doesn’t.

The “critical question” is not unanswered. The Bible says he chooses us to magnify his grace (Eph 1 – that we should be to the praise of the glory of his grace).

When they call on the name of the Lord.

And how do you know that?

I think we are seeing further confirmation that you are not talking about Calvinism, and that you have a hyper judgmental spirit about who is saved and who is not.

I like that! Amen! Amen! Amen!

 

[jne1611]

Hummm. It seems like the Calvinist on this thread, were right after all.

Yes. I think the particular Baptist's denounced duty faith, till Andrew Fuller & William Carey took up the preaching of it. I may be wrong, but I believe most of what were called Particular & Strict Baptist's did not believe in gospel offers. I had a preacher of that sort come to our church & get very aggravated at a message I preached from Rom. 1.

 

[Allan]

Here is some more information on Hyper-Calvinism from Strange Baptist fire which is an off shoot of the Founders blog.

Sometimes, folks like to point to supralapsarianism and say that this is the essence of hyper-Calvinism. There are several problems with this. First, of all supras and infras both affirm the TULIP, double predestination, etc. All hypers are supras, but the majority of supras are not hypers...snip...
The anti-missions movement is sometimes attributed to the rise of hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism, as such has a historical definition. Most Calvinists reject this doctrine. It says one or more of the following :

• that God is the author of sin and of evil
• that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
• that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
• that it is wrong to evangelize
• that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
• that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do
• that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others
• that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned
• that God does not command everyone to repent
• that the sacraments are not means of grace, but obstacles to salvation by faith alone.
• that the true church is only invisible, and salvation is not connected with the visible church
• that the Scriptures are intended to be interpreted by individuals only and not by the church.
• that no government is to be obeyed which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord, or that Biblical Law is its source of authority
• that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men
• that saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination
• that only Calvinists are Christians (Neo-Gnostic Calvinism)

It is undeniable that at least some of those involved in the anti-missions movement fell into this category. At its root, hyper-Calvinism denies the concept of “duty faith,” the obligation of all men, both elect and reprobate, to repent and believe. Historic Calvinism does not deny this. Furthermore, some hyper-Calvinists asserted that persons must look for a warrant to believe, which amounts to an attempt to peer into the sovereign decree of God, very like those today who advocate a similar idea by saying we must gauge the individual will of God on the basis of lining up the various signposts in our lives. Ergo, these groups had an inbuilt proclivity to deny the use of means, viewing them suspiciously as aids to conversion On the other hand, some did not fall into this category, appealing to a biblical literalism, insisting that, because these new societies did not reflect the biblical pattern as they saw it, they were to be rejected.

Written by Gene M. Bridges

 

[whatever]

Here is some more information on Hyper-Calvinism from Strange Baptist fire which is an off shoot of the Founders blog. . .

Hmmm, nothing there about infant baptism. How about that.

Good find, Allan. Thanks for that post.

 

[Allan]

Well it is true that Historic Calvinism did hold to infant baptism but I'm not sure on the date it changed course for some and who anymore hold it if any.

Side Note: I have found in any of my resouses per-say that state the infant baptism was a sourse of salvation. I'm not sure why it was continued but it may be the reason was it was eventually removed.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Infant baptism (actually sprinkling rather than baptism) is viewed by covenantalists as the NT equivalent of OT circumcision. It was a "sign of hte covenant." It does not have saving significance.

However, that has nothing to do with soteriological Calvinism. Calvinism, broadly speaking, included those who believed in infant sprinkling, amill, etc. But soteriological Calvinism is usually in view in the CvA discussion.

 

[skypair]

Hello skypair,
Give one Scripture to substantiate the claim that God chooses who He foreknows will choose Him. To my recollection there is not 1 verse, even half of a verse that says God chose the elect because of foreknown choice or faith.

First -- sorry about my rant. Rom 8:29 -- "For whom He did foreknow, them He did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son." OK, what IS it the God foreknows? The number of hairs on your head, right? Did He have to make a decision on how many He would put there or could He just KNOW it? He did foreknow it, right? He didn't "love" every Christian so much that He gave them all lots of hair, did He? He was omniscient and He theefore KNEW how many hairs the elect and non-elect alike would have.

Same with belief. He didn't, as some claim, love only those He chose. Scripture says He "so loved the world!" What He did, then, was foreknow who would believe and then predestinate them to His purposes.

Calsinists say that freewillers limit omniscience to prescience without determination. In this instance, that could be the case -- but Calvinists take away God's omniscience by saying that He couldn't know if He didn't predetermine those who would be "elect" which they equate with the saved.

If God based His choice on just what He saw without His intervention, we would all be in trouble.

Another false claim relying on a restrictive definition -- of total depravity meaning total inability. Scripture says we are all sinners. It does NOT say this precludes us from choosing God in the same manner that we choose a menu selection at Abuelo's. It does NOT say any are incapable of "hearing."

In fact, if you study Rom 3:22 and Gal 3:22, you will see that God gives faith to those who believe. He doesn't give belief, though. Read Rom 4:5. So if, perchance, you heard the preaching of the gospel, you or anyone could be moved by the Spirit that accompanies the word of truth to believe -- and if you believed you would obey and receive Christ.

Notwithstanding your lovely verses, they are not the whole counsel of God. They are words that seem to substantiate Calvinism but I notice that they do not have the Spirit of what the rest of scripture has when interpretted by Calvinist theology.

I wonder if on the one hand scripture says "whoseoever believeth on Him should have eternal life" has the same Spirit as "he that doeth the truth cometh to the light." Doesn't the latter imply someone who is already saved? So how can you say that only the "elect" come to the truth if they are not saved yet?

skypair

 

[skypair]

Infant baptism (actually sprinkling rather than baptism) is viewed by covenantalists as the NT equivalent of OT circumcision. It was a "sign of hte covenant." It does not have saving significance.

See, this is one place I believe the laity are often confused. If you lay down that baptism = circumcision, then you posit the idea that the chosen of God (Israel) = "elect." And since the "elect" are saved regardless, MANY if not most, laity will assume their salvation through baptism (which I surmise is quite alright with most of the clergy seeing it is quite "prickly" business telling people whom you told were "in covenant with God" by baptism that they are lost :tear: ).

The chosen of God does equal "elect" but they were chosen and elect FOR A PURPOSE -- NOT to salvation! Do you see what I mean? Practical Calvinism is largely like Catholicism in this way -- if you are a member of the church (baptized and, for RCC, observe the other sacraments), you are assumed to be saved unless you prove by your "works" that you are not. JM Boice for this reason says that the ONLY way we can know we are saved is by "living a holy life." Whatever that means, it sounds the same as Catholicism to me.

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

If you lay down that baptism = circumcision, then you posit the idea that the chosen of God (Israel) = "elect."

No you don't. First, there is a theological error since baptism is not equal to circumcision. Second, the nation of Israel was the elect of God as a nation, and some of the nation of Israel were the elect of God in salvation.

And since the "elect" are saved regardless,

Regardless of what??? The elect must believe to be saved, and must hear the gospel to believe, and must be preached to to hear the gospel, and therefore must have preachers sent to them.

MANY if not most, laity will assume their salvation through baptism (which I surmise is quite alright with most of the clergy seeing it is quite "prickly" business telling people whom you told were "in covenant with God" by baptism that they are lost :tear: ).

Many people believe that they are saved through baptism. That is not a Calvinist/Arminian issue. Secondly, if you understand what Presbyterians believe about infant baptism, they have no problem telling people who are baptized that they are lost. You should do a little reading on this.

The chosen of God does equal "elect" but they were chosen and elect FOR A PURPOSE -- NOT to salvation!

Do you see what I mean?

No, I don't see what you mean. The Bible says they were chosen to salvation. That was the purpose, with all that salvation entails.

Practical Calvinism is largely like Catholicism in this way -- if you are a member of the church (baptized and, for RCC, observe the other sacraments), you are assumed to be saved unless you prove by your "works" that you are not. JM Boice for this reason says that the ONLY way we can know we are saved is by "living a holy life." Whatever that means, it sounds the same as Catholicism to me.

Then you need to learn some about Catholicism and Calvinism. As far as living a holy life, that is what the Bible teaches. We are assured of our salvation by the lives that we live.

 

[jne1611]

First -- sorry about my rant. Rom 8:29 -- "For whom He did foreknow, them He did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son." OK, what IS it the God foreknows? The number of hairs on your head, right? Did He have to make a decision on how many He would put there or could He just KNOW it? He did foreknow it, right? He didn't "love" every Christian so much that He gave them all lots of hair, did He? He was omniscient and He theefore KNEW how many hairs the elect and non-elect alike would have.

Same with belief. He didn't, as some claim, love only those He chose. Scripture says He "so loved the world!" What He did, then, was foreknow who would believe and then predestinate them to His purposes.

Calsinists say that freewillers limit omniscience to prescience without determination. In this instance, that could be the case -- but Calvinists take away God's omniscience by saying that He couldn't know if He didn't predetermine those who would be "elect" which they equate with the saved.

Another false claim relying on a restrictive definition -- of total depravity meaning total inability. Scripture says we are all sinners. It does NOT say this precludes us from choosing God in the same manner that we choose a menu selection at Abuelo's. It does NOT say any are incapable of "hearing."

In fact, if you study Rom 3:22 and Gal 3:22, you will see that God gives faith to those who believe. He doesn't give belief, though. Read Rom 4:5. So if, perchance, you heard the preaching of the gospel, you or anyone could be moved by the Spirit that accompanies the word of truth to believe -- and if you believed you would obey and receive Christ.

Notwithstanding your lovely verses, they are not the whole counsel of God. They are words that seem to substantiate Calvinism but I notice that they do not have the Spirit of what the rest of scripture has when interpretted by Calvinist theology.

I wonder if on the one hand scripture says "whoseoever believeth on Him should have eternal life" has the same Spirit as "he that doeth the truth cometh to the light." Doesn't the latter imply someone who is already saved? So how can you say that only the "elect" come to the truth if they are not saved yet?

skypair

1st of all. All you gave to my request for Scripture to substantiate your claim, was opinion. As even free - willers know, there is no Scripture that says God foreknew who would believe, but the Scripture says "whom" he foreknew. God foreknew the individual.

2nd I agree God gives faith. Faith = belief. God gives faith. So to say God gives faith & not belief is a contradiction.
3rd. John 3:21 contrasts believers with unbelievers. Those who come to the light, come to be saved. The Light is Christ! You have yet to give the whole counsel of God. Why in Chapter one John makes it clear that those who received him, did it not by motivation produced by the will of man, but, they were born of God.