Featured Killing Calvinism: How to Destroy a Perfectly Good Theology from the Inside

You only believe I have because you, as many Cals do, have equated TULIP with the very gospel of Jesus Christ. You make a theological pov into "Divine Truth". That is your own prerogative if you wish to do so. Just because you and a few other Calvinist view the theology in this way does not mean others are calling you unsaved by calling Calvinism "not backed by the Holy Spirit".

You will see testimonies of how "The Holy Spirit led me to embrace TULIP" as well as testimonies of how "The Holy Spirit led me to reject TULIP". As Webdog said, "now what?". I sincerely believe the Holy Spirit has caused me to reject TULIP as flawed thinking. I would think that from a Calvinist perspective you would agree, since Calvinist believe it takes the Holy Spirit to cause a person to believe anything. Thus, if one does not embrace TULIP, then one does not do so because the Holy Spirit has not caused them to believe it, for what ever reason be-known to God Himself. This Calvinism is stuck with, for it is part of the very theology preached by Calvinism.

 

The only way you can see my comments as an attack on one's salvation is to believe TULIP is the Gospel. If you do believe this, then it would be you attacking non-Cal's salvation for them not believing the Gospel, seeing TULIP and the Gospel being one in the same in your mind. Do you believe TULIP is the Gospel convicted1?

I personally believe a person can be saved and believe TULIP at the same time. Actually, if you hold to TULIP and the Gospel being one in the same, then you cannot say the same about those who reject TULIP but say they believe the Gospel. In Calvinism thought, one would be forced to privately (even if held back saying publically) believe the non Cal is lost for the very reason of the mind set of Calvinism, that is, if one is to believe something, then one must be caused to believe it by the Holy Spirit, and since the Holy Spirit is not causing all of these professing believers who say they do not believe TULIP is Truth to believe TULIP is Truth, then they must not believe the Gospel at all.

Calvinism kinda sticks you in a position that way. Unless you are willing to believe that TULIP and the Gospel are NOT one in the same. Your stuck, not me. I believe you are saved by the Gospel, not TULIP. What about you? Do you believe I am saved by the Gospel and not TULIP? Do you believe I can accept the Gospel and reject TULIP at the same time? If so, then you can only blame God for not causing me to believe TULIP, otherwise, you have to drop the equalizing of the two.

 

You know, you have an ax to grind....and it shows. Also if you know me you know that I do not categorize myself as a Calvinist. I dig as deep as anyone, question everything and constantly go the extra mile in order to understand my Christ whom I love dearly. You will not see me questioning someones salvation like I see many on here do. You should examine yourself to really take a look at just who is talking to you in your head....it might or might not be who you think it is.

 

Nope....Calvin is the face of calvinism and he ain't pretty.

Who is.....well Martyn Lloyd Jones, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, James Montgomery Boice, John Bunyan. Good men with God Centered minds and a good dose of humility.

 

I have an axe to grind?? I believe you are the one who has taken my comments to mean Calvinist/TULIP believers are lost. Correct? I also believe it is you who separates yourself from fellowship of anyone who does not accept TULIP as Divine Revelation, correct?

That's fine, if that makes you feel better. Calvin got the credit for the theology. Is what it is.

Same for me. And I will go a bit further with my love for Christ in that I will love my fellow brother and fellowship with them even if they have a theological view of Election that is different from mine.

I don't hear the Holy Spirit's voice in my head, it's about feeling the Holy Spirit convict and teach within my spirit when I ask Him to reveal Truth. As I said, He has yet to tell me in anyway that TULIP is correct, and according to TULIP teaching there is nothing I can do about that if He does not cause me to believe it, so you guys should not hold anything against us who have not been made to believe TULIP. Yet you do hold it against us, because you refuse to fellowship with us.

 

I never said it was confined. It is more prevalent. It is part and parcel with immaturity. A movement that has, as its majority demographic, 20 and 30-somethings has excluded itself from a generation of saints who have life wisdom.

 

Do some research on neo-Calvinism and RRR.

 

OH, so you forget that I go into pub and saloons to tell people about Christ, right.....and that's not fellowshiping....or are you like those who vilify me for having a beer with them. But you are correct, I'm not going into an Arminian church just because they do not think the way I believe or else I would have to tell people I disagree with them.....which I have done. Ive also been called a heretic by someone and he didn't appreciate my laughing out loud in his face.....oh well:laugh:

 

No thanks.....your the Calvinist and if they are invading your churches, at least they are comming in. Big deal, so teach them.

 

Nothing wrong with disagreements on the non-essentials. You do understand believing in TULIP is not an essential for being saved, and thus being a brother or sister in Christ, and thus fellowshipping with one another and loving one another. You fellowship with unbelievers so you can witness Christ to them, wonderful, as long as no sin is involved or ignored, yet you refuse to fellowship with a brother or sister in Christ who disagrees with TULIP. Does that even remotely sound just to you?? I believe it tis you brother who grinds the axe....:love2: you man!

 

I thank God that He predestined me to be a non-Cal!!

 

By your comments, you prove to me you know nothing about me or my fellowship activities, just as you are about as clueless about what a Calvinist is.

1st. I do NOT actively witness Christ to unbelievers (an unbeliever is non-elect) ...but if you are referring to the regenerate elect, to unregenerate elect, yes both & I do actively witness to them? It appears that you make no distinction whatever in the disposition of the non-elect and a regenerate elect person but I DO!

2nd-- I do not refuse to fellowship with any professing Christian who I disagree with....the fact is, I enjoy debating them.

On the whole though, you seem to judge of one's spiritual condition by his agreement or disagreement with yourself. So in that regard & frame of mind, it is you that come closer to being a Calvinist than I. How Ironic!:laugh:

 

No he predestined you to be one of the elect......the calvinist part is your own choice. You gotta get that right, lurkers are looking in!

 

I wonder if you might comment on the fact that many (most?) of that demographic (me included) likely looks to "older" people like MacArthur, Piper, Keller, Don Carson, Grudem...etc, at least as much, if not more than Driscoll and his ilk?

Perhaps that is only in my particular circles, and the majority of the YRR crowd is more driscoll-smitten than my close associates. I have really only known one person who REALLY saw (past tense) driscoll as a Go-to person to emulate...most of the one's I know value the Older calvinists more.

 

If he is the shape of things to come among the Calvies....I love it. But he is a bit of a charismatic right. But he certainly nailed the woosification of churches...that I can agree with completely.

 

As with all things there are exceptions. Those in the 20 or 30-something demographic that actually take the time study theology may share your point of view.

I have been exposed to plenty of individuals who fit neatly into the neo-Calvinist camp. These individuals are less concerned with Reformed theology as they are missiology, and specifically, evangelism. This is where the Driscoll's and Chandler's come into play. They would consider themselves Calvinists, but not in the historic sense of the term. They would even deviate from Spurgeon's use of the term.

The danger, as I see it, is that their churches are oriented to the younger set. I can see that as a valid area of ministry from an evangelism point of view. Certainly we should try to reach young adults with the Gospel. But when a church is made up completely of a young adults it robs the body of the much needed wisdom of older saints. This is where the "angry young Calvinist" is an apt description. "We don't don't want to be like those stodgy older Calvinists. We'll blaze our own path." That philosophy is just as counter productive as older Calvinists dismissing younger ones as upstarts. I see it all the time. And it is not just among Calvinists (although I see it though that lens more because I am a Calvinist).

 

Yes I can see where you are between a MacCarther and a Deaver....quite a pickle to be in. Let us Old Schoolers try to help.....we can take some of the elderly off your hands and the YRR (Young Restless and Respectfull)

 

I like my pickles dill, on a corn beef on rye sandwich with deli mustard.

 

And Jesus' disciples made this distinction also, and the Apostles? Do you have a biblical example? Or did you create this distinction yourself? So what does this look like? Do you ask a person if they are an unbeliever before you say anything about Jesus Christ to them, just to make sure you are not witnessing to an unbeliever?