Need A True Explaination of Calvinism

[psalms109:31]

Calvinism

calvinism is a man made religion, we are no longer in a religion, but in a relationship with God. Being in Christ freed us from religion and into a relationship with God.To enter is to trust in Jesus not your own understanding and He will direct your path.
God can not be put in a box and sold to men.

We have a fire in us and His name is Jesus and men like to put it out.

People like pink try to change the word of God like meaning of world to thier own understanding and does not trust in the Lord and what He has said.

You don't have to be a calvinist to be His, just trust in Jesus and let Him lead you.

Hebrews 7:18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

Proverbs 29:25
Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe.

 

[Jarthur001]

I don't have to give "support" for anything, nor did my post warrant a need to do so. The op asked for a meaning of calvinism. I supplied that. Nothing strawman about any of that. The only strawmen I see are coming from you.

Webdog,

I will gladly back any of my statements the best I can. This is part of a debate. But for one to just post words with no support is no debate at all. It means nothing.

If you want me to back up my claims, and I will not, you can call my statement a strawman....for wild claims mean nothing with no support.

I hope I have never done this. Yet I know it could have.

But when you post something..and others ask for details...and you say no way. What would you call this?

 

[webdog]

I will gladly back any of my statements the best I can. This is part of a debate. But for one to just post words with no support is no debate at all. It means nothing.

I'm sorry, I missed where the op was looking for debate. I thought he was looking for information.

But when you post something..and others ask for details...and you say no way. What would you call this?

Sticking to the OP

Oh, and in regards to the op, Pastor Timothy, follow the "how dare you" thread going on in the general baptist discussion for a darker inside look into what calvinism is, or rather, can lead to....

Originally Posted by pinoybaptist
If the Lord will raise His man, He will raise His man from the local folks, He don't need to send the "white" man to educate the natives in His ways.

:tear: God is Love, right James?

 

[Jarthur001]

I'm sorry, I missed where the op was looking for debate. I thought he was looking for information.

Sticking to the OP

Oh, and in regards to the op, Pastor Timothy, follow the "how dare you" thread going on in the general baptist discussion for a darker inside look into what calvinism is, or can lead to....
:tear: God is Love, right James?

indeed God is love.

Being that you brought this up..

and you posted this...

follow the "how dare you" thread going on in the general baptist discussion for a darker inside look into what calvinism is, or can lead to....

Originally Posted by pinoybaptist
If the Lord will raise His man, He will raise His man from the local folks, He don't need to send the "white" man to educate the natives in His ways.

What do you mean by..."darker inside look into what calvinism"
Are you saying what pinoybaptist posted is the darker view? Are you also saying this does not show Gods love...when you asked...God is love...right james?

What do you mean..."can lead to"?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Webdog, If the OP was looking for an explanation of Calvinism, then you hijacked the thread by posting stuff from that website. That is not a true explanation of Calvinism. BTW, Webdog, I don't think Pinoybaptist will claim to be a Calvinist. If I recall correctly (and pinoybaptist can correct me if I have him confused with someone else) he is a primitive baptist who rejects Calvinism because Calvinism believes that faith is necessary for salvation. In other words, he rejects Calvinism just as you do, but unlike you, he understands what Calvinism teaches about duty faith.

Pastor Timothy, Over the past several years, Webdog has shown us that he does not know what Calvinism really is. I and others have had countless experiences with him and he simply refuses to let Calvinists define their own belief. The posts of Russell55 and JArthur will be very helpful to you in understanding soteriological Calvinism regardless of whether you end up agreeing or not. As I often say, I have no problem with what another believes about Calvinism or Arminianism, but please at least know what they say for themselves.

 

[webdog]

Pastor Timothy, Pastor Larry has on numerous occasions been less than honest about what I believe, as he has done here. He doesn't explain "what calvinism teaches" when called out, but will continue to tell others that they don't know what calvinism teaches. He does this constantly with anyone who doesn't agree with him (unless they are a calvinist who believes regeneration precedes faith). It's quite comical, as you can see by the dishonest statement of me hijacking your thread.

BTW, Pastor Larry, I didn't hijack this thread. He asked for an explanation, and I gave him one from outside of the TULIP box. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, or even think it's untruthful and heretical, that is you opinion only. He didn't only ask for calvinists' definition of what calvinism is, so you have no right in stating I hijacked his thread. Calvinism isn't infallible. You have hijacked his thread by coming on here to troll, to cause conflict, and to speak down to me, as I have come to expect.

BTW, I have never seen Pinoybaptist reject calvinism. Hyper calvinism has the word calvinism in it for a reason.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Pastor Timothy, Pastor Larry has on numerous occasions been less than honest about what I believe,

If this is so, then why have you failed to point it out? I have been able to give clear documented evidence that you have been dishonest about what I believe. But everytime I ask you for evidence that I have been dishonest about what you believe, you fail to give it.

He doesn't explain "what calvinism teaches" when called out,

Of my 16000+ posts, the majority are probably explaining what calvinism teaches.

but will continue to tell others that they don't know what calvinism teaches. He does this constantly with anyone who doesn't agree with him

No I don't. I do it with anyone who doesn't know what Calvinism teaches. I don't care whether you agree with me.

BTW, Pastor Larry, I didn't hijack this thread. He asked for an explanation, and I gave him one from outside of the TULIP box.

But he wanted "true Calvinism" explained. Those articles do not explain true Calvinism.

He didn't only ask for calvinists' definition of what calvinism is,

But it would be easiest and safest to get an explanation of "true Calvinism" from a Calvinist. After all, we do know what we believe. You have shown that you do not.

You have hijacked his thread by coming on here to troll, to cause conflict, and to speak down to me, as I have come to expect.

I have never talked down to you. I don't desire to cause conflict. I simply point out the truth.

BTW, I have never seen Pinoybaptist reject calvinism. Hyper calvinism has the word calvinism in it for a reason.

Yes, because it goes past Calvinism.

So Webdog, if you think I have been dishonest about what you believe, then show us where. Let me take a look at it. Otherwise, stop making that false charge. I have shown very clearly that you do not know what calvinism teaches. I have proven it with links to your own words. As I pointed out, the only alternative to you not knowing what Calvinism teaches is you being deliberately dishonest about it, since you would know what Calvinism teaches and misrepresent it anyway. I choose not to think you are deliberately dishonest, though it is admittedly hard sometimes. I simply think you are untaught, and apparently unwilling to learn.

So let this be the end of your tactics.

 

[Pipedude]

Here's a good explanation of Calvinism

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=855651&postcount=6

written by a famous theologian last September.

 

[DHK]

Webdog, If the OP was looking for an explanation of Calvinism, then you hijacked the thread by posting stuff from that website. That is not a true explanation of Calvinism..... but unlike you, he understands what Calvinism teaches about duty faith.

..., Over the past several years, Webdog has shown us that he does not know what Calvinism really is.

Larry, state your position in refutation of the other person's position. Personal attacks are against the rules. You have in so many words called Webdog ignorant. Further posting as such may be deleted. If you can't post without attacking the person then stay away from it.

 

[skypair]

Even though I fill a pulpit...I guess I am "back-woods" when it comes to church contraversy these days. Can anyone give me a true meaning of Calvinism?

Hi, Tim, :wavey:

Calvinism is a very contentious issue in Christianity. Predestination is the first word that comes to mind when Calvinism comes up. Do you believe some people are predestined to salvation?? Or did God first foreknow that some people would believe?

The second word is soverignty. Does God control every single decision we make, including our decisions to sin? Or does He give us those choices and retain His sovereignty over the consequences of our free choices (most of which He has already revealed how He will react)?

Do you believe in salvation of soul, spirit, and body? Or does your theology contemplate, like Calvinism, only spirit and body?

Now the big test -- TULIP. If you know nothing about Calvinism, then you need to know about...

- Total Depravity (actually, total inability of anyone to choose Christ)

- Unconditional Election (nothing man can "do"/believe causes God to save the someone)

- Limited Atonement (Christ died only for some people - the "elect")

- Irresistible Grace (the "elect" can't resist the call to salvation)

- Perserverance of the Saints (sorta like OSAS but not called "Preservation of the Saints" as free will believes -- perhaps you can figure the difference out yourself?).

Do you believe in dispensations? At least the division in God's plan of Israel and the church? Calvin doesn't.

Do you believe in the pretrib rapture? Calvinism is amil or postmil usually.

skypair

 

[RichardJS]

Do you believe some people are predestined to salvation?

2Th 2:13 "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"

Act 13:48 "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

2Ti 1:9 "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:"

:thumbsup:

 

[pinoybaptist]

2Ti 1:9 "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:"

And there in one Scripture is the purpose and definition of missions, as opposed to the purpose and definition advocated today.

"hath saved us" - past tense. established fact. done. finished. already saved.

"given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" - the lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world. Ephesians says all who are His are (positionally) seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. All who were chosen, slain in Christ Jesus, before the world began, positionally, just as Paul states he was (positionally) crucified with Christ. All who are to be redeemed, already redeemed in Christ from eternity's perspective, washed in the blood of the Lamb from eternity's perspective, and redeemed by Christ at the cross (now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior, Jesus Christ).

"and hath brought life and immortality to light". what brought life and immortality to life ? The gospel. It did not bring light. In its light, life and immortality is manifested. The hearer responds because the gospel is for him, he has life and immortality from His Savior. It does not save. It declares the salvation of God to those for whom it is intended. The addressee not hearing the gospel does not negate the fact that he has light and immortality, the gift of eternal life, from his God and Savior.

What a mighty God we have !!

 

[RichardJS]

It declares the salvation of God to those for whom it is intended.

I think we will get along just fine

 

[Jarthur001]

Do you believe in dispensations? At least the division in God's plan of Israel and the church? Calvin doesn't.

Do you believe in the pretrib rapture? Calvinism is amil or postmil usually.

skypair

Say what? I'm sorry, but this has no truth at all to it.

Dispensationalism was 1st preached by Calvinist. John Nelson Darby was the father Dispensationalism.

John Nelson Darby was born in 1800 in London. He was the nephew of Henry Darby, a naval commander who fought with Admiral Horatio Nelson in the battle of the Nile in 1798. Educated in Ireland, John Darby was schooled in hopes that someday he would become a lawyer. Instead, Darby took a path of his own. In 1825, he became a priest in the Anglican Church of Ireland.

Priesthood in the Anglican Church proved distressing for Darby. He was concerned about the state of the church. He saw the connection between the political state, royalty and the church as too intrusive. Darby was convinced that the church was in a state of ruin because it had become faithless. He did not believe that the church could be trusted to interpret the Scriptures because it was godless. Darby was also know to be a staunch Calvinist. He therefore was not widely accepted into the religious or academic world, especially in his focus towards America. His old-fashioned viewpoints were out of tune with the American way of thinking towards perfectionism. Because of Darby’s beliefs, and his lack of confidence in the Modern Age, he resigned his holy order in 1828.

Found in this link..
http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/religionet/endtimes/bio.htm

also please read this..
http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/Biographies/jndarby.html

Scofield and the Scofield Bible was what help spread Dispensational teachings. Scofield was a member of a Presbyterian Church, in St. Louis, which dispensationalist premillennialist and CALVINIST!!. In 1883 Scofield was ordained as a Congregationalist..and still was a Calvinist!!
*****
It is Covenant theology and not Calvinism in which you speak of. Covenant theology is held by both Calvinist and non-Calvinist. As is dispensational theology....held by both.

 

[Repairman Jack]

Begin with the question "Which comes first: (logically if not in time) faith or being born again?"

Your answer will, in large part, set your feet on the path one way or the other, toward biblical truth or Arminian error.

 

[Repairman Jack]

"Calvinist" has become a slander. It is often applied to men who belonged, at least in some degree to denominations and churches which at some point may have made claim to being Reformed or Calvinistic.

I have heard it said that since Finney began as a Presbyterian, he too was a Calvinist.:laugh:

It cannot be disputed that Darby was monergistic in his soteriology or that Scofield was a Congregationalist, but neither do a Calvinist make.

It is best to let the adherents of a particular doctrine define what constitutes association with them rather than listening to the opinions of men who haven't got a dog in the fight, or, worse, may be more interested in libel than in truth.

I am content to accept adherence to the five points to be the bare minimum.

If you could show me where either Darby or Scofield confessed these I'd be happy to read it. Until then I refuse to recognize either of them as Calvinist in any taxonomically meaningful way.

 

[skypair]

Well,...

...I see brother Timothy has "fled the scene" so...

let's talk about him while he's not looking! :laugh:

No. RichardJS -- night as well read this verse like this: "...chosen you to salvation through ... belief of the truth:" That's what it takes, wouldn't you agree?

Or this: "and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Was it believers who received eternal life? or was it the "ordained?"

"Who hath saved us, ... according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,..." Were we saved before the world began? Was grace given us before the world began? If so, we were NEVER among the "totally depraved," now were we? On the other hand, if God FOREKNEW that we would receive grace and salvation on account of our belief -- wouldn't that make more sense with the rest of scripture?

pinoy -- then there is really nothing left for us to do now is there?? Kinda like a car between two semi's -- in the "rocking chair" already! Let's just kinda "hang out" till we die, eh?

JArthur -- News Flash! It was once "cool" to be called "Calvinist." It was once VERY UNCOOL to be called Arminian. So "ditto" for Scoffield! ---> Think about it. Another news flash! Darby seems to have been complaining about the church-state fornication -- something that Calvin helped etablish in Geneva!!

skypair

 

[skypair]

Begin with the question "Which comes first: (logically if not in time) faith or being born again?"

Your answer will, in large part, set your feet on the path one way or the other, toward biblical truth or Arminian error.

Jack -- you ARE the REPAIRMAN!! You'd make a good freewiller if you would follow Darby and Scofield!

skypair

 

[Jarthur001]

...I see brother Timothy has "fled the scene" so...



JArthur -- News Flash! It was once "cool" to be called "Calvinist." It was once VERY UNCOOL to be called Arminian. So "ditto" for Scoffield! ---> Think about it. Another news flash! Darby seems to have been complaining about the church-state fornication -- something that Calvin helped etablish in Geneva!!

skypair

NEWSFLASH??? Cool to be Calvinist?? That is beyond strange.
Your saying Scofield just lied about his mission statement? Do you know of any Presbyterian that are not Calvinist? Maybe all the Calvinist were fibbing throughout the years...because it was cool.

Get real. :BangHead:

Maybe you didn't see the 11:00 update..


For those that care about the facts and chose not to live in a dreamland, Scofield was indeed Calvinist. Any one that knows history would agree. So it is you my friend that is wrong, in not knowing, or willfully mislead. Calvinist were the founders of dispensationalism. Why anyone would disagree, is only to show bias in doctrine, or show they have not a clue what they are talking about.



I have a idea. Lets look at www.scofield.org which is the very Church that Dr Scofield built. Maybe they would know the history. Or maybe they changed it to be cool. One way or another..I will take their word for it.

As a denomination, the Congregational church subscribed to the covenant theology of the Heidelberg Catechism, a catechism that had been in use since 1563 by many denominations that had roots to the Protestant Reformation. It is basically an exposition of the Apostle's Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord's Prayer. Not surprisingly, the original doctrinal statement of First Congregational Church was a simple one-page creed that was adapted almost verbatim from the Apostle's Creed with one statement from the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

We believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried; the third day He arose from the dead; He ascended in heaven and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. We believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy church universal; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen!
We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Word of God, and the only infallible rule offaith and practice.

Another historic feature of congregationalism was Calvinism. Congregationalists were similar to Presbyterians because they had the same Calvinism and basic Reformed theology of the Puritans. Except for baptism and church organization, there was little difference between Congregationalists and Presbyterians.

It is interesting to note that two of Scofield's most prominent four pastors — Lewis Sperry Chafer and Harlin Roper — were ordained Presbyterian ministers. Pastor Scofield was ordained in this church, but after he left the pastorate here he joined the Southern Presbyterian Church and transferred his ordination credentials to that denomination. This Presbyterian connection continues to the present day, for our current pastor, Matthew St. John, grew up in the Presbyterian Church of America denomination and graduated from a Presbyterian college before receiving his Masters of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary.

Scofield Memorial Church has the same basic doctrinal framework today as it had in 1877. The church still believes the doctrine passed down in the ancient creeds, and the church still has a Calvinist theology.

http://www.scofield.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=84&limit=1&limitstart=1

 

[Jarthur001]

Another news flash! Darby seems to have been complaining about the church-state fornication -- something that Calvin helped etablish in Geneva!!

skypair

And yet another update.

This has nothing to do with the facts.

FACT: Darby was a Calvinist. Maybe you don't like this fact, but the fact remains.

For example, Darby wrote:

If the Savior came to save that which is lost, free will has no more place. Not that God prevents man from receiving Him, far from it. But if, by liberty of man, it is meant that no one forces him to reject the Savior, this liberty exists in full. But if it is implied that, on account of the dominion of sin of which he is the slave, and that voluntarily, he cannot escape from his condition, and choose the good--even while acknowledging it to be good, and approving it--then he has no liberty whatever.

I trust this is the end of this sillyness.