The hidden dangers of Calvinism

[Jerome]

"I have been called an Arminian Calvinist or a Calvinistic Arminian, and I am quite content so long as I can keep close to my Bible. I desire to preach what I find in this Book, whether I find it in anybody else's book or not." --Charles Haddon Spurgeon

 

[Pastor Larry]

Perhaps the greatest danger of Calvinism is thinking you understand it when you don't. It causes you to make false statements about it.

 

[psalms109:31]

Word

I'm sorry but what is important is God's word. If it isn't true where is God's glory.

If God doesn't want all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth then His word is a lie. If all men don't get saved God still receives the glory because God is not going to save all men but believers in His Son.

Now if believers in His Son don't get saved then there is no glory because God word is a lie.

God received the glory not from our free will but because of His word is true.

We are to spread the Good news and who so ever believes shall be saved and whosoever does not stands condemned already.

Not just the elect get saved but according to the word of God, God has also included with them, those who hear the Gospel of thier salvation having believed. They have become part of His elect.

I pray one day we will be one, when Christ returns instead of debating over things you don't understand

 

[J.D.]

First of all, don’t get the idea from this title, that I am an Arminianist; (I am not)

I, like probably most of you, lean more toward Calvinism than Arminianism, because I preach salvation by Grace(alone), through faith(alone).
--------------------------------------------------
The hidden danger that I am referring to, is how we can be so “overly confidant” in our walk with the LORD, that we will give our ear to error:

-But no matter how Spiritually mature you may be, it will always be dangerous, to listen to messages that you know are wrong.-
--------------------------------------------------
Second Timothy chapter 2, talks extensively about this danger:

2 Timothy 2:14
“Of these things put [them] in remembrance, charging [them] before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, [but] to the subverting of the hearers.”

This verses warns us, not to listen to messages that we know are not Biblical.

You know how when listening to a preacher for the first time, how the Lord will raise “red flags”, when he says things that aren’t right:

Well this chapter warns us, that if we “willingly” give our ears to teachings that we know are not right, than the Lord may not raise those red flags of warning.
--------------------------------------------------
Now don’t get me wrong; I love Calvinists as my brothers in Christ. It is just that, there doctrine, is man-made; And although John Calvin may have been a fine man and a great preacher, he had some ideas, that were not Biblically sound.

In the same way that I love my Pentecostal brethren, but I am not going to seriously consider there arguments about speaking in tongues. (If I did, I would be tempted to change my opinion about this error.)
--------------------------------------------------
Because of this realization, I am no longer going to refer to myself(if pressed), as a 2 or 3 point Calvinist.
I don’t have to impress anybody. I just believe the Bible.

Mark 7:7
“Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.”

Were you referring to yourself as a 2 or 3 point Calvinist just to impress somebody? No wonder you fell off the fence!

Listen friend, if you want to believe in the power of the "free" will of man, have at it, but your general attack on Calvinism and Calvinists is way off.

 

[J.D.]

One red flag is when they begin "correcting" scriptures that don't fit into their "grand theory".

Spurgeon, warning about those Calvinists who undermine the inspiration of scripture by "reexplaining" verses to mean the opposite of what God said:

[I Tim. 2:4 "Who will have all men to be saved"]:
"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.""

So Spurgeon accepted the idea of paradox or perpetual tension. Big deal - lots of Calvinists do that. (not me). But remember that this paradox requires Spurgeon, as a Calvinist, to explain how God is willing to save all men, and yet does not will their salvation effectually as he does in the elect.

Beyond that, Spurgeon's doctrines are not even remotely similar to Arminianism or "calminianism".

 

[Jerome]

"A certain somebody drew up five or six doctrines, and said, "There are the doctrines of the Bible," and ye believe these, but you want to have your faith increased, for you do not believe a great deal more that is in the Bible. I do not think I differ from any of my hyper-calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. . . .perhaps Calvin is made the standard and what business has any man to think a single thought beyond Calvin? Blessed be God, we have gone a little beyond that; and we can say, "Increase our faith." With all our admiration for these great standard divines, we are not prepared to shut ourselves up in their little iron cages; but we say, "Open the door, and let me fly—let me still feel that I am at liberty. Increase my faith, and help me to believe a little more." I know I can say I have had an increase of faith in one or two respects within the last few months. I could not, for a long time, see anything like the Millenium in the Scriptures; I could not much rejoice in the Second Coming of Christ, though I did believe it; but gradually my faith began to open to that subject, and I find it now a part of my meat and drink, to be looking for, as well as hastening unto, the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." ---CHS

 

[J.D.]

"I have been called an Arminian Calvinist or a Calvinistic Arminian, and I am quite content so long as I can keep close to my Bible. I desire to preach what I find in this Book, whether I find it in anybody else's book or not." --Charles Haddon Spurgeon

The Calvinists of Spurgeon's day objected to his evangelistic methods. They objected to things like bringing Moody/Sankey into the church, which Spurgeon did. It is in this context that Spurgeon was CALLED an Arminian Calvinist. Notice HE DID NOT REFER TO HIMSELF IN THOSE TERMS. He was merely accepting the pajorative label as a badge of honor thrown on him by his critics, thereby diffusing their influence in his ministry.

 

[J.D.]

"A certain somebody drew up five or six doctrines, and said, "There are the doctrines of the Bible," and ye believe these, but you want to have your faith increased, for you do not believe a great deal more that is in the Bible. I do not think I differ from any of my hyper-calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. . . .perhaps Calvin is made the standard and what business has any man to think a single thought beyond Calvin? Blessed be God, we have gone a little beyond that; and we can say, "Increase our faith." With all our admiration for these great standard divines, we are not prepared to shut ourselves up in their little iron cages; but we say, "Open the door, and let me fly—let me still feel that I am at liberty. Increase my faith, and help me to believe a little more." I know I can say I have had an increase of faith in one or two respects within the last few months. I could not, for a long time, see anything like the Millenium in the Scriptures; I could not much rejoice in the Second Coming of Christ, though I did believe it; but gradually my faith began to open to that subject, and I find it now a part of my meat and drink, to be looking for, as well as hastening unto, the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." ---CHS

What does this have to do with the OP?

 

[Salamander]

Your thread title is kind of mystifying.The doctrines that Calvinism teaches are overt;not exactly under wraps.I mean Buddy -- just look at all the books which have been written by Calvinists (which mainly explain the Bible).It is kind of silly to say that Calvinists have kept things hidden.You can disagree with Calvinistic doctrines all you want -- but we don't hide our light under a bushel!

And when that light in thee is darkness, how GREAT is that darkness.

Whosoever sheds light in the darkness of limited atonement.

Whosoever designates the will of the penitent responding to light shone in darkness, it does NOT determine his response! This clearly is choice after enlightenment.

Men reject light due to their love for darkness. To reject something one HAS to incorporate choice.

Irrestible grace does not exist; Festus and Agrippa BOTH resisted grace. There is light shining in the fact of resisting grace will ultimately bring destruction. Thinking othewise is to choose darkness rather than accept light.

Adam chose to disobey the Lord. Adam excercised his will in that choice in fear of losing Eve. Eve chose according to her desire to gain unknown before knowledge other than what the Lord had passed on to her through her husband Adam. Her desire controlled her DECISION. Although she was beguiled by the serpent, she still chose to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Adam and Eve chose to hide their nakedness with the leaves of the fig tree. God chose to clothe them with the skins of animals AFTER they chose to cast away the fig leaves and choose rather what the Lord provided for them.

Salvation works the very same way: Man chooses to believe or reject. He can see no more than religion, but then through enlightenment and exposure of his sin/ nakedness before the Lord, he reaches, by choice, to be apprehended by the arms of grace offered to him. he may choose to reject this arm of salvation after enlightenment, or he may make the right choice and fall into those arms of grace.

God chose to save all that will come to Him. God did come to man first to make the offer, it is then up to any man to come for what God offers.

Coming to the Lord is what Jesus said that all men should be let to come to him.

The rich young ruler came to Jesus for knowledge, yet his love for riches caused him to go away in sorrow. That was not God's choice but only the choice of the young ruler.

Jesus told the woman of Samaria if she had asked him for water he would have given her living water. She then asked for that water by choice after illumination. She could also have departed in the sad state as the young ruler, but she wanted light rather than the darkness she had already known. The young ruler departed in darkness.

Calvinism's dogmatisms are darkness for they reject light. It's teachings attempt to limit light to only a chosen few, yet nothing can be hid in darkness for His life was the light of men, not some men, and the darkness comprehended it not.

This presents a dilemma for calvinists; they must either choose to receive that same light or choose to remain in darkness of these facts of the Gospel for any man to reject Christ or to receive Christ.

Is there a danger to calvinism? Certainly, it's called the hidden danger found in darkness/it has no purpose other than to exalt ones own view of the word of God contrary to the whole counsel of God.:tonofbricks:

 

[jcjordan]

And when that light in thee is darkness, how GREAT is that darkness.

Whosoever sheds light in the darkness of limited atonement.

Whosoever designates the will of the penitent responding to light shone in darkness, it does NOT determine his response! This clearly is choice after enlightenment.

Men reject light due to their love for darkness. To reject something one HAS to incorporate choice.

Irrestible grace does not exist; Festus and Agrippa BOTH resisted grace. There is light shining in the fact of resisting grace will ultimately bring destruction. Thinking othewise is to choose darkness rather than accept light.

Adam chose to disobey the Lord. Adam excercised his will in that choice in fear of losing Eve. Eve chose according to her desire to gain unknown before knowledge other than what the Lord had passed on to her through her husband Adam. Her desire controlled her DECISION. Although she was beguiled by the serpent, she still chose to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Adam and Eve chose to hide their nakedness with the leaves of the fig tree. God chose to clothe them with the skins of animals AFTER they chose to cast away the fig leaves and choose rather what the Lord provided for them.

Salvation works the very same way: Man chooses to believe or reject. He can see no more than religion, but then through enlightenment and exposure of his sin/ nakedness before the Lord, he reaches, by choice, to be apprehended by the arms of grace offered to him. he may choose to reject this arm of salvation after enlightenment, or he may make the right choice and fall into those arms of grace.

God chose to save all that will come to Him. God did come to man first to make the offer, it is then up to any man to come for what God offers.

Coming to the Lord is what Jesus said that all men should be let to come to him.

The rich young ruler came to Jesus for knowledge, yet his love for riches caused him to go away in sorrow. That was not God's choice but only the choice of the young ruler.

Jesus told the woman of Samaria if she had asked him for water he would have given her living water. She then asked for that water by choice after illumination. She could also have departed in the sad state as the young ruler, but she wanted light rather than the darkness she had already known. The young ruler departed in darkness.

Calvinism's dogmatisms are darkness for they reject light. It's teachings attempt to limit light to only a chosen few, yet nothing can be hid in darkness for His life was the light of men, not some men, and the darkness comprehended it not.

This presents a dilemma for calvinists; they must either choose to receive that same light or choose to remain in darkness of these facts of the Gospel for any man to reject Christ or to receive Christ.

Is there a danger to calvinism? Certainly, it's called the hidden danger found in darkness/it has no purpose other than to exalt ones own view of the word of God contrary to the whole counsel of God.:tonofbricks:

You have no idea what calvinism is. This is evidenced in many ways. One such way is how you've redefined the doctrine of irresistable grace.

 

[webdog]

You have no idea what calvinism is. This is evidenced in many ways. One such way is how you've redefined the doctrine of irresistable grace.

What do you disagree with? How did he re-define the "I"?

 

[Pastor Larry]

This presents a dilemma for calvinists; they must either choose to receive that same light or choose to remain in darkness of these facts of the Gospel for any man to reject Christ or to receive Christ.

What's the dilemma?

 

[MB]

There is something that has struck me in Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. It really rings true IMO:

In speaking on election and reprobation, he discusses the Calvinism vs. Arminian argument. He finishes up by saying:

"But both sides must also say that there is something else that God deems more important than saving everyone. Reformed theologians say that God deems his own glory more important than saving everyone, and that (according to Romans 9) God's glory is also furthered by the fact that some are not saved. Arminian theologians also say that something else is more important to God than the salvation of all people, namely, the preservation of man's free will. So in a Reformed system God's highest value is his own glory, and in an Arminian system God's highest value is the free will of man. These are two distincly different conceptions of the nature of God, and it seems that the Reformed position has much more explicit biblical support than the Arminian position does on this question. "

To declare "Calvinism" or the doctrine of grace as a heresy, you are condemning the Word of God. Scripture is clear that God's sovereign choice is a major part of man's salvation. I do see Scripture supporting the idea of man's free will also and I think the truth includes both in some way. Spurgeon believed this and I agree with him.

Every Calvinist I ever met has said that these are the doctrines of Grace.
Total depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited atonement, Irresistible Grace. and perseverance of the saints. Not one Calvinist has ever proven them to be biblical. Every passage they attempt to prove it with are taken out of context.
They change the meaning of the title of each doctrine of grace to where The "T" is an inability to respond to the gospel with out being saved first. Absolute nonsense. Which is not in scripture. They change The "U" to a praticular election which again is not biblical. The "L" attempts to limit The atonement that Christ paid for the sin of the whole world. The I is flat out contradicted by scripture. The Jews always did resist and Jesus said so and by saying that such a thing exist makes Christ a liar. The "P" is a complete misunderstanding of what eternal security really is according to scripture.
No sir there is nothing biblical about the so called doctrines of Grace.

There is only one doctrine that counts and is biblical and that is the doctrine of Jesus Christ. And most assuredly it is not condemning the word of God to call Calvinism and the so called doctrines of Grace a Heresy.

Any doctrine that does not adhere to the Bible is heresy.
MB

 

[J.D.]

Every Calvinist I ever met has said that these are the doctrines of Grace.
Total depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited atonement, Irresistible Grace. and perseverance of the saints. Not one Calvinist has ever proven them to be biblical. Every passage they attempt to prove it with are taken out of context.
They change the meaning of the title of each doctrine of grace to where The "T" is an inability to respond to the gospel with out being saved first. Absolute nonsense. Which is not in scripture. They change The "U" to a praticular election which again is not biblical. The "L" attempts to limit The atonement that Christ paid for the sin of the whole world. The I is flat out contradicted by scripture. The Jews always did resist and Jesus said so and by saying that such a thing exist makes Christ a liar. The "P" is a complete misunderstanding of what eternal security really is according to scripture.
No sir there is nothing biblical about the so called doctrines of Grace.

There is only one doctrine that counts and is biblical and that is the doctrine of Jesus Christ. And most assuredly it is not condemning the word of God to call Calvinism and the so called doctrines of Grace a Heresy.

Any doctrine that does not adhere to the Bible is heresy.
MB

Oboy, here we go again:BangHead: . I guess that Bashing Calvinism Conference somebody had last week is having its affects. It seems all the Arminian crusaders are out to destroy those same strawmen again that have been built and destroyed over and over.

 

[MB]

Oboy, here we go again:BangHead: . I guess that Bashing Calvinism Conference somebody had last week is having its affects. It seems all the Arminian crusaders are out to destroy those same strawmen again that have been built and destroyed over and over.

I wouldn't know about Arminians since I'm not an arminian. I'm a Bible believing Christian. If I've said anything that isn't true please correct me with scripture.
MB

 

[J.D.]

I wouldn't know about Arminians since I'm not an arminian. I'm a Bible believing Christian. If I've said anything that isn't true please correct me with scripture.
MB

Okay, you're not an Arminian. Happy? And everything you said is true inasmuch as it expresses your opinion. But as to whether it is factually true that there are no proof texts to support the doctrines of grace, let God be true and every man....well, you know the rest.

 

[Jerome]

"Buy a theological barrel-organ, brethren, with five tunes accurately adjusted, and you will be qualified to practise as an ultra-Calvinistic preacher at Zoar and Jireh, if you also purchase at some vinegar factory a good supply of bitter, acrid abuse of Arminians, and duty-faith men. Brains and grace are optional, but the organ and the wormwood are indispensable. It is ours to perceive and rejoice in a wider range of truth. All that these good men hold of grace and sovereignty we maintain as firmly and boldly as they; but we dare not shut our eyes to other teachings of the word, and we feel bound to make full proof of our ministry, by declaring the whole counsel of God." ---Charles Haddon Spurgeon

 

[Jerome]

"I remember saying something on this subject on one occasion in a certain ultra-Calvinistic place of worship. At that time I was preaching to children, and was exhorting them to pray, and I happened to say that long before any actual conversion I had prayed for common mercies, and that God had heard my prayers. This did not suit my good brethren of the superfine school; and afterwards they all came round me professedly to know what I meant, but really to cavil and carp according to their nature and wont. "They compassed me about like bees; yea, like bees they compassed me about!" After awhile, as I expected, they fell to their usual amusement of calling names. They began to say what rank Arminianism this was; and another expression they were pleased to honour with the title of "Fullerism;" a title, by the way, so honourable that I could heartily have thanked thern for appending it to what I had advanced. But to say that God should hear the prayer of natural men was something worse than Arminianism, if indeed anything could be worse to them. They quoted that counterfeit passage, "The prayer of the wicked is an abomination unto the Lord," which I speedily answered by asking them if they would find me that text in the word of God; for I ventured to assert that the devil was the author of that saying, and that it was not in the Bible at all." ---Charles Haddon Spurgeon

 

[Salamander]

You have no idea what calvinism is. This is evidenced in many ways. One such way is how you've redefined the doctrine of irresistable grace.

:laugh: There is no such thing as irrestible grace so no one can define it or redefine it.

Now if you said resisitible grace the Bible defines it in the lives of Festus and Agrippa in the Book of Acts.

 

[Salamander]

What's the dilemma?

The ideal of not being able to choose Christ or reject Christ. Calvinists believe only the elect can choose Christ.

The Bible teaches that only those who choose Christ become elect.

Darkness cannot explain away light.

Jacob was never elect, yet after the operation of God Israel is elect and precious.

Jacob resisted grace until he chose not to resist any longer.