Today's "Calvinism"

[Iconoclast]

I was surprised when I was reading Calvin's commentaries that he might qualify as one of those "Low-Cals". Have you ever read what he wrote in, say, his 1st Peter book? He had the opportunity to teach on the L of the TULIP and taught something else.

I don't have the Commentary handy here (It is back in the States) or I would quote it for you. I believe one example is in the 2nd Peter 2:1 section.

http://calvin.biblecommenter.com/2_peter/1.htm
try here online:thumbs:

 

[asterisktom]

http://calvin.biblecommenter.com/2_peter/1.htm
try here online:thumbs:

Excellent, Iconoclast. Thanks.

 

[Iconoclast]

Excellent, Iconoclast. Thanks.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?LangOnly=true&currsection=sermonstopic&keyword=Chinese

 

[asterisktom]

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?LangOnly=true&currsection=sermonstopic&keyword=Chinese

Yes, there might be some good things here to share with my Chinese friends. I notice that almost all the ones here are Cantonese, not Mandarin - a big difference and a language barrier for many. But thanks for the link. I guess I never noticed this section of Sermon audio.

 

[JonC]

I was surprised when I was reading Calvin's commentaries that he might qualify as one of those "Low-Cals". Have you ever read what he wrote in, say, his 1st Peter book? He had the opportunity to teach on the L of the TULIP and taught something else.

I don't have the Commentary handy here (It is back in the States) or I would quote it for you. I believe one example is in the 2nd Peter 2:1 section.

From what I have read of Calvin, I do not think that he would have agreed with the extent of the atonement that some have presented as the “L” in TULIP. I have read contemporary Calvinists who have explained some passages exactly opposite from Calvin’s explanation (that’s actually why I came back to this board, to try and understand what was considered “Limited Atonement” in today’s Reformed churches).

 

[12strings]

Thanks.
I remember reading a sermon by Spurgeon (Choice Portions) where he explains that the believer may fall away, but in the end will come back because he is elect and a particular possession of God and cannot be lost. The reason I had asked is that I’ve heard “perseverance” explained in that manner. I’ve also heard OSAS churches explain that the difference is that perseverance of the saints means that believers will persevere in every situation – never “backslide.” But I take it from your comments that most, both Perseverance and OSAS, take it to mean the same – a believer will always believe.

That view you are describing from Spurgeon is probalby very similar to what I was describing, which is... A truly saved person will believe to the end of life because the Holy Spirit keeps him believing.

Now for practical application of this, I think Spurgeon would agree that if someone is RIGHT NOW not believing, they should not sit back with smug assurance of salvation, since they believed at one time, and hope to believe again before they die. That person needs to believe the Gospel! (leave it to God to know whether they were truly saved all those years ago or not).