Wow! R.C. Sproul's faith...

Well since Skypair has shown the founder(Sproul) of Calvinism to be in error and Helen has looked in her Bible and can't find Reformed Theology the issue is finally settled andthe non-Calvinist no longer have to start threads on Calvinism anymore. It is a wonderful day.

 

I am real, and I have resolved it.

That’s never really been the issue has it? There are people here who continue to say that Calvinists believe you can be saved without faith. I think many here, including now Sproul by your own citation, have put that to rest. Hopefully that won’t come up again.

I am not sure what you are trying to say, but I don’t believe the pope.

I am not sure what that means, so I don’t know how to respond. I have thought about it several times since reading this and am not sure what to make of your comments. They don’t make sense to me.

I didn’t read them real closely, but if they are Sproul’s (or anyone else’s) personal testimony, what do I need to make of them? My belief is not based on Sproul. It is based on Scripture. The only thing I have read by Sproul was his excellent book entitled Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification. My Calvinism came from Jesus, John, Paul, Peter, and the other apostles.

I didn’t impugn it. Credibility is something you earn, by demonstrating a knowledge of the subject at hand. I was simply commenting on the irony of you telling Sproul he hasn’t thought through this. Surely you can recognize the absurdity of such a charge. Whatever Sproul might believe, his record of teaching and writing most definitely confirms that he has thought through it.

 

Nope, not so much. This was about the only line worth responding to.

 

Because the thread started with someone famous, that's all.

 

So you chose to be a calvinist?

Surely you were fore-ordained to be a calvinist?

:thumbs: Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

No, I was pointing out that it is absurd to say that a man who has written many published works (meaning that they meet publishing standards) has not thought through an issue. It was ironic that the charge was coming from someone who sole writing experience seems to be an internet discussion forum. It wasn’t a blast. It was an irony.

I don’t think Sproul is the foremost scholar on Calvinism. I think Piper is much more of a scholar than him, and probably others as well.

I don’t think he was saved one way and teaches another. He was saved as we all are, not knowing everything.

Why would you charge that we stopped looking for truth in the 16th century? Calvinism is much older than that, as is your view, and is at the same time continually being argued for and demonstrated.

And it wasn’t the near step child of Catholicism. As Sproul pointed out, the idea of prevenient grace is Catholicism. Calvinism is a biblical issue, not a Catholic one.

I repented of it about 15 years ago.

I have. And do.

I do. Every week.

You will have to ask hyper Calvinists. Calvinism doesn’t teach that. Calvinism has historically been a very strong missionary movement, from Calvin right on down.

The same reason Arminians do. The Bible teaches it.

It doesn’t. You simply will not accept what Calvinism actually believes, perhaps because then you wouldn’t be able to argue against it.

In heaven, having risen from the dead and saving all who will come to him in faith and repentance, interceding for the saved, and securing us for eternity.

Not familiar with the movie since I don’t watch many movies. I disagree with the covenant of grace because I don’t find it in Scripture.

Not against Calvinism. Calvinism is about Jesus.

I think you are, as you say, “imagining” things. What you have described here is not Calvinism.

The question is, Why do you persist in this? You have been here long enough to know better. Why misrepresent the gospel that we preach?

 

Yes.

Yes

No worries. It's an old tired joke that long ago stopped getting laughs. It reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Calvinism and choosing. It's unfortunate that it continues.

Man's choices are not in contradiction to God's fore-ordaining. Man's free choices are perfectly consistent with that.

 

SP , R.C. Sproul is not one of the foremost scholars on Calvinism alive today . Sproul is a popularizer of Calvinism . He is an evangelist/pastor/teacher/author . But even he would not think of himself as a scholar -- or Calvinistic scholar . Try to get familiar with true scholars of that realm like Paul Helm , Richard Muller , James Packer and Allister McGrath . B.B. Warfield ( died in 1921 ) was quite the Calvinistic scholar -- read some of his materials . You need to get edumacated boy ! They'll learn ya !

 

First, nobody but God sends out missionaries. The last ones, on Scriptural record, that God sent out were Paul, Silas, and Barnabas, and company, circa Acts.
These all went to churches that were already extant, or groups of believers needing to be organized into churches.

None of them went out for the express purpose of "winning" souls, as in getting them eternally saved.
They did go out to get those who will listen to the gospel, and obey gospel instruction, saved from false teaching, false practices, and false doctrines.

So to send missionaries out in order to get people saved, in the eternal sense, IS a waste of time, money, and effort because you cannot add one single soul to those whom God has already redeemed in Christ.

And that is basically the purpose of most of today's missions: get people saved from hell and the judgment of God. Either Christ has already done that, or His death on the cross, and resurrection from the grave, amounted to zero results.

 

Piper is the pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis. He can be found at www.desiringgod.org. He has a new website but I can’t remember it. I don’t go there often.

I think Calvinism is about this simplicity that is in Jesus.

Yes, but your belief is the same. Calvinism has changed in 500 years. It has been furthered studied and refined.

All of which is irrelevant, since Calvinistic soteriology involves none of those things.

I hold my theology because I repented of not believing what God said. … Seriously, my beliefs are based on Scripture. I became a Calvinist through Scripture. I did not get it from somewhere else. I had no teachers teach me, or Calvinist pastors until after I became a Calvinist.

I don’t know what this means.

Your history is flawed.

Neither of these are found in Scripture. Some Calvinistic churches practice them; some do not.

No.

I don’t know. That is not a biblical issue.

Both. What I have said is pretty mainstream Calvinism. These issues you list are things that Calvinists differ on and the Bible does not speak to so we are free to practice as we wish.

Then you agree with Calvinism, though “sealing the deal” is not the way we weould put it. We believe that people just repent and believe, just as the Scriptures say.

Yes, I have studied Sardis. No, Sardis (nor any other church) represents any period of church history. We should all be aware of the sins of all seven churches because they exist in churches today.

I never heard Calvin preach. I have read Sproul and heard him once or twice on a recording. I don’t think he has abandoned the first gospel, at least not from what I have seen.

Yes

Yes.

Nope. We must only believe and repent by the grace of God given to us.

Nope.

 

Norman Geisler and John Gerstner taught at the same seminary at one point, and Geisler invited Gerstner into his class to discuss their views of Calvinism. Gerstner claimed human choice was outside of human will, caused by another. So Geisler asked Gerstner 'who caused Lucifer to sin?" Gerstner didn't believe the self could make that free choice, especially since Lucifer didn't have a sin nature prior to his first sin, and he didn't want to say God caused Lucifer to sin, so he said it's "mystery, mystery." Well, it doesn't have to be a mystery.

Strong calvinism is inconsistent with reason and scripture when it claims we only have a half of a free choice (can only choose to sin), and pelagianism is inconsistent with scripture when it claims we can choose to follow God based on nothing but ourselves. Only moderate Calvinism can go between the horns of the dilemma and claim that God can work through our free choice, and enable our will with his grace. This has been taught by W. G. T. Shedd, Charles Hodge, Norman Geisler, and L. S. Chafer.

I was just reading A. W. Pink, who claims in one breath that the elect are "impelled" to believe (his word) by "the strongest motive power", but then in the other breath that they are not forced. This is a contradiction. On the other extreme, the pelagians of the world are typified by those who minimalize or outright deny the work of the holy spirit in the work of grace which is salvation. I think Shedd has my favorite explanation of the truth in his "Dogmatic Theology" which I would recommend to everyone.

 

Skypair

To Skypair,

I dropped on by and found your discussion. I want to mention that not all Calvinists believe the way Sproul does concerning the New Birth:

Calvinist, D. James Kennedy, writes: “Our faith and our repentance are the work of God’s grace in our hearts. Our contribution is simply the sin for which Jesus Christ suffered and died. Would you be born anew? There has never been a person who sought for that who did not find it. Even the seeking is created by the Spirit of God. Would you know that new life? Are you tired of the emptiness and purposelessness of your life? Are you tired of the filthy rags of your own righteousness? Would you trust in someone else other than yourself? Then look to the cross of Christ. Place your trust in him. Ask him to come in and be born in you today. For Jesus came into the world from glory to give us second birth because we must--we MUST--be born again.” (Why I Believe, p.140, emphasis mine)

My brother in Law is a Calvinist, and he also believes that the new birth follows a discision for Christ. Of course, he also believes in a type of regeneration (not the new birth), in which only Calvinism's "elect" will receive Him, and upon receiving Him, receive the new birth. So Calvinists are a pretty mixed up bunch.

 

Skypair

To Skypair:

I have not yet read his EE book, but on your recommendation I will.