Denying Calvinism...

ByTheSpirit · Jan 29, 2015

So I saw a shirt today worn by a teenage looking young man that said, "To deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ ~ C.H. Spurgeon" True or False?

gideons300 · Jan 29, 2015

ByTheSpirit said:
So I saw a shirt today worn by a teenage looking young man that said, "To deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ ~ C.H. Spurgeon" True or False?

In truth, it is a question of trying to understand dwelling above time when we live under its restraints. What if God predestines those He knows will freely choose to follow Him all the way to the end?

But does it really matter? We may "feel" saved, but the truth is we do not know it for a fact. Our walk on earth, whether or not we continue in His goodness, this ultimately will determine our destiny. Not that we "earn" it, but continuing in His goodness, enduring to the end, these are all characteristics of someone who is saved...and is being saved..

We try to wrap our heads around predestination and free will and how they mesh and to us, it makes no sense. It is either one or the other in oyr minds eye.. I suspect on that final day, we will let out a collective "Ohhhhhhhhhhh. Well, duh" once we can see into eternity a bit more clearly.

Blessings, brother'

Gideon

Gregory Thompson · Jan 29, 2015

ByTheSpirit said:
So I saw a shirt today worn by a teenage looking young man that said, "To deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ ~ C.H. Spurgeon" True or False?

That would be false .. unless the initials JC stand for John Calvin
.
but it is a pretty safe bet the Gospel is about Jesus Christ .. not calvin klein.

Frogster · Jan 29, 2015

well, in a funny way, it is true, those in hell were predestined for it, those in heaven were destined for that, no matter what the calvin person can say, "see, they were going there all along!"

CGL1023 · Jan 29, 2015

ByTheSpirit said:
So I saw a shirt today worn by a teenage looking young man that said, "To deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ ~ C.H. Spurgeon" True or False?

The only thing I know about Calvinism is that OSAS is ludicrous based on Rev 3:5, "He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels".

FerventDisciple · Jan 30, 2015

ByTheSpirit said:
So I saw a shirt today worn by a teenage looking young man that said, "To deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ ~ C.H. Spurgeon" True or False?

I've read the book in which that quote is taken from. It's more of a pamphlet than a book and is included in an appendix of a Calvinist book I own. I often hear Calvinists say Calvinism is the gospel yet none of them got saved hearing the theology of limited atonement and reprobation spelled out to them. No one who comes to Christ has a Calvinist worldview, it's taught later for no one gets saved hearing Christ doesn't love you or He may have died for you. The only consistent Calvinists are the Westboro Baptist Church, all the others suddenly turn Arminian when talking to non believers.

I hold to Arminian and Molinist theology, the latter addresses questions that Arminian theology doesn't speak of but which Reformed theology does. A prominent advocate of Molinism is William Lane Craig. See his comparison with Calvinism: Molinism vs. Calvinism | Reasonable Faith

I was thinking of starting a thread on Molinism recently. Most have not heard of it yet it logically and scripturally resolves the conflict between the sovereignty of God and the free will and responsibility of man. Though named after Molina, it was spoken of before by Arminius and others. I'd rather it be called "middle knowledge theology" but Molinism is the name that stuck.

Doctor Octavius · Jan 30, 2015

gideons300 said:
In truth, it is a question of trying to understand dwelling above time when we live under its restraints. What if God predestines those He knows will freely choose to follow Him all the way to the end?

But nowhere in scripture is there such confusion. It even contradicts how Paul's own hypothetical opponent in Romans chapter 9 understood his discussion on Jacob and Esau. If you pull up the chapter and read it, to say that God hated Esau but loved Jacob "before" either had been born or had done good or evil is the same as saying that it was not because of any merits or demerits in them that they were elected. Otherwise it serves no purpose except to invite misunderstanding. Paul might have simply said, "God chose them for election based on His foreknowledge of their faith or works (their merits)" but this is never done, even when the opponent complains "Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" (Rom 9:19). Now this response is impossible if the interpretation of this passage is that God foresaw something in Jacob and Esau. If salvation is determined not by man, but by the purpose of God's will, then and only then can a man object "for who have resisted his will?", because God's will is directly implicated as the sole factor for salvation. There is no sense of injustice (for the human mind, which believes itself righteous and not sinful), for example, in the idea that God elects someone based on foreseen merits, whether of faith or good works. Yet Paul declares,

Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Paul senses his opponents might attack the righteousness of God, but defends His prerogative to choose to have mercy on whoever He pleases, or not to have mercy on any. Now this passage on God's mercy can also only make sense if God's mercy isn't given to all, but only some. If God's mercy is offered to all, and not given to some, then a man cannot object since everyone has a "fair chance" to get to heaven. But if God's mercy is exclusive and based on no merit in man, then the human heart naturally complains, which leads Paul to justify God in acting as He does.

Next, if it is not of "him that wills," and anyone who has faith in God surely wills to do so, and it if not of "him that runs," that is, him who works for his salvation, then it follows it is all of God's mercy that anyone is saved. Otherwise we will be forced to say, "It is not of God who has mercy, but man who contributes his willing and running to be saved." But such an idea is blasphemous and contradicts the clear spirit of the text which attributes salvation solely to God's mercy.

This is why Spurgeon calls the denying of such doctrines "the denial of the Gospel," because it places goodness in mankind, as if we, who are vile and wicked, who are called "Dead in trespasses in sins," and who are described as not being "righteous" and "not seeking or understanding God," are somehow possessors of some native goodness with which to "meet God in the middle," something that the infidel who rejects Christ clearly lacks; and it steals the glory of salvation from God, and thus, in a round about way, returns us back to the Roman ideal of salvation-- that it is something given to those who earn it.

CGL1203 writes: "The only thing I know about Calvinism is that OSAS is ludicrous based on Rev 3:5, "He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels"."

Yet the scripture often commands men to "with fear and trembling work out your salvation," and then immediately adds: "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Php 2:12-13).

This verse ends the matter all in one moment, showing that the "foreseen faith" and other arguments in favor of man's earning of his salvation, are all nothing but dung, because God works in us both in our "willing" AND our "doing." Our faith, our good works, all these things are wrought in us who were rightfully dead in Adam, by nature "children of wrath" and enemies of God, not because God refuses to let infidels believe as if they had the power to do it on their own; but because man is the voluntary slave of sin, and hates God and all that He stands for.

Joh_15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

This wonderful truth is sung throughout the scripture, that what is good in us is not from us, but is given to us from above.

FerventDisciple: I often hear Calvinists say Calvinism is the gospel yet none of them got saved hearing the theology of limited atonement and reprobation spelled out to them.

Maybe that's why Christ didn't get all those people to believe in him? He was not being an Arminian with his reprobation and limited atonement preaching.

"But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
(Joh 6:64-65)

Notice that Christ told them "no one can come to me unless it is granted Him by the Father" BECAUSE He knew their unbelief. He does not tell them "because you rejected," or "because you came but refused," but "THAT is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." Thus the cause of their unbelief isn't their wickedness, and the cause of belief in Christians is not their righteousness, it is the mercy of God that makes the difference.

As for Molinism, such a doctrine cannot stand, because the verses you are attempting to reconcile are those which essentially say, on the one hand, that man must turn from their sins and be saved, and on the other hand, that God causes them to repent and to be saved. You are not trying to reconcile the action of man and some mere accounting by God in heaven in eternity, as if there is no text that makes Him an active participant. You are trying to explain the seemingly contradictory verses which tell man that he must do something, and those verses which say that God does those things in us. The true reconcilation of these verses, without falling into Jesuit inventions and overly complicated solutions to enigmas, is this, which we find from Augustine:

"Can you say, 'We will first walk in His righteousness, and will observe His judgments, and will act in a worthy way, so that He will give His grace to us'? But what good would you evil people do? And how would you do those good things, unless you were yourselves good? But Who causes people to be good? Only He Who said, 'And I will visit them to make them good,' and, 'I will put my Spirit within you, and will cause you to walk in my righteousness, and to observe my judgments, and do them'(Ezek.36:27). Are you asleep? Can't you hear Him saying, 'I will cause you to walk, I will make you to observe,' lastly,'I will make you to do'? Really, are you still puffing yourselves up? We walk, true enough, and we observe, and we do; but it is God Who He makes us to walk, to observe, to do. This is the grace of God making us good; this is His mercy going before us." Augustine - Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, 4:15

"Give what You command, and command what You will--
When we commit sin, we get no help from God; but we are not able to act justly, and to fulfil the law of righteousness in every part, unless we are helped by God. Light does not help our physical eyes to shut out light; rather, light helps our eyes to see, and the eye cannot see at all unless light helps it. Likewise God, Who is the light of the inner self, helps our mental sight, in order that we may do some good, not according to our own righteousness, but according to His. But if we turn away from God , it is our own act; then we are wise according to the flesh, then we consent to the lust of the flesh for unlawful deeds . When we turn to God, therefore, He helps us; when we turn away from Him, He forsakes us. But God even helps us to turn to Him; and this, certainly, is something that light does not do for the eyes of the body. When, therefore, He commands us in the words, ‘Turn to Me, and I will turn to you’ (Zech. 1: 3), and we say to Him, ‘Turn us , O God of our salvation’ (Ps. 85: 4), and again, ‘Turn us, O God of hosts’ (Ps. 80: 3) — what else do we say but, ‘Give what You command’? When He commands us, saying, ‘Understand now, O simple among the people’ (Ps. 94: 8), and we say to Him, ‘Give me understanding, that I may learn Thy commandments’ (Ps. 119: 73) — what else do we say but, ‘Give what You command’? When He commands us, saying, ‘Do not go after your lusts’ (Ecclesiasticus 18: 30), and we say to Him, ‘We know that no-one can be chaste, unless God gives it to him’ (Wisdom 8: 21) — what else do we say but, ‘Give what You command’? When He commands us, saying, ‘Do justice’ (Isa. 56: 1 ), and we say, ‘Teach me Your judgments, O Lord’ (Ps. 119: 108) — what else do we say but, ‘Give what You command’? Likewise, when He says: ‘Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness; for they shall be filled’ ( Matt. 5: 6), from whom should we seek the meat and drink of righteousness, but from Him Who promises His fullness to those who hunger and thirst after it?" (Augustine, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, 2: 5)

To sum it all up-- God commands us what He requires, showing our inability, and then gives what He commands. No "middle" knowledge here. No "foreseen" merits here. Just the act of God on the heart of those who were formerly undeserving wretches.

PersephonesTear · Jan 30, 2015

Interesting idea for a shirt! I kind of like it just for the old-fashioned quirk of it.

But I heartily disagree with the sentiment on it.

I also am quite fond of Gideon's answer here. There are a ton of doctrinal points that are quite tricky, very deep, and that we won't fully "get" until we reach eternity.

tulipbee · Jan 30, 2015

ByTheSpirit said:
So I saw a shirt today worn by a teenage looking young man that said, "To deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ ~ C.H. Spurgeon" True or False?

True

FerventDisciple · Jan 30, 2015

Doctor Octavius said:
But nowhere in scripture is there such confusion. It even contradicts how Paul's own hypothetical opponent in Romans chapter 9 understood his discussion on Jacob and Esau.

But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit andthrough belief in the truth. 2Thess 2:13 (NIV)

For a refutation for the Calvinist notion of Romans 9 and Jacob and Esau see here: Society of Evangelical Arminians | Where Calvinism Gets Romans 9 Wrong: Who do Jacob and Esau Represent?

If only Calvinists would continue reading on Paul's discourse and not stop at their interpretation of Romans 9:

Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Romans 11:30-32 (NIV)

Doctor Octavius said:
Maybe that's why Christ didn't get all those people to believe in him? He was not being an Arminian with his reprobation and limited atonement preaching.

"But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
(Joh 6:64-65)

Notice that Christ told them "no one can come to me unless it is granted Him by the Father" BECAUSE He knew their unbelief. He does not tell them "because you rejected," or "because you came but refused," but "THAT is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." Thus the cause of their unbelief isn't their wickedness, and the cause of belief in Christians is not their righteousness, it is the mercy of God that makes the difference.

As for Molinism, such a doctrine cannot stand, because the verses you are attempting to reconcile are those which essentially say, on the one hand, that man must turn from their sins and be saved, and on the other hand, that God causes them to repent and to be saved. You are not trying to reconcile the action of man and some mere accounting by God in heaven in eternity, as if there is no text that makes Him an active participant. You are trying to explain the seemingly contradictory verses which tell man that he must do something, and those verses which say that God does those things in us. The true reconcilation of these verses, without falling into Jesuit inventions and overly complicated solutions to enigmas, is this

To sum it all up-- God commands us what He requires, showing our inability, and then gives what He commands. No "middle" knowledge here. No "foreseen" merits here. Just the act of God on the heart of those who were formerly undeserving wretches.

32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” 33 But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die. John 12:32-33 (NASB)

Nowhere in scripture is it affirmed that Christ died exclusively for a chosen elect. You know that my friend and you can't produce a verse that says that. Scripture affirms that He died for the world as well as His people.

I knew the Jesuit thing would come up thus why I very clearly said it was spoken of before by Arminius and others no less. Ironic when you quote Augustine who said there was no salvation outside of the Catholic church and who invented this divine determinism mess today known as Calvinism.

Counterfactuals are very clearly in scripture which that alone would refute the determinism of Calvinism. They simply shouldn't be there if everything is determined as far as the Calvinist perspective goes. See the link I posted comparing Calvinism and Molinism from reasonable faith. You have some irreconcilable problems in your theology, especially with the origin of evil when Calvinists bury their head and suddenly become Arminian.

Frogster · Jan 30, 2015

Predestination, can always be proved in hindsight.

Doctor Octavius · Jan 30, 2015

FerventDisciple said:
For a refutation for the Calvinist notion of Romans 9 and Jacob and Esau see here:

Some immediate objections I suspect your writer can't overcome:

1) It can be retorted that Jacob and Esau were individually elected to be the heads of nations-- one of them as the representative head of the children of promise, the other the "children of flesh." Therefore it can't be claimed that God isn't speaking of individual election. Rather, these men are plainly examples and representatives of each type of individual-- whether a child of wrath or a child of mercy. What applies to them applies to all those like them.

2) The "children of the flesh" represents all unbelievers, whether of Jews or Gentiles. Therefore it can't be claimed that Paul was speaking only of the Jews under the "Covenant of works." All men have been bound to such a covenant since Adam regardless of their race. Also note the parallels: Paul begins by creating the binary between the Children of Promise and the Children of the Flesh. Next Jacob and Esau, who are representative of these respectively. Lastly the Vessels of Mercy and the Vessels of Wrath, of which Pharaoh is also a member of the latter. Therefore the children of the flesh are also the children of wrath, and these are all doomed.

3) Paul is also working to distinguish between national Israel and spiritual Israel. Therefore, we could say: "Not everyone who outwardly should be the child of God is one-- (both Esau and Jacob were circumcised and member's of God's covenant church) there are those who are regenerated, and those who are unregenerate, within the same Church/National Body, and this distinction comes about not by anything a person does, but by God's grace."

4) The writer makes election depend on faith, but the verses explicitly say "it is not of him that wills, or him that runs," thus removing salvation out of the hands of man entirely. Therefore, the writer does not get himself out of the problem (for him)-- that God saves people gratuitously, without any foreseen merits, whether of faith of works, but according to God's good purpose only.

I could go on and on, but this seems enough to sort out that website. As for your verses, I am unsure of your exact argument (your website did not reference them), so I can't reply to them until I know what you mean.

32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” 33 But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die. John 12:32-33 (NASB)

Here are some objections to your interpretation of this verse you will need to get over:

1) Christ here speaks of Himself drawing all men-- but in John 6, Christ speaks of the Father bringing men to Him, and all these are saved: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out... And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." (Joh 6:37-39). Therefore, John 12:32-33 cannot be interpreted to mean "Christ draws every individual-- because all those given by the Father to the Son are not lost." It is also possible Christ here speaks of a different sort of drawing, as the agency is changed from the Father drawing men to that of Christ drawing them.

2) In John 6, as previously demonstrated, those men standing right in front of Jesus Christ, who were hearing Him preach, were explicitly described as not having been given by the Father to the Son.

3) John 12:32-33 the "all" can be interpreted as not meaning "every single person," but "all KINDS of men," of every race and tribe, which was a truth abhorred by the Jews. This is consistent with the language of the Jews themselves, who in their Talmud use words like "the world," or "all the men in the world," often times to refer to nations, either all the Gentiles distinguished from the Jews, or all the Jews distinguished from the Gentiles (depending on context), and sometimes even to just all the individuals in a particular city, or of all the Rabbis. The "all" or the "world" only means every single individual when the context explicitly demands it. Such is the peculiar use of language that the Jews make. This same pattern of language is also seen in the scripture, such as when Christ says "I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me" (John 17:9). Thus here Christ differentiates the world from those given to Him out of the world. Later, in Paul's discourse in Romans 3, he declares that no one seeks or understands God. Literally this would make no one a believer, and so it must refer to all men before regeneration. There are many more examples of this type of language, but I think these examples suffice for now.

Nowhere in scripture is it affirmed that Christ died exclusively for a chosen elect. You know that my friend and you can't produce a verse that says that. Scripture affirms that He died for the world as well as His people.

It is not wise to mind read. Instead, you should address the scriptures I have provided.

I knew the Jesuit thing would come up thus why I very clearly said it was spoken of before by Arminius and others no less. Ironic when you quote Augustine who said there was no salvation outside of the Catholic church and who invented this divine determinism mess today known as Calvinism.

Augustine is quite correct that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church-- which, writing in his day, only meant the universal body of Christ. The Papacy had still not yet finished construction.

Counterfactuals are very clearly in scripture which that alone would refute the determinism of Calvinism. They simply shouldn't be there if everything is determined as far as the Calvinist perspective goes. See the link I posted comparing Calvinism and Molinism from reasonable faith. You have some irreconcilable problems in your theology, especially with the origin of evil when Calvinists bury their head and suddenly become Arminian.

I don't know this word "counterfactuals" as applied to theology, so can't really reply to it. Looking at your link it seems to mostly just be a battle of philosophy as well (and I am not a philosopher), not of scripture. I also noticed, almost right away, serious misunderstandings of Reformed Theology (but that's normal), so I decided not to bother going through the whole thing or even to attempt a reply. If you'd like to quote something in particular, or bring out their argument in simpler terms for me, I'd be happy to deal with it then.

As for the problem of evil, this is answered very simply with a quick example from scripture:

Gen_50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

It is quite true that nothing happens but by God's determination. And it is testified throughout scripture that even the evil acts of men and of spirits were decreed by God. In this case, the evil here by the brothers against Joseph was ordained to occur by God. But the way that God avoids being called the author of sin is in this: what the brothers did for evil purposes, God meant for good purposes. It is a question of purpose and motivation. A person has it within them always to do evil-- but God, through His omnipotence, is always able to take this evil and use it for His good purposes. So when the Devil attacks Job out of his evil desires, God does it for His good ones. When the brothers, out of jealousy and wickedness, sell their brother into slavery-- God does it for Joseph's sanctification (his growing in faith), as through fire, and to save many more people.

One last verse to consider:

Rom_8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

All things couldn't work together for good-- as it did for Joseph and every other believer-- if God does not indeed work all things.

The Calvinist fellow on this thread appears to have created his account just to come and argue on this thread.

I'd appreciate it if you left off the attacks. I made this account long before this thread ever existed. You reveal your bad nature when you attack me in this way.

Biblicist · Jan 30, 2015

Doctor Octavius said:
"I have to earn it- I have to work for it- I have to do things for Christ." You can rest easy in Christ, knowing you are truly in His hands, and no one can take you out of it-- not even yourself!

You seem to be speaking of OSAS which is certainly not something that most Arminians acknowledge.

Even though we are probably being a bit dismissive with Reformed perspectives it is not something that we so much choose to do, as if it were a weapon to unsettle the Calvinist; all we are doing is recognising that we regularly see people proudly declaring that they are Calvinists but who are probably more Arminian than many Arminians - it's just the way it is.

This situation is particularly common with 'Calvinists' who are a part of either the Pentecostal or charismatic movements, where they often try to incorporate their Calvinist beliefs but as these two movements are highly experiential where they quickly begin to realise that their prayers can change things, then in the end their Christian walk soon begins to be Arminian in practice even though they may inadvertently throw in a few Calvinist distinctives.

I am of the opinion that it is can be very difficult for someone to be a Pentecostal or charismatic and at the same time be deeply involved within Calvinism; which is maybe why we see so few Calvinists involved with the things of the Spirit.

Doctor Octavius · Jan 30, 2015

Biblicist2 said:
I am of the opinion that it is can be very difficult for someone to be a Pentecostal or charismatic and at the same time be deeply involved within Calvinism; which is maybe why we see so few Calvinists involved with the things of the Spirit.

Like what, praying for people's conversion? Sounds like Calvinism to me. But by "things of the Spirit" you only mean tongue speaking, prophecy, and alleged healings, all such things even cults like the Oneness Pentecostals lay claim to. Even the Mormons in their early days. And what of your heroes? Don't know about you personally, but Todd Bentley, Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, and all these people "involved with the things of the Spirit," do we really want to join the club?

Before you talk down to we Reformed as if we lack the Holy Spirit, you should probably clean up the chaos and the horror that is your Pelagian church.

Give me the holiness and the miraculous prayer of a little old lady who never spoke a single word in tongues over you miracle-mongers any day.

Biblicist · Jan 30, 2015

Doctor Octavius said:
Like what, praying for people's conversion? Sounds like Calvinism to me. But by "things of the Spirit" you only mean tongue speaking, prophecy, and alleged healings, all such things even cults like the Oneness Pentecostals lay claim to. Even the Mormons in their early days. And what of your heroes? Don't know about you personally, but Todd Bentley, Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, and all these people "involved with the things of the Spirit," do we really want to join the club?

Before you talk down to we Reformed as if we lack the Holy Spirit, you should probably clean up the chaos and the horror that is your Pelagian church.

"Mmmm...four posts!" Maybe you are working under a second user name but you are obviously unaware that I am more than willing to challenge the antics of the likes of Bentley and his cohorts as are many others. Do I make the silly counter claim that all Reformed attendees are into liberalism, homosexuality, drunkenness simply because these things are well known in these circles, well of course not, so maybe you might want to consider raising the level of your objections.

As you are attributing the activities of the Spirit to Satan, which does seem to be common with many hard-core Calvinists, then I guess that you have "never been where I have been"; and quite obviously, I would shudder to think that I would ever be in the situation you are in - what a horrible thought.

You might want to consider taking a pause for a day or so where you might want to come back with some decent observations and not with the silly pub scene arguments - that just might make our discussions a bit more fruitful.

James Is Back · Jan 30, 2015

Biblicist2 said:
You seem to be speaking of OSAS which is certainly not something that most Arminians acknowledge.

Even though we are probably being a bit dismissive with Reformed perspectives it is not something that we so much choose to do, as if it were a weapon to unsettle the Calvinist; all we are doing is recognising that we regularly see people proudly declaring that they are Calvinists but who are probably more Arminian than many Arminians - it's just the way it is.

This situation is particularly common with 'Calvinists' who are a part of either the Pentecostal or charismatic movements, where they often try to incorporate their Calvinist beliefs but as these two movements are highly experiential where they quickly begin to realise that their prayers can change things, then in the end their Christian walk soon begins to be Arminian in practice even though they may inadvertently throw in a few Calvinist distinctives.

I am of the opinion that it is can be very difficult for someone to be a Pentecostal or charismatic and at the same time be deeply involved within Calvinism; which is maybe why we see so few Calvinists involved with the things of the Spirit.

New Calvinism actually teaches Continuationism.. I don't know if the movement is still around though.

Doctor Octavius · Jan 30, 2015

Biblicist2 said:
"Mmmm...four posts!" Maybe you are working under a second user name but you are obviously unaware that I am more than willing to challenge the antics of the likes of Bentley and his cohorts as are many others. Do I make the silly counter claim that all Reformed attendees are into liberalism, homosexuality, drunkenness simply because these things are well known in these circles, well of course not, so maybe you might want to consider raising the level of your objections.

The "of course not" would be because you are speaking of the PCUSA. But they're not Reformed. They're closer to Universalists.

As you are attributing the activities of the Spirit to Satan, which does seem to be common with many hard-core Calvinists, then I guess that you have "never been where I have been";

But in all your assumptions you don't realize that you're talking to someone who has spoken in tongues, been the subject of prophecy, and have had the misfortune of tangling with "prophets" all over the place. I could have had my tongues signed and notarized by you. I've even had them Interpreted for me. I've been in your churches. I've been among your Pentecostals/Charismatics. You are not talking to someone who doesn't have a clue of what you're talking about.

If you don't want your prophecies and visions and tongues and whatever else challenged-- then don't insult other people as if they lack the Spirit, or that they must somehow transform into you as they "get into the Spirit." Your Spirit! Ha! I know where to punch you where it hurts, because I can deliver to you, at any time, a raving cultist who denies the Trinity, who is 10 times worse than anything you can imagine, shouting and raving about how he "walks in the Spirit," sounding just like you when he talks down to other people who don't believe what he does.

It means nothing-- your spiritual accolades count for squat. It's the Scripture that reigns supreme over all matters of doctrine. And that's where I'll stand, regardless of the boasting of any of my opponents.

You might want to consider taking a pause for a day or so where you might want to come back with some decent observations and not with the silly pub scene arguments - that just might make our discussions a bit more fruitful.

Physician, heal thyself! Don't you see the tone of your own posts?

Biblicist · Jan 30, 2015

James Is Back said:
New Calvinism actually teaches Continuationism.. I don't know if the movement is still around though.

A couple of months back on this forum we were talking about a specific ministry who was unknown to most us where I decided to do a check on him. When I saw a quick reference to where he was supposed to be holding a meeting in Perth Western Australia at an official Calvinist congregation, I must admit that I immediately became a bit suspicious so I sent an email off to the church asking about the intended meetings.

When I received a confirmation email I was a bit surprised (more like stunned) as the Calvinist movement here in Australia has generally been very hostile to the things of the Spirit. Even during the charismatic renewal of the 60's and 70's (which is getting further back as each year goes by), it was rare to encounter a Calvinist congregation that was charismatic where most of their charismatic members began to attend our meetings as well; in the end most of them simply moved over into one of the Pentecostal denominations or joined a charismatic congregation.

I should point out that there are certainly many superb Calvinist theologians such as Carson, Grudem, Anthony Thiselton and even John Piper who are fully supportive of Full Gospel theology where the Anglican Calvinist Anthony Thiselton is certainly one of my favourite theologians. But in all truth, I really wonder just how Calvinist these chaps really are when it comes down to the nitty-gritty. Do I dare mention the Calvinist Mark Driscoll who has always been dismissive of Reformed views that promote cessationism - even though he was far from being a charismatic.

Biblicist · Jan 30, 2015

Doctor Octavius said:
. . .Physician, heal thyself! Don't you see the tone of your own posts?

Aaahhh...what a lovely post. Need I point out that you have jumped onto a Charismatic/Pentecostal forum where "if" you are new to this forum then you might need to read up on the rules as you have broken quite a few in just a few posts.

As I have been spending a bit of time over in the General Theology forum and amazingly in the Traditional Theology forum (which you might be spending time in under another name), then I know that I need to be respectful of their views which has meant that my <delete> key has been in overdrive; quite often I will simply keep out of some subjects as I appreciate that they are designed for people of particular persuasions - maybe you might want to keep this in mind.

So whenever you come onto a particular forum it is good to read up on the rules first (presuming that you actually are a newbie) which means that you won't leave yourself open to a bit of well intentioned but certainly intentional niggling.

ByTheSpirit · Jan 30, 2015

This is what the deal is. Read Romans 1:16 and that answers my question with a loud false.

The GOSPEL of YAHSHUA is the power of God for salvation to those WHO BELIEVE. Not those predestined...

Denying Calvinism...

Come Lord Jesus

gideons300

Guest

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Galatians is the best!

citizen of heaven

Selah

Doctor Octavius

Guest

Junior Member

Worker of the Hive

Selah

Galatians is the best!

Doctor Octavius

Guest

Full Gospel believer

Doctor Octavius

Guest

Full Gospel believer

CF's Official Locksmith

Doctor Octavius

Guest

Full Gospel believer

Full Gospel believer

Come Lord Jesus

Similar threads