haters of reformed theology

[wigglytug]

This woman caryl mastriacna seems to really detest reformed theology! Teaching Tool on Calvinism she thinks that calvinism is a sign of the end times! does anyone have any counters to the stuff she spews

 

[crimsonleaf]

I read up to page 39 before concluding that her 14 years in Reformed theology were wasted. She still misunderstands it. I may read more the next time I have trouble sleeping.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

This woman caryl mastriacna seems to really detest reformed theology Teaching Tool on Calvinism she thinks that calvinism is a sign of the end times! does anyone have any counters to the stuff she spews

Might help if you had quoted something you wanted a counter response to like this:

[Recently, the controversy of Calvinism has expanded to new proportions as questions persist regarding Calvinism's promotion of a different God, a different Jesus and a different gospel. Calvinism claims to defend the orthodox, historic truth of the Bible and is therefore firmly entrenched, if not institutionalized, within evangelicalism. It has become increasing difficult to find churches, leaders, ministries, study materials or "Christian" books that do not promote some aspect of Calvinism. This ear tickling, elitist philosophy has deceived many Christians into promoting a god (Notebook pg. 25) who doesn't love all men, with a savior who didn't die for all men (Notebook pg. 98), offered by a gospel that saves only the elect (Notebook pg. 82). The Bible clearly opposes Calvinism by teaching that God so loved the world (Jn 3:16) that He gave His only begotten Son to die for ALL men (1 Tim 4:10); even for the false teachers - obviously not elect (2 Pet 2:1); and that the gospel saves every sinner who believes from their heart (Rom 10:10, Jn 6:29). Both views can't be true." - Calvinism's different God, Jesus, and Gospel

If we read Matthew Poole's exegesis of JN 3:16...

"For God the Father, who is the Lord of all, debtor to none, sufficient to himself,

so loved the world, that is, Gentiles as well as Jews. There is a great contest about the signification of the term, between those who contend for or against the point of universal redemption; but certain it is, that from this term no more can be solidly concluded, than from the terms all and every, which in multitudes of places are taken in a restrained sense for many, or all of such a nation or kind. As this term sometimes signifies all persons, so, in 1Jo 2:21, the Gentiles in opposition to the Jews. Nor, admitting that

the world should signify here every living soul in the place called the world, will any thing follow from it. It is proper enough to say, A man loved such a family to such a degree that he gave his estate to it, though he never intended such a thing to every child or branch of it. So as what is truth in that so vexed a question cannot be determined from any of these universal terms; which must, when all is said that can be said, be expounded by what follows them, and by their reconcilableness to other doctrines of faith.

God so loved the world that he gave his Son to die for a sacrifice for their sins, to die in their stead, and give a satisfaction for them to his justice. And this Son was not any of his sons by adoption, but his only begotten Son; not so called (as Socinians would have it) because of his singular generation of the virgin without help of man, but from his eternal generation, in whom the Gentiles should trust, Psa 2:12, which none ought to do, but in God alone, Deu 6:13 Jer 17:5.

That whosoever, &c.: the term all is spoken to above; these words restrain the universal term world, and all, to let us know that Christ only died for some in the world, viz. such as should believe in him. Some judge, not improbably, that Christ useth the term world in this verse in the same sense as in 1Jo 2:2. Our evangelist useth to take down the pride of the Jews, who dreamed that the Messiah came only for the benefit of the seed of Abraham, not for the nations of the world, he only came to destroy them; which notion also very well fitteth what we have in the next verse." - from Annotations of the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

...we see the bankruptcy of caryl mastriacna's objection using JN 3:16 as a proof text.

Next for 1 Timothy 4:10 let's read from Albert Barnes Notes on the New Testament...

"Who is the Saviour of all men. This must be understood as denoting that he is the Saviour of all men in some sense which differs from what is immediately affirmed: "specially of those that believe." There is something pertaining to them in regard to salvation which does not pertain to "all men." It cannot mean that he brings all men to heaven, especially those who believe--for this would be nonsense. And if he brings all men actually to heaven, how can it be especially true that he does this in regard to those who believe? Does it mean that he saves others without believing. But this would be contrary to the uniform doctrine of the Scriptures. See Mk 16:16. When, therefore, it is said that he "is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe, "it must mean that there is a sense in which it is true that he may be called the Saviour of all men, while, at the same time, it is actually true that those only are saved who believe. This may be true in two respects.

(1.) As he is the Preserver of men, (Job 7:20,) for in this sense he may be said to save them from famine, and war, and peril--keeping them from day to day; comp. Ps 107:28;

(2.) as he has provided salvation for all men. He is thus their Saviour, and may be called the common Saviour of all; that is, he has confined the offer of salvation to no one class of men; he has not limited the atonement to one division of the human race; and he actually saves all who are willing to be saved by him.

Specially of those that believe. This is evidently designed to limit the previous remark. If it had been left there, it might have been inferred that he would actually save all men. But the apostle held no such doctrine, and he here teaches that salvation is actually limited to those who believe. This is the speciality or the peculiarity in the salvation of those who actually reach heaven, that they are believers. Mk 16:16. All men, therefore, do not enter heaven, unless all men have faith. But is this so? What evidence is there that the great mass of mankind die believing on the Son of God?" from Barnes Notes on the New Testament

Caryl Mastriacna's universalism is not biblical, not supported by Scripture (especially the greater context). The universalist cannot reconcile their doctrine of atonement with Scripture, what's more, it is insulting to reason and the five senses. I refrain from using the word, and I am applying it to the doctrine, universalism is heresy, it is a "dangerous doctrine" because it undermines the entire Christian faith, in fact it undermines the entire meaning and purpose of life. It absolutely destroys God's justice for the sake of absolute mercy, but what is mercy without justice? Mercy ceases to be mercy without justice. It maketh God's wrath out to be a joke, makes a complete mockery of justice.

 

[wigglytug]

Might help if you had quoted something you wanted a counter response to like this:



If we read Matthew Poole's exegesis of JN 3:16...

"For God the Father, who is the Lord of all, debtor to none, sufficient to himself,

so loved the world, that is, Gentiles as well as Jews. There is a great contest about the signification of the term, between those who contend for or against the point of universal redemption; but certain it is, that from this term no more can be solidly concluded, than from the terms all and every, which in multitudes of places are taken in a restrained sense for many, or all of such a nation or kind. As this term sometimes signifies all persons, so, in 1Jo 2:21, the Gentiles in opposition to the Jews. Nor, admitting that

the world should signify here every living soul in the place called the world, will any thing follow from it. It is proper enough to say, A man loved such a family to such a degree that he gave his estate to it, though he never intended such a thing to every child or branch of it. So as what is truth in that so vexed a question cannot be determined from any of these universal terms; which must, when all is said that can be said, be expounded by what follows them, and by their reconcilableness to other doctrines of faith.

God so loved the world that he gave his Son to die for a sacrifice for their sins, to die in their stead, and give a satisfaction for them to his justice. And this Son was not any of his sons by adoption, but his only begotten Son; not so called (as Socinians would have it) because of his singular generation of the virgin without help of man, but from his eternal generation, in whom the Gentiles should trust, Psa 2:12, which none ought to do, but in God alone, Deu 6:13 Jer 17:5.

That whosoever, &c.: the term all is spoken to above; these words restrain the universal term world, and all, to let us know that Christ only died for some in the world, viz. such as should believe in him. Some judge, not improbably, that Christ useth the term world in this verse in the same sense as in 1Jo 2:2. Our evangelist useth to take down the pride of the Jews, who dreamed that the Messiah came only for the benefit of the seed of Abraham, not for the nations of the world, he only came to destroy them; which notion also very well fitteth what we have in the next verse." - from Annotations of the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

...we see the bankruptcy of caryl mastriacna's objection using JN 3:16 as a proof text.

Next for 1 Timothy 4:10 let's read from Albert Barnes Notes on the New Testament...

"Who is the Saviour of all men. This must be understood as denoting that he is the Saviour of all men in some sense which differs from what is immediately affirmed: "specially of those that believe." There is something pertaining to them in regard to salvation which does not pertain to "all men." It cannot mean that he brings all men to heaven, especially those who believe--for this would be nonsense. And if he brings all men actually to heaven, how can it be especially true that he does this in regard to those who believe? Does it mean that he saves others without believing. But this would be contrary to the uniform doctrine of the Scriptures. See Mk 16:16. When, therefore, it is said that he "is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe, "it must mean that there is a sense in which it is true that he may be called the Saviour of all men, while, at the same time, it is actually true that those only are saved who believe. This may be true in two respects.

(1.) As he is the Preserver of men, (Job 7:20,) for in this sense he may be said to save them from famine, and war, and peril--keeping them from day to day; comp. Ps 107:28;

(2.) as he has provided salvation for all men. He is thus their Saviour, and may be called the common Saviour of all; that is, he has confined the offer of salvation to no one class of men; he has not limited the atonement to one division of the human race; and he actually saves all who are willing to be saved by him.

Specially of those that believe. This is evidently designed to limit the previous remark. If it had been left there, it might have been inferred that he would actually save all men. But the apostle held no such doctrine, and he here teaches that salvation is actually limited to those who believe. This is the speciality or the peculiarity in the salvation of those who actually reach heaven, that they are believers. Mk 16:16. All men, therefore, do not enter heaven, unless all men have faith. But is this so? What evidence is there that the great mass of mankind die believing on the Son of God?" from Barnes Notes on the New Testament

Caryl Mastriacna's universalism is not biblical, not supported by Scripture (especially the greater context). The universalist cannot reconcile their doctrine of atonement with Scripture, what's more, it is insulting to reason and the five senses. I refrain from using the word, and I am applying it to the doctrine, universalism is heresy, it is a "dangerous doctrine" because it undermines the entire Christian faith, in fact it undermines the entire meaning and purpose of life. It absolutely destroys God's justice for the sake of absolute mercy, but what is mercy without justice? Mercy ceases to be mercy without justice. It maketh God's wrath out to be a joke, makes a complete mockery of justice.

I dont think this woman s a universalist, she seems to be a big fan of dispensationalism, and she believes that calvinism is a sign of the end times and that he "rapture " will come soon..

 

[Eddie L]

I dont think this woman s a universalist, she seems to be a big fan of dispensationalism, and she believes that calvinism is a sign of the end times and that he "rapture " will come soon..

Well, if she's a mega-dispie that thinks Calvinism is a sign of the coming rapture, Calvinism should be making her very happy, so I don't know what she's complaining about. Some people are just never happy, I guess.

 

[wigglytug]

Well, if she's a mega-dispie that thinks Calvinism is a sign of the coming rapture, Calvinism should be making her very happy, so I don't know what she's complaining about. Some people are just never happy, I guess.

well arent there some reformed dispies like john macauthor.....i wonder what she thinks of them

 

[JM]

Johnny Mac is a Calvinist or Reformed in soteriology but Dispensational in eschatology...I wouldn't say he is Reformed. Since the 1960's Baptists have been reclaiming the London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689 and those Baptists would be considered "Reformed."

 

[msortwell]

At first glance (and her work seems to be worth nothing more) this lady is nothing more that a Dave Hunt style "apologist." Like Hunt she offers up a false image of Calvinism and Reformed theology, then proceeds to disprove the theological system that she made up - that exists only in her mind . . . Oh, and Dave Hunt's head.

 

[wigglytug]

At first glance (and her work seems to be worth nothing more) this lady is nothing more that a Dave Hunt style "apologist." Like Hunt she offers up a false image of Calvinism and Reformed theology, then proceeds to disprove the theological system that she made up - that exists only in her mind . . . Oh, and Dave Hunt's head.

why does dave hunt hate reformed stuff so much, i thought JN darby and his brethern are catholic haters

 

[GQ Chris]

lol. Her opinions don't matter anyway. I love Reformed Theology.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

why does dave hunt hate reformed stuff so much, i thought JN darby and his brethern are catholic haters

2 Peter 2:1 "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber." (NKJV)

2 Tim 3:7 "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith;" (NKJV)

2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables." (NKJV)

Why do they hate Reformed Theology and project it towards those whom embrace it? Unfortunately, many of these haters cannot be said to be ignorant, for it would be better to be ignorant than a hater of sound doctrine, a hater of truth. Scripture warns us about such people. Personally, I think time is better spent responding to haters like Dr. Norman Geisler, though I am not sure if I consider him at the same level of hate, because of his ambiguous if not inconsistent statements.

 

[wigglytug]

so they hate reformed theology because they think its "evil"?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

so they hate reformed theology because they think its "evil"?

I'd say so, moreorless. Unfortunately there are many false teachers who teach strawmen versions of Calvinism, and for many that is all they know. They think Calvinism makes God out to be the "author of evil" (which some Calvinists have little or no problem with), that it's view of sovereignty makes God out to be a cruel and sadistic puppet master, that it makes life out to be a cosmic game of chess with the devil. All that one needs to read is John Calvin's "The Bondage and Liberation of the Will" to know that those notions above are false. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has refuted Jonathan Edwards work "The Freedom of the Will" which lays out compatibilism, a view which embraces both the Sovereignty of God, and the responsibility of man, or (a limited) freedom within the will. IOW, while non-Calvinists see incompatibility between the Sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, Calvinists see and embrace the compatibility, because both are taught in Scripture.

If people would research for themselves, what Calvinists have actually believed, historically, in the creeds, etc. they would have to come to different conclusions than they do, or at least some may not be as prone to misrepresent and distort reformed theology. Those who know better but intentionally misrepresent through distortions, are haters.

 

[cubanito]

As a member of PCA Churches for over a decade, and a commited Calvarminian Dispensationalist, please understand this woman is not a good representative of those of us who are not wed to Covenant Theology. Covenant vs Dispensational, just as Arminian/Semi-Pelagian vs Augustinian/Calvin should be an INTRAmural debate between those who acknowledge each other's basic orthodoxy. It should be held respectfully and with tolerance. Unfortunately, there is a strong tradition, starting with Finney, of Calvin hating that is shameful. Also please understand that the understanding of modern Dispys is a far cry from the days of Darby and Scofield. These days, generally, we hold ALL men are saved sola fide, and that in the end there will be no difference between Jew and Gentile, all inheriting the Earth. One can definitely find exceptions, but the "Progressive Dispensationalists" of today have corrected many of the errors of the past.

JR

 

[If Not For Grace]

 

[Elderone]

Christianity is the only true religion and as 2nd Corinthians 6:14 says:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

 

[JM]

Dispensationalism should not be tolerated.

It is bad theology, not Reformed and modernist. Before Dispensationalism became pop theology Arminians held to differing forms of covenant theology.

 

[bsd058]

I'm reading a book called "A Case for Amillenialism" which really rips dispensationalism to shreds. It's worth the money and the read so far (only half way through it). Find it on Amazon.

 

[Eddie L]

As a member of PCA Churches for over a decade, and a commited Calvarminian Dispensationalist, please understand this woman is not a good representative of those of us who are not wed to Covenant Theology. Covenant vs Dispensational, just as Arminian/Semi-Pelagian vs Augustinian/Calvin should be an INTRAmural debate between those who acknowledge each other's basic orthodoxy. It should be held respectfully and with tolerance. Unfortunately, there is a strong tradition, starting with Finney, of Calvin hating that is shameful. Also please understand that the understanding of modern Dispys is a far cry from the days of Darby and Scofield. These days, generally, we hold ALL men are saved sola fide, and that in the end there will be no difference between Jew and Gentile, all inheriting the Earth. One can definitely find exceptions, but the "Progressive Dispensationalists" of today have corrected many of the errors of the past.

JR

JR, I'm not a dispensationalist AT ALL, and back in the days of the "carnal Christian" and "one program for Jews, another for the church" I was more concerned about Dispensationalists than Romans. I agree with you, though, that many of the errors of those days have been corrected, and certainly appreciate you bringing the fact that this woman doesn't represent the mainstream Dispensationalist attitude about Calvinism or Covenant theology to our attention.

 

[JM]

I'm reading a book called "A Case for Amillenialism" which really rips dispensationalism to shreds. It's worth the money and the read so far (only half way through it). Find it on Amazon.

The author, Kim Riddlebarger, has free audio lectures for download as well: Riddleblog - The Latest Post