How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[Beoga]

Or this?
Acts 7:51 (New International Version)

“You stiffnecked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

resist

v 1: elude, especially in a baffling way; "This behavior defies explanation" [syn: defy, refuse] [ant: lend oneself] 2: stand up or offer resistance to somebody or something [syn: hold out, withstand, stand firm] [ant: surrender] 3: express opposition through action or words; "dissent to the laws of the country" [syn: protest, dissent] 4: withstand the force of something; "The trees resisted her"; "stand the test of time"; "The mountain climbers had to fend against the ice and snow" [syn: stand, fend] 5: resist immunologically the introduction of some foreign tissue or organ; "His body rejected the liver of the donor" [syn: reject, refuse] 6: refuse to comply [syn: balk, baulk, jib]

appears to me that the word used in the English text shows something of the will, especially seeing how it's the verb in the sentence.

here is another explaination

ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; the resistance made by these persons was not to the Spirit of God in them, of which they were destitute, but to the Spirit of God in his ministers, in his apostles, and particularly in Stephen; nor to any internal operation of his grace, but to the external ministry of the word, and to all that objective light, knowledge, evidence, and conviction that it gave of Jesus's being the Messiah: and such who resist Christ's ministers, resist him, and such who resist him, may be said to resist his Holy Spirit; and the word here used signifies a rushing against, and falling upon, in a rude and hostile way, and fitly expresses their ill treatment of Christ and his ministers, by falling upon them and putting them to death: which is the resistance here designed, as appears by the following verse: so that this passage is no proof of the resistance of the Holy Spirit, and the operations of his grace in conversion, when he is in men, and acts with a purpose and will to convert them;

 

[Beoga]

How this for some scripture Calvinists deny:

This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live

Deuteronomy 30:19

But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD ."

Joshua 24:15

Elijah went before the people and said, "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him."

But the people said nothing.

1 Kings 18:21

never met a calvinist that deny's these commandments, which they are. are you trying to imply that these verses show an ability to do something, cause i don't see it.

 

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

never met a calvinist that deny's these commandments, which they are. are you trying to imply that these verses show an ability to do something, cause i don't see it.

I not implying I'm SAYING that these verses show the choice that man has to follow God or to reject Him, something that ALL Calvinist deny.

 

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

do you believe that calvinisim is heretical?

Yes I do (because you will not accept any other answer or explantion I give). I completely believe Calvinism as well as Arminianism aew false teachings and doctrines. However, I have also learned that many "Calvinist" and "Arminians" do not truly understand what it is that they claim to believe, but ignorance is no excuse. But you must notice that I do NOT go around condemning people as a heretic because I disagree with their beliefs, although many Calvinists would say the same thing I've had to many Calvinist break fellowship with me to believe that they do not consider me a heretic.

 

[Dmckay]

First I start by saying there are to many contradictions in Ariminianism AND Calvinism (both have to deny essential parts of the scripture). Secondly I'm not sure I like being called a heretic because of what ONE man came up with from his fallible few of the scripture, and for those who want to know i'm speaking of Augustine, not Calvin.

Excuse me, did you read my post that you feel the need to defend yourself from. No where did I mention Calvinism. I am NOT a follower of Calvin, I AM a disciple of my Lord Jesus Christ. I have not read anything written by Calvin to my knowledge. I have read about Calvin because of his mention in Church history.

I am talking about the Pronouncements of the Synod of Dort, a Church wide council held to debate and combat the 5-point position paper of the group that at that time called itself The Remonstrants. They were condemned (Check it out it IS historical) and refuted in their positions as being heretical by the majority of the non-catholic church of its day. That is to say that the official majority position of Reformation and prereformation churches was represented by the Pronouncements of the Synod of Dort. Their Pronouncements were 5 in number, to counter the 5 points presented by The Remonstrants. These 5 points came to be called T.U.L.I.P. and have been called the 5-points of Calvinism.

Historically, how much Calvin may or may not have had to do with the writing of these points I can't say. It was the majority of the Christian churches during that day that said that the teaching of the Remonstrants was heretical, not just one man's opinion. It also isn't my fault that this group, condemned for their non-Biblical positions later decided to call themselves Arminians. They did that themselves. Try reading a nonbiased church history of the time period.

Coincidently, this also happens to have been the historic theology of the majority of Baptists. I researched this topic for my Doctoral dissertation. The following is from that research, and you can check it for yourself:

Were Baptists in Their Early History Calvinists? The answer to this first question comes early and with ease. Modern Baptists in America trace their heritage to the early English Baptists of the Reformation period. These early forerunners were divided into two groups-the General Baptists and the Particular Baptists. The General Baptists were not as Calvinistic, and certainly did not believe in a particular atonement. They believed in a general atonement, that is, that the death of Christ had a general design towards all men. The Particular Baptists believed in a limited atonement.

Second, we find that these Particular Baptists of the seventeenth century were the more influential of the two groups. Their Calvinism was reflected in two confessions of faith, the First London Confession of 1644 and the Second London Confession of 1689.

We find strong and clear statements on election in each of them as follows:

And touching his creature man, God had in Christ before the foundation of the world, according to the good pleasure of his will, foreordained some men to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise and glory of his grace, leaving the rest in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his Justice.
First London Confession, 1644

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory some men and Angels are predestinated, or fore-ordained to Eternal Life, through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice. These Angels and Men thus predestinated, and fore-ordained are particularly, and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain, and definite, that it cannot be either increased, or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret Councel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love; without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving him thereunto.
Second London Confession, 1689

Beyond even English history, we find that Baptists in early America shared the same viewpoint as evidenced in their greatest confession of faith, the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. In fact, this confession was pretty much a reproduction of the Second London Confession, except for a few extra categories. But as far as the subject of divine election, it read exactly the same.

The widespread influence of this Philadelphia Confession was evidenced by a statement found in one very reliable source. That source stated that, “Throughout the South it shaped Baptist thought generally and has perhaps been the most influential of all confessions” (Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, Volume I, p. 308).

Thus the question, “Were Baptists in their early history Calvinists?” has to be answered with a strong and definite “Yes!”

When and Why Did Baptists Lose Their Calvinism?

These two questions are so closely related that if we discover the answer to one we will also uncover the other. But the answer to these two questions is not easy to find.

After pouring over dozens of books on Baptist history, and after giving it much thought and meditation, the answer was uncovered. Even then it can not be stated in a short and simple manner. To state it in summary fashion would be as follows: Baptists lost their Calvinism sometime in the past one hundred years due to the influence of the two great awakenings and the events which accompanied them.

To elaborate, Baptists were strong Calvinists in their early history in America as evidenced in the already mentioned Philadelphia Confession of Faith. This confession would have to be dated in the early part of the eighteenth century, perhaps about 1725.

When the first Great Awakening of 1740 (which by the way was a Calvinistic movement) exploded on the scene of early American history, Baptists were not involved in it. Baptists became involved in it as members of the established churches, who had experienced revival and renewal, left to join Baptist churches. These individuals were known as Separates, and they brought to the Baptist churches the spirit of the awakening, which was good, but they also brought some dangerous tendencies—a distrust of the established clergy, a view of the immediate illumination of the Holy Spirit, etc.

The excesses of this first great awakening were dangerous and damaging to Baptist life in America. Baptists began to move in the direction of a spirit of the anti-theological or non-theological in their attitudes and thinking. They became very pietistic, with strong appeal to the emotions. They came to undervalue ministerial education. They became somewhat anti-education and anti-historical. They began to fear creeds and confessions of faith. Up to this time confessions of faith and even catechisms were used by Baptists without question or apology.

When the second Great Awakening of about 1830 struck, Baptists were already in the middle of the modification of some of their thinking, with a modified Calvinism beginning to develop. Though Calvinism was still very strong, tendencies continued and even other tendencies were birthed which were to become a further threat to the remaining influence of Calvinism. Pietism was primary, while doctrinal aspects were secondary. Individualism in life began to reign, as opposed to corporate concerns being primary. Strong opposition to confessions developed.

This is not to say that Baptists fled their Calvinistic heritage at this point of history. It is to say that some tendencies, not all of them bad, began to develop, which if carried to an extreme could become very detrimental to their doctrinal heritage.

To summarize, the Calvinism of Baptists was under constant and direct attack in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, first from the revivalism of the Separates, then by Methodist Arminianism, and also from the Free Will Baptist movement, and finally from Charles G. Finney. Having embraced revivalism and its tendencies after the first great awakening, and having been suddenly vaulted to great prominence and influence among the people and the religious scene in America, Baptists were very interested in keeping their newly acquired religious leadership and in keeping their movement growing. As time wore on, the remnants of their Calvinism were still strong in some places, though modified. But even that amount of Calvinism became more difficult to defend before the simple, uneducated, common-sense man or even the rational, educated, philosophically-trained man. Instead of continuing to hold and defend their Calvinistic theology, they strained their Calvinistic theological framework to accommodate the new religious mood of the day.

The change was slow, and Calvinism continued to be held and defended by some even into the twentieth century. But by the middle of that century, Calvinism was all but dead among Baptists, except for a weakened definition of the fifth point. Baptists of past history called the fifth point “the perseverance of the saints.” Baptists of the middle years of the twentieth century called it “The eternal security of the believer.”

One final point must be made. Sometime just past the middle of the twentieth century, a revival of Calvinism among Baptists began, and it appears to be continuing and growing today.

Who Were Some of the Great Baptist Calvinists?

This was not a difficult question to answer. History abounds with great Baptists who were Calvinists. The following is a partial list:

1.** Isaac Backus, New England Baptist born 1724.

2.** John Leland, New England Baptist born 1754.

3.** James P. Boyce, founder and first president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

4.** J.L. Dagg, an early Southern Baptist theologian.

5.** P.H. Mell, president of the Southern Baptist Convention for seventeen years, longer than any other president ever served.

6.** Adoniram Judson, born in 1788, was the first foreign missionary to go forth from the United States.

7.** Charles H. Spurgeon, the great English preacher and pastor of the nineteenth century.

T.U.L.I.P., a doctrinal system first systematized to combat the Arminian heresy’s threat to the early church was the official position of the “Church” pretty much from the time of Augustine. Many Baptist preachers and teachers today will still describe themselves as “four” or “four and a half” point Calvinists.

As observed in the previous study all five points of T.U.L.I.P. are interconnected and flow logically out of the previous point. Because one is true the others are both true and necessary. If any one point is untrue or removed from consideration the others must also fall.

The “Church” in general, and Baptists in particular have left the original, traditional doctrinal position on soteriology for a watered-down position which appears easier for the unsaved to accept. Numbers and results have become the most important things in the eyes of most churches. A church measures its impact on the community not on the basis of changed lives and true growth in the Lord, but by the number of “decisions” or baptisms the church can boast.
*

 

[Reformationist]

My first point is that I don't belive all Christians get everything right and we as Christians should remember that even we are sinners.

I'm in total agreement.

And as for the ideas and thoughts of non-believers, I've learned that they are more accepting of a Christian who attempts to understand their beliefs without judgement, even if the Christian disagrees.

There's no such thing as a true Christian who attempts to understand anyone's beliefs without judgement because true understanding requires judgement. I'm, of course, not speaking of judging the whether the Lord can save a particular person. I'm speaking primarily of discerning whether a view should be recognized as viable.

Futhermore, how else can I understand the views of a non-believer with out giving some validity to their perception (it's an excellent witnessing tool).

Huh? To understand their view of the Gospel you have to consider it a valid view? I understand that it is helpful in sharing the Gospel with non-believers if you try to see where their hang-ups are but considering their view valid is pointless. Their view, at least about the Gospel, is invalid because they don't believe in God. How can a view about the Gospel be valid if the view doesn't include God? Their view about the Gospel is as valid to me as mine would be to a group of people who believed that wicca was a good religion.

{The pride and contempt of Christians of non-believers never ceases to amaze me. Why would anyone want to follow a Gospel of hate? What kind of good news is that?}

Unless you're referring to me I see no reason to include this comment. If you are referring to me, well, I still see no reason to include this comment.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Does it really matter who said the words if the point remains the same?

I could care less what a non-believer's opinion is of God and you, as a Christian, should feel the same. We're not talking about someone who said, "Hey, can't we all just get along." The man said that God didn't exist. You feel that quoting an athiest's opinion on the utter helplessness of theology is a healthy thing for a Christian to do? If so, good luck. I can guarantee that anyone who knows anything about that man and sees a Christian regurgitating his words as if his opinion of God should matter won't say that your source doesn't matter.

Additionally, do you agree with this athiest about the pointlessness of theology?

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Hi Reformationist;

Now that isn't true. You take this verse:
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

It has been made very clear by you and others here that this doesn't mean That it is God's will that all men be saved. Rather being the Hyper Calvinist you are, you believe only a few are chosen to receive Grace.

You do deny this is speaking about all men Don't you?
In Christ;
Romanbear

LOL! So because I believe God wills whatsoever He accomplishes and accomplishes whatsoever He wills you label me with a label whose meaning you clearly have no understanding of?

Seriously Rb, if you plan on having any long term credibility, at least with me, at least take the time to learn to differentiate between those who believe as Calvin did and those who are more aptly named anti-Calvinsts because if their heinous view of the character of God.

 

[Reformationist]

How this for some scripture Calvinists deny:

This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live

Deuteronomy 30:19

But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD ."

Joshua 24:15

Elijah went before the people and said, "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him."

But the people said nothing.

1 Kings 18:21

Let me get this straight. You read some verses that speak of commands to make a choice and choices made and you think that is contradictory to reformed doctrine? Is the problem just that you don't know reformed doctrine so you erroneously think the Bible contradicts our view?

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Or this?
Acts 7:51 (New International Version)

“You stiffnecked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

resist

v 1: elude, especially in a baffling way; "This behavior defies explanation" [syn: defy, refuse] [ant: lend oneself] 2: stand up or offer resistance to somebody or something [syn: hold out, withstand, stand firm] [ant: surrender] 3: express opposition through action or words; "dissent to the laws of the country" [syn: protest, dissent] 4: withstand the force of something; "The trees resisted her"; "stand the test of time"; "The mountain climbers had to fend against the ice and snow" [syn: stand, fend] 5: resist immunologically the introduction of some foreign tissue or organ; "His body rejected the liver of the donor" [syn: reject, refuse] 6: refuse to comply [syn: balk, baulk, jib]

appears to me that the word used in the English text shows something of the will, especially seeing how it's the verb in the sentence.

Again, do you offer this as proof against the reformed view or in favor of it? Reformed Christians don't claim that man doesn't or can't resist the Holy Spirit. In fact, one of the foundational doctrines is our view of the depravity of man's constituent nature after the Fall which causes him to always resist the Holy Spirit until he is regenerated.

It simply seems like you don't know the doctrines against which you rail.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

To try to seperate the views of a person and that person is impossible. It is our perceptions, experiences and reactions to those that make us who we are. So to call my views of Anti-Calvinism heretical you are labeling as a heretic as by beliefs and understanding of Scripture have complete influence over my perception and reactions to situations in life.

Sorry. Didn't understand that.

 

[Reformationist]

never met a calvinist that deny's these commandments, which they are. are you trying to imply that these verses show an ability to do something, cause i don't see it.

la, it is the age old misconception arising from their inability to separate the imperative (command) from the indicative (statment of ability). They read commands and they assume, like Pelagius did, that a command given implies ability. I often wonder why they will so loudly proclaim that as truth but then be unable to explain why, even though we are all commanded, no one, aside from Christ, has ever "loved the Lord with all their heart, with all their soul, and with all their strength" nor has anyone ever "been holy as God is holy." Oh well, it's just one of many chinks in the armor of their theology.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

I not implying I'm SAYING that these verses show the choice that man has to follow God or to reject Him, something that ALL Calvinist deny.

Calvinists don't deny that man has to make a choice nor that he chooses. What we deny is that unregenerate man is morally capable of choosing to follow God. Unregenerate man's moral inability stems from the corruption that is inherent to his nature after the Fall. Unregenerate man is incapable of obeying God simply because unregenerate man never desires to obey God.

Once again, it is made clear that you argue against a view that we don't hold.

God bless

 

[Ben johnson]

Ben, as always I have enjoyed discussing the Word of God with you but I think we're going in circles. I have given you the verses and evidence that I think explicitly state that God must definitively release us from the dominion of sin prior to any act on our part to obey. You have, and still are, denying this to be true. In all good conscience I do not think you will ever turn from your man centered doctrine unless the Lord Himself lifts the veil from your eyes. I say this not as an attack but as an admission of my impotency and reliance upon the only One with the power and authority to do so, our Lord God. If it be His will that you are enlightened to the truth of the doctrines of grace then so be it. I pray that He does so because it is the most comforting and reverential view of the Gospel that I can even imagine. If not, then I still count you as my brother in Christ who does much to spread the Gospel to those less inclined and less informed.

Don, I receive your prayers for me, for spiritual maturity and growth in Christ, with gratefulness. And I hope you likewise receive my prayers for the same for you.

I hope that I have always shown kindness and His love by my words; but if you think I have grown, then I will not dispute your assessment. I pray that each person participating in debates here, always remembers that it is God whom we serve; may every word we speak, and every deed we do, only bring Him glory and honor and praise. I think your posts have merit in our "contending for the truth", and hope that both of us would at the very least encourage other readers to follow along in their own Bibles; that each and all will be strengthened spiritually.

May God bless you and keep you.

 

[Reformationist]

Don, I receive your prayers for me, for spiritual maturity and growth in Christ, with gratefulness. And I hope you likewise receive my prayers for the same for you.

I can never get enough spiritual maturity and growth in Christ so I, too, eagerly and thankfully accept your prayers.

I hope that I have always shown kindness and His love by my words; but if you think I have grown, then I will not dispute your assessment. I pray that each person participating in debates here, always remembers that it is God whom we serve; may every word we speak, and every deed we do, only bring Him glory and honor and praise. I think your posts have merit in our "contending for the truth", and hope that both of us would at the very least encourage other readers to follow along in their own Bibles; that each and all will be strengthened spiritually.

All I can say is .

May God bless you and keep you.

You too my brother.

God bless,
Don

 

[Romanbear]

Hi littleapollogist;

what in context shows that 1 timothy 2 is talking about every single man ever? Why do you automatically assume that it is talking about every single man that has ever lived?
Do you even know what HC's believe, or do you just like shouting out false accusations?

Because it says all men it doesn't say some men it doesn't just the elect men either it says all men.
What do you think it says?
How can you claim that it says anything else?
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
How many men? it says all men this doesn't mean anything else other than all men If you disagree you can try to prove me wrong. Both in context and in meaning it still means all
In Christ;
Romanbear

 

[Ben johnson]

Because it says all men it doesn't say some men it doesn't just the elect men either it says all men.

The context, is "pray for kings, and all in authority". Surely, not all "kings/authorities", are "elect"?

If the context says "God would have ALL MEN saved and come to knowledge of the truth", including "kings-all-authority", how could it not mean "all"?

Combine this with other verses --- say, Acts17:30: "God declares that ALL MEN EVERYWHERE should repent" --- can we avoid seeing, "God desires all to be saved"?

 

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Let me get this straight. You read some verses that speak of commands to make a choice and choices made and you think that is contradictory to reformed doctrine? Is the problem just that you don't know reformed doctrine so you erroneously think the Bible contradicts our view?

God bless

Actually I disagree with the Calvinist doctrine because of the amount of prayer, research, and study that I did when first introduced to it. Whether or not you claim to hold beliefs in the way that I personally phrase them is irrevelant. However many times I Unintentionally labrl the simple logical outcome of Calvinistic doctrine as what those who follow Calvinism teach directly as doctrine. Please accept my apologies as in the future I will try to distinguish between a taught doctrine and the ultimate conclusion of the doctrines that are taught.

 

[Reformationist]

Actually I disagree with the Calvinist doctrine because of the amount of prayer, research, and study that I did when first introduced to it.

It seems that your prayer, research and study did not benefit you very much if you think that your arguments against Calvinist doctrine are arguments against actual Calvinist doctrine.

Whether or not you claim to hold beliefs in the way that I personally phrase them is irrevelant.

The fact that you misunderstand and misrepresent Calvinist doctrine is irrelevant? Okay.

However many times I Unintentionally labrl the simple logical outcome of Calvinistic doctrine as what those who follow Calvinism teach directly as doctrine.

I'm sorry but I don't know what "labrl" is.

Please accept my apologies as in the future I will try to distinguish between a taught doctrine and the ultimate conclusion of the doctrines that are taught.

No apology necessary. You commented on neither actual doctrine nor on the ultimate conclusion of reformed teaching. Your comments seem to be directed at your misunderstandings of reformed doctrine.

God bless

 

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Sorry. Didn't understand that.

heretic

n 1: a person who holds religious beliefs in conflict with the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church [syn: misbeliever, religious outcast] 2: a person who holds unorthodox opinions in any field (not merely religion)

To call one's beliefs heretical, is call the person a heretic (by definition), because those are the beliefs that the person is going to teach.