What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[ReverendRV]

Is this what I am talking about, in reference to misrepresentation regarding "Calvinism"?

Where does Spurgeon deny salvation to Arminians, or anyone else, who does not agree with TULIP?

He does not.
He simply asserts that their theology is incorrect.
Where in Scripture are we lost because of less-than-correct theological points?

Does such misrepresentation of Spurgeon actually refute "Calvinism," and elevate "Arminianism?"
I think not. . .it simply discredits "Arminianism" for a lack of thoroughness in the understanding of its adherents.

Obviously the Prince of Preachers knows that Calvinism is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In his exuberance he used Hyperbole when he said Calvinism is the Gospel. You can know this by reading him. Finding out what C.H. Spurgeon meant can be like trying to find out what Saint Paul believed; Saint Peter tells us that he said things that are hard to understand. Not extending Spurgeon the Grace that Saint Peter extended to Saint Paul is wrong. When Spurgeon said Calvinism is the Gospel, it's like him saying something hard to understand; in light of him preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ all his Christian life...

Do this; every time you hear the one quote that Spurgeon called Calvinism the Gospel, paste Spurgeon preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. After doing this for a while you will have a pile of examples of what Spurgeon really believed, compared to their pile of one quote. A thing is established by two or three Witnesses, right? And if one person rails against a Preacher, you're not to listen to the lone accusation. This is when you can rightly accuse them of Poisoning the Well...

 

[Clare73]

Equivocating

Please specifically demonstrate your assertion. . .without which it does not have merit.

 

[atpollard]

As a Calvinist, I know you believe that it is all about "sovereign choice". But is that actually true?

Romans 9 says it is.

 

[Clare73]

Obviously the Prince of Preachers knows that Calvinism is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It would be helpful if I knew what Calvin stated that is contra-Biblical, such that one can claim what he stated is not the gospel?
Got any idea?

Lotta' charges. . .no proof.

In his exuberance he used Hyperbole when he said Calvinism is the Gospel. You can know this by reading him. Finding out what C.H. Spurgeon meant can be like trying to find out what Saint Paul believed; Saint Peter tells us that he said things that are hard to understand. Not extending Spurgeon the Grace that Saint Peter extended to Saint Paul is wrong. When Spurgeon said Calvinism is the Gospel, it's like him saying something hard to understand; in light of him preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ all his Christian life...

Do this; every time you hear the one quote that Spurgeon called Calvinism the Gospel, paste Spurgeon preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. After doing this for a while you will have a pile of examples of what Spurgeon really believed, compared to their pile of one quote. A thing is established by two or three Witnesses, right? And if one person rails against a Preacher, you're not to listen to the lone accusation. This is when you can rightly accuse them of Poisoning the Well...

 

[atpollard]

What is the simple difference between Baptist and Presbyterian?

• Presbyterians baptize babies (Covenant baptism).
• Baptists baptize only professing adult believers (Credobaptism … from Latin ‘Credo’ for “I believe”).

(The biggest difference in simple terms.)

 

[Clare73]

So then "I am the master of my fate, the captain of my soul." Thank you Mr. Henley, but you are wrong, Jesus Christ is the master of my fate, the captain of my soul.

Free will is a necessary evil. Sometimes God allows what He hates in order to accomplish what He loves. "Free will has led many a soul to Hell, but never one to heaven. Spurgeon. God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, thereby guaranteeing that heaven will be full.

Actually, free will as presented in Scripture has "led" many to heaven.

Free will as presented in the Bible is the power to choose (execute) voluntarily, without external force or constraint.
However, free will does not operate in a vacuum. It is governed by the disposition, what one likes, prefers.
Therein is the problem, unregenerate man does not prefer God's will, he prefers self-will over God's will.

But God operates in the disposition, giving one to prefer his will, where the will then freely and voluntarily, without external force or constraint, chooses what it prefers--the very definition of free will as presented in Scripture.
Yes, Biblical free will has "led" many to heaven, by the operation of the Holy Spirit.

God does not violate the free will of man, God uses the free will of man to bring man freely to himself.

 

[jamiec]

Note that he says Calvinism is the Gospel, not the Gospel is Calvinism. He goes on to list the components of the Gospel of Christ.

If you believe that when someone is born again he can be unborn and then reborn and reborn and reborn, then you are departing from what the Bible says about being born again by the Spirit of God. Also there is no such thing as temporary eternal life. Eternal life is just that - eternal life. Being a child of God is not like being on Facebook and being unfriended. A genuinely converted believer will be filled with the Holy Spirit and departing from Christ will be unthinkable. The Arminian view that a person can be born again today and then be unborn tomorrow comes from easy believerism when a person can decide for Christ today and then decide against Him tomorrow. Such easy believers get just "religion" and think they are saved just by saying a short prayer. True believers continue to press into God by repenting of sin, and seeking Him for the total transformation that comes through the Holy Spirit working in them to achieve it.

About this:

“The Arminian view that a person can be born again today and then be unborn tomorrow comes from easy believerism when a person can decide for Christ today and then decide against Him tomorrow.”

The weaknesses of the Calvinist doctrine are discussed by the Methodist theologian John William Fletcher, a colleague of John Wesley. Fletcher’s rejection of the doctrine can be read in his “Five Checks To Antinomianism”. His position could hardly be further removed from “easy-believism”. The book is freely available on the Net. I would guess that a lot of the “Arminian” critics of Calvinist soteriology have at least a glancing familiarity with Fletcher’s (thorough & gracious) book.

The Calvinist position can make sense if it allows for the elect to commit apostasy and other grave sins, these being followed by repentance, ending in final salvation. If it cannot allow for that to happen, it is superficial and unrealistic.

No doctrine that denies the possibilities in human nature can be satisfactory as a piece of Christian theology. People who are fundamentally Christian, can commit great sins even so.

 

[jamiec]

An essay:
Romans 8:29 For whom HE did foreknow, HE also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of HIS Son.
From this verse we can see that the predestination of the elect is based on the foreknowledge of GOD.

Now everyone admits that in this verse, the word “fore” means before life. Therefore, they think that it also means before creation as if our earthly life was the same as our created spirit life. I wonder if this is a valid and reasonable link to make?

GOD obviously does not before life know everybody since not everyone will become like Jesus, as Rom 8:29 just said predestination means and as per Matthew 7:21 – 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ which tells us what knowing means, emphasising the idea that loving is knowing and knowing about has no love.

James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.
Jesus obviously knew about the demons and knew about the miracle workers but this knowing contained no love as it is plain, He never knew them.

This means that foreknow must carry the idea of approval. As one commentator stated it, “Whom HE foreknew” is virtually equivalent to “whom HE foreloved”.

Now this question comes to mind: if it is true that no one had been created at the time of this foreknowledge, on what basis does GOD "before life" love some and not the rest?

cntd

What does a study of the relevant Hebrew and Greek words and concepts allow us to conclude, I wonder?

 

[Clare73]

An essay:

Romans 8:29 For whom HE did foreknow, HE also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of HIS Son.

From this verse we can see that the predestination of the elect is based on the foreknowledge of GOD.

What does a study of
the relevant Hebrew and Greek words and concepts allow us to conclude, I wonder?

Are we starting the thread over again?

"Predestinate" is to destinate (determine) the outcome in advance.

My post #160 follows:

"Divine foreknowledge, as used in Scripture, does not refer to God knowing in advance what men are going to do, but refers to God knowing in advance what he is going to do. . .because he has decreed that he shall do (execute) it.

Acts 15:18 - 'Known to the Lord for ages is his work.'

Isaiah 48:3 - 'I foretold (predestined) the former things of long ago,
my mouth announced (decreed) them, and I made them known;
then suddenly I acted (executed), and they came to pass.'

See Acts 2:23, 4:28; Isaiah 37:26.

God executed in their present the choice and purpose he made before (predestined) they were created;
i.e., he executed (accomplished) his foreknowledge (his previous choice and purpose)."

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

About this:

“The Arminian view that a person can be born again today and then be unborn tomorrow comes from easy believerism when a person can decide for Christ today and then decide against Him tomorrow.”

The weaknesses of the Calvinist doctrine are discussed by the Methodist theologian John William Fletcher, a colleague of John Wesley. Fletcher’s rejection of the doctrine can be read in his “Five Checks To Antinomianism”. His position could hardly be further removed from “easy-believism”. The book is freely available on the Net. I would guess that a lot of the “Arminian” critics of Calvinist soteriology have at least a glancing familiarity with Fletcher’s (thorough & gracious) book.

The Calvinist position can make sense if it allows for the elect to commit apostasy and other grave sins, these being followed by repentance, ending in final salvation. If it cannot allow for that to happen, it is superficial and unrealistic.

No doctrine that denies the possibilities in human nature can be satisfactory as a piece of Christian theology. People who are fundamentally Christian, can commit great sins even so.

Antinomianism is one of the main criticisms of Calvinism. But Calvinist teaching does not support it. It teaches that seeing that we are saved by the grace of God through faith in Christ alone, we are no longer slaves to the Law, but free in Christ to do what we want. But I don't know of any true Calvinist who would want to continue in sin. Would I want to pick up some floosie on a Friday night and pay her to have my wicked way with her? Or would I want to get a gun and start shooting people? Would I want to beat up my wife every time I get into an argument with her? Or would I want to have love, peace, joy, gentleness, kindness, patience, goodness, faithfulness and self control in my life?

I know that there are extreme Calvinists who say they are saved by God's grace and then carry on with their life of debauchery. They say the sinners prayer and think they are saved without going on to a life of holiness to the Lord. But the true Calvinists I know are sticklers for holiness, hate sin, and struggle against it with all their heart.

So, are you a slave to the Law or are you free in Christ? If you were given the freedom to do what you want, would you go back into sin, or would you do the things that would honour God and the Name of Jesus?

 

[RickReads]

About this:

“The Arminian view that a person can be born again today and then be unborn tomorrow comes from easy believerism when a person can decide for Christ today and then decide against Him tomorrow.”

That isn`t the Arminian view. Only a confused Arminian would believe that.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Antinomianism is one of the main criticisms of Calvinism. But Calvinist teaching does not support it. It teaches that seeing that we are saved by the grace of God through faith in Christ alone, we are no longer slaves to the Law, but free in Christ to do what we want. But I don't know of any true Calvinist who would want to continue in sin. Would I want to pick up some floosie on a Friday night and pay her to have my wicked way with her? Or would I want to get a gun and start shooting people? Would I want to beat up my wife every time I get into an argument with her? Or would I want to have love, peace, joy, gentleness, kindness, patience, goodness, faithfulness and self control in my life?

I know that there are extreme Calvinists who say they are saved by God's grace and then carry on with their life of debauchery. They say the sinners prayer and think they are saved without going on to a life of holiness to the Lord. But the true Calvinists I know are sticklers for holiness, hate sin, and struggle against it with all their heart.

So, are you a slave to the Law or are you free in Christ? If you were given the freedom to do what you want, would you go back into sin, or would you do the things that would honour God and the Name of Jesus?

I can’t begin to tell you how many Calvinists defend daily , habitual sin and justify it on another forum . I get banned when I challenge them too. And I’m not talking about becoming sinless or sinless perfectionism either. It’s as if the new birth , new creation has no effect over the flesh . And the flesh , not the in dwelling spirit has the victory . I question the conversion . It’s an oxymoron to say one is saved yet lives like the children of darkness .

 

[RickReads]

I can’t begin to tell you how many Calvinists defend daily , habitual sin and justify it on another forum . I get banned when I challenge them too. And I’m not talking about becoming sinless or sinless perfectionism either. It’s as if the new birth , new creation has no effect over the flesh . And the flesh , not the in dwelling spirit has the victory . I question the conversion . It’s an oxymoron to say one is saved yet lives like the children of darkness .

I think that's the implication of irresistible grace. God is determined to give you grace even if you sin and rebel against Him.

 

[Clare73]

I think that's the implication of irresistible grace. God is determined to give you grace even if you sin and rebel against Him.

That is the misunderstanding, not the implication of "irrresistible" grace as seen in the NT,
where a description of it is given in my post #1127 (above, and quoted following), and where "irresistible" means it is "preferred."

"God operates in the disposition, giving one to prefer his will, where the will then freely and voluntarily, without external force or constraint, chooses what it prefers--the very definition of free will as presented in Scripture.
Yes, Biblical free will has "led" many to heaven, by the operation of the Holy Spirit.

God does not violate the free will of man, God uses the free will of man to bring man freely to himself."

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

That isn`t the Arminian view. Only a confused Arminian would believe that.

My understanding of the Arminian view, taken from the works of Arminius himself, is that a person chooses to believe the Gospel and to receive Christ, and then the Holy Spirit works to regenerate him. Then the believer has to go on to live a life of holiness to maintain his walk with Christ. John Wesley was a prominent supporter of Arminianism and he believed in full sanctification by faith, but that full sanctification has to be maintained by keeping from sin and living a holy life.

 

[RickReads]

That is the misunderstanding, not the implication of "irrresistible" grace as seen in the NT,
where a description of it is given in my post #1127 (above, and quoted following), and where "irresistible" means it is "preferred."

"God operates in the disposition, giving one to prefer his will, where the will then freely and voluntarily, without external force or constraint, chooses what it prefers--the very definition of free will as presented in Scripture.
Yes, Biblical free will has "led" many to heaven, by the operation of the Holy Spirit.

God does not violate the free will of man, God uses the free will of man to bring man freely to himself."

Meaning of irresistible in English


impossible to refuse, oppose, or avoid because it is too pleasant, attractive, or strong:

 

[Clare73]

Meaning of irresistible in English


impossible to refuse, oppose, or avoid because it is too pleasant, attractive, or strong:

Irrelevant. . .strawman.

"Irresistible grace" is a TULIP construction, which is not from Calvin, but from those who do not understand him correctly.

Until I see a demonstration of Calvin himself describing grace in that manner, it remains a misrepresentation of his view.

 

[RickReads]

My understanding of the Arminian view, taken from the works of Arminius himself, is that a person chooses to believe the Gospel and to receive Christ, and then the Holy Spirit works to regenerate him. Then the believe has to go on to live a life of holiness to maintain his walk with Christ. John Wesley was a prominent supporter of Arminianism and he believed in full sanctification by faith, but that full sanctification has to be maintained by keeping from sin and living a holy life.

Matthew 10:22
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be
saved.

You have to endure. That isn't getting saved and unsaved and saved again which is ridiculous.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I can’t begin to tell you how many Calvinists defend daily , habitual sin and justify it on another forum . I get banned when I challenge them too. And I’m not talking about becoming sinless or sinless perfectionism either. It’s as if the new birth , new creation has no effect over the flesh . And the flesh , not the in dwelling spirit has the victory . I question the conversion . It’s an oxymoron to say one is saved yet lives like the children of darkness .

I agree that there are those who use a misunderstanding of Calvinism as an excuse to live a life of debauchery while professing Christianity. They justify their sinful lifestyle by saying they are free in Christ. But Paul is very definite about that. He says, "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid!" In Romans 7 he details his struggle with his flesh. He says that in his heart he wants to follow the law of God, which he sees as good and holy, but there is another law in his flesh that tempts him to sin. He sees himself as a wretched man because he wants to be holy, but he has to struggle against his own flesh to achieve it. He comes to the conclusion that the law of the spirit of life in Christ has set him free from the law of sin and death, and that there is no condemnation for those in Christ. He says that there is no good thing in him, that is, in his flesh. He says that when he sins, it is no longer he who does it but sin within him. John says that if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us, and if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

But the so-called Calvinist who chooses to live a sinful life, doesn't have the struggle that Paul describes, and never confesses his sin as John instructs. His attitude is, "What's wrong with...[whatever is favourite sin is]." He never prays, "Lord, forgive me, a sinner." He seeks to justify his sin by saying, "I'm not under the Law but under grace." But he is not under grace at all. In fact, he is frustrating the grace of God by the life he is living.

The true Calvinist desires a life of holiness with all his heart, and has deep godly sorrow when he finds it a struggle against his flesh to achieve it.

 

[RickReads]

The true Calvinist desires a life of holiness with all his heart, and has deep godly sorrow when he finds it a struggle against his flesh to achieve it.

Story of my life there. I don't think that has anything to do with Calvinism. The Calvin story is no different than any other flawed theology. Ok so you're a Calvinist but are you saved is the question. and that question is unrelated to the Calvinisms.