|
Post by Jeffrey Olver on May 5, 2008 16:28:57 GMT -5
When you really dig at the scab of traditional adherence to the doctrines of Calvanism; it reveals an infected, bloody mess of contradiction. It's ironic that all the while adherents to Calvanism, in regards to the issue of evangelism, will claim obedience to God, it's the foundation for disobedience - at the least apathy. - J.A. Olver
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 7, 2008 11:08:18 GMT -5
"The Calvinist's doctrine makes God out to be tyrannical, despotic, inscrutable, arbitrary, capricious, and rigid. One who is not primarily moved by love but simply "the good pleasure of his will." Certainly a person might fear such an entity, but how could anyone be attracted to such an offensive God, who would d**n most of the human race merely "for the good pleasure of his will," independently of any good or evil that these pitiful creatures have done. This God is not good and benevolent, but cruel and malicious." Jed Smock
"Calvinism makes God the author of sin, he chose its existence when it did not exist. He becomes the most unholy being in the universe--the cause and source of all wickedness and misery. Adam did not fall, he was shoved, was not deceived by the devil, but by the bully God of Calvinism." Jed Smock
|
|
|
Post by colton_latta on May 24, 2008 1:13:44 GMT -5
"The Calvinist's doctrine makes God out to be tyrannical, despotic, inscrutable, arbitrary, capricious, and rigid. One who is not primarily moved by love but simply "the good pleasure of his will." Certainly a person might fear such an entity, but how could anyone be attracted to such an offensive God, who would d**n most of the human race merely "for the good pleasure of his will," independently of any good or evil that these pitiful creatures have done. This God is not good and benevolent, but cruel and malicious." Jed Smock can unregenerate man been attracted to God?
|
|
|
Post by abraham on May 24, 2008 20:38:34 GMT -5
These men preached a gospel that you would call a bloody mess...
Matthew Henry Christopher Love George Whitefield Jeremiah Burroughs John Bunyan John Flavel John Newton John Owen Jonathan Edwards John Knox Martin Luther John Calvin Richard Baxter Robert Murray M'Cheyne Samuel Rutherford Thomas Watson William Gurnall David Brainerd David Livingstone Joseph Alleine Isaac Watts John Gill William Carey George Muller Horatius Bonar Andrew Bonar Andrew Murray Charles Hodge Charles Spurgeon Louis Berkhof B.B. Warfield John Murray Martyn Lloyd-Jones Paul Washer
Oh, I almost forgot these names also...
Every Moravian Missionary Ian Murray Edward Payson John Hyde Rees Howells Charles Wesley
Do you know the love for souls that John Hyde has? Do you know of the love for souls that David Brainerd has? Do you know anything of George Muller's tears for souls? Do you know anything of the tears that fell from the eyes of George Whitefield when he preached in earnest love to the thousands of souls that he had before him?
George Whitefield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 2, p. 124).
Also, you'll find that these men have been instruments of God-centered revivals in the past.
God bless you brother! -Abraham
|
|
|
Post by John McGlone on May 25, 2008 8:45:59 GMT -5
Yes, but many of these you mention were not completely consistent with their doctrine of Calvin.
How about these great men of renown who denied Calvin's heresy:
Jesus Christ, the apostles, the early church fathers, the Remonstrance, the Anabaptists, the Donatists, the Lollards, the faithful remnant that actually desires to obey God with all their heart, mind, strength, and soul. Amen.
Jesus taught against the doctrines and traditions of men. Augustine and Calvin twisted scripture into a horrible frankenstein gospel. It is so entrenched in 'modern churchianity' today that most would suppose Calvinism to be the 'gospel'. Nothing is further from the Truth, that is Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 25, 2008 20:06:22 GMT -5
I think I've seen him in that list before. Where do we have proof that he was a calvinist? I've always heard he basically agreed with his brother.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on May 25, 2008 21:07:52 GMT -5
I think I've seen him in that list before. Where do we have proof that he was a calvinist? I've always heard he basically agreed with his brother. This is true, he DID agree with his brother. I have read and heard from some Calvinists that he agreed more with Whitefield at the end of his life. I only ever hear this from Calvinist sources though. Plus, I don't remember seeing any Calvinist theology in any of his hymns that I have read...
|
|
|
Post by abraham on May 25, 2008 21:41:55 GMT -5
Not all these men agreed with everything that the reformers, Calvin, or the puritans taught. But, one thing was consistent in all of their writing. (The teaching of Original Sin, total depravity, and that regeneration is a wholly a work of God's grace whereby we become willing and obedient.) " Long my imprisoned spirit lay, Fast bound in sin and nature’s night. Thine eye diffused a quickening ray; I woke; the dungeon flamed with light. My chains fell off, my heart was free, I rose, went forth, and followed thee." -Charles Wesley Some of these men had differing views on sanctification, the purpose of the Law, The atonement and it's design, and the full design of God's sovereignty. Charles Wesley did not believe that God decreed the d**nation of the Non-Elect. Others believed that God decreed the d**nation of the non-elect in their sinful disposition after the fall of adam. Others taught that God decreed the d**nation of the non-elect in when they were in neutral disposition before the fall of adam. " Thou can not mock the sons of men, Invite us to draw nigh, Offer thy grace to all, and then Thy grace to most deny!
Fury in god can dwell, God could an helpless world create, To thrust them into hell!
Doom them an endless death to die, From which they could not flee— No, Lord! Thine inmost bowels cry Against the dire decree!
Believe who will that human pain, Pleasing to God can prove: Let Moloch feast him with the slain, Our God, we know, is love.
Lord, if indeed, without a bound, Infinite love Thou art, The horrible decree confound, Enlarge thy people’s heart!
Ah! Who is as thy servants blind; So to misjudge their God! Scatter the darkness of their mind, And shed thy love abroad.
Give them conceptions worthy thee, Give them, in Jesus' face, Thy merciful design to see, Thy all-redeeming grace." -Charles Wesley For those who deny and abhor the doctrines of Origonal sin, the bondage of the will, and Total Depravity... you must also abhor the gospel that Charles Wesley preached. Even John Wesley agreed with Luther and Calvin in some matters of which Pelegians, Classic Arminians, and Open-theist-MGT's would abhor. www.drurywriting.com/keith/wesley.the.calvinist.htmGod bless you! -Abraham
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 26, 2008 9:28:56 GMT -5
Not all these men agreed with everything that the reformers, Calvin, or the puritans taught. But, one thing was consistent in all of their writing. (The teaching of Original Sin, total depravity, and that regeneration is a wholly a work of God's grace whereby we become willing and obedient.) " Long my imprisoned spirit lay, Fast bound in sin and nature’s night. Thine eye diffused a quickening ray; I woke; the dungeon flamed with light. My chains fell off, my heart was free, I rose, went forth, and followed thee." -Charles Wesley Some of these men had differing views on sanctification, the purpose of the Law, The atonement and it's design, and the full design of God's sovereignty. Charles Wesley did not believe that God decreed the d**nation of the Non-Elect. Others believed that God decreed the d**nation of the non-elect in their sinful disposition after the fall of adam. Others taught that God decreed the d**nation of the non-elect in when they were in neutral disposition before the fall of adam. " Thou can not mock the sons of men, Invite us to draw nigh, Offer thy grace to all, and then Thy grace to most deny!
Fury in god can dwell, God could an helpless world create, To thrust them into hell!
Doom them an endless death to die, From which they could not flee— No, Lord! Thine inmost bowels cry Against the dire decree!
Believe who will that human pain, Pleasing to God can prove: Let Moloch feast him with the slain, Our God, we know, is love.
Lord, if indeed, without a bound, Infinite love Thou art, The horrible decree confound, Enlarge thy people’s heart!
Ah! Who is as thy servants blind; So to misjudge their God! Scatter the darkness of their mind, And shed thy love abroad.
Give them conceptions worthy thee, Give them, in Jesus' face, Thy merciful design to see, Thy all-redeeming grace." -Charles Wesley For those who deny and abhor the doctrines of Origonal sin, the bondage of the will, and Total Depravity... you must also abhor the gospel that Charles Wesley preached. Even John Wesley agreed with Luther and Calvin in some matters of which Pelegians, Classic Arminians, and Open-theist-MGT's would abhor. www.drurywriting.com/keith/wesley.the.calvinist.htmGod bless you! -Abraham This isn't Calvinist theology. This is Arminian theology. Arminian theology isn't moral government theology. There are many differences between the two. Arminian theology- or at least Arminius and John Wesley ie Classical Arminian theology- believed whole heartedly in Original Sin, bondage of the will, and total depravity. They also strongly believed in prevent grace. To get a good grasp on what Arminian theology is really all about I would recommend reading this book: Arminian Theology: Myths And Realities by Roger E. Olson
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 26, 2008 9:37:02 GMT -5
I interpret this to actually be coming against Calvinism. He is saying that God doesn't give a general call to all mankind and then mock them by actually denying it to most. Wesley is saying that it's mocking the "sons of men" to not to really offer it to them.
What servants of God is he talking about here? Those who believe that God "Doom[ed] them an endless death to die, From which they could not flee— No, Lord! Thine inmost bowels cry Against the dire decree!"?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 26, 2008 10:07:40 GMT -5
That's right. Here are the five propositions of the Remonstrants, which the five points of Calvinism were created to counter-act.
These were the propositions that were called heretical at the "Synod of Dort" which had the Arminians imprisoned. (Of course, the Synod consisted of 130 Calvinists and only 13 Arminians. And the Arminians were "prisoners" who were not allowed to argue or vote on the matter.)
1. Conditional Election - on the basis of foreknowledge
2. Universal Atonement - limited by man's individual faith
3. Natural Inability - of any man to do good apart from divine grace
4. Prevenient Grace - which accounts for all good in mankind. This grace may be resisted and may ineffectual by a sinner's perverse will.
5. Conditional Perseverance - though God provides sufficient grace to meet any possible emergency, men may neglect this provision and fall from grace to eternally perish.
Source: Foundation of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology, Mildred Bangs Wynkoop, p. 59-60
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moral Government Theology, just like the Pelagians and the Early Church, did not teach prevenient grace, but taught "the grace of Creation". At creation, God endowed human nature with free will and a conscience.
I personally believe in the three graces that Pelagius taught:
1. The grace of creation: whereby free will was granted to man as a gift, along with a conscience, since we were made in the image of God. Human nature forever has a conscience and a free will, since God is the author of our nature, since God forms us in the womb.
2. The grace of revelation: whereby we learn how to use our free will, though the truth of the law, the truth of the Gospel, and the help of the Holy Spirit.
3. The grace of redemption: whereby we receive the remission of sins and are embraced and accepted by God even though we have sinned against Him.
Pelagius rightly taught that without the grace of God, it is absolutely impossible for man to live a holy life. Unless God gives us the ability to live holy, and the knowledge necessary to live holy, we simply cannot live holy.
-----------------------------------
Here is my question:
Why would God give mankind a free will in the first place if He was going to take it away as soon as Adam sinned?
And why would God take away our free will for Adam's sin, making us incapable of obeying Him? Why punish us for disobedience by making obedience impossible?
If He were going to take away our free will because of sin, it would make more sense that He would make it so that we could not disobey Him as opposed to making it so that we could not obey Him.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on May 26, 2008 10:53:58 GMT -5
When I think of "Calvinistic Theology", I don't think of just "Original Sin" or "Total Depravity" I think of whole horrible, withered flower called TULIP. I have read things by these men and they are not Calvinists from what I have read:
John Hyde Rees Howells Charles Wesley
BUT, even if they were, it wouldn't change my position one bit. I don't believe what I believe based on a popularity contest, etc. I base it on the Bible. And I think that we have discussed Calvinism on this board enough with you brother to know that it is NOT Biblical AT ALL...
|
|
|
Post by abraham on May 26, 2008 13:23:31 GMT -5
RevK, can you give an exposition on these passages and how they don't contradict your concept of election and grace. I really don't think you can without contradicting the clear statements in the verses. God bless you! -Abraham
Rom 11:5-7 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
Eph 1:3-6 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Eph 1:11-12 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
|
|
|
Post by fs on Nov 1, 2008 21:41:49 GMT -5
The bottom line is we need to focus on the word of Jesus Christ and NOT the word of philosophers or theologins as these are MEN and nothing but MEN . No matter how they are or are not "Great men of God" the key thing is they are still MEN. I really wish people would stop quoting philosophers, preachers and theologins and just stick to what the Bible says.
And Calvin was so far fof base I think, he was running in the bleachers.
|
|
|
Post by John McGlone on Nov 1, 2008 21:47:01 GMT -5
2 Pet 2
If we can not discern the false from the true how do we know what to hold to and what to discard?
|
|
|
Post by Rhema Seeker (Guy) on Nov 1, 2008 22:02:42 GMT -5
HAHAHA; and what about Josephus my friend ? The bottom line is we need to focus on the word of Jesus Christ and NOT the word of philosophers or theologins as these are MEN and nothing but MEN . No matter how they are or are not "Great men of God" the key thing is they are still MEN. I really wish people would stop quoting philosophers, preachers and theologins and just stick to what the Bible says. And Calvin was so far fof base I think, he was running in the bleachers.
|
|
|
Post by fs on Nov 2, 2008 7:06:23 GMT -5
Ha, ha, ha yourself as Jisephus was not a Christian, friend. I used him in anopther topic tiotally unrealetd tot hsi to illustrate he made note of jesus being said to raise from the dead and give accoutn to the fact a Jesus actually did exist. Like many nonbelievers today, he did nto see the truth. I find it extraordinary that being so close to the action and the movement, he did not become a convert himself, at least as far as we know
You compare apples to oranges.
I was speaking toward theologins and philosophers in the Christian realm here as too often people tend to quote their words and opinions as if they spoke the gospel themselves and their dioctrine would be infallible. Hearing or reading what they say is not bad in itself. It is when peopel give them too much weight.
In many cases it seems as if people idiolize these philosophers. That is a mistake.
A odern case is this. I love The Way Of The Master radio and tv program. Some of their followerrs though, get way out of line and take what they say wat too seriosuly withotu any discretion whatsoever. Ray Comfort, Friel and Cameron are not Jesus either. We cannot grope to every word they say and take it for grante dblindly, just as we cannto grope to doctrines craeted by man, no amtetr hwo spiritual that person migth seem to have been.
So ha, ha, ha yourself wise guy. I mean that lovingly in Christ.
|
|
|
Post by fs on Feb 23, 2009 12:08:38 GMT -5
Calvinism is an abomination.
|
|
|
Post by John McGlone on Feb 24, 2009 8:04:17 GMT -5
yes, this was one of my first questions to my pastor 12 years ago are we calvinist or arminian sp? He said we are between Calminan. I was perplexed for 8 years.
|
|
|
Post by koontzy on Mar 4, 2009 2:38:36 GMT -5
although I am not a fan of calvinists. I do enjoy
Charles Spurgon John Hyde and Paul Washer
|
|
|
Post by fs on Mar 4, 2009 19:46:37 GMT -5
We can agree on something then at least. Amen.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 5, 2009 0:39:53 GMT -5
Calvinists filter the Bible through what their favorite writers say (MacArthur, Piper, Sproul, Spurgeon).
You give them all kinds of Bible and they tell you what these guys said.
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Mar 5, 2009 4:36:12 GMT -5
although I am not a fan of calvinists. I do enjoy Charles Spurgon John Hyde and Paul Washer I am not interested by Calvinism and don't know John Hyde, but i also enjoy Spurgeon and Washer God bless,
|
|
|
Post by fs on Mar 5, 2009 7:20:38 GMT -5
Calvinism is a farce. It creates a tyrannical and inept and false version of God.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Mar 5, 2009 8:40:32 GMT -5
When I run into Calvinists in the open air (or those who have been influenced by their false doctrines), all they repeat are UNBIBLICAL CLICHES! It's like a mantra. I give them Bible, they give me cliche, I give them Bible, they give me cliche. So sad, so really, really sad. www.youtube.com/RefutingCalvinism
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 5, 2009 10:32:42 GMT -5
Kerrigan,
Amen! My experience also!
|
|
|
Post by steve spidell on Mar 6, 2009 11:09:29 GMT -5
I'm not a calvinist, but i have read/listened to quite a few of the top teachers over the last 5 or 6 years, and i've also had problems with contradictions. Here's one from John MacArthur from a sermon called "Abraham -- justified by faith, part 2";
"Saving faith is simply the hand that reaches out to take the gift that is sovereignly offered. But the initiation comes from God. It isn't that God is responding to some kind of virtuous‑faith. "
Now, i agree with the statement, for the most part, but it seems contradictory to monergism, that God does it all and man has no ability to do anything in the process.
|
|
djpray
Junior Member
"Filipino" Preacher Man!
Posts: 86
|
Post by djpray on Mar 7, 2009 0:59:59 GMT -5
Man is not passive in the process of "God doing it all." God doing it all does not mean that man sits and does nothing. A good example of this would be in Philippians 2:12-13 - 12) Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13) for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. Man is commanded and expected to work out his salvation with fear and trembling....yet at the same time it is God who is at work in man to bring this about. True Monergism does not make man idle. It would instead call for man to take action.
|
|
|
Post by steve spidell on Mar 7, 2009 11:19:34 GMT -5
Definitions as found on the online "free dictionary": Monergism The doctrine advanced by some Lutheran theologians that spiritual renewal is exclusively the activity of the Holy Spirit.
Synergism: The theological doctrine that salvation results from the interaction of human will and divine grace
This is why it seems contradictory. The hand that "reaches out" would be the "interaction of the human will".
|
|
djpray
Junior Member
"Filipino" Preacher Man!
Posts: 86
|
Post by djpray on Mar 7, 2009 15:34:47 GMT -5
Definition as found on "dictionary.com" Monergism - the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration. That is somewhat similiar to the definition you mentioned, but maybe a little clearer. It simply recognizes that God regenerates a person first and then person responds to the Gospel with faith and repentance. God changes or gives a new heart and the automatic response of a person is to have faith and repentance. This would be what some would call being "born again." In actual human experience, these things occur or seem to occur almost simultaneously. Monergism just recognizes the aprior working of the the Holy Spirit in the heart. But the hand most definitely reaches and receives. That demonstrates to a degree the working of the Holy Spirit. But, hey, I am not an expert on all of this stuff. That is just my take on it
|
|