"deny the Master who bought them."

And you somehow think that the above quote from the pen of John Calvin would be objectionable to Calvinists these days? How so? The proclamation --general call is not the same thing as the effectual call.Calvin himself said so.
​

 

Thank you for your your restraint and kind words for the calvinists... :thumbs:

I wonder, are you speaking here for "reformed 'scholars' who are like James white", Or ALL reformed 'scholars'?

 

Well, I wouldn't listen to White, or Sproul, or Piper, or MacArthur. Fact is, I have read articles by all these men and believe their teaching unscriptural.

I do like Albert Barnes (Barnes Notes) who was a Calvinist, but he ran into problems because he did not support Limited Atonement, he also believed Augustine's interpretation of Rom 5:12 to support Original Sin error.

Do I like Barnes because he says what I want to hear? Not really, though that is the case. I like Barnes because I believe he was a very honest scholar that did not read presuppostions into scripture. This caused him problems, he was accused of being a heretic twice, but on both counts was acquited. I don't agree with everything he said, but of all Reformed writers he is my favorite. His commentary was the best selling in the 19th century, so obviously many others supported his writings.

I have read Matthew Henry and generally like what he says, though at times I see him inserting Calvinistic assumptions into his views without scriptural support. But most of the time he seemed to be a very honest and accurate writer.

But the modern Calvinist scholars? No way.

Oh, and I don't like Gill at all, he inserts many assumptions into his writings and was very close to being a full blown hyper-Calvinist. I don't like Pink as well.

 

Spurgeon? He was one mixed up dude. He was absolutely a Calvinist and at times his writings were very consistent with Calvinism. Then, in his next sermon he would be very inconsistent with Calvinism and openly admitted it. He said faith precedes regeneration which is scriptural, a big NO NO in Calvinism.

So, Spurgeon was all over the map, I don't think he was sure what he believed.

 

Actually Winman Spurgeon fight was against hyper-Calvinist. Many things that you believe Spurgeon is confused about is a residue that remained from hyper-Calvinism not from Calvinism.

I believe the regeneration before faith is a residue from Hyper-Calvinism not Calvinism also all men not meaning all men.


"If I am to preach the faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. Am I only to preach faith to those who have it? Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners." [Sermon entitled The Warrant of Faith].

"It is quite certain that when we read that God will have all men to be saved it does not mean that he wills it with the force of a decree or a divine purpose, for, if he did, then all men would be saved. He willed to make the world, and the world was made: he does not so will the salvation of all men, for we know that all men will not be saved. Terrible as the truth is, yet is it certain from holy writ that there are men who, in consequence of their sin and their rejection of the Savior, will go away into everlasting punishment, where shall be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. There will at the last be goats upon the left hand as well as sheep on the right, tares to be burned as well as wheat to be garnered, chaff to be blown away as well as corn to be preserved. There will be a dreadful hell as well as a glorious heaven, and there is no decree to the contrary.
What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

Charles Spurgeon

 

Thanks for those Spurgeon quotes Psalms. Yes, I know he battled "Hypers". Nevertheless, he could be inconsistent with "mainstream" Calvinism as shown. He interpreted "ALL MEN" to mean exactly that, 100% of mankind in many contexts that mainstream Calvinists deny.

I really am not that concerned about what any of these fellows said, I try to learn and understand what scriptures say. I rarely consult commentaries, and when I do it is more often because I am simply curious of how they interpreted certain passages. Anybody who compares these various authors will see they often disagree with each other. You will see they often come to quite different conclusions as to what scripture is saying in a particular verse or passage. Gill will always be very hardline Calvinist, where Barnes will be very moderate. It just shows that even great scholars are subject to personal bias.

 

I don't think Spurgeon was confused. I simply think he was more willing than most to not fit in a labeled group. Perhaps that is why many contemporary groups try to claim him as their own. He would probalby fit well with your Barnes.

 

I agree, many non-Cals speak highly of Spurgeon. I appreciate Spurgeon's statements about "all men" (see Psalms109's post). Here Spurgeon correctly says that some old school Calvinist doctors "explain away" scripture. He is correct and this has always been a charge against Calvinism, that they "wrest" scripture and redefine commonly understood words. Sad, BUT TRUE. I agree with Spurgeon that God could easily have said "all the elect" or "all of every type" of men. Folks with common sense are not fooled with false arguments, but that is what Calvinism often attempts to do, Spurgeon himself recognized this.

Just calling it as I see it.

 

Error

What I am trying to let you know not all Calvinist are in error and not all Arminians are in error, me I appreciate listening to Scandelin he explains things better than I can with words.

It is just anytime we try to put God into a box, through points, God will break out of it. God can not be contained into a box. We are to change our theology to match scripture not change scripture to match our theology.

I do not think they are in error it is just not a complete finished work, scripture is; that is every word that comes from the mouth of God.

All Calvinist are not in error, or Arminian it is just they have a lot more to learn including myself.

 

You are welcome ^ _ ^

Maybe I should revisit this topic as well.

 

Think that he was one of the very greatest CHRISTIAN of all time, not "just calvinist"...

Think that he points out to us that NOT all calvinist see exactly same thing, its just all agree on the major points of that system of viewing/understanding scriptures!

 

Whom do you see then as be reliable accurate teacher/expositors of the Bible? As I have read and profited from both cal arms,just remembering to filter/screen all things through the Bible first, and what theological base they came from!

 

That's an outrageous claim. No human can make such a claim.

 

I would immediately recognize that this Epistle is written to and for the Sect of the Nazarenes, who were (genetic) Israelites.
Insofar as it in no way conflicts with or contradicts the Gentile Epistles of Paul then it is suitable for a deeper understanding
of the Scriptures. As well, these Hebrew Epistles will be significant to the (genetic) Israelites during the Tribulation
as they were during the transition from the Sect of the Nazarenes to the Gentile Bride of Christ (composed of Jew & Gentile).

 

Why would he been seen as being "top tiered", right yup there witht he calvins, Luthor, Moody, Grahams etc of the Christian age?

NOT saying that he became the 13th Apostle!

 

Who's tier? I won't tier humans as being greater than others, and its a waste of time to even try. Jesus' own disciples attempted this and were rebuked.

 

Well, when the rich young ruler said "Good master", Jesus rebuked him and said that no one is good except God. Spurgeon was a God-fearing man, but he isn't one of the greatest christians of all time. What he wrote was his thoughts. When the bible was written, it was through the inspiration of the Spirit. So his writings are fallible,and he isn't one of the greatest christians of all time, period.

 

I just noticed that you are coming to Dongbei,China. Will this be a visit,or a longer stay?

 

The scriptures also say to give honor to whom honor is due. I see not inherent problem with accepting the things you have said, but then saying that a certain Christian was certainly used by God to do great things. since "greatest" was not defined... it could really mean anything...top 1,000, top 3 million.

Would it be an error for me to say at my mom's funeral, "To me, my mother was one of the greatest Christians." Sappy, yes. Unnecessary, maybe. Demonstrably false and and a sham that I would suggest such a thing...I don't think so.