Is Calvinism a False Doctrine?

I doubt if his pastor expounds TULIP.

 

I agree . What does that have to do with what you quoted from my words ?

 

From your previous extensive quote from him, quoting the many Calvinistic authors and works of Calvin one could easily read into this statement:

That by "Word of God." you actually meant works of Calvin.

 

Come on Roger ! That's quite a stretch of words and an expansive imagination .

 

RIGHT ON, BRO!!!

SKYPAIR

 

Meanwhile, no response here. I have to wonder what that means.

skypair

 

Everyone has a matter of opinion. Just because someone systematizes a doctrine doesn't make it wrong. We can say, "All we need is the Bible," and while the Bible is sufficient and the only inspired source for doctrine, we can't avoid forming our own opinions. When you read scripture, you read it through the lens of your knowledge and experience. You may misinterpret the text as a result, but you still do it. You may also interpret it correctly.

When I read other Christians' opinions on interpretive issues, that doesn't mean that I think they are somehow more authoritative than the Bible. By no means! I try to learn from what I can because God has given his Spirit to all his children. If God has led them to discover a truth about Scripture that I don't quite understand, I see no problem in God using a Christian's writing to reach me with his truth.

That being said, I'm not a Calvinist, either. :laugh:

 

Skypair, I feel like I've been spent on these issues.

 

Quite alright, bro. There are other issues and you're not even retired yet with time on your hands like ME -- "eagle's wings" and all!

I'll try to catch you on the flip side when you got your energy back. raying:

skypair

 

I have before me a book by Octavius Winslow ( 1808-1878 ) . He was a friend and mentor of Charles Spurgeon . The book is "Personal Declension And Revival Of Religion In The Soul" . The following words are from pages 121 and 122 . He goes quite a bit more in the same vein . But all of you reading this extract will get a good idea of his thoughts on the matter .

Is there not in the present day a criminal keeping back by some , and a painful undervaluing by others , of the scriptural and holy doctrines of grace ? -- The doctrines which unfold the eternity of God's love to his people -- the sovereignty of his grace in their election -- the effectual power of the Spirit in their calling -- the free justification of their persons through the imputed righteousness of Christ , and the entire putting away of their sins by his atoning blood -- the solemn obligation to "live soberly , righteously , and godly in this present evil world ," and the certainty of their final glorification in the world to come , -- are not these Divinely-revealed truths , at the present moment , and by the great mass of Christian professors and preachers , excluded from our pulpits and exiled from our land ? are not they considered mean and unfashionable ? and , having lost their savour with the many , are they not cast out and trodden under foot of men ? We verily and solemnly believe it is so . By some they are professedly received , but criminally held back ; by others they are professedly preached , but with such timidy and obscurity , as to render them of none effect : and by the many they are disbelieved altogether , and therefore openly and boldly denied ! And yet , these are the doctrines which shine so luminously in every page of the apostle's writings , -- these are the doctrines which formed the great themes of Christ's ministration , -- and these are the doctrines , to the preaching of which by the reformers , we owe all the civil and religious liberty which , as a nation , we now possess . We hesitate not , then , to say that , along with the denial or the undervaluing of these doctrines of grace , there will go forth an influence that will wither the spirituality and obstruct the prosperity of the churches of our land . It is true , an outward appearance of fruitfulness may follow the exhibition of opposite and conflicting doctrines , -- crowds may flock to their standard , and multitudes seem converted by their influence , -- but soon these delusive appearances are seen to pass away .

 

William Newell was not a Calvinist . He affirmed many of Charles Finney's beliefs and practices . He wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation in 1935 . In the appendix ( page 381 ) he makes the following remarks though when crossing swords with "Bullingerism " ( hyper-dispensationalism ) .

George Whitefield read through Matthew Henry's Commentary twice -- on his knees ! What this shallow age needs is a long , steady acquaintance with such as Matthew Henry , and the Puritans , and Spurgeon , and Darby's "Collected Writings" -- and even with John Calvin's 51 volumes of commentaries ! But they , conceiving themselves dispensationally "beyond" these really great men of God , -- will they read these works ?
We trow not . They will , instead , be more and more occupied with the "air-tight-compartments" of the clever and heady Companion Bible , -- because it makes people think they are advancing , in their Scripture "dividing," and dispensational distinctions , in divine things , -- whether the Holy Ghost unifies in love God's saints or not ; and whether revival showers come or not !

 

From the viewpoint of a 5 pointer:

Is Arminianism a false doctrine?


Why do people feel it necessary to debate this issue over and over again? Ultimately, people don't agree with a viewpoint of scripture, so they start pointing fingers, making calls of false doctrine, false gospel etc.

It's sad. BTW, If I hear one more Arminian bring up Micheal Servetus, I am going to puke. Remember, Jacob Arminius was also a self proclaimed Calvinist. I geuss that invalidates what he taught as well.

 

Welcome to the BB , HD. Were you a lurker for a long time before joining ? Debating Calvinism has been an age-old deal here . You are rather nerw to the scene . Perhaps you've been involved with the issue countless times in face-to-face encounters . Regardless , it's one of the primary subjects here .

But I am in agreement with you about "Killer-Calvin" posts .

 

Been debating on other forums for a long time (as well as face to face.) I have actually been a member here for a while, but never posted. For the most part, I argue, er I mean debate, with people on the School of Biblical Evangelism forum. However, I was tired of debating the same old subjects, with the same people. Of course, it seems to be the same everywhere!

 

HP: May I offer you a plastic bag? You are sure to need it. :laugh:

By the way, if the Calvinists would quit trying to alter history in the case of Calvin having Servetus burned at the stake, it might not be such a point of contention. By the way, I for one, am no Arminian.

HP: That comes as no surprise to me, seeing Arminians hold to the Augustinian dogma of original sin, although I have never read that concerning him.

 

I have to agree that the discussion so far is not going very deep at all into a close and detailed review of the Word of God.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Uh....no. :tonofbricks:

 

Calvin included pedobaptism.

 

GE

I haven't read any further. And won't read any further.

What horrible rubbish! God is Judge; the last day will reveal who the murderers are, and I'm fully convinced it won't be Calvin but his sick accusers.