Is Calvinism a False Doctrine?

My definition of heretical would be soul-damning doctrine(s) . All those who practice so-called infant baptism do not believe in baptismal regeneration .

I go along with what Charles H. Spurgeon said of Calvin : I agree with him in the main . ( Or words to that effect .)

Baptists who are Calvinists do not subscribe to each and every nuance of what Calvin wrote . "Calvinism" is a great deal older than the emergence of John Calvin the theologian . That said , I think it is evident to any regenerate Christian who takes the time to go over a good measure of Calvin's Institutes , Commentaries , Letters , and Sermons will have to come to the conclusion that that man was especially gifted and raised-up by the Lord . Calvin has been a singular blessing to the Church for centuries and will continue to be so until the Lord comes again .

The above applies to Owen ,Goodwin , Gill ,Abraham Booth , Bunyan ,Turretine , Warfield , Hoksema , and a host of others both Baptist or not .

 

GE

You say it, Rippon! Tell the People!

 

Rippon,
Most people who say they are Calvinists infer that they adhere to TULIP. Those are the major tenets of Calvinism. Much of the rest is peripheral, as you say.

You stated that Calvinism is not heretical, and that it is Biblical. Let's take one obvious point where I would consider it heretical, and that is "Irresistable Grace."
It is evident all throughout the Bible that God's Grace can be resisted by both the saved and unsaved alike.
Whether or not you believe Annanias and Sapphira were saved is a matter for discussion. But they lied to the Holy Spirit. They resisted Him.
Stephen came right out and asked those about to stone him: Why do you always resist the Holy Spirit? as your fathers did. There is clear evidence that the Holy Spirit can be resisted. They were not saved, but their fathers were. On the Day of Pentecost 3,000 were saved. But many more resisted the Holy Spirit and were not saved.
To say that the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted is heresy.
Irresistable Grace is therefore a heresy. Grace is dispensed via the Holy Spirit.

 

irresistible grace and limited atonement are both hard to support from scripture.

In fact - impossible.

Almost as problematic as election in the form of Calvinist arbitrary selection teaching.

 

Judas took care of the irresitible part.
So did the pharisees.

 

One needs to be careful how one bandies about the H-word . As I said before -- I think it should be applied to soul-damning doctrines only .

Just as the term "Limited Atonement" is confusing to many ( I prefer calling it Specfic Redemption or Definite Atonement ) so the wording of Irresistable Grace causes confusion . I prefer to call it Effectual Calling or Efficacious Grace .

The Lord spiritually arrests those of His choosing (upon which He decided before the creation of the world) . The Lord doesn't use violence or force . Of course those who decry Irresistable Grace usually want to characterize it that way .

I simply would point someone to John 6:37,39,44,45 and 65 where He draws those of His choosing to Salvation . It's not a mere tugging , but to completion .

I would also get them to review John 3:3-8 . I would direct them to Galatians 1:15 and 16 . I would get them to examine 1 Corinthians 1:9 also .

 

There is no one on this board that denies that God convicts; God wooes, God draws those that He is speaking to unto Himself. But do those, whom He is speaking to through His Holy Spirit have the ability to resist Him? The obvious answer is: YES!
The account in Acts 7 alone is sufficient enough to dispel this "heretical" doctrine. They resisted the Holy Spirit. How can you deny the Word of God, when it plainly says that they resisted the Holy Spirit, even when the Holy Spirit was convicting them? This is simply a direct denial of the Word of God. And it does affect the doctrine of soteriology, thus even by your standard it can be considered heresy. They resisted the Holy Spirit. They gnashed on their teeth.

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

Acts 7:54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.

Was their conviction? Obviously.
Did they resist the Holy Spirit? Quite evidently.
Did that resistance lead to their condemnation? Yes, except in the case of Saul, who was later saved partly as a result of what he saw here.

 

GE
Thank you, Rippon; keep on! God be with you!

I must express my dissappointment, dear DHK, in your denouncement of 'irresistable Grace'. Have you experienced God's Grace? Would you be able to say, O Lord God, you are lucky I withstood you not!? Luckily I did not; so whose is the credit for my salvation?

That the Holy Spirit is resisted - by every human being being a fallen human being - cannot be denied; But for as many saved human beings there are, as many times is it undeniable the Spirit of God operated irresistably in saving each.

Why would people not give Calvin the credit he earned every bit of? Even his 'friends' are slow to admit his greatness - yea, his superiority by miles in comparison with the best of divines. I think it is due to two things: An inferiority complex, and, jealousy - the two usually are companions in mischief.

 

Sorry GE.
My God is in heaven. He is the Creator of the universe, the triune Godhead, the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords.

He is not Calvin. I feel sorry for you.

 

Well we agree that "renaming" would be better.

1. Limited Atonement:
Might be more clear as - Limited Love of God,
Limited Gospel,
Limited Grace,
Limited Redemption.


2. Unconditional Election:
might be more clear as - "Arbitrary Selection"

3. Irresistable Grace:
Might be more clear as - Mind-Zap of the mindless sinner.
- Robotization
- Fixing the Robot to be a better Robot


In Christ,

Bob

 

GE
Ah, DHK, your answer isn't worthy of you, and deserves no answer. You decide for me whom I have as my God, it's 'OK' with me.

I only know that when God saved me He saved me through irresistable, omnipotent, ultimately violent FORCE of Spirit and Grace; God could not have used a lesser Power than His Own or He would not have been ABLE to save this sinner, ME!

 

In fact, God saves and raises from the dead the saved by the exceeding greatness of His Power to us-ward who believe, according to the working (energising / forcing) of His (almighty) Power which He (successfully AND TRIUMPHANTLY) WROUGHT in Christ (and through Christ) when He raises up any dead in sin-- the SAME omnipotency and one-sided independent willing God 'worked' and 'energised' "WHEN HE RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD".

 

When God saved me, I believed on the Lord Jesus Christ (as the jailor did--Acts 16:31) of my own volition, my own will.
I was not forced to by some unseen force. I am not a robot. God didn't make me that way.

 

There is no objective test for free will. God has wired your brain to force you to think that you are a free agent thus your statement is "reformed." <G>

 

I guess my belief in the detestable heresy of free will has been ordained by God as well.

Does that mean I will hear "Well done, good and faithful servant?"

 

Aren't you special!

But why did you have a "free will" to choose God?
YOu are saying that you are BETTER than those that do not choose to believe.
You are boasting.
The only reason you used your volition to believe Christ i because you were enabled to do so.

 

I wished that I saw more who were willing to think and not want an easy answer.

 

Why is that so many times posters address the doctrine of the free will of man and the sovereignty of God? I do not think I have ever read one time why Paul addressed the doctine of election. Too often that point is completely missed as though nobody knows why Paul dealt with election in some of his letters.

 

HP: Amen DHK. Preach it!:thumbs:

 

HP: Let’s just assume for a minute that you are correct.( although I do not believe that to be the case) Are you suggesting that subjective evidence is made void due to what you see as ‘no objective test?’ Tell us why? Take for instance the subjective evidence that we exist in the flesh. If I never had any objective evidence testifying to that fact, would that diminish in the least the intuitive subjective testimony that could not be denied?