Featured Video: Why James White Is Sick of The Calvinist Club

Compare and let me know what you think.

White starting at 3:50

Spurgeon at Charles H. Spurgeon on 1 Timothy 2:4

Blessings....

 

That is why we call it a "particular" atonement!

 

Don't make the mistake of calling non-Calvinists "Arminians". Most are not! I am a true, classical, Arminian and I don't believe most of what you think I do. Very few Baptists are Arminians. Most are Mutts.

 

Yes this seems the case in the America. In the UK Arminianism is far more common amongst Baptists.

 

which God?

 

Here in the States its called Free Will Baptist churches!

 

Yahweh

 

NO!

 

Yahweh not the God of the Calvinists?

 

He we go the old they refuse to agree with us so we will accuse them of not understanding our position in order to get them back ploy.

 

so now you further move the goal posts. You sophomorically attack anyone who agrees with flowers as only doing so because of their shallow nature to trust him due to his looks. And you accuse him of not understanding Calvinism. When I respond to your tired old useless calvie canard you then move on to a new accusation of lying about Calvinism as if that was the original charge made by you and responded to by me.

you are all over the place. For the record Calvinism is loaded with gnostic foundations likely stemming from augustines prior beliefs in them. Flowers is right. White may have offered a rebuttal but that doesn’t mean he actually rebutted anything. Most of his rebutted are weak and purely argumentative. It would do him some good to get back in the cage for a while also.

 

St. Clement 69ad

(P) “Let us therefore consider, brethren, out of what matter we are made; who and what we were when we came into the world, as out of the grave and darkness itself; who, having made and formed us, brought us into his world having first prepared his good things for us, before we were born,” (Epist. ad Corinth. 1. 88.).

(Edinburgh Edition - ch38)

P = quote is suppose to be proof of the Doctrine of Predestination/Unconditional Election.

My Comment: I couldn’t let this view on the ECF’s go by. I agree with you on the Reformation and that Reformed Theologians today were more like Calvin and Luther. I’ve read enough to know Calvin and Luther didn’t believe in a Supernatural Free Will. That pretty much says it all and helps define the other doctrines of the Calvinists. I disagree on all these quotes of the ECF’s being Calvinistic. I looked at the first ECF quote and gave an example (see below) of just the opposite in the same letter. I suspect I would find the opposite on every single EFC quote. Since I already found the opposite in St. Augustine, who was Calvin’s favorite ECF, I’m sure it would be unanimous and I would find the opposite on all the quotes (see reference below on St. Augustine). In St. Clement’s quote above (ch 38), it says “Prepared his good things for us”. This is in reference to Preparatory Graces. This is part of St. Augustine’s definition of Predestination so St. Clement was in agreement with him. This doesn’t mean you are Elected to Glory. In the Golden Chain (Rom 8:29-30), just because you are Called doesn’t mean you are going on to Glorification. The Golden Chain only gives the Order of things.

“Therefore, let us obey his all-holy and glorious name, escaping the threats foretold by Wisdom to those who disobeyed, that being confident, we may dwell upon the most holy name of his majesty. 2 Accept our advice…….(Clement, First Letter to the Corinthians, ch58)

But if some should disobey what has been said by him through us, they must know that they will entangle themselves in no small sin and danger. 2 But we will be innocent of this sin and will ask, making earnest prayer and supplication, that the number of those who are counted among his elect throughout the whole world, the Creator of everything may guard unharmed through his beloved child Jesus Christ, through whom he called us from darkness into light, from ignorance into the knowledge of the glory of his name.” (Clement, First Letter to the Corinthians, ch59)

This Epistle was about rebellion against the bishops of the church. He explains it in ch 44. Clement quoted Prov 1:23-33 in ch 57. St. Clement is calling those rebellious leaders to repentance. This quote includes v24 which says, “I called, and you refused…” (Conditional Election) Notice: ALL were Called. They were all Called first, the same people and the same Calling. What St. Clement says is that those who disobey the bishops are committing “no small sin” which means a big sin and we would call a mortal sin. St. Clement is saying the church will be praying for those who are the Elect that they may be “guarded” or protected. In other words, the Elect could join the rebellion (disobey) and fall away and end up going to hell. The Elect are Elected to Grace (Rom 11:5) but not necessarily to Glory. Elected to Grace is the same as Justification. This ECF quote proves the opposite: that St. Clement believed in a Conditional Election. Notice: The rebellious leaders and the Elect are being prayed for which shows their Election could change and, therefore, is conditional along with salvation.

Other examples: See St. Augustine on Free Will -

Go to my thread titled “Cooperative Grace - Catholic View” (Posts #3-5) and you will see how St. Augustine believed in Free Will with Supernatural Grace in it (I comment on each one). I call it a Supernatural Free Will. This is the opposite of Luther and Calvin.

 

Did the 5 points of Grace come out from the Bible, or through other philosophies? Would say scriptures only!

 

The perception of what Calvinism "is and isn't" is more the fault of Calvinists than non-cals. There is a wide group of varying beliefs held by Calvinists. Usually in person, not so much so on the internet, the most extreme Calvinists are the most vocal.

 

Thankfully you came along because no one else has ever been on this board and taken your arrogant position before.

You it’s funny about calvies when they don’t like how we characterize their position they say it’s because we do not understand it, and when we do not agree with how they characterize our position they say it’s because we don’t understand our own position and doctrine.

Always the arrogance. In each case we understand just fine.