Adrian Rogers Shows Calvinism to Be FALSE

So, Mr. Rodgers denies the plain language of the passage.

I notice he intentionally contradicts the context of the passage. In Romans 9:16 “it does not depend on the man that willith or the man that runnith, but on God who has mercy”

But Rodgers says it does depend on the man that willith. He says God is forming the lump, showing great long suffering, but the “lump” of clay that is under wrath refuses to be molded by God. So Rodgers directly contradicts the passage in context. He says “it” (whether a child of promise or of wrath) depends on how the person response to God’s attempt to mold them into a lump meant for glory.

Romans 9:21-22 “for He makes of the same lump one fit beforehand for glory and another fit for wrath.”

Rodgers half quoted the passage and then mocks the clear teaching of the passage by saying the God of the Bible wouldn’t do that. In essence, he is making God fit his human understanding of what is fair.

So, although a fine preacher, Mr. Rodgers is wrong. He does a terrible job of actually preaching the passage in context because he refuses to believe what scripture says.

peace to you

 

I'll probably get the corner cut off my Calvinist card but I really liked Adrian Rogers even though he called Calvinism "wine and cheese theology". There are a lot of Calvinists who do not believe that lost people have anything "done" to them by God to make sure they never get saved. Rather, if anything, God indeed does endure year after year of open rebellion from most lost people and tolerates it. Also, on a practical level, people show they are elect by wanting to come to Christ and wanting to believe the gospel. There is no one who comes to Christ only to be told the he did not die for them or that they can't come because they are not elect.

By the way, SBG, I see on another thread you are posting Thomas Watson. I've read a lot of him and his sermons and teaching would make Adrian Rogers proud but he was as Calvinist as a Calvinist can be. Unlike some of the Calvinists on this board I started reading Puritans like Watson long before I was a Calvinist and I'm glad I did. When you see how they preached to their own people you better understand how they handled some of the difficult teachings.

 

I agree, and I've seen him do that on at least two of his videos on this subject.
In one of them, as I recall, he doesn't even wait for the interviewer to explain what they believe the verse says ( after quoting it ) before he states, " it doesn't mean that".

In other words, to him it didn't mean what it said.

As did I ( especially when I was a younger believer and listened to him on the radio ),
right up until fairly recently when I was going through some old videos of his, and heard his preaching against Biblical salvation and how God actually accomplishes it.

Adrian called it "Calvinism", as do most preachers nowadays.

 

Al Mohler

voddie Baucum

Tom Ascol

James Boyce

John Broadus

Et al

say that the big A is wrong

 

BTW, the Bible definitely says that salvation is not up to the will of man

 

BTW, AR was a great speaker, but he was NOT known for his scholarship

 

James White responded to these messages by giving credit to A.Rogers on many topics, but then tore these messages apart biblically...I will find them for you.

Adrian Rogers on Romans 9 Pt. 1

Adrian Rogers on Romans 9 Pt. 1

Adrian Rogers on Romans 9 Pt. 2

 

It’s amazing to me that a 6th grader can read and comprehend these truths yet there are those who flat out call the Bible wrong.
No, it’s not a matter of interpretation, it’s a matter of taking the WOG at face value

 

But Calvinism is in the minority in protestant theology. It's actually a small minority.

 

That is true but it does not mean that it is not true. Calvinism is not based upon vocabulary acrobatics but by taking the Word seriously and as written

 

That doesn’t make it wrong. Much of what passes for theology today comes straight from the “enlightenment” of the mid-19th century.

The “old way” of understanding scripture was disregarded as the new way of thinking about scripture was pushed as “revival”. It would take weeks to list all the errors from that time period.

peace to you

 

And in the last, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, 'If any one doth thirst, let him come unto me and drink; he who is believing in me, according as the Writing said, Rivers out of his belly shall flow of living water;' and this he said of the Spirit, which those believing in him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified. John 7:37-39

Now when the time of Acts 9 came forth, Jesus had died and had been resurrected out of the dead and had been given glory by the Father and the Holy Spirit had been given to some.

Was Paul going down the road to Damascus seeking Jesus?

John 6:44 no one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day;

Romans 8:23 And not only so, but also we ourselves, having the first-fruit of the Spirit, we also ourselves in ourselves do groan, adoption expecting -- the redemption of our body;

I notice in that first post the second video Rev 22:17 is on the screen.

22:17 And the Spirit and the Bride say, Come; and he who is hearing -- let him say, Come; and he who is thirsting -- let him come; and he who is willing -- let him take the water of life freely.

What does Rev 22:17 have in common with John 7:37-39?

Contextually is Rev 22:17 the same time frame as, in the last, the great day of the feast? Is that when, whosoever will can take of the water, freely?

What about the people with Paul the day Christ called him, was the Father drawing them, that day, to our knowledge?

 

If they didn't that, but as we see often calvinists have to deny clear scripture so that it will fit their theology.

 

Another unsubstantiated attack from the guy who believes that “many are saved having never heard the gospel”

peace to you

 

Once again, the “Calvinists” point to the passage of scripture and show the context.

The “Calvinists haters” … well… haters gonna hate… nothing but personal attacks.

peace to you

 

LOL, reading the free will philosophers here is funny. It's like listening to Archie Bunker from All in the Family. Just barking at the moon and calling everyone who disagrees a denier of scripture.