Calvinism and Fundamentalism?

It occurs to me to ask the following question:

From which source do Arminians (or those favoring a position centering human free will above one of the Calvinistic positions) get their information about the belief system and actions of the said Calvinists?

I am seeing a HUGE disconnect between the perceived practice and belief structure and the actual practice and am wondering just who is disseminating the information that so many Arminians use in their arguments.

 

Gil,

Have you gone on line lately & seen some of the Preposterous nonsense being spewd lately....one would be led to believe that we eat babies (which is kinda true if you watch Austin Powers & see the Fat Scots guy) ....still another raciest portrayal of our plaid kilt wearing Brothers in the northern UK.

 

The See-Saw gets weighted down with false arguments on both sides. This results in a squeaking noise that can only be quieted by the oil of the Spirit and those trees planted by the rivers of water that bring forth His fruit in season.

 

Okay, so the arguments are false on both sides...

Why continue then if they are known false? Is it not blatant sin to use falsehood against a brother or sister in the Lord. And more so, is not not sinful to tear down someone when the Word tells us to edify and build up for the sake of love and for the kingdom of God?

 

The false arguments to which I refer are the straw men that are often set up by either side. Rarely have I ventured into this realm of theology (in person not in this forum) and not had the opposing side seek to define what I believe.
That's all I'm saying.

 

To some extent, we all do that -- and theology is fair game. An accurate portrayal, however, should be our rule, not exception.

It does no good to argue against a position that does not exist. The ones that do are fine enough and fruit enough.

I'm still wondering why people argue against those who hold to God's utter sovereignty in all things. Why elevate human free will to a place above God's will?

 

I'm with you there. I wonder a lot of things too.


1. I wonder why Calvin in Institutes (Book 1, Ch 15, Para 169) taught that God didn't give Adam the power to persevere in the right even though after He created them He said that it was "very good" (Gen. 1:31)?

2. I wonder why such certainty exists about the process by which God elects when definitive verses on the topic are so few?

3. I wonder why Jesus laments Jerusalum's unwillingness even though He foreordained it (Mat 23:37)?

4. I wonder why God the Holy Spirit breathed some variation of the Greek word pisteuō 100 times to the apostle John if He knew that His regeneration made that belief a forgone conclusion (pg. 55 "Chosen by God" R.C. Sproul)?

5. I wonder how long it will take for a refutation to appear to my wonderment?

So yeah, many things to wonder about.

"People travel to wonder at the height of the mountains, at the huge waves of the seas, at the long course of the rivers, at the vast compass of the ocean, at the circular motion of the stars, and yet they pass by themselves without wondering." --Augustine

 

I won't refute or even try any of those. I have some of my own for my own theological construct. And I think that's the problem for both sides. We try to systematize an Omnipotent, Sovereign God into neat little statements of logic and cause and effect. While I appreciate systematic theology, I think that there is a downside that makes us limit God to our system.

 

My friend I agree!!! The big change I see today, no matter where one stands, when I went to school and seminary, all of my professors said we could be wrong or partly wrong but we are correct on who Jesus is and one will be saved if they accept Him as their Savior.

 

One of the first things we do is to extend the influences of the Enlightenment and insist on human reason as the end of all things -- even when God's revelation flies in the face of that reason every time we read it. That seems to be at the bottom of the whole issue in a lot of ways.

But I digress. The question I've raised is that those holding Reformed views of theology are equally (and sometimes more) involved with actual evangelism as those who do not, so where does the point of contention come in. Obviously someone is trying to paint someone else into a corner and make them look bad or incomplete. If we all know that isn't true, save for individual independent cases, which happen on both sides of this issue, why keep pressing a dead argument?

If Calvinists are evangelizing, then the main point against them is struck down, is it not? The main issue I see raised against Calvinists is that they do not evangelize because they "all believe" that God does all the work, so they don't have to. When is the last time you ACTUALLY found someone who was a Calvinist teaching ANY such thing? Is that not merely some point made by some pastor or professor somewhere that was learned by rote, but perhaps not really true?

I'm involved with several church planting organizations across the USA. To a one, they hold Reformed (Calvinistic) doctrines. I am not aware of any efforts of a like nature that are purely Arminian in doctrine. If there are some out there, I'd love to know about them, but that isn't the main point. The issue is, evangelism is happening among Calvinists, which the other side say should not happen.

 

Please excuse my lack of total understanding of "Calvinists" in the same way that you may see them, but I do have an strong opinion on why Calvinists DO evangelize.

God instructed all Christians to do so, and there is no better reason in this universe. Even if I understand the Bible to say that God calls his elect, I still understand that I am instructed to witness and proclaims God's message to everyone who will listen.

 

As a matter of fact the great evangelists have tended to be Calvinistic. With the exception of Moody, Finney, and Wesley, I cannot think of any Arminian evangelists of real renown. One might argue that Billy Graham was an Arminian, and I suppose he was a two pointer most of his life, but he just admitted recently that he never had time to read the Bible like he needed and sat down and read it through in two months and became a 5-point Calvinist.

It seems to me that almost all other major names in truly Christian history of renown were Calvinists.

Spurgeon, the father of the mega church, was a thorough Calvinist. William Carey, the great Baptist missionary, was a Calvinist.

Lottie Moon, the woman whose name labels Southern Baptist International Missions, was herself a Calvinist.

Jonathan Edwards, the most brilliant theological and philosophical mind in American history and the fountainhead of the Great Awakening was a mighty Calvinist,

George Whitefield the spreader of the Great Awakening fire throughout the colonies was a Calvinist,

the Pilgrims, though perhaps not evangelists, certainly the bringers of the Gospel to this Continent, were Calvinists,

the Puritans were Calvinists,

Matthew Henry, the mighty Commentator whose commentary has touched the lives of multiplied millions was a Calvinist,

John Bunyan whose Pilgrim's Progress has convinced many to enter the Kingdom was a Calvinist,

of course Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation which may be responsible for bringing more people into the Kingdom of God than any other event since Pentecost, was a Calvinist,

John Wycliffe, the 'Morning Star of the Reformation', was a Calvinist,

John Huss, the great martyr for the faith, was a Calvinist,

Augustine was a Calvinist,

the Apostle Paul was a Calvinist, and the list goes on and on...

So the argument is utterly ridiculous and really just asinine that says that Calvinists are not evangelistic.

 

Hello Pastor Trent. Very nice to meet you.

I know what you mean. I have had others try to tell me what I believe as well. However, a lot of times when people start trying to define what others believe it is because they will not define it themselves. They are so ambiguous and unwilling to state clearly what they believe that others have to define their beliefs for them just to be able to converse.

 

Dr Bob asks Luke 2427:

Dr. Bob, this has got to be one of your most honest questions asked, while others were thinking the same. Thanks for asking to the point but with due gentleness.

 

Thats nice but most are not even born again Christians.

 

Would you say that most of these are not born again Christians:
It seems to me that almost all other major names in truly Christian history of renown were Calvinists.

Spurgeon, the father of the mega church, was a thorough Calvinist. William Carey, the great Baptist missionary, was a Calvinist.

Lottie Moon, the woman whose name labels Southern Baptist International Missions, was herself a Calvinist.

Jonathan Edwards, the most brilliant theological and philosophical mind in American history and the fountainhead of the Great Awakening was a mighty Calvinist,

George Whitefield the spreader of the Great Awakening fire throughout the colonies was a Calvinist,

the Pilgrims, though perhaps not evangelists, certainly the bringers of the Gospel to this Continent, were Calvinists,

the Puritans were Calvinists,

Matthew Henry, the mighty Commentator whose commentary has touched the lives of multiplied millions was a Calvinist,

John Bunyan whose Pilgrim's Progress has convinced many to enter the Kingdom was a Calvinist,

of course Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation which may be responsible for bringing more people into the Kingdom of God than any other event since Pentecost, was a Calvinist,

John Wycliffe, the 'Morning Star of the Reformation', was a Calvinist,

John Huss, the great martyr for the faith, was a Calvinist,

Augustine was a Calvinist,

the Apostle Paul was a Calvinist, and the list goes on and on...

 

Actually, Phelps pastors a Primitive Baptist church. If you don't believe me, check out his website.

Personally, I think that Calvinism is a scourge to the fundamental Baptist church. I would certainly never be a member of any church that taught this false doctrine.

 

No real scholar considers Calvinism to be a "scourge" to any church. This is an ignorant statement.

Jacobus Arminius, the father of the other line of reformed thinking, would have you thrown out of his school on your ear for such a remark.

To consider the doctrines of the translators of the King James Bible, the Pilgrims and the Puritans (those founders of our nation), Spurgeon, Edwards, Whitefield, Luther, Matthew Henry, Lottie Moon, William Carey, and well nigh every other great evangelist in church history a "scourge" is absolutely moronic.

You don't have to agree with them, you can deny their accuracy, but to call them a "scourge" is pure ignorant.

 

No, young man. Real ignorance is to continue to espouse your adoration for Calvin over and over. Maybe when you grow up...

 

This is really, REALLY, uncalled for. Can't you be nice? Disagree passionately, fine. But be nice!

The Archangel