Calvinism: more evangelistic?

Go for it, call the mods and give me one, I'm not going to be intimidated by you in open forum as this is another thing you resort to. This is nothing more than bullying, and within the same thread you also use name calling. Wow. Totally unnecessary. Nothing in the rules says a thing about someone who posts false information is not to be called on it. You posted something without considering whether it is factual. When you posted it without taking into consideration whether it was true or not, it was then deliberate. You've also admitted to this, but now want me to have an infraction. Nothing but an attempt to intimidate yet again. It certainly wasn't accidental, the only accidental part was you believing a lie. Like I told you, look well to your way before you take something as factual. I called you on this false information, next time don't post these things and you won't need to recant.

You've resorted to name-calling? Congrats! I knew you could do it!

How did Joel Osteen get in this conversation? Oh, I see, now you're playing both sides. At first, small numbers were condemning to a Cal Preacher via your false information. NOW that he actually grew, large numbers are proof of not being true. So you go hustle in Joel Osteen to your rescue, then place a snide comment in there that I should maybe join him? When are you going to stop with such ugly tactics DHK? Is it really necessary?

Your first response to mine? Caustic in nature and accusatory. This response? Name-calling. This is the downward spiral oft taken by you. We all know what this means when one resorts to these worldly and fleshly tactics. That's right, the person has lost the battle.

You're minus one today, and losing it also over in your covenant theology argument with Ruiz and Iconoclast. You should really practice this verse: :The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." Proverbs 14:15

Maybe you should actually know the theology you pretend to know and argue against?

Obviously in several threads you argue against things that you do not understand at all. Quit pretending to have knowledge you don't possess, only the imprudent do this and this is exactly what you are doing. Many have schooled you on theological debates where you don't even understand what the theology teaches, yet you fight against it oblivious to the fact you're fighting something it doesn't teach whatsoever.

Whenever you get beyond the name-calling tactics, I'd perhaps engage with you in dialogue, but then again, perhaps not.

- Peace to you

 

While I have some reservations on Gill's theology, I am interested in your source and rationale.

 

There are a number of Reformed sites that treat Gill like a saint, and so have a bias for him right away. There are a few historians that I believe are a bit more objective. Here is what J.M. Cramp says in his " "Baptist history ... to the close of the eighteenth century" He may be overstating his case somewhat, but as to his theology, I do believe that Gill was what one would call "hyper-Calvinist" today.

You can read it and judge for yourself.

http://books.google.com/books?id=J8wCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA478&dq=baptist+magazine&lr=&output=text

 

Gill had some troubling theology and among several Reformed Theologians I know, take exception to Gill, as do I. Usually his supralapsarian views are a point of contention.

However, to frame Gill as a hyper-calvinist is probably not true. Tom Nettles and Timothy George have both written on this issue and are confident Gill was not a hyper-calvinist. Both of these books are in storage, but I found this link which explains in more detail their findings.

I have not read anything from Gill that would lead me to believe he was a hyper-calvinist. Are there issues I take with his theology? Yes, but I do not see him as a holding to that specific doctrine.

 

i am not familiar with John Gill theology regarding salavtion...

Know his name, thats about it!

did he teach/believe in JUST God has a single Will, that he determined all things period, and that One would get saved regardless if we preached Gospel or not to them?

 

You're incorrect, as Gill was evangelistic in his efforts, and also I've shown you his congregation grew, which show he was no hyper-calvinist.

Here is more proof:

We can see, as is typical, non-cals/anti-cals love to take a statement out of context and run with it as proof. This method also is used by the same with Scriptures via proof-texting. This is unwise. Proverbs 14:15 is still in order: "Then naive believes everything, But the sensible man considers his steps." NASB...or as the KJV puts it: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going."

By the way, none of the biased anti-cal accusatory sites I've visited who slam Gill have any form of credibility. None who accuse Gill of being hyper-cal have any real evidence. By Gills own words he preached the Gospel evangelistically.

- Peace

 

isn't "hyper cal" basically a theology that states God foreordain and caused ALL that has even happened directly, that there is double predestinating, God directly elects saints/sinners, and that elect willget saved regardless if Gospel preached or not?

 

How have you shown that his congregation grew?

 

Obviously you haven't read back far enough. :love2:

 

Is this what you are referring to?

 

I see the various terms thrown around quite a bit: hyper-Calvinist, high Calvinist, etc. How would you define a "Hyper-Calvinist", just for the sake of clarity?

 

Am of the "moderate" cal persuasion myself, but do think that High cals/Hypers would agree on much of the theology, except that High campers would still see it a necessity to preach the Gospel and have Giod use that to "wake up" His elect to get saved, while Hypers see God able to regenerate/save His pwn period!

 

Dr. Laurence M. Vance, in his “Introduction to Calvinism” says:

And then quotes Spurgeon:

(Charles H. Spurgeon, in “The Two Wesleys”)

--It seems that Spurgeon is saying that he is a Calvinist after Calvin, knowing more than the Arminian, and believing all that the hyper-Calvinist believes, but knowing more than he knows. He actually sounds a bit arrogant. It also indicates that he would label Gill as an hyper-Calvinist.

 

I've always heard that Hyper-Calvinism holds that God can save the elect independently of the gospel. This is, I believe, the view of our Primitive Baptist brethren.

 

This is going around in circles. What is a hyper-calvinist in your definition?

 

Reply to Ruis,

Men of "intellectual gravitas" do not defend their views with logical fallacies like an argument from authority. I have said, repeatedly, that Calvinism is based on shoddy bible study. Show me a verse where any Calvinist presents support for the T,U,L, or I, including any of these listed men. But to speak in generalities, that is just more sand being thrown up to hide the truth.

Did they rightly understand that choice means choice, or did they add to scripture that choice can mean non-choice? Did they understand foreknowledge to refer to knowledge of the past or of the future? I could go on, but Calvinism is a fiction and until or unless you defend your views based on scripture rather than logical fallacies like an argument from authority, I will continue to consider your bible study shoddy.

 

"T"

-Eph. 2:1-3 - And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
-John 6:44 - No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
-Romans 3:10-11 - As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.”


"U"

-Ephesians 1:4-5, & 11 - Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will. …11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.
-Acts 13:48 - And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
-Romans 9:9-16 - For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

"I"

-John 10:27-29 - My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
-Phil. 1:6 - And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
-John 6:37 - All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.


All of these verses have been interpreted by various scholars in various ways, however, It is my contention that it is AT LEAST feasible for any thinking person to look at these verses and think, "It sounds like God chooses people. These verses seem to make that a real possibility." What exactly is shoddy about at least being open to that possibility?

 

Think that you need to understand van that we cals here do take the Bible on a serious basis, as we do use logic and HS illumination, as well as study tools and the Greek/Hebrew texts to come to the views on Sotierology that we glean form the scriptures themselves!

Did they rightly understand that choice means choice, or did they add to scripture that choice can mean non-choice? Did they understand foreknowledge to refer to knowledge of the past or of the future? I could go on, but Calvinism is a fiction and until or unless you defend your views based on scripture rather than logical fallacies like an argument from authority, I will continue to consider your bible study shoddy.[/QUOTE]

 

Van,

An argument from authority is not a logical fallacy. In fact, if it is a rightful authority it is supported and encouraged. Working in Academia, if you cite an authority it is accepted. Please cite me one logician who says that a mere argument from authority is improper? Of course, if you do then you are violating what you call "argument from authority" and if you don't then you show that you are the lone exponent. Thus, you are in a quandary philosophically.

 

Hyper-calvnism would be the same as fatalism. Calvinism proper rejects fatalism.

For the record, most of the arguments against Calvinism is actually against Hyper-Calvinism.