Featured Honest question to the Calvinists...

Luke2427 · Jan 30, 2014

Skandelon said: ↑

How would I need to do that in order to appease you? I ask because I suspect I could provide several quotes from people on this forum and contrast them to some of the older Calvinistic types, but I recall that approach not going well in the past with you because you have just about as much ability objectively interpreting scriptures as you do commentators of those scriptures.
Click to expand...

You're not going to do it to appease me. Just offer SOME support so we can take you remotely seriously. Don't just CLAIM something is true without supporting it for heaven's sake.

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."" —Charles Spurgeon, "Salvation By Knowing the Truth"
Click to expand...

What about that is anti-calvinistic? MILLIONS of Calvinists have affirmed that God has a desire for all men to be saved- that there is a real sense in which God wishes that it were so that all men would be saved.

But obviously, since all men are NOT saved, he is more willing for SOME REASON to not save them all.

Arminians agree with this. They say that Free Will is so important to God that he will let men by the billions fry in hell forever rather than violate it.

I think that thinking is rather stupid and unbiblical.

But the Spurgeon quote is not anti-Calvinistic.

I do disagree with Spurgeon on that statement though. But his statement is not remotely Arminian.

The Archangel · Jan 31, 2014

Skandelon said: ↑

The SBC was wrong about slavery in its beginning and we made the necessary adjustments to correct our mistakes. I'd argue that we made some of the same strides in our soteriology.
Click to expand...

Wow... Did you just equate Calvinism with Slavery?

The Archangel

Rippon · Jan 31, 2014

OldRegular said: ↑

Nettles book is excellent though not a particularly easy read!
Click to expand...

Tom Nettles? Reading his books is easy! On the other hand,reading Francis Turretin and Stephen Charnock are hard slogs.

But I would much rather read Nettles than listen to him. I listened to him yesterday and it was difficult because of his accent.

Rippon · Jan 31, 2014

"What about that is anti-calvinistic?"

"But the Spurgeon quote is not anti-Calvinistic."

"But his statement is not remotely Arminian."
_____________________________________________________________________
I have said for years on the BB that Spurgeon's sermon on 1 Tim. 2:3,4 was of an Arminian slant. It was not representative of his vast catalog of strong Calvinistic sermons. So,in this respect Skan is correct.

Squire Robertsson · Feb 1, 2014

closed without predjudice.

Featured Honest question to the Calvinists...

Luke2427 Active Member

The Archangel Well-Known Member

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Squire Robertsson Administrator
Administrator

Useful Searches

Featured Honest question to the Calvinists...

Luke2427 Active Member

The Archangel Well-Known Member

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Squire Robertsson Administrator Administrator

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Squire Robertsson Administrator
Administrator