You've answered nothing. This is a debate forum, correct?
Answer this and especially the latter:
Up to this point you've offered not one plausible argument to support your false accusations against the reformed brothers. Nothing.
You've accused us of using other sources other than Scripture as our final authority. You've not proven this, nor is your accusation even remotely true.
Hunt vs White
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Grasshopper, Jun 12, 2013.
Page 5 of 13
-
-
-
-
Explain to me again how we Calvinists base our final authority on other sources other than Scripture.
got bias DHK? -
But I await your evidence leveled upon Calvinists that they use things other than Scripture as their final authority.
Your accusations are unfounded and show a severe bias and misunderstanding on your part. -
The only sermon that non-Cals latch onto is C.H.S's one on 1 Timothy 2. It was certainly not one of his best and not one that was characteristic of him. -
-
-
Charles Haddon Spurgeon was as Calvinistic as a Baptist could possibly be while still remaining a Baptist. Spurgeon possessed not only a right theology in regards to God's sovereignty, but also a right understanding of the means of salvation. He saw no conflict between God choosing His elect from eternity past and the need to appeal to sinners to repent and believe. Why? Because he understood that the preaching of the gospel was the means of salvation. God ordained the means by which His elect were to come to faith in Christ. That is why the Arminian can look at Spurgeon and think he was an Arminian. They ignore Spurgeon's statement that, "Calvinism is the gospel".
Almost every Reformed Baptist pastor I know preaches the same gospel that Spurgeon preached. We appeal to all who will listen to us to repent and believe. We believe that all who genuinely repent and believe will be saved. It is not for us to know who is elect and who is not. Theologically we know that all who truly repent and believe in Christ do so because they are one of God's elect. It is the Arminian who gets sidetracked in dissecting all the potential problems with Calvinism. The Calvinist pastor is too busy preaching the gospel to be caught up in all that nonsense. -
Anyway, rare that a topic is respected or can be maintained on this board…as you can see…
For example, I once demonstrated just how truly willing the opposition would be to actually see a direct rebuttal to answer and put to rest just one of their stereotypical accusations that the non-Cal had no scripture to support our view (for those always wanting to resort to endless proof-texting and making such claims) - just for fun…yet, as expected, when I did so one could envision their heads were spinning like they were in an exorcism, they couldn’t STAND IT, wouldn’t allow it to stay on topic, their agenda was being compromised, certainly the complaints and reports to the administration were ramped up and the thread was mysteriously closed without explanation by means of a stealth-like flyby:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=79718
Such is life trying to debate in the BB forum being regulated with little regard for drawing out the truth or understanding of the principles to turn a common meaningless argument into an ethical and organized philosophically logical argument or the differences between the two…But you’d think someone like White should be embarrassed to attempt those stereotypical stunts such as: “you don’t understand the Calvinist system”.
:type: -
Maybe it was because you were yelling STOP!!! most of the time and acting very childish. -
Correction
-
Second, and more importantly, you have blinders on.
A person who can only has only known black can only see white. He doesn't realize there are many colors in between.
I am not a Calvinist. Neither am I an Arminian.
You fail to realize there are "many colors in between," and make the mistake that many Calvinists do, of blindly classifying all who are not Calvinists as Armiininians. That is a bad mistake.
I am a missionary. I was asked by a Muslim, who knew I was a Christian missionary, if I was Catholic. I said, "No, I am Christian that believes the Bible.? He said, are you a Protestant than? I said, "No, I am a Christian, that believes the Bible."
That Muslim is like you. He believes all Christians must be divided into two categories: Protestant and Catholic. There is nothing in between. You have firmly set in your mind that all Christianity is either Calvinist or Arminian. "There are no colors in between."
I quote from Spurgeon often, many times.
I rarely use Reformed sources. There is a reason for that.
-
What did Spurgeon really say?
[FONT="]http://www.articlesbase.com/spirituality-articles/charles-spurgeon-quotes-on-calvinism-the-doctrine-of-the-gospel-2720239.html
[/FONT]
[FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]Calvinism was but a nickname. It was not the Calvinism that is preached today. It was not the gospel that Spurgeon preached. Spurgeon preached free will--that man had a choice to make. He agreed with Luther, who was not a Calvinist. He agreed with Whitefield, not a Calvinist. His message was not Calvinistic in nature. The terminology has changed since then and is misunderstood by today's Calvinists.
[/FONT] -
The statement from your post that I quoted above, does bring a bit of pause to my reading.
See, I don't see the "reformed" teachers as admitting to "free will" EXCEPT for those who teach that God manipulates the current fallen will (I consider that Spurgeon was of this thinking).
There are those of us, who consider the total person (heathen) as completely corrupted and incapacitated by sin; that God gives the believer a new nature that includes a new will. This new will wars against the old will (think of Paul's "wretched man" writing in Romans).
If God only manipulated the old will to be able to believe, then there would seem to not be the struggle that all believers have historically experienced and to which Paul admits.
Those of us who hold to no free will / choice may certainly be in the minority but there does seem to be a bit more Scriptural support for God actually including a new will with the new creature rather than some old manipulated yet fallen will, especially when considering eternity.
There is NOTHING of the old nature that enters the believer's eternity, and to me that would include a will that must be made subject to God by the constant exercise of the Holy Spirit and the will of the new creation.
BTW, this thinking also holds more to the teaching that states:"14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 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 does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."
Note: capitalization was part of the "copy / paste" and is meant to show a quote in the original, NOT meant as to indicate a certain point in this post. -
You do not know what you are saying, you are trying, but remain incorrect.
'We are all born Arminians. It is grace that turns us into Calvinists.' -George Whitefield
Your allegations that todays Calvinists don't preach the Gospel and don't have 'true Calvinism' is an erroneous broad brushed conclusion.
- Blessings -
All Calvinists hold to some form of a manipulated will. If the will is never free to choose, then it must be manipulated by default. Although there is much to debate about the fallacy of the Calvinist view of free will, one major element that Calvinism fails to consider is that in rejecting the part of man's involvement in salvation by rejecting free will (because they claim it is merely man-centric), Calvinism ignores man's part in PRESENTING the gospel.
If faith comes by hearing in Romans 10, and that hearing comes from a preacher, then ultimately man is still involved in the process. If Calvinist philosophy was followed consistently, God could and would save a man whether or not there is a human presentation of the gospel or not.
Romans 9:16 is one of the most misinterpreted and misquoted passages among Calvinists. It takes an incredible amount of Biblical gymnastics to deprive this chapter of its historical contrast between Edom and Jacob going all the way back to Genesis 25:23 ("there are 2 nations in thy womb").
Paul is not talking about individual salvation, but of corporate election between 2 nations. The entire chapter (and from ch 9-11) is clear that Paul is showing that He chose Israel over the bondwoman, and God chose that nation to shew forth His mercy to the world.
When God said, "Jacob have I loved Esau have I hated", he was not using "hate" in a manner any different than when Christ said if any man "hate" not his father or mother he is not worthy to follow Christ. Luke 14:26. It was a standard of contrast of Jacob OVER Esau, not that God personally hated the person Esau, but that He chose the NATION of Jacob, Israel, over the NATION of Esau ("there are 2 NATIONS in thy womb").
When Paul asks the question "Is there unrighteousness with God" and answers that God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, this is in context with explaining His right to choose one nation over the other. And even this was not based on some arbitrary election because Abraham proved his faith by offering Isaac, and Jacob proved his faith by believing the angel of the Lord, and in contrast, Esau rejected his birthright-Hebrews 12:16.
So when Paul says it is not of him that wills or of him that runs, but God that shows mercy, that has nothing to do with whether a man's will is involved in salvation, that's not even the context. It is based on how and why God chose one nation over the other. God chose to have mercy on those that adhered to His conditions, and the entire context of chapter 9 is summed up in verse 32-33, "Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."
This is a very short explanation and perhaps I will start another thread on Romans 9 to address "not of him that willeth", "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated" and "hath not the potter power over the clay", the 3 most misinterpreted passages out of ch 9 among Calvinists.
The other issue to address which is somewhat out of place and held last, was your statement that :
-
I have not participated in this thread except to correct your misunderstanding of Charles Spurgeon's soteriology. You accuse me of having blinders on when it is you who is either woefully ignorant or intentionally dishonest about Spurgeon's theology.
Next thing you'll be doing is trying to convince us that Spurgeon was a Hindu. -
I never stated that "God pulls out the old will" but do challenge the thinking that many hold of God "manipulating" the old will to be somehow receptive. Our current bodies DO NOT in any way (including the fallen will) enter heaven. We are given NEW bodies, and are even now having to subject the old nature (including old will) to the things of God.
Man cannot be "involved in the process" other than as reflex response on what has already taken place - which is the proper rendering of Romans.
"43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 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. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me."
You may contend to your heart's content over cooperate salvation, but frankly I have never found such to be the evidence in Scriptures. There is ONE exception. That is when God directly states to ISRAEL (that is the political and spiritual Israel in which the church is united under the millennial rule) shall be saved. There is only one bride of Christ, and there is the only cooperate election / salvation Scriptures indicate - it takes place in the millennium.
Do you not see that in the quote of Jesus (above) that even HE distinguishes between everyone who "has been taught of God" is NOT the same group as "who has heard and learned from the Father,"
Using the parable of the sower, the seed falls in all places, but ONLY the good earth seed grows and is harvested. Just who do you think is in charge of the dirt? Man? NO!!!! It is the farmer (God) who decides the roadway, the place to pile up stones, what will remain uncultivated and shallow, and what is prepared soil.
"12 Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect."Do you not see two element of the old nature? Mind and body
What has to be conformed to the will of God? Mind and body
What is left out? the will - the part which expresses desire.
Why? Because the new nature will is already conformed to God in Christ and is at war with the old nature will, mind, and body. Again referenced in Paul's writings in Romans where he considers how wretched he is the the old will seems to win out in the tug of desires (wills).
The old fallen nature cannot be conformed to God and neither can the old will (desires) - it is impossible. It can only be mind and body can be subjected and the old will superseded by the will (desires) of God, which is given to the believer as part of being the new creature.
BTW, you consider the new creation given "after salvation" and I consider it ALL salvation. I don't component out salvation into parcels of this has to be done followed by this, as some have attempted to chart. But that is for another thread. -
[QUOTEDHK,
[/QUOTE]
It is funny that you have continued to point out how the Calvinists rely on the creeds and Reformed "Theologians" and notice how all of your Biblical arguments are continually ignored and every Calvinist is trying to force the debate to defining Spurgeon's beliefs.
Predicting Calvinist tactics is easier than making toast.
Page 5 of 13