UnVarnished Terms
Martin:
You demonstrate one of the biggest concerns I have with most Calvinists. You speak of one the 5 points without stating and explaining it plainly.
You note above, for example, is a subtile way of saying you believe in Irresistible Grace (IG) [the 'I' in TULIP]. For those who may be unfamiliar with IG, here is a defintion:
That is IG in unvarnished language.
A proper understanding of grace makes the term "irresistible" totally incompatible. One preacher said, “If grace is irresistible it is not grace at all.”
LM
In Defense of the Gospel
The Priority of Lordship
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Martin, Apr 19, 2007.
Page 6 of 8
-
-
Rationalistic Fatalism
To All:
I would rather this thread were not turned into a discussion of Calvinism, but I went that route. That said, I am going to lay out Calvinism in unvarnished terms.
The Calvinist embraces a rationalistic fatalism rather than biblical faith in his approach to theology. This is how he arrives at the conclusions found in Calvinism.
Rationalistic fatalism is understandable in light of dictionary usage. According to Franklin's Dictionary & Thesaurus, “rationalistic” is literally: “reliance on reason as the basis for the establishment of religious truth,” and “fatalism” is the “belief that fate determines events.” Of course “fate” is a cause beyond human control to determine. Looking at the statement in this light demonstrates that those referred to rely on reason rather than revelation as the basis for their theological moorings. The “circle logic” of five-point Calvinism is just that for the whole system crumbles when a single link in the chain is broken.
One must approach the system with reason rather than faith. This of course leads to the fatalism just mentioned, which holds that God has predetermined the destiny of all human souls and that all the witnessing, praying, and missionary effort in the world will not change the outcome of any.
LM
In Defense of the Gospel -
Irresistible Grace Explained
The Holy Spirit does strive, but a time comes when He may strive no more.
LM -
Hi , LM . Your little definition of Irrestible Grace was on the weak side . The Spirit doesn't cause the sinner to cooperate . It's a monergistic work . Later in your supplied definition it was said that '"it doesn't depend on man's cooperation ." That's contradictory . Methinks a strong nonCal wrote it -- you perhaps ?
I think Martin was perfectly clear when he spoke of the drawing of the elect without fail . It is demonstrated quite well in John 6 .
God has indeed predetermined the destiny of all human souls . ( That's why He goes by the Name of GOD :) But means are ordained by the Lord in His Word . The Reformed Creeds and confessions are in harmony with the Scripture on that .Witnessing , praying , and missionary work among many other efforts are all very compatible with Calvinism .
The Holy Spirit will get those who are the elect -- without fail . Spiritual arrests will be made to bring them in union with the Lord . No matter how much rebuffing of the Holy Spirit goes on before regeneration -- the elect soul will be drawn irrevocably to the Lord .
You misunderstand Calvinism LM . You are caught-up in terminology which you define in your own way -- You attach a certain meaning which Calvinists do not . That's not a fair way of representing our views . Stick with what we name it -- effectual calling .
The same unfortunate ( and sometimes deliberate ) misunderstanding attaches itself to the "L" in the TULIP . We prefer to call it special redemption , specific redemption , or particular redemption . But your side focuses on the word 'limited" and loses sight of the real significance behind the First Article . -
Most people who are well studied on Christian history seem to be firm advocates of Lordship salvation. Coincidence? I doubt it. From the writings that I have read, mainly the Puritans and some pre-modern era preachers such as Tozer, Reidhead, Ravenhill, et cetera , all seem to teach lordship salvation and repentance as neccesary for salvation.
Not to mention such people as Spurgeon who would make such outrageous claims as "Have you no wish for others to be saved? Then you are not saved yourself, be sure of that!"
Good thread though. I look forward to seeing more responses as this issue is battled out. :thumbs:
P.S. The rammifications of this issue are HUGE. How one takes a stand on this issue has severe consequences in evangelism. Having said that, stick on this thread and battle these issues out, keep an open mind, and remember , we need what the Bible teaches, not what man wishes.
I suggest MacArthur's book - Hard to Believe . From what I hear, he does a very thorough treatment on this topic. -
No Misunderstanding
Rippon/All:
There is no misunderstanding! Changing TULIP to softer more palatable terms does not change or water down TULIP’s extremes.
In my experience the only definition a Calvinist will accept of TULIP is one that will validate the extra-biblical, rationalistic fatalism that is inherent in Calvinism.
You wrote,
As for the definition I posed: It is drawn from the writing of Calvinists I have read and interacted with.
The Dangers of Reformed (Calvinism) Theology are many.
You give a classic example of one of Calvinism’s dangers when you wrote,
Incidentally: The usage of the word “predestination” appears in the Bible only 4 times (Eph. 1; Romans 8). It is never in reference to the moment in time when a lost man is born into the family of God. It is always in reference to the future growth and ultimate glorification of a believer. The Calvinist’s presuppositions, however, forces into these passages a definition to support the 5 points.
I am not going to be drawn into a protracted debate that has gone on for centuries and is never going to be settled this side of Heaven. This thread was opened to discuss Lordship Salvation.
My goal (when I encounter these subtle introductions of Calvinism) is provide clear, unvarnished definitions and show the dangerous practical applications of Calvinism (such as hyper-Calvinism) for those for are unsure of what Calvinism is.
Because of the resurgence of Calvinism in Baptist circles: My hope is that unsuspecting people will be shown what Calvinism is, and understand the dangerous extremes it leads to (such as Lordship Salvation & Regeneration before Faith).
This way more people will be able to recognize Calvinism when it is being introduced. Become better able to expose and refute it, and more effectively warn others of Calvinism’s doctrinal and practical extremes.
LM
In Defense of the Gospel -
When some thought The Gospel According to the Apostles cleared up some of his earlier problem statements, Hard to Believe erased any doubt that MacArthur had NOT moderated his position.
It is filled with some of the most extreme Lordship issues of any of his four books on Lordship Salvation.
LM -
Those who are drawn are raised up on the last day. What does that mean?[/quote] It means "drawn - "come" - "given"
skypair -
skypair -
skypair -
For the record, it's a looong stretch to claim the majority believe LS. The majority of believers are not calvinists, and most definately not LS advocates. -
God made Him Lord;
God made Him the Savior.
God made him Lord of all!
Amen! and Amen!
Ed -
The Subtelty of Lordship Salvation
In most cases you are correct above. Many unsuspecting people buy into Lordship Salvation (LS) because it was packaged in such a way that it seems Scriptural. The LS position rightly addresses the problems with the Easy-Believism movement. All of us should take a stand against that.
LS, however, combats the errors of Easy-Believism by changing the terms of the gospel in the hope that the disturbing results of EB will go away.
I can read vast portions of most pro-LS books and have no problem, but the departures from the Bible are there, and can be caught, if one reads with their spiritual antennas up.
I have been in conferences where a man, with great subtlety, presented LS, and most in the group missed it. Once I bought he sermon tape and played it back for a group of pastors who wee at the live presentation. When I paused it at the crucial points the men were astounded not just at how wrong what was be said was, but that they had missed it.
The errors and extremes of LS are carefully woven into the fabric of books and sermons that are, for the most part, orthodox. This is how many do not catch the problems that are inherent in LS.
Kind regards,
LM
In Defense of the Gospel -
Perhaps there may be problems inherent in LM :)
-
-
Read with Caution
To All:
Below is a listing of books that were written to promote and defend Lordship Salvation. Some will be familiar, others not. In some the sole source of discussion is devoted to LS. Some have elements of LS within.
Before I get into the listing, please allow for a bit of a shameless plug.
My book is In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation]
I have dealt with Lordship Salvation since 1989. In the pages of my book I deal extensively with this subject and address many of the questions that comprise the debate.
Key Bible passages and major doctrines such as: faith, repentance, and belief are studied in depth. Related issues such as: Calvinism, carnality, discipleship and contending for the faith are given serious consideration.
I clearly document the extremes of Lordship Salvation directly from the books of it most noted advocates. This way there is no grounds for claiming Straw Man, which is a common response of Lordship advocates to nearly any refutation of the Lordship interpretation of the gospel.
This book is easy to read and systematically organized. This way it becomes a useful study guide as it exposes and refutes the errors of LS, while providing the biblical answers.
[END- Shameless plug]
The best-known and most prolific advocate for LS is Dr. John MacArthur. He has written four major works on LS. They are:
The Gospel According to Jesus
The Gospel According to Jesus: [Revised & Expanded Edition]
The Gospel According to the Apostles
Hard to Believe
Another man to be VERY cautious about (even well-beyond the LS issue) is Dr. John Piper. He has not written on LS any where near to the extent that Dr. MacArthur has, but Dr. Piper is a committed advocate of LS.
The rest are listed by Author/Title.
Alderson, No Holiness, No Heaven!
Belcher, A Layman's Guide to the Lordship Controversy
Boice, Christ's Call to Discipleship
Blanchard, Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?
Chantry, Today’s Gospel: Authentic or Synthetic
Chrisope, Jesus is Lord
Clark, Today's Evangelism
Crenshaw, Lordship Salvation: The Only Kind There Is
Day, Lordship...What Does it Mean?
Gentry, K. Jr., Lord of the Saved
Gross, Christianity Without a King
Horton, Christ the Lord
Koerselman, What the Bible Says About Saving Faith
Lescelius, Lordship Salvation: Some Crucial Questions and Answers
Reisinger, Lord and Christ
Reisinger, Today's Evangelism
Tozer, I Call it Heresy
LM -
What LS Requires for Salvation is Where the Error is Found
To All:
When you read any book, remember: the Lordship interpretation is often presented as the answer to Easy Believism. The MAIN THING is that the LS gospel is in error when it is discussing the REQUIREMENTS FOR SALVATION.
Watch for this: On the results that should follow a genuine conversion to Christ, most LS men are right on biblically. It is when Lordship men touch on what they believe are the requirements for salvation that their position becomes a false gospel through the additions.
Watch these: These men are writing about how to become a Christian, NOT what should be the result of becoming a Christian.
LM
In Defense of the Gospel -
-
It didn't Take Long
Christian men can disagree sharprly, but at the same time disagree charitably.
In Defense of the Gospel -
Hmm, Belcher , Boice , Blanchard , Chantry , Clark , Reisinger , and Tozer ( among others ) seem to be the cream of the crop when it comes to fine preachers/teachers/theologians . I would like to be associated with these godly men .
Page 6 of 8