What nationality are you?

No Calvinism IS NOT the gospel. The above were great men who were greatly mistaken on this subject. The gospel is the gospel and is the only things that saves. Calvinism is system of beliefs that reflect a theological view. Calvinsim can not save anyone and never has, only the gospel of Jesus Christ can do that :thumbs:

 

Spurgeon was a "great man who was greatly mistaken"?

I'll take his life and ministry for an example any day.

When he says "Calvinism is the gospel", it is nothing more nor less than simply stating that the truths expounded by John Calvin are gospel truths. That they are not antagonistic to nor anti-gospel in any way. He was right. They are not.

BTW - I don't particularly like the term, 'calvinism' myself. I do think that 'reformed' is a better term and should be used in place of the name of a man.

 

I believe you are exactly right. This is why I stay out of the endless debates on the subject. The bottom line is there is a mix there, in a way only the Lord knows. The fact is all these theological geniuses are doing nothing but giving opinions back and forth. They do not really know.

I guess what I get the most weary of hearing are the virtues of Calvin, and have a whole system of beliefs based on that name. There are others who are just as well versed and contributed just as much to the faith. If I recall, the Lord Jesus went to the cross, yes for our sins, but because He did not agree with the religious establishment of the day. The Jews had Him put to death, because He did not agree with their false beliefs. Why should we name a belief system after someone who essentially did the same thing as the Pharisees? One does not have someone put to death because they do not agree with you theologically. Think about how Calvin would treat you back then with your belief of baptism. I have no use for him, and could find some much more deserving name to give the doctrines of sovereignty and grace.

 

Saturneptune,

I believe this verse covers it....

Deuteronomy 29:29
(29) The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.

There are some secret things that we will never know because God has NOT revealed them to us.. we see their reflection, by the way they work in the world, but some things are still a mystery. How God's sovereignty and man's free will works together is a mystery only God knows...

Let's not dwell on the secret things.. but on the things the Lord has revealed.

 

Absolutely not...but I do find those of your persuasion don't contribute to this board in much capacity besides the C / A discussions. I don't see many posts by the cal's on the fellowship or prayer forums...coincidence? Maybe, but from my experience both here, elsewhere on the web, and in person...maybe not.

 

He may have been a great man, but yes...he was greatly mistaken in that calvinism is NOT the Gospel, but a view of how the Gospel takes place. Both sides hold to what you claim are "gospel truths". How we arrive at the truth is where we disagree. To claim your view is THE way is quite smug.

 

Cal(-ifornia)

Call me a non cal

I've visited there, even stayed awhile ... but I'm not a native.

It's sure got a lot of neat places to see,

some good thoughts and ideas.

Some say it's bankrupt but I'd disagree.

Perhaps the people running it now have overstretched themselves to the point partial ruin.

Rob

 

Sounds like mischaracterization to me.
Do you that many non-Cals quote Spurgeon.

Now I would like to see an exact documented quote where Spurgeon said such a thing.

 

Is there anyone whom God uses that is without sin or has a theology that is perfect?

 

I wrote that response to you in one of Marcia’s treads (don’t have the link but do have your entire post and my unacknowledged rebuttal if you would like to see it) along with memory of another before that which you may have not seen because in the prior you made no further posts.

I have seen you do a good job of defending freewill against the claims of Peliganism on occasion but sorry, in this case those are my words in the quote and rather than my taking a detour it is an attempt to put your definition you ascribe to others on the correct path.

Apparently there are many more than you are aware of, as a matter of fact I do not believe it the norm for Arminians to agree with your asribed definiton on LFW and do use the terminolgy to explain free choice.

The point I am making is that when you say very few people are “libertarian” in their free will view you are still defining it as a Peligan or Semi position; yet in fact many if not most Classical Arminians DO use the term to describe their view, but NOT within the meanings you are declaring (attributing) it to mean.

Well, I’m sure with you about the baggage and would compare it to the ‘theological labeling’ and dogmatic uses/abuses of a dispensationalist calling “Covenant Theology” – “Replacement Theology”, a Calvinist calling “Universal Atonement” – “Universalism” or any perspective differing on Exhaustive Foreknowledge from the Classical Theism view as “Open Theism”.

Although, some within those positions may “fit the bill” to most it is (often willfully) a misrepresentation to their system of belief.

The point is many/most which use the term LFW do not intend it to mean apart from “influence” and do not ascribe to Peliganism and the meanings as you declare/label them.

Speaking of "detour"...Of the many I have see use the term I have NEVER seen one come to this conclusion.

That definition from CARM is widely disputed by Classic Arminians, I have seen rebuttals of it often, and fits into the problems and motives of labeling as I have previously noted.

With that I agree...

With that I do not, and here you are lumping the two together...so..I somewhat agree with the following in that aspect.

</SPAN>
What you are espousing, concerning Arminian and seeing as compatiblism, is more in line with “soft determinism” which is generally thought as a Calvinist position but one that holds to less than the 5 points. Maybe the position you hold?

That would be the compatiblist/soft determinist view of freewill.

In the sense you are using freewill it is from the “soft determinist” position which includes compatiblism yet that view is generally perceived by Arminians as illogical. It is trying to assert that a volitional choice is not intentional therefore still delegating responsibility for that choice to the Creator as in “cause and effect” rather than “influence and response” and logically is then not free and still a form of Calvinist/determinism being freewill and determinism are logically mutually exclusive in the matter of choice. That Sir, is why most that use the term “LFW” do not fit into your box and would take exception to the definition as you attempt to present it.

 

Read his sermon / article titled: In Defense of Calvinism. No mischaracterization here at all. Here is more of Spurgeon from that sermon. Just to prove I am fairly representing his views on what he called the gospel.

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.

 

I believe in both free will and predestination----one belongs to the Gentile and the other to the Jew.

We discussed that briefly when I first joined the BB.

There are a lot of things I'm not, so to list myself as a "non" anything would take all day.

 

In your earlier post, you said some think people can lose their salvation after one sin. Yes, there are those out there that believe that (I've met a few), but I think they are in the vast minority of those holding a non-OSAS view. I think the majority non-OSAS view is that it is an intentional "giving back" of one's salvation - i.e., it is not any particular sin or sins that dooms them, it is becoming apostate in their faith.

I think that majority view is more in line with Free Will Baptist doctrine, which I always thought was truer to historic Arminianism, while the minority view is more in line with Wesleyan-Holiness doctrine which of course developed after J. Arminius and his original followers.

 

Ok. But as I stated - I have never 'read' such. Therefore I didn't see them posted toward me in any thread I involved in, most likely because I made no further posts or missed it altogether.

Let's just say we disagree with the first part. However on the second with respect to their use of 'terminology', I agree. Many do use the 'word' but do not mean it the way it is defined. This is seen as self-evident not only in their own works but as an example even in the rest of your post.

That defintion is already established and that defintion is reflective of the Pel and Semi-Pel view. If their view differs from that definition then they actually do not hold to that view.

Also I never said they do not use the term, however when using the term they always must redefine it. Why redefine it? Answer - because their view is not depicted in the established defintion. Therefore if the defintion does not reflect accurately their view, then the most logical conclusion is that the term can not properly be stated as a reflection of their view.

In the above, even you agree they have to modify the existing meaning of the term because it does not accurately reflect their views.

It is a lable that incorrectly describes their view and as such needs to be discontinued.

But the defintion is an established one and has been such. They dispute the meaning because it does not conform their view. Therefore since the term does not accurately portray their view it should not be used as a descriptor of that view.
I take you back to your quotein your signature:
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. ~Abraham Lincoln

It is generally assumed a Calvinistic position but one that many Arminians holds. Classical or Reformed Arminianism holds to or at least loosely to a soft determinism. J. Arminius wrote:
"But the dominion of God is the right of the Creator, and His power over the creatures; according to which He has them as His own property, and can command and use them, and do about them whatever the relation of creation, and the equity which rests upon it, permit."
He also goes on to state that that God allows men choice but still already knows all things and their ends. When Arminians vie for a libertarian free will, they are merely stating that God is not the One behind their choices. (ie. God does not make them choose one way or another). People may freely choose to do that which they will.

That sir, is because they take a term that is already defined and are trying to redefine it into something else. It causes confusion in the argument/debates because when they use one term, like libertarian free-will, and they mean something entirely different than the established defintion.

 

That was an example (extreme I'll grant you but an example non-the-less) and was not stated to be the norm or commonly understood view.

Actually, as I showed classical Arminianism holds that through consistant sinning one can loose their salvation because they become lazy in watchfulness of keeping themselves in a right relationship with God (or as my quoted stated loss of salvation through negligence). This is not forfeiture (sp?) or giving back something. To forfeit ones salvation is a Wesleyian Arminian view and not classical or Reformed Arminianism.

 

My man…LOL…You are taking a widely held view of LFW and branding it, in a rather (hopefullly unknowing) slurring fashion I might add, as “Peligan” while attempting to take your brand of freewill in which you give a shining example of the so called Calvinist-less than 5 point compatiblist view described to a tee in “soft determinism”, (that still hinges on determinism, hence calling a tail a leg) …and you try to define that as freewill to fit your so-called non-Calvinist view.

Somewhere along the line you got it into your head what LFW must mean in a similar manner like other Calvinist, who are “hard determinist” which will call any brand of freewill “Peligan” .

You further attempt to quote Arminius as “loosely soft determinist” because you have found a statement that he does not limit God and then interpret that it must mean the same such as your claim of freewill that includes determinism. On the contrary what it does go to show in part that he was not a determinist and not a Peligan while not limiting God. BTW, many of that day tried to brand him as Peligan. You really need to quit wagging your leg Bro...:laugh:

It is only “already defined” in the way you put it by your own imagination through convenience of using it that way to fit your position. I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree on this subject…I figure you are set in your way and I won't be trying to force any old dogs to break a habit to learn a new trick... but I will leave you with an appeal to your conscience that in the way you wish to conveniently define LFW it is a slur every time you teach that "the" interpretation of it is that one who uses it is projecting a form of Peliganism, whether or not it helps you to solidify “your” position. To me it is no different than a Calvinist teaching that their doctrine is "THE Doctrine of Grace".

 

What does anyu of being a Calvinist, non-Calvinist, Arminian, non-arminian, Pelagian, Baptist, or any other label one can stick on someone, have to do with one's nationality?

I have dual citizenship actually.

In the usual sense of the term, I'm an American citizen, as I was born here in the United States.

However, as a Christian, my citizenship is in heaven. (Phl'p. 3:20)

Incidentally, unlike my usual practice, I have not read all the posts on this thread, so have no idea where the thread was derailed from the title question.

Still!

Ed