Why must I be a Calvinist

No one is using Calvin over Jesus as criteria for judging Scripture. God did reveal himself perfectly in Jesus; no one disputes that. Although I am not sure how you can hold that position since the only place you learn anything about Jesus is flawed and contains errors. The apostles may indeed have made it all up. However, if you think they gave an accurate record of his words, then read what Christ said in John 6 and you will see that Jesus believed it long before Calvin did.

Chris, I should have changed "historically" for something more conducive to recent history. You are correct on that regard; I made a poor choice of words.

___________________

Note from the moderator. This post is a response to a post that David posted. This post is not by David at all but rather by me. The above quote is not by me but rather by David. When trying to reply, I apparently clicked on edit rather than reply and thus hijacked David's post to make him appear to say something he did not say. (Of course it is the closest David has come to being right in a while ) I am currently trying to think of things to blame this on. If you have any ideas get back to me in a hurry. Until then, accept my apologies.

Larry

[ April 04, 2002, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

David, I am so sorry. I just realized that instead of reply I hit edit. It was unintentional. Often when I want to edit I will hit reply by mistake and have to go back. I didn't catch it until I looked in here to check my post. I was not trying to delete your post at all. I was trying to answer it.

Please accept my apologies.

 

Well then stop because no one in theology does.
<<<So I guess I should stop associating Christ with Christianity as well, huh?>>>

This shows no understanding of the issues of bibliology. I am not in the SBC and those in the leadership of the SBC are not fundamentalists by the historic meaning of the term. However, you have a faulty bibliology. You assert that Christ is the standard for interpreting Scripture but you seem not to recognize that you do not know anything about Christ apart from Scripture.
<<<<<I know Christ apart from scripture, the same way Paul did. I experience Christ through prayer and a continued relationship with the almighty. Do you really think Paul was ignorant of Christ because he did not have the four gospels? Think about what you are saying.>>>>
You do not interpret Scripture by Christ.
<<<you do if you are a Christian. "You have heard it said...but I say to you...">>>>>
You would stand against apostasy and compromise because he did.
<<<<Maybe so but I wouldn't murder people over it.>>>
This hermeneutic of yours is a thinly veiled attempt to sound pious while being able to reject God's revelation to us.</font>[/QUOTE]Wow, you found me out. I thought no one could see through my piety veil-actually, I though it was more of a sarcasm veil but apparently its more of negligee. By the way, god's perfect revelation is Jesus, not Calvin. Why would someone use Calvin over Jesus as the criteria for judging scripture, unless they're worshipping Calvin( now that makes sense)?
__________________

Moderator's note -- This post should be read before the post attributed to David Cooke time stamped at 9:27 am (two posts above). Hopefully this will get things back on the right track. -- Larry

[ April 04, 2002, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

No apology needed. I still can't figure out half this posting stuff myself. Anyway, I figured out how to re-post what got tangled, so its now out there ready for the attack- or should I say debate?.

 

Boarders,
This is a hot topic........you can hear a pin drop and the sweat on the brow of some. Oh well, I will add a link from a good friend. It essentially explains why *I must be a Calvinist* also.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/TULIP/WhyIAmACalvinist.htm

In HIM,
Scott Bushey

"Put your faith in God and keep your gunpowder dry."
-Oliver Cromwell

 

Let's talk about the three reasons Sandlin gives that necessitate his Calvinism:

1. "I must be a Calvinist, first, because I can recognize no greater fact in the universe than the sovereignty of God."

2. "There is a second reason I must be a Calvinist. Calvinists believe that covenant is at the center of God's dealings with man, and I believe that this is just what the Bible teaches."

3. "Third, and finally, I must be a Calvinist because I am convinced that the Christian Faith must dominate the whole of man's life and existence. There is no expression of orthodox Christianity that historically has recognized this fact as much as Calvinism has."

So if I can paraphrase, Sandlin is claiming that a) Calvinist soteriology is most consistent with the view that God is sovereign in salvation, b) the Calvinistic understanding of 'covenant' (if not Covenant Theology itself) is the proper way to understand God's relationship to man, and c) Calvinism has the most developed awareness of worldview and antithesis within Christianity. All three of these arguments are strong (I agree with them, so what do you expect me to say?), but the one that is most interesting to me is the third. Non-Calvinists do not often appreciate the extent to which worldview thinking is Calvinistic thinking.

Mark

 

Calvinism is a term that has come to be shorthand for what a person believes about soteriology. Historically, calvinism has been associated only with soteriology and not with some of Calvin's other abberant doctrines and practices.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, many moderates like myself do associate calvinism with Calvin. Calvin's torture and murder of fellow Christians who would not place his doctrines above the place of scripture is an eerie reminder of how many moderates have been ousted during the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC for refusing to accept current calvinist's doctrines that supplant scripture and remove our Lord Jesus as the criteria for judging scripture. I guess we are to use the doctrines of Calvin-the murderer and torturer-as our guide for interpreting scripture instead of the perfect revelation of God, Jesus Christ.
I am amazed that anyone would want to be associated with that man, much less use his ideas about God instead of Jesus'.</font>[/QUOTE]Calvin did act wrongly, but that whole thing with Servetus has been distorted by enemies of the truth. To speak as if people you agree with getting fired is the same as a burning at the stake is just whining.

What I find most interesting, though, is how you keep talking about putting Calvin's writtings over Scripture. The truth is that it's an issue of putting Scripture over yourself. No one naturally likes Calvinism. But it's true. I'll never understand how you can totally ignore the numerous clear statement of Scripture, subordinating it to your own human mind, while at the same time spouting rhetoric about the authority of Scripture. I take it by the fact that you call yourself a moderate that you don't hold to Biblical innerency, so I don't know what business you have talking like that anyway.

 

Chris Temple said:

This point is so crucial in understanding the differences between semi-pelagianism and calvinism. It is so freeing to understand that God is God, and I don't have to try and explain His actions. One of the traps that the arminian or semi-pelagian gets caught in is having to be forced into explaining God's actions apart from His sovereignty. You are really forced to a point where you have to claim that God is not God if He cannot stop what we perceive as problems and perils in the human life. Their position is cornered into apologizing for God's actions rather than asserting that "all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Dan. 4:35) God Himself unashamedly takes credit for many of the things that we don't want to attribute to Him:

This view is the only one that truly makes God sovereign and also makes His salvation solely by grace.

 

Arminian theologians and/or Biblical oriented Christians also believe in salvation by grace minus works. [Ephesians 2:8-9] We believe salvation comes solely by faith. [Romans 4:5] We also believe in sovereignty knowing that God is totally involved in the rule of His world and universe and will move human history to its final conclusion. We believe that God is sovereignly moving people, by His Spirit, to conviction of sins so they will yield to God savingly. [Revelation 22:17]

We do not have a lopsided theology that never speaks of 'good works' as valuable to people and God, or of rewards that Christ will give to worthy saints at the Judgment Seat of Christ. Neither do we disguise the non-elect under the umbrella of an autocratic, domineering, an secretive electing mind of the living God merely for the purpose of maintaining Reformation theology.

Respectfully,

Dr. Berrian

 

I must be a Calvinist because I follow Jesus. I do not follow the humanistic error of Arminianism, which perverts the grace of God into something that can be obtained by works of righteousness.

"If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright." --Martin Luther

"I do not come into this pulpit hoping that perhaps somebody will of his own free will return to Christ. My hope lies in another quarter. I hope that my Master will lay hold of some of them and say, 'You are mine, and you shall be mine. I claim you for Myself.' My hope arises from the freeness of grace, and not from the freedom of the will." --Charles Haddon Spurgeon

By His grace, Christopher

 

Salvation is not being involved; it is being in control. You have ceded the control of the universe to man. Both God and man cannot be sovereign.

If he is sovereignly moving them then he why do not all come? Because God is not sovereign is the only answer that will make sense of the equation. To sovereignly move people means to make it happen; not to make it available and hope and wish that someone responds to it.

Who does believe this?? This doesn't look familiar to me.

This is a blatant mischaracterization. God is not autocratic and domineering. He does have a secretive electing mind though I prefer the term will. But that is clearly revealed in Scripture. To deny this is to deny Scripture. Nor are we maintaining reformation theology. We are preaching the message the Christ and the apostles preached. You might argue against our beliefs but it will not because of Scripture. It will be because your mind will not allow you to submit yourself to a God who is greater than you are.

 

I am a advocate of "Calvinists" theology because it is the pure gospel and the absolute truth.
The Sovereignity of God, the position of Paul and all the Apostolic teaching, and of course the entire bible, is the most freeing truth I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. I praise God every day for opening my mind and enlightening me as to the gospel truth. Believe me, once you have "seen" it you will NEVER give in even one little bit to those that think they somehow have something to do with their own salvation. How God-dishonoring to think that man can thwart the Sovereign Will of God. It just goes to show how fallen man really is. He just CANNOT give up the notion that he can control God, instead of God controlling fallen man.

Get over it people!!! God is Sovereign, not man!!!
James2

 

Pastor Larry,

Perhaps you and your church might not try to maintain Reformation Theology but the Tenth Presbterian Church in Philadelphia every year has a seminar on Reformation Theology. Biblical theology is different from the framework of strict Reformation Theology. Much of Reformation Theology is good but some is incorrect.

Dr. Berrian

 

Pastor Larry,

Do you understand the concept that sovereignty does not necessarily mean total dominance in all things. England is a sovereign state and yet they have a free will to buy and sell and to own property. This does not make the king of England without sovereignty. The king is sovereign in many areas but not all. The same is true of Almighty God. You, incorrectly, use the wide brush by saying that the Triune God is autocratic and domineering over His creation in matters of personal salvation.

Why do not all come? It is true that the Gospel is available to anyone who hears His truth. When they hear the truth the Holy Spirit convicts of sin and people make a choice to either receive Christ or to neglect His stupendous offer of eternal life. All do not come because He has given man the gift of choice/free will; He never coerces people to bow the knee to Him. [John 5:40] One day everyone will have to bow the knee and admit that He is the Sovereign over all things.

We both agree that Almighty God is infinite and you and I and all human beings are finite.

With reference to ‘good works' and the rewards given at the Judgment Seat of Christ, you said, ‘Who does believe this? This doesn't look familiar to me. Are you denying these Biblical truths as offered in His holy Word? Are you denying that these are precepts offered by God through His human penmen?

You are responsible, as a Christian pastor, to ' . . . declare all the counsel of God.' [Acts 20:27], including passages like Romans 14:10 & II Cor. 5:10. And as to free will we are reminded by God that He died on the Cross to make possible the salvation of every human being. The whole counsel of God included preaching John 3:16 and 17 as though God did not come to human beings to damn, autocratically the non-elect, but rather not to condemn anyone but that through Him {Jesus} His creatures ' . . . might be saved.'

Respectfully,

Dr. Berrian

 

I do understand sovereignty and it means total control over all things. It is incorrect to draw an analogy of God's sovereignty from the King of England. It is apples and oranges. In the bottom line is boils down to whether or not we believe that God in is the heavens doing whatever he pleases. If you disagree with that, then you disagree with Scripture.

Where did I ever say this? I have said what Paul and Jesus said, that God in grace draws people to himself for salvation. Those whom he draws come for salvation. The rest go the way they desire to go ... in rebellion against God.

Why do not all come? It is true that the Gospel is available to anyone who hears His truth. When they hear the truth the Holy Spirit convicts of sin and people make a choice to either receive Christ or to neglect His stupendous offer of eternal life. All do not come because He has given man the gift of choice/free will; He never coerces people to bow the knee to Him. [John 5:40] One day everyone will have to bow the knee and admit that He is the Sovereign over all things.

We both agree that Almighty God is infinite and you and I and all human beings are finite.

What??? This doesn't make sense.

Which I do.

Not familiar with this verse about possibility.

Interesting how you talk about the whole counsel of God through the words "as though" when those words are not there. God did not condemn autocratically the non-elect. The non-elect condemn themselves by their actions. In fact, John says that they are condemned already.

If you want to declare the whole counsel of God then it must of necessity include the doctrines of grace as taught in Scripture. Only in this is hope offered by mankind.

 

Acts 13:48 often quoted by Calvinists as an ‘iron clad' case for the unconditional election/special election of saints sounds good in the King James Version until a person checks what other Greek scholars say about this verse.

Number one the word ‘ordained' is not in our copies of the original Greek language. The word is {tetagmenoi}meaning disposed. The Authorized Version, Revised Standard Version, and others merely copied the Catholic/Vulgate translation. A closer and better translation would be, ‘ . . . and as many as were having been disposed to eternal life, believed.' The Holy Spirit had so worked on their lives that they were moved to savingly believe and trust in Him. Once again, men like Calvin, Beza, Zwingli believed the party line as to special election straight from the Augustinian text book.

Greek scholars like Alford and A.T. Robertson clearly portray the true meaning of the text at hand. Other men like Meyer, Rotherham, and Bloomfield assert the fact that the word is in the perfect-passive tense.

The perfect tense indicates a verbal that expresses an action or state completed at the time of speaking or at the time spoken of. . .

The passive aspect of this word indicates someone was acted on by an external agency, in this case God. It clearly suggests a receptivity to this outside influence which is God. The passive voice indicates ‘tending {not} to take an active or dominant part.'

Summary: ‘And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the Word of the Lord; and as many as were disposed to eternal life, believed.' In other words, ‘ . . . as many as were agreeable or inclined toward everlasting life, believed and trusted in Him. This Greek rendering leads to Biblical theology in counter-distinction to Augustinian Calvinism.

Also, without any deep grammatical research one understands the value that God places on the human volition. Note [Acts 13:46] ‘Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing YE PUT IT FROM YOU, AND JUDGED YOURSELVES UNWORTHY OF EVERLASTING LIFE, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.'

My respects,

Dr. Berrian

 

Ray, my friend, you have contradicted yourself here.

Not so. BAGD says the passive is to "belong to, be classed among those possessing." Bruce (NICNT) says there is no reason to weaken the predestenarian sense here. He opts for enroll. However, the meaning is immaterial for even with your meaning, you have a problem with your position.

Even with your definition of the Spirit of God working to "dispose," it is still prior to belief. Why did they believe? Becuase they have been disposed to believe by the Spirit of God. Why did others not believe? Becuase they had not been predisposed.But the problem is even bigger for you.

Which is exactly what we Calvinists say. Man was acted on by an external agency that caused him to believe, or predisposed him to believe. The problem you have is that apparently this predisposition is given to everyone by the Holy Spirit, yet not every one believes. Some choose to reject. Yet the Bible says that all who were disposed to eternal life believed. That is the effectual call by any description I have ever heard.

The soteriology taught in Scriputre is the soteriolgoy that Calvin espoused. I have asked you before to not use the term "biblical theology" with regards to either position. YOu have done it now twice in as many days. It only prejudices the issue.

No one disagrees with this. They did willfully reject the offer of salvation. The question is, what happens to man's will so that he chooses God? God changes his will.

 

Pastor Larry,

You made a statement with reference to Acts 13:46. The verse reads: ' . . . but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.'

Your statement was this one. 'No one disagrees with this. They did willfully reject the offer of salvation.'

Would you agree with me that the Israelite's rejection, for the most part, of the Gospel was and is resisting the grace of God?

In like manner, Jesus statement to the people in John 5:40 was this. 'And ye would not come to Me, that ye might have life.' There was no impediment in our Lord that refused these unbelievers, the problem was in the lives of those who refused His love. Their refusal of His grace was because of their rebellion against Almighty God. For many of us we call this Resistible Grace.

A denial by some as to 'passive' in Acts 13:48 only brings lay people to confusion and prejudices their understanding of the Word. The passive, according to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, means 'enduring without resistance; submissive, existing without being active, open or direct.

What this means is that the Lord was and remains submissive and not autocratic in bringing about anyone's destiny. Active--yes, but not overwhelming the will of the human being. As we both agree, the Spirit of God, was there in conviction or these people would not have believed in Jesus.

God was not there actively decreeing anyone's final destiny. 'As many as were disposed to eternal life believed.' Some were disposed to believe while others refused grace.

Some people ask the question why do some people choose not to believe in Jesus? Part of the answer is found in the Parable of the Sower found in Matt. 13:8; Mark 4:5 and Luke 8:8. The various soils is indicative of the lives/hearts of various people in this world. Human rebellion against God is the problem and not His appropriated salvation for all people. [I John 2:2; I Tim. 2:4 & 6].

Sincerely,

Dr. Berrian