Calvinist preachers, teachers, theologians

The "God loves you and desires a relationship with you" is a typical "chick church" and/or "purpose-driven church" sign. If you want to snag as many women as possible, use the word "relationship" early and often. Add an emotional session of top 40 praise and worship songs, and you've got it made. This feminization of the church works in terms of getting greater numbers, because women have become the spiritual leaders in many families. I'm not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg, though.

Regardless, if you can find any Biblical evidence whatsoever that the apostles evangelized with the message that "God loves [everyone] you and desires a relationship with [everyone] you", I'd love to see it.

 

John 3:16 does not say that. If it did say what you want it to say, it would contradict a vast amount of other scripture. But we've been through this before, so I don't think we'll make any progress down that road.

I agree with the purpose-driven life on one thing. God has a purpose for us all. God had a purpose for Pharoah, for example. But it wasn't to love him and have a relationship with him.

 

Webdog,

First, why are you obssessed about Calvinism? What is the deal with you? You have beaten this drum for years now. Why not simply accept that people differ with you? Do you not have anything better to do?

Second, this whole thread is but more evidence of something that I and others have been telling you for a long time: You don't understand Calvinism. You don't know what you are talking about. You have made up your mind what Calvinists believe and will not be changed with the facts. You are unwilling to accept anything except what you have in your head. That is unfortunate, because you are tarring the names of some of the greatest theologians and evangelists that have ever lived.

Disagree if you must. I really don't care. But disagree with what we believe, not with what you make up.

Consider this as evidence: You believe that the statement "God saves sinners" is incompatible with Calvinism. Then who do you think God saves, if it isn't sinners? If someone says "God saves all sinners," then yes, that is incompatible, not only with Calvinism but with your position as well.

To your opening paragraph, I preach that God loves all and hates all, that he will save whoever will believe, and that your sinful rebellion keeps your from coming to Christ. I preach that Christ died to save whoever will believe and his death is not limited by any sin that you have committed.

To call that an arminian gospel is silly. There is no Calvinist gospel or arminian gospel. The gospel is the gospel.

 

....that is hitting the nail right on the middle of the head.

 

God is love, because God is love, because God is love, therefore God is love. Final brothers what we have is...God is love.

This is the poor argument heard by free-willers, for this is the whole ball game. One would do well to read Augustine and remember what he called the 'analogy of Scripture,' or 'the analogy of faith.'

When the Reformers left the RCC, the RCC warned them what they were going to get …. every man his own interpreter, every man his own church

The reformers know this MAY happen and understood right from the very beginning that not only was it important to put the Bible in every person's hand, but also it was very important to have principles of interpretation...or controls on interpretation. So … they returned to over and over again to the analogy of Scripture.

The analogy of Scripture means this.. one must respect the whole of Scripture when handling any part of it.

The exegesis of one passage must be checked by the teaching of the rest of the Bible.

 

Amen Bro.

 

Just as they clain you do not understand them Webdog, they too do not understand your beleifs just as you stated earlier.

Many Calvinists will try to place you in a catagory that will enable them to debate you on certain issues.
Unfortunately, the catagories do not fit the mold of the majority of beleivers who hold to (specifically) the free-will of man to beleive God at His word after God has called man to Himself, since man will never seek God otherwise.

But since there is a word in there (free-will) that is akin to something opposing to their doctrinal beleifs, you will be lumped into the catagory with those whom you have as much in common with as you do the Calvinist. (with regard to systematic view of soterology)

I understand where you are going with this thread, but I think it is to broad a statement to say they are inconsistant with their beleifs to offer that Gift of God to any who will partake as long as they are constistant in their messages that only the elect will know/come to know God.

We can understand this (from their point of view) by seeing only those God is dealing with will respond and the rest will careless.

However, if one teaches or preaches God has elected some to eternal salvation and thereby others to eternal damnation THEN make the statement that ALL may come to Christ, and that He wants ALL to know Him as Lord and Saviour - now they are inconsistant with Calvinistic teachings.

 

I don’t read most of them because they are rehashes of old discussions that I have no interest in. I happened to check in on this one by accident I think. I meant to click on something else, but my mouse jumped. (I hate this mouse I have.) But it caught my attention so I responded.

Actually, it has been a year and half … but it seems longer than that for some reason.

But what’s with posting something constructive about a non-Calvinist? My posts generally don’t take into account someone’s position on this, unless I am directly addressing the topic. But for the record, my grandmother was a very godly Nazarene who believed she could lose her salvation. If all Christians lived as she did, we would be a better bunch. So there’s something constructive for you about a non-Calvinist. (I don’t think my grandmother would have even know what a Calvinist was.) I think Helen is very solid on issues of creationism. I appreciate what she has said about that topic, even though I vehemently disagree with her soteriology and anthropology; and she disagrees with mine with equal vehemence.

Thanks for your confidence, but I don’t know everything. However, on the topic of Calvinism, I think it is clear that I do know more than you do about what Calvinists believe. And I do know the non-Calvinist position. Try me on it …I probably no more about it than you do. But that’s irrelevant, since I am not making up stuff that non-Calvinists believe and accusing them falsely, which you are doing to Calvinists.

I know what you say here on the board. If you think something different than you say, then why do you say it? Isn’t that dishonest to think one thing and say another? If you think what you do say, then why do you say I don’t know what you think? That doesn’t make sense either way. If you do say what you think, then you are not telling the truth when you say I don’t know your thoughts. So I hardly think I have been dishonest. If you think I have, then show me where.

Based on what you have said here, we can confidently assert that you don’t show an understanding of Calvinism, and this thread is proof of it. That’s not to say that you don’t understand it. You may, and just not show it here for some reason, though I doubt that to be the case. Calvinists may be wrong. But they don’t believe, in the mainstream, what you accuse them of.

I don’t start many threads, mostly for lack of interest and lack of creativity. I have done a fair amount of reading and study and it is extremely rare that I learn anything here on this particular topic, except what an individual believes. Most of what is stated here I have learned from other sources, (which is the curse of study I guess). I have learned a lot about primitive Baptists that I didn’t know, because I haven’t studied them. But I didn’t learn by asking. I didn’t need to. I could learn by reading what they said.

You have. False doctrine is false doctrine to be sure. But you have assumed your conclusion. The fact is that Calvinism is based on a very sound exposition of Scripture. In studying both sides, I have concluded that you are incorrect. You have concluded that I am incorrect. That’s fine. But the truth is that you have made false accusations about people lying from the pulpit because you say they don’t preach what they believe. You have said as much in this thread. And if that is not tarring someone’s name, then what is it?

Let’s see what Scripture says,

Romans 3:23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Psalm 5:5 The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity.

Can we not assert that God hates all since “all have sinned” and he “hates all who do iniquity”? These two verses together seem to clearly indicate that God hates all because all have sinned. Which verse would you like to declare untrue?

John 3:16"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Can we not assert that God loves all, since he “loves the world.” Certainly you would not define the world as less than “all people,” would you? I wouldn’t.

So can we not assert from Scripture that God hates all and loves all?

The fact that you can’t comprehend this is evidence that you, along with me, are limited by finitude. We cannot understand the infinitude of God. But we can accept what he says without “talking out of both sides of our mouths.”

First, what do I believe that I don’t preach? What do I hide?

Secondly, how would you know? Have you ever heard me preach? Have you ever listened to any of my sermons, much less enough of them to determine what I preach vs. what you think I believe?

I don’t see anyway you can make the assertion that I don’t preach what I believe to be full truth. Please tell me how you conclude this?

 

This sounds like classic arminianism, depending on what you mean by "called." It could be semi-pelagianism or Pelagianism. Arminians believe in total depravity, just as Calvinists do (and differently than Pelagians or semi-Pelagians).

Stick with me here for a minute, and don't get lost in the technicalities.

Pelagianism teaches that man is born sinless, or neutral. He has no natural predisposition to sin and he is not a sinner until he chooses to sin. And sin does not affect his will so that he is able to come unaided to God. (See the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology or some like source for a more complete discussion.) We see some classic cases of pelagianism or semi-pelagianism on here by people who don't even realize it.


Arminianism teaches that man is born completely depraved, but that God extends a prevenient grace to all men that offsets the affects of their depravity, enabling all to respond (though not bringing all to faith).

Calvinism teaches that man is born completely depraved, and that God extends an efficacious grace to his elect that ensures his response of faith to the message.

So Arminianism and Calvinism share a belief in total depravity, but view God’s work of grace differently. Both have been widely considered as within the realsm of the gospel. Pelagianism has historically been considered heresy.

How so? Calvinists believe that all who will may come. Those who “will not” may not come. So we can clearly state (and indeed must preach) that God will save all who will come, and that their only hope is faith in Christ. We can and must preach that man is kept from salvation only by his own sin and refusal to come to Christ. If man dies and goes to hell, he has no one to blame but himself. That is historic Calvinistic theology.


Secondly, to say that “God has elected some to eternal salvation and thereby others to eternal damnation” is not exactly true. You have presented double predestination. But a good number of Calvinists do not believe this. Election is a positive choice of God to salvation. Election is not used with respect to people going to hell. They are not “elected” to eternal damnation. They are simply not saved from it. Double predestination, I think, assumes the neutrality of man by teaching that God must elect both ways (heaven and hell). In contrast, the Bible teaches that all men are going to hell anyway. God has to do nothing for them to go to hell. In other words, election does not need to take place for people to go to hell.

So I would simply caution you about simplistic overgeneralizations. There are some Calvinists who believe what you have stated. But I don’t think it is the mainstream view, and it is certainly not a required view. Your view is supported only by logic, not by Scripture, since Scripture never speaks of God electing people to hell.

 

I believe that this inconsistency is the reason for a lot of confusion. When one talks of God electing some to salvation, but passing by the non - elect & only a one sided predestination. Anyone can see the fact that if God's election of that number to be saved was eternal, then the rejection of the rest was equally eternal. This is the reason of accusations of inconsistency. I believe we as preachers should preach as we know the Bible teaches. And not try to dress everything up so as to take the offence of Bible doctrine away. This has been an occasion to much of the bashing of Calvinism.

 

Glad to see some Calvinist are not afraid to say what they really advocate! Way to go jne;:applause: :applause:

 

No problem.:thumbs:

 

Brother Bob, the reason other Calvinists are "afraid" to say that is because that is not what we believe. We will not start lying just to satisfy your ill-conceived notions of what we believe. Sorry.

:flower:

 

Not to start a quarrel, but, are you separating the choice of God to bypass saving those who He did not choose from eternity? Are you taking the stand that the decision was only in time? If so, tell me where you get this in Scripture?

 

"It depends on what the definition of is is"