My Commentary on George Whitefield, after reading about him online - Wikipedia, etc.

[GraceAndTruth]

There's really only 3 camps.

Calvinism.

Arminianism.

Confused.


There's no reason to refute Arminianism AND Calvinism unless you just don't understand Salvation.

Actually there are four camps, Calvinism, Arminianism, Amyraldianism, Pentecostalism

And I seiously doubt that anyone in these forums can accurately describe any of their docrines . I have seen a lot of misrepresention of all the these groups.....it would seem there is one more 'camp'....the camp of ME-ism.

 

[Magenta]

There's really only 3 camps.

Calvinism.

Arminianism.

Confused.

There's no reason to refute Arminianism AND Calvinism unless you just don't understand Salvation.

You seem to have overlooked Molinism

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

Actually there are four camps, Calvinism, Arminianism, Amyraldianism, Pentecostalism

And I seiously doubt that anyone in these forums can accurately describe any of their docrines . I have seen a lot of misrepresention of all the these groups.....it would seem there is one more 'camp'....the camp of ME-ism.

I don't think you're alone in this assessment. Though I don't like the term Me-ism. I call it literal deductiveism. It's where you read the Bible understanding that the Holy Spirit full well understands how language work for time and eternity, and had the authors write clearly in their medium, being prophecy, allegory, poetry, and narrative. That interpretation can occur by one understanding what the passage is and using not only the chapter that the passage stands in but the full context of all scripture to determine the context, and therefore also the meaning. Not pulling meaning in from the human imagination, but deducing the meaning from what is written using normative literary rules of understanding.

 

[GraceAndTruth]

Those are some good points....personally I read scripture from the point of view that God is actually sovereign over His creation.
I found that there is no verse in the bible that cannot be understood as long as God's soverignty, though which He exercises His authority over His creation, is not compromised by giving His creation veto power.

 

[GraceAndTruth]

Arminianism is a branch of Calvinistic thinking, and it is wrong for all the same reasons that Calvinism is wrong.

Really need to correct that statement. So-called "calvinism" are doctrines based on God's sovereignty, and were taught from the earliest Christians. One very early sect was the Waldensians (around the year 1175).

Arminius started out as Dutch Reformed, left that denomination (probably because of his liberl college education). He never went to Geneva until after he was convicted of heresy by the RCC in France and fled to Geneva to avoid the death sentence. Arminius opposed calvinism and wrote the 5 Remonstrances against it, one of which was that believers could lose their salvation. Beza then wrote the 5 Doctrines of Grace (tulip) in repudiation of Arminius. Beza was younger than Calvin and was his assistant and later took over the leadership of the congregation in Geneva.

Arminianism holds to the argument that we can lose our salvation - This is Methodism as taught by John Wesley, along with the doctrine of perfectionism....one of the reasons Wesley was oppossed by Whitefield, Edwards, and Toplady.
Calvinism says once saved always saved.....it is the P in TULIP.
Amraldianism is 3 point calvinism, the U, L, and P. - the doctrine of most Baptists, E-Frees, Independents etc.

Just so ya know

 

[throughfaith]

Really need to correct that statement. So-called "calvinism" are doctrines based on God's sovereignty, and were taught from the earliest Christians. One very early sect was the Waldensians (around the year 1175).

Arminius started out as Dutch Reformed, left that denomination (probably because of his liberl college education). He never went to Geneva until after he was convicted of heresy by the RCC in France and fled to Geneva to avoid the death sentence. Arminius opposed calvinism and wrote the 5 Remonstrances against it, one of which was that believers could lose their salvation. Beza then wrote the 5 Doctrines of Grace (tulip) in repudiation of Arminius. Beza was younger than Calvin and was his assistant and later took over the leadership of the congregation in Geneva.

Arminianism holds to the argument that we can lose our salvation - This is Methodism as taught by John Wesley, along with the doctrine of perfectionism....one of the reasons Wesley was oppossed by Whitefield, Edwards, and Toplady.
Calvinism says once saved always saved.....it is the P in TULIP.
Amraldianism is 3 point calvinism, the U, L, and P. - the doctrine of most Baptists, E-Frees, Independents etc.

Just so ya know

Is that info from Jacobs writings ? As far as I'm aware Jacob never had a definitive stance on ' loss of salvation ' . And He never argued against the T . Which is where he also because of this never really finds his way out of the calvinist hive . He was a student of Beza . He never speaks ill of Calvin .
My point is that because they share the T . They both have ' election' about salvation ( to be saved ) condition v unconditional. They both hold to the errors that naturally flow from these , leading ultimately to essentially a works based system. Calvinsim in the practical sense of a works based system inspite of its claims of OSAS .

 

[MyrtleTrees]

The problem with this is that you can't get saved. You can only believe. You can only trust Jesus for his promise to us, and be baptized which is the seal of his promise, the binding of us by the Holy Spirit to Christ in his death. Salvation is a gift, not obtained, but given by Jesus, there is no decision or contract signing, or magic incantation, only believing.

Indeed that's true - no one can get saved, without being saved through the salvation that Jesus offers. But still, that is how people end up getting saved - is by making the choice to receive God's wonderful offer of salvation. The sooner they do that - sincerely - the better. If not sincere, of course it does no good.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

Indeed that's true - no one can get saved, without being saved through the salvation that Jesus offers. But still, that is how people end up getting saved - is by making the choice to receive God's wonderful offer of salvation. The sooner they do that - sincerely - the better. If not sincere, of course it does no good.

We will have to agree to disagree about the making a choice part. When one stops making choices is when they are saved.

 

[Nehemiah6]

There's really only 3 camps.

Calvinism.

Arminianism.

Confused.

Not true. There is (1) Calvinism, (2) Arminianism, and (3) Biblicism.

Biblicists reject both of the other theologies and stick with what the Bible actually reveals. And Arminianism is simply modified Calvinism (when you closely examine the Five Articles of the Remonstrants).

As to the well-known evangelists from the past (whether Calvinist or Arminian) we should give them the respect they deserve. They made a serious and sincere effort to win souls to Christ. Even Spurgeon -- who was a Calvinist -- always urged all of his audience to repent and be saved.

 

[Grandpa]

You seem to have overlooked Molinism

Confused...

 

[Magenta]

Confused...

The magenta text is a link

 

[Grandpa]

Not true. There is (1) Calvinism, (2) Arminianism, and (3) Biblicism.

Biblicists reject both of the other theologies and stick with what the Bible actually reveals. And Arminianism is simply modified Calvinism (when you closely examine the Five Articles of the Remonstrants).

As to the well-known evangelists from the past (whether Calvinist or Arminian) we should give them the respect they deserve. They made a serious and sincere effort to win souls to Christ. Even Spurgeon -- who was a Calvinist -- always urged all of his audience to repent and be saved.

At least the Arminians understand partially.

Most everyone else tries to make their wishes into "theology".

 

[GraceAndTruth]

You seem to have overlooked Molinism

yes, well I was thinking of the accepted "isms" in the churches today.......not the cultish brands out there, and who would take seriously the teachings of a couple of ancient RCs? Would be like going to a Jehovah Witness and asking them about the Trinity.

 

[crossnote]

We need to move on from these people. Whilst they may have done some good things ,the systems they encouraged are false .

That would be like me claiming, "We need to move on from Throughfaith. Whilst he may have said some good things ,the system he encourages is false .

 

[GraceAndTruth]

Is that info from Jacobs writings ? As far as I'm aware Jacob never had a definitive stance on ' loss of salvation ' . And He never argued against the T . Which is where he also because of this never really finds his way out of the calvinist hive . He was a student of Beza . He never speaks ill of Calvin .
My point is that because they share the T . They both have ' election' about salvation ( to be saved ) condition v unconditional. They both hold to the errors that naturally flow from these , leading ultimately to essentially a works based system. Calvinsim in the practical sense of a works based system inspite of its claims of OSAS .

Jacob was tried and convicted of heresy and sentenced to death by the RCC in France. I read a very complete book on him years ago, but looking at several web sites I see that they have a more "modern" version, leaving out his conviction in both France and Geneva as well as a few other pertinent facts. Now I understand this new wave of touting this man as a supposed authority on reformed faith (which IS calvinism).......you all think he was a calvinist his whole life.
He was never a student of Beza, they opposed each other
He hated Calvin and his ill timed visit to Geneva proved fatal for him
H most definiely argued against the T by denying original sin and its effect on man
He was not in the Dutch Reformed when he died.
It's like his whole sad, dishonorable life has been washed away and he has been given a new bio.

His doctrines were:
believers could lose their salvation, P
denied original sin, T
said that Christ died for all without condition (this would mean everyone is saved without exception), L
that God's will can be thwarted I
salvation is conditional, that faith is the cause U

What your affection for and defense of this guy tells me is that you either don't know much about him or agree with him.

 

[GraceAndTruth]

yes, well I was thinking of the accepted "isms" in the churches today.......not the cultish brands out there, and who would take seriously the teachings of a couple of ancient RCs? Would be like going to a Jehovah Witness and asking them about the Trinity.

So you are RCC and took umbrage at my post on molinism. Don't forget that RCC had internal arguments over his theory and it was never resolved within that community. The theory was basically a denial of God's sovereignty over His creation giving man a veto power over God's will.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

That would be like me claiming, "We need to move on from Throughfaith. Whilst he may have said some good things ,the system he encourages is false .

Except that what Throughfaith said is true. The mess that is the modern American evangelical church is their legacy. From bad mimickery of pop culture, soft rock bands as church music to lazer light shows, and topical sermons from prosperity to best life now sales pitches for Jesus preached from pulpits; all the while robbing us of our only actual physical contact with Christ in this world, His word, his supper, and his baptism, reduced to Christless iconism. And then we wonder why young men and women leave church when they can no longer play cool kid hang out with the youth group. The leavings is this discipleless group of people who gather each Sunday to give their due to God, and then go to the local buffet and torment the staff, being loud, rude and tipping like a 15 year old on his first date all the while wearing a blessed to be a blessing t-shirt, and spouting cliche churchanese jargon that means nothing. And why the vast majority of church goers are as theologically sound as a conspiracy theorist. Why even in this very forum I have seen people use the red x icon of disagreement on scripture posted with no commentary.
I know this is harsh but it's true, and it's horrifically sad. The worst is that none of them even know that this how it is. Even preachers don't even know they are going wrong. It's just what was left to them to do, generation after generation.
Jesus said go into all the world, make disciples, and baptise them, not build monstrous auditoriums, and put on poorly performed vegas shows with million dollar production equipment, followed by inspirational pep talks, platitude montras and an alter call.
Sorry, sore subject. I love God and I Love all my brothers and sister in Christ, and it angers me what this modern version of revivalism has robbed them of.

 

[crossnote]

Except that what Throughfaith said is true. The mess that is the modern American evangelical church is their legacy. From bad mimickery of pop culture, soft rock bands as church music to lazer light shows, and topical sermons from prosperity to best life now sales pitches for Jesus preached from pulpits; all the while robbing us of our only actual physical contact with Christ in this world, His word, his supper, and his baptism, reduced to Christless iconism. And then we wonder why young men and women leave church when they can no longer play cool kid hang out with the youth group. The leavings is this discipleless group of people who gather each Sunday to give their due to God, and then go to the local buffet and torment the staff, being loud, rude and tipping like a 15 year old on his first date all the while wearing a blessed to be a blessing t-shirt, and spouting cliche churchanese jargon that means nothing. And why the vast majority of church goers are as theologically sound as a conspiracy theorist. Why even in this very forum I have seen people use the red x icon of disagreement on scripture posted with no commentary.
I know this is harsh but it's true, and it's horrifically sad. The worst is that none of them even know that this how it is. Even preachers don't even know they are going wrong. It's just what was left to them to do, generation after generation.
Jesus said go into all the world, make disciples, and baptise them, not build monstrous auditoriums, and put on poorly performed vegas shows with million dollar production equipment, followed by inspirational pep talks, platitude montras and an alter call.
Sorry, sore subject. I love God and I Love all my brothers and sister in Christ, and it angers me what this modern version of revivalism has robbed them of.

What do the woes of Christendom today have anything to do with George Whitefield?
How many have you preached to in open air meetings?
How many revivals have erupted under your preaching?
No man of God (except Jesus) or no Church is perfect. Have fun finding one.

 

[throughfaith]

Jacob was tried and convicted of heresy and sentenced to death by the RCC in France. I read a very complete book on him years ago, but looking at several web sites I see that they have a more "modern" version, leaving out his conviction in both France and Geneva as well as a few other pertinent facts. Now I understand this new wave of touting this man as a supposed authority on reformed faith (which IS calvinism).......you all think he was a calvinist his whole life.
He was never a student of Beza, they opposed each other
He hated Calvin and his ill timed visit to Geneva proved fatal for him
H most definiely argued against the T by denying original sin and its effect on man
He was not in the Dutch Reformed when he died.
It's like his whole sad, dishonorable life has been washed away and he has been given a new bio.

His doctrines were:
believers could lose their salvation, P
denied original sin, T
said that Christ died for all without condition (this would mean everyone is saved without exception), L
that God's will can be thwarted I
salvation is conditional, that faith is the cause U

What your affection for and defense of this guy tells me is that you either don't know much about him or agree with him.

Could you site these sources ?

 

[throughfaith]

That would be like me claiming, "We need to move on from Throughfaith. Whilst he may have said some good things ,the system he encourages is false .

We should separate the signal from the noise . Sure if I became a ' throughfaithism then there's a problem. Some of these guys we quote so much and read and follow so much is to the detrement of actually reading and studying the bible itself .