... funny how well loved Spurgeon is ...

[PaulChristensen]

As far as I know, Spurgeon didn't have anything to do with someone's execution and didn't call an Anabaptist leader a donkey. He was not the influential leader in the theocracy that legislated what type of plates people could use and that refused to allow someone to name their baby 'Claude' because it was not a Biblical name and insisted on 'Abraham' for that baby's name. Calvin was not in control of the whole government there in Geneva, of course, but he was quite influential. And from what I have read, it could get quite totalitarian there.

Of course Calvin was a sinner like all the rest of us. We can point the finger at him according to his faults, which probably were many, but then we can have the finger pointed at us according to our many faults, which in the eyes of God are just as bad. Calvin needed 1 John 1:9 no different from you and me. The Scripture says "There is forgiveness with You that You may be feared". So, Calvin was forgiven his sins and faults, just the same as we are. The Scripture also says, "If You took account of all our sins, who shall stand in the Judgment?" The truth is that the Scripture says that God will not hold the sins of the genuinely converted against them in the Judgment.

So, if you are holding Calvin's sins against him, wouldn't your sins be held against you? That's the principle behind forgiving others because God has forgiven you. In reality, Calvin is in Paradise awaiting the crown of righteousness that will be awarded to him in glory. His sins and faults are buried in the past and in God's forgetfulness. So, if God has forgotten them, maybe we should as well.

 

[Evmur]

I have read Calvin's commentaries on John, 1 John, and 1 Corinthians, and have found nothing that actually contradicts Scripture. He examines the available interpretations, says what he rejects, what he can live with, and what he prefers. In terms of Election and Predestination, he examines the relevant Scriptures and gives what he sees in them. He accepts that the way these work is essentially a mystery, and accepts that if the Scripture says that we are elected and predestined before the foundation of the world, we have to accept it in faith and not let them get in the way of giving the invitation to all to receive and believe the Gospel.

It seems that many who are dogmatic about "Calvinism" have come to their own conclusions without giving Calvin himself a comprehensive reading. I have come to the conclusion that a lot of dogma around Calvinism and the opposition to it is based on presumption rather than a fair balance between what God has revealed to us in Scripture and what remains mystery that God has chosen not to reveal to us. A lot of it is trying to second-guess God in areas where He has not made things clear in Scripture. God has not chosen to reveal the inner workings of Election and Predestination. He just says that they just are and we have to take His word for it for now.

The problem is that we have those who are over-curious about the ways of God and require hard and fast answers to everything that God does, even in areas where He has not revealed to us. What we have in Scripture is sufficient for people to believe in Christ and be saved. The Bible is a book about Christ and we should see it in that light. It is not a comprehensive scientific, history, or the nature and character of God.

When Jesus went through the Scriptures with the two disciples at Emmaeus, He didn't delve into the inner workings of God. He showed them, from the Scriptures, all about Himself. They didn't need to know whether they were elected or predestined. All they needed to know was that God's plan of salvation involved no one else but Jesus, and that faith in Him is the only way to eternal life.

Hi Paul, thanks.

But you have put your finger upon the problem precisely, it's a golden principle in Protestantism that where the bible is silent in a matter we are silent. We make no assumptions, we do not speculate.

But that is exactly what Calvin did do. He assumed using human logic in the matter of double predestination and this is the dead fly in the apothecary which ever since hath given it an evil odour.

History records the moment when at the end of one of his lectures a student stood and asked him "if God has predestined and elected we who are saved doesn't that mean He also must have predestined and elected those who are passed over and left them to damnation?" Calvin was stalled, he took a long time thinking about this before reluctantly he had to admit that this is the logical conclusion. Double Predestination and Election was born. Limited Atonement is brought in to buttress up this doctrine.

The bible does not say a word about God predestining anybody to be damned.

We can sympathise with Calvin being put on the spot like that, the great theologian of the age, but he was wrong, he should have sought the Lord in the matter.

 

[ResidentAlien]

People say, I don't, Pentecostalism was around before Asuza St.

Asuza St marks the point probably when Pentecostalism entered into mainstream protestantism.

The gifts of the Holy Spirit have always been practiced in the church, it is only the more remarkable gifts which were considered ceased. There are gifts of knowledge and word of wisdom for example which Spurgeon exemplified, there were prophetic utterances and healing, George Fox the father of the Quakers was known for his miracles.

The manifestation of the Holy Spirit have been brought to the forefront [where they ought always to have been] and the doctrines concerning them defined by the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement.

In my mind the unfortunate aspect in all this is that it has been almost entirely among those who hold the Arminian theology rather than the Sovereign free grace brigade.

Okay, but I'm talking about Parham, the acknowledged founding father of Pentecostalism. There's no comparison between Charles Fox Parham and Martin Luther. Luther discovered a true Biblical doctrine that had been erased; a doctrine that set people free from the tyranny of the RCC. Parham manufactured ideas based on a faulty interpretation of scripture; ideas that basically enslaved people again.

What do I mean? I mean instead of the tyranny of the RCC, there is now the tyranny of "God's anointed," whom you cannot question without bringing down curses on your head. Luther was a scholar. Parham was a fraud, from a long line of frauds. A corrupt tree cannot bear good fruit.

 

[glen55]

Hi Paul, thanks.

But you have put your finger upon the problem precisely, it's a golden principle in Protestantism that where the bible is silent in a matter we are silent. We make no assumptions, we do not speculate.

But that is exactly what Calvin did do. He assumed using human logic in the matter of double predestination and this is the dead fly in the apothecary which ever since hath given it an evil odour.

History records the moment when at the end of one of his lectures a student stood and asked him "if God has predestined and elected we who are saved doesn't that mean He also must have predestined and elected those who are passed over and left them to damnation?" Calvin was stalled, he took a long time thinking about this before reluctantly he had to admit that this is the logical conclusion. Double Predestination and Election was born. Limited Atonement is brought in to buttress up this doctrine.

The bible does not say a word about God predestining anybody to be damned.

We can sympathise with Calvin being put on the spot like that, the great theologian of the age, but he was wrong, he should have sought the Lord in the matter.

This is what sons of man do, look outside themselves for Christ that's already in man.

Luke 17:20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

John Baptist looked outside for it outside, and was like Saul until he woke up inside.

Matt 11:11Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater (Jesus was inside allegory) than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Spurgeon was blind like Saul.

 

[Evmur]

Okay, but I'm talking about Parham, the acknowledged founding father of Pentecostalism. There's no comparison between Charles Fox Parham and Martin Luther. Luther discovered a true Biblical doctrine that had been erased; a doctrine that set people free from the tyranny of the RCC. Parham manufactured ideas based on a faulty interpretation of scripture; ideas that basically enslaved people again.

What do I mean? I mean instead of the tyranny of the RCC, there is now the tyranny of "God's anointed," whom you cannot question without bringing down curses on your head. Luther was a scholar. Parham was a fraud, from a long line of frauds. A corrupt tree cannot bear good fruit.

oh right then

... I was saved in my own home so I don't know anything about that.

 

[Deuteronomy]

...a golden principle in Protestantism ... where the bible is silent in a matter we are silent. We make no assumptions, we do not speculate.

Hello brother, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you (and/or perhaps my thinking is a bit off today ), but where (as a, for instance, regarding this topic) does the Bible tell us (EXCEPT by implication) that God is one Divine Being who exists (both from and to everlasting) as three Divine Persons

Perhaps it's different in the UK, but the "golden (hermeneutical) principle" of which you speak is rarely employed to establish doctrine, except by one of our Church of Christ denominations here in the States. They use it to explain their refusal to allow the use of musical instruments in worship, just FYI.

...that is exactly what Calvin did do. He assumed using human logic in the matter of double predestination and this is the dead fly in the apothecary which ever since hath given it an evil odour.

It's true that the Bible speaks (directly) of predestination to life alone, but is there not a flipside to God's election/predestination that is implied

For instance,

Acts 13​

48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.​

I am, happily, part of a denomination (the Evangelical Free Church of America) that takes a position of silence on the systematic theologies of Calvinism and Arminianism. We take this position, not because the Bible is silent, but instead, because it is so noisy, so to speak (IOW, because the Bible has SO MUCH to say in support of BOTH systematic theologies). We also do this to promote productive discussions and bring an end to the endless/unproductive (and oft times, unloving) debate that so often ensues (and it has worked even better than we imagined that it would I am happy to report ).

So, we leave it up to our pastors and congregants to believe as they will, as they feel led to believe by the Holy Spirit. After all, this is a debate that began LONG before Luther and Calvin were born (with St. Augustine*, and even before), and it does not appear to be a debate (between His sovereignty and our freedom) that will be coming to an end anytime soon, on this side of the grave anyway!

*(Calvinism is also called "Augustinianism")

We can sympathise with Calvin being put on the spot like that, the great theologian of the age, but he was wrong, he should have sought the Lord in the matter.

If Augustine, Luther, Calvin, or any other theologian, for that matter, arrived at their conclusions using human logic (instead of by seeking the Lord's leading/understanding), can they rightly be called, "great theologians"

God bless you!

~Deut

 

[PaulChristensen]

Hi Paul, thanks.

But you have put your finger upon the problem precisely, it's a golden principle in Protestantism that where the bible is silent in a matter we are silent. We make no assumptions, we do not speculate.

But that is exactly what Calvin did do. He assumed using human logic in the matter of double predestination and this is the dead fly in the apothecary which ever since hath given it an evil odour.

History records the moment when at the end of one of his lectures a student stood and asked him "if God has predestined and elected we who are saved doesn't that mean He also must have predestined and elected those who are passed over and left them to damnation?" Calvin was stalled, he took a long time thinking about this before reluctantly he had to admit that this is the logical conclusion. Double Predestination and Election was born. Limited Atonement is brought in to buttress up this doctrine.

The bible does not say a word about God predestining anybody to be damned.

We can sympathise with Calvin being put on the spot like that, the great theologian of the age, but he was wrong, he should have sought the Lord in the matter.

It shows that no matter how important the theologian is, if he deviates from God's Word he should be challenged. If he is humble and teachable he will listen and appreciate the challenge and will search the Scriptures to see if the challenge is viable. If he is full of self-importance he might say, "How dare you challenge me!" And if that is the case, we should walk out and receive no more teaching from him.

 

[Dymes]

^ Thank you for the overview. Not one of my areas of study.
Reading every theologan's work & commentary through the modern age of The Church doesn't appeal to me personally.
I have no idea what Methodists or most of the dozens of other denominations do or believe, let alone their histories.
Not that I would never read one of Mr Spurgeon's books, they just haven't been on my radar.


The reason I asked about Baptists is because I have noticed there are a few on this sight who are angry all the time. It makes me wonder what's wrong with them sometimes. Though I don't reckon all Baptists are the same. I was looking into attending a Baptist church for a while because of the location but know very little about them.

Hello,
I'm just curious. If the reformed theologians are not on your radar, who do you study?

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Hello,
I'm just curious. If the reformed theologians are not on your radar, who do you study?

The prophets of the Bible. I wasn't saved by reformed theology.
I was saved due to the testimony of my mother, seeking God & reading the word.

 

[phil36]

I was saved due to the testimony of my mother, seeking God & reading the word.

Just reminds us that our testimonies and how we live can be a powerful witness

 

[Evmur]

Hello brother, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you (and/or perhaps my thinking is a bit off today ), but where (as a, for instance, regarding this topic) does the Bible tell us (EXCEPT by implication) that God is one Divine Being who exists (both from and to everlasting) as three Divine Persons

Perhaps it's different in the UK, but the "golden (hermeneutical) principle" of which you speak is rarely employed to establish doctrine, except by one of our Church of Christ denominations here in the States. They use it to explain their refusal to allow the use of musical instruments in worship, just FYI.

It's true that the Bible speaks (directly) of predestination to life alone, but is there not a flipside to God's election/predestination that is implied

For instance,

Acts 13​

48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.​

I am, happily, part of a denomination (the Evangelical Free Church of America) that takes a position of silence on the systematic theologies of Calvinism and Arminianism. We take this position, not because the Bible is silent, but instead, because it is so noisy, so to speak (IOW, because the Bible has SO MUCH to say in support of BOTH systematic theologies). We also do this to promote productive discussions and bring an end to the endless/unproductive (and oft times, unloving) debate that so often ensues (and it has worked even better than we imagined that it would I am happy to report ).

So, we leave it up to our pastors and congregants to believe as they will, as they feel led to believe by the Holy Spirit. After all, this is a debate that began LONG before Luther and Calvin were born (with St. Augustine*, and even before), and it does not appear to be a debate (between His sovereignty and our freedom) that will be coming to an end anytime soon, on this side of the grave anyway!

*(Calvinism is also called "Augustinianism")


If Augustine, Luther, Calvin, or any other theologian, for that matter, arrived at their conclusions using human logic (instead of by seeking the Lord's leading/understanding), can they rightly be called, "great theologians"

God bless you!

~Deut

What an interesting post.

The bible clearly identifies 3 Persons each distinct from the others who are God who the bible states is the 1 true God. This is a mystery which I have never seen satisfactorily defined. We accept it in faith. I prefer the term Triune God. but that word is nowhere in scripture either.

The key to understanding predestiny and election is to see that it pertains not to salvation per se but to being a member of His body the church, this excludes nobody from being saved, indeed as God's house we are set upon the hill to be a beacon and guide to men who are lost and seeking ... what a different aspect THAT gives to the doctrine.

Sitting on the fence can get uncomfortable. Calvin's boo boo is bad but Arminius is thousands of times worse. The doctrine of human freewill which he introduced [borrowed from the Catholics] is ruinous to every aspect of christian life and endeavour. The long term effect of it is what we see in the church today, each man following his own path, going his own way, seeking to draw disciples after him. It's a disaster. Calvin can be corrected, Arminianism needs to be repented of and eschewed.

Stop doing our own "freewill" which is not free but leads to ever increasing bondage and instead following Romans 12 and seeking that good and perfect will of God.

I do not hate folks who don't see it that way ... I love them.

Where would we be without Luther? we don't follow anyone blindly. But we are set in camps or factions which Paul hated but yet saw them as necessary that the truth might become known.

The bible is a book of debate and disputes.

 

[ResidentAlien]

All I can say is Amen.