BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
Theology

Calvanism 101

sermonindex Jun 20, 2004

Now I understand fully that the MAJORITY of forum members on SermonIndex are Charismatics and Pentecostals; I myself am a Reformed Pentecostal.Viewing the posts, which are great reading by the way, I notice that I haven't found anything in the area of Reformed Doctrine, but mainly Charismatic or Pentecostal.I'd like to offer a reformed viewpoint on this thread titled "Calvanism 101", in order that those present might see what Calvanism is and what the True Doctrines of Grace teach (and when I say "true" Doctrines of Grace I am referring to Calvanism vs. Hyper Calvanism; I am not making reference that anyone but a Calvanist isn't in Grace!) As one who holds firmly to the TULIP I find that there are so many who claim that we believe that one can sin like the devil and still go to Heaven; that we teach that babies who aren't "elected go to hell"; that Limited Atonement means that the Blood of Christ can't save everyone...and the list of false views goes on and on and on as many AGAINST the TULIP (NOT all) seem to avoid discussion of the TRUTH of it.Let me present a fair view herein to those interested.I'm not posting this to debate on who's correct and who's not; my intention is NOT to debate but to discuss.I'm not posting this as a counter attack to Arminianism or any other doctrine; I'm posting it to allow YOU, the Lover of Calvary, the opportunity of seeing what Calvanists believe and teach as Doctrine.Now, we say "Calvanism", or "Augustinianism", etc etc... But I PREFER to say that the TULIP is BIBLICALism..... Let us go to the TULIP now and see what it is composed and comprised of:(The following material was written specifically for inquirers of Calvanism and is copyright www.reformed.org)FIRST, what is the TULIP?TTotal Depravity (Total Inability)Total Depravity is probably the most misunderstood tenet of Calvinism. When Calvinists speak of humans as "totally depraved," they are making an extensive, rather than an intensive statement. The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has extended to every part of his personality -- his thinking, his emotions, and his will. Not necessarily that he is intensely sinful, but that sin has extended to his entire being.The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins (Romans 5:12). Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel (Mark 4:11f). This is why Total Depravity has also been called "Total Inability." The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ (Ephesians 2:1-5). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------UUnconditional ElectionUnconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).This doctrine does not rule out, however, man's responsibility to believe in the redeeming work of God the Son (John 3:16-18). Scripture presents a tension between God's sovereignty in salvation, and man's responsibility to believe which it does not try to resolve. Both are true -- to deny man's responsibility is to affirm an unbiblical hyper-calvinism; to deny God's sovereignty is to affirm an unbiblical Arminianism.The elect are saved unto good works (Ephesians 2:10). Thus, though good works will never bridge the gulf between man and God that was formed in the Fall, good works are a result of God's saving grace. This is what Peter means when he admonishes the Christian reader to make his "calling" and "election" sure (2 Peter 1:10). Bearing the fruit of good works is an indication that God has sown seeds of grace in fertile soil. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------LLimited Atonement (Particular Redemption)Limited Atonement is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, "for whose sins did Christ atone?" The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save (John 17:9). Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28). Specifically, Christ died for the invisible Church -- the sum total of all those who would ever rightly bear the name "Christian" (Ephesians 5:25).This doctrine often finds many objections, mostly from those who think that Limited Atonement does damage to evangelism. We have already seen that Christ will not lose any that the father has given to him (John 6:37). Christ's death was not a death of potential atonement for all people. Believing that Jesus' death was a potential, symbolic atonement for anyone who might possibly, in the future, accept him trivializes Christ's act of atonement. Christ died to atone for specific sins of specific sinners. Christ died to make holy the church. He did not atone for all men, because obviously all men are not saved. Evangelism is actually lifted up in this doctrine, for the evangelist may tell his congregation that Christ died for sinners, and that he will not lose any of those for whom he died! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------IIrresistible GraceThe result of God's Irresistible Grace is the certain response by the elect to the inward call of the Holy Spirit, when the outward call is given by the evangelist or minister of the Word of God. Christ, himself, teaches that all whom God has elected will come to a knowledge of him (John 6:37). Men come to Christ in salvation when the Father calls them (John 6:44), and the very Spirit of God leads God's beloved to repentance (Romans 8:14). What a comfort it is to know that the gospel of Christ will penetrate our hard, sinful hearts and wondrously save us through the gracious inward call of the Holy Spirit (I Peter 5:10)! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------PPerseverance of the SaintsPerseverance of the Saints is a doctrine which states that the saints (those whom God has saved) will remain in God's hand until they are glorified and brought to abide with him in heaven. Romans 8:28-39 makes it clear that when a person truly has been regenerated by God, he will remain in God's stead. The work of sanctification which God has brought about in his elect will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life (Phil. 1:6). Christ assures the elect that he will not lose them and that they will be glorified at the "last day" (John 6:39). The Calvinist stands upon the Word of God and trusts in Christ's promise that he will perfectly fulfill the will of the Father in saving all the elect. Now, let us move on as now we have seen what The Doctrines of Grace are comprised of.The BEST definition, I would say, would be an article written by a godly minister whom Pentecostals, Baptists, Arminians and Calvanists alike loved and respected; the Saint of old and the puritan of God, C.H Spurgeon:A Defense of CalvinismbyC. H. SpurgeonThe old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again.It is a great thing to begin the Christian life by believing good solid doctrine. Some people have received twenty different "gospels" in as many years; how many more they will accept before they get to their journey's end, it would be difficult to predict. I thank God that He early taught me the gospel, and I have been so perfectly satisfied with it, that I do not want to know any other. Constant change of creed is sure loss. If a tree has to be taken up two or three times a year, you will not need to build a very large loft in which to store the apples. When people are always shifting their doctrinal principles, they are not likely to bring forth much fruit to the glory of God. It is good for young believers to begin with a firm hold upon those great fundamental doctrines which the Lord has taught in His Word. Why, if I believed what some preach about the temporary, trumpery salvation which only lasts for a time, I would scarcely be at all grateful for it; but when I know that those whom God saves He saves with an everlasting salvation, when I know that He gives to them an everlasting righteousness, when I know that He settles them on an everlasting foundation of everlasting love, and that He will bring them to His everlasting kingdom, oh, then I do wonder, and I am astonished that such a blessing as this should ever have been given to me!"Pause, my soul! adore, and wonder!Ask, 'Oh, why such love to me?'Grace hath put me in the numberOf the Saviour's family:Hallelujah!Thanks, eternal thanks, to TheeI suppose there are some persons whose minds naturally incline towards the doctrine of free-will. I can only say that mine inclines as naturally towards the doctrines of sovereign grace. Sometimes, when I see some of the worst characters in the street, I feel as if my heart must burst forth in tears of gratitude that God has never let me act as they have done! I have thought, if God had left me alone, and had not touched me by His grace, what a great sinner I should have been! I should have run to the utmost lengths of sin, dived into the very depths of evil, nor should I have stopped at any vice or folly, if God had not restrained me. I feel that I should have been a very king of sinners, if God had let me alone. I cannot understand the reason why I am saved, except upon the ground that God would have it so. I cannot, if I look ever so earnestly, discover any kind of reason in myself why I should be a partaker of Divine grace. If I am not at this moment without Christ, it is only because Christ Jesus would have His will with me, and that will was that I should be with Him where He is, and should share His glory. I can put the crown nowhere but upon the head of Him whose mighty grace has saved me from going down into the pit. Looking back on my past life, I can see that the dawning of it all was of God; of God effectively. I took no torch with which to light the sun, but the sun enlightened me. I did not commence my spiritual life-no, I rather kicked, and struggled against the things of the Spirit: when He drew me, for a time I did not run after Him: there was a natural hatred in my soul of everything holy and good. Wooings were lost upon me-warnings were cast to the wind- thunders were despised; and as for the whispers of His love, they were rejected as being less than nothing and vanity. But, sure I am, I can say now, speaking on behalf of myself, "He only is my salvation." It was He who turned my heart, and brought me down on my knees before Him. I can in very deed, say with Doddridge and Toplady-"Grace taught my soul to pray,And made my eyes o'erflow."and coming to this moment, I can add-"Tis grace has kept me to this day,And will not let me go."Well can I remember the manner in which I learned the doctrines of grace in a single instant. Born, as all of us are by nature, an Arminian, I still believed the old things I had heard continually from the pulpit, and did not see the grace of God. When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this. I can recall the very day and hour when first I received those truths in my own soul-when they were, as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot iron, and I can recollect how I felt that I had grown on a sudden from a babe into a man-that I had made progress in Scriptural knowledge, through having found, once for all, the clue to the truth of God. One week-night, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher's sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment- I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, "I ascribe my change wholly to God."I once attended a service where the text happened to be, "He shall choose our inheritance for us;" and the good man who occupied the pulpit was more than a little of an Arminian. Therefore, when he commenced, he said, "This passage refers entirely to our temporal inheritance, it has nothing whatever to do with our everlasting destiny, for," said he, "we do not want Christ to choose for us in the matter of Heaven or hell. It is so plain and easy, that every man who has a grain of common sense will choose Heaven, and any person would know better than to choose hell. We have no need of any superior intelligence, or any greater Being, to choose Heaven or hell for us. It is left to our own free- will, and we have enough wisdom given us, sufficiently correct means to judge for ourselves," and therefore, as he very logically inferred, there was no necessity for Jesus Christ, or anyone, to make a choice for us. We could choose the inheritance for ourselves without any assistance. "Ah!" I thought, "but, my good brother, it may be very true that we could, but I think we should want something more than common sense before we should choose aright."First, let me ask, must we not all of us admit an over-ruling Providence, and the appointment of Jehovah's hand, as to the means whereby we came into this world? Those men who think that, afterwards, we are left to our own free-will to choose this one or the other to direct our steps, must admit that our entrance into the world was not of our own will, but that God had then to choose for us. What circumstances were those in our power which led us to elect certain persons to be our parents? Had we anything to do with it? Did not God Himself appoint our parents, native place, and friends? Could He not have caused me to be born with the skin of the Hottentot, brought forth by a filthy mother who would nurse me in her "kraal," and teach me to bow down to Pagan gods, quite as easily as to have given me a pious mother, who would each morning and night bend her knee in prayer on my behalf? Or, might He not, if He had pleased have given me some profligate to have been my parent, from whose lips I might have early heard fearful, filthy, and obscene language? Might He not have placed me where I should have had a drunken father, who would have immured me in a very dungeon of ignorance, and brought me up in the chains of crime? Was it not God's Providence that I had so happy a lot, that both my parents were His children, and endeavoured to train me up in the fear of the Lord?John Newton used to tell a whimsical story, and laugh at it, too, of a good woman who said, in order to prove the doctrine of election, "Ah! sir, the Lord must have loved me before I was born, or else He would not have seen anything in me to love afterwards." I am sure it is true in my case; I believe the doctrine of election, because I am quite certain that, if God had not chosen me, I should never have chosen Him; and I am sure He chose me before I was born, or else He never would have chosen me afterwards; and He must have elected me for reasons unknown to me, for I never could find any reason in myself why He should have looked upon me with special love. So I am forced to accept that great Biblical doctrine. I recollect an Arminian brother telling me that he had read the Scriptures through a score or more times, and could never find the doctrine of election in them. He added that he was sure he would have done so if it had been there, for he read the Word on his knees. I said to him, "I think you read the Bible in a very uncomfortable posture, and if you had read it in your easy chair, you would have been more likely to understand it. Pray, by all means, and the more, the better, but it is a piece of superstition to think there is anything in the posture in which a man puts himself for reading: and as to reading through the Bible twenty times without having found anything about the doctrine of election, the wonder is that you found anything at all: you must have galloped through it at such a rate that you were not likely to have any intelligible idea of the meaning of the Scriptures."If it would be marvelous to see one river leap up from the earth full-grown, what would it be to gaze upon a vast spring from which all the rivers of the earth should at once come bubbling up, a million of them born at a birth? What a vision would it be! Who can conceive it. And yet the love of God is that fountain, from which all the rivers of mercy, which have ever gladdened our race-all the rivers of grace in time, and of glory hereafter-take their rise. My soul, stand thou at that sacred fountain-head, and adore and magnify, for ever and ever, God, even our Father, who hath loved us! In the very beginning, when this great universe lay in the mind of God, like unborn forests in the acorn cup; long ere the echoes awoke the solitudes; before the mountains were brought forth; and long ere the light flashed through the sky, God loved His chosen creatures. Before there was any created being-when the ether was not fanned by an angel's wing, when space itself had not an existence, when there was nothing save God alone-even then, in that loneliness of Deity, and in that deep quiet and profundity, His bowels moved with love for His chosen. Their names were written on His heart, and then were they dear to His soul. Jesus loved His people before the foundation of the world-even from eternity! and when He called me by His grace, He said to me, "I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee."Then, in the fulness of time, He purchased me with His blood; He let His heart run out in one deep gaping wound for me long ere I loved Him. Yea, when He first came to me, did I not spurn Him? When He knocked at the door, and asked for entrance, did I not drive Him away, and do despite to Ms grace? Ah, I can remember that I full often did so until, at last, by the power of His effectual grace, He said, "I must, I will come in;" and then He turned my heart, and made me love Him. But even till now I should have resisted Him, had it not been for His grace. Well, then since He purchased me when I was dead in sins, does it not follow, as a consequence necessary and logical, that He must have loved me first? Did my Saviour die for me because I believed on Him? No; I was not then in existence; I had then no being. Could the Saviour, therefore, have died because I had faith, when I myself was not yet born? Could that have been possible? Could that have been the origin of the Saviour's love towards me? Oh! no; my Saviour died for me long before I believed. "But," says someone, "He foresaw that you would have faith; and, therefore, He loved you." What did He foresee about my faith? Did He foresee that I should get that faith myself, and that I should believe on Him of myself) No; Christ could not foresee that, because no Christian man will ever say that faith came of itself without the gift and without the working of the Holy Spirit. I have met with a great many believers, and talked with them about this matter; but I never knew one who could put his hand on his heart, and say, "I believed in Jesus without the assistance of the Holy Spirit."I am bound to the doctrine of the depravity of the human heart, because I find myself depraved in heart, and have daily proofs that in my flesh there dwelleth no good thing. If God enters into covenant with unfallen man, man is so insignificant a creature that it must be an act of gracious condescension on the Lord's part; but if God enters into covenant with sinful man, he is then so offensive a creature that it must be, on God's part, an act of pure, free, rich, sovereign grace. When the Lord entered into covenant with me, I am sure that it was all of grace, nothing else but grace. When I remember what a den of unclean beasts and birds my heart was, and how strong was my unrenewed will, how obstinate and rebellious against the sovereignty of the Divine rule, I always feel inclined to take the very lowest room in my Father's house, and when I enter Heaven, it will be to go among the less than the least of all saints, and with the chief of sinners.The late lamented Mr. Denham has put, at the foot of his portrait, a most admirable text, "Salvation is of the Lord." That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, "He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord." I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, "God is my rock and my salvation." What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ-the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. 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."If ever it should come to pass,That sheep of Christ might fall away,My fickle, feeble soul, alas!Would fall a thousand times a day"If one dear saint of God had perished, so might all; if one of the covenant ones be lost, so may all be; and then there is no gospel promise true, but the Bible is a lie, and there is nothing in it worth my acceptance. I will be an infidel at once when I can believe that a saint of God can ever fall finally. If God hath loved me once, then He will love me for ever. God has a mastermind; He arranged everything in His gigantic intellect long before He did it; and once having settled it, He never alters it, 'This shall be done," saith He, and the iron hand of destiny marks it down, and it is brought to pass. "This is My purpose," and it stands, nor can earth or hell alter it. "This is My decree," saith He, "promulgate it, ye holy angels; rend it down from the gate of Heaven, ye devils, if ye can; but ye cannot alter the decree, it shall stand for ever." God altereth not His plans; why should He? He is Almighty, and therefore can perform His pleasure. Why should He? He is the All-wise, and therefore cannot have planned wrongly. Why should He? He is the everlasting God, and therefore cannot die before His plan is accomplished. Why should He change? Ye worthless atoms of earth, ephemera of a day, ye creeping insects upon this bay-leaf of existence, ye may change your plans, but He shall never, never change His. Has He told me that His plan is to save me? If so, I am for ever safe."My name from the palms of His handsEternity will not erase;Impress'd on His heart it remains,In marks of indelible grace."I do not know how some people, whobelieve that a Christian can fall from grace, manage to be happy. It must be a very commendable thing in them to be able to get through a day without despair. f I did not believe the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints, I think I should be of all men the most miserable, because I should lack any ground of comfort. I could not say, whatever state of heart I came into, that I should be like a well- spring of water, whose stream fails not; I should rather have to take the comparison of an intermittent spring, that might stop on a sudden, or a reservoir, which I had no reason to expect would always be full. I believe that the happiest of Christians and the truest of Christians are those who never dare to doubt God, but who take His Word simply as it stands, and believe it, and ask no questions, just feeling assured that if God has said it, it will be so. I bear my willing testimony that I have no reason, nor even the shadow of a reason, to doubt my Lord, and I challenge Heaven, and earth, and hell, to bring any proof that God is untrue. From the depths of hell I call the fiends, and from this earth I call the tried and afflicted believers, and to Heaven I appeal, and challenge the long experience of the blood-washed host, and there is not to be found in the three realms a single person who can bear witness to one fact which can disprove the faithfulness of God, or weaken Ms claim to be trusted by His servants. There are many things that may or may not happen, but this I know shall happen-"He shall present my soul,Unblemish'd and complete,Before the glory of His face,With joys divinely great"All the purposes of man have been defeated, but not the purposes of God. The promises of man may be broken-many of them are made to be broken-but the promises of God shall all be fulfilled. He is a promise-maker, but He never was a promise- breaker; He is a promise-keeping God, and every one of His people shall prove it to be so. This is my grateful, personal confidence, "The Lord will perfect that which concerneth me"-unworthy me, lost and ruined me. He will yet save me; and-"I, among the blood-wash'd throng,Shall wave the palm, and wear the crown,And shout loud victory"I go to a land which the plough of earth hath never upturned, where it is greener than earth's best pastures, and richer than her most abundant harvests ever saw. I go to a building of more gorgeous architecture than man hath ever builded; it is not of mortal design; it is "a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the Heavens." All I shall know and enjoy in Heaven, will be given to me by the Lord, and I shall say, when at last I appear before Him-"Grace all the work shall crownThrough everlasting days;It lays in Heaven the topmost stone,And well deserves the praise"I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such a limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not allow the thought to find a lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In Christ's finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discovers no shore. There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, if God had so willed it, to have saved not only all in this world, but all in ten thousand worlds, had they transgressed their Maker's law. Once admit infinity into the matter, and limit is out of the question. Having a Divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the Divine sacrifice. The intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work. Think of the numbers upon whom God has bestowed His grace already. Think of the countless hosts in Heaven: if thou wert introduced there to-day, thou wouldst find it as easy to tell the stars, or the sands of the sea, as to count the multitudes that are before the throne even now. They have come from the East, and from the West, from the North, and from the South, and they are sitting down with Abraham, and with Isaac, and with Jacob in the Kingdom of God; and beside those in Heaven, think of the saved ones on earth. Blessed be God, His elect on earth are to be counted by millions, I believe, and the days are coming, brighter days than these, when there shall be multitudes upon multitudes brought to know the Saviour, and to rejoice in Him. The Father's love is not for a few only, but for an exceeding great company. "A great multitude, which no man could number," will be found in Heaven. A man can reckon up to very high figures; set to work your Newtons, your mightiest calculators, and they can count great numbers, but God and God alone can tell the multitude of His redeemed. I believe there will be more in Heaven than in hell. If anyone asks me why I think so, I answer, because Christ, in everything, is to "have the pre- eminence," and Icannot conceive how He could have the pre- eminence if there are to be more in the dominions of Satan than in Paradise. Moreover, I have never read that there is to be in hell a great multitude, which no man could number. I rejoice to know that the souls of all infants, as soon as they die, speed their way to Paradise. Think what a multitude there is of them! Then there are already in Heaven unnumbered myriads of the spirits of just men made perfect-the redeemed of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues up till now; and there are better times coming, when the religion of Christ shall be universal; when-"He shall reign from pole to pole,With illimitable sway,"when whole kingdoms shall bow down before Him, and nations shall be born in a day, and in the thousand years of the great millennial state there will be enough saved to make up all the deficiencies of the thousands of years that have gone before. Christ shall be Master everywhere, and His praise shall be sounded in every land. Christ shall have the pre-eminence at last; His train shall be far larger than that which shall attend the chariot of the grim monarch of hell.Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, "It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself," they say, "to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty." I admit there is, but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins. Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good! There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer- I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one "of whom the world was not worthy." I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.I do not think I differ from any of my Hyper-Calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. I do not hold any less than they do, but I hold a little more, and, I think, a little more of the truth revealed in the Scriptures. Not only are there a few cardinal doctrines, by which we can steer our ship North, South, East, or West, but as we study the Word, we shall begin to learn something about the North-west and North-east, and all else that lies between the four cardinal points. The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. For instance, I read in one Book of the Bible, "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Yet I am taught, in another part of the same inspired Word, that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is foreordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.It is often said that the doctrines we believe have a tendency to lead us to sin. I have heard it asserted most positively, that those high doctrines which we love, and which we find in the Scriptures, are licentious ones. I do not know who will have the hardihood to make that assertion, when they consider that the holiest of men have been believers in them. I ask the man who dares to say that Calvinism is a licentious religion, what he thinks of the character of Augustine, or Calvin, or Whitefield, who in successive ages were the great exponents of the system of grace; or what will he say of the Puritans, whose works are full of them? Had a man been an Arminian in those days, he would have been accounted the vilest heretic breathing, but now we are looked upon as the heretics, and they as the orthodox. We have gone back to the old school; we can trace our descent from the apostles. It is that vein of free-grace, running through the sermonizing of Baptists, which has saved us as a denomination. Were it not for that, we should not stand where we are today. We can run a golden line up to Jesus Christ Himself, through a holy succession of mighty fathers, who all held these glorious truths; and we can ask concerning them, "Where will you find holier and better men in the world?" No doctrine is so calculated to preserve a man from sin as the doctrine of the grace of God. Those who have called it "a licentious doctrine" did not know anything at all about it. Poor ignorant things, they little knew that their own vile stuff was the most licentious doctrine under Heaven. If they knew the grace of God in truth, they would soon see that there was no preservative from lying like a knowledge that we are elect of God from the foundation of the world. There is nothing like a belief in my eternal perseverance, and the immutability of my Father's affection, which can keep me near to Him from a motive of simple gratitude. Nothing makes a man so virtuous as belief of the truth. A lying doctrine will soon beget a lying practice. A man cannot have an erroneous belief without by-and-by having an erroneous life. I believe the one thing naturally begets the other. Of all men, those have the most disinterested piety, the sublimest reverence, the most ardent devotion, who believe that they are saved by grace, without works, through faith, and that not of themselves, it is the gift of God. Christians should take heed, and see that it always is so, lest by any means Christ should be crucified afresh, and put to an open shame.

I
InTheLight Jun 20, 2004

Isn't it interesting how we like to put labels on everything and everyone. We have so many different starting points in Christianity one hardly knows which way is up. Some like God's sovereignty as a starting point (Calvin)and this developed into a whole system. Some like God's morality as a starting point (Armenius) and this developed into a whole system.There are many other starting points, God is power, God is love, God is just, each one becoming the root of something that becomes overshadowing. I believe this is man centered religion. There are some good things in each of them but there must be a balance of them all, with God at the center. I think all these different starting points are just different facets of the same diamond. In Christ,Ron

sermonindex Jun 21, 2004

Your brief comment on the "Calvanism: 101" post is quite well said, brother!You are correct; most "staring points" come from the same diamond, and I appreciate that outlook, as it seems to be the simplest, yet most profound, of all.Calvanism has taught me much of the sinfulness of sin.Arminianism has taught me much concerning man's responsiblility.Baptist "hardshell" doctrine has given me a firm standing against all that I believe is false.Pentecostal Power has given me a strong emphasis on the Person, Work and Ministry of the blessed and wonderful Holy Spirit.Charismatic liberalism (and I mean this is a positive light) has allowed for my heart to grow wide in the area of free worship and liberal giving, singing and praising of the Lord.regardless of the "tradition" to which I concur, and I firmly hold primarily to the Doctrines of Grace as found in Scripture, I see also that there are SO MANY amazingly beatuiful points in most of our Biblical customs and manners.Earlier this evening I was speaking with Pastor Daniel Jalbert, a friend away from home and a mentor for 11 years, and I just had to express to him how, though he a Holiness Pentecostal and I a Calvanistic Holiness pentecostal, we all agreed in one concerning the Lord and His Word and His Will.Daniel said this to me, to sum it all up...."When a preacher burns the people will gather around to watch".Calvinistic, Arminian, etc etc...makes no difference if you're not burning for the Lord.Pastor D

sermonindex Jun 21, 2004

"When a preacher burns the people will gather around to watch".Do you realize that this the featured quote right now at the top of SermonIndex ;-), its belongs to John Wesley: "If the preacher is full of the fire of God, then people will gather just to watch him burn." I would also like to point out that most of the calvinist that where used powerfully by God had the label as a reformed, or calvinist but really was just a Christian in belief. To state it more acutely they did not let the confides of Calvinistic theology stop there ambitions for the Lord and the lost. A few calvinists I would put in this category off the top of my head are: C.H. Spurgeon, George Whitfield, (Praying) Edward Payson, etc.Also on your categorizing of individuals that come to this site as mostly charismatic and pentecostal is wrong. There is such a diveristy of beliefs here and you would be surprised to know how many people from different denominations are seeking the Lord whole-heartly for genuine revival.

C
crsschk Jun 21, 2004

Now I understand fully that the MAJORITY of forum members on SermonIndex are Charismatics and Pentecostals; I myself am a Reformed Pentecostal.It could be said that a great deal are not especially fond of being labeled in any way so your understanding is incomplete. There is a large history to this site that you are completely unaware of, it would be advisable again to get a feel for the site, the brethren that are here and the topics that have been discussed, many of them in depth before making assumptions.Viewing the posts, which are great reading by the way, I notice that I haven't found anything in the area of Reformed Doctrine, but mainly Charismatic or Pentecostal.There is a search function at the top of the main page. If you were to type in "Calvinism" or "Predestination" and look in the forum results you would see more than 50 reply's on each topic.Here's a small sample;Re: John Wesley encouraged tolerance of both viewsPredestinationPastoral thoughts on doctrine

sermonindex Jun 21, 2004

Whether or not there is a "history" here on SI or on MY site, we may not "like" labels, but to claim a "non denominational" position leaves one quite in the dark.If I was to attend a church and was to learn that it was "non denominational" in position, I'd leave.Non denominational has come to mean so much more than belonging to a denomination; it implies a statement of faith and belief.Without a strong Biblical statement of Faith why would I attend a church as such or fellowship with an individual whose beliefs and doctrines were "non denominational" and thus my not being able to discern what he/she held to as truth?Non denominational is a term used by those who don't like being labeled, and with that I agree.Say you had to take a certain amount of medication daily, and you had to do this with 14 pill bottles, each bottle prescribing a different amount....Would you take the label off of those bottles, believing that taking such an action wouldn't kill you?Of couse not.Labels tell us exactly what something contains.Also, I claimed that the MAIN thrust was Pentecostal/Charismatic.If you will AGAIN read my post, I specifically said I posted NOT desiring to debate.These strivings are foolish and unprofitable to you and to all and to myself.I asked that no debates would arise on this post; I wanted only to give an article.Nothing more.Please refrain from quoting me in your posts with comments on what I should or should not do.I say that very lovingly and with humility.The Lord knows I am not being ignorant here.I simply ask AGAIN that you read the post and comment on the post...but please don't comment on the one who posted it, namely, myself.I will not go into these things.GBUPastor D

sermonindex Jun 21, 2004

I believe that the main thrust here ARE Pentecostals and Charismatics...Charismatic being one who is primarily Arminian in doctrine and Pentecostal in practice.At least the main thrust of the forum reveals such an assumption..but really, I guess it really doesn't matter, does it?As long as people are coming and being blessed, REGARDLESS of their backgrounds.And that quote is almost verbatim what the Lord had given to Pastor Daniel.I mentioned to Pastor Daniel that I thought I had heard SOMETHING like that before.Now I will email him the quote.Amazing.Pastor D

R
RobertW Jun 21, 2004

Also on your categorizing of individuals that come to this site as mostly charismatic and pentecostal is wrong. There is such a diveristy of beliefs here and you would be surprised to know how many people from different denominations are seeking the Lord whole-heartly for genuine revival.Bro. Daniel,In C.S. Lewis's book "Screwtape Letters" he chronicles scenerios in which the enemy is forever destracting and manipulating us away from God. Do these arguments promote the unity we need to see genuine revival or are they pointing out our points of difference to arouse feelings of discord? The purpose of this site is to see revival in our lands. Not a revival to Calvinism or Armenianism, but a revival of repentance and holiness and walking before the Lord as God intended in the beginning. If others feel the same as I- they feel as though they are tired of talking about these things too wonderful for us. After spending 4 years teaching theology to my Church- I have had all of it I can take. I never saw one person revived in those years. Moreover, I might add that the tone of this site has drastically changed in the last week. People get discouraged easily. I know I'm not here to be argumentative. I'm here to find like minded Christians that seek THE REVIVAL WE DESPERATELY NEED. I can go anywhere and debate. I'm tired of debating issues that are dead in the water to bring revival. We need revival. we need unity. We need to be in one mind and one accord agreeing in prayer for revival. We need to EDIFY one another and build up the body fitly framed together in LOVE. We need REVIVAL and we need to cast off the hindrances to it. We need unity in these times. Regards,-Robert

P
philologos Jun 21, 2004

Labels tell us exactly what something contains.Daniel,No they don't. They tell us what people would like us to think they contain, which is often not the same thing at all. In other words they are advertising slogans. By their fruit you will know them; not by their labels.

sermonindex Jun 21, 2004

At this point, as stated, I don't care to debate with anyone on such a meanial issue; to do such hinders the post itself and I refuse to partake.GBUDaniel

C
crsschk Jun 21, 2004

Please refrain from quoting me in your posts with comments on what I should or should not do.Community RulesYour behavior here has been one of a rude house guest. You came in here with your opinions and agenda and with little or no concern to the other members of this site.There has been attempts to draw your attention to this fact and you refuse to humble yourself or listen to the gentle rebukes from the brethren.We have been more than charitable in giving you an opportunity to straighten out whatever misunderstandings that there are and yet you conveniently pick and choose that which is to your liking.There is an air of divisiveness* that you have brought and have successfully managed to upset the unity of spirit that is in this community. Whether that is intentional or not is besides the point.I now find myself in the very uncomfortable position of having to be blunt, and take no relish in it, in fact it grieves me deeply, more than I can express...It is pride brother and may this be a strong rebuke to examine your attitude and your conduct and consider the effects of your words on those around you.Titus 3:10I have prayed and agonized over this, may the Lord have mercy on me and you and us all.edit* (spelling)

sermonindex Jun 21, 2004

I asked that no debates would arise on this post; I wanted only to give an article. Nothing more. Please refrain from quoting me in your posts with comments on what I should or should not do. I say that very lovingly and with humility. The Lord knows I am not being ignorant here.I am sorry brother Daniel but this is abit much. If its such a 'meanial issue' then why even raise it in the first place? These are discussion forums not a soapbox to just share your own opinions and to use this medium as your own personal pulpit is not acceptable.Whether or not there is a "history" here on SI or on MY site, we may not "like" labels, but to claim a "non denominational" position leaves one quite in the dark. If I was to attend a church and was to learn that it was "non denominational" in position, I'd leave.bye :-)

J
jeremyhulsey Jun 21, 2004

Daniel,Whether or not there is a "history" here on SI or on MY site, we may not "like" labels, but to claim a "non denominational" position leaves one quite in the dark.I believe you totally misunderstood what Mike was saying. All he was saying was that this subject has been thouroughly addressed and there is no need to start a new topic on it. If you wish to discuss it or cut and paste as your original post is, then there are many topics to which you can reply to without forming a new topic.If you will AGAIN read my post, I specifically said I posted NOT desiring to debate.These strivings are foolish and unprofitable to you and to all and to myself.I asked that no debates would arise on this post; I wanted only to give an article.Nothing more.Please refrain from quoting me in your posts with comments on what I should or should not do.I say that very lovingly and with humility.The Lord knows I am not being ignorant here.Sir, this is a public forum and you have posted some articles on what is the MOST divisive subject in Protestant Christianity. Don't hope for a moment that those who hold opposing views just as strongly as you hold to yours are not going to post a dissenting comment on such beliefs. As for posting comments on what you should or should not do, these are mainly coming from the moderators and the administrator of this site. I kindly suggest you listen to them as they ARE the authorities on this site and as such have every right to tell what you can and cannot do on SI. In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

L
lwpray Jun 21, 2004

In a thread winding and twisting parallel to this one, you, Daniel, brought forth the issue of judging.Your statements in this thread are like small, very small, boxes to put thoughts and people into to keep them neat and tidy under control. Are you judging righteous judgments or are you just being judgmental. What about your eye – what about beams? You hand out provocations and corrections, but leave no room for feedback – we cannot comment on what you produce:“Please refrain from quoting me in your posts with comments on what I should or should not do.” One of your statements: “These strivings are foolish and unprofitable to you and to all and to myself.” You approach is in itself saturated with strife and competition. Humility is to be expected from a pastor. A pastor feeds hungry men’s hearts. Are you hungry as we are? What do you bring, other than small, very small boxes?L. W.

sermonindex Jun 21, 2004

You will note dear friend that I asked that the CALVANISM post not come with dissenting comments...at least that was my intention.Also, comments are awesome! BUT...(There's always a "but) ....As it pertains, again, to THIS post, I'm just saying that I'm not interested in debating the issue.Note that this post has nothing debateful to say; it's simply a post concerning Calvanism; nothing more.Lastly, I receive MANY emails (hehe) and some are corrective and some are not; and I take each of them to prayer.I may not respond to the comments posted here the way you might like me to, yet in my Inbox I take what others say to heart and listen to what's being presented to me.On the forum, in public, however, I do not do the same, as I'm not going to take each comment and just blindly apply the principles suggested.And concerning judging, well.....I posted a sermon on judging and note that the words were not at all harsh, demeaning or ignorant; thus, let us judge, but let us judge with truth and Scriptural backing.I'm certainly not here to play "Holier than thou"....I'm most certainly a sinner who simply strives to serve the Lord each day.Nothing in my life is what one could say is blatant sin, though I also confess that each day I must go to Calvary for that cleansing.There are two people I know in PERSON whom i see as abandoned to God:My Pastor friend, Daniel Jalbert and my mom, Deaconess at our largest Chrismatic church here in my city.No one is above sin, friends, and no one is "more relevant" than any other, really.Though some here MAY believe that God plays favorites, I don't believe that unScriptural notion for a moment, and nor shall I.I'm here only to post comments and thoughts, as everyone else.I post a Calvanism article and the next thing you know, when I have STATED it's NOT for debate, but only for reflection, there are those who must debate nonetheless.As I have said before, I'm not buying it and I'm not partaking.Instead of taking me the wrong way, and I say this lovingly, why not skip my posts and comments, seeing that many times my words are so twisted and misunderstood that I continue to defend a postion which some cannot ascertain I am trying to make....?I cannot for a moment believe that Christlikness is being presented here on the Forum, by ME or others, when there is utter foolish debate taking place.Let us post our thoughts, comments and debates, yet let us do so with substance, and not with whether or not the person "said" it in the right tone....This is a computer, there are no "tones".Let us love each other, and this pertaisn to myself also.I have been grieved at our debating this past week; and it is MY fault and the fault of others, as there can be no lone dissenter.Let us repent and move on into the Love of God for one another.

sermonindex Jun 21, 2004

Whether or not there is a "history" here on SI or on MY site, we may not "like" labels, but to claim a "non denominational" position leaves one quite in the dark. If I was to attend a church and was to learn that it was "non denominational" in position, I'd leave.As per your above comments brother I think its best that you move on there are many other website forums for you to discuss these matters. You are still very welcome to listen to audio sermons but I would suggest that you refrain from joinin in on discussions in the forums. I really see not much difference in principle between a physical church where people fellowship and an online community such as this at SI.

J
jeremyhulsey Jun 21, 2004

Daniel,I post a Calvanism article and the next thing you know, when I have STATED it's NOT for debate, but only for reflection, there are those who must debate nonetheless.The debate here has not been Calvinism, but your utter refusal to listen to correction from those entrusted to moderate these forums. As far as debate goes there are two kinds, one can be positive in which two opposing sides present their arguments in a public setting and defend their position, this has happened throughout the history of the church. They can be just as civil as any discussion. Then there is the debate that turns heated and argumentative, this Daniel is bad, very bad, and should be avoided because you don't learn anything from this kind of debate, but the first kind should not be confused with the second.Once again, no one has had a chance to debate the issue, because we have been to busy trying to make you understand that you CANNOT come on this site and make your own rules. Do not sir, come into an open forum and post an article without expecting to defend it. Especially one as hot as Calvinism. I might add that we are all very capable of debating a subject while maintaining civility in the process, all you have to do is read the posts that ALREADY cover this subject very well. If you do not wish to defend your Calvinism then you need not post your articles. Once again I will remind you that this is not some take it or leave it issue as you are trying to make it, this is one where the lines are clearly drawn and people disagree. Our aim all along has been to allow for disagreement and debate without dividing over the issue. In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

K
KingJimmy Jun 21, 2004

Please refrain from quoting me in your posts with comments on what I should or should not doNobody is above accountability, especially amongst the brethren. Having once been very much like Daniel_INC, I have learned through much rebuke from the Lord it is best to carefully take to heart what others say about you, especially since we are called to be above reproach. If somebody corrects you, receive the correction. In most cases, even if their assesment of your character is flawed, receive it just the same. I have learned it is best to just say "thank you" when somebody rebukes you, even if they are wrong. Of late, when somebody corrects me, be it a brother or sister in the Lord, or even a sinner (and I especially grieve if a sinner can say anything against me), I take the correction at heart, thinking that perhaps I have in some way not represented the character of Christ as I should. Then I seek to overcome through the grace of God whatever I might be lacking in. Perhaps I am wrong though...

P
philologos Jun 21, 2004

I post a Calvanism article and the next thing you know, when I have STATED it's NOT for debate, but only for reflection, there are those who must debate nonetheless.I think this just shows that you misunderstand the purpose of a 'forum'. It is Greek for the 'market place'. To stand up in the market place, make a statement and then say you don't want people in the market place to discuss it, is a fundamental misunderstanding of 'forum'.If we dare not subject our views to the 'market place' we had better stay quiet.

C
Chancellor Jul 14, 2004

The best book I've seen on the subject is Duane Edward Spencer's TULIP: The Five Points of Calvinism in the Light of Scripture. It accurately presents both the Five Points of Arminianism (that most evangelicals today believe, though most of them don't know their belief by this title) and the reply to these points, the Five Points of Calvinism.

This discussion is locked.

Archived
1 of 20 posts