| Author | Message | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 531 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, I just clicked on your link above, and the primary source material they use to attribute beliefs to Michael Horton doesn't say anything about baptismal regeneration. Jeremy, that web site is filled with a lot of hateful rhetoric. They are accusing Horton of preaching A DIFFERENT GOSPEL! They also are hostile towards great men like R.C. Sproul and J.I. Packer who both have written some of the best literature. Thanks for posting that web site. Because, now we get a flavor of how hostile a lot of people are to Reformed Christianity. There was another terrible book filled with lies and misrepresentations about Calvinism written by Dave Hunt, a few years ago, where Dave Hunt quoted Spurgeon in a dishonest way, and even tried to intimate that Spurgeon was not a Calvinist! Many of you have read that famous Spurgeon article on the defense of Calvinism, and would realise that Dave Hunt was totally misrepresenting Spurgeon, and he smeared the character of John Calvin. Also that web site is hostile to Martin Luther! Luther did teach baptismal regeneration early, but he gave up that teaching later in his life. I wonder if that web site corrected that info. Stan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 838 Registered: 10-2004  |
Stan, I agree that that web site is not the best and labels way too many great Christians as heretics (such as R.C. Sproul, Chuck Smith, etc.)!!  But the guy who does that web site is actually not at all against Reformed Theology--he is a Calvinist (4-point, I believe) himself. I have known about Horton and have listened to and enjoyed his radio program before. When I said I believed that Horton was a Lutheran, that was just going on my memory, not from that webpage. But my memory was faulty--I apologize. Are you saying that their quotes from Horton's book In the Face of God are not legitimate, or are taken out of context, or...? I was wondering about their statements on Martin Luther. They claim that he actually taught against baptismal regeneration early on but then changed to believing the sacraments do save and that he never recanted that position and that he published hateful and vicious statements against the Anabaptists for believing that baptism does not save. I guess it's something I'll have to research further. But like you said, I agree that that web site is way too hostile in general!!! Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on July 14, 2005) | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 895 Registered: 7-2003  |
That rapidnet website has cracked me up for years. If it weren't so ridiculous it would be downright sad. It should be called "Rabid" Net. :-) Whenever I read it I get this image of someone holed up in their house with just their computer, too pious to fellowship with any Christian that doesn't exactly match their belief on each and every non-essential. I seriously wonder if he has trouble finding anyone to worship with since absolutely every conservative evagelical Bible teacher you've ever heard of is a heretic preaching a different gospel (according to him). Hey, I think theology is VERY important, but I read this website and just shake my head at the venom. I started out saying it was funny.....the more I think.....it's really just sad. This type of site must bring great pain and sadness to Christ. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2301 Registered: 12-2003  |
Theological arguments generate so much bitterness, for some reason. I almost hate to talk about the issue of Calvinism because of the divisive effect it often has. But I will anyway! I haven't been able to call myself a TULIP Calvinist. At the same time, I have come to believe absolutely in the complete sovereignty of God. I still see, as Grudem also asserts in his Bible Doctrines and Systematic Theology, that both God's absolute sovereignty and our fee will are taught in the Bible. There is a certain amount of paradox in this that I cannot explain. However, as we've slowly made our way through Romans 9 and now 10 on Friday nights at FAF, I've come to see it this way. God is over and around all creation. He is sovereign over everything. We are part of creation, and we are under His sovereignty. He grants us the freedom to make choices when He brings our spirits to life. Prior to the quickening of His Spirit on our spirit, we are dead in sin an unable even to make a free decision. Once the Holy Spirit wakes us up, we are free to accept Jesus. The Bible commands us to choose whom we will serve, to believe on the Lord Jesus, etc. Yet those choices are not possible without the sovereign intervention of God. Further, Romans 1 clearly says that God's invisible qualities have been revealed through everything that has been made--so all men are without excuse. Men have supressed the knowledge of God by their wickedness. (Suppression is different from ignorance--ignorance means "not knowing". Suppression means the knowledge is available, but we choose not to know.) Somehow, our choice is subject to God's sovereignty. Thinking of it as a diagram, God is outside the giant circle called Creation. Inside Creation is Earth. On earth is Me. I am a subset of creation, and God is sovereign over every single thing that involves me--even my choice. I can't explain exactly how it works--I don't think we're supposed to explain it. And clearly God chooses some people for reasons only He knows--ie Jacob, Abraham, Isaac, etc. The Bible is equally clear that God is sovereign over light and darkness, over good and evil (another subset of creation). Even Job, the "righteous man", had to repent in sackcloth and ashes at the end of the book. God is truly sovereign over our salvation. He is truly sovereign over our choices. He truly foreknows who will and won't be saved. He clearly predestines some for salvation and some for destruction. And yet we have the ability and the command to make choices that have eternal consequences. I can't explain it, but I surely feel better now that I understand that God is utterly sovereign even over my choices and the "random" events that happen to me. This understanding does not make me passive or fatalistic. Quite the contrary, it gives me hope and makes me want to honor Him and praise Him for choosing me and for bringing all creation to the day when every knee will bow and acknowledge that Jesus is Lord! Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 532 Registered: 3-2005 |
I agree Chris. But I do appreciate Jeremy exposing that website for what it is. Jeremy, They have totally distorted Horton's views. There was not one statement that was quoted directly from Horton to support any belief in Baptismal regeneration. Like most Reformed folks, he is a strong believer in the sacraments, and they took his statements that he was applying to communion and made it look like he was talking about baptism. But just because someone believes in infant baptism doesn't make him a heretic. When you mention that site as being 4-point Calvinists, it is clear that by the people they are attacking, that they are not true Calvinists, as true Calvinists usually don't attack each other especially in this vicious manner. The other question you brought up last night about the unpardonable sin is interesting. But a person who is elected unconditionally for salvation cannot commit the unpardonable sin. But if Christ died for all sins except the unpardonable sin, then how could there be different degrees of punishment in hell? If Christ paid the penalty for all sins except the unpardonable sin, then all people would suffer equally in hell, which we know is not the case. Or, could it lead to the doctrine of annhilation? If you believe in unconditional election, and Peter tells us that Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, and Eph.1 states we were chosen in Him from the foundation of the world, then who was that Lamb slain for? It only seems logical that that Lamb was slain for those chosen in Him from the foundation of the world. John 10 is the most convincing chapter for me, where Jesus unequivocally states that He laid down His life for the sheep.(not the goats) Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 533 Registered: 3-2005 |
Colleen, What you are talking about is clearly John Calvin's and Reformed theology's view of the world. Personal resposibility and God's sovereignty are both true! I don't understand why Calvinism has become a "dirty word". But it has in this Arminian "God helps those who help themselves" society. Stan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 839 Registered: 10-2004 |
Stan, are there any Bible verses which clearly teach that the wicked will have different degrees of suffering? If you can give me some references, I would love to take a look at them. I don't necessarily like the idea I wrote about, so it would be great if someone can refute it. Just trying to approach the issue from all possible sides... Jeremy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 534 Registered: 3-2005 |
Dennis, You are absolutely right about Arminianism being another form of legalism. As Spurgeon said, "the heresy of Arminianism is adding to the work of the Redeemer". That spells out what Adventism is all about, as well as many other fundamentalist legalistic groups. We are not "the captains of our souls", and the more I contemplate the great doctrines of the Reformation, the more humbled and in awe of His grace I become. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 535 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, I believe there are several texts that teach this, but will have to get back to you tomorrow. There is one text where Jesus says that some will be be beaten with many stripes, and some will be beaten with few stripes. I am sure others can come up with other references. Stan | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 896 Registered: 7-2003 |
Matthew 16:27 (NASB) 27 "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS. Romans 2:5-9 (NASB) 5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 2 Corinthians 5:10 (NASB) 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Luke 12:47-48 (NASB) 47 "And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, 48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more. Matthew 11:21-24 (NASB) 21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 "Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 "And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. 24 "Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you." Luke 10:13-15 (NASB) 13 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 "But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment than for you. 15 "And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will be brought down to Hades! | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 840 Registered: 10-2004 |
Thanks Stan and Chris! Jeremy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 536 Registered: 3-2005 |
Thanks Chris, I knew you could help me out. Stan | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 897 Registered: 7-2003 |
Colleen, the interesting thing to me is that all 5 points of Calvinism stand together and necessitate each other. The lynch pin is not what some might think. I suspect many would think the key point of controversy is Limited Atonement. It is not. Ultimately and logically, it all comes down to Total Depravity. If you embrace the Reformed teaching of Total Depravity, then the other four points follow of necessity. I can see no logical way around this. If Total Depravity is true, so is 5-point Calvinism. If Total Depravity is wrong, Calvinism falls. Chris | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 537 Registered: 3-2005 |
Chris, Mega-dittos, as Rush Limbaugh fans would say, to your last post. Stan | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 108 Registered: 3-2005 |
OK...but here's where I struggle, and I grant that this is philosophical in nature, so maybe has no place in this discussion, but what Hank H. says really resonates with me. If God created those He chose AND He created those He didn't choose, how do we NOT come to the conclusion that God is the creator of evil? (I'm paraphrasing A LOT). On the other hand, the Bible clearly states He chose based on His foreknowledge. I can't seem to fuse Paul's teaching of God's choosing based on foreknowledge with His teaching of God's choosing based on His own desires. I think that's where I really get lost. Of course in my study of the Bible, God's sovereignty is immutably clear. And the fact is, whether or not I LIKE it, He IS outside the circle of creation and has the right to do whatever He wishes. This is just a really tough issue for me. I know that SDAism has caused MAJOR problems in my understanding God's sovereignty... It seems to me that there is something yet to be revealed about the relationship between election and free will. By the way, Chris, I ordered the book you recommended on this subject and received it this week. I'm looking forward to reading it. Patria p.s. I pray you will all forgive my ignorance. As I write this, I have tears of frustration. It is very troubling to me. | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 353 Registered: 7-2000 |
Well, it's troubling to me as well. There's some things about Calvanism that just don't sit well with me. If Calvanism is true, why do evangelism? God will lead them into our church (so the argument should go) and he will save them. Further, what do you tell someone struggling in their Christian walk? Sorry, you weren't destined to be saved? I do find that both concepts, as Colleen pointed out, are in the Bible. What's tough is figuring out how the two work together. BTW--two more very good resource books are: Why I am not a Calvanist....and Why I am not an Arminian......... | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 270 Registered: 7-2004  |
Ditto, Patriar and Loneviking. I also think there must be some fine line between the two extremes that is reality. Lately I have been thinking that if extreme Calvanism is true, why would God have people suffer in hell when the only reason they are there is because God didn't elect them. If they are totally helpless and can't choose God without His election, then it's not their fault. After all, they didn't even choose to be born. That's probably my biggest trouble with Calvinism. Regardless, I know that God is fully sovereign and has every right to do as He does, and He can be nothing but good and right. There's also no reason I have to understand His ways. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 898 Registered: 7-2003 |
The perspective that I have found most helpful in seeing how predestination and free will could both be true is called "Middle Knowledge". I do not claim to know if Middle Knowledge is the correct answer or not, but like Calvinism or Arminianism, it gives a third framework that may be helpful in explaining the biblical data. I have to tell you that for me, this particular framework seems to make peace between the extremes. I submit for your consideration an excerpt from a newsletter by "Come Reason Ministires" (CRM). CRM did a series on "Predestination and Free Will". In this issue they focused on the concept of Middle Knowledge as presented by Christian theologian and philosopher William Lane Craig.
| ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 841 Registered: 10-2004 |
Chris, can you explain to me how the rest of the TULIP has to be right if Total Depravity is correct? I mean, can't Total Depravity be correct, and yet grace still be resistible? Jeremy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2302 Registered: 12-2003 |
I also have that question, Jeremy. Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism answer all the questions about reality. And yes, Patria, a view of God that says He is sovereign over everything does make him, in an ultimate sense, responsible for evil. He does not cause it, but He is ultimately sovereign over it. As Grudem points out, "If we were to say that God himself does evil, we would have to conclude that he is not a good and righteous God, and therefore that the is not really God at all. On the other hand, if we maintain that God does not use evil to fulfill his purposes, then we would have to admit that there is evil in the universe that God did not intend, is not under his control, and might not fulfill his purposes. This would make it very difficult for us to affirm that 'all things' work together for goof for those who love God and are called according to his purpose (Rom. 8:28)." Here's how Grudem sums up the bottom line difference between a Calvinistic view of reality and an Arminian one: the difference is in the unanswered questions each has: "On the one hand, Calvinists must say that they do not know the answer to the following questions: (1) exactly how God can ordain that we do evil willingly, and yet God not be blamed for evil, and (2) exactly how God can cause us to choose something willingly. To both, Calvinists would say that the answer is somehow to be found in an awareness of God's infinite greatness, in the knowledge of the fact that he can do far more than we could ever think possible. So the effect of these unanswered questions is to increase our appreciation of the greateness of God. "On the other hand, Arminians must leave unanaswered questions regarding God's knowledge of the future, why he would allow evil when it is against his will, and whether he will certainly triumph over evil. their failure to resolve these questions tends to diminish the greatness of Godóhis omniscience, his omnipotence, and the absolute reliability of his promises for the future. And these unanswered questions tend to exalt the greatness of man (his freedom to do what God does not want) and the power of evil (it comes and remains in the universe even though God does not want it). Moreover, by denying that God can make creatures who have real choices that are nevertheless caused by him, the Arminian position seems to diminish the wisdom and skill of God the Creator." I don't see God intending us to understand how it works. While many believers see the world through Arminian glasses, I personally can live better with the questions raised by a Calvinist position than those raised by the Arminian position. I'm sure this comfort level has to do with what I know about the desperation I felt growing up with a very Arminian world view and realizing what comfort there is in knowing God is truly sovereign. I really don't have to understand, but I do have to trust Him. And trusting Him includes obedience--the answer, Raven, to the paradox of predestination and the command to make disciples. Jesus taught us to trust Him and trust the Father, yet we are to obey Him. We can't see how these things all fit together, yet we are to trust and obey. In eternity, I suspect, we will "see" more and understand better. Colleen |
