The powerless gospel of Calvinism

[Ezra]

3 minutes ago, Qnts2 said:

I'll start by saying that the teaching that God elects some for salvation/heaven and elects or reprobates some for hell is called double predestination.

But that is precisely what the Westminster Confession teaches, and all good Reformed folks (Calvinists) believe that the Westminster Confession presents their beliefs. In short, double predestination is indeed Calvinistic (Reformed) doctrine, not Hyper-Calvinism.

"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death."

[Littlelambseativy]

I am most curious as to why there is so much rethoric, space, time, hostility etc given to Calvin. My heritage is Calvinist but my denomination is Knox who I realize is also vilified. of course I do realize that the majority if not of the Calvin/Knox persuasion are Baptists or a form of Baptist as Pentecostal etc. I have friends in all denominations and we believe the fundamentals of the Apostles Creed ( another subject to be disputed) and Holy Bible . The absolute vilification of Calvin/Knox amazes me.

[angels4u]

So many people have such a  critical spirit...

Calvin brought many people to the Lord, He is in the presence of God and God is very happy that Calvin did what He all told us to do--to preach the gospel..

 

[Ezra]

3 hours ago, Littlelambseativy said:

The absolute vilification of Calvin/Knox amazes me.

It is not the individuals involved but their doctrines. It is not Calvin or Knox but Five Point Calvinism which needs to be examined in the light of Scripture and either accepted or rejected. This would be true for all teachings, since we are commanded to prove all things, hold fast that which is good (1 Thess 5:21). Whether it is Benny Hinn, John Hagee, or John Calvin, it is not the individual that concerns us, but are they proclaiming the truth?

[Qnts2]

5 hours ago, Ezra said:

But that is precisely what the Westminster Confession teaches, and all good Reformed folks (Calvinists) believe that the Westminster Confession presents their beliefs. In short, double predestination is indeed Calvinistic (Reformed) doctrine, not Hyper-Calvinism.

"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death."

 

It well acccepted within Calvinism that not all double predestination believers are hyper-Calvinists, but all hyper-Calvinists are double predestination. So double predestination is the sure consistent belief within hypercalvinism. Hyper-calvinists believe in double predestination plus. One such plus belief would be the belief that evangelism is not necessary but goes against the sovereignty of God as God does not need mans involvement.

People such as Sproul count all double predestination believers as hyper Calvinists, and says the Calvin did not believe in double predestination as it means God created sin by decreeing or reprobating the non-elect.

We are of course ignoring 4 point Calvinists, who in my view, are closer to the truth of scripture. 4 point Calvinist believe God chose the elect, but believe the Jesus death on the cross has unlimited potential, meaning Jesus death was for all, but only the elect will believe on Jesus for salvation.    

The decree from the Westminster confession is extremely problematic. The decrees are the order salutis, or order of decrees from God concerning how He will save some. The inclusion of angel are out of line as angels are not saved.

added: to state that angels are foreordained might match a form of Calvinist, but it is definitely eisegesis meaning a presupposition based on ones theology and not found in scripture.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

I haven't read this whole thread, but as a former Calvinist, I think I can answer some questions.

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 7:59 PM, The_Patriot2016 said:

I love how everyone's so quick to hate Calvin. And they always point at tulip. But what they don't realize is those are a small part of what Calvin taught and often theyre misquoted. Even the most stolid of armeniians if they were to read John Calvin's commentaries theyd agree with 95% of what he said

This is true.  But it is also true that Reformed Theology, while it may include TULIP, it is separate from it.  Calvinism as I defined myself was only TULIP.  It did not include Replacement Theology, and I was and still am a Dispensationalist, which I'll remain until the Holy Spirit shows me different.  Dr. John MacArthur defines himself in these terms.

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Ezra said:

While TULIP may not be John Calvin's invention, there is no question that its roots are in Calvinism, and that the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches TULIP.  It is indeed a false Gospel since it perverts the grace of God, and claims that Christ died only for the elect. 

Scripture, on the other hand, makes it crystal clear, that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, and that God does NOT elect some to salvation, and others to damnation.

It is never a matter of hating the person who hold these beliefs, but hating the doctrine.

The Westminster Confession of Faith has more to do with Reformed Theology than strickly Calvinism, in my opinion.  That TULIP is a false understanding of the Gospel of Christ is a given.  But I won't condemn every Presbyterian because of their false understanding of Holy Scripture.  God has corrected my understanding at a time I wasn't even thinking about the concept.  We need to be open to the truth of His Word and not the doctrines of man.

I hope you all don't mind me jumping in here.  I've only read the first page of posts but promise I'll read the rest, as I have time.

[Ezra]

1 hour ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

But I won't condemn every Presbyterian because of their false understanding of Holy Scripture. 

Since none of knows "every Presbyterian" the objective is not to cast aspersions on Presbyterians (or any Reformed Christian) who are generally wonderful people and committed Christians. We must examine what is stated in their teachings and compare those with Scripture.  

And yes, the Westminster Confession is not necessarily TULIP, but certainly lays out the teaching of TULIP in detail. If you were to become a member of a conservative Presbyterian church, the church would expect you to agree with the Westminster Confession, not Calvin or TULIP.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

24 minutes ago, Ezra said:

Since none of knows "every Presbyterian" the objective is not to cast aspersions on Presbyterians (or any Reformed Christian) who are generally wonderful people and committed Christians. We must examine what is stated in their teachings and compare those with Scripture.

And yes, the Westminster Confession is not necessarily TULIP, but certainly lays out the teaching of TULIP in detail. If you were to become a member of a conservative Presbyterian church, the church would expect you to agree with the Westminster Confession, not Calvin or TULIP.

Understood.  I have a problem with the Westminster Confession, the same problem I have with Creeds.  These are manmade doctrines that may or may not agree with Holy Scripture.  Since I hold Holy Scripture above all else, I don't feel the manmade requirement to agree or disagree with these writings.

Ezra, I have only been here a short time compared to many of you, but I have no doubt your intent was not to cast aspersions on anyone.  If I gave that impression to anyone, I sincerely apologize.

My understanding of TULIP mostly comes from the writings of Dr. R. C. Sproul.  I differed from Him on Covenant Theology, accepting the reasoning of the Dispensationalist point of view as reasoned by Dr. MacArthur and others.  As I explained elsewhere, I am relatively new to the free-will position (roughly 2 months) with the Holy Spirit giving me a crash course on this viewpoint.  Accepting free will, puts in serious doubt many of the tenets for TULIP.  It's almost like dominoes crashing down.  I studied Reformed Theology but I am no expert on it.

[enoob57]

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 10:02 PM, Ezra said:

Willa, that's an excellent balance.  Keep up the good work.  We all need to be Biblicists and leave Arminius and Calvin on the shelf.

I like to keep them both together on one shelf that way there no room for anything else on the shelf   Book org 101  
Then I read all the good ones on the shelf above  

[Ezra]

1 hour ago, enoob57 said:

I like to keep them both together on one shelf that way there no room for anything else on the shelf   Book org 101  
Then I read all the good ones on the shelf above  

And let the rest gather dust which they rightfully acquire.