Double Standard ?

Post by **_21centpilgrim** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:33 am

Steve or similarly minded siblings in Christ,

It bothers me that you would say that the lady with the Westboro Baptist Church who wanted to protest at the Amish girls funerals and has picketed many american soldiers funerals declaring that this is all Gods judgdement and will,that this wack job is a consistant Calvinist.

Elsewhere you have said that the God of Calvinism is different from the God of the Bible. But then you have said that the differences betweeen Calvinism and Arminiamism is basically what is going on behind the scenes.

Where is the grace for biblical calvinism. I can see how some one could go off the deep end of Calvinism and become a fatalist or like a Muslim that stoicly believes that all is the will of Allah. But how would you feel if I made out Arminiamist to all be Palagianist and that that is where Arminiamism logicaly leads to. Or what if you heard a fellow believer say that the God of Arminiamism is not the God of the Bible.

I am sorry that many "calvinst" the "truely reformed" come across or are so arogant and lack much of any grace and humility. But I feel that your comments at times fuel the problem more than help it.

Although I definatly lean towards a reformed perspective, I know that my knowledge is and allways will be incomplete and in part, but my greatest need is and always will be to know Jesus more and more. I appreciate this forum and The Narrow Path, both are great helps to stir biblical thoughts and help us love God with all of our heart, mond soul, and strength. Steve is a brother and to many a Paul. I love him as such and hope that this is recieved in the grace of God.

Although we as Christians use certain labels to help define what we believe regarding the nature of salvation or of our understanding of the end times or the gifts of the Holy Spirit ect. My banner is Christ, and I trust it is yours as well.

Grace and peace, Jeremiah

Post by **_TK** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:52 am

jeremiah wrote:

Where is the grace for biblical calvinism

i think there IS grace for biblical calvism, but the lady from westboro practices no such thing. she's either loony or very misguided and her views are dangerous and rather disgusting.

i dont think anyone here (that i know of) think that john macarthur, john piper, david jeremiah, steve brown, RC sproul etc are horrible people. i certainly dont think so. i dont listen to them as much as i used to but when i did i learned a great deal. they teach a lot of other things than the 5 points of calvinism.

to me, it's not worth it to be emotionally involved in the calvinism/non-calvinism debate. there are solid christians in both camps. sometimes it is fun to debate some things, but its more of an intellectual exercise.

TK

Post by **_21centpilgrim** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:38 pm

The lady from Westboro is a calvinst like my dog is a calvinist. She is obviously decieved and I pray that she would be turned from darkness to light.

Post by **_AARONDISNEY** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:43 pm

I agree, Jeremiah.
I am totally opposed to Calvinistic doctrine, but I didn't pick up on her so called obvious Calvinistic leanings. She's just a total nut. Calvinist or not.

Post by **_Allyn** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:28 pm

Where is the grace for biblical calvinism.

Now, this has me a little confused. Not the grace part but the oxymoron.
I admit to not knowing as much about Calvinism as I maybe should but what I do know about it seems to be contradictary to sound biblical teaching on salvation.

Post by **_TK** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:47 pm

hey allyn--

good calvinists can make a pretty good biblical case for their position (it's been around for a long time after all).. i agree that non-calvinistic views seem to fit the scriptures better, but i dont think calvinism is an "extra-biblical" theology, at least not enough for "biblical calvinism" to rise to the level of oxymoron.

TK

Post by **_Allyn** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:53 pm

TK, I appreciate what you are saying, its just that there is only one truth and I don't think Calvinism is the truth. Sorry if that bothers some but it is what I believe and I mean no offense. To be biblical wouldn't that assume truth?

Post by **_dexter** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:13 pm

Hi Allyn, according to the teaching of John Macarthur that grace must be given to us by God in order to be save. Grace is necessary for our salvation even though we were already elected to be with Christ.
By the way John spent 8 days of teaching in the doctrine of election.

I myself is not convinced but my mind is open. I will search the scripture diligently and responsibly to find out myself.

Post by **_Steve** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am

When I said, "She is a consistent Calvinist," I didn't mean to offend all Calvinists. Most, in my experience, are not entirely consistent, and do not believe that God fully controls the minds of all men (her repeated statement of faith).

If by "biblical Calvinism," is meant "moderate Calvinism," then I would point out that my comment was not directed against such. I did not intend for my remarks to pinpoint any specific Calvinist other than the one lady under discussion. If others who call themselves Calvinists do not take their views as far as she does, then they do not fall under the scope of my comment, and I trust they find nothing in it to offend them personally.

I meant it as an observation about a specific belief system (consistent Calvinism), not about a group of believers (all those who wear the Calvinist label, whether consistent or not). My apologies, if I was unclear on that.

As for the claim that she is not being a Calvinist, I would be surprised if you are correct. From what she said, I believe that she would identify herself as a five-pointer—but I could be wrong.

Post by **_Sean** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:05 am

dexter wrote:Hi Allyn, according to the teaching of John Macarthur that grace must be given to us by God in order to be save. Grace is necessary for our salvation even though we were already elected to be with Christ.
By the way John spent 8 days of teaching in the doctrine of election.

I myself is not convinced but my mind is open. I will search the scripture diligently and responsibly to find out myself.

I've listened to John MacArthur since before I was a believer. He's on the radio at the time I drive home from work. I very much enjoy his teachings and continue to benefit from him even though I disagree with him on this and other topics.

Where I disagree with John is the arguement he uses against anyone who doesn't hold his view. It's the point that he believes "election" as he defines it is "hated" because we who don't like it are just too depraved to understand it. So it's only those who are carnally minded who arrive at a sub-reformed view of "election". He says it's right there in the scripture yet I don't see anywhere in the scripture that man does not make a choice. John then later admits to the passages that call men to respond and insists a response is not required on man's part, not only that but it's impossible anyway! So that God actually regenerates man first before he can believe. John appeals to this inconsistency as a mystery and maintains that God can do whatever He wants.

The whole thing just seems like a circular arguement, beginning with the presupposition that if man has a choice then man is sovereign. And that if man exercises faith toward God after hearing the gospel then it's a work is completely unscriptual.

21centpilgrim wrote:The lady from Westboro is a calvinst like my dog is a calvinist. She is obviously decieved and I pray that she would be turned from darkness to light.

What I was thinking is that if I was a "consistent calvinist" I would have to believe that God decreed these things to happen, per John Calvin himself's explanation. My reasoning would be that if God did not want someone to be hurt or killed but man did and man got his way that would make man sovereign over God.

I'm not trying to be funny with this comment. My answer to dexter was meant to lead into your concern 21centpilgrim and the answer given. It seems that a reformed view of God has God making all the decisions or, as they say, He isn't God. Yet Calvinist don't want to live with the ramifications of this logic. As John MacArthur says, God can do as He pleases and no one can say what have you done. If that's the way we are to view God, they why is it wrong to attribute murder with an act of God's will?

The reason I am not a Calvinist is that I can't live with this logical contradiction. Nor do I see it spelled out this way in the Bible. I've heard different expanations given to get around this contradiction, but I've yet heard one that makes sense.

So while there are Calvinists that somehow see around this, I can certainly understand how this woman could see this as the will of God.

I am not however saying that her attitude represents all or even most Calvinists. I'm just saying that, as John MacArthur has said himself: God controls all things, is sovereign and not one can reply against God. As if those those passages were meant to be used in such a context.