# Pathetic attempt to refute Calvinism



## Me Died Blue (Sep 18, 2004)

At [b:6c1972c47e]THIS[/b:6c1972c47e] site, the author repeatedly uses horrible non-sequitors to try and disprove Calvinistic soteriology. For example, he tries to use Spurgeon's smoking to shed a bad light on the doctrines of grace! The pointless nature of his arguments and his out-of-context misrepresentation is perfectly demonstrated in the following example:

[quote:6c1972c47e]VIII. Charles Haddon Spurgeon presumptuously states that he holds more firmly to Calvinism, which is also known by some as the doctrines of grace, than anyone else:
"There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do ...." (p. 176).
COMMENT: It is shear presumption to make such a comment, for there might have been someone somewhere, that Spurgeon didn't know about, who did hold more firmly to Calvinism than he did.[/quote:6c1972c47e]


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 18, 2004)

As it has been said earlier on this board, Fundamentalists are the goofiest people in the world (and I mean no disrespect). It is a shame that they stole the word "Fundamentalist."


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 18, 2004)

I recognize the title of that guy's book, Eternal Security Refuted! The Believer's Conditional Security." One of his disciples said that he challenged James White to a debate and White backed down. James White is a world-class debater; something doesn't seem right about that statement...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 18, 2004)

Ah yes, Dan Corner. He certainly has a way with words. :blah1: Unfortunately, some arminians actually take him seriously :no:


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 19, 2004)

James White dedicated an entire Dividing Line program to Dan Corner and his accusations that White was scared to debate him. It was hilarious. White played a segment from Dan Corner's radio program where Corner was playing a segment from where on another radio show he had said to James White "I know you're not willing to debate me on this issue". White said, "Yes, that's correct" and then Corner cut the tape off mid-sentence so it sounded like White was just chickening out. But White went back and played the original segment in its entirety so we could hear the rest of what he had to say. What White really said in that discussion was, "Yes, that's correct because you are not willing to debate the whole issue (i.e., the 5 points of Calvinism as a system)". 

Dan Corner is more concerned with trying to make himself look like a great debator than leading God's people into truth.


----------



## Authorised (Sep 19, 2004)

Heh. Dan Corner is always good for a laugh or two.


----------



## blhowes (Sep 19, 2004)

[quote:e970917e93="Aaron"]Heh. Dan Corner is always good for a laugh or two.[/quote:e970917e93]
I've never heard much about this guy before, but he is funny. For example,

[i:e970917e93]This fact about his cigar smoking has been concealed in our day, but the older pre-1940 Spurgeon biographies include a chapter on his smoking (http://www.spurgeon.org/). See quote regarding this at the end of this article.[/i:e970917e93]

I think its hilarious when he speaks about the fact of Spurgeon's cigar smoking being concealed today. Where does he go as a source for this information?... to a Calvinistic website called www.spurgeon.org, that can be viewed anywhere in the world. If that's what he calls concealing information...  

What was really sad to me was the thought that maybe people who read the article might take him seriously. It saddens me to think how some people would react, for example, when they learned for the first time that Spurgeon smoke cigars. To some, that's a really big deal that would cast shadows on Spurgeon's character and perhaps keep many from reading Spurgeon's works.


----------



## blhowes (Sep 19, 2004)

Has anybody read his book called [i:ddbf9947e6]The Believer's Conditional Security[/i:ddbf9947e6]? On his website, he describes it as being the most exhaustive and comprehensive refutation to OSAS ever written. Are the arguments used in this book more believable than the arguments used in the Spurgeon article?


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Sep 19, 2004)

Its a sad day when someone resorts to character assassinations instead of refuting their beliefs as such.

[quote:33a595c64a]III. Charles Haddon Spurgeon was so convinced about the Calvinistic view of falling away that he strangely concluded that "œthe Bible is a lie" and he himself will become an "œinfidel," if he ever came to believe that even one saint of God has ever "œfall[en] finally":
"œIf 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, [b:33a595c64a]but the Bible is a lie[/b:33a595c64a], 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" (p. 172).[/quote:33a595c64a]  

Look, I can misquote things also...

[quote:33a595c64a]"There is no God."[/quote:33a595c64a]Psalm 14:1 - somewhere in the middle...

More seriously I do not see how he concludes that Spurgeon thought the Bible was a lie. It is like someone saying "[b:33a595c64a]IF[/b:33a595c64a] Jesus didnt rise from the dead the bible is a lie"


----------



## daveb (Sep 19, 2004)

Stuff like this amazes me. I don't know what's worse, that Dan thinks his piece is actually good or that others buy into what he's saying. I thought the cigar smoking part was hilarious, that's certainly something to remember.

I was actually thankful to God when I read this. You see I used to think stuff like this was cool and that many people missed the "obvious" things in the Bible. Thankfully God has been gracious in revealing Himself to me and He's taken me down the right paths. I hope the same happens for this fellow.


----------



## turmeric (Sep 19, 2004)

Context, context, context!


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Sep 22, 2004)

for the record smoking is not bad.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 22, 2004)

[quote:30538dbf41="johnny_redeemed"]for the record smoking is not bad.[/quote:30538dbf41]

I think all or most of us would agree. Even if it was, it would still be sad and funny that someone would try to use such a fact about a specific person to shed bad light on a major doctrine to which that person held. The addition of the fact that it's not even biblically bad just makes the argument still more unbelievable.


----------



## Learner (Sep 22, 2004)

Jacob , in response to your September 19 th post : Please do not lump all Fundamentalists together . Distinctions need to be made . Are they indeed the goofiest people in the world ? How can you say that and yet add the weak disclaimer : " I mean no disrespect . " ?

A number of Fundamentalists are treading on thin biblical ice . But a bunch are godly and striving to be as biblical as far as they know how . Reformed men and women should give due recognition to the more scripturally-sane among them .

Just because SOME from the Fundamentalist camp call us names -- we have no right to sling it right back at " them " in general . In the past Anabaptists got the same treatment because of the radical elements within the movement . It was a rare Reformer who rightly discriminated amongst them . But I 'll save that thought for a future thread .

John Robbins wrote an article years ago about the right for Christians to call others names . It had some merit . But we usually do it in a sinful manner . We have the right to do it when we are specific about certain doctrinal aberrations .

While I am at it , Phil Johnson ( excellent over-all site ) does the same thing . He picks on the " Calvary Contender " . Johnson elects to put it in the Bad Theology category . He says : " ... it's a good way to keep up with what our indy-fundy Baptist brethren are mad about this week . " That is unfair and uncharitable .

I will also say the same thing for the other side of the coin . P. J . puts Herman Hoeksema's book : " Whosoever Will " in the Bad Theology section of his site . Johnson says : "... it deserves to be plainly labeled as bad theology . " If anything Hoeksema's stature as a theologian was much greater than many today .

Maybe I'm a hard one to figure out . On one hand I respect a number of men who have been charged by many as being Hyper-Calvinists . On the other hand , I admire a lot of Fundamentalists who are on the Arminian incline . I recognize true Christians that I can learn from in both sides .

Jacob , do not take this post personally . It was a convenient launching pad for me to express these views of mine . Everything wasn't directed to you alone . And some of it may not apply in your case .


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 22, 2004)

Oh I understand what you are getting at; that is why I wrote the second part of the post--"it is a shame that they stole the word (fundamentalist). " I wrote that part because for reasons fortunate or unfortunate, I am routinely called or viewed as a fundamentalist, my views on alcohold and Christian involvement to culture notwithstanding. For the longest time I took pride in being a fightin' fundie. However, I come from a dispensation, 4-point Arminian background (cf. the miserable site, www.baptistfire.org, for details. If you ever get a chance to go to that site, pass on that). Reasoning with these people is like    .

Now for the good part. I would rather listen to fundie preaching than liberal preaching--Lord vindicate Thy name! The people I listen to most often are in the category of FUndamentalists (www.sermonaudio.com, my fourth favorite site)---they are postmillennial calvinists (Iain Murray and Joe Morecraft) ; most fundies would disown them for that, though.

I am not poking fun at fundies---oh, that some deserve it!!!---for the most part I are one. I mean, I am a theonomist for all practical purposes; I mean, we are not exactly bleeding heart liberals. I preached at genuinely fundie churches--and with much love and care to the people there!

But I know what you are getting at; I should have qualified my statement.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 22, 2004)

And to pay some, albeit grudgingly, respect to those on the Arminian incline--I had at one time memorized huge chunks of WA Criswell sermons. As bad as parts of his theology was, when he was on he was on!


----------



## Authorised (Sep 23, 2004)

Fundamentalism brings pictures of sweaty preachers, concave Bibles, the smell of fried chicken and potato salad, coupled with some juicy watermelon. With salt, of course. Because it is mostly bad theology (4 point Arminian, credobaptist*) I don't like to associate myself with the word fundamentalist. But in it's purest denotation, I would be a fundamentalist.


*sorry


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 23, 2004)

[quote:ffeb2f2aeb="Authorised"]Fundamentalism brings... the smell of fried chicken and potato salad, coupled with some juicy watermelon. With salt, of course. [/quote:ffeb2f2aeb]

Those are still memories that I cherish, the upsides of fundamentalism if you will. :bs2: 

[quote:ffeb2f2aeb="Authorised"]Because it is mostly bad theology (4 point Arminian, credobaptist*) I don't like to associate myself with the word fundamentalist. But in it's purest denotation, I would be a fundamentalist.


*sorry[/quote:ffeb2f2aeb]

Same here...pass on the credo quote, though. As much damage as Fundamentalists have done on AMerican society (dispensational withdrawal from the battle--praise God for Neo-Calvinists who are resurrecting the vision of Abraham Kuyper!--the dispensational abolition of the law of God as the standard for ethics coupled with the propogation of cultural blue laws--alcohol is bad... :blah1: ). I do not intend to paint with a broad brush; I am not saying that all fundies are Dispensationalists, although all Dispensationalists are fundies. It is jus that this is the image that is being portrayed, somewhat accurately, to the American Culture.

Now for the positives. In "moderate" Christian circles (think liberals who are scared to say the word) 100 years ago, when the moderates began denying the "fundamentals of the faith," if you will, fundamentalists rose up to the fight the liberal infidel. They passed on their glorious heritage (the mantle of Warfield, Machen--yeah I know, he didn't call himself that) to some who were not very earnest in a full presentation of the Christian message (read the excellent essay on Machen in the book, [i:ffeb2f2aeb]Reformed Theology in America: A history of its Modern Development[/i:ffeb2f2aeb])--think John R Rice and Co. Fundamentalists reduced the gospel to tent-meetings and altar calls. Nevertheless, they did preserve the gospel long enough for others to rise up and preach in the manner of Machen, the gospel that Machen preached. And to paraphrase the preface to J C Ryle's book, [i:ffeb2f2aeb]CHristian Leaders of the 18th Century[/i:ffeb2f2aeb], "Where is the Lord God of Warfield and Machen, Hoeksema and Van Til? Lord Revive Thy Work!"

By the way, for a classic example of liberal infidelity, the SOcial Gospeler Schliermacher responded to the needs of the day with the (in)famous quote, "The god who answereth by lower food prices, Let him be God!"


----------



## Learner (Sep 25, 2004)

I think there are a number of dispensationalits who consider themselves Evangelical and not Fundamentalistic .

I think that in the diversified camp of the Fundamentalists there are indeed Calvinists in their ranks . For instance the Free Presbyterian denomination has the earmarks of the Fundamental camp . Look at their beliefs on their website . They believe in separation . In the Greenville , South Carolina assembly they even had a Fundamentalist plank in their statement . They used the word affimatively .

If one looks around there are other groupings who consider themselves fundamentalists , yet they are Calvinistic . These groups may even eschew the nomenclature of " Reformed " or " Calvinist " though .

I agree that most Fundamentalists are Arminian . I just wanted to set the record straight .

Within the non-Calvinistic Fundamentalists there are varying degrees of adherence to Arminianism . Of course the further removed they are from the doctrines of grace and its wide-ranging implications , the further they are from being biblically Fundamental . Yet some who deride Calvinism are themselves trophies of His grace .


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 4, 2005)

I still get amusement how Falwell and other Arminian's shoddy exegesis of 2 Peter 3:9 finds its strength in wringing out the emphasis on "any should perish" with vocal inflexion and eschewing mention of the salutation of the epistle, the aforesaid "promise" that the verse is speaking to, or making note of "towards us" in verse 9 itself. They love to hyperatomize the verse and not read it in context. They play like a broken record.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 4, 2005)

[quote:6c1972c47e]VIII. Charles Haddon Spurgeon presumptuously states that he holds more firmly to Calvinism, which is also known by some as the doctrines of grace, than anyone else:
"There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do ...." (p. 176).
COMMENT: It is shear presumption to make such a comment, for there might have been someone somewhere, that Spurgeon didn't know about, who did hold more firmly to Calvinism than he did.[/quote:6c1972c47e]

   [/quote]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Learner_
> I think there are a number of dispensationalits who consider themselves Evangelical and not Fundamentalistic .
> 
> I think that in the diversified camp of the Fundamentalists there are indeed Calvinists in their ranks . For instance the Free Presbyterian denomination has the earmarks of the Fundamental camp . Look at their beliefs on their website . They believe in separation . In the Greenville , South Carolina assembly they even had a Fundamentalist plank in their statement . They used the word affimatively .
> ...



Thank you


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Feb 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> As it has been said earlier on this board, Fundamentalists are the goofiest people in the world (and I mean no disrespect). It is a shame that they stole the word "Fundamentalist."


:bigsmile:


----------

