Your Thoughts on This Article, Please

Discussion in 'Calvinism & The Doctrines of Grace' started by cupotea, Feb 21, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cupotea

    cupotea Puritan Board Junior

    I noticed many fallacies in this article, but I's like to hear from
    other people on the article's declaration that it goes back to what Calvin really believes, later Calvinists deviated and Welsey agreed with Calvin in justification etc.

    Thanks for your input.

    [Edited on 2-22-2005 by joshua]
  2. smhbbag

    smhbbag Puritan Board Senior

    Frankly, that article was a breath of fresh air for me, not because I agree with much of its argumentation or conclusions....but because it was actually intelligently written, and genuinely sought to honor God in its presentation rather than just lash out at those that question their traditions. That is a wild departure from 99% of works denouncing the Doctrines of Grace that I've read....namely, it's the first one that's actually engages the issue in a manner worthy of my respect. I'm sure many here are capable of critiquing it better than myself, and so I'll let others take care of that.

    Plenty of comments on the content of that article, but just thought I'd throw out the positive first and foremost. Oddly, it really was very, very encouraging. The author(s) seem like they would be a pleasure to interact with.

    The arguments themselves are quite weak.....but still

    [Edited on 2-22-2005 by smhbbag]
  3. C. Matthew McMahon

    C. Matthew McMahon Christian Preacher

    Just quickly:

    Besides thier sappy statements: "Sin is guilt (legal) as well as pollution (moral)." (err)


    Reformed scholar James Daane (who?)

    The idea of a pretemporal decree to elect some and reprobate others "unconditionally" is not really an election "in Christ." (nope)

    The act of election itself is outside of Jesus Christ. (Nope)

    Jesus Christ is not the starting point of theological thinking in this Reformed system. (nope)

    Instead, the starting point is an abstract, philosophical and speculative view that intrudes directly into the unveiled divine glory and makes the Almighty subject to the scrutiny of human logic. (nope)

    Although Calvinists will hotly deny that God is the cause of sin, it has not been easy for them to avoid the charge altogether. How can they when men like Peter Y. De Jong flatly state, "God clearly foreordaines evil." —Crisis in the Reformed Churches (Reformed Fellowship, Inc.), p.148. (And so??)

    Reformed scholar James Daane (The Freedom of God [Eerdmans] says that the Reformed doctrine of election (and reprobation) is unpreachable. (then he is a goofball)

    Christianity is hereby reduced to cold, hard logic where there is neither pathos nor tears. Add to this the bold claims that God does not love all men, and there emerges an image of a cruel, hardfisted determinism that is absolutely unmoved by human tragedy. (nope)

    but it still comes through with the image of a rigid determinism. (and so?)

    Human responsibility may be loudly affirmed, but if everything has been programmed beforehand, human freedom is still an illusion. (who said men were "Arminian" free?)

    One who follows the Reformed view of election is led to seek his sense of security in his own piety. (Huh? No)

    This, it has been pointed out, is inevitable since the "perseverance of the saints" is the only real evidence that the Calvinist has of his election. (Huh?)

    Despite the much vaunted objectivity of the Calvinistic view of election, the Reformed believer can only ground his certainty of election on his subjective experience. (Huh?)

    These are just some of the difficulties that Reformed scholars themselves have drawn attention to in the Reformed system of theology. (Like who??)

    This gets as dry as the hills of Gilboa, which had neither dew nor rain. (so the five point so fgod's salvation is as dry as...? huh?)

    Calvinism (contrary to John Calvin himself) claims that the sinner must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit before he can believe and be justified. (Like calvin did not say this? Are they kidding?)

    The Calvinist at this point posits some sort of residual freedom (howbeit by grace) in the regenerate. (Huh?)

    The primacy of justification is at stake here, and the Calvinists have compromised it. (huh?)

    That is to say, the Holy Spirit only comes to man in the preaching of the gospel. But Calvinism at this point proposes that the Holy Spirit regenerates the sinner before he hears the gospel. (They don't get it)

    The historian Philip Schaff is right when he says that John Wesley's emphasis on a visible, conscious regeneration accompanying justification was his great contribution. (It is a painful blight, and typical Arminian nonsense.)

    Augustinian system is anthropologically based Or we could state the matter another way and say that the Augustinian system is not Christologically based. (retarded statement)

    Further, Augustine's pretemporal decree to elect (select) some to salvation is not based on Jesus Christ—it is not an election in Christ (that's even more retarded)

    The nature of all men is the same. Jesus did not take the nature of some men and redeem that, but he took the nature common to all men and redeemed that. (huh? Jesus redeemed all men's natures?)

    We must say that in Jesus Christ human nature has been set free as surely as Christ has been set free from the grave. (So no one goes to hell)

    All that happened to humanity in Adam has been more than reversed by what has taken place in Jesus Christ. (can we say togther "out to lunch?")

    Christ did not only purchase some men by His blood, but He bought the whole race of men and thereby gained the right to be the Judge of all. (ummmmmm, no.)

    We simply answer that the legal aspect of redemption takes precedence over the moral condition of man.(this is their downfall, and it is a problem with them understanding the attributes of God)

    Blah blah to the rest.
  4. tdowns

    tdowns Puritan Board Junior

    Like Hank?

    This does not mean, as some have contended, that because of the death and resurrection of Christ all men, ipso facto, are free to accept salvation any time they choose. The freedom is in Jesus Christ alone. Christ's atonement (From article)...was the fulfillment of the covenant between the Father and the Son. It was a legal transaction which gave Christ the legal rights and titles to man's lost inheritance. Christ did not only purchase some men by His blood, but He bought the whole race of men and thereby gained the right to be the Judge of all. The only right Christ has to judge all is because He has "bought" all — even those reprobates who deny Him (see 2 Peter 2:1).

    But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 2:1 NKJ (From Article)

    This sounds like something Hank Hanegraff has said on air.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page