Why are some of you Calvinists?

Originally Posted by cheachea

This is an excellent book regarding Calvinism and Arminianism and finding the balance between them.

I'm a big fan of Chuck Smith and he was the pastor being made fun of by the this particular individual.

It's what led me to my question.

Originally Posted by Crisco

I'm a big fan of Chuck Smith and he was the pastor being made fun of by the this particular individual.

It's what led me to my question.

Are you referring to James White ? I saw that on youtube also.

[adamt]

Originally Posted by Crisco

No it's a very important questions... It's a huge difference..

That's like the difference between representing the body and being the body... One makes it completely wrong

okay, i'll consede that to a degree

but how would you live your life different if you were one or the other?

Originally Posted by adamt

okay, i'll consede that to a degree

but how would you live your life different if you were one or the other?

I don't think I could look at God the same if I believed in pre-destination... It would totally defeat the need for salvation and would make everything not matter anymore...

If you where born to be saved or go to hell what would be the point of even trying?

Grace is the single most important thing to a Christian... Where is grace in being born to go to hell?

Originally Posted by cheachea

Are you referring to James White ? I saw that on youtube also.

He was so smug and arrogant...

Who does he think he is?

For someone so in tune with the scriptures as he claims he missed the part where God says he HATES pride.

Originally Posted by Crisco

He was so smug and arrogant...

Who does he think he is?

For someone so in tune with the scriptures as he claims he missed the part where God says he HATES pride.

I know what you mean LOL.

[adamt]

Originally Posted by Crisco

I don't think I could look at God the same if I believed in pre-destination... It would totally defeat the need for salvation and would make everything not matter anymore...

If you where born to be saved or go to hell what would be the point of even trying?

Grace is the single most important thing to a Christian... Where is grace in being born to go to hell?

okay, BUT doesn't predestination mean God knows if you will get saved or not, not God makes you get saved or not

i would totally agree with what you just said if God decided for us, but i think what they mean is that God already knows if we will get saved or not

Originally Posted by adamt

okay, BUT doesn't predestination mean God knows if you will get saved or not, not God makes you get saved or not

i would totally agree with what you just said if God decided for us, but i think what they mean is that God already knows if we will get saved or not

I don't think we are born to be saved or not to be saved only that God knows who will be saved?

It's a thin line but do you follow? One entails that you where created to go to hell... The other means you where born with the ability to do either you just failed in the task and God knows the outcome.

It's a very subtle difference but an immensely important one .

[adamt]

Originally Posted by Crisco

I don't think we are born to be saved or not to be saved only that God knows who will be saved?

It's a thin line but do you follow? One entails that you where created to go to hell... The other means you where born with the ability to do either you just failed in the task and God knows the outcome.

It's a very subtle difference but an immensely important one .

yeah i can go along with that


i have noticed reformed theolgians are smug and hard to relate to

maybe it stems from a lack of desire to evangelize cause they think its all set in stone anyway, idk

[Play The Man]

First of all, let me compliment Crisco on taking his theology seriously (these are not trifling matters; they get down to some of the most important issues in theology) and using Scripture as a standard to test what others say about the Christian faith.

Perhaps Crisco and Adam could give a definition for both Calvinism and HyperCalvinism. I will be interested to see the definition of the latter, as from their comments, they have defined the former as the latter.

Crisco, it seems from your comments that what you are troubled by is Monergism and not just specifically Calvinism. You would likely be as troubled by Lutheranism or Augustinianism as well, since they believe in monergistic regeneration.

I made the following point to Tyburn on the same subject several weeks ago. When discussing a subject, try to read the initial source (or "old book") rather than a modern summary, which could be a caricature. C.S. Lewis said it best in an essay entitled "On The Reading Of Old Books". I quote from him:

There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about "isms" and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said. The error is rather an amiable one, for it springs from humility. The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator. The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. (PTM - One could substitute Calvin for Plato and Calvinism for Platonism) It has always therefore been one of my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire.
This mistaken preference for the modern books and this shyness of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology. Wherever you find a little study circle of Christian laity you can be almost certain that they are studying not St. Luke or St. Paul or St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Hooker or Butler (PTM - or Calvin ), but M. Berdyaev or M. Maritain or M. Niebuhr or Miss Sayers or even myself.
Now this seems to me topsy-turvy. Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o'clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why—the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity ("mere Christianity" as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.

I would suggest reading Calvin's Institutes of The Christian Religion rather than relying on a Calvary Chapel summary, which may be a caricature. If not the Institutes, at least peruse one of the Reformed Catechisms or Confessions. Here are links: http://www.opc.org/confessions.html
http://www.prca.org/Three_Forms_of_Unity.htm

I tried to follow my own advice and read up on what Calvary Chapel believes concerning regeneration, election, predestination, etc. and was only able to find this document:

Calvary Chapel has been formed as a fellowship of believers in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Our supreme desire is to know Christ and to be conformed into His image by the power of the Holy Spirit.

We are not a denominational church, nor are we opposed to denominations as such, only their over-emphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to the division of the Body of Christ.
We believe that the only true basis of Christian fellowship is His (Agape) love, which is greater than any differences we possess and without which we have no right to claim ourselves Christians.
We believe worship of God should be spiritual. Therefore, we remain flexible and yielded to the leading of the Holy Spirit to direct our worship.
We believe worship of God should be inspirational. Therefore, we give a great place to music in our worship.
We believe worship of God should be intelligent. Therefore, our services are designed with great emphasis upon teaching the Word of God that He might instruct us how He should be worshiped.
We believe worship of God is fruitful. Therefore, we look for His love in our lives as the supreme manifestation that we have truly been worshiping Him.

Further information can be found within the pages of the book “Calvary Chapel Distinctives” which can be accessed at: TWFT Book Page

I tried to follow the link to "Calvary Chapel Distinctives" but it was a dead-end closed for maintenance. Crisco, please follow the links I posted and peruse those documents and see how seriously these questions are addressed. Calvary Chapel should be ashamed of this "What We Believe" statement. It is akin to going to a job interview and submitting a Curriculum vitae written in crayon on a McDonald's paper napkin.