Menu

Why are Reformed/Calvinist Preachers.......

F
FaithALONE

such as John Piper (he was a featured sermon alittle while ago), John MacArthur, Paul Washer, etc highlighted on Sermon Index - when their biblical beliefs are not held by this site?

Why do men like Spurgeon, Whitefield, Edwards, etc have their writings on this site?

I am curious because those men (alledgedly) believe in the predestination where God only saves certain men, they believe that those God saves will never be lost to hell (eternal security of the believer).

Spurgeon, Whitefield, Edwards, etc believed it was heresy to say that one could "lose their salvation" because they fell into sin, or however you wish to put that.

I am asking this question because I have thought this for years concerning Sermon Index but never asked. Clarity on this would be appreciated.

H
hulsey

All these men you have mentioned also have a history of fellowship with men who are not calvinist and received them as brothers.

S
sermonindex

Sermon Index is a resource to promote Christ-centered revival at the personal and corporate level. It us not a place to advocate a particular doctrinal position. Thus is why CalArm post or threads are discouraged by the moderators. Such threads are divisive and do not edify.

Regrettably I have posted such threads and repent. I believe the upcoming SI conference will shift our minds and hearts over to what is really important. Namely JESUS.

Caps are emphasis only.

Bearmaster.

K
KingJimmy

Reformed though they were, God mightily used these men, and continues to use them. If Jesus Christ can see fit to live in the hearts of these men, then I gladly accept them. Their vision was ultimately the same as the purpose of this site, to glorify God and cause dead men to live.

If anybody thinks this site exists to promote only the messages of those who are of a Wesleyan/Pentecostal background, then they've not understood the purpose of this site.

L
learn

Because each of these people have good sermons and good lives that can help Christians (irregardless of denomination). The different biblical beliefs and individuals may help/bring comfort to some who may not find comfort in other beliefs/people. God uses different people with different thinking and flaws to reach different types of people to bring them to Christ and keep them in the faith.

To limit the site to preachers whose beliefs are held only on this site, is basically to tell God that I'm doing it my way.

S
sermonindex


All these men you have mentioned also have a history of fellowship with men who are not calvinist and received them as brothers.

Amen that would be my answer. And also the fact that these great men of God did not ever become great because they held to doctrines of calvinism but rather because they knew God in a very intimate powerful way and have obeyed the Lord in their lives in a radical way.

The very person of Christ was their motivation and love.

E
enid


"And you are Christ's, and Christ is God's.", 1 Cor 3:23.

A
Anastasis

Amen that would be my answer. And also the fact that these great men of God did not ever become great because they held to doctrines of calvinism but rather because they knew God in a very intimate powerful way and have obeyed the Lord in their lives in a radical way.

The very person of Christ was their motivation and love.

To that I say amen!

R
rbanks

It just goes to show you that God is greater in goodness toward man’s ignorance of not knowing Him and His ways. God can bring people to a saving knowledge and a relationship with Him and even call him and use him in spite of man’s ignorance of the deep things of God. We all only know in part but he puts it all together for His glory.

S
sermonindex

It just goes to show you that God is greater in goodness toward man’s ignorance of not knowing Him and His ways. God can bring people to a saving knowledge and a relationship with Him and even call him and use him in spite of man’s ignorance of the deep things of God. We all only know in part but he puts it all together for His glory.

Wow... there is a lot of spiritual arrogance on this thread.

Krispy

S
sermonindex

I'm guessing these fella's had a pretty firm grasp on the deep things.

Man when it comes to this topic you gotta give the enemy his props. He played this one perfectly.

A debate between the head and the heart is a no win.

Marc mc

S
sermonindex

And why do these threads keep cropping up when the administrator has asked we not initiate these discussions.? Are there not other things in God's kingdom we can speak on to build up the body of Christ?

Breaux Bear.

S
sermonindex

This debate has raged for years because it is so vital.

The more friction and fire the more relevance. The enemy knows the key this has on the churches position in the earth very well. It's an historical fact.

Marc mc

S
sermonindex

And brother no one has won this debate. Godly brethren on both sides have debated CalArm and it causes division and does not build up. You are right. The devil knows this. And he will divide the church over it.

I see in places like China and Iran, believers are more concerned about following Jesus and reaching the lost. They suffer persecution for it. They do not ,as we, have the luxury of debating doctrine. They simply live it. When will the church in America wake up and realize there are far more serious things to be concerned about then who is right in the CalArm debate?

Bearmaster.

G
ginnyrose

QUOTYE:
______________________________________________________________

Wow... there is a lot of spiritual arrogance on this thread.
______________________________________________________________

Aw, Krispy, looks like you have not had your morning coffee yet...

ginnyrose

S
sermonindex

by bearmaster on 2012/6/29 6:06:24

And brother no one has won this debate. Godly brethren on both sides have debated CalArm and it causes division and does not build up. You are right. The devil knows this. And he will divide the church over it.

I see in places like China and Iran, believers are more concerned about following Jesus and reaching the lost. They suffer persecution for it. They do not ,as we, have the luxury of debating doctrine. They simply live it. When will the church in America wake up and realize there are far more serious things to be concerned about then who is right in the CalArm debate?

Bearmaster.


Here's a thought, forget the debate for a second and consider this.

If the reform position is correct then it's totally correct. If its wrong then it's the greatest heresy in church history. In other words, this debate is not an apples or oranges debate. It's apples or poison.

In any other field or area a point of difference as large as the CalArm cannot exist. The scale this difference involves is total, if one is right the other is absolutely wrong and if wrong then most of what follows is wrong as well.

I'm not debating this issue, I am just trying to point out that it must be the intention of every follower of Christ to study to show themselves approved. That's why I said its a vital area and the simple fact that these positions are so different and yet still able to cause so much devision for so many years is proof that one is right and one is wrong. One must be light and the other darkness.


Marc mc

D
David01-72

Here we go again, God help us! These cav/arm debates only brings the fruit of hate toward each other. I say,anything to do with these debate shall be locked.

J
jimur

Being new to this forum but having read many posts I find often a vague personal distinction of topics considered acceptable discussion and that which is not. Forgive me if I offend or cross that line.

I have yet to be given light in understanding how one might engage study of holy scripture in avoidance of theological idea and thesis. Neither do I fully understand allowance of some of these ideas, yet not others. These men were used of God and true blessings to man. Had Godly men of history been disallowed to present these ideas, would it not constitute a form of suppression of those who seek a deeper knowledge of biblical truth and understanding which to offer further glory to the Father by those who come after? Do we glorify our Lord with inspired scripture alone and seek not a deeper understanding? Both Cal/Arm give glory though different perspectives.

I understand context of verse and subject, but can we not apply

Malachi 2:2 (KJV)
2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.

and couple with

2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Surely we can not disregard

Romans 10:14 (KJV)
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Again, were not these men teachers, preachers, and blessings? If so are their ideas to be banned and censored? Are my thoughts and references such as a gross misapplication of scripture and biblical teaching?
I am but a sinner saved by grace with no title preceding my name nor credentials following. Yet I continue to seek all possible understanding of my creator. How might I divide without I hear?
I suggest the fault is not in these thesis, but in the seemingly inseparable emotions of a weakened [unnatural state] of man.

Lord, our heavenly Father, almighty and everlasting, grant us an open mind, ready to receive the truth and act upon it. Show us that others have a right to their own opinions and help us to see their point of view. Give us each the grace to know we may be mistaken. Help us Lord to not shut our mind to facts simply because we do not like them. Grant we give the same weight to those who may be unpleasant as to those who are pleasant because they are in our favor. Open the eyes and understanding of our soul that we may rightly divide truth for Jesus' sake. Amen

S
sermonindex

Well I guess some can shut themselves off and hate but that's not me.

I'm new around here and probably will spend little time at this. But I'm curious if any who have debated this subject at length have considered what's at stake for themselves and have ever used logic to consider that our Father God would never have left His children with such a complex question unanswered.

Surely our Father who speaks so often about avoiding divisions is not the author of this one. And if it is such a point of contention in the Body for so many years then it clearly must be an issue of good and evil. It should therefore be one of the highest priorities of believers to find out for themselves the Will of God in this area.

I guess what I'm saying is this is a black or white issue and that's why it can't be settled in debate. The repercussions are IME total

Marc mc

S
sermonindex

"I have yet to be given light in understanding how one might engage study of holy scripture in avoidance of theological idea and thesis. Neither do I fully understand allowance of some of these ideas, yet not others.. Jimur"

I just posted this on another thread, but it seems taylor made for your question.
...................................................
The nature of Dogma..the Cal/Arm war.
....................................................
"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization.

" It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers."

Although it generally refers to religious beliefs that are accepted without evidence, they can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities."...wiki

The Kingdom of God is a spiritual Kingdom, ruled by a Spirit; the Holy Spirit Jahweh. "God is a Spirit, and those who worship Him MUST worship Him in Spirit and in Truth."

"The term "dogmatic theology" became more widely used following the Protestant Reformation and was used to designate the articles of faith that the Church had officially formulated."...wiki

" These creeds or dogmas that came out of the church councils were considered to be authoritative and binding on all Christians because the church officially affirmed them.

One of the purposes of dogmatic theology is so that a church body can formulate and communicate the doctrine that is considered essential to Christianity and which if denied would constitute heresy."...wiki

So, here we see that the individual faith was and is transferred to the organization, and somewhere along the line, heavy personalities developed their own theology, and proclaimed it as Divine, and then, anyone who defied this would be constituted a Heretic.

This is so completely ingrained within the religious psyche of it's followers, often it cannot be challenged, it has become AS the Spirit and the Word of God. It exists today, in many agendas.


Wiki states:
"Ever since Arminius and his followers revolted against Calvinism in the early 17th century, Protestant soteriology has been largely divided between Calvinism and Arminianism.
The extreme of Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism, which insists that signs of election must be sought before evangelization of the unregenerate takes place and that the eternally damned have no obligation to repent and believe,

... and on the extreme of Arminianism is Pelagianism, which rejects the doctrine of original sin on grounds of moral accountability; but the overwhelming majority of Protestant, evangelical pastors and theologians hold to one of these two systems or somewhere in between."wiki

And, we hate everything that opposes our brand for after all, "IS IT NOT HERESY?"

We must hate and reject everything that opposes our dogma, for after all, is it not Heresy? Thus, the rigid confines of our religious icons and TEACHERS BECOMES, AND MUST BECOME OURS! and many our most do not even understand why they feel the way they do....THREATENED....as if their entire faith is being attacked, and must be defended at all costs.

The Word of God in itself is no longer relevant, but only if "interpreted" properly. The intertwining of the thinking into this dogma now becomes ones faith; the tentacles of a systematic theology by a mind heavier than yours defines how you must think, or die trying in it's extremes........

"John Calvin said the same thing of Michael Servetus, a man that dared to disagree with his cherished doctrinal formulations. Seven years before Calvin actually saw to it that Servetus was put to death, he said: “If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight.”

Calvin made good on his threat. Why? Because he had no answers to Michael Servetus’ correction of his false doctrines, and he could not bear to be proven wrong and to lose face. The temporal power he had taken to himself was predicated on being right. He was a very proud man; God resists the proud.
http://www.thepathoftruth.com/falseteachers/johncalvin.htm

Both are simply the ideas of brilliant leaders, as prone to error and sin as you or me. When we adapt them, in limitations as only the Word and solely the word, we then must hate everything we perceive that opposes it. The Pharisees hated Jesus as they weaved their own Right and agreed in the own Justice; "THE TRADITIONS".

CAL/ARM is no more than that; each contains slivers of truth, but without the Spirit endorsing the Word with Love and Power, the letter becomes death.


...Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, “What shall we do? For this Man works many signs. If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.”...
So, they murdered Him.

I'm not speaking for the moderators, but I have an idea that this is why there are limits in addressing this issue; the most dogmatic, and hateful war existing in Protestantism yet today.

J
jimur

Thank you Brothertom for your reply. I had in fact read the earlier post and consider it informative, explanatory, well written and of good spirit and intention.

Without doubt, we should be careful to not incite division among brothers in discussion of theological topic just as we should be careful to place authority on the written Word. Sometimes we seem to confuse the two.

My concern stems from a personal distaste of censorship. Did not the religious leaders of the time desire to censor our Lord Jesus and in fact silence him? Can we not also consider the decension between Paul and Peter? Though we are not given detailed word for word accounts it remains quite clear this was much more than a mere passing minor disagreement. This isn't to say everything written within the Word is approved of God and fully acceptable as practice. We know that is not the case.

marcmc stated in part "......I'm curious if any who have debated this subject at length have considered what's at stake for themselves...."

then further states

"It should therefore be one of the highest priorities of believers to find out for themselves the Will of God in this area."

You rightfully state, quoted here in part, "...each contains slivers of truth...."

I tend to apply

Proverbs 14:4 (KJV)
4 Where no oxen are, the crib is clean: but much increase is by the strength of the ox.

All this said I appreciate the attempts to insure and enforce civil discussion within these forums and thankful I do not have to be involved in those matters. Mine is but to follow guidelines and pray always all men attempt to focus on our Lord. For me, censorship is simply disturbing in that I lose opportunity to further understand other viewpoints. Though I may disagree with those views, the understanding extracted, remains in fact gain. (I can always read a book and save bandwidth, lol)

Heavenly Father, praise be unto you for the simplicity of the pure Gospel as taught and given by and in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen


D
David01-72

I'm new around here and probably will spend little time at this. But I'm curious if any who have debated this subject at length have considered what's at stake for themselves and have ever used logic to consider that our Father God would never have left His children with such a complex question unanswered.

I recommend this video by Kieth Daniels about this debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZeZJ-wvVaI&list=FLUiUiuuZ83oCFheD_GwPSAw&index=16&feature=plpp_video

God Bless

R
roadsign

I have been a church member in both camps and over the years have come to see that church creeds or confession statements do not necessarily reflect the way people actually think in real life. Over time, in real life, I’ve notice a gradual drifting towards trust in self over and above trust in God. The lingo may sound different, but that’s merely superficial. Likewise, I find vibrant believers in either camp –those who have practiced a life of trusting faith, regardless of the church trends. And in those cases, the different camps are fairly immaterial.
So why does this debate stay so hot!?

These cav/arm debates only brings the fruit of hate toward each other.


Is this not the same assumption (ie, it only brings hatred) which agnostics use to claim that Christianity should be abolished. It can be another way of saying, “I don’t want to deal with it.” But sweeping the problem under the carpet merely makes for a bumpy floor. And we keep tripping over the bumps and knocking each other’s heads.

I'm saying is this is a black or white issue and that's why it can't be settled in debate.

This assertion reminds me of a time Jesus was presented with a black and white issue: “Who sinned, this man or his parents?” Chose one, Jesus! Check off one box. And we’ll tell you what those boxes are.

Do you see the problem here? As long as we insist on only two possibilities we are unable to entertain an entirely different perspective. Can it not be possible that this divisive issue exists so that God’s name might be glorified? Just as for the blind man, resolution requires a healing in sightedness (to the mind).


what's at stake for themselves

This is a valid point. What’s at stake may be the loss of “face”. I think that's what kept the issue irresolvable at opportune historical points. But never mind that for now. My point is that psychological/emotional factors are involved in a big way. And maybe at the root of our anxious desire for resolution is an idolatrous craving for a conflict-free religion. What’s at stake is our beloved idol: utopia on this side of eternity. And we think we can get there if we avoid the pitfalls of the other camp (remember, it’s harder to see our own). So we reinforce our position according to what we DON’T want to be like – and insulate ourselves from the other.

That’s nothing new in human nature, or in historical Christianity. So perhaps the debate can serve us best by teaching us something about ourselves.

My! This is a long-winded post. I could go on and on some more because I've given this a lot of thought. It's an exciting topic to explore.... and there's exciting stuff to discover!


Diane


S
sermonindex

My assertion that this is a black and white issue is far more basic than your suggesting.

I understand that we live in a society that truly hates absolutes of any kind. And regardless of the subject or field you can find a hot button topic of debate. Typically these debates are over 2 ways to accomplish something with both sides convinced they are right. If you pick any random subject and go to their forums you with find these hot button subjects in a matter of minutes. You will also find Mods running around trying to keep the subject surpressed and cleaning up messes. Threads get locked, members get warned or banned and still the subject comes back again and again. This type of division is everywhere and is not uniques to SI in the slightest way.

The difference with cal/arm is these are not 2 different ways to do the same thing like I mentioned above. They are 2 very different ways that lead down 2 different roads. They are 2 different start points of 2 different paths. One or the other is a massive error and will of course lead to nothing but more errors.

What the enemy has done for years is tuck this debate into the same category as all other human debates. He has kept the fires burning because he knows what is at stake if the Church ever decided to really get to bottom of it.

That's what I mean by black and white.

Marc mc

S
sermonindex

But sweeping the problem under the carpet merely makes for a bumpy floor. And we keep tripping over the bumps and knocking each other’s heads.

Well said, Diane! I love the way you word things.

Krispy

R
roadsign

Marmac said:

One or the other is a massive error and will of course lead to nothing but more errors.

Roadsign said:

I find vibrant believers in either camp –those who have practiced a life of trusting faith, regardless of the church trends. And in those cases, the different camps are fairly immaterial.

These comments, in themselves, illustrate my point: that there is much more involved in the divide than merely theological propositions. In this example my brother and I are at odds because we READ our own experiences differently; we interpret them with vastly different sets of lens. And indeed, we do end up on vastly divergent paths - BEFORE even talking about theology.

Regarding our mods' way of handling our divisiveness, we may see differently. I see this site as hospitable to both perspectives. I see the alleged suppression and censoring as a strategy to keep dynamite from blowing up and causing further damage. I agree that it is not the ideal means, but maybe the rest of us have closed the door to any other measures! As I have seen over my last 7 years here, we do have a habit of forming premature judgments and reacting emotionally rather quickly. (I include myself) And that inhibits us from leaving room for thinking, reading, listening, and for grace – even in the midst of our wrestling. Thus we destine ourselves (pardon the word) to the law; and we destine our mods to becoming policemen.

Marmac, by sharing your perspectives, I think I can understand your sense of futility. There is indeed a lot of truth in what you say. Yet, I cannot validate the need for forming such broad-sweeping negative absolutes. I would even suggest that some of yours can be proven incorrect.
That begs the question: If someone challenges any of your statements above, would you view them as divisive?

So you see, we ourselves can contribute to the divide by forming absolutes that invite rebuttal – and indeed, require it! …. even before we talk theology….

Diane

S
sermonindex


I should also add that where I live this is a non debate. There is zero cal/arm up here to my knowledge. I live in Canada and Calvinism has no ground here. This is the Land of the who so ever gospel. If you even mention the name Calvin up here to a mature believer or Paster they will smile and chuckle.

I have formed my opinion based on my personal discovery of it and the realization that my prior path was no longer congruent with a revelation of the first chapter of Ephesians. When the Lord (not man) unfolded what is referred too as Reformed Theology to me, I did not know what Reformed Theology was. I found the writings and books on the subject years later. But they still carry little weight with me. And I would certainly never say I am Calvinist! I'm victorious in Christ, behind closed doors!


Marc mc

S
sermonindex


We do not judge or condemn anyone who believes or disbelieves in reformed theology on these forums but we ask because of the divisive nature of this topic that it not be argued and discussed on the forums. There are many other discussion forums in the internet to discuss these things.

A goal of SermonIndex is to Focus on Christ, His person and scriptures alone and not on all the "ism"s men make from them. On this website we have asked and continue to ask people not to contribute or start divisive threads on the subject of calvinism or arminism. Of course we can talk about other scripture topics that are covered in these systems but we encourage the saints not to address these systems because they do bring division.

One of the purposes of these forums is to bring unity to the body of Christ and let believers to come together from all different backgrounds to encourage each other and edify and uplift each other. And also to learn from each other.

here is a note from the about us page: https://www.sermonindex.net/about.php

Q. Does SermonIndex have a certain denominational emphasis?
Answer. No. SermonIndex desires to be a expression of the apostolic church found in Scriptures (Book Of Acts). It is a inter-denominational ministry with 100's of different denominations and ministries involved. Revival, Holiness, Authenticity, and a genuine experience of Biblical Christianity is core the values of this ministry. We believe that the Church of Jesus Christ is larger than any one denomination or group, and that Christ has His love slaves in many different sections of the visible church in many different parts of the world.


I am locking this thread and ask similar threads on these subjects would not be opened on these forums.

This discussion is archived and closed to new replies. Start a new discussion to carry the subject on.
Archived
1 of 28 posts

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate