Former Desiring God Writer Paul Maxwell Renounces His Christian Faith
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Dr. Flowers was talking about what happens when calvinists are consistent in their calvinism in this video.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I can't see videos on TOL, but here's what happened to this Calvinist when he became consistent in his Calvinism:
He became Catholic.
Lon
Well-known member
It doesn't matter if one is Calvinist, Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic, or Open Theist (not sure any of the above were Calvinists, certainly not Hillsong). It matters rather if one is loving his/her Savior. Isn't it odd, that one can lose his/her Savior for the forest? So very very odd to me 1 John 2:19 "They could not have left if..." Don't let denomination rule your thinking here. It isn't about which church is 'greatest' but about affection for the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus' words haunt every unbeliever, even in every single denomination: "Depart from me, I never knew you." I've never been afraid of any horror movie. God's words are incredibly haunting for those who don't believe Him.
Right Divider
Body part
Out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Lon
Well-known member
Leighton Flowers (in-house) compliments for Austin Fischer's respect... for about 3 minutes.
Fischer: Calvinism is 'not intuitive.'
Counter: it assumes we are all cookie cutter as far as what makes sense, not correct.
He said he didn't even recognize it was Calvinism, but 'intuitively' was drawn and "really appealed" to him.
Fischer: "The more I understood, the more I had problems with it."
Very interesting/odd: "Essentially God was seen as the 'all determining reality' and 'all means all.'
It is fascinating to me that it is ALWAYS a look at man, that moves theologians and laymen 'away' from Calvinism. Very very revealing to me.
"It is unfair to call Augustine a Calvinist" (but I hold him up as one). It is very odd, that he'd accuse, then say 'it is unfair that I do that." Look at the downward slide from rationale God thinking to what I see as irrational man-ward thinking.
Proof: His next line is that of it being 'unfair' that God would create people destined for hell. He isn't thinking outside the box but being very linear at that point. I repeat all the time, "no other theologian manages to escape implications. They are there regardless of moving the goalpost with another obstacle on the playing field. The goalpost questions never disappear and no theology perspective, to date, does away with them. These implications affect all of us regardless of theology camp. It means, literally, that nobody should be too worried about Calvinists actually facing the questions without shirking. For me: The wheat and the tares: an enemy planted tares. This refers to the Garden. Was God capable of intervening? Yes. Did He see at the time? Yes. He gave man a specific job to watch for and man and woman Fell. At that point, by decision, the whole race was done for. Sovereignty and Ordination may mean 'God chose this' to certain Calvinists but the vast majority of us say "No." Why? Because God's own words about the Fall were that an enemy had done it. Like most who leave Calvinism, Austin Fischer does not recognize the difference between prescriptive and decretive wills. It is the beginning, in that linear manner, of not seeing the bigger picture but following tunnel vision to specific ends that, because of lack of interaction, lead to faulty premises for a theology with tunnel vision, no longer thinking clearly about the over all (such as no theology ever escaping the reality of these questions, they simply don't, hard as they tried).
Fischer: "Came to a place where I had to sign off on that."
Me: Still haven't had to sign off on that. It is a specific kind of double-pred Calvinist that doesn't believe God has prescriptive/decretive wills. Those are far and few between.
Fischer: "It was at that point that I 'most' understood Calvinism...."
Me: Double-pred Calvinism. Was he unaware the majority aren't double-pred and see it as heresy? Was he?
Leighton Flowers: "Well said!"
I wonder, at that point, if Leighton himself hasn't been deluded to realize that most Calvinists are not double-pred. We get argued into strawman boxes. It is like this: They became 'half-Calvinists' and rejected, literally sight unseen, the answers before they even took the time to ask them of other than double-pred Calvinists. Rejecting double-predestination is NOT rejecting Calvinism.Leighton shares a part of Fischer's book where he is enjoying fellowship with Spurgeon and hears a cry of the reprobate from the basement. Humanism, frankly. The reprobate that cries, must cry out to the Savior to be saved. Jesus split people into two camps: those who stumble, and those in whom He is the Chief Cornerstone. Grace affects people two ways: Thankful or disdainful. Those who reject are tares. Does it mean all around us are going to hell? Yes, we all believe that. It doesn't matter whose basement, we all will respond the same way, with compassion, loving our enemy, doing good to them, and being planters and waterers knowing full well our efforts may indeed produce weeds as righteous fruit. It is in the hope of those who will be saved, we labor. All of us who name the Name of Christ Jesus our Lord.
Dr. Leighton doesn't like talking about hell.
Me: Odd. Jesus talked about it. I genuinely worry about a 'theologian' that will not talk about hell.
Dr. Leighton "I'd purposefully quote (as a Calvinist) a scripture out of context."
YIKES!!! He wasn't an honest Calvinist. As he continues to distance, I wonder how honest he is today
Fischer: "Calvinism works great, except for the reprobate."
Stuff like this always leads me to believe 1) that their thinking has become tunnel-vision linear and 2) that they don't understand. God's whole business is to seek and save those who are lost. Jesus said He hadn't lost one of them. It is important to recognize Judas was with Him at the time. A Calvinist simply embraces that. We embrace a God Who owns us all and has rights (Romans 9) but Who also is unwilling that any should perish. I never know how a double-pred understands that. They simply say "Unwilling that any elect should perish." I disagree.
Fischer's comments are pointedly to double-preds alone, not the majority of Calvinists. As I said, both these men seem to have been initiate Calvinists because they never recognized that the great majority of Calvinists do not believe God desires damnation, other than a means to an end necessary.
Note a few points (I didn't finish the video because I'm convinced it goes off on a linear tangent to the need): 1) Notice Piper, who Fischer said he enjoyed, doesn't believe the 'Calvinistic' answer Fischer believed and rejected: It means Fischer, like Flowers, were initiates in my mind. They did not nor perhaps can recognize that their ideas are pointed at the heretical small group of double-pred Calvinists. 2) I don't have to rely on 'mystery' as much as Piper here: The Rain falling on the just and the unjust is Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. God takes no pleasure, He says, in the demise of the lost. Ezekiel 18:32
God did not want Israel to have a king, but He did it just the same. Meaning: God has two wills, one He does, one He works with in fallen man. It means, to me, from scripture, that God has a decretive will (that man have no king but Himself) and a prescriptive will (that He will work with man who dismisses or rejects His desire). That is the whole of most Calvinists' belief. It isn't quite what Dr. Flowers or Fischer have rejected. They've rejected an extreme form of Calvinism, not what most, who are Calvinists, believe. In Him -Lon
Last edited: