THE BIGGEST MISTAKE OF REFORMED AND HYPER CALVINISM

 

 Romans 5:2 says "By whom also we have access by FAITH INTO THIS GRACE wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."

 If regeneration precedes faith, as the hypers, Reformed and many Calvinists teach, then this verse is in error. The hyper version should read " By whom also we have access by GRACE into this FAITH wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."

Now the "Reformed" churches do not all say that some who never hear the Gospel are saved, (although many do), yet they are still, in a sense, hyper Calvinists, because they talk out of both sides of their mouth. They contradict themselves when they claim to promote the 5 solas, which are, saved by GRACE ALONE, THROUGH FAITH ALONE , in Christ alone, according to the Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone. When they speak of salvation they will say "by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone". How can this be true if regeneration precedes faith? If salvation is gained "through faith alone", then how is one regenerated without it? Would it not be more accurate to say salvation is "by election alone" if one is regenerated without faith?

Neither Spurgeon nor Whitefield believed in regeneration before faith.

Anyone who embraces the regeneration before faith theory eventually declares that the means of gospel preaching to the lost has no bearing on their eternal destiny. Although many will deny this, if regeneration occurs before faith, then you cannot make the argument that hearing the Gospel has any bearing on salvation. This is the bedrock of "Covenant Theology" which teaches that grace comes thru family lines of the elect. Under this scheme, children in essence are born already saved, which is all but declared when an infant is baptized as the minister says the words "(name), CHILD OF THE  COVENANT, I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit". By saying these words, they are declaring their belief that the child, if not regenerated already, will be, simply because of who his parents are. If this isn't getting into heaven on the coat tails of another, then I don't know what else to call it. Is this not a "condition", that one must be born into an "elect family" in order to be saved? If they do not "persevere", then the covenant was said to never exist, yet how can this be so if the rest of the family does persevere? They would deny that the "covenant" can be broken, yet this is the logical conclusion one must draw. Under this theology, salvation becomes a "right" because of a contract God must honor, because a "covenant" becomes null and void if one party breaks the contract.  The only way for a human beneficiary to break the contract, is to cease persevering. Does this not then, put the Reformed camp at the door step of Arminianism?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

THE USHER - A BAPTIST HERO

 In 1934, in Charlotte North Carolina, A baptist evangelist was holding a tent revival. Every night the tent was filled to overflowing. One night, two young teen aged boys came by, heard the preaching and decided to check it out. As the neared the tent, they realized every seat was taken. They turned and walked away. One man, whose name we will never know, was an usher at the revival, having volunteered from a local Baptist church, helping people to their seats. How did this man end up being an usher in a tent revival? Let's go back to April 1855. A man named Edward Kimball taught a boys Sunday School class at the Congregational church in Boston. The class was full of anxious teen aged boys, unruly at times, but Edward Kimball made a commitment that he would seek out every single boy and present the gospel in a way that related that Christ had come for each one. One of the boys worked in his uncle's shoe store, and Kimball decided to pay him a visit at work. Later, Kimball reca...
Read more

Comparing Calvinist and Non Calvinist Articles of Faith

Image
When discerning whether old Baptist articles of faith are Calvinist or Non Calvinist, it is important to know the nuances of how they are written. Below are the articles of faith of the Concord Association in Georgia and the Coosa Association right next door to them. You may notice a few spelling "errors" but I have posted these exactly as originally written. The similarities between the two are striking, especially considering they hold two different doctrines. The Coosa Association is the OLDEST of the two, being founded in 1835, from churches in in an even older association founded in 1796, in a rare example of being called simply "the Association of the Baptist Churches of Christ" carrying with them the same articles of faith. Concord Association Articles of Faith  1. We believe in the only true and living God: and that there is a trinity of persons within the God-head, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 2. We believe that the Scr...
Read more

EASTERN DISTRICT ASSOCIATION OF PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS (VA) NOT CALVINIST

Image
To date I have found many Primitive Baptist (PB's) associations who were not Calvinists, some even calling it heresy. The reason many historians teach that all PB's are highly Calvinistic, is because the non Calvinist ones gradually rejoined their Missionary Baptist counterparts as their opposition to mission societies softened, The Non Calvinist portion of PB's, adopted Sunday Schools, musical instruments, revivals and other church activities that the Calvinistic PB's rejected. As an example, read the further down in this article from the Eastern District Association of PB's. Originally organized in 1835 as the Mulberry Gap Association of United Baptists, the Eastern District Association was organized in 1848 with the first meeting being held at Blackwater Lick (Big Door), when they broke away from the Mulberry Gap United Baptists over "new innovations not warranted by scripture", namely mission societies and anything beyond the associationa...
Read more