In my experience, many fundementalist guys my age (30 and younger) first came to Calvinistic convictions through the teaching ministry of John MacArthur (we were the type who had no idea who MLJ was, never owned a Banner book, were continually looking for the secret 666 computer chip implant, and thought the church began in the 1930's). When I began listening to MacArthur about 10 years ago, I was a rabid Arminian who believed Calvinism was damnable heresy. But I was looking for good Bible preaching and though I disagreed with MacArthur, I appreciated his committment to exposition. Eventually JM wore me down. I embraced what I didn't want to be true but was clearly Scriptural. Now the Doctrines of Grace are a delight. It seems as if simple, straightforward expository ministry makes Calvinism almost unavoidable.

I appreciate much of what Sproul and MacArthur have done, but MacArthur's vehement attacks against charismatics, emergents, and even non-dispensational Calvinists hasn't helped anyone at all over the years. This kind of attitude is seemingly emulated by many young fireballs. I see it as a stumbling block for a lot of Christians who might otherwise be drawn toward Calvinism.

Matt,

True, I think MacArthur is a wash--he has turned away as many to Calvinism as he has turned toward it. I greatly admire his thought, and continue to listen/read his sermons and read his books. But his tone is too vehement, and gets old quickly. Piper can also get very dogmatic, but I find his tone more pleasing--and it seems he has more influence on the 20/30 somethings than does MacArthur. I don't know many in this age range that follow either MacArthur or Sproul (though I don't doubt their influence, but I'm not sure they are a direct influence on this age group). Dever is correct, though, in the massive role they have played.

I am personally very grateful for John MacArthur's strong stand over these many years. I know many people disagree with his 'dispensationalism' but if you begin to dig into what he teaches instead of just making assumptions based on the labels you will find that he is a 'leaky' dispensationalist at best. Besides that point he has been faithful and solid on the important doctrines of the faith for these past forty years. I personally am very appreciative for his 'vehement attacks' on charismatics and emergents because they are twisting the truth and not upholding the most important doctrines of the faith.

I am grateful to John MacArthur's strong stand on truth. Yes, he has attacked the name it claim-its and he has attacked the "truth isn't knowables." He is contending for the faith ala Jude. A good shepherd always attacks the wolves threatening the flock. John MacArthur is blunt and it you like the truth soft-pedaled, you won't like him (or perhaps the truth). I'll take MacArthur over the Hinn's, the Copelands, and the McLaren's and Bells any day.

Benjamin, are you sure that all of us charismatics are "twisting the truth" and not upholding the most important doctrines of the faith?

Yes, there are certainly abuses, and certainly those within the Charismatic movement who do those things, but they don't represent all of us. Take a look at groups like Newfrontiers or Sovereign Grace Ministries - groups which are accurately described as "Charismatic Calvinists", who hold to the doctrines of grace and place a high emphasis on expository preaching "despite" being charismatic.

If MacArthur's attacks on charismatics (and from what I've read of his thoughts on the subject, he doesn't think there's such a thing as a good charismatic) are justified on the grounds that we are twisting the truth and failing to uphold the most important doctrines, then can you point to definite examples of where we have done so?

JMac and Sproul are the two guys who had the greatest influence on me during my formative theological years.

Hungering for a departure from the methodological madness of the time (and it persists still), I remember listening to a sermon from JMac and thinking, 'Wow! He didn't just read the text; he actually talked about what it means.' That was, unfortunately, an earth-shaking and novel approach from what I had experienced.

I am a 31 year old Pastor and my love for Calvinism was greatly influenced by the ministries of John Macarthur and R.C.Sproul.

I have found Macarthur's passion for the truth refreshing. Nehemiah 13 is a good example of the fact that God's men will be vigilant for God's truth and holiness.

Mark,

Wouldn't it be safe to say that technology itself has helped the proliferation of Calvinism?

Having attended a seminary that insisted that we wrestle with both God and ourselves over the issues referred to above, and having been thoroughly exposed to Arminianism by an Arminian who received his DMin from Calvin College, I could not be more grateful for the faithfulness of both MacArthur and Sproul for preaching the truth of Scripture despite the cultural opposition they often encounter. In looking back at those years, what I recognize is that my adversity to these two men was often the result of my own pride and arrogance. It is only by God's grace, that he led me to be a part of church within Sovereign Grace Ministries, just as I was completing my wrestling match. It was there that my pride met the identifiably characteristic humility of the leaders of Sovereign Grace Ministries, and the truths so often shared by both MacArthur and Sproul started being nourished into what is now a fervent love for, and dependence upon the sovereignty of God.

As a pastoral intern in his mid-30's, I am embarrassed and repentant to think of the times I vehemently debated against the "fundamentalist Calvinists" during my time at Trinity, in light that I would now be sitting on the other side of the table. These two men exemplify a passionate commitment to unity that is found in the Gospel, while also maintaining the pastoral call to shepherd the flock of God. I pray they will continue to be steadfast, that many of us will continue to be encouraged by their example, for the glory of God!

Steven Gray,

If MacArthur hasn't met a charismatic that he likes, metaphorically speaking, then why is he friends with C.J. Mahaney (a reformed Charismatic) and why did he let Mahaney speak from his pulpit/speak at his conferences? John Piper is a little charismatic around the edges and so is Wayne Grudem, both have spoken at the Master's College and at the seminary (Grudem taught at the seminary as a visiting scholar, respectively. And MacArthur played Mahaney in basketball... at Together For the Gospel...

You might want to do a little more homework.

As for the reformed charismatics, they are the exception as opposed to the rule... and as they say...the exception proves the rule... take it from an ex-charismatic.

As for the reformed charismatics, they are the exception as opposed to the rule.

Yup - just like Reformed Dispensationalists!!

After reading the different comments on the blog, I have found that everyone seems to be overlooking MacArthur’s separation between Word of Faith charismatics and none WoF charismatic. It is obvious that he believes both are incorrect, but he draws his line with the Faith movement, not just charismatic’s in general. Either way, I personally have a high respect for MacArthur and have loved his bold stand for truth.

In 1989 I came across a flier for Dr. Sproul's video series, The Holiness of God. I shelled out the $30 bucks not knowing what I'd receive in return. What I received far outweighed the purchase price: I found an articulate teacher who brought a historical perspective to the Bible and theology. Here was one who was well versed in Luther and Roman Catholicism as well as 20th century liberalism. As a ten year old convert from a Roman Catholic background who was serving in parachurch ministry I was intrigued.

A few weeks later I began to receive this 'brainy' devotional guide called 'Tabletalk.' I'd devour the articles and work through the daily devotions. Occasionally reformed theology would smack me between the eyes and I just didn't get it. I can recall one occasion when I threw Tabletalk across the room and saying out loud that "Sproul doesn't know what he's talking about" when he insisted that regeneration preceded faith. Eventually his views prevailed and I found myself out-of-step with my parachurch ministry. One thing led to another and today I am happily serving in the PCA.

It's funny, but I listened to John MacArthur from 1978 to around 1991 and never saw his Calvinism. I was blinded to it to the point where it didn't even offend me. It wasn't until I started wrestling with the issue that I saw what he was saying about it.

That is when I went to hear MacArthur speak as a Ligonier National Conference. I hadn't ever listened to Sproul, but became an immediate fan. I also fell completely into the Calvinist camp having had all my resistance shredded by the Word of God through the teaching of these men. I thank God for faithful, godly men like these.

RC Sproul was very influential in my switch to Calvinism. I am so thankful for his style of teaching, geared toward the intellect and not the emotions. I was switching through channels, watching Michael Yousef and David Jeremiah, and then I came upon Renewing your Mind by RC and was blown away by the depth in his teaching!

At first I could not grasp the truths, but my dad told me 'Just keep watching.' So as I kept watching, I began to learn more and more, and finally began to understand this man who used such big words.

Like others who posted, I inadvertently became a Calvinist. I loved the caliber of teaching in the books by RC and other Reformed theologians, and reading the books finally made me understand Calvinism.

I thank God for blessing His church with these two great ministers!

- Andy

Two of my earliest theological books were Johnny Mac's Gospel According to Jesus and Sproul's Holiness of God. They were critical in my theological foundation. I bless the Lord for them!

Barry Joslin

I haven't read all the comments on this post. I haven't read or heard everything MacArthur has written about Charismatics or the E-movement, but I have an opinion. ;) I believe MacArthur attack on charismatics is mainly focused on the TBN types, and not SGM, although I could be wrong since I am fallen finite man.

Blessings
Jeff

I agree. Sadly, though MacArthur seems to focus his 'attack' on the TBN types, he often swings far too broad and rarely has his facts straight.
Personally, during my neo-orthodox (Emergent before there was Emergent) period some 15 years ago, MacArthur and Sproul only repulsed me from Calvinism - it was John Piper who really 'converted' me not only to Calvinism, but Evangelicalism, and ultimately planted the seeds for the convinced 'Reformed Charismatic' that I've been for the past 9 years.

HA!
It wasn't until AFTER I posted my last response that I realized I was at Mark Dever's site.
Hey Mark - I doubt you remember me, but I met you at the Toledo Reformed Theological Conference a few years back - I know a number of the members of the Assembly of Christians. Always loved your teaching. Thanks for your ministry!

I remember about a year or two after I was saved, my wife were driving in the car on our way somewhere early one morning. I was trying to find a radio station with preaching and finally came across, on an AM station of all things, a man whose preaching I was drawn to. The station wasn't coming in very good and I remember turning my ear toward the radio to catch every word. The man was preaching right out of the text and making a case for his point with scripture after scripture. I remember saying to myself, this is real preaching. This is the kind of preaching that is needed in the church and this is the kind of preaching I want to do. You probably know by now that the man was John MacArthur. Over the years I've consumed his messages and books. I so appreciate the clarity of his preaching and his courage and boldness to take on the hard passages. I was not a calvinist but I guess I slowly became one. I would still rather say that I try to be biblical rather than calvinist. I guess we got to have our labels. His teaching on divorce really helped me through some of my stuggles, being called to preach but divorced and remarried before I came to Christ. He helped me through many other issues and helped me to learn to interpret the scriptures properly. I don't listen to him as much today but I still use the MacArthur study bible and MacArthur commentaries when I'm working through passages. Today I listen more to Piper and Dever and I like to read a lot of others but I am always drawn to reformed teaching. Everything else seems weak and watered down. Sproul has also had an influence on me but not like MacArthur. Mainly from his book "holiness of God." One thing I have learned from MacArthur and others is discernment. It helps me to see the error of such things as Joel Osteen's "feel good" Gospel, and the health, wealth, and prosperity teaching on tbn and the different things you see today. Yes, I thank God for raising up John MacArthur to be a teacher to thousands, especially me.
Robin

I myself have a propensity to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints," sometimes maybe a little more than necessary. And I love and appreciate MacArthur's commitment to Biblical truth. That said, MacArthur's personal attacks on Mark Driscoll, and his (IMHO) overly gruff tone have kind of turned me off to MacArthur and prevented me from recommending him to many of my friends. As a member of the new, young 20-something generation of Calvinists, I think Josh is right that Piper has far more influence today, at least in my generation. It was Piper who "converted" me to Calvinism, and while I occasionally listen to MacArthur, I much prefer the other Reformed teachers out there like Piper, Keller, Driscoll, Mahaney, Dever, etc.

I also love R.C. Sproul. His Reformation Study Bible (ESV) is my primary Bible. His talks at the 2007 Desiring God Pastors' Conference this past year were incredible.

Is the goal of Calvinists to convert people who are already Christians to Calvinism?

Do Calvinists recognize that there are Christians who study the scriptures with discernment, but who do not become Calvinists?

Sproul and MacArthur are undoubtedly fine people, but they are at the head of a neo-Reformed movement that seems to sometimes use certain unpalatable practices in pursuit of Calvinist goals, not the least of which is the tendency to suggest that the only "deep", clear or really biblical teaching to be had only comes from Calvinists.

Of course, this is not true, as exemplified by recent conversations I have had with Calvinists who could not decide if Christians are to value human life, have compassion for the suffering of others and not kill people for their personal opinions.

I'll bet Joel Osteen knows where he stands on these issues.

RC was my first peek into Calvinism, his teachings have captivated me...not enough to make me a Presbyterian, so that's when John MacArthur came in to polish me off. MacArthur is a Baptist without the name, and I side with his theology much more than Sproul, yet Sproul is one of my greatest influences.

R.C. Sproul didn't make me a Presbyterian -- it was those Southern Baptists!

As I was grappling with reformed soteriology my wife and I were transferred to Atlanta, Georgia. Though we were from a baptist background in the north we simply could not connect with the way church was done in the SBC. Out of desperation we visited a nearby PCA church and instantly fell in love with its simple worship and reverence for God. There was a confession of sin and declaration of pardon -- things I had not observed in the twelve years since my conversion from Roman Catholisicm. There was the use of the Apostles' Creed, the Gloria Patri, the Doxology too. All were missing in the early years of my Christian life. When I inquired about a doctrinal statement I was given a book (the Westminster Confession of Faith) instead of a 10 point statement. When I inquired about church government I was given another book (the Presbyterian Book of Church Order) instead of a two page statement explaining congregational rule. I encountered a depth that I had never seen before and only later learned that Sproul was in the PCA (up to this point I had never met a Bible-believing Presbyterian and wasn't sure that they existed).

In retrospect it was the SBC and other 'low church' traditions that converted me to the PCA. Lack of reverence for God, lack of historical perspective, lack of creeds and confessions, an inability to explain 2000 years of church history to a former Catholic, etc. pretty much set the table for me to join the PCA and eventually pursue ordination in the same.

For many years I was a charismatic Armenian. Charles Finney was my hero and Calvanism was the doctrine of the Devil, wrought in the pits of hell (And I wasn't afraid to say so, either). However, after being brought into contact with some loving men of God who were Reformed in their doctrine, I found my self challenged. As a result of much prayer and study, I eventually came to believe that Calvinistic doctrine was closer to biblical doctrine than the camp I was in. It is easy to see were the free-will doctrine comes from if we focus on particular passages in Scripture. But my feeling was, and is, the Armenian view of Scripture could only be interpreted in the light of human experience. How many times have I and others started out our defense with, "Surely a loving God wouldn't..."

I find it helpful to look at the two camps by visualizing a circle. Inside the circle is how we see God and the world. And certainly, from this perspective it looks like we have free reign to do/say/think what we want, totally free from God's direct interference. But if we let Scripture pull us out of that circle and see us and our lives as God sees them (as imperfect as that may be), His sovereignty becomes clearer and even, at least to me, comforting.

As to the "Charismatic" comments, I would have to say I know many, many friends who are in those churches and know they love God as much (even more) than I do. However, we still must be able to, in fact, compelled to speak the truth. Even though I still consider myself "Charismatic" in that while holding fast to Reformed doctrine, I still believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit as being for today, I still must point out, in as loving manner as possible, that the Charismatic camp has only continued to get worse. I am truly worried for my friends. Not that they will go to hell for believing what they do (i.e., "name it and claim it", word of faith, etc) but that they are grossly misrepresenting the God of Scriptures. In saying this I don't believe my stance or attitude is any different from J.M. If saying, "I think you are wrong" offends, even when expressly said in love, you will just simply have to live with it.

The modern, Tolerance mood really has no place in society and especially not among God's people. In the Church true tolerance should be practice, but this means something quite different then the postmodern definition. Far from banning speaking the truth or even expressing disapproval, true love thirsts for it, even demands it of each and every member.

Respectively yours,
BKP

Dave -- just think, if you had been introduced to Tom Nettles (for church history) and John Piper or Mark Dever (for worship) you would be a baptist today and not a paedobaptist! Oh well, I am thank for the good people of the PCA, including some very good friends of mine. And I love Archie Parrish.

One more historical note, I think in particular it was Charles Colson's endorsement of Sproul's Holiness of God video that was truly landmark. Colson told in his book, Loving God, if memory serves me correctly, how watching that video series left him on his knees weeping. Thousands of copies were sold, as a result, and the rest is history. In a similar way, I think of all the good that John Mac has done, his book The Gospel According to Jesus is what really stands out, that and his longevity. So many, including me, admired his courage to write that book. It cost him, in human terms, dearly. The local Christian radio station where I was pastor at the time took him off the air. Many "disowned" him, especially from the Zane Hodges camp of Dallas. But I believe his handling of Scripture won the day, by the grace of God.

Mark,

I would agree with your thoughts on JMac's and Sproul's enduring influence on growing calvinism.

When I was working on my Th.M at Southern Seminary I remarked in a discussion group that an interesting thesis topic would be "Calvinism in John MacArthur's Early Preaching Ministry." When JMac first preached through the Gospel of John after arriving to Grace in late 1969 his Calvinism though subtle is very noticeable.

Attending Grace since childhood and subsequently attending TMS shaped my biblical and calvinistic views.

Blessings, Todd

I was just wondering if anyone could tell me what David Jeremiah's doctrinal position is? I'm also a big fan of Piper, MacArthur & Sproul.

Pelase send me all Imfo on the TWO WITNESS

Sorry, but the character of RC Sproul needs to be looked at. His Legioner ministry pays him, his son in law and his wife very exhorbitant salaries. This according to IRS filings.

The teachings of both MacArthur and Sproul are often filled with inacuracies and overstatements. They create uneeded conflict.

The biggest Invisible Trauma for all good people who are the followers of JM "doctrinal teachings" is that they all don't know or knowingly refuse to admit that JM is not teaching how enormously all scriptures were altered through the years by Church Fathers right after Nicene Council. JM is errogant and "blind" and I am relly sorry for all his followers. Have you ever thought abour Mystery of Babylon or Mystery of Babylonian Doctrine? Calvinism is part of it.

Hello:

I wanted you to know that John Piper is more charismatic than you give him credit for. I have typed out what he said in one of his titled “Prayer, Meditation, Fasting Part 1” From the Pursuit of Communion with God Conferences that describes just how charismatic he is. You decide for yourself. Quote is from "Prayer, Fasting and Meditation Part 1" time stamp on the audio is 44:00-45:00 minutes.

“Spirit make yourself known to me.” And hope for a falling down, or laughter, or fluttering eye lids, or shaking knees or sweaty palms, palpitating heart, or some kind of manifestation. Those may come at anytime in life when the Holy Spirit moves in power in our life. He can do anything he wants physically. “

Then he presents how to accomplish Contemplative Prayer at 38:11 on the same message by praying directly to the Holy Spirit which is not scriptural. That is how Contemplative Prayer is accomplished by picking up a spirit guide called the holy spirit that is a counterfeit. Here is Piper's exact quote:

Topic is: Communion of fellowship with the Holy Spirit. Piper quote is “The Spirit should become a real living person to you. That you talk to, fellowship with.”

We are told to pray to God through Jesus Christ. It is dangerous to practice the occult by calling up spirit guides because we use unbiblical practices.

Good luck if you use him as a sound source for doctrinal issues. Luck is what you will need since it is not biblical.

In Christ,
Cathy Trammell

Just a quick response to those who commented that MacArthur no longer appeals to the "young 20/30 crowd"

I currently attend UCLA and the largest Christian fellowship on campus is Grace on Campus which attends MacArthur's church ... every week our 300+ college aged ministry makes the trek to MacArthur's church. Why? Because of his commitment to the Word and the unwavering way in which he lives it out. MacArthur should be attractive to any age because he preaches the Word as it is. If 20/30's don't like MacArthur it's not because of him but rather because they are turned off by the message of the Bible!

What I find most troubling about the majority of the Reformed doctrinal,(aka Calvinist) theologians such as MacArthur, Sproul, Piper, and others is that they have brought us to this place in Christian teaching which has almost come full circle from the true Reformation teaching of Luther and Augustine. Christians are placing far too much emphasis on the flowery words and opinions of these "men" rather than on what the scriptures themselves teach us. The whole sum of Luther's Reformation was that the scriptures are not too hard for the common man to interpret and understand by God's grace and Holy Spirit working in his life. This was his disagreement with the Catholic church. And yet it seems that the young Christian today expects that by listening to the aforementioned men on the radio, or by reading their books, or by attending a conference that somehow they will be instantly transformed into a "better" Christian. Folks, no matter what the label we put on each other, whether Calvinist, Charismatic, Arminian, or otherwise, we are never "better" Christians, only "saved by grace, through faith" Christians. There will be Calvinists and Arminians alike in heaven. Some will likely be shocked to find it so. I can't quite understand why we spend so much of our time on earth tearing one another down instead of building one another up. Or are those a few of the verses in the Bible that we conveniently choose to ignore in our quest for "rightness" as opposed to a quest for "righteousness?

What I find most troubling about the majority of the Reformed doctrinal,(aka Calvinist) theologians such as MacArthur, Sproul, Piper, and others is that they have brought us to this place in Christian teaching which has almost come full circle from the true Reformation teaching of Luther and Augustine. Christians are placing far too much emphasis on the flowery words and opinions of these "men" rather than on what the scriptures themselves teach us. The whole sum of Luther's Reformation was that the scriptures are not too hard for the common man to interpret and understand by God's grace and Holy Spirit working in his life. This was his disagreement with the Catholic church. And yet it seems that the young Christian today expects that by listening to the aforementioned men on the radio, or by reading their books, or by attending a conference that somehow they will be instantly transformed into a "better" Christian. Folks, no matter what the label we put on each other, whether Calvinist, Charismatic, Arminian, or otherwise, we are never "better" Christians, only "saved by grace, through faith" Christians. There will be Calvinists and Arminians alike in heaven. Some will likely be shocked to find it so. I can't quite understand why we spend so much of our time on earth tearing one another down instead of building one another up. Or are those a few of the verses in the Bible that we conveniently choose to ignore in our quest for "rightness" as opposed to a quest for "righteousness?

I strongly agree with the comments above from EDS except for one that I will discuss in a few moments. I agree that I am delighted that I will see both Five Point/Hyper Calvinist and Arminians in heaven much to their surprise. That puts a grin on my face and makes me happy. And why will that be a surprise to them? Because they are depending on works to get them there as they try to endure until the end rather than depending on the gift of God that is free by simple BELIEF that Jesus died in our place as an undeserving and loving act by grace alone. At the moment we accept Christ as our wondrous substitution we receive and have the gift of ETERNAL LIFE as stated in scriptures. That is irrevocable even if one returns to another doctrine that is works based which the scriptures call an “another gospel.” ETERNAL LIFE means just that. It is ETERNAL. I guarantee you that each one of us will sin even up to the last conscious day we breathe or experience the rapture because the Bible says so. We cannot live good enough to be saved. John Piper, John Mac Arthur and RC Sproul will be sinners on the very last day they breathe. They will have un-confessed sins in their lives that they aren’t even aware of. All of us will be in this condition. Works are worthless in the sight of the LORD. So I think I will thank God for Christ covering my sins and thank Him that any works I do cannot possibly save me, but only BELIEF that the sacrifice of Jesus can do such a marvelous thing. Anything else would be a slap in the face of Christ for the agony He endured for a wretch like me.

The above mentioned men are Bible scholars who have an education that allows them to understand and interrupt Greek. That does not mean that their doctrines are flawless and therefore their doctrines influence their end products of books & sermons. They teach a lot of truth. They are highly educated and talented men who are excellent communicators. Piper is right on the sovereignty of God, God’s call for us to go to the nations and on suffering. He also teaches that salvation can be lost if we do not endure until the end. So does Mac Arthur. They clearly teach and are on record stating that there is that 1% chance that they themselves won’t make it if they are in an un-described or particular sin condition in that last hour. I can honestly say that their version of salvation doctrinally conveys that one can lose their eternal life after getting it as a gift from God who is trustworthy to keep His word. How can one lose ETERNAL life? Doesn’t ETERNAL mean forever and irrevocable?????

Lastly, we are told in the scriptures in several places that we are responsible to expose those who teach wrong or flawed doctrines. The New Testament is loaded with instruction from Jesus and the Apostles to expose them and have nothing to do with them. Jesus rebuked the NT churches in Revelation for not exposing and dealing with false prophets. Each one of us will face God and make an accounting for those we endorsed and supported with our mouths and finances. All I can say is that we need to be very discerning and careful when giving flattering reviews of teachers. We are not to listen to them because we are in danger of being influenced and adopting their teachings. We are told not to support them.

I am curious as to why John MacArthur is considered a Calvinist. Piper too, for that matter. Don't get me wrong, they are both faithful Christians. But I cannot fathom how anyone who denies the sacrament of baptism to covenant infants can be regarded as a Calvinist. A reading of the Institutes Book 4, ch. 16 will clearly show Calvin's teaching on infant baptism. That JM in particular has maligned infant baptism would certainly put him at odds with a foundational tenant of Calvinism.

I don't mean to suggest that JM (and the so called Reformed Baptists) have to be Calvinist, I'm only saying they aren't Calvinist or Reformed as long as they deny the sacrament to covenant babies. Or to put it another way, I am Reformed, but I'm not a Baptist so long as I continue to uphold infant baptism. The label "Reformed Baptist" is an oxymoron.

None of this is to condemn JM, Piper or the Baptists who believe in election. They must teach according to their conscience and are certainly not required to be Reformed. But Reformed thought and teaching goes beyond affirming the biblical doctrine of election. It stresses the great grace of God whose promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself.

"Calvinism" refers specifically to five points of Calvin's teachings. The TULIP acronym is useful for remembering these five points. Calvin himself may have affirmed Infant baptism, but that is not considered part of that definition. Yes, it's a label thing, but it was actually John Calvin's successor, Theodore Beza, who systematized Calvin's work, from which we get the systematized "Calvinist" teaching on election / predestination.

Read a new article on the doctrine of election at:

http://www.youmustbesaved.com/preview_052.htm

See what you think.

God Bless!

I have read all the comments from the beginning on this subject and I am concerned. The New Testament spends a great deal of time talking about being grounded in the truth so we will not be like waves tossed back and forth with every new (or resurrected) wave of doctrine. We are also told repeatedly to know sound doctrine. We are also told to identify false prophets/teachers and have nothing to do with them because their doctrines contaminate God’s desired truth, which in turn warps our faith. We are told to examine it closely and judge them by comparing them with the Bible. The scriptures outline how to do this process. We are told to test and try them based on the Gospel that they present, the Jesus they preach about and the spirit they give. Those are clear instructions for us and they are requirements for today. It is right to judge. No one dismissed this commandment to test and try them nor have we been relieved from the mandate to know sound and right doctrine. Since God is not schizophrenic, He knows exactly what right doctrine is. Other wise we could not obey HIM and walk in it. If we do not walk in right doctrine we are in a sin position. Therefore, He promises to tell us what right doctrines are so we will know the truth for right living. We need this to live by faith.

The question should not be "Is Piper, JM, or Sproul saved." They may or may not be. The question should be is there doctrine sound and biblical in reflecting the whole truth of God in conveying the single Gospel message outlined in the Bible? Do they teach about the one and only Jesus Christ who was God born in the flesh as a man who died and was buried, resurrected, now sits at God’s right hand and will come again in all HIS glory whcih includes judgment and in wrath of the quick and the dead? Do they give another spirit other than the Holy Spirit? All three of these questions must be answered based on scriptural truth in order to validate these men. We are told not to trust our emotions, experiences or hunches, but to rely solely on the Bible for this comparison. Therefore, there is only one salvation message, one Jesus Christ and one and only Holy Spirit. If anyone tampers with any one of these three doctrines they are a false prophet/teacher. If that is the case we are told to confront them with the truth and if they refuse correction we are told to mark them and have NOTHING to do with them. I realize that most people today do not implement this scriptural command. It is called “Biblical Separation”.

Reformers of old knew that there was justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Works are useless. If a Gospel message hangs on “works” or loss of salvation than it is based on a "works" based theology which in turn does not meet the Biblical Gospel message. If they preach anything else other than the whole story of Jesus from the beginning to the end which includes HIS Judgment of the quick and the dead along with Hell, fire and the blood bath that will occur…They miss the mark and are false. If they give another spirit they are also false. This one is a little tricky to discern. That is because of the occult that has infiltrated the chruch from the begining and is wide spread throughout the entire chruch including the Catholics through New Age mystism and tactics. There are spirit guides that are called by the name of the Holy Spirit, but are in fact counterfeits. They manifest unscriptural practices that have been adopted by many churches, but mostly the Charismatic movement. This movement hinges on things that feed the flesh rather than the Spirit of God through their emotions and experiences which are mixed with scriptures. The Bible is stretched and twisted to accommodate this position.

I have eternal life and nothing can remove it. It is a gift of God without works and is undeserved. Jesus is not only the God Man who died for me, but He resurrected and is now sitting at God’s right hand as the Head over all things. He will indeed come back just as HE left us and HE will come with judgment and He will pour out fury on HIS enemies. HE will send unbelievers to Hell and HE will reward believers according to how they lived out their life. He gives the pure and righteous Holy Spirit to us so that we amy know the truth about God as we live out lives in witness of His truth and righteousness. He does not cater to the flesh as an experience or emotion that better resembles Hinduism. He gives truth which is love as outlined in the Bible. He does not perform signs for us to be entertained by. He prompts us to right living and truth in faith through His word. He is not one who takes us over with manifestations that feed the flesh.

Many of these men preach and teach through the Bible book by book and verse by verse. They are highly educated and hold doctorate degrees. They understand Greek. They are gifted speakers and some are motivational, but they do grave harm. I want to leave you with this: Before you validate or support one of these people, please take the time to fully know them and the full account of what their doctrines are. Know sound doctrine and then compare them to it. God commands us to do so. I have researched Piper, JM and Sproul. They miss the mark. They teach another Gospel, they seem to tell a pretty good accounting of Jesus. Piper gives another spirit by being heavily involved in Charismatic teachings which include Contemplative Prayer all the while doing a good job of hiding it by acting conservative. Piper is good buddies with both Sproul and JM. They all support psychology despite the Bible saying that God has given us all things pertaining to life and godliness. These men miss the mark in one or two areas of the testing process.

Cathy Trammell