Used to go to a church pastored by a Calvinist, and left because EVERY sermon started sounding the same. Talked to someone else who left after they confronted the pastor about babies who die and whether or not they were "predestined" to go to either heaven or hell from birth. The pastor said yes, and the person left.

If you follow the illogical conclusions of Calvinism, then ( ACCORDING TO THIS TEACHING FROM THE PIT OF HELL!!!) there are babies who have undergone a partial-birth abortion and have gone immediately to hell. That's a load of *%&$#!!

But then again, with teachings like Calvinism, is it any wonder that the "Pope of Geneva", John Calvin, sanctioned the torture and execution of over 200 "apostates" in the city of Geneva while he was "Pope"? (Hopefully, the "Evangelical Pope" , John MacArthur, will be dethroned before a spirit of persecution rises up among his followers.)

P.S. - It was predestined that I should write this post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2013 07:24AM by Mark Scheiderer.

(Hopefully, the "Evangelical Pope" , John MacArthur,
will be dethroned before a spirit of persecution rises up among his followers.)

.....uhhhh, ya! they are already here!
If they all want to follow that foul doctrine and
live miserable lives following John Macarthur, Fine.

I am here because his "master pastor factory"
are slanderers,
liars,
treacherous,
they will make you Pay if you leave
the church, shunning is nothing compared to
the libel and emotional and spiritual torture.
They go after you, even after you leave with
stories about you that people believe, cuz
" pastors and elders would never lie"
so How do you fight that?

It Sucketh rotten eggs.

So I am turning that frown upside down and exposing
this unfruitful work of darkness.

The worst thing I ever did was attend John Macarthur
takeover satellite churches. Had to move from my home
because of the persecution.

Again, I didn't know they were Calvinist - they said they were
neutral on the subject. No kidding.

gtw?

Quote
Mark Scheiderer
Used to go to a church pastored by a Calvinist, and left because EVERY sermon started sounding the same. Talked to someone else who left after they confronted the pastor about babies who die and whether or not they were "predestined" to go to either heaven or hell from birth. The pastor said yes, and the person left.

If you follow the illogical conclusions of Calvinism, then ( ACCORDING TO THIS TEACHING FROM THE PIT OF HELL!!!) there are babies who have undergone a partial-birth abortion and have gone immediately to hell. That's a load of *%&$#!!

But then again, with teachings like Calvinism, is it any wonder that the "Pope of Geneva", John Calvin, sanctioned the torture and execution of over 200 "apostates" in the city of Geneva while he was "Pope"? (Hopefully, the "Evangelical Pope" , John MacArthur, will be dethroned before a spirit of persecution rises up among his followers.)

P.S. - It was predestined that I should write this post.

Back when I was in high school, the babies killed during abortion issue was probably one of my biggest problems with their predestination beliefs. I heard my Bible teacher say once that some babies may not be part of the "elect." It does contradict the passages that God cannot be the author of sin. I also heard that John Calvin was a murderer, and 200 murders is quite a few. How does that stack up against Manson, Bundy, etc.?

I don't think I would want to brag about my theology being developed by a serial killer. Maybe if more Reformed theologians knew this they would rethink what they believe, and if Lordship Salvation is a branch-off of this twisted thinking maybe it would help more members wake-up?

It is interesting how they wholesale broker
John Calvin's murders, here's one defender
of wonderful Calvin terrorism.
( Again God is *sovereign*, so He must have made
John Calvin do these things, it's a slight twist
on the " devil made me do it")


Quote:
So, what are we to make of all this? Times have changed and certainly no one would argue that executing heretics is justifiable behavior in our modern context. Here in America we live under a constitution that creates a wall of division between the church and the state. And it is shortsighted to judge the actions of John Calvin through our modern spectacles. Calvin held to the end of his life that the execution of Servetus was just because he was a blasphemer, a heretic, a murderer of souls.
While John Calvin and I certainly have areas of agreement in questions of theology and soteriology, we have significant differences in our ecclesiology. My understanding of the New Covenant causes me to argue that the crimes of Servetus required excommunication, but the Church has no authority to put a man to death. But, my understanding of the historic context and political situation surrounding the execution of heretics in Geneva also forces me to conclude that John Calvin was not a murderous man, nor was the Council acting against its conscience or its laws. Any effort to paint John Calvin as a power mad authoritarian who ruled the church and the city with an iron fist and the threat of death simply belies the ignorance and lack of historical research on the part of the man who makes such a biased claim.
(end of quote)

.....from what I've read from Calvin's followers is something along these lines...
ahhh, he was such a great man, the amount of murders is far less than
what people believe.. and we must remember "the times"
people where being murdered all the time! What are
a few extra murders when the Very Doctrines Of Grace
are at stake? We give Calvin a pass, everyone else is just
plain ignorant.

Sounds familiar.

gtw?

gtw?-

Who said it?

The above defense of Calvin's ATROCITIES is yet another example of the INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY of Calvinists. I have a 1907 edition of the 11 volume New Schaff-Hertzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge in which Calvinist B.B. Warfield relates the story of Servetus, without spin or comment. He doesn't talk about Calvin's approval of other MURDERS. I related this on FB a few years ago, and one Calvin defender replied with the unbelievable "it was a different time, a different place" type of "logic". Sickening. But then again, this same attitude is how FOOLS, FOOLS, FOOLS defend the RASCISM of Blob Jones University - whose graduates are referred to as "Bob Jones Clones". Perhaps "mini-Macs" would be a good moniker for MacA's followers. But I digress....

All -

A few pages ago, someone talked about expository preaching. I enjoy that type of preaching when it is done by REAL preachers, who realize that they are sinners saved by grace and are EQUAL to those in the congregation.
BUT, it is too easy for preachers to "hide" themselves behind this type of preaching. In other words, their humanity is "masked" behind a veneer of authority and knowledge. To put it another way: Plenty of head knowledge is projected by them, but it hides who they really are. ( Or so they think.)

Mark

Mark,

if you copy the quote and paste in your search engine you
will find the author, but I didn't mention his name because
frankly -it was only just an example of how every good Calvinist
wholesale broker that information of John Calvin's serial killings.

Everyone who does something wrong *thinks* they are doing
something "right" at the time.
That's the problem.
Then we are left with being convicted by the Holy Spirit
or justifying it, thereby furthering our hard heartedness.

It seems to me the fruit of Calvinism is still doing its dirty
deeds today amongst his followers - they just can't kill
you. But they can destroy a lot of things in a persons life.
I know.

gtw?

Ok -I thought I would enlighten folks with the
incessant caterwauling Calvinist do over
completely useless doctrines.
They had to make up their own vocabulary
to slice hairs over how God Selects people
for heaven or Hell, now it may seem laughable
to normal people, even boring, but I assure you
they are constantly arguing over these things.

They think THIS arguing is walking in faith in God.
What a joke.

gtw?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Karl Barth felt supralapsarianism was more nearly correct than infralapsarianism.
Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith takes the supralapsarian view and includes a lengthy defense of supralapsarianism.
Turretin says supralapsarianism is "harsher and less suitable" than infralapsarianism. He believes it "does not appear to agree sufficiently with [God's] unspeakable goodness" (Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, 418).
Herman Hoeksema and the entire leadership of the Protestant Reformed Churches (including Homer Hoeksema, Herman Hanko, and David Engelsma) are determined supralapsarians—often arguing both implicitly and explicitly that supralapsarianism is the only logically consistent scheme. This presumption clearly contributes to the PRC's rejection of common grace.
In fact, the same arguments used in favor of Supralapsarianism have been employed against common grace. So supralapsarianism may have in it a tendency that is hostile to the idea of common grace. (It is a fact that virtually all who deny "common grace" are supralapsarians.)
Supralapsarianism is the position of all who hold to the harshest sort of "double predestination."
It is hard to find exponents of supralapsarianism among the major systematic theologians. But the tide among some of the more modern authors may be turning toward the supra- view. Berkhof was sympathetic to the view; Reymond expressly defends it.
R. A. Webb says supralapsarianism is "abhorrent to metaphysics, to ethics, and to the scriptures. It is propounded in no Calvinistic creed and can be charged only upon some extremists" ( Christian Salvation, 16). While I am sympathetic to Webb's infra- convictions, I think he grossly exaggerates the case against supralapsarianism. [Webb is a 19th-cent. southern Presbyterian.]
Infralapsarianism
This view is also called "sublapsarianism."
John Calvin said some things that seem to indicate he would have been in sympathy with this view, though the debate did not occur in his lifetime (see Calvin's Calvinism, trans. by Henry Cole, 89ff; also William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, 364ff)
W. G. T. Shedd, Charles Hodge, L. Boettner, and Anthony Hoekema held this view.
Both R. L. Dabney and William Cunningham lean decidedly to this view but resist arguing the point. They believe the whole debate goes beyond scripture and is therefore unnecessary. Dabney, for example, says "This is a question which ought never to have been raised" (Systematic Theology, 233). Twisse, the supralapsarian, virtually agreed with this. He called the difference "merely apex logicus, a point of logic. And were it not a mere madness to make a breach of unity or charity in the church merely upon a point of logic?" (cited in Cunningham, The Reformers, 363). G.C. Berkouwer also agrees: "We face here a controversy which owes its existence to a trespassing of the boundaries set by revelation." Berkouwer wonders aloud whether we are "obeying the teaching of Scripture if we refuse to make a choice here" (Divine Election, 254-55).
Thornwell does not agree that the issue is moot. He says the issue "involves something more than a question of logical method. It is really a question of the highest moral significance. . . . Conviction and hanging are parts of the same process, but it is something more than a question of arrangement whether a man shall be hung before he is convicted" (Collected Writings, 2:20). Thornwell is vehemently infralapsarian.
Infralapsarianism was affirmed by the synod of Dordt but only implied in the Westminster standards. Twisse, a supralapsarian, was the first president of the Westminster Assembly, which evidently decided the wisest course was to ignore the controversy altogether (though Westminster's bias was arguably infralapsarian) . The Westminster Confession, therefore, along with most of the Reformed Creeds, implicitly affirmed what the Synod of Utrecht (1905) would later explicitly declare: "That our confessions, certainly with respect to the doctrine of election, follow the infralapsarian presentation, [but] this does not at all imply an exclusion or condemnation of the supralapsarian presentation."
Amyraldism
Amyraldism (is the preferred spelling, not AmyraldIANism).
Amyraldism is the doctrine formulated by Moise Amyraut, a French theologian from the Saumur school. (This same school spawned another aggravating deviation from Reformed orthodoxy: Placaeus' view involving the mediate imputation of Adam's guilt).
By making the decree to atone for sin logically antecedent to the decree of election, Amyraut could view the atonement as hypothetically universal, but efficacious for the elect alone. Therefore the view is sometimes called "hypothetical universalism."
Puritan Richard Baxter embraced this view, or one very nearly like it. He seems to have been the only major Puritan leader who was not a thoroughgoing Calvinist. Some would dispute whether Baxter was a true Amyraldian. (See, e.g. George Smeaton, The Apostles' Doctrine of the Atonement [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991 reprint], Appendix, 542.) But Baxter seemed to regard himself as Amyraldian.
This is a sophisticated way of formulating "four-point Calvinism," while still accounting for an eternal decree of election.
But Amyraldism probably should not be equated with all brands of so-called "four-point Calvinism." In my own experience, most self-styled four-pointers are unable to articulate any coherent explanation of how the atonement can be universal but election unconditional. So I wouldn't glorify their position by labeling it Amyraldism. (Would that they were as committed to the doctrine of divine sovereignty as Moise Amyraut! Most who call themselves four-pointers are actually crypto-Arminians.)
A. H.Strong held this view (Systematic Theology, 778). He called it (incorrectly) "sublapsarianism."
Henry Thiessen, evidently following Strong, also mislabeled this view "sublapsarianism" (and contrasted it with "infralapsarianism") in the original edition of his Lectures in Systematic Theology (343). His discussion in this edition is very confusing and patently wrong at points. In later editions of his book this section was completely rewritten.

gtw's post is a good example of how they dazzle people with all the big words and fance terrminology. After all, how can they be wrong if they have all this knowledge? This is part of the hook that keeps people in.

Quote/Mark Scheiderer
Used to go to a church pastored by a Calvinist, and left because EVERY sermon started sounding the same.

.......Every sermon sounds the same because they only have a Limited God to teach about,
so they either
argue constantly about nonsensense OR do what John Macarthur does,
Makes Sure You Are A Christian By Examining
Your Life And Making Sure You Submit To All Authority, BlaBlah Blah.
The New Sharia Christians.

There are thousands of volumns of books that contain the same kind of gibberish quoted above^
Notice!
They only read CALVINIST books and run around in circles chasing their theological tails.

They are like people who are put in a large cardboard box.

They can only argue the color of the cardboard, the way it might have been made,
how wonderful the boxmaker was
examine the corners, look for a nuance of dust in the seams, but most of all
MAKE SURE THEY ALL STAY IN THE BOX.

No one gets out of their Box, not even God. He's been Determined.

gtw?

Just to give a quick recap...I know that we've been discussing the theological irregularities of this group in the past few pages of this thread (I know, its partly my fault.) However, I would like to give a quick recap just in case someone stumbles onto this thread and they haven't been following the discussion.

I posted on here back in 05 in the "New Movements/Sects" forum on here looking for other former members of the Lordship cult and only got one response and there was nothing else. I heard no more about this group until 07 when "isitacult" made a post in the "Destructive Churches" subforum called "ex-members of John MacArthur's church."

I posted some about my experience in the group. I was converted out of a Christian High School when they sent a recruiter who falsely advertised their college. I went not knowing I would be expected to convert to Lordship Salvation and abandon my previous beliefs. I told about my experiences how they use high pressure and aggressive tactics to try to convert you and if you don't convert you are told you were self-deceived and going to hell. You are subject to a discipline program called the "Restoration Process." Further, they believe in a form of counseling called "Nouthetic Counseling" that contains some elements of Dianetics/Scientology where you are not allowed to see a psychiatrist for mental problems and must see a counselor that helps you look through your life for unconfessed sin you may have missed, which is seen as the root cause of any problems in your life.

I also posted some links to other websites, some pro, some anti, to prove what the cult teaches. One was from the New York Times about a suicide, one was from a local newspaper about a museum built to honor MacArthur, and 3 other links were to the cult's website with the introductory material that is presented to the public.

Several people have responded in this thread, some former members of either the cult itself or some of its satellite churches. Some supporters have responded using the typical tactics to defend the teachings of MacArthur.

We have also had a long discussion of how the Lordship teachings go against and are not compatible with Christianity.

If you have stumbled onto this thread I highly recommend you go back to the beginning and read through all of the pages to get a good idea of what all is involved with this, as it is a very complicated topic.

If you are a current member that is having doubts, remember these people have no authority over your life. The counselors have no medical training and are not qualified to treat any illnesses. If you are living on campus, leave and go home to your family. Demand a refund of any money you have paid. Seek psychotherapy to get over the damage caused your mind from the counseling sessions. Ignore any of their threats that you are unsaved if you leave or that they will take you to court. They do not want the truth getting out. Go back and read this thread, and do research on the internet. Read and learn both sides.

If you are in a church that is considering adopting Lordship Salvation, warn everyone you know and encourage them to learn both sides.

Again, go back and read the thread, what kind of person builds a museum to themselves?