The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Monergism

Well,

Example #1: The author has typically fabricated a straw man called, "Calvinism" and then burned it with his fiery rhetoric. It seems rather odd, doesn't it, that neither Luther nor Calvin wrote about such differences. And rarely can one find such condemnation in the writings on either side of authors who lived close to the time of Luther or Calvin.

Example #2: Again, the author erects a straw man from some of the tenets of hyper-Calvinism and labels it "Calvinism" and then proceeds to burn it to the ground. The author knows little of the writings of John Calvin which can be evidenced by his erroneous statement that John Calvin himself didn't hold to "Limited Atonement" (aka: particular redemption), but the doctrine is derived by his later followers from human reason. Paul Helms has obliterated this silly idea in his book, Calvin and the Calvinists, which shows how Kendrick and all those like him distort the writings of John Calvin in an attempt to make Calvin an Arminian.

Example #3: Likewise, I didn't take time to listen to the MP3.

Example #4: Kim Riddlebarger did a fine job of presenting the distinctives of the "Five Points" to which historic, traditional Calvinists all hold to. That's the good part. However, as one who adheres to the Dutch Reformed tradition, he fell into the typical contradiction when it comes to infant baptism. On the one hand he disparaged (and rightly so) Abraham Kuyper's view of "presumptive regeneration" but then on the other hand he stated that in his view, all infants of believers are to be "presumed/considered" to be Christians unless they openly deny the faith. Now, pray tell, how can someone be considered a Christian if they have not been previously regenerated? And knowing that such a thing is utterly impossible, then Riddlebarger is no less guilty of holding to "presumptive regeneration" than those with whom he says he disagrees and who are in error. This was worth the time listening to on the whole, IMHO.

What one needs to keep squarely in front of them is that the Lutherans have an official Confession just as Reformed Baptists, Presbyterians, historic Congregationalists and Continental Reformed denominations do. And today especially, there are myriad individuals who speak contrary to those confessions all the while claiming to be of their respective confessional denomination. The modern ELCA adherents, at least some of them as is obvious, deviate from the views of their forefathers in a similar manner. But does this mean that Lutheranism is as diametrically opposed to Calvinism as these individual authors?

Thanks for the links.