The Calvinistic system introduces the most disingenuous invitation known to man

[Winman]

You were doing pretty good until you got to parts 4 and 5.

Fourthly, the warden looks through time and sees which one of the inmates will understand English, and accept His offer of pardon by their own free will. These He elects to recieve the pardon.

Fifthly, the warden ordains that the method He used to bring about the salvation of those He has foreknown to accept His offer is to make an open proclaimation to everyone, inviting them all to come, but knowing that only those will come who understand English and come according to their own free will.

Finally, the warden would carry out the punishment already decreed for those who rejected (i.e. death), even though His Son has already been put to death to pay their penalty and even though He knew they couldn't understand and wouldn't respond to His offer of mercy.

I don't know what other non-Cals believe, but I believe every man has the ability to understand and believe the gospel. So, in your analogy every man would speak English.

And just because God knows who will believe does not determine who will believe. This is something Cals/DoGs just can't seem to grasp. The offer is real, it is legitimate. If they believe they will be pardoned and saved. He is calling all of them. But if they refuse of their own free will, then the warden is just in punishing them.

And this is exactly what is shown in the parable of the wedding.

Matt 22:1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. 8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.

God clearly called and bid men to the wedding in verses 3 and 4 but they refused. They understood the invitation.

Therefore, because they would not accept God's mercy, he showed them wrath and justly so.

 

[Robert Snow]

:laugh::laugh: Spoken like a true troll!!

It seems that your cool demeanor is disrupted when someone presents Scripture you cannot answer. Why not admit this without the insults.

 

[Skandelon]

I'll use your analogy to try to explain my point.

Firstly, to be a truly calvinist analogy, the warden knows that 100% of the inmates are gulity and deserve death and 100% do not understand english.

Secondly, the warden would have to chose some to be saved/pardoned, according to His will alone.

Thirdly, the warden would have to send His Son to the electric chair to pay the penalty for the sins of those He has chosen.

Fourthly, the warden would send His Holy Spirit to call/draw those He has chosen to accept the truth that His Son has died for them. His Holy Spirit is so convincing that every single person so called would come forward to accept the pardon.

Fifthly, the warden would ordain that the method He used to bring about the salvation of those He chose would be to make an open proclaimation to everyone, inviting them all to come, but knowing that only those whom His Holy Spirit convinced to come would do so.

Finally, the warden would carry out the punishment already decreed for those who rejected, but show mercy to those who accepted His call to repentance.

peace to youraying:

The fifth point here is the one I was attempting to draw our attention to with my analogy. Obviously, my application of the analogy was different from yours because I correlated the effectual call with the english language, but apparently you either didn't like that correlation or didn't understand it, but that doesn't matter. I'll go with your analogy.

You said the warden would "make an open proclamation to everyone, inviting them all to come, but knowing that only those whom His Holy Spirit convinced to come would do so."

How does a creator genuinely invite someone to come without granting them the ability to do so?

Suppose you purposefully create a robot that cannot come when you call it. If you stand before it and say, "Come here robot, if you don't I'll smash you." How would ANY objective observer view that invitation as genuine? Further how would they view your condemnation as just?

 

[Skandelon]

You were doing pretty good until you got to parts 4 and 5.



I don't know what other non-Cals believe, but I believe every man has the ability to understand and believe the gospel. So, in your analogy every man would speak English.

And just because God knows who will believe does not determine who will believe. This is something Cals/DoGs just can't seem to grasp. The offer is real, it is legitimate. If they believe they will be pardoned and saved. He is calling all of them. But if they refuse of their own free will, then the warden is just in punishing them.

And this is exactly what is shown in the parable of the wedding.

Matt 22:1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. 8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.

God clearly called and bid men to the wedding in verses 3 and 4 but they refused. They understood the invitation.

Therefore, because they would not accept God's mercy, he showed them wrath and justly so.

Thank you for saving me the time in answering this one. :applause:

 

[canadyjd]

You were doing pretty good until you got to parts 4 and 5.

I don't know what other non-Cals believe, but I believe every man has the ability to understand and believe the gospel. So, in your analogy every man would speak English.

Fair enough. They all could speak english.

And just because God knows who will believe does not determine who will believe. This is something Cals/DoGs just can't seem to grasp. The offer is real, it is legitimate. If they believe they will be pardoned and saved. He is calling all of them. But if they refuse of their own free will, then the warden is just in punishing them.

The problem is that the warden is offering them something he already knows they will reject. That is a disingenuous offer. How can that be a legitimate offer if He already knows they will reject it? Why go through the motions of making an offer to people he knows will reject it? Why not just get the ones who will accept it into a room by themselves and make the offer?

He is then punishing them for something that His own Son has already been punished for. If his son has already died for the crimes, it is wrong to punish them for the same crimes.

And this is exactly what is shown in the parable of the wedding.

Matt 22:1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. 8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.

God clearly called and bid men to the wedding in verses 3 and 4 but they refused. They understood the invitation.

Those who refused to come are the Jews. Talk to Skandelon about judicial hardening. Did they really understand the invitation? Were they really able to come? No, because God had hardened them.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

The fifth point here is the one I was attempting to draw our attention to with my analogy....You said the warden would "make an open proclamation to everyone, inviting them all to come, but knowing that only those whom His Holy Spirit convinced to come would do so."

How does a creator genuinely invite someone to come without granting them the ability to do so?

How does the warden genuinely invite someone to come, knowing with 100% certainty that they will not?

In addition, how can the warden punish these men for crimes His Son has already paid for? How could any OBJECTIVE observer look at that and say He was just?

Suppose you purposefully create a robot that cannot come when you call it. If you stand before it and say, "Come here robot, if you don't I'll smash you." How would ANY objective observer view that invitation as genuine?

The creator makes a couple of robots. They could listen but chose not to. They start building robots, and those robots build robots. None of the new robots have the ability to come.

The creator fixes some of the new robots, so that they will come.

The other robots recieve punishment for not coming, which is what they deserve. The robots that do come are very thankful to the creator for fixing them, so that they could come when He called.

Further how would they view your condemnation as just?

Since God is the only one that is righteous and good, only He has the ability to determine if something is just. God is not held to the standards that men decide are "just".

peace to youraying:

 

[jcjordan]

The whole analogy in the OP falls because of a low view of sin and an attempt to compare the most holy God to a prison warden. Plus, it never mentions whom the prisoners actually sinned against.

 

[Johnv]

It seems that your cool demeanor is disrupted when someone presents Scripture you cannot answer. Why not admit this without the insults.

Scripture supporting Calvinism has been presented numerous times on this bb. It obviously falls upon deaf ears. Would you like a list of references again?

 

[Allan]

Explain the difference between the Calvinist's perspective of the gospel call and the Arminian perspective of the gospel call?

Do you believe the Calvinist call to believe the gospel is not legitimate because only the "elect" and "predestined" have the ability to believe?

How is that different from the Arminian belief that God has already seen who will believe and "elected" and "predestined" on the basis of that foreknowledge?

In both systems the outcome has already been decided by God. God already knows who will reject and accept the gospel (in both systems).

Why go preach to everybody?

Why not go directly to those who are "elected" (based on whichever view you hold) instead of giving a general call to everyone?

peace to youraying:

JD, I know there are two distinct camps on this issue of the call/offer in Reformed belief.

One view is that the call is an open and honest invitation to all men to partake in the gift of eternal life. On this there are many works of the reformed bethren who proclaim the scriptures undeniably declare this to be true.

And the other view is based on a denial that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect. This is the denial that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect.

Which group do you agree with as this would help in the discussion with you on the subject??

My main contension is that if the gospel call is a genuine offer (like Calvin; A.T. Robertson, Luther, ect... held to) toward all men without exception to faith in Christ (salvation) how then how can The atonement be limited?

If the atonement is limited how can one maintain the "L" and the offer of the gospel to all and yet NOT be lie in offering said life to "all men without exception to the faith of Christ" (ie, salvation) unless there been an atonement made on their (the non-elects) behalf as well????

IOW - how can the offer of salvation be made toward those for whom no provision of salvation has been made?

 

[grahame]

George Whitefield was a Calvinist and 1000's were brought to Christ through his preaching. So was Johnathan Edwards, so was C. H. Spurgeon. All had very fruitful ministries. So obviously Calvinism is not a hinderance to the gospel.

 

[Allan]

George Whitefield was a Calvinist and 1000's were brought to Christ through his preaching. So was Johnathan Edwards, so was C. H. Spurgeon. All had very fruitful ministries. So obviously Calvinism is not a hinderance to the gospel.

I agree, Hyper-Calvinism is a hinderance but historical Calvinism stress the importance of the gospel proclamation.

 

[canadyjd]

My main contension is that if the gospel call is a genuine offer (like Calvin; A.T. Robertson, Luther, ect... held to) toward all men without exception to faith in Christ (salvation) how then how can The atonement be limited?

The gospel call has not gone to all men without exception.

The fact is the gospel took many decades to spread throughout the Roman Empire. It took many centuries to spread throughout the world to the extent that it has. Undoubtably, there are many millions of people today that have lived and will die without ever hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Do you agree with that statement? If so, then the gospel call has not gone to all men without exception.

Did Jesus lie when He said that He would draw all men unto Himself? Is there salvation without the gospel? How could He draw all men unto Himself, without exception, if all men have not heard the gospel.... unless there is some other means of salvation outside of the gospel?

The gospel call goes to all men without distinction. That is, we don't withhold the gospel based on race, religion, or any other factor such as attempting to know who the "elect" are.

We give a genuine offer of salvation to all men without distinction. The gospel serves a two-fold function. To one group (the elect) it is a fragrant aroma unto life. It brings salvation. The the other group, the non-elect, it is a fragrant aroma that brings condemnation.

peace to youraying:

 

[Allan]

The gospel call has not gone to all men without exception.

The fact is the gospel took many decades to spread throughout the Roman Empire. It took many centuries to spread throughout the world to the extent that it has. Undoubtably, there are many millions of people today that have lived and will die without ever hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Do you agree with that statement? If so, then the gospel call has not gone to all men without exception.

Did Jesus lie when He said that He would draw all men unto Himself? Is there salvation without the gospel? How could He draw all men unto Himself, without exception, if all men have not heard the gospel.... unless there is some other means of salvation outside of the gospel?

The gospel call goes to all men without distinction. That is, we don't withhold the gospel based on race, religion, or any other factor such as attempting to know who the "elect" are.

We give a genuine offer of salvation to all men without distinction. The gospel serves a two-fold function. To one group (the elect) it is a fragrant aroma unto life. It brings salvation. The the other group, the non-elect, it is a fragrant aroma that brings condemnation.

peace to youraying:

No, I meant what what is noted in many reformed works regarding the call/offer and I noted some ofthe many reformers who make this declaration regarding the call/offer of salvation. For example here is John Calvin from His commentary on John 3:16:

Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

A.T. Robertson on John 10:16 - emphasis mine:

Joh 10:16
Other sheep (alla probata). Sheep, not goats, but “not of this fold” (ek tēs aulēs tautēs). See Joh_10:1 for aulē. Clearly “his flock is not confined to those enclosed in the Jewish fold, whether in Palestine or elsewhere” (Westcott). Christ’s horizon takes in all men of all races and times (Joh_11:52; Joh_12:32). The world mission of Christ for all nations is no new idea with him (Mat_8:11; Luk_13:28). God loved the world and gave his Son for the race (Joh_3:16).

Them also I must bring (kakeina dei me agagein). Second aorist active infinitive of agō with dei expressing the moral urgency of Christ’s passion for God’s people in all lands and ages. Missions in Christ’s mind takes in the whole world. This is according to prophecy (Isa_42:6; Isa_49:6; Isa_56:8) for the Messiah is to be a Light also to the Gentiles. It was typified by the brazen serpent (Joh_3:14). Christ died for every man. The Pharisees doubtless listened in amazement and even the disciples with slow comprehension.

And I can keeping going if you like. Thus the view is more accurately put without exception - meaning none excluded regarless of time or race.

However with that said, you still didn't answer my question, at least I didn't notice it being answered.
Do you agree with group 1 or group 2, and if group 2 then how can the 'offer' of salvation be to all men with without exception (or if you prefer - distinction) if no atonement/propitiation has been made for all men.

You can not have A (limited atonement) + non-A (salvation offerd to all men) = True statement
Why?

If there is no possible way for the non-elect to be saved because there has been no provision made on their behalf/ or for them, then any offer made to all men to be believe and be saved - is lie.

 

[Winman]

The gospel call has not gone to all men without exception.

The fact is the gospel took many decades to spread throughout the Roman Empire. It took many centuries to spread throughout the world to the extent that it has. Undoubtably, there are many millions of people today that have lived and will die without ever hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Do you agree with that statement? If so, then the gospel call has not gone to all men without exception.

Did Jesus lie when He said that He would draw all men unto Himself? Is there salvation without the gospel? How could He draw all men unto Himself, without exception, if all men have not heard the gospel.... unless there is some other means of salvation outside of the gospel?

The gospel call goes to all men without distinction. That is, we don't withhold the gospel based on race, religion, or any other factor such as attempting to know who the "elect" are.

We give a genuine offer of salvation to all men without distinction. The gospel serves a two-fold function. To one group (the elect) it is a fragrant aroma unto life. It brings salvation. The the other group, the non-elect, it is a fragrant aroma that brings condemnation.

peace to youraying:

While the actual gospel of Christ dying on the cross and rising from the dead did take years to spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond, the word of God was in the world and had been for thousands of years. All peoples were descendents of Noah and had some light. Did you know that there have been over 200 ancient cultures that had flood myths? It's true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth

These myths were known in the Americas and even on remote islands in the Pacific. So man has always had some light.

And notice that Paul in his journeys always entered into synagogues.

Acts 18:7 And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue.

This was in Corinth, yet there was a synagogue and believers in the true God there. And you will see that over and over that wherever Paul went he found a synagogue and started preaching from there.

And I personally believe God only holds a person accountable for what they know. For instance, it is clear that Cornelius was a very devout man who worshipped God. He was in the transition from OT to NT believer. I believe if he had died before hearing of Christ he would have been saved. But once Christ was revealed he became responsible to hear the gospel and believe it, and thus God sent Peter to preach to him.

Luke 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Here Jesus says the servant who knows God's will and does not obey will be beaten with many stripes, but the servant who did not know God's will but yet sinned will be beaten with few stripes. So a man is held accountable for what he knows.

And Paul said that some Gentiles by nature obeyed the law.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

This absolutely contradicts Total Depravity, Paul said the Gentiles by nature do the things contained in the law. In fact, he was rebuking the Jews who had the scriptures and laws of God and saying that the Gentiles were often more obedient than the Jews, and that the Jews by their sin caused the name of God to be blasphemed among the Gentiles. Even today people often believe the Jews to be a very greedy people who oppress the poor, and even control and manipulate governments with money. I am not saying that, but it is a common belief in the world.

Rom 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

But once Jesus was revealed, men were required to believe on him.

John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

Many Jews as Paul preached were proud and believed themselves the elect of God. They thought they were a guide to the blind and a light to those in darkness (Romans 2), yet were not true believers. And now Jesus says that once he came they had no excuse or cloke for their sin as the true Christ and truth had been fully revealed to them.

Others in the world were held responsible for what light they had.

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Here Paul says that what may be known of God is clearly seen and understood by all men, so that all men are without excuse.

 

[Skandelon]

Fair enough. They all could speak english.The problem is that the warden is offering them something he already knows they will reject.

Foreknowing is MUCH different from predetermining. If I foresaw the murderous work of Charles Manson, that is one thing. But if I predetermined Charles Manson to commit those murders so that he couldn't do otherwise, that would make me culpable.

That is a disingenuous offer. How can that be a legitimate offer if He already knows they will reject it? Why go through the motions of making an offer to people he knows will reject it? Why not just get the ones who will accept it into a room by themselves and make the offer?

By that logic, why not just skip the whole earth thing and go straight to heaven? Foreknowing is not equal to predetermining. I'm not sure why that is so difficult to understand.

Jesus said, "the words I speak to you will judge you." (John 12). People are held accountable to the level of their revelation. They must see, hear and understand that revelation in order to stand "without excuse." (Read Romans 1)

He is then punishing them for something that His own Son has already been punished for. If his son has already died for the crimes, it is wrong to punish them for the same crimes.

That would only be true if you believed men are being punished for breaking God's law. Christ fulfilled the demands of the law and took on the wrath of God against ALL SIN. The reason they perish is for their unbelief. Their continued rejection of the Holy Spirit's call to come.

Those who refused to come are the Jews. Talk to Skandelon about judicial hardening. Did they really understand the invitation? Were they really able to come? No, because God had hardened them.

peace to youraying:

Actually, God did take the message to the Jews first (as this parable illustrates) and they freely rejected it and were a rebellious people despite God's holding out his hands to them (read Romans 10:21). So, the invitation was sent to the Gentiles while they were blinded in that rebellion.

 

[annsni]

Foreknowing is MUCH different from predetermining. If I foresaw the murderous work of Charles Manson, that is one thing. But if I predetermined Charles Manson to commit those murders so that he couldn't do otherwise, that would make me culpable.

So you think Calvinists think that God made man sinful? That is wrong theology and not at all what Cals think at all.

 

[Skandelon]

So you think Calvinists think that God made man sinful? That is wrong theology and not at all what Cals think at all.

Actually, some of the more "deterministic" ones do.

However, that wasn't the point of my post. I was showing the distinction of predetermining a choice and foreknowing a choice. I wasn't attempting to accuse Calvinists of teaching that God predetermines sin. But, since you bring it up, the Westminister Confession (a well known Calvinistic work) does seem to indicate as much when they say things like: "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass."

Now, I assume "sins" would be included in "whatsoever comes to pass," and if one defines the word "ordain" as some do, which is, "to enact or establish," then you would have God "enacting or establishing" all sin. But, I'll let you Calvinists hash that one out.

 

[Robert Snow]

Scripture supporting Calvinism has been presented numerous times on this bb. It obviously falls upon deaf ears. Would you like a list of references again?

I understand that many good Christians believe in Calvinist doctrine. I'm just not one of them.

 

[Skandelon]

Another passage that seems disingenuous to me if Calvinism is true is Genensis 6:

5 God saw that human evil was out of control. People thought evil, imagined evil - evil, evil, evil from morning to night. 6 God was sorry that he had made the human race in the first place; it broke his heart. 7 God said, "I'll get rid of my ruined creation, make a clean sweep: people, animals, snakes and bugs, birds - the works. I'm sorry I made them." 8 But Noah was different. God liked what he saw in Noah. 9 This is the story of Noah: Noah was a good man, a man of integrity in his community. Noah walked with God.

If God is indeed the one who was effectually making Noah "good" while leaving the rest to act naturally, then why does God appear to be upset and disappointed?

I mean, think about it, if a parent punished their childen by sending them to their room and locking them in why would that parent act as if they are upset at their children for staying in that room? Further, why would they praise one of the kids for coming out if indeed the child only came out because the parent opened the door and went inside and brought him out? It makes NO SENSE!

 

[Johnv]

I understand that many good Christians believe in Calvinist doctrine. I'm just not one of them.

Acknowleged and appreciated. As noted by me earlier, there's cursory scriptural support for Calvinism. There's also cursory scriptural support for Arminianism. Discissing, arguing, and debating the sides of the issue is fine, and often beneficial. However, for either a Calvinist or Arminian to accuse the other side of scriptural disingenuousness is out of bounds.