Featured Emotional or Exegetical?

Coming to a better understanding of myself and the holiness of God is one thing that brought me to understanding and accepting the Doctrines of Grace.

 

Calvinists often say things like this. It is never believable. Kind of like the character Uriah Heep in the novel David Copperfield who always said how humble he was.

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

 

Now, have I not answered these two questions honestly? I have endeavoured to give a scriptural reason for the dealings of God with man. He saves man by grace, and if men perish they perish justly by their own fault. "How," says some one, "do you reconcile these two doctrines?" My dear brethren, I never reconcile two friends, never. These two doctrines are friends with one another; for they are both in God's Word, and I shall not attempt to reconcile them. If you show me that they are enemies, then I will reconcile them. "But," says one, "there is a great deal of difficulty about them." Will you tell me what truth there is that has not difficulty about it? "But," he says, "I do not see it." Well, I do not ask you to see it; I ask you to believe it. There are many things in God's Word that are difficult, and that I cannot see, but they are there, and I believe them. I cannot see how God can be omnipotent and man be free; but it is so, and I believe it. "Well," says one, "I cannot understand it. My answer is, I am bound to make it as plain as I can, but if you have not any understanding, I cannot give you any; there I must leave it. But then, again, it is not a matter of understanding; it is a matter of faith. These two things are true; I do not see that they at all differ. However, if they did, I should say, if they appear to contradict one another, they do not really do so, because God never contradicts himself. And I should think in this I exhibited the power of my faith in God, that I could believe him, even when his word seemed to be contradictory. That is faith. Did not Abraham believe in God even when God's promise seemed to contradict his providence? Abraham was old, and Sarah was old, but God said Sarah should have a child. How can that be? said Abraham, for Sarah is old; and yet Abraham believed the promise, and Sarah had a son. There was a reconciliation between providence and promise; and if God can bring providence and promise together, he can bring doctrine and promise together. If I cannot do it, God can even in the world to come.
Now, let me just practically preach this for one minute. Oh, sinners, if ye perish, on your own head must be your doom. Conscience tells you this, and the Word of God confirms it. You shall not be able to lay your condemnation at any man's door but your own. If you perish you perish by suicide. You are your own destroyers, because you reject Christ, because you despise the birthright and sell it for that miserable mess of pottage—the pleasures of the world. It is a doctrine that thrills through me. Like a two-edged sword, I would make it pierce to the dividing asunder of the joints and marrow. If you are damned it shall be your own fault. If you are found in hell, your blood shall be on your own head. You shall bring the faggots to your own burning; you shall dig the iron for your own chains; and on your own head will be your doom. But if you are saved, it cannot be by your merits, it must be by grace—free, sovereign grace. The gospel is preached to you; it is this: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

C.H Spurgeon

He is also at war against Hyper-Calvinist, many who try to reconcile out of the scripture God's desire for the wicked to repent and live and not one of us is not wicked. I rather preach that God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and that is His will for all, but just like His will for Adam to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam didn't just as we don't repent we will not live, because man be free with a free agency I believe in the doctrine of grace and man's free agency and do not try to reconcile them.

Then be right and not preach it.

 

The premise of the OP works both ways:

http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=...sms-Bold-Accusation.The-Making-of-a-Calvinist

 

That is a good article. And you can see this author's analogy of an older brother influencing his younger brother to steal here at BB. Calvinists use intimidation on young or unlearned believers, if they do not accept Calvinism, then they are denying God's sovereignty. And just like the little brother who is intimidated into doing what he knows is wrong, Calvinists influence young or unlearned believers to believe what their conscience and sense of justice tells them is not right.

 

Yup, goin' downhill, and fast......

 

Yes...Only I try, and the author of the article (though it is rather hard-hitting) tried to be irenic about it....He attempted to say that "Calvinism" sort of does that..not "Calvinists". He tried to re-word it a little on his blog which is linked to at the bottom of that page. From the article:

We do see that here on BB over and over...I remember when as a younger believer I studied the claims of Calvinism that I worried myself that I was using my own "depraved sense of Justice" and "Replying to God"...and all that mess. It was a powerful urge to accept the claims of Calvinism. It is a sort of built-in guilt trip to that Theology which makes it rather comforting to accept actually. I would have been quite comfortable to be a Calvinist. I would have breathed a sigh of relief, to have finally been able to claim to myself that I "let go" and "let God be God" and blah blah blah. Calvinism, if accepted, gives one the feeling of possessing a monopoly on Truth and piety or it easily could. It is just a natural facet of the Theology itself, and also, I think, the way its apologists have for ages framed the nature of the debate. Ultimately...I think there are probably "Emotional" AND "Exegetical" influences for MOST Theologies...Arminianism, Calvinism et.al. and I think they work both FOR and AGAINST accepting or rejecting a Theology. The OP does point out, to me, that we all must be careful that we divorce ourselves from sheer emotion when it comes to discerning truth.

 

Exactly. These "scholars" terrify a new or unlearned believer so that they are afraid to trust their own thoughts, but they assure you that their interpretations are correct, even when you see MUCH scripture that easily refutes their doctrine. The Catholic church did this for centuries, forbidding the layman from even reading the scriptures, and labeling anyone who disagreed with their interpretations a heretic. It is an old game.

But you are correct, and so is Luke to a degree, you cannot let your theology be ruled by emotions, this is where Universalism came in. Hell is real, and many people are going to hell, the scriptures clearly tell us this. Charles Taze Russell admitted he was terrified of hell as a youth, and so he simply argued it away, this is where Jehovah's Witnesses came from. It is interesting to know that Russell was raised a Presbyterian in his youth.

 

That is 'below the belt' and uncalled for.

William Carey, Adoniram Judson, David Brainerd, John G. Paton, and Henry Martyn were all Calvinist missionaries.

Carey: Carey had a consuming concern for the souls of men. Once while still in England, he was criticized for preaching to the neglect of his shoe business. He replied "My real business is to preach the Gospel and win lost souls. I cobble shoes to pay expenses." While teaching, he would weep as he studied a map of his own making and say to his students "The people living in these areas are pagans. They're lost-hundreds of millions of them not knowing the Blessed Savior."

Judson: God indeed causes all things to work together for good to those who love Him as the following story from Adoniram's life so beautifully illustrates. As a result of Adoniram's 21 months in the squalid Burmese prison, for the rest of his life he carried the ugly marks made by the chains and iron shackles which had cruelly bound him. Undaunted, he asked for permission to enter another province where he might resume preaching the Gospel. The godless ruler indignantly denied his request, saying, "My people are not fools enough to listen to anything a missionary might SAY, but I fear they might be impressed by your SCARS and turn to your religion!"

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]
Judson so fervently pursued his passion of evangelizing the Burmese that by 1839 recorded 47 baptisms. During 1832 there were 217 who came to Christ and 1144 baptisms in 1836.
[/FONT]
Brainerd said: [FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]"I care not where I go, or how I live, or what I endure so that I may save souls. When I sleep I dream of them; when I awake they are first in my thoughts…no amount of scholastic attainment, of able and profound exposition of brilliant and stirring eloquence can atone for the absence of a deep impassioned sympathetic love for human souls."

John G. Paton's son wrote: "How much my father's prayers impressed me," he writes, "I can never explain, nor could any stranger understand. When, on his knees, and all of us kneeling around him in family worship, he poured out his whole soul with tears for the conversion of the heathen world to the service of Jesus, and for every personal and domestic need, we all of us felt as if in the presence of the living Saviour, and learned to know and love Him as our divine Friend.

It was written of Henry Martyn: On one occasion during this time he was surrounded by a group of very fanatical Muslim clerics who were trying to convert him to Islam. In their vehement discussion with him, they blasphemed the name of Jesus Christ. Henry Martyn began to weep. This was a source of wonder to these Muslim fanatics. They asked him why he was weeping, for they had not personally injured him. He replied, "You have just blasphemed the name of my wonderful friend and Savior, Jesus Christ." This had a profound effect upon these Fundamentalist Muslims.[/FONT]

 

So? Many current JW's are former Baptists. The broad brush paints in both directions.

 

Another false accusation.

 

Can you be more specific as to why?

 

Well, I do not get the impression that many Calvinists here at BB are full of compassion and weep over the lost. It might be the many insulting and snide responses of Calvinists here that give me this impression. What do you think?

I have no doubt that there have been many compassionate and loving Calvinists who sincerely weep and mourn over the lost.

But you did not say you weep over the lost, but those who disagree with the Doctrines of Grace as though they are the same thing. You imply that if a person disagrees with you they are lost. This is the very sort of intimidation that the article HoS posted addresses. Perhaps you weren't aware that you were using this tactic. Calvinists use this form of argument so often that it becomes almost second nature. You are simply using the same form of argument that was used on you.

 

In no way am I denying that Mexdeaf or anyone else weeps. If I were calvinist, one reason I might weep would be because my emotions betrayed actuality, and that I will ever be tortured by the cognitive dissonance between my sense of mercy and good and my theology, or at least until I die.

I'm not saying that this is the reason that cals would weep, which is why I asked the question, I'd like to understand their state of sorrow.

 

You need to read my post more carefully and with less of a chip on your shoulder. God bless.

 

Fair enough question. (Although you make it sound as I am off my rocker or something.) I hope I can make it somewhat clear- words are such weak things sometimes.

I weep for sorrow, because I remember the depths of my lostness and the great peril of my sin. I see how I was utterly without hope and dead to God and his promises.

Then I weep for joy because when I could not see Him, He helped me see. When I could not believe, He helped me to believe. When I could do nothing to save myself, He did it all for me. And I of all people, me- the scum of the earth, the chief of sinners, the most unworthy- who blasphemed His name, me He loved and chose from the foundation of the world to be His own.

And I weep because I wish others could see and feel God's grace as deeply as I feel it. I wish they could see it is not a prayer that saves them, or responding to an altar call, or anything they they could DO that saves them but only the mercy and grace of God.

For what it's worth, that is the best way I can honestly express it.

God bless.

 

I read your post carefully, here is what you said;

You said that the more you learned about the holiness of God, that the more the "Doctrines of Grace" (Calvinism) made sense to you, and that you weep over those who cannot see this. Granted, you also said "whether they be brethren OR NOT" which is carefully worded so that you cannot be accused of saying non-Cals are not saved, but it also does not confirm that you believe they are. Clever.

This is the very technique or tactic discussed in the article HoS posted. Calvinists very subtly imply that those who do not agree with their doctrine are lost. I can think of one Calvinist in particular here at BB who uses this technique in almost every post he writes. He is always "praying" for us non-Cals that we come to a knowledge of truth... Others say it is "sad" that we have been deceived, etc...

Right.

I do not equate condescension with compassion.

I am glad that you weep and mourn for the lost, we all need to do that.

 

I was actually thrilled that Luke opened up this particular can...because I think it is worthy of discussion....I will, point by point, respond to where I think he is absolutely correct (and he is on many levels IMO) and then suggest some counter-arguments:

 

I believe you sum up most eloquently the feelings of those who are willing to give God all glory and praise for saving us: "the scum of the earth, the chief of sinners, the most unworthy- who blasphemed His name, me [us] He loved and chose from the foundation of the world to be His own."

God Bless you Mexdeaf!