Doctrines of Calvinism denying the offer of salvation to the world

[JonC]

Since I have been on this forum (since 2001) there has consistently been the accusation Calvinism denies a universal aspect of the Cross. Specifically this comes up in opposition to the view that the work of the Cross was such that all who believed would be saved. In other words, the opposing position is an argument against what is said through assuming what is not said.

I realize that Calvinism (just like non-Calvinism) comes in many colors. But are there any doctrines of Calvinism that denies a universal aspect of Christ’s work? I ask because it seems that the Canons of Dort affirm that salvation was a sufficient and legitimate offer towards those who won’t believe.

 

[Iconoclast]

The offer is made to all...the results are in God's hands

4 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:

16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

 

[liafailrock]

There's a lot I could say on this subject, but don't feel like writing a whole book-length in answers. However, I think what is the core of this debate is the Calvinist's view that only those whom God calls is saved, thus predestination and seemingly allowing most to go to hell. Arminians stress God's election contingent on faith (free choice). Seemingly contradictory scriptures such as 'no man comes to me except the Father draw him' vs "God is not willing any should perish" do not help, either. But we have to understand the context. The basic answer is that God is willing everyone to be saved, but only the elect (the church) are chosen to rule and reign with him. The rest of the salvation comes later. If we believe this is all "here and how" and then die and either go to heaven or hell, then indeed this becomes a great contradiction. Salvation does not end there. Everyone has at least one chance to hear the Word of God. But their chance is when they are called, be it now or later. Be it now or the millennium or even afterwards. The church is the firstfruits. This is why it's important to understand the feasts of Leviticus 23 because they are a prophetic layout of God's redemptive plan in which each feast has some facet of salvation. The church does not see past Passover and Pentecost. Don't ask me why and nobody ever mentions Tabernacles. I remember as a kid viewing the hymn board saying this is the 437th Sunday after Pentecost . I'm being facetious of course, but the next "holiday" (and not even a biblical one) was Advent and back to Lent/Easter (Passover). But there's the feast of Trumpets/Atonement/Tabernacles (The Second Coming/reconciliation and millennium) and even the Last Great Day (foreshadowing the Great White Throne Judgement. In all these feasts people were being saved and it crescendos on the Last Day. I personally believe most will ultimately be saved, but only a few are chosen to be the church in this age.

For now, ours is to be called, and we are in training for the future Kingdom, not to die, go to heaven and sing praises in some hedonistic lifestyle of bliss. Not everyone is called now, nor saved (thus what Calvin saw but not beyond that). Later, the rest will be saved (what Arminians see, but mistakenly in this age, not the next). Thus, looking at it from a biblical view like this, I see no problems whatsoever and a thread like this is as useless as the blind men describing the elephant each insisting they are correct.

 

[JonC]

There's a lot I could say on this subject, but don't feel like writing a whole book-length in answers. However, I think what is the core of this debate is the Calvinist's view that only those whom God calls is saved, thus predestination and seemingly allowing most to go to hell. Arminians stress God's election contingent on faith (free choice). Seemingly contradictory scriptures such as 'no man comes to me except the Father draw him' vs "God is not willing any should perish" do not help, either. But we have to understand the context. The basic answer is that God is willing everyone to be saved, but only the elect (the church) are chosen to rule and reign with him. The rest of the salvation comes later. If we believe this is all "here and how" and then die and either go to heaven or hell, then indeed this becomes a great contradiction. Salvation does not end there. Everyone has at least one chance to hear the Word of God. But their chance is when they are called, be it now or later. Be it now or the millennium or even afterwards. The church is the firstfruits. This is why it's important to understand the feasts of Leviticus 23 because they are a prophetic layout of God's redemptive plan in which each feast has some facet of salvation. The church does not see past Passover and Pentecost. Don't ask me why and nobody ever mentions Tabernacles. I remember as a kid viewing the hymn board saying this is the 437th Sunday after Pentecost . I'm being facetious of course, but the next "holiday" (and not even a biblical one) was Advent and back to Lent/Easter (Passover). But there's the feast of Trumpets/Atonement/Tabernacles (The Second Coming/reconciliation and millennium) and even the Last Great Day (foreshadowing the Great White Throne Judgement. In all these feasts people were being saved and it crescendos on the Last Day. I personally believe most will ultimately be saved, but only a few are chosen to be the church in this age.

For now, ours is to be called, and we are in training for the future Kingdom, not to die, go to heaven and sing praises in some hedonistic lifestyle of bliss. Not everyone is called now, nor saved (thus what Calvin saw but not beyond that). Later, the rest will be saved (what Arminians see, but mistakenly in this age, not the next). Thus, looking at it from a biblical view like this, I see no problems whatsoever and a thread like this is as useless as the blind men describing the elephant each insisting they are correct.

I believe the core is a disagreement about the basis of God choosing. Is it a choice God makes dependent on man's will or on God's will? Is it independent of man's will or God's will? And how firm will we fix ourselves in our conclusions?

 

[Revmitchell]

I see the primary difference in how "election" is defined.

 

[liafailrock]

I believe the core is a disagreement about the basis of God choosing. Is it a choice God makes dependent on man's will or on God's will? Is it independent of man's will or God's will? And how firm will we fix ourselves in our conclusions?

It's both is what I was saying. Man cannot possibly (nor does he want to) respond to God without his calling. When God does call them man has the ability to choose.

 

[Reynolds]

When God does call them man has the ability to choose.

You are the only Calvinist I know that says that. The view I get consistently is that the call is so strong it will never be resisted.

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe the core is a disagreement about the basis of God choosing. Is it a choice God makes dependent on man's will or on God's will? Is it independent of man's will or God's will? And how firm will we fix ourselves in our conclusions?

God chooses those whom he will save based upon His will and purposes. period.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are the only Calvinist I know that says that. The view I get consistently is that the call is so strong it will never be resisted.

Those whom God intends to save will not resist their call unto salvation.

 

[Yeshua1]

I see the primary difference in how "election" is defined.

Indeed, for is it based upon the will of God on a individual basis, or more of a corporate election based upon the plan of God?

 

[Yeshua1]

Since I have been on this forum (since 2001) there has consistently been the accusation Calvinism denies a universal aspect of the Cross. Specifically this comes up in opposition to the view that the work of the Cross was such that all who believed would be saved. In other words, the opposing position is an argument against what is said through assuming what is not said.

I realize that Calvinism (just like non-Calvinism) comes in many colors. But are there any doctrines of Calvinism that denies a universal aspect of Christ’s work? I ask because it seems that the Canons of Dort affirm that salvation was a sufficient and legitimate offer towards those who won’t believe.

The question is really just whom did God intend to actual save, His elect, or all?

 

[TCassidy]

The view I get consistently is that the call is so strong it will never be resisted.

Who has ever said that, and how does it pertain to Effectual Grace?

 

[Reynolds]

Who has ever said that, and how does it pertain to Effectual Grace?

A lot of people. The way I understand MacArthur, that is what he believes.

Reformed, in another thread on here said:
"No one can resist what is termed "the effectual call" of God."

He also said

"Man does have a choice, but it is a choice with a will that has been newly freed from the bondage of sin. Martin Luther touched on this in his book Bondage of the Will. This analogy will not do the discussion justice, but imagine you were marooned on a deserted island with hardly enough food to keep you alive. You are eventually rescued, but you are emaciated physically. Your cheeks are sunken in, and you ribs easily show through your body. To celebrate your rescue you are served a bountiful meal. Every delicacy you can imagine is put before you. Could you resist partaking of that feast? I seriously doubt it. Multiply that by tens of thousands and we may have a slight understanding of what it would be like for a person to be illumined to the truth (by the Holy Spirit), who understands their pitiful condition, and still rejects the Gospel. To quote the Princess Bride, "Inconceivable!" Once the will of the individual has been set free, there is no greater desire of the will than to accept the free gift of eternal life.

So, does man choose after being illuminated? Yes. Does he choose freely? Yes. Can he choose to reject Christ? No. He cannot reject because the true need of his liberated will has been filled"

 

[TCassidy]

A lot of people.

Who?

The way I understand MacArthur, that is what he believes.

I think you may have failed to properly understand John MacArthur.

Reformed, in another thread on here said:
"No one can resist what is termed "the effectual call" of God.

Not the same thing at all. The very fact that the call is "effectual" proves that it will accomplish what God intended it to accomplish.

 

[liafailrock]

You are the only Calvinist I know that says that. The view I get consistently is that the call is so strong it will never be resisted.

Well, not really a Calvinist but I can see their point. What scripture did you have in mind for your point?

 

[Reynolds]

I think you may have failed to properly understand John MacArthur.

.

Not the way I read it.

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-296/the-doctrine-of-gods-effectual-call

 

[Reynolds]

Well, not really a Calvinist but I can see their point. What scripture did you have in mind for your point?

II Pet 3:9 compared to the fact all are not saved.

 

[MennoSota]

Well, not really a Calvinist but I can see their point. What scripture did you have in mind for your point?

Indeed, not really a Calvinist. Perhaps I misread, but you came across, to me, as a universalist. One who believes that God's call to mankind is extended to eternity and that eventually all will be reconciled to God.
Am I wrong in my reading of your first statement in this thread?

 

[liafailrock]

Indeed, not really a Calvinist. Perhaps I misread, but you came across, to me, as a universalist. One who believes that God's call to mankind is extended to eternity and that eventually all will be reconciled to God.
Am I wrong in my reading of your first statement in this thread?

No, not all, but many. Not in this age, though. There will always be those few who rebel to the end whose end as the bible says, will be burned up (the second death). All will be resurrected. Only those in this age who believe will be resurrected to become like Christ, which is one step up (to put it mildly lol) from a physical resurrection like the rest, and hence this is why they don't need to fear the second death. It is appointed for all to die, and then the judgment. In short, we all die at least once, but then after the judgment period whether we go on to life eternal or the second death where a physical body can burn up.
(see my post #3 referencing the feasts)

 

[Reformed]

Indeed, not really a Calvinist. Perhaps I misread, but you came across, to me, as a universalist. One who believes that God's call to mankind is extended to eternity and that eventually all will be reconciled to God.
Am I wrong in my reading of your first statement in this thread?

liafailrock is absolutely NOT a Calvinist. He's either a Universalist or an Open Theist. Not everyone will have a chance to hear the Gospel. God never promises that. The devil is in the details with this guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro