Featured About a Pastor who was twice a 5 point Calvinist.

I don’t think that he really understands Calvinism.
His conclusions are not a necessary consequence of the initial premises and some of his statements indicate a flawed understanding of “total depravity” as Calvinism defines it.

To tell someone that they can believe in vain is antithetical to the Calvinist worldview. Without the draw and gift of God, no fallen man would WANT to be saved. Romans 1:18-32 does not describe a God that pushes away people that want to belong to him (which is what this fellow accuses Calvinists of believing), rather it describes people that innately want nothing to do with the true God, and God obliging.

That he waffled back and forth and ultimately makes false claims about what beliefs he claims we have, is a cause to question his “discernment”.

(General Baptists have a lot of good Biblical Theology to commend them, one can reject Particular Baptist Theology without misrepresenting it.)

My 2 cents.

 

Doesn’t that make him a 10-point Calvinist?

Rob

 

@37818 . What @atpollard says above is correct. Whenever you hear someone go the the argument that Calvinism involves the possibility that some may want to believe and come to Christ but are not allowed because of a limited atonement you know they are making a low level straw man argument that shows too much ignorance to really be in the debate or an attempt at deliberate deception.

 

This is what he leads with regarding Total Depravity:

In the system of Calvinism, the fallen man is spiritually destitute and absent the first iota of ability or desire to make a move toward God. It is therefore necessary for God to make a move toward fallen man. On this point the scriptures and the Calvinist agree. But Calvinism does not stop there. What the Calvinist means by Total Depravity is Total Inability. That is, the spiritual death inherent in depravity is such that fallen man, apart from a sovereign act of regeneration prior to the act of faith, is totally incapable of hearing the voice of God and or believing the gospel message. Depravity affirms that an unregenerate man may not be as BAD as he can be, but is certainly as BAD OFF as he can be in the grip of spiritual death.

An Overview of Calvinism​

 

Sure. In Calvinism the system must be taken as a unit. Those who Christ did not die for because they are totally depraved and have not been elected for salvation are not called and do not want to come to Christ. What the author has done is created a scenario that he can easily defeat in the argument and then beats it up. That's what I mean by a "straw man" argument. The idea that a possibility exists that a person may want to come to Christ, repent of the sins but cannot because Christ did not die for them is a false, straw man argument. There are problems I think, with Calvinism, in cases where some Calvinists go with the minute sovereignty of God in every event and thus you get into sticky areas of the motives and ultimate will of God which we probably shouldn't tread on. But the limited atonement argument the author uses is frankly 12 year old stuff. It's almost silly.

 

One only need read Habakkuk to understand that God sovereignly works even through the evil of corruption to fully accomplish His will in all things. Indeed there is no rogue molecule of which God is unaware.

 

Under "The Fundamental Flaw" paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 he sets up this false, strawman scenario where limited atonement fixes it so a person who might want to come to Christ cannot because he is not included in the atonement. Like I said, in Calvinism, like it or not, it is a theological system so you cannot break it up like that. People who Christ did not die for are always the people who don't want to come to Christ and prefer evil rather than good. There will never be anyone who comes before God someday with the accusation that they wanted to come and did come but weren't allowed because of limited atonement. When you make that argument, which this author does, you are presenting a false argument.
"The Calvinist, or anyone else for that matter, can believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as many times as he wishes, and still end up in the lake of fire IF the blood of Jesus Christ did not atone for his sins". There's your quote. That is the ridiculous, juvenile argument I was referring to. The author is also wrong where he says faith is not evidence of a provision being made. That is exactly the argument Calvinists use - the best evidence you are in the elect is that you want to come to Christ!

 

These are all related. You have warrant from many scriptures that "he who cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out". We have direct promises of that. Why would you demand some theological proof beforehand that Christ died for you? As if you are sitting in judgement of God and will decide whether his offer is worthy of you? We come to Christ with nothing but an overwhelming debt and usually with a realization that we not only can't pay it, but we have usually tried first to straighten ourselves out and have come to realize that we instead just keep piling up offenses. He promises to forgive you if you come and no one has any right to claim that Calvinism doesn't teach that. Some of the finest free grace preachers were Calvinists. Ever read Bonar or Traill? Spurgeon?

 

True, but I am aware of some Calvinists who, in supporting that make the case that because of this meticulous sovereignty God wills every single thing that happens in a primary way. In other words, if your child dies in a car accident God killed them, and so on with whatever horrible thing you can read in the news. I believe, like in the case of Joseph's brothers, God is in control and used their actions, meant for evil, for a good purpose. But the actions REALLY were their own and were truly evil and not of God. That's where we get so far in the weeds I don't think we can really understand. So you end up with God had two wills, God did it, God didn't even know ahead of time but is a better chess player and fixes things that go wrong. I think we're out of our league at that point.