About a Pastor who was twice a 5 point Calvinist.

[DaveXR650]

How are we not back in some way to a conditional general redemption?

When it comes to simple evangelism there is a lot of overlap. The gospel is given out. "We preach Christ and Him crucified". That's a general call. Some hear and believe. You might say they chose to come. A Calvinist would say they received an effectual call. The Calvinist would say the ones that came were elect and it was predetermined they would come. You might say it could have gone either way but thankfully some came. The Calvinist and the non Calvinist could preach the exact same sermon. But there are some practical differences, based mostly on what your beliefs will lead too. The Calvinist can become so Calvinistic that he is afraid to invite people to come or make an "offer" of the gospel. The non Calvinist can start thinking, since it's a persons choice, if he can be witty enough or get control of someone's emotions enough he might get them to make a decision. If you take the time, you can listen to many sermon's by MacArthur or Mohler or Spurgeon and not find much evidence that they are Calvinists. And some of Jonathan Edwards sermons remind me of John R. Rice. My first exposure to Spurgeon was when I saw him on the cover of an old print edition of "Sword of the Lord", the premier fundamentalist paper at the time. I lean Calvinistic but have complete faith in the ability of non Calvinist Baptist churches to help folks get saved and grow in Christ. Most on here don't and I get it from both sides but I don't care at this point.

 

[Silverhair]

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.

Dave that is a flawed argument:

“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.”

In calvinism if one was not elect before the foundation of the world it matters not if they are depraved or not, they can not desire to come to God because God determined that they could not. In calvinism God is responsible for all the unsaved that go to hell for eternity as He chose to send them there based on an arbitrary choice. Their condemnation is not based upon their sin or rejection of God as the bible says

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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?

"Why would you demand some theological proof beforehand that Christ died for you?"
Sounds backward. Why would someone come to Christ, if he didn’t know Christ died for his sins? One must first hear.

"...[W]e have usually tried first to straighten ourselves out and have come to realize that we instead just keep piling up offenses."
This may be a critical sticking point. How does one try first to straighten himself out if he doesn’t even know he’s crooked? This seems an admission that people are not so dead, so depraved that they don’t know they are sinners in need.

 

[Silverhair]

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.

But they are only rogue molecules because God, according to calvinism, determined them to be so.

 

[Silverhair]

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

Under calvinism when the person stands before God they can rightly say they did not come to faith in Christ Jesus because they were not elected and because they were not elected they were not atoned for. So they are condemned for things that were outside of any control they could have had. They were not afforded the option to place their trust in the living God. So it is not a matter of would not it is that they could not, that is the flaw of calvimism.

 

[DaveXR650]

In calvinism if one was not elect before the foundation of the world it matters not if they are depraved or not, they can not desire to come to God because God determined that they could not. In calvinism God is responsible for all the unsaved that go to hell for eternity as He chose to send them there based on an arbitrary choice. Their condemnation is not based upon their sin or rejection of God as the bible says

Once you say "it matters not if they are depraved or not" you have stepped outside of Calvinism. Calvinism would insist that they are indeed all depraved. You have set up a straw man that is not Calvinism. Calvinism definitely says their condemnation is based on their sin and rejection of God. It just says that we all start out like that and start out with the tendency for selfishness and sin and then progress to more and more actual sin as our ability and opportunity increase. And that we all would go like that our whole lives without divine intervention.

 

[kyredneck]

In calvinism if one was not elect before the foundation of the world it matters not if they are depraved or not, they can not desire to come to God because God determined that they could not. In calvinism God is responsible for all the unsaved that go to hell for eternity as He chose to send them there based on an arbitrary choice. Their condemnation is not based upon their sin or rejection of God as the bible says

"Ever and anon the cry of the noncalvinist is Why doth He yet find fault?" - Aaron

All the whining of the anti-Cals confirms the truth of Romans 9, and you're too self-unaware to see it.

Under calvinism when the person stands before God they can rightly say they did not come to faith in Christ Jesus because they were not elected and because they were not elected they were not atoned for. So they are condemned for things that were outside of any control they could have had. They were not afforded the option to place their trust in the living God. So it is not a matter of would not it is that they could not, that is the flaw of calvimism.

Irrelevant. The 'Calvinists' are unable to produce even one 'final judgement' passage where faith is even mentioned, because it doesn't exist. Without exception, the final judgement is all about works. In fact, works are the very definer of the 'just' and the 'unjust':

15 having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that there shall be a resurrection both of the just and unjust. Acts 24:15

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice,
29 and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment. Jn 5

 

[DaveXR650]

"Why would you demand some theological proof beforehand that Christ died for you?"
Sounds backward. Why would someone come to Christ, if he didn’t know Christ died for his sins? One must first hear.

"...[W]e have usually tried first to straighten ourselves out and have come to realize that we instead just keep piling up offenses."
This may be a critical sticking point. How does one try first to straighten himself out if he doesn’t even know he’s crooked? This seems an admission that people are not so dead, so depraved that they don’t know they are sinners in need.

You're right on the first point. All I meant was that you don't come to Christ with an attitude of judging and evaluating the merits of the doctrine - you come just hoping for mercy because you realize your situation. It may well be that you heard you could get a pardon and that Christ died for you but it is not essential at that point. You can throw yourself before Christ not even being sure he will have you - but we know he will because it's promised in scripture.

The second point is more difficult because Calvinists differ on this among themselves. Owen for example indeed taught that people can in general have a sense of morality and of their need for some type of chance to appease God. He taught that unsaved people can genuinely do good things and be very kind. But he also taught that actual saving faith was revealed by the Spirit and that we were unable to come up with this on our own.

 

[37818]

When it comes to simple evangelism there is a lot of overlap. The gospel is given out. "We preach Christ and Him crucified". That's a general call. Some hear and believe. You might say they chose to come. A Calvinist would say they received an effectual call. The Calvinist would say the ones that came were elect and it was predetermined they would come. You might say it could have gone either way but thankfully some came. The Calvinist and the non Calvinist could preach the exact same sermon. But there are some practical differences, based mostly on what your beliefs will lead too. The Calvinist can become so Calvinistic that he is afraid to invite people to come or make an "offer" of the gospel. The non Calvinist can start thinking, since it's a persons choice, if he can be witty enough or get control of someone's emotions enough he might get them to make a decision. If you take the time, you can listen to many sermon's by MacArthur or Mohler or Spurgeon and not find much evidence that they are Calvinists. And some of Jonathan Edwards sermons remind me of John R. Rice. My first exposure to Spurgeon was when I saw him on the cover of an old print edition of "Sword of the Lord", the premier fundamentalist paper at the time. I lean Calvinistic but have complete faith in the ability of non Calvinist Baptist churches to help folks get saved and grow in Christ. Most on here don't and I get it from both sides but I don't care at this point.

What do you understand the gospel to promise?

 

[DaveXR650]

Under calvinism when the person stands before God they can rightly say they did not come to faith in Christ Jesus because they were not elected and because they were not elected they were not atoned for. So they are condemned for things that were outside of any control they could have had. They were not afforded the option to place their trust in the living God. So it is not a matter of would not it is that they could not, that is the flaw of calvimism.

You have to remember that our inability is with our will. A moral inability is different than a physical inability. If I were to tell you to fly up to the top of the flag pole at church in order to be saved you could rightly claim an inability to do so. But if I were to say to you just stop doing any sin for 1 week I bet after that week, when you came back having failed, it would be because of bad choices you voluntarily made, according to your own will. In one case you could say it wasn't your fault but not in the other.

 

[37818]

Fact. Without the promise Christ forgives one's sins there is no gospel. Effectively it is a general call. A general redemption is what would naturally be understood.

 

[37818]

You have to remember that our inability is with our will.

So in Luke 8:13 why is there no root? In Matthew 7:21 what is the will of God to be done that was not done? Matthew 7:22-23.

 

[DaveXR650]

So in Luke 8:13 why is there no root? In Matthew 7:21 what is the will of God to be done that was not done? Matthew 7:22-23.

I can't keep up with all the posts but don't pull out verses. Read whole chapters. In Matthew chapter 7 they did not enter at the strait gait or stay on the narrow way. Instead, they were "workers of iniquity, or lawlessness". As for Luke, I know the Puritans tended to believe that it was possible to have a superficial or spurious faith and thus fall away. They were big on self examination. I like it but it's not real popular nowadays. Some fundamentalists, and even Calvinists don't like the Puritan's. I use them a lot for my theology and I think maybe that's why some of my explaining sounds a little different than say guys who only read Sproul or Young, Restless and Reformed writers. Puritan writings are not inspired writings and you don't offend me if you disagree. I offer my take on it hopefully in a friendly way and we can learn from each other.

 

[DaveXR650]

What do you understand the gospel to promise?

The gospel says that "Christ has died" and if you want to you can come to him for a full and free pardon. Looking back, you may someday realize the truths that you were of the elect and it was predestined but it is not essential that you know this or even accept this. I say "Christ has died" because that is the way some of the evangelicals said it who were concerned that as Calvinists, if they started out by saying Christ died for your sins and then the person rejected your gospel witness or preaching then you had technically lied to them. Just so you know, I personally have no problem telling someone that Christ died for them. To me, if you are witnessing or teaching and you are in a propositional mode then it's understood that this would be true if you go on to faith so I have no problem saying that. It is an amazing thing to realize that when all is said and done Jesus is simply handing out pardons.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

You're right on the first point. All I meant was that you don't come to Christ with an attitude of judging and evaluating the merits of the doctrine - you come just hoping for mercy because you realize your situation. It may well be that you heard you could get a pardon and that Christ died for you but it is not essential at that point. You can throw yourself before Christ not even being sure he will have you - but we know he will because it's promised in scripture.

The second point is more difficult because Calvinists differ on this among themselves. Owen for example indeed taught that people can in general have a sense of morality and of their need for some type of chance to appease God. He taught that unsaved people can genuinely do good things and be very kind. But he also taught that actual saving faith was revealed by the Spirit and that we were unable to come up with this on our own.

That description seems to comport more with the author’s contention regarding the doctrine of Total Depravity. His second paragraph on that:

Now, the scriptures clearly teach that NO man can believe apart from grace. But Calvinism actually puts a limit on that grace by asserting that an arbitrary and sovereign act of pre-faith regeneration is the ONLY grace option available to God in the work of salvation. In other words, it’s ALL or NOTHING for God with no grace options between those two bookends. The biblical view, however, presents to us a drawing-convicting grace that has the ability to enable a lost man to repent and believe the gospel without an arbitrary regeneration prior to faith.

An Overview of Calvinism​

 

[Alan Gross]

An interesting read.
My Personal Experience with Calvinism
All are welcome comment on his views.

from My Personal Experience with Calvinism.

"While you’re being honest, tell them that NO one, including YOU, can be certain that Christ died for their sins since you've obliterated ALL objective biblical evidence to support that assertion. If one cannot have certainty regarding atonement for sins, neither can one have any assurance of salvation in this life!"

This is spoken like someone who has no assurance of their Salvation,
as WITNESSED in THEIR SOUL.

 

[DaveXR650]

That description seems to comport more with the author’s contention regarding the doctrine of Total Depravity. His second paragraph on that:

Now, the scriptures clearly teach that NO man can believe apart from grace. But Calvinism actually puts a limit on that grace by asserting that an arbitrary and sovereign act of pre-faith regeneration is the ONLY grace option available to God in the work of salvation. In other words, it’s ALL or NOTHING for God with no grace options between those two bookends. The biblical view, however, presents to us a drawing-convicting grace that has the ability to enable a lost man to repent and believe the gospel without an arbitrary regeneration prior to faith.

Yes. I'm aware of that argument. I would say that Puritan preachers believed in "warm" preaching that appealed to men's sense of reason. In some sermons Edwards practically begged people to come to Christ. But they did believe, for the most part, that for someone to be saved there was a quickening, regenerating thing done supernaturally without which you will not be saved. Sometimes, in this forum the assertion is made that a man before he is saved cannot do anything good at all. The Puritans mostly believed that natural men, even heathens, could go quite far in cultivating morality and virtue - but not salvation.

 

[Silverhair]

Once you say "it matters not if they are depraved or not" you have stepped outside of Calvinism. Calvinism would insist that they are indeed all depraved. You have set up a straw man that is not Calvinism. Calvinism definitely says their condemnation is based on their sin and rejection of God. It just says that we all start out like that and start out with the tendency for selfishness and sin and then progress to more and more actual sin as our ability and opportunity increase. And that we all would go like that our whole lives without divine intervention.

No Dave you have setup a calvinism that is only workable in your mind. The only reason that those men are depraved, under calvinism, is because God caused them to be. Like the typical calvinist you want God to control all things until the reality of that is pointed out to you, then you cry fowl as we do not understand calvinism. I think the expression is you want your cake and to eat it to.

You have to pick a lane, does God determine all things or does man have a true free will? It can not be both.

 

[Silverhair]

"Ever and anon the cry of the noncalvinist is Why doth He yet find fault?" - Aaron

All the whining of the anti-Cals confirms the truth of Romans 9, and you're too self-unaware to see it.



Irrelevant. The 'Calvinists' are unable to produce even one 'final judgement' passage where faith is even mentioned, because it doesn't exist. Without exception, the final judgement is all about works. In fact, works are the very definer of the 'just' and the 'unjust':

15 having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that there shall be a resurrection both of the just and unjust. Acts 24:15

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice,
29 and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment. Jn 5

KY ever and anon the cry of the calvinist is you just do not understand calvinism. Really, you guys keep telling us that God determines all things but then deny that He determines all things when the problems of your view are pointed out to you. The inconsistency of calvinsim is well known. The bible confirms that calvinism is in error but you are to un-aware to realize that.

So your going to stand on your works salvation, be interesting to see how that works out for you.

 

[AustinC]

When it comes to simple evangelism there is a lot of overlap. The gospel is given out. "We preach Christ and Him crucified". That's a general call. Some hear and believe. You might say they chose to come. A Calvinist would say they received an effectual call. The Calvinist would say the ones that came were elect and it was predetermined they would come. You might say it could have gone either way but thankfully some came. The Calvinist and the non Calvinist could preach the exact same sermon. But there are some practical differences, based mostly on what your beliefs will lead too. The Calvinist can become so Calvinistic that he is afraid to invite people to come or make an "offer" of the gospel. The non Calvinist can start thinking, since it's a persons choice, if he can be witty enough or get control of someone's emotions enough he might get them to make a decision. If you take the time, you can listen to many sermon's by MacArthur or Mohler or Spurgeon and not find much evidence that they are Calvinists. And some of Jonathan Edwards sermons remind me of John R. Rice. My first exposure to Spurgeon was when I saw him on the cover of an old print edition of "Sword of the Lord", the premier fundamentalist paper at the time. I lean Calvinistic but have complete faith in the ability of non Calvinist Baptist churches to help folks get saved and grow in Christ. Most on here don't and I get it from both sides but I don't care at this point.

This is accurate.
When we seek to obey and we rest in God's providence we can share the gospel to everyone with confidence that no matter how badly we stammer or stutter, God will redeem those whom he has chosen and elected before the foundation of the world.