Born Anew?

[Silverhair]

Yes. That's what Owen was saying above in post 88.

I agree that God does not determine all things. I do believe that God is sovereign over all that happens and that he has a divine right to intervene whenever he wishes. I agree with the argument that God has the right to give total free rein to our wills if he chooses to do so. I just happen to believe that when and if he does so that individual will not be saved. I do not pretend to know how and if God gives a certain amount of help or conviction to everyone, or to some, or if he simply gives faith or a new birth to some. I tend to think personally, not Calvinistically, that whenever anyone hears the gospel, they are given some light and can be held accountable. I also think more is going on than the information contained being dispensed and then the rest is up to us. I don't really care if that fits or doesn't fit into someone's camp or system.

Dave I can agree with what you are saying up to man's free will will always lead to rejection of God.

As soon as calvinism says God decrees/determines all things then to me they have gone off the rails and stopped trusting the word of God.

 

[DaveXR650]

I care little of what any Calvinist says.

If they hold the 5 points laid out by Calvin they are holding to double predestination that Calvin clearly taught.

I don't know enough about church history or philosophy to understand why they came up with all this. When I read that they were answering Arminians and Catholic schoolmen I can see how some of it occurred. I'm not so sure we should still argue using these terms and definitions. For instance, I do not believe that at the atonement millions of people were functionally shut out of any possibility of salvation because God had deliberately excluded them from salvation by Christ not dying for them. Yet if you bother to read Owen, he didn't believe that either. I also don't believe God said at the atonement, "well it is done, now let's see if anyone chooses to respond". Yet that is exactly what many seem to suggest as the correct view of God's plan of salvation. We all have to do better in my opinion.

When I come across someone who firmly believes that they heard the gospel message, realized they were in need of Christ and decided to repent and come to Christ, all I say is "very good". Whether I believe that this was totally the work of the Holy Spirit or that they were born again first makes no difference. The Calvinist preachers taught that the best and only sure evidence that you had been born again and were elect was that--- you came to Christ and believed. Yet some, even those who post on here, get angry when someone gives a testimony that just tells what they did from their own, honest point of view. It really shouldn't matter all that much to where people break fellowship in real life. Debating on a debate forum is fine though, as that is what this is and it's the proper place. But keep in in perspective.

With your current understanding of Calvinism you would be doing yourself a great disservice to embrace Calvinism. For years I had a visceral dislike for it myself. I thought like Adrian Rogers who called it "wine and cheese" theology. I still like Adrian Rogers but I like Calvinism too. I also like Wesley, and feel that if you are dissatisfied with shallow modern evangelicalism but hate Calvinism, you could do well looking into his writings. One thing that the Calvinists and Wesley, and most of the English speaking "good guys" have in common though was that they respected and read the Puritans. (Of course Calvin couldn't - he was too early in time.)

 

[Silverhair]

I don't think that is the correct representation of Calvinism. Where I do agree with you is that I have read some Calvinists who, by once again, going beyond scripture with human logic, come up with the idea that for instance non-elect infants who die go straight to Hell, so their first conscious awareness is being in Hell. Now that is disastrous.

But I can show you a lot of Calvinists who said openly that those in Hell will be able to give testimony that they rejected an offer to come to Christ for salvation and will admit that they are there because of their own conscious rejection of God. J.C. Ryle (admittedly a moderate Calvinist) came right out and said as much, as did Horatius Bonar, and I believe John Owen. So your statement there shows at least a lack of understanding of Calvinistic teaching, although there is an extreme wing as there is in everything.

The only thing I can say for those such as J.C. Ryle, Horatius Bonar and as you say perhaps John Owen is that they were moving away from calvinism and more to what the bible actually said.

Calvinism IMO stands on shifting sand. They will latch onto out of context verses that are not clear but contain a word they need and then reject clear scripture when it shows their view is wrong.

 

[Charlie24]

I don't know enough about church history or philosophy to understand why they came up with all this. When I read that they were answering Arminians and Catholic schoolmen I can see how some of it occurred. I'm not so sure we should still argue using these terms and definitions. For instance, I do not believe that at the atonement millions of people were functionally shut out of any possibility of salvation because God had deliberately excluded them from salvation by Christ not dying for them. Yet if you bother to read Owen, he didn't believe that either. I also don't believe God said at the atonement, "well it is done, now let's see if anyone chooses to respond". Yet that is exactly what many seem to suggest as the correct view of God's plan of salvation. We all have to do better in my opinion.

When I come across someone who firmly believes that they heard the gospel message, realized they were in need of Christ and decided to repent and come to Christ, all I say is "very good". Whether I believe that this was totally the work of the Holy Spirit or that they were born again first makes no difference. The Calvinist preachers taught that the best and only sure evidence that you had been born again and were elect was that--- you came to Christ and believed. Yet some, even those who post on here, get angry when someone gives a testimony that just tells what they did from their own, honest point of view. It really shouldn't matter all that much to where people break fellowship in real life. Debating on a debate forum is fine though, as that is what this is and it's the proper place. But keep in in perspective.

With your current understanding of Calvinism you would be doing yourself a great disservice to embrace Calvinism. For years I had a visceral dislike for it myself. I thought like Adrian Rogers who called it "wine and cheese" theology. I still like Adrian Rogers but I like Calvinism too. I also like Wesley, and feel that if you are dissatisfied with shallow modern evangelicalism but hate Calvinism, you could do well looking into his writings. One thing that the Calvinists and Wesley, and most of the English speaking "good guys" have in common though was that they respected and read the Puritans. (Of course Calvin couldn't - he was too early in time.)

It's been my experience in having discussions with Calvinists through the years and specifically one here on BB, won't mention his name, that the double predestination part is smoothed over. Now some will straight up admit the double predestination and stand firm on it being the absolute sovereignty of God.

At the same time they are admitting God sends the un-elect to Hell by His choice in never opening their heart, which if Calvinism is true, God could have easily done.

So it's God choice and His individual decree on man that Hell is ever enlarging.

 

[DaveXR650]

Dave I can agree with what you are saying up to man's free will will always lead to rejection of God.

As soon as calvinism says God decrees/determines all things then to me they have gone off the rails and stopped trusting the word of God.

I have noticed on my own, but also found others who say this, that the "Calvinism" of the modern Calvinist seems more deterministic than the Puritan era version. And, maybe @Martin Marprelate would know more about this than I do - but I read guys like J.C. Ryle, who seem very moderate while at the same time claiming that they embrace the doctrines of grace. Debate is fine. It sharpens you up in case you are confronted by a smart aleck agnostic someday, but the levels of animosity concern me.

In practice, Calvinistic churches I know of are no less into missions and local evangelism than other churches. And many of the most violently anti-Calvinistic churches I know of are the very one's who claim the most detailed knowledge of exact end time events - which to me would seem to require a high degree of God's sovereign intervention. Worst of all, I have seen churches split over this, with no one really being able to articulate why it happened.

 

[DaveXR650]

It's been my experience in having discussions with Calvinists through the years and specifically one here on BB, won't mention his name, that the double predestination part is smoothed over. Now some will straight up admit the double predestination and stand firm on it being the absolute sovereignty of God.

Yes. This was one of Wesley's arguments. And, it was Sproul's argument, except that he was arguing openly for it. This is one area where I also have problems. Since we are willing sinners, not deserving anything but judgement for what we freely do - which we all agree on I think, and even if therefore God would technically be justified in saving some and passing over the person sitting next too him - the question still unanswered is this. Does God really do that? And if "no" then from that the question then is, is it necessary that the amount of conviction, drawing, opportunity be equitable in order to be "fair"? And how do you bring in "fair" when we are already truly guilty? And how can you with a straight face suggest that it is even possible to have it be fair when we have such varying lives of abuse, bad influence, access to scripture, good or bad teaching, and so on.

The dilemma is then this. If God did not save you by his sovereign choice alone then you are left with somehow the idea that you were superior in your decision making ability and evaluation of the evidence than the others who were not saved. Even if you say that God's grace was necessary, and given in some measure to all - you are still left with the prospect that the deciding reason for your salvation is still, finally, your good choice and ability to discern. Do you want to go with that? Maybe it's right, and maybe it's not fair to put it like that but if you are going to set up a logical situation where as you say, Calvinists blame God for someone not being saved - are you not left with the alternative as being that you who are saved are "better" in some way that those who were lost. It seems to me like they are two sides of the same coin. I admit I haven't figured it out and welcome an explanation.

 

[Charlie24]

Yes. This was one of Wesley's arguments. And, it was Sproul's argument, except that he was arguing openly for it. This is one area where I also have problems. Since we are willing sinners, not deserving anything but judgement for what we freely do - which we all agree on I think, and even if therefore God would technically be justified in saving some and passing over the person sitting next too him - the question still unanswered is this. Does God really do that? And if "no" then from that the question then is, is it necessary that the amount of conviction, drawing, opportunity be equitable in order to be "fair"? And how do you bring in "fair" when we are already truly guilty? And how can you with a straight face suggest that it is even possible to have it be fair when we have such varying lives of abuse, bad influence, access to scripture, good or bad teaching, and so on.

The dilemma is then this. If God did not save you by his sovereign choice alone then you are left with somehow the idea that you were superior in your decision making ability and evaluation of the evidence than the others who were not saved. Even if you say that God's grace was necessary, and given in some measure to all - you are still left with the prospect that the deciding reason for your salvation is still, finally, your good choice and ability to discern. Do you want to go with that? Maybe it's right, and maybe it's not fair to put it like that but if you are going to set up a logical situation where as you say, Calvinists blame God for someone not being saved - are you not left with the alternative as being that you who are saved are "better" in some way that those who were lost. It seems to me like they are two sides of the same coin. I admit I haven't figured it out and welcome an explanation.

Dave, I have been testing you, and found that you are indeed a controlled man and honest in your statements. Just the kinda guy you can't help but respect. So I say this with all due respect.

You are reasoning from the Calvinist Handbook, and not taking it for what it really is.

Calvinism a direct insult in the face of God, there is no reasoning that can take that away.

 

[DaveXR650]

The only thing I can say for those such as J.C. Ryle, Horatius Bonar and as you say perhaps John Owen is that they were moving away from calvinism and more to what the bible actually said.

Calvinism IMO stands on shifting sand. They will latch onto out of context verses that are not clear but contain a word they need and then reject clear scripture when it shows their view is wrong.

After reading some of Muller, who gets into the philosophy at a deeper level of free will and contingency, I think what is really going on is that guys like Owen understood this at a deeper level that we can. I used to have big problems reading Owen, currently find Muller beyond my ability or desire, and have begun to realize that the real debate on these things is beyond my level of education and probably I.Q. as well. And at my age, there isn't time for much more education and I just read a BBC article today that said we loose 50,000 brain cells daily so I guess that's it!

I did read an interesting article which I have somewhere (if I can find it) that talked about the battle for Calvinism between Owen and Baxter. They said Calvinism was in trouble in England even in the mid 1600's and went into some of what Owen and Baxter were saying - to each other as well as to the rest of the world. I'll try to dig that up.

 

[DaveXR650]

Dave, I have been testing you, and found that you are indeed a controlled man and honest in your statements. Just the kinda guy you can't help but respect. So I say this with all due respect.

You are reasoning from the Calvinist Handbook, and not taking it for what it really is.

Thanks for the kind words. I am not like most other Calvinists (assuming you are willing to call me one, which many strict Calvinists won't do) in that I never sat down and looked at Calvinistic theology and found it compelling. Instead, I fell into reading Puritans, and after benefitting greatly from their insight and teaching, only later discovered them to be for the most part - Calvinists. And when I got used to reading them, which is not always easy, as I started looking into their more theology oriented writings I did begin to appreciate what they were saying.

Calvinism a direct insult in the face of God, there is no reasoning that can take that away.

I disagree but understand why you say that based on what some Calvinists say. Look up Wesley's sermon #128 (I think it is) and he would agree with you 100 percent.
I will say this. I personally don't care how strict of a Calvinist one wants to be in their understanding or acceptance of the 5 points or the doctrines of grace. But I do for myself, have to have a true and free "offer" of the gospel to everyone who hears it along with the promise that anyone who hears and then comes to Christ will be saved. Fortunately, that is exactly what actual defenders of high Calvinism explicitly stated as truth, the best example being John Owen himself. Therefore; I don't accept your above assessment of Calvinism.

 

[DaveXR650]

@Charlie24.
Oh yeah. I almost forgot. There is a branch of Calvinism that has open contempt for the idea of a true and free offer of the gospel to everyone who hears it. Some of them post on here too. I just thought I would mention that. The idea that God doesn't love anyone but the elect, and has nothing to say to everyone else, and has created millions of people with the idea from the very beginning that they were made for the sole purpose of being damned is to me as offensive as anything can be. I think it does slander God.

 

[Charlie24]

Thanks for the kind words. I am not like most other Calvinists (assuming you are willing to call me one, which many strict Calvinists won't do) in that I never sat down and looked at Calvinistic theology and found it compelling. Instead, I fell into reading Puritans, and after benefitting greatly from their insight and teaching, only later discovered them to be for the most part - Calvinists. And when I got used to reading them, which is not always easy, as I started looking into their more theology oriented writings I did begin to appreciate what they were saying.

I disagree but understand why you say that based on what some Calvinists say. Look up Wesley's sermon #128 (I think it is) and he would agree with you 100 percent.
I will say this. I personally don't care how strict of a Calvinist one wants to be in their understanding or acceptance of the 5 points or the doctrines of grace. But I do for myself, have to have a true and free "offer" of the gospel to everyone who hears it along with the promise that anyone who hears and then comes to Christ will be saved. Fortunately, that is exactly what actual defenders of high Calvinism explicitly stated as truth, the best example being John Owen himself. Therefore; I don't accept your above assessment of Calvinism.

Well I do agree with your view of how one is saved, but I certainly disagree that is what traditional Calvinism teaches.

It seems we now have free will Calvinists denying what Calvin taught but still calling themselves Calvinist.

But I agree to disagree, and I was serious about my respect for you, Brother.

 

[DaveXR650]

free will Calvinists

That's sort of a good term, really. I like it.

 

[Charlie24]

That's sort of a good term, really. I like it.

LOL, it's pretty messed up if you ask me.

 

[Charlie24]

Do you deny the New Covenant promise cited in ? Hebrews 8:12, For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Please. If you affirm it, how?

Thank you.

I'm not sure of your purpose for Heb. 8:12, maybe you can further explain.

But concerning Heb. 8:12, it was said on the promise of a New Covenant for Israel. 8:8.

 

[JesusFan]

It's been my experience in having discussions with Calvinists through the years and specifically one here on BB, won't mention his name, that the double predestination part is smoothed over. Now some will straight up admit the double predestination and stand firm on it being the absolute sovereignty of God.

At the same time they are admitting God sends the un-elect to Hell by His choice in never opening their heart, which if Calvinism is true, God could have easily done.

So it's God choice and His individual decree on man that Hell is ever enlarging.

Except that none who ever arrive in hell did not make that 'free will" decision to go there

 

[Charlie24]

Except that none who ever arrive in hell did not make that 'free will" decision to go there

That's a good point. From that we could ask the question, does man send himself to Hell or does God do it according to the Gospel?

What say ye, JF?

 

[Silverhair]

I have noticed on my own, but also found others who say this, that the "Calvinism" of the modern Calvinist seems more deterministic than the Puritan era version. And, maybe @Martin Marprelate would know more about this than I do - but I read guys like J.C. Ryle, who seem very moderate while at the same time claiming that they embrace the doctrines of grace. Debate is fine. It sharpens you up in case you are confronted by a smart aleck agnostic someday, but the levels of animosity concern me.

In practice, Calvinistic churches I know of are no less into missions and local evangelism than other churches. And many of the most violently anti-Calvinistic churches I know of are the very one's who claim the most detailed knowledge of exact end time events - which to me would seem to require a high degree of God's sovereign intervention. Worst of all, I have seen churches split over this, with no one really being able to articulate why it happened.

How Ryle could be considered to be moderate and him still hold to the DoG/TULIP does not seem logical.

For one to say they hold to the DoG would make them no less extreme that those that would be called hypercal's.

Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, and Irresistible Grace have to be the most soul crushing doctrines that have ever been put forward.
According to these calvinist doctrines God unconditionally chooses to save some, but not all, Christ died only for the elect that the Father has unconditionally chosen to save, and God gives irresistible grace to the pre-chosen elect and the rest are doomed to hell just because they were not fortunate enough to have been picked.

Dave I am not saying that those churches are not into missions and local evangelism but the question is why are they doing so? The theology they hold says that whatever they do it will have zero effect on the lives of the people, they were either picked or they are not.

They will be saved because they were picked not because they believe in Christ Jesus.

 

[Charlie24]

That's a good point. From that we could ask the question, does man send himself to Hell or does God do it according to the Gospel?

What say ye, JF?

Just to make it interesting, let's ask a similar question.

Is it man's sin that sends him to Hell, or his rejection of Christ?

 

[Charlie24]

Just to make it interesting, let's ask a similar question.

Is it man's sin that sends him to Hell, or his rejection of Christ?

Bear in mind that when we answer these questions, we are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners.

 

[DaveXR650]

How Ryle could be considered to be moderate and him still hold to the DoG/TULIP does not seem logical.

For one to say they hold to the DoG would make them no less extreme that those that would be called hypercal's.

I think you are illustrating how not to use theology. Theology if correct makes for a good set of guardrails. I don't think it was ever intended to be used as a confession of faith or a creed. But I guess you have to decide for yourself what to make of these things. If J.C. Ryle says he holds to the doctrines of grace and also says that the reason some men aren't saved at last is because they loved darkness rather than light - who are you to say that he is somehow bound to claim that the real reason was that they were not "chosen". And if John Owen says that he has it on authority of scripture that anyone who comes to Christ will be saved who are you to claim he is not allowed somehow to say that because of a reply to Arminian theology that was made at a meeting years earlier? Let me suggest that if we are to have any meaningful discussion we must insist that the discussion be on what these men actually taught - not what you determine several hundred years later as to what they "must" have really meant.