Born Anew?

Silverhair · Monday at 12:14 PM

David Lamb said:
I agree. I seem to remember reading that a woman once asked Spurgeon why he didn't preach only to the elect. He replied along these lines (I don't remember the exact words): "Madam, if you go around all the people and lift their coat-tails, and there is a letter "E" marking out the elect, then I will gladly do as you suggest."

Having just read Martin's comment
"Spurgeon et al believed what (almost?) all Calvinists believe: that the Gospel must be preached to all, in the hope and expectation that God will open the hearts of His people to receive the words spoken to them"

and then your response brings some questions to mind.

1] are not all the calvinists that are saved the "elect" from before the foundation of the world?
2] since they were picked out then was there ever any doubt that they would be saved?
3] if they were guaranteed to be saved then why preach the gospel message to them, it would make no difference if they believed or not?

So we see that Martins comment "the Gospel must be preached to all, in the hope and expectation that God will open the hearts of His people to receive the words spoken to them" is actually not applicable to the calvinist.

Martin Marprelate · Monday at 1:29 PM

Silverhair said:
So we see that Martins comment "the Gospel must be preached to all, in the hope and expectation that God will open the hearts of His people to receive the words spoken to them" is actually not applicable to the calvinist.

I think you'll find it is. I think you'll also find that you don't understand what Calvinism is, which is what I've been telling you for a long time.

Silverhair · Monday at 7:11 PM

Martin Marprelate said:
I think you'll find it is. I think you'll also find that you don't understand what Calvinism is, which is what I've been telling you for a long time.

Find what is Martin?

I do understand calvinism and that is why I reject it. But you comment that I do not understand calvinism is the usual response from calvinists even to those that were calvinists and quote calvinists.

It would seem that you have a selective understanding of the particular view that you say you hold.

To quote you Martin "the Gospel must be preached to all, in the hope and expectation" but according to the deterministic view of calvinism that God has decreed all things your words make no sense.

To say we must preach to all in the hope and expectation that they will come to a saving faith is correct from a biblical view but not from your calvinism.

Martin Marprelate · Tuesday at 8:19 AM

Silverhair said:
Find what is Martin?

That "the Gospel must be preached to all, in the hope and expectation that God will open the hearts of His people to receive the words spoken to them" is actually very applicable to the Calvinist. The hope is a sure and certain hope, because the Lord Jesus has said that all that the Father has given Him will come to Him. The necessity of the Gospel being preached to all is simply the command of God (Mark 16:15 etc.), whose good pleasure it is (1 Cor. 1:21).

Silverhair said:
I do understand calvinism and that is why I reject it. But you comment that I do not understand calvinism is the usual response from calvinists even to those that were calvinists and quote calvinists.

No. The reason you reject Calvinism is that you do not understand it, as we shall see below.

Silverhair said:
It would seem that you have a selective understanding of the particular view that you say you hold.

To quote you Martin "the Gospel must be preached to all, in the hope and expectation" but according to the deterministic view of calvinism that God has decreed all things your words make no sense.

To say we must preach to all in the hope and expectation that they will come to a saving faith is correct from a biblical view but not from your calvinism.

Calvinism is nothing else but the Biblical understanding, as you would know if you read the works of Calvinists from Augustine down through Bunyan and Spurgeon until the present day.
I have shown this from John 6:37 so many times that I'm sick of it, but here you are, one more time.

'All that the Father gives Me will come to Me.....' There is your particular, effective redemption. God has given to Christ a great crowd of people to redeem, and every single one of them will come to Him. The same is found in John 6:39 and Matt. 11:25-27.
'.......And the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.' Whoever comes to Christ will never be turned away. No one will be refused because his faith is not 'righteous' enough. The same is found in John 6:40 and Matt. 11:28-30. All that is needed is faith and repentance (Mark 1:15), and both of these will be found to be gifts of God (Phil. 1:29; Acts 11:18). So Calvinists can tell their congregations that if anyone will believe and repent, he will be saved, and can know of a certainty that God has loved him with an everlasting love, and has drawn him with lovingkindness (Jeremiah 31:3).

Charlie24 · Tuesday at 8:38 AM

Martin Marprelate said:
That "the Gospel must be preached to all, in the hope and expectation that God will open the hearts of His people to receive the words spoken to them" is actually very applicable to the Calvinist. The hope is a sure and certain hope, because the Lord Jesus has said that all that the Father has given Him will come to Him. The necessity of the Gospel being preached to all is simply the command of God (Mark 16:15 etc.), whose good pleasure it is (1 Cor. 1:21).

No. The reason you reject Calvinism is that you do not understand it, as we shall see below.

Calvinism is nothing else but the Biblical understanding, as you would know if you read the works of Calvinists from Augustine down through Bunyan and Spurgeon until the present day.
I have shown this from John 6:37 so many times that I'm sick of it, but here you are, one more time.

'All that the Father gives Me will come to Me.....' There is your particular, effective redemption. God has given to Christ a great crowd of people to redeem, and every single one of them will come to Him. The same is found in John 6:39 and Matt. 11:25-27.
'.......And the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.' Whoever comes to Christ will never be turned away. No one will be refused because his faith is not 'righteous' enough. The same is found in John 6:40 and Matt. 11:28-30. All that is needed is faith and repentance (Mark 1:15), and both of these will be found to be gifts of God (Phil. 1:29; Acts 11:18). So Calvinists can tell their congregations that if anyone will believe and repent, he will be saved, and can know of a certainty that God has loved him with an everlasting love, and has drawn him with lovingkindness (Jeremiah 31:3).

Martin, I know how this subject can weigh on you and you just get tired of defending your position. But let me give you an idea of how we come to our interpretation of the verses we see differently. Just one of many points.

We outright reject the idea that the God of the Holy Bible chooses some for salvation thereby choosing the rest for Hell.

If you take that stand, then you will be able to understand how we interpret those verses.

Charlie24 · Tuesday at 8:57 AM

Charlie24 said:
Martin, I know how this subject can weigh on you and you just get tired of defending your position. But let me give you an idea of how we come to our interpretation of the verses we see differently. Just one of many points.

We outright reject the idea that the God of the Holy Bible chooses some for salvation thereby choosing the rest for Hell.

If you take that stand, then you will be able to understand how we interpret those verses.

Maybe you've read in Calvin's commentary when he's explaining double predestination, and says "it's a horrible conclusion."

But yet he came to that conclusion in his theory and believed it.

Charlie24 · Tuesday at 9:36 AM

Charlie24 said:
Maybe you've read in Calvin's commentary when he's explaining double predestination, and says "it's a horrible conclusion."

But yet he came to that conclusion in his theory and believed it.

One more thing and I'll let it go.

Read Calvin's commentary in the Institutes of Christian Religion and you'll see how he gives a new definition the absolute sovereignty of God.

He admits it's an awful decree but yet places that decree on God sovereignty.

That is not acceptable, we simply will not agree with what Calvin has done.

DaveXR650 · Tuesday at 10:03 AM

Charlie24 said:
We outright reject the idea that the God of the Holy Bible chooses some for salvation thereby choosing the rest for Hell.

I understand the idea that by logical sequence if God chooses some for salvation, one can say he chooses others for Hell, or else he is not choosing at all. Wesley charged that to Calvinism, as do many critics, and many Calvinists defend it and embrace it. Some defend it with a rather tart "who are you to reply against God". To me, that won't do as there are too many scriptures indicating God's love for the world and men, even those who are heading in a wrong direction.

If you are willing to get into the philosophy deeper, you can look into guys like Richard Muller, who wrote on the interplay between divine will and human choice. In recent years, I think because of the internet and because of the Young Restless and Reformed rise to prominence, many of whom jumped in quick to Calvinism with very little study, there has been an over simplification of the teachings. I mean, does this sound like what you have been told of John Owen?

"We grant man, in the substance of all his actions, as much power, liberty, and freedom as a mere creature is capable of. We grant him to be free in his choice from all outward coercion, or inward natural necessity, to work according to election and deliberation, spontaneously embracing what seemeth good unto him. Now call this power free-will, or what you please, so you make it not supreme, independent, and boundless, we are not at all troubled." Owen, Display of Arminianism, works X, 114.

Wilson then goes on to say that "Divine foreknowledge, moreover, does not rule out contingency and freedom; given that God is perfect, God must be understood as knowing all that is knowable."

Bottom line, and I speak only for myself, while I don't buy into all of what we now call Calvinism, because of many reasons, some of which I stated above, I still say that as a theology it is basically sound and the best men will ever do as "theology". What Calvinism does not allow is that man can have such an effective freedom of will and action that he can overcome or override God's sovereignty. God simply does not have to sit and wait to see what we are going to do. But Calvinism does not deny that "what we are going to do" is truly what we want to do, without God coercing us or our free wills. Calvinism, as a theology, makes a demand that we keep both of these principles in our minds at the same time. This is difficult and we all stumble around trying to explain scriptures that indeed indicate both principles.

Charlie24 · Tuesday at 10:14 AM

DaveXR650 said:
I understand the idea that by logical sequence if God chooses some for salvation, one can say he chooses others for Hell, or else he is not choosing at all. Wesley charged that to Calvinism, as do many critics, and many Calvinists defend it and embrace it. Some defend it with a rather tart "who are you to reply against God". To me, that won't do as there are too many scriptures indicating God's love for the world and men, even those who are heading in a wrong direction.

If you are willing to get into the philosophy deeper, you can look into guys like Richard Muller, who wrote on the interplay between divine will and human choice. In recent years, I think because of the internet and because of the Young Restless and Reformed rise to prominence, many of whom jumped in quick to Calvinism with very little study, there has been an over simplification of the teachings. I mean, does this sound like what you have been told of John Owen?

"We grant man, in the substance of all his actions, as much power, liberty, and freedom as a mere creature is capable of. We grant him to be free in his choice from all outward coercion, or inward natural necessity, to work according to election and deliberation, spontaneously embracing what seemeth good unto him. Now call this power free-will, or what you please, so you make it not supreme, independent, and boundless, we are not at all troubled." Owen, Display of Arminianism, works X, 114.

Wilson then goes on to say that "Divine foreknowledge, moreover, does not rule out contingency and freedom; given that God is perfect, God must be understood as knowing all that is knowable."

Bottom line, and I speak only for myself, while I don't buy into all of what we now call Calvinism, because of many reasons, some of which I stated above, I still say that as a theology it is basically sound and the best men will ever do as "theology". What Calvinism does not allow is that man can have such an effective freedom of will and action that he can overcome or override God's sovereignty. God simply does not have to sit and wait to see what we are going to do. But Calvinism does not deny that "what we are going to do" is truly what we want to do, without God coercing us or our free wills. Calvinism, as a theology, makes a demand that we keep both of these principles in our minds at the same time. This is difficult and we all stumble around trying to explain scriptures that indeed indicate both principles.

Well, that's one view.

I see traditional Calvinism, as Calvin taught it, to be dead wrong from the core, and everything that spews from it is in serious error.

OSAS is a product of Calvin. A complete reinterpretation of God's sovereignty is a product of Calvin.

Total depravity is Biblical but Calvin redefined it to his theory. On and on.

Charlie24 · Tuesday at 10:35 AM

Charlie24 said:
Well, that's one view.

I see traditional Calvinism, as Calvin taught it, to be dead wrong from the core, and everything that spews from it is in serious error.

OSAS is a product of Calvin. A complete reinterpretation of God's sovereignty is a product of Calvin.

Total depravity is Biblical but Calvin redefined it to his theory. On and on.

The only good thing I can see in Calvinism is the fact of salvation being all of the Lord's work, man has no hand in it.

But even Calvin's principle and foundation for this truth is in serious error.

DaveXR650 · Tuesday at 10:47 AM

Charlie24 said:
I see traditional Calvinism, as Calvin taught it, to be dead wrong from the core, and everything that spews from it is in serious error.

OSAS is a product of Calvin. A complete reinterpretation of God's sovereignty is a product of Calvin.

Total depravity is Biblical but Calvin redefined it to his theory. On and on.

I can't really answer you if you don't give specifics. I studied the "Institutes" for several months, with a group and honestly found Calvin to be surprisingly easy to read and nothing seemed really strange to me. I don't think that God being absolutely sovereign over everything is the same as directly being the cause of everything and maybe that is an issue. But you have to site Calvin, not just complain in general about him.

As far as man having no part in his salvation I personally do not have a problem with stating that men, on their part, have to repent and believe the gospel and I have no problem calling that a "condition". I do not believe one is born again before believing even though one of my favorites, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, thought so. Still, this is what I mean when I say that we get into the weeds unnecessarily because I do believe that a sovereign work of the Spirit is necessary in order for a man to come to Christ - I just don't know if that is best called "illumination", "enlightenment", "conviction", of if it indeed is actually being born again. I only know that born again people believe and everyone who believes is born again. And Jesus told Nicodemus that it was necessary to be born again but what he was to do was believe. Belief is an act of the will in the sense of trust, and commitment but the first thing that happens is that it somehow "becomes apparent" to you that all this is true, and that it applies to you, personally. How in the world does that happen? Well, for all I know maybe indeed you were just born again!

Silverhair · Tuesday at 10:53 AM

Martin Marprelate said:
That "the Gospel must be preached to all, in the hope and expectation that God will open the hearts of His people to receive the words spoken to them" is actually very applicable to the Calvinist. The hope is a sure and certain hope, because the Lord Jesus has said that all that the Father has given Him will come to Him. The necessity of the Gospel being preached to all is simply the command of God (Mark 16:15 etc.), whose good pleasure it is (1 Cor. 1:21).

Martin I know what the bible says but the problem that the calvinist has is explaining why that is even necessary for the calvinist.

If as the calvinist claims they were elected to salvation prior to creation then was there even the possibility that they would go to hell? Not according to your God has decreed it.

So as I said before you preach as an Arminian but as a calvinist cannot really believe it is true.
Your preaching of the necessity to trust in Jesus for one's salvation rings hollow to the calvinist as their salvation does not depend upon their faith but on whether they were picked or not.

So for the calvinist a man is not saved because he believes in Christ, he believes in Christ because he is saved.

Martin Marprelate said:
No. The reason you reject Calvinism is that you do not understand it, as we shall see below.

The reason I have rejected calvinism has been pointed out many times on this board.

Your DoG/TULIP, your continued use of pagan philosophy in your religious system.

Martin Marprelate said:
Calvinism is nothing else but the Biblical understanding, as you would know if you read the works of Calvinists from Augustine down through Bunyan and Spurgeon until the present day.
I have shown this from John 6:37 so many times that I'm sick of it, but here you are, one more time.

Odd that you say I should read calvinist writers to find support for your calvinist system. Rather circular reasoning there Martin.

By your logic I should read the book of Mormon, their Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of great price to see that their religion is true.

Why would God give anyone to the Son Martin?

Because they have freely believed in the Son.

That is why we preach the gospel message.
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

Rom 10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Act 16:30 ..."Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Act 16:31 ..."Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved,...

The Holy Spirit via Paul has made it clear that faith in the risen Christ is the reason that God will save. Faith before salvation which is the opposite of your man-made religion of salvation before faith.

That alone is reason enough for anyone to reject calvinism.

Charlie24 · Tuesday at 10:57 AM

DaveXR650 said:
I can't really answer you if you don't give specifics. I studied the "Institutes" for several months, with a group and honestly found Calvin to be surprisingly easy to read and nothing seemed really strange to me. I don't think that God being absolutely sovereign over everything is the same as directly being the cause of everything and maybe that is an issue. But you have to site Calvin, not just complain in general about him.

As far as man having no part in his salvation I personally do not have a problem with stating that men, on their part, have to repent and believe the gospel and I have no problem calling that a "condition". I do not believe one is born again before believing even though one of my favorites, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, thought so. Still, this is what I mean when I say that we get into the weeds unnecessarily because I do believe that a sovereign work of the Spirit is necessary in order for a man to come to Christ - I just don't know if that is best called "illumination", "enlightenment", "conviction", of if it indeed is actually being born again. I only know that born again people believe and everyone who believes is born again. And Jesus told Nicodemus that it was necessary to be born again but what he was to do was believe. Belief is an act of the will in the sense of trust, and commitment but the first thing that happens is that it somehow "becomes apparent" to you that all this is true, and that it applies to you, personally. How in the world does that happen? Well, for all I know maybe indeed you were just born again!

How could you find any of it strange with your train of thinking as Reformed? You would probably find it strange if were to go into a commentary on the total free will of man.

But don't take me wrong on salvation, I have no problem with the traditional Calvinist being saved. I have a problem with their accusation against God.

Silverhair · Tuesday at 11:14 AM

DaveXR650 said:
What Calvinism does not allow is that man can have such an effective freedom of will and action that he can overcome or override God's sovereignty. God simply does not have to sit and wait to see what we are going to do. But Calvinism does not deny that "what we are going to do" is truly what we want to do, without God coercing us or our free wills.

Man exercising His God give free will is not overriding God's sovereignty, he exercising his free will within God's sovereignty. Which is just as God planned it. God has not determined/decreed all the thoughts and or actions of man.

God being omniscient knows all that will happen but that does not require that He determine all that happens as the calvinist determinism requires. God determining all things does not leave any room for man's free will as the thing the man wants to do has been determined by God.

DaveXR650 · Tuesday at 11:33 AM

Charlie24 said:
How could you find any of it strange with your train of thinking as Reformed? You would probably find it strange if were to go into a commentary on the total free will of man.

Not to get off track but one, I was only sort of reformed when I read Calvin. It was all new to me. I was an independent fundamental Baptist who had been taught that "Calvin was wrong on baptism, wrong on the Lord's Supper, so what's the use of listening to him". And secondly, I am currently reading Lennox's book "Determined to Believe" and find it excellent and not in any way strange.

Charlie24 said:
But don't take me wrong on salvation, I have no problem with the traditional Calvinist being saved. I have a problem with their accusation against God.

I think if you do like some Calvinists and make God the determining cause of all actions and decisions you do slander God. If you do like other Calvinists and view our predicament and lostness in sin as being the result of our willful choices then I don't see how God is slandered. A lot of this comes down to whether you can get into your mind the fact that "inability" as far as salvation, in Calvinism is moral, not physical or structural, and therefore is blamable. Not being able to come to Christ because you think it's all silly is totally different than not being able to meet a requirement for instance, that you leap over the church building in order to be saved. In both cases you are unable, in one case you can be blamed.

37818 · Tuesday at 11:39 AM

Charlie24 said:
OSAS is a product of Calvin.

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.

Charlie24 · Tuesday at 11:42 AM

DaveXR650 said:
Not to get off track but one, I was only sort of reformed when I read Calvin. It was all new to me. I was an independent fundamental Baptist who had been taught that "Calvin was wrong on baptism, wrong on the Lord's Supper, so what's the use of listening to him". And secondly, I am currently reading Lennox's book "Determined to Believe" and find it excellent and not in any way strange.

I think if you do like some Calvinists and make God the determining cause of all actions and decisions you do slander God. If you do like other Calvinists and view our predicament and lostness in sin as being the result of our willful choices then I don't see how God is slandered. A lot of this comes down to whether you can get into your mind the fact that "inability" as far as salvation, in Calvinism is moral, not physical or structural, and therefore is blamable. Not being able to come to Christ because you think it's all silly is totally different than not being able to meet a requirement for instance, that you leap over the church building in order to be saved. In both cases you are unable, in one case you can be blamed.

The slander to God from Calvin and all that follow the theory of Sovereign Grace is that all who are in Hell had no choice in being sent there.

All the lost souls in Hell can blame God for their suffering.

Whereas with free will man can only blame himself for his suffering.

How well do you think that will set with God when you meet Him?

DaveXR650 · Tuesday at 11:43 AM

Silverhair said:
Man exercising His God give free will is not overriding God's sovereignty, he exercising his free will within God's sovereignty. Which is just as God planned it. God has not determined/decreed all the thoughts and or actions of man.

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

Silverhair said:
God being omniscient knows all that will happen but that does not require that He determine all that happens as the calvinist determinism requires. God determining all things does not leave any room for man's free will as the thing the man wants to do has been determined by God.

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.

DaveXR650 · Tuesday at 11:52 AM

Charlie24 said:
The slander to God from Calvin and all that follow the theory of Sovereign Grace is that all who are in Hell had no choice in being sent there.

All the lost souls in Hell can blame God for their suffering.

Whereas with free will man can only blame himself for his suffering.

How well do you think that will set with God when you meet Him?

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.

Charlie24 · Tuesday at 11:58 AM

DaveXR650 said:
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.

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.

The only thing I agree with from Calvin is that his theory concludes with and "awful decree" of God.

That decree proposed by Calvin places everyone that God did not choose as Elect in the flames of Hell.

Born Anew?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member