Irresistable Grace

I think you have misunderstood me somewhere. I am confused.

 

Sorry to jump in, but I think I see where you're missing the point (you can correct me if I'm wrong).

When you say that God is active in the damnation process, you make it seem as if God blinds some in order to move them from the "saved" column into the "damned" column. Even if that's not what you meant, the phrase "damnation process" implies that very thing.

But there is no such thing as a damnation process. Every man starts out deserving of death. Nobody needs a process to get there. So to say that God blinds some means He plays a part in keeping them in the "damned" column, which is where we ALL deserve to be. What is beyond comprehension is not that God would play a part in keeping someone where he belongs, but that God would play a part in bringing anyone at all over to the "saved" column! So the phrase "damnation process" implies a contradiction that does not exist.

 

What are the scripture references for 2 calls?

 

Primitive Baptist,

Sovereignty as Augustine and Calvin viewed things overshadowed all the other doctrines of the Word of God. Some extreme Calvinists, even in our day, portray the Lord as a Divine Tyrant. In the 1,300 pages of "Calvin's Institutes" he never speaks of God's love [John 3:16] or tries to explain how He could damn the majority and still remain a merciful God. No one doctrine of the Bible can overrun all of the attributes of Almighty God. Because of this overpowering doctrine, some people today have absorbed this aberrant view about God who died for every person. [I John 2:2]

 

Again I ask, How do you know this? Have you read all 1300 pages??

 

These have already been referenced. Let me give two examples: There is a call to who are are heavy burdened, to all who are sinners. We all agree on that. Consider Acts 17 where God calls all men everywhere to repent.

There is also a call that brings justification and glorification for all who receive it (Rom 8:29). In the verse, there is none called who is not also justified and glorified. You might call this two aspects of the same call; you might call it a different call (as most do). Clearly this latter one is effectual. This latter call cannot be the same as the first unless you are a universalist.

 

That is precisely the point. That makes it seem they were in some sort of almost neutral position where they could move from damned to saved, but God prevents them to keep them damned. (hence, "damnation process"). But then other Calvinists insist, "no, their total depravity keeps them in the damned column, not anything God does", and in that scenario, no action would be required by God to keep them damned.

 

That doesn't make sense. How do you keep something the way it is and call that a "process"?

Regardless, I don't want to quibble over semantics. I simply don't know where you get the idea that anyone says man is in a neutral position. Nobody is ever in a neutral position, and although I may have missed it, I've never seen a Calvinist claim that they are. I have seen free-will advocates claim this, however (or something like it), which is one reason why their position doesn't seem Biblical.

Yes and yes. Their total depravity DOES keep them in the damned column, and no action is required on the part of God to keep them there.

I'm guessing you have difficulty with this concept because you're assuming that keeping someone damned is the goal of God blinding some, perhaps even the only goal. I'm not assuming any such thing.

I do not know any more about why God blinds or hardens than I do how God chooses whom to blind or harden. The Bible gives us clues about who and why some of the time, but certainly not in a sense that we can extract a general rule from the text. But if I had to guess, it's all bound up in God working all things together for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. But that's only a guess, and should be regarded as no more than a guess.

 

Well put. Here's how I would say it:

1. It is perfectly logical and right for God to tell all men to repent, because all men SHOULD repent.

2. Since we are crippled by the fall, none of us CAN or WILL repent on our own. This does not negate the former point, since we all SHOULD repent whether or not we are able to do so on our own steam.

3. As creator of us all, it is also within God's discretion to elect only some of His creation to enable them for repenentence, according to His divine and inscrutable will. Again, this does not negate the first point, since nothing God does with respect to election cancels out the fact that sinful men SHOULD repent. So it's not as if God needs to withdraw His universal call to repent simply because He only enables some.

 

Pastor Larry,

I defer to you. It appears that someone who is a Calvinist should have read the major thrust of "Calvin's Institutes." What do you think? Is not Calvin's majorty emphasis sovereignty? How many pages do you find developing the Biblical concepts of His love and mercy toward sinners?

 

You are deferring to me?? Why?? If you remember, I have said many times that I haven't read Calvin. I am not a Calvinist because of what Calvin said. I am a calvinist because of what Christ, Paul, and Peter said. My belief about soteriology comes from God's word. However, I would have thought that someone who hates Calvin as much as you do, and someone who makes a dogmatic statement about what Calvin said would know what he is talking about.

YOu made the statement that no where in 1300 pages of the Institutes, could any discussion of the love of God be found. I asked how you knew that. You respond by deferring to me. Well, to help you out I did an electronic search and found almost 300 references to love, many of them to the love of God and many specifically to John 3:16. I don't remember the exact numbers and that's not important to me. I didn't really read many of the sections. I glanced at a few of them. I for one don't really care that much what Calvin said; I was interested in your ability to prove to us what you had been saying was true. Now it turns out that you can't becuase you haven't read it. What is proves is that you once again made a demonstrably false statement apparently thinking no one would check up on it.

My point is proven: Once again you have cost yourself credibility by speaking authoritatively about something you are clearly uninformed about. You would think that if you were going to make such a dogmatic statement as you did, you would be sure that you are right. As it is, you have been proven wrong yet again.

Do you wonder why I suggest that you have no credibility? This is why: because your statements are filled with mistruths, misrepresentations, and bad argumentation. You have know proven it once again. There are some of us here that see straight through your posts; you may fool some but you are not fooling all of us.

Let me encourage you again to return to study. Start evaluating things in light of Scripture and truth rather than in light of your personal preferences.

 

Well shucks, folks, if those are the examples of scripture for two calls, there should be hundreds or thousands of calls for every edict that God gave to man is a Call to something!

Ya can't hang everything on two calls.

 

Pastor Larry,

The point of it all is sovereignty. Are you telling me that we should subvert the balance of the Word of God {the words from God} over some man made word, 'sovereignty?' Will you agree that all of Christ's attributes should be in complete balance?

Without you even thinking I know you see that Calvin was top-heavy on the sovereignty of God.

 

I am not sure what this means, Yelsew. It doesn't seem to make sense here. Perhaps you can explain more fully. You asked for evidence regarding the biblical distinction between the general and effectual call. I gave it. YOu didn't respond to the evidence; you simply posted this. What is it supposed to mean? Do you disagree with what Scripture says?

 

I don't think anyone here is subverting the balance of God's word in favor of a man made concept of sovereignty. Our belief on sovereignty comes from what God said, not from what man said.

I believe they should be taken as they are given in Scripture. If that meets your definition of "balance," then I agree. However, I think your definition of "balance" is out of line with scxriptural revelation. You are all for balance so long as it doesn't contradict your preconceived idea about what an attribute is or how it affects man.

I don't know that Calvin was top-heavy on teh sovereignty of God. As I have said, I haven't read Calvin. Today was the first time I have even glanced at the Institutes. I say again, my view on sovereignty comes from Scripture, not from man.

But back to a point that you have so far been unwilling to deal with, Rom 8:29 does clearly talk of a call that results in justification of those called. I want to know how you get around that verse.

[ January 15, 2003, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Pastor Larry,

I have read from "Calvin's Institutes," enough so that I can say his emphasis is on the sovereignty of God and John's five points.

Your spelling word for today is 'hyperbole,' with reference to Calvin's lack of exegesis on the attributes of love and mercy.

Do you remember a few days ago when you tried to impress us with second hand reports/summaries of Dave Hunt's book, "What Love Is This?"

It is only fair that I encourage you also to study before commenting on theological texts.

With respect,

Ray

 

Then why did you say that Calvin never talks about the love of God? I haven't read him but in less than five minutes, I figured out that you had not told the truth about that. I don't deny that his emphasis is on the sovereignty of God. It probably is but it doesn't matter since John Calvin, whether right or wrong, is not the test of truth. Furthermore, your point was that it is a unhealthy or imbalanced stress on the sovereignty of God, something you have not yet proven.

I am very familiar with hyperbole but I am not sure how it fits here since hyperbole is essentially an intentional overstatement for effect. It appears to only thing that was overstated here was your comments about Calvin's failure to reference the love of God, something that was shown to be an inaccurate statement by you.

They were not second hand reports. They were first hand reports given by people who read the book and made the appropriate comments on them. I linked to several of the reviews on different occasions where the fallacies of Hunt's book were documented with correction from clear sources.

That is nothing like what is going on here. You commented on what Calvin said and then were shown to be wrong. You want us to believe that you have read Calvin, which is fine; I don't care whether you have read him or not; it makes not difference to me. I do care that you made a false statement. You could have very easily avoided that statement by studying before posting it. But as it is, you would have us believe something about Calvin that is not true.

I make it a practice not to comment with authority on things I do not know anything about. IF I post, it is clearly given as an uninformed opinion or a question.

But we need to return to the topic at hand, namely the call of Rom 8:29 that results in justification for those who receive it. What is your position on that? Will you explain to us how you interpret that verse?

 

"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." (1 Corinthians 1:23, 24)

In this text, Paul teaches that the gospel is the power of God unto them which are called. If one must be called in order for the gospel to be the power of God unto them, it is quite evident that there must be a call prerequisite to receiving the gospel of Christ.

 

Every place in scripture what man is instructed to do something, be something, go somewhere, etc, is a call, and yes every man is expected to respond. However, only those who do as instructed receive the benefit or blessing of so doing. That is no different in its manner of accomplishment than the Call to come to Jesus for Salvation...only those who do come, receive the blessing of eternal life. What's so difficult about that?

 

Your first sentence is technically wrong. When a command was issued, only those affected by it were supposed to do something, not everyone. However, I understand your point. And I agree with it. All men are expected to respond to the call of repentance and faith. Only those who do so will receive the blessing of eternal life. We all agree with that.

The question is, Why do some people respond to that call and receive the blessing while others do not?