C.H. Spurgeon and election

[annsni]

gotta love an old computer - double then triple post

 

[annsni]

Sorry - I kept getting an error - so tried again and again.

Hmmm - wonder how much a new computer is?

Think I'm on a dinosaur? A machine running Windows 98 from when Windows 98 was NEW???? LOL

 

[saved and sure]

If some are chosen by God to be saved it remains that some are chosen by God to suffer eternal torment in the Lake of Fire.

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Based on the Calvinist belief shouldn’t the verse read:

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels and those God did not elect:

 

[Bob Alkire]

There was a bunch of discussion about it and since I see evidence of both free will and election in Scripture, then there must be a truth that my humble mind can't comprehend at this time. Someday, when I'm face to face with my Savior, I just might get it.

On this I agree, it is why I say I'm not in either camp.

 

[saved and sure]

Ann,

The person said, and I quote: “If you do not believe in election then you deny the Bible.”

To even make such a statement is arrogant and prideful.

Dave

 

[Rippon]

Ann,

The person said, and I quote: “If you do not believe in election then you deny the Bible.”

To even make such a statement is arrogant and prideful.

Dave

He overstepped that one a bit . However , those who deny such a prominent Bible doctrine when it stares them in the face in a multitude of passages -- these folks are the arrogant ones . They think they know better than the Lord on some matters . They think that the teaching of election in Scripture is too severe , so they want to expunge it . Failing that they try to minimize , sweep it under the rug or even denounce it using coarse language .

 

[Rippon]

Last time I looked, John Calvin's Institutes had nothing to do with the Bible. They are man's interpretations of the Bible. I reject the Institutes ... yes, Dale, I have read a portion of the Institutes---pretty dry reading.

The last time you looked ! Have you actually read any of his works ?

His Institutes have nothing to do with the Bible ?!! And fish don't swim in your neck of the woods I guess . Calvin is highly regarded as a Bible expositor . In some non-Calvinistic circles he is very esteemed .Even Jacob Arminius praised him .You have a lot of crow to eat Linda . Your statements from here on out will be suspect for their possible dishonesty .

 

[saved and sure]

He overstepped that one a bit . However , those who deny such a prominent Bible doctrine when it stares them in the face in a multitude of passages -- these folks are the arrogant ones . They think they know better than the Lord on some matters . They think that the teaching of election in Scripture is too severe , so they want to expunge it . Failing that they try to minimize , sweep it under the rug or even denounce it using coarse language .

So it appears that if a person does not agree with your interpretation of scripture they are guilty of not accepting the Bible as the Word of God or worse yet, they are guilty of thinking they know more than The Lord?

I do not think that the teaching of Calvinism is too severe, I think scripture is clear that the teaching is false.

The disagreement on Calvinism should not divide believers yet the teaching is not true and cannot stand in light of clear scripture to the contrary.

The great thing about God's Love is that He allows us to reject Him. He truly wants all to come to repentance but only those who choose to accept His Gift of salvation will live with Him for eternity.

Dave

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Linda said it was pretty dry reading. That would indicate to most that understand what reading means... that she had read the portions she looked at.

Calvin's Institutes are not God-inspired. They are Calvin's thoughts on what he thought God meant when His Holy Spirit inspired men of old to pen down the Scriptures. The Institutes are nothing more than a commentary, and not to be taken as Authoritative.

 

[JustChristian]

John 6:37-39 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. "

This goes along with the verse that says "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44)

Romans 8 says "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? "

and right after that: "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth."

So you seem to be missing part of the Bible. Either that or you look to your own wisdom to explain away the clear teaching of Scripture. Who's will is sovereign? God's, man's or Satan's You said that Satan is blinding man - but the verse says "If God be for us, who can be against us?" How can Satan steal from God?

Joh 6:37:

“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”

There are many things to be considered in this verse, which the average reader is completely unaware of:

“All that (the things) that My Father is giving Me…” Jesus does not speak of men, but of “things” (conditions?). The article is in neutral (pan o didosin), not the masculine (pas o didosin) that would have been required to show Him as addressing men. Notice that these are things the Father “is giving” now (present tense, not past tense), but they will come in the future (i.e. “will come to Me”). Since it does not say “All the Father has given Me will come to Me,” there is no evidence of predestined division of things, let alone the division of men.

The same neutral article is used in v39 “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me (pan o dedoken moi) I should lose nothing, but should raise it up […] at the last day.” John 6:39. Notice that even the KJV acknowledges it’s an “it”: “but should raise IT up.” (The word “up” is used in lieu of “again” making “again” redundant).

However the second part of v37, does speak of men: “…and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”

Therefore v37 speaks of two separate things:
a) The things that My Father gives Me which will come to Me, and
b) The man who comes to Me, whom I will not cast out.

Cast out of what? Of that which “will come to Me” (the Kingdom)-- future. Jesus is saying: You will certainly come to Me to where I go, if you come to Me now by believing, because My reign in My Kingdom is certain; it will come to Me, as the Father promised.

 

[Jerome]

Spurgeon: Calvinist brainwashing necessary to enter heaven.

"Now, I do not ask you whether you believe all this — it is possible you may not ; but I believe you will before you enter heaven. I am persuaded, that as God may have washed your hearts, he will wash your brains before you enter heaven."

 

[Amy.G]

The Bible teaches election.

1Pe 1:2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.


The Bible teaches man is responsible.

Act 17:30 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,


The Bible teaches man can resist the Holy Spirit.

Mat 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under [her] wings, but you were not willing!


The Bible teaches that God reveals Himself to all people.

Rom 1:21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.


Election, free will, responsibility are all a part of God's plan and we have to accept each one even though they do not seem to be compatible.

Someday we will not see dimly as we do now, but God will reveal all things to us and we will understand. But for now, we have to accept all things through faith whether we understand them or not.

 

[saved and sure]

Rippon,

Genesis 1:31 “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”

If man is depraved and does not have the ability to choose good, does a saved man have the ability to choose good? Does a saved man have the ability to choose evil?

Since Adam was looked at as being “very good” by God, how was he looked at after he sinned? Was his ability to choose good erased after the fall?

God created Lucifer (satan) and God said he was perfect in his “ways from the day he was created, till iniquity was found” in him, how could he have chosen evil not to mention the third of the angels who also rebelled against God?

If Adam and Lucifer are examples of "Good" creations of God, is God then the author of evil?

Dave

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Act 17:30 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,

Why would God command someone to repent who He had determined would not enter heaven?

Acts 17:30 crushes the "I" petal.

 

[Rippon]

So it appears that if a person does not agree with your interpretation of scripture they are guilty of not accepting the Bible as the Word of God or worse yet, they are guilty of thinking they know more than The Lord?

I do not think that the teaching of Calvinism is too severe, I think scripture is clear that the teaching is false.

The disagreement on Calvinism should not divide believers yet the teaching is not true and cannot stand in light of clear scripture to the contrary.

Dave

Let me get this straight . You think that the doctrines of Calvinism are false . You believe that they contradict clear Scripture . Yet , though they are heretical you think that the disagreement over the teachings of Calvinism should not divide believers . Dave , you speak in riddles . You need to separate from what you perceive as false teaching . Why fellowship with error ?

 

[saved and sure]

Let me get this straight . You think that the doctrines of Calvinism are false . You believe that they contradict clear Scripture . Yet , though they are heretical you think that the disagreement over the teachings of Calvinism should not divide believers . Dave , you speak in riddles . You need to separate from what you perceive as false teaching . Why fellowship with error ?

The Bible says to not fellowship with the lost. Not those who error in some docrinal beliefs. If you want to cut your communication with me feel free.

Dave

 

[Rippon]

The Bible says to not fellowship with the lost. Not those who error in some docrinal beliefs. If you want to cut your communication with me feel free.

Dave

For instance ,what do you do with Romans 16:17: " I urge you brothers , to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned ." ( NIV )

 

[Rippon]

Act 17:30 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,

Why would God command someone to repent who He had determined would not enter heaven?

Acts 17:30 crushes the "I" petal.

All Calvinists including myself belive in Acts 17:30 and other passages which command people to repent and believe .

That has nothing to do with "the 'I' petal" though . The third plank against the teachings of the Remonstrants dealt with effectual grace . The Lord is going to spiritually arrest those of His choosing .

 

[saved and sure]

For instance ,what do you do with Romans 16:17: " I urge you brothers , to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned ." ( NIV )

No need for "for instances" we can end any further conversations. You need to rethink your understanding of election and see the doctrine from God's view and not Calvin's.

If you knew the truth, you would not believe as you do. If there is any obstacle in your way it is the truth.

Good luck

 

[Rippon]

Last time I looked, John Calvin's Institutes had nothing to do with the Bible. They are man's interpretations of the Bible. I reject the Institutes ... yes, Dale, I have read a portion of the Institutes---pretty dry reading.

On the one hand you say that Calvin's most famous work had nothing to do with Scripture . Then , you say you have read a portion of it and concluded that it was rather dry reading . Your two ideas are not equivalent . J.V. McGee thought that Matthew Henry's Bible Commentary was "pretty dry reading" too . But he never concluded that it had nothing to do with the Bible . I still can't get over the sheer audacity of your remark . Perhaps Henry's Commentary has nothing to do with the Bible either in your mind ?!