Calvinist preachers, teachers, theologians

[Jim1999]

I was instructed to preach the gospel to all. It is not listed under my preachers guide, the Bible, to determine who is elect and who is not. That is God's prerogative. I shall never presume to sit in God's seat.

As Mr. Spurgeon so ably said, "I preach like an Arminian and pray as a Calvinist."

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Pastor Larry]

Neither verse is untrue, but your application of "hate" is. I believe it has been shown before on here that "hate" does not imply the absence of love as calvinism teaches. Sane and Miseo do not hold the same meaning as our english of the word hate.

You are both correct and incorrect. "Hate" does not imply the absence of love. God does both, as the Scriptures say. But Sane and Miseo both contain the meaning of hate as our English word. All you need to do is get out your lexical works and look them up.

The implication that "hate" means simply to "love less" has very dramatic implications for the doctrine of the love of God. Given the biblical teaching on the love of God, we cannot assert that God loves them less, IMO.

So you are still left acknowledging from Scripture that God both loves and hates sinners. The only reason you object to that is because your personal theology. It is not because of Scripture.

If He elects to pass over them...He has in fact "elected" them for their fate, for what they were created for, then. Non elect is actually an oxymoron.

But he doesn’t “elect” to pass over them. “Election” is never used that way in Scripture.

I think you also misunderstand what an oxymoron is. An oxymoron is two words that contradict each other. Non-elect is not contradictory at all.

Do you believe in double predestination? If not, you deny that do you not? Maybe "vehemently" was not the best word to use, but at any rate it doesn't affect my "understanding" one bit.

I deny that I believe in double predestination the way it commonly used by non-Calvinists. God does not elect people to go to hell. He does not force them to reject him. They go to hell because of their sins. They reject him willfully.

But do you tell them that they may possibly not be elect?

I typically say, “I don’t know what God is doing in your life. But I know this … that if you will turn to Christ in repentance and faith, he will save you.”


So what you think I believe that I don't preach?

 

[2BHizown]

To preach to all as though lost is accurate! The saved know who they are in Christ and always love hearing that gospel again!

We do as commanded in scripture. God has mysteries that are His own that we know not of and do know that He takes care of them, including providence and claiming His own in His own timing! We are the means He uses, and must be faithful to His cause!

 

[webdog]

So you are still left acknowledging from Scripture that God both loves and hates sinners. The only reason you object to that is because your personal theology. It is not because of Scripture.

The only reason I object is because the way you (and calvinism in general) presents the word hate. I hear the argument from calvinists "there are those in hell that God loves?"

I think you also misunderstand what an oxymoron is. An oxymoron is two words that contradict each other. Non-elect is not contradictory at all.

I know what an oxymoron is. In the context of calvinism...non elect is just that. We are all elect for something according to this system. You are correct that Scripture doesn't mention God not electing man to hell. He doesn't. Your theology teaches He does, hence the oxymoron statement.

I typically say, “I don’t know what God is doing in your life. But I know this … that if you will turn to Christ in repentance and faith, he will save you.”


So what you think I believe that I don't preach?

See, this is exactly what I mean. The highlighted is sugarcoating what you actually believe. You know the elect will come and the "non elect" won't. You don't seriously believe every person in the congregation is elect...do you? Then put it out there for them to grasp! According to your beliefs, you know that the "non elect" won't come. Stating "if you will turn to Christ..." is the exact cop out I was getting at in the OP.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The only reason I object is because the way you (and calvinism in general) presents the word hate. I hear the argument from calvinists "there are those in hell that God loves?"

So God doesn’t love the people in hell? Help me understand exactly what your objection is here.

I know what an oxymoron is. In the context of calvinism...non elect is just that. We are all elect for something according to this system. You are correct that Scripture doesn't mention God not electing man to hell. He doesn't. Your theology teaches He does, hence the oxymoron statement.

You obviously don’t understand mainstream Calvinism. Some teach a double election, but most do not.

See, this is exactly what I mean. The highlighted is sugarcoating what you actually believe. You know the elect will come and the "non elect" won't. You don't seriously believe every person in the congregation is elect...do you?

So saying that “I don’t know what God is doing in your life” is sugarcoating something? I don’t know. I am being honest. I don’t who the elect is. And I don’t know whether or not every person in the congregation is elect. That is irrelevant.

According to your beliefs, you know that the "non elect" won't come. Stating "if you will turn to Christ..." is the exact cop out I was getting at in the OP.

So again, what is your objection? Do you believe that Christ will save those who do not come to him?”

How is it a cop out to preach exactly what Jesus said?

 

[webdog]

So God doesn’t love the people in hell? Help me understand exactly what your objection is here.

If you reread my post you would see that I stated calvinists claim that God doesn't love those in Hell. I disagree.

You obviously don’t understand mainstream Calvinism. Some teach a double election, but most do not.

Mainstream...up stream...down stream...the results lead to the same conclusion. Double predestination is the only conclusion to calvinism, regarless what is taught.

As to your last two points, there is no need to respond. You already made my point. I don't believe that God saves those who do not come, however.

 

[2BHizown]

There comes a time to lay down your arms, in total submission to the Word and its truths!

Those who come to Christ are responding to His call in their heart, the irrisistible grace of the Holy Spirit! Those who have done this have no argument about the hows and whys!
'Whether He be a sinner or no, I know not; one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see!' John 9:25
Only the pharisees were looking for argument, wanting to make Christ a 'sinner' for healing on the sabbath! If you're healed on the sabbath. your sins fully forgiven, do you really care what day it is? When our eyes are truly opened to His truth we begin to see new light in every verse of scripture! How He saved me, I couldnt care less! But that He did is a glorious thing!

 

[Pastor Larry]

If you reread my post you would see that I stated calvinists claim that God doesn't love those in Hell. I disagree.

It may be true that some Calvinists believe that, but it would be necessary for you to prove that, and secondly to prove that Calvinism believes that. I disagree. I think God loves all men made in his image, just as he says.

One of the differences between you and me is that I also believe God hates all sinners. And you don't. You have tried to change what God said because it doesn't fit your personal theology.

Mainstream...up stream...down stream...the results lead to the same conclusion. Double predestination is the only conclusion to calvinism, regarless what is taught.

They don't all lead to the same. That is why there are supra lapsarians, infralapsarians, and sublapsarians. There are amills, and postmills. There are paedoBaptists and credobaptists, all of whom are Calvinists.

You indicate yet again that you don't know what you are talking about and are unwilling to learn.

As to your last two points, there is no need to respond. You already made my point. I don't believe that God saves those who do not come, however.

So your point was that Calvinists do preach what they beleive, that Christ will save all who will come to him? Becuase that is what I affirmed.

I have to wonder what the whole point of this thread was. You began by asserting that Calvinists don't preach what they believe, and don't believe what they preach. There has been a parade of Calvinists here who have proven you wrong. And yet you say that I have made your point. You are very confusing.

 

[Jarthur001]

Mainstream...up stream...down stream...the results lead to the same conclusion. Double predestination is the only conclusion to calvinism, regarless what is taught.

Election is always viewed as action by God. Election is always showing Gods mercy. Non-elect are not choosen for hell. When God elects, God choose in His pleasure those to be His bride. Sin sends the non-elect to hell.

When one votes another into public office, we cast a vote for our pick. We then do not need to vote for the millions that are not our pick. If we did this, it would be much like the double predestination as freewillers view it. We do not see a postive electing to hell by God. We do see a postive will of man to choose Hell.

Luther put it this way...

The negative act includes two, both preterition, by which in the election of some as well to glory as to grace, he neglected and slighted others, which is evident from the event of election, and negative desertion, by which he left them in the corrupt mass and in their misery; which, however, is as to be understood, 1. That they are not excepted from the laws of common providence, but remain subject to them, nor are immediately deprived of all God's favor, but only of the saving and vivifying which is the fruit of election, 2. That preterition and desertion; not indeed from the nature of preterition and desertion itself, and the force of the denied grace itself, but from the nature of the corrupt free will, and the force of corruption in it; as he who does not cure the disease of a sick man, is not the cause per se of the disease, nor of the results flowing from it; so sins are the consequents, rather than the effects of reprobation, necessarily bringing about the futurition of the event, but yet not infusing nor producing the wickedness.

In Christ..James

 

[webdog]

One of the differences between you and me is that I also believe God hates all sinners. And you don't. You have tried to change what God said because it doesn't fit your personal theology.

Not true. It helps to understand the context of how hate is used. If anything it is you that changes the meaning to fit your theology.

You indicate yet again that you don't know what you are talking about and are unwilling to learn.

You are being blatantly dishonest.

I have to wonder what the whole point of this thread was. You began by asserting that Calvinists don't preach what they believe, and don't believe what they preach. There has been a parade of Calvinists here who have proven you wrong. And yet you say that I have made your point. You are very confusing.

If you can't understand what the point of this thread is, then it is probably you who are not trying to understand. You crack me up...a "parade" of calvinists who have "proven" me wrong. If anything of the mere handful to respond, it was jne, I believe who proved my point perfectly, and is the only one to honestly say they don't preach an "arminian" Gospel. You have show that you do.

 

[whatever]

You crack me up...a "parade" of calvinists who have "proven" me wrong.

Your inability to understand which things Calvinists agree on and which things we disagree on is not a problem for Calvinism. This is your problem, friend.

 

[Jarthur001]

Not true. It helps to understand the context of how hate is used. If anything it is you that changes the meaning to fit your theology.

Lets play fill in the blank.

The text is Romans 9.

8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

9For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

10And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

The context is a list of black and whites.

2nd son is picked on one side ...over the 1st son on the other side.
Honour on one side...dishonour on the other
Mercy....no mercy
compassion....no compassion
loved....(_______)????

What is the other side of love? Without changing the context of black and white, what word would you use to fill in the blank that is the other side of love?

I thing all translations got it right when they said "hate" is the best word. Place any word you want in there, but do not change the context of black and white for then you are rewriting the Bible.

 

[webdog]

The context is a list of black and whites.

No wonder you don't understand Romans 9. It's not a context of "black and whites", but favor over one nation...one people over the other.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Not true. It helps to understand the context of how hate is used. If anything it is you that changes the meaning to fit your theology.

The word means “hate.” It doesn’t mean to “love less.” I think it mean to “hate.”

You are being blatantly dishonest.

How so? You have shown time and time again that you do not really understand what we believe and why we believe it. And you have been told many times what we believe and why we believe it, and have refused to learn.

Listen, I don’t care whether you agree with me or not. It really doesn’t bother me in the least that you differ. What does bother me is that you misrepresent and make false accusations. As I have often said, if you are going to disagree, at least disagree with what we believe.

[quote[If you can't understand what the point of this thread is, then it is probably you who are not trying to understand.[/quote]I thought I understood that you were trying to prove that Calvinists don’t preach what they really believe. Then I show you that I do preach what I really believe and you say that I have made your point. So what was you point? Was it that we don’t preach what we believe (as you indicated earlier)? Or that we do preach what we believe (which I asserted and you said was making your point)?

You crack me up...a "parade" of calvinists who have "proven" me wrong. If anything of the mere handful to respond, it was jne, I believe who proved my point perfectly, and is the only one to honestly say they don't preach an "arminian" Gospel. You have show that you do.

I am not sure what an Arminian gospel is. The gospel is that Jesus died for sin, as a substitute for sinners, and all who will believe in him will have everlasting life. That is neither Calvinist nor Arminian. It fits perfectly with both.

You are confusing the issue with your misunderstanding and unwillingness to learn. I wish it were different.

If you believe that God knows from the beginning who will believe and who won’t, then you too preach knowing that some in your audience have no chance to be saved. The reality is that your position ends up in the same place.

All of this is easily resolved if you will simply endeavor to understand how Calvinism views the gospel. There is no doubt that there are some Calvinists who are “hyper,” some who are “supra lapsarians.” There are a variety of views on particulars, but those are typically not what you are complaining about. You are complaining about stuff that most Calvinists agree on (and agree that you don’t properly represent it).

 

[Jarthur001]

No wonder you don't understand Romans 9. It's not a context of "black and whites", but favor over one nation...one people over the other.

Lets say this is true for a moment.

Now back to this... that word that you place in the blank is?

 

[webdog]

Lets say this is true for a moment.

Now back to this... that word that you place in the blank is?

miseo...translated hate. I see the word games you are trying to play, James.

 

[webdog]

You have shown time and time again that you do not really understand what we believe and why we believe it. And you have been told many times what we believe and why we believe it, and have refused to learn.

Listen, I don’t care whether you agree with me or not. It really doesn’t bother me in the least that you differ. What does bother me is that you misrepresent and make false accusations.

Kind of like your false accusation against me? Don't tell me what I believe and that I have "refused to learn". The same could be said of you.

The gospel is that Jesus died for sin, as a substitute for sinners, and all who will believe in him will have everlasting life.

I believe this too...except Romans 6:10 states that Christ died once for ALL...and Romans 3:23 states that ALL are sinners. Do you preach this?

If you believe that God knows from the beginning who will believe and who won’t, then you too preach knowing that some in your audience have no chance to be saved. The reality is that your position ends up in the same place.

It's obvious you are the one who refuses to learn, as I do not believe this.

 

[Allan]

from the 1859 sermon by Charles Spurgeon entitled JACOB AND ESAU.

“Why does God hate any man? I defy anyone to give any answer but this, because that man deserves it; no reply but that can ever be true. There are some who answer, divine sovereignty; but I challenge them to look that doctrine in the face. Do you believe that God created man and arbitrarily, sovereignly — it is the same thing — created that man, with no other intention, than that of damning him? Made him, and yet, for no other reason than that of destroying him for ever? Well, if you can believe it, I pity you, that is all I can say: you deserve pity, that you should think so meanly of God, whose mercy endureth for ever.”

CITATION: Charles Spurgeon, Sermon: JACOB AND ESAU (January 16, 1859)

I only have time for a cut and paste at the moment cause my wife is getting on to me about being on the computer for to long.

But if God decrees man TO fall (in Adam), regardless of how he falls - it is the "why" that places mans fall squarely upon God. If man has the option of choice but it has been decided that man can not choose opposite of that which God decreed him to, man is simply fulfilling that which he was created for - to be hated.

Now, I know I'm told I don't understand this proporly. Rather than give that rhetoric, why not TELL me how this specific decree functions in a way that does not place God as the first cause and director of mans fall into sin and how having a choice and not being allowed to choose contrary to the pre-approved choice, is Adam having the freedom to choose? (Since I know some who state Only Adam had option of choice in this situtation only)

 

[Jarthur001]

miseo...translated hate. I see the word games you are trying to play, James.

Not at all.

It was claimed that Calvinist do not understand the word hate. Words are not to be our main and only focus as much as context is. Context is king. In context it is a list of black and whites. Now...it could be read as you said....tis nations. I disagree with this view...but this would not change the context.

But the real point is God has the power and will to Elect, be it nation or man. That is the context. Do you agree?

 

[webdog]

I disagree with this view...but this would not change the context.

How can you disagree with this view when it is the context?