Calvinist preachers, teachers, theologians

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

 

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

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!

 

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

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

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.

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?

 

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!

 

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.

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.

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.

 

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...

In Christ..James

 

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.

 

Lets play fill in the blank.

The text is Romans 9.

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.

 

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

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)?

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).

 

Lets say this is true for a moment.

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

 

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

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)

 

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?