Can a non-Calvinist explain the doctrine Irresistable Grace to me?

[skypair]

I hate the hyper-calvinism that you describe. I think it's heresy.

I guess I got the object of your hate wrong --- which led to my question about what distinction there was between Cal and HCal that engendered your hate.

jdale seems to have given a good explanation though it reflects more on the "attitude" of the individual than on the theological difference.

What I really wanted to know -- and perhaps didn't make my question clear -- is "is it a distinctive of hyperCalvinism that you hate and if so, what is that distinction?"

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

skypair

 

[jcjordan]

I guess I got the object of your hate wrong --- which led to my question about what distinction there was between Cal and HCal that engendered your hate.

jdale seems to have given a good explanation though it reflects more on the "attitude" of the individual than on the theological difference.

What I really wanted to know -- and perhaps didn't make my question clear -- is "is it a distinctive of hyperCalvinism that you hate and if so, what is that distinction?"

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

skypair

What I hate about hypercalvinism is a denial of the God's means in executing His sovereign plan. Classic Calvinism teaches that God will save His elect, but that the means through which he does so is through the preaching of the Gospel to the lost. The doctrine of election, for me, actually makes evangelism much more exciting and necessary, since God has ordained missions as the means of converting the lost.

 

[skypair]

What I hate about hypercalvinism is a denial of the God's means in executing His sovereign plan. Classic Calvinism teaches that God will save His elect, but that the means through which he does so is through the preaching of the Gospel to the lost. The doctrine of election, for me, actually makes evangelism much more exciting and necessary, since God has ordained missions as the means of converting the lost.

You are absolutely right!

Tell me then -- do any of the tenets of Calvinism still make this a contradiction between faith and practice? For instance, does preaching mean that more "elect" will come to Christ?

skypair

 

[jcjordan]

You are absolutely right!

Tell me then -- do any of the tenets of Calvinism still make this a contradiction between faith and practice? For instance, does preaching mean that more "elect" will come to Christ?

skypair

I'm fearful we are going to talk right past each other here. But to answer your question, no. However, preaching is the means in which the the elect are brought to Christ.
Let me try to say this in another way. Our final and main goal in preaching is not that men will be saved. Yes, our desire is for men to to be saved by our preaching, however that's not the end of it. The end goal is God to receive glory.

 

[JDale]

JCJ:

This is not a "Calvinism" that I cannot work with. If we agree that it is thru the preaching of the Gospel that "God 's elect" will be found, then regardless of whether we believe the Elect are INDIVIDUALS chosen before the foundation of the world (Calvinism), or that "God's Elect" are ALL those who come thru by the predestined means of Christ by Grace thru Faith (Arminianism), the reulst is the same. The Elect are saved.

We may disagee on how many can be elect, or if they are individually chosen, or any number of other variables, but we end up at the same place eventually -- much like D.L. Moody and C.H. Spurgeon, or Wesley and Whitefield.

JCJ, that would have gotten you dubbed an SR [sufficiently reformed] in Seminary, rather than an OR [obnoxiously reformed]! Hope that's okay! ;-)

JDale

 

[jcjordan]

JCJ:

This is not a "Calvinism" that I cannot work with. If we agree that it is thru the preaching of the Gospel that "God 's elect" will be found, then regardless of whether we believe the Elect are INDIVIDUALS chosen before the foundation of the world (Calvinism), or that "God's Elect" are ALL those who come thru by the predestined means of Christ by Grace thru Faith (Arminianism), the reulst is the same. The Elect are saved.

We may disagee on how many can be elect, or if they are individually chosen, or any number of other variables, but we end up at the same place eventually -- much like D.L. Moody and C.H. Spurgeon, or Wesley and Whitefield.

JCJ, that would have gotten you dubbed an SR [sufficiently reformed] in Seminary, rather than an OR [obnoxiously reformed]! Hope that's okay! ;-)

JDale

JDale, I appreciate the kind words. However, I think you should know that every calvinist that I know of believes the same way. I don't know any hyper-calvinists. I love the four guys you mention. In fact, my favorite hymn is a Wesley hymn. There are many non-calvinists I highly respect. One I can think of right off hand is the president at Southeastern seminary....Daniel Aiken. I love that guy.

 

[skypair]

I'm fearful we are going to talk right past each other here. But to answer your question, no. However, preaching is the means in which the the elect are brought to Christ.

I believe this, too. So maybe you are a Calvinist in theory but not in practice. IOW, you're not putting all your faith into Calvinism at the expense of what the Bible says. That's good. TC just made a similar testimony.

Let me try to say this in another way. Our final and main goal in preaching is not that men will be saved. ... The end goal is God to receive glory.

You'd make a great "worship leader," jcd. I often think that our worship leaders come from the Calvinist persuasion or orientation. They easily address all their singing and preaching towards God, but we don't anymore get the "hard preaching," Holy Spirit convicting preaching, from them that God uses towards men for salvation and for growth.

skypair

 

[jcjordan]

I believe this, too. So maybe you are a Calvinist in theory but not in practice. IOW, you're not putting all your faith into Calvinism at the expense of what the Bible says. That's good. TC just made a similar testimony.

You'd make a great "worship leader," jcd. I often think that our worship leaders come from the Calvinist persuasion or orientation. They easily address all their singing and preaching towards God, but we don't anymore get the "hard preaching," Holy Spirit convicting preaching, from them that God uses towards men for salvation and for growth.

skypair

Brother Sky, I just think you have some wrong notions in your head about calvinists. There are all kinds of crazy things being said out there like "calvinism kills missions". For most of us calvinists, I would say that our understanding of how we were saved actually propels us to MORE of a missions mindset. What I've described is historical calvinist practice. It isn't and shouldn't be the exception. Have you ever heard John Piper preach? I suggest you listen to his sermon "Doing Missions When Dying is Gain".

 

[JDale]

JDale, I appreciate the kind words. However, I think you should know that every calvinist that I know of believes the same way. I don't know any hyper-calvinists. I love the four guys you mention. In fact, my favorite hymn is a Wesley hymn. There are many non-calvinists I highly respect. One I can think of right off hand is the president at Southeastern seminary....Daniel Aiken. I love that guy.

JCJ:

Thank you for your kind words. Honestly, I don't find that often among Calvinists -- then again, I KNOW you could say the same about some Non-Calvinists/Arminians.

Regarding Calvinists vs. HyperCalvinists, I realize there is little or no difference in the theology of the two. In my experience and study, I find that the differences are usually attitudinal and applicational. Thus the terms I used in Seminary (SR's & OR's).

I'm always glad to find folks I can talk to without theological chips on their shoulders. God bless your ministry JCJ -- I hope you find more of the elect than Calvin thought possible! ;-)

Blessings,

JDale

 

[JDale]

Wow. SP, while philosophically I see the points you make re: Calvinism, I don't see them played out in history on a practical level -- at least not consistently.

For example, the charge that Calvinists don't believe in "preaching the Gospel." I know there are examples of that in history, and there are the extremists today. I've often rhetorically stated that if I was a Calvinist, I would be a Primitive Baptist, because they don't believe in Missions. They Carry calvinism to it's "logical extreme."

On the other hand, if one surveys history, some of the greatest evangelists and preachers of the Gospel were Calvinists. Whitefield, Edwards, Spurgeon, Sunday, etc....

I know there are Calvinists who take their soteriology to an extreme, but I also know many who understand their Biblical responsibility to "Preach the Gospel to every creature." And frankly, too often I find that those repsonsible Calvinists do a better job of winning the elect than many Non-Calvinists/Arminians do at winning "Whosoever will."

That's just my $ .02 worth though.

JDale

 

[skypair]

Brother Sky, I just think you have some wrong notions in your head about calvinists. There are all kinds of crazy things being said out there like "calvinism kills missions". For most of us calvinists, I would say that our understanding of how we were saved actually propels us to MORE of a missions mindset. What I've described is historical calvinist practice. It isn't and shouldn't be the exception. Have you ever heard John Piper preach? I suggest you listen to his sermon "Doing Missions When Dying is Gain".

You're a good Baptist, jcj!

Actually, you are probably familiar (since you mention it) that there is "word" out there that "Calvinism kills missions." I believe, to a large extent, that was restricted to accusations against "hypers" -- a sort of "taking the theology to its extreme meaning."

Do you have a website where I can listen to him? I would be interested in that.

One more point -- though they find the theology intriguing and helpful, I don't believe many Calvinists (from what I gather here) are practicing" Calvinists in there Baptist churches. I could be wrong. It could be that Calvinists are the genesis of this "worship and praise" movement that has diluted convicting message of scripture into the "cum by yah" sermons that we are hearing in the SBC! All worship - no conviction. I don't know. Something I'm still "observing." You seem to acknowledge the worship over salvation aim of preaching so I thought I would mention it.

skypair

 

[skypair]

On the other hand, if one surveys history, some of the greatest evangelists and preachers of the Gospel were Calvinists. Whitefield, Edwards, Spurgeon, Sunday, etc....

Funny you should say that. Just last night I was reading Lutzer (Calvinist, Doctrines That Divide) on the Whitefield-Wesley split. Whitefield was the consumate "revivalist" of the time. But Wesley, while Whitefield was in America, "sow[ed] division over the matter of election" among his congregants. His point was that "by the decree of God, the greater part of humanity abodes in death without any possibility of redemption; no one can save this vast multitude but God and He will not save them. ... Then he concluded that this would make all preaching vain. 'It is needless to them who are elected ... and it is useless to them who are not.'"

"Wesley called predestination a doctrine 'full of blaspemy.' It represents our Lord as 'a hypocrite, a deceiver of theh people, a man void of common sincerity.'"

"Wesley still wasn't finished. He then turned to address the devil:

Thou fool. Why dost thou roar about any longer? Your lying in wait for souls is as needless and useless as our preaching. eardest thou not that God has taken out of thy work out of thy hands; and the He doeth it more effectually? ..." (p202-203)

I would like to discover what Calvinists comments might be on these accusations.

skypair

 

[jcjordan]

You're a good Baptist, jcj!

Actually, you are probably familiar (since you mention it) that there is "word" out there that "Calvinism kills missions." I believe, to a large extent, that was restricted to accusations against "hypers" -- a sort of "taking the theology to its extreme meaning."

Do you have a website where I can listen to him? I would be interested in that.

One more point -- though they find the theology intriguing and helpful, I don't believe many Calvinists (from what I gather here) are practicing" Calvinists in there Baptist churches. I could be wrong. It could be that Calvinists are the genesis of this "worship and praise" movement that has diluted convicting message of scripture into the "cum by yah" sermons that we are hearing in the SBC! All worship - no conviction. I don't know. Something I'm still "observing." You seem to acknowledge the worship over salvation aim of preaching so I thought I would mention it.

skypair

SP, if you've never heard John Piper, than you really need to hear hs sermons if you want to understand the thinking of today's calvinists. You an hear him at www.desiringgod.org. Basically every sermon he has ever preached is available for free download. You can also find snippets of his preaching all over youtube. Another guy I suggest you listen to is Paul Washer. You can find his stuff on sermonaudio.

 

[skypair]

Thanks, jcj. I favorited his webpage and will go there from time-to-time. :thumbs:

skypair

 

[Rippon]

On the other hand, if one surveys history, some of the greatest evangelists and preachers of the Gospel were Calvinists. Whitefield, Edwards, Spurgeon, Sunday, etc....

First of all it was a shock to see that JDale is not with us at present.Hopefully he will return.

Whitefield,Edwards and Spurgeon were all strong Calvinists.However,Billy Sunday was certainly not from the Calvinist camp.He was an ordained Presbyterian minister but did not honor his vows.And he had said that because his wife was a Presbyterian he might as well become one too.

I just don't see how anyone could mistake him for a Calvinist.His "doctrines" (and he did not believe in theological propositions)were clearly contrary to Reformational Theology.

The man became a millionaire back when a million dollars meant something a lot more than today.Did he have a side business?No.He helped himself to the offering plate a bit too much.

The Gospel was hardly heard from his lips.Lesser themes like ranting against drinking were much more dominant.He was too caught up in vaudeville antics like acrobatics.

"God's doing his best to keep you out of hell.You'd better listen to him and give him a chance."

 

[MB]

First of all it was a shock to see that JDale is not with us at present.Hopefully he will return.

Whitefield,Edwards and Spurgeon were all strong Calvinists.However,Billy Sunday was certainly not from the Calvinist camp.He was an ordained Presbyterian minister but did not honor his vows.And he had said that because his wife was a Presbyterian he might as well become one too.

I just don't see how anyone could mistake him for a Calvinist.His "doctrines" (and he did not believe in theological propositions)were clearly contrary to Reformational Theology.

The man became a millionaire back when a million dollars meant something a lot more than today.Did he have a side business?No.He helped himself to the offering plate a bit too much.

The Gospel was hardly heard from his lips.Lesser themes like ranting against drinking were much more dominant.He was too caught up in vaudeville antics like acrobatics.

"God's doing his best to keep you out of hell.You'd better listen to him and give him a chance."

I suppose that Billy Sunday being a major league baseball player didn't have a thing to do with his wealth. As far as a side bussinesses his writing couldn't have had anything to do with it either. You really should do some research before you go about slandering someone you obviously know nothing about.
My Source http://billysunday.org/
MB

 

[Rippon]

I suppose that Billy Sunday being a major league baseball player didn't have a thing to do with his wealth. As far as a side bussinesses his writing couldn't have had anything to do with it either. You really should do some research before you go about slandering someone you obviously know nothing about.
My Source http://billysunday.org/
MB

Billy Sunday played professional baseball for about seven years.He was asked to return for $400.00 per month.No,being a major league player had nothing to do with his wealth.As far as his books go,I do not think that could have added much to his material prosperity.

Listen,in his prime he had a paid staff of 26.In the early teens of the 20th century he made more per day than the average American did in a whole year.

Maybe you know even less about about me than you do about Billy Sunday.

But the thing I was stressing is that BS was as far from being a Calvinist as one could get.In some of his "sermons" you can't find a trace of the Gospel.His most famous sermon was "Booze" I dare you to find any mention of Christ,or the Bible.The same goes for his classy "Theater,Cards And Dance".

As far out as some "preachers" are today Billy Sunday could rival them with his bizarre stunts.He was like an early Jerry Lee Lewis with his chair-smashing. His somersaults were also a big draw.His performances were crude and arrogant.He is not one to imitate.On the contrary Paul's ministry was one to emulate.

 

[zrs6v4]

I'm wondering if any non-calvinists can actually fully explain in their own words what the calvinist doctrine of Irresistable Grace teaches. I'm not intersted in hearing why it is wrong. Just tell me what the doctrine teaches.

So because your a calvanist, pretend I am a lost sinner and ask you> I want to be saved? what would a quick basic response say? I always wondered this so please do a good job and dont get to deep becasue remember I only know the basic gospel message... thanks

 

[joyce]

can a non-Calvinist explain the doctrine Irresistable Grace

In a nutshell; the calvinists believe in TULIP and the I stands for Irresistable Grace, which is a false notion, that God sits up in heaven and says "eenie meanie minie mo, this one I will save, but this one has to go". In otherwords, we don't have a choice as to whether we are saved or not, He makes the decision for us, which Acts specifically states otherwise and so does other parts of the Word of God. Anyone can be saved. The irresistable Grace thing means only certain ones are saved. Just like they believe that the ones that are saved were "before the foundations of the world" but we know that the one that was "before the foundations of the world" was no man, it was Jesus. We were not before the foundations of the world, He was though.
YSIC
Joyce

 

[Rippon]

In a nutshell; the calvinists believe in TULIP and the I stands for Irresistable Grace, which is a false notion, that God sits up in heaven and says "eenie meanie minie mo, this one I will save, but this one has to go". In otherwords, we don't have a choice as to whether we are saved or not, He makes the decision for us, which Acts specifically states otherwise and so does other parts of the Word of God. Anyone can be saved. The irresistable Grace thing means only certain ones are saved. Just like they believe that the ones that are saved were "before the foundations of the world" but we know that the one that was "before the foundations of the world" was no man, it was Jesus. We were not before the foundations of the world, He was though.
YSIC
Joyce

In a nutshell (for I have little time now)most of your post is nutty.You know that though.I'll get specific later.